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.
Published On 20 Jun 202520 Jun 2025
Published on
20/06/2025 – 8:00 GMT+2
ADVERTISEMENTThe German Aerospace Industries Association (BDLI) wants only completed products aircraft and helicopters to be targeted by the EU for retaliatory tariffs – leaving the market for the supply of parts unscathed – if trade negotiations between the EU and the US founder, the group has told Euronews. It’s position aligns it with the French sector’s stance.
“If the EU must respond, counter-tariffs should focus strictly on fully finished aerospace end products – such as complete aircraft and helicopters – and explicitly exclude spare parts or critical products,” BDLI said in an email to Euronews. “This is essential to avoid unintended harm to European and global production networks.”
US aircraft are included in the European Commission’s draft listof €95 billion worth of US products that could face duties if ongoing negotiations fail. The list was open for industry consultation until 10 June and now awaits approval by EU member states.
BDLI’s position mirrors that of Airbus CEO Guillaume Faury, who also chairs the French aerospace association GIFAS. Speaking to French media in May, Faury backed tariffs on finished aircraft but warned against measures affecting spare parts, to avoid disrupting the global supply chain.
A source familiar with the matter told Euronews that the French government supports the stance of its aerospace industry.
In response to the EU’s inclusion of aircraft in its draft retaliation list, the US has launched an investigation that could pave the way for the Trump administration to impose additional tariffs on the EU aerospace sector.
Trade tensions between the EU and the US risk reignitingthe long-standing rivalry between aerospace giants Boeing and Airbus. However, the two economies’ production systems are tightly intertwined. For instance, the LEAP engine, used in both Airbus and Boeing jets, is co-produced by US-based General Electric and France’s Safran.
Aircraft remain a central issue in ongoing EU-US negotiations. Following a discussion with US President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Canada on Monday, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said both leaders had directed their teams to accelerate negotiation.
EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič also met with US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer on Monday, on the margins of the G7. A follow-up meeting with US counterparts is scheduled to take place in Washington on Thursday and Friday, an EU spokesperson confirmed.
The US currently imposes tariffs of 50% on EU steel and aluminium, 25% on cars, and 10% on all other EU imports. President Trump has warned he will raise tariffs on all EU imports to 50% if no “fair” agreement is reached by 9 July.
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.
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”.
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 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.
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.”
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.
Published On 20 Jun 202520 Jun 2025
A White House spokesperson has delivered a message from President Trump, saying he will decide whether to attack Iran “within the next two weeks”. Karoline Leavitt says US and Iranian officials are still in contact and US action rests on the outcome of talks.
Published On 19 Jun 202519 Jun 2025
A retired Nicaraguan military officer who later became a critic of President Daniel Ortega has been killed in a shooting at his condominium in Costa Rica, where he lives in exile.
The death of Roberto Samcam, 67, on Thursday has heightened concern about the safety of Nicaraguan dissidents, even when they live abroad.
Police in Costa Rica have confirmed that a suspect entered Samcam’s condominium building in the capital of San Jose at approximately 7:30am local time (13:30 GMT) and shot the retired major at least eight times.
Costa Rica’s Judicial Investigation Organisation identified the murder weapon as a 9mm pistol. Samcam’s wife, Claudia Vargas, told the Reuters news agency that the suspect pretended to be a delivery driver to gain access to her husband.
The suspect allegedly fired on Samcam and then left without saying a word, escaping on a motorcycle. He remains at large.
Samcam went into exile after participating in the 2018 protests, which began as demonstrations against social security reforms and escalated into one of the largest antigovernment movements in Nicaragua’s history.
Thousands of people flooded Nicaragua’s streets. Some even called for President Ortega’s resignation.
But while Ortega did ultimately cancel the social security reforms, he also answered the protests with a police crackdown, and the clashes killed an estimated 355 people, according to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR).
More than 2,000 people were injured, and another 2,000 held in what the IACHR described as “arbitrary detention”.
In the months and years after the protests, Ortega has continued to seek punishment for the protesters and institutions involved in the demonstrations, which he likened to a “coup”.
Samcam was among the critics denouncing Ortega’s use of military weapons and paramilitary forces to tamp down on the protests. Ortega has denied using either for repression.
In a 2019 interview with the publication Confidencial, for instance, he compared Ortega to Anastasio Somoza Debayle, the last member of what is commonly known as the Somoza family dictatorship, which ruled Nicaragua for nearly 43 years.
