标签： North America

WASHINGTON – In a Wednesday press briefing at the White House, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt pushed back against recent speculation that the current US-Iran ceasefire would be extended beyond its scheduled expiration, stating that a ceasefire extension is “not true at this moment.”

The current two-week truce, which has paused active conflict for weeks between the two sides, is scheduled to expire next week, with no current extension locked in place. Despite this lack of extension, Leavitt noted that the Trump administration remains upbeat about ongoing diplomatic efforts to reach a permanent deal that would bring the weeks-long conflict to a close. “We feel good about the prospects of a deal,” Leavitt told reporters during the briefing.

When pressed for details on when negotiations between the United States and Iran will restart, Leavitt declined to confirm a specific timeline. She did confirm that any future talks would be held in Pakistan, where negotiations stalled over the weekend, keeping the diplomatic site consistent with earlier rounds of discussions.

The latest remarks from the White House follow a series of comments from US President Donald Trump this week that have framed the conflict as nearing an end. On Tuesday, Trump told reporters that new US-Iran talks “could be happening over the next two days” in Pakistan. Early Wednesday, he added that the US-led conflict against Iran – conducted in partnership with Israel – is “very close to being over,” though he offered no specific, clear timeline for when a final deal would be reached or the conflict would formally end.

The current uncertainty around the ceasefire extension comes amid broader regional tensions, with parallel diplomatic efforts ongoing between Israel and Lebanon over Hezbollah disarmament, and public divides among US political and cultural stakeholders over the terms of any potential final deal. Even as the truce approaches its expiration date, the Trump administration has signaled it continues to prioritize diplomatic resolution over a resumption of large-scale active conflict.

On Wednesday, during testimony before the House Budget Committee, White House Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought stood firm in defending the Trump administration’s controversial new fiscal year budget request, which calls for a 43 percent jump in defense spending paired with a 10 percent reduction across non-military domestic programs. Vought framed the imbalanced proposal as the most viable path forward for U.S. national security and fiscal priorities, but the plan drew fierce pushback from committee Democrats, and bipartisan skepticism over defense spending accountability leaves its full passage highly unlikely as lawmakers begin months of debate.

Top Democratic committee leaders slammed the proposal’s skewed priorities, arguing it abandons core domestic needs that matter most to American households. Ranking member Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania pointed out that the dramatic defense expansion comes with no corresponding boost to critical public health programs including Medicare and Medicaid, and no new relief for families struggling with soaring child care costs. “This is a reflection of priorities that are out of whack” with what Americans actually need, Boyle stated.

In response to criticism, Vought characterized the large defense investment as a paradigm-shifting overhaul of the U.S. military industrial base, designed to break longstanding bureaucratic backlogs that have slowed production of critical military assets. “For instance, the president and his Department of Defense are exhibiting tremendous leadership to build ships, planes, drones, munitions and satellites faster without the backlog of status quo,” he explained during the three-hour hearing. To expand the nation’s defense production capacity enough to double or triple output through new facility construction, rather than just adding shifts to existing sites, Vought noted that multi-year forward purchasing agreements are required, and those upfront costs must be accounted for in the first year of the budget.

To advance the proposal, Vought outlined a two-track budget strategy for congressional Republicans: the plan would allocate roughly $1.15 trillion for defense in the regular annual appropriations bill, which needs bipartisan support to advance through the evenly divided Senate, and slot an additional $350 billion into a budget reconciliation package that Republicans can pass without Democratic votes. This structure, Vought argued, would avoid the longstanding rule that has seen Democrats demand every one-dollar increase in defense spending be matched by a one-dollar increase in domestic spending. “This Congress has changed the way we can spend money through the reconciliation process to avoid the pitfalls that really caused two decades of not being able to accomplish anything,” he said, noting the procedural change deserves credit. Republicans already leveraged reconciliation to pass major domestic legislation last year, and are currently preparing another reconciliation bill to expand funding for immigration enforcement in the coming months.

One key gap in the administration’s current request drew repeated questions from committee members: Vought confirmed that the White House cannot yet share even a rough estimate of additional defense funding that will be requested to support ongoing military operations related to the Iran war. “We’re not ready to come to you with a request. We’re still working on it,” Vought testified. “We’re working through to figure out what’s needed in this fiscal year versus next fiscal year.” The current 2025 fiscal year is set to end on September 30, ahead of the new fiscal year beginning October 1.

The proposed 43 percent defense increase also faced bipartisan pushback over longstanding issues with Pentagon financial accountability. Lawmakers from both parties noted that the Defense Department has consistently failed to complete full, clean audits of its sprawling spending portfolio, and questioned the wisdom of approving a massive funding hike before fixing transparency and fraud issues.

