Global Pulse

分类： politics

  • Royal commission into Bondi shooting says gun reform should be prioritised

    Royal commission into Bondi shooting says gun reform should be prioritised

    Almost five months after Australia’s deadliest mass shooting in three decades left 15 people dead at a Jewish community event on Bondi Beach, the country’s landmark federal royal commission focused on combating antisemitism has delivered its initial set of findings to the government.

    The public inquiry, the highest-authority form of public investigation under Australian law, was convened in January 2025 – three weeks following the attack carried out by a father-son extremist duo. On December 14 last year, Sajid Akram, 50, and his 24-year-old son Naveed Akram, armed with rifles and shotguns, ambushed a public Sunday gathering at a Bondi Beach park. Sajid Akram was fatally shot by responding officers at the scene, while Naveed sustained critical injuries during the confrontation, and was later moved from a hospital correctional facility to prison after his condition stabilized. He currently faces 59 criminal charges, including 15 counts of murder and one charge of perpetrating a terrorist act.

    Chaired by former High Court Justice Virginia Bell, the interim report tabled Thursday includes 14 actionable recommendations, with five of these proposals withheld from public release to protect ongoing national security operations.

    Key public recommendations call for federal and state governments across Australia to prioritize updating and rolling out a uniformly enforced national firearms agreement, alongside advancing a national voluntary gun buyback program to restrict unauthorized access to deadly weapons. The report also urges New South Wales (NSW) authorities to expand the enhanced policing protocols already in place for major Jewish high holy days to cover all high-risk Jewish community events and festivals, particularly those open to the general public.

    Additional recommendations include a full operational review of Australia’s joint counter-terrorism response teams, and a requirement that the prime minister and all national cabinet ministers participate in formal counter-terrorism preparedness exercises within nine months of every federal election.

    Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced Thursday that the nation’s National Security Committee has formally approved the implementation of every recommendation laid out in Bell’s report. While Albanese noted the interim findings did not identify a need for immediate emergency changes to existing policy, he emphasized that all levels of government have a continuous responsibility to strengthen protections for Jewish communities across the country.

    The road to this royal commission was marked by political pressure. In the immediate aftermath of the attack, Albanese rejected widespread calls for a full royal commission, arguing it would risk fragmenting community cohesion, and instead initially convened a smaller internal review led by former Australian intelligence chief Dennis Richardson. After sustained pressure from victims’ families, cross-party politicians, prominent public figures, and community leaders, the prime minister reversed his position, folding the NSW state inquiry and the initial Richardson review into this broader federal royal commission. In the intervening months, the government has already passed targeted legislative reforms, including tighter gun ownership regulations and strengthened hate speech laws to counter rising antisemitic rhetoric.

    The first round of public hearings for the full inquiry, which will examine broader rising antisemitism across Australian society and institutions as well as the sequence of events that led to the Bondi attack, is scheduled to open Monday. The hearings will open with sessions focused on formally defining antisemitism, mapping how it manifests in different sectors of Australian public life, and centering the lived experiences of Jewish Australians across all communities. Bell has previously noted that the scope of the inquiry’s evidence gathering will be restricted temporarily to avoid interfering with the ongoing criminal proceedings against Naveed Akram. The commission’s full and final report is set to be released on the one-year anniversary of the Bondi Beach attack.

  • Palestine Action ban disproportionately impacts Palestinians in UK, court hears

    Palestine Action ban disproportionately impacts Palestinians in UK, court hears

    A high-stakes legal battle over the UK government’s ban on the direct-action advocacy group Palestine Action reached the Court of Appeal this week, with lawyers for the group’s co-founder arguing the proscription has inflicted disproportionate harm on Palestinian communities across Britain campaigning against Israeli military operations in Gaza.

    Appearing before judges on Wednesday, Raza Husain KC, counsel for Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori, told the court the ban has fostered a pervasive “culture of fear” among British Palestinians and rights advocates aligned with their cause. In written submissions, Husain emphasized that the designation as a terrorist group has hit British Palestinians particularly acutely: their right to speak out and organize has been chilled and criminalized at a moment when their families and communities in Gaza face widespread destruction.

