Global Pulse

分类： politics

  • Pulitzers honor damning coverage of Trump and his policies

    Pulitzers honor damning coverage of Trump and his policies

    The 2025 Pulitzer Prizes, announced Monday by Columbia University’s award committee, have cemented a clear stand in defense of independent journalism, with the majority of top honors going to outlets that published searing, in-depth investigations into the policies and actions of the second Donald Trump administration.

    Ahead of revealing the year’s winners, Pulitzer Administrator Marjorie Miller opened the announcement with a firm rebuke of growing threats to press freedom under the current U.S. presidency, saying: “We stand for civil discourse and against censorship. Unfortunately, this bears repeating now, as media access to the White House and Pentagon is restricted, free speech is challenged in the streets, and the President of the United States has filed lawsuits for billions of dollars for defamation and malice against multiple print and broadcast media.”

    The most prestigious award, the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, went to *The Washington Post* for its exhaustive reporting on Trump’s chaotic overhaul of the U.S. federal bureaucracy. Miller noted that the outlet’s coverage laid out in rich detail both the direct human toll of widespread staffing cuts and the long-term structural consequences of the reshuffle for the entire country.

    *The New York Times* took home the prize for Investigative Reporting for its explosive series exposing how Trump leveraged the power of the presidency to unlock lucrative business opportunities, lining the pockets of his immediate family and close political allies. The reporting detailed how members of Trump’s inner circle profited from their connections to wealthy Gulf monarchies and controversial forays into the cryptocurrency market.

    In the Local Reporting category, *The Chicago Tribune* earned recognition for what the committee called vivid, muscular prose documenting a siege-like incursion of federal immigration agents into the Midwestern city, carried out as part of the Trump administration’s hardline crackdown on undocumented migration. A second Local Reporting prize was awarded to the Connecticut Mirror and ProPublica for an investigation into predatory, unregulated vehicle towing practices across the state.

    Beyond the awards focused on the Trump administration, the committee issued a special posthumous and long-overdue citation to Miami Herald reporter Julie K. Brown for her groundbreaking 2017 and 2018 reporting on convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Miller explained that Brown’s *Perversion of Justice* series, published nearly a decade before Epstein’s 2019 arrest on federal sex trafficking charges, first revealed how politically connected prosecutors had shielded Epstein from serious prosecution when he was first accused of abusing dozens of underage young women.

    *The New York Times* also won the Breaking News Photography prize for Saher Alghorra’s haunting, sensitive collection of images capturing mass devastation and widespread starvation in Gaza amid the ongoing Israel-Hamas war. Reuters took home the National Reporting prize for its rigorous investigation into how Trump has expanded executive power to exact political vengeance on perceived opponents, aided by hardline supporters within his administration. The Associated Press won the International Reporting category for its exposé of how the U.S. government allowed American tech firms to sell sensitive surveillance technology to China.

    Other major reporting honors went to the *San Francisco Chronicle*, which won the Explanatory Reporting prize for its series examining the aftermath of Southern California wildfires, documenting how major insurance companies routinely undervalued destroyed properties, wrongfully denied homeowners’ claims, and stalled rebuilding efforts for thousands of disaster survivors. Reuters also earned the Beat Reporting prize for its inventive and revelatory work exposing how Meta Platforms knowingly allowed widespread scams and AI-driven manipulation to run rampant across its Facebook and Instagram platforms, putting users at risk.

    The Breaking News Reporting prize went to the *Minnesota Star Tribune* for its comprehensive, community-focused coverage of a mass shooting at a back-to-school gathering at a Catholic school in the state, which left two children dead and 17 others wounded. The outlet’s coverage put a spotlight on the persistent prevalence of gun violence across the United States and the ongoing failures of policy efforts to curb it. The Feature Writing prize went to Aaron Parsley of *Texas Monthly* for his intimate, devastating personal account of the Central Texas floods that destroyed his family home and killed his nephew.

    In the arts categories, Bess Wohl’s play *Liberation* won the Pulitzer Prize for Drama, Jill Lepore’s *We the People* took the prize for History, and Amanda Vaill’s *Pride and Pleasure* was awarded the Pulitzer for Biography. Overseen by Columbia University, the Pulitzer Prizes remain the most prestigious award for American journalism and the arts, with this year’s winners drawing a clear line between independent investigative work and the growing threats to press freedom under the current administration.

  • Alberta separatists submit petition for independence referendum

    Alberta separatists submit petition for independence referendum

    A years-long movement pushing for Alberta’s separation from Canada reached a pivotal milestone this week, as organizers of the citizen-led initiative formally submitted a petition calling for a fall independence referendum — only to see their progress halted by a court challenge from Indigenous First Nations groups.

