分类: politics

  • Radical housing tax overhaul divides experts and property industry

    Radical housing tax overhaul divides experts and property industry

    Australia’s decades-old investor-centric housing tax policies have long been criticized for funneling billions of dollars in public benefits into speculative investment, driving skyrocketing property prices and locking millions of aspiring homeowners out of the market. Now, the Albanese Labor government has tabled one of the most radical housing policy overhauls in a generation as part of its latest federal budget, aiming to reorient the market toward greater affordability and accessibility – but the reform has sparked fierce debate across industry, politics, and advocacy circles.

    Treasurer Jim Chalmers announced the two core changes in his Tuesday budget speech. First, the existing 50% discount on capital gains tax (CGT) for property investors will be replaced with inflation-adjusted indexation, a shift that reduces tax breaks for investors who profit from rapid property price growth. Second, new property investors will only be eligible to use negative gearing – the tax break that allows investors to offset rental losses against other income – when investing in newly constructed residences.

    Chalmers framed the reform as a long-overdue correction to a broken tax system that has favored speculators over working Australians chasing home ownership. “Since 1999, house prices have risen over 400%, more than twice as fast as average incomes,” he told parliament. “Our tax changes will help about 75,000 Australians achieve the dream of home ownership. We’re delivering a fairer tax system for workers, first-home buyers and future generations.”

    The policy has drawn sharp opposition from the conservative Coalition, which has already pledged to repeal the changes if it wins the next federal election. Shadow housing spokespeople argue the reform is “an assault on aspiration”, discouraging ordinary Australians from building property wealth through investment. The nation’s major housing and property industry groups have echoed this criticism, warning the changes will erode investor confidence, create market uncertainty, and ultimately undermine Australia’s already pressing housing supply targets.

    Jacob Caine, president of the Real Estate Institute of Australia (REIA), pointed out that the country is already behind schedule on its National Housing Accord target to build 1.2 million new homes between now and 2029. “At a time of acute rental stress and chronic undersupply, policy settings should be encouraging more investment into housing, not creating uncertainty or reducing confidence,” Caine said. “Private investment plays a critical role in Australia’s housing system.”

    Tim Reardon, chief economist for the Housing Industry Association (HIA), added that investors accounted for 43% of all new home purchases over the past year. He noted that contrary to the government’s framing, the policy will not simply shift investment from established properties to new builds: “In the real world, capital is mobile. Investors aren’t limited to choosing between new or established homes – they can redirect capital to industrial property, commercial assets, shares or other classes of investment entirely.”

    On the other side of the debate, housing affordability advocacy groups have hailed the changes as a historic turning point for Australia’s dysfunctional housing market. Everybody’s Home, a national campaign coalition working to end the national housing crisis, called the reform a long-overdue challenge to one of Australian policy’s most entrenched “sacred cows”.

    Maiy Azize, spokeswoman for Everybody’s Home, argued that for decades the federal government has wasted billions on tax breaks that have done nothing to expand affordable housing and everything to drive up prices and worsen inequality. “The government has spent about $2 billion a year on boosting new housing supply, but gave away orders of magnitude more through CGT discounts and negative gearing,” Azize said. “Imagine if we had that money available to invest in public housing instead.”

    Azize added that the reform will help curb the runaway house price growth that has left tens of thousands of aspiring homeowners playing catch-up on deposits. “For everyone trying to save for a home, you can start saving for a deposit and won’t have to constantly worry if house prices will jump $150,000 in 12 months,” she said. The change also acknowledges that decades of underbuilding have left Australia with a shortage of roughly 640,000 social and affordable homes, a gap that will take roughly 20 years to close even with the new policy in place.

    When it comes to the impact of the changes on property prices, economists are broadly aligned in one key prediction: the overhaul will slow the breakneck growth that has defined Australia’s housing market in recent decades. Commonwealth Bank senior economist Trent Saunders said the tax changes, combined with ongoing interest rate rises from the Reserve Bank of Australia and increasing cost of living pressures, will lead to moderately slower price growth over the next three years.

    “In response to these policy changes, house prices are expected to eventually be 3% lower than they otherwise would have been,” Saunders explained. The policy is projected to shave roughly 60 basis points off annual house price growth in 2026, rising to a full 1 percentage point reduction in 2027. Saunders added that a key downside risk remains: if investor sentiment drops sharply in the short term, price growth could cool even faster than current projections based on market fundamentals suggest.

