分类： politics

Xi’s new US-China formula signals a self-confident shift in terms

Last month’s high-profile Xi-Trump summit in Beijing produced one particularly consequential, if intangible, outcome: Chinese President Xi Jinping unveiled a new authoritative policy formulation, or tífǎ, to frame the future of US-China relations.

For decades, these standardized, authoritative concepts have served as a core communication tool for the Communist Party of China, allowing the top leadership to articulate its strategic priorities, policy assessments, historical judgments, and core governance agendas at key junctures. Historically, tífǎ have also acted as reliable leading indicators of shifting ideological and policy directions, enabling top leaders to outline and consolidate their political priorities across all areas of governance. This tradition has only expanded under Xi Jinping’s leadership, with official formulations now released to guide policy across domains ranging from ethnic minority governance to global diplomatic strategy.

The new framing put forward for bilateral ties is “constructive strategic stability”, a guiding concept structured around four distinct pillars, according to official reporting from China’s state-run news agency Xinhua. These four layers are: “positive stability with cooperation as the mainstay”, “stability with moderate competition”, “stability with manageable differences,” and “an enduring stability with promises of peace.” Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi later expanded on each of these pillars in a post-summit press briefing.

Wang explained that the first pillar – cooperation-centric positive stability – forms the baseline for healthy bilateral relations, a reflection of the deep economic interdependence that binds the two largest economies in the world, where “neither can cut the other out, nor prosper without the other.” The second pillar, stability with bounded moderate competition, signals Beijing’s clear preference for establishing formal guardrails around bilateral rivalry, to ensure that competition “is kept within proper limits and is not turned into a zero-sum game.”

Wang went on to outline the non-negotiable bottom line that defines these “proper limits”: both nations must “respect each other’s social systems and development paths, respect each other’s core interests and major concerns, and respect each other’s right to development.” Only when this bottom line is fully honored can the two sides achieve the overarching final goal of the framework: long-term, enduring stability for bilateral ties.

Analysts note that this new formulation carries major strategic significance for at least two key reasons. First, it marks a clear shift in Beijing’s approach to managed competition: while China has long acknowledged that US-China relations contain a substantial competitive element, the new framework formalizes Beijing’s commitment to keeping that competition bounded and controlled.

This represents a noticeable shift from China’s position during most of the Biden administration, when it was the United States that pushed aggressively for the creation of competition guardrails, while China was far less receptive to the idea. At that time, Beijing’s stance was shaped by the widespread perception within the Chinese leadership that the United States was a declining power, a view encapsulated by Xi’s 2021 assertion that “time is on our side.”

With Donald Trump’s return to the White House, Beijing has not abandoned its view that U.S. power is in decline. Instead, this perception has evolved: Chinese analysts now argue that a declining U.S. is far more likely to leverage military pressure and coercive diplomacy to compensate for its eroding economic competitiveness. As Jin Canrong, vice dean of Renmin University’s School of International Studies, argues, “America’s current toughness and arrogance do not reflect a true rise in strength” but rather demonstrate the acceleration of its decline through the “self-depletion” of its military, economic and diplomatic resources. In this new context, as Wang Yi put it, guardrails are now necessary to prevent the bilateral relationship from veering wildly “like a roller coaster.”

The second, and arguably more impactful, dimension of the new framework is that it positions China as an equal peer to the United States in its contribution to global order and international stability. “A positive outlook of China-US cooperation,” Wang argued, “will provide more certainty for both countries’ development and for the international situation.” As such, “constructive strategic stability” should “be a goal both sides uphold.” As scholar Zongyuan Zoe Liu notes, the clear implication of this framing is that “the United States should respect China’s core interests, refrain from defining the relationship primarily as strategic competition and manage disputes within limits acceptable to Beijing.”

With the Trump administration signaling acceptance of this new phraseology, even if it has not yet formally signed on to its full substance, Beijing is widely expected to view this outcome as a significant win in its campaign to define the acceptable boundaries of US-China rivalry on terms that align with Chinese core priorities. This analysis is by Dr. Michael Clarke, associate professor of international politics and strategy at the Centre for Future Defence and National Security, Deakin University, and adjunct associate professor at the Australia-China Relations Institute, University of Technology Sydney.

3 6 月, 2026
Somalia ex-PM says attacked by govt forces in Mogadishu

A fresh wave of political violence has shaken central Mogadishu, after Somalia’s former prime minister Hassan Ali Khaire accused government forces of launching a targeted attack against his compound just 24 hours before planned mass opposition demonstrations against President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s controversial term extension. The outbreak of heavy gunfire on Wednesday has deepened a months-long political crisis that has split the fragile Horn of Africa nation, pitting the federal government against a united bloc of opposition figures and regional leaders.

The current crisis ignited after Mohamud’s presidential mandate was scheduled to expire on May 15. Instead of stepping down or holding a long-promised national election, the president pushed through a parliamentary vote in March that approved a new constitutional framework extending his tenure by an additional 12 months. Opposition groups have uniformly rejected this move, labeling it an unconstitutional power grab, and organized large-scale peaceful protests set to take place across the capital on Thursday.