    Led by the grassroots group Stay Free Alberta, the petition drive required a minimum of 178,000 signatures, equal to 10% of the province’s eligible voters, to qualify for a public vote. In a press conference outside Edmonton’s election office Monday, group leader Mitch Sylvestre announced organizers had collected more than 300,000 signatures, far exceeding the threshold. Calling the moment a historic turning point for the separatist cause, Sylvestre framed the campaign’s progress as advancing to the final stage of a high-stakes political process, comparing it to reaching the championship round of the Stanley Cup hockey tournament.

    The separatist movement in Alberta draws its core support from long-held grievances of western alienation, a sentiment shared by many residents who argue the province’s economic and political interests are consistently sidelined by federal decision-makers in Ottawa. Frustration has boiled over in recent years particularly over federal climate policy, which many Albertans blame for restricting growth of the province’s lucrative oil and gas industry, especially under the current Liberal federal government. Once relegated to the political fringe, the movement has gained traction over the past 12 months, pushing the once-remote possibility of a national unity crisis into the mainstream of Canadian political discourse.

    Despite the milestone for pro-separation organizers, their path forward is now blocked by a legal challenge launched by multiple First Nations communities, including the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, who argue that an independent Alberta would violate the constitutionally protected treaty rights their communities signed with the British Crown more than a century before the formation of modern Canada. According to Kevin Hille, legal counsel for the First Nation group, an international border created by separation would fundamentally alter treaty access and the community’s traditional way of life, and full independence would effectively sever the binding treaty agreements between Indigenous communities and the Canadian state.

    Hille pointed to a December 2025 ruling by an Alberta court that already found an independence referendum would be unlawful because it infringes on First Nations constitutional rights. Since that ruling, the provincial government has amended local laws to remove the requirement that citizen-initiated referendums align with the Canadian constitution, and allowed the petition process to move forward. The current court case will decide whether the original December ruling still stands despite the legislative change. A final decision on the challenge is expected by the end of May. If the First Nations challenge succeeds, only a referendum proposed directly by the provincial government could move forward, effectively ending the current citizen-led initiative. A court has already paused the official signature verification process while it considers the case.

    If the petition is ultimately approved and signatures verified, Albertans will head to the polls as early as October 19 to vote on the question: “Do you agree that the Province of Alberta should cease to be part of Canada to become an independent state?”

    Public opinion polling suggests separation still lacks majority support among Albertans. A February 2026 survey by Canadian polling firm Abacus Data found that roughly 25% of residents support independence, while a majority remain opposed to splitting from Canada. A counter-petition organized by anti-separation activists calling “Forever Canadian” has already collected more than 450,000 signatures, and is currently under review by a provincial legislative committee to qualify for a separate public vote.

    Proponents of separation argue that independence would allow Alberta to unlock the full economic potential of its vast natural resource reserves and keep all revenue generated by the province’s energy sector. The movement has also drawn international attention: organizers confirmed earlier this year that they held meetings with officials from the U.S. Trump administration to discuss a feasibility study for a potential $500 billion line of credit in the event of separation, though they stressed they have not requested direct funding from the U.S. government.

  • Trump’s Hormuz ‘protection’ seeks ‘pretext for escalation’: Iran

    Trump’s Hormuz ‘protection’ seeks ‘pretext for escalation’: Iran

    Tensions have escalated sharply in the Persian Gulf after former U.S. President Donald Trump unveiled a new U.S. military-led initiative to escort stranded commercial vessels through the closed Strait of Hormuz, a move Iranian officials have decried as a deliberate provocation designed to trigger conflict and justify expanded military aggression against the Islamic Republic.

    The plan, branded “Project Freedom” and scheduled to launch Monday, was first announced by Trump on his social media platform Truth Social, and later confirmed by U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM). In his announcement, Trump framed the operation as a humanitarian gesture, stating his administration had notified nations with ships trapped in the key waterway that U.S. forces would safely guide vessels out of Iranian restricted areas so they could resume commercial activity. CENTCOM later released detailed force deployments for the mission: it will include guided-missile destroyers, more than 100 land and sea-based aircraft, multi-domain unmanned surveillance and combat systems, and a contingent of 15,000 active-duty service members. The command also noted the operation will be backed by a new cross-agency international coordination framework called the Maritime Freedom Construct, which pairs diplomatic outreach with military coordination to bolster maritime security in the strait.

