Global Pulse

分类： politics

  • UK to review Chagos Islands deal over lack of US support, Streeting tells BBC

    UK to review Chagos Islands deal over lack of US support, Streeting tells BBC

    The United Kingdom has launched an informal review of its 2025 sovereignty agreement that would cede control of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, UK Defence Secretary Wes Streeting has confirmed, following renewed public criticism of the pact from US President Donald Trump at the United Nations General Assembly this week.

    The original deal, negotiated and signed under former UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer in May 2025, was designed to resolve a decades-long sovereignty dispute over the Indian Ocean archipelago. Under its terms, the UK would transfer full sovereignty of the islands to Mauritius in exchange for a 99-year lease on the strategic UK-US military base located on Diego Garcia, the archipelago’s largest island. The UK government initially projected the total net cost of the agreement at £3.4 billion, or roughly £101 million ($136 million) in annual payments to Mauritius, though political opponents have argued inflation-adjusted costs could reach as high as £35 billion, with additional risks of expanded Chinese influence in the region.

    The agreement hit a deadlock in April of this year when Trump withdrew US support, forcing the Starmer administration to pause the deal indefinitely ahead of its parliamentary ratification. Streeting made clear in comments to BBC Breakfast on Wednesday that the review is a direct response to Washington’s opposition, noting that Trump’s recent public criticism clarified his unchanged stance on the unamended draft. “What President Trump said yesterday wasn’t new but I think it does provide absolute clarity that his position on this Chagos deal as currently drafted is not changing,” Streeting told reporters. “So we have to do more work with our American allies, with President Trump and his administration, to get the deal to a place where he can support it.”

    The Diego Garcia base has long been viewed as one of the West’s most critical strategic assets in the Indian Ocean, giving UK and US military forces unmatched access to a region that has grown in geopolitical importance in recent decades. Successive UK prime ministers have held that the ongoing unresolved sovereignty dispute, which has backing from international courts, puts the long-term security of the base at risk. Streeting emphasized that the core priority of the ongoing review is to secure long-term stability and certainty for the base’s operations.

    The renewed public scrutiny of the deal came during Trump’s first in-person meeting with current UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York, where Trump publicly called the agreement “terrible” and stated the UK would revisit the terms. Burnham simply replied “Yep” during the exchange, and later clarified to reporters that his government inherited the negotiations and is committed to finding a workable resolution that protects the base’s future. “It’s critical to safeguard the future of the base, and that matters to us for security reasons, but also clearly to the United States as well,” Burnham said. “What I said in the meeting is that we will work to find that resolution between the different sides, and we’ll work hard to find it.”

    Ahead of his UN trip, Burnham spoke with Mauritian Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam, and an official readout of the conversation confirmed Burnham “reiterated his commitment to continue doing everything possible” alongside the US to advance the deal toward ratification. Downing Street sources have stressed that the current review does not represent a major policy shift from the previous position, which has always required US backing to move forward, though Streeting’s comments marked the first explicit public confirmation that the unamended draft cannot gain Trump’s support. Officials added that the review is not a formal, time-bound process, and no public funds will be transferred to Mauritius while the assessment is underway.

    Political opposition figures have seized on the review to call for the entire deal to be scrapped. Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch urged Burnham to abandon the agreement entirely, calling it a “terrible deal” that serves no UK national interest. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage went further, declaring “The Chagos deal is dead. Thank God.”

    The dispute over the Chagos Islands dates back to 1965, when the UK separated the archipelago from Mauritius ahead of granting Mauritius independence, a move Mauritius has long argued was illegal. In 2019, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a non-binding advisory opinion confirming the separation was unlawful and calling on the UK to end its administration of the islands as quickly as possible. The UN General Assembly endorsed the opinion, strengthening Mauritius’ sovereignty claims and pushing the UK to open formal negotiations in 2022.

    Streeting told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that the goal of the current process is to find a compromise that can be accepted by all stakeholders. “Describing the Diego Garcia base as “one of the most sensitive and valuable national security assets”, he said work was underway to find a deal “that maybe not everyone loves, but everyone can live with.”

  • Trump again threatens to ‘annihilate’ Iran in genocidal UN speech

    Trump again threatens to ‘annihilate’ Iran in genocidal UN speech

    During a Tuesday address to global leaders assembled at the United Nations General Assembly in New York City, former U.S. President Donald Trump delivered a rambling, factually contested speech that included open genocidal threats against the Islamic Republic of Iran, drawing sharp condemnation from policy experts, activists, and legal scholars across the international community.

    In the speech, Trump, who launched an illegal offensive against Iran nearly seven months prior, issued an ultimatum to Iranian leadership, threatening to completely “annihilate” the nation if they refused to accept a U.S.-drafted peace deal. “I have a big decision to make,” Trump told the assembled assembly. “Will a deal be made with Iran that lets them rebuild and create a far greater country than it ever was, maybe one of the greatest in the Middle East or even the world? Or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic and do it quickly, never giving them a chance to kill and destroy people and countries again?”

