Social Media

Bernie Sanders Sparks a Progressive Surge After Democratic Defeat Senator Bernie Sanders is once again mobilizing his formidable political machine — not for a presidential run, but to reshape the Democratic Party's direction after what he views as a failure to connect with working-class Americans in 2024. In doing so, he’s aiming to fill what he sees as a glaring void left by party leaders, including Vice President Kamala Harris. In an interview with The Washington Post during his recent “Fighting Oligarchy” tour, Sanders didn’t hold back. While maintaining that Harris is a friend, he was blunt about her presidential campaign. “The campaign she ran went around the country with Liz Cheney, had billionaires talking for her, basically did not talk to the needs of the working class of this country,” Sanders said. Now, the Vermont senator — who caucuses with Democrats but maintains his status as an independent — is stepping up efforts to push the party toward more progressive policies and grassroots engagement. He has called for recruiting working-class candidates who reject funding from billionaires and lobbyists, people he says have constrained the Democratic agenda. His political group, Friends of Bernie Sanders, has already attracted about 7,000 interested recruits, half of whom are considering running as independents. “Do Democrats do enough? No,” Sanders said. “The difference that I have with the Democratic leadership is not in the need to vigorously oppose Trump. It’s to bring forth an agenda that resonates with working-class families. And I think there are a number of Trump people who will support that agenda.” This effort hasn’t been met with universal enthusiasm. Some party veterans fear Sanders could further splinter the Democrats at a time when unity is crucial. “If the Democrats have a shot at winning the House and the Senate, they need to be firing on all cylinders and not just steering to the hard left or the hard right,” said Steve Israel, former chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “The point of politics is winning in order to govern, not passing ideological purity tests.” Still, Sanders seems undeterred. His team is planning staff hires in more than three dozen districts across 18 states to oppose former President Donald Trump’s agenda and to train activists to pressure Republicans against slashing the social safety net. Sanders himself has already endorsed four Democratic candidates: Adelita Grijalva in Arizona, Robert Peters in Illinois, Troy Jackson for Maine governor, and Abdul El-Sayed for Senate in Michigan. “We have to keep our eye on who really is the enemy,” said former DNC chair Jaime Harrison, voicing concern about primary fights and potential vote-splitting. But Sanders is thinking long-term. He laid out a three-phase strategy in recent calls with supporters: block Trump’s legislative agenda, retake the House in 2026, and reduce the political influence of wealthy donors. “All that we ask from you is that you have courage to stand up with a battered working class in this country. Have the courage to take on the wealthy and the powerful,” Sanders told the Zoom audience. Though Sanders says he’s unlikely to run for president again, his movement shows no signs of slowing. Recent rallies with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez drew large crowds, fueling speculation about who might carry the torch next. His campaign’s coffers are ready, with over $11.5 million raised in the first quarter of the year and nearly $20 million on hand. Sanders remains skeptical of the Democratic Party’s current organizing efforts, especially in red states. “There are a number of states around the country where it almost virtually does not exist,” he said. Democratic Party chairman Ken Martin has increased funding to state parties, including in conservative strongholds, and emphasized a renewed focus on uniting working-class families across all demographics. Yet Sanders’s team insists their recruits are different. “These are people who know why they are running,” said Sanders adviser Faiz Shakir. “It’s a vision of taking on the elite, taking on the powerful, taking on the establishment to make working-class lives better. That is what motivates them.” Related Topics: Bernie Sanders Defends Private Jet Use During Anti-Oligarchy Tour: “No Apologies for That” Adapted by ASEAN Now from Washington Post 2025-06-04

Weathering the Climate Debate: Meet the Young Meteorologist Challenging the Hysteria In the quiet town of Charles Town, West Virginia, a young voice is rising above the din of climate alarmism. Chris Martz, a 22-year-old meteorologist fresh out of Millersville University, is challenging the prevailing narrative on climate change — and he’s not doing it quietly. “I’m the anti-Greta Thunberg. In fact, she’s only 19 days older than me,” Martz says with a confident grin. He’s made it his mission to counter what he calls climate hysteria, with science and data at the center of his argument. While Greta Thunberg became a global symbol of climate urgency through emotional pleas and activism, Martz has taken a more analytical route. “I’ve always been a science-based, fact-based person,” he explains over lunch. His father’s advice stuck with him: “If you’re going to put something online, especially getting into a scientific or political topic, make sure what you’re saying is accurate. That way you establish a good credibility and rapport with your followers.” He began tweeting about weather in high school and now commands an audience of more than 100,000 followers. Among them are powerful political figures, including Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee and Representatives Chip Roy and Thomas Massie. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis even paraphrased one of Martz’s tweets last year to push back against claims that Hurricane Milton was a product of climate change. “It was word-for-word my post,” Martz says. “His team follows me.” Martz has caught the attention of notable figures outside of politics too. Former EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler recently hosted him for lunch in Washington, and Hollywood celebrities like Dean Cain and Larry the Cable Guy have become admirers. “They didn’t have to be as nice as they were. They just treated me like I was their next-of-kin,” Martz says. Born to a mechanic father and a mother working in federal water science, Martz’s fascination with meteorology began early. But his drive wasn’t fueled by storm-chasing fantasies — it came from skepticism. He recalls sweating in church on Christmas Eve 2015 during an unseasonably warm day. “Everyone seems to remember white Christmases when they were a kid, but the data doesn’t back that up. It may be that we’re remembering all the movies where it snows at Christmas,” he notes. That curiosity turned into a full-blown mission after he investigated Hurricane Harvey in 2017. Contrary to media narratives, Martz found there had been a 12-year drought of major hurricanes making landfall in the U.S. “That was the longest period on record,” he says, referencing data going back to the 1700s. Martz calls himself a “lukewarm skeptic,” acknowledging some warming and the role humans may play, but attributing most changes to natural variability. “Models are not evidence,” he says, cautioning against overreliance on climate projections. “Since 1979, there’s been an eastward shift in Tornado Alley. Okay, that’s evidence of climate change. That’s not evidence that humans caused it.” He believes many natural phenomena, like tornado patterns and forest fires, have historical precedents that debunk the idea of a new, human-driven climate apocalypse. “Between 900 and 1300 AD, there was a 400-year-long drought that was worse than today’s in the southwestern United States,” he says, disputing popular claims about worsening wildfires. For Martz, the true danger lies not in carbon emissions but in the politicization of science. “It’s all a giant money-making scheme,” he asserts. “Politicians and bureaucrats latch on to scientific issues to try and get certain policies implemented. In usual cases, it’s a left-wing, authoritarian kind of control.” Though he’s faced smear campaigns and attempts to have him expelled during college, Martz remains undeterred. “They don’t seem to realize yet that cancel culture doesn’t work anymore,” he says. “They’re getting angry because they’re losing their grip on the narrative.” With youth on his side and data in hand, Chris Martz represents a rising countercurrent in the climate conversation — one that insists truth must take precedence over panic. Adapted by ASEAN Now from NYP 2025-06-04

