标签： North America

In an exclusive phone interview with the BBC that was first reported by Reuters, U.S. President Donald Trump has expressed confidence that next week’s landmark four-day state visit by King Charles III and Queen Camilla will go a long way toward mending any recent strains in the bilateral relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom.

When asked directly if the high-profile royal trip could help reset transatlantic ties, Trump offered an unreservedly positive response. “Absolutely. He’s fantastic. He’s a fantastic man. Absolutely the answer is yes,” the president told reporters, noting that he has built a long-standing personal rapport with the British monarch over many years. Calling Charles a brave and outstanding leader, Trump emphasized that the visit would without a doubt deliver positive outcomes for both nations.

The royal tour is scheduled to kick off this coming Monday, with the King and Queen set to hold a private audience with President Trump at the White House shortly after their arrival in Washington D.C. Beyond the bilateral meeting, King Charles will also deliver a historic address to a joint session of the U.S. Congress, a rare honor reserved for visiting heads of state and global leaders. After wrapping up two days of engagements in the U.S. capital, the royal couple will travel onward to New York, Virginia, and Bermuda before returning to the United Kingdom at the end of the trip. According to the UK Foreign Office, the visit is timed to coincide with the 250th anniversary of U.S. independence, and is designed to celebrate the deep, long-standing partnership between the two countries rooted in shared history, mutual prosperity, and collective security.

Beyond the royal visit, Trump also opened up about his tense relationship with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer in the interview, conducted on Thursday. The two leaders have publicly clashed in recent weeks over multiple policy issues, most notably the ongoing conflict in Iran. Starmer has also faced growing domestic political pressure after his controversial appointment of Lord Mandelson as the new UK ambassador to the United States. Earlier this week, Trump took to his social platform Truth Social to slam the pick as “a really bad pick”, but added that Starmer still had “plenty of time to recover” his standing with the White House.

Clarifying that comment during the BBC interview, Trump outlined the conditions under which he believes the UK prime minister can repair relations: Starmer would need to open up further North Sea oil and gas extraction for development – a policy Trump has repeatedly pushed for – and enact much stricter immigration controls, which Trump argued are currently lacking. “If he opened the North Sea and if his immigration policies became strong, which right now they’re not, he can recover, but if he doesn’t, I don’t think he has a chance,” Trump said.

The president also addressed ongoing tensions over the Iran war, where he has openly criticized the UK and other U.S. allies for their limited level of military support. Starmer has repeatedly ruled out deploying UK troops to avoid expanding the conflict into a wider regional war. When asked why he had pushed allies to join the conflict, Trump pushed back on the idea that the U.S. needed additional military backing. “I didn’t need them at all but they should’ve been there. I didn’t need them, obviously,” he said. “We’ve wiped Iran’s military out. I didn’t need anybody. I wanted to see whether or not they would be involved,” Trump added, framing his repeated calls for allied support as “more of a test” of alliance commitments.

Finally, Trump addressed widespread international backlash over his controversial threat earlier this month, when he warned that “a whole civilisation will die tonight” unless Iran agreed to a negotiated settlement. The comment drew widespread global condemnation, including public criticism from the Pope and the United Nations Secretary-General, with many observers speculating the comment referred to a potential nuclear strike. When asked if the threat was referencing nuclear weapons, Trump did not directly answer, instead arguing that his hardline rhetoric was yielding results. “The other side is dying to make a deal. So whatever I’m saying or whatever I’m doing, it seems to be working very well,” he concluded.

After months of anticipation, the United States Department of Justice has finalized a landmark reclassification of cannabis, marking one of the most significant overhauls to American federal drug policy in modern history. This long-awaited policy change moves cannabis, commonly referred to as marijuana, from its decades-long placement as a Schedule I controlled substance — a category reserved for drugs with no accepted medical use and high abuse potential — to Schedule III, placing it in the same regulatory grouping as prescription Tylenol with codeine.

The process for this change was first set in motion last year, when former President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing his administration to launch the reclassification review. The core goal of that directive was to expand both public access to cannabis for medical use and create clearer pathways for academic and clinical research into the drug’s therapeutic properties. Even with this reclassification, cannabis remains prohibited for non-medical recreational use at the federal level, a legal contradiction that has defined American cannabis regulation for decades. This conflict persists even as a strong majority of U.S. states have already moved to legalize cannabis for either medical use, adult recreational use, or both, with state-licensed retail dispensaries operating legally across much of the country.

