Those who want to send weapons through snail mail may soon have an option, as the U.S. Postal Service is considering a proposal to allow people to ship handguns. Doing so has been illegal for nearly a century. Some firearm safety advocates are warning that the proposed change could bring unintended consequences.

‘Bypassing a longstanding law’

Efforts to undo the ban on mailing handguns came when the Postal Service introduced a rule change “bypassing a longstanding law prohibiting the practice,” said The Trace. It has been illegal to mail concealable firearms like handguns since 1927, though the mailing of long-barreled weapons like rifles and shotguns is allowed if they are properly secured. The new rule would “expand the scope of mailable firearms” by “allowing lawful handguns to be mailed under the same terms and conditions as lawful rifles and shotguns,” according to the text of the rule in the Federal Register.

The push by the Postal Service seemed to come largely at the behest of the Trump administration. The proposal was introduced two months after a Justice Department opinion declared that a ban on handgun mailing was “unconstitutional as applied to constitutionally protected firearms” because it “serves an illegitimate purpose and is inconsistent with the nation’s tradition of firearm regulation.” If the rule passes, it will “allow people to use the Postal Service to mail handguns to each other within the same state without involving a licensed gun dealer,” said The Trace.

The rule would additionally let people “send handguns across state lines as long as they address the package to themselves ‘in the care of’ a resident in the destination state,” said The Trace. It would also lift the prohibition on mailing handguns to out-of-state gun dealers. Gun rights activists lauded the rule, which represents “another key victory for America’s law-abiding gun owners,” John Commerford, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, told the Los Angeles Times.

‘Gun trafficking pipeline’

Some are concerned that allowing handguns to be sent through the mail will increase the chances of gun-related crimes. Passing the rule would turn the Postal Service into a “gun trafficking pipeline” by giving “felons, abusers, and straw purchasers a direct line to illegal firearms while stripping law enforcement of the tools they need to prevent and investigate gun crime,” John Feinblatt, the president of the nonprofit Everytown for Gun Safety, said to USA Today.

Others are worried that the rule would make the Postal Service the “only option for handgun owners seeking to mail their firearms,” said The Trace. FedEx and UPS only allow guns to be shipped by licensed dealers, while DHL “prohibits the shipping of firearms altogether.” There are concerns that forcing all handgun owners to go through one channel could instate new problems.

A group of 22 attorneys general from largely Democratic states has sent a letter to the Postal Service urging it not to pass the rule. “This irresponsible loophole blatantly disregards public safety and would create a direct strain on state resources,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. The rule is likely to be “challenged in court,” Andrew Willinger, an assistant professor of law at Georgia State University, told The Trace, because the 1927 statute “says mailing concealable firearms is prohibited.”

What happened

A federal jury in California on Monday rejected Elon Musk’s high-profile lawsuit against OpenAI and its leaders, Sam Altman and Greg Brockman, because he had not filed it within the statute of limitations. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers agreed and quickly dismissed the suit. Musk, an estranged OpenAI cofounder, had wanted his former partners forced out of their leadership roles, an unwinding of the company’s conversion to a for-profit endeavor and roughly $150 billion in damages.

Who said what

The quick verdict capped a three-week trial that “fixated the tech world on the grievances and drama” of the world’s most powerful AI moguls, The Wall Street Journal said. Musk accused Altman of “betraying a shared vision” of creating OpenAI as a “nonprofit dedicated to guiding artificial intelligence’s development for the good of humanity,” The Associated Press said.

What next?

The verdict “preserves the status quo” in Silicon Valley’s AI race and “removes one of the final roadblocks” to OpenAI’s expected $1 trillion initial public offering, The New York Times said. But Altman now has to “address the challenges to his reputation from some extremely personal testimony,” Reuters said, including “multiple witnesses describing him as a liar.”

What happened

The Justice Department on Monday announced a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” for “victims of lawfare and weaponization,” potentially including those who participated in the U.S. Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021. The fund is part of a settlement President Donald Trump reached with his Justice Department to drop his $10 billion claim over an IRS leak of his tax records. The money will be doled out by five people appointed by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, though Trump can fire them. Shortly after the announcement, Treasury Department General Counsel Brian Morrissey resigned, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Who said what

The Justice Department said Trump and his family will receive apologies but no payments from the fund. But the “highly unusual” settlement forges a “pipeline to funnel taxpayer money” to Trump’s allies, The New York Times said, and is an “apparent effort to skirt oversight by a judge” who “expressed concern” that Trump’s lawsuit “represented self-dealing between the president and a department run by his former defense lawyer.”

“This is one of the single most corrupt acts in American history,” Donald Sherman, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said in a statement. “The machinery of government should never be weaponized against any American,” Blanche said in a statement. This “slush fund” is “nothing but a racket” for Trump to hand taxpayer money “to his private militia of insurrectionists, rioters and white supremacists,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.).

What next?

Blanche is “expected to be pressed on the fund when he testifies” on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, The Associated Press said.

Just days after he waved goodbye to Donald Trump, Xi Jinping is hosting another world leader, a man the famously opaque Chinese leader has described as his “best friend”.

Vladimir Putin arrives in Beijing today for the two-day summit, their second in less than a year and their 40th, at least, overall. Their “carefully cultivated friendship” is defined by “highly personal rituals” involving vodka, lakeside tea, sports events and even making pancakes, said the South China Morning Post.

It’s obvious what a war-fatigued and internationally isolated Russia seeks from China, on whom it relies for drones and economic support. But it’s less obvious what the now far more powerful China wants from its unstable neighbour.

What did the commentators say?

The timing of Putin’s visit, days after Trump’s, “sends an unmistakable signal”, said The Economist. Xi is emphasising that even if he can “stabilise relations” with the US, it won’t “come at the expense of his ‘no limits’ partnership” with Putin. Those ties could “grow deeper yet” because of the US war in the Middle East. Xi and Putin could share intelligence about Trump’s military action against Venezuela and Iran, whom both count as allies.

Xi could “exploit his newfound leverage” – the balance of power has “shifted dramatically” since Russia’s full-scale invasion – to “secure more sensitive military technology and know-how”. China now produces most of its own weapons, many based on Russian designs; it could now seek “more high-end assistance” in nuclear and ballistic missile areas. Russia is “thought to have been sharing” drone data and expertise garnered from its experience in Ukraine.

A “key aim” for China is “more reliable and sustainable energy supplies”, said Deutsche Welle. China is concerned about dependence on seaborne imports, which account for about 90% of its oil. The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and the global disruption to supplies make Russian oil a “more attractive” prospect, and Western sanctions on Russian exports mean China can “secure Russian energy at a discount”.

“China and Russia are like a couple in the same bed with different dreams,” said Claus Soong of the Mercator Institute for China Studies. A weakened Russia, or even the collapse of Putin’s regime, would “pose immediate strategic risks for Beijing”. There are signs of cooling since the unlimited friendship they proclaimed in 2022, before Russia invaded Ukraine, but “Russia still has more to offer” than Europe.

Any deals will likely be on Chinese terms, Alexander Gabuev, director of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center think tank, told the BBC. “Russia is fully in China’s pocket, and China can dictate the terms.”

But despite the asymmetry of power, the pair share vital interests – security along their 2,670-mile (4,300km) border, and China’s market for Russia’s oil, gas and other materials, said Ankur Shah, BBC Global China Unit editor. Russia’s war in Ukraine is also an “asset to Beijing as it considers its options for a potential invasion of Taiwan”. Russia still has some niche military technologies it can sell. But Moscow’s “big advantage” is “its ability to stand its ground”. Russia “may be the junior partner, but it’s also a proud one”.

What next?

Xi’s meeting with Trump, the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, and cooperation across energy, trade and security are all expected to be part of the discussions tomorrow, said CNN’s senior China reporter, Simone McCarthy.

Both Beijing and Moscow are “weighing up whether to play any role in helping to end a US-Iran conflict”. This could “potentially win each goodwill” with the US, but both also want to use Trump’s actions to “advance their own vision of a world that’s not dominated by American power”.

Any concrete agreements, however, are “unlikely to be made public”, said The Economist. “As during previous visits, announcements are likely to be broad in scope but thin on detail.”

Wes Streeting has dropped the “bombshell” that he’d like Britain to “one day” rejoin the European Union, said The Times.

The former health secretary and Labour leadership hopeful has “put the Europe question firmly back on the political agenda”. However, the process of reversing Brexit and rejoining the EU would be far from straightforward.

Is it possible?

Yes. Although no country has ever left the EU and then rejoined, it is possible. If the UK decided to seek membership again, it would need to apply through the framework set out in Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union.

However, the UK would need the support of all member states to “open and conclude accession talks”, and the UK’s “historical reluctance to integrate fully with the EU” could remain a “concern to the bloc”, according to the Institute for Government.

What would the process be? 

First, the UK would submit an application to the Council of the European Union. All existing EU member states would then need to agree unanimously to begin accession talks with London. At this stage, member states could decide to impose stricter eligibility criteria.

If the UK cleared that hurdle, it would enter negotiations over alignment with the EU’s legal and regulatory framework across a wide range of policy areas, including trade, fisheries, immigration and borders, environmental standards, and competition law.

Britain’s application would ultimately need unanimous approval from the Council of the EU, as well as the backing of a majority in the European Parliament. Realistically, the entire process would likely take several years at a minimum. Even relatively straightforward accessions can take close to a decade.

What would the UK have to agree to?

Although the UK previously enjoyed favourable terms within the EU, those concessions might not be available if it sought to rejoin. For example, the opt-out that kept Britain outside the Schengen border-free travel zone would probably not apply a second time.

Rejoining could also involve a commitment to adopt the euro. In addition, Britain would return without the 1984 rebate negotiated by Margaret Thatcher, which refunded roughly 66% of the UK’s net contribution to the EU budget. In 2020, the UK’s net contribution stood at £12.6 billion; any future contribution would likely be significantly higher.

Knut Abraham, a senior MP from Germany’s ruling Christian Democratic Union party, told The Times that, from a regulatory standpoint, the UK should have a relatively straightforward path back into the bloc because its laws remain largely aligned with Brussels. “I don’t foresee that many complications,” he said.

However, a senior European foreign ministry official predicted a less straightforward process: “I think we would welcome the UK with open arms – just not on their terms.”

White spots on the moon. Black dots on an infrared sensor. A collection of eyewitness statements. “Congratulations,” said Newsweek in an editorial, “you’re pretty much caught up on the first batch of UFO files released by the Pentagon.” For months, President Trump has been teasing that the Defense Department holds “very interesting documents” on UFOs that would be released “very, very soon.” And two weeks ago, the Pentagon made good on that pledge, declassifying 162 documents, videos, and photos from “unresolved cases” in which the government couldn’t “make a definitive determination on the nature of the observed phenomena.” Those files, which date from 1947 to 2023, include dozens of testimonials from astronauts, federal agents, and civilians who claim to have seen strange objects in the sky— Gemini VII astronaut Frank Borman said he saw a “bogey” containing “hundreds of little particles” after reaching orbit in 1965. There’s also low-resolution images of flying blobs that could be balloons, drones, or other non-extraterrestrial objects. So does any of this prove aliens have been visiting Earth? “As things stand, the files say implicitly what officials won’t explicitly: No.”

This was always going to be anticlimactic, said astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson in The New York Times. For decades, we’ve had to listen to supposed whistleblowers tell us about “the crashed flying saucers, extraterrestrial bodies, and alien technology in our possession”—but always “hidden in undisclosed places.” And after a succession of ex-military pilots and government officials testified about their close encounters to Congress in 2023, 2024, and 2025, “what’s left to learn?” At this point, I just want one of these “alien insiders” to show me “an actual alien. Alive or dead or undead. Preferably alive. Is that too much to ask for?” The Pentagon has promised new document dumps on a rolling basis, and perhaps those releases will confirm “we are not alone,” said Will Rahn in The Free Press. But for now, we’re where we’ve always been: “guessing and groping for answers in the dark of the cosmos.”

Maybe we’re looking for answers in the wrong places, said astrophysicist Adam Frank in The Atlantic. Instead of hoping for great revelations from the government, we should consult the astrobiologists who right now are using powerful telescopes to search “for alien life where it lives, on alien worlds.” One day, “perhaps long after the current UFO-disclosure frenzy is over,” astronomers might present us with “hard evidence that life is either common or rare in the galaxy. That will be the only disclosure day history remembers.”

Ukraine in recent months has slowed Russia’s invasion to a near-halt and forced Moscow to ramp up its own security measures. Kyiv’s homegrown drone technology and techniques are now in demand around the world. These accomplishments have come despite diminished U.S. support for Ukraine’s warfighting efforts.

What did the commentators say?

The fight against Russia is “going better than you think,” said Vox. Kyiv still relies on the “fickle U.S. government” for Patriot missiles and battlefield intelligence, but Ukrainian leaders have “more confidence” in their ability to withstand the invasion than they did a few months ago. The “Ukraine line is not really in danger of breaking” even though Russia has “sustained enormous casualties” in attempts to advance, military analyst Franz-Stefan Gady said to the outlet. Ukraine might not be winning the war at this point, said Vox, but it “doesn’t appear to be losing.” Its leaders now believe Ukraine “no longer needs the United States as much” as it did early in the war, said The New York Times.

Ukraine “has finally given up” on President Donald Trump, Phillips Payson O’Brien said at The Atlantic. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is “aggressively seeking new diplomatic and military partners” and has sent drones to strike Russian oil facilities despite U.S. warnings against doing so. American leaders have “reduced what little weaponry” they were sending to Ukraine and pressured Zelenskyy to cede territory in exchange for peace. But Ukraine’s ability to adapt with reduced American support “has been startling.”

It is “significant” that Ukraine is “reversing the trend” of Russia’s progress in the war, The Wall Street Journal said in an editorial. One sign: Russian leader Vladimir Putin scaled back his country’s usual Victory Day parade in early May out of apparent fears of a Ukrainian drone strike. It is clear the “tide may be turning against Russia” after four years of war. That is an opportunity for the U.S. to “increase support for Ukraine so it can keep the pressure on Russia” and bring the struggle to an end.

The war will not end unless Ukraine inflicts a “decisive defeat” on Russia that poses a “direct threat to Putin’s regime,” Andrew A. Michta said at 19FortyFive. Putin’s military is “well positioned to continue” thanks to the backing of China’s industrial might and money flowing in from oil sales. Trump’s pressure on Zelenskyy to negotiate is a “signal to Moscow that its strategy is working.”

What next?

The U.S. is now looking to Ukraine for help in the war against Iran. The two sides this month signed an agreement to potentially “export military technology to the U.S.” and manufacture Ukranian-designed drones in the United States, said CBS News. Kyiv has “sent drone interceptors and pilots to the Middle East” to defend Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates against Iranian attacks. Ukraine is a “hub for drone innovation,” said the Financial Times. That is expertise the U.S. now needs.

Is Britain ungovernable? That is the question many are asking after a dramatic week in Westminster that potentially fired the starting gun on a Labour leadership race that could give the UK its seventh prime minister in a decade.

This latest political “merry-go-round has prompted soul-searching”, said Charlie Cooper on Politico. A G7 economy and “former global hegemon”, Britain is “increasingly a picture of political instability and economic stagnation”.

What did the commentators say?

After securing his election win, Keir Starmer promised to be honest with voters about “how tough this will be. And frankly, things will get worse before they get better.” But less than two years on, said Cooper, it is the parties on the extremes “offering quick and direct solutions” – such as Reform’s pledge to slash immigration or the Greens with promises of wealth taxes – “that now win a hearing with voters”.

With few in parliament able to “combine policy nous, real-world experience and the ability to sell a vision and convey hard truths”, the “constant churn” among PMs is “an indictment of leadership in the country”, said Tej Parikh in the Financial Times. “In a democracy, politics and policies are a reflection of the public too”, but “Britons struggle” to accept some necessary “trade-offs”.

Ending the pension “triple lock” is just one example of this. Throw in rising “expectations of government”, the electorate’s lack of patience and the declining “calibre of public discourse” and “it is little surprise Britain gets cakeist and myopic leaders, who are low on reform and high on easy answers”.

