Authored by Timothy Murphy via RealClearDefense,

The Strait of Hormuz reminds us that a single chokepoint can shape the global economy overnight. What most policymakers miss is that space has its own version of Hormuz—and we are rapidly losing control of it. Multiple sectors of the global economy are dependent on access to the Strait of Hormuz, but nations are becoming ever more reliant upon access to space to drive their economies. Similar to the Strait, the key corridor in space is Low Earth Orbit (LEO). All space systems are dependent upon access to it (either directly or indirectly), and the security of LEO and freedom of maneuver in space will increasingly rely upon Artificial Intelligence (AI). Success will come from AI’s capabilities in advancing commercial space activity, responding to current and future threats in space, and ensuring AI dominance through American control of the AI supply chain.

AI is fundamental to maintaining U.S. advantages in commercial space activity. Many people still do not realize the extent of U.S. military involvement in all international space activity – both military and commercial. During my time standing up current operations at U.S. Space Command, we saw the volume and speed of activity in space explode beyond what human operators could effectively track in real time. That gap is only widening. The Space Force operates a Space Surveillance Network that monitors the space environment and tracks all artificial objects in Earth’s orbit. U.S. and foreign companies use this data to launch satellites, avoid debris, and ensure their systems do not conflict with other objects in space. The surveillance network has always relied upon complex algorithms, and as the volume and complexity of space-based activity increases, AI compute will be increasingly necessary.

Providing this surveillance and tracking service will also advance U.S. advantages in the development of the commercial space industry. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and its preceding organizations played a critical role in solidifying air commerce as an economic force in the 20th century. U.S. development of the FAA ensured control over the global air industry which has generated wealth, economic benefits, and advanced logistics for over 100 years. America is on track to have similar influence over the development of space commerce, but AI will be critical to ensuring the expansion of surveillance, tracking, and deconfliction of space assets. The country that successfully employs AI capabilities to accomplish these functions will have the most influence on the future of the space industry.

While AI will be critical to commercial space development, it is absolutely necessary to counter the quantity and capabilities of current threats, much less future ones. Existing threats to the space domain are significant and not well understood. The dominant adversary is China, which has over 1,300 satellites in orbit and maintains multiple systems (in space and on earth) that can target U.S. and allied space systems. China’s threats to space represent a range from destructive weapons to high-power laser weapons and powerful jammers. A coordinated Chinese effort to jam or blind satellites in LEO wouldn’t just affect military systems. It would disrupt GPS, financial transactions, logistics, and communications simultaneously. Much of China’s efforts to deter and defeat the U.S. rely heavily on their counter-space plans and capabilities. China could attempt to deploy those capabilities to hamper U.S. operations in LEO and thus disrupt the key “choke point” for space access.

Much of China’s efforts to deter and defeat the U.S. rely heavily on their counter-space plans and capabilities. If deployed, they could directly disrupt U.S. operations in LEO and threaten access to this critical choke point. The U.S. cannot rely on human operators alone to respond. AI will be essential for detection, tracking, threat analysis, and real-time response to adversary actions. It can also provide decision-makers with options at tactical, operational, and strategic levels. These are capabilities the U.S. must accelerate in the years ahead.

In space, AI is not an efficiency tool. It is the only way to maintain control. To realize these advantages, the United States must confront a harder truth: AI is only as strong as the supply chain behind it. If the U.S. does not control the AI stack—from chips to training data—it will not control the space domain. And today, that stack is globally fragmented and exposed.

U.S.-based Nvidia’s GPUs power much of the AI ecosystem but systems like the GB200 rely on hundreds of global suppliers. That creates real vulnerability but also reflects reality. The U.S. cannot retreat from global markets without ceding influence. Selling American AI abroad sets standards, builds dependence, and keeps U.S. companies at the center of the ecosystem. The challenge is not whether to engage, but how. The U.S. should protect its most advanced capabilities from adversaries like China while avoiding broad export controls that weaken its own industrial base.

The world has seen how a single chokepoint can shape the global economy. Space has its own chokepoint that it is becoming more critical by the year. AI will determine who can operate in that domain and who cannot. The country that builds and supplies that infrastructure will not just compete in space. It will define it.

Col Timothy Murphy (U.S. Air Force, ret.) is a former national security affairs fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. From 2019 to 2020, he served as the first Chief of Current Operations for U.S. Space Command.

For the first time in many years, the United States has a top diplomat officially in residence representing Washington to Venezuela.

Veteran US diplomat John M. Barrett has arrived in Caracas to serve as chargé d’affaires at the US Embassy in Venezuela, the mission announced Thursday, marking a new phase in Washington’s diplomatic presence in Venezuela, and after a US military raid on Jan.3 ousted and captured longtime leader Nicolás Maduro.

Image via Prensa Libre

Barrett is a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, and he was tapped by the Trump admin for role in April after most recently serving as chargé d’affaires at the US Embassy in Guatemala.

His arrival forms part of President Trump’s stated three-phase plan to “restore democracy” in Venezuela, with the chargé d’affaires acting as the top US representative in the absence of a Senate-confirmed ambassador.

It must be recalled that it was actually the Director of the CIA who was the first top Trump admin official to visit post-Maduro Caracas and warmly shake hands with new leader, then-Vice President Delcy Rodríguez.

Ironically she had long been among the most staunchly socialist officials within the Chavista regime of Maduro, and her being accepted by Washington shows there was not actual regime change on any institutional level, just the tapping of a more pliant US puppet.