In preparation for the demonstrations, Khaire relocated from his secured residence in the airport-adjacent Green Zone, a heavily fortified area that houses most international missions and senior government officials, to his private home in the capital’s Howl Wadaag district. Shortly after his arrival, heavy weapons fire erupted across the neighborhood. In an urgent social media statement following the clash, Khaire confirmed the confrontation was an unprovoked attack ordered by the presidency.

“An attack was launched against us by forces commanded by the president whose term has expired,” Khaire wrote, noting that his group had been making preparations for a “peaceful demonstration” against Mohamud’s power grab. Reporters from Agence France-Presse on the ground captured footage of panicked residents fleeing the area, with continuous gunfire audible in the background. Multiple witnesses confirmed the clash involved armed opposition supporters and Somali federal police, with heavy weaponry including rocket-propelled grenades deployed during the 15-minute confrontation.

“The shooting lasted for about 15 minutes before it subsided. They even used RPGs, and the sound of the explosions could be heard across the surrounding neighbourhoods,” local resident Saleban Mahad told AFP.

Mohamud has framed his term extension as a necessary step to complete a years-long transition to full democratic elections, replacing the country’s long-standing clan-based power-sharing system. He argues that the March parliamentary approval of the new constitutional framework gives his extra year in office full legal legitimacy, allowing the government time to organize inclusive national polls across the country. Critics, however, point out that little progress has been made on election organizing outside a handful of small local districts: large swathes of southern Somalia remain under the control of al-Shabaab, a violent Islamist insurgency, and deep political divides between rival clan factions have stalled all efforts to unify the country around a shared electoral process.

Opposition and regional leaders argue Mohamud’s power grab is a deliberate attempt to consolidate centralized power at the expense of regional autonomy and democratic representation. Another senior opposition figure, former president Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, has also relocated to central Mogadishu to join Thursday’s protests, and he issued a sharp rebuke of the attack on Khaire in a post on X. Ahmed called the assault proof that Mohamud, who he says holds no legitimate mandate, is willing to escalate bloodshed to hold onto power, adding that the violence would not deter demonstrators from gathering.

“This attack will not stop the demonstrations by residents of the capital who are protesting against injustice, displacement, and the abuse of government power,” Ahmed wrote.

This is not the first time a Somali president has extended his term beyond the official end of his mandate to hold onto power. In 2021, former president Mohamed Abdullahi Farmaajo stayed in office for more than a year after his mandate expired, triggering widespread violence and broad international condemnation. International powers including the United States and United Kingdom have attempted to mediate negotiations between Mohamud’s government and the opposition bloc to find a peaceful resolution to the current crisis, but those efforts have so far failed to produce any breakthrough.

3 6 月, 2026
Ex-UK political aide and Biden cabinet secretary lead California governor primary vote count

One day after California’s 2026 gubernatorial primary election wrapped up, the race to succeed term-limited Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom remains too close to call, with former British Conservative advisor and Fox News host Steve Hilton and ex-Biden Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra holding the top two spots in a historic field of more than 60 candidates.

Under California’s unique jungle primary system, the top two vote-getters advance to the November general election regardless of partisan affiliation. However, the state’s heavy reliance on postal ballots means a final result will not be confirmed for several more days, as election workers continue processing the large volume of ballots cast on Tuesday.

Becerra, a longtime California Democrat who previously served in Congress and as California’s Attorney General before joining President Joe Biden’s cabinet, has positioned himself as a staunch opponent of former President (and current President-elect) Donald Trump, matching the state’s deep liberal base. His key policy pledges include a freeze on health insurance and utility rates to address soaring cost-of-living pressures for state residents. Trailing the leading two candidates is billionaire Democratic climate activist Tom Steyer, who has poured unprecedented personal funds into his campaign as vote counting continues.

Hilton, a British-American conservative who served as a senior strategic advisor to former UK Prime Minister David Cameron during the Brexit period before moving to California and launching a media career on Fox News, secured the endorsement of Donald Trump for the governor’s race. He has campaigned on a platform of upending the state’s long-dominant Democratic political establishment, proposing broad tax cuts and regulatory rollbacks to make the state more affordable for working and middle-class households. On key contentious issues, Hilton has vowed to address the state’s intractable homelessness crisis, roll back California’s longstanding sanctuary immigration policies, and increase cooperation with the federal government on immigration enforcement. If he advances to the general election, analysts expect Hilton will face an steep uphill fight: Democratic registered voters outnumber Republicans by a roughly 2-to-1 margin in California, and the state has not elected a Republican governor since Arnold Schwarzenegger left office in 2011.

