admin

Left-wing movie director Oliver Stone slammed Democrats for weaponizing federal law enforcement and ‘lying’ in their attempts to charge the president with Russian collusion during the 2016 election.

Stone, meanwhile, applauded President Donald Trump for taking steps to find out what really happened, adding that he is ‘absolutely’ right that the federal government has been weaponized to attack political opponents.

Trump recently signed a new executive order directing the FBI to immediately declassify files concerning Crossfire Hurricane, the initial investigation launched in 2016 that sought information on whether members of the Trump campaign were colluding with the Russians to undermine the election. The president has also taken steps to go after the law firms involved in the scandal, including by suspending the security clearances for their attorneys and barring them from entering any federal buildings.

‘Russiagate – we paid for it,’ Stone said. ‘I applaud [what Trump is doing], and I hate what they did with Russiagate, I really do. I think it’s – again, the lying, the lying, the lying, and selling that to the American people.’

When asked if he felt Trump was right about there being weaponization of the federal government against conservatives, Stone responded: ‘There was.’

Stone, who has produced several documentaries supporting Russian narratives about Ukraine, added that the underlying premise behind Russiagate – that Russia is a nefarious actor – is wrong and ‘un-American.’

‘They are potentially our best partners, as are the Chinese. I mean, we have this mentality that they’re the enemy,’ Stone said. ‘That’s all been inculcated by propaganda. If you go out there to China, and you go out to Russia, you don’t hear that kind of vituperative dialogue.’

However, while Stone said he agreed with Trump’s approach to taking on those involved with Russiagate, he did lament the president’s attacks on pro-Palestinian protesters over alleged antisemitism.

‘I don’t like this new thing about censorship coming from Trump,’ said Stone. ‘Against the anti – what he calls ‘antisemitic news’ – I mean, I don’t agree. I don’t know where he’s coming from, and it’s not what he promised.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Politics

Kevin Hassett doubles down on Trump tariffs, says dozens of countries are asking to negotiate

White House Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett doubled down on the effectiveness of President Donald Trump’s tariffs on Sunday, saying dozens of countries are now seeking to open negotiations and U.S. manufacturing is booming.

Hassett made the claim during an appearance on ABC News’ ‘This Week’ with host George Stephanopoulos. He said that over 50 countries have already said they want to negotiate new trade agreements with Trump’s administration since the tariffs hit last week, though he acknowledged there may be short-term pain for consumers.

He pointed to the decrease in prices that has existed since China entered the World Trade Organization in 2000, arguing that the loss of jobs outweighs the low prices.

‘If cheap goods were the answer, if cheap goods were going to make Americans’ real wages better off, then real incomes would have gone up over that time. Instead, they went down because wages went down more than prices went down. So we got the cheap goods at the grocery store, but then we had fewer jobs,’ he said.

Hassett added that he has received ‘anecdotal word’ that some U.S. auto plants are adding second shifts to their work schedules in response to the tariffs.

Stephanopoulos then pressed Hassett to explain why Russia wasn’t targeted with any additional tariffs.

‘There’s obviously an ongoing negotiation with Russia and Ukraine, and I think the president made the decision not to conflate the two issues. It doesn’t mean that Russia in the fullness of time, is going to be treated wildly different than every other country,’ Hassett responded.

‘But Russia’s one of the only countries, one of few countries that is not subject to these new tariffs, aren’t they?’ Stephanopoulos pressed.

‘They’re in the middle of a negotiation, George, aren’t they?’ Hassett countered. ‘Would you literally advise that you go in and put a whole bunch of new things on the table in the middle of a negotiation that affects so many American and Ukrainian and Russian lives?’

‘Negotiators do that all the time,’ Stephanopoulos argued.

‘Russia is in the midst of negotiations over peace that affects really thousands and thousands of lives of people and that’s what President Trump’s focused on right now,’ Hassett said.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Politics

Donald Trump and Elon Musk are an unusual team. Has this ever happened at the White House?

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Elon Musk’s high-profile role in the Trump administration is dominating headlines. His DOGE recommendations are roiling the Washington establishment. His young staffers with backpacks are looking at waste in multiple government agencies, and he himself is frequently advising the president. While Musk’s prominent role is certainly unusual, history reveals some parallels to presidential advisers who have had an enormous influence in previous administrations. History also shows that having a high-profile non-traditional role also paints a big target on your back.

One of the first uber-powerful outside advisers was in the Woodrow Wilson administration. House was a wealthy Texan who had been advising Democratic politicians in his home state when he connected with then-New Jersey Governor Wilson.

When Wilson won the presidency, House had little interest in a Cabinet slot. According to Wilson’s personal physician Cary Grayson, House ‘wanted no office himself and his one desire, it seemed, was to be helpful to the President in the selection of men for appointments.’

House became Wilson’s main foreign policy adviser. He lived in the White House, which gave him access day and night to Wilson, and controlled the flow of information to Wilson. House recalled that Wilson ‘seldom reads the newspapers and gains his knowledge of public affairs largely from the matter brought to his attention….’ With House culling what was brought to Wilson’s attention, it’s unsurprising that Wilson once called House ‘my second personality,’ adding ‘his thoughts and mine are one.’

