Global Pulse

标签： North America

北美洲

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Israel and Lebanon agree to extend ceasefire, US state department says

    Israel and Lebanon agree to extend ceasefire, US state department says

    After two days of intensive diplomatic negotiations hosted in Washington D.C., Israel and Lebanon have formally agreed to extend their fragile existing ceasefire for an additional 45 days, the U.S. State Department has confirmed. The announcement marks a tentative step toward de-escalation, even as sporadic deadly exchanges of fire have persisted across the shared Israel-Lebanon border since an initial truce was first announced by former U.S. President Donald Trump in mid-April.

    State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott outlined U.S. hopes that the extended ceasefire window will create space for meaningful dialogue that paves the way for a durable long-term peace agreement between the two nations. “We hope these discussions will advance lasting peace between the two countries, full recognition of each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and establishing genuine security along their shared border,” Pigott stated in an official press release.

    To move the diplomatic process forward, the State Department confirmed that formal political-level negotiations will reconvene in June, with a parallel security-focused negotiating track set to launch at the Pentagon on May 29. Military delegations from both Israel and Lebanon will take part in the security-focused talks, which are expected to center on border stability and de-escalation frameworks, according to Pigott.

    Despite the initial ceasefire that took effect in April, cross-border exchanges of fire between the Israeli military and the Lebanese armed group Hezbollah have remained an almost daily occurrence. In recent days, Israel has ramped up air and artillery strikes across southern Lebanon, with Israeli officials stating that all operations target Hezbollah fighters and militant infrastructure. The Lebanese Ministry of Health has pushed back against these claims, accusing Israeli forces of deliberately targeting civilian populations and medical first responders — an allegation Israeli authorities have repeatedly denied.

    The Israeli military has articulated a strategic goal of establishing a formal buffer zone across southern Lebanon, designed to prevent future cross-border attacks by Hezbollah. This military tactic mirrors the approach Israeli forces have deployed in the Gaza Strip, where entire residential villages in southern Lebanon have been left completely destroyed. International human rights organizations have raised alarm that some of the tactics used by Israeli forces in southern Lebanon may qualify as war crimes, another allegation that Israeli officials reject outright.

    For its part, Hezbollah has continued to carry out retaliatory attacks against Israeli military positions in southern Lebanon and northern Israeli territory, using a combination of rocket fire and drone strikes. The broader conflict between the two sides erupted on March 2, just two days after the U.S. and Israel launched a joint military strike targeting Iranian assets. Hezbollah launched an intensive rocket barrage into Israeli territory in response, triggering widespread Israeli air strikes and a limited ground incursion into southern Lebanon that has continued in various forms ever since.

    Official casualty figures underscore the devastating human cost of the two-month conflict. Lebanon’s health ministry reports that at least 2,896 people have been killed in Lebanese territory since hostilities began. In the most recent deadly incident this week, Lebanese health officials confirmed that Israeli air strikes across southern Lebanon killed 22 people on Wednesday, including eight children. On the Israeli side, government authorities report that 18 soldiers and four civilians have been killed since the conflict began in March.

  • Suspect in killing of Israeli embassy staff members to face death penalty

    Suspect in killing of Israeli embassy staff members to face death penalty

    On a quiet spring evening in downtown Washington D.C., hundreds gathered across from the White House on May 22, 2025, holding flickering candles to honor the lives of Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Lynn Milgrim, two young Israeli embassy employees killed in a targeted attack months earlier. Now, federal prosecutors have formally notified the court they will pursue the ultimate legal punishment for the man accused of their murder, in a case that intersects with the Trump administration’s sweeping reversal of Biden-era restrictions on the federal death penalty.

    Thirty-one-year-old Elias Rodriguez, the suspect in the May 2024 shooting outside the Capital Jewish Museum, has entered a plea of not guilty to all 13 charges filed against him. Among those counts are three capital offenses: murder of a foreign official, discharge of a firearm during a violent felony, and second-degree murder by firearm, for which US Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro confirmed Friday her office will seek execution if Rodriguez is convicted. Additional charges against Rodriguez include federal hate crime violations and counts related to acts of domestic terrorism.

    Prosecutors have laid out a detailed account of premeditation tied to ideological anti-Israel sentiment. According to their filings, Rodriguez traveled from his home in Chicago to Washington D.C. armed with a handgun, after researching a scheduled networking event for young Jewish professionals to be held at the downtown museum. Lischinsky, 30, and Milgrim, 26, were leaving the museum when Rodriguez opened fire, discharging 20 rounds that killed both victims immediately. Multiple law enforcement and media reports confirm the pair were in a committed relationship, and Lischinsky had purchased an engagement ring with plans to propose during an upcoming trip to Israel.

