Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

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.

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.

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.

The Ukrainian leader’s refusal to discuss territorial concessions is prolonging the conflict, the US president has said

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky could lose the entirety of his country if he continues stalling talks with Russia, US President Donald Trump warned in a post on Truth Social on Wednesday.

Zelensky had publicly announced that Kiev will not even discuss officially recognizing the Crimean Peninsula as Russian, a key tenet of a Washington-backed peace proposal which it was to present at a meeting with officials the country's European backers on Wednesday. Following the rebuttal the top members of the US delegation withdrew from the planned talks, leading to the meeting being “downgraded” at the last minute. 

“This statement is very harmful to the Peace Negotiations with Russia in that Crimea was lost years ago,” Trump wrote, accusing the Ukrainian leader of prolonging the conflict.

READ MORE: White House accuses Zelensky of megaphone diplomacy

Crimea’s predominantly ethnic-Russian population voted to join Russia in a referendum in 2014, following a Western-backed armed coup in Kiev. Trump took to his Truth Social platform on Wednesday, declaring

The situation for Ukraine is dire – He can have Peace or, he can fight for another three years before losing the whole Country.

Trump reiterated that Zelensky has a weak bargaining position in the negotiations. “We are very close to a Deal, but the man with ‘no cards to play’ should now, finally, GET IT DONE,” he wrote.

The US has been pushing for a  resolution to the conflict, while at the same time trying to secure a minerals extraction deal with Ukraine to recoup some of the billions of dollars spent on arming the country. However, Trump and his administration have been growing impatient with the pace of the negotiations on both fronts, signaling that they may abandon the efforts.

If the US determines that “not enough movement is happening, we may need to move on to other priorities,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in an interview with the Free Press published on Tuesday.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated in response that a peace deal with Ukraine is unlikely to be concluded in an expedited manner due to the complexities of the negotiations. Moscow has said it has always been ready to engage in peace talks, provided they ensure a permanent solution that addresses the root causes of the conflict – while any temporary ceasefire would be used by Ukraine’s Western backers to rearm the country’s military.

A group of retired officers, including over two dozen generals, has urged Parliament to debate troop presence and lethal aid for Kiev

A group of high-ranking French veterans has called for increased oversight of the country’s military involvement in Ukraine.

In a letter sent to the heads of both houses of Parliament, the former officers urged lawmakers to hold a formal debate on weapons supplies and the continued presence of French troops bolstering Kiev’s war efforts.

The letter, titled the ‘Citizen Resolution’, was published earlier this week on Place d’Armes, a platform for current and former service members to express views on national policy. It included a public call for citizens to sign the resolution in support.

The authors argued that France’s military involvement in Ukraine without a parliamentary mandate, and arms deliveries without public debate, violate the French Constitution and Criminal Code. They claimed that no clear communication has been made to Parliament about the possible presence of French troops in Ukraine since 2022, despite the legal obligation to inform lawmakers of any “military intervention.”

The letter has urged the parliament to publish “all information” about troop presence in the Journal Officiel, the country’s official gazette, and to “organize a debate with a vote on the continuation of this intervention” within 15 days of receiving the letter.

The document also noted that the French-Ukrainian security pact signed last year – which included €3 billion in aid and multi-year military support – has not been ratified by Parliament, despite the Constitution requiring such ratification for treaties having major financial implications for the state.

“The lack of regular parliamentary ratification raises the question of the legality of the supply of weapons from the French army reserves to Ukraine for use against Russia, with which our country is not at war,” the letter states.

The letter also highlighted President Emmanuel Macron’s recent remarks about potentially deploying troops to Ukraine and sharing nuclear capabilities with European partners. The authors argued that such decisions require parliamentary debate to ensure legitimacy.

Commenting on the letter, the head of the Place d’Armes association, Jean-Pierre Fabre-Bernadac, told Sud Radio it reflects heightened public concern about the country’s involvement in Ukraine.

“Is it a fable? Is there a reality of French troops on Ukrainian soil? This will be clarified by the National Assembly and the Senate,” he said. “The army is at the service of the nation. It is not at the service of a man or a regime.” He noted that his association did not write the text but that it was instead prepared by military professionals, including 26 former army generals.

The heads of the Senate and National Assembly have not yet publicly responded to the letter, while the mainstream French media has largely been quiet about its existence. However, the document has been signed by over 14,000 people since its release.

Despite numerous reports of Western troops in Ukraine, Kiev’s backers have avoided confirming any official deployments. Russia has repeatedly opposed the presence of Western forces under any pretext in the combat zone, warning that such a move would be treated as direct involvement in the conflict.

Australian authorities are facing a backlash following the cull in a national park in Victoria state

Australian authorities are under fire following the culling of hundreds of koalas in the state of Victoria.

Around 700 koalas have been shot by snipers from helicopters flying over Victoria's Budj Bim National Park, in an act of euthanasia following a devastating bushfire that scorched over 2,000 hectares of habitat.

The fire left many koalas injured, dehydrated, and without food, prompting authorities to initiate the cull in early April as a means to prevent further suffering.

Animal welfare organizations have voiced alarm over the wellbeing of orphaned joeys left behind, media reported on Tuesday.

However, the approach – deploying snipers to shoot the animals from helicopters – has sparked swift and widespread backlash.

Activists have raised concerns that decisions were being made by veterinarians and shooters from distances of up to 30 meters, increasing the risk of mistakenly killing healthy koalas—including mothers still caring for their joeys.

”The use of aerial shooting should be treated as a last resort,” Friends of the Earth Melbourne said in a statement, urging authorities to pause the cull and allow independent observers access to the site.

”This is the first time that koalas have been killed by shooting from a helicopter in Australia,” the organization said. “Aerial culling of koalas is an Australian first and sets a nasty ethical precedent.”

The animal protection organization Koala Alliance echoed concerns about vulnerable young joeys potentially being left behind to starve or succumb to exposure.

