Top World News
Jul 23, 2026
'Conspiracy of silence' critics urge CIA director to 'stand up to Trump' or 'resign'
President Donald Trump's election theft speech put his CIA director in the spotlight — and now calls are mounting for him to push back, according to a new report. Questions are being raised about Director John Ratcliffe's conduct during the initial investigation into foreign election tampering and his silence now as the president fires off "Looney Tunes" accusations, MS NOW's David Rohde reported Thursday. Ratcliffe's complicity—or silence—has become impossible to ignore, according to Rohde.As Trump's current CIA director, Ratcliffe served as Director of National Intelligence from May 2020 through January 2021, controlling what intelligence reached the president's desk and what remained hidden.The timing, Rohde argued, is damning.Trump claimed in his recent speech that U.S. intelligence agencies discovered Chinese interference in the 2020 election but deliberately concealed it from him.Yet Ratcliffe was the gatekeeper deciding what Trump saw and didn't see during that exact period, Rohde noted.Trump's declassified documents, released to support his election fraud narrative, claim U.S. intelligence learned in 2020 that China had "bought, stolen or hacked" tens of millions of Americans' voting records. According to Trump, spy agencies kept this bombshell secret.But Ratcliffe was one of the officials who decided what warranted inclusion in Trump's daily briefings, Rohde wrote. He argued if the intelligence existed as Trump claims, then Ratcliffe bore responsibility for either including or excluding it."Critics say that Ratcliffe should stand up to Trump and threaten to resign — or actually resign — as cabinet members did in his first term, including former Defense Secretary Gen. Jim Mattis, former Attorney General Bill Barr, and former CIA director Gina Haspel," Rohde wrote.Instead, Ratcliffe has maintained silence—enabling what former CIA analyst Julia Curlee describes as a "conspiracy of silence" enveloping Washington.Curlee, who recently resigned after 20 years of service, told MS NOW, "To me, it was crossing a Rubicon where the institution itself was being conscripted into the creation of a product to reinforce the president's messaging. I never thought that I would see the CIA participating in a presidential effort to delegitimize elections in the eyes of Americans."Former senior CIA official Marc Polymeropoulos acknowledged Ratcliffe's impossible position: protecting both his job and the CIA's institutional integrity while serving a president hostile to both."Ratcliffe certainly does need to play it both ways in some respects, as he's got a workforce at CIA that will not react well to sources and methods being compromised based on cherry-picked intelligence to promote Looney Tunes conspiracy theories," Polymeropoulos, an MS NOW contributor added. "But at the same time, he's gotta protect his job from the mercurial Trump. So far, he's managed to successfully dance through the raindrops on this issue."
Jul 23, 2026
White House insiders panic as Trump pushes 'the bad things': 'Ugly phase'
White House insiders fear one of President Donald Trump's obsessions will make things worse for the GOP ahead of the midterm elections, Politico reported Thursday. Trump's decision to start ramping up his highly unpopular tariffs again is adding to Republican woes at a time when they need to have something to offer voters who are frustrated with the president's economy, according to Politico."Everything that you do that's not focused on affordability is not helpful," an administration official confided to Politico. "Anything that you're doing that is not on the plus side of the scale is a problem. When you announce new tariffs, it's not like, okay, well, let's see what they do. It's, 'Oh c---, those are the bad things.'"The administration's tariff threats are detonating inside the White House, according to the report. Republicans worry that new levies on Canadian goods and generic medications will inflame voters already blaming tariffs for persistent inflation as the midterm election approaches.Proposed tariffs could drive up prices on items Americans buy regularly—"alcohol, bacon, heart medication"—exactly the kind of consumer pain Republicans cannot afford heading into November when economic anxiety dominates voter concerns, insiders told Politico. Republican strategists think tariffs are electoral poison unless they're being reduced and expansion sends the wrong message to exhausted voters, Politico reported. A White House insider told Politico they are comfortable with the threat — with a caveat. "But actual revenue coming away from people's pocketbooks is not what Republicans are happy with," said the insider. "Any conversation about tariffs, unless it's reducing them, is a bad conversation for Republicans."White House officials are attempting damage control, arguing the tariffs are "surgical and narrowly targeted," with enough lead time before implementation to minimize consumer impact before voters head to the polls, according to Politico. They contend real affordability concerns center on housing and fuel costs, not sporting goods and spirits.However, Canadian Senator Peter Boehm, chair of Parliament's Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, expressed doubt that lower tariffs would reverse consumer behavior anyway. "I think we’re getting into an ugly phase, if there are concessions about getting U.S. alcohol back on the shelves," he told Politico. "There’s no guarantee that the consumer is going to go out and buy them.”Maine business leaders warn of broader consequences. Peter Woodcock, CEO of the Maine Chamber of Commerce, cautioned that tariffs on Canadian goods—paper, wood products, and other essentials—would ripple through Maine's economy regardless of administration assurances."We do not go unscathed from this," Woodcock warned. "There are hundreds of Maine companies that will be reviewing this and assessing its own impact on them today. If this escalates and starts encompassing additional products that would be particularly concerning."
