The Trump administration has been on a crusade against clean energy, and the costs are adding up. The White House has spent billions to steer energy companies away from wind power while simultaneously increasing coal subsidies. U.S. taxpayers, meanwhile, are dealing with ever-rising electricity bills and gas prices. Critics say something has to give.

What did the commentators say?

Trump is “forcing higher bills” on American energy consumers, former Washington Gov. Jay Inslee said to The Guardian. The administration has “directly spent $2.7 billion of taxpayer money,” the outlet said, paying energy companies to “cancel a total of eight offshore wind projects” while at the same time “pouring $1.125 billion into boosting coal” by retrofitting and expanding capacity at older coal-powered power plants.

Those and other White House changes to energy policies “could lead to households paying an average of $460 extra per year for energy costs” by 2035, said Newsweek, citing a new report from think tank Energy Innovation. Administration officials dispute that estimate. Trump has “rolled back burdensome regulations and bolstered U.S. energy production to lower prices for American families,” a spokesperson said to Newsweek.

The president in 2024 “promised to cut electric bills in half,” said CNN. The Energy Innovation report shows that he is “doing the opposite.” Electricity bills have “spiked nationwide by 7.4% since last fall,” and more than a dozen states are experiencing “double-digit increases year-over-year.” The attempt to back a resurgence of coal will also prove costly. Coal power is “more expensive than natural gas and renewables,” which will result in “higher power bills for consumers.”

“The strangest part of Trump’s wind buyouts is the way it ignores the law of supply and demand,” Paul Wesslund said at the Louisville Courier Journal. It is “bad economics” as well as “bad politics” to respond to the nation’s growing energy needs by cutting supply and raising prices during an affordability crisis. Wind and solar farms “don’t need constant refueling” but do have “shorter construction times” that make it easier to bring new projects online “as fast as possible.” Trump’s logic in killing off such projects is “just a lot of hot air.”

What next?

More than 200 clean energy projects have been canceled since the start of 2025, said Fast Company. The thwarted production has cost roughly “half a million jobs” and tens of billions in lost growth and tax revenues. But the clean energy economy has not “come to a stop.” More than 90% of new power plants in 2025 were solar, wind or battery plants, and the number is expected to grow this year. Because of Trump’s crackdown, however, the “pace is much slower than it otherwise would have been.”

Green power sources will “continue to grow,” E2’s Michael Timberlake said to Fast Company. But White House energy policies will cause the U.S. to “miss out on a lot of investments and a lot of manufacturing opportunities.”

Donald Trump used a prime-time address to the nation to allege Chinese interference in US elections in a move that looks to undermine voter confidence ahead of November’s midterms.

The White House released documents alleging that “over a period of years, starting during the 2020 election cycle” the Chinese government carried out “what is believed to be the largest compromise of election data in history, resulting in China’s illicit acquisition of 220 million US voter files”. Trump did not make clear, though, how the alleged Chinese activity could have helped Joe Biden win the 2020 presidential election.

“Raw intelligence obtained by the FBI in 2020, yet buried by rogue bureaucrats, stated that China's activities even included an attempt to manufacture illegal ballots for Joe Biden,” Trump said.

While China has denied the allegations, “none of the declassified information supports the claim that any previous election results – including the 2020 presidential contest that Trump lost – were manipulated by foreign interference or fraud in a way that would’ve changed the outcome”, said Marshall Cohen and Kevin Liptak on CNN.

What did the commentators say?

The speech “marked a striking effort by Trump to marshal the resources of the intelligence community to support his claims about election meddling and legislative agenda to tighten voter registration rules”, said Lauren Fedor in the Financial Times.

It’s true that “foreign powers do, in fact, try to influence American elections”, said Tom Nichols in The Atlantic. But that “was about all that the president – who seems shocked that other nations have preferences about who wins elected office in the United States – got right”.

The classified revelations, despite what Trump tried to claim, in fact “show that the intelligence community didn’t even agree” that China was fully engaged even in a more limited campaign of influence.

In his address Trump was plainly looking “to soothe his wounded ego over the 2020 election”. But he also might have “a darker motive”. In “attacking the integrity of American elections”, Trump could be seeking to delegitimise the upcoming midterms “and perhaps even create the predicate for interfering in them”.

In his address, Trump has “destroyed any confidence in the integrity of US elections for Americans inclined to believe him”, said Ed Kilgore in New York Magazine. In doing so he has set up “a certain challenge to any midterm results adverse to his party”. When Republicans “desperately needed him to make concrete proposals for improvements in living costs”, Trump instead “dragged the GOP down the election denial rabbit hole farther than ever”.

What next?

Republican politicians who would like the president to focus on the cost of living “have been wary of Trump’s unrelenting claims about flaws in the electoral system”, said the FT.

Senate majority leader John Thune “has resisted pressure from the White House to scrap Senate rules” in an effort by Trump to push through the Save America Act. This would require proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections, among other measures.

The accusations Trump made could also “complicate a fragile trade truce between the US and China”, said CNBC, while also “casting a shadow over Chinese President Xi Jinping upcoming visit to Washington” in late September.

Just days away from her expected departure, Rachel Reeves defended her legacy to the “great and the good of the City” in the annual Mansion House speech, said the Financial Times.

Her “valedictory” address claimed successes in reduced government borrowing and lower NHS waiting lists. “Loud applause and even whoops of support from guests” indicated support from the finance sector, too, even if possibly not reflected across the country.

But many in the audience were preoccupied by one question: “who would be in charge of the UK’s fiscal policy next week”?

What did the commentators say?

“Farewell, Rachel Reeves, the blubbing chancellor who made us all cry,” said James Moore in The Independent. According to most polling, she is by far the “most unpopular chancellor on record”. She may have resisted “juvenile attempts” to tax the billionaires advocated by many in her party, but she opted for “one of the worst possible means” to raise funds, in hitting employers with higher National Insurance.

But by far her “darkest legacy” is the “million young people not in education, employment or training”. Ultimately, despite a handful of isolated wins, Reeves has “rarely shown the kind of bravery or instinct needed for this great office”.

Reeves’ record is the worst of “any chancellor of modern times”, said financial columnist Matthew Lynn in The Telegraph. In her Mansion House speech, she primarily presented herself as the only person who could provide stability. “The trouble is, none of it was very convincing.” The economy’s “stagnant” growth only looks “tolerable” in the context of poor performances from other G7 countries, unemployment is on the rise, and debt has “soared” to close to “100% of GDP”. Given her shortcomings, her belated attempts to appeal to Andy Burnham’s regime were “cringey” at best. “It was an embarrassing end to a dismal chancellorship.”

“Barely a sector has escaped unscathed” from Reeves’ “duplicity”, said Alys Denby in CityAM. The first, and telling, blow was her “acrobatic triangulation” over the definition of a tax on “working people”, breaking her manifesto pledge by freezing thresholds. She will be remembered for “dissembling, breaking promises and making Brits poorer”.

Not everyone will be glad to see the back of Reeves, said Politico. Her tears in the Commons once sent financial markets “spiralling”: “now they’re the ones sobbing”. She is uniquely “friendly to the City”, typified by her “smoked salmon offensive” of holding regular breakfasts with City chiefs in the run-up to the 2024 election. With uncertainty over her successor, “things can only get worse” for the financial elite.

A “fair assessment” of Reeves’ tenure in No. 11 “would not be wholly negative”, said The Times’ editorial board. “She has a couple of sizeable achievements to her name.” She relaxed some of the “onerous” regulation on businesses, made reforms to the London Stock Exchange and “consolidated” the “fragmented” pensions industry. “Regrettably”, however, Reeves’ negatives “outweigh the positives”. Labour may have inherited a “sizeable fiscal problem”, but with Reeves’ “disastrous” first budget, they “exacerbated it”.

What next?

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is likely to become Reeves’ successor when Burnham’s cabinet is announced on Monday, said the Financial Times. Mahmood is on the right of the Labour Party and is viewed as a “tough operator and capable minister”, overseeing “contentious” immigration reforms. Since the reports broke, the markets have “responded positively”. Speaking on Wednesday, Burnham said that he might “ask for a little bit more” in tax, and refused to rule out a wealth tax. Whatever the selection, the future chancellor’s “big task” will be to frame a convincing autumn Budget.

“Dare I suggest there are the seeds here for a comeback” for Reeves, said Moore in The Independent. The UK is in a “precarious predication fiscally”, and we “shouldn’t underestimate” Reeves’ standing with the markets. If the Burnham project goes “horribly wrong”, he may find himself calling on someone to “steady the ship”. “The record shows that Reeves can take the blows. She could do it her way.”

With President Donald Trump’s refusal to either sign or veto a landmark bipartisan housing bill, the legislation automatically became law last week, and political analysts are hopeful the bill will help ease the pain of America’s nationwide housing crisis. But while experts laud Congress’ joint efforts to address the problem, the average American may not feel relief for years.

What did the commentators say?

The bill has a number of provisions that seek to “remove barriers to building homes, lower housing costs and shift greater control over housing to the local level,” said Time. One of the main goals is to increase the overall availability of houses, largely by mandating that the government “offer guidance on how communities could best reform zoning and land-use policies to reduce barriers to housing development.” Environmental reviews of housing construction will also be streamlined.

It also widens the definition of manufactured houses, which are “built entirely in factories before being transported to their sites,” said Time. The expanded definition will “‘unlock’ a segment of the housing market by making it cheaper and easier to mass-produce such homes,” Francis Torres, the housing and infrastructure director at the Bipartisan Policy Center, told Time. The current supply is “really not matching the growing and changing demand,” said Geoff Smith, the executive director of the Institute for Housing Studies at DePaul University, to WTTW.

The bipartisan nature of the bill, which easily passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate, “reflects both parties’ concerns with rising housing costs nationwide and shows that political compromise is still possible in Washington,” said The Dallas Morning News editorial board. If properly implemented, it has the potential to “modernize federal housing programs, streamline regulations and encourage innovation.”

But the effects of the bill may not be so profound for those in the worst financial situations. It will likely have a “fairly limited impact on affordability for the lowest-income folks in the country,” said Shamus Roller, CEO of the National Housing Law Project, to PBS News. The provisions “aren’t the kinds of sweeping policy changes many affordable housing advocates say will help dramatically reduce housing costs,” like major tax reforms and government-subsidized housing investments.

What next?

The legislation may take time to be effective because “many pieces of the legislation will require implementation from the now-diminished” Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), said PBS. About 32% of HUD’s workforce has left the agency since September 2024, according to the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service, which could make it hard to bring some of the bill’s provisions to life. As of 2024, no states in the U.S. had an adequate supply of affordable housing for low-income renters, said the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

So even as many are hopeful about the new promises, some “immediate relief may not come just yet for homeowners and renters,” said Yonah Freemark, a housing research associate at the Urban Institute, to CNN. The bill creates a “situation where not only will the federal government have to make changes, but then state and local governments also will have to make changes and then businesses, developers and the like will have to make investments, which itself takes time.”

Billed as a coronation, the change in prime minister is “unfolding more like a royal wedding”, said Zoe Williams in The Guardian. “You feel an ambient duty to spectate and even celebrate, but you’d be mad not to stay sceptical”.

Andy Burnham is set to be the seventh prime minister in a decade, having surpassed the “magic number” of 323 Labour MP nominations, making it “mathematically impossible” to challenge him.

The result was “never in doubt”, said The Times. However, he may be in a position of strength, but “beneath the surface there are already seething resentments and jockeying for position”.

What did the commentators say?

It’s hard to shake the feeling that Britain has “fallen prey to some national sickness”, said Tom McTague, editor of The New Statesman. We cling on to the “giants” of the distant past in “Attlee and Churchill, Macmillan and Thatcher”, but our post-Brexit politicians “barely seem to register”. It is up to Burnham to change that. Above all, he needs to create something, anything, “new and memorable” from what has been a “fevered, amnestic past decade”.

Burnham may turn out to be a “lucky prime minister”, said The Times editorial board. Embracing AI in its nascent stages could be “genuinely transformative” for the country’s fortunes. Immigration under “tough” Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is “beginning to come under control”, and despite being unpopular, Rachel Reeves’ tax rises could “ensure a falling budget deficit” in future. If he can make a bold “pro-business gesture”, such as opening up the North Sea, he could definitely “repair the damage of the last two years”. “There is hope.”

It is precisely Burnham’s ability to inspire such hope, regardless of his lack of policies, that is his “key asset”, said Robert Shrimsley in the Financial Times. Politics requires a “feel for the country, the ability to tell a story and carry people with you”, and Burnham undoubtedly has a “genial public persona”. Personality stirs voters most deeply, and Burnham represents someone, like Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage, who would “at last listen to those who feel neglected and failed by politics”. Often overlooked, inspiring hope is neither common nor a “nice-to-have, it’s an essential aspect of leading”, and few before have had it.

It is clear that the “charming and combative” Burnham has cause for optimism, said The Economist. A lot is in his favour, such as “decent ideas” to devolve power and reform property taxes, and his win in Makerfield showed a rare “appealing audacity” on a local and national level. But backbench MPs have “gained a taste for rebellion”, and Burnham has “yet to set out a convincing programme to fix Britain”. If the former mayor believes an “easy manner or an ability to skirt elephant traps is enough” he is mistaken.

What next?

The MP for Makerfield will “have his work cut out for him”, said Bloomberg’s editorial board. His headline mission thus far to devolve power to other English regions could succeed if done “prudently”, but “will take years to bear fruit”. He faces much more “immediate” priorities of stimulating growth and “curbing Britain’s swollen welfare bill”.

He must also initiate “transparent” reforms to VAT, council tax and business rates, while reducing regulatory burdens, expanding apprenticeships, and improving transportation and housing. He will take office with “advantages Starmer never possessed. For the country’s sake, he can’t afford to squander them.”

Because of his “lack of a personal mandate”, Burnham’s appointments will prove pivotal, said associate editor, politics Andrew Rawnsley in The Observer. Of those, the most “ferocious jockeying for position” lies in the appointment of chancellor, perceived to be a “case of Ed Miliband versus Anybody But Ed”.

More widely, surrounding himself with economists Jim O’Neill and Andy Haldane, as well as arch-Blairite James Purnell, shows a “pragmatic preference for smart people with an interest in getting stuff done”. Team Burnham have likened their task to “rebuilding an aircraft while it is in mid-flight”. There will be “much turbulence to master” to avoid “plunging” from the sky like his six post-Brexit predecessors.

Tensions between Iran and the US are ratcheting up a new notch. Mojtaba Khamenei, Iran’s new Supreme Leader, has said “revenge” for the death of his father Ayatollah Ali Khamenei “is the will of our nation and must certainly be carried out”. Donald Trump has called Iranian leaders “scum”, and said any attempt by Tehran to assassinate him will be met by bombings “at levels they’ve never seen before”.

Meanwhile, both countries have renewed air strikes, as Iranian hardliners insist on control of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, “their principal source of strategic leverage”, said US-based security think tank The Soufan Center. It seems the stage is set “for a return to major combat”.

What did the commentators say?

In “a high-stakes gamble”, Iran is “playing what it believes is its key card”: announcing the closure of the strait “in an attempt to pressure Trump to bend to its will”, said the Financial Times. Its “belligerent” stance, and its attacks on ships and on US-aligned Gulf states, poses “the most severe test yet” of the fragile ceasefire. “It also lays bare” the “hawkish mindset that has taken hold in Tehran”.

The leadership that has emerged in Iran since Khamenei’s death “looks keener to project strength” and wear down Trump “through military pressure, rather than diplomacy”, said The Economist. There has been a noticeable “shift in the regime’s centre of gravity” towards the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which “has accelerated Iran’s transition from a theocracy to an ambitious nationalistic state dominated by military men”.

Their aim is “preventing the erosion of their perceived influence”, Sanam Vakil, Middle East director at UK think tank Chatham House, told the FT. “They feel they have to do this to survive.” They are wagering that “Trump is risk-averse” and that they can “absorb” some “low-level conflict. But this is a quagmire.”

The recent trading of strikes “raises questions for the future of the region”, said The Soufan Center. While Tehran seems “willing to suffer the consequences of escalation, neither they nor Trump appear to want to return” to all-out war. “Each side prefers a ‘no war, no peace’ status”, even while a return to negotiations looks “bleak”.

What next?

The conflict has “descended into a mutually unsatisfying stalemate”, with Washington “unable to topple the Islamic Republic” and Tehran “unable to force the US to vacate its backyard”, said Ali Vaez on Foreign Affairs. US-Iranian tensions are “worse than ever before” but, “paradoxically”, this may be “a moment of opportunity” for both countries “to repair their broken relationship”.

Now that it is “plainly apparent” that neither side can “deliver a knockout blow to the other” or sustain “unmanaged hostility”, there are “decision-makers” in each nation who “have started looking for ways to co-exist”.

President Donald Trump and Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy have never had what could feasibly be called a “warm” relationship, stretching back well into Trump’s first term. Given their frosty history, Trump’s enthusiasm during this week’s NATO summit for Ukraine’s recent wartime successes came as a shock to many. By announcing plans to loosen restrictions on American arms for Ukraine’s defense and hailing Kyiv’s wartime strides against Russia, has Trump come around to Zelenskyy as a peer among the world’s heads of state? Or will the infamously mercurial MAGA president revert to his previous hostility?

What did the commentators say?

Trump “heaped praise” on Zelenskyy and Ukraine during the NATO summit in Ankara, where he spoke in “unusually positive terms” about Kyiv’s strikes in deep Russian territory, said The Washington Post. By speaking in “admiring terms” and offering “dramatic new assistance” for Ukraine’s wartime efforts, Trump’s stance was a “dramatic departure from his tone during his first year in office.” Zelenskyy, meanwhile, spent his recent time with Trump showing “swagger and a hint of his prepresidential vocation as a popular Ukrainian comedian.” Trump and Zelenskyy “kindled a significant thaw in relations,” with the pair’s “bonhomie” signaling the “latest shift in a historically fraught relationship,” said The Hill.

