分类: politics

  • What is Nato and which countries are in it?

    What is Nato and which countries are in it?

    A leaked internal Pentagon memo obtained by Reuters has exposed unprecedented proposals from the United States to impose punitive measures on NATO allies that the Trump administration accuses of failing to back the US and Israel during their late February military campaign against Iran. The controversial plans include the radical step of suspending Spain’s membership in the 77-year-old transatlantic alliance and reopening a formal review of the United Kingdom’s long-recognized sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.

    The disclosure comes amid a sustained wave of public criticism of NATO from President Donald Trump, who has spent months lashing out at member states for their perceived lack of support following the Iran conflict, which led to Iran imposing restrictions on commercial shipping through the strategically critical Strait of Hormuz. Trump has repeatedly questioned the alliance’s relevance, even labeling it a “paper tiger” and openly floating the possibility of a full US withdrawal from the bloc. In a post on his Truth Social platform following a recent meeting with new NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, the president doubled down on his stance, writing bluntly: “NATO WASN’T THERE WHEN WE NEEDED THEM, AND THEY WON’T BE THERE IF WE NEED THEM AGAIN.” He has also consistently accused fellow member nations of free-riding on the massive US military investment that underpins collective transatlantic security.

    NATO officials pushed back immediately on the suspension proposal, telling the BBC that the alliance’s founding treaty contains no legal mechanism to suspend or expel a member state. Downing Street also rejected the suggestion of reviewing Falkland Islands sovereignty, reaffirming that the UK’s claim to the territory remains unambiguous and fully rooted in the self-determination of the islands’ population.

    Founded in 1949 in Washington D.C. by 12 original signatory nations, NATO was initially created to counter Soviet expansion in Europe and foster political integration across the continent to prevent the resurgence of nationalist militarism. Today, the alliance counts 32 member states spanning North America and Europe, with the most recent expansions bringing Finland into the bloc in 2023 and Sweden in 2024, both abandoning decades of neutrality after Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Ukraine, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Georgia hold official candidate status and have formally requested membership.

    At the core of NATO’s collective defense framework is Article 5, which states that an armed attack against any single member is considered an attack against all, requiring members to take whatever action they deem necessary to restore security. To date, Article 5 has only been invoked once, in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States in 2001. A separate provision, Article 4, allows members to bring pressing security concerns to the alliance’s main decision-making body, the North Atlantic Council, and has been used seven times since the alliance’s founding.

    In 2025, NATO leaders agreed to a landmark new defense spending target requiring all members to commit 5% of their national GDP to defense-related expenditure by 2035. Of that total, 3.5% must go toward core defense capabilities, with up to an additional 1.5% allocated to broader security infrastructure. Prior to this agreement, members operated under a non-binding 2% target, which all alliance nations finally met for the first time in 2025. The United States remains by far the alliance’s largest defense spender, contributing roughly $980 billion in 2025 – accounting for 60% of total NATO defense spending across all members. Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia, all frontline states facing direct Russian pressure, each spent over 3.5% of GDP on defense in 2025, while the UK reported 2.3% of GDP spent on defense that year, with a government target to reach 3% by the end of its next parliamentary term.

    Ukraine’s path to NATO membership remains one of the alliance’s most contentious issues. Russia has vehemently opposed Ukraine’s accession, viewing the expansion of alliance infrastructure to its border as an existential security threat. After the 2022 invasion, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky pushed to accelerate the accession process, but former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg confirmed membership would only move forward after the conclusion of active hostilities. Most recently, in August 2025, President Trump stated that Ukraine would not be permitted to join NATO as part of any proposed peace deal with Russia, placing a major new cloud over Kyiv’s long-term membership aspirations. While NATO has labeled Russia’s invasion of Ukraine the most direct threat to transatlantic security in decades, the alliance has declined to deploy direct military support or impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine to avoid a direct armed conflict with nuclear-armed Russia. Individual member states, however, have provided billions of dollars in military and humanitarian aid to Kyiv since the invasion began.