What was widely expected to be a straightforward Democratic hold of the governor’s office devolved into chaotic intraparty competition after Newsom’s term-limit-induced exit opened up the seat. With no clear consensus Democratic frontrunner to clear the field, more than a dozen Democratic candidates jumped into the race, splitting the party’s voter base. High-profile Democratic contenders included former congresswoman Katie Porter, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan (who earned significant financial backing from Silicon Valley), and billionaire Steyer, whose massive ad spending pushed the race to become the most expensive gubernatorial contest in California history. The race was further upended in April when leading Democratic candidate Congressman Eric Swalwell dropped out of the race and resigned his congressional seat following unproven sexual assault allegations that he has repeatedly denied.

The split in Democratic support sparked widespread anxiety among state party leadership, who warned that a fractured vote could result in two Republican candidates advancing to the general election in the deep-blue state. The unusually large candidate field even included a longshot hopeful who legally changed his name to Barack Obama Shaw.

Alongside the high-stakes gubernatorial primary, California voters also participated in a closely watched Los Angeles mayoral primary. Incumbent Democratic Mayor Karen Bass secured enough support to guarantee her spot in the November general election, but the second place spot remains undecided as counting continues. The contenders fighting to advance against Bass are Democratic City Councilmember Nithya Raman and Republican reality TV star Spencer Pratt.

As the most populous state in the United States and the world’s fifth-largest national economy, California’s gubernatorial race carries national political significance. The state has been at the center of America’s most divisive policy battles in recent years, from immigration regulation and climate action to the ongoing homelessness and housing affordability crises. Currently, Californians are also grappling with record-high gasoline prices, driven in part by ongoing tensions from the U.S.-Iran conflict and the state’s status as having the highest fuel taxes in the country. Outgoing Governor Gavin Newsom, who is term-limited from running for re-election, is widely rumored to be planning a potential 2028 presidential campaign.

3 6 月, 2026
Motorists using medicinal cannabis no longer to be automatically penalised in NSW

A landmark policy shift is set to transform the lives of hundreds of thousands of registered medicinal cannabis users across New South Wales (NSW), Australia, after the state Labor government unveiled long-awaited reforms that eliminate automatic penalties for motorists who test positive for trace amounts of THC after lawful use of their prescription medication.

Announced to the public on Thursday, the reform package will be tabled before NSW parliament with the explicit goal of introducing what government officials describe as a “commonsense approach” to balancing the needs of legitimate medicinal cannabis patients and non-negotiable road public safety. The plan introduces a graduated three-strike framework, designed to account for the reality that even compliant patients can retain measurable THC levels in their system for days or weeks after lawful use, without experiencing any driving impairment.

Under the new rules, all motorists will still undergo standard roadside drug testing, and any driver who tests positive for THC will face an immediate 24-hour driving suspension while lab analysis confirms the exact concentration of the compound. If test results show THC levels fall below the official maximum threshold, no criminal charges or further disciplinary action will be taken against the driver, provided the patient is enrolled in the official registration scheme.

For drivers who record THC levels at or above the legal threshold, the new graduated penalty structure applies: a first or second positive detection within a 24-month window will only result in an official warning letter. A third positive detection within two years will carry a fine of up to AU$704 and a minimum three-month driver’s license suspension. If alcohol, additional illicit substances, or multiple drugs are detected alongside THC, standard driving under the influence penalties will apply as usual.

Currently, an estimated 1 million Australians across the country rely on legally prescribed medicinal cannabis to manage chronic pain and other health conditions, with roughly one third of all national users based in NSW. Industry data also shows the number of approved cannabis-based medicinal products has nearly doubled over the past 12 months, reflecting growing clinical acceptance of the treatment. The reforms have therefore been framed as a critical update to out-of-date legislation that failed to keep pace with modern medical practice.

NSW Premier Chris Minns emphasized that while the reforms represent a major shift, road safety would remain the core priority of every element of the policy rollout. “For thousands of people, medically prescribed cannabis is life-changing medication that is necessary for people to go about their daily lives,” Minns said. “Our current laws enable people to safely and legally drive while taking a wide range of prescription medications but that doesn’t include cannabis prescribed by a medical practitioner. These changes strike a careful balance of providing a more practical approach for medicinal cannabis users while maintaining strong road safety protections for the community.”

NSW Police Minister Yasmin Catley echoed this commitment, stressing that the changes do not weaken law enforcement’s ability to remove impaired drivers from public roads. “These reforms do not change the ability of NSW Police to take dangerous drivers off our roads,” Catley said. “NSW Police will operationalise this reform as part of their role to enforce our laws, including roadside drug testing and action against impaired drivers. Every driver has a personal responsibility to know what they are taking and never get behind the wheel impaired.”

The new framework aligns directly with recommendations put forward by the state’s 2025 Drug Summit, and fulfills a longstanding demand from patient advocacy groups. Following the summit, Unions NSW publicly called on the government to speed up regulatory changes that would place legally prescribed cannabis on equal footing with other controlled prescription medications for road law purposes.