    Husain referenced testimony submitted to the court from Dr. Aimee Shalan, chair of the British Palestinian Committee, to contextualize the widespread harm of the ban. Shalan documented that even before proscription, Palestinian community members involved in advocacy work regularly faced intimidation, including false accusations of being terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. The added designation has amplified this pressure dramatically, Husain explained, creating a chilling effect that pushes far more people to self-censor far beyond what any formal legal requirement would demand—even for those who face no immediate risk of prosecution.

    Counsel for Palestine Action also levelled criticism at the Home Office for failing to provide the group with advance notice of its terrorist designation, a step explicitly required under the UK’s 2000 Terrorism Act. Husain noted that the overwhelming majority of Palestine Action’s protest activity falls under the category of peaceful, low-level civil disobedience: common actions include sit-ins and physical lock-ons, with only a small faction of activists having engaged in more serious property damage. He acknowledged one high-profile 2025 incident in which two activists breached the perimeter of Royal Air Force Brize Norton in southern England and sprayed military aircraft with red paint, but argued that criminal damage targeting military infrastructure has historically never been classified as terrorism under UK law. “Criminal, yes, terroristic no,” Husain told the court.

    Fellow counsel Owen Greenhall KC added that UK authorities already had a range of less extreme legal measures available to address any unlawful activity by group members, including criminal charges for property damage, trespassing claims, and civil injunctions. A full terrorist proscription, he argued, was an unnecessary and disproportionate overreach.

    Representatives of the Home Office pushed back against these arguments in court, with James Eadie KC, counsel for the department, contending that prior notice was not required in this specific case. Eadie argued that Palestine Action is a “disparate group” with no clear central leadership structure, creating practical barriers to identifying who should receive formal advance notification. He also noted that the case involves core concerns of national security and public safety, arguing that pre-notification would have created an unacceptable risk of activists taking pre-emptive action to evade the ban.

    The appeal itself challenges a landmark February 2026 High Court ruling that sided with Ammori and struck down the Home Office’s proscription of Palestine Action as unlawful. The High Court found that the government’s ban violated the department’s own established policies and disproportionately interfered with the fundamental human rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. While High Court judges rejected framing Palestine Action as an entirely non-violent group, acknowledging evidence of criminal damage and confrontational actions during protests, they ultimately concluded that a full ban would cause unacceptable harm to civil liberties—especially for British residents seeking to express solidarity with Palestinians.

    Earlier in the week, Eadie argued that the initial High Court ruling ignored the UK’s democratic governance structures by blocking the government’s attempt to designate the group. The Home Office contends the lower court’s judgment was legally flawed, and that it undermines the government’s ability to respond to what it calls escalating protest activity linked to the group. Eadie noted that the proscription decision, made by former Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, received formal parliamentary approval via an affirmative resolution process, meaning it carried clear democratic legitimacy. He argued the High Court gave insufficient weight to this statutory and democratic framework that underpins the Home Secretary’s proscription powers.

    The Court of Appeal is expected to deliver its final ruling in the coming weeks. The proceedings included a closed-door session scheduled for Thursday, where government lawyers will present classified evidence to judges that will not be made available to Palestine Action’s legal team. A special advocate with security clearance to view the secret material has been appointed to represent the group’s interests during the closed session, but procedural rules bar the advocate from sharing any details of the evidence or discussion with Palestine Action’s main legal team, even though they work on behalf of the group.

    At the core of the case is a deeply contentious question that has divided UK public and political life: where should the legal line be drawn between militant protest action and terrorist activity, and what trade-offs should be accepted between national security protections and fundamental civil liberties for political advocacy?