  • ROK’s special counsel seeks 30-year sentence for ex-president Yoon over general treason

    ROK’s special counsel seeks 30-year sentence for ex-president Yoon over general treason

    In a landmark legal development stemming from one of South Korea’s most dramatic political crises in modern history, independent prosecutors have formally called for a 30-year prison term for former South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol on charges of general treason connected to a 2024 unauthorized drone incursion into the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).

    The investigation into Yoon’s actions is being led by Cho Eun-suk, the special counsel appointed to probe allegations of insurrection and other criminal offences connected to Yoon’s 2024 emergency martial law declaration. Prosecutors argue that Yoon ordered the secret drone operation into Pyongyang around October 2024 as a deliberate military provocation against the DPRK. The incursion was designed to manufacture a security crisis, which Yoon planned to use as justification for his contested declaration of martial law two months later, according to the indictment.

    Prosecutors outlined the severe consequences of Yoon’s actions during Friday’s court proceedings: the unauthorized operation sharply escalated military tensions on the Korean Peninsula, a region already marked by decades of inter-Korean hostility. After the drone crashed in DPRK territory, sensitive classified information related to South Korea’s military operations and strategic assets was compromised, directly damaging the country’s national security interests, the prosecution team argued.

    Along with the request for Yoon, the special counsel’s office is seeking a 25-year prison sentence for former South Korean Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun, who is also a co-defendant in the case. Yoon, Kim, and a former South Korean counterintelligence commander were all formally indicted on general treason charges in November 2025.

    The case traces its origins to the night of December 3, 2024, when Yoon, who was still serving as sitting president at the time, made a sudden declaration of emergency martial law, accusing the opposition of engaging in anti-state activities. The move triggered immediate political chaos, and South Korea’s National Assembly voted within hours to revoke the declaration, rendering it legally void.

    Yoon made history in January 2025 when he was arrested and indicted while in detention as the suspected ringleader of the insurrection plot, becoming the first sitting South Korean president to ever be taken into custody and formally charged with criminal offences. As the legal process moves forward, the outcome of the trial is expected to reshape South Korea’s political landscape and set a lasting precedent for executive accountability in the country.

  • Macao SAR chief executive pledges strengthening cooperation with Spanish-speaking countries

    Macao SAR chief executive pledges strengthening cooperation with Spanish-speaking countries

    During an official reception hosted by the Macao Special Administrative Region (SAR) government in Madrid on Wednesday, Macao SAR Chief Executive Sam Hou-fai announced that deepening and expanding partnerships with Spanish-speaking economies has been elevated to a strategic priority for the region. As part of this new strategic push, Sam outlined plans to extend the scope of Macao’s well-established platform bridging China and Portuguese-speaking countries to include Spanish-speaking nations, unlocking new cross-regional collaborative potential.

    Sam emphasized that Macao has nurtured long-standing, robust ties with Spain and other European nations. Moving forward, the SAR will prioritize deepening mutually beneficial cooperation across key sectors including bilateral trade, cultural exchange, tourism, and the conventions and exhibitions industry, while stepping up people-to-people connections that underpin long-term partnership.

    Against the backdrop of China’s upcoming 15th Five-Year Plan, which will map out the nation’s development blueprint for the next five years, Sam noted the framework opens up extensive new opportunities for China-Spain cooperation. Macao is actively aligning its own development priorities with the national plan and is currently drafting its third five-year development plan, which focuses on refining external cooperation mechanisms and building an inclusive platform that allows all stakeholders to share new development opportunities.

    Concha Andreu, Second Vice-President of the Spanish Senate, welcomed the initiative, noting that both Spain and China share a clear commitment to strengthening bilateral cooperation, and overall bilateral relations are currently on a steady positive growth trajectory.

    Andreu pointed out that China has delivered remarkable progress in technological innovation and other key fields in recent years, while Macao’s economy continues to demonstrate strong resilience and untapped growth potential. She added that as two leading global tourist destinations, Spain and Macao hold particularly promising cooperative prospects in culture, tourism, and the conventions and exhibitions sector.

    The Madrid reception drew more than 300 representatives from Macao’s government and business communities, alongside leaders and stakeholders from Spain’s economic and commercial sectors, marking a broad show of support for the new cooperative initiative.

