Donald Trump

Project 2025 became a flashpoint during the 2024 presidential campaign. The sweeping conservative policy blueprint aims to overhaul the federal government and reshape United States society.

How closely is President Donald Trump following its direction? And how much does it test the limits of the Constitution?

Marc Lamont Hill talks to Paul Dans, the former director of Project 2025 at the Heritage Foundation.

SEOUL, June 20 (UPI) — South Korea’s Defense Ministry said Friday that its defense spending as a share of gross domestic product is already “very high” compared to other U.S. allies, as Washington calls for NATO members and Asian countries to increase their military budgets.

“Among major U.S. allies of the United States, South Korea has a very high ratio of defense spending to GDP,” the ministry said in a message to reporters. “We have continuously increased our defense budget in consideration of the serious security situation, including North Korea‘s nuclear and missile threats.”

“South Korea will continue to make efforts to secure the capabilities and posture necessary for the defense of the Korean Peninsula and peace and stability in the region,” the ministry added.

In 2024, South Korea spent $47.6 billion, or 2.6% of GDP, on defense, according to data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. That share is higher than Britain’s 2.3%, France’s 2.1%, Germany’s 1.9% and Japan’s 1.4%.

Seoul’s statement suggested concerns over remarks by U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth earlier this week calling for a “new standard” for allies in NATO and Asia to spend 5% of GDP on defense.

“We expect NATO allies to commit to spending 5% of GDP on defense or defense-related investment,” Hegseth said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Wednesday.

“We now have a new standard for ally defense spending that all of our allies around the world, including in Asia, should move to,” Hegseth said. “It’s only fair that our allies and partners do their part. We cannot want their security more than they do.”

Hegseth also called for Asian countries to increase their spending in remarks at a defense forum in Singapore last month.

“It doesn’t make sense for countries in Europe to [spend 5% of GDP] while key allies in Asia spend less on defense in the face of an even more formidable threat, not to mention North Korea,” he said at the annual Shangri-La Dialogue.

The defense spending issue looks to be a potentially contentious topic at next week’s NATO Summit in The Hague. NATO countries committed to a goal of 2% of GDP in 2014, which two-thirds have reached, but U.S. President Donald Trump has long called for an increase and has been demanding the 5% figure since his reelection.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said last week he expected the allies to agree to the 5% target.

“It will be a NATO-wide commitment and a defining moment for the alliance,” he said in a speech at Chatham House in London.

However, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez pushed back on the proposal, which must be agreed to unanimously, in a letter to Rutte this week.

“For Spain, committing to a 5% target would not only be unreasonable, but also counterproductive,” Sanchez wrote Thursday, according to El Pais. “It would move Spain away from optimal spending and would hinder the EU’s efforts to strengthen its security and defense ecosystem.”

South Korea’s newly elected President Lee Jae Myung has not confirmed whether he will attend the NATO Summit, which will be held on June 24-25. His office had anticipated a meeting with Trump on the sidelines of last week’s Group of Seven meeting to discuss tariffs and defense cost-sharing issues, but the U.S. president departed early.

President Donald Trump hails decision as ‘big win’, but Governor Gavin Newsom promises to pursue legal challenge.

A United States appeals court has ruled the administration of President Donald Trump could keep control of National Guard troops in Los Angeles, over the objections of California Governor Gavin Newsom.

The decision on Thursday comes against a backdrop of heightened tensions in California’s largest city, which has become ground zero of Trump’s immigration crackdown across the US.

In a 38-page unanimous ruling, a three-judge panel said Trump was within his rights earlier this month when he ordered 4,000 members of the National Guard into service for 60 days to “protect federal personnel performing federal functions and to protect federal property”.

“Affording appropriate deference to the President’s determination, we conclude that he likely acted within his authority in federalising the National Guard,” the panel of the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeal said.

Trump, a Republican, had appointed two of the judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit panel while his Democratic predecessor, Joe Biden, had named the third, according to US media reports.

Last week, a lower court judge had ordered Trump to return control of the California National Guard to Newsom, saying the president’s decision to deploy them during protests over federal immigration detentions in Los Angeles was “illegal”. That decision by US District Judge Charles Breyer on June 12 prompted the appeal.

On Thursday night, Trump hailed the appeal court’s decision in a post on his Truth Social social media platform, calling it a “BIG WIN”.

“All over the United States, if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done,” Trump wrote.

‘Not a king’

The state of California had argued that Trump’s order was illegal because it did not follow the procedure of being issued through the governor.

It was the first time since 1965 that a US president deployed the National Guard over the wishes of a state governor.

The judges said Trump’s “failure to issue the federalisation order directly ‘through’ the Governor of California does not limit his otherwise lawful authority to call up the National Guard”.

But they said the panel disagreed with the defendant’s primary argument that the president’s decision to federalise members of the California National Guard “is completely insulated from judicial review”.

“Nothing in our decision addresses the nature of the activities in which the federalized National Guard may engage,” it wrote in its opinion.

Newsom could still challenge the use of the National Guard and Marines under other laws, including the bar on using troops in domestic law enforcement, it added.

The governor could raise those issues at a court hearing on Friday in front of Breyer, it also said.

In a social media post after the decision, Newsom promised to pursue his challenge.

“Donald Trump is not a king and not above the law,” he wrote.

“Tonight, the court rightly rejected Trump’s claim that he can do whatever he wants with the National Guard and not have to explain himself to a court.

“We will not let this authoritarian use of military soldiers against citizens go unchecked.”

June 20 (UPI) — A federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump‘s attempt to make federal transportation funding contingent on state compliance with his immigration policies.

In his ruling Thursday, Chief U.S. District Judge John McConnell of Providence, R.I., said not only does the Department of Transportation lack the authority to tie grant funding to immigration enforcement, but the directive also usurps Congress’ power of the purse while being “arbitrary and capricious.”

“Congress did not authorize or grant authority to the Secretary of Transportation to impose immigration enforcement conditions on federal dollars specifically appropriated for transportation purposes,” the President Barack Obama appointee said in his brief ruling.

The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by 20 state attorneys general challenging an April 24 directive sent to all Department of Transportation funding receipts, stating they must comply with an Immigration Enforcement Condition when applying for future grants.

The letter specifies that as recipients, they have “entered into legally enforceable agreements with the United States Government and are obligated to comply fully with all applicable Federal laws and regulations,” particularly those relating to immigration enforcement and diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

“Adherence to your legal obligations is a prerequisite for receipt of DOT financial assistance,” Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy’s letter states.

“Noncompliance with applicable Federal laws, or failure to cooperate generally with Federal authorities in the enforcement of Federal law, will jeopardize your continued receipt of Federal financial assistance from DOT and could lead to a loss of Federal funding from DOT.”

The 20 Democrat-led states filed their lawsuit against the directive in May, arguing the Department of Transportation has no authority to tie grants to federal civil immigration enforcement, as the two are unrelated.

In his ruling, McConnell agreed with the plaintiffs.

“The IEC, backed by the Duffy Directive, is arbitrary and capricious in its scope and lacks specificity in how the States are to cooperate on immigration enforcement in exchange for Congressionally appropriated transportation dollars — grant money that the States rely on to keep their residents safely and efficiently on the road, in the sky and on the rails,” he said.

“[T]he IEC is not at all reasonably related to the transportation funding program grants.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta applauded the ruling while chastising Trump for “threatening to withhold critical transportation funds unless states agree to carry out his inhumane and illogical immigration agenda.

“It’s immoral — and more importantly, illegal,” the Democrat said. “I’m glad the District Court agrees, blocking the President’s latest attempt to circumvent the Constitution and coerce state and local governments into doing his bidding while we continue to make our case in court.”

Since returning to the White House, Trump has led a crackdown on immigration, with many of his policies being challenged in court.