    After the shooting, prosecutors allege Rodriguez entered the museum, displayed a red keffiyeh, and openly stated he carried out the attack “for Palestine” and “for Gaza.” During his arrest, he shouted “Free Palestine,” and court documents show he left behind a written manifesto titled “explication,” where he expressed explicit support for violence against Israelis, claimed Israel was carrying out an extermination campaign against Palestinians, and attempted to justify his violent actions to encourage future copycat attacks. Multiple social media posts attributed to Rodriguez in the months before the shooting contain the slogan “Death to Israel” and repeated endorsement of violent targeting of Israeli civilians.

    FBI Assistant Director Darren Cox, head of the bureau’s Washington Field Office, emphasized the severity of the attack in a February 2025 press statement, noting “In addition to allegedly murdering two innocent people and terrorizing the survivors of his attack at the Capital Jewish Museum, Rodriguez wrote and published a manifesto attempting to morally justify his actions and inspire others to commit political violence.”

    Pirro reiterated her office’s commitment to full accountability in comments earlier this year, saying “My office will not rest in our efforts to hold Elias Rodriguez accountable for this horrific, and targeted act of terror against Yaron Lischinsky, Sarah Milgrim and our Jewish community.”

    The decision to pursue the death penalty comes amid a sweeping reversal of federal justice policy under the second Trump administration. During Trump’s first term in office, the White House reinstated federal executions after a 17-year informal moratorium, only to see the Biden administration roll back those policies and impose a formal halt on all federal executions after taking office in 2021.

    On his first day back in the White House following the 2024 presidential election, Trump issued an executive order directing the Department of Justice to prioritize capital punishment in eligible cases, speed up execution schedules, and expand legal methods of execution beyond lethal injection to include practices such as firing squad. Department of Justice records confirm the administration has already resumed federal executions and streamlined court processes to reduce delays in death penalty cases.

    The case has sparked renewed national conversation about political violence targeting Jewish communities in the U.S., tensions over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict spilling over into domestic attacks, and the future of the federal death penalty under the current administration.

  • Judge declares another mistrial in Harvey Weinstein New York rape charge

    Judge declares another mistrial in Harvey Weinstein New York rape charge

    A New York judge has formally announced a mistrial in the high-profile sexual assault case against disgraced former Hollywood film producer Harvey Weinstein, after the jury confirmed it could not reach a unanimous verdict following three days of deliberations. The outcome marks the third time a New York jury has considered the rape allegation against the 74-year-old, who remains incarcerated on separate sexual violence convictions in California. The 2024 mistrial caps off a month-long trial centered on claims from aspiring actress Jessica Mann, who alleged that Weinstein raped her in a Manhattan hotel room more than 15 years ago. The case has a long and tangled procedural history: Weinstein was first convicted of the charge in 2020, but that verdict was thrown out by an appeals court in 2024 over unfair trial procedural errors. A 2024 retrial ended with another deadlocked jury, leading to this third proceeding. The core accusation from Mann, who testified during the trial, is that she entered a coercive relationship with Weinstein, who exploited his industry power to pressure her, and that he forced her into non-consensual sex during a 2013 encounter. Weinstein’s defense team has consistently maintained that all sexual interactions between the two were consensual. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg released a public statement following the ruling, noting that prosecutors are currently evaluating whether to pursue a fourth trial in the case. “While we are disappointed that the proceedings ended with a mistrial, we deeply respect the jury system and sincerely thank all of the jurors for their time and dedication,” Bragg said. He went on to thank Mann for stepping forward with her allegation, adding that the prosecution team will consult with Mann before deciding their next move, while also accounting for Weinstein’s upcoming sentencing in an unrelated New York sexual assault case. “As always, we will continue to prosecute crimes of sexual violence – no matter who the defendant is – in a survivor-centered manner that uplifts their voices in the pursuit of justice,” Bragg added. In response, Weinstein’s legal team framed the mistrial as evidence of deep-seated cultural bias against their client that makes a fair trial impossible. “The outcome shows how deeply public perception and prejudice surrounding Harvey Weinstein have become embedded in society,” the team’s statement read. “For some people, regardless of the evidence presented, saying ‘not guilty’ has become emotionally or socially impossible.” The defense called on the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office to abandon further prosecutions of the case and redirect its limited resources to pressing public safety issues that impact everyday New Yorkers. The deadlock was delivered to Justice Curtis Farber in a written note from the majority-male jury on Friday morning, which stated jurors had concluded they could not reach the required unanimous decision. Farber initially ordered jurors to return for additional deliberations, but ultimately ruled the jury was hopelessly deadlocked and had no path to a verdict. “I see no reason to go any further,” Farber said before thanking jurors and dismissing them from the case. The 2020 appeal that overturned Weinstein’s original conviction found that the trial judge had improperly allowed testimony from other women who made uncharged sexual misconduct allegations against Weinstein, violating his right to a fair trial. Following the overturned conviction, prosecutors obtained a new indictment against Weinstein focused on two accusers from the original trial: Mann and former television production assistant Miriam Haley. This most recent trial centered solely on Mann’s rape allegation. More than 100 women have come forward with public allegations of sexual misconduct, assault, and rape against Weinstein since the first accusations became public in 2017. Weinstein has repeatedly and consistently denied all allegations of non-consensual sexual activity. Even with the hung jury in this case, Weinstein remains in custody following a 2022 conviction in a separate California sexual assault case, a conviction that carries a 16-year prison sentence and makes it likely he will spend the remainder of his life behind bars. The allegations against Weinstein, and the collective decision of his accusers to speak out, are widely credited with sparking the global #MeToo movement, which has worked to hold powerful men across industries accountable for sexual harassment and abuse. Before the scandal broke, Weinstein was one of the most influential figures in Hollywood, co-founding the iconic production studio Miramax alongside his brother Bob. The studio produced dozens of award-winning and culturally influential films, including Pulp Fiction and Shakespeare in Love, which won the Academy Award for Best Picture. Weinstein has also faced a wave of civil litigation over the allegations. A 2020 class-action lawsuit brought by a group of his accusers resulted in a $19 million settlement for the claimants. In recent years, Weinstein has also battled serious health issues, including a 2024 diagnosis of bone marrow cancer.

