Global Pulse

分类： politics

  • A decade on, Trump returns to a stronger and more assertive China

    A decade on, Trump returns to a stronger and more assertive China

    Eight years after Donald Trump’s 2017 state visit to Beijing, the U.S. president is back at the Chinese capital this week for high-stakes talks with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, arriving to a changed China that stands far more confident and globally assertive than it did during his first trip. Back in 2017, Beijing rolled out an unprecedented honor for Trump, hosting a formal dinner inside the Forbidden City — a gesture no sitting U.S. president had received before. This year’s reception promises equal grandeur, with a scheduled stop at Zhongnanhai, the closed compound that houses China’s top political leadership. But while the hospitality is warm, the summit agenda remains fraught: alongside longstanding sticking points of trade, technology competition and the Taiwan issue, rising tensions over Iran have added a new layer of geopolitical friction to the talks.

    To understand the scale of China’s transformation since Trump’s last visit, one need only look beyond Beijing’s historic central districts to the megacity of Chongqing, tucked into the mountainous southwest of the country. Where Trump’s 2017 visit saw Beijing pour extensive diplomatic effort into proving it stood as a geopolitical equal to the U.S., that effort is no longer necessary today, according to Ali Wyne, senior research and advocacy adviser for US-China relations at the International Crisis Group. Washington now openly recognizes China as a “near-peer” competitor, Wyne notes — arguably the most formidable rival the United States has faced in its entire history.

    Chongqing, once a gritty, overlooked manufacturing hub, has been remade by billions in state investment into a symbol of China’s new economic and global ambitions. Its dramatic, vertically stacked skyline, where subways cut through residential skyscrapers and winding roads cling to steep hillsides above the Yangtze River, has earned it the viral nickname of the world’s “cyberpunk capital,” drawing two million international visitors annually after China expanded visa-free travel to boost its soft power. It is also at the forefront of Xi Jinping’s push to develop “new productive forces,” with massive state investment pouring into renewable energy, robotics, artificial intelligence and electric vehicle manufacturing. Chongqing now leads China in automobile production, underpinning China’s status as the world’s largest car exporter, and is positioning itself to become the Silicon Valley of western China. This year alone, China plans to invest roughly $400 billion in the robotics sector, where it already operates more industrial robots than any other country.

    Yet behind Chongqing’s futuristic skyline and viral social media trends such as the “Chongqing train eating” challenge that draws tourists and locals alike to snap viral photos, the city also exposes the challenges China currently faces. Years of large-scale urban construction have left the local government, which serves a population of more than 30 million, heavily indebted, alongside broader national headwinds: a sluggish property sector, falling home prices, rising youth unemployment and persistently low domestic consumption. U.S. tariffs first implemented under Trump’s first term and economic spillover from the ongoing Iran conflict have only amplified these pressures. In older working-class neighborhoods of Chongqing, many daily-wage workers and small vendors still struggle to make ends meet, and ordinary residents expressed a range of views on the approaching summit and the U.S. president.

    Many ordinary Chinese credit Trump’s “America First” agenda and divisive trade policies with weakening U.S. global standing and accelerating China’s rise, even as they criticize his unilateral approach. “He doesn’t care about the consequences at all. He should know that we share the same world — it is a global village. He should not always put America first,” one unnamed tourist told reporters. Still, for many young Chinese people, the U.S. remains a symbol of opportunity and creative freedom, even as strained bilateral relations have made studying abroad a more uncertain dream. That uncertainty, however, has also pushed Chinese engineers and innovators to accelerate domestic technological development, visible in Chongqing’s new innovation hubs, where school children now interact with domestically developed humanoid and aquatic robots.

    One major sticking point in this week’s talks is expected to be access to advanced semiconductors, the core component powering AI and robotics innovation. While the previous Biden administration imposed tight restrictions on sales of cutting-edge chips to China to slow the country’s technological progress, President Trump has relaxed some of those rules, allowing U.S. chip giant Nvidia to sell certain mid-tier advanced chips to China, while keeping bans on the most high-end models. For global analysts, the growing competition over AI also creates a shared risk: both powers must set aside great power rivalry to address common threats, from cyberattacks on critical infrastructure to the risk of malicious actors misusing AI to access sensitive nuclear or medical systems.

    Trade remains the most closely watched issue on the summit agenda. Since 2017, China has deliberately reduced its reliance on the U.S. market, reorienting its trade toward Southeast Asia and the European Union; U.S.-bound Chinese exports have dropped by roughly 20%, pushing the U.S. to third place among China’s largest trade partners. When Trump began threatening new tariffs ahead of the 2024 election, Beijing prepared for the outcome, and did not back down when the tariffs took effect last year. Today, Beijing is far more economically resilient, with new trade routes such as the China-Europe rail link through Central Asia helping domestic manufacturers like Chongqing’s electric vehicle makers reach new global customers. The Iran crisis has also boosted demand for EVs as global gasoline prices rise, strengthening the sector’s outlook. “I’m quite optimistic about the future development of Chongqing’s EV industry,” says Lucia Chen, an EV sales executive at a local Chongqing firm. “My family and friends have all made the switch from fuel cars to EV. Because of the Iran war, petrol prices have risen a lot and many buyers are considering an EV for the first time.”