    Iran, which closed the strategically critical strait in response to the U.S.-Israeli war and the Trump administration’s naval blockade of the country, has issued a firm, unified rejection of the plan. An anonymous senior Iranian official told independent outlet Drop Site that Trump’s proposal is engineered to goad Iran into firing the first shot, creating a false pretext for military escalation. The official stressed that any commercial vessel attempting to traverse restricted transit routes without prior coordination with Iranian authorities will be intercepted immediately by Iranian security forces. Should U.S. military vessels intervene to disrupt these interceptions, the official added, Iran will respond with immediate, proportional force. The official also noted that U.S. warships are currently positioned far from the restricted transit corridor, meaning Iran would engage non-compliant commercial vessels long before they could reach American assets, accusing Trump of leveraging civilian ships as political pawns in his domestic and geopolitical agenda.

    Ebrahim Azizi, chair of the Iranian Parliament’s national security commission, echoed the criticism, warning that any U.S. interference in Iran’s new maritime regulatory framework for the Strait of Hormuz constitutes a direct violation of the ceasefire brokered earlier this April. He dismissed Trump’s initiative outright, stating that the strategically vital waterway cannot be governed by “delusional posts” on social media.

    The escalation over the strait comes as both sides navigate fragile, indirect negotiations to end the three-month-long war. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei confirmed Sunday that Tehran is currently reviewing the U.S. government’s response to Iran’s 14-point peace proposal, which was shared via Pakistani intermediation. Baghaei clarified that the proposal is exclusively focused on ending immediate hostilities, and that no nuclear-related negotiations are currently underway, despite repeated claims from Trump and U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that halting Iran’s purported nuclear weapons program is a core U.S. war aim. Iran has long denied pursuing nuclear weapons, and U.S. intelligence assessments have repeatedly concluded Iran does not maintain an active nuclear weapons program as described by U.S. officials. Trump has already cast doubt on the proposal’s viability, writing on social media Saturday that he cannot imagine the plan being acceptable, claiming Iran has not paid a sufficient price for its actions over the past 47 years.

    The exact details of the 14-point proposal remain publicly unconfirmed, but foreign policy analysts have offered preliminary assessments. Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, argued Sunday that the proposal represents an unstated push for a broad grand bargain to resolve the 47-year history of U.S.-Iran hostility, rather than just a temporary ceasefire. Parsi noted the plan implicitly calls for both sides to restrain their regional proxies, including Israel and Hezbollah, an approach that could align with Trump’s known negotiating instincts.

    Domestically, the war has become a growing political liability for Trump. A new ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll released Friday found that 61% of U.S. voters view Trump’s decision to launch the war as a mistake, while 66% disapprove of his handling of the conflict. The poll also recorded Trump’s lowest presidential approval rating to date.

    Analysts have noted that Iran’s current strategy, which includes closing the Strait of Hormuz to disrupt global energy and commodity trade, aligns directly with a long-documented asymmetric warfare doctrine developed by Iran’s military leadership. Archival footage from the 1990s, recently shared online by journalist Séamus Malekafzali, featured late Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Hossein Salami — who was killed in a U.S.-Israeli strike last year — outlining the doctrine for IRGC staff. Salami argued that while direct conflict with the U.S. is possible, victory is achievable if Iran can shift fighting to terrain that neutralizes U.S. military advantages and exploits U.S. weaknesses. Geopolitical analysts paraphrase the doctrine as focusing on drawing out conflict to raise economic costs and fuel domestic political turmoil in the U.S., eroding its political will to sustain military engagement.

    This approach is already visible in the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway that carries roughly 25% of global seaborne oil trade and one-third of the world’s seaborne fertilizer trade annually. Harrison Mann, a fellow with the advocacy group Win Without War, explained the dynamic during a Sunday CNN appearance, noting that Iran is able to inflict meaningful economic pain on the U.S. and its allies through this form of economic warfare, a pressure campaign that will be unsustainable for Trump over the long term.

    Project Freedom has drawn immediate backing from hardline U.S. Iran war supporters, including South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, a leading Republican advocate for military action against Tehran. Graham said he fully endorses Trump’s decision, stating that while he supports a diplomatic end to the conflict, it is past time to reestablish freedom of navigation in the strait and respond forcefully to Iran if it continues what Graham described as “terrorizing the world.”

  • ‘Elephant in the room’ Trump looms over European attempt at unity

    ‘Elephant in the room’ Trump looms over European attempt at unity

    The shadow of U.S. President Donald Trump hung heavily over this week’s European Political Community (EPC) summit in Yerevan, Armenia, even as leaders stopped short of naming him directly during closed and open discussions. For attendees at the gathering, which brought together dozens of heads of state and government from across the continent, growing American disengagement from European security was the unmissable issue driving urgent talks of European strategic self-reliance.

