分类: politics

  • Swift backlash from loyalists and adversaries after Trump depicts himself as Christ

    Swift backlash from loyalists and adversaries after Trump depicts himself as Christ

    A politically charged firestorm erupted this week after former and current U.S. President Donald Trump shared an AI-generated image depicting him as a messianic, Jesus-like healing figure — a post that quickly drew widespread backlash across religious and political lines, forcing Trump to remove it within 24 hours. The controversial post came on the heels of a bitter public feud between Trump and Pope Leo XIV, the first American pope in history, who has openly condemned Trump’s policy positions, including U.S. support for ongoing military conflicts in the Middle East and hardline immigration crackdowns.

    After deleting the image, Trump offered a confusing explanation to reporters at the White House, claiming he believed the graphic depicted him as a doctor affiliated with the Red Cross. “It’s supposed to be me as a doctor making people better. And I do make people better. I make people a lot better,” he told reporters. However, the widely circulated image leaves no room for ambiguity: it shows Trump draped in a flowing robe, with glowing hands hovering over the forehead of a man lying unconscious in a hospital bed. Across both Christian and Islamic religious traditions, Jesus Christ is revered as a figure with the divine power to heal the sick, making the depiction explicitly messianic.

    Criticism poured in immediately from across the political and religious spectrum, starting with leading Democratic lawmakers. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders took to social media platform X to condemn the incident, tying it to Trump’s ongoing conflict with the pope. “Trump is now attacking the Pope for speaking out against war while posting images of himself as a messianic figure,” Sanders wrote. “This is not only offensive. It is deranged, egomaniacal behavior. When will Republicans in Congress stop blindly following this dangerous and unhinged man?” Massachusetts Representative Jim McGovern, the top Democrat on the House Rules Committee and a practicing Catholic, called the image “outrageous, offensive, and profane,” adding “clearly he is not well. As an American, a Catholic, a human – I am disgusted.” The Democratic National Committee’s official account tagged top Catholic and evangelical Republican leaders including Senate Republican JD Vance and House Speaker Mike Johnson, asking for public comment.

    Notably, most sitting congressional Republicans remained silent through the first 36 hours of the controversy, even as high-profile former GOP members and religious conservative groups broke with Trump. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the former Georgia congresswoman who has fallen out of Trump’s favor after facing primary pressure from his allies, issued a blunt condemnation on X: “I completely denounce this and I’m praying against it!!!” Former Illinois Representative Adam Kinzinger, another ex-Republican lawmaker who clashed with Trump, called on Christians of all denominations to speak out. “Jesus Christ is not a meme. His image is not a political tool. His name is not a brand,” Kinzinger wrote. Carrie Prejean Boller, a former Trump supporter and anti-abortion Catholic who was ousted from Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission, went further, saying “Trump is not only a blasphemer but he is a liar. No Christian can support Trump or his administration. Speak now or be complicit in evil.” Even a traditionally pro-Trump Catholic group, Knights Templar International, which backed Trump in both the 2016 and 2024 elections, issued a full-throated rebuke, calling the image deeply offensive and demanding a public apology to upset Christian communities. Former Fox News host Megyn Kelly also joined critics, reposting a comment dismissing Trump’s Red Cross doctor explanation that read “He thinks you’re so stupid.”

    A small handful of pro-Trump commentators defended the post, however. Hardline right-wing commentator Laura Loomer argued that the U.S. does not recognize blasphemy as a legal offense, and told offended critics to “move to a Muslim country” if they opposed the depiction. International actors also waded into the controversy. Iran’s embassy in South Africa, which has regularly mocked Trump’s policies since the outbreak of the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran, made a sarcastic reference to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in its comment, asking “Is it Epstein being cared for in the Healing Ministry of Trump?” Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian issued a formal condemnation, saying “the desecration of Jesus (peace be upon him), the Prophet of peace and brotherhood, is unacceptable to any free person.”

    The AI image controversy was preceded by a harsh public attack from Trump against Pope Leo XIV, who has become one of the most prominent global critics of Trump’s foreign and domestic policy. Shortly before sharing the image Sunday, Trump posted a tirade against the pope on his social media platform, criticizing Leo’s stances on crime and foreign policy, and attempting to drive a wedge between the pope and his brother, a supporter of Trump’s MAGA movement. “Pope Leo is WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy. He talks about ‘fear’ of the Trump Administration, but doesn’t mention the FEAR that the Catholic Church, and all other Christian Organizations, had during COVID when they were arresting priests, ministers, and everybody else, for holding Church Services, even when going outside, and being ten and even twenty feet apart. I like his brother Louis much better than I like him, because Louis is all MAGA,” Trump wrote. He added bluntly: “I don’t want a Pope who criticizes the President of the United States.”

    Pope Leo has previously spoken out against multiple Trump administration policies, including the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran, the Israeli military campaign in Lebanon, and Trump’s harsh crackdown on undocumented immigrants within the U.S. Just days before the feud erupted, the Archbishop of Washington DC Cardinal Robert McElroy delivered a fiery anti-war sermon at a peace mass, calling on Christians to move beyond prayer and actively advocate for an end to conflicts. “As citizens and believers in this democracy that we cherish so deeply, we must advocate for peace with our representatives and leaders. It is not enough to say we have prayed. We must also act… our president will move to reenter this immoral war,” McElroy said. “No. Not in our name. Not at this moment. Not with our country.” Multiple cardinals also confirmed their opposition to Trump’s war policies in an interview with CBS’s 60 Minutes Sunday. Last week, a Catholic publication revealed that the Vatican’s ambassador to the U.S. had been summoned to the Pentagon earlier this year and reprimanded by a senior U.S. official, who told the envoy the U.S. government would act with no constraint on the global stage.