  • The King and Queen in the Big Apple: What the royals did on their third day in the US

    The King and Queen in the Big Apple: What the royals did on their third day in the US

    On the third day of their royal visit to the United States, Britain’s King Charles III and Queen Camilla carried out a full schedule of public engagements across New York City, weaving together remembrance, outreach, and cultural connection. The day began with a somber, respectful visit to the 9/11 Memorial, where the couple honored the nearly 3,000 lives lost in the 2001 terrorist attacks, laying an unseen wreath and pausing to reflect at the sunken reflecting pools that mark the footprint of the fallen twin towers.

    Following the memorial visit, the royal schedule split for separate community-focused events. Queen Camilla traveled midtown to the iconic New York Public Library, where she joined a group of young local children for a reading activity. The event, centered on promoting childhood literacy, saw Camilla share excerpts from popular children’s books, interact with the young attendees, and highlight the importance of accessible public education and reading programs for young people across urban communities.

    Across Harlem, King Charles headed to a local community organization that has long served the Harlem neighborhood’s residents, providing social services, youth programming, and economic support to locals. During his visit, the King met with organization leaders, spoke with local residents, and learned about the grassroots work the group carries out to address key challenges facing the Harlem community, from food insecurity to youth development. The separate neighborhood engagements allowed the royal couple to connect with diverse communities across one of America’s most culturally diverse cities, on the third day of their official trip to the United States.

  • Palestine Action defendants drop lawyers and self-represent due to ‘decisions made by the court’

    Palestine Action defendants drop lawyers and self-represent due to ‘decisions made by the court’

    Six activists linked to the pro-Palestinian advocacy group Palestine Action made a dramatic procedural move on Wednesday, choosing to represent themselves during their trial over an August 2024 raid on an Israeli-owned Elbit Systems manufacturing facility near Bristol’s Filton area. The group, facing charges of criminal damage for the break-in, said court rulings left their defence lawyers unable to continue representing them, forcing them to deliver their own closing remarks to the jury. Only one defendant, 23-year-old Samuel Corner, retained his legal counsel; Corner faces an additional additional charge of grievous bodily harm with intent for allegations he struck a police officer with a sledgehammer during the incident.

    Many of the activists spoke through tears, their voices shaking with emotion as they laid out their motivations directly to the jury. In her address, 29-year-old Charlotte Head explained that court decisions left her barrister unable to continue her representation, and warned the jury that planned UK government reforms seek to eliminate jury trials entirely. “They are afraid of the power you hold as a jury,” Head told the assembled court.

    Head has pleaded not guilty to the criminal damage charge, arguing her actions were legally justified because the facility produced weapons. Though the court ruled that events following October 2023 are irrelevant to the proceedings, Head referenced the ongoing conflict in Gaza implicitly, tying her actions to the broader crisis. She described her prior experience volunteering with migrants and refugees in the Calais refugee camp in France, where she said she witnessed violence that she believes was funded by UK government money. Extending that argument, she claimed the UK is complicit in the Gaza crisis by allowing Israeli weapons manufacturers to operate on British soil.

    “The devastation I had witnessed in Calais was happening on an exponential scale,” Head said. “Watching a genocide live-streamed on my phone, I couldn’t sit back and do nothing when I knew once again our government was directly involved.”

    Head told the jury she exhausted all conventional channels of political advocacy before joining the Palestine Action action: she wrote to her Member of Parliament, receiving only an automated reply, and joined mass national protests, even as civilian areas in Gaza continued to be destroyed. She became involved with the group during a protest encampment outside London’s Hackney Town Hall, where activists called on the local council to divest from Israeli arms companies. After months of peaceful campaigning that produced no change, she said, “I had no other choice, no other options were available because we tried them all.”

    In her own closing address, 22-year-old Zoe Rogers echoed Head’s argument, pointing to evidence presented during the trial that confirmed Elbit Systems manufactures weapons for Israel on UK soil, and that British research and development has played a critical role in the Israeli military. She noted that the Filton facility targeted in the raid has been visited by the Israeli ambassador and holds official export licenses to ship weapons to Israel, framing the company as the “backbone of the Israeli military.” Like Head, Rogers said she and her co-defendants had tried every legal, democratic avenue to end UK support for Israeli arms manufacturing, and none of those efforts succeeded.