To qualify for the new protections, motorists must meet strict eligibility criteria. Drivers must register as a legitimate medicinal cannabis user with Transport for NSW, provide official documentation of a valid medical prescription, and complete a mandatory online education program covering the interaction between cannabis use and driving safety. The reforms only apply to NSW motorists holding full unrestricted driver licenses: learner drivers, provisional P-plate drivers, and commercial vehicle operators are explicitly excluded from the new protections. Registered users will still be required to undergo blood or urine testing following any serious motor vehicle crash, and will still face full criminal charges if they are proven to be driving while impaired.

To ensure the policy works as intended, the entire regulatory framework will be subject to a full formal review one year after it is implemented, to adjust any provisions as needed based on real-world outcomes.

3 6 月, 2026
Trump-backed candidate in Iowa loses primary

In a stunning upset that has upended expectations for 2026 Iowa Republican politics, three-term U.S. Congressman Randy Feenstra — a longtime loyal ally of Donald Trump who entered the race as the clear frontrunner and secured a last-minute endorsement from the former president — has conceded defeat in the state’s GOP gubernatorial primary. His challenger, Zach Lahn, a farmer and small business owner, ran an unapologetically populist, Trump-aligned campaign centered on slogans like “Make Iowa Healthy Again” and “Iowa First,” and capitalized on deep grassroots frustration with Washington political insularity.

Lahn’s platform centered heavily on restricting foreign and out-of-state entities from purchasing Iowa agricultural land, paired with fiery rhetoric criticizing what he frames as out-of-touch “global elites” exerting undue influence over state policy. His campaign drew institutional support from Turning Point USA, the prominent conservative organization, as well as a coalition of Iowa grassroots conservative activists who painted Feenstra as too embedded in the Washington establishment to deliver meaningful change for Iowa voters.

The upset marks a rare black mark on what had been an unbroken winning streak for Trump’s political endorsements in 2026 primary contests. Just weeks prior, Trump-backed challengers unseated incumbents including Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie and Senator Bill Cassidy, while Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton secured the state’s Republican Senate nomination over incumbent John Cornyn — a race where polling already pointed to a Paxton victory even before Trump’s backing.

The outcome also comes amid a quiet stretch for Trump, who has largely stepped back from public appearances over the past six days, limiting his public output to pre-taped interviews with conservative aligned media outlets and posts on his social platform Truth Social. One recent Truth Social post claimed that negotiations with Iran over the ongoing regional conflict have “been going on continuously,” though multiple diplomatic sources have indicated the talks have produced little tangible progress to date.

Domestically, it has already been a difficult week for Trump: his team recently scrapped plans for a proposed $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund that was designed to compensate people who claimed they were targeted for political investigation by prior presidential administrations.

Political analysts note the Iowa result may signal a growing erosion of Trump’s political standing in a state that has backed him in three consecutive presidential elections, but where shifting economic realities have soured voter opinion. Trump’s broad trade tariffs on Chinese goods, and China’s resulting retaliatory tariffs, hit Iowa’s critical agricultural sector particularly hard. More recently, the ongoing U.S.-Iran conflict following Israeli military operations has driven sharp increases in fuel and fertilizer costs, delivering a second economic blow to the state’s farming community. A recent joint poll from YouGov and The Economist puts Trump’s net approval rating at negative 20% among Iowa voters.

For Iowa Democrats, the opening has sparked new optimism about flipping the open governorship in November’s general election, where Lahn will now face Democratic State Auditor Rob Sand. Democrats are also competitive in the race for open U.S. Senate seat being vacated by retiring Republican Joni Ernst: centrist Paralympian Josh Turek, who earned backing from national Democratic party leadership, won his party’s primary nomination and will face Republican former Congresswoman Ashley Hinson in the fall.

Nonpartisan election analysis groups have reclassified both the gubernatorial and Senate races as either toss-ups or leaning Republican, a shift that reflects the newly competitive landscape in Iowa. Once a reliably Democratic-leaning state, Iowa has shifted sharply red in federal and statewide elections over the past 15 years, but the current political shifts mean the Hawkeye State could now hold the key to Democratic control of Congress and key governor’s mansions heading into the next election cycle. With control of national political majorities hanging in the balance, Iowa’s upcoming general election contests are set to be among the most closely watched in the nation this cycle.

3 6 月, 2026
Norway teen was in UK to ‘undertake a hit’ – court

A high-stakes trial opened this week at London’s historic Old Bailey, where 19-year-old Norwegian national Johannes Natland has pleaded not guilty to a charge of conspiracy to murder, amid serious allegations that he was recruited by an Iranian-linked Swedish organized crime network to carry out a targeted killing in the United Kingdom.

Prosecutors laid out detailed allegations before a jury outlining how the alleged plot unfolded in March 2025. According to opening arguments from lead prosecutor Alistair Richardson, Natland was recruited by the Foxtrot network, a criminal group that the prosecution claims is controlled and used by the Iranian regime for extra-territorial targeted attacks. The plot was activated after the originally assigned assassin pulled out of the planned operation, prompting senior figures in the network to scramble for a replacement.