    Speaking to reporters Monday, Pope Leo pushed back against Trump’s attacks, reaffirming his commitment to spreading the Gospel message of peace. “I have no fear of the Trump administration or speaking out loudly of the message of the Gospel, which is what I believe I am here to do, what the Church is here to do,” the pope said. “We are not politicians. We don’t deal with foreign policy with the same perspective he might understand it, but I do believe in the message of the Gospel, as a peacemaker.”

    The incident has already had electoral ripple effects ahead of the November 2026 U.S. midterm elections. The Iraqi Christian Foundation issued a public call for U.S. Catholics to vote against Trump’s Republican Party, writing on X “We call on all Chaldean Catholics & other Catholics in the USA to vote against the Republicans or abstain from voting in the 2026 elections. We stand with Pope Leo XIV!” Support for the pope extended globally across religious lines, with prominent Muslim leaders and organizations also backing Leo. Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammed Ghalibaf wrote “Honoring Pope Leo’s fearless stand! He condemns the war crimes of Israel and the US… thank you for this light!” The Council on American-Islamic Relations, the largest Muslim civil rights organization in the U.S., issued a statement saying it stands in solidarity with the pope, noting that “Between denigrating the pope, portraying himself as Jesus (peace be upon him), and sarcastically praising Allah, the president’s mockery of religion is both deranged and insulting.” Controversial Muslim-American influencer Sneako, who has more than one million followers on X, added: “We stand with the Pope and the beautiful religion of Catholicism. Trump is committing the greatest act of blasphemy. If you love America, condemn this evil immediately.”

  • J Street says Israel should pay out-of-pocket if it wants US weapons

    J Street says Israel should pay out-of-pocket if it wants US weapons

    A prominent pro-Israel advocacy organization has upended longstanding U.S. policy orthodoxy around American military support for Israel, with J Street announcing in a new policy document released Monday that it is calling for an immediate end to direct, U.S. taxpayer-funded military assistance to the Jewish state.

    For years, J Street positioned itself as a moderate pro-Israel voice that backed unrestricted U.S. provision of free defensive military systems to Israel, including ongoing replenishments for the country’s Iron Dome air defense network. The group’s new framework marks a sharp break from that prior stance: under the updated policy, J Street now argues the U.S. should continue to sell Israel short-range air defense and ballistic missile defense capabilities — but Israel must cover the full cost of these acquisitions with its own public funds.

    In justifying the historic policy shift, J Street pointed to Israel’s robust economic and financial standing. “Israel faces real security challenges that require a significant defense investment. With a per capita GDP comparable to leading U.S. allies such as the United Kingdom, France and Japan, as well as an annual defense budget of over $45 billion, it has the financial means to address these challenges,” the group wrote. “It does not require almost $4 billion per year in U.S. financial subsidies to purchase weapons.”

    J Street added that continuing the current model of unrestricted direct aid is both fiscally unnecessary and politically damaging, fueling avoidable tensions in U.S. domestic politics and straining bilateral ties between Washington and Jerusalem. Under the existing structure of U.S. military assistance, American taxpayer dollars are allocated to Israel, which is then required to spend those funds on defense equipment manufactured by U.S. weapons contractors.

    J Street defines its core mission as organizing pro-Israel, pro-peace, pro-democracy American voters to advance U.S. policies aligned with shared Jewish and democratic values, with the goal of securing Israel’s future as a democratic Jewish homeland. The group’s support base is heavily concentrated within the Democratic Party, whose broader base has seen a rapid shift in attitudes toward Israel amid the ongoing Israel-Hamas war in Gaza.

    The policy change comes amid a dramatic reevaluation of U.S. support for Israel across the American political landscape, driven by shifting public opinion following more than 10 months of war in Gaza that has killed more than 72,000 Palestinians, according to local health officials. For J Street specifically, the shift closely tracks the changing trajectory of the Democratic Party, where progressive voters and elected officials have increasingly pushed for cuts to military aid over humanitarian and human rights concerns.

    Earlier this month, high-profile progressive Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York — who is widely speculated to be preparing a run for higher national office — announced she would no longer vote for any U.S. military support for Israel, reversing her prior position of backing defensive weapons transfers in a move that aligned with growing demands from her progressive base. Notably, Ocasio-Cortez’s announcement followed a surprise revelation from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier this year, when he declared that Israel would not seek to renew its current military aid package with the U.S. when it expires in 2028. “I want to taper off the military aid within the next 10 years,” Netanyahu told *The Economist* in January, “all the way down to zero.”

    J Street’s new policy mirrors a key provision of Ocasio-Cortez’s stance, requiring that all future arms sales to Israel — which the country pays for with its own funds — must be “fully consistent with American law.” U.S. statute prohibits security assistance to any country whose government engages in a consistent pattern of gross human rights violations, or that blocks or restricts the delivery of U.S.-funded humanitarian aid to civilian populations.

    “U.S. arms sales to Israel should be further conditioned to incentivize alignment with American interests and laws — as has been the case with other allies and partners — when their behavior is inconsistent with U.S. interests,” J Street wrote. The group stopped short of cutting all security ties with Israel, however, emphasizing that the U.S.-Israel alliance delivers tangible benefits to American national security.

    J Street noted that Washington and Jerusalem broadly share core strategic interests, writing: “The U.S. also benefits meaningfully from the relationship. Intelligence sharing has been critical in campaigns such as the fight against ISIS, while joint operations such as Israel’s 2006 strike on Syria’s secret nuclear facility have advanced shared security goals.” With roughly 500,000 American citizens residing in Israel, the group added that continued, conditional arms sales to Israel remain a legitimate U.S. national security priority.

