Top World News

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has warned that rising geopolitical tensions, supply chain disruptions and climate crises are affecting people worldwide

A cycle of frescoes by Italian 14th-century master Giotto, depicting key moments in the life of St. Francis of Assisi, has been unveiled after a four-year restoration

President Donald Trump admitted to confusion Saturday when faced with a simple question regarding one of his own deals.Trump, asked by a reporter if he was considering a withdrawal from the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement he negotiated and passed during his first term — and touted as "the best agreement we've ever made" — appeared not to remember it on Saturday."Are you considering withdrawing from the USMCA deal?" the reporter asked. "What does that mean?" Trump responded.The reporter paused for a beat, then explained the acronym, "Are you considering withdrawing from the USMCA deal with U.S., Mexico, and Canada?""That's a strange question to be asked over here," Trump replied. This exchange captured the immediate attention of Trump's critics on social media. "Sharp as a tack," progressive political commentator Molly Jong-Fast joked in a post on X."Truly a man at the top of his game right here," added media columnist Justin Baragona.Trump's administration declined to renew the USMCA in July, triggering annual reviews that keep the pact in force until 2036 unless a country moves to withdraw.Trump has previously said that he's considering withdrawing from the USMCA, but on Saturday, he denied plans to withdraw from it and talked up his relationship with Canada despite an ongoing trade war."No, I get along great. We're going to have a great relationship with Mexico," Trump said. "We actually have a good one with Canada but the United States has been ripped off for fifty years by Canada."Trump then claimed both Canada and Iran wanted to make a deal "very badly." This prompted political analyst and staff writer for The Atlantic Tom Nichols to warn of "cognitive decline" in Trump."His brain is now just a Mad Libs template with the same answers written in over and over. 'What do you think of [issue] and [country]?'" Nichols wrote. "'[Issue] is going great. [Country] is very eager to make a deal.' You can insert almost anything and get the same answer."

The powerful far-right leader of a neo-Nazi-backed political group — and recent new "crush" of podcaster Joe Rogen — publicly split with President Donald Trump Saturday over his off-the-cuff comment about a "very cool thing." Rupert Lowe, a member of the British Parliament and founder of the "ethno-nationalist" group Restore Britain, took to X on Saturday to lambast Trump over his recently professed support for Irish unification. "I want to be really clear in Restore Britain’s response," Lowe wrote. "The American President is talking about breaking up our country. This is unacceptable, this is insulting."Lowe's criticism stands in stark contrast to recent public messaging in which he has aligned himself with Trump to call for what critics describe as a deportation-led "ethnic cleansing" of Great Britain, the Atlantic recently reported. "He understands exactly what the modern American right wants to hear," wrote the Atlantic's Helen Lewis, "that the second Britain exists, and only Donald Trump is preventing the United States from heading in the same direction."Such rhetoric has caused frustration and fears abroad as critics warn his party has become "the new home for neo-Nazis," as it was recently described by the Daily Mail. Yet Lowe on Saturday reached for the moral high ground as he chastised Trump for suggesting it would be "cool" to force unification on the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland to inflict pain on Great Britain's left-leaning governing party."I like Trump, I've backed Trump," Lowe wrote. "But he should not be aiming to permanently damage our country to get back at the current malign Labour Government."Then Lowe issued Trump a warning. "Do not irreversibly damage our relationship because of this Labour Government," he wrote. "It's not on."

President Donald Trump’s recent refusal to provide military support to a major U.S. ally marked a turning point for the post-World War II era, geopolitical analyst Brandon Weichert argued on Friday, one in which the United States no longer leads as the world’s top superpower.As the United States continues to wage war against Iran, Yemen’s Houthis made significant gains in their efforts to control the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, a major chokepoint for global shipping alongside the Strait of Hormuz. Amid the Houthis’ advances, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia repeatedly called Trump on Thursday with pleas for military assistance.Trump declined those requests, according to a U.S. official who spoke with Axios on the condition of anonymity.With the U.S. military already stretched thin amid the deeply unpopular war against Iran, and with U.S. stockpiles of long-range missiles critically low, Weichert, the senior national security editor for The National Interest, declared that U.S. global dominance had officially reached its end.“It's over. The US-led order is done,” Weichert wrote Friday in a social media post on X to his more than 74,000 followers. “Saudis need to start cutting deals with Houthis and the rest of the region needs to do the same (unless Washington comes to its senses and negotiates a reasonable off-ramp now).”Middle East geopolitical analyst Firas Modad called Trump’s refusal to provide support to MBS a “total abandonment of the Saudis” and “incredible,” and Marc Polymeropoulos, a former CIA intelligence officer and national security analyst, was taken aback by Trump’s refusal, particularly given Saudi Arabia’s extensive investments in Trump-linked businesses, his family's ventures and figures within his administration.“So the US fails to assist Riyadh in their time of need? The Saudi investment in the Trump relationship gets them, what?” Polymeropoulos asked aloud.Polymeropoulos also questioned how the Trump administration failed to foresee such a scenario developing.“We [are] so overstretched [on] Iran, I presume that this front is a problem for us, but did we not plan for this possible [Houthi] scenario when launching the Iran campaign?” Polymeropoulos continued. “Ultimately, I find it hard to believe we will let the [Houthis] keep rolling. That’s a disaster for us strategically. Iran has huge leverage now. Like it or not, we in this. And the Saudis likely will see this as a huge betrayal, if we do not actively participate. Yes, with air strikes. Lots to ponder as a huge wrinkle now emerges in Trump’s war of choice.”It's over. The US-led order is done. Saudis need to start cutting deals with Houthis and the rest of the region needs to do the same (unless Washington comes to its senses and negotiates a reasonable off-ramp now). https://t.co/YqEHeKkF89— Brandon Weichert (@WeTheBrandon) September 11, 2026

