Global Pulse

分类： politics

  • Indonesian students protest government policies as economic pressures grow

    Indonesian students protest government policies as economic pressures grow

    Amid growing economic strain that has squeezed household budgets across Southeast Asia’s largest democracy, hundreds of university students took to the streets of Indonesia’s capital Jakarta on Friday to deliver a clear message to the administration of President Prabowo Subianto: rein in soaring prices and roll back costly, controversial public spending programs.

    Organized by a national student coalition, the demonstration drew roughly 1,500 participants, most clad in their institutions’ signature yellow university jackets, who gathered following weekly Friday prayers with plans to march to the iconic Hotel Indonesia traffic circle, a historic gathering point for public demonstrations in central Jakarta. Security forces, however, moved quickly to impede the group’s progress, blocking key arterial routes leading to the Indonesian presidential palace — the traditional end point for most major Jakarta protests — and diverting crowds away from central government hubs. In total, more than 6,000 combined police and military personnel were deployed across the capital to manage the demonstration.

    Protesters anchored their grievances in the rapidly rising cost of living, a crisis they trace largely to global oil price shocks triggered by the U.S.-Iran conflict that has driven up domestic fuel prices across Indonesia. Compounding these economic pressures, the Indonesian rupiah has faced severe downward pressure on global currency markets, hitting an all-time low of 18,000 rupiah to the U.S. dollar earlier this month, further inflating prices for imported goods and basic necessities.

    The rally organizers laid out five core demands for the Prabowo administration, starting with immediate cuts to what they label wasteful and excessive state spending. Top of their list for rollback are two flagship government programs: a widely publicized free nutritious meal initiative and a national rural revitalization scheme. The free meals program, which carries an annual price tag of 268 trillion rupiah (equivalent to roughly $15 billion) for 2024 alone, was originally designed to tackle widespread poverty and childhood malnutrition. But the initiative has been plunged into scandal in recent weeks, after Prabowo dismissed the program’s national director amid a sweeping high-level corruption investigation that has already resulted in multiple arrests of senior nutrition agency officials.

    Beyond economic demands, protest leaders also called for an end to what they describe as the expanding role of the military in civilian governance — a shift they warn poses a direct threat to Indonesia’s young democratic institutions, which only transitioned away from authoritarian rule in 1998.

    Yatalathof Ma’shum Imawan, chair of the student organization that coordinated the Jakarta rally, accused the Prabowo administration of refusing to confront the severity of the country’s ongoing economic crisis. “The government is in denial about the current situation,” Imawan told reporters on site. “We urge Prabowo to have the courage to acknowledge his mistake and stop denying it.”

    Friday’s protest is one of the largest coordinated student mobilizations the country has seen since major nationwide demonstrations erupted last August. That wave of unrest saw thousands of Indonesians take to streets across the archipelago, with violent clashes between protesters and security forces leaving at least 13 people dead. Friday’s action was not limited to the capital: parallel demonstrations were also held in the West Java city of Bandung and in Pontianak, a major urban center on Indonesia’s Borneo island, showing growing discontent with economic policy among young people across the country.

  • US scholar with history of activism in Myanmar arrested in China on suspicion of espionage

    US scholar with history of activism in Myanmar arrested in China on suspicion of espionage

    In a development that adds new friction to already strained U.S.-China relations, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed Friday that an American scholar specializing in Myanmar studies and Chinese foreign policy has been taken into custody on suspicion of endangering national security through espionage activities.

    The detained academic, Min Zin, stands accused of coordinating spying operations that threaten China’s core national interests, ministry spokesperson Lin Jian confirmed in an official statement. This arrest is highly unusual; Beijing rarely publicly detains and charges U.S. citizens with national security violations, making the case a notable flashpoint just one month after a high-profile meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing, a meeting billed as a step toward resetting the two countries’ turbulent diplomatic ties.

    Details of Min Zin’s disappearance first emerged from a Burmese activist familiar with the scholar, who spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity over fears of retaliation and arrest by Chinese authorities. The activist confirmed Min Zin vanished on June 3 shortly after arriving in Kunming, the capital of China’s southwest Yunnan Province, to attend an academic conference. This trip was not out of the ordinary for Min Zin, the source added, noting the scholar had made multiple prior visits to China without incident over the course of his research career.

    A former key figure in Myanmar’s pro-democracy movement, Min Zin first rose to prominence as a student organizer during the 1988 nationwide uprising against Myanmar’s military junta, which was violently crushed by state security forces. After the crackdown, Min Zin fled Myanmar and eventually was granted political asylum in the United States. Contrary to some early unconfirmed reports, the activist who spoke to reporters emphasized Min Zin has not engaged in direct on-the-ground political activism for years, focusing his work almost entirely on academic research and policy analysis.