  • McDonald’s, Iran, and the pope: Trump’s bizarre press conference

    McDonald’s, Iran, and the pope: Trump’s bizarre press conference

    On a surprising Monday in April 2026, what was framed as a routine policy event at the White House quickly devolved into one of the most bizarre press encounters of Donald Trump’s second presidential term, blending fast food delivery, awkward personal exchanges, fiery diplomatic rhetoric, and religious controversy all in less than 30 minutes. The event was organized to center on a core Trump campaign promise: his administration’s “no tax on tips” policy, a policy that the White House sought to humanize by inviting the DoorDash delivery worker who would benefit from it directly to the Oval Office doorstep.

    Sharon Simmons, a grandmother of 10 from Arkansas, arrived carrying two paper bags of McDonald’s burgers, hand-delivering the fast food order that the 79-year-old president — a famously outspoken lover of quick-service cuisine — had placed. After accepting the order from Simmons, Trump turned to assembled reporters and pressed a rhetorical question that would set the tone for the entire gathering: “This doesn’t look staged does it?”

    Before the conversation could return to the tip tax policy, however, a reporter’s question about a controversial social media post sent the press conference into unscripted surreal territory. Over the previous 24 hours, Trump had faced widespread backlash after an AI-generated image, depicting the president as Jesus Christ, was posted to his Truth Social account. The post came just hours after he launched a public attack on Pope Leo XIV, the first U.S.-born pope, for the pontiff’s public opposition to Trump’s hawkish policy on Iran. When asked if he had intentionally posted the image, Trump offered a confusing, unorthodox denial: “I did post it — and I thought it was me as a doctor and had to do (with the) Red Cross,” he said, adding “And I do make people better. I make people a lot better.” The image has since been deleted from his account.

    Attention quickly shifted to the escalating Iran crisis, which has roiled global energy markets just seven months ahead of critical November midterm elections that will determine control of Congress. Just two hours before the press conference, Trump’s self-declared naval blockade of Iranian ports went into effect, implemented after weekend peace talks between U.S. and Iranian negotiators in Pakistan collapsed without any breakthrough. Despite the failed talks, Trump insisted that Iranian officials had already reached out to Washington to restart negotiations, claiming that Tehran “very badly” wants a new agreement — one that he says must permanently block Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. The blockade has already driven a sharp spike in global crude oil prices, stoking fears of inflation that could damage Republican electoral chances in the fall.

    With Simmons still standing beside him, Trump turned next to his ongoing feud with the pope, rejecting any possibility of an apology for his previous public criticism of Leo’s anti-war stance. “There’s nothing to apologize for. He’s wrong,” Trump told reporters. “Pope Leo said things that are wrong. He was very much against what I’m doing with regard to Iran, and you cannot have a nuclear Iran.” He went on to accuse the pope of being “very weak on crime and other things.”

    In a moment that underscored the chaotic tone of the gathering, the president then pivoted to another of his signature political issues — his administration’s ban on transgender athletes competing in women’s sports — and asked Simmons for her opinion. The delivery worker deflected the question, grounding the moment back to the purpose of her appearance: “I really don’t have an opinion on that, I’m here about no tax on tips.”

    When a reporter turned to Simmons to ask one final, lighthearted question — whether the White House tips well — she hesitated with a shrug. Before she could answer, Trump reached into his trouser pocket, pulled out a folded $100 bill, and handed it directly to her, quipping to the reporter “Thank you. You reminded me!” The awkward, unplanned exchange capped a press conference that will go down as one of the most unusual of Trump’s political career, blending political theater, policy promotion, and unfiltered controversy in a single, surreal appearance.

  • Trump deletes Jesus post of himself after outcry

    Trump deletes Jesus post of himself after outcry

    Less than 24 hours after it was posted, former and current U.S. President Donald Trump took down an AI-generated image shared to his Truth Social platform that drew widespread condemnation from religious leaders for its blatant blasphemous framing of Trump as Jesus Christ. The controversial graphic, which went viral shortly after being published late Sunday, depicted Trump clad in flowing red and white robes, with a glowing aura emanating from his hand and head as he touched the forehead of a figure that appeared to be ill. In the background, an American flag billowed in the wind, while a crowd of onlookers stared up at Trump in an attitude of reverent worship.

    When pressed by reporters about the inflammatory post, Trump pushed back against claims that he intended to portray himself as Jesus. He claimed the image was meant to cast him as a doctor working with the Red Cross, saying, “It’s supposed to be me as a doctor, making people better. And I do make people better. I make people a lot better.”

    Despite this explanation, the post sparked immediate outrage, even among prominent conservative Christian figures who count themselves among Trump’s most loyal core supporters. Conservative political journalist and commentator Megan Basham condemned the graphic in a sharp post on X, writing, “I don’t know if the President thought he was being funny or if he is under the influence of some substance or what possible explanation he could have for this OUTRAGEOUS blasphemy.” She demanded that Trump remove the post immediately, issue a public apology to the American people, and seek forgiveness from God.

    This is not the first time Trump has leaned on religious imagery to frame his political identity. During his 2023 New York bank fraud trial, he shared a supporter-created sketch that depicted him sitting alongside Jesus inside the courtroom. His closest spiritual and political advisors have also repeatedly drawn parallels between Trump and Jesus to bolster his messianic political brand. Earlier this month, at an Easter luncheon hosted at the White House, long-time Trump spiritual advisor and televangelist Paula White-Cain openly compared the president to Christ, saying, “You were betrayed and arrested and falsely accused. It’s a familiar pattern that our Lord and Savior showed us.”

