Top World News

Rachel Maddow kicked off her MS NOW segment on Monday with a deep dive into one of the most bizarre and sketchy side sagas of the Trump administration's second term: his refusal to allow the Gordie Howe Bridge between Canada and the United States to open."The big, beautiful new bridge that Trump is not allowing us to use is that bridge that crosses the Detroit River ... to Windsor, Ontario, Canada," said Maddow, showing pictures of the completed but empty bridge and noting it is "fully financed and paid for" and will be "the biggest U.S. border crossing [with] Canada" and "one of the most important routes for trade in the entire world."Unfortunately, she said, "This is why we can't have nice things." Trump has refused to let the bridge open, and is arguing Canada must allow the U.S. to claim joint ownership of the structure.For their part, Maddow continued, "the White House insists that categorically, just because [Trump is] president, he can't have a conflict of interest. It's like dividing by zero. Doesn't make sense!"Nonetheless, she added, there is something in all of this that does look like a glaring conflict of interest."There is a competing bridge a little way down the river. A privately owned, very old, very congested toll bridge that will likely lose some of its traffic because of competition," said Maddow, referring to the Ambassador Bridge owned by the ultra-wealthy Maroun family and their trucking empire. And that family "earlier this year made a $1 million donation to Donald Trump's super PAC," said Maddow, after which they got a meeting with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.Despite the White House and the super PAC both claiming this chain of events was a coincidence, Maddow said, "that night, Trump suddenly discovers new, supposedly trade-related reasons why he is now against this bridge, even though previously he had been for it.""That all happened in February. Now it's June," said Maddow — and the bridge is still closed. - YouTube youtu.be

President Donald Trump was flattered by Middle East leaders into agreeing to a framework to end the war with Iran in a simple and very egotistical way, MS NOW's Chris Hayes agreed in a conversation with Iranian political analyst Trita Parsi.Specifically, Trump was persuaded into believing that he had persuaded Iran to take a deal better than the former Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — the multilateral nuclear deal brokered by former President Barack Obama — even though many aspects of the deal are considerably more conciliatory to Iran."I think the one thing that does seem the north star for him ... when the Omani foreign minister flew to the U.S. to appear on the Sunday shows in a last-ditch effort to stop this war from happening right when there were negotiations going on," said Hayes. "He understood it, too, because it's not a very complicated psychology. He's basically on TV the weekend before the war starts being like, it's better than Obama, it's better than Obama."The bottom line, said Hayes, is that "that benchmark [to end the war] can be whatever it means for the old man's ego," even if it's not a meaningful policy accomplishment.Parsi agreed, saying that Trump "will create his own reality here."Additionally, he said, it's not all a bad thing, as there are genuinely some parts of what Trump is pursuing that are stronger than JCPOA was."For instance, in the Obama deal, the Iranians would only have a stockpile of 300 kilos of low-enriched uranium on their soil. At any point," said Parsi. "You need 1,200 for a bomb. Whenever they reach the 300 level, it would be shipped out. That was a very good deal." By contrast, he said, in the February agreement Trump wants to base the current framework on, "they would have zero stockpile. Whatever they produce, they would immediately turn into fuel [rods]. They would never keep a stockpile at all."That said, he added, "Was it worth all of this? Absolutely not. In fact, that was already achieved before the war." - YouTube youtu.be