House’s influence grew with America’s entry into World War I in 1917. House came up with the idea for and populated The Inquiry, a proto think tank that examined the potential scenarios in the war’s aftermath. Wilson’s famous 14 Points speech, laying out his framework for a post-war world, was based on a draft written by Inquiry member Walter Lippman and then refined by House and Wilson. As House recalled his efforts on that speech, he and Wilson ‘finished remaking the map of the world…at half past twelve o’clock.’

Although the war initially increased House’s power, it also set the stage for his downfall. There was resentment within the White House and the State Department about House’s outsized role. Wilson’s second wife Edith did not much like him, either. Wilson also felt that House conceded too much to the European powers in the Versailles negotiations. House further pushed his luck by urging Wilson to negotiate with Senate Republicans to secure passage of the Versailles Treaty, good advice that Wilson did not want to hear.

On June 28, 1919, House and Wilson met for the last time as Wilson was about to return to the U.S. to begin his ultimately unsuccessful effort to ratify the treaty. He said, ‘Good-by, House,’ and the two men never spoke again.

Franklin Roosevelt also had a top administration priority run by a man with a military title in a non-traditional appointment. Ex- was working for the wealthy investor and Democratic fixer Bernard Baruch when he became a member of Roosevelt’s ‘Brain Trust.’ He then headed Roosevelt’s new National Recovery Administration, where, according to the New York Times, he was given ‘almost unlimited powers.’

Johnson’s job as head of the NRA was to get companies to adhere to Roosevelt’s New Deal policies. Here the similarities to DOGE are apparent, except NRA was initially an executive branch creation targeting the private sector, while DOGE aims to rein in government. Congress created the NRA, and Roosevelt signed it into law, on June 16, after Johnson had started. Within one month, Johnson got 2 million companies to sign on to the NRA codes, allowing them to display the ‘Blue Eagle’ of compliance.

Johnson used heavy-handed tactics to get companies to comply. Ford founder Henry Ford learned this firsthand when he refused to sign on. In response, Johnson criticized Ford publicly and went to Michigan to confront Ford, even threatening to sic the Department of Justice on Ford. Ford pushed back, issuing a company statement saying that Johnson was ‘assuming the airs of a dictator.’

Ford’s resistance notwithstanding, Johnson was lionized by the press, and he was named TIME’s ‘Man of the Year’ in 1933. The power and accolades, however, seemed to go to Johnson’s head. His former employer Baruch warned FDR that Johnson was ‘a born dictator.’ Cabinet members like Labor Secretary Frances Perkins and Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau complained about him as well, but Roosevelt defended Johnson, saying that ‘every administration needed a Peck’s Bad Boy.’ Roosevelt even spurned an offer from Johnson to resign, prompting Johnson to tell the press, ‘My feet are nailed to the floor for the present… I am not going to resign.’

Despite Roosevelt’s initial support, the pressure eventually became too great. Roosevelt forced Johnson to resign in September of 1934. In his resignation speech, Johnson called the NRA ‘as great a social advance as has occurred on this earth since a gaunt and dusty Jew in Palestine declared, as a new principle in human relationship, ‘The Kingdom of Heaven is within you.’’ Johnson’s love for the administration that ousted him did not last, though, as he became a Roosevelt critic, particularly of Roosevelt’s effort to remake, or ‘pack’ the Supreme Court that had invalidated Johnson’s NRA in 1935.

In Roosevelt’s third term, he changed priorities from what he called ‘Dr. New Deal’ to ‘Dr. Win the War.’ In this, one of his top needs was to shift America’s industrial base to producing war material. To do so, Roosevelt needed someone not from government but from the private sector that he had spent much of his first two terms trying to bring to heel. FDR looked to Baruch for advice. Baruch responded: ‘First, Knudsen. Second, Knudsen. Third, Knudsen.’ Baruch was referring to , president of General Motors, at the time the largest company on earth. FDR called Knudsen, who forgo an enormous $300,000 salary – about $6.5 million today – to become a dollar-a-year man in Washington. FDR also made Knudsen a lieutenant general in the Army, an unusual move for someone coming directly from the civilian ranks.

Like House and Johnson before him – and Musk in our day – Knudsen had his critics. New Dealers were angry that Knudsen refused to shut down the production of cars for civilian use. Knudsen held his ground before FDR, explaining that shutting down production would necessitate closing the plants, which would get in the way of war production.

Criticism notwithstanding, Knudsen did his job well. In marshaling America’s industrial might to help the United States and its allies, Great Britain and the Soviet Union, win the war, Knudsen got some praise from an unusual source. At the 1943 meeting of the Big Three allies in Tehran, Josef Stalin proposed a toast ‘to American production, without which this war would have been lost.’ It might as well have been a toast to Knudsen himself.

Following the war, TIME founder saw in Dwight Eisenhower an opportunity to return Republicans to the White House. Luce backed Eisenhower in a variety of ways: with favorable TIME coverage, foreign policy advice, and the loan of several staffers to Eisenhower’s 1952 presidential campaign. When Eisenhower won, some of the Luce people joined the administration, and Luce’s wife Clare Boothe Luce served as ambassador to Italy.

During Eisenhower’s administration, Luce continued to provide both advice and favorable coverage, although the latter came at a cost. TIME staffers did not like serving as ‘Eisenhower’s mouthpiece.’ More broadly, TIME began to be seen as biased towards the Republicans, an example of reputational damage stemming from being too close to a sitting administration.