Various reports review that before his posting in Guatemala, Barrett served from 2023 to 2025 as deputy chief of mission at the US Embassy in Panama.

“The relationship between the United States and Venezuela will shape the future of our hemisphere. My name is John Barrett, and I have just arrived in Venezuela to serve as charge d’affaires at the U.S. Embassy in Caracas,” Barrett said in a newly video published introducing himself and the new role by the embassy on social media.

“President Trump and Secretary Rubio have a clear vision for the prosperity of our region, and I am here to continue implementing their three-phase plan for Venezuela. We remain committed to Venezuela,” he added.

His prior diplomatic roles include serving as counselor for economic affairs at the US Embassy in Peru and as consul general in Recife, where he led US diplomatic engagement across eight northeastern states.

CNN: Maduro presented the CIA as a boogeyman attempting to topple the regime, without any evidence.

Also CNN: “the CIA has helped supplant Maduro and is poised to help actively manage the Trump administration’s dealings with Venezuela’s new leadership” pic.twitter.com/nno8e1bJNu

— Glenn Diesen (@Glenn_Diesen) January 29, 2026

It’s expected that with the reopening and normalization of embassy operations, so will the presence of American spies in Caracas grow – as goes the pattern with most any country, but especially in the case of Latin America, and given the presence of the world’s largest proven oil reserves under the ground.

Via Middle East Eye

The Trump administration has told several Gulf states that they should use American companies to rebuild their infrastructure damaged by Iran’s retaliatory strikes amid the US-Israeli war on the Islamic Republic, US and Arab officials familiar with the discussions told Middle East Eye.

Kuwait, Bahrain and the UAE are among the countries the US has tapped as potential customers for US engineering, manufacturing and construction firms, given the extent of damage in their countries, the officials told MEE.

Smoke rises following a strike on the Bapco oil refinery, amid the US-Israeli war on Iran, on Sitra Island, Bahrain, on March 9, 2026. via Reuters

Saudi Arabia and Oman have been less impacted by Iranian air strikes. In their talking points, US officials have been emphasizing the economic partnership the Gulf countries share with the US and its importance to reconstruction. 

A US official told MEE that promoting US companies for Gulf reconstruction was part of the Trump administration’s “America First” foreign policy, which prioritizes economic statecraft. 

But an Arab official told MEE that the push appeared “a little tone-deaf”, as the Gulf is still wary of a return to fighting and on edge over the US’s commitments to regional security.

The Trump administration’s push is not merely symbolic. Rystad Energy estimates the repair costs for energy-linked infrastructure in the Gulf alone could reach as high as $39bn, excluding the damage in Iran.

A fragile ceasefire between the US and Iran is holding, even as the two are locked in a stalemate over the Strait of Hormuz with rival blockades. Iran’s government has estimated that its economy overall suffered $270bn in direct and indirect war damages.

The Gulf monarchies generally opposed the US-Israeli war on Iran, but they faced the brunt of the Islamic Republic’s reprisals. The UAE was targeted with at least 2,000 ballistic missiles and drones.

The countries which suffered the most damage are also the most exposed to Iran’s newfound control over the Strait of Hormuz, as opposed to Saudi Arabia, which has a pipeline bypassing the chokepoint via the Red Sea. 

Gulf states have deep pockets to rebuild infrastructure, but there are signs they are wary of a longer-term downturn.

Kuwait has one of the world’s largest sovereign wealth funds. Valued at $1 trillion, the fund rivals those of the UAE and Saudi Arabia, although it flies below the radar. 

US Secretary of State Scott Bessent said this week, however, that the UAE and other Gulf states were seeking currency swap lines from the US, which would allow them to tap into US dollars while their energy exports are stalled. 

“I could see the US looking for a trade-off where Gulf states using a swap line commit to US firms for rebuilding,” a former US official told MEE. 

Kuwait, which sits at the northeastern corner of the Gulf, was also hammered by Iranian air strikes. While Kuwait keeps a lower profile than Qatar, the UAE and Saudi Arabia, it has the fourth-largest US troop presence in the world. Iranian strikes hit the US’s Camp Arifjan as well as Ali al-Salem Air Base.

But Reuters reported that Kuwait International Airport also suffered significant damage. At least two major Kuwaiti power and water desalination plants were damaged as well.

Likewise, Bahrain, a tiny Gulf island kingdom whose only land connection to the outside world is the King Fahd Causeway to Saudi Arabia, suffered significant damage from Iranian strikes.

🇸🇦🇶🇦🇦🇪🇧🇭🇰🇼GULF WAR DRIVES $58B REBUILD BILL – STRAINS GLOBAL EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLY CHAINS

The recent conflict across the Gulf is expected to generate a reconstruction burden of roughly $55–60 billion, with damage concentrated in energy infrastructure, logistics corridors, and… pic.twitter.com/wyBiGBuSVN

— THE GLOBAL WATCHDOG (@glwatchdog) April 18, 2026

Bahrain’s port, which hosts the US’s Fifth Fleet, was pummelled by Iran, but key industrial sites also suffered damage.

The Financial Times reported that Amazon’s cloud computing operation in Bahrain was hit by Iranian strikes. Aluminium Bahrain, one of the world’s largest single-site smelters, was attacked and had to declare a force majeure as a result of the damage. Bahrain’s Bapco refinery also declared a force majeure after the strikes.

US and Arab officials said the US has not yet lobbied on behalf of specific companies, but wants to put American firms at the front lines of reconstruction.

Update: 

• Shooter apprehended and taken into custody. Carrying shotgun, handgun and several knives. 