Late Thursday, an appeals court handed Trump a victory in the battle, permitting California National Guard troops to remain deployed on Los Angeles streets amid protests against his immigration policies.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has vowed to continue to fight what he called “President Trump’s authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers.”

Trump’s base is splintering from GOP hawks over possible US strikes on Iran. While some Republicans push for military action and regime change, key MAGA allies warn war could derail Trump’s domestic agenda. Trump says he’ll decide within two weeks on action in Iran.

June 20 (UPI) — A federal appeals court ruled late Thursday that President Donald Trump may maintain control of thousands of National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles, a blow to the state’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, who is fighting to keep the soldiers off his streets.

The three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was unanimous, ruling that Trump’s order federalizing members of the California National Guard was likely legal.

The court though disagreed with the Trump administration’s argument that the president’s decision to federalize the troops was insulated from judicial review but acknowledged that they must be “highly deferential” to it.

“Affording the President that deference, we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority,” the court said in its 38-page ruling, though it added “nothing in our decision addresses the nature of the activities in which the federalized National Guard may engage.”

The panel included two Trump-appointed judges, Mark Bennett and Eric Miller, and President Joe Biden appointee Jennifer Sung.

The ruling stays a lower court’s order that had directed the Trump administration to remove the troops deployed to Los Angeles streets.

Trump celebrated the ruling as a “BIG WIN” on his Truth Social media platform.

“The Judges obviously realized that Gavin Newscum is incompetent and ill prepared, but this is much bigger than Gavin, because all over the United States ,if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable , for whatever reason to get the job done,” Trump said in the post, referring to the California governor by an insulting moniker he invented.

Trump — who campaigned on mass deportations while using incendiary and derogatory rhetoric as well as misinformation about immigrants — has been leading a crackdown on immigration since returning to the White House.

On June 6, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents began conducting raids in Los Angeles, prompting mass protests in the city.

In response, Trump deployed some 2,000 California National Guardsmen to Los Angeles to quell the demonstrations and to protect ICE agents performing immigration arrests. The number of troops deployed has since increased to 4,000, despite protests having abated.

The deployment was met with staunch opposition, criticism of Trump for continuing an extreme right-wing slide into authoritarianism and a lawsuit from Newsom, who was initially awarded a stay ordering the troops to be removed from the Los Angeles streets.

However, an appeals court hours later issued a preliminary injunction, which late Thursday was made a stay.

Newsom, in a statement, expressed disappointment over the ruling while highlighting the court’s rejection of Trump’s argument that his decision to deploy the troops is beyond judicial review.

“The President is not a king and is not above the law,” Newsom said, vowing to continue to fight the deployment in court.

“We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump’s authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens.”

The deployment by Trump is the first by a president without a governor’s permission since 1965.

US President Donald Trump has made his administration “a subcontractor, a junior partner” to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s objectives in the Middle East, argues Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen.

As the president mulls further involvement in Israel’s attack on Iran, Senator Van Hollen tells host Steve Clemons that “This notion that you can just drop a few big bombs and be done with it misunderstands history, because there is a real risk that the United States will get dragged deeper and deeper into this war.”

Van Hollen also criticised the US-Israeli Gaza Humanitarian Foundation as “death traps” for Palestinians.

Islamabad, Pakistan – Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, has held an unprecedented one-on-one meeting with United States President Donald Trump at the White House, where the two leaders spoke for more than two hours, according to the Pakistani military.

In a statement issued on Thursday by Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), the Pakistani military’s media wing, the meeting, originally scheduled for one hour, was held in the Cabinet Room over lunch and then continued in the Oval Office.

After Wednesday’s meeting, the ISPR said, Munir expressed “deep appreciation” for Trump’s efforts in facilitating a ceasefire between India and Pakistan after a four-day conflict in May between the two nuclear-armed neighbours. According to the ISPR, Trump welcomed Pakistan’s cooperation against “terrorism”.

While the White House did not release any statement on the meeting, which was held behind closed doors and without news media photo opportunities, Trump spoke to reporters briefly after his talks with Munir. He thanked the army chief and said he was “honoured to meet him”.

Yet amid the bonhomie and the promise of a sharp uptick in relations after years of tension between Washington and Islamabad, Trump also referred to the ongoing military conflict between Israel and Iran, which the US president has said his country might join.

The Pakistanis, Trump said, “know Iran very well, better than most”, adding that they are “not happy”.

For Pakistan, analysts said, that comment underscored how the reset in ties with the US that Islamabad desperately seeks will be tested by two key challenges. Iran and the current crisis with Israel will force Pakistan into a diplomatic balancing act, they said. And Islamabad’s close relations with China could similarly pull Pakistan in conflicting directions.

What did Trump and Munir talk about?

According to the ISPR, Munir spoke to Trump about a range of areas where the two nations could strengthen cooperation, including “economic development, mines and minerals, artificial intelligence, energy, cryptocurrency, and emerging technologies”.

But the Pakistani military conceded that the two leaders also held “detailed discussions” on the escalating tensions between Iran and Israel with both Munir and Trump – according to Islamabad – emphasising the need for a peaceful resolution.

Munir was accompanied by Pakistan’s national security adviser, Lieutenant General Asim Malik, who also heads the country’s premier intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

On the American side, Trump was joined by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the president’s top negotiator in the Middle East, Steve Witkoff.

Marvin Weinbaum, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute (MEI), said the lack of a media presence during the lunch could be interpreted as suggesting that “the nature of the conversation was such that neither party wanted photo opportunities”. Weinbaum told Al Jazeera that neither side likely wanted to reveal much about “what was discussed, though my read is it was perhaps the US wanting to know about Pakistan’s role on what follows in Iran during this ongoing situation”.

Later on Wednesday evening, Munir attended a dinner hosted by the Pakistani embassy with nearly three dozen figures from think tanks, policy institutions and diplomatic circles. Al Jazeera spoke to several participants, who all requested anonymity to discuss what Munir said at the dinner.

One participant said Munir did not divulge specifics from his meeting with Trump but he remarked that the conversation was “fantastic and could not have gone any better”. Munir added, according to this person, that Pakistan’s relations with the previous administration of President Joe Biden had been “among the worst” historically.

Another attendee told Al Jazeera that Munir said the US “knows what it needs to do regarding Iran” and reiterated that Pakistan’s view is that “every conflict is resolvable through dialogue and diplomacy”.

‘Significant upswing’

For the moment, experts said, the meeting represents a major gain for Pakistan in its bid to improve ties with the US.

Pakistan has been a close US ally since gaining independence in 1947. They worked closely together in Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion in 1979 and then again after the US invasion of Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks.

While the US has provided more than $30bn in aid in the last two decades to Pakistan, it has repeatedly accused Islamabad of “duplicity” and of not being a reliable security partner.

Pakistan, in turn, has argued that Washington constantly demands it “do more” without fully acknowledging the losses and instability Pakistan has suffered due to regional violence.

Elizabeth Threlkeld, director of the South Asia Program at the Stimson Center in Washington, DC, said Munir’s visit marks a “significant upswing” in US-Pakistan ties under the Trump administration.

“Given President Trump’s central role in shaping foreign policy and his preference for personal relationships, this visit has allowed Field Marshal Munir to solidify a rapport built during the recent crisis,” she told Al Jazeera.

Sahar Khan, a Washington, DC-based security policy expert, said that while the meeting was significant, it doesn’t mean the two countries are “now friends”. However, it does indicate a “thaw in the relationship”.

She added that although Trump is unpredictable, Pakistan should consider striking a deal with him to prevent unrealistic demands regarding regional issues.

“For now, Munir’s message to the Trump administration is, take the time to understand Pakistan and stop viewing it through the lens of India, China or Afghanistan,” she said.

Making that message stick, though, won’t be easy, analysts said.