In the Nixon administration, another prominent CEO would take a hit for his closeness to a Republican president. In 1968, long before was a presidential candidate, the Texas billionaire and founder of EDS met Richard Nixon through PepsiCo Chairman Donald Kendall. Perot, who had become rich selling data processing to the federal government, told Nixon that computers could be an important tool in a presidential campaign. He provided 10 paid employees – and an EDS airplane – to the Nixon campaign to demonstrate how it could be done.

When Nixon won, Perot became a presence in the Nixon White House. He never took an official position, but he did join the Nixon Foundation, and was a source of ideas, staff, and money – or at least promises of money. He also highlighted the issue of American POWs held by the North Vietnamese, something that the Nixon administration appreciated. For its part, the Nixon administration helped Perot as well, siding with EDS in some government contract disputes and aiding EDS in its efforts to secure additional contracts.

While helpful in some ways, Perot was also a pest. Some of his ambitious plans, like buying the Washington Post or ABC to improve their Nixon coverage, did not come to fruition. Still, the idea of a billionaire buying a platform that could aid a president politically has at least some familiarity. In addition, Nixon White House aide Gordon Strachey characterized him as ‘Difficult to please Perot.’

The Nixon link would eventually cost Perot. The Nixon administration asked Perot to help the struggling but prominent Wall Street firm F. I. Dupont, Glore Forgan and Co. Perot initially put in $10 million, then poured in more, ultimately totaling $100 million. In the end. Dupont fell apart, and EDS stock plummeted from $162 a share to $10, significantly reducing Perot’s net worth. As Perot later recalled, ‘They said it was a $5 million problem. So we waded in like Boy Scouts and then found out the vault was out of control.’

When Perot later ran for president in 1992, he lost to Bill Clinton. As president, Clinton enlisted his former Rhodes Scholar friend and business consultant as staff director of his health care task force. Magaziner had eschewed offers of a Cabinet slot to help direct the administration’s biggest issue. Magaziner enlisted hundreds of volunteers, many from the private sector, to work on the task force, working 15-hour days in 30 different sub-task forces, and meeting with Clinton on a nearly daily basis.

Like Musk, Magaziner tried to attack a challenging problem in a new way. As his wife Suzanne said of him, ‘Ira is always trying to redefine the square. He’s not constrained by limits just because they’re there.’ He also took his share of hits. The Washington Post’s Steven Pearlstein said of Magaziner that ‘There is about him a supreme self-confidence that sometimes slips into arrogance.’

Ultimately, the health effort failed, and Republicans took control of the House and Senate in part because of the backlash against the Magaziner-led initiative. The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons sued the administration, arguing that non-governmental appointees could have meetings with governmental officials that were not open to the public. Federal Judge Royce Lamberth ruled that Magaziner was ‘misleading at best’ in the discovery process. Lamberth added that the government needed to be ‘accountable when its officials run amok,’ and fined Magaziner more than $285,000.

Magaziner offered to resign after the health care failure, but Clinton refused the resignation. Magaziner remained a White House adviser on internet-related issues through 1998, and his fine was eventually reversed on appeal in 1999.

Clearly, no one is or could be exactly like Elon Musk: a mega-billionaire who runs electric car, social media, and space exploration companies while running a powerful government commission identifying waste, fraud, and abuse. But there have certainly been other prominent private sector actors who have worked on presidential priorities in non-traditional ways, bringing in their own people in the process. And there have also others who have been accused of arrogance and conflicts of interest, pilloried in the press and subjected to financial and reputational hits. The biggest open question is what happens in this kind of relationship between the president and the adviser. Whether the Musk-Trump relationship survives this experience remains the biggest and most interesting question out there.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Politics

Trump’s DOGE targets blue states with massive cuts in ‘divisive’ DEI contracts

The Trump administration is slashing millions of dollars in DEI grants from a library and museum system as part of its overall Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) push to rid the government of waste, fraud and abuse.

The administration is cutting $15 million from the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) in the form of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) grants in a move the agency says is aligned with both DOGE and President Donald Trump’s executive orders aimed at eliminating DEI from the federal government.

The grants include $6.7 million to the California State Library to enhance equitable library programs and $4 million to the Washington State Library for diverse staff development and incarcerated support.

A $1.5M DEI grant to the Connecticut State Library system to ‘integrate social justice, diversity, equity, and inclusion’ into their daily operations is also being cut along with $700,000 for a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit to study ‘post-pandemic DEI practices’ in American children’s museums that would formulate ‘enhanced equity-focused strategies.’

Additionally, a DEI grant of $265,000 going to Queens College in New York to conduct a research project on why ‘BIPOC’ teens read Japanese comic books will be cut along with $250,000 to fund the ‘Gay Ohio History Initiative’ to erect 10 ‘LGBTQ+ historical markers’ will be cut.

‘In keeping with the vision of the President’s executive orders, we are taking action to end taxpayer funding for discriminatory DEI initiatives in our nation’s museums and libraries,’ Acting IMLS Director Keith Sonderling told Fox News Digital in a statement.

‘Our cultural institutions should bring Americans together—not promote divisive ideologies. Moving forward, we must champion programs that uphold our founding ideals and reaffirm that the American Dream is within reach for all, through hard work and determination, not identity politics.’