  • Ties with US must be based on mutual respect: Venezuela’s acting president

    Ties with US must be based on mutual respect: Venezuela’s acting president

    In a major national rally held in Venezuela’s western Lara State as part of a nationwide campaign calling for an end to punitive U.S. measures and lasting peace, acting Venezuelan President Delcy Rodriguez has publicly reaffirmed that any future diplomatic relations between Caracas and Washington can only proceed on the foundation of full mutual respect. The high-profile statement came on the same day that new U.S. special envoy John Barrett touched down in the Venezuelan capital Caracas, a development that follows the January 2026 U.S. military operation that resulted in the forced removal of sitting Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

    Rodriguez, who was leading the “Great National Pilgrimage for a Venezuela Without Sanctions and in Peace” — a cross-country movement that kicked off formally in Maracaibo on April 19, 2026, to rally public support for ending decades of U.S. economic restrictions — made clear that the Venezuelan side is open to continuing its diplomatic work agenda with the newly arrived U.S. representative, but that non-negotiable respect for Venezuelan sovereignty forms the baseline of any engagement.

    A core demand at the heart of Rodriguez’s address was the full, permanent removal of all the increasingly harsh economic sanctions that the United States has levied against Venezuela over the course of many years. These restrictions have placed crippling pressure on the country’s economy and everyday Venezuelan households for more than a decade. Even in the face of these punitive measures, Rodriguez highlighted that the Venezuelan government and its population have demonstrated remarkable resilience, successfully expanding domestic production and building up the country’s independent economic and institutional capacities against the odds.

    Looking ahead to the country’s future, Rodriguez called on all of Venezuela’s diverse political and social factions to set aside differences, engage in collective reflection, and work in unity to prevent a repeat of the January 3 U.S. military incursion that upended the country’s existing political order and led to Maduro’s forced seizure. “May missiles and bombs never again fall on our territory,” she emphasized, echoing the widespread Venezuelan public desire for lasting peace and sovereign self-determination. The address comes at a pivotal moment for U.S.-Venezuela relations, as Washington pushes its proposed political transition plan for the South American nation amid ongoing domestic and international tension over the intervention.

  • Nato says ‘no provision’ to expel members after report US could seek to suspend Spain

    Nato says ‘no provision’ to expel members after report US could seek to suspend Spain

    Tensions are roiling the North Atlantic Treaty Organization after a leaked internal Pentagon email laid out potential retaliatory measures against alliance members that have declined to back US military efforts in the ongoing Iran conflict, sparking a fierce debate over alliance cohesion and the future of collective defense commitments. The leak, first reported by Reuters via an unnamed senior US official, triggered immediate pushback from NATO leadership, affected member states and key European allies, who have moved quickly to reject any suggestion that membership could be revoked or suspended.

    The controversy stems from growing friction between the US administration under Donald Trump and several NATO allies over responses to the Iran conflict that escalated after joint US-Israeli strikes on Iran in late February. Following the attacks, Iran restricted commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical chokepoints for global energy supplies. Spain has drawn particular US ire for its refusal to grant US forces access to its two military installations — Naval Station Rota and Morón Air Base — to launch offensive operations against Iran.

    In the wake of the report claiming Washington was exploring options to suspend Spanish membership over its stance, a NATO spokesperson told the BBC that the alliance’s founding Washington Treaty contains no mechanism whatsoever to suspend or expel member states. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez also dismissed the leaked memo outright, noting that Madrid only recognizes formal official communications from the US government. “We do not work based on emails. We work with official documents and official positions taken, in this case, by the government of the United States,” Sánchez told reporters. He added that Spain remains committed to full cooperation with its allies, but that all actions will adhere strictly to international law.