    Beyond trade and technology, Trump is also arriving in Beijing seeking China’s diplomatic help to de-escalate the ongoing Iran conflict, a shift that underscores Beijing’s growing central role in global geopolitics. For Trump, a successful summit would be marked by a tangible win, such as an agreement for China to increase purchases of American goods. For Xi, any outcome that delivers a smooth, orderly visit is already a win: it reinforces his core message that China remains open to business and open to the world, after years of isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Today, as Beijing rolls out the red carpet for Trump, the contrast between the two leaders could not be clearer: Xi is positioning China as a beacon of global stability, against a backdrop of the unpredictable, mercurial Trump whose foreign policy has scrambled traditional global alliances. Since Trump returned to the White House, his on-again off-again approach to trade and diplomacy has left U.S. allies reeling, while Beijing has steadily built ties with Western leaders from across the globe. To be sure, challenges remain beneath the polished image China presents to visiting leaders: strict state control over media and public discourse, pervasive surveillance, and zero tolerance for political dissent. Still, Chongqing’s transformation offers a clear preview of the future China is working to build: a future where it stands as a fully equal global power to the United States, leading in key emerging technologies and projecting growing influence across every region of the world. Whether that transformation is seen as a success story or a cautionary sign, it is impossible to ignore: the China that greets Donald Trump in 2025 is vastly different from the one he visited in 2017.

  • Brazil says the EU has moved to block its animal product exports starting from September

    Brazil says the EU has moved to block its animal product exports starting from September

    Just days after the long-negotiated EU-Mercosur free trade agreement entered provisional force, a new trade dispute has emerged between Brazil and the European Union, after Brasilia confirmed Tuesday that Brussels will implement a full block on Brazilian animal product imports starting this September.

    The landmark transatlantic trade pact, which covers a combined $22 trillion market and includes Mercosur members Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay, was formally signed in January 2025 and entered provisional application on May 1. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen pushed forward the provisional enactment, moving ahead of full ratification and sidestepping the European Parliament, where the agreement has faced fierce criticism from multiple blocs of lawmakers. The deal is currently being reviewed by the European Court of Justice, and will be scrapped entirely if the court rules against its legal standing.

    From its earliest stages of negotiation, the trade agreement has faced staunch pushback from European farmers and environmental advocacy groups. Opponents cite a range of concerns including unfair competitive pressure from lower-cost South American imports, risks to the livelihoods of EU agricultural producers, downward pressure on European food prices, and lower environmental and food safety standards among Mercosur exporting nations.

    Brazil’s Ministry of Agriculture said in an official statement Tuesday that the EU’s import ban came as a complete surprise to Brazilian authorities, and that the federal government will launch immediate diplomatic efforts to reverse the decision. Per Brazilian media reporting, the EU has justified the new restriction by stating it has not received sufficient documentation proving that Brazilian animal products are free of growth-promoting antimicrobial substances, a common livestock feed additive banned under EU food safety rules.

    In a next step to resolve the dispute, Brazil’s head of mission to the European Union will hold a formal meeting with EU agricultural regulators on Wednesday to demand clarity on the new restriction and push back on the ban, the agriculture ministry confirmed.

    Data from the Brazilian Animal Product Industry Association shows that EU member states ranked as the third-largest export market for Brazilian beef in 2025, trailing only the United States and China. The new import block is expected to deal a significant blow to Brazilian beef producers who had anticipated expanded market access under the new trade deal.

  • Australia has some of the world’s costliest homes. Will scrapping tax breaks help?

    Australia has some of the world’s costliest homes. Will scrapping tax breaks help?

    Thirteen-year-old Adelaide student Sebastian Muñoz-Najar has not yet reached his teens, cannot legally hold a full-time job, and is years away from learning to drive. But even this primary school graduate is already consumed by despair over one critical life question: will he ever be able to afford to own a home in his own country?

    Against a backdrop of non-stop headlines about Australia’s deepening national housing affordability crisis, Sebastian began running the numbers himself using little more than a Google search and a basic calculator. What he found alarmed him: if current trends of skyrocketing property prices and stagnant wage growth hold steady, the average Adelaide home will cost 17 times his projected annual income by the time he completes university.

    Australia’s housing affordability emergency is no longer a contested political issue – across the political spectrum, policymakers and the public agree the country is in crisis. What has divided the nation and gridlocked legislative action for more than a decade, however, is how to fix it. Now, the federal government is moving forward with a polarizing set of reforms: eliminating long-standing, lucrative tax breaks for property investors, a change it argues will begin to address the intergenerational inequality that has come to define Australia’s housing market.

    For younger Australians like Sebastian, the promise of the “Australian Dream” – the idea that hard work guarantees the reward of home ownership – has already been broken. They argue they have been locked out of the same opportunities their parents took for granted, and hope the reforms will rebalance a housing market tilted heavily in favor of wealthy investors. But critics warn the changes could choke off the very investment the country needs to build much-needed new housing, push rental prices even higher for already struggling tenants, and unfairly erode the life savings of ordinary Australians who built wealth through property investment.

