Global Pulse

分类： politics

  • Supporters of bill to aid Ukraine and sanction Russia hit number to force House vote

    Supporters of bill to aid Ukraine and sanction Russia hit number to force House vote

    A cross-partisan coalition of Ukraine supporters in the U.S. House of Representatives crossed a critical procedural milestone on Wednesday, securing the required number of signatures to force a floor vote on a package of new Ukraine aid and Russian sanctions, bypassing top Republican leadership in the chamber. The push for a vote, led by New York Democratic Representative Gregory Meeks, will bring legislation to the House floor in the coming weeks that codifies U.S. support for Kyiv. It proposes allocating more than $1 billion in direct security assistance to Ukraine, alongside an additional $8 billion in loaned funding for the war-torn nation.

    Proponents of the measure have repeatedly pushed the Trump administration to take a harder line against Moscow and ramp up military backing for Kyiv as its war with Russia enters its fourth year. To trigger a discharge vote — the procedural mechanism that allows rank-and-file lawmakers to bypass committee gridlock and leadership opposition — backers needed 218 signatures on a discharge petition. They hit that exact threshold on Wednesday, after California Independent Representative Kevin Kiley signed on as the decisive vote.

    The petition draws broad Democratic support, with 215 House Democrats adding their names, joined by just two House Republicans: Nebraska’s Don Bacon and Pennsylvania’s Brian Fitzpatrick. In his statement explaining his support for the petition, Kiley emphasized that the legislation would reinforce Ukraine’s negotiating position to reach a lasting, sustainable peace deal. He also added that the bill sends an unambiguous warning to Moscow that Russia’s ongoing backing for Iran’s targeting of U.S. military assets in the Middle East will not go unanswered by Congress.

    Despite the procedural breakthrough, House Speaker Mike Johnson, the chamber’s top Republican leader, has raised public concerns about the timing of the vote. Johnson noted that both Russian President Vladimir Putin and former President Donald Trump have recently signaled that the war could be nearing an end, and argued that Congress should wait to see how diplomatic efforts unfold before holding a vote. “The latest news out of Russia is that it looks like the war is scaling back, scaling down, coming to a conclusion. I think Vladimir Putin said that himself in the last few days, and so this would be a good time for Congress to see how that pans out,” Johnson told reporters this week.

    Trump echoed that optimistic tone on Tuesday, telling reporters ahead of a summit in Beijing that he expects Moscow and Kyiv to finalize a peace deal in the near future. “The end of the war in Ukraine I really think is getting very close,” Trump said. Putin similarly claimed in a speech last weekend that his full-scale invasion of Ukraine could be “coming to an end.”

    Those optimistic claims have been sharply contradicted by new violence on the ground, however. On Wednesday, the same day backers locked in the final petition signature, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced that Russia launched a massive daytime drone barrage across Ukraine, deploying at least 800 drones in one of the largest single attacks of the entire war. The strike killed at least six civilians and wounded dozens more, including multiple children.

    That ongoing violence led Fitzpatrick, one of the two Republican supporters of the discharge petition, to reject the claim that the war is winding down. The GOP lawmaker stressed that he would only withdraw his backing for the bill if Russia fully withdraws all of its military forces from internationally recognized Ukrainian territory. “There’s people dying as we speak, so no, the war is not winding down,” Fitzpatrick said.

    Meeks, the lead sponsor of the effort, echoed that argument, noting that the vote will finally force every member of Congress to go on the public record with their stance on Ukraine support. “Members of Congress, some tell me that they are supportive of Ukraine. Well, we’re going to finally get a vote on the floor to make that determination,” Meeks said. He added that the House vote will build pressure on the U.S. Senate to act, and send a clear message to Trump that the American public supports standing with U.S. allies rather than aligning with the Kremlin.

    Even if the bill passes the House, its future in the Senate remains far from certain. For months, senators from both parties have debated a range of Russia sanction and Ukraine aid packages, but momentum stalled after Trump launched military strikes against Iran in late February. While most Senate Republicans have voiced nominal support for Ukraine, they have been reluctant to advance any legislation without explicit backing from the Trump administration. On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader John Thune cast doubt on the chamber’s ability to take up Russia sanctions in the near term, noting that the Senate is already backed up with other pending legislation.

    South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the most prominent GOP advocates for Russia sanctions in the Senate, offered a mixed assessment of the House-passed package this week, saying he supports some provisions but opposes others. Lawmakers from both parties have also expressed growing frustration over the Pentagon’s failure to disburse $400 million in previously approved military aid for Ukraine that Congress allocated last year. During a congressional hearing earlier this week, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told lawmakers the department is currently developing a plan to release the long-delayed funds.

    Support for Ukraine has emerged as one of the most persistent points of tension between Congress and the Trump administration, after Trump pledged during his campaign to rapidly end the war within days of taking office. To date, the administration has failed to make meaningful progress toward a negotiated peace deal, and has repeatedly moved to scale back military support for Ukraine and reduce U.S. security commitments across Europe.

  • Soybeans on Beijing agenda but US farmers should temper optimism

    Soybeans on Beijing agenda but US farmers should temper optimism

    Eight years after former and current US President Donald Trump labeled China a hostile revisionist power seeking to displace American influence in Asia in his first-term National Security Strategy, his 2025 iteration of the document marks a striking departure in tone. The harsh, confrontational labels that defined the 2017 strategy have been stripped out entirely, replaced with muted, generic language that avoids direct naming even when addressing points of friction.

    The updated strategy retains core policy priorities: it commits the US to rebalancing bilateral trade relations and lists deterrence of conflict over Taiwan as a key national security goal, but frames both goals in neutral terms. Most notably, a section targeting foreign influence in the Western Hemisphere that clearly targets Chinese infrastructure investments never mentions China by name, referring only to vague “non-hemispheric competitors” and foreign firms operating in the region.