  • ICE releases wife of US soldier and Afghanistan veteran from detention

    ICE releases wife of US soldier and Afghanistan veteran from detention

    A months-long immigration drama that sparked national outrage over the treatment of military families has come to a temporary resolution, after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement freed Deisy Rivera Ortega, the wife of a decades-long U.S. Army Afghanistan veteran, from custody, her legal representative has confirmed to the BBC.

    Rivera Ortega, a native of El Salvador, was taken into immigration custody on April 14 during a routine scheduled immigration check-in in El Paso, Texas, that she attended alongside her husband, Sgt. Jose Serrano. Serrano, who has served the U.S. military for nearly 28 years and was born a U.S. citizen in Puerto Rico, told reporters his wife’s detention left him deeply distraught.

    In an official statement following the release, the couple’s attorney Matthew James Kozik simply said, “We celebrate her release.” Footage shared with CBS News shows Serrano driving away from the detention facility with Rivera Ortega in the passenger seat, confirming she had been freed and the pair were returning home.

    At the time of her arrest, the couple was in the process of applying for parole-in-place, a federal program specifically designed to allow spouses of active-duty service members and veterans to remain in the U.S. while their immigration applications are processed. Court and legal documents provided to the BBC show the pair married in 2022, had compiled all required documentation covering their marriage, employment, and immigration status ahead of the appointment, and complied fully with all check-in requirements.

    Serrano recalled that during the meeting, officials flagged what they claimed was an issue with their submitted paperwork. After escorting the couple down a hallway, officers separated Rivera Ortega and took her into custody without prior warning.

    In the wake of the arrest, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) characterized Rivera Ortega as a “criminal illegal alien”, noting she crossed the U.S.-Mexico border without inspection in 2016 and was convicted of a federal illegal entry offense. A 2019 immigration judge ordered her removal to El Salvador, but simultaneously granted her withholding of removal protection under the U.N. Convention Against Torture, which bars immigration authorities from deporting her to El Salvador over credible concerns she would face severe harm if returned.

    This legal protection left immigration officials in a position to consider deporting Rivera Ortega to Mexico instead, a move that Serrano and Kozik said officials actively explored after her arrest.

    The case quickly drew political pushback, with U.S. Sen. Tammy Duckworth, an Illinois Democrat and Iraq War veteran, personally placing a call to DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin on Wednesday to raise concerns over the detention, according to Duckworth’s office.

    In a public statement after the release, Duckworth said, “I am so incredibly grateful for Deisy’s release and for her to be reunited with her family. Deisy was doing everything ‘the right way’: attending her military parole in-place interview when she was detained by ICE with no warrant and no explanation. There is no higher betrayal to our heroes than to have one of their family members deported by the same nation they sacrificed to defend.”