Jul 23, 2026
‘Cockroach’ protests: India’s Modi promises to punish officials over exam leaks
PM says ‘those who try to harm the future of our youth will not be spared’ as scandal spirals into widespread angerNarendra Modi has vowed to set up “fast-track courts” to speed up the punishment of officials accused of leaking examination papers, as the Indian prime minister seeks to quell a youth-led “cockroach” protest movement that has rocked Delhi and posed one of the biggest challenges to his government.In his first public remarks on the movement, Modi posted on X: “Nothing is more important than the welfare and future of our youth … Those who try to harm the future of our youth will not be spared.” Continue reading...
Jul 23, 2026
Total solar eclipse books out hotels two years in advance in New Zealand city
Dunedin will be the focal point, having last experienced such an eclipse in 1163 – before any humans reached New ZealandHotels are booking out two years in advance in the New Zealand city of Dunedin as it prepares for the region’s first total solar eclipse in more than 850 years.At 4.17pm on 22 July 2028, the moon will pass in front of the sun, casting a roughly 100km-wide shadowy band across parts of southern New Zealand. Everywhere within that band – from tourist hotspot Queenstown in the west to Dunedin city in the east – will be plunged into daytime darkness for 2 minutes and 51 seconds. Continue reading...
Jul 23, 2026
Trump 'flunking' major global test as high-stakes catastrophe awaits: WSJ
President Donald Trump got a verbal lashing from the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board after he rolled over to allow Saudi Arabia to enrich uranium with no protest from his administration.Specifically, the board noted, Trump's administration "signed a civilian nuclear agreement with the Saudis, winning new contracts for U.S. firms at the price of nuclear nonproliferation safeguards. The deal will now be submitted to Congress, and it will be difficult to find the two-thirds majority needed to override a Presidential veto."This is foolish, wrote the board — particularly in light of how committed Trump is, even without a clear strategy, to oppose Iran's nuclear ambitions."The stakes are high. The risk of nuclear-weapons catastrophe increases each time nuclear enrichment spreads. That’s why the bipartisan U.S. consensus has been to stop the spread of the most dangerous processes and capabilities to enemies and allies," wrote the board. International inspections are the best way to avoid nuclear proliferation, wrote the board, "but now the Saudis have been allowed to reject the [International Atomic Energy Agency] Additional Protocol and receive U.S. support all the same."This is likely to have a domino effect, the board warned, with other marginal U.S. allies with authoritarian regimes, like Egypt and Turkey, wanting more nuclear proliferation freedom as well.Ultimately, the board concluded, "The U.S. needs Arab allies, and it has much to offer oil-rich Saudi Arabia as it diversifies its economy. But the Saudis don’t need a path to a nuclear bomb to match Iran. Mr. Trump and the U.S. military have been making sure of that. Why undermine that success now?"