    Today, Min Zin leads the Institute for Strategy and Policy Myanmar (ISP Myanmar), an independent think tank he founded that produces regular research on cross-border trade and Chinese foreign policy toward Myanmar, which shares a long southwestern border with China. The think tank has maintained open, regular exchange programs with peer research institutions in China for years, and has published widely discussed analysis on topics ranging from rare earth mineral trade flows from Myanmar to China to infrastructure investment projects along the bilateral border. Beyond his think tank work, Min Zin is also a Ph.D. candidate in political science at the University of California, Berkeley, one of the top U.S. academic programs for Southeast Asian studies.

    Global human rights advocacy organization Amnesty International has already issued an urgent public call for Chinese authorities to release Min Zin immediately, citing deep alarm over the circumstances of his detainment and the vague national security charges against him. “The opaque circumstances around Min Zin’s unexplained disappearance and subsequent arrest are deeply disturbing, and the espionage accusation against a respected academic is extremely concerning,” said Joe Freeman, a senior Myanmar researcher at Amnesty International.

    The arrest comes at a delicate moment for U.S.-China relations, even after the leaders’ meeting in Beijing last month. Both countries have been engaged in tit-for-tat detentions of foreign citizens on national security grounds in recent years, and incidents like this often escalate diplomatic friction at a time when the two powers are already at odds over trade, regional security, and human rights policy.

  • Iranian woman among migrants deported from the US to the Central African Republic

    Iranian woman among migrants deported from the US to the Central African Republic

    A deportation flight organized by the former Trump administration is set to land in the Central African Republic’s capital Bangui on Friday, carrying roughly two dozen migrants from third countries, including one Iranian woman who had previously been granted protection from deportation to her home nation, legal representatives confirmed.

    This transfer marks the latest high-profile example of the controversial, largely secretive agreements Washington struck with multiple African and Latin American nations to accept deportees who are not citizens of their receiving countries, a policy that has drawn widespread condemnation from immigration advocates and legal experts.

    According to immigration rights advocates, the Central African Republic — a chronically impoverished, conflict-battered nation — is one of at least 10 African countries that have signed onto these third-country deportation arrangements. As part of a broader hardline U.S. immigration crackdown during the Trump administration, officials struck these often-unpublic deals to expel thousands of non-citizen migrants to countries that are not their country of origin, across roughly 24 nations total.

    Immigration lawyers argue the policy is a deliberate legal loophole, designed to indirectly force asylum seekers who would otherwise be protected from return to their home countries into dangerous third-party states, effectively circumventing court-ordered deportation protections.

    The flight departed Louisiana late Thursday bound for Bangui, though exact passenger numbers have not been officially confirmed. Ali Rahnama, president of the Iranian American Legal Defense Fund, who has been in direct contact with several of the detained migrants, confirmed the group includes nationals from Iran, Jordan, Armenia, Turkey, Georgia and Afghanistan.

    Sahar Jalili Pawelski, an immigration lawyer representing three Iranian women initially slated for deportation on this flight, explained that two of her three clients secured emergency court orders that temporarily paused their removal, while judges review whether the U.S. government’s deportation action is legally valid. All three Iranian women had previously received court-ordered protection from deportation to Iran, after judges ruled they faced credible threats of persecution based on their political beliefs or religious identity, both Pawelski and Rahnama confirmed. Only one Iranian woman remains on the flight scheduled to land Friday.

    An elderly Syrian migrant also scheduled for deportation to the Central African Republic similarly obtained an emergency temporary order halting his removal, according to his attorney Margaret Stock.

    U.S. Department of Homeland Security officials declined to comment on the specific case Thursday, citing security policies that prevent confirmation of upcoming removal operations. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement also did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the deportation flight.

    The receiving country, the Central African Republic, has been ravaged by years of armed conflict between government forces and rebel factions, and ranks among the poorest countries on Earth. Despite holding extensive gold reserves, one in three Central African citizens survives on less than $2 USD per day. The nation is also a historic hub of activity for the Russian private mercenary group Wagner, which for years provided security to President Faustin-Archange Touadéra and led combat operations against rebel groups.

    While the Central African Republic remains one of Russia’s closest African allies, recent tensions have emerged between Touadéra and Moscow, after Russia demanded Wagner be replaced by the state-run Africa Corps. Rahnama has raised particular alarm over the deportation of the Iranian asylum seeker to the Central African Republic, pointing to Russia’s widespread influence in the country and the close security partnership between Moscow and Tehran, which puts the migrant at heightened risk of harm.

    This report was compiled by correspondent Banchereau in Dakar, Senegal, with additional contribution from Associated Press writer Rebecca Santana based in Washington.

  • The migration pact: What’s in the EU’s landmark asylum reform?

    The migration pact: What’s in the EU’s landmark asylum reform?

    On June 12, a sweeping overhaul of European Union migration and asylum rules formally comes into force, marking the first time the bloc has established a unified, bloc-wide framework for managing irregular migration and border processes. According to EU Migration Commissioner Magnus Brunner, the reform is designed to give individual member states greater control over cross-border population movements, ending years of fragmented national policies that have strained regional cooperation.