Washington Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal challenged whether the administration was genuinely committed to rooting out waste and fraud across all federal agencies, given its push to add more than half a trillion dollars to Defense Department funding. Vought countered that the department is continuing to make progress toward completing a full, comprehensive audit. Wisconsin Republican Rep. Glenn Grothman echoed that frustration, lambasting what he called pervasive arrogance within Defense Department leadership. “I keep holding my nose because defense is the most important thing. And they just say, ‘We don’t have to do an audit. We’re so damn important. We don’t care what Congress thinks,’” Grothman said, demanding that the full audit be completed by July 31, before lawmakers must advance final spending legislation. Vought sought to reassure skeptical lawmakers, stressing that the administration is committed to rooting out inefficiencies at the Pentagon, with any savings redirected to procurement and military research.

The House Budget Committee does not have the authority to draft the 12 annual government spending bills. That responsibility falls to the House Appropriations Committee, which will hold hearings with cabinet secretaries and agency leadership in the coming weeks to review the full presidential budget request for the 2026 fiscal year. Appropriations subcommittees will then draft and debate individual spending bills that make up the discretionary portion of the roughly $7 trillion total U.S. federal budget. The vast majority of annual federal spending — around $4.2 trillion — is allocated to mandatory entitlement programs including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, while another $970 billion goes to interest payments on the national debt.

According to nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office data, total defense spending for the 2025 fiscal year, which ended in September 2025, reached $893 billion, while non-defense domestic programs received a combined $980 billion. Under the administration’s proposal, defense spending would surpass domestic discretionary spending for the coming fiscal year, while 10 percent cuts would be spread across dozens of domestic agencies including Agriculture, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, Transportation, State, and Veterans Affairs, among smaller agencies.

A proposed 250-foot monument, dubbed a ‘triumphal arch’ and tied to former U.S. President Donald Trump, has sparked fierce public debate as planners move forward with site preparations, with BBC reporting on the ground from the proposed development location.

BBC correspondent Ione Wells has conducted on-location reporting to break down key details of the project, outlining the exact plot of land where developers intend to construct the massive structure. The proposed arch, framed by supporters as a tribute to American achievement and a symbolic landmark honoring national service, has drawn fierce pushback from critics who question its purpose, cost, and connection to Trump’s political legacy.

The project has emerged as a flashpoint for broader tensions over how the U.S. commemorates its political figures and national history. Opponents argue the 250-foot structure is an unnecessary vanity project designed to celebrate Trump’s political career, rather than serve any meaningful public or historical purpose. They also point to the projected multi-million dollar construction cost, arguing public funds could be better allocated to pressing domestic priorities including infrastructure repairs, social programs, and community services.

Supporters of the plan, by contrast, frame the arch as a long-overdue tribute to American identity and national unity, arguing the monument will become a popular tourist destination that boosts local economic activity for the region where it is set to be built. As debate continues over the project’s future, on-the-ground reporting from the site has shed new light on the practical logistics of the proposal and the deep divides it has created across political and community lines.

A fourth legislative push to curb executive authority to engage in military hostilities against Iran has been defeated in the United States Senate, deepening partisan divisions over Washington’s ongoing military involvement in the region. The failed war powers resolution, which would have required immediate cessation of all U.S. military action against Iran without explicit congressional authorization, was rejected by a 52-48 vote on the chamber floor, with nearly all votes falling along established party lines.

With the Senate currently under Republican majority leadership, nearly every GOP lawmaker united to block the measure. Only one Republican senator, Rand Paul of Kentucky, broke with his caucus to back the resolution for the fourth consecutive time, matching his position on earlier versions of the bill. On the Democratic side, one party member – Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania – crossed party lines to vote against the restriction on presidential war power.

Democratic sponsors of the resolution have made clear they will not abandon their efforts, announcing plans to bring an identical or similar resolution to a vote every single moving forward, even if passage remains out of reach. According to Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, this repeated voting strategy will ensure every legislator’s position on the conflict is formally recorded, making it clear to the American public which elected officials support ongoing military engagement. The 1973 War Powers Resolution, the federal legislation that forms the legal foundation of this push, was originally passed to curtail unilateral presidential war authority after the escalation of the Vietnam War under Richard Nixon. That law requires congressional approval for any military engagement lasting longer than 60 days, with a single 30-day extension allowed if the White House cites pressing national security concerns.

U.S. strikes in collaboration with Israel against Iranian targets began on February 28, putting the 60-day deadline on track to expire mid-May. With that deadline approaching, some Republican lawmakers have signaled they may reconsider their position if the conflict is still ongoing after this month. Missouri Republican Senator Josh Hawley told the BBC that a rapid end to the conflict aligns with U.S. national interests, adding that he hopes diplomatic negotiations will produce a resolution within the coming days. “That would be ideal,” Hawley stated. Paul echoed the expectation of shifting Republican votes after the 60-day window, telling reporters he anticipates more GOP members will join him in supporting the resolution once the statutory deadline passes.

President Donald Trump has offered contradictory timelines for the conflict’s duration. In an interview with Fox News that aired Wednesday, Trump claimed the conflict is “close to over.” To date, however, the administration has moved forward with its planned military blockade of Iranian ports, retaining broad, unified support from congressional Republicans for the president’s actions.