The tech billionaire and US Treasury secretary have clashed over who should control the Internal Revenue Service

Tech billionaire Elon Musk and US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent were involved in a heated shouting match inside the White House last week, reportedly trading expletives and personal insults during a confrontation over leadership of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), according to Axios.

The incident reportedly unfolded in the West Wing on Thursday within earshot of President Donald Trump and visiting Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. The two men argued over Trump’s recent decision to name Gary Shapley, Musk’s preferred candidate, as acting IRS commissioner – a move that blindsided Bessent, who had lobbied for his deputy, Michael Faulkender.

“It was two billionaire, middle-aged men thinking it was WWE in the hall of the West Wing,” one witness told Axios on Wednesday.

Musk reportedly accused Bessent – a former partner at Soros Fund Management and the founder of Key Square Group – of being a “Soros agent.” Bessent “roared” back, at one point allegedly shouting “F**k you,” to which Musk replied, “Say it louder.”

The clash did not escalate into physical violence, but was loud enough to be heard in nearby offices, according to multiple sources. Witnesses said an aide had to physically step in between the two men to prevent the situation from intensifying.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt downplayed the incident, telling the New York Times that “disagreements are a normal part of any healthy policy process,” and that “ultimately, everyone knows they serve at the pleasure of President Trump.”

Bessent ultimately came out on top, with Shapley replaced by Faulkender just days after the appointment.

“Trust must be brought back to the IRS, and I am fully confident that [Deputy Secretary] Michael Faulkender is the right man for the moment,” Bessent said on X Friday afternoon.

“Gary Shapley’s passion and thoughtfulness for approaching ways to create durable and lasting reforms at the IRS is essential to our work, and he remains among my most important senior advisors at the [US Treasury] as we work together to rethink and reform the IRS.”

The altercation highlights long-standing tensions between Musk and Bessent dating back to the presidential transition, when Musk unsuccessfully pushed for Howard Lutnick to lead the Treasury Department. Trump instead appointed Bessent and nominated Lutnick to head the Commerce Department. Since then, Musk and Bessent have clashed repeatedly over personnel and policy, including Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency cost-cutting initiative, which Bessent claimed has failed to deliver on its promises.

Editor’s Note: This essay is part of a week-long series of essays at Public Discourse reflecting on Pope Francis’s pontificate, his legacy, and the Catholic Church’s future.

On the day of Pope Francis’s election, I spoke with a respected Jesuit professor, offering him my congratulations on a Latin American Jesuit’s becoming pope. To my surprise, he looked dour. This was bad news, he said. Fr. Bergoglio had had a reputation for being an authoritarian provincial; the Jesuits in Argentina had a lot of trouble with him.

In time, the professor’s premonition proved correct. The man who had been a difficult superior became a difficult pope. As I have reflected on Pope Francis’s words and actions over the years, I realized that if I treated my sons the way Francis treated my fellow believers and me, I would rightly be considered a bad father. This remains the best hermeneutical key I know for explaining Francis’s pontificate: he was a man whose tragic flaws undermined the good he sought to do and the duties of the office that he bore. When such a father dies, it is fitting to mourn his passing. But it is also fitting to name the damage done and lament the growth and closeness that could have been there. Perhaps a reflection on fatherhood can serve as a diagnosis of the recent pontificate, and provide some counsel for the next one. 

A good father loves his children by keeping order in the home. Children need to know what they can expect from their parents. Parents, in turn, need to treat their children fairly and not play favorites. Discipline should be clear and regular, firm but not harsh, edifying without being humiliating or insulting. Parents should explain why they are acting as they do in terms that children can understand. By this common standard, Pope Francis was a deeply flawed father. His remarks frequently stung, whether or not they were intended as insults: large families that breed like rabbits, priests who cling to grandma’s lace, seminaries with too much “frociaggine.” Then there were the actions taken to undermine the faithful who should have been his most loyal followers, most notably the restrictions on the Latin Mass. Too often during his pontificate, the faithful were left waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Or not drop, as the case may be. For, as J. D. Flynn and Ed Condon have amply documented, Francis undermined the rule of law in the Church and made its application deeply personal. Their report concludes: “When instability replaces the rule of law, the law no longer becomes the tool protecting human dignity that Pope Francis praised; rather, it becomes an instrument that can be wielded arbitrarily, to the harm of that same dignity.” Flynn and Condon offer numerous cases of this, but the most infamous are connected to sexual predation and are well known: Marko Rupnik, Gustavo Zanchetta, Juan Barros, and Ariel Alberto Principi. If Pope Francis had “a pontificate of the heart,” it was unfortunately a heart too wedded to its own judgment and preferences.