    The new system introduces sweeping changes to how the EU processes people crossing its external borders illegally. Under the updated rules, all irregular arrivals will undergo mandatory identity and security screenings completed within a seven-day window. Biometric data, including facial scans and fingerprints, alongside basic identity documentation, will be stored in a centralized EU database. The primary goal of this screening is to triage applicants: sorting those eligible for standard or accelerated asylum processing from those who will be ordered deported to their country of origin or a prior transit country. Human rights organizations have already raised red flags, warning that the process will effectively result in widespread detention for most migrants, including unaccompanied minors, for the full duration of screening.

    A core component of the reform is a new fast-track rejection pathway for applicants deemed to have low protection prospects or pose potential security risks. This includes nationals from countries such as Morocco and Bangladesh, where at least 80 percent of asylum applications are typically rejected by EU member states. These cases will be processed entirely in dedicated facilities located near the EU’s external borders—encompassing land frontiers, maritime ports and international airports—with a maximum processing timeline of 12 weeks. Rights advocates argue this compressed timeline will lead to rushed, flawed asylum decisions and extend detention periods for vulnerable people, while applicants from regions with higher approval rates will still follow the bloc’s existing standard asylum procedures.

    For years, the EU’s original migration rules placed full responsibility for processing asylum claims on the member state where an irregular migrant first arrived. This system placed disproportionate burden on southern EU states including Italy, Greece and Malta, which have received the vast majority of sea and land arrivals over the past decade. To address this imbalance, the reform introduces a mandatory solidarity mechanism that requires all member states to contribute to sharing the burden. States can either agree to relocate a set number of asylum seekers from frontline border states, or opt to pay a contribution of 20,000 euros (equivalent to roughly $23,000) per asylum seeker to the receiving frontline country. The mechanism is designed to relocate at least 30,000 asylum seekers annually, though early negotiations have already hit major stumbling blocks: a first round of talks held last year saw multiple member states refuse to accept any relocation assignments.

    The overhaul also includes a dedicated emergency response framework to address sudden, large-scale migration surges, similar to the 2015-2016 crisis that saw more than two million asylum seekers, most fleeing conflict in Syria and Afghanistan, enter the bloc. Under surge conditions, member states will be permitted to roll back standard asylum protections and hold migrants in external border detention centers for longer periods than the rules normally allow. The framework also applies to what the EU calls “instrumentalization of migration,” a practice the bloc has repeatedly accused Belarus and Russia of engaging in, claiming the two countries push irregular migrants across EU borders to destabilize the 27-nation bloc.

    Despite the formal entry into force, major implementation challenges remain. A dozen member states have not yet completed necessary preparations, including building the border infrastructure required to carry out the new mandatory screenings. Other countries have already reported technical issues with integrating national systems into the new centralized biometric database. Public opinion across much of the bloc has hardened further on migration since the pact was agreed, pushing national governments to demand even stricter measures. Currently, an additional legislative package focused on expanding deportations of asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected is moving rapidly through the EU’s lawmaking process.

    These developments have amplified concerns from human rights groups that European policymakers are prioritizing political expediency over basic humanitarian protections. Judith Sunderland, associate Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch, criticized the incoming rules, saying “The Pact takes a sledgehammer to the right to asylum at a time when the world needs Europe more than ever to champion human rights.”

  • Ahead of G7, Carney softens tone toward Trump with trade talks at stake

    Ahead of G7, Carney softens tone toward Trump with trade talks at stake

    OTTAWA, Ontario — Just months after catapulting to international fame as a leading voice of middle power resistance to great power coercion, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is poised to adopt a far more restrained tone when confronting U.S. President Donald Trump at the upcoming Group of Seven (G7) summit in France, according to political analysts and trade observers.

    Carney’s January appearance at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, cemented his status as a rising global political star. In a widely celebrated keynote address, he declared the long-standing global rules-based order effectively defunct and delivered a sharp rebuke of large nations using coercion to pressure smaller states. The speech drew global acclaim, overshadowing Trump’s own remarks at the annual gathering and turning Carney into a symbol of pushback against great power overreach.

    But the geopolitical calculus has shifted dramatically as the G7 summit, set to open Monday in Évian-les-Bains, arrives just weeks before a mandatory July 1 review of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). The updated trilateral trade pact, which replaced the original North American Free Trade Agreement in 2020, has interconnected the three North American economies for more than three decades, and its future hangs in the balance ahead of the review. This week, Trump reignited fears by suggesting he may opt not to renew the landmark agreement.

    For Canada, the stakes could not be higher. More than 70 percent of the country’s total exports flow across its southern border into the United States, making the preservation of the preferential trade deal an existential economic priority for Ottawa. Canadian historian Robert Bothwell notes that Carney faces far greater risks from Trump’s trade policy than any other G7 leader, explaining “we are more exposed to the United States than anybody else.”