Elon Musk Calls Out Cory Booker’s Gesture, Claims Media Double Standard Elon Musk reignited controversy over Nazi salute accusations this weekend by targeting Democratic Senator Cory Booker, claiming the New Jersey lawmaker mimicked the infamous gesture during an event in California. Booker’s team swiftly rejected the accusation, calling it a mischaracterization of a simple wave and highlighting what they say is bad-faith outrage from Musk and his supporters. The moment in question occurred Saturday night during the California Democratic Convention, where Booker concluded his speech by placing a hand on his heart before extending his arm toward the audience. Musk quickly seized on the motion, accusing the senator of hypocrisy given the backlash Musk himself received earlier this year for a gesture some believed mirrored a Nazi salute. “Legacy media lies,” Musk posted on X, formerly Twitter, quote-tweeting a video of the event and criticizing the lack of media scrutiny directed at Booker. He didn’t stop there. On Sunday, Musk escalated the rhetoric, posting an image collage of prominent Democrats—Barack Obama, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and Hillary Clinton—with their arms extended in similar poses, captioned, “We know where Cory Booker learned his Nazi salute from,” followed by a raised eyebrow emoji. Booker’s spokesperson, Maya Krishna-Rogers, dismissed the accusation in a statement to Forbes. “Cory Booker was obviously just waving to the crowd. Anyone who claims his wave is the same as Elon Musk’s gesture is operating in bad faith. The differences between the two are obvious to anyone without an agenda.” The flare-up echoes a similar controversy from January, when Musk drew widespread criticism after making a gesture during an event supporting Donald Trump. Musk pounded his fist to his chest and then thrust his right arm into the air twice—actions that triggered condemnation from international figures, including Spain’s labor minister and Germany’s health minister. At the time, Musk did not explain the gesture but argued that critics were engaged in politically motivated attacks. “The ‘everyone is Hitler’ attack is sooo tired,” he said on X. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) weighed in after Musk’s incident, stating the tech billionaire had likely made “an awkward gesture in a moment of enthusiasm, not a Nazi salute,” and encouraged the public to extend “a bit of grace.” The ADL has not yet commented on the allegations against Booker. Adding to the debate, Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., came to Musk’s defense on Sunday. “The mainstream media is totally corrupt,” she posted on X. “They were hyperventilating about this false smear of Elon… Neither Elon Musk or @CoryBooker are giving the Nazi salute. Americans see thru this obvious and destructive double standard by the totally broken media and Democrat Party.” Musk replied, “they are such hypocrites.” While the debate continues online, observers note that accusations of Nazi symbolism—once reserved for extreme cases—are increasingly being thrown around in political discourse, raising concerns about desensitization and partisan misuse. Still, Musk’s reaction highlights ongoing tension between him and Democrats, particularly over what he sees as selective outrage by media and political opponents. Booker, for his part, has not publicly addressed Musk’s accusation directly, leaving his spokesperson’s remarks to stand as the campaign’s official response. Meanwhile, the broader conversation reflects an increasingly polarized environment where even a wave can spark a firestorm. Adapted by ASEAN Now from Forbes 2025-06-04

Pressure Mounts on UK Government Over Golden Temple Massacre Inquiry Thousands gathered in central London, renewing calls for the UK government to honour its long-standing pledge to investigate Britain’s potential involvement in the 1984 Golden Temple massacre. Amid growing pressure, Sky News has been told that an inquiry into the UK’s military role is now “under consideration”. The massacre, known as Operation Blue Star, saw Indian forces storm the Golden Temple in Amritsar, Sikhism’s holiest shrine, in June 1984. The operation targeted armed separatists advocating for an independent Sikh homeland. The Indian government maintained it was a counterterrorism measure, but hundreds of civilians were killed in the operation. For decades, the Sikh community has sought answers about the extent of foreign support provided to the Indian government. The issue gained renewed urgency in 2014 when classified documents revealed that the Thatcher government had sent a British SAS officer to India to assist with planning the raid. While a subsequent internal UK review concluded that Britain's involvement was “purely advisory” and “limited”, many in the Sikh community rejected the findings, pointing to the narrow scope and speed of the investigation. Calls for a comprehensive, independent inquiry have only intensified since. “My message to the government is that it’s about time that the Sikh community got their truth and transparency,” said Tan Dhesi, Britain’s most prominent Sikh MP and Labour chair of the House of Commons Defence Committee. “That can only come about through an inquiry to establish the extent of the Thatcher-led government’s involvement.” Dhesi also revealed to Sky News that he has been in contact with ministers and officials at Number 10 who have confirmed that an inquiry is “under consideration”. However, nearly 11 months into Labour’s time in office, there has been no formal update from the government. During Sunday’s rally, community leaders and activists demanded that Labour follow through on its prior commitments. While in opposition, Labour pledged an independent inquiry in its 2017 and 2019 manifestos, and again in 2022 through a letter from Sir Keir Starmer addressed to the Sikh community. “A future Labour government will open an independent inquiry into Britain’s military role in the Indian army’s 1984 raid on the Golden Temple in Amritsar,” the letter said. Angela Rayner, now Deputy Prime Minister, reinforced the promise in a social media post just before the last general election, stating: “Labour stands with the Sikh community in calling for an inquiry into the historic role Britain played.” Yet, Labour’s silence since entering office has drawn criticism. Speaking at Sunday’s protest, Dabinderjit Singh OBE, lead executive for political engagement at the Sikh Federation (UK), stated: “It is totally unacceptable that the Labour leadership remains silent on its promise. A judge-led public inquiry must take place so we have the full truth. If Labour breaks its promise, it will be an act of betrayal. Labour will lose much of the Sikh vote if they let us down.” In January, during a House exchange, Leader of the House Lucy Powell addressed the matter, saying: “I know that this matter is of great importance to the Sikh community across the UK. We need to get to the bottom of what happened, and I will ensure that the ministers responsible are in touch with him [Mr Dhesi] to discuss the matter further.” Over 400 Sikh organisations have also written directly to Prime Minister Starmer this year, urging him to make good on his word. Yet, according to Sky News, there are ongoing concerns within government over how a public inquiry might affect the UK’s diplomatic relationship with India, given the countries’ increasingly close economic and political ties. For the Sikh community, however, the issue remains one of principle and justice. As protestors made clear on Sunday, only a full and independent investigation will suffice — and the longer the silence, the deeper the mistrust grows. Adapted by ASEAN Now from Sky News 2025-06-04

From Festival Plotter to NHS Patient: The Alarming Journey of Nathan Ruth Nathan Ruth, a teenage terrorist who once plotted to carry out a deadly attack at the Isle of Wight Festival, has now been transferred from prison to a secure NHS mental health unit, sparking outrage among prison staff. Ruth, who converted to Islam as a teenager and was convicted last year, had previously remained anonymous due to his age. Now 18, he can be named publicly for the first time. Ruth was just 15 when he was arrested in July 2022 after U.S. authorities tipped off British security services. His plot involved researching weapons, vehicles, and stab vests to prepare for a violent attack at one of the UK's most popular music festivals. In April 2024, he was sentenced to seven years in custody. However, it is Ruth's behaviour behind bars that has shocked those tasked with guarding him. Since his arrest, he has attacked prison staff at least 18 times, using improvised weapons including shanks and exhibiting a pattern of extreme violence. At Feltham Young Offenders Institution in southwest London, where he was previously held, he stabbed one officer and attempted to slice another’s ear off. A leaked intelligence report states Ruth is “intent on killing a prison officer” and has a consistent history of crafting weapons from available materials. Despite this, Ruth has now been moved to Bluebird House, a mental health facility in Hampshire that offers what its website describes as “a friendly, welcoming and therapeutic environment.” The centre boasts a range of amenities including quizzes, movie nights, sports, and arts and crafts—an atmosphere that contrasts sharply with the heavily restricted conditions Ruth faced in Feltham, where officers wore riot gear even for routine interactions. The decision to transfer him has sparked alarm and disbelief among prison staff. “He has stabbed so many officers while in Feltham – and openly boasts to staff that we will see him on the news one day,” one source said. “We can’t believe they have let him go. He has 100 per cent manipulated the system to get himself sent somewhere more comfortable.” According to the same source, Ruth began bragging about his improved conditions as soon as the decision was made. “He started boasting about his luxurious new quarters and how it would be easier to escape from the facility,” they added. “What really annoys staff is that he has received no further prison time for all the stabbings against staff. They just want to focus on his rehabilitation. Well, tell that to the officer who nearly lost an ear. He is a stone-cold psychopath, the scariest I have ever seen. He will not stop until he has killed someone. Staff at that place do not know what they are letting themselves in for.” A spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice defended the decision, stating: “Prisoners can be transferred for treatment in mental health hospitals, based on assessments by expert clinicians, but will return to prison once they are fit to do so. We do not tolerate violence against our hard-working staff and will always push for the strongest possible punishments for those who break the rules.” Despite official reassurances, those familiar with Ruth’s case remain concerned that his move prioritises rehabilitation over security, placing healthcare workers at serious risk from a violent and remorseless inmate. Adapted by ASEAN Now from Daily Mail 2025-06-04

Molotov Attack at Pro-Israel Rally in Boulder Deemed 'Targeted Terror Attack' A peaceful demonstration in Boulder, Colorado turned into a scene of chaos and horror after a man allegedly launched a petrol bomb attack on participants, prompting authorities to investigate the incident as a "targeted terror attack." The violent assault took place around 1:26 p.m. local time in the heart of Boulder’s downtown district, near Pearl Street, and left multiple people injured—some critically. Mohamad Soliman has been identified by several social media accounts as the suspect in Sunday’s “targeted terror attack” in Boulder, Colorado. He allegedly threw Molotov cocktails at participants of a peaceful pro-Israel demonstration on Pearl Street, injuring multiple people. Law enforcement officials have called for any witnesses or individuals with video footage to come forward as they build a case against the suspect. Meanwhile, the injured remain in the thoughts of a shaken city, as Boulder tries to come to terms with what appears to be a deliberate attack on free expression and peaceful assembly. Adapted by ASEAN Now from Sky News | Local Media 2025-06-02