The electorate is “furiously disillusioned and disappointed” but the hard truth is that this “omnicrisis” of low productivity, a housing shortage, social care strain, welfare reform and ballooning national debt is not “easy to answer”, said Isabel Hardman in The i Paper.

“Failing to answer” these questions “leaves Britain hobbled in the long-term” and leaves voters feeling “let down by the politicians who they elect and pay to be honest and take the difficult decisions on their behalf”. Doing something about this would require “a leader who doesn’t care about social media storms or polling fluctuations or the complaints of focus groups” and is able to “switch off all that noise and fixate on the real problems”.

What next?

For too many people, the change they voted for in 2024 and repeatedly tell pollsters and focus groups they want “hasn't come fast enough”, said TUC general secretary Paul Nowak in The Mirror. It “hasn’t been all doom and gloom” but “the good work the government has done” – renationalising the railways, ending the two-child benefit cap and upgrading workers’ rights – “has been overshadowed by too many self-inflicted mistakes and a failure to shout proudly about those achievements”.

“Anyone who wants to replace Starmer has to start by accepting that he has done good things – just not enough and not at scale”, said Aditya Chakrabortty in The Guardian. Then they must “turn and face the country and tell us what they would do better”.

A “deep and justified pessimism” is gripping the UK. The feeling is that “tomorrow will be worse than today, that our children will not enjoy the same standards of living that we have done. That is what any Labour leadership contest must address.”

Many voters have a “palpable sense that the system is rigged against them”, said Nowak. Whoever is in No. 10 “today, tomorrow, in five years or in 10”, they “will have to fix the broken social contract”.

Bruising brushes with financial markets have been the fate of Labour “down the ages”, said William Keegan in The Observer. Back in the 1960s, Harold Wilson complained about “the gnomes of Zürich” – a derogatory reference to international bankers then going “short on the pound”. This time, the threat is closer to home – in London’s febrile government bond markets.

‘The risk of some kind of accident is real’

Before this week’s escalation of the leadership fight, economists were playing down the political angle. “For all the noise, politics isn’t what’s driving yields higher right now,” James Smith of ING told The Times. “The overwhelming driver is still the energy crisis, oil prices and the impact on BoE interest rates.” But as a dramatic sell-off got under way, it became harder to discount the sense that debt markets are indeed badly rattled by Labour’s leadership woes. The 30-year gilt yield, which hit 5.81% on Tuesday, is at the highest this century. Yields on 10-year gilts (the benchmark for mortgage rates), at 5.13%, are at their highest since 2008.

It’s “a rubbish time” to be having a political crisis, said Daire MacFadden in the Financial Times. “Sadly, that’s precisely what we have.” Any leadership challenge is “all but certain to herald a move to the left and potentially an increase in government borrowing”. To some extent, the gilt market had already priced this in, but “the risk of some kind of accident here is real”.

It doesn’t help that Andy Burnham – who last year observed that government shouldn’t be “in hock” to the bond market – “keeps talking about bond markets as if they are some sort of entity he can bamboozle with jargon”, said John Stepek on Bloomberg. The view from his camp seems to be that renationalising various sectors of the economy will inherently make them more productive – so gilt markets “will be happy to fund the borrowing”. That’s a somewhat “courageous” assumption.

‘Bond vigilantes’ on the rise

“It seems like the only supporters that Keir Starmer has left are the so-called bond vigilantes,” said Robin Wigglesworth in the FT. As they point out, higher borrowing costs are already chipping away at the chancellor’s £24 billion of fiscal headroom, which forecasts suggest could halve. But for how long “can the gilt market act as the UK’s political police”?

Among Starmer’s rivals, Burnham is perceived by traders as the biggest threat and Wes Streeting as the least risky. We must hope he prevails and persuades investors to lend at “a lower premium” to Britain, said Adam Smith in The Telegraph.

The “intriguing paradox” of Labour politics is that the leader most distrusted by the Left may ultimately be the “most capable of financing the expansive social-democratic state that they all crave”.

Since it swept to power in 2014, little has stood in the way of India's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the party of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

But West Bengal – India's fourth-most populous state – was a rare exception, said Nadim Asrar in Al Jazeera (Doha). Well over 25% of its some 105 million population is Muslim, and for the past 15 years its voters have spurned the Hindu nationalist BJP in favour of the centrist Trinamool Congress (TMC), whose leader, Mamata Banerjee, has sought to appeal to Muslims and Hindus alike.

But all that changed last week, when the BJP won a “stunning” majority of 207 seats in the state's 294-member assembly.

Dislodging ‘Didi’

It's hard to exaggerate just how stunning this victory is, said Sadanand Dhume in The Wall Street Journal. It's a bit like the Democrats winning the governorship of Texas for the first time in a landslide.

The 71-year-old Banerjee is India's fiercest female politician and one of Modi's toughest critics. Her supporters refer to her as “Didi” (older sister), and love her for her disdain of luxury – she wears “simple” saris and flip-flops. But her detractors regard her as a petty despot who has “pandered to fundamentalist Muslims”.

And the BJP was determined to dislodge her, said Robin Jeffrey on Inside Story (Melbourne). West Bengal is a prize they've hungered for. Its capital, Kolkata, was once “the intellectual centre of India” and home to many of the heroic events and figures revered by the BJP. So Modi's people “threw a kitchen full of sinks at Banerjee and her party”.

‘Ferrari and a bicycle’

That they did, said the Deccan Herald (Bengaluru). In the run-up to last month's vote, the election commission – a supposedly independent body often accused of doing the BJP's bidding – stripped more than nine million names, nearly 12% of the total, from the state's electoral register under a process called Special Intensive Revision. The ostensible aim was to remove alleged illegal migrants from neighbouring Bangladesh from the rolls. And at least 2.7 million people, mostly Muslims, were thus excluded from voting.

In dozens of constituencies, the BJP's margin of victory was smaller than the number of voters removed, said Aparna Bhattacharya on The Wire (New Delhi). But, in fairness, the BJP would probably have prevailed in any case. “Didi” had been in power too long: her TMC had grown increasingly unpopular over issues such as high unemployment.

With “Didi” gone, Modi is close to “his dream of an opposition-free India”, said Alex Travelli in The New York Times. The BJP now controls 20 of the 28 state governments, a dominance not seen since Congress Party rule in the 1960s. And as the BJP's income is six times that of its nearest rival, it will be hard for other parties to compete, said Nadim Asrar.

It's “a race between a Ferrari and a bicycle”, as the writer Arundhati Roy once put it. Good for Modi, maybe, but perhaps not so good for India.

What happened

The Trump administration plans to drop fraud and bribery charges against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani, Bloomberg first reported Thursday. Adani, indicted in 2024 for an alleged $250 million solar energy scam, also faces a related civil case from the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as a Treasury Department investigation. Both agencies are now also reportedly preparing to settle.

Who said what

The reversal stems from Adani hiring a “new legal team led by Robert J. Giuffra Jr.,” one of President Donald Trump’s “personal lawyers,” said The New York Times. During an April meeting with federal prosecutors, Adani “offered to invest $10 billion” and “create 15,000 jobs if the charges were dropped,” said Forbes. The pitch “received favorable response from one senior Justice Department official,” said The Guardian, although department figures claimed it would “not sway the outcome of the case.”

What next?

Should the Department of Justice drop Adani’s case, the billionaire is “still expected to incur financial penalties,” the Times said. “Although the deal could still fall apart,” the DOJ may dismiss the charges “in the coming days.”

Wes Streeting, who quit as health secretary yesterday, has endorsed Andy Burnham as having the “best chance of winning” the Makerfield by-election. That fact should “override factional advantage or propping up one person”, Streeting said on X.

Pending approval from Labour’s ruling National Executive Committee, Burnham is set to stand in the northwest constituency, providing him with the chance to return to Parliament and challenge for the party leadership.

But with rising support for Reform UK in the region, and Labour plummeting in the polls, this will not be easy. How this by-election plays out “could decide the future direction of the country”, said the Manchester Evening News.

What did the commentators say?

Burnham contesting a seat vacated by Josh Simons, former chair of the Labour Together think tank, was “not high on my bingo card for this year”, said Ben Walker in The New Statesman. “Yet the logic behind the move is clear.” It is clearly “a pitch for prime minister”.

But Burnham’s return to Westminster is a “difficult proposition”, if the recent by-election in Gorton and Denton is anything to go by. “Yet, to state the obvious, this would be no ordinary by-election.” Makerfield is a “very different” constituency, and though it is only a “railway line away from Gorton, politically and culturally it is another world entirely”.

Taking into account Burnham’s popularity having been mayor of Greater Manchester since 2017, and exit-poll data from the Gorton and Denton contest, Britain Predicts forecasts a Labour hold, but “only narrowly”, by three points ahead of Reform. Whatever the result, the Makerfield by-election could be “one of the most totemic and decisive” in modern British history.

This is a “high-stakes gamble for everyone involved”, said Tim Shipman in The Spectator. “But then, in Labour politics right now, everything is.” The Makerfield seat is far from safe, despite being held by Labour since it was created in 1983. Simons won with a “majority of only around 6,000 over Reform” in 2024.

Nigel Farage’s party will contest the seat “with all guns blazing” and would be wise to select a “hyper local” ex-Labour supporter to stand, depicting Burnham as a “carpetbagger” who “takes your vote for granted”. With Keir Starmer unlikely to block Burnham standing, as he did in Gorton and Denton, the PM’s position is now “somewhat in the hands of Farage”.

A lot rests on Burnham’s “personal popularity” to get him over the line, said Ollie Corfe in The Telegraph. A YouGov poll this month shows his +4% net favourability score as the only positive rating of any senior Westminster politician (Starmer -46%, Angela Rayner -33% and Streeting -28%).

He will have to combat the disintegrating “Red Wall” in the northwest, where Labour has just lost 372 councillors, while Reform gained more than 400. Neighbouring St Helens saw one of the “most dramatic results” in the entire local elections, with Reform winning 71% of all seats.

The path to Westminster is a “route paved with thorns” that might yet end with the mayor of Greater Manchester’s “hopes in tatters”, said Stephen Bush in the Financial Times. And for Labour, the “stakes could not be higher”.

If Burnham does win, his reputation as a slayer of Reform would “only be enhanced”, and “his march to the leadership he has coveted for so long would then surely be unstoppable”. But if he loses to a Reform candidate, the public will question whether any Labour candidate can win. “Burnham’s defeat would secure Starmer as prime minister: but it could well confirm that he is on course to be Labour’s last prime minister.”

What next?

For the by-election to go ahead, several processes need to happen, said Jamie Grierson in The Guardian. By convention, the Labour chief whip – currently Jonathan Reynolds – will start the process by “moving the writ”, formally asking Parliament to start the election process. Once the writ has been moved, a by-election must take place between 21 and 27 working days later, and usually held on a Thursday.

This should take “about five to six weeks”, said The Guardian, which means the earliest Burnham could return to Westminster, if he wins, would be “early July”. Once achieved, “he could trigger a leadership contest, which he would be expected to win, potentially unchallenged”.

The war in Iran is still simmering, but President Donald Trump may already have eyes on his next target: Cuba’s Communist government.

An invasion of Cuba “could be imminent,” said Axios. The administration last week “imposed additional sanctions on Havana” amid a “worsening humanitarian crisis” of food shortages and power blackouts exacerbated by a U.S. blockade of oil shipments to the island nation. The U.S. has also surged surveillance flights off of Cuba’s coast, said CNN, and Trump on Friday suggested he might send an aircraft carrier to the region.

The president is “growing impatient” that “months of sustained U.S. pressure” have not caused the Communist regime to collapse, said NBC News. Trump speaks about Cuba “as if he wants to make it the 51st state,” a former U.S. official told the outlet.

What did the commentators say?

Trump knows “he can’t bomb his way to victory” in Iran, Heather Digby Parton said at Salon. He instead appears willing to start “yet another military operation” closer to U.S. shores. Invading Cuba seemed “less likely as the quagmire in Iran has developed,” but the president may see pivoting back to the Western Hemisphere as a way to “distract from his failure in Iran.” Cuba is in weakened condition right now. A quick victory might be achievable. “The real question is what happens then.”

It is “not clear how it’s supposed to end,” Joseph Zeballos-Roig said at MS NOW. The Trump administration “has yet to release a basic strategic road map” of its aims or how to achieve them. The U.S. has long wanted economic and political reforms to “loosen the Cuban government’s tight grip on its citizens,” but Havana should not be underestimated. The regime has “managed to foil the well-laid plans of 13 presidents dating back to Dwight Eisenhower.”

The Trump administration is unlikely to install a “new democratically disposed government” in Havana, Renee Pruneau Novakoff said at The Cipher Brief. But it is “realistic” to demand the regime boot Russian and Chinese intelligence operations from its shores. That “important milestone” would allow the U.S. and Cuba to “move forward with the relationship” between the two countries. Beyond that, however, “regime change will have to be a Cuban affair.”

What next?

Senate Republicans are “cautioning” Trump against a Cuba attack, said The Hill. The U.S. should remain “focused on where we are and that is trying to get the Strait of Hormuz opened up,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said to reporters. “I want less war, not more,” said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). GOP senators last month blocked a resolution forbidding military action, said the outlet, but sentiment in the party is “shifting as a military operation against Cuba appears more likely.”

It is possible Trump will hold back, said Reuters. “Cuba is asking ⁠for help, and we are going to ​talk!!” the president wrote Tuesday on Truth Social. He did not provide more details.

What happened

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) on Wednesday called a June 17 special legislative session to redraw the state’s congressional map for the 2028 elections. The redistricting push follows a rush of GOP-led Southern states moving to eliminate mostly Black Democratic districts this year after the Supreme Court’s Louisiana v. Callais decision neutered the Voting Rights Act.

Who said what

South Carolina’s GOP-led Senate voted Tuesday not to follow Tennessee, Louisiana and Alabama in changing congressional maps for 2026. But Gov. Henry McMaster (R) told lawmakers that he will call a special session, “teeing up” a “Republican gerrymander that would almost certainly cost Democratic Rep. Jim Clyburn his seat” in November, Politico said. Kemp “has ruled out changing the maps for this year’s races,” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution said, but “Republicans are moving to act now while they are certain a GOP governor can sign the new districts into law.”

What next?

After their party’s “miserable two weeks in the redistricting wars,” Politico said, Maryland Democrats are pushing to eliminate the state’s sole Republican seat, “arguing there is still time to wade in for this year’s elections.” Republicans “have won the Great Redistricting War of 2026,” Reuters said, but their potential 12-seat gain “may not be enough” to keep the House.

What happened

The Senate on Wednesday confirmed Kevin Warsh as Federal Reserve chair in a 54-45 vote, with only one Democrat joining Republicans. President Donald Trump has aggressively pressured the central bank to slash interest rates and made that a condition for his chair pick. But “hot inflation readings are clouding the path for the rate cuts Warsh advocated as he essentially campaigned for the job,” The Wall Street Journal said.

Who said what

Warsh will start his four-year chairmanship amid “resurgent inflation, public discontent with the economy and unprecedented attacks on the Fed’s independence,” Axios said. No Fed chair has “been confirmed by such a narrow margin,” said the Journal, reflecting Democratic concerns that Warsh will be Trump’s “sock puppet.”

The Labor Department reported Wednesday that producer prices jumped 1.4% last month and were up 6% from a year earlier, the highest wholesale inflation numbers in at least three years. With the jump in consumer prices, it’s clear “America’s inflation problem is getting worse, not better,” Axios said. The producer price numbers were “so far above expectations,” said Carl Weinberg at High Frequency Economics, they “will set off alarm bells at the Fed” and “in the financial markets, too.”

What next?

Warsh takes the reins from Jerome Powell on Friday. Powell’s decision to stay on as a Fed governor amid lingering criminal threats from Trump’s prosecutors “could prove awkward” for Walsh, who “has vowed to embark on ‘regime change,’” The New York Times said.

The wait is over. Wes Streeting has resigned as health secretary, calling on Keir Starmer to “facilitate” a contest for a new prime minister. For Labour MPs to the left of Streeting, the question is now: who’s best placed to ‘stop Wes’?

“It’s on,” said Peter Franklin on UnHerd. In a leadership contest, Streeting would be “by far the best qualified” but he could be undone by “being outside the party’s powerful” soft-left faction – and less likely than other candidates to be preferred by the Labour party members who would ultimately decide the contest.

