The British and French-led effort to establish a ‘coalition of the willing’ to stand up to Russia and defend Ukraine just hit another major roadblock, as Bloomberg is reporting Wednesday the US has effectively vetoed a plan to provide American air defenses to back a “reassurance force” for postwar Ukraine.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has been insisting that US-backed air defenses are key to any future permanent settlement plans for ending the war. Western proposals for ending the war have all featured foreign-backed and monitored security guarantees for Ukraine.

On this, Starmer had said back in February that “There must be a US backstop” and that the “US security guarantee is the only way to effectively deter Russia from attacking Ukraine again.”

After Western billions already sunk into keeping Ukraine’s military and civic infrastructure afloat, the UK and France are also seeking from President Trump pledges of future air power, and border surveillance and intelligence.

The Europeans also envision a strong, permanent security bulwark backed by the United States along NATO’s eastern flank.

Yet, President Trump has repeatedly warned allies that if NATO countries don’t pay their fair share they won’t be protected. This despite European leaders as well as some US politicians expressing recent concern that the Atlantic alliance is becoming weaker than ever, and that Article 5 collective defense is in peril.

Trump has lashed out at NATO countries for not even meeting their current two percent spending goal while the unfair burden has long fallen United States.

“We appreciate the work that the allies, particularly France and the United Kingdom together with Germany and others have undertaken to develop the coalition of the willing,” US Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker said at a press breifing Brussels on Wednesday. “We are counting on all our European allies to continue taking the leadership position in contributing military resources and providing the political capital to make security guarantees a reality.”

All of this comes as it was only on Tuesday that Dutch slapped down a proposal to increase defense spending to 3.5% of gross domestic product (GDP), key to NATO’s capability targets, in a non-binding motion.

While it doesn’t have legal force at this point, this makes clear parliament’s opinion, unleashing deeper tensions among NATO allies, and as the Trump White House exerts pressure to rapidly raise collective defense.

Also, Bloomberg reported separately Tuesday, “NATO is asking European member states to expand ground-based air-defense capabilities fivefold as the alliance races to fill a key gap in response to the threat of Russian aggression, people familiar with the matter said.” 

All indicators are that the Trump administration no longer envisions the United States as heading up NATO, especially when other countries can’t step up and pay their fair share.

Politico: Defense Sec. Hegseth skips Ukraine Defense Contact Group meeting — first Pentagon chief in 3 years to do so.

The US quietly retreats from European security leadership, weakening Western military coordination, Politico. 1/ pic.twitter.com/Gys64VbMsU

— Tymofiy Mylovanov (@Mylovanov) June 4, 2025

Still, the UK and France are mapping out a plan: “The allied force — which would help ensure the security of Ukraine’s airspace, coastline and land by placing European troops away from the border at critical ports and infrastructure alongside continued deliveries of military hardware — is dependent on a peace settlement, which European officials think is increasingly unlikely,” Bloomberg describes.

Of course, the other big problem in all of this is that Moscow has already made clear it will never accept NATO troops right along the border at its Ukrainian doorstep.

Peachy Keenan looks across the Atlantic, to her father’s homeland, for a dire warning of what might befall a country that does not defend its people, their freedoms, or their way of life.

My father emigrated to the United States from England in the 1940s, a few years after the Second World War. He was three years old and accompanied by his British mother, who had served in the Royal Air Force. His father was American, however, and from the instant my toddler father stepped off the boat in Manhattan, my grandfather set about turning his young son into the most American boy in New York.

But my very English grandmother clung to her traditions. Lace doilies and tea time. Scones and mince pies. And a very cute accent she had all her life, although it had faded by the time she died.

Americans shared her abiding love for the Queen and Winston Churchill widely. There was a powerful kinship between us, even if you couldn’t trace your direct ancestry back to the British Isles. The British were acknowledged as our cousins, distinguishable only by their accents and their teeth. Yes, all our best villains had English accents in our movies, but they were lovable villains.

I’m glad my grandmother is not here to see what’s become of her homeland.  

My Australian friends used to insult British people by calling them “poms,” which, according to these Aussies, meant they were “prisoners of Mother England.” The etymology of the expression is murky, but suffice it to say that being a prisoner of the Queen’s Empire was considered a terrible fate.

In 2025, the surviving native-born British population seems to be increasingly trapped in an open-air penal colony formerly known as England.

Every day another dystopian example of British tyranny against its own people emerges, and the tyrannical oppression tightens around their necks. A single post on Facebook can get a Briton sentenced to years in prison.