Court documents and messaging logs presented to the jury show that coded conversations on encrypted platforms between two co-conspirators, using the usernames ‘Generalen’ and ‘Agent 47’, reveal an urgent request for a foreign-based assassin to carry out a hit in the UK for a payout of €25,000. By March 15, Generalen had brought Natland into the plot, with the teenager telling his girlfriend he was embarking on a ‘crazy mission’, according to the prosecution.

Complications arose early when the group discovered Natland’s passport had expired. Within two days, he secured an emergency travel document and booked a flight from Stavanger Airport in Norway to Manchester Airport in northern England. Even after being warned that Generalen, one of his key recruiters, had already been arrested in connection with the conspiracy, Natland chose to proceed with the plan, Richardson told the jury.

On arrival at Manchester Airport, UK Border Force officials detained Natland after noting he carried only £40 in cash, had no pre-booked accommodation and no return ticket to Norway. When officers offered to contact his mother, the 19-year-old claimed he was a legal adult and declined assistance. Though border officials initially intended to refuse entry, they granted temporary permission to stay in the country for four days while arranging a return flight – a decision the prosecution described as surprising.

The following day, acting on instructions from Agent 47, Natland took a taxi to the West Yorkshire town of Huddersfield and checked into the Briar Court Hotel for a three-night stay. Via the encrypted messaging app Signal, he was directed to a hidden weapons cache at the base of a tree in a nearby wooded area, where prosecutors say he retrieved two working firearms: a semi-automatic pistol and a revolver, alongside 12 rounds of live ammunition.

After collecting the weapons, Natland purchased three pairs of rubber gloves from a local supermarket and was directed to a stolen vehicle that the prosecution alleges was intended to be used for the planned killing the following day. When a friend messaged Natland asking if he had completed the assassination, he replied ‘No tomorrow.’ When asked if he had test-fired the weapons, Natland responded, ‘Hell no. They will be tested on the guy,’ according to messaging logs presented to the court.

In the early hours of the morning before the planned attack, specialist counter-terrorism firearms officers raided Natland’s hotel room, Room 207, and took him into custody. Prosecutors told the jury that as Natland answered the door, he mimicked holding a gun and pretended to fire at the arresting officers. A search of the room turned up the two loaded weapons, 12 live rounds, and £2,000 in cash linked to the planned hit.

Natland has already entered a guilty plea to charges of illegal possession of the two firearms and the 12 rounds of ammunition, but he maintains his innocence on the core charge of conspiracy to murder. Prosecutors emphasized that the intended target of the planned killing has not been identified, but that the evidence clearly shows Natland had committed to carrying out the attack.

‘The defendant’s response to those warnings [of Generalen’s arrest] was not to pull out of what he was doing. Not to stop,’ Richardson told the jury. ‘He had signed up to, and intended to commit murder.’

The trial, which is being held at the Old Bailey, is expected to continue for approximately three weeks as the prosecution and defense present evidence and witness testimony to the jury.

3 6 月, 2026
UK PM slams violence over police handcuffing of dying student

Tensions have erupted in southern England following the conviction of a murderer and the release of bodycam footage showing dying 18-year-old Henry Nowak being handcuffed by police, with far-right activists triggering violent clashes that have drawn sharp condemnation from Prime Minister Keir Starmer. The controversy began on Monday, when 23-year-old Vickrum Digwa was sentenced to a minimum of 21 years in prison for stabbing Nowak to death with an 8-inch ceremonial knife during a dispute over a mobile phone in Southampton. Digwa, a Sikh man, misled responding officers by falsely claiming Nowak had racially abused him, leading police to initially restrain the fatally wounded teenager rather than provide urgent medical aid. Bodycam footage from the December incident captured Nowak repeatedly telling officers he could not breathe as he lay bleeding, before he lost consciousness moments later. The case has become a flashpoint for political polarization in the UK, after far-right figures including former UKIP leader Nigel Farage and ex-English Defence League leader Tommy Robinson (real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) seized on the incident to push their unsubstantiated claim of so-called “two-tier policing” — the false assertion that British police treat ethnic minority suspects more leniently than white people. Farage went so far as to call on the public to respond to Nowak’s death with “pure cold rage”, a comment Starmer labeled unforgivable. On Tuesday, a protest organized by far-right figures descended into chaotic violence in Southampton, despite an explicit plea from Nowak’s father not to use his son’s murder to fuel “further division, hatred or tension”. Agence France-Presse reporters on the scene documented that roughly 100 protesters tore down residential garden fences, hurled bricks, flares and chairs at officers, and rolled a burning bin toward police lines. Eleven officers were injured in the clashes, and two protesters were arrested by the end of the night. More than 1,000 people attended the wider rally, many waving Union Jack and English flags, where Robinson told the crowd that white British people are treated as “second-rate citizens” by UK law enforcement. Addressing lawmakers in Parliament on Wednesday, Prime Minister Starmer stressed that regardless of public grief over Nowak’s death, there is no excuse for the violence that unfolded. “No matter the pain we feel, there is no justification for more violence and disorder,” Starmer said. “This is a time for serious work, not rage. We will ensure anyone found engaging in disorder meets the full force of the law.” The prime minister, a former Director of Public Prosecutions for England and Wales, described the police bodycam footage of Nowak’s final moments as “harrowing” and acknowledged there are “serious questions” that must be answered about the officers’ handling of the incident. An investigation by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), the UK’s policing watchdog, is already underway and is expected to release its findings within three months. Hampshire Police confirmed three of the four officers involved in the incident remain in active service, while one resigned for reasons unrelated to Nowak’s murder. Starmer and his newly elected Labour government have flatly rejected far-right claims that two-tier policing exists in the UK, and he accused Farage — whose Reform UK party currently leads national opinion polls ahead of the next general election — of exploiting the tragedy for political gain. “Farage is exploiting this tragedy to create grievance and division,” Starmer told parliament. In a surprising development that has amplified the controversy, American tech billionaire Elon Musk has announced he will fund a private prosecution against police over their handling of the case. Amid the growing political pressure, the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) announced it would review its existing Race Action Plan, guidance introduced last year to address well-documented racial disparities in British policing. Official statistics show Black people in the UK are more than twice as likely to be arrested as white people, leading the NPCC to introduce guidance that stated the organization’s commitment to racial equality “does not mean treating everyone ‘the same’ or being ‘colour blind’”. Far-right activists have misrepresented this guidance as proof of preferential treatment for ethnic minority suspects. NPCC chair Gavin Stephens said the organization would address legitimate concerns about the wording of the guidance and make adjustments where needed. “We are listening to legitimate concerns about how some of these commitments are worded or phrased, and where needed we can and will make changes, but this should not detract from the intent, which is to improve the quality of policing,” Stephens said. UK Policing Minister Sarah Jones backed the review, saying it was “right” that the guidance be re-examined.

