Social Media

@JakeC & @Summerinsiam please stop the diversion attempts. Please also quote posts when responding. The topic is: Gary Lineker Under Fire Over Controversial ‘Nazi propaganda’ Post Featuring Rat Emoji

Blinken Urges Europe to Prove Its Strength as Trump Eyes Return to Power Antony Blinken, President Biden’s secretary of state, has delivered a direct message to Europe, warning that Donald Trump sees the continent as weak and fragmented. Speaking to Times Radio, Blinken described how the former president's worldview is shaped by admiration for authoritarian figures and disdain for what he perceives as disunity in Europe. In his view, the only way for Europe to be taken seriously by a potential second Trump administration is by showing greater resolve and unity. “My sense is that as President Trump looks at the world, there are a couple of things he looks at. He looks to, from his perspective, strong leaders or strong countries,” Blinken said. “And the leaders that he sees as strong leaders are Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, maybe Modi in India, Erdogan in Turkey, MBS [Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman] in Saudi Arabia. Honestly, when he looks at Europe, I think he sees a continent that’s not strong, that from his perspective, that’s not united, that’s a weaker actor. And so I think part of the challenge for Europe to be taken seriously by the president is to show greater cohesiveness, greater unity, greater common purpose, because then Europe has to be taken in a more serious manner.” Blinken’s remarks come amid ongoing friction between Washington and its European allies, aggravated by trade disputes and U.S. demands for increased defence spending. He acknowledged that trust between Europe and the U.S. has been strained, especially when it comes to intelligence sharing. “I think that’s got to be a concern,” he said. “And again, this is something that I hear … I think as you have conversations with friends around the world, they at least ask this question. They raise this question and certainly it’s part of the conversation.” On Ukraine, Blinken criticised Trump for failing to follow through on his campaign promise to resolve the war swiftly. During his campaign, Trump claimed he would end the conflict within 24 hours of taking office. That claim, Blinken said, has not held up under scrutiny. “Remember, before President Trump took office, during the campaign, he said he would solve Ukraine in a matter of 24 hours, and now here we are, whatever it is, 120 days later — that hasn’t happened,” he remarked. While Blinken stopped short of saying Trump favored Russia in the ongoing war, he questioned the balance of Trump’s approach. “From the president’s perspective, my understanding is, as I read it, [Trump] wants to see an end to this,” he said. “The question is, how do you get to an end? I think he’s put too much pressure on Ukraine, not enough pressure on Putin and on Russia. That’s the distinction.” Turning to Gaza, another major foreign policy challenge during his tenure, Blinken expressed frustration over the Biden administration’s limited progress in resolving the crisis. He also emphasized the need to hold Hamas accountable. “What’s equally disturbing throughout this horrific, horrific period that we’ve lived since October 7, is I’d also like to see more pressure, more focus on Hamas and on what it’s done to put people in this terrible, terrible predicament,” he said. “I really understand and feel strongly the passions of people who are more than upset with the situation of Palestinians in Gaza and Israel’s policies. It would also be, I think, beneficial if they spent maybe 10 per cent of their time putting that same pressure on Hamas.” Blinken’s candid assessments reflect the rising uncertainty over America’s foreign policy direction should Trump return to the White House. His message to European leaders was clear: unite, strengthen your stance, and be prepared to confront a U.S. administration that may once again challenge transatlantic alliances. Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Times 2025-05-15

First judge approves Trump invoking Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans In a significant yet partial victory for President Donald Trump, a federal judge has upheld his use of the centuries-old Alien Enemies Act to deport certain Venezuelan nationals. U.S. District Judge Stephanie Haines, appointed by Trump and serving in Pennsylvania, ruled in favor of the former president’s March 14 proclamation, which classified the Venezuelan criminal gang Tren de Aragua as a foreign threat attempting an “incursion” into the United States. This is the first time a federal judge has endorsed Trump’s use of the 1798 statute as a tool for immigration enforcement. The Alien Enemies Act, originally intended for use during wartime against citizens of enemy nations, was reinterpreted by Haines to apply to modern security threats. While the law was conceived to counter military invasions, Judge Haines stated that today’s evolving threats, such as violent transnational gangs, can fall within its scope. She likened the activities of Tren de Aragua to the pirate raids and foreign detachments that spurred the law’s creation more than two centuries ago. “Old statutes can be applied to modern developments in the world,” Haines said, adding that the gang’s violent activities and illegal border crossings were in line with the kind of hostilities the law was meant to counter. Her comparison drew a direct line between 18th-century threats and present-day non-state actors capable of destabilizing national security. Despite this legal boost for Trump’s broader immigration strategy, the ruling did not grant his administration unchecked power. Judge Haines delivered a sharp rebuke of the administration’s attempt to expedite deportations with minimal legal oversight. The Department of Homeland Security had argued that providing just 12 to 24 hours of notice before deportation was sufficient. Haines disagreed, mandating that individuals be granted at least 21 days to challenge their deportation in court. “The administration had fallen woefully short of its obligation to allow those targeted by the Alien Enemies Act to raise legal challenges,” she stated, underlining that due process must still apply, even in national security-related immigration matters. The ruling comes in contrast to decisions from other federal courts. Judges in New York, Texas, and Colorado have rejected Trump’s interpretation of the Alien Enemies Act, arguing that criminal gangs, even violent ones, do not meet the standard of a government-backed invasion or hostilities required by the statute. In a parallel decision issued almost simultaneously with Haines' ruling, another Texas judge blocked deportations under the Alien Enemies Act unless individuals received at least 30 days’ notice — further complicating any immediate implementation of Trump’s mass deportation plans. Nevertheless, Haines’ decision could open a new legal pathway for immigration enforcement based on national security rationales. It marks an unusual, though limited, validation of Trump’s aggressive tactics in a legal landscape that has mostly resisted his sweeping deportation measures. As the debate over the scope of presidential authority in immigration enforcement continues, this ruling both empowers and restrains. While it grants Trump a legal endorsement for invoking a rarely used wartime statute, it simultaneously reaffirms that even in matters of national security, constitutional protections cannot be cast aside. Adapted by ASEAN Now from Politico 2025-05-15

Qatar Airways is poised to announce a major aircraft purchase from Boeing as former President Donald Trump arrives in Doha for a state visit on Wednesday. A source familiar with the matter confirmed to NewsNation that the Qatari carrier is finalizing an agreement to acquire 150 Boeing aircraft, in what would mark a significant investment in U.S. manufacturing and a highlight of Trump’s visit to the Gulf region. Trump, who is visiting the Middle East this week, will travel from Saudi Arabia to Qatar on Wednesday afternoon local time. The trip includes high-level meetings and a state dinner in Doha, where the Boeing deal is expected to be unveiled. The aircraft order is expected to include wide-body jets, with an option for additional purchases, as initially reported by Bloomberg. The timing of the announcement appears to align with Trump’s broader goal of encouraging American allies to invest heavily in U.S. industry and manufacturing. Though the deal has not been officially confirmed, neither Qatar Airways nor Boeing offered any comment on the pending announcement. A Boeing spokesperson declined to confirm the deal when asked by NewsNation, and Qatar Airways did not respond to inquiries. A White House official similarly declined to comment on whether the announcement would be made during the visit, saying only that they wouldn’t “get ahead of any announcements from the president.” The Qatar agreement follows Trump’s earlier success in securing $600 billion in investment commitments from Saudi Arabia during the first leg of his Middle East tour. That package included a significant $142 billion defense and security deal involving dozens of U.S. companies supplying cutting-edge military equipment to Saudi Arabia. Additionally, Saudi firm DataVolt announced it would move forward with plans to invest $20 billion in artificial intelligence data centers and energy infrastructure in the U.S. The close timing of the Boeing deal and Trump’s visit has raised questions about possible connections between diplomacy and commercial agreements. When asked whether the Boeing-Qatar deal and a recent “gift of the jet” were related, White House Deputy Press Secretary Harrison Fields dismissed any suggestion of a link. “Well, there’s nothing to do with that, and the President is a deal maker, and he wants to make sure that he’s prioritizing economic prosperity and partnerships, not just in the United States, but with our allies across the globe,” Fields told The Hill during an interview with NewsNation’s Blake Burman. Fields emphasized that the Trump administration’s strategy is rooted in forging strong global economic ties and expanding U.S. economic influence. “This is why we’ve seen over $8 trillion of investments pouring into the United States since the President took office, and this is why you’re also seeing massive partnerships with the Middle East and American companies, because the President is a deal maker,” he added. As Trump continues to tout his ability to secure major international investments, the anticipated Qatar Airways–Boeing agreement stands to be another example of economic diplomacy in action, reinforcing both commercial and political ties between the U.S. and key Gulf allies. Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Hill 2025-05-15