    As the government moves to legislate the changes, the debate over their long-term impact continues: while supporters say they mark a critical first step toward restoring housing affordability for a new generation, opponents warn they could worsen the existing supply crisis and leave renters and buyers worse off in the long run.

  • UAE made failed attempt to get Saudi Arabia, Qatar to jointly attack Iran: Report

    UAE made failed attempt to get Saudi Arabia, Qatar to jointly attack Iran: Report

    Regional divisions across the Persian Gulf have been laid bare by a newly revealed failed diplomatic push, after Bloomberg reported Friday that the United Arab Emirates was unable to convince Saudi Arabia and Qatar to launch a coordinated joint military response to Iranian retaliatory attacks earlier this year.

    The failed outreach came in the immediate aftermath of a joint strike against Iranian targets by the United States and Israel on February 28. In response to that attack, Tehran launched a massive barrage of thousands of missiles and drones against Gulf states that had aligned with the U.S. and Israel. The UAE, which normalized diplomatic relations with Israel in 2021 under the U.S.-brokered Abraham Accords, bore the overwhelming weight of Tehran’s retaliation, with close to 3,000 projectiles hitting targets across the country.

    Shortly after the attack, UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan held a series of urgent phone consultations with top Gulf leaders, including Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. To the UAE’s disappointment, both the Saudi crown prince and other regional leaders rejected the call for a unified military offensive against Iran. Instead of uniting competing Gulf powers against a shared adversary, the unfolding conflict has amplified long-simmering tensions between Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, the report found.

    To date, both Saudi Arabia and the UAE have launched retaliatory strikes against Iran, but have acted entirely independently. Analysts have characterized Saudi Arabia’s military response as deliberately restrained; shortly after its strikes, the kingdom shifted its focus to supporting regional mediation efforts led by its close ally Pakistan.

    The UAE has taken a far more escalatory approach, however, targeting critical Iranian energy infrastructure. The Wall Street Journal reported that the UAE carried out an airstrike on Iran’s Lavan Island, a major Gulf oil and gas processing hub, in early April. The attack came at the exact moment the U.S. was publicly announcing a ceasefire in the conflict, and is reported to have sparked a massive blaze that knocked most of the facility’s operational capacity offline for months, representing a major escalation of hostilities.

    Geographic and economic realities have driven the UAE’s harder line. Unlike Saudi Arabia, which can route oil exports through its East-West pipeline to the Red Sea to avoid Gulf closures, the UAE’s energy trade and economic standing are far more vulnerable to Iranian actions. The ongoing conflict has also severely damaged the country’s core identity as a safe global tourism and financial hub.

    Abu Dhabi has aggressively lobbied both publicly and privately to convince the U.S. to continue its military campaign against Iran, and even put forward a failed United Nations resolution that would have authorized the use of military force to respond to Iran’s new control over the strategic Strait of Hormuz. Its frustration with regional allies has grown increasingly public: senior UAE presidential adviser Anwar Gargash openly criticized the Gulf Cooperation Council for what he called a “weak” collective response to Iran’s attacks. That discontent reached a breaking point in May, when the UAE announced its withdrawal from the OPEC oil cartel.

    Amid its growing estrangement from traditional Gulf partners, the UAE has doubled down on its deepening security and diplomatic alignment with Israel. U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee confirmed earlier this month during a public event in Tel Aviv that Israel has deployed Iron Dome air defense batteries, along with specialized military personnel to operate the systems, to the UAE to help defend against Iranian missile and drone attacks. “Israel just sent them — [the UAE] — Iron Dome batteries and personnel to help them operate them. How come? Because there’s an extraordinary relationship between the UAE and Israel based on the Abraham Accords,” Huckabee said.

    Even with this deepening security cooperation, the UAE has remained cautious about publicly acknowledging the full extent of its ties with Israel. This tension was on full display this week, when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office announced he had made an unpublicized visit to the UAE during the ongoing conflict, only for Abu Dhabi to issue an immediate denial that any such visit ever occurred.

    It should be noted that Israel’s ongoing military campaign in Gaza has been formally labeled a genocide by the United Nations, leading genocide scholars, leading international human rights experts, and multiple heads of state across the globe — including Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi.

  • China’s top diplomat says Xi-Trump meeting fruitful

    China’s top diplomat says Xi-Trump meeting fruitful

    BEIJING – A high-stakes meeting between the heads of state of China and the United States held in Beijing delivered substantive progress and productive results following in-depth, constructive discussions between the two leaders, China’s top diplomat Wang Yi confirmed during a press briefing Friday.