    DHS has not yet responded to repeated requests for comment from the BBC, including inquiries about Duckworth’s outreach to Mullin and the details of Rivera Ortega’s release.

    This incident marks the second high-profile case in April of ICE detaining the spouse of an active-duty U.S. service member. Earlier that month, Annie Ramos, the Honduran-born wife of Sgt. Matthew Blank who was brought to the U.S. as a child, was held in ICE custody for five days before being released.

  • New York Times defends journalist after Israel threatens to sue

    New York Times defends journalist after Israel threatens to sue

    A sharp public conflict has erupted between senior Israeli officials and The New York Times after the prominent U.S. newspaper published an opinion column alleging a systemic pattern of sexual violence against Palestinian detainees at the hands of Israeli security personnel, settlers and prison staff. The escalation, which has reignited debates over press freedom and journalistic accountability in the context of the decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict, began Monday when veteran NYT journalist Nicholas Kristof released a 3,700-word column titled “The Silence that Meets the Rape of Palestinians.”

    In the column, Kristof documented first-hand accounts from 15 alleged victims, who detailed incidents ranging from sexual assault and humiliation to rape by forced bestiality. While Kristof explicitly stated there was no evidence that senior Israeli leaders ordered the abuse, he argued that the country’s security architecture had allowed sexual violence to become what a 2025 UN report labeled a “standard operating procedure” and “core component of the mistreatment of Palestinian detainees.”

    By Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Gideon Saar released a scathing joint statement, announcing they had ordered legal officials to launch defamation proceedings against The New York Times. The pair called Kristof’s column “one of the most hideous and distorted lies ever published against the State of Israel in the modern press,” while the Israeli Foreign Ministry further claimed the reporting relied on unvetted sources with ties to Hamas-linked networks.

    In an immediate response, The New York Times pushed back forcefully, dismissing the legal threat as entirely baseless. The newspaper framed the lawsuit threat as a predictable political tactic designed to weaken independent reporting and suppress journalism that deviates from the Israeli government’s preferred narrative. “This threat, similar to one made last year, is part of a well-worn political playbook that aims to undermine independent reporting and stifle journalism that does not fit a specific narrative,” the NYT statement read. “Any such legal claim would be without merit.”

    The column has sparked furious pushback across Israel’s political and media landscape. Israel’s U.S. Ambassador Yechiel Leiter released a video statement arguing that the only clear violation committed in the case was a breach of basic journalistic standards by Kristof and his outlet. On the same day as the Israeli leadership’s statement, dozens of Jewish protesters gathered outside The New York Times’ Manhattan headquarters, holding demonstrations calling for Kristof’s immediate termination.

    The allegations published by Kristof are not without precedent, however. For years, independent reports from both Israeli and Palestinian non-governmental organizations have collected extensive evidence of systemic sexual violence against Palestinian detainees held by Israeli authorities. In 2025, two separate Palestinian men told the BBC they had endured sexual abuse while in Israeli custody, including one account of sexual humiliation using a military dog — a claim identical to one included in Kristof’s column. At the time, the Israeli Prison Service said it had no record of the first man’s claims and asserted it always operates in full compliance with Israeli law, and declined to comment on the second man’s account.

    Another high-profile incident from 2025 also underscores the deep polarization surrounding these allegations in Israel: five Israeli soldiers were charged with assaulting a Palestinian detainee from Gaza at the Sde Teiman military prison, including one count of stabbing the detainee’s buttock with a sharp object. The case split public opinion, with right-wing factions accusing left-wing groups of exploiting the incident to damage the reputation of Israeli security forces. After the then-Israeli Military Advocate General, Major General Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi, leaked CCTV footage of the incident, she resigned and was arrested, and all charges against the five soldiers were dropped in March 2026.

    Legal experts note that moving forward with a defamation case in Israeli courts carries significant procedural and policy hurdles. Israeli defamation lawyer Liat Bergman Ravid explained that civil claims of this type face a very low chance of success under Israeli law, which blocks collective entities from bringing defamation suits and bars government bodies from pursuing such claims as a matter of public policy designed to protect freedom of speech. While Israeli law does permit the Attorney General to file criminal defamation charges against the author of the alleged defamatory statement, Ravid noted that such action is extremely rare, “bordering on non-existent.”