Trump Teases Macron with Marriage Advice After Viral 'Shove' Incident President Donald Trump weighed in with some tongue-in-cheek marriage advice for French President Emmanuel Macron, following a viral video that showed Macron being pushed in the face by his wife, Brigitte, as they exited a plane in Vietnam. The moment, which was caught on camera by the Associated Press in Hanoi, quickly sparked a wave of social media commentary and international headlines. In the footage, President Macron is seen standing at the door of the aircraft just before disembarking. Suddenly, two hands—belonging to Brigitte Macron—reach out from off-camera and give him a forceful shove in the face. Although he appears momentarily startled, Macron recovers quickly and offers a wave through the doorway. The couple then descends the plane's staircase without exchanging hand-holds, further fueling online speculation. Asked during an Oval Office press appearance whether he had any advice for the French president, Trump didn’t miss a beat. “Make sure the door remains closed,” he quipped with a grin, suggesting that any such physical exchanges should happen behind closed doors, away from the public eye. Despite the awkward optics of the incident, Trump was quick to dismiss any suggestion that the moment signaled marital tension. “They’re fine,” he assured reporters. “They’re two really good people I know very well, and I didn’t know what that was all about, but I know him very well. And they’re fine.” Seated beside Trump during the press conference was tech billionaire Elon Musk, who was making his first public appearance following his departure from a government advisory role. Musk sported a visible black eye, prompting some light-hearted speculation about its source. He joined in the jesting mood, saying, “I wasn’t anywhere near France,” and clarified that the bruise came courtesy of his five-year-old son, X. According to Musk, the injury occurred when he invited his son to punch him in the face—a playful moment gone slightly too far. Meanwhile, the Elysée Palace initially responded to the video of the Macrons by suggesting the footage might have been generated using artificial intelligence, a claim that raised eyebrows. However, officials later backtracked, confirming that the video was indeed real. They framed the shove as a moment of light-hearted horseplay, a gesture between two people who had just endured a grueling 16-hour flight. According to a spokesperson, it was simply a sign of “closeness.” Whether momentary frustration, travel fatigue, or a couple’s private joke that went public, the scene has provided no shortage of commentary. But as Trump and Musk both demonstrated, sometimes the best way to respond to viral drama is with a wink, a joke, and the assurance that all is well behind the scenes. Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-06-01

A post making unsubstantiated claims has been removed: 5. You will not use ASEAN NOW to post any material which is knowingly or can be reasonably construed as false, inaccurate, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law. Topics or posts deemed to be scaremongering, deliberately misleading or which deliberately distort information will be removed. In factual areas such as news forums and current affairs topics member content that is claimed or portrayed as a fact should be supported by a link to a relevant reputable source.

As the war in Gaza enters its nineteenth month, Israel continues its military campaign against Hamas, fortified by strategic precision and a commitment—however questioned—to International Humanitarian Law. President Donald Trump once called steel tariffs a line in the sand; for Israel, the line is survival itself. While voices in the West, including EU foreign affairs chief Kaja Kallas, express concern over the scope and humanitarian toll of Israel’s actions, on the ground the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) are carrying out what they see as a grim necessity: the dismantling of a deeply entrenched terrorist regime operating under the cover of civilian infrastructure. Kallas recently stated that "Israeli strikes in Gaza go beyond what is necessary to fight Hamas," but critics of such statements suggest that Western leaders like her fail to comprehend the sheer complexity of the battleground. “Perhaps she should head to Jerusalem and give precise instructions to the IDF on what they should be doing to eliminate the Hamas terrorist regime—assuming that’s what she actually wants,” a frontline observer commented. "She can tell them how you kill terrorists entwined into the population, hiding in tunnels beneath schools, hospitals and houses, protected by the most comprehensively booby-trapped terrain in the history of warfare, all while minimising harm to civilians." Indeed, many claim that the IDF has acted with a level of discipline and humanitarian restraint unparalleled in modern warfare. With tens of thousands of Hamas fighters killed, including senior commanders such as Mohammed Deif, Yahya Sinwar, and most recently Mohammed Sinwar—who was reportedly killed in a tunnel beneath a hospital in Khan Younis—the toll on Hamas has been significant. “Those who have been dispatched have been replaced, though by less experienced and less able terrorists,” said one military analyst, “but I’m not sure how long the list of applicants will be for the Sinwar brothers’ uniquely hazardous job.” The criticisms from European leaders and international bodies have only intensified as Israel expands its efforts to deliver humanitarian aid directly to Gazan civilians while bypassing Hamas. Kallas has dismissed these efforts, despite evidence that Gazans are queueing in the thousands and even camping out overnight to receive food. While the UN and some Western governments echo Hamas’s resistance to the aid system, observers argue this undermines genuine humanitarian support. “Hamas also rejects this aid system and has been threatening Gazans against using it,” said a source familiar with the situation. “Nor does the UN like it one little bit, despite the outrageously fake assertion last week that 14,000 babies would die of malnutrition in 48 hours.” The underlying tension, critics argue, is not purely humanitarian—it’s political. With Hamas deeply weakened and Israel gaining military ground, some suggest that Western powers are uneasy not because of civilian casualties, but because an Israeli victory would disrupt the long-favored but increasingly distant dream of a two-state solution. “They utterly fail to recognise that a two-state solution is permanently interred after Hamas hammered the final nail into its coffin on October 7, 2023.” Beyond Gaza, Israel has scored other major strategic victories. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon saw the assassination of its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, via a dramatic operation involving explosive-laden pagers, as well as the destruction of much of Hezbollah’s long-range missile arsenal. Even Iran, long the patron of these groups, suffered severe blows. Its leader’s inability to prevent the assassination of Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, along with Israel’s successful air campaign against its Russian-supplied defenses, has left the Islamic Republic exposed. The growing international condemnation, many argue, only emboldens Hamas, giving the group political cover and leverage it no longer possesses on the battlefield. “Apart from the hostages it holds, its only card is the vilification of Israel by the international community and the accompanying weaponisation of legal warfare.” Yet the path to peace, according to this perspective, remains straightforward: Hamas could end the suffering immediately by disarming and releasing the hostages. “If the EU, the UN and those governments so eager to condemn the Jewish state actually wanted to achieve peace, they would support Israel in words and actions, and condemn Hamas at every turn.” Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph 2025-05-31

Trump Announces Steel Tariff Hike to 50% At a rally in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, President Donald Trump revealed that the United States will double its existing tariff on imported steel from 25% to 50%. The move, he said, is aimed at strengthening domestic steel production, reducing dependence on foreign steel—particularly from China—and ensuring long-term job security for American workers. Trump emphasized the local and national impact of his economic policy by announcing that $14 billion would be invested into the region’s steel sector through a partnership between US Steel and Japan's Nippon Steel. Although details of the partnership remain vague, Trump framed it as a monumental win for American industry and labor. “At 50%, they can no longer get over the fence,” he said, referring to foreign competitors. The announcement marks a sharp escalation in Trump’s ongoing tariff policies, which have been a hallmark of his economic strategy since his first term. He previously imposed a 25% tariff on steel in 2018, a decision he credited with rescuing the domestic steel sector from collapse. Now back in office, Trump is doubling down on the same approach, even as critics raise legal and economic concerns. Trump’s new tariff decision comes in the midst of a legal battle over the legitimacy of some of his broader tariff policies. An appeals court recently allowed the continuation of a case challenging various global trade duties, although his steel and aluminum tariffs have so far remained untouched by the lawsuit. The broader impact of Trump's trade policies has been significant, reshaping global trade relations and markets. His tariffs have triggered retaliatory measures from countries like China, igniting a prolonged trade war between the world’s two largest economies. That tension flared again this month when Trump accused China of breaching a tariff truce the two nations had reached. In response, China issued its own accusations, deepening an already fraught economic rivalry. Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-05-31