In October of 2024, Lucy Connolly, a 42-year-old mother, was sentenced to 31 months in prison for posting “hate speech” on social media. Just this week, her appeal was denied.

Connolly was responding hours after the Somali teenager with a long knife stabbed three little girls to death in their dance class.

She posted this: “I’m absolutely f’ing done. If we don’t act now our country is finished. Mass deportation immediately, set fire to all the f’ing hotels full of the b******s for all I care, if that makes me racist so be it.”

She was simply expressing what everyone horrified by the wanton slaughter felt inside. In the wake of Rotherham and countless other knife attacks, Lucy Connolly responded with the only weapon she had available to her: her voice. Unfortunately, in the draconian upside-down world of modern Britain, expressing any views to the right of the feckless, self-hating government does, in fact make, you a racist — and racists are not allowed in England. (The only exception of course is racism against native-born white British citizens.)

Lucy Connolly will now have done more jail time than some actual murderers and rapists in the U.K. Was she calling for the actual burning of the immigrant hotels, or simply expressing that she is all out of empathy for the plight of these hordes of violent men filling her country? Is she being prosecuted for being anti-immigrant? 

The prosecution even used unrelated texts they found on Connolly’s phone to convince the court that she had a pattern of “racism,” and therefore was a danger to the knife-wielding immigrant public. 

This week, Tommy Robinson was released from prison after serving seven months, mostly in solitary confinement.

Robinson is an outspoken “anti-immigration” activist who was jailed for “repeating false allegations against a Syrian refugee.” 

Both Connolly and Robinson have learned the hard way that the U.K. has no free speech, and in fact is actively persecuting native-born English people who dare even to hold opinions about immigration that are contrary to those of the government.

The Caliphate looms; it is inevitable, and the road to its gates is paved with the skulls of English children.

Many British people seem not to notice; or, if they do, their programming is so thorough that they police their own thoughts carefully. Prince William dances along a knife edge; I’m convinced he understands the precariousness of his own position, but his options are limited. To speak out against immigration would be to dig his own grave. Stay silent, however, and one day he will be king of a country that no longer exists.

Perhaps only someone looking at our trans-Atlantic cousins from behind the still-robust protections of our Bill of Rights can see the truth of what is happening in the United Kingdom. Maybe the British strains of Trump Derangement Syndrome and raging anti-Americanism have made the British blind to their own government’s petty depravities. 

For almost 20 years now Americans have watched in horror as the British government aligned itself squarely against its own citizens, over and over again.

A multi-decade, multi-city sex trafficking ring run mostly by Pakistani immigrants enslaved and raped hundreds, thousands of white English girls as young as ten. Parents who tried to rescue their daughters were arrested and charged with racism and hate speech.

Crazed immigrants and their unassimilated offspring have committed hundreds of knife slaughters. The solution of the enfeebled nitwits in charge is to “ban knives,” of course. Sleepy English towns in the north are now majority Muslim, with all the vibrancy that comes with it. Not a native to be seen in the streets. In 1991, London was 80% native British. In 2021, this number had fallen to 36%. Queen Elizabeth oversaw the swift replacement of her own native people by new arrivals, all in the name of empathy and diversity. I suppose this is the final fruit of eighteenth century colonialism: one day your colonies end up ruling you.

But now we see that the real enemy to the British people is not the teeming mass of new arrivals unwilling to assimilate. The real enemy, as always, is their government. I suppose the colonizing spirit still endures in the British elite — only now, instead of conquering foreign lands to benefit the British, their leaders are content to allow the people of  foreign lands to conquer Britain.

Having previously hinted he might crack down on foreign visitors, late on Wednesday President Trump signed a proclamation banning nationals from 12 countries from traveling to the US, and introduced travel restrictions on seven others, reintroducing a controversial immigration policy that came to define the early days of his first term.

The ban will completely bar travel to the U.S. by citizens of the following countries: Afghanistan, Myanmar (formerly Burma), Chad, The Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Citizens from an additional list of countries will be barred from permanently immigrating to the U.S., along with applying for tourist or student visas; those countries are Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. Citizens from these seven countries will still be eligible for other temporary visas, such as the H-1B or other temporary work visas.

The ban only applies to people currently outside the U.S., though anyone currently in the U.S. who leaves could get stuck abroad as a result of it. It also excludes any nationals of these countries who hold green cards, along with anyone traveling to the US for coming major sporting events, including the World Cup in 2026 and the Olympics in 2028. Afghans who receive special immigrant visas, a special visa reserved for Afghans who worked alongside the U.S. military during its two-decade presence in Afghanistan, are also exempt. 