    The strained dynamic between the two leaders comes as bilateral tensions have escalated sharply in recent weeks, eroding what has long been one of the world’s most enduring and amicable cross-border alliances. The decades-long partnership, forged by shared geography, common cultural heritage, and centuries of aligned interests, has fractured under repeated friction between the two administrations.

    In one recent sign of the souring relations, a planned reception for Ontario Premier Doug Ford — leader of Canada’s most populous province — hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington was abruptly canceled at the last minute earlier this month. While the reason for the cancellation was not officially confirmed, one senior Ford cabinet minister, Vic Fedeli, struck a defiant tone, saying if Trump pressured the chamber to scrap the event, “Ford should be wearing that as a badge of honor.”

    Just this week, Trump doubled down on his dismissive rhetoric toward Canada, claiming the U.S. “doesn’t need anything that Canada has.” In response, Carney has doubled down on his policy of trade diversification, setting a national goal to double Canadian exports to non-U.S. markets over the next 10 years, and citing Trump’s protracted trade war as a major barrier to cross-border investment confidence.

    Additional friction emerged this week when the long-planned opening of a major new cross-border bridge spanning the Detroit River — a project Trump previously threatened to block entirely — was pushed back indefinitely, with developers citing unresolved logistical and regulatory issues.

    Trump’s confrontational approach to Canada, from launching the 2018 bilateral trade war to his joking (and often repeated) suggestion that Canada should become the 51st U.S. state, has deeply angered Canadian voters. That public backlash directly created the political conditions that allowed Carney to win the 2025 prime ministerial election, after he campaigned on a promise to aggressively confront Trump’s trade aggression.

    Yet despite his campaign rhetoric and high-profile Davos rebuke, political observers say Carney has steadily moderated his tone toward the Trump administration in recent months, in a deliberate bid to avoid further damaging bilateral relations ahead of the USMCA review. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer has repeatedly highlighted that Canada was one of only two countries (alongside China) that retaliated against U.S. trade tariffs during the trade war, labeling those retaliatory measures a major sticking point in ongoing renewal negotiations.

    Daniel Béland, a professor of political science at Montreal’s McGill University, points to a clear contradiction between Carney’s global rhetoric and his practical trade priorities. “There is a clear tension between what Prime Minister Carney said in his Davos speech about middle powers standing up to hegemons and his attempt to nudge the U.S. administration ‘in the right direction’ with regard to the USMCA review and trade policy more generally,” Béland explained.

    Carney has already downplayed Trump’s recent 51st state comments, framing them as meaningless provocation rather than a serious policy proposal. Canada and Mexico are jointly pushing for a 16-year renewal of the current agreement, while Trump has openly mused about withdrawing from the pact entirely. The most likely outcome, trade insiders say, is a compromise that would replace the fixed renewal with annual reviews over the next decade.

    Ahead of the G7 gathering, Carney has embarked on a series of pre-summit diplomatic stops across Europe. He is set to meet French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris on Friday, before traveling to Ireland over the weekend to hold talks with his Irish counterpart — part of his ongoing push to expand Canada’s trade ties beyond the North American market. This trip marks Carney’s ninth visit to Europe in the 15 months since he took office in March 2025.

    Even as Carney pursues trade diversification, analysts note that the U.S. will remain Canada’s largest trading partner for the foreseeable future, an unavoidable reality that shapes every step of Carney’s current trade strategy. “That is an inescapable reality that Carney must keep front of mind even as he seeks to make Canada somewhat less dependent on trade with the U.S.,” Béland added.

  • What to know about the EU’s new rules on migration and asylum as they come into effect

    What to know about the EU’s new rules on migration and asylum as they come into effect

    BRUSSELS — After years of fractious, high-stakes negotiations, the European Union’s sweeping new migration and asylum regulatory framework is set to take effect this Friday, marking the most significant overhaul of the bloc’s broken migration system in decades. What has become the European Migration and Asylum Pact was crafted to replace a decades-old system widely derided as ineffective, a failure that has proven a powerful political catalyst for far-right populist parties across the bloc to galvanize voter support in recent elections.

    Under the original agreement, all 27 EU member states were required to complete domestic preparations ahead of implementation — including updating national legislation, training border and asylum staff, and expanding border processing infrastructure. But even the European Commission, the bloc’s executive body, has acknowledged that no country has finished all required preparations to fully roll out the new rules.

    The new framework introduces a series of sweeping changes to how the EU processes irregular migration and asylum claims. All foreign arrivals will now undergo mandatory screening at external EU borders that can last up to seven days before being admitted into member states. Asylum seekers originating from nations classified as “safe” by the bloc or deemed to pose a security threat will be pushed through accelerated three-month processing procedures, half the length of the previous timeline. In some cases, applicants will be detained at the border for the full duration of their case review, and rejected claimants will only be granted a single opportunity to appeal the decision.