    Addressing delegates on the opening day of the summit, French President Emmanuel Macron framed Europe’s decades-long over-dependence on Washington’s security guarantees as the “elephant in the room” that leaders could no longer afford to ignore. The gathering, which is structured as a less formal alternative to rigid institutional EU summits, was convened to address three core priorities: strengthening energy security across the continent, defending democratic institutions, and sustaining military and economic support for Ukraine amid its third year of defending against Russia’s full-scale invasion.

    The summit also marked a milestone for host nation Armenia, which will hold its first ever formal direct negotiation session with the European Union on Tuesday, a step that underscores the country’s accelerating westward political alignment. The move has already drawn sharp criticism from neighboring Russia, which has long viewed the South Caucasus nation as part of its traditional sphere of influence.

    Recent policy moves from the Trump White House have amplified the urgency of European calls for greater defense autonomy. Trump’s recent announcement that he will withdraw 5,000 U.S. troops and long-range deterrent missiles from bases in Germany — missiles deployed by predecessor Joe Biden explicitly to counter potential Russian aggression — has deepened European concerns about Washington’s commitment to regional security. Tensions rose further after German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who was unable to attend the Yerevan summit, publicly criticized Trump’s military campaign against Iran as strategically unmoored. Trump hit back, dismissing Merz as ineffective, and German officials have since scrambled to de-escalate the public rift.

    NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who has long pursued a strategy of diplomatic outreach to Trump, acknowledged that alliance leaders are well aware of the U.S. president’s longstanding frustration with European defense spending levels, which he has repeatedly criticized as insufficient. “We have heard his frustrations,” Rutte told reporters on the sidelines of the summit.

    Beyond frictions with Washington, European leaders also confront a cascade of overlapping global challenges that threaten regional stability. The ongoing military conflict between the U.S.-Israel bloc and Iran, and the subsequent disruption to global oil supplies through the Strait of Hormuz, has sent ongoing economic ripples across Europe that continue to strain energy markets and economic growth. Meanwhile, the war in Ukraine grinds on, with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky using his address to the summit to urge allies to maintain unwavering pressure on the Kremlin ahead of a key decision point this summer.

    “This summer will be a moment when Vladimir Putin decides what to do next,” Zelensky told delegates. “We must push him toward diplomacy. Russia can’t afford new military equipment, which makes clear they are not as strong as they once projected to be.”

    The summit also signaled a notable shift in post-Brexit relations between the United Kingdom and the European Union, under new UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Starmer, who acknowledged that European alliances “are not where we want them to be” in comments widely interpreted as a reference to shifting U.S. policy, again called on European nations to accelerate efforts to strengthen their own defense capabilities. He has also made little secret of his ambition to deepen cooperation and even policy alignment with the bloc, a sharp break from the hardline Eurosceptic approach of his recent predecessors.

    Currently, the UK is in active negotiations to join an EU-led €90 billion (£78 billion) loan framework designed to provide long-term economic and military support to Ukraine. The UK has been one of Ukraine’s most steadfast allies since Russia’s 2022 invasion, but the move marks a growing shift toward coordinating that support through European institutional frameworks. Starmer defended the negotiations, noting that the agreement would deliver tangible benefits to both Kyiv and British workers. “It’s of great benefit to Ukraine, but also the jobs it’ll create in the United Kingdom,” he said. He declined to comment on media reports that the EU is demanding the UK pay roughly £1 billion ($1.3 billion) annually as part of a broader reset in bilateral relations, a demand that aligns with longstanding expert arguments that the UK must pay for access to European single market benefits.

    Experts and leaders alike acknowledge that forging genuine European strategic autonomy — freeing the continent from dependence on U.S. military power and the potential political leverage that comes with it — will be a decades-long project. For now, the bloc’s core hope is that incremental progress on developing independent European military capabilities will ease Trump’s frustrations, and keep Washington at least partially aligned with European interests as the continent confronts a growing array of interconnected security and economic challenges.

  • India’s Modi celebrates ‘record’ win in opposition-held West Bengal

    India’s Modi celebrates ‘record’ win in opposition-held West Bengal

    In a landmark political shake-up that has reshaped India’s regional electoral map, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) secured a historic first-ever majority win in West Bengal, a state long held as an unassailable stronghold of the regional opposition All India Trinamool Congress (TMC). The final results from India’s multi-phase April-May state and territorial elections, announced Monday, delivered a series of seismic shifts across five jurisdictions, with far-reaching implications for national politics ahead of the 2029 general election.

    With vote counting completed under heavy security deployment in West Bengal, a state home to more than 100 million people, the Election Commission of India confirmed the BJP won 206 of the 294 legislative assembly seats — a record-breaking outcome that ends TMC’s 14-year consecutive rule of the state. Beyond West Bengal, the BJP also secured its third consecutive term in power in the northeastern state of Assam, and earned a place in the ruling governing coalition in the small coastal union territory of Puducherry.