Given that Trump has “zigged and zagged when it comes to Ukraine,” the president’s offer to grant Kyiv a Patriot missile manufacturing license is being “cheered” in Ukraine with a “heavy dose of caution,” said The New York Times. Similarly, Trump’s endorsement of Ukrainian deep drone strikes as an “escalation that could help end the war” marked his “strongest praise yet” for Zelenskyy’s wartime gains, and dealt a “significant blow to Russia’s efforts to keep Trump on its side in talks to end the war,” said The Wall Street Journal. Trump “always wants to be on the winning side,” said Viktor Shlinchak, the head of the Institute of World Policy, to the Times. “Right now, it does not look like Ukraine is losing.”

Following Trump’s push to grant Kyiv a manufacturing license for Patriot missiles, Zelenskyy at “times looked like he almost couldn’t believe his luck,” said CNN. Not only have the pair shared a “rocky relationship,” but the “flare-up in the war in Iran appeared to have put Trump into a foul mood” ahead of the meeting. But in a “break from earlier encounters” that “ended in acrimony,” Trump praised Zelenskyy’s “willingness to reach a deal” to end the ongoing violence, said NPR. “We’ve developed a good relationship — it’s even hard to believe — from the Oval Office until now,” said Trump at the summit meeting. “This will be the beginning, maybe, just the beginning.”

What next?

European leaders have “embraced the new messaging,” said the Post. “It’s so important” that Trump is “now taking very seriously that Ukraine has a chance” while Russia is “doing weaker,” said Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna, according to the outlet.

The unexpectedly friendly meeting between the two leaders “appeared to demonstrate the best-case scenario for Ukraine and its supporters among NATO members,” said The Hill. Many had worried that Trump’s “animosity toward the alliance” and “routine deference” to Russian President Vladimir Putin would “undermine support” for Kyiv and NATO.

Still, the language Trump used to promise Patriot manufacturing rights for Ukraine was “rather vague,” CNN said. The president “admitted that he had not yet discussed the issue” with arms manufacturers Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, which manufacture the missile batteries domestically. “We have Patriots, but we don’t have that many,” said Trump during his conversation with Zelenskyy. “We need them for ourselves, too.”

Even so, Zelenskyy was “emboldened by the good meeting” enough to joke that he couldn’t visit Moscow anytime soon because there are “too many Ukrainian drones there. It’s not safe,” said The Hill. Trump also appeared open to visiting Ukraine, but said he would rather the “war be over” before committing.

Documents have emerged from “clandestine” meetings in 2023 between Russian and Chinese leaders over neutralising the threat of Elon Musk’s Starlink in Ukraine, while also revealing a growing military cooperation between the two allies.

The joint investigation by The Insider, Der Spiegel and Le Monde exposes China’s “professed neutrality” in Ukraine “as a fiction”, and poses questions about the nature and targets of their alliance.

What did the commentators say?

The China-Russia “no limits” alliance is “one of the world’s most consequential relationships”, said Brookings. The “biggest misconception”, said policy expert Patricia Kim, is that Russia and China are either “inseparable partners” or “inevitable rivals that are on the brink of a split”. Neither may be true, but the relationship is “stronger than it ever has been in decades, certainly since the post-Cold War period”.

The personal connection between Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin is at the heart of the relationship, said Ankur Shah, editor of the Global China Unit on the BBC. The “strongmen” have described each other as “best friends”, and have met more than 40 times. Economically, the alliance is highly uneven, with China being “Russia’s largest trading partner, while Russia makes up just 4% of China’s international trade”. But as leaders, Xi and Putin “do not pass judgement on the actions of the other”, and despite their “asymmetries and differences”, they “share vital interests”.

China is by far the dominant party of the pair, and intent on satisfying Xi's desire for a “Sino-centric world”, said The Economist. In the past three months, China has received visits from Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, both seeking economic stability while engaged in wars of their own making. Crucially, Putin left without assurances for the proposed gas pipeline “Power of Siberia 2” that would allow Russia to sell “50 billion cubic metres of gas annually” to China, which it can no longer supply to Europe. In the space of a matter of days, both at home and abroad, China appeared the singular “fulcrum of global geopolitics, dealing with America as an equal” and relegated Russia to a “junior partner”.

Current relations between Russia and China have been strengthened by the influence of Donald Trump, said Leonid Ragozin in Al Jazeera. The war in Iran has given a “powerful impetus to strengthening Russo-Chinese ties”, meaning China has become “reliant” on Russian oil, and in turn funded the Russian war effort in Ukraine.

Let’s also not forget that Trump had pledged to “un-unite” Russia and China before his second presidential term in 2024. However, his recent “ambivalent” stance in effect echoes the “counterproductive policies of his predecessors”. Trump is famous for his “short span of attention”, and “may not even remember” what he promised to achieve in Russia and China. “But of course, the latter two do remember it well.”

It is true policymakers “suffered from a failure of imagination over the past decade” towards the potential of a Russia-China alliance, said Christopher Walker in the Centre for European Policy Analysis. Yet there is also a “risk of overcorrecting”. There are limits, “important imbalances and points of friction in the Sino-Russian relationship”, highlighted by China’s inactivity following American intervention in Venezuela and Iran: they appear unwilling to “close ranks against external threats”.

On a fundamental level, the two nations lack the “dense institutional connective tissue” that could match Nato, acting in “parallel play” rather than with lasting cohesion.

What next?

Nato has already reacted, said Seong Hyeon Choi in the South China Morning Post. Following the summit in Ankara, the organisation unveiled defence initiatives in response to “security challenges posed by Russia and China”. These included a motion on raw materials and a new Drone Edge programme, investing “US$40 billion in the next five years” into expanding modern warfare.

“China continues to modernise its armed forces and expand its nuclear capabilities without transparency”, and “North Korea continues to expand its nuclear programme and supply Russia”, said Mark Rutte, Secretary General of NATO. These countries working together “should concern us all”, because they “do not have our best interests in mind”, he continued: “to meet the challenge, we need a transatlantic defence industrial revolution”.

“Let the people decide.” That was the defiant message from two of the world’s most famous populists on Tuesday as Nigel Farage and Marine Le Pen intend to “defy their country’s norms” to “put the same pitch” to voters, said Melissa Bell on CNN.

Le Pen, parliamentary leader of the far-right National Rally party who was convicted of embezzlement this week, said she will run for the presidency in 2027. And Reform UK leader Farage resigned as MP for Clacton to force a by-election, arguing that his constituents should be the “ultimate judge” of questions over his finances.

What did the commentators say?

The “parallels” are “impossible to ignore”, said Emile Chabal, from the University of Edinburgh, on The Conversation: the careers of two “prominent European populist right-wing politicians” were being “threatened by extensive and well-documented corruption claims”.

Le Pen and Farage are “both reading” from the “well-thumbed playbook” of “the people v the courts; voters v judges; the ‘transparent’ legitimacy of the ballot box v the ‘opacity’ of lengthy legal and regulatory proceedings”. These divisive issues are “familiar to observers of populist politics in the United States, Hungary or Turkey”.

You might think Le Pen has “little to worry about” because French politics is “famously corrupt”. But “tolerance has begun to dissipate” as “public anger towards politicians has reached unprecedented levels”.

“If you could distil populism to an essence, this would be it,” said Lionel Laurent on Bloomberg. The “politics of unfounded grievance is in full swing and taking precedence over parties and policy”.

But the question remains: can the two nationalist populists “finally convert long-standing poll leads into lasting political achievement”. There are “indications of voter fatigue” even in “Reform-friendly” Clacton, while in France, the 2027 election will be the fourth time Le Pen has run for president after a “series of failures and policy flip-flops”.

“Mr Brexit” and “Madame Frexit” have “much in common” and “they made the same pitch: let the people, not the establishment, have the last word”, said Henry Samuel and James Crisp in The Telegraph. But Le Pen “allowed the process to reach a verdict first” and Farage “should have done the same” and let the sleaze inquiries he is facing “run their course” before triggering the by-election.

It is “one script in two languages”, said Bell on CNN: the “condemned figure recast as the victim and the law as an ever-weakening weapon of a frightened establishment”. The same “trap” has been “sprung”. It’s the “perfect populist playbook, and one neither France nor the UK looks able to contain”.

But Count Binface, Farage’s only confirmed opponent in Clacton so far, is “renowned for routinely staging eccentric by-election challenges” and could “become a rallying point for opponents of the Reform leader”, said Annabel Denham in The Telegraph.

So the “risk for Farage is that the more he is seen to be playing politics, the more likely” voters are to “conclude he is part of the problem, rather than the solution”.

What next?

Reform has suggested holding the by-election on 6 August, although it is more likely to be a week later. “They call it a stunt. It’s not a stunt, because real voters will have a vote for an MP,” Farage told the BBC.

Meanwhile, Le Pen said she would “pursue all legal avenues” to defend her innocence and appeal to France’s top civil court, the Court of Cassation. That verdict would likely come early next year.

American women in the workforce have long been outearned by their male counterparts. And though the difference narrowed during the Covid-19 pandemic, the gap is now increasing as overall wage growth slows and the economy shifts to jobs dominated by men.

What did the commentators say?

U.S. wage growth is “steadily slowing,” but for women it’s “slowing even more,” said Marketplace. The gap got narrower during the last three decades of the 20th century due to “more women entering the workforce, broader minimum wage protections and better access to contraception.” That progress has “stalled” during this century, pausing briefly when “demand for low-wage labor spiked” during the Covid-19 lockdown. Now the gap is widening again, largely because women are “more likely to be in lower-paid, stretched-thin jobs, covering the households’ basic needs,” said Elissa Braunstein, a professor of economics at Colorado State University, to the outlet. Overall, women “earn 16% less than men on average,” said Forbes.

“When women dominate a field, pay goes down,” said Mary Noble-Tolla at Lean In. When parks and recreation jobs shifted from a male-dominated field to one largely staffed by women, for example, “wages dropped by 57%.” Mothers are “hit the hardest” by the disparity, but closing the wage gap would be broadly beneficial. Paying women “fairly” would “cut the U.S. poverty rate in half and inject over $1.6 trillion” into the American economy.

“Women aren’t born wanting to earn less money,” said Maia Mindel at The Argument. Some commentators have made the case that women earn less than men “simply because they choose to” by taking less paid overtime and more unpaid time off. But the preference for “predictable, flexible schedules” comes “almost entirely” from women with children at home. Policymakers can bridge the gap by “broadening access to public services” like childcare and early childhood education.

The wage gap means most American households have “far fewer resources” to pay for “housing, food and healthcare,” Stefanie O’Connell said at MarketWatch. And that struggle “follows women throughout their lives,” as women over the age of 65 are more likely than men their age to live in poverty. The gap is also a “major drag on the economy” because women “make most household purchases.” When they do not have as much money to spend, “both businesses and investors pay the price.”

What next?

“There is no single policy that will close the wage gap,” said Emma Cohn and Elise Gould at the Economic Policy Institute’s Working Economics Blog. Possible solutions would include “pay transparency” laws that require employers to “include wage information in job postings.” Expanded medical and family leave requirements, universal childcare and an improved minimum wage would also help. Such efforts could “build an equitable economy that works for all.”

The endless will-he-won’t-he drama surrounding Prince Harry’s visit to the UK could be the final straw for hopes of reconciling with the royal family, said The Sun’s Clemmie Moodie.

“Following weeks of frenetic speculation concerning Harry’s possible rapprochement with his estranged father”, hours before he was due to land in the UK on Monday the Duke of Sussex said he had accepted an invitation to stay at Buckingham Palace. Minutes later royal sources counter-briefed, clarifying that Harry had not formally accepted the invite in time, and that the offer had since been withdrawn.

“It’s all just so terribly ‘EastEnders’ with Received Pronunciation”, and a world away from the late Queen Elizabeth II’s famous motto: “never complain, never explain”.

What did the commentators say?

“It has taken quite some time for the King to lose patience with his younger son” but it seems he has “finally had enough”, said The Telegraph’s royal editor Hannah Furness. Charles, “whose parenting has hitherto been criticised for being too indulgent, has drawn a boundary for his 41-year-old son in a sharp lesson to be learnt publicly”, namely that “Buckingham Palace is not available on lastminute.com”.

Debate has raged over whether the briefing debacle, which comes on top of an ongoing row over security, was a genuine case of miscommunication, or an attempt by Harry to try to “bounce” his father into reversing his decision, said the Daily Mail’s royal editor, Rebecca English. A third possibility is that “the furious prince simply doesn’t care any more and wants to cause his family maximum embarrassment”.

Either way, Harry’s long-planned trip to Britain is “once again mired in the same smorgasbord of chaos, confusion, claim and counter-claim that has characterised all of his dealings with Buckingham Palace in recent years”.

“As if he needed another reminder, Prince Harry has just learnt once again that the House of Windsor will always win,” said The Express’ deputy royal editor Rebecca Russell. The “real tragedy” is that the Duke of Sussex “has spent years fighting for control of his narrative, yet he remains completely blind to how he is being outplayed”. The institution “has marched on without him; it does not collapse under the weight of his attacks”.

What next?

Both fans of the Sussexes and royal traditionalists had been “united in their desire for meaningful reconciliation” after “arguably the most fractious time in royal history”, said Moodie in The Sun.

“And yet, here we are again”; all the good work the royals do has been “dismantled by behind-the-scenes bickering and now a very public comeuppance”. Charles has “given his petulant son a chance here, and if Harry blows it, he might not get another”.

A rekindling of brotherly love between Prince Harry and Prince William “seems even less likely”, said BBC royal correspondent Sean Coughlan. “They remain on very different trajectories, with William's life heading remorselessly to the point where he will take to the throne.”

As Iran’s religious, political and military elite turned out to say farewell to the country’s former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, one figure was conspicuously absent.

Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, who succeeded his father as the de facto head of the Islamic Republic, has not been seen in public since the joint US-Israeli air strikes that killed many of his close family members and decapitated the regime on the first day of the war.

Khamenei, who is said to have been seriously injured in the attack, is believed to be in hiding due to Israeli threats to his life, but his absence has “raised questions about who is really running the country, and allowed extraordinary open divisions to fester”, said Farnaz Fassihi in The New York Times.

What did the commentators say?

For 36 years, “the question of who ultimately ruled Iran had one answer”, said Joshua Keating for Vox. While the country has an elected president and legislature, “whenever the US confronted Iran, American policymakers knew it was Khamenei who would make the final decision.”

But now “they’re no longer so sure”. With the sheer number of senior figures who have been killed over the past four months, “there’s something of a power vacuum in Tehran right now”.

In the void left by the killing of a supreme leader “who exerted absolute power over all important decisions”, the conservatives have “split” and generals in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps have “consolidated power, effectively running the country”, said Fassihi.

With the power of the new supreme leader greatly diminished, and various factions and facets of the state jockeying for influence, the question now is just who is actually in charge of the Iranian system.

“The system is in control of the system,” Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East program at Chatham House, told Vox. “I know we all want to think that there’s one individual that has power or authority. There’s no one commander in chief. It is a system that is commanding collectively for the time being.”

If the week-long funeral for Ali Khamenei represents a “calculated projection of strength by a regime determined to demonstrate continuity and resilience despite an extraordinary crisis”, it has done little to quell questions “over the country’s political succession”, said France24.

What next?

Amid the jostling for power, Khamenei’s funeral is undoubtedly a “big moment”, said BBC diplomatic correspondent Paul Adams: a “grand reminder that the old guard has given way to the new. And with the new faces comes a new approach with its own implications.”

The new leadership is not made up of ageing ideologues who emerged in opposition to the Shah and subsequently the US, “but of generally post-revolutionary leaders ruthlessly focussed on preserving the state and willing to act more decisively than their predecessors”, said Vali Nasr, professor of International Affairs and Middle East Studies at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

“A whole new generation has taken over. They have a very clear agenda. They managed the war and now they’re going to manage the peace as well.”

All eyes will be on Donald Trump as Nato leaders gather in Ankara this week following his administration's warning that allies must step up defence spending “immediately” or face consequences.

Last year’s summit was hailed as a “breakthrough” after members committed to spending 5% of GDP on defence – 3.5% on core requirements and 1.5% on broader security needs – by 2035, said Elsa Ohlen on CNBC.

This year’s gathering is “expected to move the debate from pledges to implementation” on “questions about procurement, industrial capacity, support for Ukraine and the political architecture of what the Trump administration has called ‘Nato 3.0’”.

“This is really the Nato summit where Nato goes from burden sharing to burden shifting,” Ulrike Franke, senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, told the channel.

What did the commentators say?

Nato is “both stronger than it was 18 months ago, when Trump returned as US president, and a lot weaker”, said the Financial Times. It is in “better shape” largely thanks to pressure from Trump to get non-US members to spend more “investing in readiness and rearmament”, and as Europeans take on “more command roles even as the US military remains professional and fully engaged”.

At the same time, the alliance is “much weaker because confidence that the Trump administration would stand by its allies if they are attacked has cratered”. The US, under the unpredictable president, also seems “to lack the discipline to come up with a burden-shifting plan”.

That is why this week’s summit in Turkey has been described as “one of the most consequential” in years, said Radio Free Europe’s Washington correspondent Alex Raufoglu. As the US seeks a “more balanced transatlantic partnership”, it is looking for clear signs that “this relationship is becoming more equal – not only financially, but strategically”.

The “expected focus is on industrial outputs”, but the allied “will to fight back to back is no less important than material defence readiness”, said Visegrad Insight editor Wojciech Przybylski. “Russia knows it better than most” and so this week’s summit will “test the political resolve – whether Western leaders can still project unified purpose and unambiguous strategic intent”.

What next?