The administration justified the restrictions in a number of ways. Several of the countries, it said, had unacceptably high temporary visa overstay rates, necessitating a ban. Others, it said, couldn’t be relied upon to issue valid passports to verify a person’s identity. Haiti, the only country in the Western Hemisphere to face a complete ban, was included because “hundreds of thousands of illegal Haitian aliens flooded into the U.S. during the Biden administration,” the White House said. 

That said, today’s decision is hardly a surprise: Trump repeatedly promised during the campaign that, if re-elected, he would bring back an expanded version of his first travel ban, though the issuance of the ban took months longer than expected. In anticipation, numerous universities and businesses advised their students and employees to remain in the country after Trump’s inauguration to avoid being ensnared.

Citizens of many of the countries on the final list have been on high alert for months, after earlier lists circulated in several media reports. It isn’t likely, then, that the new ban would create scenes of chaos at airports across the country, as the first travel ban did when Trump signed it in a surprise move a week after taking office.

After several years of litigation, the Supreme Court in 2018 upheld the legality of Trump’s travel ban, so long as the administration could articulate a rationale for why countries are included. That will make it tougher for immigration advocates to challenge this new ban. Still, it isn’t clear how the administration included certain countries when others that meet similar criteria were left off the list.

By Charles Kennedy of Oilprice.com

In a bid to wean the U.S. critical minerals supply chain off China, U.S. President Donald Trump plans to use emergency powers under the Defense Production Act to bolster domestic production and processing of these metals vital for the energy and defense industries, Reuters reports, citing a document to be published on Wednesday.

The Defense Production Act is a U.S. law that grants the President powers to ensure the nation’s defense by expanding and expediting the supply of materials and services from the domestic industrial base.

The White House is set to waive some legal requirements, including requirements for congressional approvals, to boost the U.S. critical minerals industry.

In March, President Trump invoked emergency powers to increase U.S. critical minerals production in a bid to reduce reliance on “hostile foreign powers’ mineral production.”

In an executive order, the U.S. President invoked the Defense Production Act (DPA), which is the main tool at a U.S. president’s disposal to shift economic activity toward national defense priorities.

“The United States possesses vast mineral resources that can create jobs, fuel prosperity, and significantly reduce our reliance on foreign nations,” the executive order says.

“The United States was once the world’s largest producer of lucrative minerals, but overbearing Federal regulation has eroded our Nation’s mineral production,” it adds.

The Trump Administration has made American production and refining of critical minerals and rare earths a top priority and is pursuing minerals deals with various countries to get access to the supply of the elements essential to the manufacturing of everything from smartphones and electric cars to F-35 fighter jets.

More so than the supply of raw minerals, the United States needs the refined products from these minerals that are ready to use in electronics, defense systems, and batteries.

China holds a dominant global position in the supply of critical minerals and rare earths, but its grip on the value chain – minerals processing and magnet production – is even tighter.

In a fiery House Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency (DOGE) hearing on June 4, 2025, titled “Public Funds, Private Agendas: NGOs Gone Wild,” Republican lawmakers exposed the “gold bars thrown off the Titanic,” alleging the Biden administration under Democratic control of Congress had siphoned billions in taxpayer dollars to push left-wing policies like open borders and the Green New Deal through Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). 

Held at the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, the hearing, chaired by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), aimed to expose what Republicans call a corrupt nexus of NGOs, Democratic campaign funds, and bureaucratic cronyism. 

🚨 OPENING STATEMENT 🚨

The Biden Admin funneled BILLIONS of your tax dollars through radical NGOs to fund the invasion at our southern border and push Green New Deal scams.

These left-wing nonprofits are nothing more than a fifth branch of government.

Today, @DOGECommittee is… pic.twitter.com/RU9kQIr0ep

— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) June 4, 2025

In a fiery exchange, Democrats pushed back with allegations that Republicans are “trying to keep a strong black woman down,” while simultaneously chastising the GOP for not codifying enough DOGE cuts, at the same as alleging Republicans are cutting vital services as part of a partisan witch hunt. Here’s the breakdown of the clash that’s got X buzzing and taxpayers fuming.