    Continuing his provocative remarks, Trump added, “Do I drive them into hell with no chance of survival and no hope of future greatness or generations?” He went on to predict a deal would be struck after the upcoming U.S. midterm elections, claiming Iranian leaders were waiting to see the election’s outcome while incorrectly noting that he was not on the ballot, having already won the presidency in a landslide. This threat of national annihilation marks a continuation of hostile rhetoric Trump has employed against Iran since his first term in office, but the open brazenness of the threat delivered from the UN podium sparked widespread shock among observers.

    Maryam Jamshidi, an associate professor at the University of Colorado Law School, highlighted the unprecedented severity of the moment in a post on X. “It’s one thing to make genocidal threats against a nation on social media. It’s another thing to do it from the podium of the UN. That’s what Donald Trump just did. He used his speech at the UN to threaten Iran with annihilation.” Jamshidi called on UN Secretary-General António Guterres and all UN member states to formally condemn Trump’s threat.

    Independent journalist Taylor Noakes echoed criticism of global inaction, arguing that the most troubling aspect of the incident was the silence from other Western democratic leaders. “What’s particularly sad about this (aside from the fact he’ll likely never be prosecuted for war crimes) is how so many leaders of other liberal democracies have stood by and done nothing while the Americans make a mockery of the UN as an instrument for global order,” Noakes said.

    VoteVets, a Democratic-aligned veterans advocacy organization, accused Trump of openly contemplating war crimes on the global stage, labeling his threat “deranged and dangerous.” Award-winning journalist Mehdi Hasan called the incident a new low for global governance, noting, “For shame. The president of the United States goes to the United Nations and threatens genocide against a UN member state in front of the world. This is where we’re at.”

    Matt Duss, executive vice president at the Center for International Policy and a former senior advisor to independent U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, described the remarks as “dangerously unhinged.” “Such rhetoric is not merely reckless, it is a criminal threat of genocide against an entire nation,” Duss said. “US lawmakers and US partners around the world should condemn Trump’s remarks and take all due steps to bring an end to the war on Iran.”

    Beyond the threats against Iran, Trump’s speech was filled with multiple verifiably false claims and unsubstantiated assertions, including a baseless boast that the U.S. had destroyed 97% of illicit drug shipments traveling across international oceans via a campaign of strikes on suspected cartel vessels. Reporting from *The New York Times*, which draws on data from U.S. Southern Command and current Trump administration officials, confirms that at least 234 people have been killed in no fewer than 70 strikes on suspected smuggling boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. To date, the Trump administration has not released credible evidence to back its claims that all targeted vessels were engaged in drug trafficking.

    Regional leaders and family members of those killed in the strikes argue that many of the victims were civilian fishermen with no ties to organized narcotrafficking. Legal experts have further concluded that the strikes violate core tenets of international law, regardless of the status of the vessels targeted.

    Other false claims included the unsubstantiated assertion that the Iranian government had killed 72,000 people in 2026, a false claim that a U.S. invasion of Venezuela and abduction of sitting President Nicolas Maduro left the U.S. in control of more than 60% of global oil reserves, a false statement that his administration had ended the ongoing war in Gaza, and an inaccurate claim that he had successfully negotiated an end to eight separate global conflicts during his prior tenure.

    Craig Mokhiber, a former senior United Nations official who resigned in protest of the world body’s failure to stop Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, called the speech a wake-up call for global leaders. “Donald Trump’s maniacal rant before the UN General Assembly today, complete with ridiculous braggadocio, narcissistic puffery, an almost unbroken line of absurd, demonstrable lies, open criminality, and deranged, murderous threats, should awaken even the most cowardly and complicit among world leaders that their attempts at appeasement of Trump and the tyrannical axis that he leads can only result in further aggression, economic terrorism, murder, and genocide,” Mokhiber said.

    He added, “The world must unite to counter the threat and to defend peace, human rights, and the rule of law, which are, after all, declared purposes of the UN.”

  • Netanyahu calls Macron’s remarks on West Bank in UN speech ‘grotesque’

    Netanyahu calls Macron’s remarks on West Bank in UN speech ‘grotesque’

    A sharp diplomatic conflict has erupted between French and Israeli leadership following controversial comments French President Emmanuel Macron made during his annual address to the United Nations General Assembly, drawing fierce condemnation from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    During his speech, Macron called out ongoing violations in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, questioning the justification for these actions. According to the UN’s official interpreter, Macron stated that “Hamas was never very active in the West Bank.” The remark immediately triggered a blistering rebuke from Netanyahu’s office, which labeled the comment a “grotesque absurdity.”

