Global Pulse

分类： politics

  • UK’s ban on Palestine Action under terror legislation was lawful, Court of Appeal says

    UK’s ban on Palestine Action under terror legislation was lawful, Court of Appeal says

    LONDON – In a landmark ruling that has ignited fierce debate over the balance between national security and civil liberties in the United Kingdom, the London Court of Appeal confirmed on Monday that the British government acted within legal bounds when it designated protest group Palestine Action as an official terrorist organization.

    Leading the panel of judges, Chief Justice Sue Carr rejected the group’s core framing of itself as a legitimate civil disobedience movement focused on political advocacy. Instead, Carr emphasized that Palestine Action operates through a network of secretive, decentralized cells, which have targeted and destroyed property belonging to UK defense contractors and on British military installations.

    “To describe Palestine Action as a non-violent movement is not a defensible claim,” Carr wrote in the court’s judgment. “That core premise of the group’s argument is fundamentally and irreparably flawed.”

    Monday’s ruling reverses an earlier February decision issued by three senior High Court justices. In that initial ruling, judges acknowledged that the group had engaged in criminal activity to advance its political goals, but concluded the scope of those actions did not meet the threshold required for a full proscription as a terrorist organization. The government’s ban on the group remained in effect throughout the appeals process, pending the court’s final decision.

    In response to the ruling, Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori said the group would continue its legal challenge to the ban “all the way” to the UK Supreme Court, and if needed, to the European Court of Human Rights. Ammori called the proscription “one of the most extreme attacks on free speech and the right to protest in modern British history.”

    The British government first moved to outlaw the group in 2025, after activists breached security at a Royal Air Force base in June of that year to protest the UK’s ongoing military support for Israel’s military campaign against Hamas in Gaza. The Gaza offensive has killed more than 45,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza health authorities, and that base break-in followed a string of earlier vandalism incidents carried out by the group across the UK.

    Under the terms of the proscription, Palestine Action is now listed alongside designated terrorist groups including al-Qaida and Hamas. Membership in the group, or even public support for it, is a criminal offense punishable by a maximum 14-year prison sentence.

    Already, law enforcement data shows more than 3,300 people have been arrested at protests across the UK simply for holding signs that read “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.” More than 700 of those individuals have been formally charged under the UK’s Terrorism Act, though none have yet been convicted of any offense related to those charges.

    Civil liberties advocates and supporters of Palestine Action warn that the widespread arrests of peaceful demonstrators represent a clear violation of long-standing rights to free expression and peaceful protest in the UK. The grassroots group Defend Our Juries issued a statement warning that the Court of Appeal’s ruling will lead to even more misallocation of police resources, wasting public funds on locking up ordinary people engaged in peaceful political advocacy. “It appears the courts have been instrumentalized to suppress opposition to genocide, when they should be doing the precise opposite,” the group said.

    Founded in 2020, Palestine Action has organized hundreds of direct action protests at military and defense industry sites across the UK, including repeated break-ins at facilities owned by Elbit Systems UK, an Israeli-owned arms manufacturer. UK government officials estimate the group’s actions have caused millions of British pounds in property damage, and argue that the disruptions pose tangible risks to UK national security.

    Even in its earlier February ruling, the High Court acknowledged that some of the group’s acts met the legal definition of terrorist activity, but judges held that those individual acts could be prosecuted through standard criminal law without needing to ban the entire organization.

    Just days before Monday’s appeal ruling, four Palestine Action members who broke into an Elbit Systems factory in Bristol, southwest England, in 2024 and damaged manufacturing equipment were sentenced to prison after a judge ruled their actions qualified as terrorist activity. More than 100 Palestine Action supporters were arrested outside the London court holding the sentencing hearing for holding a peaceful demonstration in solidarity with the activists.

  • Hong Kong opens consultation on first 5-year plan that echoes mainland China’s playbook

    Hong Kong opens consultation on first 5-year plan that echoes mainland China’s playbook

    In a move that marks a notable shift in how the special administrative region frames its long-term growth strategy, Hong Kong kicked off a two-month public consultation on its first ever five-year development blueprint on Monday, bringing the city’s planning framework more closely into alignment with mainland China’s national development approach.

    Speaking at an official press conference to launch the consultation, Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Janice Tse laid out the core logic of the new planning structure: mainland China has already commenced work on its 15th five-year national plan, covering the 2026–2030 period, and Hong Kong’s local blueprint is designed to synchronize with this national agenda while preserving the city’s long-standing commitment to free market principles. For decades, Hong Kong has positioned itself as a bastion of limited government intervention in the economy, even as it has referenced Beijing’s national vision for the city’s role within China’s broader growth story.

    Tse emphasized that alignment with the national five-year plan does not override Hong Kong’s free market system. Instead, she argued, clear strategic direction from government across major policy areas creates a more stable, predictable operating environment that lets market forces flourish more effectively. Under the draft framework, Hong Kong will double down on strengthening its established status as a global financial, maritime and trade center. Officials also outlined two key priority development projects: accelerating construction of the Northern Metropolis, a planned new tech and education hub located directly across the border from mainland China’s leading tech center Shenzhen, and deepening integration across the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, Beijing’s flagship initiative to build a unified economic hub across 11 cities including Hong Kong, Macau and nine mainland Guangdong municipalities.