And in 2022, Samcam published a book that roughly called Ortega: El Calvario de Nicaragua, which roughly translates to: Ortega: Nicaragua’s torment.
Ortega has long been accused of human rights abuses and authoritarian tendencies. In 2023, for instance, he stripped hundreds of dissidents of their citizenship, leaving them effectively stateless, and seized their property.
He has also pushed for constitutional reforms to increase his power and that of his wife, former Vice President Rosario Murillo. She now leads with Ortega as his co-president.
The changes also increase Ortega’s term in office and grant him the power to coordinate all “legislative, judicial, electoral, control and supervisory bodies” — putting virtually all government agencies under his authority.
From abroad, Samcam was helping to lead an effort to document some of Ortega’s alleged abuses.
In 2020, he became the chain-of-command expert for the Court of Conscience, a group created by the Arias Foundation for Peace and Human Progress, a nonprofit founded by a Nobel Prize-winning Costa Rican president, Oscar Arias.
As part of the group, Samcam solicited testimony of torture and abuses committed under Ortega, with the aim of building a legal case against the Nicaraguan president and his officials.
“We are documenting each case so that it can move on to a trial, possibly before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,” Samcam said at the time.
Samcam is not the only Nicaraguan dissident to face an apparent assassination attempt while in exile.
Joao Maldonado, a student leader in the 2018 protests, has survived two such attempts while living in the Costa Rican capital. The most recent one, in January 2024, left him and his partner seriously injured.
Maldonado has blame Nicaragua’s Sandinista National Liberation Front — which Ortega leads — for the attack.
Israel’s attacks on Gaza have not let up since it also began attacking Iran. Hundreds of Palestinians have been killed in recent days, including dozens seeking aid and families who were bombed in displacement tents.
Published On 19 Jun 202519 Jun 2025
Global fears rise over nuclear risk from confrontation in the Middle East.
Israel says that ending Iran’s nuclear programme is a key aim of its attacks on the country.
Israel is widely believed to have nuclear arms, but has never admitted that.
So, what are the nuclear capabilities of both sides, and what are the risks from this conflict?
Presenter: Laura Kyle
Guests:
Dan Smith – Director at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Sahil Shah – Nuclear weapons policy analyst in London
Rebecca Johnson – Director at the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy and former senior adviser to Dr Hans Blix, who was formerly the top UN weapons inspector in Iraq and an IAEA chief
The men provided financial assistance to al-Shabab fighters who attacked the DusitD2 complex in Nairobi, killing 21 people.
A Kenyan court has sentenced two men to 30 years in prison for aiding al-Shabab fighters who were behind a deadly attack in Nairobi that left 21 people dead in 2019.
On Thursday, Judge Diana Kavedza Mochache ruled that Hussein Mohammed Abdile and Mohamed Abdi Ali played a critical role by helping two of the attackers escape from a refugee camp using fake identity cards. The pair also provided financial assistance to the group.
“Without financiers, facilitators and sympathisers, terrorists cannot actualise their activities,” the judge said during sentencing, stressing that their support made the attack possible.
“The convicts may not have physically wielded the weapons that caused harm to the victims, but their facilitation directly enabled attackers who were heavily armed with guns, grenades and suicide vests,” Kavedza said.
“This was not a crime with isolated harm; 21 lives were lost,” she added, acknowledging statements from survivors about their ongoing psychological struggles.
“The emotional scars of the attack run deep,” she said.
Abdile and Ali were convicted last month for facilitating and conspiring to commit a “terrorist” act. Both men denied the charges and now have 14 days to appeal.
The assault on the upmarket DusitD2 complex in the Kenyan capital began on January 15, 2019, when gunmen stormed the compound and opened fire.
Security forces launched an operation that lasted more than 12 hours. The government later announced that all the attackers had been killed.
Al-Shabab, an armed group linked to al-Qaeda, claimed responsibility, saying the assault was in retaliation for then-United States President Donald Trump’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
The siege was the first major attack in Nairobi since the 2013 Westgate mall massacre, which killed 67. In 2015, al-Shabab also attacked Garissa University, killing 148 people.
Since Westgate, high-end venues in the capital have ramped up security, including vehicle and pedestrian checks.
The DusitD2 complex, like Westgate, catered to wealthy Kenyans and foreign nationals, groups often targeted by al-Shabab.
