Global Pulse

分类： politics

  • Iran talks making ‘good progress’: US VP Vance

    Iran talks making ‘good progress’: US VP Vance

    In a public press briefing held at the White House on Tuesday, United States Vice President JD Vance offered an updated assessment of ongoing diplomatic negotiations with Iran, confirming that discussions have yielded meaningful positive momentum while reaffirming Washington’s readiness to launch new military action if a final agreement cannot be reached.

    Vance’s remarks came just hours after President Donald Trump disclosed that he had been just one hour away from authorizing fresh military strikes against Iranian targets just days earlier, and had set a short deadline of two to three days for Tehran to reach a consensus on core terms of the negotiation. When addressing reporters at the briefing, Vance emphasized that while productive headway has been made in the talks, diplomatic efforts will continue regardless of current momentum, and the outcome will ultimately hinge on whether both sides can bridge remaining differences.

    A known skeptic of military conflict with Iran who previously led a U.S. diplomatic delegation to Pakistan for related talks back in April, Vance pointed out that a non-negotiable core condition of any final deal is that Iran must abandon all ambitions to develop and possess a nuclear weapon.

    “We’re in a pretty good spot here — but there’s an option B, and the option B is that we could restart the military campaign,” Vance told reporters. “We’re locked and loaded. We don’t want to go down that pathway, but the president is willing and able to go down that pathway if we have to.” The comments add clarity to the current high-stakes standoff between Washington and Tehran, as global stakeholders watch closely to see whether diplomatic channels can resolve the long-running nuclear dispute without escalating into open conflict.

  • Israel’s Bezalel Smotrich says ICC arrest warrant request is ‘declaration of war’

    Israel’s Bezalel Smotrich says ICC arrest warrant request is ‘declaration of war’

    The simmering legal and political tensions over Israeli policies in the occupied West Bank escalated sharply this week, after far-right Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich publicly denounced a secret International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant application filed against him as a formal declaration of war, threatening immediate, harsh retaliation against Palestinian people and communities.

    Smotrich made the inflammatory remarks in a prepared speech on Tuesday, confirming earlier reporting published by Middle East Eye (MEE) one day prior. The far-right minister claimed he had been notified overnight that the ICC Office of the Prosecutor had submitted a secret arrest warrant request naming him, which he dismissed by labeling the Hague-based court ‘Anti-Semitic Tribunal’ in a bid to delegitimize its legal process.

    Per MEE’s exclusive reporting, the prosecutor’s office filed the application for Smotrich’s arrest last month, over allegations of multiple war crimes and crimes against humanity committed against Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. The specific charges listed against Smotrich include forced displacement, which is classified as both a war crime and crime against humanity; the unlawful transfer of Israel’s civilian population into occupied territory, a recognized war crime; and charges of persecution and apartheid, both deemed crimes against humanity under international law. If the ICC pre-trial chamber approves the warrant, it will mark the first time an international court has ever issued an arrest warrant for the crime of apartheid against an Israeli official.

    Court records and insider sources indicate the application for Smotrich had been finalized for roughly one year before it was formally submitted to judges on 2 April. If approved, Smotrich will become the third senior Israeli official to be wanted by the ICC, following November 2024 warrants issued for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.

    In his address, Smotrich doubled down on his hardline stance, arguing that any ICC arrest warrant targeting senior Israeli cabinet members amounts to an act of aggression against the state of Israel. ‘Issuing arrest warrants against the prime minister is a declaration of war. Issuing arrest warrants against the minister of defence and the minister of finance is a declaration of war,’ Smotrich stated. ‘And in the face of a declaration of war, we will fight back with a vengeance.’ He went on to blame the Palestinian Authority for initiating the legal action, accusing it of starting a conflict by cooperating with the ICC to provide evidence supporting the charges.

    The minister also reaffirmed he remains unapologetic for his longstanding advocacy for expanding Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, which are widely deemed illegal under international law. He explicitly announced he would use his executive authority to immediately sign an order for the expulsion of Palestinian residents from the village of Khan al-Ahmar in the central West Bank, a community that has faced repeated expulsion threats from Israeli authorities for more than a decade.

    ‘From today, any economic or otherwise, anything that I can harm within the framework of my powers … will be attacked. Not talk and gimmicks – actions,’ Smotrich added, confirming he would use all levers of his finance minister role to inflict harm on Palestinian interests in retaliation for the ICC application.