    Hong Kong Chief Executive John Lee previously framed the five-year plan as a framework to balance what he calls a “capable government” and an “efficient market”, arguing that proactive government leadership will boost the private sector’s overall competitiveness. Lee also noted that the plan will help individual Hong Kong residents identify clear personal development pathways and give greater clarity for businesses doing long-term strategic planning.

    To gather public input, residents will be able to submit feedback via an official government website, email or traditional postal mail over the consultation period. The government will also host a series of engagement sessions with residents, industry stakeholders and political figures to collect on-the-record input. Officials have targeted the third quarter of this year to publish the finalized, approved version of the five-year plan. Separately, a senior Beijing official overseeing Hong Kong and Macau affairs is scheduled to arrive in Hong Kong on Tuesday for a two-day working visit focused on studying progress toward aligning the city’s development with the 2026–2030 national plan and advancing the Northern Metropolis project.

    The shift toward formal five-year planning has drawn mixed commentary from local analysts. John Burns, a professor of politics and public administration at the University of Hong Kong, noted that Hong Kong has long struggled with coordination gaps and missed opportunities due to the absence of overarching long-term strategic planning. At the same time, he pointed out that public consultation processes in Hong Kong have long faced criticism for being performative, with authorities rarely making substantive changes to proposed policies even after receiving critical public feedback.

    Burns described the consultation as an effort by the government to build community buy-in for a local five-year plan explicitly structured to align with central government priorities, adding that the current consultation document does not include concrete, measurable targets or binding timelines for key initiatives.

    Contextual background helps frame the significance of this policy shift: since the 1997 handover that returned Hong Kong to Chinese rule after more than 150 years of British colonial administration, the city has grown increasingly integrated with mainland China through expanding economic, cultural and infrastructure ties. Under Beijing’s “one country, two systems” framework, Hong Kong retains its own independent executive, legislative and judicial systems, but Beijing’s political influence over the city has grown substantially in recent years. Following large-scale anti-government protests in 2019, Beijing imposed a sweeping national security law on the city that authorities have framed as essential to restoring stability, but which has effectively eliminated all open political dissent. Hundreds of opposition activists have been jailed under the law, and a subsequent electoral overhaul has ensured that Hong Kong’s legislature is dominated exclusively by politicians loyal to Beijing.

  • Prominent Cambodian opposition politician seeks Supreme Court reversal of incitement conviction

    Prominent Cambodian opposition politician seeks Supreme Court reversal of incitement conviction

    PHNOM PENH, CAMBODIA — As hundreds of chanting supporters gathered outside Cambodia’s Supreme Court on Monday, prominent opposition political figure Rong Chhun emerged from his appeal hearing voicing urgent hope that judges would toss out a controversial incitement conviction that has sidelined him from national politics, clearing the way for his return to public life.

    Rong Chhun, 56, a senior policy adviser to the opposition-aligned Nation Power Party, was found guilty of inciting civil disorder last year following his meetings with local villagers displaced by state-backed infrastructure development projects. His conviction is widely categorized as one of a series of coordinated legal actions targeting government critics under the administration of newly installed Prime Minister Hun Manet. The ruling handed down last year sentenced him to four years behind bars and imposed a lifetime ban on his right to run for public office and cast a ballot. Throughout his original trial, Rong Chhun maintained he had done nothing illegal, noting his only public action was sharing photos of his meetings with affected villagers alongside commentary on his Facebook page.

    After closing Monday’s morning appeal session, Rong Chhun stepped out of the courthouse to a crowd of roughly 300 supporters, who waved homemade signs calling for his freedom and chanted in unison, “Drop the charges, free Rong Chhun!”

    Addressing the gathered crowd, Rong Chhun emphasized that as Cambodia navigates rising border tensions with neighboring Thailand, a sagging national economy, and a host of unresolved domestic challenges, he is committed to advancing a platform of national reconciliation and unity for the country’s 17 million residents. “I hope the court will grant me freedom and justice so that I can continue to practice politics in the future,” he said.

    In a sign of the government’s sensitivity to public displays of support for the opposition figure, access roads leading to the Supreme Court compound were blocked by dozens of uniformed police officers manning concrete barricades. Despite the security presence, Rong Chhun walked the final stretch to the courthouse alongside a contingent of supporters that included both local and international human rights defenders.

    “We are not worried about going to prison,” he told the crowd. “We are willing to sacrifice everything, and we are determined to use the lives our parents gave us to work toward a Cambodia that achieves true freedom and democracy.”

    Incitement charges have become a routine tool for Cambodian authorities to target political opponents, a pattern that predates Hun Manet’s premiership. Rong Chhun was previously handed a two-year prison sentence on identical incitement charges in 2021, after he was accused of spreading misinformation about Cambodia’s shared border with Vietnam during meetings with border-region farmers. That conviction was ultimately overturned by an appeals court later the same year, and he was released from custody.

    International observers and rights groups have long documented a pattern of systematic political suppression in Cambodia. The Cambodian government publicly maintains it upholds the rule of law within a functioning electoral democracy, but any independent political party deemed a credible threat to the long-ruling Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) has either been forcibly dissolved by the country’s courts or seen its leaders targeted with imprisonment, legal harassment, or punitive bans from political life.

    For nearly four decades, former autocratic Prime Minister Hun Sen oversaw a regime that drew widespread international condemnation for systematic human rights abuses, including widespread crackdowns on freedom of speech and freedom of association. Hun Sen handed power to his American-educated son Hun Manet in August 2023, but to date, analysts and activists have recorded almost no visible progress toward political liberalization or improved respect for civil liberties under the new administration.

