Top World News

Donald Trump’s return from Beijing without any provable examples of successful negotiations with Chinese President Xi Jinping was yet another sign that, whatever lofty plans he had in store for the second year of his second term, they are easier to boast about than achieve.According to analysis by the Washington Post’s Michael Birnbaum and Isaac Arnsdorf, the China summit didn’t include any measurable wins for a president who has had a rough year so far.“President Donald Trump was riding the early high of his return to power last year when he took his first major foreign trip and declared that he would make a sharp break from years of U.S. nation-building around the world,” they wrote.Exactly one year after his first major foreign trip to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates — complete with golden swords and honor guards on Arabian steeds — Trump arrived in China at a vastly different moment, the Post is reporting. Inflation is spiraling, the Iran conflict has ensnared U.S. military forces, energy prices are soaring, and his approval ratings are cratering.This time, there were no sweeping declarations about how Trump's America would manage the world, the Post is reporting. Instead, there was Chinese President Xi Jinping, described as being "respectful but businesslike, welcoming but unbending" on issues that are U.S. priorities.Trump came to Beijing hoping to secure trade deals. Xi had other priorities, the report noted. The Chinese president made clear that Taiwan's fate, not investment opportunities, was China's top concern — yanking the spotlight from Trump's preferred focus to warn of "clashes and even conflicts" with the United States should disagreements over the disputed island be mismanaged.Trump left Friday with a promise of Xi visiting the White House in September and trade deals that proved largely disappointing. Boeing's stock dropped 8 percent between Trump's arrival and departure — a stark measure of investor skepticism about the agreements reached.The president has since claimed triumph that the trip enabled top U.S. business executives to meet the Chinese leader, but offered little evidence of actual transactions resulting from the meetings.Most of Trump's signature foreign policy initiatives "have fallen by the wayside," according to the Post. The Ukraine war still rages despite his promises to end it swiftly. Many of his tariffs were struck down by the Supreme Court. Iran diplomacy has been abandoned entirely in favor of military conflict.The collapse reflects a far cry from Trump's more "expansive ambitions" for reshaping U.S.-China relations last year, when the two leaders agreed to meet four times in 2026. With Iran now preoccupying Trump and weighing down the global economy, there is little room for retrenchment.With slumping approval ratings and a faltering economy, Trump now travels the world stage "significantly weakened" compared to a year ago, Birnbaum and Arnsdorf predicted.

Donald Trump's reported desperation to end the Iran war is allowing Tehran's leaders to take a harder negotiating line — and a candid admission the president made on Fox News this week handed Iranian negotiators a significant strategic gift.According to MS NOW's Zeeshan Aleem, during an interview with Fox News anchor Sean Hannity on Thursday, Trump revealed his evolving priorities regarding Iran's estimated 970-pound stockpile of highly enriched uranium.When asked whether the U.S. was considering seizing Iran's uranium, Trump first claimed it would take "a week and a half" to extract using a ground operation. But then he made a stunning admission that undercut his entire negotiating position."I don't think it's necessary [to get the uranium], except from a public relations standpoint," Trump said. "I think it's important for the fake news that we get it."He added: "I'm the one that said we're going to get it, and we're going to get it. We have our eye on it."In those few words — "I don't think it's necessary" — Trump appeared to abandon a position that has been central to his entire premise for the war. He instantly undermined his insistence on uranium removal as a key term of any peace deal with Iran, Aleem wrote.Trump's characterization of uranium seizure as merely a "public relations" maneuver suggests he is repackaging a key plank of his negotiation position as window dressing — essentially admitting it's not actually necessary to end the conflict.According to the report, Iranian negotiators will almost certainly exploit this revelation. If Tehran believes Trump is ambivalent about — or could eventually become indifferent to — removal of Iran's uranium stockpile, Iran has far more incentive to refuse to budge on that element or demand compromises more favorable to Tehran.Aleem observed that Trump has a documented tendency to grow bored with or abandon protracted international conflicts, and the Iran war appears to be no exception and that each public statement weakens his negotiating leverage.