China, the real strategic dilemma

China remains Pakistan’s most critical partner, with whom it enjoys deep economic, strategic and military ties. But simultaneously, over the past three decades, Beijing’s rise as a global superpower has made it Washington’s principal rival.

Muhammad Faisal, a South Asia security researcher and China expert at the University of Technology in Sydney, said managing ties with both powers will test Islamabad’s commitment to a policy of “no-camp politics”.

China has invested $62bn in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a large infrastructure project connecting western China to the Arabian Sea via Pakistan.

On the military front, Pakistan procures more than 80 percent of its weaponry from China, and some of those products, particularly Chinese jets and missiles, showcased their worth in the recent conflict with India.

“In the long run, both [China and the US] are crucial for Pakistan in their own right,” Faisal told Al Jazeera. And while the US and China might each want Islamabad on their side, the fact that Pakistan is sought after by both has its own advantage. It “gives Islamabad considerable diplomatic space to expand cooperation with both Beijing and Washington”, he said.

The Iran challenge

Iran, currently under an intense Israeli assault that has targeted key infrastructure and senior military and nuclear figures, presents another sensitive challenge for Pakistan.

Analysts argued that Pakistan’s proximity and ties to Tehran position it as a potential mediator between the US and Iran.

“It is in Pakistan’s interest to play a mediating role. It cannot afford another adversary on its western border, given its internal challenges,” Khan said.

Last month, Munir travelled to Iran along with Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. During the visit, he met Major General Mohammad Bagheri, chief of General Staff of the Iranian military. In the first wave of strikes by Israel on Friday, Bagheri was one of the several military officials who were killed.

Since the Israeli strikes began, Pakistan has strongly defended Iran’s right to self-defence, describing the Israeli strikes as violations of Iran’s territorial sovereignty and calling them “blatant provocations”.

Home to nearly 250 million people, Pakistan has a significant Shia minority – between 15 percent and 20 percent of the population – who look to Iran for religious leadership.

Faisal noted that these demographic and geographic realities would constrain Pakistan’s public support for any US military intervention.

“Islamabad can continue to call for diplomacy and cessation of hostilities to contain the conflict. As a neighbour, instability in Iran isn’t in Pakistan’s interest,” he said. At the same time, Faisal added, “a spike in sectarian tensions [in Pakistan] can test internal security. Thus, Islamabad will be wary of pro-American public posturing.”

Washington, DC – Over the past week, United States President Donald Trump has been issuing statements on Iran that appear to be contradictory.

He has called for ending the war and hinted at peace coming “soon”, only to then suggest that assassinating Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei could be an option for the US along with joining Israel’s bombing campaign.

In the latest turn, the White House said on Thursday that Trump will make a decision on whether to join the war within two weeks.

These changes in the president’s stance have some observers thinking that Trump may not have a clear strategy or endgame; rather he is being dragged to war by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been seeking US attacks on Iran for decades.

Alternatively, could Trump be using his increasingly bellicose rhetoric against Iran to compel Tehran to agree to entirely give up its nuclear programme?

If so, experts warn that brinkmanship could turn into an all-out war between the US and Iran.

Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council, said Trump could be attempting to build leverage with threats to strongarm Iran into accepting his demands of “total surrender”.

“I think he’s trying to present himself as this madman who is unpredictable, and in so doing, he can then insist on this very hard line that Iran has refused to accept for decades of full dismantlement of its enrichment programme,” Abdi told Al Jazeera.

Another possible explanation of Trump’s latest statements, Abdi added, is that he is “being taken for a ride by Bibi Netanyahu to commit the United States to a full-on war with Iran”.

‘He says one thing. He does another’

Iranian American analyst Negar Mortazavi also said that Trump is being “outmaneuvered” by Netanyahu.

“I don’t even know if President Trump knows what he wants,” Mortazavi told Al Jazeera.

“He campaigned as the president of peace … he promised he’s going to end conflicts. Russia-Ukraine hasn’t ended. Gaza has escalated, and he just let the third big Middle East war – which looks like a regime-change war – start under his watch. So, he says one thing. He does another.”

Israel launched its bombing campaign against Iran last week, two days before US and Iranian officials were set to meet for a sixth round of talks in Oman.

Hours before the Israeli assault began, Trump renewed his commitment to diplomacy. And the initial US response to the Israeli strikes was to stress that Washington is not involved in the attacks.

In subsequent days, however, Trump appeared to take credit for the Israeli bombing campaign.

“We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran,” he wrote in a social media post on Tuesday, without elaborating on who the “we” was.

“Iran had good sky trackers and other defensive equipment, and plenty of it, but it doesn’t compare to American made, conceived, and manufactured ‘stuff.’ Nobody does it better than the good ol’ USA.”

Israel’s strikes have targeted Iran’s air defences, military and nuclear facilities, oil infrastructure and residential buildings, killing hundreds of people, including top military and political officials as well as many civilians. Iran has responded with hundreds of ballistic missiles that have killed at least 24 Israelis and left widespread destruction across the country.

Israeli officials claim they are trying to destroy Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes, but also note that their military campaign could lead to the collapse of the Iranian governing system, which they say would be a welcome development.

However, it is widely believed that Israel would need US help to destroy Iran’s main uranium enrichment facility, Fordow, which is buried inside a mountain.

Mortazavi said war hawks and Israeli officials appear to be making the case to Trump that bombing Fordow will be an easy task.

“Instead of a regime change war – a devastating, unnecessary war with Iran, which he has been warning everyone and running against in his campaigns, they’re just making this look like, ‘Oh, you just use your bunker busters once and done.’”

But Iran has promised to retaliate harshly against any US attack.

Thousands of US troops in the region could come under Iranian missile strikes. If the war escalates, Iran could also disrupt shipping lanes in the Gulf – a major lifeline for global energy.

Iranian lawmakers have already suggested that Iran could close the Strait of Hormuz that connects the Gulf to the Indian Ocean and through which 20 percent of the world’s oil flows.

‘Catastrophic’ war

Mortazavi said escalating the conflict will have “catastrophic” consequences for the region.

“It will look like Iraq and Afghanistan combined, if not worse. Iran is a big country,” she said.

In Iraq, Bush’s regime-change war led to years of sectarian bloodshed and the rise of groups like ISIL (ISIS). In Afghanistan, US forces fought for 20 years after deposing the Taliban from the capital Kabul, only to see the group swiftly return to power as US troops withdrew.

Even if Iran’s governing system is toppled under US and Israeli blows, experts warn that US war hawks should be careful what they wish for.

Iran is a country of more than 90 million people. The fall of the government could lead to internal conflict, displacement crises and regional – if not global – instability, analysts say.

“This is not a colour revolution. This is going to be war and chaos, potentially civil war, and unrest,” Mortazavi said.

Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of the rights group DAWN, said that even if Trump is trying to gain leverage with his threats and is not seeking war or regime change in Iran, it’s a risky strategy.

“The possibilities of the assaults on Iran escalating into not just a broader regional war, but potentially a global war, are extremely high,” Whitson told Al Jazeera.

“And so, continued belligerence and hostile rhetoric from President Trump is only throwing fuel on the fire.”

Officials at the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball organisation asked federal agents to leave the stadium car park Thursday after dozens of agents wearing face masks converged on the site. Protesters amassed shortly after demanding an end to immigration raids in LA.

United States President Donald Trump will decide on whether his country will join the Israel-Iran conflict in the next two weeks, the White House has said, amid growing speculation of US involvement and fears of wider escalation.

On Thursday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that Trump had shared a message: “Based on the fact that there’s a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks. That’s a quote directly from President Trump,” she said.

“The president is always interested in a diplomatic solution … he is a peacemaker in chief. He is the peace through strength president. And so if there’s a chance for diplomacy, the president’s always going to grab it. But he’s not afraid to use strength as well,” the press secretary added.