    Netanyahu’s statement highlighted a recent fatal attack that took place just two days before the UN address, on the eve of the Jewish holy day Yom Kippur. In that attack, 36-year-old Netanel Shukrun, a French national and father of six, was shot and killed while sitting in his car near the West Bank settlement of Neve Tzuf. Israeli police confirmed that a Palestinian gunman carried out the shooting, later arresting the suspect at a Ramallah hospital. While Hamas praised the attack, it did not formally claim responsibility. Netanyahu emphasized that Hamas operatives carry out nearly daily attacks against Jewish civilians across the West Bank, which Israel refers to by the biblical name Judea and Samaria, and have killed countless Israeli civilians in the region.

    The condemnation extended beyond Israel, with U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee also dismissing Macron’s remarks as disconnected from on-the-ground reality.

    While Macron’s official office has not issued a formal public response, an anonymous senior French diplomatic source clarified to the *Jerusalem Post* that the French president’s original comment was widely misinterpreted. In Macron’s original French speech, the line was “Le Hamas n’a jamais sévi en Cisjordanie,” which the source translated as “Hamas has never governed the West Bank,” not a claim that the group has never carried out attacks in the territory. The West Bank is currently partially administered by the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority, while Hamas, which has been designated a terrorist organization by France, Israel, and much of the international community, maintains de facto control over the Gaza Strip. Hamas has long been a political rival of Fatah, splitting control of Palestinian territories between the two factions for over a decade.

    In addition to his comments on the West Bank, Macron also pushed back on former U.S. President Donald Trump’s claim that he had successfully ended the conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. Despite a ceasefire agreement reached last October, the region has continued to see regular outbreaks of violence, including almost daily Israeli airstrikes, and catastrophic humanitarian conditions that have left millions of Gaza civilians without consistent access to basic aid. Macron rejected framing the current situation as peace, noting “Some boast of a supposed peace. But that peace has not reopened humanitarian access for a single second. Are we simply to stand by and watch this spectacle that should shame us all?”

    The broader context of the dispute dates back to the 1967 Six-Day War, when Israel seized control of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza from neighboring Arab states. Today, Israel has constructed roughly 160 official settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem housing more than 700,000 Israeli settlers, alongside an estimated 3.3 million Palestinians. The international community uniformly considers these settlements to be illegal under international law, and Palestinians seek all three territories — the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza — as the sovereign land for their future independent state.

  • South Sudan’s president dissolves government ahead of country’s first elections

    South Sudan’s president dissolves government ahead of country’s first elections

    Three months ahead of South Sudan’s first national election since gaining independence from Sudan in 2011, President Salva Kiir has announced the full dissolution of the country’s long-running transitional administration, setting the stage for a poll that has already been delayed twice and faced years of political tension.

    The dissolution, formalized under an amended law signed by Kiir this week, cleared out the entire existing transitional leadership structure: all five sitting vice presidents were removed from office, the national parliament was dissolved, and both national and state-level executive governments were disbanded. Kiir, who is running as the presidential candidate for his long-governing Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), will retain full constitutional executive powers until a newly elected president is inaugurated following the December 22 vote. He has already appointed a small set of caretaker ministers and state governors to maintain basic government functions through the election period.

    The run-up to Tuesday’s formal announcement saw a dramatic security buildup across the capital, Juba. Joint patrols from the South Sudanese army and national intelligence services blocked entry to all government ministry compounds, turned away civil servants reporting for work, and increased patrols across high-traffic areas of the city. Government staff were instructed not to return to office until the following Monday, while United Nations agencies operating in Juba directed all non-essential personnel to switch to remote work as a precaution while security teams monitored the evolving situation.

    Kiir, who has led South Sudan since independence, faces no major declared challengers in the upcoming poll. His most prominent political rival, former vice president Riek Machar, has been sidelined since last year when Kiir removed him from office and brought treason charges against him; Machar is currently detained under house arrest. Machar’s inclusion as vice president in the transitional government was a core provision of the 2018 peace deal that ended a brutal five-year civil war fought between forces loyal to Kiir and Machar respectively.

    Weeks before the dissolution, Kiir made an unannounced leadership change at the country’s national election commission, removing chairperson Abednego Akok Kacuol from his post without public explanation and replacing him with Gabriel Bol Deng, the commission’s former secretary-general. Akok had publicly raised alarm in August over critical funding shortfalls, stating the commission required $250 million to run a free and fair election but had only received $21 million in committed funding to date.

    Machar’s main opposition bloc, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement in Opposition (SPLM-IO), has already signaled it will not participate in election preparations. In a public Facebook statement in June, acting SPLM-IO chairperson Nathaniel Pierino warned that any individuals attempting to register voters or conduct campaign activity in territory held by the opposition would be treated as prisoners of war.

    The Reconstituted Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission (RJMEC), the independent body tasked with overseeing implementation of the 2018 peace agreement, has characterized South Sudan’s current political moment as an extraordinarily critical phase. The commission noted that multiple key negotiated provisions of the peace deal remain unfulfilled, and urged all political parties to quickly agree on a clear path that would deliver a credible, inclusive election and a peaceful conclusion to the transitional period that has been in place since South Sudan’s independence. The latest extension of the transitional period was originally scheduled to run until February 22, 2027, ahead of this week’s dissolution.