    Following the failed 2024 assassination attempt against Trump, the president has doubled down on embracing the narrative that he has a divinely ordained messianic mission to save the United States. In his victory speech after winning the 2024 presidential election, Trump told supporters, “Many people have told me that God spared my life for a reason, and that reason was to save our country and to restore America to greatness.”

    Matthew Taylor, a visiting scholar at Georgetown University’s Center on Faith and Justice who specializes in research on Christian nationalism, told AFP that the controversial post comes at a fragile time for Trump’s political base, where existing rifts have already opened over his handling of the ongoing Middle East conflict. Taylor noted that many Catholic supporters have already been alienated by Trump’s very public feud with Pope Leo, who has openly criticized U.S. bombing operations in Iran. “A lot of right-wing supporters were already pushing back against the war in Iran. The rift was already emerging for a lot of his Catholic base, and with the denunciations of Pope Leo this does threaten to alienate that crowd,” Taylor explained.

    However, Kristin du Mez, a historian at Calvin University who studies American evangelical politics, argues that the backlash is unlikely to erode support among Trump’s most die-hard conservative Christian backers. While many of these supporters acknowledge that the image crosses a line into blasphemy, du Mez said their commitment to Trump remains unshaken. “They are keeping their distance from what would clearly count as blasphemy,” du Mez told AFP. “But I also see a lot of dodging. Yes, blasphemy is bad, this is inappropriate, he should take this down. What I’m not seeing is in any way suggesting that they’re not going to continue supporting the man.”

  • North Korean leader supervises missile tests from his naval destroyer

    North Korean leader supervises missile tests from his naval destroyer

    In a fresh demonstration of Pyongyang’s accelerating military modernization push, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un supervised a new series of missile launches from the country’s newly commissioned 5,000-ton-class destroyer Choe Hyon over the weekend, state media confirmed Tuesday. The test activity marks the third round of weapons trials from the recently unveiled warship, as Kim doubles down on his pledge to turn the North Korean navy into a nuclear-capable force capable of projecting power across regional waters.

    According to North Korea’s official Rodong Sinmun newspaper, Sunday’s test involved the launch of two strategic cruise missiles and three anti-ship missiles from the Choe Hyon, a vessel first publicly unveiled in April 2025. The outlet reported that the strategic cruise missiles flew for more than two hours along pre-planned flight paths over North Korea’s western sea, while the anti-ship missiles completed a 30-plus-minute flight before both types of weapons hit their designated targets with pinpoint accuracy. The Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), another state-run media outlet, published visual footage of the test, showing Kim and senior military officials observing from a nearby pier as a missile trailed smoke while arcing away from the destroyer’s deck.

    This latest test comes just one month after Kim oversaw two prior rounds of missile launches from the Choe Hyon, when he first announced plans to accelerate the nuclear arming of North Korea’s naval forces. Following Sunday’s successful trials, Kim reaffirmed that his administration remains committed to the “limitless expansion” of the country’s nuclear deterrent forces. He also issued new, unspecified directives to enhance Pyongyang’s nuclear strike capacity and rapid response readiness, and reviewed development blueprints for two additional 5,000-ton-class destroyers currently under construction, Rodong Sinmun reported.

    Kim has repeatedly framed the development of the Choe Hyon-class destroyers as a transformative milestone for North Korea’s military, saying the vessels will drastically extend the operational range and preemptive strike capabilities of his armed forces. State media outlines that the warship is engineered to carry a full suite of combat systems, including surface-to-air defense weapons, anti-ship armaments, and both nuclear-capable ballistic and cruise missiles. While South Korean government officials and independent defense analysts suspect the destroyer program benefited from technical assistance from Russia amid deepening military cooperation between Moscow and Pyongyang, many experts have raised questions about whether the Choe Hyon is already fully combat-ready.

    The troubled history of North Korea’s second Choe Hyon-class vessel, the Kang Kon, has added to these outside doubts. The ship was first unveiled in May 2024, but it sustained serious damage during a botched launch ceremony at the Chongjin port in the country’s northeast, triggering a public rebuke from an angered Kim Jong Un. While Pyongyang announced the Kang Kon was successfully relaunched in June 2024 following repairs, independent defense analysts have not confirmed the vessel is fully operational today.

    Per North Korean state media, construction of the third Choe Hyon-class destroyer is ongoing at the Nampo shipyard on the country’s western coast, with completion targeted for October to coincide with the founding anniversary of the ruling Workers’ Party of Korea.

    Sunday’s test adds to an unprecedented surge in North Korean weapons testing activity this year, as Pyongyang pushes to expand its arsenal of nuclear-capable systems targeting South Korea against a backdrop of steadily deteriorating inter-Korean relations and a years-long stalemate in diplomatic talks over denuclearization. Just last week, North Korea conducted a separate slate of tests that state media confirmed included trials of new ballistic missiles fitted with cluster-bomb warheads, while senior Pyongyang officials issued harsh public remarks mocking South Korea’s recent overtures for improved cross-border ties.

    Diplomatic dialogue between North Korea, the United States and South Korea has been frozen since 2019, when talks between Kim Jong Un and then-U.S. President Donald Trump collapsed with no agreement on denuclearization. Kim has since adopted an uncompromising hard-line stance toward Seoul, redefining South Korea as Pyongyang’s “most hostile” adversary, and rejected offers from the second Trump administration to resume dialogue, demanding that Washington drop its insistence on denuclearization as a precondition for any new negotiations.

    In recent years, Kim has prioritized deepening strategic ties with major global powers aligned against the U.S.-led international order. North Korea has supplied thousands of troops and large volumes of conventional weapons to support Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, while Pyongyang has also strengthened its longstanding alliance with China, North Korea’s primary economic lifeline. Last week, Kim held talks with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and publicly voiced full backing for Beijing’s stated goal of building a “multipolar world.”