    This shift in language corresponds to measurable softening in policy, even as the Trump administration maintains pressure on China across multiple fronts. The White House has rolled back some of the steep tariffs imposed during earlier trade wars and relaxed restrictions on sales of US high-end semiconductors to Chinese buyers—a change that has spurred sharp criticism from longstanding China hawks within Republican policy circles.
    Matt Pottinger, who served as deputy national security advisor during Trump’s first term and helped craft the administration’s original hardline China approach, used January congressional testimony to push back against the semiconductor sales, warning that the relaxed rules would accelerate China’s military modernization efforts.

    The trade war that defined Trump’s first term and returned in his second has hit American agricultural producers hardest of all, a reality that has shaped the administration’s shifting approach. During 2025’s trade escalation, China halted all purchases of American soybeans for several months in retaliation for new 100% tariffs on Chinese imports. A recent analysis from *The Economist* confirmed that the US agriculture sector has suffered greater damage from reciprocal Chinese tariffs than any other American industry.

    A tentative truce was reached last fall: China agreed to resume soybean purchases, and Trump agreed to cut existing tariffs on Chinese goods. But both sides remain skeptical that the fragile agreement will hold long-term, framing the deal as a temporary pause in hostilities rather than a permanent resolution of trade tensions.

    That makes the upcoming summit between President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, scheduled for May 14 and 15 in Beijing, a critical test for the bilateral relationship. Soybean trade will top the agenda, but it is far from the only issue on the table. China is pushing for further cuts to remaining US tariffs and diplomatic action to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which has faced disruptive tensions. Washington’s priorities include securing more reliable access to rare earth minerals and cracking down on the flow of fentanyl precursors out of China.

    For Trump, securing a commitment for continued Chinese soybean purchases is a key political and economic priority, and analysts widely expect Xi to allow Trump to claim a diplomatic win ahead of any future electoral cycles. But even a cordial summit with a positive closing statement will not resolve the deep structural tensions between the two powers. Both sides have proven they can inflict significant economic pain on one another, and both have shown willingness to use that leverage to advance their negotiating positions.

    In the weeks leading up to the summit, China has already demonstrated its willingness to push back against US actions twice. First, Chinese regulators ordered Meta Platforms to unwind its $2 billion acquisition of domestic Chinese AI startup Manus. Second, after the US Treasury sanctioned five small Chinese refiners for purchasing Iranian crude oil, Beijing retaliated by activating its anti-sanctions blocking rules for the first time, allowing the targeted firms to sue any financial or insurance entity that complies with the US sanctions in Chinese courts.

    Lingling Wei, a veteran Wall Street Journal China correspondent with deep access to Chinese leadership circles, reports that top Chinese officials believe they have developed a framework for managing US-China relations with Trump at the helm: “The U.S. president can be exhausted and outwaited, and calibrated escalation resets the bargaining floor instead of blowing up the relationship.”

    The question remains whether Beijing is overestimating its ability to influence Trump. While Trump is invested in making the summit appear a success, he has little incentive to be seen as easily manipulated. Analysts say it would not be surprising to see a new show of force from Washington after the summit to remind Beijing of American leverage.

    For the moment, the status quo is an uneasy truce, not a permanent peace. With luck, the temporary pause will hold, allowing bilateral trade including soybean exports to continue flowing. But China has already begun long-term preparations for a future breakdown in trade, working aggressively to reduce its dependence on American soybeans. Beijing has ramped up purchases of Brazilian soybeans and invested in Brazilian infrastructure to speed export logistics, while also developing alternative fermented pig feed to reduce overall domestic soybean consumption.

    That reality leaves American soybean producers with a clear lesson, analysts say: they too must prepare for the worst. While some level of exports to China will likely continue even if the truce holds, farmers need to aggressively expand sales to other domestic and international markets to insulate themselves from future disruptions. Just as China seeks to end its reliance on American agriculture, American farmers must end their reliance on the Chinese market.

  • Jury convicts man accused of running secret Chinese spy outpost in New York City

    Jury convicts man accused of running secret Chinese spy outpost in New York City

    NEW YORK – After a high-profile federal trial that underscores escalating U.S. tensions over transnational Chinese surveillance operations on American soil, a 64-year-old Chinese-American man has been found guilty of acting as an unregistered illegal foreign agent and deleting communications tied to a Chinese government contact. Lu Jianwang, who also goes by Harry Lu, was acquitted of a separate conspiracy charge, delivering a mixed outcome to a case that has highlighted deep divides over how U.S. law enforcement addresses China’s global transnational repression efforts.

    Federal prosecutors allege that Lu and co-defendant Chen Jinping founded the secret outpost in Manhattan’s Chinatown in 2022, shortly after Lu attended an official ceremony in China’s Fujian province where China’s Ministry of Public Security unveiled a global network of 30 so-called “overseas police stations.” The Chinese government has publicly acknowledged operating these outposts to monitor and target individuals it labels as opponents to its interests, including pro-democracy dissidents living abroad.

    The Manhattan outpost operated out of shared office space with the America ChangLe Association, a community group co-run by Lu – a U.S. citizen for decades – and his brother Jimmy. The organization characterizes itself as a social hub for Fujianese immigrants in the city, a framing the defense has leaned into heavily throughout the legal proceedings. During the trial, Lu’s legal team argued the space was never a covert spy hub, but rather a legitimate community resource that helped overseas Chinese renew their Chinese driver’s licenses remotely when COVID-19 border restrictions shut down cross-border travel, alongside serving as a gathering spot for locals to play mahjong and ping-pong. Defense attorney John Carman has repeatedly dismissed the prosecution’s case as an overreach, claiming prosecutors twisted an innocent bureaucratic misstep by a well-meaning community leader into a fabricated espionage narrative, dressing up a routine paperwork violation with baseless claims of intelligence gathering.