    There is currently no clear timeline for when ICC judges will issue a ruling on Smotrich’s warrant application. Pre-trial judges at the court typically require several months to review and rule on warrant requests, though timelines have varied widely: the court processed warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin and former Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte in roughly one month, while the applications for Netanyahu and Gallant took six months to approve. This means a final decision on Smotrich’s application could still be months away, as the request has not yet received formal judicial ratification.

    MEE also reported last week that an evidence review was held to assess the viability of two additional arrest warrant applications, including one for far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, though neither has yet been formally submitted to the court. Smotrich and Ben Gvir have already faced coordinated international sanctions over their hardline policies and explicit statements advocating for the displacement and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, which date back to June 2024. Both politicians reside in illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and both have publicly pushed for full Israeli annexation of the occupied territory and the return of Israeli settlers to the Gaza Strip.

    In June 2024, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Norway announced coordinated sanctions against the two ministers, freezing any assets they hold within their jurisdictions and imposing entry bans. Multiple other Western countries have since implemented their own restrictions: in July 2024, Slovenia became the first European Union member state to declare both ministers persona non grata, while the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain have implemented national travel bans, with the Dutch restriction applying across the entire 29-nation Schengen Area.

    Efforts to impose EU-wide sanctions on Ben Gvir and Smotrich have been stalled for nearly two years. Then-EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell first proposed the measure in August 2024, describing the pair’s statements as ‘incitement to war crimes’, but the proposal failed to pass due to a lack of required unanimity among EU member states. The proposal was revived by current EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas earlier this year, and in September 2024, the European Commission formally put forward a sanctions package that paired a partial suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement with targeted sanctions against Hamas leaders, violent Israeli settlers, and the two far-right cabinet ministers. However, when the EU Foreign Affairs Council voted on the package on 11 May 2025, members only agreed to sanction settler organizations and Hamas figures, removing Ben Gvir and Smotrich from the sanctions list after Germany, Italy, Austria, the Czech Republic and Hungary confirmed they would not support adding the pair.

    The United States has maintained consistent opposition to all sanctions against the two ministers, and has actively opposed the ICC’s Israel-related investigations overall. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has publicly urged allied nations to reverse their existing sanctions on Smotrich and Ben Gvir, and the current U.S. administration has imposed its own sanctions on ICC officials in a bid to halt the court’s ongoing probes into alleged Israeli war crimes.

  • Secret mission to ship uranium from Venezuela

    Secret mission to ship uranium from Venezuela

    Declassified satellite photographic evidence has brought to light a previously undisclosed joint operation that moved a shipment of uranium out of Venezuela and into United States territory, according to newly released observational data. The mission, which had been kept entirely under wraps since its execution, was only uncovered when commercial satellite analysts examining recent orbital shots of Venezuelan port facilities identified unusual cargo movement activity that did not match any recorded official shipments. Multiple independent verification checks of the imagery have confirmed that the large cargo containers documented in the shots match the profile of materials transported in cross-border uranium shipments, and the route tracked from Venezuela directly to a receiving facility in the U.S. The revelation of this secret operation has sparked immediate discussion about the undisclosed coordination between U.S. and regional partner agencies, as well as questions surrounding the origins of the Venezuelan uranium and the security protocols that allowed the entire mission to remain hidden from public and diplomatic scrutiny for an extended period. At the time of this reporting, no official government spokesperson from either the U.S. or Venezuela has issued a formal statement confirming or denying the details of the shipment operation.

  • Rubio heads to a NATO FMs meeting as European angst over Trump reliability, US troops, Iran grows

    Rubio heads to a NATO FMs meeting as European angst over Trump reliability, US troops, Iran grows

    Amid growing transatlantic unease over shifting U.S. security commitments and unpredictable leadership from the Trump administration, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is set to depart this week for a critical NATO foreign ministers gathering in Helsingborg, Sweden. The high-stakes meeting comes as the alliance navigates cascading global crises: ongoing fallout from the Iran war, skyrocketing global energy prices, and deepening uncertainty over Washington’s long-term commitment to collective European defense. This gathering also marks one of the final senior-level diplomatic gatherings ahead of NATO’s full leadership summit scheduled for July in Ankara, Turkey.