    A key uncompleted task cited by the Commission is the rollout of Eurodac, an updated centralized biometric database that will store identifying information for all asylum seekers, including children as young as six. The Commission also noted that most member states still need to construct new border facilities purpose-built for screening, processing, and temporary detention, and many have not yet established required independent human rights monitoring mechanisms at border crossings.

    One of the core policy pillars of the new pact is accelerating the return of rejected asylum seekers, both through voluntary repatriation and forced deportation. The framework automatically issues a return order immediately after an application is rejected, a top political priority for centrist and far-right parties that gained significant ground in 2024 EU elections. Under the new rules, returnees will be deported to countries labeled as safe, including Syria and Bangladesh. As of March this year, the European Agency for Asylum reported roughly 802,000 pending first-time asylum claims across the bloc. Currently, member states and EU lawmakers are negotiating plans to establish “return hubs” in third-party countries, where migrants who cannot be directly repatriated to their home countries can be transferred. The details of these offshore facilities are currently being discussed quietly by a coalition of five member states and potential host countries abroad.

    Burden-sharing between member states was the most contentious issue throughout years of negotiations, dividing the bloc along geographic and political lines. Under the old system, asylum claims must be processed in the first EU country a migrant enters, leaving frontline Mediterranean states such as Greece and Italy to bear the overwhelming majority of the burden of irregular arrivals. For years, these countries have argued they lack the capacity to handle the influx, and many have allowed migrants to travel onward to northern and western Europe without formal authorization — shifting the burden to countries like Germany and Sweden, which saw asylum applications surge to record highs at the peak of the 2015 migration crisis, pushing their national systems to the edge of collapse.

    The new pact addresses this gap with a formal solidarity mechanism, designed to share the burden across all member states. When frontline countries face high influxes, other member states are required to either accept a proportional share of asylum seekers or provide substantial financial compensation to offset the cost. Countries can also reduce their required contribution if they receive migrants who have moved onward from other EU member states, a common practice known as secondary movement.

    Despite this compromise, the burden-sharing framework remains unpopular with several Central European member states. Poland has suspended the right to asylum since early 2025, claiming Belarus is weaponizing migration to destabilize the bloc, and has repeatedly extended this temporary emergency measure. Hungary’s new Prime Minister Péter Magyar has retained the hardline anti-migration policies of his predecessor Viktor Orbán, including a blanket refusal to accept relocated asylum seekers. However, Magyar has signaled he will align Hungary’s national asylum rules with the new pact to avoid daily fines of 1 million euros that were imposed for Orbán’s previous violations of EU asylum law.

    EU officials have stressed that implementation will continue long after Friday’s official launch, given that no country is fully prepared. Susan Fratzke, a senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, noted the transition will be gradual, not immediate. “It won’t be like a light switch turning on on June 12,” Fratzke said. “Some of these things will take time.”

    Susanna Zanfrini, director of the International Rescue Committee’s Italy office, warned that widespread lack of clarity and inconsistent preparation creates harmful uncertainty for all stakeholders. That ambiguity “creates uncertainty for both people seeking protection and the organizations supporting them at the very moment they most need clear information about their rights, options, and access to support to survive, recover and rebuild their lives,” Zanfrini said.

    Leading human rights organizations have roundly criticized the new pact, arguing the accelerated procedures undermine the fundamental right to seek asylum by rushing claims assessments. Critics warn that fast-track processing opens the door to racial profiling, will result in legitimate protection claims being wrongfully rejected, and will lead to a sharp rise in prolonged detention of asylum seekers at EU borders.

    Judith Sunderland, senior refugee and migrant rights adviser at Human Rights Watch, said the new pact “slams the door in the face of people who deserve to be treated with dignity and to have a fair hearing of their claims for protection.” Lukas Gehrke, Brussels chief for the International Organization For Migration, added that even after deportations, many rejected claimants will remain in the EU, and the new pact’s budget cuts integration funding for remaining migrants. “If we under focus on this, the failure of integration becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy,” Gehrke said.

    The reporting was contributed by reporters based across Cyprus, Spain, and Poland, with correspondents in Nicosia, Barcelona, and Warsaw.

  • Ex-UK political aide Steve Hilton pledges ‘common sense’ overhaul if elected California governor

    Ex-UK political aide Steve Hilton pledges ‘common sense’ overhaul if elected California governor

    A former top advisor to one-time British Prime Minister David Cameron has launched a surprising bid for California’s governorship, framing his November campaign as a mission to rescue the state from what he calls suffocating bureaucratic overreach and spiraling economic decline. In his first interview with a UK media outlet since securing a spot in the general election this week, Steve Hilton told BBC Radio 4’s *Today* programme that his candidacy draws directly from California’s long-held “rebel spirit”, a tradition he argues has been eroded after 16 years of uninterrupted Democratic control of the state government.