  • Trump meets US-backed Venezuelan president for first time since Maduro seized

    Trump meets US-backed Venezuelan president for first time since Maduro seized

    On the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, U.S. President Donald Trump held his first in-person talks with Venezuela’s interim head of state Delcy Rodríguez, a landmark meeting that comes just weeks after a U.S. military operation seized former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in Caracas and installed Rodríguez’s U.S.-backed administration.

    The encounter took place just kilometers from a New York detention facility where Maduro is currently being held, awaiting trial on charges of drug trafficking and additional criminal offenses. The meeting included other senior U.S. officials: Secretary of State Marco Rubio and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles also joined the bilateral discussions.

    Following the talks, Rodríguez confirmed that the two sides had negotiated a roadmap to deepen cooperation across key strategic sectors, including energy, mining, and national security. The Rodríguez administration has already signed a landmark energy agreement that grants the U.S. control over more than 65 billion barrels of Venezuelan oil reserves — equivalent to over one-fifth of the country’s total proven reserves. The deal also awards a U.S.-led energy corporation 100-year operating concessions for 17 major Venezuelan oil fields. Trump has previously hailed the agreement as “the biggest oil deal in world history.”

    During his Monday address to the UN General Assembly, Trump emphasized that the U.S. and the new Venezuelan government combined now hold more than 60 percent of the world’s total proven oil reserves, closing his remark on the topic with the phrase: “To the victor belong the spoils.” Rodríguez is scheduled to deliver her own address to the UN assembly on Wednesday.

    Rodríguez’s political path to the presidency reflects the rapid shift in Venezuela’s political landscape. She previously served as vice president under Maduro, and was originally sanctioned by the U.S. in 2018 over her role in the Maduro administration. Those sanctions were fully lifted in April this year, just months before the U.S. raid on Caracas. Days after the U.S. operation, Rodríguez was sworn in as interim president by Venezuela’s National Assembly with explicit backing from the White House.

    Prominent Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado has repeatedly been blocked from re-entering the country since the political transition, a development that has drawn little public comment from the new administration or U.S. officials.

  • No peace with Israel ‘if rights of Syrians are usurped’, Sharaa says

    No peace with Israel ‘if rights of Syrians are usurped’, Sharaa says

    Speaking at an Atlantic Council event on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York City this Tuesday, Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa laid out a clear, non-negotiable condition for any future diplomatic engagement with Israel: an end to ongoing air strikes, incursions, and the illegal occupation of Syrian territory, most notably the Golan Heights — his place of birth.

    Al-Sharaa, who led Syrian rebel factions to seize Damascus and oust long-time former president Bashar al-Assad last December, emphasized that Israel has escalated its aggressive actions against Syria since the collapse of the old regime. Speaking through a translator, he noted that Israeli forces have seized additional Syrian territory in the months following December 8, 2024, and continue to carry out cross-border incursions, arrests, and bombing raids across multiple regions of the country. Despite these ongoing hostilities, he confirmed that Syria remains committed to pursuing diplomatic resolution through dialogue and negotiation, and has already sought mediation from countries deemed friendly to Israel, including the United States — though progress has been fraught with obstacles.

    “The Israelis will often reach 90 percent of a security agreement with Syria before suddenly withdrawing for different reasons,” al-Sharaa told attendees. He stressed that no formal peace talks can move forward until Syrian sovereignty and the rights of the Syrian people are fully respected, stating firmly: “We cannot talk about peace if the rights of Syrians are usurped.”

    The Golan Heights, a strategic plateau captured by Israel from Syria in the 1967 Six-Day War, remains a core point of contention. While the United Nations universally recognizes the Golan as occupied Syrian territory, then-U.S. President Donald Trump unilaterally recognized Israeli sovereignty over the region in 2018, a long-sought policy win for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Al-Sharaa recalled a lighthearted but pointed exchange he had with Trump during a 2024 White House visit, when he joked: “Why don’t you give New Jersey to the Israelis? You don’t own Golan Heights to give it to them, but you own New Jersey, and I believe that New Jersey is full of Democrats, and they are not voting for Trump. So it will be good to give it to the Israelis.” The quip drew laughter from the audience, but al-Sharaa backed it with a serious call for an independent international committee to examine territorial claims and counter the constant framing of negotiations around Israel’s perceived security needs alone. Al-Sharaa emphasized: “There is no discussion about those territories and to whom they belong.”