Jul 23, 2026
Trump's business interests may have just unleashed nukes in the Middle East
The Trump administration has put Americans through such a dizzying array of near-daily corruption so deep that a U.S. president somehow makes over two billion dollars while in office – impossible without obliterating conflicts of interest – that many of us, even the most attentive, have been somewhat lulled to sleep. It's not only exhausting, but also leads to a certain amnesia regarding some issues. But among the concerns about deepening corruption, there are some issues that can never be set aside and must arise in our minds daily: Epstein, the appearance of pay-for-pardons, and the airplane. We now have to plant perhaps the biggest, the one that threatens civilization at a level matched only by climate change – no hyperbole – because Donald J. Trump just opened the door to U.S. sanctioned nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. He did so not only with a nation with which he had many pending business deals, but one that also murders journalists, supplied 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9-11, and is run by a corrupt and murderous thug rivaling Putin, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.Short and sweet, the Trump administration just entered an agreement allowing the Kingdom to enrich uranium and plutonium, justified as needed for power usage, and yet with few safeguards to cap enrichment such as to never come close to material for a nuclear bomb.We are in a war with Iran purportedly over Iran's decision to enrich uranium and create nuclear-tipped missiles, and yet we just blessed such a plan with a nation that might be just as untrustworthy, just as dangerous, just as corrupt, and just as capable of starting a nuclear war that threatens the world. Maddeningly, it is also a nation with far more business deals pending with the American president's family. It is, again, Saudi Arabia.This potential deal with the potential conflict also smells enough to stand out, according to The New York Times, meaning there's something likely hidden, something awful, because there actually is a model for how to do a deal like this properly. The fact that the Trump administration purposefully veered away from the established model points to something wrong. Inevitably, we arrive back at the conflict.Nuclear power deals in the Middle East are not new. The United States entered into a similar agreement with the United Arab Emirates in 2009. But that agreement contained far more restrictions and conditions, including stringent inspections, signing and "additional protocol” with the International Atomic Energy Agency. And the UAE even agreed not to create its own fuel, and thus would never have the infrastructure to create a weapon.The UAE agreement, one brokered by both the Bush and Obama administrations, became known as the “Gold Standard” for nuclear nonproliferation. And yet for reasons known only to Trump, this particular administration and this particular agreement set all those Gold Standard restrictions aside.Wonder why?Well, for one, Saudi Arabia, led by the butcher who is MBS, absolutely assures us, according to The New York Times, that the Kingdom will proceed to enrich weapons-grade uranium (And once there, an easily made weapon) "if Iran ever obtains a nuclear weapon." Do you find it likely that a man like Prince Mohammed will patiently wait for Iran to successfully implement a nuclear weapons program before he starts building his own? Or, given that we're at war with Iran because they are said to be close to weapons-grade uranium and plutonium, do you find it more likely that he simply starts off on the assumption that Iran will soon enough have that capability such that the goal is weapons-grade enrichment right away? Now, to be absolutely sure, there are reasons one would want to obtain nuclear weapons to match those of an enemy like Iran, hoping to reach mutual assured destruction. Thus, from a certain point of view, Saudi Arabia's desire to “nuke up” is understandable. And yet, from a far more valid, lasting, and fundamentally safer point of view, that need can be entirely vitiated by one promise by the United States: "We will defend any nuclear attack on you with a nuclear response." Indeed, the Biden administration understood MBS's desire to protect the Kingdom so much that the Biden Administration sought to make such a deal with Saudi Arabia - allowing enrichment, contingent on one major concession that would have made the Middle East much safer: that Saudi Arabia recognize Israel.And yet, for reasons known only to Donald Trump, this deal isn't dependent upon such a massive gain; indeed, it's only dependent upon some nebulous Trump assurances that there will be limits. Except, again - Prince Mohammed has already promised to blow by those restrictions based on one measuring stick, one perhaps already "close enough" to keep going.In other words, the Donald Trump administration, at war with Iran over the fear of the proliferation of nuclear weapons, might just have set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, all but compelling Egypt, Turkey, the UAE again and Jordan, at a minimum, to initiate their own programs, based on the same standard. And off we go.Off we go. And while "mutual assured destruction" has always kept nations possessing nuclear weapons