A similar dynamic played out in his teaching magisterium. A good father teaches his children the truth about themselves and the world around them. He hands on skills, lore, and family traditions. But most importantly, he tells children their own story, from the way their parents met to the fact that God has created them to love him and the world that he ordered well. He leaves room for them to question and discern, but provides a bedrock of belief on which they can build their lives. He teaches them right from wrong and inspires a vision of what the moral life looks like when lived well. 

Unfortunately, Pope Francis sowed confusion where clarity was much needed, inasmuch as his teachings on certain issues seemed to contradict the Church’s tradition and practice. This was a matter of both form and content in many of the documents of his pontificate. Too often his writings exhibited a disregard for rigorous, clear thinking rooted in the Church’s tradition, or framed such thinking as the enemy of real pastoral work. Too often they seemed to create ambiguities that allowed for work-arounds to the universal call to holiness. Take the case of Amoris Laetitia. As I noted when it was published, the document treats Christ’s teaching about marriage in three different ways: “exhorting it as an ideal—noble to be sure but too difficult for many (298, 307); repeating it as a doctrine or a duty (134); and stressing it as a moral issue without regard for the consciences we might be burdening in the process (37).”

Francis cited Thomas Aquinas to argue that general principles may be necessary in pastoral discernment, but they break down as we descend into particular cases (AL 304; ST I-II q. 94 a. 4). The passage comes from the Summa’s discussion of natural law. But Christ clarified that the indissolubility of marriage is part of the divine law, whose purpose is to lead us to communion with God forever. And the new law of Christ is the grace of the Holy Spirit dwelling within us, in part by means of the sacraments, including “indissoluble matrimony” (ST I-II q. 106 a. 1–2). In short, I concluded, “Thomas corrects how Amoris Laetitia tends to speak about indissolubility. The New Law Christ teaches is not just a matter of natural law, a duty, a moral issue, or an ideal. It is life-giving, perfect; it revives the soul and giving joy to the heart (cf. Psalm 19:7–8). Christ’s teaching about marriage clarifies the path of perfection God desires for us. But it also turns that path into a sacrament, a vehicle by which the Holy Spirit fills our hearts with love and realizes that perfection in us.” 

Or take the case of Francis’s second social encyclical, Fratelli Tutti. Chapter 2 offers a moving exegesis of the parable of the Good Samaritan, and later Francis reminds his readers of the connection between the right to private property and the universal destination of goods. Unfortunately, other parts employ argumentation that becomes embarrassing. Francis exceeds his predecessors’ condemnation of capital punishment by calling life imprisonment “a secret death penalty,” but never gives a sense of what to do with unrepentant, dangerous criminals. As I observed after its publication, “He concludes by writing that Christ’s command to Peter to sheathe his sword (Matt. 26:52) is an echo of the ancient warning: ‘I will require a reckoning for human life. Whoever sheds the blood of a man, by man shall his blood be shed’ (Gen. 9:5–6). An echo may be there, but Francis ends multiple paragraphs against capital punishment with the first of many divine commands for it.” 

Capital punishment proved to be a sample case for Francis’s approach to the theological tradition. As Ed Feser has ably argued, the Catholic Church has repeatedly taught throughout its history that capital punishment is permissible. Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI made it clear that they believed as a prudential matter that it should very rarely be used. But Francis changed the Catechism of the Catholic Church to say that the death penalty was “inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person” and made statements that clearly implied the death penalty per se violates the natural law and the law of the gospel.

