分类: politics

  • Do declassified files support Trump’s election security claims?

    Do declassified files support Trump’s election security claims?

    In a 26-minute address delivered from the White House East Room — the same venue where former President Barack Obama announced the killing of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in 2011 — former and current President Donald Trump resurrected long-standing, unsubstantiated claims of widespread election fraud and foreign interference in U.S. electoral processes.

    During the speech, Trump framed the current U.S. election system as dangerously unsecure, claiming that hundreds of newly declassified intelligence documents would expose what he called “shocking vulnerabilities” in the nation’s voting infrastructure. Following the address, the White House published four collections of declassified “election integrity” documents, which were independently analyzed by BBC Verify. While many of the released files were heavily redacted, the review found no explosive new revelations and no concrete evidence that any foreign interference or domestic fraud altered the outcome of any previous U.S. election, including the 2020 presidential contest that Trump lost to Joe Biden.

    A core narrative of Trump’s speech centered on casting China as the primary malign actor in alleged election meddling, describing Beijing as a nefarious force conducting “sinister election meddling” in U.S. elections. The released documents do confirm that Chinese actors took steps to acquire U.S. voter data — much of which was already publicly available or purchasable on open markets — and explored potential avenues to influence U.S. public opinion. However, these activities fall far short of the large-scale election tampering Trump implied, and are far smaller in scope than the 2016 election interference campaign conducted by Russia, which Trump only mentioned once in his address. This aligns with a 2021 declassified assessment from the U.S. National Intelligence Council (NIC), which concluded with “high confidence” that China did not interfere in the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

    In his address, Trump claimed that “over a period of years starting during the 2020 election cycle, the People’s Republic of China carried out what is believed to be the largest compromise of election data in history, resulting in China’s illicit acquisition of 220 million U.S. voter files,” adding that “tens of millions of voters’ data in 18 states” had been “bought, stolen or hacked by China.” A July 13, 2026 statement from the White House’s Government Transparency Force included in the released document batch echoed the claim that voter rolls from at least 18 states and more than 200 million total voter records had been compromised by China, without specifying a timeframe. One heavily redacted declassified document includes a table dated 2016 listing 204,822,241 unspecified U.S. voter records as “likely leaked, compromised data,” but the extensive redactions make it impossible to confirm the full context or veracity of this entry.

    Strengthening U.S. election infrastructure has been a bipartisan policy priority for decades. Following the contested 2000 presidential election and again after confirmed Russian interference in 2016, U.S. policymakers implemented new national security standards to shore up voting systems, and most states now require paper ballots as a verifiable backup to digital voting systems, even as election administration remains under state control. However, analysts note Trump’s revival of these fraud claims carries clear partisan goals: casting ongoing doubt on the legitimacy of his 2020 loss and laying groundwork to question the outcome of future elections he may contest or lose.

    Trump also used his speech to claim that declassified assessments prove U.S. voting machines are “extremely exposed to attack,” quoting an assessment that reads, “we judged that the United States’ adversaries, including, at a minimum, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, as well as non-state groups have the capability to compromise U.S. election infrastructure.” The released documents do include a January 2020 declassified NIC assessment that acknowledged ballot and voting machine preparation faces potential risks from cyberattacks, supply chain compromise, and insider threats, noting that machines without paper backup are particularly vulnerable to cyber manipulation. Crucially, however, the same assessment also concluded that existing security mitigations and the decentralized nature of U.S. voting storage make it extremely difficult for any foreign adversary to coordinate a widespread campaign to manipulate results across an entire state or multiple states. A separate August 2020 declassified NIC report, which Trump appeared to reference, does note that foreign actors could seek to compromise election infrastructure, but does not confirm that any successful large-scale manipulation has ever occurred. It is also worth noting that the Trump administration has moved to cut funding and undermine the independence of federal agencies tasked with monitoring and protecting U.S. election security in recent years.

    Michigan, a key battleground state that Trump won in 2016 and 2024 but lost in 2020, has long been a focal point of Trump’s fraud allegations, and he highlighted the state again in Thursday’s speech. The president claimed there was massive hidden evidence of fraud in Michigan ahead of the 2020 election that had been covered up. The released documents reference an ongoing investigation into fraudulent voter registration applications in Muskegon, Michigan, launched in October 2020, with one document noting between 8,000 and 10,000 suspicious applications. The case was referred to law enforcement, and FBI testing of a sample found 91 out of 107 applications returned no matching results in government database checks. After nearly five years of investigation, the FBI closed the case in September 2025, concluding that “the investigation to date did not identify a criminal violation.” Despite this closing, Trump announced he has asked new FBI Director Kash Patel to open a full new investigation into the matter. Local news outlets did originally report on the irregularities identified by Muskegon election officials at the time the investigation opened in 2020.