Some, such as Poland, the Nordic and Baltic countries, “are doing more than others”, Matt Whitaker, the US ambassador to Nato, said ahead of the summit. “But many others are lagging behind” their pledge to up defence spending by 2035.

The Telegraph reported that Trump is “thought to be planning to reward or punish countries based on their defence spending”. Those with higher spending are likely to be moved “up the queue for the purchase of US weapons and mean they are invited for more face-to-face meetings with the president”.

This “threatens to put the US president on a collision course with Britain”, after Keir Starmer failed to secure a fully funded defence investment plan ahead of the start of the summit on Tuesday.

The UK is now ranked 12th among Nato members in terms of spending per GDP, having been third a decade ago. The outgoing PM is expected to “face down a rebuke” from Trump “in one of his final acts in office this week”, said The Times.

“That American dream of a better, richer, and happier life for all our citizens of every rank.”

In a 1931 book called “The Epic of America”, historian James Truslow Adams distilled the unalloyed faith in a better tomorrow that has been the calling card of the United States' 250 years as a nation.

It’s “strange to realise” that the term American Dream has a history, “since faith in upward mobility seems embedded in the American consciousness”, said Hua Hsu in The New Yorker. But, as the country prepares to celebrate Independence Day and its 250th birthday, the fragility of the American Dream has never been more apparent.

What did the commentators say?

A nation of immigrants, the US “has at its best treated the people flocking to its shores as a source of vitality and a validation of the American dream”, said The Economist.

But for some of its citizens “the new American dream” is now “to no longer live there”, said The Wall Street Journal’s Drew Hinshaw and Joe Parkinson. “Beneath the stormy optics” of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown “lies a less-noticed reversal: America’s own citizens are leaving in record numbers”.

The American Dream “has always been a sell for immigrants”, said Asma Khalid on the BBC. “However, fewer of them are coming these days.”

Some of those who have succeeded in the US say it is getting tougher to do so. “It has brought me immense fulfilment through three successful businesses that provide me with freedom, income and happiness,” Carmen Barreto, a native of Venezuela who has lived in Florida for 15 years, told Agence France-Presse. “Many people hold on to the American dream, but given how tough things are getting, you can’t be the salmon swimming against the current – because you get tired, you burn out, it destroys you.”

An Associated Press-NORC poll last month found that only a third of Americans believe the American Dream still exists. A CNBC poll the same month found that a majority of people consider the American Dream out of reach.

But “most public polling captures what people believe about the accessibility of the American Dream for others”, said Gonzalo Schwarz, chief executive of the Archbridge Institute think tank, in The Washington Post. “In their own life, they are far more optimistic.” The problem comes from the media. “If people are constantly told that the country is irredeemable, that its obstacles are permanent and that hope is naive, they will eventually believe it.”

There has been a resurgence of optimism from a surprising source. In liberal circles, “faith in the American Dream is often dismissed as gauche and conservative”, said Hsu. But after Zohran Mamdani won the New York City mayor’s race, the former Democratic National Committee co-vice-chair David Hogg said that the result was about “making the American Dream possible again”.

There is optimism too from “the country’s unabated dynamism”, said The Economist. And the corollary of that dynamism is “its capacity for reinvention”. As far back as the birth of the US, the American Dream was built on “the wisdom of the people. Time and again, that faith has been richly rewarded.”

What next?

The current generation of Americans might agree with Adams’ 1930s view that the dream was less about “motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of a social order”. Paige Friscioni, a 38-year-old business owner from Detroit, told USA Today: “The American dream shouldn’t be something that’s designed by somebody else. It should be something that’s designed by you.

“The American dream isn’t that perfect thing anymore. The real American dream is to decide what you want to be.”

The hype of artificial intelligence is running up against pricey realities, at least for now. MacBooks and Xboxes are getting more expensive due to “AI inflation.” Central bankers are warning the AI boom could soon trigger a financial crash. Ford, meanwhile, has hired hundreds of engineers to do the work that artificial intelligence software could not. It has opened debate as to whether the benefits of AI are worth the costs.

What did the commentators say?

The mass buildout of data centers has created the “global shortage of memory and storage chips” behind the new device price hikes, said CBS News. MacBook Pros are going from $1,699 to $1,999, while the entry-level Xbox is rising to $499 from $399. The demand from tech giants such as Alphabet, Amazon, Meta and Oracle leaves fewer chips for “regular consumer devices,” Wedbush Securities’ Dan Ives said to the outlet. “That just further drives up prices.”

That inflation is typical of any “technological revolution,” Jennifer Schonberger said at Yahoo Finance. Big investment in new tech puts “pressures on resources with a lot of demand chasing a limited supply.” For now, AI inflation is “screwing with the rest of the economy,” said John Herrman at New York magazine. Once-accessible goods “seem to be slipping out of reach” of ordinary Americans, which “could meaningfully contribute to an already apocalyptic” national mood.

But the data center surge could come to a sudden, thudding halt if those big companies do not soon see a return on their investment. The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) on Sunday warned that an end to the data center “spending spree” could “rattle financial markets and damage the global economy,” said the Financial Times. There are “instructive parallels” in the dotcom boom of the 1990s and the buildout of British railways in the 19th century, the BIS said in its annual economic report. “These episodes ended with an eventual reversal in investment, inducing economy-wide recessions.”

The payoffs are fuzzy. Ford has hired 350 “veteran engineers” to “reprogram the artificial intelligence tools that weren’t getting the job done,” said Bloomberg. AI is a “fantastic tool,” Ford executive Charles Poon said to reporters last week, per the outlet. But it is “only as good as the information you use to train it.” Ford’s dramatic shift to AI was a “grave mistake” that affected the company’s quality control, said Danni Santana at Moneywise. That happens “when you overcommit to the technology without properly training it.” The company will still use AI, but its experience demonstrates that the technology cannot “completely replace humans in the workforce” for now.

What next?

Businesses that enthusiastically embraced artificial intelligence are now trying to find a balance. Many firms urged their employees to “integrate AI tools into their work” only to see their “AI spending bills double or triple,” said The Wall Street Journal. Executives at enterprises like Uber, Meta and Microsoft are now looking to “steer workers toward cheaper, homegrown tools” and help those employees “hone their skills.”

Last Friday afternoon, a light aircraft belonging to a local aviation school flew into the side of Beijing’s tallest building, the 109-storey Citic Tower, killing the pilot and injuring at least 13 people.

Five days later, we’re none the wiser about “why, and how, that happened”, said the BBC. The only official statement on the incident is a “60-word report detailing the basic facts in state-owned Beijing Daily”, while eyewitness videos and photos have been “scrubbed off the internet”.

What did the commentators say?

The skyscraper is only a few miles from Zhongnanhai, the tightly controlled complex that acts as the headquarters of the Chinese Communist Party and the centre of government. An unidentified aircraft over this sensitive area would have posed a security dilemma for authorities, said Li Wei, director of the Centre for Counter-Terrorism Studies at the state-run think tank China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations.

Once the plane deviated from its approved flight path, there would have been “little reaction time for air traffic control and air defence identification”, he told the South China Morning Post. “Shooting down a civilian aircraft in a crowded urban area would create potential ground threats and panic.”

Beijing has “some of the world’s strictest airspace controls”, including a “permanent no-fly zone of roughly 100 sq km (39 sq miles) over its political core”, said the BBC. Chong Ja Ian, a non-resident scholar at Carnegie China research centre, told the broadcaster that the incident would be an “embarrassment to the security services”. “A small plane hitting Citic Tower means that a drone or missile might be able to as well,” he said.

Although China “periodically” experiences high-profile “acts of suicidal violence”, the most likely explanation “lies not in protest but in privilege”, said James Palmer in Foreign Policy’s China Brief. Private planes are a rarity in China, reserved for the “well connected”, whose sense of entitlement “extends to the skies”. Corruption is “endemic” within the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), and “it would not be surprising if certain civilians were occasionally allowed into PLA airspace”. If that is what occurred here, “the political consequences will be severe for whoever bent the rules”.

What next?

Whether accidental or deliberate, “the fatal flight will raise awkward – and potentially career-ending – questions for those responsible for security” in the capital, said the Financial Times. At next year’s Communist Party Congress, Xi Jinping is expected to “choose a new line-up of top party cadres”, and regional analysts say responsibility for the Citic Tower incident could fuel “fierce jockeying among leadership candidates”.

Vladimir Putin took the rare step of acknowledging fuel shortages in Crimea, following Ukrainian bombardments targeting the Russia-annexed peninsula. As Ukraine’s drones and missiles struck roads, railways and bridges, Putin admitted that there was only “a few days’ supply” left in Crimea, though he insisted that he was “confident” more fuel would be brought in soon.

The offensive has “upended life in Crimea and undercut its image as a showcase of Putin’s imperial ambitions” in Ukraine, said The Wall Street Journal. Although he “poured money into the peninsula”, locals say “basic services” like kindergartens, trash collection and ATMs have “stopped functioning”.

What did the commentators say?

Ukraine’s offensive coincides with the approach of September’s Russian parliamentary elections, forcing the Kremlin to “maintain a strict sense of composure”, said The Wall Street Journal. Putin wants to prevent political tensions “from rising” over the situation in Crimea, framing Ukrainian strikes to his electorate as part of an information campaign to break Russia’s morale.

“The unspoken assumption within the Ukrainian government is that it will have to accept Russia’s de facto control of Crimea as part of the price of peace,” said The Times. But the “outcome” may be “rather less predictable” than Volodymyr Zelenskyy “seems to think”.

Some “pragmatists” in Moscow feel that the war has “reached a point of diminishing returns” for the Kremlin, who should now “freeze the conflict” along current lines and “declare victory”. However, the “maximalist camp” calls for “escalation”, with the “mobilisation of hundreds of thousands of reservists”, the “deployment of conscripts” and “more aggressive covert operations” against the factories in Europe that are supplying Kyiv’s weapons.

It “may be a mistake” to conclude that these problems will “force the Kremlin to yield”, said Matthew Chance, CNN’s chief global affairs correspondent. Putin has “built a relatively brittle image as an uncompromising leader”, which makes “capitulation, retreat or even compromise in Ukraine incredibly unlikely and difficult for him to pull off”.

What next?

“Despite his macho public persona”, Putin is “generally quite risk averse”, but when he’s “panicked, he tends to make decisions hastily and badly”, said The Times.

In a worst-case scenario, “egged on” by hard-liners, a pressured Putin “does something particularly stupid, such as escalating attacks on Kyiv or even using tactical nuclear weapons”, said The Telegraph in a leader. The Russian foreign ministry has already alluded to the possibility of unspecified “systematic strikes”. When Nato leaders meet in Ankara next month, they “need to be ready for a potential showdown with Moscow”.

The education system is “not set up to serve white working-class children and families”, an independent inquiry has found, and has created a “white working-class disadvantage gap”.

The Inquiry into White Working Class Educational Outcomes, found that in 2025, just 36% of white British pupils on free school meals achieve a Grade 4 or above in English and Maths GCSE, compared with 72% of non-free school meal pupils.

This independent investigation is the “biggest piece of research in recent years into white working-class underachievement in England”, said education editor Nicola Woolcock in The Times. But without immediate investment and implementation of recommendations, the gap could widen.

What did the commentators say?

Realising the reasons of why white working-class children “don’t make it” in education “may not be rocket science but it is complicated”, said social affairs editor Jackie Long on Channel 4 News’ Substack. “Behaviour, disengagement and absenteeism” seem to be the most significant factors for low attainment, but the “intersection between geography, culture, opportunity and aspiration” has yet to be “fully unravelled by the inquiry.” “There will be no quick fix.”

Nigel Farage and the political right have “overreached” by blaming the Equality Act and a “proliferation of critical race theory” in British institutions, said Dr Rakib Ehsan on UnHerd. There is an “endemic” problem, facilitated by a “broader economic malaise of regional and class disparity, deindustrialisation, a lack of secure local employment”. This is a lesson for the right: they should be “wary of indulging in the very types of racial victimhood and identity politics they seek to condemn”.

This demographic group has “dominated the headlines” in recent years, said educator Sir John Townsley in The Telegraph. Recent analysis by University College London revealed that 40% of white working-class pupils miss a day of school every fortnight, and that they are “more than twice as likely” than the average pupil to be “severely absent” from school.

But the reality is harsh. Blame lies not just with the government and wider society, but also with “the families in question” for perpetuating a “culture of low-expectations” and placing “no value whatsoever on education”. Without “radical change” and “generational” planning, we are headed for “further disaster”.

The narrative that white working-class boys have been neglected by the system is “set like concrete”, said Terri White in Prospect. But “what about our white working-class lasses?” White working-class girls still marginally outperform their male counterparts (by 38% to 35%) to achieve the “expected standard” at GCSE level, the girls’ numbers have “dropped dramatically” over the past six years, while boys are “seeing change in the opposite direction”.

And once girls leave school, they are “plunged” into an earning disparity which resembles a “yawning chasm”, with boys out-earning them even when they have fewer qualifications. White working-class girls are “walloped by” a “double disadvantage”: discrimination by both class and gender.

In an environment where education has become “increasingly politicised”, white boys are seen as a “problem”, said Joanna Williams on Spiked. With the prime example of Keir Starmer’s initiative to show Netflix’s “Adolescence” in every school, it appears the government has offered white working-class boys nothing except “panic-fuelled hectoring”. They have been let down by a political class that has done little to provide “well-paid, meaningful employment”, and been ignored by a schooling system that “prioritises therapeutic interventions over discipline and high standards”. “All children deserve better.”

What next?

Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson said that there is “clear” evidence that children “arrive at school not ready to learn, having not achieved the levels that they should”. Opportunities for progress lie not just with schools but “beyond the school gate, because so much of what a child is able to achieve in their life comes down to the support their family have”.

The inquiry has raised free transport for under-21s, a “crackdown on excessive screen use” and for high-performing schools to “take more white working-class children” as possible solutions, said Woolcock in The Times. In order to achieve progress, there must be a “clearer definition” of the term white working-class and that communities should “provide significantly greater access to sport, arts, culture, volunteering, outdoor activity and employer engagement, backed by sustained long-term funding”.

The dollar has long been the world’s primary currency, giving the U.S. unusual sway over international affairs. But China’s yuan is emerging as a small-but-growing competitor, with consequences for American power and influence.

What did the commentators say?

China is building an “alternative financial system” designed to weaken the United States’ “power to dictate world affairs,” said The Wall Street Journal. The dollar is still used in 80% of international trade, and that dominance has given U.S. governments a “big advantage in policing global business.” But transactions conducted using Chinese currency allow some businesses and rival countries to evade the U.S. banking system. That is how Iran earned up to $43 billion in oil revenue in 2024 despite restrictive American sanctions. And such examples are growing in number: The yuan’s share of global finance has “tripled over the past five years,” still well behind the dollar but ahead of the euro.

The yuan is emerging as a “more important part of the global financial system,” Robin Harding said at the Financial Times. But it does not yet threaten the dollar’s dominance, in part because “China’s economic model depends on its own relentless accumulation of dollar assets.” Beijing “wants to buy oil in its own currency,” but it also wants to maintain its “massive trade surpluses” with the rest of the world, and those transactions are conducted in dollars. There is “little sign of the dollar losing control of the global financial system.”

Beijing “cannot decree demand” for the yuan, Agathe Demarais said at Foreign Policy. While China has “made genuine progress in building alternative financial channels” to U.S.-dominated systems, it “cannot translate its rising global trade footprint into greater use of its currency.” That is because China puts strict controls on the use of the yuan outside the country, making it “costly and impractical” for foreign firms to use. Absent a “massive shock,” it is unlikely the world will “embrace Chinese financial channels.”

Beijing “doesn’t need to displace the dollar” to weaken U.S. dominance over global finance, said The New York Times. But having an alternative “could expand China’s influence in a financial crisis.” And some countries will welcome that alternative. “There is a desperate desire in the world to escape the clutches” of the America-dominated system, Cornell University’s Eswar Prasad said to the outlet.

What next?

The dollar is still the “dominant currency” for loans to “developing economies,” said Reuters, but there are signs of change. Kenya last year agreed to convert its debt to China (for loans to construct a railway) from dollars into yuan to “cut borrowing costs.” Now countries like Ethiopia, Indonesia, Mozambique, Pakistan and Zambia that have taken loans from China Eximbank are considering similar restructuring, and the bank is “encouraging — and in some cases requiring” national borrowers to “borrow in yuan rather than dollars.”

Under President Donald Trump, the U.S. has often seemed less welcoming to outsiders than it used to. But the World Cup is showcasing the country’s grassroots hospitality and prosperity to visitors from abroad.

What did the commentators say?

Many international soccer fans were worried about “visa access, high costs, gun violence” and other issues ahead of this year’s World Cup, said Reuters. Visiting teams and their fans have instead “flooded” social media with posts revealing a “warm welcome from Americans” as well as a “distinctive culture” awash in “free soda refills” and “chicken wings dipped in ranch dressing.”

Host cities across the United States have witnessed an “unlikely romance between everyday Americans and squads from around the world,” said The New York Times. While polls show the U.S. global reputation “has dipped in recent years,” the visitors are discovering American communities have “all kinds of estimable traits.”

“Welcome to the World Cup of U.S. hospitality,” Jack Butler said at The Wall Street Journal. There is a “long tradition” of foreign visitors being “deeply affected” by their visits to the United States. Now international soccer fans are “showing America’s greatness in real time.” They are “also amazed by America’s material abundance.” Buc-ee’s and Bass Pro Shops have been featured in viral videos and so has Chicago deep-dish pizza. America’s vastness “contains multitudes.”

U.S. residents are welcoming the world “even when their government has failed to do so,” Juliette Kayyem said at Early Warning. Events like the World Cup “represent a kind of soft power that America has been increasingly unwilling to exert” and had seemingly been lost. The world’s “dismal view of America” has been reflected in declining tourism numbers, and the damage “may not be repaired in a single summer.” There are signs of hope, however. “Americans are proving better diplomats than their administration.”