    Among the supporters who traveled to Phnom Penh to rally for Rong Chhun on Monday was Tim Ratha, a 55-year-old vegetable vendor who made the multi-hour drive from her home in Siem Reap province in northern Cambodia to attend the hearing. “He has devoted everything to us,” she told the Associated Press. “He had no wife, no children — his whole life is dedicated to our cause.”

    The Supreme Court has scheduled its final verdict in the appeal for June 19, leaving Rong Chhun and his supporters waiting weeks to learn the outcome of the case.

    The Associated Press’s report on the hearing was contributed by correspondents based in Bangkok, Thailand.

  • Israel bombs Beirut, allegedly hoping to sabotage US-Iran deal

    Israel bombs Beirut, allegedly hoping to sabotage US-Iran deal

    On a Sunday that was meant to bring new momentum to long-stalled diplomatic negotiations between the United States and Iran, an unexpected Israeli military strike on the southern suburbs of Beirut upended fragile hopes for a breakthrough, leaving at least three people dead and triggering widespread accusations that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government is deliberately working to derail the emerging diplomatic agreement.

    According to Lebanese security officials, the airstrike targeted a five-story residential apartment building in the densely populated suburb. Netanyahu defended the operation immediately after the strike, framing it as a proportional response to recent rocket fire launched by Hezbollah into northern Israeli territory.

    The bombing came just hours after U.S. President Donald Trump announced that he expected a preliminary memorandum of understanding (MOU) to be finalized and signed as early as that same Sunday. The document is intended to lay the foundational framework for broader negotiations to end the offensive military campaign that Trump launched against Iran in late February. While Iranian officials pushed back on Trump’s timeline for an immediate Sunday signing, Iranian Foreign Minister affirmed just two days prior that a preliminary agreement had never been closer to completion.

    A reporting from The Associated Press published Sunday emphasized that the new Israeli strikes pose a significant threat to the negotiating process, noting that the current draft of the MOU has already been a source of deep disappointment for Netanyahu’s right-wing government. This is not the first time an Israeli strike on Beirut’s southern suburbs has triggered a major escalation: just one week before this latest attack, a similar strike sparked the most severe confrontation between Iran and Israel since a fragile ceasefire took effect across the region on April 7.

    Multiple high-profile observers have echoed the accusation that the attack was a deliberate act of sabotage. Kenneth Roth, the former executive director of Human Rights Watch, took to social media to highlight the striking timing of the strike, noting that the attack came just as a U.S.-Iran agreement appeared within reach. “As a US-Iranian deal seems like it might be closer, Israel predictably bombs the Beirut suburbs, evidently hoping to sabotage the deal,” Roth wrote, adding a sharp question directed at the Trump administration: “Why does Trump put up with this and continue to arm and fund such obstructionism?”

    Iranian officials have echoed this criticism, arguing that the strike exposes a failure of the United States to control its closest regional ally. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s chief negotiator and speaker of the Iranian parliament, said that the Israeli strike signals the U.S. “either does not have the will or the ability to fulfill its obligations.” He added, “The good cop, bad cop routine has become old. If you do not have the will or the ability to fulfill your commitments, then there is no basis for talking about continuing down this path.”

    While the full text of the draft MOU has not been released to the public, key details of its broad provisions have been confirmed by multiple media outlets and senior officials from both sides in recent days. According to a Sunday report from Reuters, the final draft covers a sweeping set of core issues, ranging from limits on Tehran’s nuclear program to the reopening of the strategic Strait of Hormuz and U.S. waivers on Iranian oil sanctions. The MOU would set a 60-day window after the preliminary agreement is signed for both sides to negotiate a final, comprehensive deal.

    Under the reported terms of the draft, Iran would immediately reopen the Strait of Hormuz — a critical chokepoint for global oil supplies that Iran had restricted in recent months — and the U.S. would end its ongoing illegal blockade of Iranian ports. Additionally, the U.S. would agree to lift sanctions on Iranian oil exports and unfreeze $25 billion in Iranian assets that have been held overseas, while Iran would agree to maintain the current status of its nuclear program, refraining from further uranium enrichment and any expansion of existing nuclear facilities. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi confirmed in a televised interview Friday that the 60-day ceasefire extension outlined in the MOU would also extend to Lebanon, where Hezbollah and Israeli forces have exchanged regular fire for months.

    Axios reporting has revealed that Netanyahu has been largely sidelined from the recent progress in U.S.-Iran talks, with the Israeli prime minister “finding himself in the dark” as negotiations advanced. In recent days, he has reportedly reached out to close allies within the Trump administration repeatedly to try to gather intelligence on the draft agreement’s terms.

    In an extraordinary public rebuke following Sunday’s airstrike, President Trump lashed out at Netanyahu in comments to Axios reporter Barak Ravid, saying the Israeli prime minister “has no fucking judgment.” Trump added, “I passed this message on to him – that I am very unhappy with the attack in Beirut.” The criticism comes even as the Trump administration has approved billions of dollars in new weapons sales to Netanyahu’s government in recent months.

    Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, warned that the airstrike is unlikely to be the last act of sabotage unless the Trump administration takes concrete action to penalize Israel for the attack. “Netanyahu knows exactly what he is doing and is judging that an attack on Beirut – rather than southern Lebanon – is exactly what’s needed to derail the pending US-Iran deal,” Parsi argued.