Republicans Drop the Hammer on NGO Funding

Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Mo.) didn’t mince words, calling the allocation of “hundreds of billions” to NGOs under the Biden administration a “CRIME” against Americans. “There’s a difference between true charity and the government forcibly removing money from your pocket and giving it to someone else,” Burlison declared, framing the forcible removal of tax dollars to fund the ideological priorities of NGOs as outright theft.

.@RepEricBurlison CORNERS NPR & PBS CEOs!

Rep. Burlison: Would it be more appropriate to fund PBS or to fund Social Security? If given that funding is limited, which is where we are at.

Paula Kerger, PBS CEO: Both are important.

Katherine Maher, NPR CEO: We know how important… pic.twitter.com/146cbT46zI

— DOGE Subcommittee (@DOGECommittee) March 26, 2025

His line of inquiry hammered witnesses like Diane Yentel of the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), questioning whether her group’s advocacy for affordable housing masks a radical agenda. 

‘Are you a covert white supremacist?’

Meanwhile, Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX) wanted to drive home the point that these NGOs are pushing partisan talking points.

“Are you a covert white supremacist,” Gill asked Yentel, after she denied being a racist.

“Are you a racist?” Gill asked Yentel, to which she replied, “with all due respect sir,  I’m here to talk about the essential work that non-profits do.”

“Excuse me,” Gill interjected. “That’s a very simple question. Are you a racist?” 

“I’m not a racist,“ Yentel responded.

“That’s particularly interesting,” Gill said.  “Because, according to one of your affiliate charities under your non-profit umbrella, denial of racism constitutes covert white supremacy. Are you a covert white supremacist?” 

Gill piled on, grilling Yentel on the exact “services” that the NLIHC and its affinity groups have been given taxpayer funds to provide. Refusing to answer questions under oath related to “LGBTQ+ meet-ups” for kids as young as nine, or specify what Yentel described as “essential work,” Gill fired off “you are a radical far-left activist, masquerading as someone promoting non-profit, non-partisan institutions.” 

Liberal activist and Democrat witness – under oath – refuses to testify she’s not a white supremacist. pic.twitter.com/4lgMUMctr2

— Congressman Brandon Gill (@RepBrandonGill) June 4, 2025

The GOP’s narrative, echoed by witnesses like Scott Walter, Mark Krikorian and Daniel Turner, painted NGOs as pawns in a Democratic scheme to funnel public money into ideological outcomes—think green energy and immigration policies—that clash with mainstream American values. 

🚨‼️BOMBSHELL from Mark Krikorian: “NGOs & UN Agencies were paid by US taxpayers to facilitate illegal movement of migrants from South and Central America and Mexico.”

These coordinated & well-funded assistance programs were designed to undermine US immigration laws. pic.twitter.com/k8h3c1ledh

— DOGE Subcommittee (@DOGECommittee) June 4, 2025

Chairwoman Greene touted the hearing as a Trump-aligned mission to “claw back” misused funds, with Burlison tying the issue to the DOGE’s broader “War on Waste,” citing $2.7 trillion in improper federal payments.

Democrats Fight Back: A Partisan Smokescreen?

Democrats, led by Ranking Member Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.), weren’t buying the GOP’s outrage. Stansbury slammed the hearing as a transparent attempt to vilify NGOs that provide critical services like food banks and homeless shelters. “These are the glue of our communities,” she insisted, defending groups like NLIHC. Stansbury is no stranger to catastrophizing DOGE, having previously alleged that the subcommittee’s access to sensitive IRS and Treasury data—potentially targeting NGOs—somehow poses an “insider threat” to Americans’ privacy. In her April 2025 Resolution of Inquiry, Stansbury demanded answers on what she called “DOGE’s data grabs,” ironically ignoring the Biden-era censorship and USAID funds that prompted DOGE in the first place. 

Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX), accused Republicans of using the hearing to target Stacey Abrams. 

“There’s a gubernatorial race coming up in Georgia and nobody seems to know whether Stacey is going to run or not, “ Crockett said.  “So why not muddy the waters if we can to hopefully keep a strong Black woman down.” 

We’re in the DOGE Subcommittee hearing, but where’s Elon? Is the “oversight” in the room with us?
⁰Republicans wanted to talk about NGOs and Stacey Abrams. But, Trump’s out here slapping a for sale sign on the White House lawn—and y’all wanna play games?

Let’s cut the noise and… pic.twitter.com/3okr5tZOHs

— Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett (@RepJasmine) June 5, 2025

The charge followed a line of inquiry from GOP lawmakers, related to a $2 billion dollar grant from the EPA to the NGO Rewiring America. In addition, Crockett alleged that Republicans were attacking Big Bird and trans kids, claiming the committee should focus instead on how Trump is “ignoring court orders and deporting American citizens.” 