A significant schism is emerging within the Republican Party over the extent to which the United States should support Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — with a substantial number of MAGA voters showing unwavering loyalty while non-MAGA conservatives increasingly question America's commitment to the longtime ally.According to Politico, new polling from The POLITICO Poll reveals stark divides among Republican voters on Israel policy, with the party's traditional unity on Middle East issues fracturing amid Trump's unpopular Iran war and growing skepticism about U.S. interventionism.Nearly half of self-identified MAGA Trump voters say they back Israel and approve of Netanyahu's government's actions, while just 29 percent of non-MAGA Trump voters say the same. The divide is even more pronounced on specific military operations: 41 percent of MAGA voters say Israel is justified in its military campaign in Gaza, compared with 31 percent of non-MAGA voters.On whether Israel has overextended militarily, 24 percent of MAGA voters believe the country was initially justified but has gone too far — compared with 31 percent of non-MAGA voters.Non-MAGA voters are notably more critical of Israeli influence on U.S. policy. They are 10 percentage points more likely than MAGA Trump voters to believe the Israeli government has too much influence over American foreign policy, Politico's Lisa Kashinsky and Erin Doherty are reporting.The emerging fractures have spilled into an ugly public debate, with prominent Republicans including Tucker Carlson, former Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Steve Bannon all criticizing America's close relationship with Israel — particularly as the Iran war escalates.Most Republican members of Congress and conservative influencers like Laura Loomer and Ben Shapiro have remained steadfast pro-Israel voices defending the administration's foreign policy approach.Republicans were powerfully unified in support of Israel in the immediate aftermath of Hamas' October 7 attack. But amid the Iran war and growing unease about Trump's foreign interventions, Israel's standing appears increasingly fragile among the non-MAGA wing of the GOP and among young conservatives."There is a sentiment right now within the Republican Party of, 'America First,' let's get out of all of the conflicts in the world, let's not be committed to those conflicts," said Amnon Cavari, an associate professor at the Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy at Reichman University in Israel, told Politico.According to the report, the emerging Republican divide carries "significant implications" for the future of the U.S.-Israel alliance and GOP efforts to maintain the coalition that powered Trump's return to the White House.

The Pentagon blindsided Republican lawmakers Friday after abruptly scrapping a 4,000-troop deployment to Poland, a decision that reportedly surprised Army leaders, according to Politico.Army leaders admitted they had no real answers about the shock cancellation, leaving Congress furious over the last-minute move as Republican lawmakers have had conflicting views from the Trump administration involving security efforts in Europe, Politico reported. Last year, lawmakers had established limits for troop withdrawals as tensions mounted over whether the Trump administration would pull back on sending troops to support European allies.Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) called it "a slap in the face" to America's NATO allies. "I just want to say this is a slap in the face to Poland; it’s a slap in the face to our Baltic friends," Bacon said. "It’s a slap to the face of this committee.""We don’t know what’s going on here, but I can just tell you we’re not happy with what’s being talked about, particularly since there’s been no statutory consultation with us," said Armed Services Chair Mike Rogers.Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth opted to cancel the plan — and lawmakers wanted to know why — demanding that Army Secretary Dan Driscoll and acting Chief of Staff Gen. Christopher LaNeve explain what prompted the plan to change, Politico reported."The pair indicated the administration only made the decision in recent weeks and did not provide a rationale for it," according to Politico.

Former Ambassador Michael McFaul made a point of noting that President Donald Trump lavished extensive personal praise on Chinese President Xi Jinping, but Jinping did not return the favor.During an appearance on MS NOW Thursday, the former ambassador to Russia told anchor Erielle Reshef there was a striking difference between the two leaders' opening remarks that can only be interpreted as the fact that China has the upper hand in the historic meeting.“What is striking to me about the public remarks, just how effusive President Trump was in calling the chairman of the Chinese Communist Party, a dictator and autocrat, a friend,” McFaul observed. “He just kept using the phrase ‘friend, friend, friend,’ ‘great leader, great leader, great leader.’”“Chairman Xi Jinping said nothing reciprocal to President Trump, to the best of my mind, unless I missed it,” he added. “I never heard him call the president his friend, or even called him a great leader. The asymmetry, I think, is striking — a position of weakness, frankly.” - YouTube youtu.be