  • ‘Bad news’? Vance comes up empty-handed on Iran and Hungary, for now

    ‘Bad news’? Vance comes up empty-handed on Iran and Hungary, for now

    US Vice President JD Vance has emerged from a high-stakes diplomatic and political tour facing two major, immediate setbacks, leaving his ambitions as a likely frontrunner for the 2028 Republican presidential nomination facing new uncertainty.

    Last week carried two clear, high-profile assignments for the 41-year-old former Ohio senator: broker a lasting peace agreement to end the war with Iran during negotiations hosted in Pakistan, and shore up support for incumbent Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, a key Trump-aligned far-right leader, ahead of the country’s general election. By the end of the trip, neither goal had been achieved.

    Vance departed Islamabad on Sunday after 21 hours of marathon, overnight negotiations with Iranian representatives, leaving without a final deal to convert a temporary two-week ceasefire into a permanent end to the conflict. A self-described anti-interventionist who was one of the most outspoken opponents of the Iran war within Trump’s cabinet, Vance delivered a blunt assessment of the outcome at a short, tightly controlled press conference, where he took only three questions before boarding his return flight to Washington. In remarks to reporters, he confirmed no binding agreement had been reached.

    Before Vance even landed back on US soil, a second defeat arrived. Just days after Vance joined Orban for a high-energy campaign rally in Budapest, the long-serving Hungarian prime minister conceded election loss, despite an all-out push by the Trump administration to keep his government in power.

    The twin losses delivered a blunt reality check for Vance, who political analysts widely name as a top contender to inherit Donald Trump’s political legacy as the Republican Party’s presidential nominee in 2028. As one of the Trump administration’s most vocal advocates for backing far-right, anti-immigration parties across Europe, Vance was viewed as the natural pick to campaign for Orban, who he has previously praised as a “model” for European governance, thanks to Orban’s close ties to both Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Orban’s defeat marks the first major high-profile setback for the administration’s formal national security strategy of aligning with right-wing Euroskeptic parties across the continent, and tied the White House directly to the election loss.

    In comments to Fox News’ *Special Report with Bret Baier* on Monday, Vance pushed back on framing the trip as a total failure, arguing that standing by ideological allies even in defeat was a meaningful exercise. “It wasn’t a bad trip at all, because it’s worth standing by people even though you don’t win every race,” Vance said. “We didn’t go because we expected him to cruise to an election victory. We went because we thought it was the right thing to do.”

    On the Iran talks, Vance struck a similarly mixed tone, acknowledging the lack of a final deal but highlighting incremental progress. “I wouldn’t just say that things went wrong, I also think things went right,” he told Fox. “We made a lot of progress.”

    The future of the US-Iran negotiations remains unclear. Trump has confirmed that Iranian representatives have maintained contact and still expressed interest in reaching a deal, even as the US continues to enforce a naval blockade on Iranian ports. Vance said the “ball is in Iran’s court” for resuming formal talks, but did not rule out future negotiations to reach an agreement.

    The political impact of the two setbacks on Vance’s 2028 presidential aspirations remains unconfirmed. The race for the 2028 Republican nomination is set to begin in earnest following November 2024 midterm elections, where Vance is expected to face a primary challenge from Secretary of State Marco Rubio. While his role as vice president has given him unprecedented national name recognition and access to party infrastructure, it also ties him directly to Trump’s policy agenda, which has grown increasingly unpopular with general election voters in recent months.

  • Advocates slam Angus Taylor’s immigration pitch slammed as Trumpian and anti-migrant

    Advocates slam Angus Taylor’s immigration pitch slammed as Trumpian and anti-migrant

    Australia’s opposition leader Angus Taylor has faced widespread backlash from advocacy groups and the ruling Labor government after unveiling a deeply divisive, hardline immigration policy platform for the center-right Coalition, with critics accusing him of embracing the same fear-driven, exclusionary politics that defined former U.S. President Donald Trump’s approach to migration.

    Taylor outlined the controversial “Australian Values Migration Plan” during a scheduled address to the conservative Menzies Research Centre in Sydney on Tuesday, laying out three core pillars for the policy: centering so-called Australian values in all migration screening, cutting off access for anyone deemed to be abusing the country’s immigration system, and drawing a firm line against radicals seeking entry.

    In his remarks, Taylor framed all potential migrants as falling into one of two distinct categories: a vast majority he described as having “noble, patriotic” character, and a smaller subset he claimed harbored “subversive intent” against Australia. Going a step further, the opposition leader argued that migrants fleeing authoritarian, extremist-ruled states are inherently less likely to embrace Australian societal norms than those coming from established liberal democracies.

    Taylor specifically called out a group of Palestinian refugees who fled intense Israeli bombardment in the Gaza Strip, who arrived in Australia between the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war in October 2023 and August 2024, labeling the entire cohort “high-risk to our nation”. To advance his policy agenda, Taylor proposed amendments to Australia’s federal Migration Act and the creation of a dedicated cross-agency taskforce focused on deporting foreign nationals who have overstayed their visas.

    The policy immediately drew fierce condemnation from refugee and migrant advocacy organizations. Jane Favero, deputy chief executive of the Asylum Seekers’ Resource Centre (ARSC), described the proposal as horrifying, calling it a hateful, targeted attack on Australia’s migrant communities. Favero emphasized that the plan directly undermines the country’s longstanding refugee protection framework and the fundamental right to seek asylum, arguing that it unfairly demonizes families escaping war and political persecution.