  • Rape trial verdict due in the case of Norwegian crown princess’ eldest son

    Rape trial verdict due in the case of Norwegian crown princess’ eldest son

    On Monday, a Norwegian district court will deliver its long-awaited verdict and sentence in the high-profile criminal trial of Marius Borg Høiby, the 29-year-old eldest son of Crown Princess Mette-Marit, wrapping up a legal proceeding that has captured public attention across the Scandinavian nation and drawn widespread international scrutiny.

    Høiby, who was born from Crown Princess Mette-Marit’s pre-marital relationship with a commoner and grew up in the royal household alongside heir to the throne Crown Prince Haakon, but holds no official royal title or ceremonial duties, faces a total of 40 separate criminal charges. The most serious accusations against him include four counts of rape, alongside additional allegations of violence, threats, and abusive behavior spanning from 2018 to 2024. Prosecutors allege that in each of the four rape cases, the accusers were either asleep or severely incapacitated and unable to consent at the time of the alleged incidents.

    Høiby has issued a full denial of all four rape charges and pushed back on key details of many other allegations against him. He has only admitted to a series of less severe offenses, including drug-related violations, traffic misdemeanors, and violating the terms of a previously issued restraining order. Prosecutors have formally requested that Oslo District Court hand down a seven-year and seven-month prison sentence, while Høiby’s defense team has argued for the dismissal of all rape charges, and asked that any sentence for the crimes their client has admitted to not exceed 18 months of incarceration.

    The six-week trial concluded back in March after testimony from four separate accusers, alongside the submission of extensive evidence, including digital communications, images and video files recovered from Høiby’s personal cellphone. In the weeks leading up to Monday’s ruling, public interest has been further amplified by the declining health of Høiby’s mother, Crown Princess Mette-Marit, who lives with pulmonary fibrosis and is currently waiting for a life-saving lung transplant. Legal debates unfolded over whether Høiby should be granted temporary release from pre-verdict custody to see his mother, but appeals courts ultimately ruled that he must remain detained through the conclusion of the case. Legal analysts broadly note that regardless of how the court rules on the most severe rape charges, Høiby is still widely expected to receive a prison sentence for the lesser offenses he has already admitted.

    The case has gained outsized attention both domestically and globally due to Høiby’s direct ties to Norway’s royal family, and it comes at a time when the monarchy is already facing increased public scrutiny. Recently, public disclosures revealed that Crown Princess Mette-Marit maintained past social contacts with Jeffrey Epstein, the deceased American financier and convicted sex offender. The crown princess has publicly apologized for the connection, acknowledged that she exercised poor judgment in continuing her relationship with Epstein, and has not been accused of any criminal wrongdoing in connection with the Epstein disclosures.

    Editor’s note: This report includes discussion of sexual violence. For individuals in the U.S. seeking support for sexual assault experiences, contact the National Sexual Assault Hotline at 1-800-656-4673. For survivors based in Norway, the national sexual abuse victim helpline can be reached at +47 800 57 000.

  • Trump’s track record of insults and awkward moments with the G7 leaders he’s meeting in France

    Trump’s track record of insults and awkward moments with the G7 leaders he’s meeting in France

    As U.S. President Donald Trump prepares to depart Washington for France on Monday to attend the upcoming G7 summit, the gathering of the world’s most powerful Western democratic leaders is shaping up to be defined by underlying friction rather than collaborative unity. Despite ideological differences that separate the assembled heads of government, every attending leader shares one common experience: each has either been the target of public criticism from Trump, or has navigated awkward, unscripted confrontations with the U.S. commander-in-chief in recent months.

    Over three days of closed-door and public talks set against the scenic backdrop of the French Alps, leaders are scheduled to tackle a packed agenda that includes the newly announced ceasefire agreement aimed at ending the recent Iran war, ongoing trade tensions with China, and the lingering aftermath of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Beyond policy negotiations, the summit also presents a critical opportunity for global leaders to assess the future of their bilateral relationships with Trump, at a time when the U.S. president has doubled down on his “America First” unilateral approach to major global issues.

    Max Bergmann, a senior analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, framed the summit’s dynamic as comparable to a tense family holiday gathering. “It’s like having an uncle you don’t quite like,” Bergmann explained. “No one wants to initiate a full confrontation, even when interactions turn passive-aggressive. But there’s always a risk that something snaps, and the gathering could spiral into a very dramatic public clash.”

    Ahead of the summit, a look back at recent high-profile frictions between Trump and his fellow G7 leaders highlights how far relations have strained across the alliance:

    ### United Kingdom: Starmer Draws Unflattering Churchill Comparison
    British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has become a repeated target of Trump’s criticism, centered on three core points: the UK’s reluctance to back U.S. military strikes against Iran, its national immigration policies, and its expanded renewable energy agenda.
    Trump’s sharpest rebuke came after Starmer initially refused U.S. military access to a British Indian Ocean base for Iran bombardment missions. “This is not Winston Churchill that we’re dealing with,” Trump remarked, contrasting Starmer unfavorably with the UK’s iconic World War II prime minister.
    Trump also publicly lashed out at Starmer after the UK placed the HMS Prince of Wales aircraft carrier on advanced readiness for potential Middle East deployment in the early days of the Iran war. “We don’t need people that join wars after we’ve already won!” Trump wrote on social media.