If the soft left’s Angela Rayner or Ed Miliband – or Andy Burnham, if he can find a way to return to Westminster in time – were to “run on a ‘Stop Streeting’ ticket”, they would “almost certainly succeed”.

What did the commentators say?

Former deputy PM Angela Rayner is “likely to be a decisive figure”, said Tom McTague, editor of The New Statesman. She believes a Streeting leadership would be a “continuation of what she sees as the Labour right’s disastrous control of the party”. Her “source of strength” is “her personality, her character” – things she‘s implied are “missing in the current occupant of No. 10”.

She also has a “cut-through with working-class voters”, said Simon Walters in The Independent. Nigel Farage may have gone down well on “I’m a Celebrity…” but the “plain-talking and mischievous ‘ladette’ Rayner could win it, were she ever to take part”.

Andy Burnham is “electoral gold dust”, said Neal Lawson in The Guardian. Unlike Streeting, Rayner and Miliband, he is “untainted by the past two years of government”. He has enjoyed success as Manchester’s mayor, and his popularity is “streets ahead of anyone else”. The problem? “Ten people stand in his way”: the officers of Labour’s NEC who blocked him from running for Westminster earlier this year. If they block him again, it would be a “political calamity”.

But first a Labour MP, such as Rayner or Miliband, would have to challenge Starmer with the “explicit intention” of bringing Burnham into the fold, said Jeremy Gilbert in The New Statesman. This is “unlikely” but “very unlikely things happen in modern politics”. And “if anyone has a better plan to save Labour from oblivion, and the country from Nigel Farage, then we’ve yet to hear it”.

“Logic, sadly, points to one all-too-likely victor”: Ed Miliband, said Ross Clark in The Spectator. With Burnham “marooned in Manchester”, and Rayner weakened by coverage of “her tax affairs”, he is the only credible “anti-Streeting challenger”. And he is the “most popular cabinet minister” among Labour members, too.

All politicians who claim the PM throne through a leadership contest rather than a general election tend to suffer from a “lack of personal mandate”. But Miliband would “enter office with something far worse: an anti mandate”. Voters have “already rejected him overwhelmingly” in a general election. “To have him lumbered on us anyway would be like telling the waiter we will have anything but the onion soup but then having it served to us anyway.”

What next?

If Burnham were able to stand for the leadership, and Rayner or Miliband also stood, it could “split the left-wing vote” and make it easier for Streeting to “snatch victory”, said Millie Cooke in The Independent. But a “Rayner-Burnham pact” could exert “formidable force” from the left that Streeting would find “extremely difficult” to overcome. “Such a possibility will only put pressure on” the former health secretary “to act quickly and trigger a contest” before Burnham “has a chance to return to Westminster”.

‘11 hantavirus deaths in Argentina were a warning’

Abraar Karan at The Washington Post

The “recent Andes hantavirus outbreak on the Hondius cruise ship has seized international attention after three passengers died” and the incident is a “warning sign of where the world’s pandemic prevention system still has weaknesses,” says Abraar Karan. While “there is no way to avoid outbreaks, proactive approaches could reduce risk.” More “detailed predeparture screening could help shipboard doctors diagnose sick patients better,” although “this approach is only as foolproof as the people who are reporting their exposures.”

Read more

‘The crisis in Sudan is much worse than what is acknowledged’

Zia Salik at Al Jazeera

In the “streets of Sudan’s capital, the destruction was apocalyptic,” says Zia Salik. The “difficulty in accessing many areas, and the sense that this is a complicated war in a faraway place, means the crisis has not received anywhere near the international attention it needs.” For “many people, the greatest fear now is that the unending war in the west of the country will result in Sudan, one of the largest countries in Africa, splitting in two.”

Read more

‘What leaders get wrong about the ROI of AI’

Katy George at Time

“If you ask most executives about AI right now, the conversation quickly turns to one question: where is the return?” says Katy George. That is “not because AI isn’t delivering value. It’s because many organizations are still looking for value in the wrong places.” AI’s impact “shows up in greater insight, more predictive power, in-task skill building and the ability to evaluate more scenarios before acting.” But “those gains don’t fit neatly into traditional metrics.”

Read more

‘States need to come clean on SNAP fraud’

Gov. Larry Rhoden at Newsweek

One “practical example of a resource that should be managed with care is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),” says Gov. Larry Rhoden (R-S.D.). Americans “should take great pride that such a program exists, but that should inspire diligence in its oversight.” States with “higher error rates — in the double digits in many cases — warrant attention and accountability to ensure program integrity is upheld nationwide.” The “solution starts with bringing greater transparency to the issue.”

Read more

What happened

Food and Drug Administration chief Dr. Marty Makary resigned Tuesday after a tumultuous 13 months leading the agency charged with regulating drugs, medical devices, vaccines and much of the U.S. food supply. The White House and Health and Human Services Department “agreed in recent days on the need to replace” him, The Washington Post said. “Marty is a great guy,” President Donald Trump, who posted Makary’s resignation message on social media, told reporters. But “he was having some difficulty.”

Who said what

“In the end,” Makary “had just about run out of allies,” having upset “rare-disease patients, antiabortion groups and some drug-industry leaders,” The Wall Street Journal said. Makary also “drew criticism from public health leaders who viewed him as pandering to anti-vaccine activists,” The New York Times said. But according to his confidantes, he “ultimately left over concerns about the administration’s decision to authorize fruit-flavored e-cigarettes,” a move Trump insisted on but Makary opposed “over concerns that fruity and candy flavors would lure young people to addictive vapes.”

Makary had some “strong ideas” about streamlining the drug review process, Matthew Herper said at Stat News, but he was the FDA’s “worst commissioner” in at least 25 years. He “offended almost everyone involved in FDA issues, which is not easy to do,” National Center for Health Research president Diana Zuckerman told the Times. “But it would still be a disaster if he is replaced by someone who appeals primarily to tobacco companies, anti-abortion activists” and pharmaceutical lobbyists.

What next?

Trump appointed Kyle Diamantas, the FDA’s top food regulator, as acting commissioner.

Andy Burnham might be the bookmakers’ favourite to replace Keir Starmer as Labour leader, despite his lack of a Westminster seat, but he certainly isn’t the bond market’s favourite.

In fact, gilt traders see the Greater Manchester mayor as the “biggest threat” of all the potential candidates, said the Financial Times. He troubled investors last year when he suggested the country should not be “in hock” to the bond market. Six out of 10 fund managers picked Burnham as the candidate that would “trigger the most negative market reaction”.

Burnham has said his comments on the bond market were misinterpreted, but the political project he espouses and the vision he offers for the country’s future – Manchesterism – remains highly divisive. Critics see it as “mostly vibes and boosterism” that “relies on a bottom-up localism” difficult to scale at a national level, said PoliticsHome. Others see it as our potential economic and political saviour.

What did the commentators say?

Manchesterism is a “horrifically overused phrase” about how my city “does things differently”, said Stephen Topping in the Manchester Evening News. But it’s true. Manchesterism is “‘place-based’ rather than party political”. It involves “public services working closer together, and in partnership with both the private sector and community groups, to ensure the benefits of a stronger economy can be felt by more people”.

The Greater Manchester region has become the UK’s fastest growing economy over the past decade, “at more than double the rate of the national average”. Devolution has been critical: the “trailblazer” deal struck in 2023 has allowed Greater Manchester to “take public control of key services” such as the bus network, which has improved living standards and boosted the local economy. Those who have worked closely with Burnham believe Manchesterism “could work in other parts of the UK”, though it would pose “a radical departure from the UK’s largely centralised economy”.

Burnham’s programme has begun “delivering affordability and economic dynamism” by “regaining public control” of essential services, said Mathew Lawrence, director of progressive think tank Common Wealth, in The New Statesman.

Energy, water, housing, transport and care are “domains of inelastic demand” and “existential need”. So market governance of the supply side “produces rent extraction” and underinvestment. The public “pays twice: through higher bills” and taxes to fund support. But public control of essentials eliminates the privatisation premium. “Rebuilding public provision is not the alternative to fiscal prudence. It is fiscal prudence.”

Manchesterism might be the “buzzword of the day”, but it’s simply people projecting their “pipe dreams” on to Burnham’s “blank canvas of soft-left localism”, said Daniel Johnson in The Telegraph.

“The irony is that 19th-century Manchesterism was more or less the opposite of what the Labour Party now thinks it means.” Manchester was “both the laboratory and the showcase of the Industrial Revolution”, the “citadel of free trade”. It had nothing to do with Burnham’s “municipal socialism”. His proposed solution to Britain’s economic woes is “a muddled melange of municipal meddling, including tax hikes and more borrowing”. What Britain needs is the 19th-century version, which Burnham doesn’t understand.

The vision of Manchesterism Burnham outlined in January is, in practice, an industrial strategy – and there is “nothing new about those”, said Christopher Snowdon in The Critic. Economists have long criticised them for “misallocating resources, crowding out private investment, picking losers, and forcing taxpayers to bail out industries that are only kept on life support for political reasons”. How, exactly, can Manchesterism “stop us being in hock to the bond markets” when Manchester City Council is “one of the most indebted in the country”.

What next?

Burnham is planning to reassure the bond market that his possible election to Labour leader would “not trigger a financial meltdown”, said The Telegraph. Sources say he is planning to endorse a pamphlet outlining a framework for Manchesterism, setting out how it could be rolled out across the UK and “the wider economic theory behind his ideas”.

But the uncertain national landscape, in which voters are moving both further left and further right, could make the success of Manchesterism “a challenge for anybody”, Sarah Longlands, chief executive of the Manchester-based Centre for Local Economic Strategies, told Manchester Evening News.

Manchesterism is still in its early stages, yet for all the benefits devolution has brought, Greater Manchester is still “a tale of two cities”, with a great income and opportunities divide exacerbated by the cost of living crisis. “Growth in Greater Manchester has to be for everybody – otherwise, what’s the point?” Longlands said.

King Charles has laid out the government’s legislative agenda for the next year, even as speculation mounts that Keir Starmer will not be around to lead it.

Buckingham Palace had taken the extraordinary step of privately asking Downing Street if the ceremonial state opening of Parliament should proceed at all, given the political crisis engulfing the prime minister.

“Traditionally a moment for governmental clarity”, the King’s Speech was today delivered “amidst profound political uncertainty – a stark contrast to its original intent as a boost for Keir Starmer following recent electoral setbacks”, said Jonathan Bunn in The Independent.

What was announced?

The King today announced a package of 37 bills for the 2026-27 parliamentary session, building on the previous session that had delivered key Labour manifesto pledges such as the Renters’ Rights Act and the Employment Rights Act.

The new measures include a bill to lay the ground to adopt European regulations, bringing the UK into closer alignment with the EU, and another to allow the government to fully nationalise British Steel. Both of these formed the centrepiece of Starmer’s “reset” speech on Monday.

There will also be a Clean Water Bill to merge the functions of the existing regulators, including Ofwat, in an attempt to end the current “fragmented oversight” of pollution in our rivers. There will be measures to streamline the process for approving new nuclear energy projects. And the long-awaited Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill will end the leasehold flat system in England and Wales, and cap annual ground rents.

The King set out plans for a voluntary digital ID scheme, an overhaul of special educational needs provision in England, a tightening of the asylum system, a scaling-back of jury trials and restrictions on foreign political donations. There will be legislation to enable peerages to be removed, and to lower the voting age to 16.

What was missing?

There was no second attempt to reform the welfare system. The first attempt, which included eligibility restrictions for some health-related benefits, resulted in a backbench revolt, and an embarrassing U-turn for the government last year. The decision not to try again “may be welcomed” by those MPs who forced the backdown but “is likely to be held up” by others “as a sign of the prime minister’s growing inability to drive an agenda through government”, said the BBC's chief political correspondent Henry Zeffman.

Also absent was any legislation about the Chagos Islands or any move to resurrect the assisted dying bill that failed to become law in the last parliamentary session.

What if Starmer goes?

The legislation crafted by Starmer and set out today “is already in danger of being overtaken by events, as many Labour MPs attempt to force the prime minister from office”, said the Financial Times. This put the monarch in the “unusual and awkward position of putting forward an agenda” that could be “left potentially obsolete by political turmoil”.

No one expects the King’s Speech to be voted down – that would effectively be a vote of no confidence in the government. But, were the PM to resign or be forced out, the legislative programme of a new leader could diverge significantly from the one announced today.

“Key groups” of Labour MPs are already “setting out alternative policy agendas that are mostly more radical than Starmer’s”, said the FT. The broad Labour Growth Group, allied to Wes Streeting, has a manifesto for supply-side reform that aims “to use tax and regulation to incentivise work over returns from owning assets”. Mainstream, a group broadly supportive of Andy Burnham, stresses greater public control over key industries, and the soft-left Tribune group, also allied to Andy Burnham, is calling for “an overhaul of the government’s fiscal rules to allow more public investment in infrastructure”.

Keir Starmer swept to power in July 2024 promising “change”, “national renewal” and a “return of politics to public service”. Less than two years later, his premiership is hanging by a thread as more and more of his own MPs and ministers break cover and call for him to go. At least 81 Labour MPs have so far called for the PM to step down and bring his troubled premiership to an untimely end.

Here are five moments that have brought Starmer to the brink.

Winter fuel U-turn

Labour’s honeymoon was short-lived, with the Stockport riots and “Freebie-gate” dominating its first few months in power. But it was the early decision to introduce means-testing to winter fuel payments for older people that proved particularly toxic with voters still unsure about what Starmer and his party stood for.

Long advocated by the Treasury but opposed by successive chancellors for over a decade, it was “one of Labour’s first acts in power and helped ensure voter disillusionment set in early”, said The Times. Starmer, Chancellor Rachel Reeves and the wider government have never really recovered.

To make matters worse, rather than quickly reverse course, No. 10 doubled down, for months insisting the move was necessary to get the public finances under control. Only after MPs reported it was coming up again and again on the doorstep and was the first, and only, thing people could cite about Labour’s time in office did Starmer finally decide to U-turn.

National insurance rises

In her first Budget in the autumn of 2024, Reeves was accused of breaking a key election manifesto pledge not to increase taxes on working people. Increasing the employers’ rate of NI was meant to raise £24 billion in a bid to balance the books, but the Office for Budget Responsibility said that the move would lead to job losses, a squeeze on pay and lower growth. While technically not a breach of its tax promise to voters, it increased the financial strain on small businesses and left a sour taste in the mouths of many voters who felt they had been deceived.

Welfare U-turn

While Starmer’s most “serious failing was the absence of rigorous preparation for government”, looking back, the “critical moment” in his premiership was last summer’s U-turn on welfare spending, said The Independent’s political editor, John Rentoul.

While many agreed the welfare budget needed reforming, Reeves’ proposed £5 billion in disability cuts angered many Labour MPs while simultaneously failing to address the structural problems of the benefits system. Facing an embarrassing Commons defeat, the government U-turned again. Not only did this make Starmer look weak and in thrall to his backbenchers, it also forced Reeves to find more taxes to raise in her second Budget, after her first had already unravelled.

While other U-turns and errors were “embarrassing”, the “failure to hold the line on restraining disability spending was fundamental”, said Rentoul. “That was when Starmer’s government lost its way.”

The Mandelson affair

If a series of policy missteps and U-turns conveyed a sense of uncertainty about what Labour in government was actually for, the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as US ambassador, despite his known links to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, raised direct questions about Starmer’s judgement.

After Mandelson’s sacking in September 2025 following new emails revealing the true nature of his relationship with Epstein, the decision to push Mandelson’s appointment through despite widespread concerns within the civil service saw Starmer’s government “embroiled in Britain’s worst political scandal of this century”, said The Economist.

If Starmer “had a purpose, it was stopping things like this”. Presenting himself as a “politician of process rather than conviction” he sought to differentiate himself from recent predecessors such as Boris Johnson and Liz Truss. The Mandelson affair “reveals that process comes a distant second to political convenience”.

Local elections

All of this came to a head in last week’s local and devolved elections. With Starmer’s personal approval rating tanking and Labour squeezed by Reform UK to the right and the Greens on the left, the party lost scores of seats and councils, as well as control of Wales for the first time in a century.