A new book chronicling President Joe Biden’s final years in office claims his physical and cognitive health had deteriorated so significantly that White House aides quietly considered placing him in a wheelchair and actively worked to conceal his decline from both the public and much of his staff. Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again, authored by CNN journalists Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson, is based on more than 200 interviews, mostly with Democratic Party insiders, and is set to be released on May 20. The book details how senior officials within the administration engaged in intense discussions about Biden’s worsening physical condition, especially in the wake of a high-profile fall over a sandbag at the Air Force Academy in June 2023. Concerned by his unsteady gait and increasing frailty, aides debated whether the president might require a wheelchair, particularly if he suffered another fall. However, they ultimately rejected that option during his re-election campaign, recognizing the potential political fallout. “Given Biden’s age,” the authors write, referencing the president who left office at 82, his physician Kevin O’Connor “also privately said that if he had another bad fall, a wheelchair might be necessary for what could be a difficult recovery.” The book also uncovers how staff implemented a series of preventative measures to avoid another public stumble. Biden began wearing sneakers more frequently, was offered handrails at public appearances, and routes were shortened to minimize the physical exertion involved in walking. Visual briefings were reportedly prepared in advance of each event so he would be aware of every step he needed to take. “We attempted to shield him from his own staff so many people didn’t realise the extent of the decline beginning in 2023,” one senior aide admitted. Biden didn't recognize George Clooney at fundraiser: New book Beyond the physical precautions, the book outlines growing tensions among Democratic leaders as Biden continued with his 2024 re-election campaign. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer personally confronted Biden at his Delaware home after the widely criticized July 2024 debate performance. According to the book, Schumer warned that if Biden lost to Donald Trump, “50 years of amazing, beautiful work goes out the window. But it’s worse than that — you will go down in American history as one of the darkest figures.” As Schumer turned to leave, Biden placed his hands on his shoulders and said, “You have bigger balls than anyone I’ve ever met.” Privately, Biden’s physician Kevin O’Connor is said to have voiced concern over the toll the presidency was taking on his patient’s health. O’Connor clashed with White House staff over the president’s workload, advocating for more rest and reportedly joking that while Biden’s aides were trying to kill him, he was trying to keep him alive. The decision to remain in the race until late in the campaign cycle infuriated many within the Democratic Party, particularly those working to position Vice President Kamala Harris as a viable successor. David Plouffe, who managed Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign and joined Harris’s team for the final stretch, told the authors that Biden “totally fed us.” He described the 107-day sprint against Trump as “a fing nightmare,” placing the blame squarely on the president’s refusal to step aside earlier. “It was an abomination. He stole an election from the Democratic Party; he stole it from the American people,” a senior Democratic strategist added. The book also takes aim at the media and the president’s inner circle, suggesting that concerns about Biden’s increasingly visible stumbles, verbal missteps, and signs of confusion were routinely dismissed or downplayed. In the final analysis, Original Sin portrays a presidency in steep decline, surrounded by a network of loyal aides and family members working desperately to maintain a fragile image — even as alarm bells sounded behind closed doors. Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Times 2025-05-15

Labour Rift Deepens Over Starmer’s Immigration Comments Sir Keir Starmer is facing a growing backlash from within his own party following his controversial comments on immigration, with senior Labour figures distancing themselves from the language he used and drawing uncomfortable parallels with one of the most infamous speeches in British political history. The Labour leader sparked unease after warning that mass migration risked turning the UK into an “island of strangers.” The phrase has triggered strong criticism, including accusations that it echoed Enoch Powell’s notorious “rivers of blood” speech from 1968. "Somebody here has to call this out" PM Sir Keir Starmer defends his migration speech and the "island of strangers" comment, saying the UK migration policy will prioritise "control, selection and fairness" The backlash includes key Labour politicians such as London mayor Sadiq Khan and Welsh First Minister Eluned Morgan, both of whom made clear they would not endorse Starmer’s choice of words. When questioned directly about the phrase, Khan told LBC: “The sort of language I use is different to the language used by others. That’s not the sort of words I would use.” In Wales, Morgan also rebuffed Starmer’s rhetoric during a session in the Senedd. “That’s not the value we have in Welsh Labour,” she said, in response to the prime minister’s proposals to dramatically reduce immigration levels, especially in the care sector. She added: “We are committed to ensuring that we do our best to provide a care service in Wales. That will be more difficult if it is not possible to hire people from abroad.” Her remarks, though restrained, served as a clear critique of the prime minister’s approach, particularly his use of what she termed “divisive language when it comes to immigration.” Labour MP Olivia Blake was more direct in her condemnation, saying the prime minister’s use of the word “strangers” had dangerous connotations and risked fuelling division. Speaking to Times Radio, she said: “I think the use of ‘strangers’ was very problematic, this language of ‘strangers’ has been used by the far right for generations to make divisions within our communities. But it couldn’t be further from the truth.” Starmer’s remarks came during a speech at Downing Street on Monday, ahead of the government’s release of a white paper outlining sweeping changes to the immigration system. While some interpreted his speech as an effort to strike a tough tone on migration, critics swiftly pointed out its resemblance to Powell’s warning that immigration would leave Britons as “strangers in their own country.” The prime minister’s office has firmly rejected any comparison between Starmer and Powell. “The prime minister rejects those comparisons and absolutely stands behind the argument he was making that migrants make a massive contribution to our country, but migration needs to be controlled,” a spokesperson said. However, the pushback hasn’t ended there. Sir Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats, also criticised Starmer for echoing Powell’s rhetoric. “Starmer is echoing Enoch Powell on immigration,” Davey said, underlining the discomfort across the political spectrum over the tone of the prime minister’s remarks. Despite mounting criticism from within Labour and beyond, Starmer’s team has not retracted or softened the language, insisting the message was about balance and control, not exclusion. Still, the controversy reveals deeper tensions in Labour’s approach to immigration—and how far the leadership is willing to go in appealing to voters on an issue long fraught with political peril. Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Times 2025-05-15