    ### Canada: “Governor” Carney Draws Ire Over Condemnation of Great Power Coercion
    Trump has long railed against trade imbalances with the U.S.’s northern neighbor, and has repeatedly made offhand comments about annexing Canada to make it America’s “51st state.” In recent months, he has taken to habitually referring to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney as “governor” rather than by his official title.
    The most public clash between the two leaders came earlier this year at the World Economic Forum in Davos, after Carney condemned great power coercion of smaller nations without naming Trump directly. “Canada lives because of the United States,” Trump fired back during his own remarks in Davos. “Remember that, Mark, the next time you make your statements.”
    Carney has opted for a calm response to repeated jabs, telling reporters earlier this month that Trump was an “exceptionally active user of social media” and that he would not waste time responding to every provocative post.

    ### France: Personal Jabs at Macron’s Marriage Over Iran War Opposition
    At an Easter lunch at the White House in April, Trump launched criticism of France and other NATO countries for refusing to join the U.S.-led war effort against Iran. In a shocking aside, he referenced viral footage from a 2023 Vietnamese state visit that captured First Lady Brigitte Macron appearing to nudge President Emmanuel Macron’s face away as the couple exited a plane.
    Trump told attendees Brigitte treats Macron “extremely badly” and joked the French president was “still recovering from the right to the jaw.” Macron later clarified the interaction was just a private joke between the couple, and called Trump’s comments “neither elegant nor appropriate.”
    Trump has also repeatedly mimicked Macron’s accent in public rallies and speeches when recounting trade negotiations, claiming the French president always quickly capitulates to U.S. demands in order to frame himself as a master dealmaker.

    ### Italy: Once-Praised Meloni Loses Trump’s Favor Over Non-Alignment
    Until this year, Italian conservative Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni was one of the few G7 leaders held in high public regard by Trump. When world leaders gathered in Egypt for a post-Gaza war summit last October, Trump publicly called Meloni “a very successful, very successful politician” and even praised her as “beautiful.”
    But Trump has completely reversed his stance after Italy refused to join the U.S. war against Iran, and after Meloni publicly criticized Trump’s high-profile feud with Pope Leo XIV over the conflict. “Do people like her? I can’t believe it,” Trump told Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera. He added, “I thought she had courage. I was wrong.”

    ### Japan: Awkward Pearl Harbor Joke Leaves New Prime Minister Reeling
    Trump has not launched direct public criticism of Japan’s Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, who took office last October, but an offhand comment during her first White House visit left Takaichi in an extremely awkward diplomatic position.
    When a Japanese reporter asked why Trump failed to alert European and Asian allies before launching strikes on Iran, Trump casually invoked the 1941 Pearl Harbor attack to defend his choice to act unilaterally. Standing right beside Takaichi, he joked, “Who knows better about surprise than Japan? Why didn’t you tell me about Pearl Harbor, OK?”
    The comment sparked widespread shock in Japan, where it is longstanding convention for U.S. presidents to avoid provocative discussion of the attack that dragged the U.S. into World War II, with previous presidents instead focusing on strengthening the post-war U.S.-Japan alliance. Takaichi, a hard-line conservative, faced a mixed reaction at home for her muted response: she simply glanced at her assembled ministers and let the comment pass without public pushback.

    ### Germany: Merz’s Iran War Critique Draws Trump’s Retribution
    German Chancellor Friedrich Merz triggered a major public feud with Trump in April, when he argued the U.S. was “being humiliated” by Iran and criticized the Trump administration for launching the war without a clear end strategy, a move he said made a ceasefire harder to achieve.
    Trump hit back on social media the next day, saying Merz “should spend more time on ending the war with Russia/Ukraine” and “fixing his broken Country, especially Immigration and Energy.” Days later, the Pentagon announced it would withdraw roughly 5,000 U.S. troops from German territory, and Trump hinted he would seek even deeper cuts to the U.S. military presence in the country.
    The two leaders also navigated an awkward historical exchange during Merz’s 2023 White House visit, which fell on the eve of the D-Day anniversary. As Merz noted the historic occasion, which marked the start of the liberation of Western Europe from Nazi dictatorship, he argued the U.S. should again take a leading role in resolving the conflict in Ukraine. Trump interjected that D-Day was “not a pleasant day for you,” before acknowledging Merz’s point that the day also marked Germany’s liberation from Nazi rule.

    As leaders prepare to gather in the Alps, the question remains not whether friction will emerge, but how the group will manage long-simmering tensions when they are face to face on the global stage.

  • British leader expected to impose teen social media ban that goes further than Australia’s

    British leader expected to impose teen social media ban that goes further than Australia’s

    LONDON – On Monday, United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer is scheduled to announce a far-reaching ban on social media use for children under the age of 16, a policy crafted to shield young people from toxic online content and reduce the public health risks linked to excessive screen time. The planned regulatory move positions Britain as the latest country in a rapidly expanding global coalition working to strengthen online safety protections for minors, with multiple nations already rolling out or developing similar age-based access restrictions.

    The initiative comes at a tense moment for Starmer, who has faced growing internal criticism from members of his own party, with many calling for his resignation over what they characterize as ineffective leadership. Framing the upcoming policy as a “world-leading” intervention to protect children, Starmer noted it will go further than Australia’s existing under-16 social media ban to limit underage access to major platforms.

    Across the world, the push for stricter youth online safeguards has gained consistent momentum in recent years. Australia, Canada, Brazil and Indonesia have already enacted formal legislation or introduced binding age-based restrictions for social media access, while France, Spain, Denmark, Thailand and South Korea are currently in the process of researching or drafting their own parallel regulatory frameworks.