While the campaign was meant to be about local issues, the elections were in many ways a “referendum” on Starmer and his government, Jonathan Tonge, professor of politics at the University of Liverpool, told Al Jazeera. Canvassers reported the PM’s popularity coming up again and again on the doorstep.

After months managing to keep his Cabinet and wider party onside and rivals at bay, the aftermath of these elections was always seen as the moment of maximum danger for Starmer – and so it has proved. He has, for now, vowed to fight on, but his time in No. 10 may be entering its final chapter.

England’s first-past-the-post electoral system has long been regarded as “a friend of the Conservative and Labour parties”, said political scientist John Curtice on the BBC. Under FPTP, the candidate with the most votes in each constituency is elected, and this has always made it difficult for small parties, whose votes may be geographically spread, to take seats from the big two.

But last week’s local election results confirm that Britain has entered “an unprecedented era of multi-party politics”. Labour and the Conservatives jointly got 34% of the vote share – “a record low”. Far from “helping to insulate” them, FPTP “served to exaggerate” their loss of support.

‘Distorts voter choice’

Our “archaic” voting system is “no longer fit for purpose”, said Andrew Grice in The Independent. The traditional argument was that it delivered stability but we have “hardly had stable governments in the 10 years” since the EU referendum, and these recent local election results suggest that “the next general election will be unpredictable and chaotic”. We now have five parties in England, and six each in Scotland and Wales, with nationalists “on the march in both”. It will be very difficult for anyone to win a majority, leading to “post-election horse-trading” between parties in a coalition or “pacts for key Commons votes”.

Nigel Farage used to “bang on about the need for proportional representation”, the voting system used for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senedd. But – “surprise, surprise” – he “seems to have cooled” on that, now that FPTP offers him a chance of becoming PM. “He was right first time: Britain needs electoral reform, not Reform UK.”

In a multi-party landscape, FPTP “distorts voter choice”, said political scientist Vernon Bogdanor in the Financial Times. Voters must guess “how to keep out” the party they most dislike, making casting a vote seem like “participating in a lottery”. In 2024, Keir Starmer’s Labour won 411 of 650 seats with just 34% of the vote share – lower than Jeremy Corbyn’s 40% in 2017. “How can a government be democratically legitimate when two-thirds of the voters do not want it?”

A proportional representation system of transferable votes, in which second and further preferences count, is now “an essential safeguard”, said the FT’s Martin Wolf. We need to protect Britain from the “tyranny of the minority”, in which “a small plurality secures overwhelming power”. FPTP has “become suicidal”.

‘More horse-trading, not less’

Sorry, I’m not convinced, said Gaby Hinsliff in The Guardian. For decades, FPTP has “done a sterling job of keeping extremists out”, while the far right “surged across Europe”. Proportional representation “doesn’t guarantee that we could all just vote for what we want instead of endlessly against what we fear (ask the French)”. It also doesn’t mean “an end to the grubby deal-making”. The choice is simply between “cutting deals with rival factions inside your own party (more common under FPTP) or with rival parties in the coalition governments produced more frequently under PR, which often means more horse-trading, not less”. PR might create parliaments “roughly reflective of how people actually voted” but that proportionality “doesn’t always survive the messy process of forming governments”.

We could introduce a fairer system “with minimal change”, said Labour peer Jeff Rooker on PoliticsHome. A “practical diluted” FPTP would be better than an “impractical pure” PR system. We should introduce regional MPs, as well as constituency ones. Voters would still mark ballot papers with one X, choosing a candidate as a constituency member, but votes for parties would then be “aggregated on a regional basis” and regional MPs would be chosen from “the highest runners-up”. In this “Mixed-Member Proportional System”, the electorate would feel they could “vote for what they want”, removing the “temptation for tactical voting”.

What happened

Democrats scrambled over the weekend to respond to setbacks in the national redistricting fight, most recently the Virginia Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision last week to nullify the state’s voter-approved congressional map. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and other House Democrats “vented anger at their defeat” in Virginia during a private discussion on Saturday, The New York Times said, with “some party leaders discussing an audacious and possibly far-fetched idea” to restore the map, designed to flip four Republican seats.

Who said what

“Just two weeks ago, Democrats had fought to a draw” in the mid-decade gerrymander race started by President Donald Trump and Texas Republicans, The Washington Post said. Now, between the Virginia decision and the expected loss of several additional seats in the South following the U.S. Supreme Court’s neutering of the Voting Rights Act, Democrats are “confronting the reality that Trump succeeded in tilting the playing field to the GOP’s advantage.”

What next?

If the Republicans maintain their current net gain of about a dozen seats, Democrats “could need to win the House combined national popular vote by around 4 percentage points,” Nate Cohn said at the Times. That “structural advantage wouldn’t be enough to make the Republicans favorites,” but it “gives them a real shot” at winning. And if the court rulings help Republicans keep the House despite “badly losing the national vote, it would be yet another blow to the credibility of American institutions during a time of bitter division.”

Keir Starmer has vowed to prove his doubters wrong in what was widely billed as his “make-or-break” speech.

He acknowledged that Labour’s local election losses were “tough” and that his government has made “mistakes”, but insisted he had got “the big political choices right”.

What did the commentators say? 

The initial reaction has been mixed, said ITV’s political editor Robert Peston on X. “Labour MPs tell me they admire Starmer’s performance”: he was “cheerful and resilient”, even as he “showed contrition for his party’s historically terrible performance in last week’s elections”.

This speech was “better than many” Starmer has given, “and he did show some passion”, said Peter Walker in The Guardian. But for his sceptics “to be mollified”, he needed to have produced “a giant-sized rabbit” from his policy hat – “something to make them sit up and think: oh, maybe this time things are different. But he did not.”

The prime minister said that “incremental change won’t cut it” and yet “his pivotal speech was inherently incrementalist”, said Steven Swinford and Oliver Wright in The Times. “Calls by some of those around him to be more radical appear to have fallen on deaf ears.”

With the King’s Speech and a new legislative agenda to come on Wednesday, Starmer wants his party to be “gripped by a new sense of purpose and energy”, said Nick Eardley, the BBC’s political correspondent. The hope is that they will “forget all about changing leaders and rally behind the man who delivered a landslide general election victory less than two years ago”.

“The next 72 hours or so of hysteria” will be “dangerous,” said Sean O’Grady in The Independent. But it’s “not at all obvious why a change of leader and prime minister would either be easy or even that advantageous to the party”. For all their “fratricidal habits”, Labour MPs “won’t kick Starmer out – not yet”.

But such is “the bearpit of British politics, the most perilous threat for prime ministers so often comes from behind them”, said Nicholas Cecil in The Standard. Hornsey MP Catherine West’s threat to trigger a leadership content “exploded at the weekend from an unexpected quarter” and, with “trusted colleagues withering in numbers by the hour”, Starmer “could be forgiven for jumping at shadows” in Westminster’s “dark and labyrinthine corridors”.

What next?

In Wednesday’s King’s Speech, there’ll be “plenty of Labour-friendly measures on offer”, a source told the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg. But they “weren’t so sure” that “there be anything dramatic or dazzling to change the conversation”.

West has now stopped short of a leadership challenge but says she will write to her MP colleagues today asking for their support “to call on the prime minister to set a timetable for the election of a new leader in September”. So far, about 40 other Labour MPs have called for Starmer to quit.

The prime minister’s speech “was held in Waterloo,” said ITV’s Peston. “He wants to be Wellington but he may be Napoleon.”

A new report by Human Rights Watch argues that the compulsory use of Chinese as the primary language in schools in Tibet raises “serious concerns under international human rights law”.

Detailing the effects of the “Children’s Speech Harmonization Plan” five years ago, as well as more recent updates to the “National Common Language Law”, the organisation argues that measures are marginalising Tibetan identity to the point of erasure.

“International concern about these developments has grown,” said Jianli Yang in The Diplomat. These language laws fit into a pattern in recent years of “intensified policies” aimed to “reshape” Tibetan identity through “cultural control”.

‘Eroding’ Tibetan culture

Both politically and legally, “China is steadily narrowing the space for minority autonomy in education, language, and religion”, said The Diplomat. In December last year, the National People’s Congress revised the “National Common Language Law”. It now requires Mandarin to be the “fundamental teaching language” and mandates standardised textbooks throughout the education system. The codification of assimilation policies “marks a new phase” in Beijing’s strategy: it seeks “not merely to manage ethnic diversity but to fundamentally reshape it”.

Videos from Tibet on social media have shown young children “not even able to say their names in Tibetan, pronouncing them as if they were Chinese”, said Kris Cheng in The Guardian. Children, who have been brought up speaking Tibetan stop speaking it within a year of beginning school.

Parents face a “dilemma”: education in Chinese improves employment and career prospects, but it often comes at the cost of associating Tibetan with “social disadvantage”. Some are sending their children to Tibetan language classes in the school holidays, but authorities have been “cracking down” by “banning unsanctioned schools and classes in many places”.

Perhaps the most “profound policy shift” from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in Tibet was the 2021 “Children’s Speech Harmonization Plan”, said Human Rights Watch. For the first time, it mandated the use of Chinese language as a “medium of instruction” in all preschools. Though not explicitly banning Tibetan in educational settings, it effectively “downgrades” the freedom for minorities to develop and continue their language.

This law was not a “sudden rupture”, however, but the “near final step in a decades-long process” of “eroding the role of Tibetan as a medium of instruction”. It was a “key acceleration point” in the drive to reshape the “linguistic, cultural, and social foundations of Tibetan society”.

‘Narrowed’ tolerance

China’s stance “turned sharply against expressions of separate ethnic identity among minorities” when Xi Jinping came to power in 2012, said Josh Chin and Niharika Mandhana in the Wall Street Journal. Officials targeted Tibetan alternatives to state schools and expanded the boarding school system. Resistance since the uprising of 1959 has persisted under the current Dalai Lama, a “potent force despite decades of propaganda, political crackdowns and education drives aimed at undermining his authority”, living in exile in India.

During the earlier years of Communist Party rule China “espoused a certain notion of pluralism for non-Han people”, but the space for tolerance has “narrowed”, said Joe Leahy in the Financial Times. Look no further than Xinjiang, where more than a million Uighurs have been “subjected to mass internment”. China denies mass detentions of Uighurs and “blames unrest on terrorists”.

Recent years have seen a gradual transformation from a “first-generation ethnic policy” to the “second-generation ethnic policy”, said The Diplomat. The earlier framework, under Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping, “formally emphasised” ethnic and language autonomy. For instance, legislation in 1994 stipulated that all schools should “use Tibetan as the principal medium of instruction”, whilst “improving a bilingual Tibetan-Chinese education system”. Implementation was often “uneven”, but it at least “recognised the legitimacy of cultural pluralism within the Chinese state”.

Second-generation ethnic policy, however, marks a “significant departure” from this philosophy. It seeks to “minimise” the significance of ethnic distinctions, instead of preserving diversity. The Chinese state now sees minority languages as “potential threats” to Xi’s “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation”. Viewed more broadly, China’s current policies in Tibet represent “more than a shift in language education”, they reflect a “structural transformation” in how China perceives ethnic minorities.

“In the pantheon of destructive, counterproductive laws”, the new Renters' Rights Act “must be up there with the worst”, said Tim Briggs on CapX. The legislation, which came into force last Friday, has been sold by Labour as a “moral crusade” that will drive rogue landlords out of England's private rental sector, protecting tenants from abuse.

It abolishes Section 21 “no-fault” evictions, whereby landlords can evict tenants without giving a reason. Instead, they must rely on specific legal grounds – rent arrears, antisocial behaviour, an upcoming sale – to regain possession, which will mean “more lawyers” and more litigation; those who wish to sell must give four months' notice. Fixed-term tenancies have been abolished, replaced instead with rolling contracts with no end date. Rent increases are limited to once per year; these can be appealed at tribunal.

Together, the measures represent “a regulatory avalanche” – sending a clear message to small landlords: get out. “Fewer landlords mean fewer rental homes. And fewer rental homes mean higher rents.”

I'm a landlord, and I welcome the new law, said Rebecca Tidy in The Independent. If your business depends for its profitability on no-fault evictions, “it's safe to say that the sector – and society – is better off without it”. Up until now, renting a property has been a “terrifying lucky dip where you have no idea what kind of landlord you will get”. I've heard “endless stories” of people booted out of their homes in favour of more lucrative tenants, or for complaining about black mould that is affecting their children's health. This legislation will end all that.

It's hard to overestimate how draconian “no-fault” evictions are, agreed Oliver Edwards on Inside Housing – and how precarious they make renters' lives. As a housing lawyer in Manchester, I see cases like this all the time. My recent clients have included a family of seven, with older parents and a severely disabled adult son; and a single mother with an autistic son who had “finally settled into school”. They've all been moved on, with just a few weeks' notice.

Many in the industry think that the Renter's Rights Act will force out rogue landlords and improve standards, said Emily Braeger in The i Paper. But it will also become more difficult for landlords to evict problem tenants, and the burden of compliance may become too much for many of them. Research by the lender Pepper Money suggests that there will be 220,000 fewer homes to rent in England by the end of the year. The long-term impacts of the legislation will not become clear for years, but this is certainly the most significant reform to the sector since the Thatcher era.

Is Benjamin Netanyahu's time finally up? Is Israel's longest-serving prime minister, in power for almost 15 of the past 17 years, heading for a fall at the forthcoming October general election?

Following the decisive move made by Israel's opposition parties last week, that is now a real possibility, said Ravit Hecht in Haaretz (Tel Aviv). The hardline right-winger Naftali Bennett and the centrist Yair Lapid have announced they will be merging their two parties to form a single party called Yachad (Together). Prior to their announcement, polls had Bennett's party projected to win 21 seats and Lapid's party seven. A total of 28 seats would make Yachad the biggest party in the 120-seat Knesset, ahead of Netanyahu's Likud, on a projected 25.

‘Era of correction’

This pair have teamed up before, said Philissa Cramer on the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. After the 2021 election that briefly dislodged Netanyahu from office, before he stormed back in late 2022, they struck an unusual power-sharing deal, agreeing to take it in turns to serve as prime minister. And this time they are presenting their combined party as a more permanent antidote to the polarisation in Israeli society that has deepened under Netanyahu. “Our unity is a message to the entire people of Israel,” declared Bennett on announcing the merger. “The era of division is over. The era of correction has arrived.”

Don't be so sure, said Ori Wertman in The Jerusalem Post. This merger may well backfire. True, the two men have agreed on some significant issues, including the need for an eight-year cap on a PM's time in office and for a full army draft with sanctions on Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) draft evaders. But the fact remains that Bennett is an Orthodox Jew who has called for the annexation of parts of the West Bank: in teaming up with Lapid, a secular Jew who has previously endorsed the two-state solution, he may well prompt some of his supporters to defect to Likud.

Conversely, Lapid's shift to the right – he has agreed to rule out the possibility of a coalition with any of Israel's Arab parties – will alienate much of his moderate base. And indeed, the first post-merger poll projects the new party winning just 26 seats, not the 28 total forecast when the two parties were running separately.

‘Same troubled system’

Still, there is a clear political logic behind the merger, said Aaron T. Walter in The Times of Israel. Lapid's support has crashed since his party won 24 seats in the last election, while Bennett – who is going to lead the new party – has gained in popularity. The trouble is, Yachad has a “core arithmetic problem”.

Without Arab parties, which it has ruled out as potential coalition partners, its only hope of securing the 61 seats needed for a majority is to lure Gadi Eisenkot, former chief of staff of the Israel Defence Forces, in to join the party. Eisenkot's military credentials and his moving personal story of having lost a son to the war in Gaza have made him a leading contender of the Right. But for that very reason he'd probably only join if made leader, something Bennett has made plain he won't countenance.

But what would a Yachad victory actually achieve, asked David Issacharoff in Haaretz. Lapid and Bennett are keen to highlight the corruption charges Netanyahu has managed to fend off by staying in power, and to blame him for the security failures that enabled Hamas's October 2023 attack. But on the big questions – how to extricate Israel from the conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon; how to prevent settler violence in the West Bank – they've nothing new to say.