The grant cuts come after IMLS reportedly cut 80% of its staff in a move aimed at slashing the bloated federal government while saving taxpayers additional millions.

A recent study by the American Academy of Arts & Sciences found that federal funds represent only 0.3% of the total operating revenue for public libraries. The vast majority of funding comes from state and local sources.

The Institute of Museum and Library Services was one of seven government agencies targeted in Trump’s ‘Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy’ executive order last month.

Trump’s DOGE efforts have saved the American taxpayer $140 billion, according to its website, which represents almost $900 saved per taxpayer.

The Trump administration says it has slashed hundreds of millions of dollars in DEI contracts, including at least $100 million at the Department of Education.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Politics

Trump says US not willing to make deal with China unless trade deficit is solved

President Donald Trump said Sunday that he is not willing to make a deal with China unless the trade deficit of over $1 trillion is resolved first.

While speaking to reporters on Air Force One, Trump said with some countries there is a trade deficit of over a billion dollars, but with China, it is over $1 trillion.

‘We have a $1 trillion trade deficit with China. Hundreds of billions of dollars a year we lose to China, and unless we solve that problem, I’m not going to make a deal,’ he said. ‘I’m willing to make a deal with China, but they have to solve this surplus. We have a tremendous deficit problem with China… I want that solved.’

Trump also said because of the tariffs, the U.S. has $7 trillion of committed investments when it comes to building automotive manufacturing plants, chip companies and other types of businesses, ‘at levels that we’ve never seen before.’

But in terms of trade deficits, Trump said he has spoken with a lot of leaders in Europe and Asia, who are ‘dying’ to make a deal, but as long as there are deficits, he is not going to do that.

‘A deficit is a loss,’ he said. ‘We’re going to have surpluses, or we’re, at worst, going to be breaking even. But China would be the worst in the group because the deficit is so big, and it’s not sustainable.

‘I was elected on this,’ Trump added.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Business

Retirees ‘stunned’ as market turmoil over tariffs shrinks their 401(k)s

Americans nearing retirement and recent retirees said they were anxious and frustrated following a second day of market turmoil that hit their 401(k)s after President Donald Trump’s escalation of tariffs.

As the impending tariffs shook the global economy Friday, people who were planning on their retirement accounts to carry them through their golden years said the economic chaos was hitting too close to home.

Some said they are pausing big-ticket purchases and reconsidering home renovations, while others said they fear their quality of life will be adversely affected by all the turmoil.

“I’m just kind of stunned, and with so much money in the market, we just sort of have to hope we have enough time to recover,” said Paula, 68, a former occupational health professional in New Jersey who retired three years ago.

Paula, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because she feared retaliation for speaking out against Trump administration policies, said she was worried about what lies ahead.

“What we’ve been doing is trying to enjoy the time that we have, but you want to be able to make it last,” Paula said Friday. “I have no confidence here.”

Trump fulfilled his campaign promise this week to unleash sweeping tariffs, including on the United States’ largest trading partners, in a move that has sparked fears of a global trade war. The decision sent the stock market spinning. On Friday afternoon, the broad-based S&P 500 closed down 6%, the tech-heavy Nasdaq dropped 5.8%, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell more than 2,200 points, or about 5.5%.

As Wall Street reeled Friday after China hit back with tariffs against the U.S., millions of Americans with 401(k)s watched their retirement funds diminish along with the stock market.

“I looked at my 401(k) this morning and in the last two days that’s lost $58,000. That’s stressful,” said Victor Fettes, 54, of Georgia, who retired last week as a senior director of risk management and compliance at Verizon. “If that continues, I can’t stay retired.”

Trump has said the tariffs will force businesses to relocate manufacturing and production back to the U.S. and bring back jobs. Some investors and business groups have pushed back, saying they are likely to lead to higher prices for U.S. consumers.

“Our country has been looted, pillaged, raped and plundered by nations near and far, both friend and foe alike,” Trump said recently. “But it is not going to happen anymore.”

The president has acknowledged the potential pain coming to some Americans’ wallets, but he continues to staunchly defend his agenda.

“MY POLICIES WILL NEVER CHANGE,” he posted to social media Friday. Later, he wrote, “ONLY THE WEAK WILL FAIL.”

Trump’s tariffs are steeper and more widespread than any in modern American history. They are potentially even broader than the tariffs of 1930 that historians said worsened the Great Depression.

Some Americans thinking about retirement told NBC News they feel their economic stability is being played with.

“I don’t want to have to worry that everyone is constantly changing my financial reality,” said Alison Carey, 64, of Oregon, a freelancer in the theater industry. “Let the economy do its machinations, but don’t put me in the gears.”

Paula said she and other older Americans are living with “anxiety about something where you don’t really know what’s going to happen. You can’t do anything though.”

She and her husband have decided to pause and reduce spending on big-ticket items. They are reconsidering vacations and home renovations.

“We can’t change anything right now, except our spending,” she said. “I’m sure there are consumers across the board that want to be cautious, too. Then it becomes a vicious cycle. Consumer confidence goes down.”

One in five Americans age 50 and over have no retirement savings, and more than half, 61%, are worried they will not have enough money to support them in retirement, according to a survey published by the AARP last April.

“It makes you realize how out of touch the current administration is with regular people,” said Benajah Cobb, 63, Carey’s husband, who also works in the theater industry.