• The shooter has been identified as Cole Tomas Allen, 31, of Torrance California

• No injuries to Trump or any guests.

• Incident near lobby magnetometer screening.

• Trump praised Secret Service rapid response.

President Donald Trump was evacuated from the head table at the White House correspondent’s dinner on Saturday night after a gunman, allegedly 31-year-old Cole Thomas Allen, 31, of California – stormed the event and fired shots in the lobby. Authorities confirm the suspected shooter has been apprehended and is in custody after shots fired near the lobby screening area. President Trump, First Lady Melania Trump, and all protectees were safely evacuated with no injuries reported. The Secret Service continues investigating.

 Trump posted a picture of the suspect on Truth Social along with a video: 

According to Just the News, the gunman was not wounded and was carrying a shotgun, a handgun and several knives. 

In a White House press conference held shortly after the incident, Trump praised the Secret Service and law enforcement for their “fantastic job” and rapid response, describing the shooter as a “lone wolf” and “very sick person” from California who was armed with multiple weapons and charged a security checkpoint. He revealed that one Secret Service officer was shot at close range but was saved by his bulletproof vest and is “doing great,” while confirming the suspect was swiftly apprehended and taken into custody without harming any protectees. Trump noted he had “fought like hell to stay” at the dinner but deferred to security protocol, adding that the frightening event unexpectedly unified the ballroom and brought journalists and politicians together; he announced the White House Correspondents’ Dinner will be fully rescheduled within the next 30 days

This video was taken outside the venue: 

🚨🇺🇸 BREAKING: The suspect in the White House Correspondents’ Dinner shooting has been identified as 31-year-old Cole Tomas Allen of Torrance, California.

-Video has emerged showing someone on the ground with U.S. Secret Service agents inside the Washington Hilton

-Believed to… https://t.co/EOkEIKYxj1 pic.twitter.com/PQoka3QLSR

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) April 26, 2026

According to Fox News‘ Karol Markowicz, the suspect is a 31-year-old from Torrance, California. 

🚨🇺🇸BREAKING: The first image of the alleged shooter from the White House Correspondents’ Dinner has emerged, showing a body on the stairs at the Washington Hilton surrounded by law enforcement.

Secret Service rushed Trump and other officials off the dais after gunfire erupted,… https://t.co/Y4xVaod1QP pic.twitter.com/YiVld5LUkV

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) April 26, 2026

* * * Piss off a vegan…

Shots were fired during the 2026 White House Correspondents’ Dinner (WHCD) at the Washington Hilton ballroom on Saturday evening, prompting the immediate evacuation of President Donald Trump, First Lady Melania Trump, Vice President, and other high-profile attendees by Secret Service. Guests were ordered to take cover under tables as heavily armed agents secured the venue.

BREAKING

The U.S. Secret Service just rushed the President and First Lady off the dais at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner after the sound of shots being fired was heard.

They have since reportedly been evacuated. pic.twitter.com/p3KihVun9A

— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) April 26, 2026

According to Deadline’s on-site reporter Ted Johnson, who was present in the ballroom near the area of the incident: “I heard what sounded like four shots, and it seemed to come from the hall just outside the ballroom near my table.”

Key details from initial reporting:

President Trump and dignitaries—including the First Lady, Vice President, WHCA President Weijia Jiang, and entertainer/mentalist Oz Pearlman—were quickly hustled out of the ballroom.
Secret Service agents jumped onto the stage amid the chaos.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon’s security detail told CNN live that there was a shooter in the lobby and that the shooter is dead.
A separate White House Pool Report from Jeff Mordock of the Washington Times stated that Secret Service indicated the alleged shooter is in custody – however CNN is reporting that the shooter is dead. the shooter is in custody. 

Attendees described loud noises (consistent with gunfire), panic, people ducking, the room being placed on lockdown, and police/Secret Service sweeping the hotel. Trump and the First Lady were reported safe after a rapid evacuation shortly after arriving at the event. No injuries to attendees or dignitaries have been confirmed in initial accounts.

Security officials evacuated Mike Johnson (R-LA) after a gunman opened fire during the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in Washington, D.C.

📸: @idreesali114 pic.twitter.com/tugjGlCPA4

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) April 26, 2026

This was President Trump’s first appearance at the WHCD as sitting president (he had boycotted the event during his first term). The dinner is an annual black-tie affair organized by the White House Correspondents’ Association that traditionally features journalists, politicians, and celebrity guests.

More

A woman is detained by law enforcement outside the Washington Hilton pic.twitter.com/7WIXnFhdDf

— Brendan Gutenschwager (@BGOnTheScene) April 26, 2026

Erika Kirk spotted in tears leaving WHCD after gunshots: “I just want to go home.” pic.twitter.com/XeUlSZ2ZrT

— TheBlaze (@theblaze) April 26, 2026

The beast rushing to The White House after attempted assassination. pic.twitter.com/BuvG9J1ImJ

— The TRUMP PAGE 🇺🇸 (@MichaelDeLauzon) April 26, 2026

* * *

Significant progress has been made in the fight against malaria over the last two decades, according to a new report by the World Health Organization (WHO). In 2024, 80 countries (including the territory of French Guiana) remained endemic for the disease, down from 108 in 2000. The number of deaths have also declined since the turn of the century, with the WHO estimating that 610,000 people died from the disease in 2024, compared with 864,000 in 2000. 

Recent years have brought further milestones.