    Beyond potential action against Spain, the leaked email also outlined a far more provocative proposal: reassessing longstanding US diplomatic support for the United Kingdom’s sovereignty claim over the Falkland Islands, a South Atlantic territory that is also claimed by Argentina as the Malvinas. The 1982 Falklands War between the UK and Argentina ended in British control of the archipelago, which sits roughly 300 miles off Argentina’s coast and 8,000 miles from the UK. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has already drawn a line against deeper involvement in the Iran conflict, saying that expanding UK participation in the war or supporting the current US port blockade of Iran runs counter to British national interests. While the UK has allowed the US to use its military bases for strikes on Iranian targets and has deployed Royal Air Force jets to shoot down Iranian drones, Starmer’s government has stopped short of full backing for the US campaign.

    Other retaliatory options outlined in the memo included removing so-called “difficult” allied nations from key leadership positions within the alliance’s bureaucratic structure. The memo did not propose a full US withdrawal from NATO or the permanent closure of American military bases across Europe, the source told Reuters. Instead, it framed access to basing, staging and overflight rights as the non-negotiable baseline for alliance participation, arguing that members that refuse to extend these privileges should face consequences.

    Trump has spent months openly criticizing NATO allies for what he frames as unequal burden-sharing and a lack of reciprocity in security commitments. Just last month, he repeated his longstanding claim that NATO has been a “one-way street” for the US, writing that “We will protect them, but they will do nothing for us.”

    In an official comment following the leak, Pentagon Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson did not deny the existence of the internal memo, and echoed the president’s criticism of alliance members. “Despite ‘everything’ the US has done for its NATO allies, ‘they were not there for us,’” Wilson stated. She added that the Defense Department will work to present the president with actionable options to ensure that allies move beyond being a “paper tiger” and begin contributing their fair share to collective defense efforts, declining to offer further detail on internal deliberations.

    Key European leaders have moved quickly to tamp down divisions and reaffirm their commitment to alliance unity in the wake of the leak. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni used a recent EU summit in Cyprus to call on all NATO members to close ranks, arguing that the alliance remains an indispensable source of collective strength for the transatlantic community. “We must work to strengthen NATO’s European pillar… which must clearly complement the American one,” Meloni told reporters.

    A German government spokesperson echoed that sentiment in a regular Berlin press briefing, saying that Spain’s NATO membership is not in any doubt: “Spain is a member of NATO. And I see no reason why that should change.” Other European powers, including France, have joined the UK in saying they will only commit to securing the Strait of Hormuz after a lasting ceasefire or end to the conflict. The BBC has reached out to both the Pentagon and 10 Downing Street for additional comment on the leak and the proposals outlined in the memo.

  • Taiwan compatriots attend PLA Navy’s 77th anniversary open-day event

    Taiwan compatriots attend PLA Navy’s 77th anniversary open-day event

    On April 23, 2026, a group of Taiwan compatriots took part in a special public open-day event held in Qingdao, Shandong Province, to mark the 77th founding anniversary of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy. As part of the anniversary celebrations, the group was granted access to tour active-duty warships that had been opened exclusively for the occasion, getting an up-close look at the branch’s capabilities.

    During their visit, the Taiwan compatriots walked through the decks and interior spaces of the vessels, receiving detailed introductions to the warships’ advanced weapons systems and onboard equipment from serving naval officers. They also gained first-hand insight into the daily working routines and life of the officers and crew stationed aboard the ships, posing for photos with service members to commemorate the occasion.

    Public open-house events that open active-duty naval vessels to civilian visitors are a long-standing common practice among navies across the globe. For the PLA Navy, these public engagement events have become a regular fixture in recent years. The service has hosted multiple such open days to mark major national and institutional milestones, including its annual founding anniversary and China’s National Day.

  • Sánchez sidesteps a Spain-US dispute at NATO, brushing off reported Pentagon email

    Sánchez sidesteps a Spain-US dispute at NATO, brushing off reported Pentagon email

    Amid growing transatlantic friction over U.S. military operations in the Iran war, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has declined to engage with unconfirmed reports that the Pentagon is considering punitive measures against NATO allies that refuse to back American actions. Spain has emerged as a primary target of this potential pushback, after Madrid formally barred U.S. forces tied to the conflict from accessing its military bases and national airspace. The Spanish government has repeatedly justified its position by arguing that U.S.-Israeli military action in Iran violates international law.