    For Prime Minister Modi, 75, the surprise breakthrough in West Bengal comes as a major political boost as he navigates pressing domestic economic challenges and complex foreign policy priorities, including persistently high national unemployment and a pending bilateral trade deal with the United States, ahead of the 2029 national general election.

    Taking to social media to address the win, Modi framed the result as a victory for popular mandate and performance-focused governance. “The 2026 West Bengal Assembly Elections will be remembered forever,” he wrote. “People’s power has prevailed and BJP’s politics of good governance has triumphed. BJP’s record win in West Bengal would not be possible without the efforts and struggles of countless Karyakartas (workers) over generations.”

    Thousands of party workers and supporters poured onto the streets of Kolkata, West Bengal’s capital, to celebrate the historic win, dancing to pro-party victory anthems amid widespread jubilation. The BJP had waged an aggressive year-long campaign to unseat TMC leader Mamata Banerjee, the 71-year-old firebrand incumbent who had held power in the state since 2011. The campaign was marred by controversy over the removal of millions of names from state voter rolls: officials framed the purge as a necessary step to remove ineligible, duplicate voters, but critics argued the process disproportionately targeted marginalized and minority communities, skewing the electorate in the BJP’s favor.

    Banerjee, who herself lost her longtime Bhabanipur constituency seat to BJP candidate Suvendu Adhikari by a margin of more than 15,000 votes, levelled serious allegations of electoral misconduct against the BJP and the national election body. A visibly emotional Banerjee told reporters in Kolkata, “BJP looted more than 100 seats. The Election Commission is the BJP’s commission,” before adding she would regroup and “bounce back” in future contests.

    Political analysts note the West Bengal win will significantly consolidate the BJP’s control across eastern India, cementing its status as India’s undisputed national dominant party. “It’s a tremendous victory,” said Sushila Ramaswamy, a veteran political analyst, in an interview with AFP. “It also shows the electoral machinery of the BJP, how effective and how much detailing goes into their election campaign. And it establishes the BJP as the dominant party in the country.”

    Addressing supporters and party members in the national capital Delhi, Modi called for calm and unity across all election regions, rejecting calls for retaliation against political opponents. “Today, when the BJP has won, the talk should not be of ‘revenge’, but of ‘change’,” he said. “Not of fear, but of the future.”

    The election cycle delivered another major upset in the southern industrial state of Tamil Nadu, where veteran chief minister MK Stalin, leader of the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), lost his longtime Kolathur constituency seat to a little-known candidate from a newly launched political party. The debutant party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), was founded in 2024 by C. Joseph Vijay, one of Tamil cinema’s most commercially successful A-list actors, who ran on a platform prioritizing youth employment and transparent governance. TVK defeated the incumbent DMK to win a majority in the state, leaving Stalin’s party a distant second.

    Political scientist Ramu Manivanan said the Tamil Nadu result reflects growing demand for new political leadership among the state’s large youth electorate, rather than just general anti-incumbency sentiment. “This result shows that the youth want a new face. It is not just anti-incumbency,” Manivanan explained. “Vijay as an actor has a large female fan base as a cinema star. All that has influenced the outcome.”

    In the southern coastal state of Kerala, the final remaining Communist-led government in India was voted out of power after two consecutive five-year terms. A Congress party-led alliance defeated the incumbent Left Democratic Front, earning a clear governing majority. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi thanked Kerala’s voters for what he called a “truly decisive mandate” in the wake of the result.

  • Russia declares a unilateral ceasefire in Ukraine to mark Victory Day

    Russia declares a unilateral ceasefire in Ukraine to mark Victory Day

    Russia’s Defense Ministry has announced a unilateral ceasefire that will be in effect across Ukraine on Friday and Saturday, timed to coincide with the 81st anniversary of Nazi Germany’s defeat in World War II, while issuing a stark warning that it will respond with force if Kyiv attempts to undermine Russia’s Victory Day commemorations.

    In an official statement released Monday, the ministry expressed hope that Ukrainian leadership would match the ceasefire announcement for Russia’s most meaningful national secular holiday. As of Tuesday morning, Ukrainian officials had not issued any public response to Russia’s proposal.

    The announcement comes one week after Russian authorities confirmed they would drastically scale back the traditional annual Victory Day military parade on Moscow’s iconic Red Square, a decision directly tied to growing security fears over potential cross-border attacks from Ukraine. Since Russia launched its full-scale invasion more than four years ago, Ukraine has carried out a growing number of deep-strike drone attacks targeting locations inside Russian territory as part of its counter-offensive operations.