Gary Lineker has come under intense scrutiny following an Instagram post that included what critics have described as anti-Semitic imagery. The BBC presenter, who is set to step down from hosting Match of the Day at the end of the Premier League season, shared a video from the pro-Palestinian group Palestine Lobby which featured a rat emoji—a symbol that has historically been used as Nazi propaganda to dehumanise Jews. The video, which featured Canadian-Palestinian lawyer Diana Buttu criticising Israel's war in Gaza, was reportedly live on Lineker’s Instagram Story for around seven hours before being deleted. The image of the rat, a detail Lineker claims he overlooked, drew swift condemnation from Jewish organisations and political figures. A spokesman for Lineker told Telegraph Sport: “Whilst viewing and reposting a video, Gary did not notice a rodent emoticon added by the author of the post. Although if he had, he would not have made any connection. The repost has been removed.” The charity Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) was quick to respond, writing on X: “Nothing to see here. Just Gary Lineker’s Instagram account sharing an anti-Israel video misrepresenting Zionism, complete with a rat emoji.” The CAA later added: “Not only does this video deliberately misrepresent Zionism – the belief that Jews have the same right to self-determination as everyone else – but it adds a rat emoji in doing so. Why is it that Gary Lineker keeps sharing content on social media that seems to cater to Jew-haters?” Lineker’s decision to share the post, even temporarily, has reignited longstanding tensions over his political commentary and use of social media. The BBC has been urged to act swiftly and decisively. A spokesperson for the Board of Deputies of British Jews stated: “The BBC has allowed the situation with Gary Lineker to continue for far too long. He has caused great offence with this video – particularly with [its] egregious use of a rat emoji to illustrate Zionists. BBC should ask him to leave now rather than allowing him to dictate his own terms.” Danny Cohen, the former director of BBC television, echoed those concerns: “Gary Lineker appears to have shared content about the Jewish state which echoes Nazi propaganda. This is utterly grim. The BBC’s director general Tim Davie has a simple question to answer: does he tolerate the BBC’s flagship presenters sharing content that has historically been used as an anti-Semitic slur?” Lineker, who earned £1.35 million from the BBC last year, remains a prominent figure in British broadcasting, but one who increasingly polarises public opinion. Former Labour MP Lord Austin said: “For too long Gary Lineker has been flagrantly abusing his position as the best-paid presenter at the BBC to promote his deeply biased views. Now he has gone too far, sharing material that, whether he knows it or not, is redolent of the vilest anti-Jewish racism. He cannot be allowed to stay in position, let alone be the face of World Cup coverage. The BBC must act now.” Barrister Simon Myerson KC, who chairs the Leeds Jewish Representative Council, questioned whether Lineker would “have the guts to explain this to Emily Damari,” one of the hostages taken by Hamas during the October 7, 2023 attacks in Israel. The imagery of rats has long been used to dehumanise groups throughout history, most infamously in Nazi Germany’s anti-Semitic propaganda. Though Lineker’s spokesperson insisted the presenter did not recognise the symbol’s meaning when he reposted the video, critics argue that such ignorance does not excuse the harm caused. The debate now centres on whether Lineker’s actions, inadvertent or not, are compatible with his continued role at the BBC. Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph 2025-05-15

From Caravan Parks to a Billionaire’s Empire: The Rise of the UK’s 'Asylum King' Graham King, an Essex-born businessman once known for selling mobile homes, has become one of the UK’s newest billionaires as demand for asylum accommodation surges. The 58-year-old founder of Clearsprings Ready Homes, a company contracted by the British government to house, feed, and transport asylum seekers, has seen his wealth jump by 35 per cent in just a year. King now ranks 154th on the 2025 Sunday Times Rich List with a fortune estimated at £1.015 billion—up from £750 million when he first appeared on the list last year. The growth in King’s wealth mirrors the dramatic rise in immigration and asylum claims in the UK. Over 108,000 people applied for asylum in 2024, a record number, up from nearly 92,000 the previous year. The backlog in processing these claims has left around 38,000 asylum seekers in 222 hotels, while an additional 66,000 are being accommodated elsewhere. According to the National Audit Office, the overall cost of providing asylum housing has risen sharply, with the value of ten-year contracts ballooning from £4.5 billion to £15.3 billion. Clearsprings, founded in 1999 and operating out of a modest office in Rayleigh, Essex, has become a central player in this evolving industry. The company’s latest contract with the Home Office—providing services in southern England and Wales—is now estimated to be worth £7.3 billion, a significant leap from its initial valuation of £1 billion. In the year ending January 2024, Clearsprings reported a 60 per cent rise in profits, hitting £119.4 million. King owns more than 99 per cent of Clearsprings, a stake that now places him among Britain’s wealthiest individuals. His journey began in Canvey Island, where he grew up helping run the family’s caravan park, Kings Park, which his father Jack purchased in the 1960s and eventually sold for £32 million in 2007. The family dabbled in multiple businesses including a taxi firm, car dealership, and even nightclubs that once featured artists like Shirley Bassey and Tommy Cooper. The pivot to asylum housing came in the late 1990s when a hotelier’s success with government asylum contracts caught King’s attention. John Pring, a local estate agent, was asked to draft a business proposal for what became Clearsprings. “Jack came to me and said, ‘The government is asking people to tender for this type of work. Graham thinks there’s an opportunity’,” Pring recalled. “The idea was to buy property, rent it to the government and manage it for them.” Despite his fortune, King’s company has faced serious criticism. In 2021, two Clearsprings-run sites—Napier Barracks in Kent and Penally Camp in Pembrokeshire—were described by inspectors as “filthy,” “decrepit,” and “run down.” In 2023, more than 70 people, including children, slept on the street to protest overcrowded conditions in Clearsprings-managed hotels in London. The Home Office recently severed ties between Clearsprings and a subcontractor, Stay Belvedere Hotels Ltd, over “poor performance and behaviour.” Financial scrutiny has also intensified. A Home Office audit revealed that the department could not fully justify £58 million in charges from Clearsprings, which exceeded original agreements. Inspectors recommended stronger invoicing controls to prevent overpayments. King, now reportedly residing in Mayfair and Monaco, enjoys a luxurious lifestyle. He participates in Porsche Sprint Challenge races across Europe and was recently profiled enjoying his time with his Latvian girlfriend, Lolita Lace. Previously married to Austrian-born Carin, with whom he has two children, King left the family’s 60-acre farmhouse in Chappel years ago. His brother Jeff lives in Monaco, while sister Linda remains in Canvey Island. King isn’t alone in capitalizing on asylum housing. Alex Langsam, 86, the owner of Britannia Hotels and Pontins, also appears on the Rich List with a net worth of £401 million. Many of Langsam’s hotels are currently used to house asylum seekers. Clearsprings declined to comment on the latest developments. Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Times 2025-05-15

Defence Secretary Stands by Military Leaders Amid Afghan War Crimes Allegations Defence Secretary John Healey has expressed unwavering support for two of Britain’s most senior military officers after they were named in a BBC Panorama investigation alleging war crimes by UK special forces in Afghanistan. Despite the serious nature of the allegations, Healey said he had “absolute” confidence in the integrity and leadership of General Sir Roly Walker, head of the army, and General Sir Gwyn Jenkins, who is slated to become the next head of the Royal Navy. The BBC’s investigation broadcast on Monday night alleged that members of Britain’s elite special forces were involved in the unlawful killing of innocent Afghans over a period spanning more than ten years. Both Walker and Jenkins were referenced in the documentary, with claims implicating them in various aspects of how these allegations were handled. Specifically, the programme accused Jenkins of overseeing the dismissal of hundreds of UK resettlement applications submitted by Afghan commandos who had served alongside British forces, particularly the Special Air Service (SAS). Some of those commandos are thought to be potential witnesses in an inquiry into alleged extrajudicial killings, having been present at key moments on the ground. Jenkins, a former vice-chief of the defence staff and one-time director of special forces, was reportedly sent transcripts of conversations in 2011 in which members of the special forces discussed unlawful killings. While he did inform his superior of the contents, the evidence was not passed on to military police. Instead, according to the BBC, it was stored in a classified dossier locked in a safe. When asked directly whether he retained confidence in Walker and Jenkins despite the investigation, Healey responded, “Yes, absolutely.” He continued, “I’ve worked very closely with both,” describing Jenkins as his strategic advisor in recent months, particularly on significant export deals. “I’ve worked very closely with Roly Walker as the new chief of the general staff as well,” he added, reinforcing his view that both men remain fit for leadership. Jenkins was anticipated to be named the new first sea lord last week, but the announcement was unexpectedly delayed. Instead, attention turned to Admiral Sir Ben Key, the current first sea lord, who is reportedly under investigation following allegations of an affair with a junior officer. Despite the delay in Jenkins’ formal appointment, sources within the Ministry of Defence have maintained confidence in him. “One of the good guys in this,” said one defence source, suggesting that Jenkins would ultimately be cleared of wrongdoing. This sentiment, the source added, is echoed by many others within the ministry. The BBC’s investigation has reignited public scrutiny over the conduct of British forces during the war in Afghanistan and raised questions about how internal reports of misconduct were handled. Yet the firm backing from the defence secretary signals that, for now, the government is standing behind its top military figures amid the controversy. Related Topic: Breaking the Silence: Former UK Special Forces Reveal Allegations of War Crimes Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Times 2025-05-15