    One of the most specific claims from Trump’s address centered on non-citizen registration, with the president announcing the White House was releasing “the results of a stunning investigation by the Department of Homeland Security” that “identified approximately 278,000 non-citizens who are registered to vote in federal elections.” The one-page DHS document released confirms that “over 250,000 non-citizens are illegally registered to vote in just the four U.S. states for which public data files have been reviewed.” However, the document provides no supporting evidence, does not link to the underlying data, does not explain how the figures were collected or verified, and offers no breakdown of methodology, making it impossible to independently confirm the claim’s validity. Multiple independent studies have documented that non-citizen voting is extremely rare in U.S. elections, with only a handful of verified cases across the country in every election cycle. Trump has repeatedly claimed that Democratic candidates rely on votes from millions of undocumented migrants, and has argued that passing his proposed federal election security legislation would allow Republicans to secure permanent control of the U.S. government.

  • Israeli Trump ally backs Argentina over Falklands after England’s World Cup defeat

    Israeli Trump ally backs Argentina over Falklands after England’s World Cup defeat

    A post-World Cup semi-final political gesture has ignited a transatlantic diplomatic firestorm, linking a decades-old sovereignty dispute to ongoing Middle East alliance tensions. After Argentina’s 2-1 World Cup semi-final victory over England in Atlanta, Argentine players unfurled a banner reading “Las Malvinas son Argentinas” — “The Malvinas are Argentine” — reawakening the long-running sovereignty dispute over the South Atlantic archipelago, known to Britain as the Falkland Islands. The incident is now under formal review by FIFA, the global governing body of football, which prohibits overt political messaging during official tournament matches.

    The call for a major U.S. policy shift on the dispute came from Marc Zell, chairman of Republicans Overseas Israel, an Israeli-American conservative Republican leader. Zell has leveraged the on-pitch demonstration to urge former U.S. President Donald Trump to abandon Washington’s long-standing neutral stance on the Falklands question, framing the move as leverage against the United Kingdom for its refusal to join a U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran, which Zell labeled “a dastardly betrayal”.

    Writing on social media, Zell argued that the Trump administration should re-evaluate U.S. policy toward the Falklands/Malvinas in recognition of Argentina’s pro-U.S. and pro-Israel alignment, a stark contrast to Britain’s rejection of participation in conflict in the Strait of Hormuz. “FIFA may fine them. The British press is outraged. But Argentina has been a steadfast friend of the United States and of Israel — and friends deserve to be heard,” Zell stated, adding that “The Malvinas question deserves a serious answer from Washington.”

    Notably, Zell’s call received immediate backing from Argentina’s strongly pro-Israel president Javier Milei, who has made unwavering support for Israel a core tenet of his foreign policy agenda. Milei has stood with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu throughout the military campaign in Gaza, has publicly explored converting to Judaism, and has pledged to move Argentina’s Israeli embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem — a move aligned with U.S. Republican policy priorities. Responding to Zell, Milei affirmed that his administration is making steady diplomatic progress toward reclaiming sovereignty over the Falklands, South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands, and their surrounding maritime areas, dismissing critics of the move as immature.

    “While some are busy throwing tantrums befitting a terminally mononeuronal teenager, we, through the diplomatic route, are getting closer every day to the recovery of the Malvinas Islands, Georgias, and South Sandwich Islands, and the surrounding maritime space,” Milei said. Zell later thanked Milei for publicly endorsing his position, cementing the unusual alignment between the conservative American-Israeli activist and the Argentine president on the sovereignty issue.

    British officials issued a blunt rejection of the sovereignty claim immediately after the banner was displayed. “The World Cup might not be ours, but the Falkland Islands definitely are,” a UK government spokesperson stated.

    The dispute over the archipelago stretches back more than two centuries. Britain first claimed the islands in 1765, when a British ship landed on the territory, and reasserted its sovereignty claim in 1833. Argentina has contested British control of the islands since its independence, and the dispute erupted into open armed conflict in 1982, when Argentina’s ruling military dictatorship launched an invasion of the islands. The 74-day war that followed killed 649 Argentine troops, 255 British service members, and three Falkland Island civilians, ending with British retention of control over the territory. In a 2013 referendum held on the islands, 99.8 percent of participating voters opted to remain a British overseas territory.

  • Why are there sanctions on Iran and when could they be lifted?

    Why are there sanctions on Iran and when could they be lifted?

    Against a backdrop of fresh U.S. military strikes on Iranian targets in early 2026, former President Donald Trump has ramped up pressure on Tehran, calling on congressional Republicans to attach new Iranian sanctions to a long-delayed bill targeting Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. This latest demand comes as Western sanctions on Iran, one of the broadest and longest-running embargo regimes in modern global history, have already reshaped Iran’s economy, political trajectory, and its standing on the world stage for decades.

    As independent outlet Middle East Eye outlines in a comprehensive breakdown, the modern sanctions regime against Iran did not emerge overnight. Its roots stretch back to November 1979, just months after the Iranian Revolution ousted the Western-backed Shah. When Iranian students seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held 52 American hostages for 444 days, Washington responded by freezing more than $8 billion in Iranian assets held by U.S. financial institutions. By April 1980, that initial freeze expanded into a full ban on all imports of Iranian goods and services to the U.S.

    The 1981 Algiers Accords resolved the hostage crisis, leading to eased restrictions and the return of most frozen assets. But just three years later, Washington reimposed sweeping restrictions, slapping an arms embargo on Iran and formally designating the Islamic Republic a “state sponsor of terror.” That move followed the 1983 bombing of U.S. and French barracks in Beirut, which Washington blamed on Iran-backed Hezbollah, cementing a adversarial framework that would shape policy for decades.