    Spain is not alone in its refusal: both France and the United Kingdom have also declined to grant U.S. forces unfettered access to their territories for bombing operations against Iran. Reports of the Pentagon’s internal deliberations first emerged via Reuters, which cited an anonymous U.S. official referencing an internal Defense Department email. The document even raised the possibility of suspending Spain’s full membership in NATO, alongside a proposal to reassess longstanding U.S. support for the United Kingdom’s territorial claim over the Falkland Islands (known as the Islas Malvinas in Argentina).

    Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of a European Union summit held in Nicosia, Cyprus, Sánchez pushed back on the unsubstantiated claims. “We do not work with emails,” the prime minister noted. “We work with official documents and positions taken, in this case, by the government of the United States.” He reaffirmed that Spain’s stance remains unchanged: “The position of the government of Spain is clear: absolute collaboration with the allies, but always within the framework of international legality.”

    This tension comes as NATO itself has formally distanced itself from the Iran conflict. Operating on the basis of consensus, the alliance requires the unanimous agreement of all 32 member states to launch collective action. Crucially, NATO’s founding charter also lacks any formal mechanism to suspend or expel a member nation, even if a member disagrees with the policies of one ally. Member states are only permitted to voluntarily exit the alliance, a process that requires one year’s formal notification to other partners. As an institution, NATO’s only direct role tied to the conflict is limited to defending its own sovereign territory.

    The friction has its roots in former U.S. President Donald Trump’s public anger over what he frames as a failure of many NATO allies to back U.S. actions in Iran and assist with security patrols in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global oil trade chokepoint. Trump has repeatedly questioned the value of U.S. membership in the transatlantic military alliance, and has even threatened to impose trade restrictions on Spain in retaliation for its base access ban. Beyond the Iran war, Spain has also drawn criticism from allies for failing to meet agreed NATO defense spending targets.

    EU officials have voiced confusion over the U.S. criticism of European allies, noting that France and the United Kingdom are already leading a planned effort to secure maritime trade in the Strait of Hormuz once hostilities in Iran end. EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Kaja Kallas pointed out that Washington has already asked the bloc to deliver exactly the post-conflict support Europe has committed to providing. “When we have had contacts with the American counterparts, then actually their asks for us have been exactly what we are able to offer after the cessation of hostilities,” Kallas said. “Demining, escorting of ships, all of this that we have been discussing.”

    NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, however, has implicitly criticized the position of Spain and other allied holdouts, noting that long-standing bilateral agreements between the U.S. and European allies covering overflight access and base hosting should be honored. To date, several other NATO allies have permitted U.S. warplanes to use their airspace and American military bases on their territory for operations tied to the Iran war.

    Against a backdrop of growing uncertainty over the durability of U.S. security commitments to Europe, EU leaders used the Nicosia summit to debate new frameworks for collective European self-defense. With Cyprus holding the rotating EU presidency through July, Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides confirmed that leaders have instructed the European Commission to draft a strategic blueprint outlining how the bloc would respond if one member requests collective assistance under Article 42.7 of the EU treaties.

    This mutual defense clause has only been invoked once in the bloc’s history, when France requested support following the 2015 terror attacks in Paris. Next month, EU envoys and defense ministers will hold table-top simulation exercises to test how the clause could be activated in future scenarios, mapping out how the bloc can leverage not just its combined military capabilities, but also other policy tools unavailable to NATO—including trade sanctions, border management, and visa restrictions.

  • Trump says no rush to end Iran war, US citizens to pay more for gasoline

    Trump says no rush to end Iran war, US citizens to pay more for gasoline

    WASHINGTON – As negotiations over a ceasefire to the weeks-long conflict between the US-Israeli bloc and Iran remain deadlocked, former and current US President Donald Trump made clear Thursday that he feels no urgency to bring the military confrontation to an early end, warning American consumers that they will need to shoulder elevated gasoline costs for the foreseeable future as part of the tradeoff for his administration’s policy goals.

    Speaking to reporters on the White House grounds, Trump emphasized he has no intention of forcing a rushed resolution to the conflict. “I don’t want to rush myself,” he stated, noting that US citizens should prepare to pay more at the pump for the short term, arguing the long-term outcome — an Iran stripped of nuclear weapons capabilities — would make the financial pain worth it.