    In a pre-announcement statement released Sunday, Starmer framed the policy as a defining moral choice for the government. “How we keep kids safe online is one of the biggest debates of our time,” he said. “This is a choice about whose side we’re on: families across the country, or a status quo that isn’t working.”

    According to reporting from The Sunday Times, the under-16 ban will apply to all of the world’s largest social media platforms, including TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, Snapchat, Threads, Twitch, Kick and Reddit. Beyond the core under-16 ban, the paper also reported additional planned restrictions: new rules for chatbot tools, limits on social media-style features integrated into popular gaming apps, and a targeted late-night curfew to stop older teenagers from scrolling social media during overnight hours.

    The upcoming announcement is the culmination of a months-long public consultation process that drew an extraordinary 116,000 responses from parents, tech industry stakeholders, and children and young people themselves. This level of public engagement ranks second only to the 2012 public consultation on equal marriage in the UK, reflecting the intense public interest in the issue of youth online safety. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy confirmed that an overwhelming majority of respondents, including young people, supported implementing an under-16 ban. Nandy emphasized that the ban will be paired with additional complementary safeguards, rather than standing as a standalone solution. “I don’t think banning social media on its own is the silver bullet solution, but I do think Australia has shown very clearly that it has a significant role to play,” Nandy told the BBC on Sunday.

    The new regulations have already sparked diplomatic tension with the United States. In a public statement, the U.S. Embassy in London warned that overly broad UK regulations could violate international free speech commitments, and expressed concern that the new rules would impose disproportionate regulatory costs on major U.S.-based technology companies.

    Not all experts have backed the planned ban, however. Jon Crowcroft, a professor of communications systems at the University of Cambridge, argued that while proponents of the ban act with good intentions, the policy is likely to backfire. He noted that overly broad access restrictions could cut off young people from legitimate, beneficial online resources, and carry a real risk of pushing underage users onto unregulated, less safe platforms that operate outside mainstream oversight. “There is a real risk this will drive some users to worse sites and policing devices is close to impossible technically,” Crowcroft said. “Policing platforms is far easier, if only regulators would bother.”

  • Trump heads to G7 summit with wind at his back after announcing agreement aimed at ending Iran war

    Trump heads to G7 summit with wind at his back after announcing agreement aimed at ending Iran war

    In the hours ahead of his departure for the annual Group of Seven summit in the French Alpine resort of Evian-les-Bains, U.S. President Donald Trump announced a landmark tentative agreement that he says will bring an end to the 15-week U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran – a deal that reshapes the dynamics of this year’s gathering of world leaders even as it draws immediate skepticism from political opponents and key U.S. allies alike.

    For days, both Trump’s team and Iranian officials signaled steady progress toward a negotiated ceasefire. But the road to the announcement remained rocky as recently as Sunday, when fresh cross-border strikes erupted between Israel and Iran-backed Hezbollah militants along the Lebanese border. Key details of the agreement remain tightly held: neither the White House nor Iranian authorities have released the full text of the deal, and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi clarified Sunday that Tehran will continue its closure of the Strait of Hormuz until the agreement is formally signed. Pakistan, which served as the primary mediator for the indirect negotiations, confirmed that preliminary pre-implementation talks will kick off this week, setting the stage for 60 days of technical negotiations focused on Iran’s nuclear program.

    The last-minute deal hands Trump a key political win as he sits down with G7 leaders, many of whom have openly criticized his handling of the conflict that sent global energy prices soaring over the past three months. Polls show a majority of American voters disapprove of Trump’s management of the war, and Republican lawmakers have openly worried about the damage it could do to the party’s prospects in the upcoming November midterm elections. Friction has already been simmering for months between Trump and the four leading European G7 members – French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Starmer, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni – over Trump’s decision to launch the conflict without consulting NATO allies. In turn, Trump has pushed back against the leaders, accusing them of failing to offer sufficient U.S. backing during the conflict. The tentative deal is expected to shift the tone of this week’s talks, with demining the Strait of Hormuz already set as a top agenda item. Roughly 20% of the world’s global crude oil supplies pass through the strategic waterway, and mining fears have brought nearly all commercial tanker traffic to a halt since the conflict began. Both Britain and France have already signaled they are willing to assist with clearing operations once a ceasefire takes effect, a step seen as critical to restoring global shipping confidence and easing energy market volatility.

    Macron, this year’s G7 host, has structured the summit to center heavily on the Middle East following the deal announcement. He extended invitations to the leaders of Egypt, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates – three non-G7 nations with deep stakes in the region – for a dedicated Tuesday session focused on the implications of the new agreement. In a Sunday social media video, Macron outlined the session’s goals: assessing the agreement’s impact, extending support to Lebanon, planning for the long-term reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, and advancing negotiations toward a final deal on Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

    A core point of controversy already emerging around the deal centers on its lack of transparency, particularly regarding nuclear safeguards and proposed economic incentives for Tehran. Trump famously pulled the U.S. out of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the multilateral nuclear agreement negotiated by former President Barack Obama, arguing that the deal failed to block Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon and funneled billions of dollars in sanctions relief to the Islamic Republic. But Trump has yet to release key details of his new framework, including who will verify Iranian compliance, and how the deal will address the 440 kilograms of highly enriched uranium buried at nuclear sites damaged by U.S. strikes last summer. Senior White House officials have confirmed the deal includes sanctions relief and economic incentives for Iran tied to compliance benchmarks, echoing the core structure of the Obama-era deal Trump once condemned.