3 6 月, 2026
The end of Trump’s ‘weaponisation’ fund is another sign Republicans are fighting back

Just two weeks after it was first unveiled, a controversial $1.8 billion taxpayer-funded plan backed by former and current President Donald Trump to compensate his political allies has been formally scrapped by the U.S. Department of Justice, collapsing under overwhelming bipartisan pushback that included open revolt from members of Trump’s own Republican Party.

The proposal, labeled the “anti-weaponisation” fund, emerged from a legal settlement that ended a lawsuit Trump had brought against the Internal Revenue Service. The initiative framed its payouts as compensation for Americans the Trump administration deemed wrongfully targeted by the prior Biden administration, and included a controversial provision that permanently blocked new tax audits of Trump, his family members, and his business entities. While the White House maintained the fund was open to applicants from all political parties, administration officials repeatedly refused to rule out extending payouts to rioters who participated in the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, triggering immediate outrage from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

The swift rejection of the plan from congressional Republicans marked one of the most high-profile examples of growing intraparty pushback against Trump in his second term, showing that the president does not hold unchallenged control over his own party even after returning to the White House. Lawmakers across the GOP warned that the proposal represented an unforced political error at a moment when Trump and the party were already grappling with major headwinds: an unpopular ongoing military conflict in Iran, soaring domestic gasoline prices, and Trump’s persistently low approval ratings that threaten to undermine Republican prospects in the upcoming midterm elections.

“This was a total self-inflicted wound and completely unnecessary,” a senior anonymous former Trump adviser told reporters, adding that the controversy highlighted “the president’s myopic view sometimes — he’s going to do what he wants to do regardless of whether it hurts Republicans.”

Intra-GOP criticism boiled over days after the plan was announced, during a tense closed-door May 21 meeting between Senate Republicans and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who has served as the public face of the fund initiative. Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz described the meeting on his podcast, noting “multiple senators yelling at the attorney general, saying this feels like self-dealing.”

To escalate their pressure, congressional Republicans halted progress on a critical, long-delayed immigration spending bill that would fund U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection, two agencies central to Trump’s immigration policy agenda. Bipartisan opposition further mounted as Senate Majority Leader John Thune publicly urged the White House to abandon the plan, and Democrats pledged to block the immigration bill indefinitely until the fund was scrapped. Multiple advocacy groups also filed federal lawsuits to block the initiative, and a federal judge issued an order last Friday forcing the DOJ to suspend the fund pending legal review.

On Monday, the Department of Justice announced a temporary suspension of the program, citing the court order. But critics including many Republicans demanded a full, permanent cancellation. On Tuesday, Blanche formally confirmed to House lawmakers that “we’re not moving forward with the fund,” bringing the short-lived initiative to a close. Even so, the controversy is far from over: Blanche declined to commit to a formal written end to the plan, leading many critics to argue the door remains open for the Trump administration to revive the proposal at a later date. Legal challenges from advocacy groups will also move forward, even after the administration’s announcement.