in stasis and prevented them from use, does anyone believe that such safety and sanity applies equally to the Middle East, based on their history, especially Saudi Arabia?So let's once again talk about Saudi Arabia and why all these other administrations might work with the Saudis only under some strict protections, along with significant gains from the Saudis, but the Trump administration appears ready to simply push ahead without.Well, for one, we already know that Trump has a classic conflict of interest. Again.The Trump Organization and its partners, led by sons Don Junior and Eric Trump, have expanded significantly in Saudi Arabia with multiple Trump-branded real-estate developments announced through Dar Global (a company with close Saudi government ties), and the Trump Organization is in ongoing discussions involving major Saudi projects such as Diriyah. Those are just a couple of handy examples that fit right in with Jared Kushner profiting off the last administration's treatment of Saudi Arabia (Essentially letting the Kingdom off scot-free for butchering an American resident and Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, along with credible reports that Kushner provided sensitive U.S. intelligence to MBS allowing the 2017 anti-corruption purge (which arrested hundreds of Saudi princes, businessmen, and officials) and perhaps aided in killing of other dissidents.Of course, almost impossible to believe as unrelated; Kushner's brand new investment firm post-administration got $2 billion to invest (and profit from percentages) from MBS upon the completion of his work.What might Donald Trump and the Trump Organization be getting in consideration of this deal? Given the open past corruption and certainly the appearance of a laughable conflict of interest, it is absolutely irresponsible not to ask what might be in it for Trump. Total reset: It is possible that Donald Trump just unleashed a planet-threatening nuclear arms race off in the Middle East, and entirely possible that he did so for personal profit - practically the definition of not only an American nightmare, but the entire First World's line in the sand, the one that - if profit were to be established, and the United States did nothing to stop it, would be the moment that we officially crossed over. We are no longer "that" United States. (If we haven't already passed that juncture.)Rather than be lumped in with all the "good countries" in NATO (Canada, the U.K., Germany) and in East Asia (South Korea, Japan, Australia), we now find ourselves in the company of MBS and Putin - as always, you know - the "bad guys." And here we are. The United States may be crossing the line to sanctioned nuclear proliferation for presidential personal profit and very, very much to the detriment of the average American who would, literally, be much less safe in such a world.This deal has to be ratified by Congress, and the business development side, using American companies to set up the infrastructure, likely has some strong Republican support, according to the Times, but there are enough questions surrounding the deal that it's not going to get a Congressional auto-stamp. Of course, that leaves sensible Americans, ones not wanting to unleash nukes across the Middle East and ones with serious questions about those possible conflicts, reliant on a Republican Congress to ask the right questions, demand honest answers, and then neutrally evaluate the pros and cons. The same Americans must rely on the Trump administration feeling constrained by Congress. Try not to laugh. Try not to cry.Actually, go ahead and cry.Because this truly is one of those deals that, for some reason - reasons the administration prefers not to address- doesn't contain the restrictions or gains other presidents demanded; no "gold standard" here, though it was certainly available. But not wanted. And thus one of those conflicts of interest that arise daily that better stick in one's mind daily, right up there with Epstein.Donald J. Trump, the man with business deals spread across Saudi Arabia, a nation led by a man who's proven himself ready to kill critics and personally pay American leaders who "aided" MBS's goals, just green-lighted a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, one that MBS has promised to jump on, contingent only on that premise underlying why we're currently at war with Iran.Daily conflicts and corruption, amnesia, it passes, it's exhausting, can't keep up. But unlike even 747s and cryptoscams, we better keep "Saudi nukes" in mind daily at the level we keep "Epstein cover-up" at the forefront of our minds. So forefront that one would be smart to contact representatives to get some answers on what Trump might be getting in this deal, the one that shouldn't move off a page, never mind into law.Yeah, yeah - it just keeps going. But this one is different. This one threatens the planet. This one better be watched and better be stopped, even if it already seems too late.It might literally be the international community's worst nightmare. It really is okay to cry. But also cry to Congress. It can't hurt.Jason Miciak is a RawStory columnist and former editor of Occupy Democrats, author, political consultant, attorney, and single parent girldad. Please follow him on Bluesky, and he can be reached at [email protected]. He also reads and appreciates comments.