    “This is grotesquely out of touch at a moment when the world watches an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe unfold in places like Gaza, Iran and Lebanon,” Favero said in a formal statement. She directly tied Taylor’s rhetoric to Trump’s signature political style, noting that the opposition leader was following the former U.S. president’s playbook of blaming migrants for systemic problems created by sitting politicians, rather than working to solve those issues. Trump’s own immigration legacy is defined by mass deportation campaigns, sweeping crackdowns on both legal and unauthorized migration, and two controversial executive orders banning entry to the U.S. from multiple Muslim-majority nations.

    Favero added that the Coalition’s policy is not just objectionable but dangerous, designed to deepen divisions within Australian society and stoke mutual fear at a time when national unity is most needed. She also noted that the party’s divisive fear-mongering around migration was soundly rejected by Australian voters at the most recent federal election, held in May 2025. At that election, former opposition leader Peter Dutton’s hardline migration agenda was widely cited as one of the key policy failures that led to a historic landslide defeat for the Coalition, with Liberal Party insiders since acknowledging the party paid a severe political price for blaming migrants for the country’s housing crisis.

    The ruling Labor government has also joined the criticism, with Defence Industry and Pacific Island Affairs Minister Pat Conroy dismissing Taylor’s plan as nothing more than desperate dog-whistling designed to win over far-right voters. Conroy argued that the Coalition has no credibility on immigration policy, pointing out that the party oversaw a massive explosion in net migration in the period after COVID-19 lockdowns ended. He accused Taylor of deliberately racing to the bottom to compete with the far-right One Nation party for support, amid sinking poll numbers for the Liberal-National Coalition.

    As Minister responsible for Pacific migration arrangements, Conroy highlighted that Australia’s economy and critical social services rely heavily on tens of thousands of migrant workers from Pacific Island nations, filling gaps in sectors ranging from commercial agriculture to aged care. He challenged the Coalition to be transparent with Australian voters about which industries would be left without critical labor under their proposed policy. “Who’s going to lose doctors, who’s going to lose nurses, who’s going to lose aged care workers?” Conroy asked in an interview with the ABC.

    Conroy contrasted the Coalition’s plan with Labor’s own approach to migration, noting that the current government has already cut net migration by 40% and is gradually returning numbers to pre-pandemic levels in a measured, orderly way. Addressing the question of ensuring new migrants align with Australian values, Conroy said existing screening measures, including formal values tests, are already in place to meet that goal. He noted that at the citizenship ceremonies he regularly attends, he only encounters new migrants eager to build their lives in Australia, contribute to local communities, and embrace their new national identity.

    “What we see here is a desperate distraction from Angus Taylor, who’s desperate for relevance in a world where he’s seeing his vote being eroded by One Nation,” Conroy added.

  • Can this man broaden the appeal of a South African party seen by some as ‘too white’?

    Can this man broaden the appeal of a South African party seen by some as ‘too white’?

    On Sunday, South Africa’s main opposition Democratic Alliance (DA) ushered in a new political chapter with the election of 39-year-old Geordin Hill-Lewis as its national leader, tasking him with solving a decades-old impasse that stumped all three of his immediate predecessors: breaking the party’s longtime reliance on narrow core support drawn primarily from white voters and other racial minority groups.

    Nearly 30 years after the formal end of apartheid in 1994 and the birth of South Africa’s multiracial “Rainbow Nation” project, deep racial fault lines still shape the country’s political landscape. For the DA to eventually claim national power, Hill-Lewis — who succeeded outgoing leader John Steenhuisen — must build bridges across these divides and win meaningful support from the country’s Black majority, who make up roughly 80% of the total population.

    Since the 2014 general election, the DA’s national vote share has stagnated at roughly 20%. The 2024 national election marked a major political shift, as long-ruling African National Congress (ANC) saw its support drop below 50% for the first time since the end of apartheid, forcing the party into a fragile national coalition government that includes the DA and eight smaller political parties. However, the DA’s entry into national power masked its persistent demographic gap: the party still only secured just under 22% of the national vote.

    Hill-Lewis has openly acknowledged the party’s trust deficit with majority Black voters. In an interview with public broadcaster SABC on Monday following his election, he emphasized that closing this trust gap would be his top priority. Speaking to reporters shortly after, he made clear that winning the confidence of more Black South Africans would be a “main focus of mine.”

    The new DA leadership ticket offers a notable shift from previous iterations: Hill-Lewis was elected alongside senior Black politicians including Gauteng provincial party leader Solly Msimanga, Siviwe Gwarube and Solly Malatsi, creating what Hill-Lewis described as “by far the most diverse and young group of leaders the DA has had in its history.” Notably, Gwarube is the only woman to secure a senior leadership position, leaving significant gender imbalance unaddressed in the new party hierarchy.

    This push for greater racial diversity comes after a high-profile failed effort a decade prior. The party’s first Black leader, Mmusi Maimane, resigned from his post in 2019 after just four years in office, claiming the DA was “not the vehicle best suited to take forward the vision of building” a united South Africa.

    Hill-Lewis argued that longstanding rigid racial political silos in South Africa are beginning to fracture, a trend he called encouraging. On policy, the new leader has not yet released a new policy platform designed to broaden the party’s base, but he has signaled he will double down on messaging around government competence and addressing South Africa’s crippling crime crisis. He also clarified the DA’s stance on the ANC’s flagship Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) policy: the party remains opposed to the current framework, but is committed to demonstrating it is genuinely invested in advancing the economic interests of Black South Africans.

    Political observers have framed the new leadership lineup as a promising turning point for the DA. Dr Levy Ndou, a political analyst, noted that Hill-Lewis’ election alongside a cohort of young, diverse leaders “ushers in a new era” and could prove to be a “very good thing” for the party. Ndou added that while race has always been a defining challenge for the DA, the new leadership slate finally “resembles a party that is multiracial.”