However, Feser argues: “If capital punishment is wrong in principle, then the Church has for two millennia consistently taught grave moral error and badly misinterpreted scripture. And if the Church has been so wrong for so long about something so serious, then there is no teaching that might not be reversed, with the reversal justified by the stipulation that it be called a ‘development’ rather than a contradiction.” Hence Cardinal Avery Dulles, who was personally opposed to capital punishment, argued that “the reversal of a doctrine as well established as the legitimacy of capital punishment would raise serious problems regarding the credibility of the magisterium.” In this matter as in others, Francis was more concerned with getting to the answer he wanted than with the impact that would have on the Church’s doctrine as a whole.

Later in Fratelli Tutti, Francis dismisses the entire just war tradition in a footnote. He writes that “war can easily be chosen by invoking all sorts of allegedly humanitarian, defensive or precautionary excuses.” True enough, although John Paul II called for exactly such intervention to stop atrocities in Yugoslavia. He claims that “every war leaves our world worse than it was before. War is a failure of politics and of humanity, a shameful capitulation, a stinging defeat before the forces of evil.” But then one thinks of Great Britain, which Benedict XVI thanked for “courageously resisting the forces” of Nazi tyranny. Francis concludes by arguing that military spending should be redirected to “establish a global fund that can finally put an end to hunger and favor development in the most impoverished countries, so that their citizens will not resort to violent or illusory solutions, or have to leave their countries in order to seek a more dignified life.” We should not be surprised that a few years later, the people of Ukraine would find his response to their plight frustrating.

In sum, Francis was much more interested in solving pastoral problems than in theological doctrines. But his responsibility was to safeguard the Church’s doctrine and to cherish and promote its theological reasoning. It is a cause of enduring sadness that he failed to do so. His successor should take this task up again with renewed vigor. And he should remember that in the Church, theological reasoning outlasts politics. Francis made a mess, but messes can be unmade.

During Pope Francis’s final days, numerous outlets reported an increasing number of conversions to Catholicism in the U.S., France, and Britain. Francis and his inner circle had a complicated relationship with converts, especially American ones. He appeared not to understand how beauty and tradition are important and attractive to young people, how justice and order are for the Church’s good, and how doctrinal clarity and stability make the Church a shelter in the midst of the storms of our age. As Ross Douthat recently put it, we live in “an age of extinction” in which technology-driven change puts pressure on social institutions and inherited beliefs. Catholicism will flourish insofar as it is chosen and practiced, not inherited and taken for granted. It will require spiritual fathers who give persuasive answers to the question “Why should I become Catholic?” Let us pray that the next pope can do so, joyfully.

Image by JoniVideography and sourced via Wikimedia Commons.

The US president is “frustrated” with the Ukrainian leader, who’s moving in the “wrong direction” on peace talks, Trump’s spokesperson has said

The White House has criticized Vladimir Zelensky for publicly discussing sensitive details of peace negotiations aimed at ending the Ukraine conflict.

On Tuesday, it was reported that Zelensky publicly rejected a US proposal for territorial concessions to Russia, including the recognition of Crimea as Russian territory, as part of a peace deal. According to the media, the move has angered US officials, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio skipping Wednesday’s talks in London with European and Ukrainian delegations.

During a press briefing on Wednesday, White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt voiced US President Donald Trump’s frustration over Zelensky’s recent comments to the media regarding the talks.

“Unfortunately, President Zelensky has been trying to litigate this peace negotiation in the press, and that’s unacceptable to the president,” Leavitt said.

Leavitt stressed that the Trump administration believes such talks should be handled in private.

“The president’s national security team, his advisors have exuded significant time, energy and effort to try to bring this war to an end,” she stated. “The American taxpayer has funded billions of dollars in this effort and enough is enough.”

The remarks signal growing impatience within Trump’s team over what it sees as an unproductive public discourse surrounding peace efforts. “The president… is frustrated. His patience is running very thin. He wants to do what’s right for the world. He wants to see peace, and unfortunately President Zelensky seems to be moving in the wrong direction,” Leavitt said.

The spokesperson clarified that Trump is not demanding Ukraine recognize Russian sovereignty over Crimea, but is instead calling for realistic dialogue. “What he is asking is for people to come to the negotiating table recognizing that this has been a brutal war for far too long.”

