Global Pulse

分类： politics

  • India’s Modi meets Delcy Rodriguez as India expands Venezuela oil imports

    India’s Modi meets Delcy Rodriguez as India expands Venezuela oil imports

    Against a backdrop of widespread global energy supply disruptions that have rattled international energy markets, India has moved to deepen diplomatic and economic collaboration with oil-rich Venezuela, holding high-level strategic talks between top leaders from both nations this Thursday in New Delhi.

    Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi opened official discussions with Venezuela’s acting President Delcy Rodriguez, with energy partnership standing as the central pillar of the agenda, according to senior Indian foreign ministry official Rudrendra Tandon. In recent weeks, this growing collaboration has already yielded tangible results: Venezuela has risen to become India’s third-largest supplier of crude oil, a milestone that underscores the shifting dynamics of India’s energy sourcing strategy.

    Tandon emphasized that India is proactively pursuing diversified new sources of crude oil and energy to shore up its long-term energy security. “Venezuela represents a clear opportunity, and it is very much part of our strategic plans going forward,” he told reporters following the leaders’ meeting.

    Beyond energy cooperation, the two leaders also surveyed the landscape for expanded Indian investment across multiple key Venezuelan sectors. These opportunities span mining development, critical mineral extraction, pharmaceutical manufacturing and automobile production, opening avenues for deeper cross-border economic integration beyond the energy sector.

    This high-level meeting comes in the wake of steady growth in Indian imports of Venezuelan crude over recent months. For the world’s third-largest oil importer, this shift has elevated Venezuela from a secondary supplier to a core part of India’s energy import portfolio.

    India’s extreme dependence on foreign oil creates persistent structural vulnerability in its energy market: the country imports roughly 85% of its total crude oil demand, and nearly half of all incoming oil shipments pass through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint that has faced heightened disruption risks amid escalating regional tensions. This geopolitical risk has pushed Indian policymakers to accelerate efforts to diversify their supply network away from overreliance on Gulf shipments.

    Following her meeting with Prime Minister Modi, Rodriguez also held separate talks with India’s External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar on Thursday. She is scheduled to meet with India’s Petroleum and Natural Gas Minister Hardeep Singh Puri in the coming days, and will also tour leading facilities in India’s energy, pharmaceutical and automobile sectors to explore potential on-the-ground collaboration opportunities.

  • Israel strikes Lebanon after truce announcement

    Israel strikes Lebanon after truce announcement

    Fresh Israeli airstrikes hit multiple locations across southern Lebanon on Thursday, just hours after diplomats from Israel and Lebanon announced a tentative conditional ceasefire agreement following four rounds of negotiations mediated in Washington. The deal, reached during the fourth round of talks between the two countries’ envoys on Wednesday, hinges on the Iran-aligned militant group Hezbollah halting all cross-border attacks against Israeli targets. But the agreement has already been thrown into doubt, as Hezbollah — which rejects direct bilateral negotiations with Israel — has issued no official response to the announcement, and top Israeli defense officials have made clear that military operations will not pause.

  • Trump to nominate Blanche for attorney general on permanent basis

    Trump to nominate Blanche for attorney general on permanent basis

    In a major announcement for the U.S. Department of Justice’s leadership, former president and current U.S. President Donald Trump has revealed plans to formally nominate Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to hold the role permanently, capping a rapid climb for one of Trump’s closest and most trusted legal allies.

    If the U.S. Senate votes to confirm Blanche’s appointment, the president’s one-time personal lawyer will step into the nation’s top law enforcement position on a permanent basis, leading the entire DOJ as the administration’s chief federal prosecutor.

    Blanche first stepped into the acting attorney general role in early April, immediately after Trump removed former Attorney General Pam Bondi from the post. A long-time loyal ally of the president, Blanche has spent years defending Trump across multiple high-stakes legal cases. Most notably, he led Trump’s defense during his federal prosecution over allegations he improperly retained classified national security documents following the end of his first presidential term, and also represented Trump amid proceedings tied to allegations of attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. Both of those cases were ultimately dismissed after Trump won the 2024 presidential election, in line with longstanding DOJ policy that prohibits prosecuting sitting sitting presidents.