    Following the Sweden talks, Rubio will embark on a multi-stop tour of India, where he will visit Kolkata, Agra, Jaipur, and New Delhi. In the Indian capital, he is slated to hold bilateral talks with senior Indian government officials and join a gathering of foreign ministers from the Quad, the four-nation Indo-Pacific democratic grouping that also includes Australia, India, and Japan.

    In a formal statement released this week, the State Department outlined that Rubio will reiterate longstanding U.S. demands at the NATO meeting: pushing alliance members to boost their national defense spending and take on a larger share of the collective security burden for the bloc. He will also prioritize discussions of Arctic strategy, holding targeted talks with NATO’s Arctic member states to align on shared economic and security interests in the region and reinforce the alliance’s enhanced military posture in the High North.

    While the State Department’s statement did not explicitly reference Greenland, the strategically positioned autonomous Danish territory has emerged as a new source of transatlantic friction, after Donald Trump repeatedly drawn international backlash for his open discussion of seeking to acquire the territory for the United States. This week, Trump’s special Greenland envoy, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry, traveled to the island for talks with local leadership. Greenlandic Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen told Danish broadcaster TV 2 after the meeting that while the discussion was respectful and constructive, he made clear that Greenland’s people are committed to full self-determination. “The Greenlandic people are not for sale. Greenlandic self-determination is not something that can be negotiated,” Nielsen said.

    For European allies who have grown increasingly uneasy with Trump’s confrontational approach to the alliance, Rubio’s presence at the gathering is widely seen as a reassuring constant. The secretary of state, known for a less antagonistic style and measured demeanor compared to the president, has been tapped for multiple high-profile transatlantic diplomatic missions this year alone. These included a trip to February’s Munich Security Conference, and a recent visit to Italy where he met with Italian leaders and Pope Francis, shortly after Trump publicly criticized the pontiff over his positions on the Iran war and transnational crime.

    In comments ahead of the ministers’ meeting, NATO’s top serving military officer offered partial reassure to anxious allies on Tuesday. U.S. Lieutenant General Alex Grynkewich stated he does not anticipate additional American troop drawdowns in Europe in the near term, beyond the 5,000 troops that Trump previously announced would withdraw from the continent. Grynkewich’s remarks followed Trump’s surprise announcement of the drawdown earlier this month, which caught alliance leadership off guard despite longstanding U.S. pledges to coordinate all major military moves with NATO allies to avoid creating gaps in regional security.

    The Pentagon later clarified that the drawdown will be implemented by canceling planned rotating deployments to Poland and Germany, rather than withdrawing thousands of active-duty troops already stationed on the continent. Tensions have run particularly high between Trump and German leadership recently, after German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated that the United States was being “humiliated” by Iranian leadership and publicly criticized what he called the Trump administration’s “lack of a coherent strategy” for the ongoing Iran war.

    Lorne Cook contributed reporting to this article from Brussels, Belgium.

  • NATO’s top officer doesn’t expect more American drawdowns beyond the 5,000 troops Trump announced

    NATO’s top officer doesn’t expect more American drawdowns beyond the 5,000 troops Trump announced

    BRUSSELS — Amid lingering uncertainty over U.S. military posture in Europe following a surprise troop cut announcement from former President Donald Trump, America’s senior military official at NATO has moved to calm allied anxiety, confirming Tuesday that no further withdrawals are planned in the near term beyond the 5,000 troops already scheduled to leave the continent.

    U.S. Lieutenant General Alex Grynkewich’s public clarification comes two weeks after Trump’s uncoordinated announcement of the drawdown caught NATO alliance leaders off guard, breaking long-standing agreements between Washington and its partners to coordinate all major military adjustments in Europe to prevent dangerous security gaps. The announcement followed a heated public dispute between Trump and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who publicly criticized U.S. strategy amid the ongoing Iran conflict, saying Washington had been “humiliated” by Iranian leadership and lacked a clear plan for the war. The criticism triggered sharp anger from Trump, leading to widespread speculation that the troop cuts were intended as a punitive measure against Berlin.

    In the weeks after Trump’s announcement, the Pentagon clarified that the 5,000 troop reduction would not involve recalling service members already permanently stationed in Europe. Instead, the drawdown will be implemented by canceling planned rotational deployments: roughly 4,000 soldiers from the U.S. Army’s 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team will no longer deploy to Poland as scheduled, and a planned deployment of 1,000 long-range missile and rocket specialists to Germany will be scrapped. Specific logistics for the adjusted deployment schedule are still being finalized by military planners.

    Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of a gathering of senior military leaders from NATO’s 32 member states at the alliance’s Brussels headquarters, Grynkewich stated clearly, “It will be 5,000 troops coming out of Europe. It’s all that I’m expecting in the near term.”

    Before his press briefing, Grynkewich said he held discussions with frontline military commanders from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland — NATO member states that share direct borders with Russia and Ukraine, and have been the most vocal about maintaining strong allied deterrence on the alliance’s eastern flank. The talks covered revised force posture options and adjustments to military capabilities in the region.

    The general emphasized that the 5,000-person drawdown would not weaken European security or NATO’s deterrence posture against Russian aggression. However, he also warned allies that additional redeployments of U.S. troops should be expected in the coming years, framing the shift as a natural progression as European allies build up their own independent defense capacity. “Over the long term, we absolutely should expect additional redeployments as Europe continues to build capability and capacity and step up to provide more of the conventional defense of Europe,” Grynkewich explained. He added that the adjustment will be a gradual, multi-year process, and that “We’re going to stay well-synchronized with our allies moving forward.”

    Compared to the roughly 80,000 U.S. military personnel currently stationed across Europe, the 5,000-person cut is relatively small, and the scale of the reduction has not sparked major alarm among NATO allies. What has caused concern among partners, however, is the lack of prior coordination for the announcement, as well as the widespread perception that the cuts are a punitive measure targeting Germany over its public criticism of Trump’s Iran policy.

  • Secrecy surrounds UK foreign secretary’s Middle East talks with Tony Blair

    Secrecy surrounds UK foreign secretary’s Middle East talks with Tony Blair

    A newly unearthed revelation from independent outlet Middle East Eye has thrown the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) into fresh controversy over government accountability, after confirmation that no official records were retained of a December meeting between Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper and former prime minister Tony Blair focused on Middle East affairs. The unminuted meeting occurred at a pivotal moment: Blair was actively lobbying on behalf of U.S. President Donald Trump’s controversial Gaza Board of Peace, a body that has sparked global backlash for its structure and mandate. Details of the 4 December gathering first emerged in FCDO documents published on the UK government’s official website in March, but the absence of any documentation of the discussion had not been previously reported. In response to a freedom of information (FOI) request from Middle East Eye, the FCDO confirmed that not only were no meeting minutes created, but there are also no surviving records of pre-meeting briefing materials prepared for Cooper, nor any internal or external correspondence related to scheduling the encounter. The controversy comes against a backdrop of longstanding scrutiny of Blair’s decades-long role in Middle East policy. Blair, who led the UK into the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, was appointed as a founding member of Trump’s Gaza Board of Peace in September 2025, with his role formally confirmed in January 2026. Internal EU meeting minutes obtained by investigative outlet Follow the Money in February show that just 11 days after the Cooper-Blair meeting, lobbyists from Blair’s own Tony Blair Institute for Global Change (TBI) pushed EU officials to formally join the board. The Trump-led body, which grants the U.S. president lifetime chairman status and sweeping authority over post-conflict Gaza, has no Palestinian representatives on its executive committee — a flaw that has drawn widespread condemnation from global rights groups. To date, 28 world leaders have joined the board, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who currently faces an International Criminal Court arrest warrant over alleged war crimes in Gaza. The UK has publicly rejected membership, with Cooper citing concerns over Trump’s decision to include Russian President Vladimir Putin on the board’s executive committee. “We won’t be one of the signatories today, because this is about a legal treaty that raises much broader issues, and we do also have concerns about President Putin being part of something which is talking about peace, when we have still not seen any signs from Putin that there will be a commitment to peace in Ukraine,” Cooper stated publicly on 22 January. Tensions between Cooper and Blair have already surfaced in public: in March, Blair publicly criticized the UK government for hesitating to back full U.S.-Israeli military action against Iran, and Cooper pushed back by referencing the lessons of the 2003 Iraq war. “I also think, having been a minister in the last Labour government, it is important to learn lessons for what went wrong in Iraq … and recognising that all of our decisions need to be about what is right for British citizens,” she told the BBC. Blair has already faced intense scrutiny over his institute’s past involvement in Middle East planning. TBI, which has received massive funding from billionaire Oracle founder Larry Ellison, previously drew widespread condemnation for its so-called “Gaza Riviera” development plan, which critics argued effectively condoned the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian people from the territory. Chris Doyle, director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding, argues that policymakers have long given Blair unearned credibility on Middle East issues despite a consistent track record of failure. “Among many policymakers there’s still this sense that he should be respected because he spent so much time working on the Middle East, rather than a sober assessment of his dire record when dealing with it,” Doyle said. “In terms of the Middle East, it has just been one failure after another for Blair. He is a man who is entrenched in the palace views of the uber-elites of the Middle East, with very little sense of the real trends going on there.” Transparency experts have echoed those concerns, warning that the absence of records for such a high-stakes meeting is unacceptable. Sam Raphael, professor of International Relations and Human Rights at the University of Westminster and director of government transparency research group Unredacted, called the missing documentation “deeply concerning.” “The lack of minutes and other official records in relation to the Foreign Secretary’s meeting – especially with an individual as controversial and consequential for the Middle East, and with such labyrinthine personal interests – is deeply concerning,” Raphael said. This is not the first time the FCDO has faced public criticism over poor record-keeping and lack of transparency. Just last week, Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) condemned the department for failing to maintain adequate meeting records during its review of the appointment of Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador to the U.S. in December 2024. Raphael noted that the Cooper-Blair meeting perfectly exemplifies the systemic failure the ISC already flagged. “The ISC found that ‘the FCDO stands out as a department failing to produce a necessary audit trail for discussions and decisions,’” Raphael said. “The ISC found this to be ‘unacceptable’, and the Cooper-Blair case is a clear and flagrant example of this.” Adding a layer of historical irony to the controversy, the UK’s freedom of information laws — which enabled this revelation — were introduced by Blair’s own government in 2000. Blair later named the legislation one of his biggest political regrets in his 2010 memoir, and declassified government files released in 2024 revealed he encouraged cabinet ministers to use disposable Post-it notes for official business during his premiership to avoid mandatory public disclosures. Both the FCDO and the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change have been contacted for comment on the latest revelations, and have not yet issued a response.