    A notable break from his predecessor’s path, Hill-Lewis — who currently serves as mayor of Cape Town — has chosen not to accept a cabinet position in the current ANC-led coalition government, opting to retain his local government post. This unusual positioning puts him in a unique political position: he must navigate the DA’s fraught working relationship with the ANC in national government while leading the party into upcoming local government elections, expected to take place between late 2026 and early 2027, where the DA will campaign directly against the ANC across much of the country.

    The DA has long been a fierce critic of the ANC on economic and foreign policy, and the uneasy national coalition has already faced multiple major hurdles, though both parties have so far managed to maintain the power-sharing arrangement.

    A veteran of DA politics who joined the party at just 18 years old, Hill-Lewis has been groomed for top leadership within the organization for nearly two decades. Fellow political analyst Sandile Swana described him as a product of the DA’s internal leadership pipeline. Hill-Lewis first made political history in 2011, when he was elected to parliament at 24, becoming the youngest lawmaker in South Africa at the time. A decade later, he again made history when he was elected as Cape Town’s youngest ever mayor.

    While he has ruled out a cabinet post for himself, Hill-Lewis made clear he intends to maintain strict oversight of DA politicians serving in the coalition cabinet, announcing that performance reviews will be carried out in the coming months. “No-one is entitled to any office or position. It must be earned through performance,” he said, adding that leadership changes will be made if performance does not meet expectations.

  • Democrats were already scrambling in California’s governor race. Then Swalwell dropped out

    Democrats were already scrambling in California’s governor race. Then Swalwell dropped out

    The 2026 California gubernatorial election, a contest Democrats have long considered a safe win for their party, has been thrown into unprecedented turmoil following the sudden exit of its leading Democratic contender. Representative Eric Swalwell announced his withdrawal from the race Sunday, mere days after multiple women published sexual assault and misconduct allegations against him through major outlets including the San Francisco Chronicle and CNN. Swalwell has forcefully denied all serious false accusations, though he acknowledged poor judgment in past decisions. Hours after the U.S. House Ethics Committee launched a formal investigation into the claims Monday, Swalwell also announced he would resign his congressional seat entirely.

    Swalwell’s departure has amplified a cascade of pre-existing problems that have plagued California’s Democratic party for months in the lead-up to the June primary. Term limit rules bar incumbent Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom from seeking re-election, and high-profile, widely recognized state politicians – including former Vice President Kamala Harris – have opted not to enter the race. That has left a crowded field of eight lesser-known Democratic candidates, all struggling to build name recognition and traction across California’s massive, costly media market. Even before Swalwell’s exit, the fragmented field had split the Democratic base, alarming party strategists.

    A March opinion poll from the University of California, Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies sent shockwaves through state political circles when it found two Republican candidates leading all contenders in voter support, thanks to the fractured Democratic vote. Under California’s unique nonpartisan primary system, the top two vote-getters advance to the November general election regardless of partisan affiliation. That means a June primary outcome could leave Democrats completely shut out of the general election ballot – a nearly unthinkable scenario in one of the most reliably blue states in the U.S., which has not had a Republican governor since Arnold Schwarzenegger left office in 2011.

    Political experts warn that such an outcome would represent an unforced error of historic proportions for Democrats, particularly in a state where former President Donald Trump’s approval rating hovers below 30%. Beyond the state’s borders, the results of this gubernatorial race carry national weight: California is the fifth-largest economy in the world, and its pioneering policies on climate change, consumer protection, and technology often shape regulatory frameworks across the entire country.

    Before his exit, Swalwell had begun to build momentum, pulling ahead of the rest of the crowded Democratic field and positioning the party to lock down a spot in the general election. With his sudden exit, no clear candidate has emerged to absorb his support. Veteran Democratic strategist Garry South, who has managed four gubernatorial campaigns across California, described the current state of the race as unlike anything he has ever witnessed. “The Democratic field was already pretty muddled, even after Swalwell took a small lead,” South noted. “Now, it’s just an outright morass.”

    Two candidates are widely seen as the top contenders to pick up Swalwell’s supporters: former Congresswoman Katie Porter and billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer. Neither, however, is a guaranteed lock to win a spot in the general election. Porter has previously faced public reports of alleged staff mistreatment, though she has pledged to improve how she supports her team. Steyer has poured $89 million into campaign advertising across the state, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, but has yet to see a corresponding jump in poll numbers.

    The remaining Democratic field includes former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, California Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and former State Controller Betty Yee. None of the current candidates, however, have the statewide star power political analysts say the party needs to cut through the clutter, and many voters report struggling to distinguish between the crowded slate of contenders.

    For many California voters, the lack of name recognition has left them undecided just two months out from the June 2 primary. Joko Tamura, a 58-year-old Santa Monica resident and registered Democrat who plans to vote in the election, says she does not even recognize half the candidates running. While she has heard of Steyer and Porter, she says she lacks enough information to settle on a favorite, with homelessness and the state’s crippling cost of living topping her list of policy concerns. Jacob Casey, a 42-year-old physician, says his busy schedule has left him unable to follow the race closely, and he is still waiting for a candidate to break through.

    Mark DiCamillo, who led the March UC Berkeley poll that first exposed Democrats’ weakness, called the current state of the race unprecedented. “I haven’t seen a primary election for governor with this level of indecision, and lack of voter enthusiasm, with less than two months to go before voting starts to take place,” DiCamillo told the BBC, adding that “voters really don’t have a clear picture of any one of the candidates.”