The Somalia-based group has repeatedly struck inside Kenya, aiming to force the withdrawal of Kenyan troops from Somalia, where they are part of a regional force battling the rebellion.
Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto said that the relationship between the two countries was ‘getting stronger again’.
Russian President Vladimir Putin met his Indonesian counterpart Prabowo Subianto as Moscow bids to strengthen ties in the Global South amid Western efforts to isolate the country following its war on Ukraine.
On Thursday, Putin and Prabowo met in the Russian city of St Petersburg and signed a declaration on strategic partnership.
Danatara, Indonesia’s sovereign wealth fund, and the Russian Direct Investment Fund, whose CEOs were also in Saint Petersburg, signed an agreement to create an investment fund worth 2 billion euros ($2.29bn).
In a statement after the talks, Prabowo said that the relationship between the two countries was “getting stronger again”.
“My meeting with President Putin today was intense, warm and productive. In all fields of economics, technical cooperation, trade, investment, agriculture – they all have experienced significant improvements,” he said.
Moreover, during the meeting at the Konstantin Palace, Putin acknowledged Indonesia’s entry into the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) grouping of emerging economies as a full member.
“Our relations with Indonesia are developing steadily. Trade turnover is growing. We have good prospects in a number of promising and very interesting areas of cooperation,” Putin said, according to Russian state news outlet TASS.
“This includes agriculture, space, and energy, as well as military-technical cooperation. Our interaction is very great, and it is growing,” he added.
As Southeast Asia’s largest economy relies primarily on coal as a source of power, despite its massive potential for renewable energy sources such as hydro, solar, and geothermal, Indonesia is seeking to boost power generation while capping its carbon emissions, considering nuclear power as a solution.
With Jakarta maintaining a neutral foreign policy, it has walked a delicate balance between regional competitors, China and the United States.
But Prabowo, who came to power last year, has looked to diversify the country’s alliances instead of relying heavily on Western partners.
His decision to skip the G7 summit in Canada this week in favour of talks with Putin raised fears of a tilt towards Moscow, analysts have said, after the two countries held their first joint naval drills last year.
Meanwhile, the Russian leader said that on Friday, he and Prabowo will take part in the plenary session of the St Petersburg International Economic Forum.
Who: Bayern Munich (Germany) vs Boca Juniors (Argentina)
What: FIFA Club World Cup, Group C, Matchday 2
Where: Hard Rock Stadium in Miami, Florida, United States
When: Kickoff is at 9pm on Friday (01:00 GMT on Saturday)
How to follow our coverage: We’ll have all the build-up from 5pm local (21:00 GMT on Friday) on Al Jazeera Sport.
Group C leaders Bayern Munich clash with Argentina mega club Boca Juniors in the second matchday for each side at the FIFA Club World Cup (CWC) in the United States.
Victory for Bayern would ensure they qualify for the knockout stages, beginning on June 28.
After a draw in their opening match, Boca Juniors have it all to play for if they also want to progress to the last 16 of the tournament and will need to defeat Bayern to draw level on points at the top of Group C.
Bayern Munich began their campaign in record-breaking fashion, becoming the first team to score double digits in a single CWC game when they thumped Auckland City 10-0 on Sunday.
German international Jamal Musiala marked his return from injury with a brilliant second-half hat-trick in a commanding team display.
Boca Juniors played out a 2-2 draw with Benfica on Monday in a feisty encounter that resulted in three red cards.
The Buenos Aires side were ahead 2-0 just before half-time but let the three points slip after squandering the lead to the Portuguese side.
Boca Juniors players Ander Herrera and Nicolas Figal were handed four-match bans by FIFA after being sent off in their CWC opener, a spokesperson for the Argentinian club said on Wednesday.
Boca disagreed with the sanctions imposed on their players after Benfica’s Andrea Belotti received a two-match ban for catching Ayrton Costa in the head with a high boot in the 72nd minute.
“We have already contacted FIFA to submit an appeal,” a club spokesperson said.
Spanish midfielder Herrera, who was subbed off due to a muscle injury, was shown a red card in the 45th minute after protesting to Mexican referee Cesar Ramos from the bench over a penalty awarded to the Portuguese side.
Defender Figal was sent off in the 88th minute with a straight red card for a foul on Florentino Luis when the match was tied at 2-2.
The teams last met on November 27, 2001, in the knockout stage of the FIFA Intercontinental Cup in Tokyo, Japan.