The Trump administration has been hard at work “besmirching America’s cultural attractiveness,” Daniel Drezner said at Drezner’s World. The World Cup is offering a different vision. It is the American people, not their government, who are “reminding the rest of the world that this country still has a lot of attractive values.” That may not matter to world politics in the short term, but it offers a “hopeful reminder that in just a few years America can be great again.”

What next?

The Department of Homeland Security is “easing its restrictions” on the Iranian national team, said The Associated Press. The team has been staying in Mexico and playing its matches in the U.S., with American authorities mandating the team return quickly to its home base after play is complete. Iran will now be allowed into the U.S. two days before its next match.

The team had “complained about the travel restrictions” for much of the tournament. “We are here for football, not politics,” Iran coach Amir Ghalenoei said to reporters, per the AP.

There will soon be a changing of the guard in the United Kingdom, as Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced his resignation. But his likely replacement, Makerfield MP Andy Burnham, probably won’t have an easier time than Starmer did courting President Donald Trump. Burnham, a popular figure in the U.K.’s center-left Labour Party, has previously chided Trump and his administration. If he becomes prime minister, it could mark a turning point for American-British relations.

What did the commentators say?

When it comes to the White House’s view on Burnham, there has been no “immediate condemnation from the current administration,” said The Times. But “even if Burnham does benefit from a grace period with the president, his interventions on American politics are unlikely to endear him to Trump for long.” Similarly, the relationship between Starmer and Trump devolved soon after Starmer became prime minister.

Burnham has widely criticized Trump and right-wing U.S. politics. After the Jan. 6, 2021, attack at the U.S. Capitol, he “was scathing about British politicians who held their tongue to appease Trump,” said The Times. “Any U.K. politician who gave Trump the time of day should be ashamed right now,” Burnham said on X at the time. To “combat the rise” of the U.K.’s far-right Reform U.K. party, a Burnham premiership “may be tempted to more openly criticize Trump” with the “knowledge that the U.S. president is reviled by much of the British electorate,” said The Times.

Burnham will also have to reckon with a U.S. president who has “undermined British confidence by deriding British military sacrifices in Afghanistan,” said the Washington Examiner. Trump’s leaking of the announcement that Starmer “would resign and his simultaneously classless (if broadly accurate) criticism of Starmer’s policies further degrades U.S.-U.K. trust.” Burnham, or whoever the next prime minister is, must “be cautious,” as the U.K. is “heavily reliant on the intelligence, military and economic benefits provided by its American alliance.”

Overall, the “mood swings of Mr. Trump may be less of an issue for Mr. Burnham” than they were for Starmer due to the “timeline in America,” said The Independent. By the time a Burnham premiership gets fully settled, the 2026 midterms may have passed, and he will be dealing with a White House “entering the traditional ‘lame duck’ stage where power quickly ebbs away, not least because he cannot run again.”

What next?

Burnham could potentially enter office as prime minister by mid-July, but if there’s a contest for the position, the “election would likely drag on into September,” said The Associated Press. Either way, the U.K.’s likely next prime minister has urged caution against his country moving to be like the United States. “Politics is getting more polarized. And the path we’re on, if we are not careful, is a path toward the politics of the United States of America,” Burnham said during an event in the final days of his parliamentary campaign.

Burnham has also expressed dissent about the similarities between Trump and former Prime Minister Liz Truss, as well as Trump’s 2024 election victory. “The instability that Liz Truss brought to Britain, I think Trump is bringing to the U.S. and the world,” he told The London Economic last year. “Open your eyes to what could be really challenging and difficult issues and things that could polarize people further.”

The question of whether Keir Starmer would resign in the wake of Andy Burnham’s victory in Makerfield has been answered. But the “slower-burning question”, said David Aaronovitch in The Independent, is whether Nigel Farage’s grin can really “grace the doorstep of No. 10” after four by-election defeats in a row.

The “solidity of the anti-Reform tactical vote” in last week’s by-election has shown that people “don’t want” him as prime minister. Reform UK appears to be “on a downward slope”, and the expected arrival of a “doe-eyed” Andy Burnham in Downing Street could make life trickier yet for Farage.

What did the commentators say?

This latest by-election “exposed many of Reform’s weaknesses”, several of which “stem from serious flaws in Farage’s character”, said veteran by-election reporter Michael Crick in The Times. He runs the party “as a personal dictatorship”; he alone picked the out-of-depth Robert Kenyon as Reform’s candidate. “No serious democratic party” can be run that way.

In Makerfield, as in Gorton & Denton, there are those who so “detest him”, they were “breaking habits of a lifetime” to vote “ABF – Anyone But Farage”. He looked “fed up and exhausted” after it was over, and “it wouldn’t surprise me if he quits” before the general election, “perhaps claiming illness”.

He was also “beaten at his own game” by “Reform’s yet more evil twin”, Restore Britain, said Jonn Elledge in The New Statesman. Farage “now faces the same dilemma he once posed to the Tories: stand firm and lose votes” to the right, or “move right and alienate those closer to the centre”. Watching him “flail” is “extremely funny”.

Rupert Lowe’s “ultra-right splinter group” succeeded in mobilising “disaffected white working-class people” in a constituency where there was “support for the British National Party” 20 years ago, said Kitty Donaldson in The i Paper. Their “desire to give the Establishment – which now apparently includes Farage – a kicking seemingly knows no bounds”.

If Restore’s current polling holds up, “it could cost Farage victory in other constituencies” in a general election, political scientist Rob Ford told Politics Home. Reform would “really would like to be able to say X and Y seats are in the bag” but now there’s “this additional element of uncertainty”.

Makerfield was clearly “a setback” for Farage’s “ambitions of winning power”, said Nick Gutteridge in The Telegraph. But “there is no sign” within Reform’s ranks that “fatalism has set in”. One party source told me it’s like “the scene in the movie that comes just before the end, when it looks like the bad guy is resurgent and the hero has taken a knock” but “you’re actually just before the glorious victory”.

What next?

The morning after Reform’s Makerfield defeat, Farage appealed directly to those who switched from his party to Restore: “What do you want? We are the challenger party to the left in this country, and I would urge you to think again.”

But a new threat could emerge from within his own party ranks, said Aaronovitch in The Independent. If Farage’s waning popularity and “diminishing energy” mean he’s no longer up to “making a serious bid for power”, then “that quintessence of pushiness”, Robert Jenrick, will “have to do something about it”.

Today marks 10 years since Britain voted to leave the EU. And ever since, “Westminster has been in a state of almost constant upheaval”, said Tom McTague in The Times. Six different prime ministers have struggled to deal with the realities of Brexit, in what has been “quite comfortably, the worst period of governance in Britain’s modern democratic history”.

Public opinion has decidedly shifted in the past decade. In 2016, we voted 52% to 48% in favour of Brexit, but now 57% of Britons think the UK was wrong to vote to leave the EU, according to a YouGov poll this month. And that includes 23% of Leave voters. A majority (59%) support a closer relationship with the EU but opinions are divided about exactly what that should mean.

What did the commentators say?

“Life in Brexit Britain is simply harder,” said The Economist. Since leaving the EU, we have “mostly failed to pursue the radical deregulation that small-state Brexiteers promised”. Many European rules have “stayed on the books”, including restrictions on Britons’ working hours and a fair few animal-welfare protections. Some estimates put the GDP-per-person “damage from Brexit” as high as 8% but “it would be churlish” to say leaving “has hurt everyone” when “puffins and lobsters are among the winners”.

A decent proportion of Starmer’s “nugatory” achievements in office “simply would not have been possible if we had stayed in the EU”, said Brexit campaigner Michael Gove in The Spectator. A steel tariff package, a cut in tariffs on “more than 100 foodstuffs”, trade deals with the US and India – not to mention gaining a “decisive edge in AI” outside of the EU’s Digital Markets Act – were all secured by “our Brexit freedoms”. People say Brexit is “tawdry and compromised” or even a “self-inflicted wound that makes seppuku look like keyhole surgery” but “we have taken back control”.

The referendum result “sent shockwaves across the world”, said Laëtitia Langlois, a French lecturer in British political studies, on The Conversation. But, rather than delivering greater social or economic prosperity, it triggered a “major recomposition” of the UK’s political landscape. It has “normalised and mainstreamed populist discourse” and contributed to “the erosion of the two traditional parties”. Divisions exposed by the referendum “created the conditions for culture wars” that map less easily onto conventional party politics and “continue to tear British society apart”.

“Little that most people care about has improved since 2016, while much has got worse,” said McTague in The Times. This past decade “has exposed a political class that appears unable to govern, sitting atop a state no longer fit for purpose”. We voted to regain control and “discovered our leaders couldn’t handle it”.

What next?

The UK “needs to move on from Brexit”, said the Financial Times’ editorial board. But that does not mean we should “ignore its consequences”. The best way to proceed is to move closer to the EU, stopping “short of rejoining”, through an “evolving, bespoke arrangement”. We cannot “rewind the clock” but we “can, and should, seek to regain more” of what we have lost.

The balance of opinion has certainly “shifted” against Leave since 2016, said Sunder Katwala in The Independent. But Britain faces “years of negotiation about how to have a closer relationship” with the EU again. I hope we can find “common ground”, instead of gearing up for “another uncivil war between our new post-Brexit tribes”.

Keir Starmer announced his resignation this morning, saying he had heard the answer to the question as to whether he was the right person to lead Labour into the next election and would “accept that answer with good grace”.

The pathway from landslide electoral victory in 2024 to candidate for most unpopular prime minister of all time must be “one of the shortest honeymoon periods in British political history”, said Becky Morton and Brian Wheeler on the BBC.

What did the commentators say?

Shortly after becoming prime minister, Starmer boasted “that there would never be such a thing as Starmerism”, said Morton and Wheeler. But what he saw as a lack of ideological baggage ultimately translated – in the eyes of the public and many within his own party – to a perception that the prime minister “was, simply, not very good at politics”.

“There is something lame about him that Starmer has struggled from the start to shrug off,” said Ameer Kotecha in The Spectator. His lack of charisma was sold as a sign of the dutiful competence that was supposed to distinguish him from the perceived frivolity of the Liz Truss and Boris Johnson eras. But over the course of his premiership, the Starmer who has emerged “appears constantly at the mercy of events”, his occasional moments of “startling ruthlessness” somehow “even more unattractive than his mere ineptitude”.

Starmer “arrived for a career in politics unprepared for what a career in politics actually means”, said Andrew Marr in The New Statesman. The former director of public prosecutions went from courtroom to “cage fight”, and never managed to sell himself or his messaging “in a raucous, jeering environment where many assumed he was a compulsive liar”. In taking on the premiership of a fractured, stagnating Britain, he “chose a painful, treacherous path at an unusually difficult time”. If it “hasn’t worked”, it is “by no means all his fault”.

What next?

“The beneficiary of Starmer’s demise is all but certain to be Andy Burnham,” said Sonia Sodha in The Times. Burnham is “a warm and effective communicator” – but he must use that charisma to “strike a realistically ambitious tone” and sell the public on “hard truths” about the road ahead, rather than quick-fix solutions whose inevitable failure will only benefit populist parties.

A Burnham administration “will test the power of personality over policy”, said The New York Times. His allies pin their hopes on his talents as “an effective storyteller who can counter the inflammatory rhetoric of populist rivals” in a way that always eluded Starmer. But so far his vision for the nation has been confined to “sweeping generalities” that offer little insight into how he will address huge challenges like “economic stagnation”, public sector funding and “ascendant, anti-immigrant populism”.

Tim Bale, a professor of politics at Queen Mary University of London, said the picture for Labour has become so “bleak” that most party insiders will be happy if Burnham can simply “persuade people to give the party a second look”. But “if the sausage isn’t going to change, when it comes down to it, all he’s really offering is some sizzle”.

If Andy Burnham wins today’s Makerfield by-election, Wes Streeting won’t be letting him have a clear run at No.10. “For the avoidance of doubt, for the umpteenth time, I will be standing” for the Labour leadership, he told Politico.

Rumours are swirling that Andy Burnham “is preparing to launch an immediate leadership challenge against Keir Starmer” if he secures his return to Westminster, said The Times. His team are “confident that the challenge could be uncontested”, and are already “drawing up plans for what his first 100 days in government would look like”.

But the former health secretary is determined to spoil any Burnham coronation. He claims to have the backing he needs to enter any leadership contest, and made a major speech earlier this week setting out his own economic plan for government.

What did the commentators say?

Streeting’s speech was impressive, said City A.M. editor-in-chief Christian May. “In under an hour,” he displayed “more intellectual flair and more interest in economic growth than Rachel Reeves has offered in two years” and “certainly offered more than Burnham appears capable of”. He represents “a chance to revive this country’s economic fortunes and repair our frayed social bonds. Labour MPs and party members should seize it.”

Streeting has “had a good week” but he faces a “formidable set of obstacles” even to becoming a candidate in any leadership race, said Stephen Bush in the Financial Times. He may “in theory” have the support of the 81 Labour MPs he needs to make it onto a leadership ballot but “it is not clear they will be willing to back” his “long-shot” bid if it would “blot their copybook with Andy Burnham, the likely winner in a contest”.

Streeting’s poll ratings “have worsened since he resigned a month ago” and many in Westminster “have already written off” his leadership hopes, said The i Paper’s policy editor Jane Merrick. His allies argue that he will “make up ground” once a contest is underway: with “TV debates and hustings giving equal airtime to all candidates”, his “pitch to succeed Starmer” will be more widely heard. He talks about wanting the contest to be a “battle of ideas” about policy; “he is still regarded by many in the Labour Party as generational talent” but this will be “an uphill struggle” for him.

What next?

Right now, Streeting is “performing poorly with the Labour membership”, pollster and political strategist Scarlett Maguire told The i Paper. It is difficult to see him overcoming “the deficit he’s built up relative to” his potential leadership rivals. He would be trounced in a head-to-head battle with either Burnham or Starmer, according to a Survation/LabourList poll of Labour Party members.

But it may be that Streeting already has his Plan B up and running. It was telling that his speech this week was all about economics. “It was very much a pitch for the job of chancellor in a Burnham government,” said John Rentoul in The Independent. If Streeting can’t have “the top job”, then that’s the ministerial responsibility he would like most.

Three senior UK defence figures have accused Keir Starmer of not giving UK troops the funding they need to carry out their duties.

With “scathing remarks” in Parliament, former defence secretary John Healey, former Armed Forces minister Al Carns and the country’s senior military officer, Rich Knighton, all accused Starmer of “underfunding the military”, said The Guardian.

What did the commentators say?

Knighton, chief of the defence staff, told a committee of MPs that the UK’s Armed Forces will have to “dial back” military deployments, training and exercises if Starmer doesn’t increase funding to the Ministry of Defence. Moscow is “definitely raising the stakes and risks crossing a line”, so “we need to spend more on defence and do it faster”, Knighton told BBC Radio 4’s “Today”.

The risks ⁠and threats to Britain are greater than at any time since the Cold War, and the government needs to spend on defence to match that, he argued. “The challenge for ministers is to make those difficult trade-off decisions,” Knighton said, and “we do need to step up and enhance our capability as the threats from potential adversaries grow”.

Successive governments have “struggled to get a grip” on defence spending, said James Landale, the BBC’s diplomatic correspondent. “They spent less after the Cold War ended and failed to spend more as the world became more dangerous”, so the Army, Navy and Air Force all “contracted”.

Yes, the “fight between the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury” over defence spending has “raged longer than the hundred years war”, said Libby Brooks in The Guardian, but the “case for increased defence spending is harder to make with a population who experience no direct threat while bombs continue to drop elsewhere”. But the “general acceptance in military circles” is that Britain is “already under threat on home soil” from electoral interference, the targeting of synagogues, and arson attacks.

Following the 2024 general election, Starmer commissioned a strategic defence review to “set out a vision for UK defence over the next 10 years”. But “what it didn’t do” was “provide insight into how it was to be funded”, said Thomas Caygill, a politics lecturer at Nottingham Trent University, on The Conversation.

According to reports, the Treasury was refusing to offer more than £13.5 billion in investment (a 0.08% budget increase) when the MoD had asked for £18 billion.

But “to give the Treasury some credit”, the MoD is “known for poor spending decisions” and has “long been criticised for wasting taxpayers’ money”. So the hesitancy “may be justified” when “public finances are very tight” and the cost of government borrowing has risen.

What next?

Starmer has signalled that there’s unlikely to be more money for defence. He said he’d already “taken the decision” to cut capital spending by 1% from other departments to pay for further increases, and that it was up to Dan Jarvis, the new defence secretary, “where he wants that money to be spent”.

Jarvis will have to make “very significant cuts” inside the MoD if he cannot secure any more money for the department in the next two weeks, said Larisa Brown in The Times.

Emmanuel Macron has home-field advantage during the ongoing G7 summit in the resort town of Évian-les-Bains, and the French president wants the involved countries to help him deal with Chinese trade, which he feels is unbalanced. Though China isn’t a G7 member, it has an advantage of its own given its power in the global trade market. So Macron may have to perform a delicate balancing act.

What did the commentators say?

The French president largely expects the G7 nations to “converge on the need to tackle a flood of subsidized Chinese exports that is disrupting global markets,” said Politico. But it is becoming increasingly clear that “credible action is one deliverable he won’t be able to land.” Macron is pushing for Europe and the U.S. to come together for a solution, but meetings are “unlikely to deliver answers to the problem.”

The problem is two-pronged: Beijing is “curling its lip” at Macron, while Europe and the U.S. are “diverging on how to contain China’s $1.2 trillion trade surplus,” said Politico. Macron wants the EU to present a unified front on China, and Europe has “made strides on its China policy since the Covid-19 pandemic” but “still struggles to align internally,” said The Chicago Council on Global Affairs. And the “squeeze is tightening from both directions.”