🔥WATCH: @RepTimmons raises doubt that the Stacey Abrams-backed Power Forward Coalition would have received a $2 billion grant if former Obama and Biden officials were not associated. pic.twitter.com/CsNTFlHst4

— Off The Press (@OffThePress1) June 4, 2025

The Bigger Picture: A Nation Divided

The hearing’s fallout lit up X, with conservatives cheering DOGE’s push to defund “woke” NGOs and liberals decrying a McCarthyite smear campaign. The numbers are staggering: hundreds of billions allegedly funneled to NGOs first to ensure ideological compliance from sub-recipients such as small towns and municipalities. 

Given the long-term contractual obligations between NGOs and rural America that dictate future land use and development – a structure drafted by NGOs called the Federal Plan for Equitable Long-Term Recovery and Resilience – USAID, HUD, and the EPA grants came under particular fire. 

What’s clear is the deepening rift—Republicans see a bloated, corrupt system ripe for Trump’s axe, while Democrats warn of a chilling effect on non-profits serving the vulnerable.

As DOGE’s crusade against waste continues, expect more fireworks. Will taxpayers see their dollars redirected, or is this just political theater to score points before 2026? One thing’s certain: the battle over NGO funding is far from over, and the truth, as always, lies in the murky middle.

Watch the entire hearing below:

Authored by Stacy Washington via RealClearDefense,

During the four years between the end of President Trump’s first term and the beginning of his second, Americans witnessed a dramatic reversal in national priorities.

While the Biden administration committed tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to defend Ukraine and illegal immigrants, it simultaneously neglected America’s borders and the very people who defended them — its veterans. 

Last summer, Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL) revealed that VA personnel were diverted to process medical claims for individuals in ICE custody — non-citizens whose very presence violates U.S. law. Veterans who had earned those services were left to wait. 

Even more brazenly, the Biden administration implemented a rule to allow illegal immigrants to live in public housing indefinitely. This despite the fact that over 33,000 veterans remain homeless and the wait list for public housing remains extremely long. It’s no wonder America’s military’s military heroes felt betrayed. 

President Trump ran on a promise to restore rational governance and reorder our national priorities. He called it a “revolution of common sense,” and voters gave him a clear mandate to carry it out.

A major step in that revolution came on May 9, when Trump signed an executive order establishing a “National Center for Warrior Independence,” a facility that will house up to 6,000 homeless veterans who have been ignored for too long.

Crucially, the order redirects funds that the Biden administration had used to house illegal immigrants and instead puts them where they belong — in service of those who defended our country.

The Trump administration is right. VA resources and taxpayer support should serve the Americans who risked their lives for this nation, not individuals who violated its laws to enter. The fact that this principle even needs to be spelled out speaks to how far Biden-era priorities went off track.

Providing homeless veterans shelter is critical, but the deeper challenge is preventing their homelessness in the first place.

Numerous studies have found that high housing costs drive higher rates of homelessness. 

Instead of addressing this situation, the Biden administration exacerbated it. Reckless federal spending pushed inflation to record highs, forcing half of all renters to spend more than a third of their income just to keep a roof over their heads. Millions of families spent more than half. For many veterans who were already struggling, it was impossible to keep up.

Instead of taking responsibility for the inflation and policy failure that destabilized veterans’ housing situations, Biden looked for scapegoats, and his allies in Congress continue to do so. 

For example, In February, Senator Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Ruben Gallego demanded that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth initiate a federal investigation into rent pricing software firms, accusing them of inflating rents for military families (Biden made similar comments when in office). Meanwhile, much like Kelley Blue Book, all this technology does is report on the current marketplace conditions. This is a classic Washington move — blame the private sector to cover for a government failure.

The real driver of rising rents for military families, of course, was not the Kelley Blue Book of the housing industry but rather Biden’s runaway inflation, supply-killing regulations, and resource diversion to illegal immigrants. Yet many in Congress continue to push this scapegoating of the private sector, supporting the Biden DOJ’s scapegoating of this technology.

In sharp contrast, the Trump administration is not only ensuring federal resources prioritize homing veterans, not illegal aliens, but it is also taking significant deregulatory actions to lower prices across the board. 

Still, ensuring veterans have adequate shelter isn’t enough. Many homeless veterans struggle with mental health and addiction challenges. In Los Angeles, where the new center will be built, only 62%of available veteran housing vouchers are even used, in part because proper support services aren’t available.