Please remember what the topic is here. It is not about posting links to any world wide minister or politican to what they have to say about Israel or Hamas. It is about updates on the war. A further post with no supporting link has been removed @bannork Israel Hamas War the Widening Middle East Conflict

Trump Secures $142 Billion Arms Deal with Saudi Arabia and Lifts Sanctions on Syria in High-Stakes Gulf Visit During his first major foreign trip of his second term, US President Donald Trump made a striking entrance into the Gulf region, securing a $142 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia and announcing the lifting of long-standing US sanctions on Syria. The visit, centered on economic diplomacy and regional alliances, underscored Trump's emphasis on transactional foreign policy and deepened ties with powerful Gulf states. Iran CAN have a much brighter future — but we will NEVER allow them to threaten America and our allies with terrorism or a nuclear attack. The Saudi crown prince suggested that the new deals, which also included infrastructure and technology investments, could eventually total as much as $1 trillion. Trump, joined by prominent business leaders including billionaire Elon Musk at a formal investment luncheon, promoted the US as an attractive destination for foreign capital. The UAE has already pledged to invest $1.4 trillion into the American economy over the next decade. In a move that surprised some observers, Trump also announced the lifting of US sanctions on Syria, citing the emergence of a new transitional government following the ouster of longtime dictator Bashar al-Assad. “Oh, what I do for the crown prince,” Trump quipped, implying the decision had been influenced by Mohammed bin Salman. The easing of sanctions, which had been in place for more than a decade, signals a potential pivot in US policy toward renewed diplomatic engagement with Syria. Trump is scheduled to meet with Syria’s new President, Ahmed al-Sharaa, in Riyadh on Wednesday. Trump briefly addressed the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, referencing the October 7, 2023, attack on Israel and condemning Hamas for holding back the hopes of the people in Gaza. “People in Gaza deserve a better future,” he said, blaming the militant group for violence and instability. However, Trump’s remarks made it clear that despite his personal hopes, Saudi Arabia’s potential inclusion in the Abraham Accords remains contingent on significant progress toward ending the Gaza war and establishing a path to Palestinian statehood. Though the trip was dominated by ceremony and financial negotiations, the implications of Trump’s actions are far-reaching. His focus on arms sales, foreign investment, and diplomatic resets reflect a clear strategy: prioritize economic strength and transactional alliances over traditional diplomacy. As Trump moves on to Qatar and the UAE, the global community will be watching to see whether his bold maneuvers can deliver lasting results—or deepen divisions in an already volatile region. Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC | X 2025-05-14

Please continue here where the topic has been running for a week. Trump Declares Houthis Defeated as U.S. Halts Airstrikes Following Israeli Assault //closed//

UN Aviation Body Holds Russia Responsible for MH17 Tragedy More than a decade after Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down over eastern Ukraine, the United Nations’ aviation agency has delivered a landmark decision, ruling that Russia was responsible for the catastrophic event. The ruling by the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) found that the Russian Federation failed to meet its international legal obligations to safeguard civilian aircraft. MH17 was flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur on July 17, 2014, when it was struck by a Russian-made missile while passing over the Donbas region, a conflict zone where pro-Russian separatists were engaged in combat with Ukrainian forces. All 298 people on board perished in the disaster. The passengers included 196 Dutch nationals, 38 Australians, 10 British citizens, as well as several Belgian and Malaysian passengers. Despite overwhelming evidence presented in multiple investigations, the Kremlin has consistently denied any role in the downing of the aircraft. However, the ICAO’s decision reinforces the findings of a Dutch court in 2022, which concluded that the plane was brought down by a Russian-controlled group. That court convicted two Russian nationals and one pro-Moscow Ukrainian of murder in absentia, sentencing them to life imprisonment. None of the individuals has been extradited, and they remain free. The case before the UN agency was initiated in 2022 by the governments of Australia and the Netherlands, who have long sought accountability for the deaths of their citizens. Reacting to the ICAO’s ruling, Australia’s foreign minister Penny Wong declared, “We call upon Russia to finally face up to its responsibility for this horrific act of violence and make reparations for its egregious conduct.” Dutch foreign minister Caspar Veldkamp described the decision as a crucial moment in the pursuit of truth and justice. “It marked an important step towards establishing the truth and achieving justice and accountability,” he said. Veldkamp also emphasized the wider implications of the ICAO’s ruling, stating that “states cannot violate international law with impunity.” The ICAO’s resolution specifically cited Russia’s breach of Article 3 bis of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, which obliges countries to avoid using weapons against civil aircraft in flight. Although the decision does not carry direct enforcement powers or criminal penalties, it carries significant moral and diplomatic weight, further isolating Moscow on the global stage. This latest ruling adds to the mounting international condemnation of Russia’s actions in Ukraine and in the skies above it. It also reinforces ongoing calls for compensation and accountability, both for the victims’ families and for the global community, which continues to reckon with the consequences of the incident. Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-05-14

Title: Diddy’s Dark Double Life: Trial Hears Disturbing Allegations of Abuse and Sex Trafficking Sean “Diddy” Combs, once considered a towering figure in the music industry, is now at the center of a harrowing criminal trial that threatens to dismantle his legacy. Prosecutors in a Manhattan federal court painted a chilling picture of the 55-year-old rapper as a violent predator who abused his fame and fortune to dominate, exploit, and terrorize women over many years. Opening statements alleged that Combs referred to himself as “the king” and forced women to engage in drug-fueled sex marathons with male escorts while he watched and recorded them. These encounters, described as “freak-offs” or “wild king nights,” were filmed and used as blackmail material to control and silence victims. “He sometimes called himself the king, and he expected to be treated like one,” prosecutor Emily Johnson told the court. She said Combs “would force his victims to perform for hours and days at a time,” punishing them brutally when they failed to meet his demands. The charges against Combs include racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking, and transporting individuals for prostitution. If convicted on all counts, he faces a mandatory minimum of 15 years and could be sentenced to life in prison. Combs has pleaded not guilty. Two of Combs’s former partners, singer Cassie Ventura and another woman identified only as “Jane,” are expected to play central roles in the trial. Johnson told the jury they would “tell you about some of the most painful experiences of their lives.” She described Ventura’s ordeal of being trapped in dark hotel rooms, high on drugs, and forced into sex acts she did not consent to. The prosecution claimed Combs threatened to ruin her career and leak explicit footage if she disobeyed him—“souvenirs of the most humiliating nights of her life.” The court also heard disturbing testimony from Daniel Phillip, a male escort who said he was paid thousands to have sex with Ventura while Combs directed the encounters. He described the rapper wearing a bandana over his face, orchestrating the scenes, and at one point violently dragging Ventura by her hair when she did not respond quickly enough. Phillip said that after one such assault, Ventura was “visibly upset” but Combs insisted they continue. “Her entire body was shaking like she was terrified,” Phillip testified. He claimed he was too afraid to go to the police, believing Combs’ power and influence put his life in danger. Prosecutors alleged that Combs’s criminal behavior extended beyond physical violence. Staff were said to supply escorts with drugs, fulfill his exacting demands for lighting and other conditions during the sex parties, and help conceal the abuse. In one instance from 2009, Ventura was allegedly stomped on and kept hidden in a hotel for a week to cover up her injuries. A 2016 tape of Combs assaulting Ventura in a Los Angeles hotel, which the prosecution says he tried to suppress with a $100,000 bribe, is expected to be a pivotal piece of evidence. “Jane,” the second key witness, began a relationship with Combs in 2020. At first, the sex was consensual and private, but it soon evolved into coerced “freak-offs” fueled by drugs, the court heard. Combs sat quietly in court, wearing a white jumper, flanked by six of his seven children and his mother, Janice Combs. His defense lawyer, Teny Geragos, sought to reframe the narrative, arguing that prosecutors were turning consensual relationships and a “swingers lifestyle” into a criminal conspiracy. She admitted Combs was guilty of domestic violence but said he was not a sex trafficker. “What Combs did to Cassie on this videotape is indefensible,” she told the jury. “It is basically every bad word you can think of. It is not evidence of sex trafficking, it is evidence of sexual violence.” The defense also suggested that financial motivations played a role, pointing out that Ventura allegedly demanded $30 million from Combs in a previous settlement attempt. But the prosecution maintained that the women were manipulated, abused, and silenced by a man who used his status to shield a hidden life of exploitation. The trial continues. Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Times 2025-05-14