    Russia’s Defense Ministry went on to issue an explicit threat: if Ukraine carries out any action to disrupt Saturday’s Victory Day celebrations, Russian forces will launch a massive missile strike against central Kyiv. The statement also included a formal warning to civilian residents of the Ukrainian capital and staff working at foreign diplomatic missions, urging them to evacuate the city immediately to avoid harm.

    The ceasefire discussion was first raised last week during a phone call between Russian President Vladimir Putin and former U.S. President Donald Trump, where Putin first floated the idea of a truce to mark the national holiday.

    For decades, the Kremlin has leaned on the elaborate, spectacle-driven Victory Day parade as a platform to display Russia’s military power and diplomatic standing on the global stage, and the holiday has long served as a unifying source of national patriotic pride for the Russian public. This year, however, the Moscow parade will proceed without the traditional display of tanks, ballistic missiles, and other heavy military equipment for the first time in almost 20 years. Many smaller regional parades held across Russia’s vast territory have also been cut back or canceled entirely due to persistent security concerns.

    World War II holds a unique, unifying role in modern Russian national memory. For the Soviet Union, the conflict—referred to domestically as the Great Patriotic War (1941–1945)—cost 27 million lives, a staggering national loss that remains etched into the collective Russian psyche decades later, standing as one of the few shared historical touchstones across Russia’s turbulent modern political history.

    Over his 25-plus years in power, Putin has elevated Victory Day into a core ideological pillar of his presidency, frequently framing the ongoing conflict in Ukraine through the lens of the World War II anti-Nazi struggle to justify the invasion. Last year’s 80th anniversary commemoration drew the largest gathering of global heads of state to Moscow in a decade, with high-profile international guests including Chinese President Xi Jinping, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, and Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico in attendance. For that 2024 event, Putin declared a 72-hour unilateral ceasefire starting May 7, and authorities shut down cellular internet access across Moscow for multiple days to reduce the risk of Ukrainian drone attacks.

  • Greens compare Reform UK’s detention centre pledge to racist 1960s Tory campaign slogan

    Greens compare Reform UK’s detention centre pledge to racist 1960s Tory campaign slogan

    Days ahead of the UK’s May 7 local elections, where both Reform UK and the Green Party are projecting major gains, the right-wing populist party has sparked national outrage with a controversial pledge that weaponizes migration policy for partisan gain.

    Reform UK, led by Nigel Farage, has already made clamping down on unauthorized migration a core campaign promise, previously committing to deport 600,000 people residing in the UK illegally and construct a network of new detention facilities with capacity for up to 24,000 detainees. In a provocative announcement Sunday, Reform UK’s home affairs spokesperson Zia Yusuf laid out explicit partisan criteria for where these facilities will — and will not — be located.

    Yusuf confirmed that no detention centres would be sited in any parliamentary constituency represented by a Reform UK MP, nor in local councils controlled by the party. “Of the remaining areas, we will prioritise Green-controlled parliamentary constituencies and Green-controlled councils to locate the detention centres,” he said. Yusuf framed the policy in blunt electoral terms: “Put simply, if you vote in a Reform council or Reform MP, we guarantee you won’t have a detention centre near you. If you vote Green, there’s a good chance you will.”

    Yusuf justified the policy by pointing to an internal Green Party policy document that states the party “wants to see a world without borders,” arguing the partisan siting was a fitting consequence of the Greens’ open-borders stance. To pre-empt expected legal challenges to the plan, Yusuf added that a Reform UK government would push through new legislation to block courts from halting construction, mandating that facilities be built in Green-leaning areas regardless of legal pushback. He framed the upcoming local elections as a fundamental clash for the UK’s future, claiming “the failed era of the Tory-Labour uniparty is over” and that the 7 May votes are “a battle for the soul of Britain between Reform and the Greens.”

    The pledge has drawn fierce condemnation from across the political spectrum, starting with the Green Party. A senior Green Party source told Middle East Eye that the policy is “reminiscent” of the racist 1960s campaigning by the Conservative Party, specifically calling out parallels to the 1964 election campaign of Conservative politician Peter Griffiths. Griffiths infamously distributed racist flyers in the Smethwick constituency urging voters: “If you want a n****r for a neighbour, vote Labour.” The source also dismissed Farage as a desperate “establishment stooge” whose credibility is eroding among his own base.

    Criticism has also extended to figures on the British right, who have rejected the policy as an unacceptable abuse of state power. Fraser Nelson, a conservative columnist for The Times, described the pledge as a “new departure for UK politics” that rejects the longstanding principle of a prime minister governing for all citizens, in favor of an overtly partisan approach to state policy.