    Rogers drew attention to what she called a pattern of censorship throughout the three-week trial, telling jurors “you might have noticed certain words have been blacklisted, that, until our speeches, the word ‘genocide’ hasn’t been said once. It’s almost as if topics of conversation have been banned.” She accused prosecution officials of suppressing the reality of the facility’s role in the Gaza conflict rather than debating the facts of the case. “The prosecution knows full well that we are right that this factory is supplying weapons to Israel to be used in Gaza,” Rogers said. “They are choosing to suppress the truth rather than contest it.”

    The activist acknowledged that she faces major personal consequences including potential prison time that she has much to lose, but confirmed she intentionally planned to be arrested during the raid. She reminded jurors that they must be certain of the defendants’ guilt to convict, asking “How can you be sure, when you know that you haven’t heard the whole truth?” Breaking down in tears as she concluded her address, Rogers added, “There’s one thing you can be sure of, I’m proud, so proud I took part in this.”

    This report draws from original independent coverage by Middle East Eye, a publication specializing in on-the-ground reporting and analysis of the Middle East and North Africa region.

  • Trump says that he’s is weighing reducing American troop presence in Germany after Iran fued

    Trump says that he’s is weighing reducing American troop presence in Germany after Iran fued

    A sharp public rift between U.S. President Donald Trump and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz over Washington’s two-month military campaign against Iran has escalated this week, with Trump issuing a new threat to draw down American military forces stationed in Germany, a key NATO ally.

    The confrontation erupted after Merz publicly criticized the Trump administration’s lack of clear strategy in the conflict, telling reporters this week that the U.S. had been “humiliated” by Iranian leadership. On Wednesday, just hours before Trump’s threat, Merz doubled down on his concerns, noting that Germany and the broader European Union have already suffered significant economic damage from the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz – the critical global oil chokepoint that carried roughly 20% of the world’s oil supply before the war began on February 28.

    “We are suffering considerably in Germany and in Europe from the consequences of, for example, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz,” Merz stated Wednesday, adding that he continued to urge a diplomatic resolution to the ongoing conflict. The Chancellor emphasized that his government maintains open, productive communication with the Trump administration, and that his personal relationship with Trump remains “as good as ever,” even as he made clear he had “doubts from the very beginning about what was started there with the war in Iran.”

    This is not the first time Trump has pushed to reduce the U.S. military footprint in Germany. During his first presidential term, he announced plans to withdraw roughly 9,500 of the approximately 34,500 U.S. troops deployed to the country, arguing Germany failed to meet NATO defense spending commitments. That withdrawal never moved forward, and former Democratic President Joe Biden formally canceled the plan shortly after taking office in 2021. Today, Germany hosts some of the most critical U.S. military installations in Europe, including the joint headquarters for U.S. European Command and U.S. Africa Command, Ramstein Air Base, and Landstuhl Regional Medical Center – the largest American medical facility outside the United States.

    Trump has not held back on his frustration with Merz’s public criticism. On Tuesday, he took to social media to attack the German leader, claiming “The Chancellor of Germany, Friedrich Merz, thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a Nuclear Weapon. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about!” He added that it was no surprise “that Germany is doing so poorly, both economically and in other respects!”

    Following Merz’s latest comments, Trump issued his new threat on social media, writing: “The United States is studying and reviewing the possible reduction of Troops in Germany, with a determination to be made over the next short period of time.”

    Trump has also repeatedly criticized the broader NATO alliance for its refusal to join the U.S. and Israel in their war against Iran. The current tensions between the U.S. and Germany come months after Merz met with Trump at the White House in March, just days after the U.S.-Israel bombing campaign of Iran began. At that meeting, Merz told Trump Germany was willing to collaborate with the U.S. on planning for a post-conflict Iran, but he already raised warnings that a prolonged conflict would cause severe harm to the global economy.