She concluded by emphasizing the need for compromise in any future peace deal. “In order to make a good deal, both sides have to walk away a little bit unhappy,” Leavitt said.

Breaking News

According to the Financial Times Russian President Putin Has Signaled His Readiness to Sell Out His Country

Paul Craig Roberts

This morning I wrote that Putin had so badly mishandled the Ukraine conflict that his only choice was surrender or military victory, a victory he has been avoiding for more than three years. If the Financial Times can be believed, Putin has chosen surrender, or perhaps more accurately, partial surrender or semi-surrender.

The Financial Times reports that “Vladimir Putin has offered to halt his invasion of Ukraine at the current front line as part of efforts to reach a peace deal with US President Donald Trump, according to people familiar with the matter.” [The Financial Times continues to display its ignorance or its partisanship by designating Russian military action limited to the Russian territories as an “invasion of Ukraine.” The Financial Times has proven so unreliable in its coverage that I cannot say I have confidence in this report.]

Moreover, the Financial Times reported that Putin told President Trump’s Special Envoy for Ukraine, Steve Witkoff, that Moscow could sweeten the deal by relinquishing Russia’s claims to areas of the four regions currently considered by the Kremlin to be part of Russia. This concession despite Putin himself having introduced constitutional amendments barring Russia from relinquishing claims to any of its territory.

Putin has yet again shown that nothing he says in defense of Russia means anything. All along Putin has said he would not accept any peace deal unless Ukraine withdrew its troops from the front lines and gave Moscow full control over the four provinces. Now suddenly Putin is willing to piss away a military victory and, perhaps, give back battlefield gains of Russian populated areas for a deal. This point is not clear.

The Financial Times says Putin has stepped back from his demands. When you refuse to play your winning cards, what kind of deal can you expect? By showing such desperation for a deal while winning on the battlefield, Putin has further enhanced his reputation as a person irresolute in war. The consequence for Russia will be another disastrous agreement, such as the Minsk Agreement, that will not be kept and that will evolve into worse conflict.

What Trump wants is not a Great Powers Agreement, but a settlement that lets Trump claim success in ending the conflict. Any agreement will not last beyond Trump’s term of office.

Here is the Financial Times report:
Vladimir Putin offers to halt Ukraine invasion along current front line
https://www.ft.com/content/5d848403-4a15-4592-888b-eb7b754ecb3a

This is an amazing Financial Times news report for there not to be anything about it on RT, Sputnik, BBC, CNN, Los Angeles Times.

While US negotiators trade smiles with Tehran, internal rifts and foreign pressure reveal just how fragile Washington’s position has become

Last Saturday, the second round of US-Iran nuclear talks took place in Rome, following an initial meeting held a week before in Muscat, Oman. Both sides had described the talks as “constructive,” but that optimism quickly collided with a wave of conflicting signals from the Trump administration. Despite the encouraging tone, it remained unclear whether a new nuclear agreement was truly within reach.

At the outset of negotiations, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz – an outspoken Iran hawk – laid down a hardline condition: Iran must completely dismantle its uranium enrichment program if it wanted any deal with the US. But after the Muscat meeting, Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, who led the US delegation, struck a very different note. In an interview with Fox News, he suggested that Tehran might be allowed to maintain limited uranium enrichment for peaceful energy purposes – something that would have been a nonstarter just days earlier.

Witkoff emphasized the importance of strict verification protocols to prevent any militarization of Iran’s nuclear capabilities, including oversight of missile technology and delivery systems. Notably absent from his remarks? Any mention of “dismantlement.” This shift hinted that the administration might be considering a modified return to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – the very agreement that Trump tore up in 2018, branding it a “disaster.”

But the pivot didn’t last. Just one day later, Witkoff reversed course in a post on X, doubling down on the demand for full dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear and weapons programs. So what triggered the rhetorical whiplash?

According to Axios, Trump huddled with top national security officials just three days after the Muscat talks to reassess the US strategy. In that meeting, Vice President JD Vance, Witkoff, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued for a pragmatic approach. Pushing Tehran to dismantle its entire nuclear infrastructure, they warned, would tank the talks. Iran had already made it clear that such sweeping concessions were off the table. Vance even suggested Washington should brace for some level of compromise.