    Details of the upcoming nomination were first shared publicly in a video posted late Wednesday by Dan Scavino, Deputy White House Chief of Staff. In the recording, Trump confirmed he would submit the nomination to the Senate “tomorrow” and predicted that the confirmation process would move “very quickly.” Just days earlier, Trump voiced public praise for Blanche during an appearance on the Pod Force One podcast, calling Blanche a skilled legal professional and noting that “Todd’s doing a very good job at DOJ.”

    In recent weeks, Blanche has found himself at the center of a major policy controversy at the DOJ, after the department pushed to create a new $1.8 billion (equivalent to £1.3 billion) “anti-weaponisation fund” designed to compensate individuals who claim they were harmed by overreach from federal government agencies. The proposal faced bipartisan pushback, with multiple Republican lawmakers joining opposition Democrats to oppose the plan. Blanche suffered a major setback when a federal judge ordered the plan paused to allow ongoing legal challenges to proceed. Appearing before Congress for a hearing Tuesday, Blanche confirmed the proposal had been abandoned entirely, stating clearly: “We’re not moving forward with the fund, period.”

    A 51-year-old Colorado native, Blanche earned his undergraduate degree from American University in Washington, D.C., before graduating with a law degree from Brooklyn Law School in 2003. He spent the majority of his early legal career as a federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, before moving into private practice at two prominent national law firms, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, and Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft.

    Before taking over as acting attorney general, Blanche served as deputy attorney general, where he worked alongside Bondi on the DOJ’s release of previously sealed documents connected to late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. In July of this year, Blanche conducted a personal interview with Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s long-time associate who is currently serving a 20-year federal prison sentence for her role in Epstein’s crimes. Beyond his law enforcement roles, Blanche has also previously served as acting Librarian of Congress.

    Following his appointment as acting attorney general, Blanche pushed back against media reports that claimed Bondi’s removal was tied to her handling of the Epstein document release. Since leaving the DOJ, Bondi has announced she will join the White House’s new AI advisory panel, the Presidential Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

    The upcoming Senate confirmation process for Blanche is expected to draw intense scrutiny from lawmakers, given his long history of personal and political loyalty to Trump, as well as his recent handling of the controversial anti-weaponisation fund proposal.

  • Heavy gunfire in Somali capital as row over election delay escalates

    Heavy gunfire in Somali capital as row over election delay escalates

    A deepening political crisis over delayed presidential elections has plunged Somalia’s capital Mogadishu into open armed conflict, with heavy exchanges of gunfire between government forces and opposition fighters continuing through overnight hours after violence first broke out Wednesday evening.

    The root of the standoff dates back to May 15, when President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s constitutionally mandated term in office reached its scheduled end. Instead of stepping down to make way for a new administration, the federal government extended Mohamud’s tenure by an additional 12 months—a move the country’s opposition bloc has decried as a clear violation of Somalia’s constitution, prompting organizers to call for mass nationwide protests to be held Thursday.

    Residents across multiple residential neighborhoods in Mogadishu confirmed persistent gunfire echoed through the capital throughout the night, with no immediate ceasefire emerging by early Thursday. In an official statement, Somali police said the military and security deployment was framed as a large-scale security operation targeting heavily armed opposition militias that the government says launched coordinated mortar attacks on multiple populated areas.

    While negotiators from the federal government and opposition factions held talks after the expiration of Mohamud’s term, the two sides failed to bridge their core disagreements, setting the stage for the current escalation of tensions. Notably, Mohamud had positioned himself as a reformer working to transition Somalia to full democratic elections, moving away from the long-standing system where clan elders selected members of parliament, who in turn appointed the country’s president. Somalia has not held a direct one-person, one-vote national election since 1969, and the country has struggled with instability and armed conflict for more than three decades.

    The opposition has ramped up accusations against the government following the outbreak of violence. Former Prime Minister Hassan Ali Khaire claimed government forces targeted him and other opposition leaders as they prepared for Thursday’s planned peaceful demonstrations. Taking to the social platform X to share the allegation, Khaire placed full blame for any potential casualties or property damage on the outgoing president, calling the incident a severe violation of Somali citizens’ constitutional rights and a deliberate effort to outlaw peaceful public assembly.