The contest was billed as a clash of the super clubs between the then-two-time Copa Libertadores champion Boca Juniors taking on the might of the newly crowned UEFA Champions League winners, Bayern Munich.
Bayern beat Boca 1-0 in extra time courtesy of a 109th minute strike by Samuel Kuffour.
Friday’s match will be only the fourth time they’ve played in 100 years.
Out: Hiroki Ito (metatarsal fracture), Alphonso Davies (cruciate ligament tear), Kim Min-jae (foot injury)
Doubtful: none
Manager Vincent Kompany has a full squad available to him and is expected to field a similar starting XI to the side that thrashed Auckland.
Star forward Harry Kane, who failed to score in the goal fest against Auckland City, is again expected to lead the line.
Out: Sergio Romero (knee injury)
Doubtful: none
Suspended: Herrera, Figal
Boca Juniors manager Miguel Russo has two large holes to fill with former Manchester United star Herrera and Figal both suspended until the semifinal stage of the tournament.
Tomas Belmonte replaced Herrera in the midfield against Benfica and is a near-certainty to get the start in the key central midfield role. Figal’s role in the back four will likely be occupied by Marcos Rojo.
Russo is expected to deploy the same 4-2-3-1 set-up, just as he did against Benfica.
Bayern Munich: Neuer; Laimer, Tah, Upamecano, Guerreiro; Kimmich, Pavlovic; Olise, Musiala, Coman; Kane
Boca Juniors: Marchesin; Advincula, Rojo, Costa, Blanco; Belmonte, Battaglia; Zenon, Velasco, Palacios; Zeballos
Bayern Munich (all competitions, most recent first):
W-W-D-W-W
Boca Juniors (all competitions, most recent first):
W-L-D-W-L
The match will be played at the 65,000-capacity Hard Rock Stadium in Miami, Florida.
The venue is home to the legendary Miami Dolphins NFL franchise and stages the Miami Tennis Open annually.
Manuela Neuer, Bayern Munich goalkeeper:
“We’re definitely expecting a good atmosphere. We saw how the match against Benfica went,” Neuer told fcbayern.com.
“We’re getting more and more focused as the game approaches. In terms of analysis of the opposition too, we know exactly what we’ll need in the match. We keep increasing the intensity before reducing it a little on the day before the match because the temperatures too play a role.”
Miguel Russo, Boca Juniors manager:
“We have to be up to the task. It will be a physical match like [against Benfica].
“They’re [Bayern Munich are] a big opponent. Historically, they’ve won a lot. But Argentine football is big too. … We welcome these challenges. But we have to know that Friday’s game will be tougher than today’s [vs Benfica].”
The total prize pot is $1bn with the champions earning up to $125m.
About half of the $1bn will be divided between the 32 clubs with the amount per club based on sporting and commercial criteria. It means that clubs such as Manchester City and Real Madrid will receive a greater percentage than smaller clubs in a model FIFA developed with the European Club Association.
A further $475m will be awarded on a performance-related basis. Hence, the team with the most wins over a potential seven matches will bank more cash with a maximum pot of $125m available.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Published on
19/06/2025 – 17:15 GMT+2
ADVERTISEMENTUS tech giants Apple and Meta will not face sanctions immediately for failure to meet obligations under the EU’s digital rulebook, an EU spokesperson told Euronews.
In April, the Commission fined Apple €500 million and Meta €200 million for non-compliance with the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and gave both companies 60 days to bring their practices in line with EU rules. That grace period ends on 26 June, after which they risk periodic penalty payments.
According to the spokesperson, financial penalties will not be applied automatically but only after the Commission conducts a preliminary analysis and shares its findings with the two tech giants as part of an ongoing exchange process.
Apple was fined €500 million for preventing developers from directing users to alternative offers or content outside its platform—an action deemed contrary to DMA rules.
Meta received a €200 million fine for its “pay or consent” model, which the Commission found problematic. The model forces users to either consent to the use of their personal data for targeted advertising or pay for an ad-free subscription—limiting user choice.
In response, Meta introduced a revised version of its personalised advertising model in November 2024, which uses less personal data. The Commission is still evaluating this system while continuing its discussions with the company.
Compared to past antitrust enforcement, the fines issued in April were relatively modest. Under former EU Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, tech giants were subject to more substantial penalties.
In April, EU officials explained that the lower fines reflected the short duration of the violations since the DMA implementation started in 2023 and the Commission’s current focus on achieving compliance rather than punishing breaches.