    Wang’s briefing came shortly after U.S. President Donald Trump wrapped up his three-day state visit to China, which ran from May 13 to 15, with the meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping as the visit’s centerpiece. According to Wang, the summit featured a full slate of engagement: formal negotiating sessions, an official welcome banquet, an informal private discussion, and a guided visit. Across all these activities, the two leaders spent a total of nearly nine hours in direct interaction, characterized by a foundation of mutual respect, a shared dedication to maintaining global peace, and an open willingness to expand collaborative work between the two nations.

    The most consequential political agreement to emerge from the talks, Wang noted, is a shared consensus between President Xi and President Trump to work toward building a constructive, strategically stable bilateral relationship. This framework sets a clear direction for future interactions between the world’s two largest economies.

    Beyond overarching strategic direction, the two sides also articulated a shared commitment to deepen people-to-people and institutional exchanges across a wide range of priority sectors. These areas include diplomatic coordination, military-to-military communication, economic and trade cooperation, public health collaboration, agricultural trade and development, tourism expansion, cultural and educational people-to-people ties, and joint law enforcement efforts. Wang emphasized that the outcomes of this meeting have injected fresh, strong momentum into all future bilateral engagement between China and the United States, opening new pathways for cooperation on shared global and regional challenges.

  • Prime Minister Anthony Albanese vows to defend hate group laws as neo-Nazis plan court fight

    Prime Minister Anthony Albanese vows to defend hate group laws as neo-Nazis plan court fight

    In a landmark move to counter extremist white supremacist activity on Australian soil, the federal government has formally outlawed the National Socialist Network (NSN) and two linked extremist factions, White Australia and the European Australian Movement, designating them as prohibited terrorist hate groups under national counter-extremism legislation. The ban came into effect at midnight Friday, marking only the second time an organization has received this designation in Australia, following the 2024 ban of Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir.

    Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke told reporters Friday that any association with the banned group will now carry severe criminal consequences. Under the new designation, activities including supporting, financing, training new recruits, recruiting members, joining the group, or directing its operations all qualify as criminal offenses, carrying a maximum prison sentence of 15 years. Burke emphasized that the ban sends an unambiguous message that racial supremacist ideology has no tolerance in contemporary Australian society.

    The roots of this ban stretch back to earlier this year, when Australian parliament passed expanded counter-hate legislation in the aftermath of the fatal Bondi Junction terror attack. In response to that new legal framework, the NSN publicly announced it would disband. But Burke argued that the group simply carried out a so-called “phoenix” reorganization, rebranding under new names while continuing the same extremist activities that meet the legal threshold for a ban. “It doesn’t matter what they call themselves, or how they restructure their operations, these groups rely on the same thuggish, intimidating tactics that Nazis have always used to target Jewish communities and other marginalized groups,” Burke said.

    Within hours of the government’s ban announcement, current and former NSN members and supporters began a coordinated effort to erase their digital footprints across social media platforms. A warning message circulated widely among affiliated circles, urging supporters to exercise extreme caution online. The message instructs members to avoid praising the group, sharing its content or footage, and to exit all group chats that include former NSN members. “Please take this seriously,” the message reads. “Don’t allow yourself to become an example made by the state.”

    Thomas Sewell, the former leader of the NSN, has framed the ban as a politically motivated attack on his organizing efforts. In an online statement, Sewell claimed the government acted out of hatred for white Australians, and that the ban is retaliation for his attempt to register a new far-right political party. Sewell confirmed he has launched an appeal to Australia’s High Court challenging the constitutionality of the underlying hate group ban legislation.

    Prime Minister Anthony Albanese dismissed the challenge on Saturday, saying the government remains completely confident the appeal will be rejected. Albanese reiterated that the ban targets the group’s violent, divisive ideology, not just its branding. “These neo-Nazis have changed their names multiple times, but their core policies have never shifted: policies of hatred, policies of antisemitism, policies that seek to divide Australians and target vulnerable communities,” Albanese said. “These are critical laws that protect all Australians, and we will stand by them and defend them vigorously in court.”