Supreme Court Backs Trump Administration in Move to End Migrant Protections for Over 500,000 In a significant decision with far-reaching consequences, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Trump administration, allowing it to revoke temporary legal status for more than half a million migrants currently living in the United States. The decision, handed down on Friday, affects individuals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela who were previously protected under a humanitarian parole programme established by former President Joe Biden. The programme, known as CHNV humanitarian parole, granted migrants temporary permission to live and work in the U.S. for two years based on "urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit," according to official U.S. government policy. It was designed to help people escaping severe economic hardship or political instability in their home countries. The Trump administration had long targeted the programme and took swift steps to dismantle it. On his first day in office, President Trump signed an executive order directing the Department of Homeland Security to eliminate existing parole protections. In March, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem formally announced the termination of CHNV humanitarian parole. Following this, a federal judge in Massachusetts blocked the administration’s efforts, prompting Trump officials to appeal directly to the Supreme Court. With Friday's decision, the justices effectively placed the lower court’s ruling on hold, allowing the administration to proceed with its plans while legal challenges continue. Two of the court’s three liberal justices, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, dissented from the majority opinion. In her dissent, Justice Jackson cautioned that the decision would allow “the lives of half a million migrants [to] unravel all around us before the courts decide their legal claims.” White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller described the Supreme Court’s ruling as a victory. Speaking to CNN, he said the administration “celebrated” the opportunity to begin deporting the estimated 530,000 people impacted by the decision. “The Supreme Court justly stepped in,” he said. Miller referred to the affected migrants as “invaders,” a term that sparked immediate backlash from immigrant rights advocates. The ruling follows closely on the heels of another major immigration-related Supreme Court decision earlier this month, in which the court permitted Trump officials to revoke Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for around 350,000 Venezuelan migrants. That programme, like CHNV, offered temporary legal status to individuals who could not safely return to their home countries. Several immigrant rights organizations, along with individuals who benefited from the CHNV programme, have filed lawsuits challenging the administration’s actions. They argue that the abrupt termination of legal protections places thousands of families at imminent risk. According to court filings, many of the affected migrants could face “serious risks of danger, persecution and even death” if forced to return. Critics of the Supreme Court’s decision expressed concern not only about the humanitarian fallout but also about the broader implications for immigration policy and judicial oversight. “This ruling allows an administration to dismantle humanitarian protections without full legal review,” said one advocacy group spokesperson. “We are watching lives being disrupted while fundamental questions about legality remain unresolved.” For now, the fate of hundreds of thousands of migrants hangs in the balance as the legal battle over humanitarian parole moves forward. While the Supreme Court has enabled the Trump administration to act immediately, final resolution on the issue is still pending in the lower courts. Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-05-31

France to Clear the Air: Smoking Ban Set for Public Spaces Near Children France is set to implement a sweeping ban on smoking in outdoor public spaces frequented by children, in what officials describe as a crucial step towards improving public health and protecting younger generations. From July 1, smoking will no longer be permitted on beaches, in public parks, gardens, near schools, bus stops, or sports venues, according to an announcement by Health and Family Minister Catherine Vautrin. “Tobacco must disappear where there are children,” Vautrin told Ouest-France, underscoring the government's intent to prioritize clean air for minors. She added pointedly, “The freedom to smoke must end where the freedom of children to breathe fresh air begins.” The ban, however, will not extend to the popular terrasses — outdoor seating areas of cafés and bars — which will remain exempt. Violations of the new rules will result in a fine of €135 (£113; $153), Vautrin said, though she emphasized that enforcement would not rely solely on law enforcement. “I am a great believer in self-regulation,” she noted, suggesting that public awareness and mutual respect would also play a key role in the policy’s success. Electronic cigarettes are not covered under the new restrictions, but Vautrin revealed that additional regulations may be on the horizon. She is currently working on proposals to limit the nicotine content in vaping products, reflecting concerns about rising e-cigarette use, especially among young people. The latest data from the French Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction indicates that smoking rates in France have reached a historic low. As of the most recent survey, 23.1% of the population smokes daily — a decline of more than five percentage points since 2014. Despite the encouraging downward trend, tobacco use remains one of France’s most serious public health issues. According to the National Committee Against Smoking, more than 75,000 deaths each year are attributed to tobacco-related illnesses, accounting for roughly 13% of all fatalities in the country. France previously banned smoking inside establishments such as restaurants and nightclubs back in 2008. And while a broader national ban on outdoor smoking was originally planned for 2024, the required legal decree was never officially adopted. Nonetheless, more than 1,500 municipalities have taken the initiative, instituting local bans in public spaces, and hundreds of French beaches have been designated smoke-free for several years. Public support for expanding the smoking ban appears strong. A recent report by La Ligue Contre le Cancer, France’s cancer association, found that nearly 80% of the population supports prohibiting smoking in public outdoor areas such as parks, beaches, woodland, and even terrasses. With the July rollout, the French government is hoping to catch up with the proactive stance many local governments and citizens have already embraced. The overarching aim, as Vautrin described it, is to foster a healthier, smoke-free environment where children can breathe easy — literally. Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-05-31

UN Warns of Escalating Climate Crisis with No Relief in Sight A new report from the United Nations paints a grim picture for the planet’s climate future, warning that global temperatures are set to surpass critical warming thresholds in the coming years. According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the UN’s weather and climate agency, there is a 70 percent chance that the average global temperature between 2025 and 2029 will exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels—a threshold widely seen as a crucial benchmark for avoiding the most catastrophic effects of climate change. “We have just experienced the 10 warmest years on record,” said Ko Barrett, deputy secretary-general of the WMO. “Unfortunately, this WMO report provides no sign of respite over the coming years, and this means that there will be a growing negative impact on our economies, our daily lives, our ecosystems and our planet.” The 1.5-degree target, set as part of the 2015 Paris Agreement, was intended as a limit to stave off the worst effects of climate disruption. However, rising carbon dioxide emissions—driven largely by continued reliance on coal, oil, and gas—have pushed global temperatures steadily upward. Many climate scientists now argue that meeting the 1.5-degree goal is no longer feasible. Compiled using data from the UK’s Met Office and several global forecasting centers, the WMO’s report projects that annual global surface temperatures from 2025 to 2029 will likely fall between 1.2°C and 1.9°C above the 1850-1900 average. “This is entirely consistent with our proximity to passing 1.5C on a long-term basis in the late 2020s or early 2030s,” said Peter Thorne, director of the Irish Climate Analysis and Research Units group at the University of Maynooth. “I would expect in two to three years this probability to be 100 percent” for the five-year outlook, he added. In addition, there is an 80 percent chance that at least one of the years between 2025 and 2029 will become the hottest year ever recorded, breaking the record set in 2024. Climatologist Adam Scaife of the Met Office emphasized the growing risks, stating, “It is shocking,” and noting that “that probability is going to rise.” He recalled that only a decade ago, the chances of surpassing 1.5°C in a single year were seen as minimal, but that scenario became reality in 2024. Some forecasts even indicate a small but real chance—around one percent—that a year within the next five could exceed 2°C of warming, a level previously considered virtually unthinkable. “It's the first time we've ever seen such an event in our computer predictions,” said Scaife. WMO’s climate services director Christopher Hewitt explained that to measure long-term warming, climate scientists use a mix of past observations and future projections. One such model estimates that the 20-year average temperature from 2015 to 2034 will reach 1.44°C above pre-industrial levels. Meanwhile, the EU’s Copernicus climate monitoring agency places current warming at around 1.39°C and forecasts the 1.5°C mark could be breached by mid-2029 or even earlier. The consequences of this warming are already being felt. “We've already hit a dangerous level of warming,” warned Friederike Otto, a climatologist at Imperial College London. She pointed to “deadly floods in Australia, France, Algeria, India, China and Ghana, wildfires in Canada,” and added, “Relying on oil, gas and coal in 2025 is total lunacy.” The WMO also highlighted concerning regional trends. Arctic temperatures are expected to continue increasing at rates higher than the global average. Forecasts for 2025-2029 also show expected reductions in sea ice in the Barents Sea, the Bering Sea, and the Sea of Okhotsk. South Asia is likely to experience wetter than average conditions, while the Amazon region could see below-average rainfall. Other areas such as the Sahel, northern Europe, Alaska, and northern Siberia are predicted to be wetter than normal. As the planet barrels toward increasingly hazardous climate conditions, the WMO’s report makes one thing clear: the world is running out of time—and excuses. Adapted by ASEAN Now from AFP 2025-05-31