    Turning to the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in neighboring Lebanon, which has escalated dramatically since Hezbollah launched rocket attacks in support of Hamas in October 2023, al-Sharaa addressed Trump’s earlier proposal that Syrian forces assist in disarming Hezbollah as part of a broader Israel-Lebanon peace deal — an idea widely seen as unfeasible given post-war Syria’s fragile stability and Hezbollah’s long-standing support for al-Assad during the civil war. Al-Sharaa instead outlined a more measured approach: Syria will work to empower the Lebanese government to strengthen its state institutions, ensure all weapons operate under official Lebanese state authority, and support improvements to Lebanon’s struggling economy and civil society to address long-running instability that was exacerbated by the former Assad regime’s actions. “So we are engaging [on] a best mechanism for political reform,” he added.

    The discussion, moderated by veteran Middle East negotiator Brett McGurk — a former Biden White House official with a long history of U.S. Middle East policy across four U.S. administrations, and a known hawkish pro-Israel, pro-intervention stance — quickly turned to questions about al-Sharaa’s controversial past. Less than two years ago, the U.S. State Department labeled him a top terrorist with a $10 million bounty on his head, when he operated under the nom de guerre Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, leader of the al-Qaeda-affiliated militant group Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham. McGurk opened the questioning by referencing the 25th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks, and pressed al-Sharaa to renounce a 2013 pledge of allegiance to al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, one of the primary masterminds of the 9/11 attacks.

    Al-Sharaa pushed back on the line of questioning, noting: “9/11, I had nothing to do with that at the time. I was 13 years old.” When pressed again to renounce the past pledge, he responded that the region’s historical context must be acknowledged: “There are so many questions that are part of the past now, so maybe we need to update ourselves. I don’t believe that it is appropriate time to discuss things that happened 25 years ago. I was at a different age, and the conditions in the region were different, and they were pushing a lot of young people to go into that direction because of the pressure in that region.”

    Al-Sharaa, who spent six years in a U.S. prison in Iraq after joining anti-coalition militias following the 2003 U.S. invasion, framed his current leadership as a break from his earlier years, centered on removing the decades-long injustice of Assad family rule. “Lifting that injustice is a noble act that any person will be honoured to do,” he told McGurk.

    Addressing a 2024 ISIS attack on a joint U.S.-Syrian convoy that killed two American soldiers and a civilian interpreter, al-Sharaa acknowledged that Syria is still in the early stages of building a new national security infrastructure after the civil war. He explained that simultaneously working to dismantle rogue militias, bring all weapons under state control, and vet and recruit personnel for a new national army has created growing pains that can lead to unforeseen security incidents, noting that similar attacks have targeted other groups beyond U.S. personnel.

    When McGurk asked whether al-Sharaa would welcome a large-scale return of U.S. troops to Syria to train the new national army, the Syrian president reaffirmed his commitment to full Syrian sovereignty and the 2019 withdrawal of U.S. forces ordered by Trump, which he said proceeded smoothly and without the security vacuum many predicted. “The withdrawal was very safe, and the region remained calm. No problems happened because of that vacuum, and the Syrian state and Syrian forces took control over the area, and [Kurdish forces] in the northeast were integrated [into Syria’s military],” he said. “Emptying Syria from foreign bases… that is a good approach.”

    This principle applies to all foreign military presences, including Russia, al-Sharaa confirmed. Where Russia once operated 170 military bases across Syria, that number has now been reduced to just two, both of which will only be used for training the newly formed Syrian military.

    On the topic of governing Syria’s diverse mosaic of ethnic and religious groups, al-Sharaa said his transitional government will build on existing legal frameworks to expand devolved power to local governorates as the country prepares for a new presidential election within three years, and a full constitutional rewrite within the five-year transition period. “There are wide powers for the governorates in the election of the municipal councils,” he explained. “The People’s Assembly is going to appoint a committee that is going to review the different laws in Syria, and another committee that will start drafting the constitution. And I believe that will be completed before the end of the five years [transition period].” When asked, al-Sharaa did not rule out running for president in the upcoming election.

    Al-Sharaa is scheduled to deliver an address to the full United Nations General Assembly later this week, after making history last year as the first Syrian leader to speak from the UN podium in 60 years.

  • Trump administration accuses banned media outlets of ‘falsehoods’ ahead of court hearing

    Trump administration accuses banned media outlets of ‘falsehoods’ ahead of court hearing

    A high-stakes legal battle over press freedom is set for a key procedural milestone this Wednesday, as a federal judge in Washington D.C. will decide whether to temporarily suspend former President Donald Trump’s controversial ban on three major U.S. media outlets from accessing the White House complex.

    Last week, Trump administration officials revoked the press passes of reporters from CNN, Politico and MS NOW, barring the outlets from on-site White House access over allegations that the organizations have repeatedly spread what the president calls “fake news.” Immediately following the revocation of their credentials, the three outlets launched a joint lawsuit against the administration, arguing that the ban is a blatant violation of U.S. constitutional law.

