分类: politics

  • US Supreme Court strikes down swath of Trump global tariffs

    US Supreme Court strikes down swath of Trump global tariffs

    In a landmark decision with profound implications for presidential trade powers, the US Supreme Court declared Friday that former President Donald Trump overstepped his constitutional authority by imposing sweeping global tariffs under emergency economic statutes. The 6-3 ruling from the conservative-majority court specifically invalidated tariffs implemented under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), marking a significant check on executive trade authority.

    The court determined that IEEPA—legislation originally designed for national security emergencies—does not provide legal foundation for imposing broad tariff measures. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, emphasized that “had Congress intended to convey the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs with IEEPA, it would have done so expressly, as it consistently has in other tariff statutes.”

    This ruling affects multiple tariff initiatives Trump enacted upon returning to office last year, including so-called “reciprocal” tariffs targeting trade practices deemed unfair by Washington, alongside separate duties imposed on Mexico, Canada, and China concerning drug trafficking and immigration issues. The decision upholds earlier findings from lower courts that had blocked these tariffs from taking effect pending appeal.

    Notably, the ruling does not impact sector-specific tariffs on steel, aluminum, and various other goods that Trump implemented through different legal mechanisms. Several formal investigations that could lead to additional sectoral tariffs remain ongoing. The White House has indicated it will explore alternative legislative pathways to address what it characterizes as unfair global trade practices.

  • Trump to travel to China from March 31 to April 2, says White House

    Trump to travel to China from March 31 to April 2, says White House

    The White House confirmed on Friday, February 20, 2026, that U.S. President Donald Trump will undertake an official visit to China from March 31 to April 2. This high-stakes diplomatic engagement marks a significant moment in Sino-American relations, occurring against a complex geopolitical backdrop.

    The announcement follows a prior congressional outreach effort, wherein a delegation of U.S. lawmakers journeyed to China for discussions in September 2025. That visit was notably the first by a House of Representatives delegation since 2019, signaling a tentative thaw in diplomatic exchanges at multiple levels of government.

    This forthcoming presidential summit is anticipated to address a spectrum of bilateral issues, potentially including trade imbalances, technological competition, and regional security concerns. The trip’s scheduling suggests a strategic effort to foster high-level dialogue, though it comes amid a period of pronounced tensions highlighted by recent U.S. actions. These include the establishment of a $12-billion strategic minerals stockpile explicitly framed as a counter to China’s influence and public statements from President Trump characterizing certain international dealings with Beijing as ‘very dangerous.’

    The international community will be closely monitoring the outcomes of this engagement, which could have profound implications for global economic and political stability.

  • BBC inside Trump press briefing slamming Supreme Court tariffs ruling

    BBC inside Trump press briefing slamming Supreme Court tariffs ruling

    In a heated press briefing, President Donald Trump delivered a scathing critique of the U.S. Supreme Court following its landmark ruling that struck down his administration’s expansive tariff policies. BBC correspondent Bernd Debusmann reported from inside the briefing room where the president expressed his vehement disagreement with the judicial decision.

    The ruling, which represents a significant check on presidential trade authority, found that the Trump administration had overstepped its executive powers in implementing sweeping levies on imported goods. Legal experts suggest the decision reinforces constitutional separation of powers and could have lasting implications for future presidential trade actions.

    During his remarks, President Trump characterized the ruling as ‘a disastrous decision for American workers and businesses,’ arguing that it undermines his administration’s efforts to protect domestic industries and negotiate better trade deals. He suggested the decision would embolden trading partners and weaken the United States’ position in ongoing trade negotiations.

    The Supreme Court’s majority opinion, as summarized by legal analysts, maintained that while the president possesses substantial authority in international trade matters, such power must operate within the framework established by Congress through existing trade legislation. The ruling specifically addressed the legal basis cited by the administration for implementing certain tariffs, finding it insufficient under current law.

    Market analysts are now assessing the potential economic impact of the decision, which may lead to the rollback of certain tariffs and affect various sectors differently. The ruling comes amid ongoing trade tensions with multiple nations and could influence upcoming trade negotiations.

  • Iran’s nuclear deal proposal could be ready in days, FM Araghchi says

    Iran’s nuclear deal proposal could be ready in days, FM Araghchi says

    Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced on Friday that Tehran expects to finalize a draft nuclear counterproposal within days, signaling potential diplomatic progress despite escalating military tensions in the Middle East. The development comes as the United States maintains a substantial military presence in the region, with President Donald Trump having issued a 10-15 day ultimatum for Iran to reach an agreement or face severe consequences.