He said he hoped the last few days of stock market turmoil would motivate lawmakers to put more checks and balances on the president.

“It’s happening so quickly. Things are falling apart so quickly,” he said. “I’m hoping Congress will try to step up a bit, the Republicans in Congress.”

Fettes said he has been calling his representatives about the tariffs and other issues “to make sure that as a constituent, our voices are being heard.”

“We believe firmly in our family that a democracy is a participatory game, and so we want to make sure that our representatives understand where we’re at and what we would like for them to do to represent,” he said.

Paula said that as she and her husband continue to monitor their retirement accounts, their biggest fear is how Trump’s policies could impact the quality of the rest of their lives — and when their funds will run out.

“That’s my big worry, when is that shortfall going to happen now?” she said.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

World News

Blackwater founder Erik Prince joins security operation in Ecuador

Erik Prince, founder of the controversial security contractor formerly known as Blackwater, joined in law enforcement operations on Saturday in Guayaquil, one of Ecuador’s most violent cities, according to local officials.

The operations saw 10 houses raided and 40 people detained, Ecuador’s Interior Minister John Reimberg said.

“Since early this morning, the security block together with the American Erik Prince, a security expert, and the Ministers of Defense, Gian Carlo Loffredo and the Minister of the Interior, John Reimberg, were deployed in territory in Guayaquil, especially in the suburbs, attacking criminals and outlining strategies to strengthen the great actions of our law enforcement forces in the field of operations,” Ecuador’s Defense Ministry posted on X Saturday morning.

Prince also said in a video posted by Ecuador’s Defense Ministry that he was in the country “providing the law enforcement and the military the tools and the tactics to effectively combat the narco-gangs.”

The aim, Prince continued, is to “put the narcos on their back heels and make them truly afraid of being caught.”

His visit to the South American nation comes weeks after Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa announced a “strategic alliance” with Prince to fight organized crime.

‘A historic chapter for security’ in Ecuador

Ecuador’s Defense Ministry called Prince’s participation on Saturday a “historic chapter for security” for the nation.

The country’s Defense Minister Gian Carlo Loffredo said Prince and his team are currently providing training and advice to Ecuador’s security forces – but added that their scope of action could be expanded. “They may not be limited to just those actions,” Loffredo said.

Prince has been in the country for a “few days,” and work is ongoing to develop a new plan to combat Ecuador’s gangs, he also said.

In recent years, Ecuador – which is sandwiched between Colombia and Peru, top producers of cocaine – has become caught up in the drug trade and the violence that always follows it. Its efficient transport and export system has been used by cartels to move and ship their goods overseas — the bricks of cocaine hidden in boxes of bananas and other goods that then head to the United States, Europe and the rest of the world.

Noboa’s efforts however will be heavily dependent on next week’s presidential runoff vote. He’s set off to face leftist candidate Luisa Gonzalez, who has positioned herself as equally tough on crime but opposes the presence of any foreign force in the country.

In the same video posted by the defense ministry, Prince called on Ecuadorians to vote for Noboa, warning that otherwise Ecuador risked “looking just like Venezuela, a narco-state with massive drug processing with all the criminality and socialism and despair that comes with that.”

“I hope Ecuador chooses law and order and we are here to help to combat the gangs and to provide the tools for the government to restore law and order, peace and prosperity,” he added.

This post appeared first on cnn.com

World News

Auctioning off millennial saint-to-be’s relics is Satan’s work, archbishop says

Millennials will soon have their first video-gamer saint when Carlo Acutis is canonized later this month, but auctioning off relics purported to be tied to “God’s influencer” online is a no-go, according to an Italian archbishop.

The statement comes after an anonymous vendor tried to sell strands of Acutis’ hair online. Bids reached $2,200 before the lot was removed after Archbishop Domenico Sorrentino – who leads the diocese of Assisi where Acutis’ body is being kept and where the supposed relics were being auctioned off – called the police.

Relics, from strands of hair to bone fragments, have long been important devotional items for the Catholic faithful, and the Church encourages praying in front of relics of saints and saints-to-be, but canon law prohibits their sale, according to Sorrentino.

They can be given away by their owner or by bishops, while significant relics, such as hearts and organs, cannot be given away without permission from the Vatican. But this can never be for financial compensation, Sorrentino said in a video posted on the diocese website.

“After we verified the auction on the internet, we decided to file a complaint. What can the idol of money lead to… I fear that Satan has a hand in it,” he said.

Sorrentino filed a complaint with the police in Perugia, which is investigating the sale of the purported relics. “We have asked for their seizure,” Sorrentino said on the diocese website. “We do not know whether the relics are real or false, but even if it were all invented, if there was deception, we would be in the presence of not only a scam, but also an insult to religious sentiment.”

“The business of relics trading is prevalent, Sorrentino added. “On the internet there is a market of relics that concern various saints, such as our Francis (of Assisi), with a price list. Something (that is) impossible to accept,” he said.

Acutis, who died of leukemia in 2006 at the age of 15, is widely recognized as a model of Christian life for young believers and who Sorrentino said will be a sort of “patron saint of the internet” once he is canonized.

That ceremony will take place in St. Peter’s Square in Vatican City on April 27.