  • US charges Iraqi militia commander with terrorism offences

    US charges Iraqi militia commander with terrorism offences

    In a major counterterrorism operation that spans three continents, United States federal authorities have taken an Iraqi militia commander accused of orchestrating nearly two dozen terror plots across North America and Europe into custody to face prosecution. The U.S. Department of Justice unsealed a multi-count criminal complaint on Friday detailing the charges against 32-year-old Mohammad Baqer Saad Dawood al-Saadi, a senior commander in Kataib Hezbollah — an Iraqi armed group branded a foreign terrorist organization by Washington with long-standing ties to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

    According to court documents, al-Saadi was first apprehended by law enforcement in Turkey, before being extradited to FBI custody and transported to the United States. He made his initial appearance at Manhattan federal court, where a judge ordered him held without bail ahead of his upcoming trial. Prosecutors allege al-Saadi’s coordinated campaign of planned and executed attacks was launched explicitly in retaliation for the 2020 U.S. drone strike that killed Qasem Soleimani, the top IRGC commander, and to advance the violent ideological objectives of Kataib Hezbollah and the IRGC.

    Court records outline that since March 9 of this year, al-Saadi has been linked to 18 separate attacks across European countries and two additional plots in Canada, all targeting U.S. and Israeli civilian and institutional interests. The string of documented incidents began with an explosive attack on a synagogue in Liège, Belgium, followed just four days later by an arson attack at a synagogue in Rotterdam, Netherlands. The next day, an explosive device was detonated at a Jewish school in Amsterdam, with a subsequent attack targeting the Bank of New York Mellon’s Amsterdam office just 24 hours later. The wave of attacks continued through March and April, spreading to major European cities including London, Antwerp, Paris and Munich. On April 29, an attacker stabbed two Jewish men in an attack in London that authorities tie to al-Saadi’s direction.

    Beyond the attacks already carried out, prosecutors say al-Saadi actively plotted large-scale assaults inside the United States, specifically targeting Jewish community centers. He is accused of attempting to recruit an individual he believed to be a member of a Mexican drug cartel to carry out attacks on three high-profile locations: a prominent, undisclosed synagogue in New York City, a Jewish institution in Los Angeles, California, and a third facility in Scottsdale, Arizona. According to official accounts, al-Saadi provided the undercover would-be operative with site photos, detailed maps of all three targets, and asked for a cost estimate to bomb the locations and ignite coordinated fires across the three sites simultaneously. A phone call recording from April 1 captures al-Saadi explicitly asking about the cost of hiring someone to carry out a bombing operation targeting “a Jewish temple, a Jewish centre” in the U.S., prosecutors allege.

    Al-Saadi faces six terrorism-related criminal counts, including conspiracy to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization, conspiracy to support transnational terrorist acts, and conspiracy to bomb a public facility. However, his defense attorney Andrew Dalack has pushed back against the charges, framing the case as a politically motivated prosecution. Dalack told U.S. broadcaster CBS News that al-Saadi is essentially a prisoner of war and should be classified as such rather than facing civilian criminal trial. The BBC has reached out to Dalack for additional comment on the case, but has not yet received a response.

    Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche highlighted the arrest as a landmark success for American law enforcement, emphasizing the operation’s role in disrupting terrorist networks before they could carry out planned attacks inside U.S. borders. “As alleged in the complaint, Al-Saadi directed and urged others to attack U.S. and Israeli interests and to kill Americans and Jews in the U.S. and abroad, and in doing so advance the terrorist goals of Kata’ib Hizballah and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps,” Blanche said in an official statement following the unsealing of the complaint.

  • The US turns to Guyana’s bauxite in its latest push for Latin America’s resources

    The US turns to Guyana’s bauxite in its latest push for Latin America’s resources

    Amid a shifting global energy landscape and intensifying great power competition in the Western Hemisphere, the Trump administration has announced a new push to unlock business opportunities in Guyana’s rich bauxite and mineral sectors, expanding Washington’s growing focus on Latin American energy and raw material supplies. This diplomatic outreach, centered on high-level talks held earlier this week between U.S. Under Secretary for Economic Affairs Jacob Helberg and top Guyanese leadership including President Irfaan Ali, comes as the small South American nation undergoes an unprecedented oil boom that has upended its global standing.

    Over the past decade, massive offshore oil discoveries have catapulted Guyana from a relatively overlooked economy to a geopolitically critical player, a shift that has only gained urgency amid the ongoing global energy shortage triggered by the Iran conflict. Beyond its newfound oil wealth, Guyana holds substantial bauxite reserves – a core input for aluminum production that has drawn growing global demand from industrial sectors worldwide.

    In recent months, the Trump administration has ramped up its focus on extracting and developing Latin America’s natural resources: it has pushed to expand oil output in Venezuela following the U.S. military incursion in January, while also pursuing expanded critical mineral cooperation with Brazil. This renewed regional focus marks a clear reversal of decades of declining U.S. attention to Latin American energy production, experts note.