    In a televised interview with MS NOW, Araghchi clarified critical aspects of the ongoing negotiations, stating unequivocally that Iran had not offered to suspend uranium enrichment and that American officials had not demanded complete cessation of enrichment activities. Instead, discussions have focused on establishing verifiable safeguards to ensure the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program in perpetuity.

    The Iranian diplomat outlined plans for implementing both technical and political confidence-building measures that would provide international assurance of peaceful intentions. These measures would be exchanged for specific actions regarding sanctions relief, though Araghchi declined to provide detailed specifications regarding either the safeguards or the sanctions negotiations.

    While not specifying exact timing, Araghchi indicated that additional US-Iran talks could resume within approximately one week following internal review of Iran’s forthcoming proposal by senior officials in Tehran. He expressed optimism that a diplomatic resolution remained achievable within a compressed timeframe, despite the looming American deadline.

    The White House declined to immediately comment on Araghchi’s statements. However, an unnamed Trump administration official later contradicted portions of the foreign minister’s account, asserting that US negotiators had indeed maintained the position of no uranium enrichment. According to this source, American officials communicated to their Iranian counterparts that any counterproposal must demonstrate concrete safeguards ensuring the purely energy-oriented nature of Iran’s nuclear activities, with a detailed proposal expected within one week.

    Araghchi separately addressed the US military buildup in the region, warning that military options would significantly complicate diplomatic efforts to reach a comprehensive agreement. The situation remains tense as both diplomatic and military timelines converge in what represents one of the most critical periods in recent US-Iran relations.

  • Trump says he is considering limited military strike on Iran

    Trump says he is considering limited military strike on Iran

    Tensions between the United States and Iran have entered a decisive phase as diplomatic efforts converge with military posturing. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced Tehran is preparing a draft agreement proposal for Washington, expected to be delivered to US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff within days. This development occurs alongside significant US military deployments toward the region, including the USS Gerald R Ford – the world’s largest warship – and the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier battle group.

    President Donald Trump has characterized the situation as approaching resolution within approximately ten days, suggesting either a diplomatic breakthrough or potential military action. While engaging with journalists, Trump maintained strategic ambiguity regarding precise intentions, stating: ‘We’re going to make a deal or get a deal one way or the other.’ This posture aligns with his documented preference for maintaining operational secrecy.

    The geopolitical standoff stems from longstanding concerns among US and European allies regarding Iran’s nuclear program, which Western powers suspect aims toward weapons development despite Tehran’s consistent denials. Recent negotiations in Switzerland have reportedly yielded progress, even as both nations reinforce military capabilities. Satellite imagery confirms Iranian military fortifications, while Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has utilized social media to warn that ‘a warship is a dangerous piece of military hardware.’

    Historical context reveals Trump’s pattern of employing deadlines alongside diplomatic overtures. During July’s Operation Midnight Hammer, which targeted Iranian nuclear facilities, administration officials continued publicly discussing negotiation possibilities until immediately before strikes occurred. Current military planning reportedly involves multiple options for potential extended campaigns, contrasting with previous limited operations.

    Domestically, potential military action presents political challenges for the administration. Recent polling indicates growing disapproval of Trump’s handling of key issues, and prolonged engagement with Iran risks alienating portions of his base who originally supported his non-interventionist foreign policy stance.

  • Trump lashes out after UK stops US from using its bases for Iran attack

    Trump lashes out after UK stops US from using its bases for Iran attack

    Former US President Donald Trump has issued a stark warning to the United Kingdom, threatening to obstruct Britain’s planned transfer of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. This geopolitical maneuver emerges amidst reports that Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour government has denied the United States permission to utilize UK military bases for launching offensive operations against Iran.

    The escalating tensions coincide with significant US military repositioning toward the Middle East, indicating preparations for a potential extended campaign against Tehran. Trump has consistently advocated for military action against Iran, citing concerns over its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. He recently emphasized that failure to secure an agreement would prove ‘very traumatic’ for the nation.

    Britain’s refusal to authorize attack launches from strategic locations like Diego Garcia or RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire stems from legal apprehensions that such actions might violate international law. This stance appears to have triggered Trump’s reversal on the Chagos Islands sovereignty arrangement, which involves a century-long leaseback of the joint UK-US Diego Garcia facility to Mauritius for £3.4 billion.