”If koalas were shot out of trees, this means many joeys would be left to suffer and die. It’s despicable. It’s cruel,” the group said in a statement on Facebook.

The regional government has defended its decision to conduct an aerial cull of koalas in Budj Bim National Park, citing expert assessments and veterinary advice.

However, calls for an independent review of the culling process have been growing, with activists urging for more humane and precise methods of wildlife management.

Kiev’s backers are said to be urging security guarantees to be included under Trump’s reported proposal to acknowledge Crimea as Russian

The UK and France are “open to a scenario” in which Kiev would concede territory to Russia in exchange for Western security guarantees and aid, the Wall Street Journal has reported, citing an insider.

London and Paris have emerged as the leading backers of Kiev’s war effort against Russia, after US President Donald Trump announced his intention to distance America from the crisis. Washington expects Ukraine and its European NATO allies to respond this week to its proposed compromise truce before presenting it to Moscow.

European leaders are wary of acknowledging Russian sovereignty over Crimea and freezing the hostilities along the current front lines – concepts reportedly outlined by Trump administration officials in Paris last week – the WSJ said on Tuesday. According to the newspaper’s source, the UK and France would prefer a deal with no formal territorial changes, “like the cease-fire that ended the Korean War.”

That armistice, signed in 1953 by military officers from North Korea and the US, was never endorsed by South Korea, which continues to reject the authority of the government in Pyongyang. Without a formal peace agreement, the Korean War remains technically unresolved.

Current hopes for a diplomatic breakthrough have been dampened by remarks from Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky. On Tuesday, he publicly dismissed certain ideas reportedly included in the Trump administration’s peace plan. Secretary of State Marco Rubio previously cautioned that the US could “move on” if either party delays progress.

Moscow has accused the EU and UK of trying to undermine Trump’s mediation efforts. Paris and London have suggested a post-ceasefire deployment of Western troops in Ukraine, a scenario that the Russian government has deemed unacceptable under any circumstances. Washington has ruled out any future military involvement in Ukraine, asserting that European nations should handle its security.

Russian officials argue that a lasting peace can only be achieved by addressing the fundamental causes of the conflict, including NATO’s expansion in Europe since the 1990s, and the rise of radical Ukrainian nationalism. According to Moscow, the Zelensky government aims to eradicate “all things Russian” within the nation.

The interagency position was designed to facilitate the prosecution of alleged crimes related to the Ukraine conflict

The administration of US President Donald Trump has reportedly eliminated a position within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) that was responsible for sharing evidence of alleged Russian war crimes.

Mandated by a bipartisan bill passed in 2022 in response to the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, the Intelligence Community Coordinator for Russia Atrocities Accountability Act (ICCRAA) was enacted as part of the 2023 Intelligence Authorization Act.

According to anonymous sources cited by the Washington Post on Tuesday, both the ICCRAA and the interagency working group it led have been terminated.

Previous reports indicated that the Trump administration had withdrawn from collaboration with an EU-led initiative aimed at investigating Russian nationals in connection with the Ukraine conflict, halted a Justice Department program for training Ukrainian prosecutors on handling these cases, and closed an inquiry into Kiev’s allegations that the Russian authorities kidnapped Ukrainian children.

Two major priorities of the Trump agenda include slashing government spending on programs deemed unnecessary and concluding the Ukraine conflict.

The efforts to resolve the conflict reportedly reached a critical juncture this week, with Washington anticipating reactions from Kiev and European NATO members regarding its proposed compromise ceasefire deal before presenting it to Moscow. Secretary of State Marco Rubio cautioned last week that the US could “move on” to other issues if the negotiations stall.

Neither Rubio nor Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, who outlined the ideas last week at a gathering in Paris, will attend this week’s discussions with Ukrainian officials in London, according to Axios. However, Witkoff is expected to travel to Moscow for follow-up talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Reports indicate that the US is proposing formal recognition of Russian sovereignty over the former Ukrainian region of Crimea, which voted to join Russia following the 2014 Western-backed coup in Kiev. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has rejected this, reiterating on Tuesday that Kiev’s claim to the peninsula is non-negotiable.

The US peace framework reportedly includes “de jure” recognition of Crimea as part of Russia and the eventual lifting of sanctions

Washington has presented Kiev with what US President Donald Trump has called the “final offer” to end the Ukraine conflict, according to a report by Axios. The Kremlin, however, has urged the public to rely on official and primary sources for developments in US-Russia talks.

The one-page document was reportedly drafted following Trump envoy Steve Witkoff’s four-hour meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier this month, and was presented to Ukrainian officials in Paris last week, Axios reported on Tuesday, citing unnamed sources with direct knowledge of the discussions.

Under the proposed deal, the US is said to be prepared to grant “de jure” recognition of Crimea as part of Russia, and unofficially acknowledge Moscow’s “de facto” control over the Lugansk and Donetsk People’s Republics, as well as the regions of Kherson and Zaporozhye.

The plan also includes provisions for lifting post-2014 sanctions on Moscow and enhancing bilateral economic cooperation. In addition, Washington would formally oppose Ukraine’s bid to join NATO.

In return, Ukraine would reportedly receive a “robust security guarantee” from a coalition of EU and other like-minded countries. The proposal does not detail how a purpoted “peacekeeping” operation would function.

Russia has rejected the deployment of NATO forces, or troops from members of the bloc under a “coalition of the willing” to Ukraine under any pretext.

The framework also promises Kiev unimpeded access to the Dnepr River and potential compensation for reconstruction efforts, although it does not specify where the funding would originate. The plan references a minerals deal between the US and Ukraine, which Trump expects to be signed on Thursday.

Another component of the proposal, according to Axios, involves designating the area around the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant as neutral territory under US administration. 

Washington reportedly expects Kiev to respond to the proposal during a multinational meeting in London on Wednesday. Both Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio will skip the event, with General Keith Kellogg, another Trump envoy focused on Ukraine, leading the US delegation instead. Witkoff is expected to travel to Moscow for a follow-up meeting with Putin.