    As the court prepares to hear arguments this week, the U.S. Justice Department has submitted formal court documents defending the administration’s decision, claiming the three outlets have “trafficked in verifiable falsehoods” through their reporting, and that some of their coverage has posed active threats to U.S. national security. The department’s filing outlines that White House officials issued a formal list of problematic reporting incidents to the outlets before implementing the ban. Cited in the filing are stories covering unpublicized construction projects on White House grounds, including work on a new security bunker and a planned private ballroom, as well as a report on an ongoing internal investigation into White House information leaks.

    In its defense of the administration’s policy, the Justice Department emphasized that “access to the White House is a privilege, not a right” for press organizations. Legal representatives for the three media outlets have pushed back forcefully, arguing that the ban directly violates protections guaranteed under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the federal government from infringing on the freedom of the press.

    In their joint statement announcing the lawsuit, the outlets condemned the administration’s actions as an unprecedented attack on independent journalism. “Without notice or process, the White House revoked our journalists’ credentials because it objected to our reporting,” the statement read. “Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom and the public’s right to independent journalism free from government interference.”

    The ban has already triggered widespread pushback across the U.S. journalism industry: major national television networks have withdrawn from the White House press pool, the long-standing collaborative arrangement that shares video and still footage of the president with all participating outlets, in a coordinated show of protest against the administration’s move. Within days of the networks’ withdrawal, the White House launched its own standalone streaming platform, branded “Trump TV,” which operates a 24-hour continuous feed of clips and content featuring the president.

    Wednesday’s ruling will address the media outlets’ request for a temporary injunction that would lift the ban while the full legal case proceeds through the court system, setting off what is widely expected to become a landmark constitutional battle over the boundaries of press freedom and executive authority.

  • Chris Mason: From inside the room, how Burnham survived first Trump meeting

    Chris Mason: From inside the room, how Burnham survived first Trump meeting

    It was an unconventional diplomatic encounter held in a windowless, unremarkable basement meeting room down a dim corridor at the United Nations headquarters — far from the polished grandeur of the White House Oval Office. As a reporter crouched between a bank of press cameras, hoping to catch U.S. President Donald Trump’s attention for a question, I watched the former (and seeking re-election) president lean into a rare moment of measured cordiality. As anyone who has covered Trump knows, he can flip between sharp acerbity and genuine warmth at will, and on this occasion, he chose warmth.

    Seated beside the most powerful leader in the world was Andy Burnham, who had only stepped into the role of UK Prime Minister months earlier after serving as a city mayor. Burnham had publicly stated ahead of the meeting that he was looking forward to the discussion, but even with that confident framing, a flicker of nervousness would have been understandable. Reporters in the room noted that he did appear slightly on edge when the press pool entered the space, but any tension was quickly defused by a steady stream of compliments from the U.S. president.

    The original schedule called for journalists to join the two leaders just minutes after their first greeting, to open the meeting to press. Instead, the press pool was held outside while the pair held closed-door private talks first — an unexpected change that ended up working in reporters’ favor, leaving both leaders with more prepared comments about their discussions than they would have shared otherwise.

    Burnham went into the encounter well aware that unscripted, live on-camera meetings with Trump are famously unpredictable: they can veer off into unplanned controversy at any moment, akin to riding a rollercoaster without a safety harness. Once the press was inside, I managed to get myself into Trump’s line of sight, and waited until Burnham finished his opening remarks to call out my question. I asked the U.S. president whether, despite their well-documented political differences, he believed Burnham was a leader the U.S. could work with.

    Trump’s response was immediately warm. “I do, I think he’s a natural business person. We’ve had a lot of discussions even before this meeting. We’ve spoken to each other numerous times on the phone. Yeah, I think so, I think so. He gets it. He understands what he has to do.”

    The open goodwill was clear, and it likely eased any pre-meeting jitters the Downing Street team had been feeling. The meeting was entirely in Trump’s hands: he controls the length of these public question sessions, which have sometimes stretched well past 30 minutes. This time, the neutral, low-key setting at the UN seemed to tone down the sense of high-stakes spectacle.

    Even as the conversation turned to potentially divisive issues, the bonhomie held. A question about immigration, a longstanding point of policy friction between the two leaders’ positions, passed without incident. So did discussion of the Burnham government’s recent announcement — made by Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband, who was in attendance at the meeting — of new sanctions on Israeli settlements in the West Bank, a decision that drew fierce anger from the Israeli government.

    But when the conversation turned to the future of the Chagos Islands, Trump could not hide his blunt disapproval of the previous UK government’s decision to cede sovereignty of the archipelago to Mauritius, while retaining a long-term lease for the critical British military base on Diego Garcia. He called the deal “terrible”, adding that he believed the new prime minister would revisit the agreement. Burnham simply replied “yep” to the president’s comment.

    After the joint press availability, I spoke one-on-one with Prime Minister Burnham on behalf of all major broadcasters. Burnham framed the first meeting as “very encouraging”, noting that the pair “had established a good connection” to build on. When I pressed him on whether the Chagos Islands deal would be revised, he pointed out that the agreement had been finalized by the previous government, which he “inherited” upon taking office. “We’ve got to find a resolution, and so work will continue now…to see where that resolution might lead,” he said. That response strongly suggests the deal is set for renegotiation.