    Trump publicly criticized Britain’s decision as a ‘big mistake’ that relinquishes control of a strategically vital asset. He underscored Diego Garcia’s operational significance, noting its proximity to Iran enables bomber aircraft to operate within 5,300 km while avoiding monitored Gulf airspace.

    The Labour government has reportedly paused ratification of the Chagos agreement following Trump’s intervention. This represents the latest shift in Trump’s inconsistent position, having alternately endorsed and condemned the deal multiple times since last April.

    The British Foreign Office maintained its standard protocol of not commenting on operational matters while reaffirming support for US-Iran political processes and regional security priorities. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Starmer faces domestic criticism from opposition figures like Reform leader Nigel Farage, who accused the government of jeopardizing the UK-US defense relationship.

    Despite Starmer’s demonstrated commitment to strengthening Anglo-American ties, his administration has maintained diplomatic distance from Trump’s foreign policy approaches. This was evident during recent Middle Eastern conflicts where UK involvement remained deliberately limited despite regional provocations.

    The strategic importance of Diego Garcia is further highlighted by its vulnerability to potential retaliation, with Iranian Shahed-136B kamikaze drones possessing sufficient range to threaten the base’s 4,000 predominantly US military personnel and contractors.

  • Sudan: Brother of RSF commander Hemedti now using Kenyan passport and Emirati ID

    Sudan: Brother of RSF commander Hemedti now using Kenyan passport and Emirati ID

    In a significant development concerning international sanctions enforcement, Algoney Hamdan Dagalo Musa—brother of Sudanese paramilitary leader Mohamed Hamdan ‘Hemedti’ Dagalo—has been documented using a Kenyan passport and Emirati identification. The updated information was revealed in a recent memorandum from the US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).

    Based in Dubai, Algoney Dagalo serves as the primary weapons procurement officer for the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a group currently engaged in Sudan’s devastating civil war. His sanctioning by OFAC in October 2024 stemmed from his leadership role in supplying arms to perpetuate the conflict.

    The disclosure of his Kenyan and Emirati credentials raises serious questions about international compliance with sanctions regimes. Kenya’s government maintains close ties with the United Arab Emirates, the principal sponsor of the RSF. This relationship has drawn increased scrutiny following Kenyan President William Ruto’s hospitality toward RSF leadership last February, when he hosted announcements regarding a parallel government in Sudan. President Ruto has additionally faced allegations of involvement in Hemedti’s gold trade operations, which finance the RSF’s activities.

    According to OFAC investigations, Algoney Dagalo has managed front companies affiliated with the RSF that facilitate the importation of vehicles and military equipment into Sudan. These operations continue despite strict prohibitions preventing US citizens, businesses, and financial institutions from engaging with sanctioned individuals.

    The updated sanctions memo coincided with additional OFAC actions targeting three RSF commanders responsible for the 18-month siege of el-Fasher, where documented atrocities include mass rapes, ethnically motivated killings, and systematic sexual violence. A recent UN investigation concluded that the RSF’s actions in el-Fasher bear “hallmarks of genocide.”

    This development follows concerns raised by Sudanese-American organizations regarding the commander’s previous visit to Washington despite existing sanctions. US Senators Jeanne Shaheen and Cory Booker further amplified these concerns in a recent letter to top US officials, demanding an investigation into Algoney Dagalo’s travels and emphasizing that OFAC regulations generally prohibit designated persons from engaging with the US economy unless specifically authorized.

    The conflict in Sudan, which began in April 2023, has created the world’s largest humanitarian crisis according to the UN, displacing over 13 million people and claiming tens of thousands of lives.

  • ‘A path forward’: UAE minister Reem Al Hashimy hails ‘momentous’ Board of Peace meeting

    ‘A path forward’: UAE minister Reem Al Hashimy hails ‘momentous’ Board of Peace meeting

    In a landmark development for international diplomacy, UAE Minister of State for International Cooperation Reem Al Hashimy has characterized the recently convened Board of Peace meeting as a “historic” event offering a transformative approach to resolving entrenched global conflicts. Speaking exclusively with Fox News, Minister Al Hashimy articulated the board’s foundational purpose as a novel mechanism designed to address protracted crises through practical, solution-oriented dialogue rather than traditional diplomatic deadlock.