Trump has committed to making the VA more efficient, and that’s badly needed. But reforms will take time. In the meantime, he should urge Congress to expand access to civilian providers through the Defense Department’s TRICARE system when VA care isn’t available. For veterans in crisis, delays can be deadly.

We may never know how many veterans died waiting for care or housing while Biden’s administration used their tax dollars to serve illegal immigrants instead. But at least President Trump’s executive order is closing the chapter on that era. It marks the beginning of a long-overdue course correction to put American veterans where they always belonged — at the front of the line.

By securing the border, prioritizing housing for those who served, and fighting inflation through smart economic policy, Trump is restoring dignity, support, and opportunity to those who earned it. For the next three-and-a-half years, veterans, and all Americans, can be confident that their government is once again working for them.

Stacy Washington (@StacyOnTheRight) is a decorated Air Force veteran, an Emmy-nominated TV personality, and the host of Stacy on the Right, which airs nightly 9 pm to midnight ET on SiriusXM Patriot Channel 125. She is a frequent guest on Fox News and previously served as an Advisory Board Member for Veterans for Trump.

Via Middle East Eye

The US has warned Britain and France against recognizing a Palestinian state at a UN conference later this month, Middle East Eye can reveal.

France and Saudi Arabia are set to co-host a major UN conference on the two-state solution beginning on June 17 in New York. France is reportedly gearing up to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state at the conference. MEE understands that France has been lobbying Britain to do so as well.

French officials believe the British government is onboard with the plan, according to French media. But Washington privately begun to warn Britain and France against unilaterally recognizing Palestine, sources with knowledge of the matter in the British Foreign Office told MEE.

At the same time Arab states are urging them to proceed with the move, sources said. In late May, UN member states held consultations in preparation for the conference during which the Arab Group urged states to recognize Palestinian statehood.

The Arab Group said they would measure the success of the conference by whether significant states recognize Palestine, Foreign Office sources added.

‘No grounds for US interference’

Approached for comment, the Foreign Office pointed MEE to Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s statement on May 20 in which he reaffirmed UK support for a two-state solution.

Lammy has publicly opposed unilateral recognition, insisting earlier this year that the UK would only recognize a Palestinian state “when we know it’s going to happen and it’s in sight.”

But in late April, Lammy acknowledged for the first time that Britain was in discussion with France and Saudi Arabia on the topic. 

Chris Doyle, director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding, told MEE: “There are no legitimate grounds for the US to interfere in a sovereign decision by Britain and France to recognize another state.”

“A Franco-British recognition would be to acknowledge the Palestinian right to nationhood and to be equal partners in any future negotiations with Israel.” Doyle added: “Based on precedent with this British government, US objection to recognition would be more likely to have an impact on Britain than on France.”

But the American president is unpredictable. “What really counts is what President Trump himself thinks,” Doyle said.  “Opposing unilateral recognition is an existing American position.”

“But if I was in Downing Street, I would be asking what does the president himself believe – and how will he react?” If France and Britain go ahead with the move, they will become the first G7 nations to recognize a Palestinian state.

Alon Pinkas, who advised four Israeli foreign ministers, told MEE on Monday that French President Emmanuel Macron’s push to recognize Palestinian statehood “is serious and has the backing of most of the European Union and Saudi Arabia.”

The move would cause a political earthquake, since both France and Britain are among Israel’s most important historic allies. And Israel has signaled it would not take the move lying down.

Last week Ron Dermer, Israel’s strategic affairs minister, threatened Britain and France that Israel may annex parts of the West Bank if they recognize a Palestinian state, according to Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

⚡️Khan Yunis has been erased… pic.twitter.com/d1RXg9X4D8

— War Monitor (@WarMonitors) May 30, 2025

MEE revealed earlier this month that Britain privately decided in 2014 it would consider recognizing a Palestinian state if Israel advanced with the contentious E1 settlement project. Israel is currently poised to move forward with the settlement plan, which would effectively split the occupied West Bank in two.

Meanwhile, domestic pressure is ramping up in Britain. “Starmer is facing significant levels of anger throughout the entirety of the Labour party and the British public,” Doyle said, “even in circles that would ordinarily support the Israeli government.”