Vice President JD Vance took aim at late Pope Francis and the Vatican in his new book, describing the meeting with the Roman Catholic Church's leader who died roughly 24 hours after the conversation, according to The Washington Post.Vance described the meeting as "'unsettling' as the officials uttered what he describes as 'trite platitudes' and 'clichés,' adding that he preferred the direct rebukes offered by Pope Francis," The Post reported.In the new book, "Communion: Finding My Way Back to Faith," which is slated to be released on Tuesday, Vance talked about his short conversation with Francis and Vatican diplomats on Easter morning. He wrote about being "unusually nervous" on the drive to the Vatican — and what would later be known as the last day of Francis's life."The vice president’s criticism of Vatican officials in his new book contrasts with his favorable accounts of both Francis and Pope Leo XIV, the first American-born pope. His account follows efforts by U.S. and Vatican officials to downplay tensions between the two sides as they’ve disagreed over the last year and a half on matters of immigration and war," according to The Post.Vance argued that Vatican officials were "too diplomatic" in the talks and "unwilling to talk in specifics about the subjects on which the U.S. and the Holy See disagreed," The Post reported."He acknowledges that the diplomats probably avoided specifics 'out of a desire to be, well, diplomatic,' but writes that their comments were 'too abstract to be helpful,'" according to The Post.The vice president converted to Catholicism in 2019 and in his new book, shares his faith experiences. "Vance adds he was 'struck that one of the few institutions with the moral authority and global perspective to address the migration question seemed so afraid of saying something controversial that it chose, effectively, to say nothing at all,'" The Post reported.In the book, he reflected on the encounter and on other decisions he made during his 2021 Senate campaign."One of the dumbest things I ever said came when I argued that ‘childless cat ladies’ across the Democrat Party were running our country into the ground," Vance wrote in his new book. "It was a boneheaded comment, intentionally (and successfully) provocative rather than illuminating."

A Republican lawmaker's comments about the Iran agreement during an interview with Fox News on Monday drew laughs online.Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL), an Army veteran and chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, defended the Trump administration's reported move to give Iran billions of dollars, saying it was good and that the taxpayer-funded expense made sense because "we destroyed so much.""OK, maybe they do end up getting $20 billion, let's say—we're still $300 to $500 billion ahead considering we destroyed their Navy, destroyed their Air Force, destroyed all those nuclear facilities I already spoke about, their steel manufacturing, their drone manufacturing," Mast said.Journalists and political commentators questioned the GOP congressman's math."Math degree from Trump University," S.V. Dáte, White House correspondent at HuffPost, wrote on X."This is not how anything works," Tom Nichols, staff writer at The Atlantic, wrote on X."This time we'll send barges full of cash. That will show them! Mast leaves out that when Obama sent cash, it was the Iranians' money that had sat in interest-bearing accounts for decades. This time it will be U.S. Taxpayers who foot the bill," Decoding Fox News, a newsletter and podcast founded by Juliet Jeske, wrote on X."Would Brian Mast call this...., 'palettes [SIC] of cash,' or 'plane loads of cash?'" Comedian and artist Patric Reynolds wrote on Bluesky.Math degree from Trump University. https://t.co/mi2hGX1bn4— S.V. Dáte (@svdate) June 15, 2026

Relations at lowest ebb in years after Washington refuses to apologise for deaths in strait of HormuzFury has continued to mount in India over the US’s refusal to apologise for the deaths of Indian sailors killed in strikes in the strait of Hormuz, further straining relations between the two countries as their leaders meet at the G7 summit in France this week.Last week, three Indian seafarers, who were working on board commercial oil tankers, were killed when the US launched missile strikes on the vessel as it sailed through the strait of Hormuz. Continue reading...

President Donald Trump announced that his administration had reached a "deal" with the Iranian regime that would "reopen" the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global waterway that has been shut down since the early days of the war against Iran. "The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "Congratulations to all! I hereby fully authorize the toll-free opening of the Strait of Hormuz and, simultaneously herewith, authorize the immediate removal of the United States Naval blockade. Ships of the World, start your engines. Let the oil flow!"The deal was announced less than one hour before Trump's "UFC Freedom 250" event at the White House was scheduled to start. The New York Times described the deal as a "cease-fire," which Trump has previously said means "when you're shooting in a more moderate manner.""Iran has not yet officially confirmed the cease-fire agreement, but struck a triumphant tone on the state broadcaster, IRIB. 'The United States was forced to accept an end to the war,' it declared," the NYT reported.