    Another Israeli defamation attorney, Idan Seger, added that if the case does proceed, The New York Times will face a much higher burden of proof than it would under U.S. law. Unlike U.S. precedent, which protects media outlets from liability as long as no malicious intent is proven, Israeli law requires outlets to either prove the absolute factual accuracy of their reporting or demonstrate that they strictly followed standards of responsible journalism to avoid a guilty verdict. As of this report, it remains unclear whether Israeli officials will actually follow through on their threat to file suit, and what legal pathway they would use to do so.

  • Watch: What did we learn from Trump’s visit to China?

    Watch: What did we learn from Trump’s visit to China?

    After months of anticipation and diplomatic preparation, former U.S. President Donald Trump has wrapped up a condensed two-day official visit to Beijing, where he participated in a series of closed-door and public meetings with Chinese President Xi Jinping focused on addressing a range of pressing bilateral and global issues. The summit, framed by observers as a high-stakes engagement, came amid a backdrop of shifting economic tensions, evolving geopolitical alignments, and shared global challenges that demanded direct dialogue between the world’s two largest economies.

    During the visit, both leaders took the opportunity to lay out their respective policy priorities, exchange perspectives on long-standing bilateral sticking points, and explore areas where collaborative action could yield mutual benefits. While the short timeframe of the trip limited the scope for sweeping, breakthrough agreements, diplomatic insiders noted that the face-to-face interaction itself served a critical purpose: reducing the risk of miscommunication that can escalate into larger conflicts between the two nuclear-armed powers. Trade and economic relations, one of the core focal points of the discussions, saw both sides reiterate their commitment to fairer, more balanced commercial exchange, though concrete details of any new frameworks remained under wraps following the conclusion of the summit. Beyond economic issues, leaders also touched on regional security concerns, global climate action, and people-to-people exchanges that form the foundational layer of the bilateral relationship.

    Foreign policy analysts have underscored that the visit marked a key moment in bilateral diplomatic engagement, highlighting the continued importance of direct, high-level dialogue even when disagreements persist. While the full outcomes of the talks will unfold in the weeks and months following the summit, the successful completion of the visit laid the groundwork for continued engagement between the two governments on issues that carry global implications.

  • Strike deadline nears for New York-area train system with 250,000 daily commuters

    Strike deadline nears for New York-area train system with 250,000 daily commuters

    As the critical 12:01 a.m. Saturday strike deadline approaches, commuters across the New York metropolitan area are bracing for a potential full shutdown of the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR), the busiest commuter rail system in North America that serves 250,000 weekday travelers heading to and from New York City’s eastern suburbs. The brewing work stoppage is the product of months of stalled contract negotiations between the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), which oversees the LIRR, and five labor unions representing roughly 3,500 of the railroad’s 7,000 total unionized workers, covering roles ranging from locomotive engineers and machinists to signal maintenance staff.

    This is not the first time the two sides have raced against the clock to avoid a shutdown. A September strike was temporarily blocked after intervention from the Trump administration, which brokered a 60-day extension of negotiations. When those initial mediated talks collapsed without a consensus, the current deadline was set. The LIRR has a history of high-stakes labor standoffs: the last full strike took place in 1994 and lasted two days, while a 2014 strike was averted at the eleventh hour after a last-minute deal brokered by then-Governor Andrew Cuomo.

    State officials and transit leaders have already rolled out contingency plans to soften the blow of a potential shutdown, though those measures are limited. The MTA says it will run free shuttle buses during morning and evening rush hours, running from major LIRR stations to subway hubs in the New York borough of Queens. Governor Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, has urged all non-essential riders to work from home if possible, noting that the limited shuttle service is reserved for workers who cannot telecommute. Hochul has previously drawn criticism from unions for calling their salary demands “greedy” and warning a strike could destabilize the regional economy.

    After months of entrenched disagreement over wage increases, both sides confirmed this week that there has been incremental progress in closed-door negotiations. The MTA’s initial proposal offered a 9.5% pay raise spread over three years, matching the agreement already reached with the LIRR’s other unionized work groups. Unports, however, have pushed for a 16% total increase over four years, arguing that higher salaries are necessary to keep up with skyrocketing cost of living in the region, which would leave workers facing a real wage cut without a meaningful adjustment.

    Following talks held Wednesday, MTA chief negotiator Gary Dellaverson announced a revised agency offer that would add an effective 4.5% adjustment in the contract’s fourth year, aligned with recommendations from federal mediators. Unlike the unions’ demand for a permanent base wage increase, this additional compensation would be issued as one-time lump sum payments. Dellaverson told reporters that the remaining gap between the two sides is now purely financial, with all other non-monetary disagreements resolved. “The difference between those two positions is not unbridgeable,” he said.