    As of Thursday morning, official figures for casualties from the overnight fighting have not been released, and President Mohamud has not issued any public comment on the clashes. Former Somali President Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, a key opposition figure, reiterated in a statement on X that the violence would not derail the planned protest movement, saying that opposition leaders and supporters would not be intimidated into stepping back from their demands.

    The international community has already reacted to the escalating crisis, with the U.S. Embassy based in Mogadishu issuing a statement condemning the violence as reckless. The embassy emphasized that all political leaders across all factions hold a shared responsibility to protect Somalia’s hard-won stability and resolve their outstanding political disagreements through diplomatic, peaceful negotiations rather than armed conflict.

  • Armed clashes erupt in Somalia’s capital ahead of a planned anti-government demonstration

    Armed clashes erupt in Somalia’s capital ahead of a planned anti-government demonstration

    Fresh armed violence has shaken Somalia’s capital Mogadishu, as clashes between supporters of opposition political figures and national state security forces broke out Wednesday evening, just one day ahead of a scheduled anti-government demonstration. No official casualty statistics have been released in the immediate aftermath of the fighting, which has drawn urgent calls for de-escalation from both the United Nations and the United States, as the two rival political factions trade blame for the unrest.

    Local residents across multiple affected neighborhoods reported sustained heavy gunfire and loud explosions throughout the confrontation. Abdullahi Mohamed, a resident of Mogadishu’s Howlwadaag district, described widespread panic forcing residents to flee their homes. “We heard heavy weapons fire, and people were fleeing their homes,” Mohamed said. “Many families left the area looking for safer places.”

    Opposition leaders say their planned Thursday rally was organized to protest what they claim are unconstitutional violations by President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, including unilateral efforts to extend his time in office. The president’s administration has flatly denied all of these allegations.

    In an official statement, Mogadishu police framed the unrest as premeditated “organized attacks” carried out by armed militias connected to opposition political groups seeking to undermine state authority. “The incidents were not the organization of peaceful public demonstrations, but rather coordinated armed acts that directly threatened the security, order and stability of the capital,” the police statement read. Security forces successfully repelled attacks on their outposts, authorities confirmed, adding that investigations are already underway to identify all individuals involved in organizing, funding, and executing the violent actions.

    Opposition leaders have pushed back with a competing narrative, accusing security forces of launching unprovoked attacks on residential properties tied to two top opposition figures: former Prime Minister Hassan Ali Khaire and former President Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed. “We are under attack,” Khaire said in his own statement. “For the second time in less than 24 hours, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud has directed armed forces against our peaceful gatherings.” Khaire added that the attack took place while traditional elders, politicians, and community leaders were gathered at his residence for a meeting. The Somali government has rejected this version of events entirely.

    The United Nations quickly voiced alarm over the outbreak of violence. UN Secretary-General António Guterres confirmed the clashes have left civilians dead and injured, alongside widespread damage to critical public infrastructure. “The Secretary-General strongly condemns all acts of violence and incitement to violence undertaken for political advantage,” Guterres’ statement read. He also called on all parties to immediately exercise maximum restraint, prioritize the safety of civilian populations, and resolve long-running political disagreements through constructive dialogue.

    The United States echoed that concern, with the U.S. Embassy in Mogadishu labeling the violence “reckless” and urging all Somali political leaders to pursue a peaceful negotiated resolution. “Somali leaders on all sides have a responsibility to preserve stability and resolve differences through peaceful means,” the embassy said in a statement. “Actions taken in the coming hours and days may have lasting consequences for Somalia’s security, unity, and future.”

    Khaire further alleged that Mohamud has redirected military resources trained and equipped by international allies – originally intended to combat the al-Shabab extremist insurgency – to target political opposition figures.

    The latest clashes underscore a steady erosion of trust and deepening political rift between Mohamud’s administration and opposition leaders, driven by long-running disputes over the country’s electoral framework and constitutional future. This internal tension comes as Somalia continues its years-long campaign to defeat al-Shabab, while working to build durable democratic state institutions with extensive support from the international community.