    Those warnings have only gained urgency among European leaders as Iran and the U.S. have failed to reach an agreement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Recent diplomatic reports indicate Iran has offered to reopen the critical waterway in exchange for the U.S. lifting its economic blockade and ending the war, and top European leaders including France’s Emmanuel Macron and the UK’s Keir Starmer have publicly backed a permanent reopening to secure global navigation. This report included contributions from AP writer Pietro De Cristofaro, reporting from Berlin.

  • Brazil’s Senate blocks Lula’s Supreme Court nominee, first rejection in 132 years

    Brazil’s Senate blocks Lula’s Supreme Court nominee, first rejection in 132 years

    SAO PAULO — In an unprecedented political development that has not occurred in more than a century, Brazil’s federal Senate delivered a sharp legislative setback to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva on Wednesday, voting down his pick for the nation’s Supreme Court.

    Jorge Messias, who has served as Brazil’s solicitor-general since Lula took office in 2023 and has long acted as one of the president’s closest confidential legal advisors, secured only 34 supportive votes from the 81-member Senate. His nomination was defeated by 42 opposing votes, falling seven votes short of the 41-vote threshold required for confirmation.

    The vacancy that Messias was tapped to fill opened up in November, when former Supreme Court Justice Luís Roberto Barroso stepped down from his post. Since that departure, Brazil’s highest judicial body has been operating at reduced capacity with just 10 sitting justices.

    Despite clearing an initial hurdle after winning approval from a specialized Senate committee, Messias failed to win over the full chamber in a closed secret ballot. In the lead-up to the vote, the nominee had actively courted support from Evangelical lawmakers, emphasizing his shared faith with that bloc of legislators. Even sitting Supreme Court justices publicly lobbied on Messias’ behalf, alongside President Lula, but their joint advocacy was not enough to secure confirmation.

    Under Brazilian institutional rules, Lula will now be required to select a new nominee for the vacant Supreme Court seat. That candidate will need to complete the full vetting process before facing another confirmation vote before the full Senate.

    This defeat marks a historic turning point in Brazilian legislative-judicial history: the last time a sitting president’s Supreme Court nominee was rejected by the Senate was 130 years ago, in 1894. That rejection came during the tenure of Floriano Peixoto, Brazil’s second-ever president, who was locked in a bitter political standoff with legislative leaders at the time.

    The defeat comes as Lula prepares to run for re-election this coming October, seeking a fourth non-consecutive term as Brazil’s head of state, and leaves the president navigating a newly rocky political landscape ahead of the upcoming vote.

  • Powell’s decision to stay on at Fed ignites new Trump insult

    Powell’s decision to stay on at Fed ignites new Trump insult

    A high-stakes conflict between outgoing Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and former president Donald Trump escalated dramatically on Wednesday, after Powell announced he would retain his seat on the central bank’s board of governors following the end of his term as chair — drawing a fresh verbal assault from Trump.

    Powell confirmed that while his four-year term leading the Fed concludes on May 15, he will exercise his statutory right to remain on the board of governors for a yet-undetermined period. The move comes as Powell has openly voiced concerns about protecting the Fed’s long-standing institutional independence from unprecedented political pressure from the Trump administration.

    In a press briefing following the Fed’s latest monetary policy meeting, Powell told reporters, “I worry that these attacks are battering the institution and putting at risk the thing that really matters to the public, which is the ability to conduct monetary policy without taking into consideration political factors.”

    Powell has drawn Trump’s anger for months over his refusal to hastily cut interest rates as the president demanded, and Trump has repeatedly pushed for Powell to step down entirely from the central bank. Shortly after Powell’s announcement Wednesday, Trump lashed out in a post on his personal social media platform: “Jerome ‘Too Late’ Powell wants to stay at the Fed because he can’t get a job anywhere else — Nobody wants him.”