Jul 22, 2026
'To be honest': MAGA lawmaker sparks fury with shrugging statement on dead troops
A Republican's shrugging comments about fallen U.S. military service members were criticized on Wednesday amid growing unpopularity over the Iran war.Rep. Carlos Gimenez (R-FL) was talking to CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer about recent polling showing that Americans are opposed to the conflict, despite President Donald Trump's remarks that Americans are in favor of the war. Trump had defended the military strikes before heading to the dignified transfer ceremony at Dover Air Force Base for four military members killed in recent days.Journalist Aaron Rupar shared the exchange on X and quoted Gimenez in a manner highlighting a significant word in his statement: "My heart goes out to the families of those four, but ... "That "but" rankled with Rupar's readers. Patric Reynolds, comic book artist and progressive political commentator, wrote, "There should be no 'but' after that,"Liberal political commentator Trish Crawford raised her concerns over what Gimenez said."I’ve started to view all of the words in a sentence that come before 'but' as untruthful" Crawford wrote on Bluesky. "The heart of the statement comes after."Giminez followed up his comment by explaining, "At the end I think the best way to honor the dead... is to make sure that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon. Anything short of that, for me, is failure, to be honest with you." Georgetown professor and political commentator Steve Vladeck took a sarcastic tone when he quoted a famously inaccurate speech in the movie "Animal House" meant to inspire drunken frat boys to sabotage a parade. "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?'” he wroteMason, a political commentator and user who self-describes as a veteran and an independent, wrote on X."We just need a Hiroshima or a Nagasaki, right Carlos?" he wrote.BLITZER: How do you explain the disconnect between what the president says and how Americans feel according to almost all of these most recent polls?REP. CARLOS GIMENEZ: Prior to World War 2, 85% of Americans were not in favor of entering that war, and then it all changes pic.twitter.com/iwmzGQStEk— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 22, 2026
Jul 22, 2026
'Resign!' Dem rains hell on Trump official over 'wrong' answers on troop casualties
A fight erupted on Capitol Hill Wednesday when U.S. Ambassador Mike Waltz reported a wounded-troop count that enraged Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA). Waltz faced questions about fatalities linked to daily strikes in Iran during a House Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing. Eighteen U.S. service members have been reported killed and 447 wounded — including a third soldier from a July 17 Iranian missile strike in Jordan whose death the Pentagon has not yet formally confirmed, according to KCRA. That death toll hung over the hearing room when Lieu opened his questioning."How many U.S. troops have been wounded in the Iran war?" Lieu asked."My understanding from the Defense Department's latest numbers is over a hundred," Waltz replied."That number is wrong," Lieu fired back.Lieu cited the Defense Casualty Analysis System — the Pentagon's own database tracking casualties for Congress and the president — putting the wounded count at 482. CBS News reported the system has lagged events by days or weeks throughout the war.Lieu then referenced Waltz's previous position as national security adviser, which he lost after accidentally adding The Atlantic's editor-in-chief to a Signal chat discussing imminent military strikes."The reason you are here today and in your position is because you were fired by the president from your former position as national security adviser," Lieu said."The president never said a negative word about me!" Waltz shot back.Lieu moved on to the war itself. Trump declared on March 16 that Iran's military was "literally obliterated," according to PolitiFact. Lieu wanted to know how that squared with the body count."You need to explain to the American people how an Iranian military that's been purportedly obliterated killed 18 U.S. service members and wounded 482 U.S. service members," Lieu said."The Iranian Navy, Air Force, air defense system, and industrial capacity have been massively damaged, if not completely ineffective," Waltz replied."[U.S. troops] are exposed right now in the Middle East — repeatedly being exposed to Iranian missiles!" Lieu pressed. "You should be ashamed! You don't know basic facts!" "Because it's not our problem!" Waltz replied."You should resign! You don't even care about the number of U.S. troops that were wounded!" Lieu said.A Republican colleague moved to have Lieu's words stricken from the record, calling him out for dishonoring "the distinguished ambassador.""He lied to Congress!" Lieu said. "November is coming for you and this administration!"