But not everyone agreed. A rival faction – led by Waltz and Secretary of State Marco Rubio – saw things differently. They argued that Iran’s current vulnerability gave the US a unique upper hand, one that shouldn’t be squandered. If Tehran failed to meet America’s terms, they insisted, the US should be ready to strike militarily or greenlight Israeli action.

The divide exposes a deeper strategic rift within the Trump administration. Between the maximalist view that Iran must be completely disarmed and the more flexible position that aims to curb weaponization while preserving peaceful enrichment lies a vast gray area. The lack of a unified message – or even basic consensus – risks leaving the US at a disadvantage against a seasoned and coordinated Iranian negotiating team.

In short, Trump finds himself in a difficult balancing act. On one hand, it’s clear he wants to avoid military escalation. The decision to send Witkoff – a figure known for his willingness to compromise – signals a genuine interest in diplomacy over saber-rattling. If hardliners had the upper hand in Washington, it’s unlikely the second round in Rome would have happened at all.

On Monday, April 21, Trump cautiously told reporters the talks were going “very well,” but warned that real progress would take time. His choice of words reflected a desire to stay flexible, while acknowledging the complexity – and risks – of negotiating with Tehran.

Optimism seems more palpable on the Iranian side. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the two sides had found significantly more common ground in Rome than in Muscat. His remarks suggest that momentum is building and that real progress may be on the horizon.

Araghchi’s itinerary also raised eyebrows. Before heading to Rome, he made a stop in Moscow, where he met with President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. He reportedly carried a personal message from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – what he called “a message to the world.” The West didn’t miss the symbolism: the visit was widely interpreted as a public reaffirmation of the Moscow–Tehran alliance. Retired US Army Colonel and former Pentagon advisor Douglas MacGregor noted on X that any major American military action against Iran would likely draw a response from Russia, Tehran’s strategic partner.

On that same day, President Putin signed a law ratifying a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with Iran – further cementing political and economic cooperation. Against the backdrop of fragile US-Iran talks, the Moscow-Tehran axis suddenly looks more consequential. With these growing ties, Washington may find it harder to exert unilateral pressure on Iran.

Meanwhile, not everyone in Tehran is sold on the negotiations. Many Iranian officials remain skeptical of Trump, whose decision to unilaterally scrap the JCPOA in 2018 still looms large. Their distrust extends beyond Trump himself to a broader concern: that future US presidents may once again reverse course. If Obama’s deals were dismantled by Trump, why wouldn’t Trump’s agreements suffer the same fate?

Despite these tensions, major international outlets have confirmed that two more rounds of talks are planned: one in Geneva next week, and another in Oman the week after. The continued diplomatic activity points to a shared interest in keeping the conversation alive. For now, both Trump’s measured optimism and Iran’s cautious tone suggest that, at least in the near term, the risk of war has receded.

This de-escalation in rhetoric reflects a deeper truth: despite lingering mistrust and domestic political pressures, both sides see value in staying at the table. You don’t have to be a policy wonk to see that. But in Israel, the mood is far more anxious. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – never one to hide his skepticism about engaging Iran – has condemned the talks. For Tel Aviv, negotiations risk softening Tehran’s isolation and threatening Israel’s strategic position.

Still, Trump’s priority isn’t regional politics – it’s his legacy. He wants to be seen as the president who avoided war and brokered a deal the American public can get behind. In that light, Netanyahu’s objections may have to wait.

Federal employees have reportedly been asked to report instances of such discrimination among colleagues

The White House has launched a task force to investigate the alleged anti-Christian bias within federal agencies, directing employees to report perceived discrimination against Christians among their colleagues, according to media reports.

US President Donald Trump mandated the creation of what is called the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias in an executive order in February. The task force is meant to identify policies and actions across federal departments that have unlawfully discriminated against Christians, according to the document.

“The Biden administration engaged in an egregious pattern of targeting peaceful Christians while ignoring violent anti-Christian offenses,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said at the task force’s inaugural meeting on Tuesday.