    Union spokesperson Kevin Sexton acknowledged that negotiations have seen “positive movement” toward a resolution, but pushed back against claims that a final deal is imminent, calling that assumption “far-fetched.” Sexton reaffirmed the unions’ core priority: “We would like to reach an agreement that reflects the rising cost of living. Anything short of that amounts to a cut in real wages.” As of Thursday, both parties planned to continue talks through the evening, with negotiations set to reconvene Friday if no deal is reached overnight.

    For daily LIRR riders, the uncertainty has already forced last-minute schedule and work adjustments. Susanne Alberto, a Long Island-based personal trainer who commutes to Manhattan for client sessions, already rearranged her calendar to hold virtual appointments if service is halted. While Alberto supports tying wage adjustments to job roles rather than across-the-board increases, she predicts the MTA will ultimately concede to union demands. “Why don’t they just do it now instead of waiting until virtually millions of people get inconvenienced?” she asked.

    Rob Udle, an electrician and union member who rides the LIRR five days a week, said he plans to use vacation days rather than deal with the disrupted commute if a shutdown occurs. Udle said he understands the unions’ concerns about affordability, but opposes the tactic of a public strike that disrupts commutes for millions. “I get it, the cost of living is going up and stuff like that,” he said while waiting for a train at Penn Station. “But they shouldn’t hold everybody hostage to do it. There’s a better way. You’re affecting a lot of other people.”

  • Claim, counter-claim and tech’s seedy side exposed: Five things we learned in the Musk-Altman trial

    Claim, counter-claim and tech’s seedy side exposed: Five things we learned in the Musk-Altman trial

    Two of the technology industry’s most recognizable and influential figures are currently facing off in a landmark legal battle whose outcome could reshape the future of OpenAI—one of the most valuable startups on the planet, creator of the globally used ChatGPT. The case has already put both Elon Musk, one of OpenAI’s original co-founders, and Sam Altman, OpenAI’s current chief executive, on the line professionally and reputationally, with closing arguments now complete and the jury having retired to deliberate. Musk’s core allegation is that Altman betrayed an original agreement to keep OpenAI as a non-profit entity and effectively “stole” the organization, costing him a massive potential fortune, a claim that Altman has repeatedly and categorically denied. Over three weeks of proceedings in a California federal courtroom, journalists from across the globe have packed the benches to follow every development, with evidence ranging from incendiary private text messages to claims of free Tesla vehicles offered as quid pro quo for favorable treatment. Presiding over the proceedings is a firm, no-nonsense judge who will ultimately have final say over the ruling after reviewing the jury’s recommendation. For those unable to follow every twist of the high-profile case, here are five of the most notable insights that have emerged from the trial.

    First, the vast majority of high-profile witnesses have contradicted Musk’s core claim. Musk’s entire lawsuit hinges on the assertion that Altman deceived him by abandoning the original commitment to keep OpenAI a non-profit. What has become clear over the trial, however, is that this is far from a simple he-said-she-said dispute between two billionaires. A long roster of witnesses—many of whom are among the biggest names in global tech—have testified that they never saw or heard any evidence confirming the binding non-profit commitment Musk alleges. These witnesses include OpenAI co-founder Ilya Sutskever, former OpenAI board member Tasha McCauley, and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, whose company invested billions of dollars in OpenAI after completing extensive due diligence. Nadella and Microsoft are named as co-defendants in the case, accused of aiding Altman’s alleged scheme, making the uniform pushback against Musk’s claims from the stand all the more notable.

    Second, questions about Sam Altman’s personal trustworthiness have remained a central point of scrutiny throughout the proceedings, even with his army of high-profile supporters. In the lead-up to the trial, a bombshell investigative profile in The New Yorker by Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Ronan Farrow painted Altman as a compulsive liar, focusing heavily on his turbulent career including his dramatic temporary ousting from OpenAI in 2023. Musk’s legal team leaned heavily into this narrative during cross-examination, opening their questioning of Altman with a blunt query: “Are you completely trustworthy?” After Altman initially responded “I believe so,” his cross-examiner pressed him on the ambiguous answer, forcing Altman to revise his response to a direct yes. Even with that correction, Altman’s character remained under intense scrutiny for the entirety of the trial. Former OpenAI board members and executives shared first-hand accounts of alleged lack of candor from Altman, and the court also learned of extensive hidden private investments Altman holds in startups that have struck commercial deals with OpenAI. One particularly controversial example is a power purchase agreement with Helion Energy, a nuclear fusion startup that has yet to deliver any operational power to the grid; Altman until recently served as Helion’s board chairman and holds a stake in the company valued at more than $1.5 billion.