“Litigation provides a safeguard to make sure” Trump cannot resurrect the scheme, explained Norm Eisen, co-founder of the Democracy Defenders Fund, which is one of the plaintiffs in the ongoing legal action against the administration. Senate Democrats have already announced plans to pass a permanent legislative ban on the program, framing the fund as a corrupt “MAGA slush fund” that enables tax fraud by the president and his allies. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer argued that the administration’s verbal commitment to end the plan is not enough, saying “Blanche and Trump’s words are worthless. The only way to stop Trump’s nearly $2 billion MAGA slush fund and his blank check to commit tax fraud is to abolish it by law – permanently.” The issue is already set to become a central campaign talking point for Democrats ahead of the fall midterm elections, as the party looks to flip control of Congress from Republican hands.

This latest controversy follows a string of recent breaks between Trump and congressional Republicans in his second term. Last month, multiple Senate Republicans joined Democrats to pass a war powers resolution aimed at limiting the duration of the Iran conflict. Last year, Republicans also joined Democrats to force the DOJ to release sealed documents related to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, after months of pressure that ultimately forced Trump to concede to the release.

3 6 月, 2026
The mirage of Israel-Lebanon rapprochement

For analysts who have tracked the winding, often tragicomic trajectory of American diplomatic efforts in the Middle East for decades, the April 2026 gathering of Israeli and Lebanese officials at the US State Department convened by Secretary of State Marco Rubio stirred a familiar sense of weary deja vu.

On the surface, the event marked a historic milestone: the first direct formal negotiations between Israel and Lebanon in decades, hosted on American soil. Media visuals were carefully staged, diplomatic niceties were observed, performative optimism filled the room, and officials dutifully noted that expectations had been tempered. As is so often the case with high-profile diplomatic openings, the weight of history was left outside the meeting room doors.

Yet history has a way of inserting itself uninvited into these processes. For the first time since the 1983 May 17 Agreement collapsed, Israel and Lebanon’s sitting government have officially launched direct talks aimed at reaching a full peace deal and disarming the Hezbollah militia. It is worth recalling that the 1983 agreement was negotiated in the wake of an earlier Israeli invasion of Lebanon, and it collapsed within 12 months, undone by fierce Syrian pressure and widespread domestic opposition inside Lebanon. That legacy should give even the most enthusiastic backers of the current talks reason for caution. As the old adage goes, history does not always repeat itself, but in the volatile Levant, it has a striking tendency to rhyme.

## The Unspoken Structural Barrier
Beneath the diplomatic fanfare lies a fundamental obstacle that few stakeholders are willing to address openly. The core barrier to a lasting Israel-Lebanon agreement is not a shortage of goodwill among Beirut’s ruling coalition nor a lack of American diplomatic energy. It is the persistent reality that the Lebanese state does not exercise full sovereign control over its own territory, military decision-making, or foreign policy.

Lebanon’s new reformist government, which took office in January 2025, approved the “National Shield” plan, a five-phase roadmap to disarm Hezbollah. The initiative has been backed by $230 million in US funding earmarked for strengthening the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF). Officials announced that the plan’s first phase had been completed successfully. But just two months later, on March 2, Hezbollah resumed cross-border strikes against Israel from southern Lebanon, directly contradicting that claim. This episode encapsulates the core paradox of Lebanese politics: the government in Beirut may be willing to rein in the militia, but it lacks the capacity to enforce its will in the country’s southern regions.

When Israeli ground forces crossed the UN-demarcated Blue Line into southern Lebanon in mid-March 2026, LAF units withdrew rather than engaging the invading troops. Commanders cited operational constraints and a lack of clear orders from Beirut. This was not a failure of courage; it was an honest reflection of the institutional status quo. The LAF is a small force, poorly equipped to secure the country’s borders, and legally barred from confronting foreign forces unless explicitly ordered to do so by the sitting government. The $230 million in American investment, it turns out, cannot buy the Lebanese state full control over a militia that has spent 30 years building entrenched regional infrastructure, relies on decades of Iranian patronage, and holds significant political sway across the country.

## The Lingering Ghost of 1983
Washington’s current enthusiasm for these talks bears an uncomfortable resemblance to the hype that surrounded the 1983 May 17 Agreement four decades ago. Then, as now, an Israeli military campaign had devastated large swathes of Lebanese territory and weakened the precursor forces to Hezbollah. Then, as now, a US administration believed it had carved out a unique diplomatic opening. Then, as now, any prospective agreement depended entirely on the Lebanese government’s ability to impose its authority on armed groups that reject that authority.

The 1983 agreement collapsed within a year, brought down by domestic Lebanese opposition and pressure from Ba’athist Syria, which was backed militarily by the Soviet Union. Today, Syria is far weaker than it was in 1983, but Iran has stepped into that power vacuum, and Hezbollah—though weakened by recent conflicts and leadership losses—has proven its ability to survive setbacks before.