    Earlier the same day, Trump doubled down on this position in a post to his social media platform Truth Social, framing the conflict as a battle of endurance that favors Washington. “I am possibly the least pressured person ever to be in this position. I have all the time in the World, but Iran doesn’t — The clock is ticking! Time is not on their side!” he wrote.

    Trump went on to insist that any final peace agreement with Iran must be structured exclusively on US terms and aligned with his own preferred timeline. “A deal will only be made when it’s appropriate and good for the United States of America, our Allies and, in fact, the rest of the World,” he added.

    The comments echoed remarks Trump made one day earlier, when he confirmed there is no fixed timeline for ending the conflict and no immediate pressure to act on the ceasefire extension he announced Tuesday, even as talks remain stalled. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt reinforced this stance Wednesday, telling reporters that Tehran has not been given a firm deadline to put forward a formal peace proposal to Washington.

  • India condemns remarks shared by Trump calling it a ‘hellhole’

    India condemns remarks shared by Trump calling it a ‘hellhole’

    A diplomatic controversy has erupted between India and the United States after former and returning U.S. President Donald Trump shared inflammatory, anti-Indian comments made by podcaster Michael Savage to his Truth Social platform, drawing sharp condemnation from New Delhi and sparking public outrage across the country.

    In the shared transcript of Savage’s commentary centered on U.S. birthright citizenship policy, the podcaster claimed immigrants from India and China are systematically abusing the 14th Amendment provision that grants automatic citizenship to children born on U.S. soil. Savage went further, making unsubstantiated claims that Indian and Chinese migrants have taken over high-tech hiring processes in California, displacing qualified white American workers, and referred to India and China as “hellholes” in his remarks.

    India’s Ministry of External Affairs issued a formal public response to the incident, stopping short of naming either Trump or Savage directly but leaving no ambiguity about New Delhi’s position. The ministry described the comments as “uninformed, inappropriate and in poor taste,” emphasizing that they do not align with the longstanding foundation of the India-U.S. partnership, which is built on mutual respect and overlapping strategic and economic interests.

    The criticism extended beyond the Indian government to the country’s main opposition bloc, the Indian National Congress, which labeled the remarks “extremely insulting and anti-Indian.” The party called on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s administration to raise the issue directly with the U.S. president and formally register a strong diplomatic objection in a public post on X.

    The controversy comes at a fragile moment for bilateral relations between New Delhi and Washington, which have faced growing friction since Trump returned to the U.S. presidency. Trump has repeatedly pressured India to cut all purchases of Russian crude oil, arguing that Indian import revenues help fund Russia’s ongoing military operation in Ukraine. In a temporary reversal earlier this year, however, the U.S. eased some sanctions restrictions to allow India to take delivery of millions of barrels of Russian oil that had been stranded at sea, preventing a potential domestic energy supply disruption.

    Trade relations have also been turbulent under the second Trump administration. Last year, Trump imposed steep 50% tariffs on a range of Indian goods, with 25 percentage points of that levy framed as a penalty for India’s continued Russian energy purchases. Earlier this year, the administration rolled those tariffs back to 18% as part of an ongoing broader trade negotiation between the two powers. To advance efforts to repair strained ties, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is scheduled to conduct an official visit to New Delhi next month, a trip widely viewed as a key step toward resetting the bilateral relationship.

    Consistent with his administration’s hardline stance on immigration, Trump has implemented sweeping new restrictions on unauthorized migration since returning to office, and has repeatedly argued that immigrants displace American workers in the U.S. labor market. A key policy target for the current administration has been the H-1B visa program, which allows U.S. companies to hire skilled foreign workers for specialty roles. Indian nationals account for the majority of H-1B visas issued annually; the program is widely credited with boosting U.S. innovation by attracting global talent, but critics, including Trump, claim it suppresses wages for domestic workers and limits employment opportunities for Americans.

    Savage’s comments, which Trump amplified via his social media platform, align closely with the administration’s existing views on immigration and the H-1B program. All of Savage’s claims about systemic hiring discrimination against white workers in California’s technology sector were made without any supporting evidence to back the allegations.