    “In times of global energy scarcity, there’s a great deal more focus on Latin America as an alternative stable source of supply,” explained Benjamin Gedan, senior fellow and director of the Latin America program at the Stimson Center. “And Guyana is the leader of that story.”

    A core undercurrent driving Helberg’s visit is growing anxiety within the U.S. government that Chinese state-backed firms have already secured billions of dollars in major infrastructure and resource contracts in Guyana, locking out U.S. competitors. Guyanese officials have long observed that U.S. firms have been far less proactive than their Chinese counterparts, who frequently offer tailored financing packages and accommodate local labor requirements to win large-scale projects. Currently, Chinese mining giant Bosai Minerals dominates Guyana’s bauxite sector, holding a near-monopoly over production in the country.

    Following the bilateral talks, Helberg noted that both sides acknowledged Guyana’s extraordinary endowment of natural resources, confirming that the U.S. sees untapped potential in Guyana’s already well-documented bauxite reserves. Beyond the bauxite sector, Helberg added that the U.S. is prepared to support Guyana with advanced geological survey technology to map and develop additional untapped mineral deposits across the country.

    Jason Marczak, vice president and senior director for the Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center at the Atlantic Council, said the visit reflects a deliberate shift by U.S. policymakers to correct past missteps that allowed China to build a strong economic foothold across Latin America. While Guyana has actively sought to diversify its international trade and investment partnerships – including maintaining strong ties with China – Marczak emphasized that the country remains a core U.S. partner in the region. “President Ali in particular is very close to the United States and in general recognizes the importance of the U.S. as a key partner for Guyana,” Marczak said. “That’s reflected by Helberg’s visit to Guyana.”

    Speaking to the Associated Press on Friday, Guyana’s Foreign Secretary Robert Persaud confirmed the country’s interest in attracting new U.S. investment across its oil, gas and mineral sectors in the coming months. “The U.S. is our strategic partner and we made that clear to them but we would want value added to bauxite and other products,” Persaud said. “We are interested in processing and with improvements in energy generation.”

  • Trump expected to drop IRS suit in exchange for MAGA slush fund

    Trump expected to drop IRS suit in exchange for MAGA slush fund

    In a sharp rebuke of emerging settlement terms for a $10 billion lawsuit President Donald Trump filed against the Internal Revenue Service, top congressional Democrats have accused the sitting president of orchestrating a massive scheme to divert $1.7 billion in public funds to his political allies, framing the deal as an unprecedented power grab that weaponizes federal institutions for partisan gain.

    Citing multiple unnamed sources familiar with ongoing negotiations, ABC News first reported late Thursday that a deal is expected to be finalized in the coming days. Under the reported terms, Trump would drop his pending lawsuit against the IRS in exchange for two key concessions: the creation of a $1.7 billion compensation pool funded through the U.S. Treasury’s Judgment Fund, a taxpayer-backed account reserved for official court judgments and government settlements, and a public formal apology from the agency for the 2020s leak of Trump’s personal tax returns during his first presidential term.

    The lawsuit itself stems from the unauthorized disclosure of Trump’s tax records by former IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn, who pleaded guilty to leaking the documents to The New York Times and ProPublica in 2024. Those leaks exposed that Trump had utilized aggressive, widely criticized tax avoidance schemes and paid no federal income taxes for multiple years leading up to his 2017 inauguration, breaking a decades-long bipartisan tradition of presidential tax transparency by refusing to release his returns voluntarily. Trump and his legal team initially sought a minimum $10 billion payout from the agency over the leak.

    The proposed settlement has already sparked fierce condemnation from congressional Democrats, who warn that the deal’s structure exposes deep conflicts of interest and unprecedented corruption. As sitting president, Trump already exercises full executive control over the IRS, which is currently led by his handpicked appointee Frank J. Bisignano, who reports directly to Trump-aligned Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. The Department of Justice, which is defending the IRS in the case, is also under Trump’s executive authority, leading legal observers to question the legitimacy of the suit, since both nominal opposing parties are ultimately controlled by the plaintiff.