Rubio warned last week that the US could abandon the peace initiatives and “move on” to other issues if the negotiations fail. Trump said on Monday there is “a good chance of solving the problem” this week.

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has repeatedly ruled out ceding any territory to Russia and continues to urge the US and other allies to provide sustained military support.

Moscow has stated that the status of Crimea – which joined Russia in 2014 following a referendum held after a Western-backed coup in Kiev – and the four other former Ukrainian regions that voted to join Russia in 2022, is not open to negotiation. Russian officials insist that any peace agreement must address the “root causes” of the conflict. Putin has also said that a viable ceasefire would require Western nations to halt arms deliveries to Ukraine.

US presidential envoy Keith Kellogg will represent Washington instead

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio will not attend Wednesday’s Ukraine talks in London, despite earlier plans to take part, the State Department has confirmed. President Donald Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, has also withdrawn from the meeting, according to the Financial Times, and is expected to visit Moscow instead.

State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce cited scheduling conflicts as the reason for Rubio’s withdrawal from Wednesday’s talks, insisting this does not signal a change in the US commitment to the peace process.

“Secretary Rubio is a busy man… And so when there’s certain plans, they’re conditional. And in this particular instance, while the meetings in London are still occurring, he will not be attending. But that is not a statement regarding the meetings; it’s a statement about logistical issues in his schedule,” Bruce told journalists on Tuesday.

General Keith Kellogg, another Trump envoy tasked with negotiating with Kiev directly, will represent Washington at the London discussions. The talks will include officials from the UK, France, and Germany – countries that advocate continued military support for Ukraine – as well as representatives from Kiev.

The London talks follow a series of high-level meetings in Paris last week, where Rubio and Witkoff held discussions with European and Ukrainian officials. According to the New York Post, Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov reportedly told the US envoys that Kiev is “90%” aligned with Washington’s proposed peace framework, which has not yet been made public.

Sources cited by the Washington Post on Tuesday claimed that the US proposals include formally recognizing Crimea as Russian territory and potentially lifting sanctions on Moscow as part of a future agreement. Meanwhile, the Financial Times claimed that Russia is prepared to halt the hostilities along the current front lines.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov urged the media and public to rely on official sources regarding developments in US-Russia talks on the Ukraine conflict, warning that “a lot of fakes are being published now, including by respected publications.” Both Washington and Moscow have officially confirmed that Witkoff will travel to Russia for talks “later this week.”

Moscow has stated that the status of Crimea – which joined Russia in 2014 following a referendum held after a Western-backed coup in Kiev – and the four other former Ukrainian regions that voted to join Russia in 2022, is not subject to negotiation. Russian officials maintain that recognizing the “reality on the ground” is essential to achieving a lasting peace.

A garden without a gardener: Western Europe drifts as the world rebuilds

The defining trait of today’s Western Europe is not unity or strength – it is the complete absence of a vision for the future. While the US, Russia, China, India, and even Latin America actively shape and debate their long-term direction, Western Europe remains stuck in nostalgia. Its politicians are not building tomorrow but clinging to yesterday’s comforts. The continent’s political imagination seems limited to one goal: Maintaining the status quo of a world that no longer exists.

This backward-looking mentality has transformed the EU into what can best be described as a “terrarium of like-minded people” – an ecosystem where each actor competes for influence, all the while privately despising the others. In theory, the EU was designed to create a shared geopolitical force. In practice, that unity has been reduced to cynical self-interest and mutual sabotage.

Germany wants to preserve its economic dominance, sending constant signals to Washington that it alone is a stable transatlantic partner. France, despite its limited military capabilities, flexes what remains of its armed forces to assert superiority over Germany and southern Europe. Britain, once an outsider, is suddenly interested in being part of “Europe” again – but only to stir division and feed the fires of confrontation with Russia.

Poland plays its own game, maintaining privileged ties with the US and remaining aloof from Franco-German maneuvering. Italy conducts foreign policy like an independent middle power, working with Washington and Moscow alike. Smaller European states scramble for relevance, knowing full well they are pawns on someone else’s board.

Brussels, meanwhile, produces a steady flow of bureaucratic theater. Figures such as Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas make loud proclamations, but everyone knows they lack real power. They are political actors without a stage, reading from scripts that no longer matter. The spectacle of European unity has become hollow – not only in appearance but in substance.

Western Europe’s decline didn’t begin yesterday. But the last 15 years have exposed how brittle the EU’s foundations truly are. After the Cold War, the dream of a strong, united Europe gained some traction: A common currency, common foreign policy, even whispers of strategic autonomy from NATO.

That dream died in Iraq in 2003, when Paris and Berlin briefly opposed Washington’s invasion. But when France rejoined NATO’s command structure in 2007, it signaled the end of any real independence. The Americans, with British support, had reasserted dominance.

The euro, once hailed as the tool of European power, became Germany’s weapon of economic control. Southern and eastern member states were locked into a financial order they could not escape. Germany imposed its will during the eurozone crisis and the pandemic alike, and was hated for it. Smaller nations resented their role as appendages to the German economy, with little recourse.

So when the Ukraine conflict escalated in 2022, the rupture of Russian-German ties was quietly welcomed across the continent. France, which gave little to Kiev, now enjoys more diplomatic prestige than Germany, which gave billions. Poland’s foreign minister practically celebrated the sabotage of Nord Stream – not because it harmed Russia, but because it weakened Berlin.

EU enlargement, once seen as the triumph of European power, has become a liability. For two decades, expanding eastward was treated as a geopolitical project aimed at absorbing former Soviet spaces. But it failed to give Western Europe more clout with Washington. The new members did not submit to Berlin or Paris; they looked to the US instead. In the end, the EU overreached, alienated Moscow, and gained nothing substantial in return.