The US described its ally Israel’s initial June 13 strike on Iran as a “unilateral action”. But Trump himself has signalled that he knew of the attack in advance and supported Israel’s military campaign.

At the same time, according to the Reuters news agency, which cited three unnamed diplomats, Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff has spoken to Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi several times on the phone since Israel began its attacks.

Amid the talk of diplomacy, Tel Aviv and Tehran have continued to trade attacks.

On Thursday, Israel targeted Iran’s Arak heavy water nuclear reactor. Iran, in turn, hit the Soroka Medical Centre, which it claimed was near an Israeli military and intelligence centre.

At the same time, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz threatened to eliminate Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. “Such a person is forbidden to exist,” he said in a statement cited by the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper.

‘Camouflaged’ intentions

Over the past few days, Trump has hinted at joining Israel’s strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites, but at the same time has proposed a swift diplomatic solution in a confusing message from Washington.

Following a report by the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday night that Trump had already signed off on striking Iran but had not decided on when they would do it, the president took to his Truth Social social media account to deny the report.

“The Wall Street Journal has No Idea what my thoughts are concerning Iran!” Trump wrote.

But Al Jazeera’s senior political analyst Marwan Bishara said that Leavitt’s comments could well be a ploy, and if so, Trump would be able to use it as a “pretext in order to camouflage whatever his intentions are and attack tomorrow”.

As Araghchi is expected to meet his British, French and German counterparts in Geneva on Friday, along with the European Union’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, to discuss Tehran’s nuclear programme, Bishara said Trump could be waiting to hear the outcome of those talks before making his decision to attack.

“If one has to over-interpret, I would say the following: He’s giving the Europeans some time so that everyone could save face,” Bishara said.

Al Jazeera’s Doha Jabbari, reporting from Doha, said the lack of trust between Tehran and Washington will make it difficult for the Iranians to fully believe Trump is open to diplomacy.

“Assuming that the Israelis have the green light from the Americans to carry out these attacks inside Iran, there is going to be very little trust there,” Jabbari said.

“But really, this is the diplomatic game they have to play,” she added, referring to the upcoming talks in Geneva. “If they [Iran] don’t go, they’re going to be accused of basically saying we’re not going to talk, we just want war. They’re going to have to travel, and the Europeans are acting as a mediator between Iran and the US.”

At the same time, Russia and China have repeatedly warned against the US’s involvement in the conflict and called for a ceasefire.

June 19 (UPI) — Paramount has pulled back on a $35 million settlement with President Donald Trump after he sued the media company over a segment on CBS’ News’ “60 Minutes.”

The lawsuit alleges that the program edited an interview with Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris ahead of the 2024 election to change how she would appear to viewers.

The stalled settlement is holding up a potential $8 billion takeover of Paramount by Skydance, a deal that the two companies negotiated over a year ago.

Despite the legal wrangling, Trump has said he is encouraged by the proposed merger in its current form, and endorsed the deal proposed by Skydance’s David Ellison.

“Ellison is great,” Trump told reporters on the White House lawn Wednesday. He’ll do a great job with it.”

Trump seemed to have connected the delay in the deal to his Paramount lawsuit.

The internal debate over the Trump lawsuit and the way it was being handled prompted CBS News President Wendy McMahon to resign in May, saying in a memo that she and the company could not agree on a path forward.

The Paramount-Skydance deal has been pending review by the Federal Communications Commission since last fall.

June 19 (UPI) — The Trump administration’s border czar Tom Homan confirmed Thursday that immigration raids in U.S. agriculture and hospitality sectors of the economy will continue despite recent suggestions of a pullback.

Homan said farm, restaurant and hotel workers will be the focus of immigration enforcement operations, but people with criminal backgrounds will be the first priority.

“We’re going to continue to do worksite enforcement operations, even on farms and hotels, but based on a prioritized basis,” Homan said. “Criminals come first.”

Last week, the administration said it was considering standing down on some Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in those industries, suggesting that such enforcement actions could cripple companies that rely on the workers, which President Donald Trump acknowledged in a post on his social media account.

Trump’s pullback was largely attributed to comments by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins who said immigration enforcement measures in industries that typically employ undocumented workers could hobble their productivity.

The president’s announced pullback surprised people who take a hard line stance on immigration and have been largely supportive of Trump aggressive enforcement tactics.

Homan brought the discussion back to hiring practices Thursday while walking back the stand down on immigration enforcement operations.

“Well, first of all, there’s a right way and a wrong way to hire workers. There are legal programs that bring farm workers in,” Homan continued. “Second of all, I’ve been saying for years, Congress needs to address this. But because Congress failed, it just doesn’t mean we ignore it. It’s illegal to knowingly hire an illegal alien.”

Trump signs executive order extending the deadline for TikTok’s sale or divestment from Chinese parent company ByteDance to September 17.

United States President Donald Trump has signed an executive order extending the deadline for China-based ByteDance to divest its US assets of the short-form video app TikTok by another 90 days, he says, despite a law that mandated a sale or shutdown.

“I’ve just signed the Executive Order extending the Deadline for the TikTok closing for 90 days (September 17, 2025),” the president said in a post on Thursday on his social media platform, Truth Social.

The ban would have otherwise kicked in on Thursday.

“We are grateful for President Trump’s leadership and support in ensuring that TikTok continues to be available for more than 170 million American users and 7.5 million US businesses that rely on the platform as we continue to work with Vice President [JD] Vance’s Office,” TikTok said in a statement.

Vance’s office has been involved in negotiations with the platform.

Passed in April 2024 and known as the the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, the law required TikTok to stop operating in the US by January 19 unless ByteDance had completed divesting itself of the app’s US assets or demonstrated significant progress towards a sale.

The law was challenged in the Supreme Court in January, but the nation’s highest court upheld the ban.

Third extension

This is the third time the president has extended the deadline. Trump began his second term as president on January 20 and opted not to enforce the law. He first extended the deadline to early April and then again last month to June 19.

Democratic senators argued that Trump has no legal authority to extend the deadline and suggested a deal under consideration would not meet legal requirements.

The White House on Tuesday said the app will be “mandated a sale or shutdown absent significant progress”.

“President Trump does not want TikTok to go dark,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Tuesday.

She added that the administration will spend the next three months making sure the sale closes so Americans can keep using TikTok with the assurance that their data is safe and secure.

In March, Trump said he would be willing to reduce tariffs on China to get a deal done with ByteDance to sell the app.

A deal had been in the works this spring that would spin off TikTok’s US operations into a new US-based firm majority-owned and operated by US investors. That was put on hold after China said it would not approve that deal because of the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration.

TikTok has a wide US user base, especially among younger audiences. According to a survey from Pew Research conducted in December, a third of all US adults use TikTok, and among the under 30 demographic, it is higher at 59 percent while 67 percent of teens use the platform.

Speaking with reporters on the White House lawn, President Donald Trump played coy when asked if he would bring the United States into Israel’s war on Iran.

“I may do it. I may not,” he said on Wednesday.

US officials and the president’s allies have stressed that the decision to get involved in the war – or not – lies with Trump, stressing that they trust his instincts.

“He is the singular guiding hand about what will be occurring from this point forward,” Department of State spokeswoman Tammy Bruce told reporters on Tuesday.

But antiwar advocates have been arguing that it should not all be up to Trump and Congress must be the ultimate decider over war and peace, according to the US Constitution.

As Trump increasingly appears to hint at the possibility of US engagement in the conflict, some lawmakers are seeking to reassert that congressional role under the War Powers Act.

But what are the laws guiding a declaration of war, and could Trump get the US involved in the war without the consent of Congress?

Here’s what you need to know about the laws that govern decisions about war in the US.

What does the US Constitution say?