    Australia is now home to some of the least affordable major cities on the planet. Today, the average Australian property costs nearly 10 times the median annual household income – a four-fold increase from where it stood 25 years ago. Over that same period, national average rental prices have doubled. The root of the crisis is a simple supply and demand imbalance: Australia does not have nearly enough housing to accommodate its fast-growing population. Decades of underinvestment in public social housing, chronically slow residential construction, and restrictive zoning laws that block new development in high-demand urban areas have all combined to create the current crunch.

    But many analysts argue that generous tax breaks for property investors have significantly exacerbated the problem. The two most high-profile policies at the center of the debate are negative gearing, which allows investment property owners to deduct any losses from their taxable income, and the 50% capital gains tax (CGT) discount, which halves the tax owed on profits from selling an investment property. Together, these policies have turned residential housing into an extremely attractive speculative asset, incentivizing mass buying and selling of properties for profit rather than for use as homes. Analysts note these policies were rolled out at the turn of the millennium, marking a clear turning point after which house prices began to outpace wage growth permanently.

    These tax arrangements remain fiercely defended by existing homeowners, who benefit from rising property values that grow their personal wealth, as well as investor groups and real estate industry bodies that argue changes will cut into profits and disrupt the market’s ability to deliver new supply. The group bearing the worst of the crisis is young people, who are caught in a vicious cycle: saving for ever-larger down payments while paying soaring rents, only to face decades of large mortgage repayments on smaller properties located far from city center job markets.

    Sebastian’s parents had long harbored quiet concerns about their children’s future housing prospects, but were shocked to learn the issue was already weighing on their 13-year-old son’s mind. “The first thought I had was you shouldn’t have to worry about this – you should be worrying about homework, friends, school,” Sebastian’s father Ed told the BBC. “The second was: you don’t have to just accept this.”

    Together, the pair turned their anxiety into action: they built a website publishing Sebastian’s calculations and launched a public petition calling for reform to the CGT discount and negative gearing, which has now collected thousands of signatures from supporters across the country. “We hope this would remove the incentive to use houses as investments and bring houses back to being places to live,” Sebastian says.

    This is not the first time Australian federal politicians have pushed for these changes. The center-left Labor Party, which now forms government, first proposed reforms to negative gearing and CGT in the 2016 and 2019 federal elections. It lost both campaigns, with many political analysts blaming the housing reform proposals for the defeat. But much has changed since 2019: the housing crisis has deepened dramatically, pushing its impact up into the middle class, while demographic shifts have put younger, disenfranchised millennial and Generation Z voters in a much larger share of the national electorate. Many older voters are also now seeing the crisis impact their own children and grandchildren, shifting their views on the need for change.

    “It’s like a slow-boiling frog – this has been building for more than 20 years, but it has now hit crisis point,” Danielle Wood, chair of the Productivity Commission, the Australian government’s independent economic advisory body, told the BBC. “And I think these tax changes have probably become a bit symbolic in thinking about what’s created this problem.”

    For older Australians who have already built property wealth, many see the proposed reforms as an unfair political attack. Retired Melbourne couple Christine and Cliff Hill, who own their own home plus three investment properties, reject the complaints from younger generations. Cliff, 64, says he and his wife were able to afford their first home by making sacrifices: moving to an outer suburb, cutting every unnecessary expense, and skipping luxury holidays. “You can’t go complaining that houses are $1m because they aren’t. They’re $500,000 or $600,000 but the young folks don’t want to live 35km from Melbourne,” he says. The couple profited heavily from the current tax system when they sold a fourth investment property last year, earning a $348,000 profit they would have paid half the tax on under existing rules. They argue the government’s reforms will lead to disaster: investors will either raise rents or sell off their properties, and even if there is a temporary bump in supply, long-term demand will still outstrip supply, leaving homes just as unaffordable for first-time buyers.

    “The government are going after the inter-generational gap that they keep talking about – and being a baby boomer, I’m really over that,” Christine says.

    But the current Labor government believes public opinion has shifted enough to make reform politically viable this time around. One early indicator of shifting public attitudes came in 2024, when Prime Minister Anthony Albanese faced widespread public backlash over his purchase of a multi-million-dollar clifftop holiday home amid the worsening affordability crisis. In its first budget following its landmark 2025 election win, passed as public anger over inaction on housing boosted support for minor progressive parties, the government outlined its planned changes: it will replace the fixed 50% CGT discount with an inflation-adjusted markdown, and restrict negative gearing tax benefits to newly constructed properties only.

    Crucially, the changes will be grandfathered, meaning they will only apply to investment properties purchased after the budget passes; existing investors will keep their current tax benefits permanently. Even supporters of the reforms, however, acknowledge the tax changes alone will not solve the crisis. Experts warn the reforms will do little to address the core issue: the national shortage of housing supply. The tax changes are projected to cause a small drop in property prices and free up more market space for first-time buyers by reducing investor competition, but they are not a silver bullet.

    “They’re not a panacea on house prices,” Wood says. Critics on the right have increasingly shifted blame for the crisis to Australia’s high migration intake, with the conservative Coalition opposition and right-wing populist party One Nation both calling for deep cuts to migration to reduce housing demand. While migration does contribute to population growth, experts say it is a minor factor in the supply shortage, and economists warn cutting migration would have severe negative knock-on effects for Australia’s labor force and overall economy.

    Wood says the real solution is far simpler: “We just need to make it easier and faster to build.” While construction regulation is necessary to protect public safety, the current system requires dozens of overlapping approvals and layers of bureaucracy that have slowed average build times by 40% over the past 15 years.