Having failed at building a real foreign policy, the EU is now desperately trying to preserve what it has. But without a dream of the future, politics loses meaning. Western European life has become a loop of managing decline, while tensions within the bloc grow sharper.

Britain may have left the EU, but geopolitical pressure has pushed it back into the game. Unable to solve its own domestic crises – with four prime ministers in three years – London doubles down on anti-Russian rhetoric to stay relevant. But it doesn’t want to fight, so it pushes its continental allies to do it instead. It’s classic British strategy: Let others bleed.

Most Germans would love to restore ties with Russia and get back to cheap energy and easy profits. But it can’t. The Americans are firmly entrenched on German soil, and Berlin’s military-industrial elite wants NATO spending to continue. Southern Europe, impoverished and increasingly resentful, can no longer sustain German prosperity. France hopes to exploit this, imagining itself as Europe’s new nuclear umbrella. Macron talks big, but everyone knows he rarely delivers.

This brings us to 2025. As tensions with Russia and China rise, EU leaders have been lining up to visit Washington. Except, of course, for the Germans, who are still trying to form a government after chaotic elections. From Poland to France, each leader went to ask Trump for preferential treatment. Divide and rule is still the American playbook, and the Western Europeans keep falling for it.

In the East, Hungary and Slovakia have had enough. Years of lectures from Brussels on LGBT rights and liberal values have created deep resentment. They now speak openly of aligning with Russia or China. Spain and Italy, meanwhile, are refusing to see Moscow as a threat. Italian PM Giorgia Meloni deals with Washington bilaterally and doesn’t pretend to represent broader European interests.

The European Commission, tasked with representing the EU, has become a parody of itself. Kallas, recently named high representative for foreign affairs, immediately overstepped her role by demanding tens of billions in new aid for Ukraine. The backlash was swift. In the EU, power over money stays with national governments. Even von der Leyen, as compromised as she is, knows better than to touch those coffers without permission.

What is left of Western Europe today is a political shell. A group of aging powers clinging to past glories, locked in competition with each other, lacking the will to act but refusing to step aside. Their one shared goal: to be seen in the room when Washington, Moscow, and Beijing make decisions. But it won’t be as equals – it would be as supplicants.

For now, the Americans hold the leash. Only the US can impose discipline on its European satellites and give their politics a sense of direction. Russia watches all of this with measured patience. Because ultimately, if stability returns to Europe, it will be because Washington permits it – not because Brussels earned it.

This article was first published by the magazine Profile and was translated and edited by the RT team.

Kiev and its European backers will be meeting with officials from Washington in London this week

The US will propose a peace deal that involves the recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea and freezing the Ukrainian conflict front lines, at a meeting with officials from Kiev and Western Europe this week, the Washington Post has reported, citing sources.

US President Donald Trump’s envoy Keith Kellogg is set to meet foreign ministers and security advisers from France, Germany, the UK and Ukraine in London on Wednesday. Trump's Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff will reportedly skip the meeting. 

US proposals, presented to Ukraine in Paris last week, also include Washington eventually lifting sanctions against Moscow under a future accord, people familiar with the matter told the outlet on Tuesday. One Western official reportedly described the pressure on Ukraine as “astounding.”

European officials are expected to push for security guarantees for Ukraine and postwar reconstruction efforts, possibly funded in part by frozen Russian assets, the report said.

Trump has threatened to walk away from a Ukraine peace initiative if progress is not made soon. He told reporters on Monday that he would be releasing details of the US proposals “over the next three days.” 

Witkoff, who has had multiple rounds of talks with senior Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin, will visit Russia later this week, Moscow has confirmed. According to one of the Post’s sources, it was “Witkoff’s idea” for the US to designate Crimea as Russian “without forcing Ukraine to recognize it.”

Crimea held a referendum to join Russia in 2014 following a Western-backed armed coup in Kiev. The new Ukrainian government, along with its Western backers, has refused to recognize the vote’s legitimacy.

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has ruled out relinquishing any territorial claims against Russia and has urged the US and other nations to continue providing military aid – a policy the Trump administration has said it will end.

Moscow insists that the status of Crimea, the city of Sevastopol, and the four former Ukrainian regions which voted to join Russia in 2022, is not up for negotiation. Russian officials have emphasized that recognizing the “reality on the ground” is key to achieving lasting peace.

The levies target products manufactured in Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, and Vietnam

Washington has set tariffs of up to 3,521% on solar imports from Southeast Asia, according to information published by the US Department of Commerce on Monday. The hikes follow allegations that Chinese-owned manufacturers operating in the region had violated trade rules.

The tariffs target imports from Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, and Vietnam, countries that collectively supplied over $12.9 billion in solar equipment to the US last year, according to Bloomberg.

Known as antidumping and countervailing duties, the measures aim to counteract the impact of what the US Commerce Department deems to be unfair subsidies and pricing practices.

The decision was made following a petition lodged by the American Alliance for Solar Manufacturing Trade Committee, which represents several US-based manufacturers. The domestic firms alleged that Chinese solar manufacturers operating factories in the four Southeast Asian countries exported panels at prices lower than production costs and benefited from unfair subsidies that undermine the competitiveness of American products.

The penalties vary by company and country: Jinko Solar's products from Malaysia face combined dumping and countervailing duties of 41.56%, Trina Solar's Thai-made goods are subject to 375.19% tariffs, and Cambodian suppliers, who did not cooperate with the probe, face punitive levies of up to 3,521%.

Critics of the measure, such as the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), argue that the tariffs would hurt US solar manufacturers by increasing the cost of imported cells, which American factories use to assemble panels, Reuters noted.

The International Trade Commission, an independent, nonpartisan US federal agency that investigates trade-related matters, is set to vote in June to determine whether the domestic industry was materially harmed by the imports, a necessary step for the tariffs to take full effect.

After similar duties were imposed on solar imports from China roughly 12 years ago, Chinese firms responded by setting up operations in other nations that weren’t affected by the tariffs, noted Bloomberg.