Trade Talks Between US and China Hit a Snag, Says Treasury Secretary Trade negotiations between the United States and China have stalled, according to US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, casting doubt on the recent optimism surrounding progress in the economic relationship between the world’s two largest economies. Less than three weeks after a temporary truce saw both nations agree to roll back certain tariffs, Bessent confirmed on Thursday that talks have lost momentum. “I think that given the magnitude of the talks, given the complexity, that this is going to require [leaders of both the countries] to weigh in with each other,” Bessent said in an interview with Fox News. His remarks come as a reality check following the announcement of a tentative agreement reached earlier this month in Switzerland, which aimed to ease tensions by canceling some tariffs and suspending others for a 90-day period ending May 14. The trade detente had been seen as a step forward after years of escalating tariffs, particularly during Donald Trump’s administration, which had imposed aggressive import taxes on a broad range of Chinese goods. However, the momentum appears to have waned, and further progress is now uncertain. The temporary deal had seen the United States reduce tariffs on Chinese imports from 145% to 30%, while China lowered its retaliatory tariffs on US goods from 125% to 10%. Despite this mutual concession, the road to a more comprehensive agreement appears rocky. Bessent emphasized that discussions are still ongoing but acknowledged that the pace has slowed. “I believe that we will be having more talks with [China] in the next few weeks and I believe we may at some point have a call between the president and [Chinese President Xi Jinping],” he said. He also noted the importance of direct engagement between the leaders, suggesting it could be key to reigniting progress. According to Bessent, President Trump and President Xi maintain “a very good relationship,” and he expressed optimism that Beijing would respond to Trump’s involvement. “I’m confident that the Chinese will come to the table when President Trump makes his preferences known,” he added. Meanwhile, Trump’s broader tariff strategy faced legal challenges this week. A court ruling determined that he had exceeded his authority in implementing certain trade measures, delivering a setback to his administration’s trade policy. The ruling has been temporarily suspended following an appeal by the White House, allowing the tariff plans to continue for now. While the recent developments suggest a possible opening for renewed dialogue, the stalling of formal negotiations underlines the ongoing complexity of the trade relationship. With the 90-day suspension of some tariffs due to expire soon, and with high stakes for industries on both sides, the next few weeks may prove pivotal in determining whether this temporary thaw can be turned into lasting progress. Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-05-31

Fueling the War: How Western Money Keeps Russia’s Oil Profits Flowing Despite sweeping sanctions and political condemnation, Western nations have continued to funnel billions of euros into Russia's war chest through the ongoing purchase of fossil fuels. More than three years into the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, data reveals that Russia’s earnings from oil and gas exports have significantly outstripped the financial aid provided to Ukraine by its allies. Since the war began in February 2022, Russia has earned over €883 billion from fossil fuel exports. Of this staggering total, €228 billion came from countries that have officially imposed sanctions on Moscow. The European Union alone accounts for €209 billion of that sum, underscoring the continent’s continued reliance on Russian hydrocarbons. This revenue, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), has become a financial lifeline for sustaining the Kremlin's military aggression. Oil and gas are critical to the Russian economy, making up nearly a third of state revenues and more than 60% of exports. While the United States and United Kingdom banned Russian oil and gas following the invasion, the EU’s restrictions were partial—banning seaborne crude imports but allowing gas imports to continue. These measures have proven insufficient. Russia’s fossil fuel export revenues fell by just 5% in 2024 compared to the previous year, with crude oil revenues actually increasing by 6% and pipeline gas earnings climbing by 9%. Gas exports to Europe, bolstered by Turkish routes, rose by up to 20%, and half of Russia’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports still go to EU countries. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas acknowledged the incomplete nature of the sanctions, stating that some member nations feared potential conflict escalation and were motivated by short-term economic savings. "The strongest sanctions" have not been enacted, she admitted. Meanwhile, campaigners argue that energy dependence has obstructed efforts to effectively cut off Russian war funding. Mai Rosner of Global Witness highlighted the reluctance among Western leaders to further restrict Russian fossil fuels. “There’s no real desire in many governments to actually limit Russia’s ability to produce and sell oil,” she told the BBC. “There is way too much fear about what that would mean for global energy markets.” Compounding the issue is what’s been dubbed the “refining loophole.” This refers to Russian crude oil being exported to third-party nations like Turkey and India, refined into fuel products, and then sold to countries that have sanctioned direct imports from Russia. CREA identified six such “laundromat refineries” using €6.1 billion worth of Russian crude to create fuels for Western markets. India’s petroleum ministry rebuked CREA’s findings as an attempt to "tarnish India's image," but CREA analyst Vaibhav Raghunandan countered, “This is a loophole. It’s entirely legal. Everyone’s aware of it, but nobody is doing much to actually tackle it in a big way.” Former Russian deputy energy minister Vladimir Milov, now a vocal critic of Vladimir Putin, believes enforcement—not new laws—is the issue. He called the G7’s oil price cap “not working” and warned that institutional changes in the US under President Donald Trump could weaken key enforcement bodies like the Treasury and OFAC. However, Milov did note improvements in sanctioning Russia’s “shadow fleet” of tankers used to circumvent restrictions. “That is a complex surgery operation,” he said. “You need to periodically release batches of new sanctioned vessels, shell companies, traders, insurers etc. every several weeks.” Rosner maintains that banning Russian LNG and closing the refining loophole would be “important steps in finishing the decoupling of the West from Russian hydrocarbons.” Raghunandan agrees, adding that the EU could afford to make the cut. “Fifty percent of their LNG exports are directed towards the European Union, and only 5% of the EU’s total [LNG] gas consumption in 2024 was from Russia. So if the EU decides to completely cut off Russian gas, it’s going to hurt Russia way more than it’s going to hurt consumers in the European Union,” he said. In a stark paradox, the West’s energy appetite continues to underwrite the very war it seeks to end. Until that contradiction is addressed, Russia's war machine will remain well-fueled—both literally and financially. Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-05-31

Giorgia Meloni Defies the Left as Her Popularity Endures Despite recent electoral wins by the Left in a few Italian cities, the idea that Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is losing her grip on power is not supported by the broader political landscape. Her critics, bolstered by sympathetic media narratives, have been quick to trumpet victories in Genoa and Ravenna as a sign that the tide is turning. But the facts tell a different story. Earlier this month, local elections were held in 126 councils, including a number of major cities. In Genoa, the Left triumphed with a candidate who also happened to be a former Olympic hammer thrower—a visual gift for headline writers eager to paint a narrative of Meloni under siege. Yet such interpretations are more wishful than realistic. Meloni’s party, Brothers of Italy, continues to dominate national opinion polls, performing even better now than it did in September 2022, when it led a right-wing coalition to a sweeping victory in the general election. That coalition now governs Italy, and it does so with significant public backing. Such midterm popularity is rare in European politics, especially in a country like Italy that has seen 68 different governments since the end of fascism in 1945. Nevertheless, opposition leader Elly Schlein of the Democratic Party has seized the moment, declaring, “If I were Giorgia Meloni I’d be beginning to worry, [this] is the symptom that something in her rapport with the country is broken.” Schlein added, “What is now clear is that the centre-Right crows about the polls but we win elections.” To Schlein’s credit, she at least described Meloni as “centre-Right,” a departure from much of the international media which still often labels her “far-Right.” This despite the fact that Meloni’s policies—such as cracking down on illegal immigration—are now being emulated even by politicians on the Left. UK Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, for example, has praised Meloni’s offshore asylum processing model and expressed interest in replicating it in Britain. “Remarkable progress,” he called it. It would be a stretch to call him “far-Right” for that. On the international stage, Meloni has emerged as a pragmatic and influential figure. Her straightforward realism, combined with a personable demeanor and youthful energy, has positioned her as a significant player in global affairs. Claims that recent local victories signal her downfall seem even more tenuous when considering the political leanings of the cities in question. Genoa and Ravenna have long been strongholds of the Italian Left. Genoa, in particular, has been one of the most reliably Left-wing cities in the country for decades. Italy, after all, once hosted the largest communist party outside the Soviet Bloc. The Democratic Party, now led by Schlein, is a direct ideological descendant of that tradition. Moreover, the Democratic Party did not win these cities alone. Its victories came in alliance with the populist Five Star Movement, a party with which it has a rocky, on-again, off-again relationship. They once governed together nationally for just 18 months before the coalition fell apart. Even if they joined forces again for the next general election in 2027, their combined support—currently 22 percent for the Democrats and 12 percent for Five Star—would fall far short of what’s needed to form a government. By contrast, Meloni’s coalition remains strong. Brothers of Italy polls at 30 percent, while her partners, Forza Italia and the League, are both sitting at 9 percent. The numbers make clear that, if an election were held today, the Right would win comfortably. Schlein’s only viable path to power lies in the so-called campo largo (broad field), a coalition of the Democratic Party, Five Star, and various small Left-wing factions. This is the formula that succeeded in Genoa. But the national viability of such an alliance is doubtful, especially given Schlein’s lack of compelling leadership and policy ideas. As Aldo Cazzullo, a journalist not aligned with the Right, wrote in Corriere della Sera, her party is “a little 5 percent party of the extreme Left” without concrete proposals. “If there were a general election now, the Right would win convincingly,” he concluded. For all the media buzz about symbolic city-level wins, Meloni remains firmly in command—much to the ongoing frustration of her critics. Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph 2025-05-31