    Last month, U.S. District Judge Kathleen M. Williams, who is overseeing the case in the Southern District of Florida, publicly questioned the lawsuit’s constitutionality, noting that as sitting president, Trump holds authority over the federal entities he is suing. She has ordered both parties to submit legal briefs by May 20 proving a genuine adversarial conflict exists between the plaintiff and defendants, but legal analysts have noted the White House and DOJ can finalize a settlement before that deadline, leaving the judge with little power to block the deal. Beyond the $1.7 billion fund, multiple outlets have confirmed administration officials have also discussed dropping all outstanding IRS audits of Trump, his family, and his business entities—a move that could save Trump more than $100 million in back taxes, per a 2024 New York Times analysis.

    “ This is another installment in Trump’s ongoing effort to turn the federal government into a personal cash machine for his unpopular extremist movement,” Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said in a formal statement Thursday. Raskin called the proposed deal “a massive and unprecedented presidential plunder of the American people,” warning that the plan marks “a declaration that the prior payouts were just a down payment, and that he now intends to earmark billions more in taxpayer dollars for his political allies, sycophants, and private militia of unemployed insurrectionists.” Raskin emphasized that Trump holds no statutory authority to divert Judgment Fund resources for this purpose, arguing that “Congress must act immediately to reassert the power of the purse and stop this brazen looting of taxpayer funds before this ‘pilot program’ for corruption becomes the permanent operating system of our government.”

    Other House Democrats echoed Raskin’s criticism. “Real story: Judge was about to throw out the case because Trump controls both parties,” Rep. Dan Goldman of New York wrote on social media Thursday. “Before it’s dismissed, Trump tells both parties to reach a ‘settlement.’ Settlement shields Trump from any future audit and creates a secret slush fund that can dole out money to anyone with no transparency.” Goldman called the arrangement “mind-boggling corruption.”

    ABC News’ reporting notes the proposed settlement includes multiple unusual provisions that raise transparency concerns. Under the draft terms, Trump would be barred from receiving direct personal payments from the three core legal claims at the center of the suit, but no restrictions prohibit Trump-aligned entities from filing future additional claims. More critically, the president would hold the authority to remove members of the commission overseeing the $1.7 billion fund without cause, and the commission would face no mandatory requirements to disclose its award procedures or decision-making, creating what experts describe as an unaccountable, oversight-free pool of taxpayer cash.

    Top Democratic lawmakers have gone even further in their assessments, describing the plan as the largest single instance of public corruption in U.S. history. “Trump is considering stealing billions of dollars from the American people,” said Rep. Don Beyer of Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the Joint Economic Committee. “He’s already the most corrupt president ever by a wide margin, but this would be fraud and theft on a scale even he has never attempted. The largest single act of grand larceny in American history.”

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, top Democrat on the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, added that a pre-ruling settlement would amount to “a massive, unprecedented scandal.” Warren has already introduced legislation that would bar sitting presidents, vice presidents, and their immediate families from collecting settlement payments from the federal government, and would require independent court-appointed counsel to defend agencies in claims brought by top executive branch officials. But the bill has failed to advance in the current Republican-controlled Congress.

    The proposed settlement would represent a dramatic expansion of the pattern of self-dealing that has defined Trump’s second presidential term, according to tracking from the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank that maintains a live public tracker of profits Trump and his family have earned through their hold on public office. To date, the tracker estimates Trump and his family have taken in more than $2.6 billion in cash and gifts through their positions, including roughly $1.5 billion from cryptocurrency ventures promoted from the White House, a $400 million luxury jet gifted by the government of Qatar, and more than $90 million in legal settlements from media and technology companies. Beyond the IRS suit, Trump has also demanded the Department of Justice pay him $230 million in damages over prior criminal investigations into his business and political activities.

    Even a partial payout on Trump’s original $10 billion claim would dwarf the self-dealing of Trump’s first 18 months back in office, analysts have noted, potentially doubling Trump’s reported net worth through public funds diverted through the settlement.

    Bharat Ramamurti, former deputy director of the White House National Economic Council under President Joe Biden, called the lawsuit and proposed settlement “a massive scam” that is “much worse” than Trump’s earlier proposal to divert $1 billion in taxpayer funds to renovate his White House ballroom.

  • What China critics in Maga movement make of Trump’s Beijing trip

    What China critics in Maga movement make of Trump’s Beijing trip

    Just a decade ago, at a raucous 2016 campaign rally in Fort Wayne, Indiana, Donald Trump painted China as the United States’ top economic antagonist, roaring to the crowd that “We can’t continue to allow China to rape our country.” That fiery anti-China rhetoric defined his political career through years of rallies, his 2024 presidential run, and the early months of his second term in the White House.