    The controversy is tied to a pending legal challenge before the U.S. Supreme Court, which is currently hearing arguments against a Trump executive order that seeks to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants and certain temporary visa holders. Savage’s remarks were framed as part of the broader public debate over that policy change.

  • Prosecutors seek 30-year prison term for South Korea’s Yoon for drone flights over Pyongyang

    Prosecutors seek 30-year prison term for South Korea’s Yoon for drone flights over Pyongyang

    In a major development marking the closing phase of the criminal trial against former South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol, state prosecutors have formally asked the Seoul Central District Court to sentence the ousted conservative leader to 30 years in prison over explosive allegations that he deliberately stoked cross-border tensions with North Korea to consolidate authoritarian power at home.

    The charges against Yoon, which include aiding an adversarial power and multiple counts of abuse of authority, are part of a sprawling set of indictments connected to his short-lived, controversial declaration of martial law in December 2024. Special prosecutors led by independent investigator Cho Eun-suk argued in court Friday that Yoon and his top national security allies orchestrated unauthorized drone flights over Pyongyang roughly two months before the martial law declaration. Prosecutors allege the provocative drone incursions were intended to ratchet up inter-Korean hostilities, creating a manufactured crisis that Yoon could exploit to justify imposing domestic martial law, during which he labeled rival liberal political factions as North Korea-aligned “anti-state” forces.

    North Korea first publicly accused South Korea of flying surveillance drones over Pyongyang to drop anti-regime propaganda leaflets on three separate occasions in October 2024. Then-Defense Minister Kim Yong Hyun, a close confidant of Yoon, initially issued an ambiguous denial of the claims, before South Korea’s Defense Ministry later revised its position to state it could neither confirm nor deny Pyongyang’s allegations. The incident triggered a sharp spike in cross-border tensions that lasted through the end of 2024.

    Yoon ultimately moved forward with his late-night martial law declaration on December 3, 2024. In a live televised address to the nation, he attacked opposition liberal parties over a series of policy disputes, most notably their impeachment of his top appointed officials and cuts to his administration’s proposed budget. The extraordinary decree was overturned just six hours after it was announced, after a quorum of opposition and ruling-party lawmakers breached blockades set up by armed soldiers and police that Yoon had deployed to shut down access to the National Assembly. Lawmakers voted unanimously to invalidate the martial law order, forcing Yoon’s cabinet to formally rescind the measure.

    The political fallout from the crisis unfolded rapidly: Yoon was suspended from presidential duties on December 14, 2024, following impeachment by the liberal-controlled National Assembly, and the Constitutional Court formally removed him from office in April 2025. He was taken into custody in July 2025 and has since stood trial on multiple overlapping criminal charges connected to the martial law incident. Earlier this year, the Seoul Central District Court found Yoon guilty of the more severe charge of rebellion and sentenced him to life in prison. Both Yoon, who has maintained his innocence, and prosecutors — who had originally pushed for a death sentence in that case — have appealed the verdict. Yoon’s legal team has repeatedly denied all allegations against him, and had no immediate public response to Friday’s 30-year sentence request.

    Prosecutors are also seeking a 25-year prison term for Kim Yong Hyun, Yoon’s former defense minister and a key co-conspirator who they say helped plan the martial law declaration and mobilize military forces to implement it. In a public statement released Friday, Cho’s investigation team alleged that Yoon deliberately sought to create a de facto state of war between the two Koreas as part of a premeditated plot to remove political opponents, monopolize state power and extend his time in office beyond his legal term.

    Yoon’s brief martial law declaration plunged South Korea into one of its most severe political crises in modern history, paralyzing domestic governance, halting high-level diplomatic engagement, and triggering significant volatility in South Korean financial markets. The political turmoil only stabilized after Yoon’s liberal rival, Lee Jae Myung, won a snap presidential election in June 2025. Shortly after taking office, Lee signed into law legislation authorizing independent, wide-ranging investigations into the martial law incident and all other criminal allegations against Yoon, his wife, and his close political associates.