Section 1 of the US Constitution, which established the legislative branch of the government and outlines its duties, says Congress has the power to “declare war”.

Some advocates take that provision to mean that lawmakers, not the president, have the authority over US military interventions.

When was the last time the US formally declared war?

In 1942, during World War II. Since then, the US has gone to war in Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq while carrying out strikes and interventions in numerous countries – Serbia, Libya, Somalia and Yemen to name a few.

What authority does the president have when it comes to war?

According to Article II of the constitution, the president is designated “commander in chief” of the armed forces.

Presidents have the power to order the military to respond to attacks and imminent threats. Beyond that, their war-making powers are constrained by Congress. Article II empowers them to direct military operations once Congress has authorised a war. They are responsible for mobilising the military under the guidelines of lawmakers.

That said, successive presidents have used the ability to direct the military on an emergency basis to carry out attacks that they frame as defensive or in response to threats.

How has the US sent soldiers into Iraq and other places without formal declarations of war?

Short of a declaration of war, Congress may grant the president powers to use the military for specific goals through legislation known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).

For example, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in 2001, Congress passed an AUMF that gave then-President George W Bush broad powers to conduct what would become the global “war on terror”.

And one year later, it passed another AUMF allowing the use of the military against the government of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, which became the basis of the 2003 invasion.

The two authorisations remain in place, and presidents continue to rely on them to carry out strikes without first seeking congressional approval. For example, the assassination of top Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in 2020 in Baghdad was authorised by Trump under the 2003 AUMF.

During Trump’s first term, there were concerns that he could use the 2001 AUMF to strike Iran under the unfounded claim that Tehran supports al-Qaeda.

When was the War Powers Act passed?

Despite the articles outlined in the constitution, presidents have found ways to sidestep Congress in war matters. So in 1973, after decades of US intervention in Vietnam and elsewhere in Asia, lawmakers passed the War Powers Resolution to reassert their authority over military action.

The law restricts the president’s war-making powers – or that was its intention at least.

It was passed after President Richard Nixon’s secret bombing of Cambodia, which killed tens or even hundreds of thousands of civilians and led to widespread protests in the US.

What are the key provisions of the War Powers Act?

The federal law was designed to limit the US president’s power to commit the US to armed conflict.

Enacted over Nixon’s veto, the resolution requires “in the absence of a declaration of war” that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of military action and limits deployments to 60 or 90 days unless authorisations to extend them are passed.

Before US troops are committed abroad, Congress must be consulted “in every possible instance”, it says.

Why is the War Powers Act relevant now? 

With the possibility of a US intervention in Iran mounting, lawmakers have been eyeing the five-decade law and pushing for their own version.

On Monday, Democratic Senator Tim Kaine introduced a bill requiring that Trump, a Republican, seek authorisation from Congress before ordering military strikes against Iran. That was followed by a similar bill put forward in the House of Representatives on Tuesday by US Representatives Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a Republican, and Democrat Ro Khanna of California.

A No War Against Iran Act, introduced by Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, seeks to “prohibit the use of funds for military force against Iran, and for other purposes”.

But even as some polls find Trump supporters are against war with Iran, passage of such bills in the Republican-controlled legislature remains unlikely.

Why is new legislation needed if it’s in the constitution? 

Despite the constitutional separation of war powers, the executive and legislative branches have jockeyed over those roles throughout US history.

The most prominent of these incidents – and the last time such a case made it to the Supreme Court in fact – took place in 1861 at the start of the US Civil War when President Abraham Lincoln blockaded southern ports months before Congress legally declared war on the Confederacy. The highest court eventually ruled the president’s acts were constitutional because the executive “may repel sudden attacks”.

Throughout history, formal congressional declarations of war have remained scarce. There have been just 11.

Instead, Congress has traditionally authorised a wide range of military resolutions.

Does the War Powers Act have any teeth?

Almost since its passage, the 1973 law has been viewed by some critics as deeply ineffective – more of a political tool for lawmakers to voice dissent than as a real check on power. (In the 1980s, then-Senator Joe Biden led a subcommittee that concluded the law fell short of its intent.)

Congressional resolutions seeking to end military involvements unauthorised by Congress are subject to a presidential veto, which can be overridden only by two-thirds majority votes in the House and the Senate.

Others have argued the law served an important role in asserting Congress’s rights and creating a framework for speedy, presidential reporting to Congress. The more than 100 reports that have been sent to Congress since 1973 offer a semblance of transparency.

How do presidents view the act?

While Nixon was the most vociferous in his opposition to the War Powers Act, he’s hardly the only president to appear critical. Modern presidents have routinely sidestepped the act, using creative legal arguments to work around its requirements.

The executive branch has since steadily expanded its war-making powers, particularly after the September 11, 2001, attacks.

The 2001 AUMF and the 2002 Iraq AUMF have been used to justify attacks on “terrorist groups” in at least 19 countries, according to the Friends Committee on National Legislation.

“The executive branch has stretched this authorization to cover groups that had no connection to the 9/11 attacks, including those such as ISIS [ISIL], which did not even exist at the time,” Heather Brandon-Smith, the nonprofit’s legislative director of foreign policy, wrote in a briefing.

And while organisations like the International Crisis Group have urged a rehaul or repeal of the AUMF, successive administrations have shown little interest in doing so. In recent years, congressional efforts to repeal the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs have only begun chipping away at the acts.

The Senate in 2023 voted to repeal the 2001 AUMF although the move was largely viewed as symbolic. The House similarly voted to repeal the 2002 AUMF in 2021. But both laws still remain in effect.

Can the War Powers Act stop Trump from going to war with Iran?

That remains to be seen, but it does not seem likely.

During Trump’s first term in office, Congress sought to limit presidential war authority for the first time since the Vietnam War.

In 2019, Congress approved a bill to end US support for the Saudi-United Arab Emirates war in Yemen, which Trump quickly vetoed.

A year later, a similar situation played out after Trump ordered the drone strike that killed Soleimani.

In response, both houses of Congress passed legislation seeking to limit a president’s ability to wage war against Iran.

That legislation was vetoed by Trump, and once again, there were not enough Republicans to meet the two-thirds majority necessary in both houses to override the veto.

With the balance of power in Congress since then fully shifting to the Republicans in Trump’s second term, the newest war powers resolutions face an even stiffer battle.

For years in this columna, I have repeatedly posed a simple challenge to Archbishop José H. Gomez:

Stand up for Los Angeles, because L.A. needs you.

The head of the largest Catholic diocese in the United States has largely stood athwart the liberal city he’s supposed to minister since he assumed his seat in 2011 but especially since the COVID-19 pandemic. He has railed against “woke” culture and refused to meet with progressive Catholic groups. When the Dodgers in 2023 honored the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a drag troupe that wears nun’s habits while raising funds for the marginalized, he led a special Mass at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels that amounted to a public exorcism.

Most perplexingly, the Mexico-born archbishop stayed largely quiet as the Herod that’s Donald Trump promised to clamp down on legal immigration and deport people without legal status during his 2024 presidential run. As head of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops at the end of last decade, Gomez wrote and spoke movingly about the need to treat all immigrants with dignity and fix this country’s broken system once and for all. But his gradual turn to the right as archbishop has gone so far that the National Catholic Reporter, where I’m an occasional contributor, labeled him a “failed culture warrior” when they anointed him their Newsmaker for that year.

Gomez’s devolution was especially dispiriting because L.A. Catholic leaders have taught their American peers how to embrace Latino immigrants ever since Archbishop John Cantwell helped refugees from Mexico’s Cristero War resettle in the city in the 1920s. Clerical legends like Luis Olivares and Richard Estrada transformed La Placita Church near Olvera Street into a sanctuary for Central American immigrants during the 1980s and 1990s in the face of threats from the feds. Gomez’s predecessor, Cardinal Roger Mahony, long drew national attention for attacking anti-immigrant legislation during his sermons and marching alongside immigrant rights protesters, a cross to bear that Gomez never warmed up to.