President Donald Trump declined a request for military support from Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia on Thursday, a U.S. official told Axios on the condition of anonymity, as analysts warn that the U.S. war against Iran is starting to spiral out of control.On Wednesday, Yemen’s Houthis captured a critical town near the Bab el-Mandeb Strait in the Red Sea, which, like the Strait of Hormuz, is a critical chokepoint for global shipping. The Houthis are also inching closer toward capturing the entirety of Yemen’s west coast, sparking fears that a “second front” in the U.S. war against Iran may soon open.As the Houthis made additional advances on Thursday, MBS called Trump to brief him on the developments, Axios reported, and “several hours later,” called the president again and “urged” him to “order U.S. strikes against the Houthis.”“Trump declined, but a U.S. official said the administration will provide Saudi Arabia with intelligence on the Houthis and targeting data,” Axios’ report reads. “A senior Trump administration official signaled that Washington's priority is keeping the Red Sea open while leaving the broader fight to its regional partners.”Also on Thursday, reports circulated that the Houthis may have inflicted damage on Saudi Arabia’s “strategically important” East-West oil pipeline, a development that could have major ramifications for global oil prices.Diesel prices in the United States reached their highest levels in history last week, and the average price for a gallon of regular gasoline reached $4.15. On Thursday, gas prices jumped by 13 cents over the course of the previous week.The development also comes after the U.S. had used up “virtually all” of its long-range precision missiles amid its bombardment of Iran, which raised major “concerns about the military’s readiness for future conflicts,” Reuters previously reported.“With Iran already disrupting traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, Houthi control of Bab al-Mandab [Strait] could give Tehran a powerful new point of leverage over the U.S. and its Gulf allies,” Axios’ report reads. “The U.S. is concerned about the rapidly escalating fight in Yemen and is stepping up support for Saudi Arabia while trying to avoid direct military involvement.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio's three-country tour through Latin America this week backfired despite visiting nations led by Trump-friendly presidents, Politico reported.According to a Thursday report, Rubio visited Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru over three days. All three countries are governed by right-wing leaders who campaigned on combating crime and partnering closely with Washington, Politico noted. In Colombia, he spoke of a "golden era" between the two countries.Politico reported that the visit exposed sharp tensions inside the countries, where critics and commentators accused Rubio of pressuring governments to work against their own interests. The friction was clearest over China, a dominant economic force across the region, and the Trump administration's Shield of the Americas military alliance, according to Politico.In Peru, which Rubio announced would join the alliance, he used the moment to attack Beijing, charging that Chinese-backed projects "circumvent Peru's legal frameworks," according to Politico. Peru's government welcomed the step as part of its push against organized crime, Politico reported.Others were far less enthusiastic. Mirtha Vasquez, a left-wing Peruvian senator and former prime minister, said her country "needs to have a relationship with the U.S. but also with other powers," Politico reported.A survey released this week by the Kellogg Institute and Vanderbilt University found that citizens across the three nations place more trust in the Chinese government than in the U.S. administration, according to Politico. Benjamin Gedan, a former State and Treasury Department official, said the election of pro-Trump leaders was "clearly not enough to move the needle" in the U.S.-China contest.The timing sharpened the backlash, as Rubio arrived soon after a Venezuelan oil deal that drew heavy criticism across the region as gunboat diplomacy. In Colombia, defeated left-wing candidate Ivan Cepeda called the visit "an act of surrender" of regional sovereignty in a social media video, according to Politico.Beijing moved fast to press the advantage. Before Rubio landed in Peru, the Chinese embassy in Lima posted that the Western Hemisphere is "no one's backyard," Politico reported. Rubio was pressed by reporters on whether Washington would act alone against groups it labels as terrorist threats. He said the United States has "the capacity to act unilaterally."

Vice President JD Vance quietly went around the Pentagon to call military commanders directly for blunt assessments of the Iran War.The New York Times reported Thursday that Vance wanted the commanders' individual judgments as they saw them before those views were merged into an official Pentagon position. The Times described Vance as opposed to the war from the outset, and he was tasked by President Donald Trump with helping to end it.The vice president reached commanders in the Middle East, Europe, and Asia, pressing them on the war's objectives, casualty estimates, how much punishment Tehran's government could absorb, and what was left in their weapons stockpiles, according to the report. The answers were sobering as officers were most alarmed by their shrinking supply of Patriot interceptors, which are the mainstay of U.S. air defenses. One theater of the conflict dropped below 100 of them by late spring, The Times reported.Those private assessments clashed sharply with what the administration has said in public. Trump has continued to falsely claim the United States has already won, that Iran's military has been demolished, and that there are no problems with American weapons supplies, The Times noted. Vance himself recently played down the notion that the country was even at war.Behind closed doors, the president has raged at coverage of the depleted stockpiles and branded the reporting treasonous, according to The Times. Investigators later subjected dozens of senior Pentagon officers to polygraph tests.The administration pushed back on the reporting. Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said the defense secretary had "facilitated direct access to combatant commanders" for the vice president and other senior White House officials.Joseph Holstead, a spokesman for General Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, insisted "there is no gap in the military advice" provided to the president, vice president, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.