Christians under the administration of Joe Biden were subjected to abuse and spying from federal agencies, she claimed.

The task force will identify “unlawful anti-Christian policies, practices or conduct across the government,” as well as “find and fix deficiencies in existing and regulatory practices,” Bondi said.

Federal employees have reportedly received instructions to report instances of this kind of discrimination among their colleagues.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has requested that their workers relay instances of “anti-Christian” bias, complete with names, dates and locations to a government email address, The Guardian wrote on Tuesday, citing an internal email from the body.

A similar internal memo was circulated among US State Department staff, Politico reported earlier this month.

Several senior members of Trump’s administration are devout Christians, including Vice President J.D. Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. A large share of white American Christians supported Trump's presidential bid, according to a Pew Research study from last year.

The US president himself was raised Presbyterian, but announced himself a non-denominational Christian in 2020. After surviving an assassination attempt, and having several plots on his life foiled during his 2024 reelection campaign, Trump has repeatedly said that God spared his life.

The majority of Americans, 62%, identify as Christian, while around 30% are non-religious, and 7% belong to non-Christian religions, according to a Pew Research study from February.

I will keep my blog posts short on account of the terrible internet connection in the place that I am staying in in Rome. There are huge crowds here, crowds the size of which I have never seen before, even though I have been to Rome many times in the past. People are waiting for hours to get into St. Peter's to view the body. In front of St. Mary Major, where Francis has asked to be buried, they are already setting up chairs outside of the church, these are for those who are saying the rosary tonight outside of the church, but I can imagine that they will be still set up for dignitaries, some of whom will be seated outside the church of burial. Such is the situation in Rome on the Wednesday before the funeral. We saw a parade of cardinals, all dressed in bright red cassocks and birettas, almost parading down the street. My pictures of all of these sightings will be put up on X.com. What is strange here is that there really are no signs of mourning here, in the streets. In fact, people seem generally in a elated and party-like mood. No one really seems sad, at least externally. Not at all. I found myself weeping when I heard the bells of Mary Major ring out 88 times for the 88 years of Francis's life. The human heart is a complicated thing. 

Steve Witkoff is expected to meet the Russian president on Friday, Axios reports

A meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, could happen on Friday, Axios reported on Wednesday, citing an unnamed US official.

Earlier, Moscow confirmed that Witkoff would travel to Russia later this week.

Witkoff has visited Russia three times in recent months for multiple rounds of talks with senior Russian officials, including Putin, as part of peace efforts undertaken by Washington and Moscow to end the Ukraine conflict.

As part of a potential peace deal, Washington reportedly proposes to recognize Russia’s jurisdiction over Crimea and acknowledge Moscow’s control over four other former Ukrainian regions that voted to join Russia. The plan is also said to include the scheduled lifting of some sanctions against Russia and a denial to Ukraine's request to join NATO. 

On Tuesday, Vladimir Zelensky rejected any discussion of recognizing Crimea as Russian, prompting Trump to warn on Wednesday that Zelensky risked losing his entire country if he continued to undermine the talks.

READ MORE: Trump accuses Zelensky of harming peace talks

Witkoff, together with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, skipped a high-level meeting on Ukraine in London on Wednesday, following Zelensky's rebuttal of a key pillar in the US peace proposal.

The UK Foreign Office later confirmed to AFP that a meeting of foreign ministers from countries backing Kiev had been indefinitely postponed, adding that “official level talks” will continue but behind closed doors.

Elections are in the forefront of many minds at the moment. The people of Canada will soon go to the polls and the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church are gathering at St Peter’s for the obsequies of Pope Francis and the election of his successor. At first glance it may seem as if these […]

The post Conscientious responsibilities and frightful consequences appeared first on Voice of the Family.

Slovakia’s Robert Fico has pointed to a recent study showing the presence of DNA and other undeclared substances in jabs supplied to the country

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has called for an immediate halt to government purchases of Covid-19 vaccines, citing a recent report that found mRNA jabs contain extremely high levels of DNA and substances that were not disclosed by the manufacturer.