So when L.A. began to push back against Donald Trump’s immigration raids earlier this month only to see an onerous federal crackdown, I expected Gomez to do little even as L.A.-area priests bore witness to what was happening.

Father Gregory Boyle of Homeboy Industries appeared in a viral video proclaiming the righteous, if well-worn, message that no human being is illegal, but also that “we stand with anybody who’s demonized or left out, or excluded, or seen as disposable … it’s kinda how we roll here.” His fellow Jesuit, Dolores Mission pastor Brendan Busse, was there with activists during a June 9 migra raid at a factory in the Garment District that saw SEIU California president David Huerta arrested for civil disobedience.

I especially admired Father Peter O’Reilly, who was a priest in the L.A. Archdiocese for 44 years before retiring in 2005. The 90-year-old cleric was at Gloria Molina Grand Park on June 8, the day protesters torched Waymo cars, just blocks away from the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels. O’Reilly told a television station in his native Ireland afterward that it was important for him be there to let immigrants know “we were with them and for them.”

Gomez? The archbishop put out a weak-salsa statement around that time about how he was “troubled” by the raids. His Instagram account urged people a few days later to light a candle and pray for peace. That same day, Diocese of Orange Bishop Kevin Vann and his auxiliary bishops posted a letter condemning the raids, which they maintained “invoke our worst instincts” and “spread crippling fear and anxieties upon the hard-working, everyday faithful among us.”

You know things are upside-down in this world when O.C. is more down for immigrant rights than L.A.

Faith leaders lead a prayer vigil in Gloria Molina Grand Park on June 10 to stand in support of community members facing immigration raids in Los Angeles.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

I wanted to blast Gomez last week but held back, praying that he might change for the better. So I’m happy to report he’s starting to.

On June 10, the same day he posted his Instagram call for prayer, the archbishop also attended an evening interfaith vigil along with Boyle, Busse and other faith leaders to tell a crowd of over 1,000 people, “Immigration is about more than politics — it is about us, the kind of people we want to be.” Gomez asked all parishes in the L.A. Archdiocese the following day to hold special Masses with L.A.’s current immigration troubles in mind. He led the lunchtime one in the cathedral, telling parishioners during his homily, “We want to go out and console our neighbors and strengthen their hearts and encourage them to keep the faith.”

Gomez saved his most stinging remarks for this Tuesday in his regular column for Angelus News, the archdiocese’s publication. While not able to resist a shot at the Biden administration, the soft-spoken prelate nevertheless said of Trump’s raids: “This is not policy, it is punishment, and it can only result in cruel and arbitrary outcomes.” Accompanying his thoughts was a photo of a young woman holding a sign that read, “Jesus was an Immigrant” in front of California Highway Patrol officers in riot gear.

“For him to show up was meaningful,” Busse said. Since Trump’s inauguration, Dolores Mission has hosted training for the rapid response networks that have alerted people about immigration raids. “But I hope there’s more. The diocese has a huge capacity for organizing, and I hope that his leadership can move people in a large way.”

Busse said the first instinct of too many religious leaders is “to step back into a place of safety” when controversy emerges. “But there’s also an invitation to be brave and courageous. What we need to do is step into the situation to bring the peace that we’re praying for.”

Joseph Tómas McKellar is executive director of PICO California, a faith-based community organizing network that co-sponsored the interfaith vigil last week where Gomez spoke. The nonprofit used to teach citizenship and English classes in the L.A. Archdiocese and McKellar remembered Gomez attending a gathering of social justice groups in Modesto in 2017 as an active participant “in these small group conversations.”

The PICO California head said Gomez’s recent reemergence from his years in the political wilderness “was deeply encouraging. … Our bishops and the leaders of our denominations have a special responsibility to exercise prophetic leadership. The prophets are the ones who denounce what is broken in this world, but also announce a different vision. I do see him more embracing more that call and that challenge to reflect.”

An archdiocese spokesperson said Gomez was unavailable for comment because he was at a retreat for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Earlier this week , the group released a reflection declaring, “No one can turn a deaf ear to the palpable cries of anxiety and fear heard in communities throughout the country in the wake of a surge in immigration enforcement activities.”

I have no expectations that Archbishop Gomez’s politics will ever fully reflect L.A.’s progressive soul. He remains the only American bishop affiliated with the orthodox Opus Dei movement and sits on the ecclesiastical advisory board for the Napa Institute, an organization of rich Catholics that has labored mightily over the past decade to tilt the church rightward. Its co-founder, Orange County-based multimillionaire developer Tim Busch, wrote earlier this year with no irony that Trump’s administration “is the most Christian I’ve ever seen” and told The Times in 2023 that Gomez “is one of my closest advisors.”

But I’m glad Gomez is moving in the right direction, right when the city needs him the most. I continue to pray his voice gets bolder and stronger and that the region’s millions of Catholics — and all Angelenos, for that matter — follow the archbishop’s call to action to help immigrants while pushing him to do more.

I hope Gomez keeps in his heart what Busse told me near the end of our chat: “If the faith community doesn’t stand up when there’s a moral issue to stand up for, then I don’t know what happens.”

Islamabad, Pakistan – In his first address to a joint session of Congress on March 4 this year, after becoming United States president for a second time, Donald Trump made a striking revelation.

He referred to the deadly Abbey Gate bombing at Kabul airport in August 2021 – which occurred as thousands of Afghans tried to flee following the Taliban takeover – and said the alleged perpetrator had been apprehended.

The country he credited with the arrest: Pakistan. “I want to thank especially the government of Pakistan for helping arrest this monster,” Trump declared.

A little more than three months later, Trump hosted Pakistan’s army chief Asim Munir for lunch at the White House on Wednesday — the first time a US president has hosted a military chief from Pakistan who isn’t also the country’s head of state. Munir is on a five-day trip to the US.

For a country that Trump had, just seven years earlier, accused of giving the US “nothing but lies and deceit” and safe havens to terrorists – and one that his immediate predecessor Joe Biden called “one of the most dangerous nations” – this marks a dramatic shift.

It’s a reset that experts say has been in the making for weeks, under Trump’s second administration, and that was solidified by the brief but intense military confrontation between India and Pakistan in May, during which the US tried to mediate a ceasefire.

Some analysts warn that the evolving relationship should be viewed as a product of Trump’s personal position, rather than institutional policy.

“We are dealing with an administration which changes its tune by the hour. There is no process here,” Marvin Weinbaum, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute (MEI), told Al Jazeera.

“One minute the US has no interest, and the next minute priorities change rapidly. You’re dealing with an administration that is mercurial and personalised, and you don’t associate that with traditional US foreign policy,” he added.

However, others point out that even the optics of Trump hosting Munir are significant.

“Trump’s lunch invite to Pakistan’s army chief isn’t just protocol-breaking, it’s protocol-redefining,” said Raza Ahmad Rumi, a distinguished lecturer at the City University of New York (CUNY). “It signals, quite visibly, that Pakistan is not just on Washington’s radar, it’s in the inner circle, at least for now.”

Reset amid regional crises

The meeting between Trump and Munir came amid heightened tensions in the Middle East, where Israel has been conducting strikes inside Iranian cities since June 13. Iran has retaliated with missile attacks of its own on Israel.

The Israeli offensive – targeting Iranian generals, missile bases, nuclear facilities and scientists – has killed more than 200 people. Iran’s missile and drone attacks on Israel over the past six days have killed about 20 people.

The Benjamin Netanyahu-led Israeli government has been urging the US to join the offensive against Iran, which shares a 900-kilometre-long (559-mile) border with Pakistan.