  • US House approves measure to restrain Trump action in Iran

    US House approves measure to restrain Trump action in Iran

    WASHINGTON — In a landmark bipartisan rebuke of the Trump administration’s foreign policy, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a binding resolution on Wednesday that would compel President Donald Trump to pull all U.S. military forces out of the ongoing war with Iran and require explicit congressional authorization for any future military action against the country.

    The final vote tally stood at 215 in favor to 208 opposed, with four House Republicans breaking ranks to join every Democratic member in supporting the measure. This vote marks the most significant pushback against Trump’s management of the months-long conflict to date. The war has already resulted in the deaths of more than a dozen U.S. military service members, claimed the lives of thousands of Iranian civilians, and wreaked havoc on global commodity supply chains. Blockades of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping chokepoint, have disrupted international flows of both oil and fertilizer, driving up global market prices.

    This resolution, which leverages Congress’s constitutional War Powers authority to limit executive branch ability to initiate or escalate military engagements, narrowly failed to pass the House just one month prior, deadlocking at a 212-212 tie vote.

    While parallel measures in the U.S. Senate have previously failed to advance, the political landscape shifted recently after Louisiana Republican Senator Bill Cassidy lost his party’s primary election. Cassidy has since joined Senate Democrats and a small group of fellow Senate Republicans to advance the Iran War Powers resolution, though a final floor vote on full passage has not yet been scheduled.

    The House resolution was sponsored by Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the ranking Democratic member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. In a separate legislative action, Michigan Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib has introduced an additional War Powers resolution that would force the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Lebanon, where Israel – backed by U.S. weapons and funding – has launched a large-scale military offensive.

    The passage of the Iran resolution, achieved even in a House controlled by the Republican Party, underscores the growing intraparty dissent against President Trump’s policies among congressional Republicans.

    In a separate development highlighting rifts within the party, Senate Republicans have rejected a Trump administration proposal to create a $1.8 billion compensation fund for individuals who claim they were wrongfully prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice. The fund would have covered individuals convicted for their role in the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol who were later pardoned by Trump. Following the opposition, the administration pulled back from the proposal, after disputes over the fund derailed progress on broader legislation to fund immigration and deportation operations for the remainder of Trump’s second term.

  • SA budget axes 1000 public sector jobs in major recruitment freeze

    SA budget axes 1000 public sector jobs in major recruitment freeze

    South Australia’s newly elected Malinauskas Labor government has tabled its first state budget, introducing a public sector hiring freeze that will eliminate approximately 1,000 non-frontline public service roles over the coming 12 months. The cost-cutting measure is projected to generate annual savings of $120 million, introduced as the state prepares for public debt to surge to a projected $50 billion. Delivered to state parliament on Thursday by Treasurer Tom Koutsantonis, the 2026-27 budget balances austerity measures with a broad suite of policy commitments aimed at addressing pressing community needs across housing, education, healthcare, and Indigenous affairs.

    Alongside the public sector hiring restrictions, the budget includes a series of targeted investments and relief measures designed to deliver on election promises. To boost the state’s struggling housing market, the government has committed $50 million to develop a 400-unit housing estate in Munno Para, north of Adelaide, exclusively for first-time home buyers. It has also expanded stamp duty relief, extending exemptions to domestic abuse survivors and homeowners over the age of 60 downsizing to properties valued up to $2 million.

    Major education investments feature prominently in the budget. Over the next four years, $174 million will be allocated to eliminate all fees for public school attendance, while $210 million across six years will fund the redevelopment and upgrades of 37 public school campuses. The government is also expanding access to early childhood education, funding new long daycare spots to enable universal access for three-year-olds to attend preschool. Seniors will also see expanded support, with the seniors card scheme opening to all residents aged 60 and over, and to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander residents aged 50 and over.

    In healthcare, the government has pledged $250 million in loan funding to cut persistent ambulance ramping at public hospitals and create 650 new aged care beds, alongside a $28 million investment in a new dedicated mental health assessment unit at the Royal Adelaide Hospital. In a historic step for Indigenous reconciliation, the budget allocates $8.5 million over four years to establish a new treaty commission led entirely by Aboriginal leaders, tasked with advancing improvements to health, education, and economic outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities across the state.