France and Macron’s ultimate goal during the summit is to “make the reduction of global imbalances and inequalities the priority and position the G7 as a space for dialogue among the major advanced industrialized democracies,” said the Chicago Council. Macron also believes that talks between China and France “signal a ‘new willingness’ by China, the U.S. and Europe to coordinate economic approaches,” said Bloomberg.

The American factor also looms large, as President Donald Trump appears to be “ready to use the G7 stage to berate allies for what he views as inadequate support,” said the Council on Foreign Relations. With this in mind, Macron’s “challenge may be less about advancing his personal initiatives than managing the summit itself.” He may find himself “confronting two sets of competing summit agendas: the one it planned and the one that geopolitical events — and Trump — have created.”

What next?

The Évian-les-Bains summit will be Macron’s last; his term as French president expires in 2027, and he is ineligible to run again. The United States is hosting the next G7 summit, meaning Macron “will seek to keep the flame alive as he passes the torch to the United States,” said the Council on Foreign Relations. China, meanwhile, maintains that it is ready and willing to engage in economic cooperation with the EU, even as these discussions come “against the backdrop of talks in Europe over possible new restrictions to counter China’s export surge,” said Bloomberg.

“All countries should uphold openness and cooperation, take an objective view of the comparative advantages of different countries, foster a free and facilitative trading environment and practice true multilateralism,” Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Guoqing said during a conference call with France, according to Chinese state news agency Xinhua. He also “called for prioritizing development, improving global governance and promoting inclusive growth of the world economy.”

Host Emmanuel Macron is expected to pull out all the stops for this week’s G7 summit to prove that this gathering of the world’s richest democracies still matters in an age of strongman politics.

In one of his last big diplomatic set pieces before his presidential term winds down next year, Macron “will seek to paper over divisions” between Donald Trump and the other six leaders, said Euronews. Top of the agenda will be trying to “forge common positions on how to end the war in Ukraine”, on the resumption of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, and on “the development of safer technologies”.

What did the commentators say?

The summit is being held in the alpine spa town of Évian-les-Bains. The last time the G7 met here was in June 2003, when the US had invaded Iraq despite “the strident objections of France and Germany”, said Mark Landler, France editor of The New York Times. Then-US president George W. Bush “got chilly handshakes” but he worked hard with the other leaders “to maintain the veneer of like-minded countries uniting to confront the perils of an unruly world”. Two decades later, it’s the same town but another American war in the Middle East, and any “veneer” of unity has been “stripped away”.

The G7 is “a forum created to solve geopolitical crises but it was excluded from the US-Israeli planning for war” with Iran, said Flavia Krause-Jackson, Bloomberg’s Europe editor. And it was ignored by the US in both the diplomacy for and the timing of the peace deal, which Trump announced the day before the summit, with the signing taking place after it ends.

The truth is that while, collectively, the G7 nations – France, Italy, Germany, the US, the UK, Canada and Japan – might account for 45% of global GDP, individually, few would count as one of the world’s “biggest or indeed most powerful economies”, said Jonathan Moules in the Financial Times. And Trump would clearly rather play geopolitics with Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping than waste time building consensus with leaders he views as weak.

For their part, Canada and Europe “no longer view the US as a partner on key issues such as climate change and security”, said Landler in The New York Times. And some even see America as a “threat”, given Trump’s “deepening disdain for Nato” and his repeated pursuit of Greenland. Across the group, there are “diverging opinions” on “how far to pull away from the US” but that’s certainly the direction of movement.

What next?

Expectations of what this three-day summit can achieve are “already low”, said Clea Caulcutt on Politico. “Despite all the efforts of the French presidency, the G7 format has lost much of its relevance,” an EU official told the website.

“They will talk, but I’m not sure anything will come out of it,” said a former French official. And even if it did, “any gains secured could be fleeting” with such a mercurial US president. In the end, it’s really all about keeping up appearances. As one European diplomat put it bluntly: “It will be a success if there is a family photo.”

Rifts within the Labour party look set to fracture along new lines, as a Labour MP says she’ll reintroduce the highly controversial assisted dying bill.

Lauren Edwards, MP for Rochester and Strood, has said she will use her second place in the Private Members’ Bill ballot to bring forward the same Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) bill Kim Leadbeater introduced last year. The original bill was narrowly voted through by the House of Commons but fell in April after running out of time to clear the House of Lords because of the huge number of safeguarding amendments tabled.

“By bringing exactly the same legislation, Edwards is threatening to trigger rarely used powers to override peers’ objections should they refuse to pass it again”, said the BBC. Under the Parliament Acts – only used seven times in the past century – a bill that has been voted through by the Commons in two consecutive parliamentary sessions can pass into law without the Lords’ approval.

What did the commentators say?

The original bill, on which MPs were give a “free vote” according to conscience, caused deep divisions in Parliament. And as Edwards makes her new move, her fellow Labour MPs are also “at each other’s throats” over their party’s future direction, said The Independent. Last time round, Keir Starmer voted in favour of the bill and one of his potential leadership contenders, former health secretary Wes Streeting, voted against. “Andy Burnham’s position is not clear”.

Labour MP Ashley Dalton, who has cancer, is “deeply concerned” that the bill is returning. “Voters put us in power to reduce the cost of living and fix the NHS,” she told The Independent. We debated this “deeply divisive and flawed” bill for over a year but its supporters did not “listen or to make the necessary changes”.

Supporters of assisted dying “insist” the bill only failed because “a handful of peers blocked it”, said Hannah Barnes in The New Statesman. “They are ideologically opposed to the principle,” Sarah Wootton of campaign group Dignity in Dying told the magazine. In response to fears that vulnerable people could be coerced into taking their own lives, she said current criminal law requires “no systemic exploration” of whether a terminally ill person who takes their own life has been coerced to do so. “I don’t see how you can argue that having greater scrutiny, transparency and regulation” won’t protect people “more than the status quo”.

Yet “blaming a handful of peers for the bill’s demise ignores the concerns that were raised by others before debate even began”, said Barnes. There were numerous worries from across the political spectrum “about the bill’s lack of pre-legislative scrutiny and the absence of detail about how assisted dying would work in practice”. There was no support from “the medical royal colleges”, nor from “any major disability charity or organisation”.

I support the right to die but not this legislation – because it only “covers a vanishingly small number of people”, whose needs could really “be met via decent palliative care”, said Stephen Bush in the Financial Times. It is designed for a person who has six or less months to live, is of sound mind and wishes to die without pain or uncertainty. But “when I talk to people about” assisted dying, most of those who “want the right” are those who do not want “to spend years in expensive, suspended animation while their dementia costs eat away at everything they’ve worked for”. But this legislation “is precisely designed not to provide for people who do not wish to have a slow death via dementia”. I fear politicians are “much more squeamish about that aspect of wanting the right to die than the average British person”.

What next?

Some doubt that the legislation would even pass the House of Commons this time. If it doesn’t, it would hardly be “a surprise, given that Leadbeater’s legislation passed its Commons Third Reading by just 23 votes”, said The Spectator. “That means only 12 MPs would need to switch from support to opposition for it to fall.”

Edwards has claimed she does not want the bill to be forced through and is open to making changes. “There undoubtedly are lots of peers who have tabled sensible amendments, and they should be considered in the usual way,” she told BBC Radio 4. “It’s all about following the proper democratic processes that we have.”

As the UK reels from anti-immigration protests, its neighbours on the continent are driving through a massive overhaul of their migration and asylum rules.

From today, all 27 EU states must follow a single set of rules on border screening and asylum procedures that include expanded detention and fast-track removal powers. The new Pact on Migration and Asylum will be backed by a shared digital database, and the establishment of “return hubs” outside EU borders for failed asylum-seekers. The aim “is to end a patchwork system where someone arriving in Greece faces an entirely different legal reality than someone arriving in Germany”, said Euronews.

It’s unclear what knock-on effect these stricter, uniform EU rules will have on UK asylum claims and irregular arrivals. But some are already warning that it could make Britain more attractive to migrants – just as tensions around immigration rachet up.

What did the commentators say?

There is “growing recognition” that, to curtail “the rise of hard-right parties” across the continent, “centrists must be able to show that they are responding to their citizens’ concerns about ­increasingly uncontrolled immigration”, said The Times’ editorial board.

The EU’s new goal is to “reduce irregular arrivals, speed up procedures” and “limit the number of people who fall off the radar” within the bloc, said Politico. Member countries that “receive the most migrants” will also get more support, either in the form or cash “or the relocation of migrants from one country to another”.

But the new deportation rules “will enable what more than 80 human rights organisations call ‘ICE-style’ detection, raids, detention and offshore return practices across Europe”, said geopolitical analyst Shada Islam in The Guardian. One MEP “quite rightly calls the pact a ‘legal arsenal serving a xenophobic ideology’”. All the talk of control and deterrence hides “what the European Network Against Racism calls an ‘imagined whiteness’, a political construct that defines who naturally belongs to Europe and who remains a permanently suspect outsider”.

The impact on the UK “is likely to be uneven”, said the UK in a Changing Europe think tank. It’s possible that, if Europe is rejecting asylum claims more quickly, “some rejected applicants may attempt onward movement toward the UK”. But “stronger” border enforcement in the EU may reduce overall “movement towards the north”.

No, more illegal migrants may now “look to Britain, which has no returns deals and weaker defences”, said James Crisp, Europe editor of The Telegraph. “One such weakness is the soft border with Ireland.” We can’t harden that border without threatening the Good Friday Agreement and Brexit treaties. Keir Starmer could use his much-vaunted EU reset negotiations “to pitch for an EU-wide migrant return deal” but that would mean “agreeing to European Commission migrant quotas”, which “could be politically suicidal”.

What next?

The ambition of the EU pact “is already running into reality”, said EuroNews. Member states are not signing up to anything like their share of asylum-seeker relocations, “with Hungary and Slovakia committing to none.”

For the UK, the “more realistic” approach is to push for greater intelligence sharing and more cooperation on migration, said The Telegraph’s Crisp. Both “Northern Ireland and Ireland are struggling to adapt to the challenges of modern migration”, so if everyone wants to “preserve and protect a common travel area that has lasted more than a century, they need to find a way to ensure its safeguards are still fit for purpose”.

Police have deployed water cannons to quell another night of violent protests in Belfast, and “civil war predictions seem to be increasing by the hour,” said John Harris in The Guardian.

Despite the family of stabbed Belfast man Stephen Ogilvie insisting that “unrest is not welcome”, online figures including Elon Musk and Tommy Robinson have fuelled anger, promoted protest, and are pushing the idea of a civil unrest – not only in Northern Ireland but also in the rest of the UK. Online fury is starting to have tangible consequences in the real world.

What did the commentators say?

This is not the first time “far-right figures” have used “incendiary language” to target ethnic minorities and migrants, said Shane Raymond in The Journal. Violent disorder in Southampton after Henry Nowak’s murder, “weeks of riots” last year in Northern Ireland, and the Stockport riots in 2024 were all triggered online. Misinformation, snowballing quickly on social media, played a large part in this week’s Belfast protests: there were even claims that the victim was a child, and had died from their wounds – that “was shared by an Irish county councillor”.

This is a “new type of civil disobedience”, said Finn McRedmond in The New Statesman. Northern Ireland’s “sectarian angst” has been replaced by a simmering resentment shared throughout England and the rest of the British Isles. It is “all connected now”: the “new atavistic rage of our time” is binding “north and south, east and west” in a “more straightforward form of ethnic conflict”.

Social media is being used to recast Britain as a “violent dystopia”, said Harris in The Guardian, and “smooth the path to power of some of the most terrifying politicians Britain has ever seen” – including “king of the civil war genre”, Nigel Farage. A vision of Britain in perpetual crisis is fed into “algorithmically curated video feeds” of fighting and riots. Politicians need to understand what people are seeing on phones “so overused that their screens are full of cracks” – “much like their owners’ understanding” of what is still a “largely stable country”.

Claiming we are on the verge of a civil war is “not only unconvincing, but potentially harmful”, said Jonathan Portes of the UK in a Changing Europe academic think tank. Throwing the term around “distracts from underlying issues”, contributing instead to a “more polarised and less constructive political environment”. Yes, “trust in institutions has declined”, but “this is neither new nor unique to the UK”. What is new is the rhetoric of crisis emerging from “fringe spaces” to “mainstream commentary”. This “exaggeration” is not “harmless” but “protest is not insurgency, and polarisation is not civil war”.

What next?

“It’s past time to moan about values and tolerance,” said The Times’ editorial board. Keir Starmer has condemned the Belfast protests but his “bemused and drifting government has done nothing to tackle the root cause”: a perception, however erroneous, that legal and illegal immigration “is out of control”.

Some suggest the solution is an end to the open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland but that’s a “keystone” underpinning the Good Friday Agreement. What’s needed is “more intensive cooperation” with Ireland, and above all, Starmer needs to recognise the “explosive dimensions of immigration” and its “exploitation” by bad actors. Failure to do so would be a “national security risk”.

Kemi Badenoch’s call to scrap equalities guidelines for police and other public bodies has opened up a new front in the culture wars amid tensions over the death of Henry Nowak and riots in Belfast sparked by a knife attack by a Sudanese asylum seeker.

The Tory leader said the landmark Equality Act 2010 does offer a valuable “shield” against discrimination. But the Public Sector Equality Duty, which places an active requirement on public bodies to demonstrate the promotion of equality, had become a legal “minefield”, she said. It should be repealed “in its entirety”.

What did the commentators say?

Comparisons have been made between Henry Nowak and George Floyd, “but a more accurate precedent” for the murder of 18-year-old student Nowak would be the case of Stephen Lawrence”, said Andrew Doyle, the author of “Free Speech and Why It Matters”, in The Washington Post. That “horrific crime led to a much-needed overhaul of police practice” characterised by institutional racism.

Today, UK policing suffers from a “different form of institutional bias, which prioritises group identity and the tenets of diversity, equity and inclusion over impartial and rigorous law enforcement”. Nowak’s death “should lead to a similarly urgent reappraisal”.

By “incubating” diversity, equality and inclusion guidelines in the public sector, Labour and the Conservatives have “presented Reform UK with an open goal”, said The Times. With the Makerfield by-election coming up on 18 June, Nigel Farage has “weaponised the Nowak case”, alleging institutional “anti-white prejudice” and a “two-tier” justice system, giving fresh impetus to Reform’s calls to scrap the Equality Act entirely.

Keir Starmer is “right” to claim that Farage is “playing politics with a tragedy” but the PM “downplays genuine concerns about politicised policing”. In this febrile political atmosphere, it is Badenoch’s “common sense” approach that “emerges from this debate with most credit”, said The Times.

Badenoch’s response “should be commended for its sensible and responsible tone”, said The Independent. While suggesting improvements to the Equality Act, her speech “was in effect a strong defence of the principles behind it” and has Farage’s “simplistic slogans on the run”.

Given the recent “attacks on transgender rights” in the UK, “it is perhaps not surprising that the equalities consensus is all but dead now even with race”, said David Maddox in The Independent. Farage’s colourful rhetoric wins headlines but he remains a “policy vacuum”, so Badenoch has “spied her opportunity” to take the lead in “a policy arms race on the right of politics to own the culture wars agenda”.

What next?

Badenoch’s intervention has turned the “once uncontroversial” public sector equality duty into the “new battleground in Britain’s culture wars”, said Aamna Mohdin in The Guardian. She linked equality guidelines to the Bank of England’s decision to replace historical figures on banknotes with images of British wildlife.

But experts in equality law say many of the examples cited by critics “misunderstand its purpose and how it operates in practice”. They stress that the duty “does not require public organisations to provide a particular service or introduce a particular policy”.

Human rights barrister Karon Monaghan said the attack on equality guidelines in the public sector fuelled the right-wing attack on anti-discrimination provisions more broadly, including the Equality Act. “Do we want a society where women can be paid unequally, where black people can be told they can’t have a job, where disabled people can’t get into work?” she said.

With Farage and now the Tories expected to make scrapping “woke” equality rules a major part of their campaign at the next general election, “we may get our answer” then, said Mohdin.

Henry Nowak would “still be alive today” if Britain and Europe had “stood their ground against the politics of self-hatred and the mass invasion of migrants”, said J.D. Vance on X. The “proper response – the only response – is righteous anger”.

The “most outspoken member” of an “evangelistic” administration, Vance’s ire does seem to have a “particular focus on the UK”, said The Times. He has commented on protests around abortion clinics, and told Keir Starmer that there have been “infringements on free speech” in Britain.

Vance is now using the Nowak murder to “bolster” his narrative of Britain as a “once powerful nation” “pandering to liberalism”. This could just be a reminder for American voters that the Republican Party retains an “uncompromising approach to wokeism, borders and policing” in the upcoming mid-terms. But if Vance is anointed successor to the Maga movement, comments such as these could be a sign of things to come.

What did the commentators say?

“J.D. Vance is wrong to intervene in the controversy around the murder of Henry Nowak,” said The Telegraph in an editorial. That said, “there is a good deal of hypocrisy on show”: Labour Remainers had no issue with Barack Obama “intervening” in the Brexit debate, and have had “no compunction about condemning Donald Trump over domestic US policy. “Inevitably, politicians welcome foreign interference only if it suits their arguments”, when “it would be far better if each stayed out of the other’s business”.

Vance was “surely right” to call out the “politics of self-hatred” in the British justice system, said Ameer Kotecha in The Spectator. It is “perfectly legitimate” for the US to comment publicly on what is happening in the UK. The government’s reaction, arguing he has “crossed a red line of diplomatic protocol”, has been hypocritical and “frankly pathetic”.