READ MORE: China announces retaliatory sanctions against US officials

The new levies will come on top of the broad tariffs introduced by US President Donald Trump, which have jolted global markets. So far, Trump has imposed tariffs of 145% on Chinese imports, and threatened a further possible hike to 245%.

China has accused the US of “bullying,” retaliated with a 125% tax on US products and vowed to “fight to the end.”

Pete Hegseth faces accusations of mishandling classified information tied to Yemen bombings

The Pentagon is at war with its own chief, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, according to White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt.

In an interview with Fox and Friends on Monday, Leavitt affirmed US President Donald Trump’s full confidence in Hegseth’s leadership.

“This is what happens when the entire Pentagon is working against you and working against the monumental change that you are trying to implement,” she stated. Leavitt alleged that those opposed to Hegseth resent his commitment to “standing up for the war-fighter” and are resorting to “leaking and… lying to the mainstream media” to undermine him.

President Trump’s administration has risen to defend Hegseth following a New York Times report published last Sunday, which accused him of sharing sensitive information regarding operations in Yemen with his wife and brother, who lacked security clearance.

The NYT article is tangentially related to the ‘Signalgate’ scandal, which erupted in March after The Atlantic revealed it had accessed an internal chat among Trump administration members discussing attacks on Yemen’s Houthi rebels. This leak was attributed to National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, who reportedly mistakenly saved editor Jeffrey Goldberg’s contact under an incorrect name before sending him an invite.

According to the NYT, Hegseth had another private chat group on the Signal app with a dozen members from his inner circle, including his wife. Hegseth’s spokesman, Sean Parnell, claimed that the Times was attempting to bring the Signalgate story “back from the dead.”

Last week, three Pentagon officials who were suspended amid an internal investigation into alleged leaks released a joint statement denouncing their alleged mistreatment.

Senior adviser Dan Caldwell, deputy chief of staff Darin Selnick, and Colin Carroll, chief of staff to Deputy Defense Secretary Stephen Feinberg, claimed that “unnamed Pentagon officials have slandered our character with baseless attacks on our way out the door.”

In an opinion piece for Politico, former chief Pentagon spokesman John Ullyot argued that Hegseth is “presiding over a strange and baffling purge that will leave him without his two closest advisers of over a decade,” namely Caldwell and Selnick, as well as other key staff members.

Beijing has denounced the exercises as destabilizing and warned against provocations over Taiwan

China has vehemently condemned joint US-Philippines military drills that kicked off on Monday, accusing Manila of colluding to undermine regional stability and provoke tensions over Taiwan.

The 2025 Balikatan exercise, which started on April 21 and runs through May 9, involves around 14,000 troops from the US and the Philippines along with contingents from Australia and Japan. Several other countries have sent observers. 

The drills include live-fire training, amphibious landings, aerial surveillance, and a simulated island defense operation near the Luzon Strait, close to Taiwan. Fighter jets, warships and an array of weaponry including a US Marine anti-ship missile system will also be involved in the “full-scale battle scenario,” American and Filipino military officials have said.

At a press conference on Monday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun slammed the exercise, stating that while the international community is facing “the impact of unilateralism, protectionism, bullying, and hegemony… drills like the Balikatan undermine regional peace.

“The Philippines, in collusion with countries outside the region... has undermined regional strategic stability, damaged the region’s economic growth prospects, and openly stood in opposition to regional countries,” the spokesman said.

Guo went on to condemn the use of the Taiwan issue as an excuse to strengthen regional military deployment and provoke tension and confrontation, stressing that the matter is “purely China’s internal affairs.”

“Those who play with fire will get burned,” Guo cautioned.

Taiwan has governed itself since 1949, when nationalist forces retreated to the island after losing China’s civil war. Beijing maintains that Taiwan is part of China and has opposed any form of foreign involvement in the issue. Only a handful of nations currently recognize the island’s sovereignty, and most of the world, including Russia, adheres to Beijing’s One China policy.

While Washington also officially recognizes Taiwan as part of China, it has nevertheless maintained unofficial relations with the government in Taipei and has supplied billions of dollars’ worth of weapons to the self-governing island over the years.

Washington officials have had “very good meetings” with leaders in both Moscow and Kiev, according to the US president

US President Donald Trump has said that he will reveal his plan to settle the Ukraine conflict later this week. According to the New York Post, the White House proposal could include the deployment of Western European troops to the country to uphold a possible ceasefire.

The announcement follows last week’s remarks by Trump and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who hinted that Washington could give up on its efforts to stop the fighting unless it sees tangible progress towards peace made by Russia and Ukraine.

“I will be giving you a full detail over the next three days,” Trump said on Monday, referring to his plan.

“But we had very good meetings on Ukraine, Russia… We will see how that works,” he told journalists.

The New York Post reported on Monday, citing a senior US administration official, that Russia and Ukraine are currently discussing Trump’s proposal internally.

The terms for peace “are not yet set in stone,” but the US president’s plan could include the deployment of Western European troops to Ukraine once the fighting ends, the source said.

According to the official, the so-called “‘resiliency force’ is part of the security guarantees that the Ukrainians want and we hope they get.”

A separate peacekeeping force to monitor a possible truce, which would look like a “joint commission” of Russians, Ukrainians and a third, non-NATO country is also being discussed, the source said.

The US could also be involved in it, but not as “boots on the ground, but the monetary force, along with a third party,” the official added.

On Friday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump’s plan could include the official recognition of Crimea as Russian territory by Ukraine.

Russia has categorically ruled out the possibility of Western European troops being deployed to Ukraine. It has said repeatedly that any peace deal must address the “root causes” of the conflict, including NATO’s eastward expansion and Kiev’s aspirations to join the US-led bloc.

Moscow also demanded that Kiev recognize not only Crimea, but the People’ Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk as well as Kherson and Zaporozhye Regions as part of Russia. The Ukrainian leadership has so far rejected the idea of making any territorial concessions to Russia.