Cabo Verde and Egypt were certified as malaria-free in 2024, followed by Timor-Leste, Suriname and Georgia in 2025. To receive certification, countries must report zero indigenous cases for three consecutive years and formally apply to the WHO. Several other countries are in a similar position, with Saudi Arabia having recorded four consecutive years without indigenous cases, while Bhutan has reached three and Malaysia seven. However, none of these have yet submitted a certification application.

While Malaysia does not have malaria cases of the human Plasmodium species, it does report having P. knowlesi, a type of zoonotic parasite that circulates between monkeys and is transmitted to humans via mosquitoes. Turkey has submitted its application and is awaiting approval. 

But, as Statista’s Anna Fleck reports, despite long-term gains, there is still a significant amount of work to be done.

You will find more infographics at Statista

Malaria deaths rose by around 12,000 between 2023 and 2024, while estimated cases increased from 273 million to 282 million.

Ethiopia (+2.9 million cases), Madagascar (+1.9 million) and Yemen (+378,000) together accounted for 58 percent of the global increase. 

The WHO African Region continues to bear the heaviest burden, accounting for 95 percent of malaria deaths worldwide. Funding gaps and the growing threat of drug resistance remain key obstacles to further progress.

Authored by Casey Fleming via The Epoch Times,

Your phone buzzes. A notification lights up your screen—an article, a meme, a fun video, a flash sale, or the latest trend. It feels harmless, even entertaining. Just another moment in the endless rhythm of digital life. But beneath the surface lies something far more sinister. The seemingly trivial event is part of a quiet, persistent system designed to influence something deeply personal: your mind.

U.S. intelligence agencies have made the scope of this issue increasingly clear. Certain foreign-developed applications, particularly those linked to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), don’t simply collect user data in the limited way most people imagine. They gather extensive streams of information continuously—pulling from users, their contacts, and broader networks, sometimes extending to people who never installed the app. That data may be stored or accessed under legal frameworks that grant government authorities broad reach. What looks like ordinary app functionality can function as a large-scale intelligence collection system with strategic value.

This is no longer just about privacy. It intersects directly with national security.

The nature of conflict is evolving. Where adversaries once focused on stealing classified files or disrupting infrastructure, the modern battlefield includes the shaping of perception. Data is now a weapon of war—it is insight. It reveals behaviors, preferences, emotional triggers, and decision-making patterns. Aggregated at scale, it enables detailed behavioral models and psychological profiles that predict how individuals and groups will respond to specific messages or events.

When paired with artificial intelligence, this data becomes a precision weapon. Patterns are analyzed rapidly. Content is tailored, timed, framed, and repeated to maximize impact. Casual scrolling gradually shifts into structured influence, guiding users subtly rather than through overt coercion.

This dynamic is known as cognitive warfare. Unlike traditional conflict, it does not rely on physical force. It operates through control of information flows, attention, and repetition. The goal is not destruction but influence over how people interpret events, form beliefs, and make decisions.

Algorithms often prioritize emotionally charged or polarizing material to boost engagement. Over time, repeated exposure normalizes certain narratives while marginalizing others. Users believe they are thinking independently, yet their information environment has been carefully filtered, optimized, and weaponized.

A nation’s strength depends not only on its economy or military but on the clarity of thought, judgment, and cohesion of its people. When these qualities are undermined—through confusion, division, or eroded trust—the consequences extend far beyond the individual. Traditional cyberthreats target systems. Cognitive threats target minds. They aim to create doubt, amplify disagreements, and weaken institutional confidence, making unified action during crises far more difficult.

The implications are profound. A population conditioned toward rapid emotional reaction rather than critical reflection becomes more susceptible to manipulation. Trust in government, media, and fellow citizens erodes. Consensus fractures, decision-making slows, and internal divisions deepen. These conditions create exploitable vulnerabilities without the need for direct confrontation.

This approach delivers strategic advantage by avoiding the costs of open conflict while still shaping outcomes. By influencing the information environment, adversaries can steer public opinion, policy directions, and societal trends. Perception itself becomes a domain of competition (war).

At the core are three interconnected elements: large-scale data collection as a continuous intelligence resource, advanced algorithms as the delivery mechanism, and human cognition as the ultimate target.

In this context, protecting personal data is no longer merely a privacy matter—it is essential to preserving autonomy of thought. Cognitive security, the safeguarding of independent judgment, has become a national security imperative alongside traditional cybersecurity.

The situation is not hopeless. The effectiveness of these systems depends on access, scale, and awareness—factors that can still be contested.

Individuals can reduce exposure by reviewing app permissions, limiting unnecessary data sharing, and practicing digital hygiene. Awareness is equally vital: recognizing that much of what appears on screens is curated, not neutral. Critical thinking remains the strongest defense—evaluating sources, noticing patterns of repetition, and questioning emotionally manipulative content. In an environment engineered to capture attention, deliberate reflection becomes an act of resilience.

Policymakers must also act. Clear rules on data storage, jurisdictional control, and accountability for foreign-linked applications are necessary. Scrutiny of large-scale data flows tied to adversarial governments helps establish necessary boundaries.

The battlefield has shifted. Competition now unfolds in everyday digital experiences—what we read, watch, and share. The influence is often subtle, but its cumulative effect reshapes societies.

The central question remains: Can individuals maintain independent judgment when information is continuously filtered and optimized and weaponized for engagement?

Your phone buzzes again. Another notification appears. Recognizing that moment as part of a larger strategic system is the first step toward protecting your freedom.

The defense of independent thought will be one of the defining challenges of our time.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Authored by Yaffa Shir-Raz via Brownstone Institute, 

“I need to ask someone else to take responsibility for the second part of the approvals process, so that I won’t have a conflict of interest. I’m also working with Bill Gates and the World Health Organization on the vaccine itself.”