    While it is unusual for a former Fed chair to remain on the board after leaving the top post, it is not without precedent. Powell, whose current term as a board governor runs through 2028, has pledged to maintain a low profile under Trump’s nominee for incoming chair, Kevin Warsh. Still, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent condemned the decision in an interview with Fox Business, calling it a “violation” of long-standing Fed norms and “an insult” to Warsh.

    The clash unfolds against a backdrop of multiple escalating legal and political attacks on Fed leadership from the Trump administration, which returned to power last year. Trump has repeatedly criticized Powell for moving too slowly on aggressive interest rate cuts — a policy that would stimulate near-term economic growth but carries significant risk of reigniting inflation. The administration has also attempted to oust sitting Fed governor Lisa Cook over unproven mortgage fraud allegations, a case that is currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Additionally, the Department of Justice launched a criminal investigation into Powell and the Fed over reported cost overruns on a facility renovation project, a step Powell has characterized as a deliberate tactic to undermine the central bank’s independence. While DOJ has paused the probe for the time being, Powell said he is encouraged by recent developments but will continue monitoring the case. He reiterated Wednesday that he will not leave the Fed until the investigation is “well and truly over,” reaffirming the critical need for an independent central bank free from political interference. He also extended congratulations to Warsh for clearing a key procedural hurdle in what has been a contentious confirmation process.

    Powell’s announcement came shortly after the Fed concluded a deeply divided monetary policy meeting, where voting members opted to hold interest rates steady for the third consecutive meeting. The decision came amid widespread economic uncertainty tied to ongoing conflict in the Middle East, which has driven up global energy prices. The Fed kept its benchmark interest rate range unchanged at 3.50 percent to 3.75 percent, noting “inflation is elevated, in part reflecting the recent increase in global energy prices.”

    The meeting produced the highest number of dissenting votes since 1992, highlighting deep internal divisions among Fed policymakers. Four of the 12 voting members opposed the final outcome: Governor Stephen Miran pushed for an immediate quarter-point rate cut, while three regional Fed presidents — Beth Hammack, Neel Kashkari and Lorie Logan — supported the pause in rate movement but rejected the statement’s signaling of future inclination toward rate cuts. ING analysts James Knightley and Padhraic Garvey noted that the split points to a contentious debate over future rate policy at Warsh’s first meeting as chair, scheduled for June.

    The Fed has been gradually moving toward rate reductions since late last year, but the outbreak of conflict between the U.S.-Israel coalition and Iran has sent energy prices soaring and disrupted global supply chains, leading analysts to warn that persistent inflation could even force policymakers to reverse course and consider rate hikes in coming months.

    Earlier on Wednesday, the Senate Banking Committee voted to advance Warsh’s nomination to the full Senate for confirmation, bringing him one step closer to taking over the top Fed post. But Democratic critics have warned that the nomination is part of a broader power grab by Trump to control independent monetary policy. Senator Elizabeth Warren charged that confirming Warsh would advance Trump’s “attempt to seize control of the Fed,” while Senator Raphael Warnock argued the nomination has been tainted by “persistent threats” from the White House.

    Even some Republicans initially pushed back on the nomination: Senator Thom Tillis initially pledged to block Warsh’s confirmation, but reversed his position after the Justice Department paused its probe into Powell. When asked whether he believed Warsh would push back against political pressure from the White House, Powell told reporters: “He testified very strongly to that effect in his hearing, and I’ll take him at his word.”

  • Three takeaways from Hegseth’s clash with lawmakers over Iran war

    Three takeaways from Hegseth’s clash with lawmakers over Iran war

    A contentious, nearly six-hour congressional hearing focused on the ongoing U.S. military campaign in Iran erupted into partisan clashes on Wednesday, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth pushing back against claims the conflict has trapped the U.S. in a costly Middle Eastern quagmire, while a top Pentagon budget official disclosed that operations have already drained $25 billion (£18.5 billion) from federal coffers.

    The hearing marked Hegseth’s first sworn testimony before the House Armed Services Committee since the conflict began. He appeared alongside two senior defense leaders: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine and Department of Defense Chief Financial Officer Jules Hurst. The trio is scheduled to appear before the Senate’s equivalent committee for a second round of questioning on Thursday.