    For Sebastian, the tax reforms feel like a small step in the right direction, but he remains deeply skeptical that policymakers truly have the interests of young people at heart. Many sitting politicians own investment properties themselves, and he argues the grandfathering clause was explicitly designed to protect their own wealth. “Young people, they feel let down… disappointed in policymakers for allowing this to happen. And they also feel just sad that the ‘Australian Dream’ of owning a house is unattainable for them.”

  • UN expands Nairobi hub to boost Global South representation

    UN expands Nairobi hub to boost Global South representation

    On a symbolic Monday in Nairobi, Kenya, the United Nations launched construction of a cutting-edge new conference complex at its regional headquarters, marking a $340 million strategic investment that will reshape the body’s global footprint and amplify the voice of developing nations in global governance. Once completed, the redevelopment project — which includes a 1,600-seat assembly hall and climate-resilient office infrastructure — will catapult Nairobi into the ranks of the UN’s largest diplomatic hubs, bringing multilateral decision-making closer to the regions that are increasingly setting the global agenda on climate action, sustainable development, and peacebuilding.

    The ground-breaking ceremony was co-led by UN Secretary-General António Guterres and Kenyan President William Ruto, who highlighted the transformative scope of the expansion: the project will grow the hub’s total delegate capacity from 2,000 to 9,000, and increase the number of available meeting rooms from 14 to 30. When finished, Nairobi will become the UN’s third-largest duty station by conferencing scale, outranking Vienna and trailing only New York and Geneva.

    Guterres emphasized that the expansion is far more than an infrastructure upgrade — it is a tangible commitment to reforming global governance to better reflect shifting global realities. “Nairobi is neither a satellite nor an outpost. It is a pillar — the only United Nations headquarters in Africa and in the Global South,” Guterres told attendees. He added that the project embodies the UN’s recognition that Africa is not just a region facing challenges, but a core driver of innovative solutions and a critical moral voice in the global pursuit of peace, security, sustainable development, and universal human rights. The Secretary-General also noted that Nairobi’s strategic location and cost-effective operating environment make it an ideal site for broader UN reform, with additional organizational functions set to be relocated to the Kenyan capital in coming years to boost operational efficiency and cut overhead costs.

    Aligned with the UN’s global climate goals, the new complex is built around sustainability and universal accessibility. The completed office blocks already operate as the UN’s first net-zero carbon buildings, powered entirely by on-site solar installations, with the full campus targeted to achieve full energy neutrality by 2029. The investment also dovetails with Kenya’s long-running effort to position Nairobi as Africa’s preeminent hub for diplomacy, climate policy, and international development cooperation.

    President Ruto noted that the upgrade comes at a critical moment for multilateralism, which faces growing strains from deepening geopolitical divisions and widening global economic inequality. “As the only UN headquarters in the Global South, Nairobi stands as a powerful symbol that the United Nations truly belongs to all the peoples of the world,” Ruto said, committing the Kenyan government to continued investment in supporting infrastructure — from expanded road networks and water systems to enhanced security and environmental restoration across the capital — to accommodate the UN’s growing presence.

    Currently, the Nairobi UN campus hosts more than 70 UN agencies, funds, and programs, with over 4,000 personnel based on the compound and nearly 6,000 total UN staff working across Kenya. Diplomats from across the Global South welcomed the expansion as a long-overdue correction to historical underrepresentation. William McDonnell, Barbados’ permanent representative to the UN in Kenya, noted that smaller and developing nations have long been sidelined in major global negotiations held in Northern hemisphere hubs. The new complex will provide a modern, fully accessible venue on par with UN facilities in New York, Geneva and Vienna, creating a more inclusive platform for Global South nations to shape global outcomes. “With the development of this campus and conferencing facility, this trend should — and hopefully will — change,” McDonnell said.

    Kenya’s Prime Cabinet Secretary and Foreign Affairs Cabinet Secretary Musalia Mudavadi echoed that sentiment, noting the project reflects both Kenya’s enduring commitment to multilateral cooperation and Africa’s rising influence within the UN system. “Kenya remains committed to working closely with all member states and the leadership of the United Nations to ensure that the UN system becomes more efficient, effective, responsive, and impactful in improving the lives of all people, especially the most vulnerable populations,” Mudavadi said.

  • Trump Justice Department subpoenas news outlets over war coverage

    Trump Justice Department subpoenas news outlets over war coverage

    A sweeping escalation of tensions between the former president and the American press has emerged, with multiple leading U.S. news organizations confirming they have been subpoenaed by the Department of Justice at the explicit urging of former President Donald Trump, who has waged a relentless campaign against critical coverage of his Iran conflict.

    The Wall Street Journal, one of the nation’s most prominent business and general-interest news publications, broke the story Monday, confirming it received a grand jury subpoena dated March 4 seeking internal reporter records. The demand comes as Trump pressures Attorney General Todd Blanche—his former personal attorney, who now leads the DOJ—to launch investigations into leaks of sensitive information related to the ongoing Iran war.