    Treasurer Koutsantonis framed the budget as fiscally responsible, emphasizing that the document “lives within its means” with genuine surpluses and lower debt-to-revenue ratios than previously projected. He noted that the framework delivers certainty for businesses and entrepreneurs while delivering on election commitments for core public services and cost-of-living relief.

    Premier Peter Malinauskas echoed this framing, describing the budget as restrained and modest, pointing out that the government has fulfilled its pledge not to introduce any new taxes to fund expenditure, thanks to disciplined spending limits. “We are honouring our commitment to not create new taxes to justify expenditure because we’ve been restrained in our expenditure,” he said.

    However, the budget has drawn sharp criticism from opposition figures. Cory Bernardi, leader of One Nation’s South Australian branch, dismissed the package as a “bread and circuses” distraction from the state’s growing debt crisis. He argued that the targeted handouts and spending initiatives come at the expense of future generations, noting that the budget adds $4 billion in new debt annually and called for an end to what he labeled reckless government spending.

  • Beijing bans 4 New Zealand lawmakers from entering China because they visited Taiwan

    Beijing bans 4 New Zealand lawmakers from entering China because they visited Taiwan

    In a unprecedented diplomatic move marking a sharp escalation of Beijing’s sovereignty pressure over Taiwan, China has barred four New Zealand parliamentarians from entering mainland China, Hong Kong and Macau for 12 months, and demanded the lawmakers issue a formal apology for their parliamentary trip to the self-governing island, multiple official sources confirmed to the Associated Press Thursday.

    This sanction marks the first time New Zealand elected officials have been targeted by Beijing for punitive measures over engagement with Taiwan, although lawmakers from other countries have previously faced similar restrictions for contacts with Taipei. For years, Beijing has ramped up diplomatic and military pressure on Taiwan, the democratically ruled island that China claims as an inalienable part of its sovereign territory.

    The four New Zealand lawmakers traveled to Taipei for a parliamentary visit back in May, a trip that follows a long-standing tradition of New Zealand parliamentary delegations visiting Taiwan “for decades,” according to a spokesperson for New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters. Two of the four lawmakers who were reached by the AP this week have flatly rejected Beijing’s apology demand, while attempts to contact the other two for comment were not immediately successful.

    Beijing’s position holds that Taiwan, as a Chinese region, has no authority to conduct official foreign relations, and that visits by sitting legislators from countries that maintain formal diplomatic ties with Beijing violate China’s core sovereignty claims. In an official statement posted to its website Thursday, the Chinese Embassy in Wellington clarified its stance, noting: “China has consistently opposed visits to China’s Taiwan region by members of the legislatures of countries that have established diplomatic relations with China, including New Zealand, and this case is no exception. The New Zealand side should not be surprised.”

    The details of the travel ban and apology demand were outlined in emails from New Zealand’s Parliamentary Service to the affected lawmakers, which were reviewed by the AP. The correspondence confirms the ban could be lifted only if the legislators comply with the apology requirement.

    The New Zealand government has pushed back against the measure, announcing it will formally convey its concern over the travel restrictions to Chinese authorities. A spokesperson for Peters emphasized that the May visit was “not inconsistent with New Zealand’s One China policy,” the long-standing framework under which Wellington acknowledges Beijing’s position that Taiwan is a Chinese province. Like most nations around the globe, New Zealand does not maintain formal diplomatic relations with Taipei. New Zealand’s parliamentary system allows individual legislators to make independent decisions about joining international travel delegations, which typically cross party lines to include representatives from multiple major political groups.

    Affected lawmakers have publicly pushed back against Beijing’s action. Laura McClure, a legislator from New Zealand’s libertarian ACT Party, called the demand for an apology “frankly insulting” and confirmed she would not meet the requirement. Duncan Webb, a lawmaker from the center-left Labour Party, echoed the sentiment, noting that New Zealand upholds democratic norms and the right of its elected officials to engage with international partners. “If the cost of doing that is to be excluded from China for a year, I will pay that price,” Webb said in an emailed statement.