This post appeared first on cnn.com

World News

Far from being cowed by US airstrikes, Yemen’s Houthis may be relishing them

For weeks, US airstrikes have pounded Houthi targets in Yemen, hitting oil refineries, airports and missile sites, with President Trump vowing to use “overwhelming force” until the US achieves its goal of stopping the Houthis from targeting shipping in the Red Sea.

The Houthis began the campaign in solidarity with Palestinians when Israel went to war in Gaza in October 2023. The group has carried out more than 100 attacks and have sunk two vessels. The result: 70% of merchant shipping that once transited the Red Sea now takes the long route around southern Africa.

The US says the campaign is working. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz said that multiple Houthi leaders had been killed.

But every round of strikes provokes more defiance.

The Houthis are what one veteran Yemen-watcher calls the honey badgers of resistance, referring to the belligerent mammal known for its fearless attitude toward predators. Bitten by a cobra, they get up minutes later and attack the snake.

While as many as 80 Houthi military officers may have been killed, according to analysts, the senior echelon of its military and political leadership appears intact. So are at least some of its missile-launching sites. Since mid-March, the Houthis have launched a dozen ballistic missiles at Israel, and barrages of drones and missiles at US navy ships. While none caused major damage, the threat remains.

“We are burning through readiness — munitions, fuel, deployment time,” said one official.

Far from being cowed, the Houthis have threatened to extend their range of targets to the UAE, which backs the rival government to the Houthis in Yemen’s Civil War. Similarly, Saudi officials say the Kingdom’s air defenses are on high alert.

“The dozens of airstrikes on Yemen will not deter the Yemeni Armed Forces from fulfilling their religious, moral, and humanitarian duties,” said a Houthi spokesman earlier this week.

There’s no doubt that the US campaign has degraded the Houthis’ capabilities. Michael Knights, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute, says he suspects the Houthis “have lost a lot of drone manufacturing capability, and there does seem to be more effective interdiction of resupply shipments coming via the sea and via Oman. So the Houthis are not comfortable.”

But history shows that the Houthis have an extraordinarily high tolerance for pain. And the Trump administration’s determination to eradicate the threat they pose may ultimately require a ground offensive.

“The Houthis are just inured to being at war with a first world military,” Knights says.“They’re ideological, but they’re also very tough tribal fighters from northern Yemen.”

The Houthis’ ability to survive is helped by an elaborate smuggling network that brings in missile parts and other equipment. Last year, hidden among cargo on one intercepted ship, air frames and fins for artillery rockets, small turbojet engines and hydrogen fuel cells were discovered, according to an investigation by Conflict Armament Research (CAR).

Such equipment could enable Houthi UAVs to carry larger payloads and to travel for far longer periods. That would “greatly extend the potential threat posed by the Houthis,” CAR reported.

The Houthis survived several offensives during the long presidency of Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen, then a Saudi offensive ten years ago, followed by more recent Israeli, UK and US airstrikes.

Ahmed Nagi, a senior analyst on Yemen at the International Crisis Group, says Israel and western powers lack a deep understanding of the Houthis. “Their opaque leadership and internal structure have created persistent gaps in intelligence.”

Another Yemen expert, Elisabeth Kendall, questions the endgame of the US campaign. “The Houthis have been bombed tens of thousands of times over the past decade and remain undeterred. So one is left thinking that the bombing is largely performative: let’s show the world – we’ll do it because we can.”

“They are an extremely aggressive movement. The best way to end them permanently is to overthrow them, remove them from the capital, remove them from the Red Sea coast.”

Regional diplomatic sources, as well as analysts, say that ultimately only a ground offensive can dislodge the Houthis, who currently control the Yemeni capital, Sanaa, its major port, Hodeidah, and much of northern Yemen.

Ahmed Nagi, a senior analyst on Yemen at the International Crisis Group, says the US is wrong to believe that airstrikes can compel the Houthis to back down. “This approach failed under the Biden administration and is unlikely to succeed under the Trump administration.”

“Their logic is shaped by years of war; they see resilience as a form of strength and are driven to prove they are not easily deterred.”

“The only times I’ve ever seen the Houthis go to the negotiating table or compromise has been when they’ve been threatened with the realistic prospect of defeat on the ground: territorial loss, loss of control of populations and loss of access to the Red Sea coastline,” said Knights.

That briefly happened in 2017 when forces backed by the United Arab Emirates threatened Houthi access to the Red Sea, critical for the Houthis’ revenue and military supplies.

The Houthis, if anything, may actually be relishing US strikes. They are a “direct answer to the Houthi prayers to have a war with the US,” said Farea Al-Muslimi, a Yemeni research fellow at Chatham House. The group “wants to drag the US into a larger regional escalation.”

A ground offensive

The Houthis are fighting for control of Yemen against the internationally recognized government that controls part of the south and is supported mainly by the UAE. The unanswered question is whether forces loyal to that government can take the fight to the Houthis. “They’re already trained and equipped,” says Knights. But there are doubts about their unity.

Analysts do not expect the US to put any troops on the ground, beyond a handful of special forces to help direct airstrikes. The US would perhaps provide [Yemeni forces] “with a bit of logistics, certain key munitions,” Knights says.

The UAE would be “quietly supportive” as it has long supplied the Aden-based government, he adds.

The Saudi perspective is less clear. Knights believes Riyadh is apprehensive about the Houthis retaliating with long-range drones and missiles against its infrastructure. But the US has accelerated deliveries of anti-missile defenses to Saudi Arabia in recent months.