Britain is just as guilty. For instance, the Labour Party sent 100 activists to campaign for Kamala Harris in 2024. “Rather than engage in shameless pearl-clutching, Starmer’s government should listen to what our closest ally is telling us.”

Interventions like Vance’s are “deepening the split between the Trump administration and Britain’s Labour government”, said Dominic Green in The Wall Street Journal. The division is inherent. Where Vance sees a mission to “stabilise values and societies after decades of self-inflicted confusion”, Britain sees “Bible-bashing and race-baiting”, and hears “only atavistic calls to the wrong kind of identity politics”.

This “political opportunism” against Britain goes far deeper than the vice president, said James Schneider in The New Statesman. “The exploitation of Nowak’s death is of a piece with a clear US state strategy, one which turns Europe into a source for American rhetoric.” Vance talks about Britain “not as an equal, but as a provincial outpost of the imperial system, nominally independent and permanently available for correction”.

What next?

Vance’s stance could have implications for the next election on this side of the Atlantic, said Gaby Hinsliff in The Guardian. If Vance remains in the White House as vice president, “or even as Trump’s successor” after the US elections in 2028, it’s hard to imagine him “standing idly by” when the UK goes to the polls, likely in 2029.

At best, the reaction to the Nowak intervention shows us that “plenty of Britons still reflexively dislike being lectured by Americans”. Yet, it has also warned us “not to take our political sovereignty for granted. Sooner or later, we may need to defend it.”

Israel and Iran have traded tit-for-tat strikes, in defiance of Donald Trump, for the first time since a fragile ceasefire was agreed in April.

The Israeli Air Force confirmed hitting military targets in western and central Iran, in response to Iranian missile attacks on its own air bases. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said it had attacked the air bases after an Israeli strike on an alleged Hezbollah site in southern Beirut.

This escalation is a “major test for negotiations”, said CNN. Donald Trump said both sides must “stop shooting”, and told the media he had urged Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu not to retaliate to the Iranian attack. “We are very close to a final deal with Iran,” he told Israel’s Channel 12 News. “It is going to be a good deal. I don’t want it to blow up because of what is happening now.”

What did the commentators say?

Tensions between Iran and Israel have been heightening over Lebanon, said Maziar Motamedi at Al Jazeera. The Lebanese government was alarmed by Israeli troops crossing its Litani River last month. And, despite reports that Trump had convinced Netanyahu not to target Beirut, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps warned last week that “there will be no calm in the region” if Israel continued its occupation of southern Lebanon. The Israeli strike on the alleged Hezbollah site crossed “an unofficial red line for Tehran”.

Israel’s decision to strike back at Iran was “deliberate”, said Alex Winston in The Jerusalem Post. “It could not afford to leave unanswered” Tehran’s retaliation for the strikes in Lebanon. Had it not responded, “the message to Tehran would have been pretty clear”: “any Israeli response to Hezbollah could be framed by Tehran as a provocation, allowing Iran to fire directly at Israel while assuming that American diplomatic pressure would keep Jerusalem’s hands tied”.

Netanyahu’s decision to defy Trump’s instructions underscores a relationship that is increasingly at odds on how to prosecute the war on Iran, said The Wall Street Journal. “Under pressure from his political allies and the opposition to respond to the Iranian missile barrage”, the Israeli PM’s order to resume direct attacks on Iran “threatened to escalate a conflict that has been largely contained”.

What next?

Iran has now announced “a halt to the operations of the armed forces”. Mediation efforts “are naturally continuing”, said Esmail Baghaei, spokesperson for the Iranian foreign ministry, earlier today, but he warned that Iran believes the US “bears responsibility for the Israeli regime’s aggression”. No one would believe that the Israeli regime would take action “without coordination with the US,” he said. America will “be responsible for the consequences of any escalation in tensions”.

Tehran has also used its Houthi proxies in Yemen to threaten a blockade of the Bab al-Mandab Strait if Israel continues to escalate its use of force. The route is “another vital artery connecting major trade routes between Europe, Asia and the Arab world”, said CNN; closing it “would compound the worldwide economic pressure” generated by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

“Right now, it’s like the AI industry has a gas pedal but it doesn't have a brake pedal,” Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark told the BBC.

Anthropic recently overtook OpenAI, the makers of ChatGPT, as the world’s most valuable AI start-up. But Clark has called for a global freeze in AI development, warning that humans risk losing control of the technology. He revealed that 80% of the code that Claude, the company’s chatbot, is operating on was written by Claude itself. And reaching 100% is only a couple of years away.

Clark and his research colleague, Marina Favaro, have suggested that work at Anthropic could undergo “a meaningful slowdown or pause” if other AI tech firms were prepared to do the same. “If it were possible to effectively slow the development of this technology to give ourselves more time to deal with its immense implications, we think that would likely be a good thing,” they wrote in a blog post.

What did the commentators say?

Better regulation “would keep AI systems in their lane”, said David Krueger, a specialist in responsible AI, in The Guardian. We should insist companies have “clear and well-scoped purposes” for their AI tools, and “demand evidence that they are fit for purpose”. And they should report statistics and data so that we can see if their product is being used in ways that “deviate from its intended purpose”.

But the “safest, sanest” option is to “stop racing” to make AI smarter. The creation of Moltbook (a forum for AI agents that humans can only observe) is one of the “increasingly alarming warning signs” that “rogue AI agents” could be on their way. “We need to make sure” that rogue AI isn’t “capable of threatening humanity, by agreeing to enforceable, international limits on AI capabilities and AI development”.

There are some hopeful signs in the US. On Tuesday, Donald Trump signed a “much-awaited” executive order to establish a measure of vetting for AI companies, said Politico. It was “messy, muted and far less ambitious than Silicon Valley’s critics had hoped for” but it does mark a “sea change in Washington’s willingness to tighten” AI oversight. The new voluntary process of sharing new models with the US government, so that security risks can be identified and addressed before the technology is released, could “soon pave the way for mandatory vetting, federal pre-approval of advanced AI systems and other regulations”.

Some may think it “meaningful” that Trump is “doing something – anything – about AI”, said The Atlantic, but this executive order is “relatively toothless”. He wants to look like he’s being robust, to “score points” with the public, but, in fact “he is not saying or doing anything substantive at all”. The window for serious government regulation, anywhere in the world, is “rapidly closing”; “hopefully, it is not already gone”.

We’re missing the point, said John Burn-Murdoch in the Financial Times. “AI’s capacity to deliver genuine value has been vastly exaggerated.” In one US study, researchers tracking software developers before and after they adopted AI tools found an initial “explosive” increase in productivity (300% more files created or edited) but, after verification and review, just a 30% “uplift” in the number of releases. These are “powerful new tools” but it’s going to take some time before they can interact with current workflow “processes and structures” without friction or bottlenecks.

What next?

Trump’s executive order is a “good first move in creating a safer tech ecosystem”, said Jen Easterly, former director of the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, in The New York Times. But a voluntary framework, predicated on mutual cooperation between private companies and the US government, “cannot guarantee” effectiveness. And, let’s not forget, a “principle enshrined in an executive order is only as durable as the administration that issued it”.

For this step to be a positive one, in an American context at least, the legislative branch needs to follow suit. The responsibility of building an AI environment that is “innovative, trusted and resilient” ultimately lies with the US Congress.

China’s manufacturing might is overwhelming Europe, and Europe is gearing up to push back. A trade war could be in the offing as Brussels seeks to protect the continent’s workers and factories from a flood of inexpensive imports from state-backed Chinese manufacturers.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is aiming for a “major crackdown on subsidized Chinese imports,” said Politico. Europe cannot “be the victim of a predatory strategy that is destroying our industry,” EU industrial strategy chief Stéphane Séjourné said to the outlet.

China is warning it will retaliate against any EU action. Europe is “going further and further down a radical path,” said state-run social media account Yuyuantantian, per The Wall Street Journal. The tit for tat could further unsettle a global economy already rattled by President Donald Trump’s trade policies and fallout from the Iran war.

What did the commentators say?

The Chinese economy is “taking everyone down,” Michael Schuman said at The Atlantic. The country has become a “government-subsidized, export-driven manufacturing juggernaut” that is “alienating trading partners.” That includes Europe, where Chinese imports are “costing Germany 10,000 manufacturing jobs a month.” The success of China’s export strategy may make its businesses seem “unstoppable,” but its continuation relies on the “assumption that other countries will continue to absorb China’s exports.” Beijing may instead be pushing its rivals to embrace a “protectionism that depresses prosperity for everyone.”

“What, precisely, is the problem with Chinese surpluses?” Martin Sandbu said at the Financial Times. Chinese car imports have indeed increased in recent years, but that merely “displaced imports from elsewhere.” The overall number of vehicles shipped into the EU has “remained steady” during that time. Europe could benefit from manufacturing competition “as a spur to faster productivity improvements at home.” That would be good both for European businesses and “for consumers.”

The EU may be “finally waking up to China,” Peggy Corlin and Luca Bertuzzi said at Euronews. The reassessment “has been long in the making” after “decades of deepening economic dependence.” But Europe is not entirely united on the issue. Germany, for example, is still focused on “securing market access for German companies in China,” while Spain is welcoming a “growing share” of Chinese investments. “Political will” is the “key determining factor” in what happens next.

What next?

Europe’s search for solutions is “increasingly urgent,” said The New York Times. EU officials are worried about the “imminent collapse of industry,” Jeromin Zettelmeyer, the director of the Bruegel think tank, said to the outlet. “The tone is basically panic.”

Curbing imports could ultimately be “profoundly tricky” in a European marketplace where consumers have become “hooked on what China is selling,” said the Times. The issue may soon come to a head. “Global economic imbalances” will be on the agenda for the G7 Summit of European and North American leaders later this month.

Parties contesting the Makerfield by-election are “locked in a war of words” over how much support there is for insurgent “far-right” party Restore Britain, said Kitty Donaldson in The i Paper.

An early poll by Survation puts support for Rupert Lowe’s Restore at 7%, with Labour at 43% and Reform UK at 40%. Labour supporters hope that Restore could split the right-wing vote and usher in Andy Burnham, who is expected to mount a leadership challenge to Keir Starmer should he win the by-election.

For Nigel Farage, Reform’s leader and long the champion of the right, this situation is “ironic”, said Melanie Phillips in The Times. “The axiom that the revolution eats its own” is “generally associated with the left. Now it has arrived on the right.”

What did the commentators say?

A Farage pivot has already begun, said The Economist. To date, his “vision of ‘colour blind’ politics” has been a “success”. But following the recent reaction to the murder of Henry Nowak – Farage called for the public to respond “with pure, cold rage” and declared that “white lives matter too” – it is clear that the Reform leader has “embraced a new, uglier way of thinking”.

This “dark turn” seems to have been prompted by the “threat” posed by Lowe. The Restore leader said “the killer should be executed and his family deported” following his life sentence. “Targeting the angry, and making them angrier, could be a winning formula” for Reform in the new fragmented political landscape.

It is clear that Farage and his allies are “visibly rattled” by Restore, said Robert Shrimsley in the Financial Times. Though Farage may not fear being “superseded” by Lowe, a split on the right could “cost him seats”. A “confident” Farage would “have to hold his nerve” and tackle Lowe at the next general election.

Restore could even be a blessing in disguise for Farage. Lowe and Co. could serve as a “decontamination chamber” to rid his own party of more extreme voices, in turn making Reform more palatable and within the “admittedly shifting” boundaries of “political decency”. All of this, of course, hinges on “how frightened Farage feels. But the last thing an already polarised nation needs is a new bidding war on the anti-immigrant right.”

Restore’s “march into culture warzones” like climate change and social integration is “profoundly depressing”, said Rosa Prince in Bloomberg. The party is “heavily backed” by “racially fixated billionaire” Elon Musk, who “regularly shares” its posts on his platform, X. Indeed, it may have been Musk’s endorsement of Lowe to lead Reform that led to the birth of Restore. Clips from a YouTube interview with Maga figure Tucker Carlson have also been “viewed millions of times”, adding to Lowe’s more than 1.3 million Facebook followers. Digital “ubiquity” and a “splintering” political system have fuelled the rise of both Reform and Restore. “We’re all poorer as a result.”

“Then there is Lowe himself,” said James Heale in The Spectator. Though undoubtedly on the charge, he is not infallible. At 68, Lowe must now “do in a decade what Farage managed in three”. Farage has “withstood 30 years of muckraking and press sleuthing. Is Lowe ready for the same?”

Lowe is already under investigation by the parliamentary watchdog after a complaint was made against him, and there is a perceived discord between his “clubbable” character in person and his online persona. As his party’s prominence grows, Lowe will also face pressure to “disavow comments his activists have made”. With the belief that Reform’s immigration policies are “insufficiently robust” as one of the party’s founding principles, Restore will also “inevitably struggle to keep its base onside”.

What next?

“Restore hopes to provide more than just a distraction” in the Makerfield by-election, said Nick Gutteridge in The Telegraph. Though the official, albeit small-sample, poll put Restore at around 7%, data collected by 300 Restore activists and released by Lowe claimed that “almost a quarter of households” said they would vote for Restore. “The claims were met with incredulity online and dismissed by political opponents.”

“You don’t need to be John Curtice to see what this means,” said Brendan O’Neill on Spiked. “The 7% being hoovered up by Restore’s oddball door-knockers is thwarting a potential Reform win.” It may be a “two-horse” race between those who believe Andy Burnham can “resuscitate the corpse of Labour” and those who are “taking a punt on the populists of Reform”. Restore is, in fact, “shaving support from Reform, is giving the listless, dull-eyed horse of technocracy its best shot of winning”.

Support for Restore could make a “critical difference” to the result in Makerfield, said Phillips in The Times. Regardless, “whoever occupies No. 10 after this by-election”, and perhaps the general election, “will be presiding over a country that has become an explosive tinderbox”.

The war in Ukraine is unwinnable and could bring down the Russian economy. That’s the emerging assessment among Russia’s power brokers, as Vladimir Putin faces mounting challenges on the battlefield and at home.

Kremlin propagandists may still be “projecting confidence about the outcome of the war”, said Igor Gretskiy, of the Estonian-based International Centre for Defence and Security, but there’s been “a marked shift in mood” among Russia’s political and business elites. It’s no longer their “default assumption” that Russia will achieve its objectives.

What did the commentators say?

Setbacks have been mounting on several fronts, said Gretskiy. “First, the cracks in the Russian economy became impossible to ignore”, with the federal budget “deeply out of balance” and the deficit at the end of April nearly double what was planned for the whole of 2026.

“In the most serious sign of internal division” since Russia invaded Ukraine four years ago, senior Russian government officials have warned Putin that spending on the war “is on an unaffordable path”, said Bloomberg.

Then there is the military situation itself. Ukrainian drone attacks are causing severe disruption to Russia’s logistical networks and supply lines to the front, and long-range strikes have hit Russian oil-production infrastructure and even threatened Moscow. The Russian army is no longer able to grind out incremental capture of Ukrainian territory, and one million of its soldiers are thought to have been killed or wounded since hostilities began.

We’re in a situation where “the capabilities of both sides are comparable”, said Russian political scientist Vasily Kashin on Russia in Global Affairs. “Historically, such wars have only extremely rarely resulted in the complete destruction of one side.” Russia can have no hope “of annexing new large Ukrainian territories” when “it lacks the capacity to sustainably control and manage” them, and its goal of eliminating the Kyiv regime is “fundamentally unattainable at this stage”. The publication of such a damning analysis is “a further sign of growing dissent at the top of Russia’s political establishment”, said Catherine Belton, Russia reporter for The Washington Post.

“Sustaining the war machine” is also “eroding” the president’s “social base”, said anti-Putin activist Alexey Sakhnin in Jacobin. A recent poll by Moscow’s independent Levada Center suggests that 62% of Russians favour peace talks with Ukraine, with only 27% expressing support for continuing the war.

What next?

There are parliamentary elections in September, so the Kremlin will want to ensure that “increasingly evident war fatigue” doesn’t “affect the cohesion” of Putin’s system”, said exiled Russian politician Vladimir Kara-Murza in The Washington Post last week.

But if events continue to turn against him, Putin may feel he has not choice but to roll the dice and go for broke, Tatiana Stanovaya of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Foundation told The Post’s Belton: “To a great degree, escalation is the only way to respond to a situation which you can’t control.”

Donald Trump “lashed out” at Benjamin Netanyahu last night in an “expletive-laden call” with the Israeli PM about the country’s actions in Lebanon, according to US officials speaking to news site Axios. The official paraphrased Trump’s remarks as: “You’re fucking crazy. You’d be in prison if it weren’t for me. I’m saving your ass. Everybody hates you now. Everybody hates Israel because of this.”

Trump himself described the call as “very productive”, saying he had demanded Israel abandon plans for a “major raid” and that Netanyahu had “turned his troops around” as a result.

The Israeli prime minister is caught between Donald Trump’s demands to end the bombardment of Lebanon, which threatens peace talks with Iran, and domestic pressure to escalate the campaign against Hezbollah, which has seen the Israeli army moving deeper into Lebanon and escalating air strikes.

What did the commentators say?

Since the 7 October attacks, Netanyahu has “struggled to assure Israelis he will keep them safe” against Iran and its proxies, said The Times. There was already “mounting frustration in Israel at the failure to defang Hezbollah”, said the Financial Times’ Jerusalem correspondent, James Shotter. Most polls suggest Israelis “favour more aggressive action” against the group, and Netanyahu’s “climbdown” to Trump provoked criticism from “across the political spectrum”.

National security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, of his own coalition, urged him to ignore Trump’s demands and ratchet up the campaign against Hezbollah. “This is the time to tell our friend, President Trump – ‘no’,” Ben-Gvir wrote on X. Naftali Bennett, the right-wing former prime minister “widely regarded as one of Netanyahu’s main rivals” in the crucial upcoming election, accused him of “losing control over Israeli sovereignty”.