READ MORE: Trump wants a deal. Putin wants victory. Ukraine will get what it deserves

Last week, Russian UN envoy Vassily Nebenzia stressed that a full ceasefire is “simply unrealistic at this stage,” accusing the West of using negotiations as a cover to rearm the Ukrainian forces.

Ron Johnson suspects “an awful lot” is being covered up about the attacks

Republican US Senator Ron Johnson has suggested that new congressional hearings into the September 11 attacks may be forthcoming, citing unanswered questions surrounding the official narrative and the handling of evidence.

On September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four passenger airliners, crashing two into the World Trade Center towers in Manhattan. A third plane struck the Pentagon, while the fourth crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed due to fires ignited by debris from one of the nearby towers.

During an interview with conservative commentator Benny Johnson which was published on Monday, Senator Johnson questioned several aspects of the 9/11 investigation, including the collapse of Building 7.

“I don’t know that you can find structural engineers – other than the ones that have the corrupt investigation inside NIST – that would say that that thing didn’t come down in any other way than a controlled demolition,” he said.

Senator Ron Johnson drops BOMBSHELL:

Tells us that 9/11 Hearings are being planned, Building 7 was potentially a "Controlled Demolition"

“Structural Engineers say that thing didn't come down in any other way than controlled demolition. Molten steel. Destruction of evidence. We… pic.twitter.com/aBQzCakll7

Johnson, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, also criticized the removal and destruction of physical evidence from the site, calling it “totally contrary to any other firefighting investigation procedures.”

“Where’s all the documentation from the NIST investigation? There are a host of questions that I want and I will be asking, quite honestly, now that my eyes have been opened,” he added.

When asked whether the public might see hearings on the issue, Johnson replied, “I think so.” He further suggested that President Donald Trump, “being a New Yorker himself,” might have an interest in reopening the case: “What actually happened in 9/11? What do we know? What is being covered up? My guess is there’s an awful lot being covered up in terms of what the American government knows about 9/11.”

Johnson also said he recently spoke with former Congressman Curt Weldon and plans to “work with him to expose what he’s willing to expose.”

Earlier this month, Weldon urged Trump to appoint “people of impeccable integrity” to lead a commission to “study the facts” surrounding 9/11.

In an interview with journalist Tucker Carlson, Weldon dismissed the label of conspiracy theorist, suggesting that the CIA and the government have long engaged in disinformation. “You know, what gets me is reporters who call people conspiracy theorists. Well, that’s all the agency does! They’re the ones who create the conspiracies,” he said. “They have whole courses for their agents on how to make people look like they’re conspiracy theorists.”

The 9/11 Commission Report, released in 2004, remains the most comprehensive US federal review of the attacks. However, critics have pointed to omissions and the continued classification of key government documents. Johnson also referenced a bipartisan effort with Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) in 2023 to obtain unredacted FBI files. “We wanted to get those answers, those documents for the families. Again, we didn’t get squat from the FBI,” he said.

The US president is reportedly not interested in informal diplomatic contact with China on trade

US President Donald Trump has stifled almost every channel of diplomatic outreach with China, aiming to deal directly with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping, as the trade war between the two superpowers escalates, Politico has reported citing anonymous sources.

The increasing tit-for-tat duties between the US and China is part of a broader US tariff campaign against more than 90 countries, said to be aimed at addressing unfair trade imbalances. While Trump has paused the hikes for most countries for 90 days, Beijing was excluded and faces a 145% tariff. China has retaliated with 125% tariffs on US goods and restricted certain key exports.

The US president is adamant about direct negotiations with Xi, and has stifled other diplomatic avenues, Politico wrote on Saturday, citing anonymous former US State Department officials and an industry official.

Trump has not authorized White House delegates to engage with Beijing, the outlet cited its sources as saying. In addition, the Senate has not confirmed a US ambassador to China, Trump has not nominated an official to lead a diplomatic effort, and Washington has thus far not reached out to the Chinese embassy, Politico reported.

“The backchannels don’t work because President Trump doesn’t want them to,” Ryan Hass, former director for China, Taiwan, and Mongolia at the National Security Council during the Obama administration, told the outlet.

“Trump wants to deal directly with President Xi in the same way he has with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin,” he said.

Washington is waiting for Beijing to reach out and call first, CNN wrote earlier this month, citing anonymous officials.

“China wants to make a deal. They just don’t know how quite to go about it,” Trump has said. “They’re proud people.”

Additionally, Washington intends to use negotiations over potential tariff exemptions to pressure US trading partners to curb their ties with China and ramp up pressure on Beijing, the Wall Street Journal reported last week, citing unnamed sources.

In a statement on Monday, the Chinese Commerce Ministry stressed that it would retaliate against any country that takes such a deal “at the expense of China’s interests.”

Oman is known for its pragmatic, neutral, and peaceful policies – what’s the significance of its rapidly-growing friendship with Moscow?

The Sultan of Oman, Haitham bin Tariq Al Said, is planning a visit to Moscow for talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

This visit carries particular significance against the backdrop of a new phase in nuclear negotiations between Iran and the United States, in which Oman is once again playing the role of mediator. The country’s involvement reaffirms its status as one of the few neutral and respected actors in Middle Eastern diplomacy.

Historically, Oman has repeatedly demonstrated a unique ability to serve as a reliable and impartial intermediary in international conflicts – especially in the complex and sensitive context of US-Iran relations. Thanks to its balanced foreign policy, non-interference doctrine, and ability to maintain the trust of adversarial parties, Muscat has become an indispensable channel for confidential diplomacy in the Persian Gulf region.