    When Trump reclaimed the Oval Office, he stacked his senior cabinet with long-time China hawks who had built their political brands on criticizing Beijing: Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Vice President JD Vance, and senior economic advisor Peter Navarro. All were united in their claims that China was “ripping off” the U.S., stealing American intellectual property on an industrial scale, and fueling the national fentanyl crisis by channeling the drug into U.S. communities. The aggressive rhetoric quickly translated to policy: by mid-April 2025, dubbed “Liberation Day” by the Trump administration, U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods climbed from an initial 10% in February all the way to 145%. China responded in kind, imposing 125% retaliatory tariffs on U.S. imports and halting exports of critical rare earth elements to the U.S., launching a full-scale trade war.

    But in a stunning turn of events this week, that antagonistic posture gave way to diplomatic detente during Trump’s landmark visit to Beijing. Welcomed with full ceremonial honors at the Great Hall of the People, Trump walked a red carpet to the sounds of the U.S. national anthem played by a Chinese military band, flanked by hundreds of flag-waving Chinese children. Standing alongside Chinese President Xi Jinping, Trump struck a dramatically warmer tone: “It’s an honour to be with you. It’s an honour to be your friend, and the relationship between China and the US is going to be better than ever before.”

    The shift from labeling China an economic predator to calling its leader a friend came alongside early announcements of limited but high-profile trade agreements, though concrete details and official figures remain scarce. Reports indicate that U.S. chip giant Nvidia has received approval to sell its semiconductors to 10 Chinese firms, aerospace manufacturer Boeing has locked in a 200-aircraft order, and global bank Citi has won approval to launch a full securities business in mainland China.

    Yet even amid the public pleasantries and softened rhetoric, long-standing hawkish U.S. positions and unresolved core tensions remain intact. Less than a week before the Beijing summit, the U.S. State Department imposed sanctions on three Chinese companies over allegations they provided satellite intelligence to Iran to aid attacks on U.S. military forces in the Middle East.

    The most contentious and unresolved issue remains the status of Taiwan, the self-governing island that Beijing claims as an integral part of its territory. The fate of a long-delayed $14 billion U.S. arms sale to Taiwan, a priority for both Democratic and Republican hawks, remains hanging in the balance. Ahead of the summit, a bipartisan group of U.S. senators sent a public letter urging Trump to move forward with the sale and raise the issue directly with President Xi. Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One en route to Beijing, Trump offered no clarity: “On Taiwan, he [Xi] feels very strongly. I made no commitment either way. I will make a determination over the next fairly short period.”

    Notably, the official Chinese readout of the closed-door meeting centered heavily on the Taiwan issue, warning that failure to reach a clear understanding on the question could lead to “clashes and even conflicts, putting the entire relationship in great jeopardy.” No mention of Taiwan appeared at all in the White House’s official summary of the meeting. The stark difference in messaging was interpreted as an unambiguous threat by hardline figures within Trump’s own Make America Great Again movement. “I am shocked, given how much people wanted to make this into a positive spirit, he [Xi] started with a threat,” former Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon told Politico. “It was so brazen and so blatant, that they made this at the very top.”

    Surprisingly, most other prominent China hawks on Capitol Hill and within the Trump administration have remained largely silent in the wake of the summit, offering little public pushback against Trump’s new friendly tone and non-committal approach to the arms sale.

    U.S. China policy experts say this lack of backlash was entirely predictable. David Firestein, president and CEO of the George HW Bush Foundation for US-China Relations, told the BBC that even repeated high-level summits cannot erase decades of deep structural disagreement between the two global powers. “If you had 50 presidential summits in one month or one year, it still wouldn’t change the fact that there are some issues on which the US and China are simply never going to agree,” Firestein explained. “That doesn’t mean it’s not going to be a successful summit.”

    Firestein added that Trump’s softer tone likely reflects a quiet acknowledgment that the hardline tariff strategy adopted over the past eight years has failed to resolve long-standing U.S. grievances. “We still have the same problems today with market access, intellectual property rights, subsidies…the list goes on. None of those problems have been solved after eight years of having these tariffs on the books,” he said.

    David Sacks, an Asia studies fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, noted that Trump’s new approach is likely to reshape broader Republican rhetoric and policy across the board, unlike the more fragmented approach of the first Trump administration. “Unlike the first Trump administration, and frankly, any other US administration in recent memory, this is much more top down. I think those in the administration are, mostly, in the role of implementation,” Sacks said. Stephen Orlins, president of the National Committee on US-China Relations, echoed that assessment, noting “When Trump opines, people follow. And the base follows.”