Reclaiming the Middle Ground: A Smarter Path Forward for Democrats on Transgender Issues The 2024 campaign ad that declared, “Kamala is for they/them — President Trump is for you,” will likely be remembered as one of the most cutting and consequential political messages of our time. With $200 million fueling a narrative that cast Democrats as culturally disconnected, Republicans weaponized transgender issues to devastating effect. Despite this, the Democratic Party has yet to engage in any real recalibration of its approach to the topic. If Democrats are serious about winning again, this silence must end. The time has come for open discussion, genuine dissent, and thoughtful debate — without fear of cancellation. There is a path forward that allows Democrats to support transgender people while reconnecting with the broader American public. It starts with calling out the extremism on both sides. The far right uses transgender issues to sow fear and division, portraying trans individuals as threats to tradition and culture. Meanwhile, elements of the far left attempt to shame and silence anyone who diverges from progressive orthodoxy, particularly around language. While there is no moral equivalence — the cruelty from the right is far more harmful — both extremes are distorting what should be a serious and nuanced national conversation. Democrats need to reject this polarization and present themselves as advocates for reasoned and humane dialogue. To regain the trust of swing voters, Democrats must also engage with people where they are, not where activists might want them to be. While societal views on gender identity are evolving, political messaging must reflect today’s realities. Republicans succeeded in part because Democrats came across as disconnected from mainstream values. Polling data confirms that the public holds a mix of compassionate and pragmatic views: most Americans believe transgender people should be protected from discrimination in housing, employment, and health care, yet they also support limits on participation in sports based on biological sex. Polling from Blueprint revealed a sharp vulnerability: the idea that “Kamala Harris is focused more on cultural issues like transgender issues rather than helping the middle class” was among the top reasons voters cited for not supporting her. Ignoring such clear warning signs could cost Democrats future elections. Democrats must articulate clear, principled positions that align with the concerns of the majority. Most Americans recognize the existence of two biological sexes, while also acknowledging that gender identity is deeply personal and socially influenced. Politicians don’t need to dive into debates over chromosomes; instead, they should affirm that there are two sexes and that people can express gender in diverse ways, deserving of respect and recognition. Regarding minors, Democrats must insist on parental involvement in any medical decisions related to gender transition. No child should receive gender-affirming care — beyond mental health support — without explicit parental consent. This is already the legal and medical standard across the country, though Republicans often ignore that fact in favor of fear-mongering. On the issue of sports, Democrats can argue that decisions should be made by local school boards and athletic associations, not politicians, ensuring fairness without blanket bans. When it comes to adults, the Democratic approach should be one of personal liberty. Transgender adults deserve the freedom to live authentically, with full access to employment, health care, and civil rights. This stance is not only morally correct but is also politically popular. Americans support these freedoms, and a defense of basic liberties resonates far beyond partisan lines. Finally, Democrats must end the cultural gatekeeping that alienates potential allies. If someone’s intentions are kind, they should not be scolded for not using the most current terminology. Overemphasizing terms like “pregnant people” or requiring pronoun declarations from everyone creates unnecessary tension and fuels perceptions of elitism. The language of inclusion must invite, not intimidate. To reclaim the center, Democrats don’t have to abandon their principles — but they do need to express them in ways that reflect both compassion and common sense. Standing against cruelty while advocating fairness and freedom will allow them to support transgender Americans without losing the trust of the broader electorate. Adapted by ASEAN Now from Politico 2025-05-31

Starmer Signals Possible U-Turn on Two-Child Benefit Cap Amid Mounting Pressure In what appears to be his strongest indication yet of a shift in policy, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has said his government “will look at” scrapping the two-child benefit limit, a controversial policy that restricts child tax credit and universal credit to the first two children in a family born after April 2017. The policy, introduced by the Conservative government in 2017, has long been a target of criticism from anti-poverty campaigners and members of the Labour Party. However, in 2023, Starmer explicitly ruled out scrapping it, citing fiscal constraints. Since then, Labour’s position on the cap has wavered, creating confusion and discontent within the party and among voters concerned about rising child poverty. In a marked change of tone, Starmer responded to a question about the cap on Thursday by saying, “We’ll look at all options of driving down child poverty.” His comments come amid growing speculation that the policy may be on the verge of being reversed, especially after reports surfaced that he has asked the Treasury to assess the financial implications of removing the limit. Starmer’s remarks follow a series of conflicting signals from the government in recent months. Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson told Sky News earlier this week that lifting the cap was “not off the table” and added, “it’s certainly something that we’re considering.” This more open language represents a notable shift from the party’s previous hardline stance. After Labour’s election victory last year, Starmer reiterated the party’s intention to remove the cap, but only “when fiscal conditions allowed.” However, that cautious optimism soon gave way to a more rigid approach. He suspended seven Labour MPs shortly after the election for voting with the SNP to abolish the cap, reaffirming that the policy would remain in place for the time being. Starmer’s government appears increasingly under pressure to deliver on promises to address child poverty, especially from within its own ranks. The recent softening of the party’s stance may be an effort to realign Labour with its traditional social justice values, without jeopardizing its reputation for economic prudence. This would not be the first time in recent weeks that the Labour leader has shifted course on a key welfare policy. Just last week, Starmer made a surprise announcement reversing parts of the winter fuel payment cut, a controversial decision made early in his tenure that limited the previously universal benefit to pensioners on pension credit. In a reversal that caught many by surprise, Starmer said the payment would now be available to “more pensioners,” although the specifics of who would benefit — and when — remain unclear. Taken together, these recent moves suggest that Starmer’s administration is willing to revisit some of its earlier positions in light of growing political pressure and public concern. Whether the two-child cap is ultimately scrapped remains to be seen, but for now, Starmer’s latest remarks offer the clearest sign yet that change may be on the horizon. Adapted by ASEAN Now from Sky News 2025-05-31

Attorney General Sparks Fury with Nazi Germany Comparison in Human Rights Treaty Debate Lord Hermer, the Attorney General under Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour leadership, has provoked a storm of criticism after likening calls to abandon the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to legal rhetoric from Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Speaking at a security lecture hosted by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), Lord Hermer argued that suggestions to withdraw from international law echoed those made by German jurists who paved the way for the Nazi regime. In a speech aimed squarely at growing political momentum on the right to exit the ECHR, Lord Hermer accused politicians such as Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK, and Robert Jenrick, the Conservative shadow justice secretary, of embracing a dangerously nationalist mindset. Both have advocated leaving the ECHR, arguing it hinders Britain’s ability to deport illegal migrants and foreign criminals. Hermer countered that abandoning such treaties would threaten the UK's security and embolden adversaries like Vladimir Putin. “The claim that international law is fine as far as it goes, but can be put aside when the conditions change, is a claim that was made in the early 1930s by ‘realist’ jurists in Germany, most notably Carl Schmitt, whose central thesis was in essence the claim that state power is all that counts, not law,” Lord Hermer stated. Schmitt, an authoritarian legal theorist who later joined the Nazi party in 1933, provided a framework that helped justify totalitarian rule, Hermer warned. Hermer defended Labour’s position, which he termed “progressive realism,” emphasizing reform within the framework of international law rather than unilateral withdrawal. “This is a rejection of the siren song, that can sadly now be heard in the Palace of Westminster, not to mention the press, that Britain abandons the constraints of international law in favour of raw power,” he told the audience of senior defence and security officials. But the speech quickly drew sharp rebukes. Nigel Farage called the comparison “disgraceful,” arguing that advocating for sovereignty and control over national borders should not be equated with Nazism. “Hermer and Starmer are out of touch with the British public and these insults will only strengthen our case,” Farage said, noting that leaving the ECHR would be a central issue in the next general election. Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, also came under fire from Hermer for her “reckless and dangerous” willingness to consider pulling out of international treaties. A spokesman for Badenoch responded fiercely, saying, “It was ironic that he said he hoped to depolarise the debate and simultaneously called everyone he disagreed with Nazis.” The spokesman added that while Badenoch respects international law, she recognises its limits and prioritises national interest. Robert Jenrick, another key voice pushing for an ECHR exit, dismissed Hermer’s remarks as “a disgusting smear,” stating, “It is appalling that Hermer would insinuate that those who think we should leave the ECHR are like the Nazis. David Lammy tried that disgusting smear with Brexiteers and it didn’t work for him – it won’t work for Hermer either.” Despite the backlash, Hermer stood by his position, warning of the long-term consequences if the UK were to abandon its commitments to international law. “Their temptingly simple narratives not only misunderstand our history and the nature of international law, it is also reckless and dangerous, and will make us less prosperous and secure in a troubled world,” he cautioned. Hermer also warned of the strategic advantage it would hand to adversaries. “Putin does not simply apply a Schmitt-ian approach to the rule of law within the boundaries of Russia and its proxies, he recognises the huge strategic advantage that would flow in undermining the post 1945 international law framework,” he said. However, Hermer acknowledged the need to adapt human rights frameworks to modern realities like illegal migration. “States agreeing to treaties some time ago did not give an open-ended licence for international rules to be ever more expansively interpreted or for institutions to adopt a position of blindness or indifference to public sentiment,” he concluded. Starmer has remained firm that Labour will not support leaving the ECHR, even as tensions over immigration policy and sovereignty continue to mount across the political spectrum. Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph 2025-05-31