    The minister emphasized the distinctly pragmatic tone of the discussions, noting a collective shift from problem-identification to actionable solution-building. “There was a real sense of practicality and pragmatism,” she stated, describing the experience as “quite exciting to be part of something historical.” This initiative emerges against the backdrop of ongoing regional tensions, including the Hamas-Israel conflict, with Al Hashimy acknowledging measurable progress through increased humanitarian aid delivery, hostage returns, and improved ground conditions in Gaza.

    Clarifying the board’s relationship with existing international institutions, Minister Al Hashimy explicitly stated that the Board of Peace does not seek to replace the United Nations but rather functions as a complementary platform for collaboration. She described it as “a framework and a mechanism that brings different players to the table” to address issues that have proven “traditionally locked up and unable to solve through” conventional channels.

    The UAE’s substantial role in regional humanitarian efforts was highlighted, with the minister revealing that approximately half of all humanitarian aid entering Gaza originates from the Emirates. This commitment forms part of a broader strategy to build multinational coalitions around “pragmatic and practical plans” for conflict resolution.

    Addressing wider geopolitical concerns, including tensions between the US and Iran, Al Hashimy rejected what she termed a “defeatist attitude,” advocating instead for persistent diplomatic engagement. “We should keep trying to push forward new ways to solve these problems,” she asserted, expressing hope for continued dialogue to prevent regional escalation.

    Minister Al Hashimy concluded by underscoring the meeting’s global significance, noting participation from numerous nations eager to join this innovative mechanism. “What happened today was truly momentous,” she declared, characterizing the initiative as “an attempt for a path forward” in international conflict resolution.

  • Trump hits out at ‘deeply disappointing’ Supreme Court decision

    Trump hits out at ‘deeply disappointing’ Supreme Court decision

    In a sharp rebuke of the nation’s highest judicial body, President Trump has publicly condemned a recent Supreme Court decision, labeling it as ‘profoundly disappointing.’ The ruling, which represents a significant judicial check on presidential authority, has ignited a fresh wave of political contention. In direct response, the President unveiled a new economic offensive framed as a protective measure for national interests. He declared an intention to pursue alternative legal avenues to advance his policy agenda, specifically vowing to intensify charges under different statutory frameworks. Central to his retaliatory strategy is the imposition of a sweeping 10% global levy, characterized by the administration as a necessary tool to safeguard American economic and security interests against international challenges. This move signals a potential escalation in both domestic political conflicts and global trade tensions, underscoring a persistent clash between the executive and judicial branches.

  • Tony Blair claims crisis in Gaza due to ‘extremism’ and ‘corruption’

    Tony Blair claims crisis in Gaza due to ‘extremism’ and ‘corruption’

    Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair attributed the protracted crisis in Gaza to “extremism” and “corruption” during his keynote address at the inaugural session of Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace” in Washington DC on Thursday. Blair asserted that decades of dysfunctional governance, characterized by ineffective institutions and absent economic opportunities, have stifled the region’s potential.

    Despite acknowledging Gaza’s strategic advantages—including its Mediterranean coastline, proximity to major markets, and youthful demographic—Blair’s commentary notably omitted any reference to Israel’s military occupation or its role in the ongoing conflict. Instead, he championed President Trump’s 20-point reconstruction plan as the singular viable solution for Gaza’s future.

    The event revealed significant diplomatic fissures. While Blair participated in a personal capacity, the United Kingdom has formally declined membership in the initiative. This distance was reinforced by Keir Starmer’s Labour government, with Blair’s former chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, privately clarifying that the ex-PM does not represent British state interests. Powell reportedly lobbied against Blair’s involvement, according to anonymous sources familiar with the matter.

    Blair’s analysis faced immediate criticism from regional experts. Chris Doyle of the Council for the Arab-British Understanding (CAABU) labeled Blair a “serial failure in Palestine,” accusing him of possessing a colonial mindset and aligning with power structures rather than pursuing equitable solutions.

    The historical context underscores the complexity: Israel’s 2005 withdrawal was followed by a stringent blockade after Hamas’s 2007 electoral victory, leading to four major military operations that resulted in extensive Palestinian casualties. Current estimates, including a Lancet study, indicate that violent deaths alone may exceed 75,000, with total fatalities representing over 3.4% of Gaza’s pre-war population.

    Financially, nine nations—Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, UAE, Morocco, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, and Kuwait—pledged $7 billion toward humanitarian efforts. However, the Board’s charter makes no explicit mention of Gaza or Palestinians, and the US has abandoned its longstanding advocacy for a two-state solution, marking a significant policy shift under the Trump administration.