    Simon Clarke, director of centre-right think tank UK Onward, called the proposal “abhorrent.” Clarke noted that the policy explicitly targets sites for detention centres as political punishment for communities that do not support Reform UK — a penalty that would not only apply to Green voters, but to supporters of the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour as well. He added that the plan would “almost certainly be deemed an abuse of ministerial power for political purposes, and as such would likely be struck down in court before ever being implemented, wasting millions for the taxpayer without detaining anyone.”

  • Israeli MP calls for ‘conquest, expulsion, settlement’ as she tours Gaza boundary

    Israeli MP calls for ‘conquest, expulsion, settlement’ as she tours Gaza boundary

    Against a backdrop of growing speculation that Israel is preparing to restart large-scale military operations in Gaza, a senior far-right Israeli lawmaker has reignited controversy with extreme new calls for the full occupation of the Gaza Strip and the forced expulsion of its civilian population, framing the move as the sole path to long-term Israeli security.

    Limor Son Har-Melech, a parliament member from the far-right Otzma Yehudit party led by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, made the remarks in a social media post on X Sunday following an official inspection tour of communities along the Gaza-Israel border. In the post, which included photos and video from her tour, she argued that Israel remains trapped in what she called a failed strategic framework for Gaza, and that there is no substitute for military conquest, mass displacement of local residents, and the establishment of new Jewish settlements across the enclave.

    “Any other solution is unfeasible and will bring upon us the next massacre,” she wrote. Son Har-Melech also emphasized that Israel has no choice but to seize full control of the Netzarim Corridor, a strategic strip of land that splits Gaza into separate northern and southern zones, and to build a permanent chain of Israeli settlements along the route.

    This latest statement is far from an outlier for the hardline politician, who has a long track record of incendiary rhetoric targeting Palestinians. In previous public remarks, she has praised an Israeli citizen convicted of murdering three members of a Palestinian family, and backed a group of Israeli prison staff accused of sexually assaulting Palestinian detainees, falsely claiming the officers were framed. Son Har-Melech has also organized and participated in multiple public events advocating for Israeli resettlement of occupied Palestinian territories, including a conference hosted inside Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, that explicitly called for the expulsion of all Palestinians from Gaza and laid out detailed plans for Jewish settlement construction in the enclave.

    Son Har-Melech’s comments come as Israeli military leaders are pushing for an immediate resumption of offensive operations in Gaza, according to reporting from Israeli Army Radio. The outlet cited senior defense officials who argue that the current moment presents a unique and optimal window to defeat Hamas, the governing group of Gaza. Planners have already finalized military blueprints for the renewed offensive, Army Radio reported, with only a final sign-off from Israel’s top political leadership required to launch hostilities.

  • Iran threatens to attack US warships that enter Strait of Hormuz

    Iran threatens to attack US warships that enter Strait of Hormuz

    Escalating cross-border tensions have thrown the strategically critical Strait of Hormuz back into the global spotlight, after Iran’s top military commander issued a stark warning that any United States naval vessel entering the waterway will face immediate armed attack. The new threat comes just days after former US President Donald Trump launched what he calls “Project Freedom”, framed as a humanitarian mission to extract commercial ships stranded in the strait amid ongoing restrictions from Tehran.

    The warning, first reported by Reuters early Monday, came from Ali Abdollahi, commander of Iran’s unified military command. “We warn that any foreign armed forces, especially the aggressive US army, will be attacked if they intend to approach and enter the Strait of Hormuz,” Abdollahi stated, marking the second time in days that Iranian military officials have explicitly targeted the US with this threat.

    Trump, who had previously ordered a full blockade on Iranian ports and avoided deploying US naval assets into the strait over fears of retaliation, launched the new initiative Sunday. He has already issued a counter-warning to Iran, stating that any interference with the US mission will prompt a direct military response from American forces.

    Stretching between Iran and Oman, the Strait of Hormuz is widely considered the world’s most vital energy chokepoint. Roughly 20% of the globe’s daily crude oil output and a fifth of global liquefied natural gas shipments pass through the narrow waterway, according to International Energy Agency data. When the strait was closed amid recent conflict, the IEA recorded the largest single supply disruption in global energy history: output fell by more than 10 million barrels of oil per day, while global LNG supplies dropped by 20%.

    The sharp exchange of threats comes against a fragile backdrop of diplomatic efforts to end the ongoing US-Iran conflict, with Pakistan serving as the neutral mediator between the two sides. A ceasefire has been in place since April 8, but Iranian leadership has openly questioned the sincerity of US commitment to a lasting peace deal.
    Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei slammed Washington on Monday for dragging out negotiations, saying US demands throughout the talks have been “excessive”. “The other side must resolve to adopt a reasonable approach and abandon excessive demands regarding Iran,” Baghaei told reporters. He also added that all nations that have participated in the conflict, both directly and indirectly, bear collective responsibility for the ongoing crisis.