    Having relocated to California in 2012, Hilton is running as a Republican in the deep-blue liberal state, but he has positioned his campaign around a self-described “common sense” policy platform rather than strict partisan ideology. Casting himself as a political outsider untainted by decades of Sacramento insider politics, Hilton says he is running to rebuild housing affordability and expand economic opportunity in what he describes as “the most incredible place in the world”.

    At the core of his policy agenda is a push for widespread tax cuts, broad business deregulation, and deep cuts to what he calls wasteful bloat in state government. “The quickest way we can get more money into people’s pockets is for government to take less out,” Hilton explained, outlining a pledge to set a $100,000 tax-free income threshold for Californians, alongside measures to slash sky-high energy and housing costs across the state.

    Hilton’s political path to this race has been anything but conventional: he served as the architect of the UK Conservative Party’s iconic “Big Society” agenda under Cameron before becoming an early backer of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential bid. When asked to place himself on the ideological spectrum between Cameron-style centrist conservatism and Trump-era right-wing populism, he rejected the framing entirely, arguing neither movement defines his personal political identity. Instead, he ties his platform to a broader cross-partisan critique of decades of stagnant wages and growing economic inequality, a trend he says has fueled populist backlash across both the American left and right.

    This economic-focused message shapes his entire pitch to California voters, where he blames decades of Democratic policy making for the state’s crippling cost of living, rising business exodus, growing homelessness, and surging violent crime rates. “The record is a disaster,” he said, pointing to data that puts California among the highest U.S. rates for poverty, unemployment, and cost of living. When asked to draw comparisons to high-profile left-wing campaigns like that of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, Hilton dismissed the comparison, saying he pays little attention to that race.

    One of the biggest lingering questions for Hilton’s campaign is his close alignment with former President Donald Trump, who holds extremely low approval ratings in California. Trump has officially endorsed Hilton’s candidacy, claiming the British-born candidate would align fully with his policy agenda if elected. When asked whether Trump’s backing would prove a liability in the general election, Hilton pushed back, arguing it is actually an “asset for Californians”. He argued that closer cooperation with a second Trump White House would unlock critical policy progress, particularly on domestic energy production. Pointing to the state’s sky-high gasoline prices, he blamed restrictive environmental policies for forcing California to import most of its oil despite holding massive untapped domestic reserves. “I will work co-operatively to expand energy production,” he said, noting the shift would immediately bring down consumer costs.

    Immigration policy also emerged as a key talking point in the interview. As the son of Hungarian immigrants, Hilton describes himself as a champion of the “legal immigrant community”, but he has come out strongly against California’s decades-old “sanctuary state” policies, which limit state and local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration enforcement agencies. If elected governor, he says he would not obstruct federal immigration authorities, and would instead return to the more cooperative intergovernmental framework that was in place during the Obama administration. When pressed on civil liberties concerns, including cases where immigrants without criminal records have been detained by federal authorities, Hilton argued better coordination between state and federal agencies would eliminate these problematic scenarios.

    Hilton’s Democratic opponent, Xavier Becerra, a former cabinet secretary under President Joe Biden, has already struck a sharp contrast in his own campaign, framing himself as a defender of the “California dream” who answers only to Golden State voters, not Washington D.C. insiders. Becerra has repeatedly accused Hilton of being a loyal ally of Trump who would hand control of the state over to the former president, and has questioned whether Hilton can be trusted to defend California’s election system against Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of widespread voter fraud. “Californians didn’t build the greatest state in the nation to hand it over to a Trump errand boy dead-set on throwing our progress into reverse,” Jonathan Underland, a spokesperson for the Becerra campaign, told the BBC. “Voters know Steve Hilton means higher prices, rights stripped away, and an all-out attack on our values — and they don’t want anything to do with it.”

    Hilton’s advancement to the general election has already surprised most political observers, who did not expect the outsider candidate to break through a crowded primary field. He advanced in large part due to a split in the Democratic vote across multiple candidates, and Hilton has openly acknowledged the steep challenge he faces in a state where Democrats hold overwhelming majorities in nearly every level of government. Even so, he argues that widespread voter discontent has created a unique opening for a change candidate: polling consistently shows a majority of Californians believe the state is heading in the wrong direction. He also points to the 2024 presidential election, where more than six million Californians cast ballots for Trump, arguing that mobilizing that base of Republican voters, combined with winning over independent voters frustrated by the status quo, could be enough to pull off an upset. He added that a proposed ballot measure on mandatory voter ID, which is popular with Republican voters, could drive higher turnout that benefits his campaign. While Hilton says he has not seen evidence of widespread voter fraud in California, he has still called for sweeping electoral reform, including ending the practice of automatically mailing ballots to all 23 million registered voters — a system that he argues is the root cause of the state’s famously slow vote counting process.

    The November election will now test whether Hilton’s pragmatic, outsider-focused message can resonate beyond the small Republican base in a state that has been dominated by Democrats for a generation, and whether a one-time Westminster political operative can successfully reinvent himself to win high office in American politics.