That said, it would be disingenuous to dismiss the current moment as nothing more than a repeat of past failure. There are genuinely new dynamics at play this time around. Lebanon’s current government ran on a reformist platform that explicitly included disarming non-state armed groups, and senior officials publicly condemned Hezbollah’s decision to restart hostilities with Israel. This is not an insignificant shift. For decades, successive Lebanese governments maintained deliberate ambiguity about Hezbollah’s armed wing, treating it as an awkward, permanent houseguest that paid no rent but controlled outsized political influence. The current Aoun-Salam government has abandoned that pretense, at least in its public rhetoric.

Furthermore, Iran is currently facing an unprecedented period of strategic upheaval. The death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has removed the ideological anchor of the Islamic Republic’s regional proxy project. A Hezbollah that no longer has a confident, stable Iranian patron is a fundamentally different organization than the group that existed just a few years ago, though the full extent of this shift remains to be seen.

## The Inherent Limits of American Diplomatic Brokerage
Realist observers must repeat a long-held warning about American diplomacy in the Middle East: for decades, Washington has repeatedly mistaken diplomatic process for actual progress, assuming that bringing parties to the negotiating table in Washington is itself an achievement of statecraft. It is not.

As the Council on Foreign Relations cautiously noted, the April 2026 US-brokered talks create an opportunity for peace—nothing more, nothing less. Opportunities in the Levant have a long history of going unused.

The deeper, unaddressed question is whether the current US administration has the sustained focus and leverage to see through a complex, multi-year process of disarmament and normalization. This is particularly uncertain given the Trump administration’s inclination toward dramatic, headline-grabbing announcements rather than the slow, unglamorous work of institution-building on the ground. A peace deal between Israel and Lebanon that does not include a credible enforcement mechanism for Hezbollah disarmament is not a real peace agreement—it is merely a press release.

None of this is an argument for outright fatalism. The case for genuine rapprochement is supported by one underdiscussed reality: both Lebanon and Israel face strong material incentives to end a conflict that has inflicted massive damage on both sides. Lebanon’s economy has been collapsing for years, and another full-scale war would accelerate that collapse into total failure. For Israel, there is no long-term strategic gain to permanent occupation of southern Lebanon, a project that has historically spawned insurgency rather than security.

If a path to lasting peace exists, it runs through incremental, practical security agreements on the ground, not grand ceremonial declarations in Washington. The 2022 maritime border deal between the two countries—quiet, technically focused, and rooted in shared mutual interest—offers a far better model than the 1983 agreement. Small, functional agreements that deliver tangible results are far more valuable than large, ambitious deals that collapse before they can be implemented.

Cynics are right to point out that the international community has walked this path before. Optimists are not entirely wrong to note that regional conditions have rarely aligned this favorably for a breakthrough. The honest assessment is that in the Middle East, windows of diplomatic opportunity have a habit of closing far faster than observers expect. And genuine American enthusiasm for a deal, however sincere, cannot replace the slow, difficult structural work of state-building, disarmament, and regional reordering that any lasting peace requires.

Washington has succeeded in opening the door to talks. Ultimately, it is up to Lebanon to decide whether it can step through.

3 6 月, 2026
US announces new tariffs over forced labour concerns

In a renewed push for hardline trade policy after a major judicial setback earlier this year, the Trump administration has rolled out a new round of import tariffs ranging from 10% to 12.5% on dozens of U.S. trading partners, framing the move as a response to alleged failures by these nations to crack down on forced labor in global supply chains.

This announcement marks the second major tariff action from the White House since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a large portion of Trump’s previous import duties in February. In that earlier ruling, the court invalidated the controversial “Liberation Day” tariffs that Trump imposed on a wide swath of countries across the globe in April 2025. Trump publicly denounced the ruling at the time, calling it “terrible” and labeling the justices who rejected his trade policy “fools”. Immediately following the Supreme Court decision, the administration implemented a temporary 10% global tariff, after floating a potential 15% rate that never took effect. That temporary measure is set to expire in July unless Congress votes to extend it.

The 60 trading partners targeted in the new tariffs read like a who’s who of major global economies, including the United Kingdom, the European Union, Canada, and Japan. Combined, these nations account for a staggering 99.4% of all goods imported into the United States, meaning the new duties will touch nearly every segment of U.S. cross-border trade. The new tariffs stem from a broad investigation the U.S. Trade Department launched back in March, which examined the forced labor enforcement frameworks of all 60 trading partners. After concluding the probe, the agency announced Tuesday that every nation under review had “failed both to impose a legal prohibition on the importation of goods produced wholly or in part with forced labor (forced labor goods) and to effectively enforce such a prohibition”.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer defended the policy, arguing that allowing unregulated trade with nations that do not police forced labor creates an unfair system for American workers. “It creates a dynamic where American workers are forced to compete globally on an unlevel playing field”, Greer said. The U.S. government’s formal position holds that engaging in trade with countries that permit goods made with forced labor constitutes unfair competition for the United States. Still, the policy has drawn sharp criticism from trade analysts and political opponents, who warn that Trump’s broad-based tariff strategy has already driven up consumer prices in the United States and caused economic disruptions in global markets, with new duties set to exacerbate these upward pressures on costs.

3 6 月, 2026