    Through the 1990s, sanctions expanded dramatically as global fears grew over Iran’s emerging nuclear program. In 1995, President Bill Clinton issued executive orders imposing a total ban on all U.S. trade and investment with Iran. The following year, Congress passed the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act, which introduced groundbreaking “secondary sanctions” that penalized foreign companies investing in Iran’s energy sector, effectively cutting Iran off from most of the global oil trade. While provisions targeting Libya were later scrapped, the act has been reauthorized repeatedly by Congress ever since.

    By the mid-2000s, multilateral sanctions joined unilateral U.S. measures. The U.N. Security Council imposed its first set of restrictions on Iran in 2006, after the International Atomic Energy Agency referred Tehran to the body over its uncooperative uranium enrichment program. Through the 2010s, the Security Council expanded those measures, focusing on an arms embargo and asset freezes for individuals and firms tied to Iran’s nuclear work. Unlike U.S. sanctions, U.N. measures are legally binding on all member states, though Russia has repeatedly rejected key provisions. In 2008, the Western-backed Financial Action Task Force blacklisted Iran over alleged money laundering and terrorist financing ties, further isolating it from the global financial system; today, Iran remains one of only three countries on the FATF blacklist, alongside Myanmar and North Korea.

    Pressure escalated further in 2012, when the SWIFT global banking network cut off Iranian financial institutions at Washington’s behest, deepening Iran’s financial isolation. That same year, the EU – then the largest buyer of Iranian oil – introduced its own oil embargo and asset freezes over nuclear concerns. The EU has since expanded sanctions to target Tehran over its 2022 and 2026 anti-government protests and its military support for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

    The most significant breakthrough in the standoff came in 2015, when world powers reached the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a landmark nuclear agreement between Iran, the U.S., UK, France, Germany, Russia, China, and the EU. The deal went into effect in January 2016, requiring Iran to cap its uranium enrichment activities and open all its nuclear facilities to rigorous international inspections in exchange for broad sanctions relief. The JCPOA unlocked tens of billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets and allowed Iran to resume full oil exports, marking the most significant diplomatic normalization between Iran and the West in decades.

    That progress unraveled just two and a half years later, when then-President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the JCPOA in May 2018 and reimposed all U.S. secondary sanctions. Trump argued the original agreement, negotiated by the Obama administration, still left Iran able to develop a nuclear weapon and would spark a regional nuclear arms race. Iran responded by gradually increasing its uranium enrichment beyond the JCPOA’s limits, eroding the core constraints of the deal.

    In 2020, the U.S. attempted to trigger a JCPOA “snapback” mechanism to reimpose expired U.N. sanctions, but the move was widely rejected as unlawful by all other remaining JCPOA signatories, and U.N. sanctions were lifted as scheduled. The dynamic shifted again in August 2025, when France, Germany, and the UK reversed their position amid growing concerns over Iran’s expanding uranium stockpile, triggering the snapback to reimpose U.N. sanctions over the strong objections of China and Russia. The UK, now independent of EU policy after Brexit, imposed its own set of targeted sanctions in 2023, designating the powerful Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) – a core institution of the Iranian state – for sanctions over alleged hostile activities globally.

    For nearly half a century, sanctions have gutted Iran’s economy, even though the country holds one of the world’s largest reserves of oil and natural gas. Cut off from formal global energy markets, Iran now relies on a “shadow fleet” of aging tankers to sell discounted crude on the black market, with most shipments going to China. While international law technically exempts humanitarian goods like food and medicine from sanctions, most global banks and shipping firms avoid handling even these transactions due to steep compliance and legal risks, exacerbating shortages and pushing inflation to crippling levels. That economic pressure was a core driver of the widespread anti-government protests that shook Iran in January 2026.

    Following the outbreak of open hostilities between the U.S., Israel, and Iran in late February 2026, sanctions have become the central bargaining chip in negotiations to end the conflict. In mid-June, the two sides signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that outlined a path to sanctions relief: the U.S. would terminate all unilateral and multilateral sanctions against Iran on a negotiated schedule and release billions in frozen Iranian assets held in banks around the world. Shortly after the deal, Iranian lead negotiator Mohammad Ghalibaf announced that an agreement had been reached to unlock $12 billion in frozen Iranian funds. Trump later confirmed the deal, but claimed the funds would only be released to buy food exclusively from U.S. farmers – a condition Tehran has rejected outright.

    As part of the June MoU, Washington issued a 60-day waiver for Iranian oil exports, and Iran agreed to cap uranium enrichment and reopen the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz to commercial shipping. But the fragile agreement has already collapsed: after renewed hostilities broke out between the two sides, Trump declared the ceasefire “over,” canceled the oil sanctions waiver, reimposed a military blockade on Iranian ports to stop covert oil exports, and hit Tehran with a new round of restrictions.