    For Trump, the Taiwan issue remains an intractable diplomatic dilemma. Bipartisan pressure to approve the $14 billion arms sale will only build ahead of President Xi’s planned reciprocal visit to the White House in September. Sacks noted that Congress will continue to press the administration for movement on the deal, with senior officials set to face repeated questions on the sale’s status during congressional hearings. Yet a final decision from Trump is far from certain. “A large US arms sale to Taiwan between now and September would potentially imperil that visit,” Sacks added. “The $14-billion package is actually now a big question.”

  • India and UAE sign defence and energy deals during Modi’s state visit

    India and UAE sign defence and energy deals during Modi’s state visit

    During Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s official state visit to the United Arab Emirates on Friday, New Delhi and Abu Dhabi signed a suite of new bilateral agreements focused on defence cooperation and petroleum security, India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) confirmed via a post on the social platform X. The new agreements are framed as an expansion of the two nations’ longstanding Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, according to official comments shared by MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal.

    The visit yielded seven key bilateral outcomes, covering energy, defence and economic development. These include a new collaborative partnership between India’s state-run Strategic Petroleum Reserves Limited (ISPRL) and the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC), the formal establishment of a bilateral Strategic Defence Partnership, and a $5 billion development investment pledge from the UAE to India.

    Indian media reports document that in direct talks with UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Modi issued a forceful condemnation of recent cross-border strikes targeting the UAE, which were carried out by Iran in retaliation for ongoing US-Israeli military operations against Iran. “India stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the UAE in every situation, and it will continue to do so,” Modi stated during the meeting.

    The high-stakes diplomatic meeting unfolds against a backdrop of severe energy instability for India, which is currently grappling with supply disruptions sparked by the escalated US-Israeli conflict with Iran. The South Asian nation relies on foreign imports to meet roughly 90% of its total crude oil demand, and recent disruptions to shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz—a critical global energy chokepoint that handles a large share of India’s oil imports—have cut the country’s commercial oil inventories by 15%, according to analysis from the Times of India.

    Last week, Modi publicly called for nationwide austerity measures to curb energy consumption, urging Indian citizens to adopt work-from-home arrangements, cut back on unnecessary international travel, and postpone gold purchases to reduce foreign energy outlay. But the prime minister’s appeal has drawn sharp pushback from Indian opposition parties and independent critics, who accuse Modi of prioritizing energy-intensive campaign events—including large-scale election rallies and roadshows for his ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)—while ignoring the country’s deepening economic and energy crisis.

    Since March 2025, widespread public protests have erupted across India over soaring liquified petroleum gas (LPG) prices and persistent supply shortages. Demonstrators highlight that the energy crunch has already triggered widespread job losses, small business closures, and sharp spikes in the price of essential daily goods, putting severe strain on low- and middle-income households.

    Modi’s UAE visit came just one day after New Delhi hosted a BRICS diplomatic gathering that included Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and other senior global envoys. Iranian state media reports that during the BRICS meeting, Araghchi publicly accused the UAE of direct involvement in US-Israeli military strikes against Iran, noting that Abu Dhabi failed to issue even a formal condemnation of the attacks when they first began. Araghchi’s comments followed emerging independent reports of undisclosed Emirati military strikes on Iranian targets, which have fueled claims of growing military coordination between the UAE, the United States and Israel.

    Friday’s bilateral agreements between India and the UAE reinforce a web of existing security and economic ties that also connect New Delhi to Tel Aviv. Since 2023, India has been a core member of the I2U2 Group, a quadrilateral strategic partnership that also includes Israel, the UAE and the United States. Throughout Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, which has been widely labeled as genocidal by international observers, India has steadily deepened its military and economic cooperation with Israel.

    This report was originally produced by Middle East Eye, an independent media outlet specializing in original, in-depth coverage of the Middle East, North Africa and surrounding regions.

  • Moscow court orders Euroclear to pay compensation to Russia’s central bank over seized assets

    Moscow court orders Euroclear to pay compensation to Russia’s central bank over seized assets

    A Moscow arbitration court has fully upheld a massive $249.7 billion damages claim brought by the Russian Central Bank against Euroclear, the European Union-based securities clearing institution that holds the vast majority of the bloc’s frozen Russian sovereign assets, Russian media outlets confirmed Friday. The legal action stems from sweeping EU sanctions imposed on Moscow following the 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which locked the Russian Central Bank out of accessing and managing its more than $200 billion in reserves held with Euroclear.