Gerry Adams Wins €100,000 Libel Case Against BBC Over Defamatory Allegation Gerry Adams, the former Sinn Féin leader, has been awarded €100,000 in damages after a jury in Dublin found that he was defamed by a 2016 BBC Northern Ireland Spotlight programme and an accompanying online article. The case, which centred around a serious allegation concerning the 2006 murder of British agent Denis Donaldson, concluded after a four-week trial at the High Court, where Adams firmly denied any involvement in the killing. Speaking after the verdict, Adams expressed gratitude to the court and acknowledged the Donaldson family. "I know many, many journalists. I like to think that I get on well with most of them and I wish you well and I would uphold your right to do your job," he said. However, he was critical of the BBC, saying, "The British Broadcasting Corporation upholds the ethos of the British state in Ireland and, in my view, it's out of sync in many, many fronts with the Good Friday Agreement. It hasn't caught on to where we are on this island as part of the process, the continuing process, of building peace and justice and harmony and hopefully, in the time ahead, unity." Adams’ solicitor, Paul Tweed, welcomed the ruling. "Our client is very pleased with this resounding verdict and award of damages which speaks for itself." He also criticized the BBC for allowing the “false allegation” to remain online for nearly a decade, arguing that it undermined the high standards of accuracy expected of the broadcaster. “It begs the question whether there has been any political or outside pressure on the BBC to take the stand they have taken,” he added. Adam Smyth, the director of BBC NI, expressed disappointment in the outcome. “We believe we supplied extensive evidence to the court of the careful editorial process and journalistic diligence applied to this programme and accompanying online article,” he said outside court. “We didn’t want to come to court, but it was important that we defend our journalism and we stand by that decision.” He acknowledged the financial burden of the case, saying, “Of course, a case of this importance, duration and complexity involves significant expense. In common with other media organisations, the BBC has insurance and makes financial provision for ongoing and anticipated legal claims.” Jennifer O’Leary, the Spotlight journalist who reported the story, also spoke following the verdict. “I said in the witness box that I had nothing to hide, only sources to protect, and I want to thank them for trusting me,” she said, also expressing gratitude to the BBC’s legal team and witnesses. Meanwhile, the Donaldson family expressed frustration at being sidelined during the proceedings. Jane Donaldson, daughter of Denis Donaldson, said in a statement, “The jury heard sensitive, privileged family information tossed around without our consent, but did not hear my testimony.” She also criticised Adams, stating, “By reducing events which damaged our lives to a debate about damage to his reputation, the plaintiff has trivialised our family tragedy. The plaintiff prioritised his own financial and reputational interests over any regard for retraumatising my family.” Denis Donaldson, once a prominent Sinn Féin figure, was revealed in 2005 to have been a long-term informer for both the police and MI5. He was murdered in 2006, and the Real IRA later claimed responsibility. His family has called for a public inquiry, stating they have been “stonewalled” throughout the libel case. This trial, conducted before a jury, was notably more complex and costly than if it had been heard by a judge alone. The Republic of Ireland is currently reviewing its defamation laws, including the potential removal of jury trials in such cases. In Northern Ireland, jury trials in libel actions have been discouraged since 2022. Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC | X 2025-05-31

@bannork a way off topic post on the carbon footprint of the Israel Hamas war has been removed.

Court Temporarily Backs Trump on Tariffs Amid Legal Storm Over Presidential Power President Donald Trump has won a temporary legal reprieve in his effort to maintain sweeping global tariffs, as a U.S. federal appeals court allowed the continuation of his import duties, despite a lower court’s ruling that they were unlawful. The decision came just one day after the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that Trump had exceeded his authority by imposing broad international tariffs. The appeals court’s decision temporarily suspends the lower court’s order and allows the tariffs to remain in effect while the broader legal battle plays out. Trump officials quickly condemned the initial ruling as an overreach by the judiciary. "America cannot function if President Trump, or any other president, for that matter, has their sensitive diplomatic or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges," said White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt in a press briefing on Thursday. The tariffs, which have caused global economic disruptions since their introduction earlier this year, were challenged by small businesses and several U.S. states. The Trump administration has defended them as crucial tools in its economic and foreign policy strategies. In court filings, the administration argued that the lower court ruling undermined presidential authority and jeopardized progress made in trade negotiations. “The political branches, not courts, make foreign policy and chart economic policy,” the filing stated, even threatening to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court. In February, President Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on imports from China, Mexico, and Canada, citing the fentanyl crisis as justification. He later expanded the measures to include a 10% tariff on goods from most nations, reserving higher tariffs for select trade partners like China and the European Union, which the administration labeled “bad actors.” Critics argue that Trump stretched the IEEPA far beyond its intended use, which traditionally covers sanctions against nations like Iran, not general trade and tax policy—areas typically reserved for Congress. “It’s not normal for the president of the United States to make such an enormous power grab and start the biggest trade war since the Great Depression,” said Ilya Somin, a lawyer who assisted in the case against the administration. He remains “guardedly optimistic” that the court’s ruling will ultimately be upheld, noting that the decision was issued by judges from across the political spectrum, including a Trump appointee. However, trade adviser Peter Navarro signaled the administration's willingness to continue its tariff push regardless of the legal outcome. “You can assume that even if we lose, we will do it another way,” he said, stressing that the trade court’s ruling only addressed the emergency law Trump used and not the idea of tariffs themselves. Other duties on steel, aluminium, and automobiles—imposed under different laws—remain unaffected. While the next hearing in the case is set for June 5, many in the business community remain wary. Kara Dyer, who runs Boston-based Story Time Toys and imports products from China, expressed mixed feelings about the appeals court’s decision. “I was incredibly happy and relieved but I'm also still very cautious,” she said. “It’s just been so chaotic and so impossible to plan as a business. I want this to work its way through our court system so we have a little bit more certainty about what tariffs will be in the future.” Observers say the legal tug-of-war has broader implications for presidential power. “It will be a lot harder for him to raise tariffs in the future,” said Dmitry Grozoubinski, a former trade negotiator at the World Trade Organization. “This was ultimately a negotiation in which President Trump was threatening other countries with a big stick and that stick just got considerably more ephemeral.” While the temporary stay allows the Trump administration to keep the tariffs in place for now, the final outcome could reshape the future balance between executive authority and the role of Congress and courts in trade policy. Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-05-30