Yachad's central weakness, said Hani Hazaimeh in Arab News (Riyadh), is that its focus is simply on removing Netanyahu from office. By refusing to address “the unresolved Palestinian issue” and “the normalisation of military-first policies”, they have missed the chance to redefine Israel's future in any meaningful way. Even if his rivals do displace him, Netanyahu's fall would be less a “political revolution” and more a “reshuffling of power within the same troubled system”.

A series of European leaders have been singled out for criticism by a frustrated Donald Trump over recent months, said The Guardian. Currently, it's Germany's chancellor who “finds himself in Washington's crosshairs”.

Friedrich Merz provoked the president's wrath last week by telling a class of schoolchildren in his home region of Sauerland that America lacked a clear strategy in Iran and was being “humiliated”. Trump swiftly hit back, calling Merz “totally ineffective” and threatening to shrink America's military presence in Germany. Two days later, the Pentagon announced the withdrawal of 5,000 of the more than 36,000 US troops stationed in Germany. Trump subsequently suggested that many more could be pulled out. He has also threatened to raise tariffs on European car imports from 15% to 25%, a step that would hit Germany hardest.

Awkward timing

This row arrives at a terrible time for Merz, who is struggling in the polls, said The Economist. However, it remains to be seen whether the troop withdrawals actually happen. Trump threatened to pull out 12,000 troops in his first term, but that plan was later cancelled. German bases such as Ramstein are “crucial hubs for American power projection, not least in the Middle East”. German officials are more concerned by the decision to cancel the deployment of a US intermediate-range missile unit to Germany.

This deployment, agreed in 2024 by President Biden, was “explicitly intended to send a message of strength to the Kremlin, a tangible signal of deterrence”, said Hubert Wetzel in Süddeutsche Zeitung. Trump's cancellation of the plan last week, after yet another long phone call with Vladimir Putin, could “almost be interpreted as an invitation to the Kremlin”. Nato's credibility ultimately depends on the belief that the US would come to Europe's aid in a crisis, but how sure can anyone be of that now?

Political misstep

Given how much Europe depends on America, its leaders really need to stop provoking Trump, said Wolfgang Munchau on UnHerd. Merz was of course right that the president entered the Iran war without a strategy, but it was foolish of him to talk of America being “humiliated”. More careful language is required. For all the talk of creating strategic autonomy, the reality is that Europe is miles away from being able safely to decouple from the US. It hasn't even agreed a joint defence strategy. The Europeans are in “dangerous denial”, always quick to criticise the US while persistently failing to address their own powerlessness. “Now Trump has called their bluff. No wonder they hate him.”

“Labour has gone from its loveless landslide to having no political heartland in the UK to call its own,” said Adam Boulton in The i Paper.

Reform UK has made sweeping gains across England in the local elections, while the SNP is likely to be the largest party in Scotland. Labour has already admitted it is not going to form the next government in Wales.

Keir Starmer has declared he is “not going to walk away and plunge the country into chaos”. However, amid rumours of challenges from former deputy prime minister Angela Rayner, Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Mayor of Greater Manchester Andy Burnham, Labour’s poor performance in the local elections could prove the tipping point for the PM.

What did the commentators say?

“Kingmaker” Ed Miliband has reportedly privately suggested to Starmer he should set out a “timeline for his departure” after the results, said Steven Swinford in The Times. Though the former party leader is “supportive” of Starmer, he is worried that Labour may “descend into a bitter and damaging leadership contest”.

Both Rayner and Streeting are thought to have the support of the 81 Labour MPs needed to “trigger a contest”. Rayner reportedly does not see the ongoing HMRC investigation into her tax affairs as a “barrier to putting herself forward”. Burnham has also “emerged as the preferred candidate of powerbrokers on Labour’s soft left”. They believe an “orderly transition to his leadership over a period of months is the only way to avert a bloody civil war”, with reports of a backbench MP standing down to accommodate his return to Westminster.

Indeed, it may appear an “obvious conclusion” – that changing the leader would make its problems “go away”, said Boulton. “Obvious but wrong.” Inexperienced Labour MPs – “more than half” of whom were first elected in 2024 – had “supped full on the bloodshed” of five axed Conservative leaders before the general election. But they “failed to notice that such a butcher’s bill did not ultimately improve the Tories’ fortunes”. The reality is they have a “poor leader who has led them into an electoral catastrophe, but without him, things could always get worse”.

Starmer may be on the end of one of the party’s “worst set of election results in history”, but he may “take solace” in his potential challengers also “facing heavy losses in their own patch”, said Kiran Stacey in The Guardian. Labour lost control of Tameside in Greater Manchester, Rayner’s local council, and “struggled” across the northwest, impacting Burnham. Experts also expect Labour to “do badly” in Streeting’s home council of Redbridge in northeast London.

Labour MPs will have a “terrible sinking feeling”, said political strategist James Frayne in The Telegraph. They won’t know which way to turn, but the “great risk” for them is “looking like they’re part of the problem”. Staying silent implies a weakened party is becoming more divided, but appearing to “trot” out excuses for Starmer “risks downplaying the prospect of a straightforward Farage majority at the next election. That’s not a risk that anyone with any hope of a future in the Labour Party can take.”

It is “hard to deny” that Starmer’s days are “numbered”, said Simon Walters in The Independent. But the question remains: “how is any replacement going to make things better for Labour?” Starmer “may not set the pulse racing” but he is “decent and honest”, as well as making the right calls over Iran, and “standing up to Donald Trump with courage and quiet dignity”. Until someone raises “convincing solutions” to current issues, those who are “indulging in a petty blame game” in Westminster “should be careful what they wish for”.

What next?

Votes were still being counted, but the Labour “post-mortem” had already begun, said Ethan Croft in The New Statesman. Amid the “necessary evasions and sugar-coating of damage control”, there are “hard-headed calculations” about which direction the party should turn. Over the next few days expect everyone on the Labour left and right to use the results to “validate what they already believed”, and to “argue for policies and strategies they were already advocating for the party’s future”.

Those on Labour’s right are “confident” the results “vindicate” Shabana Mahmood’s “hardline” stance on immigration, believing the party must do more to “neutralise” Reform on Labour’s own terms. Those on the left of the party, however, think this is “precisely the consequence of pursuing that brand of politics”, and is also why they are being “walloped” by the Greens.

The Trump administration has lofty expectations about the state of the pharmaceutical industry, but not everyone appears to be a believer. Recent data from the White House predicted that the administration’s deals with drug companies could save the economy more than half a trillion dollars over the next decade. While Republicans are lauding this estimate, many Democrats are taking it with a grain of salt.

‘Touted his drug pricing deals as transformative’

The White House predicts that Trump’s deals could save $529 billion over the next 10 years, according to an analysis of data obtained by The Associated Press. The administration also estimated that federal and state governments could “save a combined $64.3 billion on Medicaid during the next decade” because of Trump’s agreements, Josh Doak said at the AP.

Trump administration officials have touted the president’s “drug pricing deals as transformative and urged Congress to codify their principles into law” as part of “most favored nation” (MFN) pricing, said Doak. The White House has “reached voluntary agreements with 17 pharmaceutical companies,” and it appears the administration’s “goal is to bring manufacturers of sole-source brand-name drugs and biologics into comparable arrangements,” Colleen Cabili said at Quartz. Details on the deal specifics remain unclear.

The president has “sought to position his pharmaceutical pricing push as a winning issue with voters,” said Cabili. Given his plummeting poll numbers over affordability, Trump has been “focusing on his efforts to cut deals with companies so that the cost of prescription drugs in the U.S. would no longer be dramatically higher than in other affluent nations,” said Doak.

The mechanism ‘remains a black box’

Despite the White House’s optimism, many across the aisle are skeptical of the Trump administration’s potential cost savings. Just prior to the White House’s analysis, 17 Democratic senators introduced legislation that would force Trump to provide details of the drug deals. If “these deals are actually lowering costs for patients, show us,” Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), one of the co-sponsors of the legislation, said in a statement. “Americans deserve transparency.”

If “these deals are so great, why is the Trump administration afraid of showing them to the public? Because Trump is a giant fraud when it comes to lower drug prices,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said in a parallel statement. The “scope of the savings claimed by the Trump administration are likely to intensify the scrutiny by Democrats,” said Doak at the AP. One of their primary concerns is that “pharmaceutical companies have increased their profit margins while working with the administration.”

The “exact mechanism” for these savings “remains a black box,” said Angus Liu at the biopharma news website Fierce Pharma. Beyond the price of the drugs themselves, the White House “has yet to define how commercial markets, such as employer-sponsored insurance, will access those discounted rates.” The “math for these massive savings only adds up if the administration can expand its circle of agreements beyond the 17 Big Pharma firms initially targeted” by Trump. Many biotech companies are also wary of “MFN’s impact on their business models” and “argue that they lack the diverse portfolios of pharma companies that can absorb revenue hits from pricing pressure.”

‘Why so few babies? We might have overlooked the biggest reason of all.’

Anna Louie Sussman at The New York Times

Having kids is “not simply a matter of affordability, the buzzword so often invoked to explain why people are choosing to have smaller families,” says Anna Louie Sussman. Overall, people are “having fewer children both in countries that offer very little and in those renowned for their generous family benefits.” What “unites these disparate cultures, policy environments and demographics” is people’s “inescapable and crushing sense that the future is too uncertain for the lifelong commitment of parenthood.”

Read more

‘Nothing to fear, much to gain from Flock cameras’

Jason Riggs at The Minnesota Star Tribune

A “common misconception when discussing license plate reader cameras is that ‘each camera records passing vehicles and compiles the license plates into a time-stamped database,’” says Jason Riggs. Police “are not here to monitor your every move.” The cameras “are designed to notify law enforcement only when a license plate connected with a crime crosses their path.” Using them “can make all the difference when searching for a vehicle,” and “throughout the country, this technology has proven to be lifesaving.”

Read more

‘The immeasurable endurance of the women of Gaza’

Huda Skaik at The Nation

“Even in the face of such brutality, Gazan women persist,” says Huda Skaik. They “carry their communities, serving as pillars of endurance amid the ruins of a society that has been all but erased.” Women in Gaza “have become both the primary caretakers and providers, responsible for securing food, water and shelter, caring for the injured, and sustaining their families.” Their “suffering is both physical and psychological, yet they continue to care for the next generation.”

Read more

‘I’m not a pundit, I just play one on TV’

Christian Schneider at the National Review

When “physicians get political, they damage the medical profession’s reputation,” says Christian Schneider. In “recent years, the medical profession has endured a thorough battering, with doctors exposing themselves as just as misinformed and politically motivated as the general public.” Nowhere “has this provided more comedy than in President Donald Trump’s attempt to fill the spot of U.S. surgeon general in his administration.” The “diminishment of the medical profession by a wannabe political physician class has real-world consequences.”

Read more

What happened

A federal judge in New York on Wednesday released a jail suicide note purportedly written by Jeffrey Epstein. The handwritten note had been sealed for years in an unrelated case involving Epstein’s one-time cellmate Nicholas Tartaglione.

Who said what

“They investigated me for month — Found nothing!!!” the note said. “It is a treat to be able to choose one’s time to say goodbye. Watcha want me to do — Bust out cryin!! NO FUN — NOT WORTH IT!!” Tartaglione said he found the note in a graphic novel after Epstein was moved from their cell after a first suicide attempt. Epstein’s death weeks later was ruled a suicide but spawned murder conspiracy theories. Federal prosecutors approved the note’s release, citing “a strong public interest in the circumstances surrounding Epstein’s death.”

What next?

Tartaglione’s lawyers “said they authenticated the note,” The Washington Post said, but “no court or investigative agency has vouched for” its authenticity. The note does use phrases Epstein “used in emails, as well as in a separate note found in his jail cell at the time of his death,” The New York Times said. That final note “appeared to be a list of grievances about conditions at the jail,” The Associated Press said.

Zack Polanski has reason to be pleased with his ­leadership of the Green Party so far.

Membership has ­tripled since he took over last September, and the party has made “great electoral strides”, said The Times. It is polling strongly and is forecast to “make gains in Labour’s London strongholds” in today’s local elections.

But “there is a darker side”. Polanski, himself Jewish, “appears intent on exploiting” anger on the left over Israel’s bombardment of Gaza. As he works to cultivate a new, populist base, he “seems not to recognise”, or is unwilling to confront, antisemitism within his party – although it is “staring him in the face”.

What did the commentators say?

Greens are “often lionised as nicer and kinder than other parties”, said The Telegraph. But how do voters square the party’s “‘anti-racist’ credentials” with “the revolting online behaviour of many” of its candidates?

Two standing in Lambeth, Sabine Mairey and Saiqa Ali, were arrested last week on suspicion of stirring up racial hatred online. One shared a post suggesting an attack on a synagogue “isn’t antisemitism” but “revenge” for Israel “murdering people”. Other candidates have defended the 7 October massacres, questioned whether “Zionism is a mental illness” and “implied that antisemitism is justified”.

Polanski provoked outrage when he suggested police tackling the armed suspect in the Golders Green terror attack had used excessive force. Antisemitism “appears to have become normalised on the left, a dog-whistle used to win votes”, said The Telegraph.

No one is suggesting that Polanski himself is “some frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Semite”, said Tom Slater in The Spectator. But the accusation that the party “has become a magnet for anti-Semites”, and “a key voice” in downplaying the growing threat” to Britain’s Jews, is “hardly unfounded”.

Polanski, when asked about the spate of arson attacks on synagogues and the torching of four Hatzola ambulances, came out with “the already-infamous lines”: “Now, there’s a conversation to be had about whether it’s a perception of unsafety or whether it’s actual unsafety, but neither are acceptable.”

But those comments to Haaretz have been widely “misrepresented”, said Owen Jones in The Guardian. What Polanski said was that he feels pro-Palestine marches “have been perceived as unsafe by some Jewish people and safe by others, including himself”. Other journalists have accused Polanski of using his Jewish identity as “a political shield”. How does their treatment of Polanski square with his party’s “repeated, explicit condemnations of antisemitism?” Yes, there have been “allegations of vile antisemitism” by party candidates, and “a small number of examples” from a party that has nearly quadrupled in size since September – but “to extrapolate from these” and “smear an entire party” is “cynical”.

Polanski has condemned any antisemitic remarks, saying this was “not an abstract idea” for him. “As a Jewish person, those comments disgust me,” he told the BBC on Sunday. But, he added, “I don’t believe we have a particular problem compared [with] wider society and other political parties”.

What next?

Polanski’s vocal support for Palestine and his “consistent condemnation of Israeli crimes and excesses undoubtedly contributed to the party’s surge in support”, said Tony Greenstein, from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, on Al Jazeera.

But it has also triggered an antisemitism smear campaign “almost identical to the one that eventually saw Jeremy Corbyn and his leftist, pro-Palestine supporters ousted from the Labour Party”. How the Green leader responds “will determine not only the future of his party, but potentially the direction of British politics”.

In effect, Polanski “still has a real shot at carrying his party to power”, but he could lose it all “if he repeats Corbyn’s mistakes and tries to appease his bad-faith critics”.

The Green Party is “facing a test on antisemitism”, said Ailbhe Rea in The New Statesman. In a “quite extraordinary development”, the deputy leader Mothin Ali encouraged some of the suspended candidates to “take legal action against the party”.

Polanski said the main lesson he needs to learn from Corbyn is to “navigate antisemitism allegations better”. He is “absolutely correct”. But how and when he plans to do so have “not yet become clear”.

Plans for a summit between President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping were underway before America went to war with Iran. That war delayed the meeting, now set for next week, and will overshadow other issues the two leaders planned to discuss.

The war has “significantly altered” the agenda for the Trump-Xi summit and could be a “major obstacle” to resolving trade issues between the two countries, Lyle J. Goldstein said at Responsible Statecraft. The “tensions are palpable” in part because China has reportedly shared weapons and intelligence with Tehran, but both countries want to keep the world economy “from careening off the looming cliff.” Trump and Xi may be forced to work on “pragmatic compromise in order to keep their rivalry under control.”

Trump “may want to temper his expectations” for the summit, Jacob Dreyer said at The New York Times. China once saw presidential visits as “global validation” for its rise but now has “begun to chart its own course” as its leaders realize their country has “learned all it can from America.” Trump wants to improve the U.S.-China relationship but “maintaining a tense stability is about all he can hope for.”