    Citing an anonymous senior administration official, the Journal reported that Blanche personally pledged to secure subpoenas specifically targeting the work records of reporters who have reported on sensitive national security topics tied to the conflict. In one high-level meeting, the outlet added, Trump handed Blanche a thick stack of news articles that the president and other top officials claimed undermined U.S. national security. Scrawled on a sticky note attached to the stack was a single word: “treason.”

    Trump’s aggression toward press coverage of the Iran war is not a new development. The president and his top cabinet members, including Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth, have repeatedly publicly condemned media coverage of the conflict and threatened journalists who publish classified information—a routine practice for national security reporting that is protected under longstanding press freedom precedents.

    As early as March of this year, Trump raised the prospect of bringing treason charges against journalists he accused of spreading what he called “false information” about the Iran war. The following month, he doubled down, stating explicitly that he would push to imprison reporters who covered the downing of a U.S. fighter jet by Iranian forces and the subsequent rescue operation for the plane’s crew.

    The subpoena issued to the Wall Street Journal specifically ties back to a February 23 report that revealed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine and other senior Pentagon leaders had privately warned Trump about the severe risks of a prolonged military campaign against Iran. Multiple other major outlets, including Axios and The Washington Post, published matching reports on the same day. Five days after that reporting, on February 28, Trump officially launched the full-scale military offensive against Iran.

    In an official statement Monday, Ashok Sinha, chief communications officer for Dow Jones, the Wall Street Journal’s parent company, denounced the action as a direct attack on constitutionally protected journalistic work. “The government’s subpoenas to The Wall Street Journal and our reporters represent an attack on constitutionally protected newsgathering,” Sinha said. “We will vigorously oppose this effort to stifle and intimidate essential reporting.”

    CNN corroborated the Journal’s reporting Monday, adding that multiple other news outlets beyond the Journal have also received similar subpoenas over the past several months. However, the network noted that many of these targeted organizations have opted not to comment publicly on the orders to date, a choice that has drawn sharp criticism from press freedom advocates and independent journalists.

    Scott Stedman, an investigative journalist with independent outlet The Newsground, slammed the leadership of silent targeted organizations for what he called cowardice in the face of an open assault on press liberty. “The president uses the DOJ to target your news organization with subpoenas because he wants to out your sources and you don’t even have the guts to say anything,” Stedman wrote.

  • Trump’s Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool makeover faces a lawsuit and a $13m price tag

    Trump’s Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool makeover faces a lawsuit and a $13m price tag

    What was supposed to be a low-cost quick-fix renovation of the iconic Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool has turned into a controversial, seven-times-over-budget project that raises questions about procurement rules, historic preservation, and executive decision-making just ahead of the United States’ 250th anniversary celebrations this summer.

    Federal government records now show the final projected cost for the repair and repainting project has jumped from the $1.8 million that former President Donald Trump publicly claimed it would cost to $13.1 million, more than doubling the original no-bid contract award of $6.9 million. The massive cost overrun comes amid ongoing legal pushback from a historic preservation nonprofit that has asked courts to halt work, arguing the project violates federal laws meant to protect culturally significant landmarks.

    Stretching 2,030 feet between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument, the 104-year-old reflecting pool has suffered from longstanding infrastructure problems for decades: persistent leaks, crumbling structural foundations, corroded pipes, excessive algae growth, and accumulated bird waste. For years, large-scale renovations were projected to cost up to $300 million and take more than three years to complete. Trump positioned his accelerated, low-cost overhaul as a smarter alternative, promising the project would deliver a fully functional, beautifully restored pool in time for the country’s 250th birthday celebrations, with a total price tag between $1.5 million and $2 million.

    In a break from standard federal procurement rules that require open competitive bidding for public works projects, the Trump administration awarded the contract to Atlantic Industrial Coatings, a Virginia-based firm that had previously completed pool repair work at one of Trump’s private golf clubs. Administration officials justified the no-bid award using an emergency exemption meant for urgent, unplanned repairs. The contract mandates all work be finished by May 22, a far faster timeline than the multi-year overhaul originally proposed, to meet the anniversary deadline.

    Work on the drained pool kicked off over the weekend, and Trump personally inspected the site last week, traveling across the empty pool bed in his motorcade to view progress. During the inspection, he told reporters the renovated pool would be superior to its original condition, saying, “It’s much more beautiful than it was new because it never had the colour people wanted, but now it’s going to have the great colour. So it’s going to be good.” The project is part of a broader slate of capital beautification and construction initiatives Trump has prioritized since returning to office, including a proposal to build a 250-foot national victory arch, the demolition of the White House East Wing to construct a new presidential ballroom, and the rebranding of multiple federal and cultural institutions to add his name.

    The administration’s procurement process and the changes to the historic landmark have already drawn legal challenge. The Cultural Landscape Foundation, a nonprofit focused on responsible stewardship of historic public landscapes, filed a lawsuit seeking an immediate halt to construction. The suit argues that the ongoing resurfacing and repainting work is permanently eroding the unique historic character of the reflecting pool, and that Trump’s administration violated federal laws that regulate alterations to protected national landmarks.

    Even as costs have ballooned far beyond the president’s original promise, it remains uncertain whether the accelerated, low-impact renovation will actually resolve the pool’s longstanding underlying structural problems. Critics continue to question both the legality of the no-bid contract award and the wisdom of altering a century-old national landmark to meet a political deadline.