This admission of a conflict of interest was made by Prof. Lester Schulman, secretary of the Ministry of Health’s polio committee, in March 2023, during an internal discussion about approving the importation into Israel of a new polio vaccine. The vaccine was developed and promoted by the World Health Organization in collaboration with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and its approval pathway relied on a new emergency authorization mechanism the WHO has developed in recent years: the EUL (Emergency Use Listing).

Although the remark was framed as a technical aside, it was an unusual confession of a conflict of interest by the committee’s secretary. Its seriousness is compounded by the fact that it was made only after the committee had already voted by an overwhelming majority to initiate the process of bringing the vaccine to Israel, and after it had already worked vigorously to persuade the Pharmaceutical Division to cooperate.

The quotation does not appear in the official minutes of the meeting that were provided to us. It is heard on an audio recording of the session, one of several recordings passed on to us by a whistleblower. The minutes were provided only following a Freedom of Information request and subsequent litigation.

The episode is serious in its own right. But it goes far beyond a local episode of personal conflict of interest or an administrative failure within Israel’s health system. The materials point to something more consequential: the use of an international emergency authorization pathway to shape regulatory decisions inside a sovereign state, advanced through overlapping professional networks, without the organization assuming the legal responsibilities borne by national regulators. 

In the United States, recent political debates over withdrawal from the World Health Organization were widely framed as a clash between scientific consensus and institutional criticism. Yet the Israeli case, and the materials in our possession, point to a much larger picture. 

This was the first implementation of the EUL mechanism within a country with a functioning Western regulatory system. Israel served here as a regulatory test case: an attempt to determine whether it is possible, in practice, to shape an approval pathway inside a sovereign state without holding formal regulatory authority and without being subject to the judicial and parliamentary oversight that applies to a national regulator. In doing so, it exposes how the organization has been operating in recent years: no longer merely an advisory and coordinating body, but an institution that creates operating frameworks that, in practice, shape approval processes inside sovereign states.

The EUL: An Emergency Mechanism or a De Facto Regulatory Infrastructure?

The World Health Organization was established in 1948 as an intergovernmental body tasked with providing professional assistance and technical guidance, promoting research, collecting knowledge, and developing recommendations for its member states. Article 22 of the WHO Constitution leaves states the right to opt out of its regulations, a clear indication that the organization was not granted regulatory powers such as authorizing drugs and vaccines or supervising their manufacture. These areas remained the exclusive responsibility of states themselves, which also bear legal and public responsibility for the decisions of their national health authorities.

In recent years, the WHO has developed mechanisms that expand its influence beyond recommendations and, in effect, enable it to directly influence regulatory authorization processes within states. The central mechanism is the EUL, an independent WHO emergency procedure that is not part of national authorization systems.

According to the organization’s documents, the EUL is defined as a temporary, risk-based authorization for the use of unapproved medical products in emergency situations where no approved product is available, and on the basis of partial data on quality, safety, and efficacy. These documents emphasize that the EUL is not licensure, and that it does not replace national regulatory authorization.

But what is defined as a temporary bridge measure that does not replace national regulation becomes, in practice, an operating framework. Once EUL is activated, it maps out the timetable, the milestones, and the starting point of the discussion. This restructuring of the decision-making process also generates pressures that extend beyond the initial authorization stage. As Dr. David Bell, a former WHO medical officer, notes: “Once a product has been granted emergency authorization and widely deployed, there is strong institutional pressure to overlook its limitations and proceed toward full approval, as reversing course may carry significant professional and reputational risks.”

Instead of a regulator initiating an independent process based on its own data and judgment, it operates within a workflow whose structure has already been defined in the international arena.

The institutionalization of the EUL reflects a broader shift in regulatory practice. During Covid-19, emergency authorization became the operative pathway for deploying novel vaccines at population scale within Western regulatory systems. That experience established the practical legitimacy of approving and distributing vaccines on the basis of interim data under declared emergency conditions. A regulatory model tested within sovereign systems had become normalized.

The EUL translates this logic to the international level. It creates a structured emergency pathway through which products can advance prior to conventional Western licensure. Once activated, the pathway structures expectations, timelines, and decision points for states considering adoption.

Under the International Health Regulations (2005), a Public Health Emergency of International Concern is defined primarily in relation to international spread and coordinated response, without a quantified severity threshold. During the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, controversy arose over the WHO’s pandemic phase definitions, which emphasized geographic spread rather than clinical severity. Where emergency criteria are flexible, the declaration carries procedural consequences: it opens access to accelerated authorization mechanisms. Over time, this flexibility has lowered the practical threshold for invoking emergency-based authorization mechanisms. 

Rather than independently constructing a full evidentiary assessment from first principles, states deliberate within a predefined emergency framework. The activation of the pathway reorders the sequence of decision-making. Questions of timing, alignment, and external validation take precedence over the threshold question of whether the evidentiary basis would independently justify authorization under ordinary regulatory standards.

nOPV2: The First Implementation of the Mechanism

The nOPV2 polio vaccine discussed in Israel was the first product to receive EUL status from the WHO. The listing was granted on November 13, 2020, making the vaccine the first implementation of the new procedure. Beginning in March 2021, it was deployed in Nigeria and later in additional countries in Africa and Asia.

The vaccine is manufactured in Indonesia by a company called Bio Farma. Its development and clinical studies were funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which also committed $1.2 billion to “support efforts” to advance it, as part of the Polio Eradication Strategy 2022–2026.