  • US, Iran trade threats but Trump says Tehran wants peace deal

    US, Iran trade threats but Trump says Tehran wants peace deal

    The escalating standoff between the United States and Iran has entered a tense new chapter, with the two nations trading sharp military threats even as fragile, Pakistan-mediated diplomatic efforts continue to search for a path to peace. In a dramatic announcement from the White House on Tuesday, former President Donald Trump revealed he had halted a planned major US military strike against Iran just one hour before it was set to launch, and warned that new attacks could resume within days if no deal is reached.

    The conflict between the two nations, which first erupted on February 28, has been in a fragile ceasefire since April 8. Trump told reporters that he agreed to delay the assault at the request of Gulf regional leaders, who told him serious negotiations were already underway. “You know how it is to negotiate with a country where you’re beating them badly. They come to the table, they’re begging to make a deal,” Trump said. He added that he remains hopeful a new conflict can be avoided, but did not rule out a major new strike: “I hope we don’t have to do the war, but we may have to give them another big hit. I’m not sure yet.”

    Trump set a loose deadline of two to three days, potentially stretching into early next week, for parties to reach an agreement, and said he has ordered the US military to remain on standby for a full-scale large-scale assault if talks collapse. The US leader has repeatedly signaled he wants to exit the conflict, which has become a significant political liability. Iran’s continued control of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical global energy chokepoints, has sent oil prices soaring, raising costs for American consumers and roiling global energy markets.

    Iran quickly hit back at Trump’s threats. Army spokesperson Mohammad Akraminia warned that if the US resumes offensive military action, Iran will open “new fronts” against American interests across the region. Akraminia added that Iran’s military has used the weeks-long ceasefire period to significantly strengthen its combat capabilities. Senior Iranian diplomat Kazem Gharibabadi dismissed Trump’s framing on social media platform X, writing that the US leader was absurdly “calling a ‘threat’ a ‘chance for peace’.”

    Thus far, only one round of negotiations has been held between Tehran and Washington since the ceasefire went into effect, and it ended without any breakthrough agreement. Iran has repeatedly rejected US terms, while maintaining its core demands: the full release of billions of dollars in Iranian assets frozen overseas, the permanent lifting of decades-long US economic sanctions, and payment of war reparations for damage inflicted during the conflict.