    In the wake of Swalwell’s exit, both Porter and Steyer have moved quickly to fill the political vacuum. Porter has centered her messaging on California’s ongoing housing affordability crisis, framing policy proposals to speed up construction approvals and cut through red tape to lower building costs and expand access to diverse, affordable housing for state workers. Steyer has also leaned into cost of living issues, releasing a social media video outlining his plan to lower living costs for California residents, and attacking former President Trump over the ongoing conflict in Iran, arguing working-class Californians are bearing the financial brunt of the conflict. That messaging has resonated with some undecided voters like Leila Salem, a 28-year-old independent Los Angeles voter who staunchly opposes the war, though she says she still plans to research candidates before making her choice.

    While Democrats grapple with internal chaos, California’s Republican party is also facing its own divisions. The two leading GOP candidates are former Fox News host and one-time British Prime Minister David Cameron advisor Steve Hilton, and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco. The March poll found Republican voters evenly split between the two candidates, and with Democrats holding a 2-to-1 voter registration advantage in the state, locking the Democratic party out of the general election remains the GOP’s only plausible path to a November victory.

    Many political analysts expected that Trump’s recent endorsement of Hilton would shift momentum in the GOP race, consolidating Republican support behind Hilton and pushing him ahead of at least one Democratic candidate. However, neither candidate secured the official endorsement of the California Republican Party during its recent convention, leaving the two evenly matched among the party’s base.

    Wesley Hussey, a political science professor at Sacramento State University, notes that Democrats have clear reason for anxiety after the collapse of their presumptive front-runner. Still, he added that a conventional general election matching one Democrat and one Republican remains possible if Swalwell’s supporters consolidate behind Porter, Steyer, or even a last-minute entry into the race. “It’s going to take a few days for the dust to settle in this new version of the race,” Hussey said.

  • Top Iran diplomat: Deal ‘inches away,’ Trump team sabotaged talks

    Top Iran diplomat: Deal ‘inches away,’ Trump team sabotaged talks

    High-stakes negotiations between U.S. and Iranian delegations in Pakistan’s capital Islamabad collapsed over the weekend, with Iran’s top diplomat accusing the Trump administration of tanking a near-final preliminary ceasefire agreement through unrealistic, overreaching demands that brought an end to marathon talks aimed at ending a six-week open conflict.

    Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister, outlined the breakdown in a public post to social media Sunday, noting that the weekend discussions marked the first high-level direct engagement between the two nations in 47 years. Araghchi emphasized that Iran entered the bargaining process in good faith to end the ongoing war, but as negotiators closed in on a finalized Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding, the U.S. side shifted its demands, insisted on maximalist positions, and maintained its economic blockade on Iran. “Zero lessons earned,” Araghchi wrote. “Good will begets good will. Enmity begets enmity.”

    This failed talks mark the second time in just two months that U.S. negotiators have been accused of sabotaging a potential deal that was widely seen as within reach. In late February, just hours before U.S. and Israeli forces launched airstrikes on Iranian targets, Oman’s top diplomat—who had mediated earlier rounds of negotiations—confirmed that substantial progress toward a negotiated settlement had already been reached.

    The U.S. negotiating team in Islamabad was led by Vice President JD Vance, alongside special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of former President Donald Trump. During the talks, the U.S. delegation laid out a series of non-negotiable red lines, including demands that Iran permanently end all uranium enrichment activities and dismantle its core civilian nuclear energy infrastructure. Nuclear non-proliferation experts widely note that Iran retains the legal right to conduct civilian uranium enrichment under the terms of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

    Speaking to reporters after the talks collapsed, Vance pushed back against Iran’s accusations, claiming the U.S. side had approached negotiations with significant flexibility. “We just could not get to a situation where the Iranians were willing to accept our terms,” Vance said.

    President Trump echoed that framing in his own social media statement, arguing that most negotiating points had been agreed upon, but the core issue of Iran’s nuclear program remained unresolved. “The meeting went well, most points were agreed to, but the only point that really mattered, NUCLEAR, was not,” Trump wrote.

    Iran’s lead negotiator, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, echoed Araghchi’s criticism, adding that decades of conflict with the U.S. have left Iran with no reason to trust American negotiating commitments.

    Within hours of the single-day talks faltering, Trump announced that the U.S. would implement a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway that carries roughly a fifth of the world’s daily oil trade. Critics have universally labeled the blockade an illegal act of war that risks dragging both nations into a far wider, more destructive conflict.

    Ryan Costello, policy director at the National Iranian American Council, warned that the U.S. approach continued to prioritize dictating terms over good-faith negotiation. “It is concerning that Vance already suggests that the U.S. has put forward a final and best offer, suggesting that the U.S. is still trying to dictate terms rather than negotiate a better future,” Costello said. “We urge President Trump to walk back his blockade threat and for the U.S. and Iran to reengage and consider implementing practical steps where there is agreement to lower tensions and build on this fragile pause to the war.”

    The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday that the Trump administration is also considering resuming limited military strikes against Iran targets to complement the Hormuz blockade, which is scheduled to go into effect at 10 a.m. ET. The outlet noted that a full-scale return to a sustained bombing campaign remains on the table, though anonymous administration officials said that option is currently less likely.

    U.S. Representative Pramila Jayapal, a Washington Democrat, issued a scathing rebuke of Trump’s actions Sunday, calling the ongoing conflict with Iran illegal, immoral, a war crime, and a catastrophic threat to American public interests. Jayapal called for urgent action to remove Trump from office, saying that impeachment, invocation of the 25th Amendment, or a push for voluntary resignation are all on the table. “This is so grave of a situation,” Jayapal told MSNBC’s *MS NOW*.