The US will have to say to Riyadh: “We are going to protect you in the same way that we protected Israel in 2024 from the two rounds of Iranian strikes,” says Knights.

Regional diplomatic sources say preparations are underway for a ground operation that would be launched from the south and east, as well as along the coast. A coordinated offensive could also involve Saudi and US naval support in an attempt to retake the port of Hodeidah.

The Iran link

From day one, President Trump and other US officials have linked the campaign against the Houthis to Iran. Trump said he would hold Iran responsible for “every shot” fired by Houthi rebels and it would face “dire” consequences for any attacks by the Yemeni militants.

So far it hasn’t, and it’s unclear whether Tehran can simply order the Houthis to stop firing. While very much part of Iran’s axis of resistance, the Houthis retain considerable autonomy.

Trump continues to warn Iran that it will face a massive bombing campaign if it doesn’t do a deal to limit its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. For the administration, the Houthi campaign and the “maximum pressure” campaign on Tehran are two sides of the same coin.

The Iranians are treading carefully, offering moral support to their ally in Yemen. Former Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander Mohsen Rezaee hailed “the barefooted resistance forces of Yemen, who will bring advanced American warships to their knees.”

But the Iranian leadership does not want to be seen providing further military support for the Houthis right now as it tries to work out Trump’s mixture of small carrot and large stick.

The US appears ready to expand its campaign. B-2 bombers and KC-135 refuelling planes have arrived on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. That may presage strikes on hardened targets in Yemen but may equally be a signal to Iran.

The next few weeks may be a crucial test of the honey badgers’ resilience.

This post appeared first on cnn.com

World News

Wanted world leaders cast a wary eye at The Hague as Duterte languishes in ICC custody

The dramatic arrest of the Philippines’ controversial former president in March sent shock waves through much of the world – and cast a renewed spotlight on the other leaders wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who was whisked off to the Netherlands to answer for alleged crimes against humanity, had long been under scrutiny over a brutal anti-drugs crackdown. But even after years of on-and-off investigations, during which Duterte taunted the court and told it to “hurry up,” his detention came as a surprise to many experts.

“We have had other high-ranking individuals brought before the court,” including several former presidents of African nations, said Leila Sadat, professor of international criminal law at the Washington University School of Law and the former special adviser on crimes against humanity to the ICC prosecutor.

But in many of those cases, the prosecuted leaders were either summoned to court or arrested after a warrant was publicly issued – a stark contrast to Duterte’s case, where the warrant was issued secretly and the former leader swiftly apprehended within several head-spinning hours.

“It’s the first time we’ve seen this at the ICC,” Sadat said – though similar cases have been seen in other international tribunals, she added.

Duterte, now 80, oversaw a ferocious crackdown on alleged drug pushers in the Philippines that killed more than 6,000 people, based on police data. Independent monitors believe the number of extrajudicial killings could be much higher.

His arrest is significant, partly because it could set a precedent for future trials of other leaders wanted by the court, however unlikely, including Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

That’s not to say their turn could be imminent, far from it – many political factors can make it extremely difficult to execute an arrest warrant.

Case in point: Netanyahu on Sunday was wrapping up a visit to Hungary, in defiance of the ICC warrant. As a signatory to the Rome Statute, Hungary is obligated to arrest anyone wanted by the ICC. Instead, its Prime Minister Viktor Orban welcomed Netanyahu with open arms, and Budapest announced it would begin the process of leaving the court.

But Duterte’s case has shown that arrest is possible – especially once a leader is out of office – and that the threat against those wanted leaders is not only theoretical.

“The precedent set here – maybe not now, but in future generations – will allow us to visualize what justice looks like for the highest-ranking leaders of countries that commit these kinds of crimes,” said Gregory Gordon, a professor of international criminal law at the Peking University School of Transnational Law in Shenzhen, China.

“There’s always that initial breakthrough that has to happen.”

Putin and the Ukraine war

Located in The Hague in the Netherlands, the ICC investigates and prosecutes individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and crimes of aggression against the territory of its member states, of which there are 125.

The court cannot carry out arrests on its own and relies on the cooperation of national governments to execute warrants – which often rests on domestic politics and political will.

ICC member countries include Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, Australia, Brazil and all other members of the European Union – at least until Hungary makes its promised exit.

In March 2023, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Putin and Russian official Maria Lvova-Belova over an alleged scheme to deport Ukrainian children to Russia.

The charges were the first to be formally lodged by the ICC against Russian officials since the Kremlin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in 2022.

Russia – like the United States, Israel, China and Ukraine – is not a member of the ICC. The court does not have its own police force and does not conduct trials in absentia – and therefore the likelihood of any Russian official appearing before it is very low, analysts said.

Any charged Russian officials would either have to be handed over by Moscow, or arrested outside of Russia, said Sadat, the Washington University professor.

“The warrant against Vladimir Putin himself is obviously the most challenging because he’s a head of state in power, and he’s not going to leave Russia unless he’s pretty sure he’s going to have immunity wherever he goes,” she said. “But his choices are now restricted, and he’s been labeled, for better or worse, a war criminal.”

Gordon agreed, saying the chances of Putin being arrested are slim, given his “firm grip on power” and layers of protection – unless Russia’s domestic political situation changes enough to leave him vulnerable. After all, it was a dramatic change in the Philippines’ domestic politics that ultimately did for Duterte.