    Even if a new final peace deal is reached, lifting the full panoply of Western sanctions faces significant political and procedural hurdles. First, most U.S. sanctions are codified in congressional legislation, meaning they require approval from both the Senate and House of Representatives to be overturned – and many lawmakers in both parties have long held hawkish positions on Iran and have blocked previous sanction relief deals. Second, the IRGC’s designation as a terrorist organization by the U.S., EU, and UK means that even if broad sanctions are lifted, global businesses will still face severe legal barriers to trading with any entity tied to the group, which permeates almost every sector of Iran’s economy. Third, lifting U.N. sanctions requires approval from all five permanent members of the Security Council: while China and Russia have long supported ending sanctions, the U.S., UK, and France remain hesitant to fully roll back measures. For its part, the EU has signaled it is open to lifting nuclear-related sanctions if Iran verifiably curbs its enrichment program, but removing all EU sanctions requires unanimous approval from all 27 member states, and EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has indicated that sanctions imposed over Iran’s human rights record will remain in place even after a nuclear deal.

  • Malaysia vows to deport Israelis found in digital nomads community

    Malaysia vows to deport Israelis found in digital nomads community

    Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has announced a hardline policy that any Israeli nationals discovered within the country’s borders will face immediate deportation, a stance rooted in the nation’s decades-long non-recognition of the state of Israel. The prime minister’s remarks came in response to unfolding allegations that Israeli citizens have secretly joined a high-profile tech-focused digital nomad community in the southern Malaysian state of Johor, triggering an official multi-agency investigation into the project. The initiative under scrutiny is Network School, a physical tech community venture founded by former Coinbase chief technology officer and American investor Balaji Srinivasan. Marketed on its official platform as a “frontier community of techno-optimists” focused on translating online digital networks into tangible startup-focused societies, the project is based in Forest City — a massive $100 billion reclaimed land development in Johor. The investigation was launched after social media users raised claims that a number of participants in Network School held Israeli citizenship, entered Malaysia under dual nationality by using passports from third countries, and thus violated the country’s immigration rules. In an official statement released Tuesday, Malaysia’s Ministry of Home Affairs confirmed it had opened the probe into the community. Following the allegations, Israeli media outlet Ynet reported that Malaysian authorities had already started cross-checking the identities of all foreign nationals associated with the project. Onn Hafiz Ghazi, chief minister of Johor state, has directed the home ministry and other relevant enforcement bodies to conduct a full, comprehensive review of the venture’s operations. His instruction lays out clear terms for the probe: investigators must verify the identities and nationalities of all people linked to the project, examine their travel documentation and the alleged use of second passports, confirm the validity of their entry passes, cross-check their stated purpose for visiting against their actual activities in the state, and ensure all activity aligns with Malaysian law. “The state will not allow any parties to use Johor as a base to spread ideologies or movements that are against the law, sovereignty and interests of Johor and Malaysia,” Onn Hafiz Ghazi told local media. To date, Malaysian immigration officials have completed preliminary checks on 266 foreign nationals from 40 different countries connected to the Forest City community, and have confirmed that all of those screened hold valid immigration documentation. No Israeli nationals have been publicly identified as part of the ongoing investigation, and authorities have not released any updates on final findings. As a Muslim-majority Southeast Asian nation, Malaysia has never maintained formal diplomatic relations with Israel. The country’s longstanding policy bars holders of Israeli passports from entering the country without exceptional, special government approval, though it does not currently have formal legislation banning dual citizens of Israel and other nations from entering using their non-Israeli passports. Malaysia’s position on Israel has remained consistent since it gained independence from British colonial rule in 1957, and the country has long been one of the most outspoken supporters of Palestinian statehood and rights in the Southeast Asian region. Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, who has repeatedly and harshly criticized Israel’s ongoing military campaign in Gaza as genocidal, reaffirmed the country’s unwavering support for the Palestinian cause in his comments on this investigation. “If we find any Israeli, we will deport them immediately because we do not recognise Israel,” Anwar told local media. The prime minister added that if the investigation confirms the presence of Israeli nationals in Network School, immediate action will follow: “If it turns out that the claims are true, they will be deported immediately. All relevant authorities are already conducting an investigation into the matter.”

  • US lets Hong Kong emergency declaration lapse, lifting some sanctions as Trump order stays

    US lets Hong Kong emergency declaration lapse, lifting some sanctions as Trump order stays

    In a development that has stirred mixed interpretations across Beijing and Washington, the United States has allowed a 2020 national emergency declaration tied to Hong Kong to expire, resulting in the partial lifting of targeted sanctions — but the core executive order that stripped the semi-autonomous city of its preferential US trading status remains fully in effect.

    The sequence of moves unfolded over the weekend, with China’s foreign ministry first announcing that Washington had confirmed it would end the 2020 President’s Executive Order on Hong Kong Normalization, a statement that initially fueled speculation that Hong Kong’s lost trade privileges could be restored. That reading was quickly clarified by a US State Department spokesperson, who told the Associated Press that while former President Donald Trump allowed the attached national emergency declaration to expire, Executive Order 13936 — the policy that revoked Hong Kong’s special trade status — remains active. The order explicitly states that Hong Kong no longer maintains sufficient autonomy from Beijing to justify differential trade and legal treatment separate from mainland China.