    The diplomatic dispute comes at a time when bilateral relations between New Zealand and China have otherwise remained broadly positive in recent years. China holds the position of New Zealand’s largest trading partner, and New Zealand made history as the first Western nation to sign a free trade agreement with Beijing decades ago.

    Neighboring Australia has also joined New Zealand in expressing disapproval of the measure. Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong told a Senate committee in Canberra Thursday that her government would also raise concerns about the travel ban with Beijing and China’s diplomatic mission in Canberra. “We agree with the principle expressed by New Zealand that members of parliament, including the Australian Parliament, are free to make their own decisions about their travel independent of government,” Wong said. “Placing pressure on parliamentarians is not appropriate,” she added.

    Associated Press reporters Huizhong Wu in Bangkok and Rod McGuirk in Melbourne contributed reporting to this article.

  • Australians paying almost as much for passports as government’s gas revenue, David Pocock says

    Australians paying almost as much for passports as government’s gas revenue, David Pocock says

    A fiery new exchange at a recent Australian Senate hearing has reignited debate over the federal government’s tax and public service pricing policies, with independent Senator David Pocock doubling down on criticism of the imbalance between petroleum tax revenue and sky-high passport fees.

    At Thursday’s hearing, Pocock highlighted a striking comparison that underscores what he calls the government’s lopsided policy framework: by the end of the current decade, total annual revenue collected from Australian passport fees will only be a few hundred million dollars lower than the total annual take from the Petroleum Resources Rent Tax (PRRT)—the levy designed to deliver public returns from the country’s massive offshore liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports.

    As one of the world’s top LNG exporters, Australia’s PRRT system has faced sustained scrutiny from Pocock, who has repeatedly called out the low revenue it generates for public coffers. The latest data he cited shows that by the 2029-30 financial year, annual revenue from passport services is projected to hit as much as AUD 1.2 billion, up from more than AUD 1 billion forecast for the 2024-25 financial year. By comparison, the PRRT is on track to bring in just a few hundred million more than that figure annually by the end of the decade.

    When it comes to passport pricing, Australia already holds the unenviable title of having some of the most expensive passport fees in the developed world. Starting in 2026, an adult renewing a 10-year passport will pay AUD 422, while seniors and children will pay AUD 213 for a five-year document. Volume projections from government officials show the government is expected to issue up to 2.2 million passports in the current financial year, rising to 2.5 million annually by next financial year.

    Pocock argued that the gap between these two revenue streams is indefensible. “As one of the biggest gas exporters in the world, those two things just don’t seem to square … that’s an absurd comparison,” he told the committee. He also noted that Australian passport costs far outpace prices in comparable nations: a Canadian 10-year passport costs roughly AUD 170, a British equivalent is AUD 195, a New Zealand passport comes in at AUD 225, and a U.S. passport is AUD 250—all less than 60% of the cost of an Australian adult passport. In some cases, Australians pay nearly double what citizens of other wealthy nations pay for the same official document.

    Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong defended the federal Labor government’s policies on both fronts, pushing back against Pocock’s criticism. Wong acknowledged understanding Pocock’s perspective but argued the government has crafted a balanced approach that serves the national interest when it comes to gas policy.

    On the topic of passports, Wong noted that the current government has invested heavily in upgrading the Australian passport system, producing a high-security, advanced travel document that grants Australian citizens visa-free access to more than 120 countries around the world—a key benefit that justifies current pricing. She added that the government has no plans to adjust passport pricing outside of pre-approved inflation indexation, which is already baked into the projected revenue increases.

    When asked why other high-income nations charge far less for passports, Wong responded that she could not speak to the pricing policies of other governments, as she is not responsible for their operations.

    This latest exchange is part of a long-running campaign by Pocock to overhaul the PRRT system, which he argues fails to deliver adequate public returns from Australia’s non-renewable natural resources. In an earlier Senate hearing, Pocock drew similar criticism by pointing out that mid-year financial projections for 2025-26 showed the PRRT would generate only around AUD 1.5 billion in annual revenue—less than the AUD 2.7 billion the government collects annually in beer taxes. “How do we live in a country that exports — one of the biggest gas exporters in the world — and we’re getting more tax from beer than PRRT,” he asked at the time.