Netanyahu is also worried that any US-Iran deal will “leave Israel’s core concerns – Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium, its ballistic missile program and regional proxy network – largely unaddressed”, said Tal Shalev of CNN’s Jerusalem bureau.

For more than three decades, Netanyahu has “defined himself as the leader who would confront Iran’s nuclear ambitions”. But a recent poll from Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies found that 45% of Israelis believe the situation with Iran has worsened compared to before 7 October; only 31% believe it has improved. Nearly half believe Israel will probably not win, or has already lost, the war against Iran.

“It’s hard to overstate how deeply Netanyahu views this moment as a possible personal and political defeat,” Danny Citrinowicz, senior researcher at the institute, wrote on X. “Mr. Iran” may be forced to accept an agreement that “not only legitimises the very regime he sought to weaken but also exposes the collapse of his long-standing Iran doctrine”.

Ultimately, Netanyahu has to defend his own citizens, said The Jerusalem Post in an editorial. Northern Israel is “under constant rocket and drone fire”. Hezbollah had used the ceasefire as a “tactical opportunity” to regroup and rearm. It has “no intention of genuinely ending hostilities”; its purpose remains the destruction of Israel. The ceasefire “prioritised a quick diplomatic achievement for Washington” over the security needs of Israel; extending it further would mean “trading Israeli lives for a few more days of quiet”. The US negotiations with Iran over Lebanon “are certainly not worth the lives of Israeli citizens”.

What next?

Just hours after Trump announced the ceasefire agreement, Israeli attacks on southern Lebanon resumed. At least eight people have been killed today, according to Lebanese state media.

In a statement, Netanyahu said that he had told Trump that Israel would continue its operations. “Our position remains the same,” Netanyahu wrote. The Lebanese government, which wants Hezbollah to disarm, has begun direct negotiations with Israel today.

Iran continues to insist that any ceasefire between the US and Iran hinges on peace in Lebanon, with a senior military officer saying today that resumption of war with the US is “inevitable”.

Getting you the right medical treatment more quickly – particularly if your life is at risk: that’s the aim of an NHS reform to unify patient records, so that doctors, nurses and paramedics can see a patient’s complete medical history, no matter where they are treated.

Single Patient Records could mean 20,000 fewer A&E visits and 6,000 fewer hospital admissions annually, said Health Secretary James Murray. This would save doctors about 500,000 hours, and the NHS £20 million, every year.

But plans for SPR, which come before Parliament today, face strong opposition from those who are concerned about the security of patient data and who will have access to it. We need to make sure that this pooled data cannot “be used inappropriately”, said the British Medical Association’s GP committee. “Ambitions to address fragmentation, improve productivity and reduce bureaucracy are laudable but they cannot come at the price of undermining confidentiality and public trust.”

What did the commentators say?

“The ambition is good,” said Alex Lawrence, a data specialist at The Health Foundation think tank. With its “Lego bricks” approach of stacking information together, SPR is the “most legislatively ambitious attempt” to “make care faster and safer” by getting patient data to “flow more freely” through the NHS system.

But “federating” the data and rolling out the system “is easier said than done”. It is still “unclear” what SPR will look like in practice, and “questions about how access, oversight and public choice will be managed remain unanswered”. Current data-sharing and confidentiality arrangements will be changed but key details – such as an individual’s right to restrict access to their records – have “been deferred to secondary legislation”. Its “absence on the face of the bill is a significant omission”.

“NHS digitisation projects have a chequered history,” said Laura Donnelly, health editor of The Telegraph. “A £12 billion programme for an NHS IT system in 2002 was abandoned” after 10 years, “due to spiralling costs and delays”. And Care.data, which was supposed to “extract GP records into a central database”, had to be scrapped in 2016 “following a public backlash over privacy concerns”.

Previous attempts to bring patient records together have been “beset by technical complexity, a mind-bending web of rules and roles, and some cultural intransigence”, said The Register. This time, the idea seems to be to use the current record systems in conjunction with the “controversial” Federated Data Platform run by US firm Palantir. “Either there’s going to be a new data store, which will be in Palantir, or there will be an infrastructure for bringing various independent APIs together” that uses Palantir’s FDP, Sam Smith, from data-safety campaign group medConfidential, told the news site.

There’s a reason why campaigners like medConfidential are calling SPR the “Single Palantir Record”, said investigative journalist Andrew Orlowski on Spiked. The company’s current contract with the NHS – which centres on using its FDP to improve efficiency – will be “worth over £1 billion if it runs its full course”. Palantir has had success in “winnowing” NHS waiting lists, but applying the singular goal of efficiency to patient data is “inimical to both interpersonal relationships – between patient and doctor – and trust”.

What next?

The plan is for SPR to be rolled out and made available on the NHS app as early as 2027. The Health Secretary has said that the Palantir contract was being reviewed ahead of its break point next year.

The NHS Modernisation Bill, which includes plans for SPR, as well as the abolition of NHS England, will have its second reading in the House of Commons today. Former Health Secretary Wes Streeting will speak from the backbenches to “back the bill he drafted”, said Donnelly in The Telegraph. He will no doubt “hail the changes” he made as health secretary and take “credit for the introduction of new AI tools and a funding uplift for GPs”. It’s a clear opportunity to boost his Labour leadership campaign.

The Trump administration’s moves to cut foreign aid and end ties with the World Health Organization could be making it more difficult to halt the latest Ebola outbreak in Africa.

Public health experts believe White House policies are “weakening critical networks” that respond to outbreaks in a “densely populated, politically unstable part of the world,” said Axios. The dismantling of U.S. support has “left the region dangerously exposed,” leading to the likelihood that Ebola was spreading “for some time” before it was detected, International Rescue Committee’s Heather Reoch Kerr said in a statement, per the outlet.

The Trump administration is pushing back against the criticism. The U.S. is “working with international partners” and “supporting response efforts” in Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Health and Human Services spokesperson Andrew Nixon said in a statement to Axios.

What did the commentators say?

“This is what happens when you defund Ebola prevention,” Sara Herschander said at Vox. There are “no vaccines or treatments” for the strain of virus at the heart of the current outbreak and the disease is spreading quickly “under the heavy shadow of U.S. foreign aid cuts” that “gutted” Ebola detection and response programs. Many of the experts and researchers who once would have guided the response are “simply not there anymore.” The U.S. has now pledged $23 million in emergency funding to Congo and Uganda, but “you can’t expect a bandaid to make up for the damage.”

The Ebola outbreak is a story of “institutional erosion,” Columbia University’s Thoai D. Ngo said at Newsweek. U.S. aid “helped build laboratory networks, train field epidemiologists, establish emergency operations centers” and other public health infrastructure that made it possible for epidemics to be “detected early and contained quietly.” That system is being “hollowed out,” which is short-sighted. “Global health security is domestic health security.”

The world “doesn’t have to fail” the test posed by Ebola, Michael T. Osterholm, the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, said at The Washington Post. It is “not fair” to place blame for the outbreak at the “feet of the Trump administration.” This virus emerged in an “unstable area of Congo” and is able to avoid detection by Ebola tests designed to find more common strains. But the U.S. can choose to once again deploy its resources to help contain dangerous diseases, even when they emerge in foreign lands. That choice would protect Americans “at home and abroad from a highly lethal illness.”

What next?

American infectious disease experts “have been barred from speaking directly with the World Health Organization,” said CNN. The Trump administration-issued ban — which applies to officials at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases — was in place for the recent hantavirus outbreak aboard a cruise ship but was “relaxed slightly” for the Ebola outbreak.

These restrictions “hobble quick cooperation” in disease response, health officials said, per CNN. The United States has “written off most of the institutions with global health,” Jeremy Konyndyk, the president of Refugees International, told the outlet.

The Russian drone that struck a Romanian apartment building, causing a fire and injuring two people, is not the first time a Nato member has been hit during the war with Ukraine but it comes at a perilous moment for the alliance.

General Secretary Mark Rutte condemned “Russia’s reckless behaviour” as “a danger to us all”. He said he had assured Romania’s President Nicușor Dan that Nato "stands ready to defend every inch of allied territory".

But the “growing fear in European capitals is that President Vladimir Putin will try next to reshuffle the cards by expanding the conflict” to other parts of the continent, said Yaroslav Trofimov in The Wall Street Journal.

What did the commentators say?

“There have been numerous incidents of drones crashing in countries across the region throughout the Russia-Ukraine war,” said Vitaly Shevchenko on BBC Monitoring. “Generally, these have been described as accidents, although it is difficult to verify the intention behind each of these events.”

In recent weeks, Russia “has made increasingly bellicose statements against the Baltic states”, said the WSJ. It has threatened to bomb “decision-making centres” in Latvia, after accusing the country of hosting Ukrainian drone operators, while air-raid alarms were sounded in Lithuania last week when suspected Russian drones approached its airspace from Belarus.

As Russia “fails to gain ground in Ukraine and suffers staggering troop casualties”, said Adam Goldman in The New York Times, Putin “appears to be pursuing a wider conflict in Europe, increasingly targeting critical infrastructure and supply chains”.

Moscow is “scaling up its daily hybrid activity against the UK and Europe”, said Anne Keast-Butler, director of GCHQ. The UK’s intelligence, security and cyber agency has been countering what Keast-Butler called the Kremlin’s “reckless sabotage and assassination attempts”.

“Russia can’t afford to continue the war on its current trajectory because it will face the trap of diminishing resources,” Oleksandr V. Danylyuk, chair of the Center for Defense Reforms think tank in Kyiv, told the WSJ. “This means that Putin will have to escalate.” It’s quite plausible that he does this “by expanding the geography of the conflict as he seeks to freeze the war on better terms”.

De-escalation on both sides seems quite a way off, said Yauheni Preiherman, founder and director of the Minsk Dialogue Council on International Relations think tank, on Al Jazeera.

“The rhetoric on both sides says it all.” Lithuanian foreign minister Kestutis Budrys replied to Moscow’s bomb threats by saying that, if necessary, Nato “has all the means to level the Russian air defence and missile bases”. But “simply doubling down” on the “political posturing” that has “essentially brought about the current situation will only continue making things worse for everyone”.

What next?

President Trump’s recent threats to withdraw from Nato, and his decision to reduce US forces deployed in Europe, have undermined the alliance’s deterrence. Senior European officials told the WSJ they fear Russia may see an opening in the next 12 months but it would be a risky endeavour.

“This would be such a huge and additional big risk for Putin to, after having been not sufficiently successful against Ukraine, to simply add another very strong adversary in a military conflict,” said Norbert Röttgen, a German politician. Putin, however, is known for taking big gambles, he added. “Despite my doubts, we also have to calculate that Putin behaves irrationally and in an escalatory way.”

The rise of artificial intelligence depends on the construction of giant new data centers to supply the necessary computing power. But Americans do not want the facilities in their neighborhoods.

Backlash to data centers is “bipartisan and growing across the country,” said 404 Media. States and cities are outlawing the “noisy, power and water hungry buildings” in a fight that could “shape American politics for years to come.” Seven in 10 Americans oppose building a data center in their area, said Gallup, higher than the 53% who would oppose a nuclear plant nearby. Industry leaders are now fretting over their inability to win public opinion that is “increasingly aware and skeptical,” said Business Insider. The tech sector “hasn't done a good job of explaining itself,” said Flexential CEO Ryan Mallory, whose company develops and operates the data centers.

What did the commentators say?

The backlash to AI “could get very ugly,” Lila Shroff said at The Atlantic. A “record number of proposed projects” were canceled during the first quarter of this year after “local pushback.” In April, an Indianapolis councilman found a “NO DATA CENTERS” note under his doormat after somebody shot at his house 13 times.

The fights over data centers will likely only “intensify,” as the facilities “stimulate local economies” but also take “physical and environmental tolls” on the places they are built, said Shroff. And though AI opponents may not be able to stop Anthropic from distributing its Claude model, “they can raise concerns about new construction at a local city-council meeting.”

“Nobody wants this in their backyard,” Sara Pequeño said at USA Today. In Utah, officials overrode local opposition to approve a giant new center that will consume “more than two times the energy used in the entire state.” Rural areas across the country face similar proposals. Data centers are “almost certainly here to stay” because of the computing power needed to keep up with “our ever-growing reliance on AI.” But Americans “clearly don’t feel great” about having them nearby.

The “brewing populist resistance” to data centers is a “critical new front in the fight against tech-enabled authoritarianism,” Astra Taylor and Saul Levin said at The Guardian. A local fight over land use can double as opposition to “job-eating algorithms, distorting deep fakes and autonomous drone strikes.” It also portends the next big electoral fight. AI is “shaping up to be a key fault line” in both this year’s midterms and in 2028.

What next?

The canceled data center projects are “sapping confidence” among AI investors, the investment bank Jefferies said in note to clients, per Axios. The pushback could become a “financial liability for AI labs if it continues to curb access” to the computing power artificial intelligence requires, the outlet said.

The backlash movement has one notable new ally. Erin Brockovich, the activist portrayed in an Oscar-winning performance by Julia Roberts, has launched a new website tracking proposed and under-construction data centers. The map “captures the real-world footprint” of the AI race, she said on the site.

Iran has signalled that any peace deal must include an end to Israel’s offensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon. But it’s unclear if the US could get Israel to agree to that, even if it wanted to.

Despite last month’s ceasefire, Israel has continued to pound Lebanon with airstrikes, killing at least 608 people, according to the World Health Organization. Yesterday, in response to a Hezbollah attack on its military posts, Israel launched one of its most intense waves of bombings, saying it had hit more than 100 Hezbollah targets. “I have ordered an even greater acceleration of our operations,” Benjamin Netanyahu said. “We will intensify our blows, increase our firepower, and we will crush them.”

What did the commentators say?

“Lebanon is in danger of becoming an overlooked but increasingly deadly sideshow”, as both Israel and Hezbollah violate the ceasefire, said Tom Kington in The Times. Israeli troops are occupying swathes of southern Lebanon, and won’t withdraw unless Hezbollah disarms. But the Iran-backed group says it won’t stop attacking Israeli positions until Israel withdraws. “The result has been a stand-off.”

Hezbollah is “waiting for a cue from Iran, which in turn depends on how Iran’s talks with the US go”, Michael Young, of the Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Centre in Beirut, told The Times. “If Iran emerges stronger from its clash with the US, Hezbollah will feel reinvigorated.” They will “be able to say they resisted and claim victory”. Meanwhile, Israel will be trying “to torpedo any deal”.

Washington is “pressuring” Lebanon’s leaders to disarm Hezbollah or else “face more Gaza-style destruction”, said Rami G. Khouri, a policy analyst at the American University of Beirut, in Al Jazeera. It has also “tied financial support” for the country’s reconstruction to “Beirut’s compliance with US-Israeli terms”. The Lebanese government faces “a disgruntled, deeply impoverished population, exasperated by relentless Israeli attacks”.

April’s ceasefire agreement heralded “weakened US-Israeli positions in the region”, as well as dealing “deep political blows” to Netanyahu and gifting “new diplomatic leverage” to Iran and Hezbollah. Having survived their “existential” battles and now pressing for permanent ceasefires, they could “weaken Israeli postures and help reshape Lebanon’s internal dynamics”.

“But far-right members of Netanyahu’s coalition are pushing him to challenge” Donald Trump on the “ceasefire with Hezbollah”, said The Guardian’s chief Middle East correspondent, Emma Graham-Harrison. “It is time for the prime minister to bang on Trump’s table and inform him that we are returning to war in Lebanon,” said Itamar Ben-Gvir, the national security minister, on social media. “There is an urgent need to put an end to the threat posed by Hezbollah’s explosive drones,” the finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, posted on Telegram. Hezbollah has “ignored repeated requests to stop firing at Israel”, a US official told Reuters. Israel will never “​passively absorb attacks on its forces and civilians”.

But Tehran won’t accept such attacks on its proxy, either, Danny Citrinowicz, a Middle East expert at the Atlantic Council, told The New Yorker. Lebanon is of “real strategic importance” to Iran; Hezbollah is “a vital element” of its “so-called Axis of Resistance”. So Trump “has a mountain to climb”. If he wants an agreement with Iran, he will have to “force Netanyahu’s hand on Lebanon”.

What next?

On Friday, delegations from Israel and Lebanon will meet for direct talks in the US, in preparation for further negotiations on 2 and 3 June.

The shaky US-Iran ceasefire, meanwhile, is under increasing strain: Iran has said US strikes near the Strait of Hormuz on Monday were a “gross violation”, and validated its “deep suspicion”. The US said its attacks were “defensive”.

But “even if Lebanon is part of a US-Iran peace deal, the Lebanese people will be wary”, said Kington in The Times. After all, April’s Pakistan-brokered ceasefire between the US, Israel and Iran, supposedly included Lebanon – but Israel “denied this was the case and launched 100 attacks in a few minutes”.

Donald Trump’s claim that the US and Iran are closing in on a peace deal has already been met with widespread criticism within his own Republican party.

The details haven’t been made public but Iran is said to have agreed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, without charging tolls, and dispose of its stockpile of highly enriched uranium. In return, the US would cease hostilities, unfreeze billions of dollars of assets, and gradually remove economic sanctions.

But Republican Senator Ted Cruz said it would be a “disastrous mistake” to leave Iran “able to enrich uranium and develop nuclear weapons, and having effective control over the Strait of Hormuz”. And Senator Roger Wicker, chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, warned that the emerging deal “would not be worth the paper it is written on”.

What did the commentators say?

The “grim reality” is that, by closing the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has “leverage” over peace talks, said the Financial Times’ chief foreign affairs columnist Gideon Rachman. And now the US seems poised to agree to a deal that “threatens to leave Iran in a stronger position than before the war began”. Trump likes to “deride” the nuclear non-proliferation agreement that Barack Obama negotiated with Iran in 2015, but this looks in many ways “worse”. Perhaps the US president “should have reread” his book, “The Art of the Deal”.