On December 21, 2023, the vaccine also received WHO Prequalification (PQ) status. This procedure is not national licensure and is not equivalent to approval by a stringent Western regulator. It is a WHO assessment mechanism that enables UN agencies and countries to rely on it for procurement and use through international health mechanisms. Although PQ is not part of EUL, in practice it signals a shift from a temporary emergency framework to a broader and continuing distribution pathway that no longer depends on the declaration of a specific emergency.

The trajectory of nOPV2 illustrates more than the introduction of a new vaccine. It demonstrates the operationalization of an emergency-based authorization model beyond a single national regulator. A product listed under an international emergency mechanism progressed from provisional deployment to broader institutional endorsement, without passing through the conventional sequence of Western licensure. It is this pathway that was subsequently introduced into Israel’s regulatory deliberations.

How the International Pathway Was Embedded Inside the Ministry of Health

The discussions in the ERT committee make it possible to examine how the EUL pathway was integrated in practice into decision-making inside Israel’s Ministry of Health.

The ERT (Emergency Response Team) committee at Israel’s Ministry of Health was established in March 2022 as an advisory committee to manage the response to a polio outbreak detected in sewage testing in Israel. The committee’s mandate included receiving ongoing updates, formulating operational recommendations, adapting vaccination policy, and managing public information efforts. The committee is chaired by Prof. Manfred Green, head of the International Public Health Leadership Program at the University of Haifa’s School of Public Health, and its secretary is Prof. Lester Schulman, an epidemiologist who headed the Central Environmental Virology Laboratory at Sheba Medical Center (Tel Hashomer).

In its early deliberations, the committee dealt with poliovirus type 3, which, according to its documents, originated from the live-attenuated vaccine. Even in these discussions, there is already a clear sensitivity to the WHO’s position. The committee chair explicitly states that if Israel does not launch a vaccination campaign, it may be perceived by the WHO as a “rogue” state. This perception does not need to be imposed externally. It emerges within a shared professional environment in which deviation is experienced not merely as a policy disagreement, but as a departure from the norms of the group. These dynamics are consistent with observations from within international health institutions.

As Dr. David Bell, a former WHO medical officer, notes: “Delegates in international health forums are often not acting primarily as national representatives. They are part of a large professional network, trained in similar institutions, meeting regularly, and sharing a common worldview. These networks are supported by major private funders and institutional partners, which further reinforces alignment across countries. 

Within these networks, dissenting positions are often perceived as unscientific or backward, creating strong pressure to align. Countries may be reluctant to deviate for fear of appearing outside the accepted consensus.”

Bell further characterizes this process as a form of soft power operating through institutional culture rather than formal authority: “This is how soft power operates: shared incentives, professional culture, and support from major funding bodies allow preferred approaches to spread across systems, often without the need for formal coercion.”

Accordingly, the team recommended a “Two Drops” campaign using the existing live-attenuated vaccine (OPV3). The campaign began in April 2022 and was halted two months later. Although uptake among the primary target population was minimal, the Ministry presented the campaign as a success and announced the elimination of the strain from sewage surveillance. 

Shortly thereafter, the Ministry of Health announced that immediately upon eliminating type 3, type 2 was detected in sewage, which also derives from a live-attenuated vaccine. Although to date no paralysis cases from this strain have been found in Israel, the ERT committee began, already in mid-2022, to consider the option of using the new nOPV2 vaccine. At first it arose as a general reference, but it soon became the central axis of the discussion.

At this stage, the discussion already linked epidemiological assessment to procedural consequences. Even in the absence of clinical cases, escalation was considered in relation to the regulatory options it would make available.

From late summer 2022, the nOPV2 approval pathway was presented to committee members in several meetings, using presentations and background materials provided by the WHO. The minutes we received indicate that the discussion was based on WHO presentations and background materials. The minutes contain no record of a full manufacturer dossier, independent regulatory data, or an opinion from any Western regulatory authority.

On December 1, 2022 (Minutes ERT 21), the ERT committee voted by an overwhelming majority to initiate the process of bringing the new vaccine to Israel. According to the minutes, 14 of 15 committee members voted in favor of the recommendation, as did all six Ministry of Health representatives who participated in the vote. At that point, the principled decision had been made. The discussion shifted from whether to adopt the pathway to how to implement it. 

Immediately following the vote, the regulatory question shifted to implementation and to the procedural steps required to activate the pathway. In a committee discussion held on February 28, 2023, Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis suggested that a formal emergency declaration might be necessary in order to enable the relevant authorization track, remarking that “perhaps if there are two clinical cases we will be able to persuade the minister to declare an emergency.” The exchange indicates that the declaration of emergency was discussed in direct connection with the procedural track it would enable.

Conflicts of Interest on the Committee: Advisers to the WHO Leading the Recommendation to Bring the Vaccine to Israel

During the months in which the committee’s secretary, Prof. Schulman, presented the pathway for bringing nOPV2 to Israel, the committee members were not presented with information about his conflicts of interest with the WHO and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. In practice, during that period, Schulman served as a technical consultant on the vaccine through McKing Consulting Corporation, a professional contractor working on projects of the WHO and the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI), which is centrally supported by the Gates Foundation.

He also received a support grant from the WHO, likewise for consulting related to nOPV2. Moreover, he received travel funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to participate in dedicated nOPV2 working meetings in London in February 2023; that is, precisely during the period relevant to the ERT committee’s deliberations on the vaccine. Added to this is co-authorship on an international scientific publication from June 2023 that was conducted with the support of the WHO, GPEI, and the manufacturer Bio Farma.