‘A creditor-debtor dynamic’

The president has “fewer cards to play” at the summit, Brahma Chellaney said at The Hill. His choice to go to war against Iran has “boomeranged” into a “global energy shock,” with the result that a meeting intended as a “show of strength” for the U.S. president may end up being more about “damage control.”

The war has depleted American munitions and weakened the economy, accelerating a shift in the U.S.-China relationship from a “rivalry of near-peers” to “something closer to a creditor-debtor dynamic.” Trump’s question in Beijing is “not whether he can strike a deal,” but rather “what he will give up to get one.”

Trade issues “will take center stage at the summit,” Patricia M. Kim said at Brookings. Trump and Xi likely will continue the “trade truce” between their countries, with the U.S. getting Chinese exports of rare earth minerals and sales of American farm products, while China gets tariff and regulatory relief from Washington. A summit “focused on stability” could lead to more cooperation on security and trade or could turn the Washington-Beijing relationship more frosty if “Trump walks away dissatisfied with the results of the trip.”

Breakthroughs unlikely

The number of Americans with favorable views about China has “ticked up,” said Pew Research Center, nearly doubling since 2023 to 27%. Fewer Americans say China is an enemy, but most “still see it as a competitor.”

The summit is “unlikely to deliver decisive breakthroughs” between the U.S. and China, Yingfan Chen and Dingding Chen said at The Diplomat. Its significance will not be a “transforming” of the dynamic between the two countries but instead “maintaining a minimum level of predictability” in the relationship so the competition between China and America can continue “within constraints the system can absorb.”

Donald Trump has paused the US operation shepherding ships through the Strait of Hormuz to see if a lasting peace deal with Iran can be agreed. But there remains scepticism on both sides that a permanent end to the conflict is near.

The ceasefire, which was extended indefinitely by Trump on 21 April, “opened up a chance for diplomacy that looked for a short time as if it might make progress”, said BBC international editor Jeremy Bowen. A first round of talks in Pakistan ended without agreement, but while both America and Iran “want to have a deal” they have “different deals in mind and are sticking to their red lines”.

Trump is demanding the immediate reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of global oil and gas exports pass, and cast-iron restrictions on Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Tehran wants an end to the war, guarantees against future attacks, a withdrawal of US forces from around Iran, the release of frozen Iranian assets worth billions of dollars and the lifting of sanctions.

What did the commentators say?

Iran has “slightly softened” its proposal around the US blockade of the Strait, but on the two biggest issues – enrichment of uranium and transferring its highly enriched uranium – both sides remain “far apart”, Paul Musgrave, from Georgetown University in Qatar, told Al Jazeera.

Kenneth Katzman, from the New York-based nonprofit Soufan Center, said Iran’s mistrust of Trump remains a bigger obstacle.

This is partly driven by the president’s “increasingly contradictory statements about the United States’ strategy” and the administration’s “shifting timeline for the war’s end”, which has been “one of the clearest examples of its flip-flopping messaging”, said Julia Ledur in The Washington Post.

Trump “clearly wants to end the war in Iran”, said Katrin Bennhold in The New York Times. At first, “he tried scare tactics” but his ultimatums “proved flexible and his threats to wipe out a civilisation empty (at least so far)”. He is now trying “to inflict financial pain on the Iranian leadership” but his blockade isn’t “faring much better”.

Trump’s “conviction that more economic or even military pressure will bring about Iran’s capitulation is deeply flawed”, said Steven Erlanger in the NYT. Officials and analysts say it is a “misreading of the Islamic republic’s strategy, psychology and capability for adaptation”.

What next?

For now, “diplomacy is not entirely frozen”, said Barak Ravid and Marc Caputo on Axios, as Trump’s envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff are still in contact with Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi.

But things could still go either way. One senior US official said: “There are talks. There are offers. We don’t like theirs. They don’t like ours. We still don’t know the status of the [Supreme Leader]. And they’re carrying messages by hand to caves or wherever he or whoever is hiding. It slows the process down.

“It’s either we’re looking at the real contours of an achievable deal soon, or he’s going to bomb the hell out of them.”

“But if history is any guide, there’s a real chance the war continues to drag on,” said Will Walldorf, from the Defense Priorities think tank, in Foreign Policy.

This is because a “few core elements that have turned past conflicts into forever wars are present in this one, too”. These include “high resolve by the weak, erosion of cost-benefit thinking by the strong, and weak institutional constraints to war-fighting on at least one side”. Combined, they mean that “resisting the expansion of the Iran conflict into a forever war won’t be easy”.

Restore Britain received its latest high-profile endorsement last week when former Chelsea captain John Terry replied “100% yes” to an Instagram post by party founder Rupert Lowe wanting to “ban foreigners from claiming benefits”, “remove migrants who are incapable of financially supporting themselves” and “put our own people first”.

Lowe, the Great Yarmouth MP, set up Restore Britain last year as what he called a “political movement” after he was suspended by Reform UK. It was then formally launched as a political party in February. Despite being just a few months old, the party is polling at 4%, according to YouGov.

It might have been “conceived as a pressure group”, said LBC, but Lowe has since “stepped up his ambitions and appears willing to challenge his old party for the space on the right”.

What are its policies?

Curbing immigration is a key Restore policy. Its official website says: “Mass immigration has been a disaster for Britain. It has left us poorer, less safe, and less culturally and socially cohesive.”

It plans to “reverse mass immigration” by deporting all illegal migrants and introducing a “red list” of countries that “face far stricter security checks, limited visa categories, and higher barriers to entry”. Restore would use tents, not hotels, to house “so-called asylum seekers” before abolishing the asylum system altogether. It would end benefits for those on indefinite leave to remain, “deport rape gang collaborators” and foreign criminals, and end election campaigning in foreign languages.

On tax and benefits, it promises to “reward the nation’s grafters” by scrapping IR35 for freelancers, abolishing inheritance tax, establishing the lowest corporation tax in Europe, and getting “able-bodied Britons on benefits back to work”.

It proposes a “Britain First energy security strategy”, which would mean repealing net zero goals, requiring developers to fund local infrastructure before building housing, ending hosepipe bans for good and automating the London Tube.

Restore wants to scrap foreign aid, rearm Britain by spending more on defence and end diversity and inclusivity programmes within the Armed Forces.

It would “defund the rotten BBC”, “strengthen the teaching of our Christian heritage” within national curriculum history modules, ban the burqa, restrict halal and kosher slaughter, and repeal the Online Safety Act.

Perhaps most controversially, Restore would hold a binding referendum on restoring the death penalty in a bid to “make Britain safe again”.

What impact could it have on Reform UK?

While it shares many of the same policies as Nigel Farage’s Reform UK, Lowe’s party has sought to present itself as the true voice of the right.

Despite lacking the name recognition of a leader like Farage, Restore has successfully used social media to amplify its anti-immigration rhetoric. Helped in no small part by the backing of X owner Elon Musk, Lowe is now one of the most followed UK politicians on social media.

By adopting a decentralised structure, effectively serving as an umbrella for local far-right political partners, Restore hopes to show up the top-down approach of Reform. Other far-right figures such as former EDL leader Tommy Robinson and former Reform deputy leader Ben Habib have also rallied behind the new party.

Such a force “could cost Reform a number of seats – and potentially even power, in a wafer-thin general election result – by splitting support among those drawn to hard-right anti-immigration populism”, said The Guardian.

Is it just a flash in the pan?

For now, Restore remains “really very small fry”, Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary University, told Politics Home. “They’re gnats, not mosquitoes” at the moment, but the party’s impact will be determined in large part by how Farage reacts. “On the one hand, it’s always helpful for Farage to be able to point to outfits on his right that he can differentiate himself from and suggest that because they’re more extreme than he is, he’s therefore not far right and actually quite mainstream”.

But political parties can be encouraged to talk about policies promoted by parties further to the fringes, which runs the risk of Farage “moving too far out of the kind of what is sometimes called the zone of acceptability, as far as most voters are concerned”.

What happened

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to put last week’s ruling overturning Louisiana’s congressional map into immediate effect, waiving its customary 32-day waiting period. The unsigned order removed a legal obstacle to Louisiana Republicans redrawing districts for the 2026 midterms to eliminate one or both of the state’s majority Black districts. Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a pointed dissent, prompting pushback from conservative Justice Samuel Alito and exposing “tension” that was “more notable” than the “technical decision itself,” CNN said.

Who said what

Gov. Jeff Landry (R) moved to pause Louisiana’s May 16 U.S. House primaries right after the court’s Louisiana v. Callais ruling at the end of April, but early voting began May 2 and thousands of voters have already cast ballots. Under the Supreme Court’s “Purcell principle,” federal courts aren’t supposed to interfere with voting rules too close to an election. But this court has shown an “inconsistency” in applying that rule that “has the remarkably coincidental effect of benefitting Republicans,” Georgetown Law Professor Steve Vladeck said on his Substack page One First.

By helping Louisiana “​​rush to pause the ongoing election” to pass a new map, the court’s conservative wing discarded “principles” for “power,” Jackson wrote. “Not content to have decided the law, it now takes steps to influence its implementation.” Jackson’s quibbles are “trivial at best,” Alito said in a concurrence joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, and her charge of “an unprincipled use of power” is “ground­less and utterly irresponsible.”

What next?

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) on Monday signed a GOP-boosting gerrymander and Alabama’s GOP legislature began a special session to redraw its 2026 maps; Tennessee is following suit.

For more than a century, British politics has been a contest between two parties. That could end with Thursday’s local and devolved elections.

Reform UK is currently leading on 25%, said Politico’s poll of polls on 30 April, with the Conservatives and Greens tied on 18%, and Labour on 17%. The Liberal Democrats are just a few points behind. In Scotland, the Scottish National Party is hoping to secure an overall majority in Holyrood, while Plaid Cymru is on course to lead the devolved government in Wales.

“We’re going to see records tumble. We are living in unprecedented circumstances,” the UK’s leading polling expert, John Curtice, told The Times. “The basic assumptions of British politics – there isn’t enough space for a party to the right of the Tories or the left of Labour – have gone.”

What did the commentators say?

The fracturing of the electorate was already evident at the last general election, but has been turbo-charged over the past two years as “binary tribalism has been replaced by retail politics”, said The Times in an editorial. Voters are “more promiscuous in their favours” and, following a decade and a half of stagnant living standards, “they are prepared to take a punt on insurgent parties without kicking the tyres”.

The result is that a “nation that has long prided itself on moderation and stability” is now experiencing an “anti-establishment revolt of the sort that has gripped countries from the US and Argentina to Germany”, said Irina Anghel for Bloomberg. Reform and the Greens look set to pick up hundreds of former Labour and Conservative seats. This represents a “power shift” that would “reinforce insurgents’ local networks and party organisations across the country, helping to forestall any restoration of the two-party system by the next general election”.

“It’s the Dutch-ification of British politics,” said Simon Hix, a politics professor at the European University Institute. “Everyone used to make fun of the Netherlands, where 17 parties get elected to parliament, but this trend is happening everywhere in the world.”

“Of course, the popularity or otherwise of all parties ebbs and flows over time” and as recently as the 2017 general election Labour and the Conservatives won a massive 82.4% of the vote between them, said BBC political editor Chris Mason. “But the longer-term trend is clear”: in recent years, the “palette of popular political parties has widened” beyond the Tory-Labour duopoly.

What next?

The dawn of genuine five-party politics – or seven-way if you include nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales – in Britain “spells problems for the political system” beyond the immediate aftermath of Thursday’s vote, said Sky News data journalist Alicja Hagopian.

In the short term, electoral fragmentation “brings governability into question”, said the Financial Times. Voters are “largely moving from one left-leaning party to another, or from one right-leaning party to another, but coalitions of left and right can be hard to build”. Britain’s first-past-the-post system also “creates particular problems of democratic legitimacy”. It means that as voting fragments, candidates are elected with an ever-smaller share of votes cast. In January, Reform won a council seat from Labour in Wales with a vote share of just 22%.

“Choice is good for democracy. It gives a fairer representation of what people actually want,” said Rob Ford, professor of political science at the University of Manchester. “But this puts our electoral system for local elections under pressure, because first-past-the-post is not designed for fragmented competition between five strong parties.”

What happened

Two drugmakers on Saturday asked the Supreme Court to pause a federal appellate court’s decision to ban mail-order access to the abortion medication mifepristone nationwide. A panel of the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled the day before that women seeking mifepristone had to get the drug in person from a doctor.

Who said what

The Fifth Circuit agreed that Louisiana was “irreparably harmed without a stay,” because out-of-state mifepristone shipments circumvent the state’s near-total ban on abortions. Mifepristone makers Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro asked the Supreme Court to step in, arguing that overriding an FDA decision on a drug long proved safe and effective was unprecedented and upended the established U.S. drug-approval framework.

The ruling “puts the Trump administration in a politically difficult spot, especially ahead of the midterms,” The New York Times said. The White House “does not want to take a high-profile anti-abortion action” that “might antagonize some voters who support abortion rights.” But antiabortion groups are already furious with President Donald Trump over the continued “ubiquity of abortion pills,” The Wall Street Journal said, and they plan to campaign heavily for national abortion bans.

What next?

Mifepristone and its less-regulated partner drug misoprostol are used in about two-thirds of all U.S. abortions. If the mifepristone ruling stands, the Times said, many “abortion providers are prepared to prescribe only misoprostol, which can be used on its own for abortions.”

Labour has dominated Welsh politics for a century; since devolution in 1999, it has always been the largest party in Wales’s national assembly, known since 2020 as the Senedd Cymru, the Welsh Parliament.

But the polls suggest that Labour will drop to third place in the Senedd elections on 7 May, and that Plaid Cymru will emerge as the largest party, if it can beat Reform UK. According to the FT’s poll tracker, Plaid is projected to get around 29% of the vote – giving it more than 30 seats in the new, enlarged 96-seat Senedd (up from 13 out of 60). Reform is projected to get around 26% and Labour 16%. If this is right, Rhun ap Iorwerth, the party’s leader and the Member of the Senedd (MS) for Ynys Môn (Anglesey), will become first minister, in a minority or coalition government.

The direction of travel was suggested by the Caerphilly Senedd by-election last October. In that former Labour stronghold, Plaid’s candidate Lindsay Whittle, who had previously unsuccessfully contested 13 elections, won 47.4% of the vote. Reform took 36%, while Labour collapsed to 11%.

Why is Plaid set to eclipse Labour?

The party was founded a century ago and has long had a solid base of support among the country’s Welsh speakers – around 800,000 of its population of 3.2 million people. But support now seems to be surging. In Senedd elections, in which Plaid has generally won around 20% of the vote, it is well placed to capitalise on Labour’s difficulties. The most important factor in this is the poor state of Welsh public services (under the devolution settlement, Cardiff controls health and social care, education, transport, environment and local government).

The NHS is particularly problematic. Despite recent improvements, 543,000 patients are on NHS waiting lists in Wales – about one in six – compared with one in ten in England. Welsh schools are sliding down the international league tables. When the Conservatives were in power in Westminster, some of this could be blamed on them; but with an unpopular Labour government in London, Welsh Labour can no longer blame England for its struggles.

Is this to do with Welsh identity?

Welsh identity is a powerful force: according to Office for National Statistics census figures from 2021, 55.2% of people in Wales identify as “Welsh only”, while 8.1% feel both Welsh and British, and just 18.5% identify as British only.

But this does not appear to be growing more pronounced. Rather, according to Jac Larner of Cardiff University, what has happened is that voters have split into a progressive, Welsh-identifying bloc, and a conservative, British-identifying one. Plaid has wrested leadership of the progressive bloc from Labour, while Reform has taken leadership of the conservative bloc from the Tories.

What are Plaid’s policies?

Among its headline pledges are universal childcare, increasing child benefit by £10 per week, more out-of-hours GPs, and rent controls. But given how devolution works – about 80% of Welsh government spending comes from the UK government via the block grant, calculated using the Barnett Formula – many of its plans involve asking Westminster for more money and more powers.

Plaid Cymru is, for instance, seeking £4 billion that it believes Wales is owed in transport funding (because it hasn’t benefitted from HS2). It wants control over the Crown Estate, which owns coastal areas, to be devolved so it can create wind farms and green jobs. Welsh Labour has also sought these, and has not been granted them.