    In response to ongoing criticism, the government has defended the PRRT and broader national gas arrangements as part of a balanced policy framework. Since the outbreak of conflict in the Middle East, officials have emphasized that Australia has a responsibility to act as a reliable global energy partner, and the current tax structure accounts for both public revenue needs and broader energy security commitments, alongside additional corporate tax contributions from gas producers.

  • US House votes to rein in Trump’s war powers in rebuke over Iran

    US House votes to rein in Trump’s war powers in rebuke over Iran

    In a historic bipartisan rebuke of the Trump administration’s military engagement in Iran, the U.S. House of Representatives has approved a resolution designed to block President Donald Trump from launching additional offensive military action against Tehran. The final vote tally stood at 215 in favor to 208 against, with four House Republicans breaking ranks with their party leadership to side with a unified Democratic caucus in passing the measure.

    This vote marks the fourth formal attempt by the House to curtail the president’s war-making authority in Iran, a conflict critics argue has proceeded without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war. The House initiative now moves to the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate for consideration, where its path forward remains uncertain. Even if the resolution clears the full Senate, political observers widely note it is unlikely to result in a full halt to U.S. military operations against Iran.

    The Senate previously advanced a nearly identical resolution in May, the first such measure to overcome procedural hurdles after seven failed attempts, but it has not yet been scheduled for a full floor vote. Wednesday’s vote comes amid growing public divisions within the Republican Party over Trump’s foreign policy, just one week after a conservative rebellion in Congress forced the White House to scrap a proposed $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund earmarked for political allies.

    The four Republican lawmakers who backed the resolution are Thomas Massie, Brian Fitzpatrick, Tom Barrett, and Warren Davidson. Notably, Democratic Representative Jared Golden of Maine, who had opposed earlier iterations of similar measures, also switched his position to support the bill this round. Speaking after the vote, Michigan Republican Tom Barrett emphasized the constitutional principle underpinning his decision, noting “Congress alone declares war, that’s something certainly we need to be protective of.” When asked if he feared political retribution from Trump for his dissenting vote, Barrett added, “I vote my conscience for what I think is right and willing to accept that.”

    House Foreign Affairs Committee leading Democrat Gregory Meeks, who co-sponsored the resolution, framed the outcome as a landmark bipartisan push to end what he called Trump’s “illegal and costly war in Iran.” Meeks argued that the president has failed to deliver on the war’s stated public goals, while driving up domestic U.S. fuel prices and complicating diplomatic efforts to resolve tensions over Iran’s nuclear program. “The passage of this [measure] today signals a significant turning point: more and more Republicans are listening to their constituents who do not want another open-ended war in the Middle East,” Meeks said.

    The current conflict between the U.S., Iran, and regional allies began in late February, when the U.S. and Israel launched joint airstrikes against Iranian targets. Iran retaliated with attacks on Israel and U.S.-partnered states in the Persian Gulf, and effectively shut down traffic through the Strait of Hormuz — a critical global shipping chokepoint that carries roughly a fifth of the world’s oil supply. In April, the U.S. announced a full naval blockade of commercial traffic moving to and from Iran’s coast, before the two sides reached an initial ceasefire agreement on April 8.

    Despite the ceasefire, intermittent hostilities have continued in recent weeks: the U.S. has carried out new strikes on Iranian targets, while Tehran has responded with attacks on Kuwait, a major U.S. ally in the region. Ahead of Wednesday’s House vote, Trump told reporters at the White House that peace negotiations to end the conflict were progressing “very well,” and suggested a final deal could be completed as early as the same weekend. “We hit them pretty hard the night before, and actually last night,” Trump said, referencing recent U.S. strikes. “Some people would say they were slightly provoked because we took a strong action for a different reason, so they were reciprocating.”

    The president added that most senior members of his administration support reaching a negotiated end to the conflict “without killing everybody.” “In theory they’re pretty close to signing a paper, we’ve actually gotten along with them very well,” Trump said.