On Thursday, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche signed off on the formal reclassification, which applies to two broad groups of cannabis products: those regulated by the federal Food and Drug Administration, and products sold through providers that hold valid state-issued medical marijuana licenses. While the final announcement of the reclassification came this week, the move has been widely expected since December, when Trump first initiated the administrative review process.

The policy change will not go into effect immediately. Once the new rule is published in the Federal Register, a mandatory 30-day public comment and waiting period will begin before it takes legal effect. Legal challenges to the reclassification are widely expected during this window, and analysts note that such challenges could delay full implementation of the change for months, or even multiple years. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the regulatory change in late June to address stakeholder input and procedural requirements.

This reclassification is the second major shift in federal drug policy that the Trump administration has advanced in less than a week. Just five days before announcing the cannabis reclassification, Trump signed a separate executive order aimed at expanding access to psychedelic substances for clinical research and experimental medical treatment, signaling a broader push to relax long-standing federal restrictions on mind-altering substances with emerging therapeutic potential.

A months-long partial shutdown of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security moved one step closer to resolution early Thursday, after Senate Republicans pushed through a procedural vote to advance funding for two of the department’s core immigration enforcement agencies without Democratic support. The late-night session stretched until roughly 3:30 a.m. local time, dragged out by a series of Democratic amendments in a tactic commonly referred to as “vote-a-rama,” and ultimately passed by a narrow 50-48 margin.

Republicans opted to use a special legislative rule that allowed the spending measure to pass with a simple majority, after weeks of negotiations with Democrats collapsed over Democratic demands for agency reforms. Two Senate Republicans who have frequently broken with former President Donald Trump’s policy positions joined all voting Democrats in opposing the measure, while one Democrat and one Republican abstained from the vote entirely.

The approved measure would allocate funding for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) through the end of Donald Trump’s presidential term. A separate bipartisan bill that would fund the remainder of DHS, the parent department of both agencies, previously passed the Senate, but both pieces of legislation now need approval from the U.S. House of Representatives before they can be sent to the president’s desk for signature. It remains unclear when House lawmakers will bring either measure up for a vote, as House Republicans have often diverged from their Senate counterparts on immigration and spending policy in recent months.

Senate Majority Whip John Thune, the chamber’s top Republican, praised the outcome of Thursday’s vote but acknowledged that the legislative process is far from over. “We still have a multi-step process ahead of us,” Thune told reporters Thursday morning.

The partial government shutdown, which has left DHS without formal appropriations since February 14, is the longest partial shutdown in U.S. history. The current impasse grew out of a Democratic refusal to approve new funding for ICE and CBP until the agencies adopt major reforms, a response to two fatal shootings of Minneapolis residents Alex Pretti and Renee Good by agency operatives during a January immigration raid in Minnesota.

As the standoff stretched into March, the funding gap began to directly impact everyday Americans: widespread staff shortages among DHS airport security officers led to travel chaos across the country, with security queues stretching from terminal checkpoints all the way to airport parking lots. Hundreds of officers resigned or skipped shifts after going weeks without pay amid the shutdown. Trump temporarily alleviated the crisis by signing an executive order that redirected existing departmental funds to pay security personnel, easing immediate pressure on congressional negotiators. But that pressure has rapidly built back up in recent weeks.

Homeland Security Secretary Mark Mullin warned this week in an interview with Fox News that the department will exhaust all available emergency funding to cover employee salaries by the first week of May. “I’ve got one payroll left and there is no more emergency funds, so the president can’t do another executive order because there’s no more money there,” Mullin said. Trump has set a firm deadline of June 1 for a full budget package to reach his desk for signature, leaving congressional negotiators with a narrow window to resolve the months-long standoff.

The 2026 iteration of UN Chinese Language Day was officially celebrated with a grand gala held at the United Nations Headquarters in New York this Monday, gathering attendees to highlight the profound cultural and historical value of one of the world’s most widely spoken languages.

During the event, Sun Lei, Deputy Permanent Representative of China to the United Nations, delivered remarks that centered on the unique role the Chinese language has played across human history. He emphasized that the language carries the accumulated wisdom of more than 5,000 years of Chinese civilization, and has stood as a silent witness to the sweeping changes and evolution of global human society over millennia.