    From the opening moments of the session, the financial toll of the conflict dominated debate. Hurst confirmed that the $25 billion in accrued spending to date has primarily gone toward deploying munitions and replacing damaged or exhausted military equipment, adding that a full, comprehensive cost assessment will be released at a future date. While Washington and Tehran have agreed to a temporary ceasefire to facilitate formal peace negotiations, the conflict has not been formally ended, meaning spending will continue unless a permanent ceasefire is finalized.

    Alongside disclosing current war costs, Pentagon leaders defended the Biden (note: corrected from original context, actually Trump administration per source) administration’s request for a historic $1.5 trillion (£1.1 trillion) defense budget – the largest single expansion of U.S. military spending since World War II. Hegseth framed the proposal as a necessary response to current global security threats, arguing it “reflects the urgency of the moment.” Gen. Caine echoed that positioning, describing the massive budget as a “historic down payment for future security” that would allow the U.S. to outpace competitors in developing rapidly advancing military technologies.

    Democratic committee members uniformly rejected that framing, slamming the Iran intervention as an unauthorized “war of choice” that is squandering critical public funds. In one of the hearing’s most heated exchanges, California Representative John Garamendi directly accused both Hegseth and President Donald Trump of misleading the American public from the conflict’s launch. “You have been lying to the American public about this war from day one, and so has the president,” Garamendi said, arguing Trump was “stuck in a quagmire” of another open-ended Middle Eastern conflict.

    Hegseth dismissed the accusation as “reckless”, rejecting the quagmire characterization entirely and pushing back sharply: “Your hatred for President Trump blinds you.” When pressed further, he argued that the single greatest threat to the mission’s success was not Iranian military capabilities, but “defeatist words” from Democratic lawmakers and a small group of anti-war Republicans, claiming such rhetoric undermines U.S. military efforts.

    Partisan divides shaped the entire hearing: most Republican committee members voiced steady support for the Pentagon’s campaign, with Florida Representative Carlos Gimenez arguing Iran poses an existential threat to the U.S. “When someone tells me for 47 years that they want to kill us, I think I am going to take them at their word,” Gimenez said. “I support our efforts to make sure that Iran never has a nuclear weapon.”

    Beyond spending and strategic framing, lawmakers also debated two other critical issues: the global economic fallout of the conflict and accountability for a controversial early-war airstrike that hit a school in the Iranian city of Minab. Lawmakers noted the conflict has driven sharp spikes in global oil prices, which have in turn pushed up inflation for consumer goods across the world. At one point, tensions grew so high that Hegseth snapped at a lawmaker, saying “Shame on you.”

    On the Minab strike, Iranian officials report the attack killed 168 people, including roughly 110 children, during the opening phase of joint U.S.-Israeli operations against Iranian targets. U.S. military investigators concluded in early March that American forces likely hit the school by accident, but have not released a final, official conclusion. Lawmakers, led by top committee Democrat Adam Smith, criticized the administration’s slow, vague response to the incident: “We made a mistake and that happens in war… two months after it happened we refused to say anything about it, giving the world the impression that we just don’t care,” Smith said.

    California Representative Ro Khanna pressed Hegseth to disclose any costs associated with the strike or any potential accountability measures, but Hegseth responded only that the incident “remains under investigation” and that he “wouldn’t tie a cost to that” at this stage of the probe.

  • As Comey social media post triggers charges against him, what does ’86’ mean?

    As Comey social media post triggers charges against him, what does ’86’ mean?

    A years-long political feud between former FBI Director James Comey and sitting U.S. President Donald Trump erupted into a new legal battle this April, when the Department of Justice announced a second round of criminal indictments against the long-time Trump critic, over a seemingly cryptic Instagram post featuring seashells arranged to read the numbers 8-6-4-7. As the 47th President of the United States, Trump and his legal team have argued the combination of numbers is a clear call for assassination: the slang term “86,” long known for multiple colloquial meanings, carries a little-documented alternate definition of “to kill,” according to an entry on Merriam-Webster’s blog. Comey has repeatedly maintained his innocence, saying he had no knowledge of the violent interpretation of the phrase and deleted the post shortly after publishing it.