    The US Office of Foreign Assets Control confirmed Friday that the expiration of the national emergency prompted it to delist individuals sanctioned under the declaration. However, most of those affected will remain subject to penalties: a senior anonymous Treasury Department spokesperson confirmed that 39 out of the 48 individuals removed from the emergency declaration sanction list have been moved to a separate sanction roster maintained under the 2020 Hong Kong Autonomy Act. High-profile figures including current Hong Kong Chief Executive John Lee and former leader Carrie Lam were among those transferred, the spokesperson confirmed. The Treasury spokesperson framed the non-renewal of the national emergency as part of broader US sanctions modernization efforts, designed to eliminate duplicate penalties and streamline enforcement for greater effectiveness.

    Executive Order 13936 was originally signed by Trump during his first presidential term in July 2020, a response to Beijing’s implementation of a sweeping national security law for Hong Kong. Beijing has repeatedly defended the law as a critical measure to restore stability after months of large-scale anti-government pro-democracy protests in 2019, which represented the most significant challenge to Sino-Hong Kong governance since the 1997 handover of the former British colony to Chinese rule. The order revoked all preferential trade and travel treatment for Hong Kong that had been in place for decades, aligned with US national security, foreign policy, and economic interests at the time.

    Full ramifications of the US policy adjustment are still coming into focus, with the White House directing all media inquiries on the lapse of the national emergency to the Treasury Department. Early official reactions from Chinese officials have leaned positive: China’s Commerce Ministry noted Friday that the US move fulfills commitments made on Hong Kong during bilateral trade talks held in Madrid last year. “The U.S. side’s actions represent an important step in fulfilling the consensus reached during the bilateral economic and trade talks. China appreciates it,” the ministry said in an official statement.

    Hong Kong’s local government also framed the shift as a positive development. “Safeguarding Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability serves the common interests of China and the U.S. and also aligns with the general expectation of the international community,” the government said in a statement, adding that it hopes Washington will continue to respect China’s sovereignty over Hong Kong and the city’s rule of law, eventually leading to a full resumption of normal economic and trade ties.

    The policy shift comes two months after a face-to-face meeting between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing, and is being widely interpreted as a small signal of warming bilateral relations ahead of Xi’s planned visit to the US later this year. The move follows another recent goodwill gesture: earlier this month, a high-profile pastor from China’s underground Christian community who had been detained since October was released from custody after Trump raised his case directly with Xi during their Beijing meeting.

    However, conflicting initial interpretations of the policy change between Beijing and Washington have left uncertainty about the long-term trajectory of ties on Hong Kong. Six years after the national security law was enacted, dozens of leading pro-democracy activists remain imprisoned, including former media tycoon Jimmy Lai. International critics of the law argue that the civil liberties and independent judicial system Beijing pledged to preserve for 50 years following the 1997 handover have eroded sharply in recent years.

    This report includes contributing reporting from Associated Press writer Joshua Boak in Washington, and has been updated to correct earlier misreporting that incorrectly stated the entire executive order would not be renewed.

  • Trump’s envoy greeted by protests in Venice on latest stop of super yacht diplomacy tour

    Trump’s envoy greeted by protests in Venice on latest stop of super yacht diplomacy tour

    VENICE, Italy — A planned coastal diplomacy tour celebrating the 250th anniversary of U.S. independence has sparked fierce public pushback in Venice, where billionaire U.S. Ambassador to Italy Tilman Fertitta docked his 117-meter superyacht on Friday to confront widespread demonstrations against his visit.

    Fertitta, a hospitality industry tycoon who was sworn into the ambassador post in 2025, launched the so-called Coastal Diplomacy 250 tour, which will cover 13 Italian coastal regions over its route. The excursion, which travels aboard Fertitta’s private luxury yacht *Boardwalk* — a vessel outfitted with two helicopter landing pads, dual swimming pools, a full-service spa, and a professional gym — aims to highlight the long-standing historical, economic, and cultural ties between the United States and Italy, the ambassador wrote in a social media statement ahead of the trip.

    But for many local Venetians and activist groups, the visit of a billionaire ambassador on a private superyacht comes off as a tone-deaf display of excessive American wealth and overreach at a moment of deep unease with the Trump administration’s foreign policy. Many Italian critics argue the current U.S. administration has destabilized the post-World War II international order that has guaranteed European stability for decades.

    The activist groups organizing the protests against Fertitta’s stop are the same organizations that led demonstrations against last year’s high-profile wedding of Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez in Venice, a event that amplified local anger over overtourism and the commercialization of the historic city. On July 4, U.S. Independence Day, protest organizers unfurled a massive banner matching the exact length of Fertitta’s *Boardwalk* that read “Venezia non si USA” — a deliberate wordplay that translates to “Venice is not for the taking” while directly referencing the United States. Protesters say the size of the banner was meant to symbolize what they call the “dimensions of [Fertitta’s] arrogance.”

    Stella Morion, one of the protest organizers, told reporters that the visit is an insult to a city already buckling under the weight of unregulated mass tourism. “It’s arrogant to think he can do what he wants in a city that is ever more sold to the single culture of tourism,” Morion said. She added that protesters also extend their opposition to the Trump administration’s global agenda, specifically pointing to U.S. military strikes on Iran that organizers argue have driven sharp spikes in global energy prices, worsening Italy’s ongoing cost-of-living crisis.