  • Marty Makary out as head of US Food and Drug Administration

    Marty Makary out as head of US Food and Drug Administration

    In a surprise announcement from the White House on Tuesday, former President Donald Trump confirmed that U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Marty Makary is departing his role, less than 15 months after he took office. The exit comes as Makary faced mounting pushback from both within the administration and outside groups over a series of high-profile policy disagreements.

    Trump told reporters ahead of his departure for a state visit to China that Makary had been encountering professional difficulties, noting that a deputy commissioner would serve as acting head of the agency while the administration searches for a permanent successor. The president stopped short of clarifying whether Makary was fired or chose to resign, offering only a brief, warm assessment of his tenure: “He’s a great doctor, he’s a friend, and he’s going to go on and do well.”

    A British-American surgeon who previously served on the faculty of Baltimore’s renowned Johns Hopkins University, Makary first rose to public attention as a leading voice for the Make America Healthy Again movement. Nominated by Trump to lead the FDA shortly after Trump won the 2024 presidential election, Makary was confirmed by the Senate in March 2025. At the time of his appointment, Trump framed the pick as part of a broader push alongside Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to crack down on harmful chemicals in food and pharmaceutical overuse among American youth, with the goal of addressing rising childhood chronic disease rates.

    But Makary quickly found himself at odds with the administration on multiple key policy files. Most notably, he resisted a White House push to greenlight broad approval of flavored e-cigarette products, a category long linked to youth vaping outbreaks by public health advocates. The Wall Street Journal reported last month that Makary overruled internal agency scientists to block approval of fruit-flavored vapes from a major U.S. manufacturer, directly contradicting Trump’s repeated public pledges to move forward with approvals. In early May, the FDA ultimately authorized the first set of fruit-flavored e-cigarettes, including mango and blueberry varieties, made by Los Angeles-based manufacturer Glas.

    Makary also drew fierce criticism from anti-abortion groups after the FDA approved a generic version of the abortion medication mifepristone, a decision that expanded access to the drug by lowering costs. Leading anti-abortion nonprofit Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America publicly called for Makary’s ouster over the approval. Beyond these flashpoints, he also earned the ire of the pharmaceutical industry over a higher-than-expected rate of new drug approval denials, particularly for rare disease treatments and cancer therapies.

    Makary’s departure marks the latest high-level exit from HHS under Kennedy’s leadership. Earlier in 2026, HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill stepped down from his role, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Susan Monarez left the agency in 2025. His exit also joins a string of recent senior personnel changes across the Trump administration, which have also seen the departure of Navy Secretary John Phelan, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in recent months.

    Prior to his appointment to lead the FDA, Makary was a prominent critic of federal public health policies implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic, most notably expressing skepticism about mass vaccine mandates. Born in Liverpool, England, Makary moved to the U.S. as a child and was raised in Baltimore, Maryland, the same city that would become home to his long-time academic career at Johns Hopkins. The BBC has reached out to HHS to request additional comment on Makary’s departure, and no additional details on the timeline for naming a permanent replacement have been released as of Tuesday.

  • Kevin Warsh returns to Federal Reserve with ‘regime change’ agenda

    Kevin Warsh returns to Federal Reserve with ‘regime change’ agenda

    The U.S. Senate has confirmed Kevin Warsh to a 14-year term on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, with a final vote imminent to seat him as the next leader of the world’s most influential central bank. The 56-year-old New York native is set to return to the institution he left a decade ago, bringing with him an ambitious plan to reshape how the Fed operates – even as he navigates unprecedented political pressure from his nominating authority, former President Donald Trump.

    Warsh first joined the Fed’s Board of Governors in 2006, appointed by then-President George W. Bush after stints as a White House economic advisor and a mergers and acquisitions specialist at Morgan Stanley. He served through the 2008 global financial crisis, but stepped down prematurely in 2011, citing sharp disagreements over the central bank’s post-crisis policy direction. In the years since his departure, Warsh built a career on Wall Street, holding board positions at major corporations including shipping giant UPS, and cemented ties to political circles through his family connections: he is married to Jane Lauder, granddaughter of cosmetics icon Estee Lauder, whose father Ronald Lauder is a long-time close associate of Trump.

    Now, as he prepares to take the helm of the Fed, Warsh has laid out a sweeping “regime change” agenda for the central bank, which is mandated by Congress to maintain stable inflation and maximum employment. His proposed reforms include overhauling the data the Fed relies on for policy decisions, eliminating the “forward guidance” communication tool the bank has used for decades to signal future policy shifts to markets, fostering more open debate among policymakers at rate-setting meetings, and shrinking the Fed’s oversize balance sheet to refocus the central bank on interest rate adjustments as its primary policy tool.

    Warsh has repeatedly blamed the persistent post-Covid-19 inflation that has squeezed U.S. households on what he calls “policy errors” made by the Fed in 2021 and 2022, and has echoed longstanding claims from Trump that the central bank has overstepped its mandate and strayed into political territory. Notably, while Warsh was labeled an inflation hawk – a policymaker prioritizing aggressive rate hikes to cool price growth – during his first Fed tenure, he has recently aligned with Trump’s demands for lower interest rates despite still-elevated inflation.