    Prosecutors pushed back on that narrative, noting that even if Lu’s only official activity was facilitating driver’s license renewals on behalf of the Chinese government, that still violates U.S. laws requiring foreign agents to formally register their activities with U.S. authorities. Jurors were presented with direct evidence during the trial, including a large banner hung at the Chinatown location explicitly labeling the space the “Fuzhou Police Overseas Service Station, New York USA.”

    The case traces back to an FBI raid conducted in October 2022, launched after investigators received a tip from a watchdog organization that tracks transnational repression by Chinese authorities. During the raid, agents seized digital devices including a computer and multiple cellphones, rummaged through documents, and accessed locked storage cabinets and a safe on the property. The day after the search, prosecutors confirm Lu admitted to FBI agents that he had launched the outpost, communicated with his Chinese government handler via the messaging platform WeChat, and deliberately deleted all of those conversations ahead of the raid.

    Lu spoke briefly to supporters as he exited Brooklyn Federal Court following the verdict, but declined to respond to questions from assembled reporters. He remains free on bail as he awaits sentencing, which has not yet been scheduled. His co-defendant Chen Jinping accepted a guilty plea in December 2024 to one count of conspiracy to act as an unregistered foreign agent, resolving her part of the case ahead of Lu’s trial.

    The conviction comes amid growing bipartisan concern in the U.S. over China’s widespread campaign of transnational repression, which has targeted dissidents, activists, and minority groups living in countries across the globe. The verdict is expected to add fuel to ongoing debates over how U.S. law enforcement should balance national security concerns with protecting the rights of Chinese-American communities.

  • The scales have tilted toward Republicans in the voting maps fight, but it may not last

    The scales have tilted toward Republicans in the voting maps fight, but it may not last

    Just three weeks ago, the outlook for Republican control of the U.S. House of Representatives after November’s midterm elections looked far from promising. In the two months following the outbreak of the Iran War, former President Donald Trump’s approval ratings had slid steadily, with voters particularly sour on his management of the economy and persistent inflation. At the same time, Republican efforts to gain a partisan upper hand through congressional redistricting in conservative-led states like Texas had been effectively neutralized by countermoves from Democratic lawmakers in blue-leaning California and Virginia. Writing off the race entirely if it had been held that spring, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich told The New York Times in April that the party would need to resolve voter anger over the ongoing conflict, rising cost of living, and soaring gas prices to have any shot at holding their majority. That gloomy political landscape has been upended entirely by two consequential court decisions that have dramatically reshaped the electoral map ahead of November’s vote. Last week, the Virginia Supreme Court struck down a voter-approved new congressional districting plan that had been on track to flip four seats currently held by Republicans to Democratic candidates. Following the ruling, House Republican Campaign Committee chair Congressman Richard Hudson declared in a public statement that the GOP was now gaining momentum ahead of the midterms, saying, “We’re on offence, and we’re going to win.” The ruling that set this entire shift in motion came one week earlier from the U.S. Supreme Court. The court’s conservative majority overturned decades of legal precedent, ruling that the landmark 1960s Voting Rights Act does not require states to draw congressional districts that give minority communities proportional representation to their share of the state’s overall population. The majority held that only overt, intentional racial discrimination qualifies as legal grounds to throw out a state’s districting plan, ruling that partisan gerrymandering — the practice of drawing district lines to benefit one political party — is fully constitutional, even when it weakens the voting power of racial minority groups. The ruling opened the door for Republican-controlled legislatures across the American South to rapidly dismantle court-ordered majority-minority districts, which have historically sent Black Democratic candidates to Congress due to consistent voting patterns. Since the ruling, GOP-led states have rushed to redraw their maps to lock in more Republican-held seats. Tennessee became the first state to act, approving a new map that gives the GOP a competitive advantage in all nine of the state’s congressional districts. In the early hours of Tuesday, the Louisiana Senate passed a revised map that is expected to flip one of the state’s two currently Democratic-held seats to Republican control. To accommodate the last-minute map change, the state’s Republican governor pushed back the congressional primary, originally scheduled for this past Saturday. Alabama is currently advancing similar map changes, and while a small group of Republican lawmakers in South Carolina joined Democrats to block a GOP-led redraw so far, the state’s Republican governor has threatened to call a special legislative session to force the plan through. When combined with a new Republican-friendly districting plan approved in Florida on the same day as the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, what had previously looked like a stalemate in the national redistricting fight is now projected to hand Republicans a competitive advantage in at least eight additional House seats. Currently, Republicans hold a narrow 218-212 majority in the chamber, with three Democratic and two Republican seats currently vacant. That narrow existing majority means the new map changes have made Democrats’ path to flipping control of the House far more challenging than it was just a month ago. “These recent changes have left Democrats with less room for error,” explained Geoffrey Skelley, an election analyst for nonpartisan election tracking site Decision Desk HQ. Even with the new pro-GOP electoral map, the race could still swing back to Democrats if Trump’s unpopularity with general voters persists through November. Current polling gives Trump lower favorability ratings than he had in 2018, when a blue wave handed Democrats a net gain of 40 House seats and control of the chamber. In a memo sent to House Democrats this week, Democratic House Leader Hakeem Jeffries argued that the GOP’s gerrymandering efforts would not be enough to offset the deeply unfavorable political environment Republicans face this November. “Given the highly unfavourable political environment confronting House Republicans, the extremists will not meaningfully benefit from their scandalous gerrymandering scheme,” Jeffries wrote. Still, the long-term impact of the new maps extends beyond 2026. Because every House seat is up for election every two years, the newly drawn districts will lock in a Republican advantage for future cycles when political conditions may be more favorable for conservatives. That long-term threat is why Democrats have pledged a fierce, all-out effort to block the new maps and re-level the electoral playing field before November. “Our effort to forcefully push back against the Republican redistricting scheme will not slow down,” Jeffries wrote. “We are just getting started.”