    Critics from both parties have already seized on the lack of transparency. Senate Intelligence Committee top Democrat Mark Warner noted Sunday on CBS’ *Face the Nation* that Trump’s unilateral framework lacks the multilateral oversight and allied buy-in that defined the JCPOA. “For all his critique of JCPOA, we had international observers, we actually had an alliance there that included the Europeans, and Russia and China were all signatories,” Warner said. “Now it is America going alone or going with Israel only, and that does not make us safer.” Even prominent Trump ally and Iran hawk Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham has voiced skepticism, noting that key discrepancies already exist between U.S. and Iranian descriptions of the agreement. Graham added that any final nuclear deal with Iran requires congressional review and approval, and said he expects Vice President JD Vance, described by Graham as “the architect of the deal,” to present the full framework to lawmakers soon.

    Beyond Iran, the G7 summit will also address the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, which has been largely overshadowed by the 15-week Iran conflict. Macron invited Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to attend a working session on the war Tuesday, though no one-on-one meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump is currently scheduled. On Sunday, a day before the summit kicked off, Trump held separate phone calls with both Zelenskyy and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov told reporters the call with Putin lasted nearly an hour, with Trump emphasizing his commitment to ending hostilities and stating he would push European allies and Kyiv toward a negotiated settlement during his G7 appearances. Ushakov also noted Trump told Putin recent strikes on Russian civilian targets have complicated peace efforts. The White House has not issued any comment on the call, and Ushakov added that Trump envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner are expected to travel to Russia for follow-up talks in the near future. In a Telegram statement, Zelenskyy said he updated Trump on recent improvements to Ukraine’s defensive positions along the eastern front, and the two agreed to hold further discussions in person during the summit. The two last met in December at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. Since returning to the White House, Trump’s focus on delivering a quick end to the war in Ukraine – a core promise of his 2024 presidential campaign – has been sidelined by the outbreak of the conflict with Iran and the subsequent global energy disruptions.

  • Trump heralds Iran deal but questions – and risks – remain

    Trump heralds Iran deal but questions – and risks – remain

    A surprise breakthrough in diplomatic talks between the United States and Iran that will end open hostilities between the two nations has landed as a politically timely birthday gift for former and current US President Donald Trump – one that comes wrapped in significant layers of uncertainty, multiple senior sources and official statements confirm.

    In a social media post announcing the tentative agreement over the weekend, Trump confirmed the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for 20% of the world’s daily oil supply, will reopen to unimpeded commercial shipping, and the US will end its naval blockade of Iranian export routes. “Let the oil flow!” Trump wrote in the post Sunday.

    The president went on to frame the agreement as a historic win, contrasting it with what he cast as failed diplomatic efforts by his predecessors. He claimed the deal would deliver lasting “peace and security to the whole region” – sweeping rhetoric that mirrors past declarations from Trump, including his 2025 claim that a ceasefire deal ending the Gaza War would bring “a peace for all eternity.” That agreement has yet to deliver on its most ambitious promises, with stability remaining elusive in the region more than a year on.

    As with all high-stakes international diplomatic accords, the success or failure of the US-Iran deal will ultimately come down to fine print – and right now, that fine print is largely missing.

    US Vice President JD Vance told Fox News in a Sunday evening interview that a permanent ban on Iran developing a nuclear weapon is a core component of the agreement, and that Washington has secured robust mechanisms to verify Iranian compliance. But critical questions remain unanswered: what specific limits will be placed on uranium enrichment activities, and how will the deal address Iran’s existing stockpile of highly enriched uranium?

    A 60-day extension of the current ceasefire has been agreed to allow for further technical negotiations and to resolve outstanding details. But after decades of international efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions through both negotiation and pressure, no final outcome can be guaranteed, even within the framework of the newly announced memorandum of understanding.

    Iran’s Supreme National Security Council underscored this ambiguity in a Sunday statement, noting that “final negotiations will be postponed until after the implementation of the other party’s commitments under the memorandum.” The exact text of those commitments, and how Iran chooses to interpret them, will be a core determinant of whether the deal holds long-term.

    Energy market analysts caution that even with the deal in place, full pre-conflict shipping volumes through the Strait of Hormuz will not rebound overnight. Clearing a massive backlog of stranded tankers, removing naval mines laid during the conflict, and restoring regular oil production and export infrastructure will take weeks of coordinated work.

    With the official signing ceremony still several days away, both sides have time to resolve sticking points – but that window also leaves room for the agreement to collapse entirely. One major wildcard that could derail the deal is Israel, which has been a key actor in the recent regional conflict.

    Speaking to the Wall Street Journal on Sunday, Trump said he was furious with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over newly ordered Israeli strikes in Lebanon that the US president believes nearly killed the nearly finalized Iran deal. While the agreement survived to be announced, any new large-scale Israeli military operations in Lebanon could push Iran to reclose the Strait of Hormuz, putting new pressure on the global economy and sinking the accord.

    Vance acknowledged Sunday that the months-long conflict has already hit American households hard, driving up energy prices and creating broader economic ripple effects across the country. “My primary message to the American people is thank you,” he said, promising that energy costs will begin to fall in the coming weeks.

    How quickly energy prices decline, and how fast those savings translate to lower overall consumer costs for households already struggling with financial strain, will play a major role in determining whether political pressure on Trump’s Republican Party eases ahead of November’s midterm congressional elections. Recent polling shows growing public discontent with the administration’s economic performance: a YouGov survey released last week found 63% of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of the economy, with 57% saying they believe economic conditions are worsening.