Speaking to the media in the Oval Office after the lunch with Munir on Wednesday, Trump noted that the Pakistanis “know Iran very well, better than most,” but added that they are “not happy”.

According to Trump, however, the main reason for meeting Munir was to thank him for his role in defusing the May conflict between Pakistan and India, a confrontation that brought the region, home to more than 1.6 billion people, to the brink of nuclear war.

“The reason I had him here was that I wanted to thank him for not going into the war [with India]. And I want to thank PM [Narendra] Modi as well, who just left a few days ago. We’re working on a trade deal with India and Pakistan,” said Trump, who is known to enjoy a warm relationship with Indian leader Modi.

“These two very smart people decided not to keep going with a war that could have been a nuclear war. Pakistan and India are two big nuclear powers. I was honoured to meet him today,” he added, referring to Munir.

The crisis had begun after an April attack in Indian-administered Kashmir that killed 26 Indian civilians. India blamed Pakistan, which denied the charge and called for a “credible, independent, transparent” investigation.

On May 7, India launched strikes inside Pakistani and Pakistan-administered Kashmir territories. Pakistan responded via its air force, claiming to have downed at least six Indian jets. India confirmed losses but did not specify numbers.

The conflict escalated as both sides exchanged drones for three days and eventually launched missiles at military targets on May 10. It ended only after intense backchannel diplomacy, particularly involving the US, led to a ceasefire.

Trump reiterated his role on Wednesday. “I stopped the war between Pakistan and India. This man [Munir] was extremely influential in stopping it from the Pakistan side, Modi from the India side, and others,” he said.

While Pakistan has acknowledged the US role, India insists the ceasefire resulted solely from bilateral dialogue. Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri stated on Tuesday that Indian PM Modi had spoken to Trump by phone to underscore New Delhi’s view that there was no US-led mediation between India and Pakistan.

Arif Ansar, chief strategist at Washington-based advisory firm PoliTact, said Pakistan’s military performance during the confrontation prompted Trump’s engagement.

“It demonstrated that despite its political and economic challenges, the country can outmanoeuvre a much bigger adversary,” Ansar told Al Jazeera. “This has led President Trump to engage with Pakistan’s traditional power centres based on core strategic interests.”

“Opportunity to reassert relevance”

That engagement has a long history.

Pakistan’s relationship with the US dates back to its 1947 independence, after which it aligned with Washington during the Cold War. After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Pakistan supported US objectives there, and the two collaborated closely to support the mujahideen that eventually forced Moscow to pull out its troops.

Subsequently, Pakistan also backed the post-9/11 US “war on terror”.

However, over the years, many within the US strategic community also started questioning Pakistan’s credibility as a reliable security partner, especially after 9/11 architect Osama bin Laden was found in Abbottabad, close to Rawalpindi, home to Pakistan’s military headquarters in 2011.

Since the Taliban’s return to power in August 2021, the strategic partnership has waned further. Pakistan has increasingly turned towards China for economic, military and technological support.

But Weinbaum said that since Trump returned to office, Pakistan has been getting respect that was lacking under the previous Biden administration.

Trump wanted “counterterrorism assistance,” Weinbaum said – and seemingly got it.

On June 10, General Michael E Kurilla, chief of the US Central Command (CENTCOM), detailed how that cooperation led to the capture of the suspected Abbey Gate bomber.

“They [Pakistan] are in an active counterterrorism fight right now, and they have been a phenomenal partner in the counterterrorism world,” Kurilla said, in a testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in Washington, DC.

According to Kurilla, who also oversees the US military’s Middle East operations including Iran, this progress, including the arrest of the Abbey Gate bombing suspect, was made possible due to direct coordination with Pakistan’s army chief. “Field Marshal Asim Munir called me to tell me they had captured one of the Daesh-K [ISKP or ISIS-K] individuals,” he said.

As the icing on the cake for the bilateral relationship, Weinbaum suggested, Pakistan has thrown in “more goodies, such as a trade deal with no tariffs, offering rare earth minerals, and crypto“. Weinbaum previously served as an analyst for Pakistan and Afghanistan in the US State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research.

Rare earth minerals, critical for industries like defence, robotics and electronics, are among Pakistan’s assets now being offered to foreign investors, including the US and Saudi Arabia.

Pakistan has also recently formed a crypto council and held talks with US officials to attract investment and partnerships.

Rumi called the Munir-Trump meeting “historic”.

“The US wants Pakistan’s help in de-risking regional volatility without offering much in return. For Munir, it’s an opportunity to reassert relevance and perhaps negotiate manoeuvring space at home,” he said.

Transactional ties and democratic costs

Historically, Pakistan’s ties with the US have been largely transactional, particularly in the security sphere. US aid and investment often followed Pakistan’s alignment with US strategic goals, helping build its infrastructure and military.

But the relationship has also been marked by distrust, with US administrations accusing Pakistan of double-dealing, while Pakistan claims the US has failed to respect the sacrifices it has made while siding with them.

Whether this latest engagement proves to be another fleeting phase or a more durable alignment remains to be seen, say experts.

Rumi, the New York-based academic, said the US has traditionally engaged Pakistan when it needed to, and retreated when it could.

“Unless this relationship is institutionalised, beyond the security lens with which it is viewed, it’s another tactical romance. And like past dalliances, it could fade once strategic goals are met or regimes change,” he said.

Ansar added that Pakistan again stands on the brink of a major strategic choice amid the global power shift.

“Much depends on whether it leans toward China or the US. That decision is also tied to the evolving Israel-Palestine conflict and the role of Iran,” he said.

But Weinbaum, the former State Department official, described the reset in ties as temporary, as “nothing is permanent in this administration”.

“If Pakistan does play some role in the Iran crisis, they have could have more substantial meaning to these ties. But it needs to be prepared that there is nothing settled with this administration. It can change on a dime, at any hour,” he said.

Power behind the scenes

The military remains Pakistan’s most powerful institution, exerting enormous influence over politics and society.

It has ruled directly for more than three decades, and the current government, elected in a controversial vote last year, is widely seen as secondary to the military leadership under Munir.

This is consistent with historical precedent. Pakistan’s first military ruler, Field Marshal Ayub Khan, had close ties with the US in the 1960s. Subsequent military rulers, including General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq in the 1980s and General Pervez Musharraf in the 2000s, also maintained strong US relations. All three were hosted by US presidents at the White House – but only after they became heads of state.

Munir, now only the second Pakistani to hold the rank of field marshal after Khan, reinforces the perception that Pakistan’s real power remains with the military, despite the presence of a civilian government, say experts.

Still, CUNY’s Rumi said it was important not to “confuse symbolism with transformation”.

“This [Trump-Munir] meeting validates the enduring military-to-military track in US-Pakistan [ties], but it also bypasses the civilian setup, which should worry anyone rooting for democratic consolidation. If this is the “reset,” it’s one where khaki once again trumps ballot,” he cautioned, referring to the colour of the military’s uniform.

Ansar from PoliTact concurred, saying that the meeting reflects adversely on the civil-military balance in Pakistan, as it showed who remains the “real power bearer” in Pakistan.

“In the long run, these dealings in the past have led to tremendous political, economic and security-related repercussions for the nation [Pakistan],” he said.

“But additionally, it has promoted a norm that critical decisions impacting the nation must be made in private without discussion, consensus or public ownership. This results in increased societal and political disillusionment regarding the future of the country.”

Santa Barbara, California – Far away from US President Donald Trump’s public confrontations with elite universities like Harvard and Columbia, students at the bustling University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB) are finishing up their final exams under the sunny skies shining above the nearby beach.

Despite the distance and pleasant weather, students here still feel the cloud of uncertainty hanging over them, created by Trump’s rhetoric and policies towards foreign students.