  • Brazil presidential hopeful Flávio Bolsonaro denies wrongdoing after asking banker for millions

    Brazil presidential hopeful Flávio Bolsonaro denies wrongdoing after asking banker for millions

    SAO PAULO — Brazil’s political landscape has been upended by new allegations that Senate member and presumptive presidential candidate Flávio Bolsonaro solicited more than $12 million in funding from a jailed, fraud-accused banker, a scandal that threatens to derail his 2024 election bid against incumbent President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. On Wednesday, the lawmaker issued a flat denial of any illegal activity connected to the request. The controversy first came to light via an investigation published by The Intercept Brazil, which released leaked voice recordings of Bolsonaro asking Daniel Vorcaro, a former bank chief at the heart of one of Brazil’s biggest recent corruption scandals, for 61 million reais to fund a biographical film about his father, Jair Bolsonaro, the disgraced former Brazilian president who is currently imprisoned on corruption charges. Bolsonaro has framed the project, titled *The Dark Horse*, as a private work chronicling the elder Bolsonaro’s political life. Vorcaro, who led the now-defunct Banco Master until its forced shutdown, has been in custody since March this year, facing a slew of charges including orchestrating a massive fraud scheme that conned thousands of the bank’s clients out of millions of dollars through deceptive, unregulated investment deals. Both Brazil’s Federal Police and the Supreme Court have been leading a sprawling probe into the scandal, which has already dragged multiple high-profile political figures into its orbit since early 2024. In his first public response to the revelations, Flávio Bolsonaro pushed back hard against any implication of wrongdoing. “This is simply a case of a son seeking private sponsorship for a private film about his father’s story. No public funds were involved at all,” the senator said in an official statement. He went on to reject all claims of impropriety, adding: “I never offered any illegal favors in exchange for funding, I never held secret off-the-books meetings with Vorcaro, I never mediated business deals with the federal government, and I have not received any money from him at this point.” Political analysts warn that the timing of the scandal, which comes just days before Flávio Bolsonaro’s Liberal Party is set to formally nominate him as its presidential candidate for October’s election, could deal a catastrophic blow to his campaign. Thomas Traumann, a veteran Brazilian political consultant, noted that Flávio Bolsonaro’s political identity is almost entirely tied to his family name. “Flávio Bolsonaro is still a relatively unknown figure to most Brazilian voters, and his biggest political asset by far is his status as the son of the former president,” Traumann explained. “A scandal of this magnitude, where he is caught asking for large sums of money from a banker under active criminal investigation for fraud, and showing clear personal ties to him, could be devastating. It may even force the Brazilian opposition to replace its candidate at the last minute to preserve its chances of winning in October.” According to The Intercept Brazil’s reporting, the messages from Flávio Bolsonaro to Vorcaro were sent back in October 2023, months before Vorcaro’s arrest. Since being taken into custody, the former banker has been negotiating a potential plea deal with federal prosecutors in exchange for cooperating with their investigation. Brazil’s Central Bank first moved to shut down Banco Master, which held more than $16 billion in total assets at its peak, last November, after regulators uncovered massive irregularities in the bank’s operations. Since the allegations against Flávio Bolsonaro became public, he and his political allies have launched a counteroffensive, making unsubstantiated claims that the entire scandal is a plot orchestrated by the current Lula administration to undermine his campaign. To date, Brazil’s Federal Police have found no evidence linking Vorcaro or his scheme to Lula or his government. The controversy is just the latest to hit the Bolsonaro-aligned opposition in recent weeks: earlier this week, Sen. Ciro Nogueira, a former chief of staff to Jair Bolsonaro, also denied published reports that he had accepted regular, undeclared payments from Vorcaro in exchange for political support.

  • Alberta judge tosses out petition for province to separate from Canada

    Alberta judge tosses out petition for province to separate from Canada

    In a landmark ruling that underscores the centrality of Indigenous land rights in Canadian constitutional politics, an Alberta judge has dismissed a bid to hold a province-wide referendum on Alberta’s separation from Canada. The decision came after several Indigenous First Nations groups argued that proceeding with the independence vote without meaningful consultation would directly violate their inherent territorial rights.

    According to Canadian public broadcaster CBC, Justice Shaina Leonard delivered the ruling Wednesday at an Edmonton courthouse, bringing an end to the latest push by separatist organizers to advance their long-held goal of breaking away from the Canadian federation. The petition was led by Stay Free Alberta, a grassroots separatist group that claimed to have collected more than 300,000 signatures – a threshold that would have legally required the province to schedule a binding referendum on independence. Leonard had already paused the official signature verification process while she reviewed the First Nations’ legal challenge, ahead of Wednesday’s final ruling.

    In her dual rulings released this week, Leonard found that the Alberta provincial government failed in its legal duty to consult four affected Indigenous nations: the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, Blood Tribe, Piikani Nation, and Siksika Nation. Indigenous advocates have long argued that any separation initiative would redraw territorial boundaries and reconfigure land governance without the free, prior, and informed consent of the First Nations who have inhabited and governed those lands since time immemorial.