    His appointment comes amid a broader effort by the Trump administration to exert greater control over the traditionally independent central bank. Trump repeatedly attacked Warsh’s predecessor Jerome Powell for refusing to cut rates quickly enough, ultimately opening a misguided criminal probe against the sitting Fed chair, and the administration is currently pushing to remove sitting Fed Governor Lisa Cook from her post. At his Senate confirmation hearing, Warsh sought to ease concerns about political influence, vowing he would not bow to White House pressure. “I am honored the president nominated me for the position and I’ll be an independent actor if confirmed as chairman of the Federal Reserve,” he said, adding he would “absolutely not” act as a puppet for the administration.

    Even so, policy experts warn Warsh will face steep challenges pushing his reform agenda through the Fed’s existing leadership structure. David Wessel, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, noted that the new chair cannot unilaterally impose his will on the institution, and must build consensus among a board of fellow policymakers with their own policy views. “He is very smooth, and generally good with the people, and that will serve him well in this endeavor as long as he doesn’t move too fast or too radically,” Wessel told Agence France-Presse.

    Columbia University law professor Kathryn Judge added that existing ideological divisions within the Fed will create a “significant challenge” for Warsh. Unlike most incoming Fed chairs, who have sought to build on the policy framework established by their predecessors, Judge noted Warsh is entering the role with explicit plans to chart an entirely new policy course. “I think we really just have to wait and see,” Judge said.

  • Starmer faces endgame as Wes Streeting launches ‘coup’ to beat rivals to the top job

    Starmer faces endgame as Wes Streeting launches ‘coup’ to beat rivals to the top job

    British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is currently fighting to retain his hold on Downing Street, with political insiders widely predicting his premiership could end in a matter of days as rival factions within the Labour Party scramble to position his successor.

    During a Tuesday morning Cabinet meeting held at 10 Downing Street, the embattled prime minister pushed back against growing pressure to step down, telling his senior ministerial team that the Labour Party’s formal leadership challenge process had not yet been activated. “The country expects us to get on with governing. That is what I am doing and what we must do as a Cabinet,” Starmer told attendees, according to accounts of the closed-door meeting.

    But few senior officials in London’s Whitehall government district believe Starmer can cling to power for much longer. His bloc of loyal allies has shrunk rapidly in recent days, and more than 80 Labour MPs spanning every ideological faction of the party have publicly and privately called on him to acknowledge his leadership is finished. The unrest spilled into open revolt on Monday night, when five junior ministerial aides resigned from their government posts in protest of Starmer’s continued tenure.

    With Starmer’s position hanging by a thread, a bitter power struggle has erupted between the centre-right and soft-left wings of the Labour Party over who will take the top job, multiple party sources confirmed to Middle East Eye.

    Health Secretary Wes Streeting, a figure aligned with the party’s centre-right, is moving quickly to force Starmer out before soft-left opponents can organize a coordinated campaign, Labour insiders say. Streeting’s push has already drawn accusations of an undemocratic power grab from left-wing party figures.

    One of the most high-profile potential challengers from the soft left is Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham, who has spent weeks quietly building support for a leadership bid among sitting Labour MPs. Burnham’s path to the premiership faces major structural barriers, however: he currently does not hold a seat in the House of Commons, a requirement for the office of prime minister in the UK.

    To resolve this obstacle, an unnamed Labour MP is reportedly preparing to resign their parliamentary seat to clear a path for Burnham. If the MP steps down, Burnham would need to win a subsequent by-election to enter the Commons before he could launch a formal leadership challenge. A further complication comes from the Green Party, which has indicated it will mount a aggressive left-wing campaign to defeat Burnham in any by-election he contests.

    Another leading soft-left contender is Angela Rayner, Starmer’s former deputy leader, who has positioned herself as a unifying candidate for the party’s progressive wing. Rayner stepped down from the Cabinet last September after revelations she underpaid stamp duty on her £800,000 coastal vacation property. One senior soft-left Labour insider warned Middle East Eye that opposition researchers have compiled damaging information on Rayner that would be released if she takes power, saying “there is a truck load of dirt on Rayner waiting to be unloaded if she becomes PM.” The insider compared Rayner’s potential short-lived premiership to that of Conservative former Prime Minister Liz Truss, who resigned after just 49 days in office.

    Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, another veteran soft-left politician, has been urged by dozens of MPs to launch his own leadership bid, though he has so far declined to comment publicly on his plans. Some party figures have floated the idea of a joint Burnham-Miliband ticket to unify the soft left against Streeting’s faster-moving campaign. The soft left as a whole is working against the clock, as it needs time to organize its base while Streeting pushes for an immediate ousting of Starmer.

    John McDonnell, a veteran left-wing Labour MP and former Shadow Chancellor, publicly condemned Streeting’s maneuver on Tuesday morning via social media, writing that Streeting “has launched coup for fear of a democratic process & whilst candidates are blocked”. Labour Together, the influential centrist think tank that was instrumental in getting Starmer elected Labour leader, is widely understood to be backing Streeting to retain its hold on power after Starmer departs.

    Streeting faces his own major headwinds in a leadership contest, however. He is widely tied to former senior Labour minister Peter Mandelson, a once-powerful party figure who was disgraced earlier this year for his long-standing close personal ties to convicted sex offender and disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. Streeting, who has previously been described as a protégé of Mandelson, has struggled to distance himself from the scandal. Most critically, Streeting’s popularity among rank-and-file Labour Party members is far lower than his leading rivals: a recent survey conducted by the progressive think tank Compass found 42 percent of Labour members backed Burnham in a potential leadership race, compared to just 11 percent who supported Streeting.