US digital services have been drawn into the trade war that has been escalating between the US and the EU since mid-March. In response to US tariffs, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has threatened to impose a tax on digital advertising revenues.
Meanwhile, a report by the US Trade Representative, published in early April, labelled EU digital regulations as a barrier to US exports.
The DMA is designed to prevent dominant digital platforms from abusing their market power. It aims to open up digital ecosystems controlled by Big Tech and ensure users enjoy real freedom of choice online.
We compare and contrast the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq over alleged weapons of mass destruction with Israel’s military
Source link
Book Review
El Dorado Drive
By Megan Abbott
G.P. Putnam’s Sons: 368 pages, $30
If you buy books linked on our site, The Times may earn a commission from Bookshop.org, whose fees support independent bookstores.
Leave it to Megan Abbott to tap into the American zeitgeist and play on her readers’ fears like a conductor leading a doomsday orchestra. As high school and college graduates across the country celebrate the completion of a major milestone, they — and their nervous parents — are looking ahead to a future marked by political uncertainty and economic insecurity.
In an eerie echo, Abbott begins “El Dorado Drive,” her 11th novel, with a graduation party at the beginning of the Great Recession. Though the party is not a lavish affair — just a gathering for friends and family in the backyard of a rental property on El Dorado Drive in Grosse Pointe, Mich. — it’s more than Pam Bishop can afford, and every one of her guests knows it.
Any party, no matter how modest, reminds Pam and her two older sisters, Debra and Harper, of all that they’ve lost. Born into a world of wealth and privilege thanks to Detroit’s automotive-fueled postwar prosperity, the Bishop sisters — along with their parents, their peers and their children — watched it all disappear during the decline of the American automobile industry.
Pam’s ramshackle rental on El Dorado Drive, though several steps down from the home she grew up in or the mansion she moved into when she got married, is a symbol of the reckless pursuit of wealth that destroys those who can’t see through the illusion.
“When you grow up in comfort and it all falls away — and your parents with it — money isn’t about money,” Abbott writes. “It’s about security, freedom, independence, a promise of wholeness. All those fantasies, illusions. Money was rarely about money.”
For Pam’s ex-husband, Doug Sullivan, money is a game to be played in order to get what he wants, and he will stop at nothing to get it. But when Pam is brutally murdered in the opening pages, he emerges as a prime suspect. The first half of the novel backtracks from the discovery of Pam’s body to the graduation party nine months prior, when each Bishop sister is struggling with serious financial hardship.
Locked in an acrimonious divorce with no end in sight, Pam doesn’t know how she’s going to pay her son’s college tuition or handle her rebellious teenage daughter alone. The oldest sister, Debra, is buried under a mountain of medical bills while her husband suffers through another round of chemotherapy and her son slips away in a cloud of marijuana smoke. Harper, the middle child, struggles to make ends meet while rebounding from a relationship that ended in heartbreak.
The solution to their money problems arrives in the form of a secret investment club called the Wheel. Run for and by women who have fallen on hard times, the program is simple but sketchy. It costs $5,000 to join, but once the new members recruit five new participants, they are “gifted” five times their initial buy-in.
If this sounds too good to be true, you have more sense than the Bishop sisters. Such is their desperation they don’t quite allow themselves to see this is a fairly basic pyramid scheme that depends on fresh blood — and their bank accounts — to keep the Wheel turning.
The novel follows Harper, the outsider in the family, due to the fact that she’s never married nor had children. She’s not part of the community, either, because she’s recently returned to Grosse Pointe after time away to mend her broken heart. The first half of the novel concerns the Bishops’ dynamics and their found family in the Wheel, which operates like a combination of a cult and a recovery group for women who’ve lost everything.
At a moment of vulnerability, Harper is buttonholed by an old classmate named Sue. “It’s called the Wheel because it never stops moving,” Sue said. Twice a month, we meet. A different member hosts each time, and the meetings were just parties, really. And at these parties, they took turns giving and receiving gifts to one another. To lift one another up. As women should, as they must.”
Behind the rhetoric of sisterhood lurks avarice and greed. When Harper asks Pam if anyone ever left the group after just one turn of the Wheel, Pam — a true believer — can’t fathom backing out of the group. “Why would anyone do that?” she asks.