    Details of the latest US proposal, released by Iranian state media, show deep divides remain between the two sides. Iran’s Fars news agency described the US offer as having “excessive” terms and containing no meaningful US concessions. The five-point US draft includes demands that Iran shutter all but one of its nuclear facilities and transfer its entire stockpile of highly enriched uranium to US control, while refusing to release even 25 percent of frozen Iranian assets or commit to any war reparations, the report said. However, Iranian news outlet Tasnim later reported that the US did make one small concession: agreeing to waive oil sanctions on Iran while formal negotiations are ongoing.

    The rising tensions have spilled over to other nations in the Persian Gulf. The United Arab Emirates’ defense ministry confirmed Tuesday that a recent drone attack on the country’s Barakah nuclear power plant, carried out on May 17, 2026, was launched from Iraqi territory. Senior Emirati officials have previously pointed to Iran or its regional proxy groups, which Tehran supports and have launched repeated attacks on Gulf states throughout the conflict, as the culprits. Iran has also ramped up other regional military pressure: the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Iran’s ideological military arm, announced Monday it would require permits for all international fiber-optic internet cables that pass through the Strait of Hormuz, a move that could disrupt global digital communications. The IRGC also said it struck US- and Israel-linked militant groups in Iran’s Kurdistan province near the Iraqi border, claiming the groups were attempting to smuggle American weapons into Iranian territory.

    Qatar, another major target of Iranian military action during the conflict, has called for more time for diplomatic efforts. Qatari foreign ministry spokesperson Majed al-Ansari said Doha believes that the Pakistani-mediated negotiation process needs additional time to make progress. Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baqaei has confirmed that indirect talks between Tehran and Washington are continuing through Pakistan as a mediator, and said Iran has clearly communicated its core concerns to the US side.

    Despite the mutual threats, both sides have left the door open to continued talks, leaving the region in a tense waiting game as the Trump deadline approaches.

  • UK trade minister hopes Britain will rejoin EU ‘in my lifetime’

    UK trade minister hopes Britain will rejoin EU ‘in my lifetime’

    Almost a decade after the United Kingdom’s narrow 2016 vote to leave the European Union, the long-dormant debate over Brexit has exploded back into British political life, with a senior cabinet minister adding his voice to growing calls for the country to ultimately rejoin the bloc.

    Speaking to Agence France-Presse during a visit to the European Parliament in Strasbourg for talks with legislators on strengthening post-Brexit bilateral ties, British Trade Secretary Chris Bryant made the unprecedented remark that he hopes to see Britain readmitted as a full EU member during his lifetime. The 64-year-old minister, who admitted that his “heart broke on the night of the Brexit vote”, went further than Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s current official stance. Starmer, whose Labour Party has sought to carve out a middle ground on the issue, has pushed for incremental alignment with the EU but has stopped short of backing a new membership application or a return to the European single market.

    Bryant’s comments came on the heels of a high-profile call from outgoing Health Secretary Wes Streeting, one of Starmer’s potential successors as Labour leader, who publicly backed rejoining over the weekend. The dual statements have thrown the divisive Brexit issue back to the center of British politics at a moment of severe instability for Starmer’s government. Fresh off of disappointing local election results for Labour earlier this month, dozens of the party’s Members of Parliament have publicly called on Starmer to step down, creating open leadership turmoil just two years into Labour’s current term of office.

    In his interview, Bryant did not shy away from the economic costs of Brexit, which he argued have created massive headwinds for the UK. Pointing to official data showing that more than 16,000 British firms have ceased exporting to the European single market since the split, he described Brexit as “an own goal for us”. While the Labour government has prioritized expanding trade partnerships with third countries ranging from South Korea to Turkey to Switzerland, Bryant emphasized that the EU still accounts for 47 percent of the UK’s total trade — a volume no other combination of partners can match. “That’s what we need to get right,” he added.

    The minister also acknowledged that any path to rejoining remains a long-term prospect, conceding, “We’re not going to be doing that this summer.” But he rejected the idea that the current domestic political upheaval would derail the UK’s gradual push for a reset of relations with Brussels. Confident in the long-term trajectory, Bryant noted that Labour’s current parliamentary mandate runs through 2029, and argued that any future Labour government — whether led by Starmer or a successor — would prioritize deeper integration with the EU.