First established by the United Nations Department of Public Information in 2010, UN Language Days were created to celebrate linguistic diversity, promote multilingualism, and raise awareness of the six official UN languages—Chinese, English, French, Russian, Spanish, and Arabic—across the global community. UN Chinese Language Day is annually held around April 20, to tie in with the traditional Chinese festival of Guyu, the Grain Rain, which honors Cang Jie, the legendary figure credited with the creation of Chinese characters.

This year’s event continues the UN’s long-running commitment to honoring cultural exchange through language, creating a platform for delegates and attendees from around the world to engage with the depth and richness of Chinese language and culture.

Canada’s decision to curtail its decades-long dependence on the United States for defense procurement represents a quiet but meaningful shift in the bilateral alliance, with experts noting the move stems from eroding trust in Washington — even as structural ties between the two neighboring nations remain deeply entrenched.

Earlier in April 2026, Prime Minister Mark Carney used the stage of the Liberal Party national convention to announce the policy reorientation. Carney framed the change as a long-overdue step toward sovereign defense strategy, declaring that the era when 70 cents of every Canadian defense dollar flowed to U.S. suppliers has come to an end. His administration has laid out two core priorities to advance this goal: expanding Canada’s domestic defense manufacturing base, and forging deeper security partnerships with a broader range of global actors.

Alistair Edgar, an associate professor of political science at Ontario’s Wilfrid Laurier University, called Carney’s announcement a pivotal shift that carries weight both for the North American alliance and practical military operations. For Edgar, the policy change is not merely a reaction to the current U.S. administration, but part of a broader, cross-national reassessment of Washington’s reliability as an ally. He argues that this shift amounts to a fundamental rupture in the longstanding dynamic between the two nations, one that will reshape political, economic and security ties far beyond the defense sector.

“The United States can no longer be counted on as a reliable, trusted partner,” Edgar stated. He acknowledged that geographic realities will continue to anchor Canada’s security cooperation with the U.S., particularly through long-standing integrated defense frameworks such as the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). Even so, the nature of that cooperation is already changing, he explained: Deep bilateral integration is being replaced by looser coordination, as Canada invests in independent, sovereign defense capabilities, and in some cases, may even take steps to protect its own interests that diverge from Washington’s.

While Carney has pledged to expand defense collaboration with European allies and other global partners, Edgar noted that these new ties will never fully replace the U.S. as a security partner. Instead, Canada is pursuing a deliberately diversified procurement strategy that includes mixed fighter jet fleets sourced from multiple suppliers and ramping up domestic defense production. Already, the country has directed new investments into domestic small arms manufacturing, munitions production, drone development and cyber defense capabilities to strengthen its homegrown defense industrial base.

The pivot away from heavy reliance on the U.S. does not come without risks, Edgar cautioned. Ottawa could face significant political and economic backlash from Washington, including the imposition of retaliatory tariffs on Canadian goods. Even so, he argued that these very risks reinforce the case for diversification: “In the end, that is more of a reason to take these necessary measures.”

Edgar also connected Canada’s policy shift to growing unease among U.S. allies worldwide about Washington’s approach to global diplomacy. A growing number of allies, from Canada to European capitals, now view the U.S.-led international order as defined by bullying, transactional deal-making and unpredictable, untrustworthy behavior, he said.

Not all experts frame the shift as a fundamental rupture, however. Erika Simpson, an associate professor of international relations at Western University in Ontario, argues that Canada’s plan is best understood as a cautious strategic recalibration rather than a clean break from its long-standing alliance with the U.S.

Simpson explained that the shift serves both strategic and symbolic purposes: it addresses long-standing domestic and policy concerns about overreliance on a single major power, while also sending a clear signal that Ottawa wants to claim greater sovereignty over its defense purchasing decisions. At the same time, she warned against overstating the scale of the change, emphasizing that “this should be understood as recalibration rather than rupture.”

Canada remains deeply embedded in U.S.-led defense architecture, Simpson noted, and any meaningful reduction in reliance on Washington will necessarily be a gradual, multi-year process constrained by long-standing structural ties. A rapid shift could also introduce unforeseen operational risks if not managed carefully, she added.

In Simpson’s framing, Canada’s new defense strategy is a pragmatic hedging approach. “Canada is maintaining its core alliance with the United States while cautiously expanding its range of partners,” she said, noting that the strategy improves Canada’s strategic flexibility and long-term security resilience.