Title: Starmer’s Immigration Overhaul Faces Criticism for Ignoring Illegal Asylum Crisis In a bold yet contentious speech, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer warned that Britain risks becoming an “island of strangers” if current immigration levels are not curbed. While the address marked a significant rhetorical shift from Labour’s historical stance on migration, critics argue that the proposals fall short—particularly in tackling illegal asylum seekers arriving via small boats. Sir Keir’s remarks signaled a break from years of Labour orthodoxy, where concerns about the consequences of mass immigration were often sidestepped. Acknowledging the “incalculable” economic and societal damage caused by porous borders, he introduced a white paper aimed at reining in what he called unsustainable levels of legal immigration. With net migration figures currently nearing 700,000 annually, Starmer appears to be responding to growing public discontent—and political pressure following Labour’s recent losses to Reform UK, a party whose rise has been fueled by its hardline immigration stance. Despite the tough rhetoric, Starmer’s policy proposals focus almost exclusively on legal migration. Among the new measures are plans to extend the residency requirement for settlement and citizenship from five years to ten, introduce tougher English language requirements, penalize employers who fail to prioritize British workers, and reduce the time foreign students can remain in the country. Universities may also face fees for enrolling overseas students. One of the most striking proposals is the decision to end the recruitment of overseas care workers. In 2023 alone, 58,000 foreign nationals entered the UK on care visas—a significant share of the sector’s labor force. Under the new rules, care providers will be required to recruit from within the existing domestic population. While this could reduce migration numbers, it also risks causing major disruption to a sector that already suffers from chronic staff shortages. The government also plans to restore a requirement that skilled visa holders be university graduates, reversing a policy introduced under Boris Johnson. The Home Office estimates that these combined changes could cut net migration by 100,000. Yet even this figure leaves the UK’s immigration levels far above pre-Brexit targets. The Office for National Statistics forecasts that net migration could remain as high as 525,000—a number equivalent to the population of Leeds. While these steps mark a change in tone and policy for Labour, glaring omissions remain. Most notably, Starmer’s plan makes no mention of illegal migration. The government has yet to establish a promised returns agreement with European countries, leaving thousands of asylum seekers in limbo. Furthermore, there is still no replacement for the scrapped Rwanda scheme, nor a clear strategy to deal with legal challenges from the European Court of Human Rights, which has impeded deportations of foreign criminals. Starmer’s acknowledgment that high levels of immigration may not offer the economic benefits once assumed reflects a shift in mainstream economic thought. He has also, to his credit, addressed the broader societal implications. However, to implement these changes, he must confront resistance from within his own party, where many remain wary of tougher immigration controls. Calling past failures a “squalid chapter” in political history, the prime minister now faces the daunting task of proving he can deliver where others have not. Whether his proposals are enough to satisfy public demand—and whether he can find the political will to tackle illegal immigration head-on—will define the success of this new chapter in UK migration policy. Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Times 2025-05-14

Redefining Identity: Why the Children of Celebrities Are Coming Out as Transgender In late April, Airyn De Niro, formerly known as Aaron, stepped into the public eye not as the child of Oscar-winning actor Robert De Niro, but as her own person—a transgender woman. In an interview with LGBTQ+ publication Them, she explained, “There’s a difference between visible and being seen. I’ve been visible. [But] I don’t think I’ve been seen yet.” Robert De Niro, a father of seven, voiced his support unequivocally. “I loved and supported Aaron as my son and now I love and support Airyn as my daughter,” he said. “I don’t know what the big deal is…I love all my children.” In Hollywood, the revelation met with little surprise. Airyn joins a growing number of children of celebrities who identify as transgender or non-binary, including those of Sting, Cher, Elon Musk, Jamie Lee Curtis, Sigourney Weaver, and Cynthia Nixon. While the reasons for such deeply personal decisions are varied and complex, some observers suggest that growing up in the unique pressure-cooker environment of fame may contribute to the search for self beyond inherited identity. Sascha Bailey, son of renowned photographer David Bailey and model Catherine Dyer, described this impulse succinctly: “By becoming trans, you can break out of the predefined role you were born into and create a new space for yourself. You become something unique and you are rewarded for it.” Now 30, Sascha once considered transitioning to a woman but reversed course after falling in love and confronting the potential sacrifices involved, such as losing the opportunity to become a biological parent. “It is important that people should be able to change their mind—if they want to—without people attacking them,” he said. Sascha has since chronicled his experience in a book, Try to Hit the Pool: Modern Man and the Behavioural Sink, exploring the tension of growing up in the shadow of fame. “Whatever you do in life, people are watching. If you go into the same profession as your parents, you are called a nepo baby. But if you work in Starbucks, people will take photos of you and ask, ‘Why are they working in Starbucks?’” he explained. “It can feel like people want to take something from you because you have something that they don’t have. You are vulnerable, and it can feel hard to make real friends, to form bonds.” Charlotte Falconer, a former teacher and child counsellor, agrees that gender identity can become a way for children of celebrities to reclaim their individuality. “The world of being a ‘celebrity’s child’ will come with attention drawn away from them to their parents,” she said. “So, this type of gender expression may be coming from a place of need; a place that parents may not be aware of or able to meet. Creating a gender difference is often something that can’t be ignored.” Others, like psychotherapist James Esses, take a more critical view. “The children of celebrities have the luxury of time and money to indulge in a never-ending fixation on their self-identity,” he said. “There is a reason why swathes of children from war-torn regions or facing abject poverty are not coming out as ‘trans.’ It’s because they have more pressing issues.” According to Esses, fame can amplify affirmation to such a degree that changing one’s mind becomes a daunting prospect. “We know that ‘coming out’ as ‘trans’ is often met with celebration and positive reinforcement, and with celebrity culture, these things are on steroids,” he said. For some families, this dynamic leads to regrets. A spokesperson for Bayswater, a UK support group for parents of trans-identifying youth, noted that many initially believed that name and pronoun changes were harmless. “What they tell us is that they never expected it to lead to requests for cross-sex hormones or surgery. Another theme we are increasingly seeing is desistance, which is more complicated for a child whose parents have publicly taken a position on their child’s identity.” Sascha found that out the hard way. “The fallout was massive,” he recalled after deciding not to transition. “Some of my friends abandoned me.” Yet the experience has given him a voice. “I started to get messages from parents and people who were transitioning and detransitioning saying that my story had made them reconsider things,” he said. “It is important for people to know there are options, whatever you want to do.” As for Airyn De Niro, she seems both humbled and dazed by the spotlight. “I’m not used to all these eyes on me,” she wrote on social media, thanking those who had shown support. For better or worse, the gaze that once belonged solely to her famous father now includes her too—this time, on her own terms. Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph 2025-05-14