In other words, this was not a general affiliation or a distant professional past. It was a direct, built-in conflict of interest related to the specific vaccine under discussion and to its unusual approval pathway under EUL. Schulman declared these ties in official scientific publications, but they were not brought to the committee’s attention in real time, even as he was the one presenting the approval pathway and leading the professional discussion. When the Ministry of Health was asked to address the issue, both in the Freedom of Information process and in a formal request to the spokesperson, it responded categorically that no conflicts of interest existed in the committee. This response contradicts Schulman’s own public declarations.

Only about three months after the vote, during a further discussion held on February 28, 2023, Schulman asked that “someone replace me” in the continuation of the approvals process, so that he “won’t have a conflict of interest,” as though it were a minor technical matter rather than a substantive failure, and without addressing the fact that the principled decision had already been made on the basis of materials and a regulatory framework that he himself had helped advance internationally. Moreover, after this admission, Schulman’s conflicts of interest were not documented in the meeting minutes that were provided to us following the FOI litigation.

Schulman was not the only senior committee member with a conflict of interest involving the WHO. The committee chair, Prof. Manfred Green, recently acknowledged in a Knesset Health Committee discussion that his partner, Prof. Dorit Nitzan-Kluski, also serves on the polio committee. Indeed, Prof. Nitzan-Kaluski is listed as a member already in the original appointment letter, in March 2022. Yet only a month before that appointment, in February 2022, she formally completed her senior role as the WHO Regional Emergencies Director for Europe. Moreover, a few weeks later, with the outbreak of the war between Russia and Ukraine, she returned to intensive professional activity on behalf of the WHO as an Incident Manager in Ukraine, a role she performed in parallel with her membership in the committee.

This becomes all the more problematic when the committee chair presents the WHO’s position to members as an “ultimatum” that must be adopted, without full disclosure that his partner, serving alongside him, is a senior operational figure within that same organization.

This is not merely a matter of personal ethics. The committee secretary, who drafted, promoted, and led the presentation of the vaccine and the EUL pathway to Israel, was simultaneously active internationally in advancing them, while the committee chair adopted the same framework. The result was that Israel’s decision-making unfolded within the same professional network that promoted the vaccine and its approval pathway in the international arena. 

Under such circumstances, it is difficult to speak of independent national regulatory judgment when the same actors are involved in promoting the pathway both globally and within the Israeli deliberations.

“Who Will Blink First”

In stark contrast to the confidence with which the vaccine’s safety and manufacturing integrity were presented in the ERT committee, the minutes show that the Pharmaceutical Division, Israel’s competent regulatory authority for authorizing medicines and vaccines, expressed reservations, and even opposition, at an early stage.

This opposition was mentioned several times during the discussions, including the reasons raised by division staff: the absence of licensure by any Western country, the fact that the vaccine is manufactured in Indonesia, a country to which Israel’s Ministry of Health has no direct regulatory access, meaning it cannot independently examine manufacturing conditions at the plant, and reliance on an emergency mechanism that had not yet been completed.

In one discussion, Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis describes the Pharmaceutical Division’s position unambiguously: “Our pharmacy division refuses at this stage to take a vaccine or to approve a vaccine coming from Indonesia with no Western regulatory process at all. That’s a very, very big obstacle…Right now our pharmacy division is saying: ‘We will not approve such a thing. It doesn’t look to us like it meets any standards that we can approve.’ “

Yet these reservations were not presented as a regulatory red line, but as a problem to be “solved” in order to continue advancing within the EUL pathway. The regulator’s opposition did not stop the process. It was framed as an operational obstacle.

This produced a reversal of roles: an advisory committee effectively shaped the regulatory pathway, while the body legally authorized to approve or reject vaccines was expected to adapt to a framework that had already been set, and at times to justify its own resistance.

Against this backdrop, the discussion focused on finding an external regulator that would provide legitimacy, first and foremost the UK regulator. The minutes repeatedly refer to Britain as the country that might approve the vaccine before Israel. For example, in one discussion (ERT 17), Prof. Ian Miskin, one of the committee members, states explicitly that “we probably shouldn’t be the first in the West to use nOPV2, ” and that while the United States likely would not use the vaccine, “the UK might.” In the February 28, 2023 discussion, Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis framed the situation even more explicitly: “Maybe we’ll challenge them – every country that hears ‘Indonesia’ doesn’t want to be the first…so everyone is waiting to see who will blink first.”

This dynamic captures the position local decision-makers found themselves in within this mechanism. Although they did not have the basic data necessary for a proper regulatory authorization of a vaccine, they did not challenge the pathway itself. Instead, they searched for a Western country to provide the first stamp of approval. The international framework had already been accepted as the starting point. The remaining question was only which country would supply the legitimacy that would allow others to follow. In such a setting, the scope of criticism narrows. The focal point is no longer vaccine safety or manufacturing quality, but joining a pathway already defined, and the fear is not scientific error but deviating from the line.

This dynamic cannot be explained solely by institutional caution. Once the EUL framework was accepted as the operative reference point, deliberation shifted from independent evidentiary assessment to questions of timing and alignment. The regulatory threshold itself was no longer the central issue. What mattered was whether, and by whom, the pathway would first be validated in the West. The architecture of decision-making had already been set.