    Third, the trial has been defined by memorable, out-of-the-spotlight personalities that have shaped its day-to-day drama. Presiding Judge Gonzalez Rogers has emerged as a clear commanding presence in the courtroom, enforcing a strict daily schedule with just two 20-minute breaks and no lunch break to keep all participants focused. She has repeatedly and publicly called out anyone who violates court rules, from spectators who attempt to photograph the high-profile defendants to lawyers who push questioning into topics she has already ruled off-limits. Despite her strict approach, she has shown moments of dry wit: when the court experienced early technical audio issues, she joked to the room, “What can I tell you? We are funded by the federal government.” Since cameras and live streaming were not permitted in the courtroom, the public’s understanding of the trial’s atmosphere has come largely from the work of courtroom sketch artist Vicki Behringer, who has carefully captured each day’s proceedings in vivid watercolor.

    Fourth, the trial has laid bare the deeply personal decay of what was once a close, admiring relationship between Musk and Altman, as well as unusual personal ties to OpenAI’s board. Musk was once Altman’s professional hero, but the relationship between the two men has deteriorated dramatically, a rift that was put on full display during testimony. When Musk took the stand as the first witness, he was largely confident and combative, but became visibly flustered when questioned about his relationship with Shivon Zilis, a Neuralink executive and former OpenAI board member. Musk confirmed to the court that Zilis is the mother of four of his children, and the pair live together. Zilis testified that Musk offered her his sperm when she expressed a desire to have children, an unusual interaction that she did not disclose to her OpenAI colleagues until a media report was imminent. Zilis left the OpenAI board shortly after Musk launched xAI, his own artificial intelligence startup competing directly with OpenAI, writing in a private text, “When the father of your babies starts a competitive effort and will recruit out of OpenAI, there is nothing to be done.”

    Fifth and finally, the trial has pulled back the curtain on how power and influence operate behind closed doors in Silicon Valley, exposing unseemly backroom deals and personal power struggles that rarely see the light of day. The proceedings have revealed alleged practices that have long been rumored but never confirmed in a public court: Musk is accused of offering free Teslas to co-founders as a way to lowball their equity stakes, while Altman stands accused of making off-the-books side payments to secure key strategic loyalty. Musk’s legal team has attempted to frame Altman as a leader who leveraged his early connection to Musk to build his own personal power and influence, while Altman has countered that Musk once suggested OpenAI should eventually be controlled by Musk’s children. Private text messages introduced as evidence have laid bare the raw chaos of internal power struggles, including Altman’s frantic response to his 2023 ousting, where he asked a former colleague “still don’t want me?” The colleague responded in a text dismissing the interim CEO Altman was replaced with, Twitch co-founder Emmett Shear, as a “rando Twitch guy.” These casual, unguarded messages and the everyday sight of these billionaire icons grabbing lattes outside the courtroom have made these larger-than-life figures feel surprisingly ordinary—yet it is critical to remember that the two men still control artificial intelligence technology that shapes the daily lives of billions of people around the globe, and the dispute at hand is worth billions of dollars. Now, the decision moves first to the jury, before ultimately landing back with Judge Gonzalez Rogers to determine the final outcome.

  • Hotel owners expected a World Cup boom – so far it hasn’t happened

    Hotel owners expected a World Cup boom – so far it hasn’t happened

    As the 2026 FIFA World Cup draws near, visible preparations are popping up across host cities across the United States – from towering highway billboards to tournament-themed decor in downtown bars and shops stocked with branded merchandise. But behind the public fanfare, one key sector of the hospitality industry is sounding the alarm: traditional hoteliers across host cities are reporting far lower booking volumes than initially projected, leaving many independent and chain property owners underwhelmed years after they were promised a once-in-a-generation economic boom.

    Deidre Mathis, owner of Houston’s Wanderstay Boutique Hotel, sits just one mile from the city’s official fan zone and a short drive from the stadium that will host World Cup matches. For the tournament period, her property is only 45% booked, compared to 70% capacity during the same window last year. She told the BBC that the industry spent years being sold on the idea that the World Cup would drive unprecedented demand, leaving hoteliers confused when bookings failed to materialize months ahead of kickoff. “We were sold this expectation the World Cup would be a big phenomenon, people have been talking about it for years,” Mathis said. “So when we looked at our calendar and saw in February, March and April that we still weren’t sold out for the tournament – and it is not just us in Houston, but it’s all over – we were left sitting here just very confused.”