“The overall mood across the room [among international students] is that people are looking for other options,” said Denis Lomov, a 26-year-old PhD student from Russia who has been at UCSB since 2022 studying climate change politics and energy transitions.

Since coming into office this year, the Trump administration has revoked the student visas of hundreds of foreign nationals, slashed funding for science and research programmes, arrested and tried to deport foreign nationals involved in pro-Palestine campus activism, and suspended student visa appointments.

For international students at universities like UCSB, where nearly 15 percent of all students are from outside the US, the rhetoric and policies have left students wondering about their futures in the country.

“It makes you wonder if maybe you’d rather go somewhere else,” Lomov told Al Jazeera, adding that he is still several years away from completing his PhD.

Like his fellow international students, he said he has started to consider whether his skills might be more valued in places like Canada or Europe after he finishes his programme.

“I think it’s the unpredictability of these policies that makes me fear about the future, both with me being a student, but also after I graduate,” he said.

Lack of certainty

The Trump administration’s actions against universities and foreign students have met mixed results in the courts.

On Monday, in one of the Trump administration’s first significant legal victories in those efforts, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit from Columbia University over the government’s cuts to the university’s federal funding, based on allegations that the university had not taken adequate steps to curb pro-Palestine activism in the name of combatting anti-Semitism on campus.

In another ruling, also on Monday, a judge extended a restraining order pausing Trump’s efforts to block incoming international students from attending Harvard as the case makes its way through the legal system. Trump has also threatened to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status and has frozen more than $2.6bn in research grants. Harvard has also filed a lawsuit challenging those cuts.

Several universities in the UC system, including UCSB, have warned international students against travelling outside of the country, a restriction that poses serious complications for their academic work and their personal lives.

“People are considering whether they’ll be able to go home and visit their families during their programme,” said Anam Mehta, a US national and PhD student at UCSB.

“They’re being extra cautious about what they post online out of concern about being questioned at the airport,” added Mehta, who is also involved with the UAW 4811 academic workers union.

These concerns, he said, could also stymie the ability of international students to conduct field work in foreign countries, a common feature of graduate research, or attend academic conferences abroad.

Some students — and even university administrators themselves — have noted that it is difficult to keep up with the raft of policy announcements, media reports, lawsuits, and counter-lawsuits that have unfolded as Trump presses his attacks on higher education.

“There have been frequent changes and a lot of these policies have been implemented very quickly and without a lot of advanced notice,” Carola Smith, an administrator at Santa Barbara City College (SBCC), said, noting that prospective international students have reached out with questions about whether they are still able to study in the US.

Smith says that between 60 and 70 different national identities are represented on campus and that, in addition to international students paying higher tuition fees than US students, their presence on campus provides a welcome exposure to a wider variety of perspectives for their classmates and creates connections with people from other parts of the world.

With student visa appointments currently suspended, Smith predicted the number of foreign student enrollments could drop by as much as 50 percent in the coming year.

Shifting attitudes

The stress of keeping up with shifting developments has also been paired with a more abstract concern: that the US, once seen as a country that took pride in its status as a global destination for research and academics, has become increasingly hostile to the presence of foreign students.

“Harvard has to show us their lists [of foreign students]. They have foreign students, almost 31 percent of their students. We want to know where those students come from. Are they troublemakers? What countries do they come from?” Trump said in March.

The administration has also said that international students take university spots that could go to US students, in line with a more inward-looking approach to policy that sees various forms of exchange with other countries as a drain on the US rather than a source of mutual benefit.

“They’re arguing that they don’t need international students, that this is talent they should be cultivating here at home,” says Jeffrey Rosario, an assistant professor at Loma Linda University in southern California.

“You can see a throughline between this and their tariffs abroad, based on this form of economic nationalism that says the rest of the world is ripping us off,” added Rosario, who has written about the government’s history of trying to exert influence over universities.

For Lomov, the student from Russia, the atmosphere has him wondering if his skills might find a better home elsewhere.

“I left Russia because I didn’t feel welcome there, and my expertise wasn’t really needed. That’s why I left for the United States, because I knew the United States provides amazing opportunities for academics and research,” said Lomov.

“But now it feels like maybe I’m back in the same place, where I have to leave again.”

June 19 (UPI) — An appeals court on Wednesday ruled against the Justice Department’s attempt to replace President Donald Trump as the defendant in a multimillion-dollar defamation case.

Trump is fighting a 2023 defamation judgment ordering him to pay $83.3 million to writer E. Jean Carroll for denying that he sexually assaulted her at a New York City department store in the mid-1990s.

Though the president denies the assault, he was found liable for sexual abuse and then for defaming her by denying the assault after she made it public.

The Department of Justice had asked the court for permission to substitute itself as the defendant in the appeal under the Westfall Act, a mechanism that allows the United States to defend claims against federal officers and employees when the alleged offense occurred within the scope of their duties.

Federal prosecutors argued that Trump was president during his first term in 2017 when he first denied sexually abusing Carroll.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its denial of the Justice Department’s request in a brief order Wednesday stating: “The Court will issue an opinion detailing its reasoning in due course.”

The ruling is the latest setback in Trump’s fight against paying Carroll the judgement.

Late last week, the same court rejected Trump’s attempt to get a retrial challenging the $5 million civil judgement he was ordered by a jury to pay Carroll.

Trump has long accused the Justice Department of being politically weaponized against him, and a spokesperson for his legal team issued a statement Wednesday rejecting the ruling.

“The American People are supporting President Trump in historic numbers, and they demand an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and a swift dismissal of all of the Witch Hunts, including the Democrat-funded Carroll Hoaxes, the defense of which the Attorney General has determined is legally required to be taken over by the Department of Justice because Carroll based her false claims on the President’s official acts, including statements from the White House,” the spokesperson said, The Hill reported.

June 18 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Wednesday welcomed members of the Italian Juventus Club World Cup team to the Oval Office as he spoke about a range of topics, including transgender athletes.

The team, which includes Americans Timothy Weah and Weston McKennie, appeared in the White House before playing Al Ain of the United Arab Emrites at Washington, D.C.’s, Audi Field on Wednesday night. Thirty-two teams are competing from last Saturday to July 13 in the United States.

Also on hand were FIFA president Gianni Infantino, Juventus club executives, former player Giorgio Chiellini and head coach Igor Tudor.

They stood behind the president.

Trump turned around and asked them: “Could a woman make your team, fellas.”

They smiled nervously and didn’t respond.

Juventus’ general manager Damien Comolli finally said: “We have a very good women’s team.” They are the reigning Serie A champions.

“But they should be playing with women,” Trump said as Comolli looked at the floor and chose not to answer.

“But they should be playing with women,” Trump replied. “He’s being very diplomatic.”

Transgender athletes have been allowed to compete in the Olympics, including soccer, since 2004 if they meet the eligibility criteria set by their sport’s International Federation. It wasn’t until 2021 that the first openly transgender athletes competed in the Games.

Trump’s executive order that bans transgender participants from women’s sports directs the Secretary of State’s office to pressure the International Olympic to amend standards governing Olympic sporting events “to promote fairness, safety and the best interests of female athletes by ensuring that eligibility for participation in women’s sporting events is determined according to sex and not gender identity or testosterone reduction.”

During the signing ceremony in February, Trump said he wants the International Olympic Committee to “change everything having to do with the Olympics and having to do with this absolutely ridiculous subject” ahead of the 2028 Summer Games in Los Angeles.

Of the more than 500,000 NCAA athletes, only about 40 are known to be transgender, according to Anna Baeth, director of research at research at Athlete Ally, an organization that advocates for LGBTQ equality in sports.

The NCAA later adhered to Trump’s executive order.

Trans people appear to have no advantage in sports, according to an October 2023 review of 2017 research published in the journal Sports Medicine.

Earlier Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Tennessee state law banning gender-affirming care for minors can stand.