Macron Slams Kremlin's "Cocaine Train" Claims as Desperate Disinformation President Emmanuel Macron has strongly condemned a bizarre conspiracy theory promoted by pro-Russian media and officials alleging he used cocaine while traveling to Kyiv with fellow European leaders. The French presidency, in a public rebuke, dismissed the rumor as absurd and part of a broader campaign of disinformation aimed at undermining European unity. “This fake news is being spread by France’s enemies, both abroad and at home. We must remain vigilant against manipulation,” the Élysée Palace posted on X, formerly Twitter. The statement followed the circulation of doctored or misleading footage online purporting to show Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, and British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer using cocaine during their train journey to Ukraine. Social media posts promoting the conspiracy showed Macron picking up a used tissue, which conspiracy theorists claimed was a bag of cocaine. Others alleged that Merz was seen using a “cocaine spoon.” However, high-definition video footage of the incident clearly showed that Macron was handling a crumpled tissue, and the so-called spoon was nothing more than a standard plastic coffee stirrer. The Élysée responded pointedly: “When European unity becomes inconvenient, disinformation goes so far as to make a simple tissue look like drugs.” The trio had been traveling overnight from Poland to Ukraine to meet with President Volodymyr Zelensky and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk. During the visit, they collectively called on Russia to observe a 30-day ceasefire, a proposal that President Vladimir Putin quickly rejected. In a further escalation, the Russian foreign ministry amplified the conspiracy. Its spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, posted on Telegram: “A Frenchman, an Englishman and a German” had allegedly been spotted with cocaine paraphernalia. She wrote, “The fate of Europe is being decided by utterly (drug) dependent individuals. It’s as if the Almighty Himself is lifting the veil on this putrid spectacle.” Zakharova also repeated the Kremlin's long-standing narrative that President Zelensky is an “unstable cocaine addict,” adding that a Western diplomat had supposedly confided in her that drug use was common among European leaders. The inflammatory remarks align with a consistent pattern of false narratives promoted by Kremlin-affiliated accounts. One such French-language pro-Russian account cynically commented: “Coke is going to take decisions on the third world war.” The French government has warned that these attacks are part of an intensified digital assault by Russia’s GRU military intelligence agency, which Paris says has been targeting President Macron’s administration since 2017. “It infiltrates French digital networks with two aims: collecting intelligence for the benefit of the Kremlin and destabilising our society by creating distrust,” the foreign ministry stated earlier this month. Macron himself has been a frequent target of Russian-backed online campaigns. These have included baseless claims about his sexuality, accusations that his wife Brigitte is transgender, and conspiracy theories linking him to a supposed global cabal orchestrated by billionaire George Soros. The accounts pushing the cocaine rumor have now suggested that the Élysée has ordered French media outlets to suppress coverage of the story—yet another unsubstantiated claim in a growing list of provocations. Despite the noise, French officials remain adamant that such attacks only underscore the desperation of those threatened by European solidarity. Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Times 2025-05-14

Trump’s Second-Term Ambitions Are Decades in the Making While much attention has been paid to “Project 2025,” the sweeping conservative policy plan associated with Donald Trump’s second-term ambitions, the ideological blueprint for an aggressive executive branch dates back far earlier—to the Reagan-Bush era. A book of essays published in 1988, The Imperial Congress, by the Heritage Foundation and the Claremont Institute, anticipated much of the executive assertiveness that Trump has since embraced. The volume reflected conservative frustration as Reagan’s presidency came to a close, arguing that Congress had become too dominant and the presidency dangerously weakened. Its authors envisioned a president who could reshape national perceptions through bold and immediate executive action. One essay imagined a president who, “in the first weeks of his administration,” would use “far-reaching executive orders” to convince Americans that “this president, for a change, looks out for them.” The president might even order the “immediate expulsion of dangerous aliens” on national security grounds—a vision uncannily echoed in Trump-era rhetoric and actions. This wasn’t written about Trump, but rather George H.W. Bush. Yet it laid a theoretical foundation for a presidential style now reaching its apex under Trump. At the time, Republicans had held the White House for 16 of the prior 20 years and were about to continue their streak. But they faced a formidable obstacle: a Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, which had not flipped since the 1950s. Conservatives feared their presidential victories were being nullified by a stubborn Congress. Newt Gingrich, then on the rise and the author of the book’s foreword, would lead the eventual Republican takeover in 1994. But back in 1988, thinkers like Gordon S. Jones, the editor of The Imperial Congress, believed the answer was a stronger executive. “To wield the weapon of a reinvigorated executive,” he wrote, was essential. The book’s prescriptions were radical for their time. It called for the president to exert control over independent agencies by firing all commissioners, to “ignore, or challenge directly” congressional micromanagement, and to resist Senate influence on appointments. One essay advocated repealing the two-term limit for presidents. Another suggested presidents fight publicly with the judiciary and vigorously defend executive privilege—even in defiance of Supreme Court rulings. Political scientist Thomas G. West questioned why the media should have special access to the White House, while the book urged the creation of “new centers of authority and information” under the president’s control. The logic was echoed again in The Fettered Presidency, a 1989 American Enterprise Institute publication. Its editors, L. Gordon Crovitz and Jeremy A. Rabkin, insisted presidential powers must be used “with greater vigor and resolve.” At the time, the view was that a domineering Democratic Congress constrained Republican presidents. But today’s political landscape is different. Republicans have controlled the House for much of the 21st century and have appointed a majority of the Supreme Court justices. Nevertheless, the Trump administration has carried forward the old vision with unmatched intensity. Rabkin himself, now at George Mason University, recently noted that “a Republican majority in Congress does not want to challenge a Republican president and it has such slim margins that it can’t dare anything controversial (as trying to restrain Trump would be).” Thus, Trump’s expanded executive power is not a response to hostile opposition, but rather a product of its weakness. The original architects of this philosophy knew their arguments could blur into partisanship. As The Fettered Presidency acknowledged, “Republican complaints about an overbearing Congress might be interpreted as the cries of one set of partisans against the institutional leverage of their partisan opponents.” Yet those opponents have largely lost that leverage. Presidents have grown more assertive, and their congressional allies more compliant. Trump’s presidency is the culmination of that evolution. Gordon S. Jones, writing decades ago, pointed to moments in history when presidents pushed beyond their legal limits—Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase, Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus, Roosevelt’s pre-war military aid—and argued their boldness was vindicated by popular support. “Their power to do any of these things was suspect,” he wrote, “but their actions were supported by substantial majorities of the citizens, and the actions stood.” Some of Trump’s actions will likely stand too. But the landscape has changed. Presidential power is no longer a proxy for Republican dominance, and conservatives may soon find those powers wielded against them. That risk, ironically, is baked into the very presidentialism they once championed—to act decisively, before your rivals can do the same. Adapted by ASEAN Now from Washington Post 2025-05-14