Several MPs told MEE last month they believe the UK must recognize a Palestinian state immediately. Labour MP Uma Kumaran, a member of Britain’s Foreign Affairs Select Committee, said: “This government was elected on a manifesto that promised to recognize Palestine as a step towards a just and lasting peace. “I strongly support the recognition of a Palestinian state, and I have raised this repeatedly in parliament, on the Foreign Affairs Committee and with ministers.”

Russia’s Investigative Committee chief, Aleksandr Bastrykin, on Wednesday stated that explosives used in the deadly attack on two railway bridges in southern Russia over the weekend were foreign-made.

One of the blasts killed seven civilians, and was reportedly orchestrated by Ukrainian intelligence services. Bastrykin spoke at a briefing with Russian President Vladimir Putin and top officials, where he said the attacks were “beyond any doubt” arranged by Ukrainian intelligence, and possibly with foreign help.

The “evidence collected by the investigators directly points to [the fact] that all three terrorist attacks [in Bryansk and Kursk regions] were beyond any doubt arranged by Ukrainian special services,” Russia’s RT translates.

Bastrykin further described amid an ongoing investigation the following, per state media:

Bastrykin reported that between May 20 and May 25, Russian security services were conducting an operation in Bryansk Region against a group of Ukrainian saboteurs. He revealed that during the raid, the authorities uncovered a cache containing 13kg of similar plastic explosives and Ukrainian-made remote detonators.

The official estimated the material damage caused by the explosions at over 1 billion rubles ($13mn).

Railway authorities said of the Bryansk incident that “illegal interference” was the cause, with regional governor Alexander Bogomaz saying a bridge had been “blown up”.

CNN had additionally detailed that “The bridge came down in the region’s Vygonichi district, about 100 kilometers (62 miles) from the Ukrainian border, crushing the moving train and injuring at least 66 people, including three children, Russian authorities reported.”

Ukrainians or their agents blew up a bridge in Bryansk oblast right as a passenger train was passing underneath. Train crashed, badly. At least forty injured, several dead, some still trapped inside the train. Unconfirmed first reports suggest four IEDs destroyed the bridge. pic.twitter.com/os0IEX3rIZ

— Russians With Attitude (@RWApodcast) May 31, 2025

Russian state media has further given ‘sabotage’ as the reason for the train derailments: 

Videos circulating in Telegram show a crushed train carriage with passengers being evacuated through shattered windows, and emergency services responding at the scene. The collapse also reportedly affected vehicles on the bridge, which fell onto the railway below.

Russia’s Ministry of Emergency Situations (MChS) reported that fire and rescue units are actively working at the site of the bridge collapse. “All necessary assistance is being provided to the victims. Additional MChS forces, emergency rescue equipment, and lighting towers for nighttime operations have been deployed to the area,” the ministry noted in an official statement. 

Russian media sources published videos of bystanders of the scene of a major train derailment, showing a chaotic scene of confusion and overturned rail cars.

While waiting for confirmed details of drone strikes on Russia’s strategic bomber fleet and terrorist attacks on civilian passenger trains, remember…

… US media (NYT) already admitted the US runs Ukrainian intel, with US CIA bases established all across Ukraine training… pic.twitter.com/7YgFe1qfMR

— Brian Berletic (@BrianJBerletic) June 1, 2025

The timing of the railway bridge attacks appeared coordinated with the large drone swarm attacks from Ukraine on Sunday, dubbed ‘Operation Spider’s Web’. Ukrainian officials have previously stated their goal is to create chaos and instability within Russia through covert sabotage ops, hoping that it would undermine society and ultimately destabilize the government and President Putin’s rule. Moscow has warned that full retaliation is coming, but it is clearly taking its time in terms of planning reprisal strikes.

Authored by Brayden Lindrea via CoinTelegraph.com,

California has taken a step closer toward embracing crypto after a bill allowing state departments to accept digital currencies sailed through the state’s lower house with a unanimous vote and is now headed for the Senate.

Assembly Bill 1180 (AB 1180), which passed the California State Assembly on June 2 with a 68-0 vote on its third reading, would require the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) to develop rules permitting state fees and transactions under the Digital Financial Assets Law (DFAL) to be payable in crypto.

The DFPI is California’s regulatory agency tasked with overseeing financial services and protecting consumers while promoting responsible innovation. Individuals and entities conducting crypto business activities in the state must obtain a license from the DFPI.

🇺🇸 JUST IN: California Assembly passes bill to allow the state to receive payments in Bitcoin and digital currencies.

It passed 68-0, and now heads to the Senate. pic.twitter.com/3JWXlpuEWh

— Bitcoin Laws (@Bitcoin_Laws) June 3, 2025

If AB 1180 clears the Senate and is signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom, the bill would become effective on July 1, 2026.