    The push for Alberta separation is rooted in decades of growing resentment toward the federal government in Ottawa, particularly among segments of the province’s population. Frustration has centered most sharply on disputes over natural resource development: many Albertans argue that successive federal Liberal governments have prioritized national climate policy at the expense of the province’s lucrative oil and gas sector, blocking critical pipeline projects and imposing regulations that have stunted industry growth.

    Separatist sentiment has also been fueled by a widespread belief among Albertans that the province, which holds vast fossil fuel and mineral wealth, contributes far more to federal tax revenues than it receives back in national transfers and public investment. Many residents also argue that eastern Canadian political elites consistently disregard western priorities, deepening a cultural and political rift that has widened in recent years.

    What was once a marginal fringe movement only a decade ago has grown steadily in traction over the last 12 months, pushing the threat of a national unity crisis higher on Canada’s political agenda. While the Alberta separatist movement remains fragmented, with no single unified leadership or platform, most supporters agree that the province needs far greater autonomy over its natural resource management and domestic policy agenda, regardless of whether full separation is achieved.

    Wednesday’s ruling marks a major legal setback for the separatist movement, prioritizing Indigenous rights over a popular grassroots push for political self-determination and setting a new precedent for future separation initiatives in the country.

  • Trump and Xi set for high-stakes talks in Beijing

    Trump and Xi set for high-stakes talks in Beijing

    Eight years after his last visit to China, U.S. President Donald Trump touched down in Beijing Wednesday evening for a two-day high-stakes leadership summit, marking the first trip by a sitting U.S. president to the Chinese capital since 2017. Welcomed with traditional ceremonial fanfare, including a red carpet greeting and 300 uniformed Chinese youth chanting welcome and waving both national flags as the U.S. leader pumped his fist descending from Air Force One, the lavish opening sets the stage for discussions on a host of thorny issues that have split the world’s two largest economies and nuclear powers.

    Trump’s traveling delegation includes some of America’s most high-profile business leaders, headlined by Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang and Tesla CEO Elon Musk — names the president has highlighted as symbols of the commercial breakthroughs he aims to secure during the meetings. On Thursday morning, Chinese leader Xi Jinping will formally greet Trump at Beijing’s opulent Great Hall of the People, followed by an official state banquet that evening. After the summit, Trump is scheduled to tour the Temple of Heaven, a centuries-old UNESCO World Heritage Site that once served as the ceremonial worship site for Chinese imperial dynasties, before holding informal talks, a tea gathering and working lunch with Xi on Friday ahead of his departure back to Washington.

    This summit was originally scheduled for March, but was delayed by the escalating conflict around Iran, a sticking point that will still top the bilateral agenda. Most of Iran’s oil exports, which are sanctioned by the United States, currently flow to China, and Trump has confirmed the two leaders will hold a lengthy discussion on the issue, even as he downplays the need for Chinese cooperation on Washington’s policy toward Tehran.

    Trade tensions, the longest-running source of friction between the two nations, will also be a core focus of the talks. Following Trump’s 2017 visit, the U.S. rolled out sweeping tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Chinese goods, triggering a tit-for-tat trade war that saw retaliatory levies push combined duties to over 100% on many cross-border goods. The two leaders reached a one-year truce on tariffs during an October meeting in South Korea, and this week they are expected to negotiate an extension of that pause — though negotiators on both sides have cautioned a final agreement is far from guaranteed.

    Trump has pinned his approach to the talks on his self-described close personal rapport with Xi, telling reporters ahead of the trip he expects a “great big hug” from the Chinese leader, who he has long praised for his firm governing style. Top on the president’s commercial priority list are new trade deals covering U.S. agricultural exports, aircraft sales and wider market access for American companies. Aboard Air Force One en route to Beijing, Trump wrote on social media that he would press Xi to “open up” China’s markets to U.S. firms, saying “these brilliant people can work their magic” given fair access.

    For its part, the Chinese foreign ministry struck a constructive tone ahead of the summit, releasing a statement Wednesday saying Beijing “welcomes” Trump’s visit and stands ready to work with Washington to expand bilateral cooperation and productively manage differences. But analysts note China’s global position has shifted significantly since Trump’s last visit in 2017, with Beijing now far more assertive on geopolitical and trade issues, leaving multiple core disputes unresolved.

    One of the most sensitive issues on the agenda is Taiwan, the self-governing democracy that Beijing claims as its sovereign territory. Trump confirmed ahead of the trip that he will raise the topic of ongoing U.S. arms sales to Taipei during his talks with Xi — a break from decades of U.S. policy that has refused to consult Beijing on arms sales to the island, a shift that is being closely watched by Taipei and U.S. regional allies.

    Other topics slated for discussion include China’s export controls on rare earth minerals, the growing global rivalry in artificial intelligence development, and broader restructuring of the bilateral trade relationship. Both sides enter the summit seeking to secure tangible wins while preventing a further escalation of tensions, a delicate balance that carries major implications for the global economy and international security. Trump is also pushing to lock in a firm date for a reciprocal visit by Xi to the U.S. later in 2026, a move that would serve as a high-profile proof of his claim to have built a strong working relationship with his Chinese counterpart.

  • ‘Europe must become more Jewish’ says owner of Telegraph and Politico

    ‘Europe must become more Jewish’ says owner of Telegraph and Politico

    In a provocative address to the World Jewish Congress (WJC) Governing Board in Geneva this week, Mathias Dopfner, CEO of global media giant Axel Springer – owner of major outlets including The Telegraph and Politico – declared that anti-Zionism is indistinguishable from racism, while laying out a series of divisive policy proposals that have reignited debates over media independence, censorship and immigration.