The answer proves to be her undoing, and the second half of “El Dorado Drive” follows Harper as she tries to solve her sister’s murder. It’s a classic whodunit story with Harper — who has plenty of secrets of her own — playing the role of the reluctant detective.
Despite the book’s suggestive title, the landscape is anything but illusory for Abbott, who grew up in Grosse Pointe and spent the first 18 years of her life there. Evoking a rich setting has never been a weakness of Abbott’s stories. Her novels have a hyperreal quality and are often populated by characters churning with desires they cannot manage.
Abbott is especially adept at rendering the hot, messy inner lives of young people and at making a book’s backstory as suspenseful as the narrative engine that drives the plot. In “El Dorado Drive,” however, the focus is on adults, and the past mostly stays in the past. The result is a novel in which the story is straightforward and the stakes are low. Nevertheless, true to her penchant for shocking violence, Abbott delivers a revolting revelation that sets up a series of twists that propels the story to its inevitable, but no less satisfying, conclusion.
But then there’s the matter of the Wheel. When we watch a video of people in a boat who are drinking, carrying on and disobeying the rules of the road, we don’t feel badly for them when they end up in the water, no matter how spectacular the crash, because they brought it on themselves.
The same logic applies to the participants in the Wheel. We can empathize with the calamities that prompted these characters to take such foolish chances, but we would never make those choices ourselves.
Or would we?
One could argue that our era will be defined not by whether the American dream lives or dies but by the questionable choices of our political leaders and, by extension, the people who elected them. We may not know where we’ll be tomorrow, but Abbott knows wagering that the wheel of grift, greed and corruption will keep on turning is always a safe bet.
Ruland is the author of the novel “Make It Stop” and the weekly Substack Message from the Underworld.
A proposed 3.5% remittance tax on money sent from the US to noncitizens abroad has sent shockwaves through countries that rely on international transfers.
Part of the “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act currently before the US Senate, the levy would affect 40 million to 50 million noncitizens in the US, including undocumented migrants as well as green card and visa holders, with those from India, Mexico, China, and the Philippines particularly exposed. Some experts suggest the effect would be enough to send Mexico’s economy into a recession this year.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has called the bill “unacceptable” and vowed to negotiate with the US. “We don’t want there to be a tax,” she said at a press conference. “We’re going to keep working so there is no tax on the remittances our compatriots send to their families in Mexico.”
Over 80% of remittances from the US to other countries are used for consumption, especially daily groceries, health, housing, and education; and any tax would adversely affect the receiv- ing country’s economy. A report by the Inter-American Dialogue warned that the tax could lead to a 7% decrease in remittances, impact trade, increase migration, and reduce control over foreign currency transfers.
Latin America and the Caribbean received $160.9 billion in remittances in 2024, with Mexico alone accounting for $64.7 billion. In the Central American Northern Triangle of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, heavily represented among undocumented persons entering the US, remittances make up 20% to 27% of national GDP. The tax would cost the three countries almost $2 billion a year, based on 2024 figures.
Honduran Deputy Foreign Minister Antonio Garcia described the tax as “a bucket of cold water” for Honduran migrants.
Caribbean governments have pointed out that the bill threatens to lower international reserves of dollars. This has been a long-term problem in the region and has prompted some credit card issuers to lower limits to $100 for new applications.
The bill has until September 30 to pass and could face legal opposition over provisions that affect vulnerable communities and international treaties. Proponents suggest that the tax gives the US a slice of the estimated $905 billion remittance industry. A remittance tax would not be unprecedented, however. Oklahoma imposed the first state tax on international transfers—1% on every $500 sent—in 2009.
Israeli social media users have gone viral for videos mocking an Iranian TV anchor whose live broadcast was interrupted by an Israeli bombing, mimicking her clothes and her reaction to the attack. Some comments criticised the videos as a ‘despicable’ celebration of war crimes.
Published On 19 Jun 202519 Jun 2025
The United States National Hurricane Center has warned of the risk of ‘life-threatening flooding and mudslides’.
Hurricane Erick has become an “extremely dangerous” Category 4 storm, hours before it is expected to pummel Mexico’s Pacific coastline, the United States National Hurricane Center (NHC) has said.
In its latest bulletin, the meteorological centre said Erick could grow even more powerful before making landfall in the eastern part of Guerrero state and the western part of Oaxaca state on Thursday morning.
The major storm, which is travelling to the northwest at a rate of 15km/h (nine mph), will unleash destructive winds, flash floods and a dangerous storm surge, forecasters have predicted.