    Few global leaders manage to avoid public flashpoints with the Trump administration, so future disagreements between the two leaders are almost inevitable. Burnham may even choose to take public stances that create friction in time, and issues like the Chagos deal could easily become a point of contention down the line. But for the moment, the first face-to-face meeting has left Burnham with a working relationship with Trump that he can build on. After the unpredictable, high-stakes encounter with Trump, the rest of Burnham’s UN meetings followed the traditional, predictable rhythm of standard diplomacy — a far cry from the wild ride he had just navigated successfully.

    To stay updated on the inner workings of UK politics at Westminster and beyond, sign up for the *Politics Essential* newsletter.

  • Iran and US held direct UN talks, with Islamic Republic’s terms to reopen Hormuz hardening

    Iran and US held direct UN talks, with Islamic Republic’s terms to reopen Hormuz hardening

    Against the backdrop of the annual United Nations General Assembly in New York City, a historic moment unfolded on Tuesday: Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi held a public, high-profile meeting with United States special envoy Steve Witkoff, marking the first formal, public encounter between the two long-adversarial nations in months. The discussions centered on negotiating binding terms to end their ongoing open conflict, a development that has sent ripples across global geopolitical circles.

    According to multiple senior Gulf officials speaking exclusively to Middle East Eye, regional powers have been working behind the scenes to orchestrate an unplanned, informal encounter between US President Donald Trump and Iran’s newly inaugurated President Masoud Pezeshkian on the UNGA sidelines. However, multiple logistical and political hurdles have complicated those efforts so far, leaving the prospective meeting in limbo.

    Qatar has emerged as the primary Gulf facilitator for the Araghchi-Witkoff talks, taking the lead among regional states that have spent days pushing for renewed US-Iran diplomatic engagement ahead of the General Assembly’s official kickoff. Over the weekend, both Qatar and the United Arab Emirates publicly called for de-escalation of tensions and constructive dialogue with the Islamic Republic, signaling regional anxiety over the risk of broader conflict.

    In comments to reporters following the meeting, Trump confirmed that the bilateral talks between the two nations’ mediators were “very good” and productive – a striking contrast to the hardline rhetoric he deployed moments earlier during his address to the UN General Assembly, where he threatened to “annihilate” Iran outright. “They had a very good meeting, a very productive meeting; they have another one scheduled in the very near future,” Trump told reporters during a side meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. When asked about the prospects of reaching a new comprehensive agreement, Trump framed the outcome as binary: “I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t want to do it. It’s potential greatness, or obliteration.” For his part, Witkoff offered a similarly optimistic off-the-cuff assessment, telling reporters “I feel very good right now” when queried about the trajectory of the negotiations.

    Direct US-Iran negotiations have been stalled since June, when a temporary ceasefire extension collapsed after weeks of fragile compliance. In the months since, both sides have carried out repeated strikes on commercial and military vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global chokepoint for 20% of the world’s oil trade, as each moves to assert de facto control over the waterway.

    Later Tuesday, Iranian state media officially confirmed the meeting between Araghchi and Witkoff, and disclosed that the Iranian foreign minister had formally submitted Tehran’s core negotiating terms to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to unimpeded commercial traffic. Per Iranian state media, Iran’s core demands have not shifted in broad strokes: Tehran is calling for the immediate lifting of the US naval blockade in the region, the full release of all Iranian assets frozen by American sanctions, and a complete end to US-backed hostilities across all Middle Eastern “resistance” fronts where Iran-aligned groups operate.

    While the broad outlines of Iran’s demands mirror those presented in June’s failed talks, a senior unnamed Iranian official indicated that Tehran has hardened its negotiating position significantly. In an earlier interview with Agence France-Presse, Hossein Mohebi, spokesperson for Iran’s powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), clarified that Tehran is now demanding the full release of all $24 billion in frozen Iranian assets up front, rather than the phased release that was on the table in June negotiations. Mohebi also added a new, non-negotiable demand: any final ceasefire agreement must include the lifting of Saudi Arabia’s blockade on Houthi-controlled territories in Yemen, a provision that was not part of June’s draft framework. “The issue of Yemen was not on the agenda of the previous agreement. We are now demanding that the lifting of the blockade on Yemen be included in the agreement,” he stated.

    In June, Iran tied any bilateral ceasefire with the US to a separate Israeli commitment to halt its military strikes against Hezbollah, Iran’s key ally in Lebanon. To date, Israeli airstrikes on Lebanese territory have continued unabated with no sign of a pause. That June ceasefire framework also included a US commitment to release a portion of Iran’s frozen assets, a move that drew fierce bipartisan criticism from pro-Israel lawmakers and commentators in Washington. The breakdown of the ceasefire shortly after the framework was agreed left it unclear whether any of the pledged funds were ever transferred to Tehran.