Even when Putin leaves Russia, many countries are unwilling to arrest him. Last year, the Russian leader traveled to Mongolia without facing any repercussions – despite the East Asian country being a member of the ICC.

“Obviously the pressure on a small country like Mongolia is pretty substantial,” Sadat said.

But she pointed to other times the warrant had seemed to restrict Putin’s movements; in 2023, the Russian leader attended a BRICS summit in ICC signatory South Africa via video call, sparing the host country a potential diplomatic quandary.

“I think the warrants themselves are powerful. At the same time, we do have to see a significant number of warrants actually get executed, or the warrants become sort of symbols of a court that can’t arrest its accused,” she said.

“That’s why (Duterte’s arrest) is a really exciting moment for the court, because it shows it can engage in interstate cooperation.”

Netanyahu, Hamas and the Gaza war

The ICC issued its warrant for Netanyahu in November 2024 – also seeking the arrest of former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant – citing allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza.

A senior Hamas official is also wanted by the ICC on allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the October 7, 2023 attacks on Israel. Other leaders of the militant group sought by the court for prosecution were killed by Israel.

The historic warrants made Netanyahu the first Israeli leader summoned by an international court for alleged actions against Palestinians in the more than seven-decade-long Arab-Israeli conflict.

The warrants were also denounced across the Israeli political spectrum as unconscionable, with Netanyahu’s own office labeling the move “antisemitic.” Several Israeli allies – including the United States – strongly criticized the ICC warrant.

Israel is not a member of the ICC and does not recognize the ICC’s jurisdiction, nor does it honor international warrants issued by the court, and likely wouldn’t turn over Israeli citizens for prosecution. In addition, the ICC only steps in when a country’s own government is unwilling or unable to prosecute cases.

But unlike Russia, it is a functioning democracy, with a long history of peaceful transitions between elected governments. That makes Netanyahu’s future political security more tenuous than Putin’s, and more comparable to the Duterte situation, where a shift in government once the Philippine leader was out of office ultimately led to his downfall.

The Israeli prime minister is already contending with a number of domestic legal troubles unrelated to the Gaza war, including a long-running corruption trial.

Israel is also deeply politically divided, with many citizens furious at the Netanyahu government and his far-right cabinet allies.

According to Gordon, it is at least “conceivable” that Netanyahu could one day face arrest in Israel for alleged crimes related to Israel’s actions in Gaza – though that still doesn’t mean the ICC warrant would be enforced.

Then there’s the fact that several powerful nations have opted not to enforce the ICC’s warrants while others have openly rejected them – further undermining the court’s authority.

France, for instance, had fervently supported the ICC’s warrant for Putin – but it shifted its stance after the court sought Netanyahu’s arrest, arguing that as Israel was not an ICC member, its prime minister should be immune from prosecution. Other European nations have also indicated they would be unwilling to enforce the Israeli warrants.

But critics say the responses suggest two sets of rules: one for the West’s traditional allies, and another for its foes.

The trouble with international prosecutions

The ICC has a long list of outstanding arrest warrants, including for former dictator Omar al-Bashir, who ruled Sudan for three decades before being deposed in 2019. Currently imprisoned in Sudan, Bashir faces charges of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur.

A disproportionate number of ICC prosecutions have been against African leaders, warlords and militia members – including former Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta and the East African country’s current leader William Ruto, whose case was abandoned by the court partly due to “witness interference and political meddling.”

The ICC’s past focus on Africa is partly rooted in its constitution, said Sadat in Washington. The court can only exercise jurisdiction in crimes committed on or after its creation on July 1, 2002. At the time, major wars that killed millions were raging across Africa, from Darfur to the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Additionally, many African nations self-referred their cases to the ICC, Sadat added – meaning they asked the international court to investigate and granted it jurisdiction.

“With time, the prosecutor’s office started staffing up, developing more expertise, taking on additional situations … now the court is moving into other situations,” Sadat said.

But, she added, it’s difficult to prosecute alleged crimes while conflicts are ongoing and those accused remain in positions of power.

For years, the ICC has faced criticism for slow trials and its low conviction rate. From 60 arrest warrants issued since the court was created, 31 suspects remain at large. Only 11 defendants have ever been convicted – all African war criminals.

Sadat pointed to Syria, saying that for years, the ICC couldn’t “figure out a way to get jurisdiction” to investigate alleged war crimes during the country’s civil war – until former dictator Bashar al-Assad’s regime was toppled in December. Since then, the new interim government has invited the court to visit the country and collect the evidence needed for prosecution.

The Philippines is another prime example of how ICC cases often become stuck until some political upheaval changes the game, said Gordon, the law professor.

Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. had previously said the Southeast Asian country would not engage with the ICC, only for Manila to reverse its stance this week following the collapse of an alliance between the Marcos political dynasty and Duterte’s clan.

Some might argue “that this is just about politics, and that the only time the ICC will ever be able to engage in the justice process is if political processes are aligned in certain ways – and it’s just a matter of luck, not justice,” Gordon said.

Duterte’s arrest could establish a foundation for “combating the culture of impunity and assuring accountability for state leaders who commit international crimes,” Gordon said.

“That makes people in the future more comfortable with the idea that it can be done.”

This post appeared first on cnn.com