    “It is the umpteenth slap in the face of a city and all of the people in Venice who struggle to reach the end of the month due to an increase in prices caused by Trump’s war,” Morion said.

    Fertitta has not responded to requests for comment on the protests or the tour. The ambassador, who built his multi-billion dollar fortune in the hospitality sector through a portfolio of restaurants, hotels, and casinos, also owns the NBA’s Houston Rockets. His official biography lists his personal net worth at $11.3 billion, placing him among the 100 wealthiest people in the United States per *Forbes* rankings.

    Before arriving in Venice, Fertitta completed stops in multiple southern and central Italian coastal locations. The tour began in the Sicilian port of Cefalu, where his family traces its ancestral roots back to 1566, and included a meeting with Sicily’s regional governor in Palermo. He also stopped at the Calabrian port of Le Castella, sailed along the Puglia coastline, and traveled up the Adriatic Sea to reach Venice.

    Details of Fertitta’s scheduled meetings during his Venice stop have not been released to the public, but local officials confirm he is expected to attend the city’s iconic Redentore festival on Saturday. The annual event commemorates the end of a devastating 1576 plague outbreak, and concludes with a famous fireworks display over St. Mark’s Basin.

    The controversial visit comes amid a documented cooling of relations between Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and former U.S. President Donald Trump, who has launched a series of public social media attacks against Meloni. Once viewed as a key European political ally for Trump with aligned policy positions on issues including immigration, Meloni notably declined to attend the official 250th anniversary of U.S. independence celebrations hosted at the U.S. Embassy in Rome, signaling the ongoing rift between the two leaders.

  • Israeli parliament passes law enshrining gender segregation in universities

    Israeli parliament passes law enshrining gender segregation in universities

    In a contentious vote held on Thursday, Israel’s national parliament, the Knesset, has given final approval to a divisive new law that legalizes gender segregation across postgraduate higher education programs across the country. The legislation cleared the legislative body with a narrow margin, recording 52 votes in favor compared to 43 votes cast against the measure.

    Under the terms of the new law, accredited Israeli universities will gain legal permission to establish separate, gender-specific study tracks for students enrolled in master’s and doctoral degree programs. The law also formally codifies a 2021 ruling issued by the Israeli High Court of Justice, which had previously approved gender-segregated bachelor’s degree pathways when paired with a set of specific regulatory restrictions.

    The bill was spearheaded by Knesset member Limor Son Har-Melech, a representative of the far-right Otzma Yehudit party led by Itamar Ben-Gvir. In remarks following the vote, Son Har-Melech framed the legislation as a tool to advance educational access for women from demographic sectors that she claimed have historically been denied equal educational opportunities.

    Proponents of the new rule have echoed this framing, arguing that the policy will expand access to higher education for religious women, who often hold gender-separated learning as a core personal and religious requirement. Zvi Sukkot, a Knesset member from the far-right Religious Zionism party led by Bezalel Smotrich, added that the law serves to expand personal freedom of choice for students with differing religious needs.

    However, the legislation has drawn fierce condemnation from opposition political figures and progressive lawmakers, who have decried the policy as a dangerous rollback of gender equality in Israeli public life. During the parliamentary vote, several opposition legislators held up protest signs emblazoned with the slogan “Segregation is exclusion” to demonstrate their opposition.

    Avigdor Lieberman, leader of the opposition Yisrael Beiteinu party, issued a sharp rebuke of the government, accusing the ruling coalition of seeking to transform Israel into a repressive “Ayatollah state.” Drawing a parallel to existing gender segregation practices in the ultra-Orthodox city of Bnei Brak, where men and women often walk on separate sidewalks, Lieberman called on university and academic leadership across the country to refuse to implement what he labeled “this madness.”

    Merav Michaeli, a senior Labour Party lawmaker, also criticized the new law, rejecting the argument that segregated education can ever be equal. “There is no such thing as segregated but equal,” Michaeli said, noting that the policy comes as part of a broader pattern of rollbacks to gender equality pushed by the current right-wing ruling coalition.

  • Germany and France initiate nuclear cooperation as Europe seeks greater security independence

    Germany and France initiate nuclear cooperation as Europe seeks greater security independence

    COLOGNE, GERMANY — In a landmark shift for European defense cooperation, the leaders of Germany and France announced Friday that German conventional military forces will take part in a French-led nuclear deterrence exercise before the end of 2025, marking the first time Berlin has agreed to join such a partnership amid widespread uncertainty over long-term U.S. security commitments to the continent.

    Speaking alongside French President Emmanuel Macron following bilateral talks at Germany’s Norvenich Air Base near Cologne, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz confirmed the historic move, breaking with decades of refusal by previous German administrations to pursue formal nuclear cooperation with Paris. Merz emphasized that the new partnership is designed to complement, rather than replace, Germany’s long-standing commitments to NATO’s existing nuclear sharing arrangement, where the U.S. stations tactical nuclear weapons on German soil, with German fighter jets certified to deploy the weapons in the event of a large-scale conflict.

    “The world we live in today requires new answers,” Merz told reporters, noting that Germany will contribute only conventional military assets to the upcoming exercise for now. “We are proceeding step by step. It may be that this will result in a new doctrine for European deterrence, but it is far too early to draw that conclusion today.”