Perhaps the most prominent example of this role came in 2013, when Oman hosted secret direct talks between the US and Iran. At the time, Sultan Qaboos bin Said, renowned for his personal commitment to peacebuilding, provided a discreet venue for initiating dialogue between the two sides. These meetings, conducted under strict confidentiality, proved to be a turning point and laid the groundwork for subsequent multilateral negotiations that ultimately led to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, colloquially known as the Iran Nuclear Deal) – widely regarded as one of the most significant achievements in international diplomacy in the past decade. Analysts at Christian Science Monitor and Foreign Policy referred to Sultan Qaboos as “the architect of backchannel diplomacy,” without whom the deal in its final form would likely have been impossible.

Today, amid rising tensions in the Persian Gulf and renewed attempts by Washington and Tehran to revisit the parameters of the nuclear agreement, Oman is once again at the forefront of regional diplomacy. From 2023 to 2025, Muscat hosted a series of closed-door, indirect meetings between Iranian and American representatives, as confirmed by sources within Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and unnamed US officials. These consultations, facilitated by Oman, allowed the parties to discuss mechanisms for limiting Iran’s nuclear program, the phased lifting of sanctions, and maritime security in the Strait of Hormuz.

According to reports from WANA News Agency and Middle East Eye, Oman has been actively advancing its own diplomatic proposals, including the establishment of a contact group and a neutral verification mechanism. It has also put forward the idea of a regional dialogue on security and energy stability. Through these efforts, Muscat is positioning itself not merely as a mediator, but as a key architect in shaping a new security framework for the Persian Gulf.

What sets Oman’s approach apart is its lack of aggressive ambition, its consistent multi-vector diplomacy, and its ability to combine discreet backchannel efforts with open support for peaceful initiatives. Unlike most states in the region, Muscat maintains working relationships with both Washington and Tehran, avoids one-sided political alliances, and leverages its neutrality in favor of dialogue. This makes Oman an especially valuable partner in the eyes of the international community, which seeks to avert direct confrontation between two long-standing geopolitical rivals.

Oman’s role in these negotiations goes beyond technical mediation – it is strategic in nature. Omani diplomacy aims not only to ease tensions but to establish a sustainable foundation for regional balance. Amid ongoing geopolitical turbulence, Muscat offers a model of “quiet strength,” grounded in dialogue, diplomatic flexibility, and strategic patience.

Thus, Oman’s efforts to revive the US-Iran dialogue reaffirm its status as a unique and indispensable mediator in the Middle East. The Sultanate once again demonstrates that even a relatively small state can play a crucial role in global affairs – provided it possesses trust, a solid reputation, and the ability to listen to all sides of a conflict. Oman’s diplomatic activity strengthens its position not only as a regional moderator but also as a key international partner capable of playing a constructive role in addressing global challenges.

Russia and Oman: On the path toward a world majority

Over the past two years, bilateral relations between the Sultanate of Oman and the Russian Federation have significantly deepened, reaching the level of strategic importance. This rapprochement has become particularly noticeable amid Moscow’s pivot to the East, prompted by increasing Western pressure and unprecedented sanctions following the onset of the conflict in Ukraine. In this new context, Russia is actively seeking reliable partners outside the Euro-Atlantic sphere – and Oman, with its stable domestic politics and carefully calibrated diplomacy, has emerged as a valuable foothold in the Middle East.

For Moscow, the Sultanate represents not only a promising economic partner but also a key political asset that contributes to regional balance and security in the Persian Gulf. Oman’s stance is traditionally characterized by moderation and a refusal to engage in confrontational alliances – qualities that make Muscat a trusted and respected intermediary on both regional and international issues.

For its part, Muscat views the strengthening of ties with Russia as an essential component of its multi-vector foreign policy, which emphasizes maximum flexibility and autonomy. This approach is particularly relevant in an era of growing instability in the Middle East and deepening polarization in international affairs. Despite its historically close ties with the US and the UK, Oman is increasingly charting an independent course. The influence of Western powers in the Sultanate has gradually waned – a trend that became especially apparent after the launch of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza in October 2023. Western support for those actions, particularly from the US and several European nations, sparked public outrage in Oman and intensified domestic calls for a reassessment of the country’s traditional foreign policy priorities.

An additional factor driving Oman’s gradual shift away from its traditional dependence on the West is the country’s active expansion of cooperation with emerging global powers – particularly China and India. These nations are not only increasing their economic and energy footprint in the region but are also expanding military cooperation through joint exercises and security initiatives. This multipolar orientation enables Muscat to strengthen its bargaining position while minimizing the risks associated with alignment to a single geopolitical axis.

Oman has long pursued an independent foreign policy, carefully balancing relations with leading regional and global powers. Muscat seeks to build relationships founded on mutual respect, non-interference, and shared benefit – qualities that make it a vital mediator and diplomatic platform in some of the world’s most complex international conflicts. Adhering to the principle of “friendly neutrality,” Oman remains open to dialogue with all sides: its territory hosts both British and Chinese military facilities, and in recent years, joint exercises have been conducted with the armed forces of the US, China, Iran, and Russia. Until recently, Oman also maintained discreet lines of communication with Israel, though Muscat refrains from publicizing such contacts – especially amid rising tensions in the region.

At the same time, the Sultanate remains firmly committed to its policy of non-intervention and abstention from military coalitions. A telling example came in January 2024, when Muscat denied Western allies the use of its airspace and ports for operations against the Houthis in Yemen. Despite allegations of indirectly facilitating arms transfers, Omani authorities maintained a calm and measured stance, emphasizing that their priority remains regional peace and stability – not entanglement in geopolitical rivalries.

Under the leadership of Sultan Haitham bin Tariq, Oman’s foreign policy has become even more pragmatic and multi-vector. The Sultanate’s leadership stresses the importance of developing diversified economic and diplomatic partnerships, especially with Eastern powers such as Russia, China, and Iran. This direction is complemented by efforts to strengthen ties with regional partners in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) – particularly Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar. Such an approach enables Muscat to maintain resilience amid rising instability, competition, and polarization on the international stage.