    For Streeting, that means his only realistic path to power is to force a leadership vote before Burnham can resolve his by-election barrier and gain the ability to contest the leadership.

  • Putin hails Russia’s test launch of a new ballistic missile and calls it the world’s most powerful

    Putin hails Russia’s test launch of a new ballistic missile and calls it the world’s most powerful

    On a Tuesday in Moscow, Russian military officials carried out a successful test launch of the new Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), a key milestone in the Kremlin’s years-long campaign to modernize its aging nuclear strategic forces. The announcement came just days after President Vladimir Putin claimed that the nearly three-year full-scale conflict in Ukraine was drawing to a close, delivering a high-profile display of Moscow’s nuclear military capabilities to the West.

    Speaking after the test, Putin confirmed that the nuclear-capable Sarmat missile – codenamed “Satan II” by Western defense analysts – will enter official combat service with Russia’s strategic nuclear forces by the end of 2025. The new system is engineered to replace the Soviet-designed Voyevoda ICBM, a decades-old platform that has formed the core of Russia’s land-based nuclear deterrent for generations.

    Putin emphasized the Sarmat’s unprecedented destructive power, describing it as “the most powerful missile in the world.” He noted that the combined explosive yield of the system’s multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles is more than four times greater than that of any comparable ICBM fielded by Western nuclear powers. The missile boasts a maximum range of more than 35,000 kilometers, or 21,700 miles, enabling it to strike targets anywhere on the globe via suborbital flight, and incorporates advanced design features that allow it to penetrate even the most sophisticated prospective Western missile defense networks. Compared to its Soviet-era predecessor, the Sarmat also delivers dramatically improved targeting accuracy, Putin added.

    This test marks the second publicly acknowledged successful test of the Sarmat, after development began back in 2011. Reports indicate the program suffered a major setback in 2024, when a test launch ended in a large accidental explosion at the test site. The Sarmat is one of several next-generation strategic nuclear systems Putin first unveiled in a 2018 address, when he claimed the new weapons would render any U.S.-built missile defense systems completely ineffective.

    The test launch fits into a broader pattern that has played out since Putin ordered the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022: the Russian leader has repeatedly emphasized his country’s nuclear capabilities to deter Western nations from expanding military and political support for Kyiv. Just three days before the test, Putin oversaw the annual Victory Day military parade on Moscow’s Red Square, marking the 1945 defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II. Notably, the 2025 parade broke with nearly 20 years of tradition by excluding all heavy weapons and armor, a shift widely interpreted as a security measure to reduce vulnerability to Ukrainian cross-border attacks.

    Since Putin first took office in 2000, upgrading Russia’s Soviet-era nuclear triad – the three-pronged force of land-based ICBMs, nuclear-armed submarine-launched missiles, and nuclear-capable strategic bombers – has been a core national security priority. To date, the Kremlin has overseen the deployment of hundreds of new land-based ICBMs, commissioned new nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, and completed modernization work on its fleet of strategic bombers. Beyond the Sarmat, multiple other next-generation nuclear systems have reached deployment or are in late-stage development:
    – The Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle, capable of reaching speeds up to 27 times the speed of sound, has already entered operational service.
    – The new Oreshnik intermediate-range ballistic missile, which can be fitted with either conventional or nuclear warheads, has already been used twice in conventional strikes against targets in Ukraine. With a maximum range of 5,000 kilometers (3,100 miles), the system can reach any target across the entire European continent.
    – Development of the Poseidon, a nuclear-powered underwater drone designed to carry a massive thermonuclear warhead, is in its final stages. The system is engineered to detonate offshore near enemy coastal cities, generating a catastrophic radioactive tsunami that would render large swathes of coastline uninhabitable for decades.
    – The Burevestnik nuclear-powered cruise missile, also in late-stage development, boasts effectively unlimited range thanks to its miniature atomic reactor propulsion system. The design allows the missile to loiter for days outside enemy air defenses, bypassing traditional defensive networks to strike targets from unexpected directions.

    Putin framed the development of these new systems as a forced response to U.S. policy dating back to 2001, when Washington withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, a Cold War-era agreement between the U.S. and Soviet Union that limited the deployment of national missile defense systems. Russian military strategists have long warned that a U.S. national missile shield could create an incentive for Washington to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Russia, counting on the shield to intercept the small number of Russian warheads that would survive an initial first strike.

    “We were forced to consider ensuring our strategic security in the face of the new reality and the need to maintain a strategic balance of power and parity,” Putin stated Tuesday.

    Russia’s ongoing nuclear modernization push has already triggered reciprocal action from the United States, which has launched a costly multi-billion dollar upgrade of its own nuclear arsenal. The move comes at a time of historic erosion in bilateral nuclear arms control: the last remaining binding treaty limiting the size of the two countries’ nuclear arsenals, New START, expired in February 2025. For the first time in more than 50 years, there are no legal caps on the world’s two largest nuclear stockpiles, fueling widespread international concern that the world is now entering an unconstrained new nuclear arms race.