    For his part, Macron framed the expanded cooperation as a critical boost to European collective security, arguing that diversified, advanced deterrence capabilities create essential strategic uncertainty for potential adversaries. He said Germany will take a “vanguard role” in European deterrence efforts, adding that structured, visible cooperation on nuclear preparedness confuses potential opponents far more than a diffuse, uncoordinated approach.

    Macron outlined that the partnership will include sharing specialized military practices, joint training initiatives, capacity-building exchanges, and closer trust-building among military personnel and technical experts, though he declined to disclose specific operational details, noting that “Complete and absolute transparency is not necessarily the most effective strategy when dealing with adversaries on European soil.” He also confirmed that Germany will not be required to provide financing for France’s nuclear deterrence infrastructure as part of the agreement.

    The announcement comes on the heels of a symbolic preliminary joint exercise held Thursday, where French Rafale jets — the platform designed to deliver France’s nuclear weapons — and German Eurofighter fighters carried out a joint in-flight refueling drill to mark the launch of the new cooperation framework.

    The initiative traces back to an announcement Macron made in early March, where he unveiled plans to expand France’s national nuclear arsenal and formally invited European partners to deepen cooperation on nuclear deterrence. The proposal emerged against a backdrop of growing unease across Europe over the long-term reliability of U.S. defense guarantees for the continent.

    France has been the only nuclear-armed member of the 27-nation European Union since the United Kingdom left the bloc in 2020, and a broad coalition of European nations have already signaled interest in joining the initiative, including the UK, Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway. Germany’s participation is seen as a major boost for the program, as Berlin is currently implementing a €100 billion rearmament plan aimed at building Europe’s most powerful conventional military force by 2039.

    Friday’s agreement also marks a key step toward repairing and reinvigorating bilateral Franco-German defense ties, which suffered a setback in June when the two countries’ ambitious $100 billion joint next-generation fighter jet program collapsed. That initiative was intended to replace the existing Rafale and Eurofighter fleets used by France, Germany, and Spain by 2040.

    Both leaders are moving quickly to lock in progress on the new partnership in the coming months, as Macron approaches the end of his second and final presidential term, with growing uncertainty over whether his successor will maintain the same level of commitment to deepening European integration and defense cooperation. The report was contributed by Claudia Ciobanu from Warsaw, Poland, and Samuel Petrequin from Paris.

  • German politician faces calls to resign over surrogacy child

    German politician faces calls to resign over surrogacy child

    A leading German center-right politician is facing widespread condemnation from across the political spectrum, including members of his own party, over accusations of blatant hypocrisy after he confirmed he and his husband welcomed a child via a surrogate mother in the United States.

    Jens Spahn, 46, who currently serves as parliamentary group leader for the joint Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Christian Social Union (CSU) bloc, made the announcement Wednesday that his son Georg had been born through international surrogacy. “Georg is our greatest joy. This feeling is almost impossible to put into words,” Spahn told German tabloid *Bild*. His husband Daniel Funke later shared a photo of the couple walking with a pram on Instagram, captioning the post “We Are Family.”

    The controversy stems from Germany’s longstanding national ban on surrogacy, a policy that Spahn has repeatedly and publicly supported for years. Enshrined in the 1990 Embryo Protection Act, commercial and altruistic surrogacy within Germany carries penalties of up to three years imprisonment or significant fines. While German law does not criminalize raising a child born to a surrogate abroad, the CDU reaffirmed its unwavering support for the domestic ban as recently as this February, arguing the prohibition is necessary to prevent surrogacy from becoming a exploitative commercial industry.

    Critics have highlighted two key past positions Spahn has taken that contradict his recent personal choice: In 2020, while serving as Germany’s Federal Minister of Health, Spahn rejected a proposal from the free-market Free Democratic Party (FDP) to relax the country’s surrogacy ban. Five years earlier, in 2015, he wrote publicly that “as a gay man and a Christian I find it personally very hard to warm to the idea of a rented womb.”

    Spahn is not the first CDU politician to face this controversy: Earlier in 2025, fellow party member Hendrik Streeck also revealed he had become a father via a U.S.-based surrogate.

    Across Germany’s political landscape, figures from multiple parties have called out Spahn’s actions as a breach of political credibility. Greens parliamentary leader Felix Banaszak offered personal well wishes to the new parents but argued Spahn has an obligation to publicly address the significant ethical questions at hand, noting that surrogacy’s moral complexities are “not trivial.” His Green colleague Janosch Dahmen, the party’s health spokesperson, went further, emphasizing that the dispute is not about the child’s birth, but about political consistency. “Anyone who advocates for rules politically should be able to explain clearly why those rules apparently do not apply to them personally,” Dahmen said.

    FDP politician Henning Höne echoed the criticism, saying he cannot respect politicians who pass domestic laws only to “evade them internationally with money and contacts.”