    Dopfner’s hardline stance on Israel is not new. Back in April, the media executive made international headlines when he told Politico journalists that any staff who refused to publicly back Israel must resign, a move that stoked widespread fears over the editorial independence of the political news outlet, which Axel Springer acquired in 2021. Opening his WJC speech, he doubled down on his ideological commitments, telling attendees: “I’m a goy, and I’m Zionist, with all my heart, out of conviction, and with passion.”

    In a wide-ranging address that included sharp anti-immigrant rhetoric and broad attacks on cultural institutions, universities, musicians, artists and the United Nations, Dopfner launched a particularly scathing attack on the UN Human Rights Council. The body has drawn repeated international condemnation of Israel over documented war crimes, systemic human rights abuses and the imposition of apartheid rule in occupied Palestinian territories; Dopfner derided the council as the “human rights Twistings Council”, claiming it unfairly targets Israel.

    Dopfner claimed that anti-Zionist sentiment – which he framed as any widespread, repeated criticism of the Israeli state – is spreading rapidly across North America and Europe, taking root in university campuses, arts and cultural circles, social media platforms and public street protests. While he conceded that criticism of Israel is not inherently forbidden, he argued that such critique should not become a normalized “everyday” conversation. He went further, claiming that rising criticism of Israel has rendered major Western European nations including Germany, France, the UK and Spain no longer “truly safe countries for Jews”.

    Turning specifically to UK politics, he attacked the country’s Green Party, which has seen growing electoral support in part driven by its public criticism of Israeli policy. He took particular issue with the party’s framing of Zionism as a racist ideology, retorting: “There must be a misunderstanding here. It is not Zionism that is racism. It is anti-Zionism that is racism.”

    Dopfner argued that the rise of anti-Zionism is fueled by “envy” of Jewish communal success, a claim that omitted any reference to Israel’s 56-year military occupation of Palestinian land, or ongoing public calls by sitting Israeli politicians for the establishment of a “Greater Israel” spanning territory from the Nile River in Egypt to the Euphrates in Iraq. “Only a self-assured, proud Jewish identity can help reduce envy and [the] new antisemitism,” he added.

    Framing growing global criticism of Israel as a leading warning sign of rising authoritarianism in the West, Dopfner put forward a slate of draconian policy measures. Conflating all anti-Zionists with antisemites, he argued that anti-Zionists “regardless of their origin, must be expelled wherever legally possible”. He praised UK Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch for advancing similar policy proposals, arguing every democratic nation should adopt such measures. He also called for sweeping changes to European immigration policy, urging the continent to introduce preferential immigration and citizenship pathways exclusively for Jewish families, framing this as a counterbalance to what he called “Christian and particularly Muslim influences” in Europe. “Europe must become more Jewish,” he concluded.

    Dopfner also joined growing calls for the forced sale or full censorship of TikTok in Europe, pointing to the 2025 US order forcing the platform to sell off its US operations to non-Chinese owners – a deal that would see pro-Zionist billionaire and close Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ally Larry Ellison take control of the platform. “In America, TikTok has been forced to be sold… Europe should follow this example,” he said, warning that failure to root out anti-Zionism would lead the West to “destroy itself”.

    Political analysts note Dopfner’s high-profile public intervention is part of a broader coordinated push by pro-Israel leaders to counter mounting global condemnation and diplomatic isolation of Israel, which has intensified sharply following Israel’s military campaign in Gaza that the UN and multiple international human rights organizations have ruled constitutes a genocide. Dopfner’s comments also echo growing alarm among pro-Israel elites expressed at the 2025 Tikvah Jewish Leadership Conference in the US, where billionaires, investment bankers, media leaders, lawyers and Zionist Christian activists gathered to address what they described as a growing global backlash against Israeli policy. That gathering, which brought together leaders from the WJC, the Jewish Leadership Conference and the Jewish Federations of North America’s General Assembly, collectively called for expanded censorship of voices across the political spectrum that criticize Israel – framed by attendees as an effort to “save America from the barbarians”.

  • US drops $15,000 visa deposit for foreign fans with World Cup tickets

    US drops $15,000 visa deposit for foreign fans with World Cup tickets

    Ahead of the 2026 FIFA World Cup co-hosted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico, the Trump administration has issued a key policy adjustment: it will waive the mandatory $15,000 visa deposit requirement for football fans traveling from 50 restricted countries, as long as they hold valid match tickets for the tournament. Among the 50 countries included in this exemption, five national squads – Algeria, Cabo Verde, Ivory Coast, Senegal, and Tunisia – have already qualified for the global tournament kicking off on June 11. “We are waiving visa bonds for qualified fans who bought World Cup tickets,” Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Mora Namdar confirmed in an official statement provided to the BBC. The $15,000 visa bond mandate was first rolled out last August as part of a 12-month pilot program, a key component of the administration’s broader immigration enforcement push. U.S. State Department documentation notes the policy was designed to address the problem of visa overstays and cases where applicant screening and vetting materials are deemed insufficient. The full deposit would be returned to visitors once their authorized stay in the U.S. comes to an end. Prior to this new announcement, only participating players and coaches had been granted exemptions from the bond requirement, leaving ordinary ticket-holding fans subject to the fee until this week. While the bond suspension applies to fans from 50 countries, the exemption does not extend to fans traveling from Iran and Haiti, who remain barred from entering the U.S. under existing restrictions. Even for these two nations, however, World Cup-bound players and coaches are still exempt from the entry ban for tournament-related travel. Additional travel restrictions remain in place for fans from Ivory Coast and Senegal – both World Cup-qualified nations – under the administration’s expanded travel ban framework. This latest policy change comes as the U.S. maintains another controversial immigration rule that could impact World Cup visitors: late last year, the government announced that tourists from dozens of countries could be required to hand over five years of their social media history as a condition of entry. Human and civil rights organizations have repeatedly raised alarms about this policy, warning travelers that such extensive screening creates multiple risks, including heightened chances of entry denial, potential arrest, broader travel restrictions, targeted racial profiling, and increased government surveillance of visitors. The 2026 World Cup, the first to be expanded to 48 teams, will mark the first time the tournament has been co-hosted across three North American nations, with matches scheduled across multiple U.S. cities from the tournament’s opening round through the final. This policy adjustment reflects the administration’s effort to balance its strict immigration agenda with the logistical and diplomatic demands of hosting one of the world’s largest international sporting events.