A tense exchange was caught on a hot mic Thursday as the summit between the U.S. and China began, according to The Daily Beast.Inside the Great Hall of the People, Washington and Beijing's top officials were sitting down face-to-face for high-stakes bilateral talks. As they entered the room, a press pool camera that was broadcasting for PBS News was rolling live when someone with an American accent unloaded on the operator, The Beast reported."No, no, get the f--- out of here," the unknown person said. "No. Move. Got to move."The camera started spinning towards the ceiling during the exchange as several people were speaking near the camera and the sound of shoes squeaking was captured.The showdown was preceded by escalating tensions stemming from the Iran war, China's maneuvering around Taiwan, and years of economic conflict.The leaders reportedly left the talks with "positive sentiments," according to The Beast. Chinese President Xi Jinping told reporters that relations between the two countries were "generally stable."???? HOT MIC IN CHINA: "Get the F*CK out of here!" unknown voice says as the press and cameras struggle when President Trump and Xi walk inYikes! ???? pic.twitter.com/LqDtVr75Zi— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) May 14, 2026

Rep Mark Alford (R-MO) seemed to shock CNN host John Berman by insisting President Donald Trump had "control over the Strait of Hormuz" — despite it being closed.During a Thursday interview, Berman asked Alford to explain why Trump said he didn't think about Americans' financial situation, "not even a little bit," when it came to the war in Iran."If I could just kind of give a little clarity to what I think President Trump was saying is, look, he does care about the American people," Alford replied. "He does care about the price of the pump."The congressman suggested the alternative to the current conflict was Iran growing stronger until it struck U.S. forces in the Middle East."Gas prices would be $10 a gallon," he remarked. "This is the time to put an end to it... I know that it is a hardship on filling up. It just cost me $100 to fill up my Ford Expedition last week when I was home in the district, and I travel a lot. I know it's a hardship, but we've got to do this now.""How much longer is it going to cost you 100 bucks to fill up your Ford Expedition?" the CNN host wondered."Look, I don't have a crystal ball in this," Alford explained. "I do know that we do have control over the Straits of Hormuz right now. Things have improved somewhat."A surprised Berman interrupted: "If we have control, how come there aren't vessels going in and out of the Strait of Hormuz right now?"For his part, Alford blamed "safety issues" for the inability to use the Strait."Saudi Arabia and other countries did not want us to provide those services where we're escorting tankers through," he claimed. "This has become very complicated because other Middle Eastern countries, Saudi Arabia and others, want Iran to be dealt with, but they also know that this is a delicate situation."

Donald Trump's chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is facing mounting scrutiny over his evasive testimony before Congress regarding the Iran war strategy — raising questions about whether his silence reflects genuine military uncertainty, or fear of contradicting an unpredictable president.According to the New York Times, in nearly 14 hours of recent congressional testimony, Gen. Dan Caine was repeatedly asked the same fundamental questions: How had the world's most powerful military allowed Iran to cut off oil flow through the Strait of Hormuz, and what was the plan to reopen it and end the war?As the Times' Greg Jaffe wrote, the general's answers revealed a man walking an increasingly precarious tightrope. As chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Caine is obliged to remain apolitical. Yet he works for Trump, who demands absolute loyalty — a tension that appears to be paralyzing Caine's willingness to articulate a coherent strategy, according to the report.In public testimony, Caine has narrowly defined the military's mission. On Tuesday, when frustrated Democratic and Republican lawmakers pressed him and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for concrete plans, Caine offered only tactical descriptions."Our military objectives have been clear the whole time," Caine said, citing "targeting Iran's ballistic missile systems," destroying its Navy and defense industrial base, and stopping Iranian forces from threatening U.S. troops and regional allies. He repeatedly praised American troops' dedication.The report noted that he continually and cautiously avoided any discussion of broader U.S. military strategy or an endgame scenario.Caine has been similarly evasive on damage assessments of Iran's missile and drone capabilities — a critical indicator of bombing campaign effectiveness and overall war progress. The reticence, analysts suggest, stems from working under Trump's "mercurial" leadership, Jaffe reported.Trump has sought to preserve negotiating flexibility by avoiding binding war aims beyond preventing Iranian nuclear weapons development. His unpredictable nature — his willingness to reverse course almost daily — puts military leaders in an impossible position. Speaking publicly about war strategy risks immediate contradiction from the commander in chief.The cost of Caine's silence extends beyond politics, according to one military expert. "When military leaders only talk about tactics, it reinforces this fallacy within the ranks that they don't need to worry about strategy, that other people will take care of that stuff," said Heidi Urben, a retired Army colonel and associate director of Georgetown University's security studies program.