According to the bill’s sponsor, Democratic Assemblymember Avelino Valencia, a pilot program would run until Jan. 1, 2031, when it would become fully operational.

If AB 1180 is passed, California could join the likes of Florida, Colorado and Louisiana that have accepted crypto payments for certain obligations in recent years.

California’s bill would require the DFPI to submit a report by Jan. 1, 2028, detailing all crypto transactions processed, in addition to any technical and regulatory challenges encountered.

Crypto transactions under DFAL are defined as any digital representation of value that is used as a medium of exchange, but is not legal tender.

AB 1180 saw four amendments before being passed by the California Assembly on June 2.

The most notable exclusion concerned a section that sought to define terms related to ride-sharing companies and personal vehicles used for transportation services.

“Bitcoin rights” bill also in the works 

AB 1180 seeks to complement AB 1052, known as the state’s “Bitcoin rights” bill, which is focused on laying out crypto self-custody rights for the state’s nearly 40 million residents.

AB 1052 was passed in the first assembly committee in a unanimous 11-0 vote on May 23 and has been ordered to a third reading.

The bill would also deem the use of a digital financial asset as a valid and legal form of payment in private transactions and would prohibit public entities from restricting or taxing digital assets solely based on their use as payment.

A total of 117 merchants currently accept Bitcoin payments in California, BTC Maps data shows.

The growing prioritization of mental health and wellness—amplified across social media platforms by prominent health influencers—appears to be accelerating a “sobriety revolution” among younger generations. This behavioral shift is increasingly translating into reduced alcohol consumption and presents a structural headwind for beer brands, as Gen Z, in particular, redefines norms around drinking. 

Often labeled the “sober-curious” generation, Gen Z has distanced itself from risky behaviors like alcohol consumption, with drinking rates steadily declining in recent years. This trend was evident in Goldman’s latest survey of beer distributors, which reported weaker-than-expected beer demand over the Memorial Day holiday weekend. 

Goldman analysts, led by Bonnie Herzog, found that beer trends over the Memorial Day holiday weekend largely underperformed. This data was based on feedback from her beer distributor contacts (representing ~50 beer distributors or >230,000 retail outlets/~46% of total US outlets that sell alcohol). 

Herzog largely attributed sliding beer demand to “a challenging macro environment, which appears to be the primary drag on beer trends—as consumers have less disposable income and are prioritizing non-discretionary purchases. Additionally, recent policy changes (e.g., government stance on immigration) and adverse weather conditions further pressured consumption patterns.”

Sure, a challenging macro backdrop usually squeezes household budgets—but historically, that kind of financial misery fuels more drinking, not less. The real culprit behind the beer slowdown? A generational shift of sober-curious youngsters, supercharged by wellness influencers with large followings on social media, is single-handedly rewiring consumption habits. 

Here are key beer themes Herzog found for the holiday weekend:

• Memorial Day weekend trends were softer than expected; 55% of distributors reported weaker sales vs last year.

• Major drags: weak macro environment, immigration policy uncertainty, and unfavorable weather.

• Total beer category expected to decline -1.9% in 2025, worse than -1.0% in 2024.

Per brand basis:

• STZ (Constellation Brands): Mixed performance—Modelo growth moderating, but still outperforming category; Pacifico strong; Corona Extra under pressure. Buy rated.

• TAP (Molson Coors): Holding onto gains from the Bud Light fallout; Miller Lite & Coors Light slowing but maintaining share. Buy rated.

• SAM (Boston Beer): Truly expected to decline -11% in 2025; Twisted Tea moderating; Sun Cruiser seen as a bright spot. Sell rated.

• ABI (Anheuser-Busch): Mixed—Michelob Ultra strong, Bud Light remains weak.

• HEIN: Weakest of the group.

Retail beer sales declined year-over-year in the four weeks ending May 17, according to recent sales trend data.

By the brands…

STZ: All Brands 

STZ: Modelo

STZ: Corona

TAP: Miller Lite 

TAP: Coors Light

SAM: Twisted Tea

SAM: Truly 

Meanwhile…

While Goldman analysts believe macroeconomic challenges are pressuring low- to mid-income consumers to spend less on booze, financial misery has historically been a reliable catalyst for drinking more—not less. The bigger story is clear: younger generations are simply drinking less, driven by a growing focus on wellness, mental health, and sober lifestyle trends.