  • Who is the real Wes Streeting? His record on Israel and foreign policy examined

    Who is the real Wes Streeting? His record on Israel and foreign policy examined

    A stunning political upheaval is unfolding in UK politics, with British Health Secretary Wes Streeting reportedly preparing to launch a leadership challenge against incumbent Prime Minister Keir Starmer — a move many senior MPs have already labeled an internal party coup.

    According to senior party sources, Streeting held a brief 10-minute closed-door meeting with Starmer at 10 Downing Street on Wednesday morning, and is now on track to step down from the cabinet and officially trigger a contest for the Labour leadership this Thursday. For the Ilford North MP, who aligns with the Labour Party’s right wing, this leadership bid is a race against the clock: he aims to unseat Starmer before the party’s soft left wing can unify behind a rival contender, most notably Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham, who has long been floated as a potential candidate and could launch his own challenge if he secures a seat in parliament.

    Crucially, Labour Together, the influential think tank that was instrumental in securing Starmer’s 2020 leadership victory, is widely understood to be backing Streeting. The group is eager to preserve its hold on power within a future Labour government should Starmer step down.

    Regardless of which candidate ultimately prevails in a leadership contest, political analysts widely agree that a shift in British foreign policy is all but guaranteed — and few policy areas will see more change than the UK’s long-standing military and political alliance with Israel. The Israeli war in Gaza has been a deeply divisive flashpoint in British politics for more than two years, and the recent US-Israeli military campaign against Iran has already sent ripple effects through the British economy, driving up energy costs and stoking inflation. In the most recent local elections, the Green Party — the most prominent political voice opposing UK support for Israel — eroded Labour’s voter base far more severely than the right-wing Reform Party, underscoring how deeply the Israel issue has shifted voter loyalties on the left.

    Any new prime minister replacing Starmer, whether through voluntary resignation or forced ousting, will be desperate to push back against the Green Party’s electoral gains and win back disillusioned left-wing voters. That political pressure almost certainly means a policy adjustment on Israel, but questions about what a Streeting-led government would actually do remain shrouded in contradiction. Middle East Eye’s deep dive into Streeting’s public and private record on Israel and the Middle East reveals a pattern of conflicting statements that have left even close political observers unsure of his true positions.

    Streeting is a long-standing, active member of Labour Friends of Israel (LFI), a pro-Israel parliamentary lobby group. A senior Westminster source confirmed that Streeting meets regularly with LFI leadership in parliament. He has also received significant financial donations from Trevor Chinn, a 90-year-old former car industry magnate and philanthropist who was awarded the Israeli Presidential Medal of Honour in November 2024 for his lifelong service to the State of Israel. Between 2021 and 2024, Chinn donated more than £15,000 (approximately $20,200) to Streeting, and gave an additional £5,000 in 2025 — after Streeting became Health Secretary — to “support campaigning in Ilford North”.

    Chinn’s father served as president of the UK branch of the Jewish National Fund (JNF), an organization that has long provided funding for Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, which are classified as illegal under international law. Public organizational records show that between 2015 and 2018, the UK JNF transferred more than £1 million to Hashomer Hachadash, a Zionist militia operating in the occupied West Bank. Chinn himself is a long-time supporter of both LFI and its Conservative counterpart, Conservative Friends of Israel, and two former officials from Tony Blair’s Labour government described him to Middle East Eye as a “very strong supporter of Israel” who was brought in as an unofficial advisor to Blair’s cabinet.

    Despite these deep ties to pro-Israel lobbying, Streeting has a documented history of engaging with Palestinian stakeholders as well. In February 2016, he joined a trip to Israel and the occupied West Bank organized by Medical Aid for Palestinians and the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding, where he met with then-Palestinian Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah and sitting members of the Israeli Knesset, and visited a Palestinian community school in Khan al-Ahmar that was facing ongoing intimidation from Israeli settlers and military forces at the time. Later, he became the first member of Starmer’s shadow cabinet to visit Israel after Starmer won the Labour leadership, on a separate trip funded by LFI. He framed that visit as a four-day “fact-finding mission” during which he met with Israeli politicians, diplomats, academics and health experts, and later praised Israel’s medical innovation, saying “Israel is 10 years ahead of the NHS.”

    After the 7 October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, when Starmer’s then-opposition Labour Party backed the Conservative government’s policy of supporting Israel’s siege and bombing campaign in Gaza, Streeting aligned fully with official party line. Speaking to Sky News on 25 October 2023, he repeated Israel’s widely circulated claim that Hamas “cowardly [uses] innocent civilians, children, women, men as human shields” and echoed the Israeli assertion that “Hamas uses buildings like schools and hospitals as bunkers.” He refused to back calls for a permanent ceasefire, instead calling only for a temporary “humanitarian pause,” arguing that “Israel is a democracy… I don’t know if Hamas will abide by the rules for a pause.” In January 2024, he dismissed South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice as a “distraction from what needs to happen, which is the diplomatic heavy lifting to bring about an end to this conflict.”