    Even if the deal’s larger strategic goals remain unfulfilled for now, Sunday’s announcement is expected to ease at least some of the economic strain caused by the conflict. If gasoline prices begin to fall substantially, that will give voters a tangible signal of improvement ahead of the midterms.

    The agreement marks a notable step back toward the regional stability that existed before the outbreak of the US-Iran war, even as Trump’s core policy goals remain unmet and he continues to face significant political risk at home.

  • What to know about the G7 summit Trump is attending in France

    What to know about the G7 summit Trump is attending in France

    Fresh off celebrating his 80th birthday, U.S. President Donald Trump has traveled to the scenic Alpine spa town of Evian-les-Bains, France, for the annual summit of the G7 group of major world democracies, where simmering tensions with U.S. allies over conflicts, trade, and geopolitics are set to take center stage.

    The entire narrative of the three-day gathering, running from Monday to Wednesday, shifted dramatically just hours before Trump departed Washington: he announced a landmark agreement to end the recent U.S.-Iran conflict, a development that has already altered expectations for negotiations between leaders. Only days earlier, the ceasefire between Washington and Tehran hung in the balance, with offensive military operations resuming after a brief pause, leading analysts to predict heated clashes and an early exit by Trump from the heavily secured summit zone. French President Emmanuel Macron, this year’s host, has sealed off the lakeside town to protect visiting leaders and invited guests, creating a tightly controlled security bubble for the talks.

    The G7, founded in 1975 as a forum for leading industrialized democracies to coordinate responses to global economic crises, counts Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States as its core members. Over its 50-plus year history, the bloc has maintained an unbroken record of full attendance by all sitting leaders, and has limited membership exclusively to democratic nations — a policy that allowed Russia to join as a G8 member in 1998 following the collapse of the Soviet Union, but resulted in Russia’s expulsion in 2014 after its illegal annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea peninsula, and has continued to exclude China, which is ruled by the Chinese Communist Party. France took over the rotating G7 presidency from Canada last year, and will hand the role to the United States in 2027.

    Macron has structured the summit agenda to place the most divisive topics in the opening 24 hours, starting with the new Iran ceasefire deal and the ongoing war in Ukraine, which has slipped down the list of the Trump White House’s foreign policy priorities in recent months.

    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Volodymyr Zelenskyy, an invited guest, will lead Tuesday morning’s dedicated session on Ukraine, where he will have a critical opportunity to lay out tangible progress made by Ukrainian forces against Russia’s full-scale invasion. Maria Snegovaya, a Russia expert at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, notes that Zelenskyy comes into this meeting with a far stronger hand than he had during a tense Oval Office meeting with Trump and Vice President JD Vance last year. If Zelenskyy can successfully convince Trump that Russian President Vladimir Putin cannot secure a military victory in Ukraine, experts say he may be able to persuade the U.S. president to back pushing Putin into formal peace negotiations. Snegovaya adds that the Trump administration tends to view nations more favorably when they hold tangible leverage on the ground, a shift that works in Zelenskyy’s favor this time around.

    Discussions over the new Iran agreement, set for a Tuesday lunch focused on Middle East policy, remain unpredictable. The formal ceasefire deal is scheduled to be signed this Friday, with 60 days of technical negotiations to work out core details. G7 allies that Trump criticized for refusing to join the U.S.-Israel offensive against Iran earlier this year are already breathing a sigh of relief: if the deal reopens the strategic Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most critical chokepoint for global energy exports, it will restore free flow of Persian Gulf oil and gas to global markets, easing pressure on already strained energy prices across Europe.

    France and the United Kingdom have already prepared plans to clear potential mines from the Strait of Hormuz and provide escorted safe passage for commercial tankers, and are ready to launch the mission once a permanent ceasefire is confirmed. G7 leaders will also discuss expanding alternative energy export routes out of the Persian Gulf, including pathways through Egypt. The leaders of Egypt, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates have been invited to join these talks, and Trump will hold separate one-on-one meetings with each of these regional leaders during the summit.

    On Wednesday, the summit will shift to economic discussions, where China — though not a G7 member — is expected to be a top focus. G7 nations have grown increasingly concerned that China is flooding global export markets with heavily subsidized goods, undercutting domestic industries across the bloc and leading to widespread job losses. With an economy larger than all G7 members except the United States, China’s trade practices have emerged as a shared point of contention for the bloc in recent years.

    Other items on the packed agenda include regulatory and policy talks on artificial intelligence, with a specific focus on protecting children and young people from online harms, as well as discussions over new economic development aid packages for low-income nations. Alongside Zelenskyy and the regional Middle Eastern leaders, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol, and Kenyan President William Ruto will also take part in select portions of the summit.

    John Kirton, a leading G7 scholar at the University of Toronto, explains that the informal, closed-door structure of G7 summits has long been key to their impact. “Many of the great G7 summit initiatives have come from leaders’ spontaneous collaboration, created by them on the spot, based on free, unrestricted dialogue about the values, shared memories and even common interests like sports that they share,” Kirton notes. But this year, long-running friction between Trump and key European allies has been amplified by Trump’s decision to launch the Iran offensive alongside Israel in February without any prior consultation with allies, making the tone of this first post-offensive gathering uncertain. Many analysts had predicted sharp confrontations ahead of the ceasefire announcement, but the last-minute deal has opened the door for a more cooperative tone — even as core disagreements on multiple critical issues remain.