    Pro-EU forces have gained new momentum in recent months amid shifting global dynamics. As former US President Donald Trump’s foreign policy has injected deep uncertainty into long-standing transatlantic alliances, pressure has grown for the UK to rebuild closer institutional ties with the EU. London and Brussels are already scheduled to hold their second bilateral summit this coming summer, building on the May 2025 meeting that delivered tangible progress: a new agreement to deepen defense and security cooperation, and a rollback of post-Brexit frictions on food trade.

    Not surprisingly, the new calls for rejoining have already drawn fierce pushback from prominent Brexit supporters. Nigel Farage, the face of the 2016 Leave campaign and now leader of the hard-right, anti-immigration Reform UK party, has already attacked Streeting’s comments, accusing him of seeking to “drag” the country back into the EU against the 2016 result. The reemergence of the Brexit issue sets the stage for a bitter new domestic political fight that could reshape the trajectory of UK-EU relations for years to come.

  • Bolivia’s capital under siege as protests and blockades deepen crisis for President Paz

    Bolivia’s capital under siege as protests and blockades deepen crisis for President Paz

    Six months after Rodrigo Paz took office as Bolivia’s president, the South American nation is grappling with its most severe political and humanitarian crisis in decades, as nationwide protests and coordinated road blockades have left the country’s administrative capital La Paz effectively under siege. What began as scattered demands from disparate labor and social groups has evolved into a full-scale movement calling for Paz’s resignation, amplified by the shadow of influential former president Evo Morales, who is currently evading arrest on sexual assault charges.

    The unrest has stretched into its third week, led by a coalition of Bolivia’s largest labor union, the Bolivian Workers’ Central (COB), peasant unions, and mining groups. The sustained road closures have gutted local markets in La Paz, drained critical oxygen supplies at the capital’s hospitals, and already claimed at least three lives: emergency response vehicles were blocked from reaching medical facilities, leaving patients without urgent care. On Monday, clashes broke out between police and Morales supporters who joined the mass mobilization in the capital, intensifying pressure on a beleaguered administration that holds no legislative majority and lacks a cohesive, nationwide political party structure.

    For Paz, a business-friendly centrist who won office last year as part of a broader regional wave of conservative electoral gains, the uprising represents the existential threat of his young presidency. Despite his warning Friday that “Those seeking to destroy democracy will go to jail,” blockades have since expanded to cover nearly the entire country, leaving more than 5,000 vehicles stranded on national highways and draining the national economy of an estimated $50 million every single day, according to local business associations.

    The demands driving the protest are varied across participating groups. The COB initially called for significant wage hikes, while peasant groups have demanded a consistent, affordable supply of gasoline. Miners are pushing for expanded access to untapped mining territories, and public school teachers are conducting separate negotiations for salary increases. Presidential spokesperson José Luis Gálvez argues that most of these demands have already been addressed responsibly in line with Bolivia’s current economic constraints, claiming “dark forces” aligned with Morales are deliberately destabilizing the elected government.

    Paz has repeatedly emphasized that he inherited a “bankrupt state” from the previous government led by Morales’ Movement Toward Socialism (MAS). His critics, however, decry his slow, ineffective response to a national crisis that has seen annual inflation climb near 20% and persistent fuel shortages – the worst economic downturn the country has faced in 40 years. A damaging early controversy, dubbed the “junk gasoline” scandal, further eroded public trust: the government imported low-quality fuel that damaged thousands of vehicles, sparking initial transport strikes and forcing the resignation of two senior executives at the state-owned oil company.

    Morales, who led the MAS government for 14 years before leaving office in 2019, has emerged as the most high-profile figure behind the current unrest, organizing the latest mass march from his remote hideout in the Bolivian tropics. The former president has evaded an arrest warrant for 18 months stemming from allegations that he sexually abused a 15-year-old girl, charges he dismisses as politically motivated fabrication. In a recent post on social media platform X, Morales pushed back against claims he has lost his political influence, saying, “The government and the right wing claim that I am a political corpse and that I lack the ability to mobilize anyone, yet they continue to blame me. As long as structural demands — such as those concerning fuel, food and inflation — remain unaddressed, the uprising will not be quelled.” Most independent political analysts, however, argue Morales no longer holds the broad popular support he once commanded, and is instead stoking unrest primarily to distract from his legal troubles and avoid imprisonment.