  • Trump says ‘settlement’ reached to end war on Iran

    Trump says ‘settlement’ reached to end war on Iran

    On Thursday, both the United States and Iran sent optimistic signals that a breakthrough had been reached in ceasefire negotiations aimed at ending ongoing open hostilities, with top leaders from both sides hinting a formal agreement could be finalized as early as the coming weekend.

    Speaking to reporters from the Oval Office, former US President Donald Trump announced that a broad framework to end the conflict and open the door to wider comprehensive negotiations was nearly complete. “We just made a great settlement of the war with Iran,” Trump stated, adding that once final documentation is wrapped up over the next few days, a signing ceremony will likely be held, potentially on European soil. Trump also confirmed he plans to send Vice President JD Vance to represent the US in his absence, noting “I won’t be able to be there, but JD Vance will.”

    The announcement comes amid a well-documented pattern for Trump: the president has repeatedly claimed a deal with Iran was imminent in recent months, only for high expectations to collapse and armed clashes to reignite shortly after. Even so, Iran’s semi-official Fars News Agency offered a similarly upbeat assessment Thursday, reporting that the text of the agreement accepted by the US has already been approved by Iranian negotiating teams, and Tehran is highly likely to formalize the deal in the coming days, though no official formal response has been released to the public yet.

    Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also weighed in through a muted official statement that acknowledged a tentative agreement was taking shape. “President Trump spoke this evening with Prime Minister Netanyahu about the emerging memorandum of understanding with Iran for entry into negotiations,” the statement read. While Israel is not a direct signatory to the preliminary ceasefire document, the statement added, Netanyahu expressed gratitude for Trump’s commitment that any final long-term agreement will include strict provisions: the removal of all existing Iranian enriched nuclear material, the dismantling of Iran’s uranium enrichment infrastructure, caps on Iranian ballistic missile production, and a full end to Iran’s financial and military support for regional armed proxies that Israel has labeled terrorist organizations.

    Not all Iranian outlets echoed the optimistic tone, however. Tasnim News Agency, a media outlet closely aligned with Iran’s powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), pushed back against Trump’s announcement, pointing to his history of unfulfilled deal claims. “Until Iran announces the matter of a potential understanding, any news from Trump on this subject should be regarded as his previous messages,” the outlet noted in its coverage.

    Trump doubled down on his prediction regardless, repeating his claim that the final agreement will guarantee “Iran will never have a nuclear weapon” — though he offered no specific details on the enforcement mechanisms that would make that guarantee binding. He also highlighted one key immediate outcome of the deal: the full reopening of the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 20% of the world’s global oil supplies pass daily. “The whole Middle East is happy, and long beyond the Middle East,” Trump added.

    Thursday’s dramatic shift in tone capped a day of whiplash changes in US policy toward Iran. Early in the day, Trump threatened to seize Iran’s key Kharg Island oil export terminal, only to walk back the threat hours later, claiming the American public “don’t have the stomach” for a large-scale land invasion of Iran.

    Iranian leaders issued sharp, direct warnings in response to Trump’s initial threat of escalation. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s parliamentary speaker and chief nuclear negotiator, warned that “Wrong strategies and impulsive decisions will reset the entire board for the worse, explode energy infrastructure and markets and create an endless quagmire that you will be stuck in for years.” General Ali Abdollahi, commander of the Iranian military’s central headquarters, echoed that warning, adding that any US attack “will receive a harsher response than before, and the flames of war, in addition to creating insecurity in the region, will become more widespread and far-reaching.”

    Shortly after the warnings, Trump took to his social media platform Truth Social to formally walk back his threat of offensive strikes. “Based on the fact that discussions with the Islamic Republic of Iran have been brought to the highest level of Iranian leadership and approved, I have…cancelled the scheduled strikes and bombings against Iran,” Trump wrote. He added that “all parties involved” in the talks — including Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Turkey, Pakistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt and other regional stakeholders — had already agreed to the final terms of the tentative ceasefire.

    The optimistic breakthrough comes after days of escalating cross-border fire between the US and Iran, even after a fragile temporary ceasefire agreed to in April. Iran has responded to US strikes on maritime vessels in the Strait of Hormuz and attacks on Iranian land forces by targeting US regional Arab allies, including Kuwait, Bahrain and Jordan. On Thursday, Kuwaiti officials confirmed that an Iranian strike on its territory earlier that day caused multiple injuries and damaged airport radar systems, forcing a temporary closure of Kuwait’s airspace. The New York Times also reported Wednesday that US forces had bombed civilian water storage facilities in southern Iran — attacks that are widely classified as potential war crimes under established international law.