    By mid-2024, however, Streeting began to ramp up public criticism of Israeli actions. “You look at the scale of the bloodshed, you look at the scale of destruction in Gaza, the number of civilian casualties,” he noted in one interview. “They are disproportionate, and it’s horrible.” In the 2024 UK general election, Streeting only narrowly held onto his Ilford North seat, where British Palestinian independent candidate Leanne Mohammed came within just 600 votes of unseating him — a result widely interpreted as a reflection of widespread voter anger in the diverse constituency over Labour’s pro-Israel policies. A senior Labour source familiar with Streeting’s thinking confirmed to Middle East Eye that as Health Secretary, Streeting privately pressured Starmer to toughen his public criticism of Israel.

    Under Starmer’s premiership, UK-Israel diplomatic relations did cool gradually: the UK introduced a partial arms embargo on Israel in September 2024. Yet Starmer’s government continued widespread military cooperation with Israel throughout the Gaza campaign, most notably carrying out hundreds of surveillance flights over Gaza and sharing real-time intelligence with Israeli forces. In March 2025, Starmer walked back previous comments from then-Foreign Secretary David Lammy that Israel was committing a “breach of international law.”

    Streeting never publicly accused Israel of war crimes, but he continued to edge toward stronger criticism: in April 2025, he said Israeli attacks on Gaza were “intolerable” and “cannot be justified as self-defence.” By September that year, he went further, arguing that Israel’s actions in Gaza were “leading Israel to pariah status” and added that Israeli President Isaac Herzog “needs to answer the allegations of war crimes, of ethnic cleansing and of genocide that are being levelled at the government of Israel.”

    That public shift, however, was thrown into new context in February 2026, when private text messages exchanged between Streeting and Peter Mandelson — former British ambassador to the U.S. and a controversial associate of the late Jeffrey Epstein — were leaked to the press. Multiple senior Labour sources told Middle East Eye that Streeting himself orchestrated the leak, in a bid to shore up left-wing support for his leadership bid and increase pressure on Starmer. One senior party official said Streeting was “intentionally presenting himself as more critical of Israel than official Labour policy” to appeal to disaffected voters.

    The leaked texts revealed that Streeting privately acknowledged Israel was “committing war crimes before our eyes” as early as July 2025, and explicitly endorsed imposing economic and political sanctions on Israel. He told Mandelson that the Israeli government “talks the language of ethnic cleansing, and I have met with our own medics out there who describe the most chilling and distressing scenes of calculated brutality against women and children.” He noted that he had been a member of LFI for more than 20 years, adding: “I have never been a shrinking violet on Israel. [Israel is engaged in] rogue state behaviour. Let them pay the price as pariahs with sanctions applied to the state, not just a few ministers.”

    While some left-wing critics welcomed Streeting’s private candor, the leak sparked fierce backlash from across the political spectrum. Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn published an open letter to Streeting, accusing him of a “shameful failure” for remaining in Starmer’s cabinet even as he privately condemned Israel’s war crimes in Gaza. Corbyn argued that “once a government acknowledges that Israel is committing war crimes, then any continued military or political support is an admission from the government that it is knowingly aiding and abetting those war crimes.” He pressed Streeting to answer a series of critical questions: why he did not resign from a government he believed was supporting war crimes, whether he believed the current Labour government was complicit in Israeli war crimes, whether he would cooperate with the International Criminal Court’s investigation into UK complicity, and what specific steps he had taken internally to end British military and political support for Israel. Corbyn noted that “our history books will shame government ministers who could have stopped the genocide in Gaza, but chose to stay silent instead,” and confirmed to Middle East Eye that Streeting has not responded to the letter.

    In the run-up to 2026 local elections, Streeting also publicly attacked pro-Palestinian politicians challenging Labour in his own constituency, framing their criticism of Labour’s Israel policy as “sectarian politics.” In Redbridge, the east London borough that contains Streeting’s Ilford North seat, the Redbridge Independents — a local grouping backed by Corbyn’s Your Party — won nine council seats last week. In March, Middle East Eye reported that Streeting sent a campaign letter to constituents accusing Redbridge Independents of being “a divisive political party that aims to only represent some of us, more focused on foreign conflicts than on fixing potholes.” He doubled down in April, telling The Times that “We’re voting for Redbridge council, not the UN Security Council. Who you choose to run your local council matters and the Redbridge Independents represent a divisive brand of sectarian politics.”

    Critics have pointed out the contradiction in this attack, noting that Starmer himself made foreign policy a central campaign issue during the same local elections, when he attacked Reform Party leader Nigel Farage and Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch over their stances on the Iran war, arguing that “Nigel Farage and Kemi Badenoch would have jumped into this war with both feet without thinking through the consequences… Britain would have been “in a war without a plan” had they been in power, adding that he “won’t be dragged in” to the US-Israeli war. Senior Labour MP John McDonnell, a prominent left-wing critic of Labour’s Israel policy, criticized Streeting’s attack on the independents, telling Middle East Eye that “one interpretation verges on a Reform [style] dog whistle politics. The last thing we need is more divisive politics in these elections.”

    Today, as Streeting prepares for what could be one of the most dramatic internal leadership challenges in modern British political history, his true positions on Israel and foreign policy remain an enigma to most observers. His public and private stances shift dramatically depending on his audience, shaped by his long ties to pro-Israel lobbying, his precarious hold on a marginal seat, and his ambition to become prime minister. If Streeting follows through on his plan to launch a leadership challenge, he will finally be forced to lay out a clear, consistent foreign policy agenda for the UK — and he will almost certainly craft that agenda with an eye toward holding his marginal seat and winning the next general election.