UK Redefines Global Role as Aid Budget Faces Deep Cuts The UK is turning a new page in its international development policy, with ministers declaring that Britain will no longer function as a “global charity” in light of drastic cuts to its overseas aid budget. On Tuesday, Baroness Chapman of Darlington, the international development minister, will lay out the government’s revised priorities, highlighting a stark shift from traditional humanitarian support to a more strategic investment-based approach. This reorientation follows Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s decision to slash the aid budget by nearly half, reallocating resources toward defence spending. As a result, funding for several aid initiatives—particularly those focused on gender inclusion, education, and digital access—is expected to be eliminated altogether. The overall aid budget is set to drop from 0.5 per cent of the UK’s gross national income to 0.3 per cent by 2027, a reduction amounting to £6.1 billion. Baroness Chapman is expected to tell MPs that these budgetary constraints are forcing the government to make tough decisions. “The days of viewing the UK government as a global charity are over,” she will say. “We need to prioritise, be more efficient. We have to get the best value for money — for the UK taxpayer, but also for the people we are trying to help around the world.” Her comments reflect a broader philosophical shift toward using British expertise rather than direct financial contributions to deliver results in international development. Rather than apply across-the-board cuts, ministers aim to reassess entire areas of expenditure, potentially halting aid to some countries altogether. The government will instead channel funds through international bodies like Gavi, the vaccine alliance, and the Global Fund, which targets diseases such as HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria. This strategy is intended to maximise impact and reduce administrative overhead. Some of the areas likely to be affected most severely include initiatives that promote gender equality and access to education. Whitehall sources confirmed that such programmes are on the chopping block, as officials attempt to meet budgetary goals ahead of the 2027 deadline. Cuts may begin as early as the next financial year to avoid a sudden and more damaging fiscal contraction in the future. The UK’s ability to project influence through soft power is also being questioned as a result of these changes. “The days of the UK being seen as a development superpower are over,” warned government insiders, marking a significant departure from the country’s post-World War II tradition of international aid leadership. Chapman, who assumed her role after Anneliese Dodds resigned in protest over the cuts, is inheriting a turbulent moment for UK development policy. Dodds had previously cautioned that Starmer’s decision would “remove food and healthcare from desperate people.” Further complicating the situation is the fact that £4.3 billion of the current £15.3 billion overseas aid budget is allocated to the Home Office to cover the costs of asylum seekers and illegal migration, including hotel accommodations. This portion of the budget is ring-fenced and cannot be cut, putting even greater pressure on remaining aid programmes. Officials at the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office remain hopeful that these domestic costs may decline in the medium term, but even optimistic projections will not ease the immediate demand for savings. As the UK government attempts to redefine its role on the world stage, its new vision stresses efficiency, return on investment, and strategic partnerships over broad-based humanitarian giving. Whether this approach will yield the same level of global impact—or diminish Britain’s influence abroad—remains to be seen. Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Times 2025-05-14

Toxic Truth: Why Kennedy’s Concerns About Chemicals in Food Deserve Serious Attention Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has drawn both attention and criticism for his assertion that synthetic chemicals in the American food supply are fueling a nationwide crisis of obesity and chronic illness. “A facade of normalcy has masked this meteoric rise in chronic disease, and we can no longer ignore it,” Kennedy stated recently, announcing his goal of removing nine petroleum-based synthetic food dyes from U.S. products within 18 months. Kennedy’s broader reputation for promoting dubious science, especially around vaccines, autism, and fluoride, makes his latest claims an easy target for skepticism. Yet on the issue of chemicals in food, his warnings may be closer to the truth than many are willing to admit. In fact, the reality may be even more troubling than he suggests. Roughly 10,000 additives—ranging from dyes and preservatives to pesticides and packaging chemicals—are permitted in food sold in the United States. These substances are especially prevalent in the ultraprocessed foods that now account for most of the calories consumed by Americans. The regulatory process that allows this is far more lenient in the U.S. than in Europe, where new food chemicals are treated as potentially unsafe until proven otherwise through rigorous review. In the U.S., many food additives make it to market through a loophole known as GRAS, or “generally recognized as safe.” Under this designation, companies can introduce new chemicals without prior FDA approval as long as their own hired experts deem them safe. These companies are encouraged—but not required—to inform the FDA, leading to a system where regulators may not even know which chemicals are in widespread use. Estimates suggest that the identities of around 1,000 such chemicals remain unknown to federal agencies. Kennedy has pledged to close the GRAS loophole as part of his broader food safety initiative. Even when the FDA does conduct safety assessments, the scope of their evaluations is limited. Most studies look for direct toxic effects—like cancer or organ damage—in animals or lab settings. They often ignore how chronic exposure over time, or the interactions between multiple chemicals, might impact human health in more subtle but significant ways. As researcher Maricel Maffini puts it, “F.D.A. is stuck on decades-old science and making decisions based on scientific principles that in many cases are irrelevant.” This outdated framework fails to match how Americans eat today—or how modern illnesses manifest. When the FDA was founded in the early 20th century, food safety concerns were focused on acute poisoning. Today, the primary health threats come from chronic diseases like obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular illness, many of which develop slowly over years or decades. These conditions now contribute to the shortest average lifespan among industrialized nations. While the exact mechanisms remain unclear, scientists suspect that food additives play a role in this public health crisis. Biologists Amy Shyer and Alan Rodrigues at Rockefeller University are studying how chemicals labeled as “safe,” such as aspartame, might interfere with cellular development. Their findings suggest that these additives could alter how cells organize into tissues, opening up a new and poorly understood area of potential risk. Others, like former FDA and USDA official Jerold Mande, point to indirect harm. Synthetic dyes may not alter cells directly but could make processed foods more visually appealing and, in turn, more addictive—contributing to overeating, obesity, and the associated risks of diabetes and cancer. Despite Kennedy’s ambition, his plan currently lacks firm commitments from food companies. He recently acknowledged that there is only a “handshake understanding” to begin phasing out the targeted dyes, and so far, few corporations have publicly signed on. He has urged manufacturers to use natural colorants as substitutes, and the FDA has approved three new ones. But experts warn that the health impacts of these alternatives are also largely unknown. According to Maffini, assuming they are safer is an example of the “appeal to nature” fallacy. To address this growing concern meaningfully, any administration serious about reducing chronic disease must invest more deeply in scientific research. This includes funding for the FDA to update its oversight process and for the National Institutes of Health to increase support for nutrition science, which currently receives just five percent of its budget. Policymakers and researchers must investigate not only individual additives but also the complex food environments that shape our long-term health. Without a robust scientific foundation, Kennedy’s initiative risks being dismissed as mere conjecture. But the core issue—how chemicals in our food may be undermining our health—is too important to ignore. As history has shown, handshake deals and industry self-regulation are never enough when public health is at stake. Adapted by ASEAN Now from New York Times 2025-05-14

Thread clean up. The topic is: Louis Theroux: If you were shocked by my film on Israeli settlers in the West Bank, you ...

@bannork another post with misleading order of quotes and no link has been removed. This must stop.