Mark Levin, one of President Donald Trump's most reliable media defenders and a leading hawk on the Iran war, is breaking with the president over the peace deal Trump is racing to sign — demanding to actually see the agreement before it's locked in.In a post on X on Sunday, the conservative radio host pressed for transparency on the memorandum of understanding the administration says it will sign with Iran. Levin asked whether the MOU "has... been released so we can actually read it," answering his own question with a pointed "Why not?" Briefing "selected reporters" through a "senior official" on the deal's "broad outlines," he argued, "is not enough."The complaint lands as Trump pushes to finalize the agreement on Sunday — his 80th birthday. Trump declared on Truth Social that the deal was "scheduled to get signed" and that the Strait of Hormuz would be "OPEN TO ALL" immediately afterward, casting it as a barrier to a nuclear-armed Iran.The reported terms help explain why a hawk like Levin is uneasy. According to Reuters and other outlets, the draft would have Iran reopen the strait while the U.S. lifts its naval blockade, releases roughly $25 billion in frozen Iranian assets — including direct cash transfers — waives oil sanctions and holds off on new ones, with broader nuclear talks pushed to a later phase.The Sunday post wasn't a one-off. British broadcaster Piers Morgan, locked in his own feud with Levin, accused the host over the weekend of having "raged at President Trump for wanting to end the Iran war" and urging him to keep bombing — and Levin's own broadcasts back up the charge. As the fighting moved toward a truce, Levin declared on his show, "I hate this word ceasefire," and argued that Iran "should be forced to sign a surrender document. Unconditional surrender." After an earlier ceasefire, he warned on Sean Hannity's program to "make no mistake: they are the enemy," insisting the regime would not be contained "if there's not regime change."He has been just as dismissive of the diplomacy itself, calling Iran's proposals "an absolute disaster" and branding reported drafts of the deal "disastrous," warning that an agreement along those lines would let the Iranian regime survive. That hard line has put Levin crosswise not only with the president he usually defends but with parts of Trump's own base — figures like Steve Bannon have accused him of undermining Trump's "peace posture" and quietly siding with the neocon hawks the MAGA movement claims to reject.The details of the deal itself remain murky, which is precisely Levin's gripe. Iran has repeatedly cautioned against speculation about the timing and contents, and its Fars news agency reported the strait would stay under Tehran's control, dismissing Trump's "open to all" claim as "incomplete and inconsistent with reality." Trump, for his part, has denied Iran's account of the terms.Also on Sunday, Levin wrote, "Iran’s Hezbollah continues firing missiles into Israel. This is precisely what I and others have been warning about."It all marks a striking turn for a host who spent the war as one of Trump's fiercest defenders. But with Trump now moving to wind the conflict down and cut a deal that delivers Iran sweeping economic relief, Levin has shifted from cheerleader to skeptic — joining a chorus of hawks bristling at an outcome they spent months warning against.

President Donald Trump publicly chided Israel on Sunday over a morning airstrike on Beirut, warning that the attack threatened to derail the Iran peace deal he is trying to sign on his 80th birthday."This morning's attack on Beirut should not have happened, particularly on a special day when we are so close to a Peace Deal with Iran," Trump wrote in a Truth Social post at 10:46 a.m. Eastern.While allowing that "Israel has the right to defend itself against threats," Trump played down the provocation Israel said it was answering, calling it "very small and meaningless" and noting that "nobody was hurt, injured, or killed." The strike, he wrote, "should not disrupt this important process."He then urged all sides to back off. "We are very close to a Deal that will bring peace to the region, including to Lebanon, and all sides should stand down," Trump wrote. "There should be no more attacks by Israel anywhere in Lebanon, but there should also be no more attacks by any other party, including Hezbollah, against Israel."Trump closed on a familiar mix of optimism and warning: "This could be the beginning of a long and beautiful peace — Let's not blow it!"The post came hours after the Israeli military said it had struck Hezbollah "infrastructure" in Beirut's southern suburbs — and on the same day Trump has insisted a U.S.-Iran agreement to end the war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz could be signed. Iranian officials have been more cautious about the timing, and warned that the Beirut strike would not go unanswered.