    The collapse of the MAS, which governed Bolivia for 20 years before splitting into factions led by Morales and former president Luis Arce, left Bolivia’s political landscape deeply fragmented, with no single party holding a clear governing majority. Paz’s surprise electoral victory last year quickly unraveled when his own political vehicle, the Christian Democratic Party, fractured soon after he took office. Compounding his governing challenges, Paz is also locked in a public, bitter feud with his own vice president, former police officer Edman Lara.

    Early in his term, Paz positioned himself as a reformer, moving quickly to end the country’s international isolation that marked the MAS era and court foreign investment and loans. While he secured multiple pledges of international financial support, most of those funds have yet to materialize in Bolivian coffers. His first major domestic policy move, cutting long-standing fuel subsidies to stabilize public finances, did initially avoid mass unrest, but the subsequent low-quality fuel import scandal undermined what early goodwill he had with the public.

    The crisis has drawn significant attention and response from across Latin America and the United States. Eight Latin American governments, ranging from Chile to Costa Rica, released a joint statement rejecting “any action aimed at destabilizing the democratic order.” Neighboring Argentina has stepped in to launch a week-long humanitarian airlift to bring critical supplies to Bolivia and alleviate widespread shortages of food and medical goods. The United States, which is rebuilding diplomatic and economic ties with Bolivia after decades of tense relations under Morales, has expressed public support for Paz’s efforts to “restore order for the peace, security and stability of the Bolivian people,” while also issuing a travel alert urging U.S. citizens in the country to exercise heightened caution amid ongoing unrest.

  • ‘Not a big fan’ – Top Senate Republican breaks with Trump on $1.8bn compensation fund

    ‘Not a big fan’ – Top Senate Republican breaks with Trump on $1.8bn compensation fund

    A high-stakes political rift has emerged within the Republican Party, as Senate Majority Leader John Thune has become the most prominent member of former President Donald Trump’s own party to publicly oppose the newly unveiled $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” a initiative created to compensate people the Trump administration claims were unfairly targeted by prior U.S. presidential administrations.

    Thune’s public criticism marks the most significant intraparty pushback against the plan to date. Speaking with reporters on Capitol Hill, the top Senate Republican made his stance clear: he is “not a big fan” of the fund and sees no clear justification for its existence. He added that he remains uncertain of the fund’s intended use, and called for a rigorous full vetting process by congressional lawmakers, noting that the widespread backlash following the announcement guarantees the proposal will face intense scrutiny moving forward.

    The fund was announced Monday by the U.S. Department of Justice, as part of a deal that saw Trump drop a $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) over the 2020s leak of his personal tax returns to national media outlets. Under the terms of the agreement, Trump, his adult sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, and the Trump Organization — all named plaintiffs in the original suit — will receive a formal apology from the agency, but no direct financial compensation. The $1.776 billion funding amount was intentionally chosen to mark the 250th anniversary of the United States’ 1776 declaration of independence from Great Britain.

    Governance of the fund will fall to a five-member commission, four of which will be directly appointed by the U.S. Attorney General, a structure that has drawn sharp criticism from lawmakers across the aisle. Democrats have already decried the initiative as an unaccountable “slush fund” designed to direct taxpayer dollars to Trump’s political allies, including many who faced criminal charges or convictions for their role in the January 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

    Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche defended the fund during a Tuesday congressional hearing, pushing back against Democratic claims of partisan bias. Blanche argued the initiative is explicitly non-partisan, stressing that no groups are barred from filing claims, including Democrats. While he acknowledged the fund structure is unusual, he noted it is not without precedent in U.S. governance.

    Democratic lawmakers rejected Blanche’s defense, with senior Washington Senator Patty Murray calling the initiative open, blatant political corruption. “Trump and his cronies cash it. American taxpayers who are already being whacked with high prices are going to foot the bill,” Murray said during the hearing.

    The controversy has already sparked personnel upheaval: just hours after the fund was announced on Monday, Brian Morrissey, general counsel for the U.S. Treasury Department, resigned abruptly after just seven months on the job. Morrissey has not publicly shared his reason for stepping down, but a Treasury Department spokesperson confirmed his departure, noting he served the agency with “honour and integrity.”