What about independence?

The second article of Plaid Cymru’s constitution says: “As the National Party of Wales, the Party’s aims shall be: to secure independence for Wales in Europe.” However, Rhun ap Iorwerth says, if elected, he will not legislate for an independence referendum in his first term; he did not even mention the “i” word in his conference speech in February.

This is pragmatic. A recent poll carried out for the BBC found support for Welsh independence at 32%, with 52% against and 16% uncertain. According to the Wales Office, the annual net fiscal deficit – between tax raised and spending on public services – is around £21.5 billion, or just under £7,000 per person in Wales. “There is an odd dynamic at play,” says the BBC’s Gareth Lewis: “the Welsh pro-indy parties tend to be talking about it less than those who are against it.” But Plaid will aim to build up to a referendum – as the SNP did. And, if elected, it will establish a National Commission to lay the groundwork for a future White Paper on Welsh independence.

How is Reform UK faring in Wales?

Reform has seen a much more rapid expansion in its support than Plaid Cymru: it won just 1.6% of the vote in the 2021 Senedd election, and most polls now show it in the mid-20s or in some cases even level-pegging with Plaid.

Reform’s support is particularly strong in the formerly industrial South Wales Valleys, and, as in England, it is drawing a mixture of former Conservative voters and disillusioned traditional Labour supporters. It aims to scrap Wales’s net zero carbon targets, and the 20mph speed limits imposed by Labour – a totemic issue for many. Its leader Dan Thomas regards independence as a “huge risk”. A big electoral issue for him is whether left-leaning voters vote tactically to “stop Reform” – as they did in Caerphilly. And even if Reform becomes the largest party, Plaid, Labour and the Greens have all ruled out entering into a coalition with it.

How important will this vote be?

According to Ipsos, 52% of Welsh voters may still change their mind before 7 May. But if Plaid Cymru does win, it will be an important symbolic moment, not just in Wales. It seems likely that, after the elections, for the first time, all three First Ministers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will want their nations to leave the UK, posing a major challenge to Westminster.

Nine weeks since the start of Donald Trump’s Middle East war, the US and Iran “have entered a precarious standoff”, said the Financial Times. Trump says he won’t lift the blockade of Iranian ports unless Iran agrees to a deal. The Islamic regime insists it won’t resume talks or reopen the Strait of Hormuz as long as the blockade is in place. This “intransigence” caused the cancellation of a second round of talks in Islamabad – and “Trump is now stuck”.

Midterms looming

He’s “trying to look relaxed”, said James Ball in The i Paper, but it’s not very convincing. The president promised voters a strong economy, with low inflation and cheap fuel; it’s becoming obvious he will deliver on none of these things. The midterm elections are looming, and there is an even more pressing deadline ahead of him: on 1 May, it will be 60 days since Trump notified Congress of his action against Iran, at which point, on paper at least, he needs congressional approval to continue military action. So far, most Republicans have not openly criticised his unpopular war. But they would prefer to avoid voting in favour of it.

Trump’s critics believe he has “worked himself into a trap”, said Walter Russell Mead in The Wall Street Journal, but the situation is “sustainable”, for now. True, the war has gone on longer than hoped, but financial markets have stabilised. Trump remains popular with his base. Without taking casualties, the US navy has “consolidated a crushing blockade of Iran”; and with a third aircraft carrier in the region, military options are expanding.

The pressure on Iran is great, said Jonathan Spyer in The Spectator, but the US has made the mistake of believing its leaders think “like us”. They are not remotely pragmatic: they have “mortgaged” Iran’s economy to its project of “resistance” for decades. There appears to be no appetite now for accepting anything they “regard as surrender”.

‘This can’t go on’

Trump could cut a deal, said Paul Krugman on Substack, but it wouldn’t look like a victory. In the meantime, oil markets are pessimistic. The oil price drop that followed the 8 April ceasefire has been near reversed. The world is coping by taking oil out of storage. “Since there’s only so much oil in the tanks, this can’t go on.”

The war has removed an estimated 650 million barrels of oil from the international market, said Andrew Neil in the Daily Mail. This could soon reach one billion. The effects are already all too visible in the Asia-Pacific region, which receives 80% of exports from the Gulf. Asian jet fuel has doubled in price. China has suspended exports of refined oil. The Indian rag trade is facing nylon and polyester shortages, because they’re made from Gulf petrochemicals. We’ve been shielded, because at the start of the war a record amount of oil was at sea, heading for Europe. It won’t last.

It’s not just Trump who has “no idea what to do”. Much of the world, including our government, is “sticking its fingers in its ears, shutting its eyes tight and loudly singing ‘la la la’”.

Until a few months ago, most voters couldn’t have picked Zack Polanski out of a line-up. Now, the Green Party leader – who was elected in September – is so mobbed by crowds, he travels with a bodyguard, said Ailbhe Rea in The New Statesman. He gets stopped by teenagers in the street, and at the club nights he hosts, people cheer his name. It is strikingly “reminiscent of the Corbyn mania of 2017”. His life has been transformed, and his party has been too. His message, mixing hope with a “heavy dash” of left-wing populism, has gone down a storm.

The party’s membership has grown from 80,000, when he became leader, to more than 226,000. The Greens won their first by-election in February, and are now on course to make big gains in next week’s local elections in England.

Equal threat

Keir Starmer has long been alive to the threat posed by Reform UK, said Chloe Chaplain in The i Paper – and in response, Labour has shifted to the right in some areas. But there is a growing realisation that the Greens pose an equal threat.

Reform is still expected to win the biggest vote share on Thursday, but by focusing on issues such as Gaza (where it accuses Labour of being complicit in a genocide) and “affordability”, the Green Party has won over many ethnic minority voters, young progressives and Corbynistas. In London, the party is set to win four councils – including Hackney and Lambeth – that have been Labour-run for decades.

Yet Polanski’s brand of Corbynism is risky, said Daisy Eastlake in The Times. Several of his candidates have been exposed for “incendiary views” (one shared a video saying that a synagogue attack was “not antisemitism” but “revenge”); and he has caused alarm by suggesting that British Jews might be experiencing a “perception of unsafety”, not real danger.

Riding high

Have the people planning to vote Green any idea of the chaos the party would wreak, wondered Danny Cohen in The Telegraph. As well as legalising hard drugs and reducing income inequality by enforcing a maximum 10:1 pay ratio for organisations, it wants to remove many barriers to immigration.

Polanski is riding high now, but soon he will come up against the challenges facing Reform UK, said John Rentoul in The Independent – including novice councillors who struggle to get the basics right, let alone deliver on their “impossible” campaign promises; and national policies that are treasured by members but unpopular with the broader electorate. Polanski might be pragmatic enough to drop these, but there is a problem: in the Green Party, it is the members who decide policy.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has long held himself as a champion of nature and the outdoors, first through his decades of conservation work and now as part of President Donald Trump’s MAGA administration. At times, however, Kennedy’s fascination with the natural world has resulted in eye-opening episodes that blur for many observers the line between respectful curiosity and bizarre desecration of the very fauna he claims to revere. From ursine carcass pranks to whale-oriented road trips, these are Robert F. Kennedy’s most notable animal experiences.

Bear

The 2014 appearance of a bear carcass in Manhattan’s Central Park had remained a mystery for more than a decade until 2024, when Kennedy, then an independent candidate for president, admitted in a campaign video with comedian Roseanne Barr that he was behind the bizarre episode. In the video, Kennedy claimed he’d watched a driver ahead of him hit and kill a small bear on the roadside and decided to put the carcass “in his own vehicle, intending to skin it and eat the meat,” The Associated Press said. “But the day got away from him.”

Kennedy had preexisting travel plans and “did not want to leave the dead bear in his car,” Politico said. Instead, he “planted it in the park with an old bicycle” because it would “fit a narrative about a series of bike accidents in the city.” The incident ultimately “died after a while, and it stayed dead for a decade,” Kennedy said in the clip, until The New Yorker “somehow found out about it” during the 2024 race.

Dog (?)

Allegations that RFK had eaten dog stemmed from a text to a friend featuring a photograph that “showed him pantomiming eating a cooked animal carcass,” said CNN. In the message, Kennedy allegedly “recommended the friend try eating dog while traveling in Korea,” although he has since denied eating one himself.

The picture is “me in a campfire in Patagonia on the Futaleufu River eating a goat,” Kennedy said in a Fox News interview in 2024, “which is what we eat down there.” Kennedy “sent me the picture with a recommendation to visit the best dog restaurant in Seoul,” the text’s initial recipient said to Vanity Fair. He was “certainly representing that this was a dog and not a goat,” they added, calling the whole affair “grotesque.”

Mice

RFK Jr. is a “predator” about whom the previous generation of storied Kennedys “would be disgusted,” said former First Daughter and onetime U.S. Ambassador to Japan Caroline Kennedy in a scathing letter to Congress denouncing her cousin’s then-nomination process in early 2025. While largely focused on RFK’s potential impact on national health, Kennedy, in a shocking paragraph, said her cousin, in his younger years, “enjoyed showing off how he put baby chickens and mice in the blender to feed his hawks.”

The effect, Kennedy said, was often a “perverse scene of despair and violence.” The allegations describe a “power play to those forced to watch” and show signs of RFK being a “terrible bird handler,” said The Independent. “Who feeds a hawk puréed food?”

Raccoon

In her “RFK Jr.: The Fall and Rise” biography of the secretary, investigative journalist Isabel Vincent drew on “dozens of sources, both new and old, including journals updated daily by Kennedy between 1999 and 2001,” said People. In one such entry, Kennedy “boasts of cutting the penis from a dead raccoon he found on the side of a highway, while his kids waited in the car,” The New York Times said.

“I was standing in front of my parked car on I-684 cutting the penis out of a road-killed raccoon,” Kennedy said, “thinking about how weird some of my family members have turned out to be.” Kennedy “wanted to be a veterinarian as a kid,” said Vincent to People. He has a “great love and interest in animals” and a “freezer full of roadkill, I'm sure, where he studies it.”

Whale

When RFK’s daughter Kick Kennedy was six years old, “word got out that a dead whale had washed up on Squaw Island in Hyannis Port,” said Town & Country in a 2012 feature on Kennedy and her infamous family. The elder Kennedy drove to the site, “cut off the whale’s head” with a chainsaw and then “bungee-corded it to the roof of the family minivan for the five-hour haul back to Mount Kisco,” the outlet said.

“Every time we accelerated on the highway, whale juice would pour into the windows of the car,” Kick said to T&C. “It was the rankest thing on the planet.” After the episode resurfaced during the 2024 election, Kennedy said at an Arizona rally that he was being investigated for “collecting a whale specimen 20 years ago.” He also “implied without evidence” that the investigation was itself “tied to his endorsement” of Donald Trump, The Associated Press said. In October, 2024, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration announced in a statement to The Hill that it had closed an investigation into the decades-old claim, having “determined the allegation to be unfounded.”

Worm

In a 2012 deposition, RFK Jr. described a period several years earlier when, feeling fatigued and mentally hazy, he’d scheduled a procedure to treat what he’d been told was a brain tumor. But, while “packing for the trip,” he was contacted by a second doctor with a “different opinion,” The New York Times said.

Kennedy, the doctor believed, “had a dead parasite in his head.” The parasite had “got into my brain and ate a portion of it and then died,” Kennedy said in the deposition, as reviewed by the Times. “The issue was resolved more than 10 years ago,” Kennedy’s then-presidential campaign said in a statement to CNN during the 2024 presidential race. The candidate is in “robust physical and mental health.” Kennedy himself made light of his cranial condition in a post on X in May 2024. “I offer to eat 5 more brain worms,” Kennedy said, “and still beat President Trump and President Biden in a debate.”

President Donald Trump’s first term in office was marked by the cyclonic speed with which his White House’s revolving door spun for aides both incoming and outgoing. During his second term, Trump’s penchant for abrupt staffing changes has continued — if not apace, then at least with the same mercurial fickleness that characterized many of his first-term firings. Here’s who has already been shown the exit, shuffled into a new role or given little choice about their continued employment in the administration.

Attorney General Pam Bondi

Trump’s early-April 2026 announcement that Attorney General Pam Bondi was “transitioning to a much-needed and important new job in the private sector” offered “no specific reason for why she would be leaving,” CNN said. Bondi’s firing came “less than two months” after a “tense congressional hearing” in which she faced “aggressive questioning from politicians, with sometimes heated exchanges,” Al Jazeera said. While Trump may have been “frustrated” with Attorney General Pam Bondi’s “handling of some of his key priorities,” changing DOJ leadership “doesn’t guarantee the president the outcome he seeks,” NBC News said.

Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino

Former Secret Service agent-turned-MAGA podcaster Dan Bongino spent less than one year as the FBI’s number two under Kash Patel before announcing in late 2025 his plans to leave the agency by the start of 2026. Bongino had previously spoken “publicly” about the “personal toll” the job was taking on him, Fox News said. In an interview with the network, Bongino said that he “gave up everything for this.”

Bongino’s assertions that sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein did commit suicide “frustrated many of Trump’s supporters” and led to a “contentious meeting between him and Bondi” in July, the BBC said. Bongino has since returned to podcasting, where he “won’t have the pressure of having to work in the reality-based world,” said MS NOW.

CBP ‘Commander at Large’ Greg Bovino

As the face of the Trump Administration’s Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota and Midway Blitz in Chicago, Customs and Border Patrol Commander At Large Greg Bovino played a key role in enacting the White House’s controversial immigration actions in both states. Bovino was “removed from his role” in January 2026 following the “deaths of two U.S. citizens” in Minneapolis and quickly returned to his prior position as CBP sector chief in El Centro, California, Fox News said.

Shortly after, he retired from federal work. Although he was “popular with direct subordinates for his bold and unapologetic leadership,” multiple DHS officials described Bovino as a “chronic institutional headache” whose behavior “alienated even those who generally shared his politics,” The New York Times said. Since his retirement, Bovino has found a “new target for posts on X: his former employers in the Trump administration,” who he has “taken to criticizing” for being “soft on immigration,” The Chicago Tribune said.

Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer

Former Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer quietly exited her cabinet-level role in the Trump administration in late April 2026 to “move into a private sector job” following “scrutiny over several misconduct scandals,” said Axios. Any allegations of wrongdoing are merely the work of “high-ranked deep state actors who have been coordinating with the one-sided news media” to “undermine President Trump’s mission,” Chavez-DeRemeber said on Instagram in an emphatic denial of the accusations against her.

Chavez-DeRemer’s departure came at the tail end of a “monthslong investigation into a whistleblower’s allegations of professional misconduct,” said The New York Times. The “likelihood” that the inspector general’s pursuit might “reveal embarrassing details” was “compounded by a parallel inquiry on Capitol Hill.”

National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent

In resigning from the Trump White House this past March, former anti-terrorism official Joe Kent became the “most high-profile figure within the Trump administration to publicly criticize the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran,” said the BBC. Rights groups had spoken out against Kent’s initial nomination to the NCTC over “extremist links of his in the past,” including with far-right figures such as Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes, said Liz Landers on “PBS News Hour.”

Kent, with a resignation letter rife with “potentially anti-Semitic undertones,” cast Trump as "someone swept up in events rather than driving them,” The Atlantic said. “I always thought he was weak on security,” Trump said to reporters in the Oval Office after Kent published his letter. “I didn’t know him well, but I thought he seemed like a pretty nice guy.” After reading Kenz's resignation letter, Trump said, “I realized that it’s a good thing that he’s out because he said that Iran was not a threat. Iran was a threat.”

Acting ICE Directors Todd Lyons and Caleb Vitello

Longtime Immigration and Customs Enforcement official Todd Lyons’ mid-April 2026 announcement that he plans to retire at the end of May 2026 adds to the “list of leadership shakeups at the Department of Homeland Security,” said NPR News. Though it was “not immediately clear” what prompted Lyons’ retirement announcement, the news came amid “continued scrutiny” of ICE’s “aggressive immigration tactics” and a “record-long funding lapse from Congress.”