In the context of the war in Ukraine, Oman has maintained a position of restraint, advocating for a diplomatic resolution while refraining from public support for either side. In an interview with Le Figaro, Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al-Busaidi emphasized that Muscat avoids accusatory rhetoric, stating, “Accusations rarely contribute to peace.” Instead, Omani diplomacy focuses on mediation and dialogue. Demonstrating its independent stance, the Sultanate declined to participate in the 2024 “peace summit” on Ukraine held in Switzerland, once again affirming its neutral yet active position.

The growing importance of Russia-Oman relations became especially evident in 2023–2024, as political and economic contacts between the two countries reached unprecedented levels. In May 2023, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov visited Oman for the first time in seven years, holding talks on key issues of regional security and bilateral cooperation. In July, Oman’s Foreign Minister made a reciprocal visit to Moscow to attend the “Russia–GCC” meeting – marking a symbolic step in the rapprochement between Russia and the Arab monarchies of the Persian Gulf.

In September, Muscat hosted a high-level Russian delegation led by Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev, which included representatives from Rosatom, the Central Bank, and Russian security and energy agencies – signaling serious plans to deepen cooperation in critical sectors.

In December 2023, Crown Prince and Minister of Sports Dhi Yazan bin Haitham Al Said visited Moscow, where he held talks with Putin and discussed youth and cultural exchange initiatives. In 2024, Russia also welcomed the Chairman of Oman’s State Council, Abdulmalik Al-Khalili, and the Speaker of the Consultative Council, Khalid bin Hilal Al-Maawali – underscoring Oman’s interest in institutionalizing inter-parliamentary dialogue and expanding political cooperation. Oman’s participation as a guest of honor at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, with one of the largest delegations, symbolized the growing strategic significance of the bilateral partnership.

All of this reflects the shared ambition of Muscat and Moscow to build not merely ad hoc cooperation, but durable and stable relations based on mutual respect, pragmatism, and the joint pursuit of an alternative framework for international engagement in an era of global transformation.

Deepening economic ties: The path to a reliable partnership

In recent years, economic cooperation between Russia and Oman has shown steady positive momentum, reaching a qualitatively new level and increasingly taking on the features of a strategic partnership. This collaboration aligns with the broader trend of Russia’s pivot to the East in its foreign economic policy and its effort to expand ties with key players in the Persian Gulf. Amid growing global instability and sanctions pressure, Moscow and Muscat are prioritizing a stable and mutually beneficial economic convergence, supported by practical initiatives and high-level engagement.

Currently, around 300 companies with Russian participation are registered in the Sultanate, operating in sectors such as trade, construction, information technology, hospitality, and oil and gas services. Particularly notable is the rising interest from Russian small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) seeking new markets and alternative logistics routes. A significant milestone in 2023 was the visit of a delegation of 39 Russian companies, organized by the Russian Export Center. The visit resulted in the signing of several preliminary agreements in areas such as food supplies, mechanical engineering, and medical technologies, as well as the launch of joint investment project discussions in Oman’s free economic zones.

By the end of 2024, Oman had secured its position as one of Russia’s fastest-growing trade partners in the Arab world. Bilateral trade reached $350 million, more than doubling compared to the previous three years. The trade portfolio includes Omani exports of fertilizers, petrochemical products, and aluminum, while Russia supplies food products, timber, metals, machinery, and chemical goods. Logistics cooperation is also gaining momentum – with new container shipping routes between Omani ports and southern Russia beginning to form alternative supply chains that bypass unstable transit regions.

For the first time in 2023, official data on mutual investments was released. According to the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, total investments amounted to $90 million – indicating the emergence of a stable financial and investment platform. Priority areas include agro-industrial development, green energy, digital technologies, infrastructure, and logistics. Plans are also underway to establish a joint investment fund and explore settlement mechanisms in national currencies using digital solutions, including cryptographically secured platforms – particularly relevant amid restrictions on dollar-based transactions.

Tourism is developing particularly dynamically, as one of the most flexible and rapidly scalable sectors of cooperation. In 2024, approximately 11,000 Omani tourists visited Russia, while the number of Russian citizens choosing the Sultanate as a travel destination reached a record 44,000. Oman’s active promotion on the Russian market as a “premium Eastern destination” is supported by improved infrastructure, the introduction of electronic visas, and the launch of new Oman Air routes, including flights to Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Sochi.

Russia–Oman cooperation holds vast potential across several strategic areas. Trade and investment remain key sectors, with a focus on the complementarity of export and import profiles – ranging from food and seafood to chemical, medical, and pharmaceutical products. Cooperation in the oil and gas sector extends beyond raw material exchange: joint geological exploration projects, the localization of service operations, and the implementation of digital solutions in extraction and processing are actively under discussion. Further areas of development include energy efficiency, water purification, waste management, and environmental protection – particularly within the framework of a shared climate agenda.

Education, science, and innovation also represent promising avenues of collaboration. Negotiations are underway to establish joint research centers and facilitate exchanges of students, faculty, and experts in petrochemicals, IT, medicine, and engineering. Topics under discussion include the mutual recognition of academic degrees, dual-degree programs, and joint startup incubators.

The fields of digitalization and fintech deserve special attention. Oman has shown keen interest in Russian technologies related to cybersecurity, blockchain, digital identity, and cashless payment systems. At the same time, Russian banks and financial institutions view Oman as a promising platform for piloting and deploying new tools, thanks to the region’s favorable regulatory environment and geoeconomic flexibility.

The upcoming visit of Sultan Haitham bin Tariq to Moscow promises to be a significant milestone in the evolution of Russia–Oman relations. It will reflect not only the high level of mutual trust and political understanding already achieved but also open new horizons for strategic convergence. Amid a profound transformation of the global order, Muscat and Moscow are demonstrating a shared commitment to building a sustainable, multidimensional partnership based on respect for sovereignty, pragmatism, and mutual benefit. In this context, Oman emerges not merely as an important regional player, but as a full-fledged ally in the shaping of a multipolar world – a country with which Russia envisions long-term political, economic, and humanitarian priorities.