Trump Administration Welcomes First Group of White South African Refugees Amid Controversy A chartered, US-funded flight carrying 59 white South Africans has landed in Washington, marking the first group of Afrikaners to be granted refugee status under a new initiative spearheaded by the Trump administration. This controversial policy has sparked criticism both in the United States and abroad, especially given the administration’s broader crackdown on global refugee admissions. The group, made up of families and individuals from South Africa’s Afrikaner minority, was greeted warmly by US officials at the airport on Monday. Some of the arrivals held small children and waved miniature American flags, with the terminal decorated in red, white, and blue balloons. Their arrival was notable not only for its symbolism but also for the speed at which their refugee applications were processed—an unusual move, considering that refugee vetting by the United States normally takes months, even years. President Donald Trump defended the expedited process, stating that white farmers in South Africa were victims of targeted violence and discrimination. “Farmers are being killed, they happen to be white, but whether they're white or black makes no difference to me,” he said when asked about the policy. He described the situation in South Africa as a “genocide” and asserted that white farmers were particularly at risk. However, the South African government has firmly denied any allegations of widespread persecution of white citizens. Officials insist that claims of racial discrimination do not meet the necessary threshold to be considered under international refugee law. “These claims are not consistent with the facts on the ground,” said a spokesperson for the South African government. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which typically oversees refugee vetting processes, confirmed it had no role in assessing this group’s eligibility for resettlement. That omission has drawn further scrutiny from immigrant rights advocates, who argue that the Trump administration’s selective application of refugee protections undermines the fairness of the system. “This initiative is profoundly unfair to the most vulnerable refugees—those fleeing war, famine, and political persecution,” said one rights group in response to the arrival. Tensions between South Africa and the United States have worsened since Trump first directed his administration to begin resettling Afrikaners, an ethnic group descended largely from Dutch settlers. In March, South Africa’s ambassador to the US, Ebrahim Rasool, was expelled after accusing the Trump administration of using “white victimhood as a dog whistle.” The US responded by accusing Rasool of “race-baiting.” The Trump administration has also clashed with South Africa over its domestic land reform policies. In January, President Cyril Ramaphosa signed a controversial law allowing the government to seize privately owned land without compensation in some instances, provided it is considered “equitable and in the public interest.” While the South African government maintains this policy aims to redress historical injustices, the US has condemned it, alleging unlawful land seizures—a claim South Africa rejects. Further straining relations, Washington has criticized Pretoria’s stance at the International Court of Justice, where South Africa has accused Israel of committing genocide against Palestinians—an allegation Israel firmly denies. Despite the controversy surrounding this new refugee initiative, President Trump remains steadfast in his decision, even as his administration continues to drastically limit refugee admissions from conflict zones. As this policy unfolds, it underscores the broader ideological and geopolitical divides shaping America’s immigration landscape under the Trump era. Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-05-13

Oxford Union Rejects Mandatory Pride Flag Policy Amid Controversy and Backlash The Oxford Union has stirred heated debate and public backlash after rejecting a proposal to reinstate the mandatory flying of the LGBT flag during Pride Month. The decision came after a secret ballot vote on May 5, in which the motion was defeated by seven votes to four. The policy, which had previously required every union president to fly an LGBT flag prominently in the courtyard throughout June, had mysteriously vanished from the student-run standing committee’s rule book. Union President Anita Okunde led the motion to restore the rule, arguing it was not a new proposal but simply a reinstatement of a previously existing order. She said the removal had occurred without transparency or explanation. “It had been part of the rules and standing orders for a significant number of years,” she said, asserting there had been no previous objections or requests for alternative flags during her tenure. “I’ve never heard of anybody being upset or requesting another specific flag to be flown to her knowledge.” The proposed rule included provisions allowing the flag requirement to be waived during periods of national mourning, such as the death of the Sovereign or times when public buildings fly flags at half-mast. But opposition to the motion focused less on its content and more on its broader implications. Samy Medjdoub, the third elected committee member from Keble College, warned that reinstating the rule could “open the floodgates” for demands to fly flags for various other causes. He described the move as “opening the Pandora’s box,” and suggested it might set a precedent difficult to manage. Medjdoub added that everyone on the committee supports the LGBTQIA+ community regardless of whether the flag is flown, and therefore “the motion should not be ratified.” To avoid personal bias or backlash, the committee decided on a secret ballot, intending to keep the focus on the principle rather than members' individual stances on LGBTQ+ representation. Despite this, the decision has triggered intense online criticism, with many students expressing frustration and disappointment over what they see as a symbolic rejection of inclusivity. One student commented, “The change is confirmation that the union is as bad as everyone thinks it is.” Another added, “To be fair, at least it keeps the LGBTQ+ community safe by giving a warning as to where they aren’t welcome. If the union wants to make it clearer, it could always vote on whether to have a sign reading: ‘Bigots within beware.’” What remains unresolved is how the original rule was removed from the committee's records. According to Ms Okunde, who has served on the committee five times, there was no discussion or student notification regarding its deletion. Committee members admitted they found no explanation in prior meeting minutes. Some speculated that the order may have been accidentally removed alongside other changes. Incoming president Moosa Harraj, who is set to assume leadership in the autumn term, called the unexplained removal “crazy” and has ordered an investigation into how it occurred. Despite the failed vote, Ms Okunde affirmed her commitment to visibility and representation, stating she would “regardless fly the flag in her term.” Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Times 2025-05-13

Behind the Curtain: How the U.S. Helped Avert War Between India and Pakistan In the tense days following the deadly militant attack in Indian-administered Kashmir that killed 26 tourists, India and Pakistan teetered dangerously on the edge of all-out war. The attack prompted India to launch air strikes deep into Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, igniting a series of aerial clashes, artillery exchanges, and escalating rhetoric. Both sides claimed significant victories and accused each other of missile strikes on strategic airbases, prompting global concern over the possibility of a full-scale conflict between two nuclear-armed nations. As the crisis intensified, it became clear that multiple international players were working behind the scenes to de-escalate the situation. “There’s still much we don’t know about the roles of various international actors, but it’s clear over the past three days that at least three countries were working to de-escalate – the US, of course, but also the UK and Saudi Arabia,” said Tanvi Madan, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington DC. A critical turning point appears to have come on May 9, when US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called Pakistan’s Army Chief Asim Munir. Experts believe that this diplomatic outreach may have helped halt the slide toward open war. “One question is whether, if this call had come earlier – right after the initial Indian strikes, when Pakistan was already claiming some Indian losses and an off-ramp was available – it might have prevented further escalation,” Madan reflected. Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar revealed that the scale of diplomacy was vast, saying that “three dozen countries” had taken part in efforts to ease the tension, including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the United States. Yet it was Washington’s involvement that seemed most decisive. “The US was indispensable. This outcome would not have occurred without Secretary Rubio’s efforts,” stated Ashley J Tellis, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. In Pakistan, signs of potential nuclear escalation were evident when the country’s leadership convened a National Command Authority (NCA) meeting — a calculated move to signal its nuclear posture amid mounting military exchanges. The NCA holds authority over Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and its strategic decisions. This coincided closely with the timing of Secretary Rubio’s intervention, further underscoring the gravity of the situation. Unlike in previous crises such as the 2019 Pulwama–Balakot episode, the U.S. initially maintained a hands-off approach, observing developments rather than acting immediately. “The American role was a continuation of past patterns, but with one key difference – this time, they initially stayed hands-off, watching the crisis unfold instead of jumping in right away. Only when they saw how it was playing out did they step in to manage it,” said Haider, a regional expert. What strengthened Washington’s hand was its increasingly close ties with New Delhi. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s rapport with former President Trump, along with broader strategic and economic interests, gave the U.S. leverage at a critical moment. Indian officials acknowledged that three main diplomatic tracks helped stave off war: U.S. and UK pressure, Saudi mediation — marked by the Saudi junior foreign minister’s visits to both capitals — and a direct communication channel between the two countries’ national security advisors. Despite the ceasefire, doubts remain about the durability of the peace that was brokered. Some Indian media have reported that senior military officials from both countries, not the United States, played the decisive role in achieving the ceasefire agreement. “This ceasefire is bound to be a fragile one. It came about very quickly, amid sky-high tensions. India appears to have interpreted it differently than did the US and Pakistan,” said foreign policy analyst Michael Kugelman. “Also, since it was put together so hastily, the accord may lack the proper guarantees and assurances one would need at such a tense moment.” Even so, the events of this crisis reaffirm the complex but crucial role the United States continues to play in managing South Asia’s most volatile relationship. Whether publicly acknowledged or quietly conducted through backchannels, U.S. mediation remains a linchpin in efforts to prevent catastrophe between India and Pakistan. Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-05-13