    Despite the public escalation, behind-the-scenes diplomatic efforts have been moving at a rapid pace to de-escalate tensions this week. According to Reuters, Qatari mediators traveled to Tehran on Wednesday to finalize the text of the US-Iran ceasefire agreement. Bloomberg also reported that the United Arab Emirates dispatched senior diplomats to hold direct talks with top Iranian officials this week to lower tensions. A Gulf diplomat told Middle East Eye that regional governments believe the talks were held in Tehran, citing open-source flight tracking data on X that showed an Emirati government aircraft, regularly used to carry senior officials, landing in the Iranian capital earlier this week. Middle East Eye also reported this week that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio is scheduled to travel to the Gulf region in the coming days, with stops planned in Bahrain, the UAE and Kuwait — a trip that would almost certainly be canceled if hostilities were set to resume.

    If the ceasefire is signed, the tentative agreement is structured as a temporary 60-day truce, designed to give both sides time to negotiate a broader, long-term deal addressing two core sticking points: Iran’s nuclear program and the status of the Strait of Hormuz, which has been the site of competing blockades imposed by both Iran and the US in recent weeks. According to Axios, a outlet with close ties to the Trump administration that has previously incorrectly predicted an imminent deal multiple times, the final text still requires formal approval from Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei. The negotiated text narrows longstanding differences on two key issues: a mechanism to unfreeze billions of dollars in Iranian assets held in foreign banks and clear parameters for the full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to global commercial shipping.

  • From white knuckles to open barbs, Trump and Macron bring a rocky history to the G7 summit

    From white knuckles to open barbs, Trump and Macron bring a rocky history to the G7 summit

    The complicated, ever-shifting dynamic between U.S. President Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron will take center stage next week at the G7 summit in the French alpine resort of Evian-les-Bains, as years of growing tensions over key global policy issues threaten to overshadow the gathering of the world’s major advanced economies. What began with a legendary, knuckle-white first handshake nearly a decade ago has devolved into open disagreement, marking a stark reversal of the warm, much-hyped “bromance” that defined the pair’s early interactions.

  • Jailed South Korea ex-president gets 30 more years for sending drones into North

    Jailed South Korea ex-president gets 30 more years for sending drones into North

    In a landmark ruling that caps months of political upheaval in South Korea, the Seoul District Court has handed down a 30-year prison sentence to former President Yoon Suk Yeol for orchestrating a covert drone operation into North Korea, a plot prosecutors say was designed to stoke cross-border tensions and justify his ultimately failed bid to declare martial law in late 2024.

    The verdict, delivered Friday, also convicted three other senior former national security officials alongside Yoon: ex-Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun, who received an identical 30-year sentence, former Defense Counterintelligence Command head Yeo In-hyung, who was sentenced to 15 years behind bars, and former Drone Operations Command chief Kim Yong-dae, who got three years in prison with a five-year suspended sentence. All four defendants were found guilty on charges of treason and abuse of power.

    Prosecutors laid out that Yoon ordered the cross-border drone mission in October 2024, with the explicit goal of provoking a response from Pyongyang. This manufactured crisis, they argued, would create a pretext for Yoon to crack down on domestic political opponents ahead of his martial law declaration one month later. When Yoon officially imposed martial law on December 3 that year, he publicly framed the move as a necessary step to protect South Korea from so-called “anti-state” forces aligned with North Korea. But the power grab quickly collapsed: mass public protests erupted across the country, and Yoon was forced to reverse the order within hours, exposing his move as a response to mounting domestic political pressure rather than a genuine national security threat.

    The court’s ruling echoed prosecutors’ core account of the plot. “The defendants used the guise of a military operation to induce provocations from North Korea with the aim of creating a state of emergency,” the court said in its written judgment. Officials noted that the reckless drone mission directly raised the risk of full-scale military conflict on the Korean Peninsula, and emphasized that Yoon bore the “greatest responsibility” for the scheme.

    Yoon’s defense team attempted to justify the drone operation as a legitimate reciprocal response to cross-border provocations from Pyongyang, pointing to a series of trash balloons launched from North Korea into South Korean territory throughout 2024. Cross-border balloon campaigns have been a staple of low-level tensions between the two Koreas since the Korean War, historically used to distribute propaganda leaflets. In 2024, however, tensions spiked dramatically after North Korea accused South Korea of flying drones into Pyongyang that scattered anti-North Korean propaganda across the capital – a move Pyongyang warned could push the peninsula to the brink of war. Friday’s ruling confirmed that those drones were in fact sent by Yoon’s order, designed to elicit a harsh North Korean response.

    This latest conviction adds to a growing stack of severe sentences for the former president. Yoon was already impeached following the failed martial law attempt, and has previously been sentenced to life in prison for insurrection connected to the power grab. An additional five-year sentence was also added Friday for abuse of power and obstructing the execution of an arrest warrant for Yoon.

    Yoon’s botched martial law attempt and the months of political chaos that followed upended South Korea’s political landscape, culminating in a snap presidential election that delivered a decisive victory to opposition Democratic Party candidate Lee Jae-myung, cementing a major shift in the country’s leadership.