As it neared Mexico, the NHC reported that the hurricane’s maximum sustained winds had increased to about 230km/h (145mph), putting it within the Category 4 wind speed range of 209-251km/h (130-156mph).
The NHC warned that Erick could unleash up to 16 inches (40cm) of rain on Oaxaca and Guerrero, bringing the risk of “life-threatening flooding and mudslides, especially in areas of steep terrain”.
The Mexican states of Chiapas, Michoacan, Colima and Jalisco could also be hit by up to 6 inches of rainfall, the Miami-based centre added.
Late on Wednesday, Erick’s projected path was revised, as it is headed closer to the resort city of Puerto Escondido in Oaxaca. A hurricane warning is in place for the entire coastal area between Acapulco and Puerto Angel.
Mexican authorities have scrambled to prepare residents and tourists ahead of Erick’s arrival. In a video message on Wednesday night, President Claudia Sheinbaum urged people to stay at home or move to shelters if they were in low-lying areas.
Some 2,000 temporary shelters have been set up in the states of Chiapas, Guerrero and Oaxaca to house those who have to leave their homes.
Meanwhile, Guerrero Governor Evelyn Salgado said that schools in her state would stay closed, and that fishing and tourism operators had been told to make their boats storm ready.
Residents in the Guerrero resort of Acapulco were among those steeling themselves for Erick’s landfall.
The city of almost one million people was devastated in October 2023 by Hurricane Otis, which killed at least 52 people and destroyed many homes and businesses.
Carlos Ozuna Romero, 51, lost his restaurant at the edge of an Acapulco beach in the 2023 hurricane. On Wednesday, he oversaw workers as they stored tables and chairs in preparation for the new storm.
“Authorities’ warnings fill us with fear and obviously make us remember everything we’ve already been through,” he said.
Elsewhere in the city, Veronica Gomez, a 40-year-old shipping company worker, suggested the city was much better prepared this time. “Now it’s not going to catch us by surprise,” she said.
Erick is likely to rapidly weaken as it reaches the mountains, and it is predicted to dissipate on Thursday night or early Friday, according to the NHC.
Iran launched a missile attack against Israel, causing severe damage and striking Israel's main hospital in the south.
Source link
The Russian president says Iran’s nuclear programme continues and society remains united behind political leadership.
Russian President Vladimir Putin declined to comment on speculation that Israel or the United States may try to assassinate Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and continued to push for a political solution to the Iran-Israel conflict during a meeting with international journalists.
“If I may, I hope that this will be the most correct answer to your question. I do not even want to discuss this possibility. I do not want to,” he said in response to questions about Khamenei on Thursday from the sidelines of the Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said earlier this week that the conflict could lead to regime change in Iran, where Israeli attacks have targeted senior military leaders and top nuclear scientists.
Israeli strikes have killed at least 585 people, among them 239 civilians, since last Friday, according to a US-based Iranian human rights group.
US President Donald Trump earlier said that Washington knew the location of Khamenei. He said the US would not act for now, although he has not ruled out the possibility that the US may join Israel’s attack on Iran.
Despite the threats from Netanyahu, Putin said that Iranian society remains united behind its government.
“We see that today in Iran, with all the complexity of the internal political processes taking place there … that there is a consolidation of society around the country’s political leadership,” he said.
The Russian leader has presented himself in recent days as a possible mediator between the two sides, although his overtures have been rebuffed by world leaders like Trump due to Moscow’s close ties with Tehran.
Despite the roadblocks, Putin has continued to push for a peaceful resolution that would need to ensure Iran’s “peaceful nuclear activities” and the “interests of Israel from the point of view of the unconditional security of the Jewish state”.
“This is a delicate issue, and of course, we need to be very careful here, but in my opinion, a solution can be found,” he said.
Russia has yet to supply Iran with weapons, despite signing a strategic partnership in January, he said, although it continues to help with Iran’s nuclear programme. Tehran says this programme is designed for civilian use and has consistently denied seeking a bomb, but Israel claims Iran intends to build a nuclear weapon.
Putin said Tehran’s nuclear programme continues underground despite the recent Israeli air strikes.
“These underground factories, they exist, nothing has happened to them,” Putin said.
Putin also said that more than 200 Russians continue to work at the Russian-built Bushehr nuclear power plant in southern Iran. The group is safe, he said, after Moscow “agreed with the leadership of Israel that their security would be ensured”.