Lyons had initially been tapped to lead ICE to replace previous Acting Director Caleb Vitello in 2025, after administration figures “expressed anger that the number of people being deported” was “not higher,” said NBC News. Vitello had been seen as “‘very popular’ among the rank and file during his month as acting director,” said a source to the outlet.

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem

As the first cabinet secretary to be fired by Trump in his second term, former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s “tumultuous tenure” culminated in “two high-profile killings of U.S. citizens by federal agents” and a “pair of congressional hearings that displayed bipartisan frustration with her leadership,” The Wall Street Journal said. Prior to her firing, multiple DHS figures “privately questioned how much longer the secretary would remain in the post” given what they saw as a “series of missteps” on Noem’s part, said CNN.

Noem will be “moving to be Special Envoy for The Shield of the Americas, our new Security Initiative in the Western Hemisphere,” said Trump in his announcement about the firing. As Secretary, Noem was the “architect” of a “frenzied bid to snap up commercial warehouses across the country and turn them into Amazon-style migrant processing hubs,” The Daily Beast said. After her firing that plan has been “beset by community uproar, scrapped deals and Republican revolts.”

Secretary of the Navy John Phelan

“Months of simmering tension” between former Secretary of the Navy John Phelan and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth came to a head in late April 2026, with Hegseth dismissing Phelan “in a phone call” that took place “just minutes” before the Pentagon released an official statement on the firing, The Wall Street Journal said. The dismissal followed extended “infighting” among Pentagon leadership and “disagreements over how to revive the Navy’s struggling shipbuilding program,” The New York Times said.

Phelan’s was a “short tenure” for someone who “prior to being confirmed” was a “big Trump and GOP donor,” with criticism “largely centered on his lack of a military background,” said Military.com. Though military experience is neither “mandatory” nor its lack thereof “completely unusual,” Phelan was nevertheless the “first Navy secretary since 2006 to be appointed” without a Pentagon background.

National Security Advisor Mike Waltz

Trump’s May 2025 announcement that he had removed National Security Advisor Mike Waltz marked the “first major staff shakeup since the president took office,” said CNN. Waltz’s position in the administration had been “in limbo” after the White House notified him that “his time leading the National Security Council had come to an end” in the weeks leading up to the announcement.

Although Waltz was the official responsible for the White House’s infamous “Signalgate” security breach, “in the end, it wasn’t Signalgate that toppled Mike Waltz,” said Politico. It was instead “increasing ire” over “Waltz’s hawkish stance on Iran,” a position that, at the time, placed him “out of step with the administration.” But “as a concession prize, the onetime congressman was nominated to serve as United Nations ambassador.”

Keir Starmer survived a key vote over whether he should face an inquiry into claims that he misled Parliament about the appointment of Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador to Washington. Had he lost Tuesday’s vote, he’d have been referred to the Privileges Committee that forced the resignation of Boris Johnson. The PM described the Tory-led motion – called after it emerged that Mandelson had been installed despite failing part of the vetting process – as a “stunt”.

Before the vote, Morgan McSweeney, the PM’s former chief of staff, and Philip Barton, former head of the Foreign Office, testified to a select committee about their roles in the vetting of Mandelson. Both agreed that some pressure had been applied to officials to expedite the process, but maintained that this had had no bearing on the final decision to clear Mandelson.

Barrage awaits

Starmer deserved to win this vote, said The Independent. From all the public testimony and documentation that has emerged thus far, it’s clear Starmer didn’t intentionally mislead Parliament. He didn’t know that concerns were raised about Mandelson during the vetting process because Olly Robbins – the civil servant who oversaw the appointment and who was sacked as Foreign Office chief a fortnight ago – chose not to tell him.

Robbins thought those concerns had been adequately addressed and merely informed the PM that “due process” had been followed, and that Mandelson had cleared the vetting. On this matter, Starmer “has no case to answer”.

Still, the PM hasn’t emerged that well from this episode, said The Guardian. His assurance to the Commons last week that “no pressure existed whatsoever” in relation to Mandelson’s vetting sits uneasily with other testimony. And of course the appointment itself reflects badly on his judgement. The fact that Starmer had to impose a three-line whip on Labour MPs to support him in the vote only highlighted his weakness, said The Times.

While the result earned him a reprieve, next week’s local elections could prove fatal for his premiership. Starmer has “dodged a bullet, but a barrage awaits”.

Bunker mentality

The “vast majority” of Labour MPs are right behind Starmer – or so he claimed in an interview this week. He probably believes it, said Dan Hodges in The Mail on Sunday, such is the “bunker mentality” in No. 10. Yet talking to Labour MPs around Westminster last week, I struggled to find one who still had any confidence in his leadership.

As one Labour grandee put it: “The parliamentary party used to think he was useless but basically decent. After this week they still think he’s useless, but also that he’s a guy who will stab them and anyone else to save himself.”

Starmer’s peremptory firing of Olly Robbins has proved a tipping point for many in his party, said Ailbhe Rea in The New Statesman. Several Cabinet ministers now privately admit that “they have ‘given up’ after months of grumbling determination to ‘make Keir work’”.

Difficult decisions

The irony, said Camilla Cavendish in the Financial Times, is that the Mandelson affair is “the least of [Starmer’s] mistakes”. Had he taken full responsibility for it from the outset, admitting that the appointment was a gamble that didn’t pay off, it might soon have blown over. The PM deserves more blame for his fundamental failure to deliver his promised “change” agenda, owing to an “almost obstinate lack of interest in making the difficult decisions that his job requires”.

While Ed Miliband has pursued clean energy projects and Wes Streeting has “challenged vested interests” in the NHS, the rest of the system has “drifted”. In this respect, Starmer’s administration has come to resemble Boris Johnson’s: there's “a vacuum where the principal should be”.

But is this really the moment to replace Starmer with yet another PM, asked Simon Jenkins in The Guardian. Surely not. They would be our seventh in a decade. Britain can’t afford to keep staging leadership dramas every time a PM makes an error of judgement.

The focus on personalities certainly isn’t helpful, said Polly Toynbee in the same paper. What we really need is radical action to rescue Britain from its slump: an urgent move to rejoin the EU, for instance, and an acceptance that the pensions triple lock is unaffordable. Labour has three full years ahead with a huge working majority of 165. “What matters is not who but what comes next.”

What happened

President Donald Trump on Thursday tapped radiologist Dr. Nicole Saphier to be U.S. surgeon general, withdrawing the stalled nomination of nutrition influencer Dr. Casey Means, an ally of Health Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. and the Make America Healthy Again movement. Saphier is Trump’s third nominee, after Means and Dr. Janette Nesheiwat.

Who said what

The “MAHA movement had pushed hard for Means’ nomination,” The Washington Post said, and it blamed its failure on Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and two other Republican senators skeptical of her qualifications and stance on vaccines. Trump called Saphier, a former Fox News contributor, an “INCREDIBLE COMMUNICATOR” on “complicated health issues” in a social media post. Kennedy called her a “longtime warrior for the MAHA movement.” But unlike Means, Saphier “does not appear to be a heroine” of MAHA, The New York Times said. Its “leaders view her as too conventional” due to her tempered praise of vaccines and criticism of Kennedy, though she has “also embraced” some of his agenda.

What next?

Even as MAHA lost its “favored influencer for surgeon general,” it “notched a big win on pesticide regulation” in a House farm bill, Axios said. Thursday’s events highlighted how MAHA retains “clout on matters related to the food supply” but “can be a political liability” on “vaccines and other public health matters.”

What happened

The House on Thursday passed a Senate bill funding all of the Department of Homeland Security except for its immigration enforcement arms, and President Donald Trump signed it, ending the longest-ever partial government shutdown after 76 days. DHS agencies, including the Coast Guard, Secret Service, FEMA and TSA are now funded through September. ICE and Customs and Border Protection never lost funding thanks to the GOP’s 2025 megabill.

Who said what

After weeks of delay and GOP infighting, the House “unanimously” approved the DHS bill “through voice vote with little fanfare,” suggesting Republicans were “finally ready to put the impasse behind them,” CBS News said. After Democrats refused to fund ICE and CBP without new guardrails, GOP leaders agreed to finance the rest of DHS and separately give Trump $70 billion for deportation operations through a filibuster-proof GOP-only reconciliation bill.

If the House had “waited for the Senate to pass a reconciliation bill, as some GOP lawmakers insisted, it would have left DHS closed until mid-May,” Axios said. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) had been facing a “growing revolt from centrists in his party,” CNN said, and his “major retreat” on holding out for ICE funding was a “major win for Democrats.”

What next?

After lawmakers “return in mid-May,” The New York Times said, Republicans will “try to meet the president’s June 1 deadline” to get their $70 billion ICE-CBP bill to his desk.

President Donald Trump has long understood the power of a brand name — specifically his. And as world leaders flatter and impress upon him the merits of their prospective partnerships, his very name has become a global currency for appealing to his ego. From crucial transportation corridors to wholesale swaths of European countryside, these are the international Trump-titled pitches.

‘Donnyland’ in Ukraine

A growing push to name Ukraine’s embattled Donbas region after the president may be the “most improbable instance” of Trump’s name being “lent to a geopolitical flashpoint,” said The New York Times. Ukrainian officials have reportedly pitched renaming an approximately 2,000 square mile section of the Donetsk area of the Donbas as “Donnyland.”

The idea was “raised partly in jest but also as a diplomatic gesture,” The Kyiv Independent said. The “appeal to Trump’s vanity” has yet to be reflected in “official documents” from the ongoing Ukrainian peace negotiations, however. What’s important is that the Donbas’ various regions “remain Ukraine,” said Zelenskyy to reporters. “As long as it’s not ‘Putinland.’ That is the most important thing.”

Still, it could be in Ukraine’s long-term interests to apply Trump’s branding to their territory, said RAND Corporation Political Scientist Samuel Charap at the Times. Ukraine would likely see having a “Trump imprimatur on a free economic zone” as “something of a deterrent” against Russian aggression.

‘Fort Trump’ in Poland

First pitched publicly by Polish then-President Andrzej Duda during a 2018 White House visit, plans for a $2 billion Fort Trump military base ultimately fizzled before they were resurrected in the first year of Trump’s second term. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth “talked about the fact that I hope that Fort Trump, which we talked about” during Trump’s first term, will “really be established,” Duda said to The Associated Press after a series of Warsaw meetings with American officials in 2025.

The proposal returned as Polish officials work to “preserve the U.S. commitment to NATO” over “growing” fears of Russian aggression, the AP said. Polish lawmakers are “convinced” that a strong U.S. alliance and a “high level of spending on defense will help its cause.”

The plans were initially met with public skepticism in Poland when first raised in 2018. Critics “castigated” Duda for what they framed as his “craven behavior,” said The New York Times. “What an embarrassment in front of the entire world,” said Polish lawmaker Tomasz Siemoniak on X, per the Times. “Even leaders of banana republics had more respect for themselves” than Duda.

‘Trump Heights’ in Israel

As thanks for Trump’s 2019 presidential recognition of Israel’s sovereignty over the contested Golan Heights, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement that he would “bring to the government a resolution calling for a new community on the Golan Heights” to be named on Trump’s behalf. Despite a high-profile groundbreaking ceremony, a “large-scale influx of new residents never materialized,” said The Times of Israel. Still, after Trump’s 2024 reelection, residents hoped their namesake’s victory would “breathe new life into this tiny, remote community.”

‘Trump National Golf Course’ in Syria

When a group of wealthy Syrian investors seeking sanction relief for a luxury rebuilding project for their war-torn nation turned to Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) for advice, his message was simple. “I know how to get the president’s attention,” Wilson said during a meeting with the group. “Make it a Trump National Golf Course in Syria.”

The group, however, was “way ahead of the congressman,” with one member bragging that he “already planned to propose a Trump-branded resort,” said MS NOW. This type of “mixing of personal and diplomatic affairs” has “long been the norm in Middle Eastern nations,” said The New York Times, which first reported the meeting. The blending has “become the way Washington operates in Mr. Trump’s second term too.”

‘Trump Park’ in Israel

Trump “took a brave and unprecedented step that none of his predecessors were willing to take,” Mayor David Even Tzur of the Israeli city of Kiryat Yam said, per Arutz Sheva, after Trump’s 2017 declaration of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. “We must honor him for it.”

Kiryat Yam subsequently invested $1.4 million in a nearly two-acre Trump Park that borders an “existing science park in the center of the city,” said The Times of Israel. “I am grateful for your gesture,” said Trump in a letter to Tzur, according to The Forward. Trump was “moved to know that the people of Israel are encouraged by my decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.”

‘Trump Promenade’ in Israel

Donald Trump is “Israel’s best friend ever,” said Netanyahu at a 2025 groundbreaking ceremony for a seaside promenade in the president’s honor in the central Israeli city of Bat Yam. The concept of this “President Donald Trump Promenade,” said The Jerusalem Post, “originated from Trump’s idea to turn the Gaza Strip into beachfront property.” Israel has “wonderful beachside properties here,” Netanyahu said Trump had told him, clarifying that Trump had been “talking about one that’s a bit to the south here, in Gaza.”

“This is so great,” Trump said in a “personal note” to Netanyahu following the naming ceremony. The message was written on a printout of a post Netanyahu made on X showing the groundbreaking ceremony, the Post said.

‘Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity’ between Azerbaijan and Armenia

A key feature of a fragile brokered peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia, the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity “promises to become a vital connectivity link between Europe and Asia” that “could go down as” one of Trump’s “most impressive foreign policy achievements” since reelection, said the Atlantic Council. The project’s name was a “concession” sure to “delight Trump,” CNN said, as the president sought to “brand himself in his first six months in office as a global peacemaker.”

Though the project’s stakeholders “share the ambition” that the rail portion of the route “can be completed by 2028 and the end of Trump’s presidency,” the peace process is “still at an early stage,” said the Carnegie Russia Urasia Center. Local groups in the region are also “far less engaged in it than the leaders are.” The plan has elicited a minimal response from Russia, which is “cautious not to antagonize a U.S. administration led by Trump, whose name is tied to the project.”

What happened

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said Wednesday he will remain on the Fed Board of Governors “for a period of time to be determined” after his term as chair expires May 15. His announcement came at the end of a two-day policy meeting in which the Fed voted to keep rates unchanged, and shortly after the Senate Banking Committee voted along party lines to advance Kevin Warsh’s nomination to succeed Powell.

Who said what

Powell’s “decision to stay, which he can do until January 2028, breaks with tradition” and denies President Donald Trump the chance to “appoint another governor” until he leaves, The New York Times said. Powell underscored that he was still concerned about the Fed’s independence and “made clear his decision hinged on the outcome of a criminal investigation” of him that the Justice Department has halted, with caveats.

His continuing presence could “make it a bit harder for Warsh to engineer the rate cuts that Trump has demanded,” The Associated Press said. But Powell downplayed concerns about a “‘two Popes’ scenario.” There’s “only ever one chair,” he told reporters. “I’m not looking to be a high-profile dissident.”

What next?

The Fed’s next policy meeting is June 16-17. “I won’t see you next time,” Powell deadpanned at his last post-meeting press conference.

What happened

The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down a Louisiana congressional map drawn to include a second majority-Black district. The decision in Louisiana v. Callais significantly weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, one of the remaining pillars of the landmark 1965 civil rights law. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by his five fellow conservative justices, ruled that the district was an “unconstitutional gerrymander” because it relied on race, not partisanship. Justice Elena Kagan said in her dissent that the decision “renders Section 2 all but a dead letter.”

Who said what

The court’s conservatives “hollowed out” a law that “increased minority representation in Congress,” state legislatures and local councils, The Associated Press said. Alito “left the landmark civil rights law on the books,” Politico said, but “gutting” it was a “long-held goal of the conservative legal movement,” and “they’re taking a victory lap.”

“This is a complete and total victory for American voters,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement. It’s a “mind-boggling piece of judicial overreach,” The New York Times said in an editorial. The court’s six Republican appointees “acted more like partisan legislators” than judges, “substituting their own judgment for that of Congress.”

What next?

The ruling will likely “touch off a scramble by Republicans” in the South to redraw congressional maps, The Washington Post said, thereby “imperiling the reelection prospects of some Black Democrats, possibly as soon as November’s midterms.” Hours after the ruling, Florida lawmakers approved a new map giving Republicans up to four new seats.