    Many Iranian political observers, including academic Mohammad Maraandi — who is widely viewed as aligned with senior Iranian government officials — share the widespread skepticism over US intentions. Maraandi has publicly argued that the US is using diplomatic talks as a cover to rebuild its military positioning in the region ahead of a new wave of attacks on Iran.

    According to reporting from Al Jazeera, Iran recently submitted a formal three-phase peace proposal to the US via Pakistani mediators, with the goal of turning the current fragile ceasefire into a permanent end to hostilities within 30 days. The core of the proposal centers on a binding regional non-aggression pact, which would require commitments from all regional actors including Israel to avoid future conflict and cement stability across the Middle East.

    Under the first phase of the proposal, the Strait of Hormuz would be gradually reopened to commercial traffic in tandem with the US lifting its blockade and trade restrictions on Iranian ports. Tehran has also offered to take full responsibility for clearing sea mines from the waterway to restore safe navigation for global shipping.

  • Rubio plans to visit the Vatican this week as tensions between Trump and the pope rise

    Rubio plans to visit the Vatican this week as tensions between Trump and the pope rise

    A high-stakes diplomatic mission is set to unfold this week, as U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio travels to Rome and Vatican City to defuse rapidly escalating friction between President Donald Trump and the first American-born pontiff, Pope Leo XIV, rooted in deep disagreements over the Trump administration’s Iran war policy. The State Department officially confirmed Rubio’s itinerary on Monday, noting that the trip, scheduled for Thursday and Friday, marks the Catholic secretary’s third official visit to Italy or the Holy See since he took office as the Republican administration’s top diplomat. Vatican officials have publicly confirmed that Rubio will hold a one-on-one meeting with Pope Leo on Thursday.

    According to a formal statement from the State Department, the core agenda for Rubio’s discussions with Holy See leadership will center on the volatile security situation across the Middle East, alongside overlapping policy priorities for the U.S. and the Vatican in the Western Hemisphere. Separate meetings with Italian government counterparts, the statement added, will focus on collaborative security objectives and continued strategic alignment between the two NATO allies.

    The diplomatic outreach comes at a moment of open public friction between the sitting U.S. president and the pope. Tensions first flared last month, when Trump issued a scathing social media rebuke of Pope Leo, accusing the pontiff of being soft on transnational crime and terrorism over Leo’s public criticism of the administration’s hardline immigration and deportation policies, as well as its ongoing military campaign in Iran. In response, the Pope delivered a widely interpreted rebuke, stating that God does not hear the prayers of leaders who choose to wage aggressive war. The exchange escalated dramatically when Trump shared a now-deleted social media graphic that depicted him in the likeness of Jesus Christ.

    To date, Trump has rejected repeated calls to apologize for the controversial post, offering a shifting explanation that he initially believed the image portrayed him as a medical professional rather than a Christ figure. The friction between the White House and the Vatican has already spilled beyond religious and diplomatic circles, seeping into Italian domestic politics: Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, a longstanding ally of Trump, has publicly condemned the president’s comments about the pope. In turn, Trump has lashed out at Meloni, part of a broader growing frustration with NATO allies that he accuses of failing to provide sufficient support for the Iran war. That frustration has already translated into policy, with the Pentagon announcing plans to withdraw thousands of U.S. troops from Germany in the coming months.

    This is far from the first time Rubio has been tapped to clean up after Trump’s provocative rhetoric: the secretary has repeatedly been tasked with walking back or softening the president’s harsh public statements on European relations, NATO and Middle East policy. Beyond the international diplomatic ramifications, the high-profile dispute with the pope carries notable domestic political stakes for the Republican Party, as the U.S. approaches upcoming midterm congressional elections.

    Pope Leo has sought to frame his own comments as non-partisan, saying his public calls for peace and criticism of the Iran war and other global conflicts were not intended as a direct attack on Trump or any other political leader. Prior to this week’s trip, Rubio has made two official visits to Italy as Secretary of State. His first trip, in May 2025, included attendance at Pope Leo’s inaugural mass and a private audience with the pontiff alongside Vice President JD Vance. His second visit, in February, again paired with Vance, for the opening ceremony of the Milan Winter Olympics, where the pair met with U.S. Olympic athletes. This story has been corrected to confirm that this week’s trip will bring Rubio’s total number of official visits to Italy or the Vatican to at least three.