Jul 22, 2026
'Words in their dead mouths': Rage mounts as Trump accused of exploiting fallen soldiers
President Donald Trump's response to the deaths of four soldiers killed in the Iran war stunned the nation Wednesday. Trump delivered his disturbing commentary on the tarmac at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland before departing to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware for the dignified transfer to honor the soldiers who lost their lives."All of them said very strongly, 'We cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon,'" Trump said. "They won't have a nuclear weapon, so we're going to honor them."Outrage erupted almost immediately.Author David Simon told his 65,000 followers on Bluesky he felt Trump had disrespected the fallen troops."It's one thing to honor the sacrifice of fallen service members. And it's common rhetoric to declare that they died for a worthy cause," Simon wrote. "It's the Platonic ideal of malignant narcissism to just stand there shamelessly and put words into their dead mouths."Simon was not alone in his fury at Trump's claim. Entrepreneur and former Obama administration official Brandon Friedman responded, "He actually outdid himself today. This is obscene."Sanho Tree, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, argued Trump was effectively "using dead soldiers as sock puppets." Andrew Lawrence, deputy director of rapid response at Media Matters, responded with shock. "Well this is easily the most detestable thing a president has ever said about U.S. troops he had killed," Lawrence wrote.It's one thing to honor the sacrifice of fallen service members. And it's common rhetoric to declare that they died for a worthy cause. It's the Platonic ideal of malignant narcissism to just stand there shamelessly and put words into their dead mouths.[image or embed]— David Simon (@audacityofdespair.bsky.social) July 22, 2026 at 8:10 AM
Jul 22, 2026
British woman jailed in Hong Kong for blackmail after accusing banker of rape
Isabel Rose, 26, sentenced to six years for blackmail and perverting course of public justice over her allegations against British manA British woman who reported being raped to police in Hong Kong has been sentenced to six years in prison for blackmail and perverting the course of public justice.Isabel Rose, 26, from south-east London, travelled to Hong Kong in early 2024 to visit a British banker she had met while travelling in south-east Asia. Continue reading...
Jul 22, 2026
Australia to warn China it won’t be bullied by ‘provocative‘ actions as it builds military and nuclear arsenal
Foreign minister Penny Wong will deliver speech criticising China’s recent launch of a nuclear-capable submarine-launched missileGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastPenny Wong will warn China that Australia and other neighbouring nations will not be bullied by its “provocative” actions, after its involvement in another “destabilising and dangerous” incident this week.The foreign affairs minister – who will deliver the address on Thursday in the Philippines, where the 59th Asean foreign minister’s meeting is being held – will also caution world leaders against placing a toll on the strait of Hormuz after both Iran and the US threatened to do amid the protracted conflict. Continue reading...
Jul 22, 2026
Michelin-starred restaurant owner in South Korea faces jail over ant dessert
Prosecutors seek a one-year sentence and heavy fine after chef garnished dish with insects not approved for consumptionProsecutors in South Korea have asked a court to sentence the owner of a Michelin-starred restaurant to one year in prison for serving a dessert topped with ants, an insect not approved for consumption under local food safety law.The request, made on Monday, also sought a 20m won (£10,108) fine for the company that runs the restaurant, Yonhap news agency reported. Continue reading...