    Mohebi’s comments also laid bare open internal friction between Iran’s hardline military establishment and its civilian diplomatic corps. While Iranian state media openly confirmed Tuesday’s meeting with Witkoff, Mohebi had publicly ruled out any diplomatic engagement with the US earlier that same day. “The Americans have tried to contact us, but we refuse any such contact. Our dealings with the enemy, as long as they remain hostile, are conducted solely through arms,” he said prior to the meeting’s confirmation, highlighting the competing power centers shaping Iran’s negotiating position.

  • Trump heaps praise on Middle East leaders at UN meeting on Iran war

    Trump heaps praise on Middle East leaders at UN meeting on Iran war

    On the sidelines of the annual United Nations General Assembly in New York on Tuesday, former and current U.S. President Donald Trump convened a high-profile gathering of top Arab and Muslim regional leaders, an event that drew widespread global attention amid escalating tensions across the Middle East. While Trump heaped extensive praise on his assembled guests and revealed that U.S. envoys had held a landmark three-hour negotiation session with Iranian officials aimed at de-escalating ongoing conflict, the closed-door meeting concluded without any major policy announcements or concrete agreements to address the region’s long-running turmoil.

    Speaking to reporters shortly before entering the closed meeting, Trump confirmed the surprise diplomatic breakthrough, framing the discussion between U.S. and Iranian representatives as a constructive step toward finding a mutually acceptable exit to the open hostilities that have roiled the region since February. “They had a very good meeting, a very productive meeting,” Trump told the press pool, adding that a follow-up negotiation has already been scheduled for the near future to continue the dialogue.

    During the meeting with regional leaders, Trump personally credited two of his closest associates for spearheading the indirect talks with Iran: special peace envoy Steve Witkoff, and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law who holds no formal official position in the 2025 administration. “We’ll see what happens with that… We’ve been mediating for a while, but I think there’s a lot of momentum for them to make a deal. That’s what we’re hearing from everybody,” Trump told attendees and the assembled press before reporters were escorted out of the room.

    The gathering brought together a who’s who of top leadership from across the Middle East and Muslim-majority region, including Jordan’s King Abdullah II, Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi, Egyptian Prime Minister Mostafa Madbouly, Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, Kuwaiti Crown Prince Sabah Khaled Al Hamad Al Sabah, United Arab Emirates Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan, and Saudi Arabia Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud.

    Trump opened his opening remarks to the group with unusually glowing public praise, calling the gathering a milestone in U.S. engagement with its regional partners. “It’s an honour to be here with some of America’s greatest and closest friends, allies, and partners to continue our effort toward a safer and more prosperous Middle East,” the president said. “Special place, and it’s become more special over the last period of time since I’ve been in politics… I’ve got a lot of great friends sitting around this table. They’re amazing people, and we make sure their lives are good.”

    He went on to note that every participating nation had been “outstanding” in its cooperation with the United States, and thanked leaders for the approximately $21 trillion in regional investment that has flowed into the U.S. economy since he took office in January 2025. Trump reserved particular warm praise for Erdogan, with whom he has cultivated a close personal relationship dating back to his first presidential term, calling the Turkish leader a “fantastic guy” and a “tough cookie.” He joked to the room, “Don’t mess around with him,” drawing laughter from the assembled leaders.

    This marked the second consecutive year that Trump has held this type of dedicated regional meeting on the UNGA sidelines. Last year’s gathering included leaders from the world’s most populous Muslim nations, Pakistan and Indonesia, and centered heavily on brokering an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip. That ceasefire ultimately took effect three weeks after the 2024 meeting, though Israeli forces have continued to conduct regular air strikes on the enclave on a weekly basis in the months since.

    This year’s meeting comes as Iran dominates regional policy discussions, following Iranian retaliatory strikes against U.S. interests that triggered the current open U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran that launched on February 28. In his remarks, Trump boasted of the damage the coalition campaign has inflicted on Iranian military capabilities, claiming: “Operation Epic Fury crippled Iran’s Navy… Eliminated its air force. They have no planes. Hit over 90 percent of its weapons factories and destroyed 450 ballistic missile storage facilities and 800 drone storage facilities.” He went on to issue a fresh warning, saying the U.S. is prepared to launch additional strikes on the key Iranian site Pickaxe Mountain if any military activity is detected there. “We’re not seeing a lot of activity there, but if we do, we’ll blow it up immediately,” he said.

    Following Trump’s opening remarks to press, reporters were ushered out of the meeting room. The assembled regional leaders did not address media, and maintained stoic expressions during Trump’s public comments, with no pushback or public comment on his stark warnings against Iran.

    This report was originally sourced from independent regional outlet Middle East Eye, which provides dedicated, unrivaled coverage of the Middle East, North Africa and surrounding regions.