Eli Groner, a former director-general of Benjamin Netanyahu’s office, said Iran’s knowledge that it can now close the Strait of Hormuz at any point “is a victory far deeper and more strategic than any point-scoring military achievement”. His summary? “Disaster.”

The framework of the deal described by US officials would be “a series of compromises, well short of the capitulation that Trump sought”, said David Ignatius in The Washington Post. Iran hasn’t accepted his demand that its highly enriched uranium be delivered to the West, nor has it agreed to give up its “right to enrich” in the future. But Trump “doesn’t appear to have any better options” to escape what has become “a military morass and a strategic dead end”. Tehran “can claim victory simply by having survived” the US assault.

Some Republicans are arguing that “peace could bring a pay-off for voters” by lowering petrol prices and easing inflation as oil tankers start to move through the Strait of Hormuz again, said CNN’s Stephen Collinson. But recovery from the strait’s closure will take time and won’t “immediately improve global economic prospects or affordability in the US”. Trump “can’t win politically”: given that a majority of Americans oppose the war, he would face a huge “backlash if he ordered new strikes”.

There’s no way to spin this humiliating “catastrophe”, Middle East expert Danny Citrinowicz, a fellow at the Atlantic Council, told The New Yorker. Rather than toppling the Iranian regime, the US and Israel have “ended up strengthening” it. It’s hard to imagine Tehran will just “give up its nuclear material” – to Trump or anyone else – because “they’re so much in the driver’s seat” here. Iran is already rebuilding its missile capacity and still has most of its launchers. Now we have “a more radicalised regime that can rush into a nuclear bomb and still have a conventional missile capacity. It’s a shit show.”

What next?

We have “reached a conclusion on a large portion of the issues under discussion”, Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baqai told a news conference in Tehran yesterday. “But to say that this means the signing of an agreement is imminent – no one can make such a claim.” The two sides were not discussing Iran’s nuclear programme “at this stage”, he added.

This is “not a final settlement”, said the BBC; this “memorandum of understanding” seems simply to involve a 60-day extension of the ceasefire and a plan for further negotiations on “some of the thorniest issues”, including the nuclear one. That timeline seems “rather compressed, given the complexity of the issues”, said CNN’s Collinson. “History shows Iran would love to drag the United States into a prolonged period of inconclusive diplomacy that lasts months or years.”

Forty-two athletes, including swimmers, weightlifters and sprinters, will compete in Las Vegas on Sunday in the first Enhanced Games.

Little in sport has “caused as much controversy – nor provoked as many questions – as the Enhanced Games”, said BBC sports editor Dan Roan. “Those behind it claim it is here to stay, and could soon expand to more events and other disciplines.”

But there is another side to the spectacle of juiced-up competitors trying to beat the world record in their discipline. Earlier this year, the company behind the event, Enhanced, launched a range of personalised performance and longevity medicines to sell to the public.

What did the commentators say?

Proponents of the games say the aim is “to challenge sporting norms by allowing athletes to push their potential with legal drugs under strict medical oversight”, said Chris Kenning in USA Today. “The approach is, let’s not be naive and pretend it’s not happening,” said Enhanced CEO Max Martin. “Let’s just take what’s happening in the shadows, put it out in the open.”

But that’s not sensible, say some sports medicine experts. “It’s akin to me saying I’m going to make smoking safe by supervising you while you’re smoking,” Aaron Baggish, professor of medicine at the University of Lausanne, told Yahoo Sports.

Most critics though “overlook the fact that the Enhanced Games is making obvious what society has always quietly accepted”, said Byron Hyde, philosopher of science and public policy at Bristol University, on The Conversation – namely “that most people are willing to watch athletes risk harm when the entertainment is good enough”. Brain trauma is the “potential price of boxing entertainment”, so “why the outrage about pharmaceutical enhancement risks?”

For Baggish, the “primary concern” is the message the event sends to the public that using these substances when taking part in sports “is in any way, shape or form OK. That’s the really scary thing.”

That appears to be one of the goals of the organisers. Aron D’Souza, founder of the Enhanced Games, told The Independent in 2024: “This is the route towards eternal life.” The games will “bring about performance-medicine technologies that then create a feedback cycle of good technologies, selling to the world, more revenue, more R&D, to develop better and better technologies”. Ultimately, “it’s about being a better, stronger, faster, younger athlete for longer. And who doesn’t want to be younger for longer?”

But, said The Economist, “the real purpose of the games is to push the limits of what the public sees as the acceptable use of performance-enhancing drugs”. The event is taking place “at a time when concerns are being raised over the medicalisation of Western society”, said Roan. Social media and ‘looksmaxxing’ are being “blamed for fuelling demand for weight-loss injections, cosmetic treatments and performance substances”.

What next?

The Enhanced Games “speak to a vision of the future in which medicines, rather than being simply used to treat disease, can extend human longevity and enhance well-being”, said The Economist.

But on Sunday, the athletes involved will effectively be the guinea pigs for this idea, albeit ones who have “burned bridges, risked their future livelihoods or their health”. And with the launch of Enhanced’s consumer business, “more and more people may soon be wagering their bodies on a chance to roll back the clock”.

Two things are true: Cruise ships can be breeding grounds for disease. Americans love cruises anyway.

Expedition cruise lines “haven’t experienced any slowdown in bookings” following the deadly hantavirus outbreak on the MV Hondius, said The Wall Street Journal. Oceangoing travelers “generally understand the realities” of long boat journeys, Expedition Cruise Network CEO Akvile Marozaite said to the newspaper. Despite the scary headlines, industry experts “expect a record number of people” to take cruises this year, said The Associated Press. The sector “seems to be somewhat Teflon” to the bad publicity, Cornell University’s Robert Kwortnik said to the outlet.

What did the commentators say?

“Why would anyone go on a cruise?” Dave Schilling said at The Guardian. The Hondius drew worldwide attention, but a separate ship that was briefly quarantined with a rash of stomach flu cases was largely overlooked by the media. The stories are “piling up” about cruise ships being ocean-bound “fetid petri dishes.” There is not “one thing” a cruise offers “that isn’t available in the safe bosom of dry land.” Cruises will remain popular anyway. If Covid-19 “didn’t kill” enthusiasm for the excursions, “I think the industry is safe.”

People who criticize cruises are “wrong about nearly everything,” Nicole Russell said at USA Today. The hantavirus outbreak “won’t dampen my desire to go on a cruise.” There may be many stories of “terrible things happening on cruise ships,” but they are “worth the risk” because they can provide an “affordable, joy-filled family vacation.” Cruises, like life, are a “trade-off.” And life is “meant to be lived.“

“Do I think cruises are worth it, health-wise?” epidemiologist Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz said at Slate. The answer is a “bit complicated.” Cruises are “absolutely great places for illnesses to thrive,” but there is not a “great deal of evidence showing that infections are more likely” than on land. It is possible that people “just generally come into contact with lots of others on vacation.” Meyerowitz-Katz is considering taking his own family on a cruise. After weighing both the risks and benefits, “it doesn’t seem like the worst idea in the world.“

What next?

People planning to take a cruise should “practice great hand hygiene,” said CNBC. They should also “get up-to-date on your vaccines” before departing. And they should “keep a safe social distance” if illness rears its head. Best to stay clear of anyone who is coughing, “has difficulty breathing or is exhibiting fever,” Wellness Equity Alliance’s Dr. Tyler B. Evans said to the outlet.

The Hondius’ next voyage is already planned, said Forbes. After arriving in the Netherlands, the ship is to be “disinfected using chlorine and peroxide,” and the crew quarantined. Two scheduled voyages for the Hondius were canceled, but the plan “pending successful cleaning” is to sail in June from the Svalbard islands to the North Pole.

The UK’s net migration dropped sharply to 171,000 in the year to December 2025, the lowest outside the pandemic since 2012. But nobody seems to care.

A survey commissioned by the think tank British Future found only 16% of people believed net migration had fallen in 2025 compared with the previous year, while 49% thought it had increased. The poll of 3,003 adults in the UK “also suggests public concern is being shaped more by asylum and small boat crossings”, said the BBC Verify’s Rob England.

While net immigration figures have been falling (the number to December 2024 was 331,000), Labour and Conservative MPs “are speaking in a more hostile way about immigration than at almost any other time in the last century”, said The Guardian. The number of far-right and anti-immigration protests “has increased 15-fold since Labour took power in July 2024”, said The Telegraph.

What did the commentators say?

“It’s little wonder voters think net migration is going up when the only debate we have is about how to bring it down,” British Future’s director Sunder Katwala said. “We should be having a conversation about how to manage the pressures and gains of migration to Britain.”

“The difference in tone towards issues relating to asylum, immigration and human rights under this Labour administration compared to previous ones is stark,” said Alexander Horne in The Spectator. “These issues are now portrayed as problems to be solved.” New polling from YouGov also showed that Labour Party members have backed Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s tougher immigration policies by a two-to-one majority.

The net migration figures came as Andy Burnham’s allies signalled he would back Mahmood’s controversial immigration policies should he become Labour leader. “For Andy, migration is a moral issue as much as anything, showing people who’ve lost faith in politics that we do have control and we can do good,” one source told The Guardian. “We need to tell a positive story about the contribution of migration to our country, but we cannot do that unless people trust that the people they vote for have control over our borders.”

Mahmood’s closeness to Keir Starmer has led many to believe that she and her reforms will be jettisoned if the PM leaves Downing Street. “This is a pity for the country,” said Andrew Tettenborn in The Critic. Mahmood has thought deeply about immigration and she “overtly embraces the idea that settlement in the UK must be a privilege and not something there almost for the taking”. Despite criticism from within her own party, the voters Labour needs to woo – “the just-about-managing, the fed-up and those from the Red Wall” – care a “great deal for immigration control and a great deal for removing obstacles to it”.

But politicians should be wary of swinging too harshly one way or the other on immigration, said Sarah O’Connor in the Financial Times. “After the 2016 Brexit referendum, public concern about immigration fell”. Then it surged again “when the Conservative government liberalised visa routes for students and care workers between 2019 and 2022”. Now Mahmood has taken a restrictive turn.

What is happening is that successive governments are over-interpreting and over-reacting to a change in public opinion, “which reacts in turn, prompting a sudden swing the other way”. These frequent changes in immigration policy are bad for employers, migrants and the economy but also corrosive of trust between politicians and the public.

And yet “the tragedy of all this is that it’s not happening because politicians ‘aren’t listening’ to the public on immigration”. Rather, “it’s because they are listening too much”.

What next?

Mahmood’s proposed reforms “have caused a slow-bubbling revolt on the backbenches”, said Ethan Croft in The New Statesman, so whether they will survive a Commons vote remains to be seen.

Russian forces last month lost more territory to Ukraine than they were able to capture. The first of such occurrences in nearly two years, this marks an ignominious milestone and potential turning point in Moscow’s years-long invasion effort. At the same time, Russia is losing soldiers faster than it can recruit and deploy them. While the Ukraine front remains an active war zone that has left deep scars on both nations, there is a growing sense among observers that momentum has shifted in Kyiv’s favor.

What did the commentators say?

Russia’s conspicuously “diminished” Victory Day parade this month “signaled its vulnerability,” said The Economist. That sentiment was an “accurate reflection of Russia’s battlefield setbacks,” as well as the country’s “fear of the growing effectiveness of Ukraine’s long-range strikes.”

Russia’s weakened position can be traced to a confluence of three factors, said The Economist, citing research from the Institute for the Study of War: Ukrainian “ground counter-attacks and mid-range strikes,” the end of Russia’s “illicit use of Starlink terminals in Ukraine” and the Kremlin’s “paranoid throttling of the Telegram messaging app at home.” At the same time, Russia’s “exaggerated territorial ambitions and aggressive territorial demands” have run “completely counter to battlefield reality,” said the Institute.

May marks the fifth consecutive month in which Russia has lost “more soldiers than it can replace,” said National Security Journal. Ahead of an expected fifth summer of violence, Russia’s invasion “continues to falter” as the “fortunes of the war” seem to be “trending less and less in Russia’s favor.” Ukraine’s military technological advances have “not been the only key element” in Kyiv’s “recent battlefield gains.” Rather, they come amid Russia’s “growing command-and-control problems within its own military.”

Communications failures “contributed significantly to Russia’s problems” on the battlefield, said the Atlantic Council. After SpaceX “cut the Russian army’s illicit access to the satellite-based Starlink system” this spring, some Russian commanders were “forced to rely on inaccurate maps” showing “exaggerated gains.” In other cases, clusters of Russian troops were deployed “without adequate communication tools or coordination,” leaving them “highly vulnerable to Ukrainian counterattacks.”

All this comes as the public mood within Russia is “souring,” said Alexander Baunov at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center. The Putin government has “unceremoniously violated” the terms of its social trade-off offered to the public — that “you can live outside of the war, but you cannot be against it” — and now “society is angry.” Russian authorities have also banned the use of “popular foreign messaging apps” because they are “nontransparent” and boosted the “homegrown” Max app as an alternative. But the “implication” of Max’s transparency “has not gone unnoticed, and people feel their privacy has been rudely invaded.”

Russians “increasingly chafe” at the “restrictions on their liberties” imposed “in pursuit of a battlefield victory that now appears to be unattainable,” said Noah Rothman at the National Review. Moscow lacks “freedom of action” in the theater of battle and has “lost the ability to dictate the tempo of events,” while its economy contracts “following several years of war-driven growth.”

What next?

The Russian military’s “recent communications problems” are “unlikely to persist in their current form indefinitely,” said the Atlantic Council. Moscow has already explored a “range of alternatives, including relay drones and satellite links.” But it will probably take a “number of years for the Russian military to replicate the same level of efficiency previously provided by Starlink.”

Russia’s flagging battlefield progress is a problem for Putin, who has “insisted that Russia’s victory in the war is inevitable,” said CNN. That promise has “always been flawed,” given how “slow and incredibly costly the Russian advances have been.” Still, the momentum shift of late “feels like an inflection point in the war,” said Sir Lawrence Freedman, an emeritus professor of war studies at King’s College London, to The Economist. “If the Russians have nothing to show for their efforts, I would not be surprised if in some places things start crumbling.”

Rising Ebola cases in the Democratic Republic of the Congo are ringing alarm bells across a region still scarred by previous outbreaks of the highly contagious viral disease. The World Health Organization has declared a “public health emergency of international concern”.

At least 540 suspected cases and 131 suspected deaths have been reported by DR Congo’s health minister, and two cases have been confirmed in neighbouring Uganda. But the WHO’s initial sampling suggests the outbreak is potentially much more widespread.

And what makes this outbreak “extraordinary”, said the WHO, is that it’s caused by the rare Bundibugyo strain of the Ebola virus. This has a lower fatality rate (about 35%) than the more common Zaire or Sudan strains (up to 90% and 50% respectively) but there is no licensed Bundibugyo-specific vaccine or treatment – and the tests for it do not appear to work very well.

What did the commentators say?

Experts are alarmed that this outbreak “has been able to spread for weeks undetected across a densely populated ​area”, said Reuters. It took weeks to identify it as the Bundibugyo strain and then pinpointing cases was “slowed by limited diagnostic capacity”, with only six tests possible per hour.

The lack of a vaccine is why I am in “panic mode”, Jean Kaseya, the director-general of Africa-Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, told Sky News. And ongoing attacks by Islamic State-backed militants in Ituri, the province at the centre of the outbreak, are “restricting surveillance and rapid response operations”.

Ituri is “rebel-held territory”, close to “porous borders” with Uganda and South Sudan that communities cross constantly, said The Times. That’s certainly one factor that’s “making containment so difficult”. Bundibugyo is also “among the least studied of the Ebola strains”: this is only the third outbreak on record.

We reached a “critical moment”, said the BBC’s health correspondent James Gallagher. Most Ebola outbreaks are small but specialists are still “haunted” by the largest, which started in 2014 and killed more than 11,000 people in West Africa. This time, there is a “significant threat” not only to DR Congo and Uganda but also South Sudan and Rwanda. But that doesn’t mean we’re “in the early stages of a Covid-style pandemic”. The risk to the rest of the world “remains tiny”.

DR Congo has “extensive experience in dealing with Ebola outbreaks”, and its response is “significantly stronger today than it was a decade ago”, Daniela Manno, of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, told the BBC’s Gallagher. But recent US-led foreign-aid cuts have taken their toll. Containing the 2014 outbreak “relied on US leadership from USAID”, said Devi Sridharm, chair of global public health at the University of Edinburgh, in The Guardian. But “the USAID team dedicated to Ebola-like diseases was cut by Elon Musk”. Since Donald Trump withdrew the US from the WHO, the organisation’s emergency-response budget has shrunk by 37%. UK foreign-aid funding has also “fallen to its lowest level in two decades”.

The worry “is less about this becoming a global pandemic” (unlikely, as Ebola only spreads through contact with infected body fluids), and more about “the devastation it can cause” to the region and its “already fragile” healthcare systems. But this is an “interconnected world”: “if your neighbour’s house is on fire, you don’t wait and watch; you help to put it out before the fire spreads to yours.”

What next?

The WHO is sending a team of experts to Congo and, on Friday, will host an emergency scientific consultation of researchers, clinicians, public health bodies and funders. “The cash-strapped organisation has already released almost $4 million (£3 million) to combat the outbreak,” said the BBC, “but much more may be needed.” Public health officials are also considering using a combination of the existing approved vaccines for the Zaire and Sudan strains.

But communities in the region “have little trust in government or external aid agencies”, said Sridhar. If Ebola spreads to a major urban hub, it will be “much more difficult to stop”.

“I don’t think that, in two months, we will be done with this outbreak”, Anne Ancia, the WHO’s representative for the DRC, told reporters in Geneva at the World Health Assembly. The 2014 Ebola outbreak took two years to end.