    The most damaging rebuke has come from within Spahn’s own conservative bloc. Marion Rosin, a CDU member of the Thuringia state parliament and activist with the party’s Women’s Union, argued that “politicians who set standards for others must be measured by them too. If that credibility is gone, resignation is a matter of consequence.” Daniel Peters, a senior CDU politician in the northern state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, went on the record to *Bild* stating that Spahn’s position as parliamentary leader is “no longer tenable and he must resign,” arguing it is fundamentally wrong for a lawmaker to disregard the legal framework he upholds politically by acting one way in private while supporting different rules for the public.

    Klaus Holetschek, a senior leader of the CDU’s Bavarian sister party the CSU, told Germany’s DPA news agency that while the party respected Spahn’s private choice and congratulated the couple, the bloc’s political stance remains unchanged: “what is banned in Germany remains banned – and we won’t waver on that.”

    Surrogacy, an arrangement where a woman carries and gives birth to a child for intended parents who cannot conceive on their own, is banned across multiple major EU member states including Germany, France, Italy, and Spain. Policy on the recognition of international surrogacy has shifted in recent months: France’s highest court, the Court of Cassation, ruled earlier in July 2025 that children born via surrogacy abroad must be legally recognized as the children of their intended parents in France. By contrast, Italy’s right-wing government led by Giorgia Meloni introduced a new law in 2024 that criminalizes Italian citizens pursuing surrogacy abroad, even in countries where the practice is legal.

    For many German couples, both same-sex and heterosexual who cannot conceive through traditional means, international surrogacy has become a common workaround for the country’s strict domestic ban.

  • A Putin critic is convicted on charges that will keep him from campaigning for Russia’s parliament

    A Putin critic is convicted on charges that will keep him from campaigning for Russia’s parliament

    On a Friday in mid-2024, a Moscow suburban court delivered a verdict that effectively removes one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s most vocal domestic critics from the upcoming national parliamentary race. Sixty-three-year-old Boris Nadezhdin, who has openly condemned Moscow’s military operation in Ukraine and attempted to challenge Putin in the 2024 presidential election, was found guilty of displaying prohibited “extremist symbols” in a 2023 online interview.

    The conviction stems from a brief appearance of an image of late opposition leader Alexei Navalny during that interview. At the time of the conversation, Navalny was already serving a 19-year prison sentence on widely discredited extremism charges that global observers and human rights groups uniformly labeled as politically motivated. Navalny, who had been the most prominent opposition figure to challenge Putin’s rule for years, died in February 2024 under suspicious circumstances while detained in a remote Arctic penal colony.

    Nadezhdin has repeatedly dismissed the conviction as a baseless, absurd political maneuver, arguing that Russian authorities are deliberately blocking him from participating in September’s scheduled parliamentary election. The court in Dolgoprudny, the Moscow outer suburb where Nadezhdin resides, handed down a 1,000 ruble fine (equivalent to roughly $13) alongside the guilty verdict. While the fine is minor, the conviction carries profound political consequences that permanently block Nadezhdin from holding public office.

    This legal action marks the latest in a string of restrictions placed on the Putin critic over the past several months. Just one week prior to the verdict, Russia’s Justice Ministry added Nadezhdin to its controversial “foreign agent” registry, a designation that brings heavy social stigma, constant state surveillance, and formal bars on running for public office. Prior to Friday’s ruling, Nadezhdin had still been permitted to pursue a symbolic, low-profile campaign for a parliamentary seat; that option is now fully closed.

    During the court hearing, Nadezhdin reported feeling unwell, forcing proceedings to pause briefly so an ambulance team could conduct a medical evaluation. Before the session began, he told reporters he had considered traveling abroad for medical treatment and political safety, but Russian authorities have already imposed an exit ban barring him from leaving the country.

    Nadezhdin’s exclusion from electoral politics follows a pattern of opposition crackdown that played out earlier this year during the 2024 presidential race. In January 2024, he drew widespread public support by openly calling for an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine and collected more than the required number of voter signatures to qualify for the ballot. However, Russia’s Supreme Court ultimately disqualified him, ruling that over 9,000 of his submitted signatures were invalid — a margin just large enough to remove him from the March 2024 race. Putin ultimately won a fifth presidential term with only token, widely compliant opposition on the ballot, a result that drew international criticism for lack of democratic competition.

    The conviction of Nadezhdin comes amid a broader ongoing crackdown on anti-government dissent that accelerated after the Kremlin launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Since that time, Russian authorities have dramatically expanded restrictions on freedom of speech and political opposition, targeting independent journalists, human rights organizations, civil society leaders, LGBTQ+ activists, and minority religious groups with sweeping legal penalties. Hundreds of dissidents have been jailed on politically motivated charges, while thousands more have fled the country to avoid persecution.

    In a parallel development on the same day as Nadezhdin’s verdict, another former supporter-turned-critic of Putin was taken into custody in St. Petersburg. Ilya Remeslo, a pro-Kremlin blogger and activist who publicly broke with the government earlier this year, was arrested on charges of spreading “false information” about the Russian military — a criminal offense that has become one of the most common tools used to target government critics. The state-run Tass news agency confirmed that Remeslo will be transferred to Moscow for an upcoming court hearing. Remeslo first publicly criticized the military campaign in Ukraine and called for Putin’s resignation in March 2024; shortly after that announcement, he was involuntarily committed to a psychiatric clinic for a month, a move he described as retaliation for his public comments.