Trump Taps Former Defense Lawyer Emil Bove for Federal Appeals Court President Donald Trump has nominated his onetime personal defense attorney, Emil Bove, to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The announcement, made Wednesday, marks another move by Trump to place loyal allies in key judicial positions as he continues to assert influence over the federal judiciary. “Emil is SMART, TOUGH, and respected by everyone,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. The president praised Bove's commitment to conservative ideals, stating, “He will end the Weaponization of Justice, restore the Rule of Law, and do anything else that is necessary to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.” Trump concluded his message with a strong endorsement, adding, “Emil Bove will never let you down!” Bove, a seasoned attorney with a strong prosecutorial background, previously held a top role in the Department of Justice during Trump’s second term, where he served as the department’s third-ranking official. His tenure at the DOJ was marked by several controversial episodes, including a push to dismiss charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. That effort reflected broader tensions within the department between Trump-aligned officials and long-serving career prosecutors. Before his tenure at the Justice Department, Bove gained national attention as part of Trump’s legal team. He represented the former president in some of his most politically and legally sensitive cases, including the investigation into Trump's handling of classified documents after leaving office. Bove also played a central role in defending Trump during proceedings related to the former president's attempts to overturn the 2020 election — a case brought forward by special counsel Jack Smith. Trump's decision to nominate Bove appears to align with his broader strategy of reshaping the judiciary with loyalists who embrace his vision of executive power and judicial conservatism. If confirmed, Bove would join one of the nation’s most influential federal appellate courts, which hears cases that often set precedents on constitutional issues, civil rights, and federal policy. Bove’s nomination is expected to draw sharp scrutiny and possible resistance in the Senate, especially from Democrats who have expressed concern over Trump’s judicial appointments in the past. Critics are likely to focus on Bove’s involvement in efforts to roll back legal actions against prominent Democrats and his deep personal ties to Trump. Still, Trump remains steadfast in his support. In nominating Bove, he signaled once again his intent to surround himself with figures who have demonstrated unwavering loyalty and who are willing to carry forward his agenda from the bench. The nomination sets the stage for a potentially contentious confirmation process, as Bove’s legal past and partisan associations come under public examination. But for Trump and his supporters, Bove represents more than a judicial nominee — he is a trusted ally poised to influence the legal landscape in a way that aligns with the former president’s ambitions. Adapted by ASEAN Now from Axios 2025-05-30

Heathrow CEO Slept Through Major Power Outage as Phone Was on Silent Thomas Woldbye, chief executive of Heathrow Airport, remained asleep for the first seven hours of a major power outage that paralyzed Europe’s busiest airport because his mobile phone had switched to silent mode without his knowledge. According to an internal review led by former transport secretary Ruth Kelly, fellow Heathrow executives were unable to reach Woldbye after a fire at a substation caused a massive blackout on March 21, grounding thousands of flights and stranding an estimated 200,000 passengers. The incident began at around 11:55pm, but Woldbye, who earned £3.2 million last year, was unaware of the unfolding crisis until approximately 6:45am the following morning. During this critical period, Heathrow’s Chief Operating Officer, Javier Echave, repeatedly attempted to reach Woldbye and ultimately assumed leadership of the emergency response. Echave chaired crisis meetings and made the decision to close the airport for the remainder of the day. The report clarifies earlier claims that Woldbye had knowingly gone to bed after learning about the outage. Instead, Kelly stated that the CEO was unaware of the incident and “expressed to us his deep regret at not being contactable during the night of the incident.” The review has since recommended that Heathrow adopt a dual notification system to ensure key individuals can be reached during significant emergencies. The airport has already taken steps to ensure that its chief executive can be contacted through alternative means in the future. The blackout stemmed from a fire at the North Hyde substation in Hayes, West London, which destroyed both the primary and backup systems. It was later revealed that the fire originated in a 57-year-old transformer and spread to an adjacent unit. A third, newer transformer then overloaded and cut out, severing one of the three main grid lines powering Heathrow. The National Energy System Operator called the event an “unprecedented” failure. Critics from within the aviation industry questioned how such a catastrophic failure could result from the loss of a single substation. Shai Weiss, CEO of Virgin Atlantic, voiced strong disapproval of Woldbye’s absence during the initial response, saying, “I know what I would have done. I would have rushed to the airport at that moment. All CEOs are geared for that. You lead from the front and then you delegate back. I believe if Thomas had the opportunity again he would act differently, but that’s a question for him.” Kelly’s review acknowledged that Heathrow staff responded effectively given the circumstances, managing to restore power later that day by reconfiguring the airport’s internal network. However, it also highlighted a significant vulnerability: while the loss of one grid line was deemed unlikely, staff had been reassured about the substation’s redundancy. Yet, it was known that such a failure would lead to at least an eight-hour shutdown. “This is a result of the way the infrastructure at the airport has been developed over 75 years,” the review noted, pointing out that immediate fixes are unlikely due to limited overnight maintenance windows and spatial constraints. Heathrow has explored various upgrades in the past, including a ring configuration for its high voltage network and a direct connection to the national transmission grid. However, these projects were tied to long-delayed expansion plans, and National Grid has indicated that a direct line may not be possible before 2037. Heathrow chairman Lord Deighton thanked the review committee for their work, stating, “This was an unprecedented set of circumstances, but the learnings identified in the Kelly Review will make Heathrow more fit for the future.” Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph 2025-05-30

Fury Grows as Chancellor Reeves Plans Cuts to Nature-Friendly Farming Scheme Chancellor Rachel Reeves is facing fresh backlash from rural communities and farming advocates after reports emerged suggesting she plans to significantly scale back a flagship environmental funding programme for farmers. The environmental land management (ELM) scheme, introduced after Brexit to replace the EU’s common agricultural policy, is now reportedly set for major cuts in the upcoming departmental budget announcement. Currently, the ELM scheme provides crucial support to all farms across the UK, with £5 billion earmarked to be distributed between last year and 2026. The initiative is designed to reward farmers, landowners, and foresters for promoting sustainability, restoring ecosystems, and contributing to environmental improvements through projects that benefit the public and nature alike. However, according to The Guardian, this vital lifeline may soon be restricted only to “small farms,” in a shift that critics argue would undermine its core purpose. While both the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Treasury declined to comment, a government insider confirmed the report’s accuracy. This development follows previous tensions between the Government and the agricultural sector, particularly after Reeves’ controversial inheritance tax policy that was seen as detrimental to family farms. The proposed cutbacks come amid broader pressures on the public purse, as ministers across departments face a tightening fiscal environment. With unprotected departments bracing for real-term budget cuts toward the end of the decade, Reeves is expected to reveal full departmental spending plans on June 11. Victoria Atkins, Conservative shadow environment secretary, was scathing in her response. “Once again, the Chancellor is going to use her spending review to escalate her war on farmers. This is just another example of Labour’s chaotic approach to our countryside,” she said. “Labour’s lack of understanding about our rural communities is putting our nation’s food security at risk. They need to come clean about their definition of a ‘small farm’ so they do not catch more farmers by surprise with their shambolic mismanagement. It is a betrayal as they are upending the principled approach of rewarding farmers for looking after the land whilst growing food, which is a clear Brexit benefit – or should be.” Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrats’ environment spokesperson, echoed those concerns, warning of devastating consequences for the countryside. “The Government is treating rural communities with gobsmacking contempt. If this comes to pass, ministers would be putting yet another nail in the coffin of farming in this country. Many farmers are barely making ends meet, working for half the minimum wage – yet they still tirelessly maintain our countryside, and it is their stewardship that allows us all to enjoy its beauty. With these cuts, those same farmers will simply not be able to protect nature in this way any more,” he said. “The Government’s utter failure to understand rural communities risks decimating them. At the spending review, we cannot see farmers come under siege once more, and these cuts cannot come to pass.” The ELM programme is widely regarded as a landmark attempt to align agricultural policy with environmental sustainability, promoting what is known as “public money for public good.” Payments are granted to those who manage land in a way that supports nature recovery, improves the ecosystem, and makes lasting, positive changes to land use. Should larger farms be excluded from these payments, critics argue, the integrity and effectiveness of the programme could be fatally undermined. Tom Bradshaw, president of the National Farmers’ Union, expressed grave concern. “If this story proves to be correct, it will be another blow not just for farmers and growers but also for the viability of nature-friendly farming and for the environment,” he said. “If this is a move away from the principle of public money for public environmental goods, towards a more socially focused policy, it is misjudged, because farms of all sizes have a critical role in helping deliver for food, nature and climate.” With the full details of the spending review still under wraps, government officials have so far refrained from publicly addressing the reported changes. But as tension rises in rural Britain, the Chancellor’s next move could define her standing with one of the UK’s most vital, and vocal, communities. Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph 2025-05-30