    Mathis points to a confluence of factors dragging down demand, starting with a tense political climate marked by increased immigration enforcement by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement under the second Trump administration, which she says has deterred international fans from planning trips. She also cites soaring cost of living pressures spurred by regional conflict tied to the US-Israel standoff in Iran, plus exorbitant match ticket prices that have put the tournament out of reach for many fans. Even former president and vocal World Cup supporter Donald Trump has acknowledged the sticker shock, saying he “wouldn’t pay it either” when asked about current pricing. Official tickets for the World Cup final at New Jersey’s MetLife Stadium top out at $32,970, with some resale listings exceeding $2 million. Mathis has called on FIFA to slash ticket prices and urged the US government to speed up visa processing for international fans to reverse the trend. “But it is just so unfortunate, and I am hoping that in the next four weeks, things can be turned around,” she said.

    Data from the American Hotel and Lodging Association (AHLA), which represents more than 100,000 properties ranging from global chains to small independent bed and breakfasts, backs up these on-the-ground reports. The trade group found that 80% of hotels in host cities are seeing lower demand than expected, with the tournament failing to translate into the projected booking boom. In the organization’s survey, many hoteliers even described the tournament as a “non-event” so far, with a majority reporting bookings are running below typical summer season levels. AHLA CEO Rosanna Maietta told the BBC that regional conflict in Iran is a contributing factor, but noted that some fans may be delaying accommodation bookings until their national teams confirm their fixture locations and advancement in the tournament.

    In contrast to the hotel industry’s slow start, home-sharing platform Airbnb has positioned the 2026 World Cup as the “biggest hosting event” in its company history, suggesting fans are shifting to alternative accommodation options to cut costs.

    For traveling international fans, sticker shock for tickets remains the top complaint. Hamish Husband, a representative of the Association of Tartan Army Clubs who is traveling from the UK to watch Scotland compete, says he expects to spend upwards of £10,000 on his trip, even with cost cutting. He notes that despite Scotland’s rare qualification for the tournament, which has motivated diehard fans to make the trip regardless of cost, exorbitant ticket pricing remains a major point of contention. “the outrageous ticket pricing Fifa has enforced on fans,” he said. “There is no fairness in football anymore, but $1,000 for Scotland v Haiti tickets – that is scandalous.” Husband added that low- and middle-income locals in co-host Mexico would be unable to afford tickets at current prices, and praised Canadian regulators for cracking down on predatory resale pricing.

    Many hoteliers are still holding out hope for a last-minute booking surge ahead of kickoff. Stephen Jenkins, general manager of Kansas City’s Fontaine Hotel, says his property’s booking numbers are roughly on par with last year, but still far lower than the boom his team anticipated when the city was selected as a host. “We are not seeing the pick-up we had anticipated,” Jenkins said, noting that his team has launched a range of World Cup-themed initiatives, including a “Culinary Cup” that serves country-specific menus matching the teams playing in Kansas City. Jenkins saw a small uptick in bookings after the official fixture list was released, and is expecting demand to spike closer to the tournament. He even compared the expected boom to Taylor Swift’s 2023 Eras Tour stop in the city, which completely sold out all hotel accommodation across Kansas City – though he acknowledged the comparison is not perfect, given the World Cup’s weeks-long schedule. So far, however, even soccer superstar Lionel Messi, who is scheduled to play in Kansas City with Argentina, has not driven the same booking surge that Swift did.

    Manuel Deisen, general manager of the InterContinental Buckhead Atlanta, echoed that sentiment, telling the BBC that “the volume of enquiries and bookings we’re seeing is tracking lower to typical periods. It’s not quite what we had hoped for.” Still, Deisen said his team has observed “incredible enthusiasm” for the tournament among fans, and is also betting on a last-minute rush of bookings as kickoff approaches. The property is also planning a full slate of World Cup watch parties and fan events to draw both traveling and local guests throughout the tournament.

    FIFA has pushed back against criticism of its ticketing strategy, telling the BBC that overall demand for the tournament has been “unprecedented”, with more than five million tickets sold to date. “Excitement continues to build for the largest sporting event on the planet,” a FIFA spokesperson said. The organization also defended its pricing, noting that some tickets are available for as low as $60, and higher price points are intentionally set to reduce predatory profiteering on secondary resale markets.

    To support the tournament, the White House has launched a dedicated World Cup task force to streamline operations, and has waived the $15,000 visa application deposit for fans from 50 countries who can provide proof of valid match tickets, in a move to boost international attendance.