Bratislava initially considered outright banning the vaccines when a commission led by Peter Kotlar, an orthopedic doctor and member of the ruling Slovak National Party, published a report in October claiming that the mRNA jabs alter human DNA, have been inadequately tested, and therefore should not be administered until they are proven safe. 

Kotlar has also described the Covid-19 pandemic as an “act of bioterrorism” and a “fabricated operation,” and has accused vaccine manufacturers Moderna and Pfizer of turning vaccinated people into “genetically modified organisms.”

His report, however, was met with significant pushback from opposition parties, as well as former Slovak Health Minister Zuzana Dolinkova, who cast doubt on Kotlar’s qualifications with regard to the subject. She subsequently resigned from her position that same month, citing government backing for an anti-vaxxer and insufficient prioritization of health care.

In a post on X on Wednesday, Fico published a video in which he stated that ignoring the findings of the Kotlar-led commission on the quality of the Covid-19 vaccines would be “extremely irresponsible.”

Fico noted that in March, he instructed the Health Ministry to establish a working group to address the findings of the expert report submitted by Kotlar, but acknowledged that this may not produce results quickly enough.

The prime minister said he would try to resolve the issue in “a reasonable timeframe” and propose during an upcoming government meeting that apart from the working group, the Slovak Academy of Sciences (SAV) would also be asked to conduct a quantitative analysis of the presence of DNA and other substances in the vaccines.

Fico also suggested that the government should inform the population about the “serious findings” regarding the jabs. “Although Covid-19 vaccination rates are extremely low, people deserve such a warning,” he said.  

The prime minister went on to propose that Slovakia suspend the purchase of additional vaccines from the unspecified manufacturer, which it is obligated to do under a contract signed by the former government in 2023.

Bratislava is still expected to procure nearly 300,000 doses of Covid-19 vaccines in 2025 and 2026, which is estimated to cost around $6.6 million, Fico said, stressing that “until the results of the additional quantitative analysis are delivered, the government should not procure further vaccines from this manufacturer or pay for them.”

The Ukrainian leader has reportedly frustrated the White House with his public dismissal of the US roadmap towards peace with Russia

US officials are angered by Vladimir Zelensky’s public dismissal of an American proposal to make territorial concessions to Russia in exchange for a peace deal in the Ukraine conflict, according to the Washington Post.

In public comments on Tuesday, Zelensky dismissed options that the administration of US President Donald Trump reportedly presented at high-level discussions in Paris last Thursday, which they believe could facilitate a peace agreement. One such proposal reportedly involved formal recognition of Crimea as Russian territory.

”[Crimea] is our territory, the territory of the people of Ukraine. We have nothing to talk about on this topic – it is outside our Constitution,” Zelensky stated.

According to the Post, citing an anonymous official briefed on the situation, there is “anger in Washington over [Kiev’s] reluctance to accept proposals to cede territory to Russia,” and that Ukraine prefers “to discuss a complete ceasefire first and everything else later.”

A follow-up meeting to the Paris talks between European and US officials had been scheduled for London on Wednesday, although it was abruptly downgraded when US Secretary of State Marco Rubio opted not to attend. Foreign ministers from European NATO members – including France and Germany – who were also due to gather in London followed Rubio's lead and skipped the event.

Zelensky’s chief of staff, Andrey Yermak, who heads the Ukrainian delegation, stated that he and Ukrainian defense and foreign ministers would “discuss ways to achieve a full and unconditional ceasefire” with Western officials.

Rubio had previously expressed hope that “substantive and good technical meetings” in London would pave the way for his rescheduled visit to the British capital “in the coming months.” Senior US officials have warned they will abandon efforts to negotiate a compromise truce between Ukraine and Russia if either side attempts to obstruct their initiatives.

READ MORE: UK and France would support Ukrainian territorial concessions to Moscow – WSJ

The EU and the UK are committed to continuing military support for Ukraine and are urging the US not to distance itself from the crisis, contrary to Trump’s announced intention. British and French leaders are reportedly willing to support territorial concessions by Ukraine, provided Western security guarantees are offered in return. Moscow has made it clear that it will not accept the presence of troops from NATO countries in Ukraine, a proposal championed by Paris and London.