    This indictment marks the second time the Trump-aligned Department of Justice has brought criminal charges against Comey. The first set of charges, filed in November 2025 over allegations he lied to Congress and obstructed a legislative inquiry, were tossed out by a judge just months after they were filed. The investigation into the Instagram post first launched in May 2025, with formal charges announced nearly a year later, just days after an unrelated assassination attempt against Trump at a Washington D.C. hotel. Investigators have confirmed there is no evidence linking Comey to that attack.

    Following the announcement of charges, Comey voluntarily turned himself in to law enforcement officers in Virginia, and was released immediately on bond ahead of his upcoming trial. His legal team has already signaled they will move to dismiss the case entirely, arguing the prosecution is selectively and vindictively targeted at Comey for his well-documented public criticism of Trump. In a press conference announcing the charges, current FBI Director Kash Patel stood by the department’s action, claiming Comey “disgracefully encouraged a threat on President Trump’s life and posted it on Instagram for the world to see.” If convicted on the two charges — threatening the president and transmitting a threat via interstate commerce — Comey faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison per count. The case has been filed in the Eastern District of North Carolina, where Comey was reportedly located when he posted the image.

    The core of the debate around the case hinges on the ambiguous history and meaning of the term “86.” Merriam-Webster, the United States’ oldest dictionary publisher, confirms that the term has evolved over more than a century. Its origins trace back to early 20th century American soda fountains and restaurants, where it was originally used to indicate an item had sold out; the most widely accepted etymology traces it to rhyming slang for “nix,” meaning to reject or remove. By the mid-20th century, the term expanded to describe ejecting unruly customers from a venue. While a fringe, violent alternate meaning — referring to killing or eliminating a target — has appeared in some military and law enforcement jargon, Merriam-Webster does not include this definition in its official entry for 86, noting the meaning is too new and rarely used to merit inclusion.

    Critics of the indictment have pushed back hard on the government’s interpretation, noting that similar numeric combinations have been widely used by political activists across the aisle for years. When Joe Biden held office as the 46th U.S. president, opponents frequently sold merchandise and posted content featuring “8646,” a parallel construction that never resulted in legal action. Today, both 8647 (referring to Trump as 47th president) and 8645 (referring to his first term as 45th president) items are openly listed for sale on major retail platforms including Amazon. Civil liberties advocates also warn that the charges violate Comey’s right to free speech protected under the First Amendment. In an official statement, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) argued that Comey’s post does not qualify as a credible, prosecutable threat and never should have been the subject of a federal investigation.

    The indictment also comes amid a broader crackdown on Trump critics by the current administration, coming just one day after Trump publicly called for popular late-night TV host Jimmy Kimmel to be fired over a joke that Trump supporters claimed encouraged violence against the president. Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence and the nation’s top intelligence official, has publicly backed the charges, saying Comey should be imprisoned for “issuing a hit” on Trump. For his part, Trump has repeated that the threat of assassination was “loud and clear,” while Comey continues to assert he has done nothing wrong, leaving the legal battle to play out in the courts over the coming months.

  • Florida lawmakers approve new voting maps to favour Republicans

    Florida lawmakers approve new voting maps to favour Republicans

    In a move that could reshape the balance of power in Washington ahead of November’s critical midterm elections, Florida’s state legislature has passed new congressional boundaries designed to give Republican candidates a significant advantage, potentially allowing the GOP to flip as many as four seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. The approval comes just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that restricted how much consideration state lawmakers can give to a jurisdiction’s racial makeup when drawing voting districts, a decision that weakened key provisions of the historic Voting Rights Act and opened the door for widespread partisan redistricting across the American South.