“We Got Nothing, Nothing, Nothing Except WHO Presentations”

About two months after the ERT committee had already voted and made a principled decision to advance the introduction of nOPV2 to Israel under the EUL mechanism, and after months of discussions in which the gap between the pathway mapped out in the committee and the regulator’s position only widened, Dr. Alroy-Preis asked to invite Dr. Ofra Axelrod, head of the Pharmaceutical Division, to explain her opposition.

In the subsequent discussion, when Dr. Axelrod did come to the committee and systematically presented the data and information available to the Pharmaceutical Division, it became clear that the gap was far larger than could be inferred from earlier discussions. What she laid out showed that this was not merely a discrete regulatory disagreement or a “difficulty” that could be bridged, but an absence of the basic regulatory data required to evaluate vaccine safety, manufacturing integrity, and the regulatory pathway itself.

At the outset, Axelrod clarified what constituted the division’s evidentiary base: “We, of course, got nothing, nothing, nothing except WHO presentations. On the basis of that, to approve something, that won’t pass.” In effect, she revealed that these presentations were the only materials presented to the committee and had served as the basis for the vote to begin the approval process for importing the vaccine into Israel.

Contrary to the impression created earlier, in which the vaccine was presented as being on an advanced pathway, Axelrod described a vaccine that was “still in a clinical trial…a vaccine at a very, very early stage…it doesn’t even have prequalification, which is really the most basic approval there is.” She also addressed the vaccine’s status under EUL and noted: “There was an initial recommendation in 2020, and since then no final decision has been made…”

Even the hope that a Western country would soon authorize the vaccine proved, according to her, unfounded. “Right now, because of the gaps and lack of information, the British do not intend to approve use of this vaccine in the UK. Even if it becomes truly essential, and maybe even a temporary approval, it’s very challenging. After that conversation we asked the British for materials. There was nothing; they did not pass anything on. In early February we approached the British again, and the answer was very evasive. The answer was: ‘We’ll try to create a direct connection for you with the company.’ Since then we haven’t heard anything, not from the British and not from the company. “

As for manufacturing itself, Axelrod described a plant not recognized by Western regulatory authorities, and a picture of inadequate regulatory oversight. “The plant is not recognized, it manufactures vaccines for the developing world, for WHO countries…the manufacturing company avoided direct contact with the MHRA, the UK regulator. They did not give them a dossier or any information they received directly from the company…eventually, the British managed to get the company’s agreement to conduct a GMP inspection. The British visited the company and found gaps. They did not specify what they were. And the company has not undergone any GMP inspection by an authority we recognize…”

Beyond the regulatory gaps, Axelrod’s comments also illuminate the lack of transparency in the committee’s work. She told the committee that a Freedom of Information request had already been filed with the Ministry concerning the vaccine discussions. “I have to share with you that we already received an FOI request about this vaccine. We haven’t approved anything yet, and already people are asking us: why and how and who and what.” The committee’s minutes were not published to the public in real time. They were provided only following an FOI request and prolonged litigation. The fact that the information was exposed only in this way makes clear that the discussion was not accompanied by proactive transparency from the Ministry.

A Test Case for a New Model

As serious as the Israeli case is, both in the conflicts of interest it exposes and in the attempt to promote authorization without basic regulatory data before the national regulator, the larger significance lies elsewhere. Israel was the first Western arena in which the EUL mechanism was put into practice. This is not merely a local event. It serves as a test case for a new model – a practical examination of the WHO’s ability to shape approval processes in a Western country without bearing direct regulatory responsibility.

Beyond the damage to sovereignty, the danger in this model is deeper. The WHO does not bear legal responsibility within states and is not subject to judicial or parliamentary oversight there. In a national regulatory system, a decision to authorize a vaccine is subject to a clear administrative law framework: documents can be demanded under freedom of information statutes, petitions can be filed in court, reasoning can be compelled, and decisions can be reviewed for reasonableness.

States that accept the EUL mechanism retain full legal and political responsibility for the decision, while key elements of its framework are shaped outside their systems. The national regulator will be required to defend in court a decision whose framework it did not set; the government will bear the public cost; and citizens will discover that the body that shaped the pathway is not subject to their courts and owes them no legal accountability.

A further concern is the lack of transparency and the state’s inability to independently assess the data presented to it. In recent years, the research literature has pointed to transparency gaps in the WHO’s decision-making mechanisms, especially in emergencies. Studies published, among others, in BMJ Global Health (2020), the Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health (2025), and Public Health Ethics described partial publication of minutes, difficulty reconstructing decision rationales, and the scope of influence not matched by parallel oversight mechanisms. 

The Israeli case shows how such a gap translates at the national level: discussions not proactively published, near-exclusive reliance on materials originating from the organization itself, and progress along a regulatory pathway before the full data required for independent review had been provided.

In this case, the move was halted in Israel, but only after a principled decision had already been made and the pathway had already been mapped out, and only thanks to regulatory insistence on demanding data and holding to threshold standards, and civic insistence on exposing information that was not published.

Against this background, decisions by countries such as the United States to distance themselves from the World Health Organization can be understood in the context of broader debates over regulatory authority and accountability in global health governance. The Israeli case raises a more general question: to what extent can regulatory independence be maintained when key elements of the decision-making framework are shaped through external processes that precede national review? 

The case exposes a widening gap between formal national authority and the external frameworks that increasingly determine regulatory outcomes in advance.

The Ministry of Health was asked to respond to these findings but chose not to comment.

There has been a lot of speculation about potential Supreme Court vacancies this year, mostly centered on Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. Even President Donald Trump seems anxious about the possibility. In a recent interview with Fox Business’s Maria Bartiromo, Trump revealed that he has a shortlist of potential Supreme Court nominees ready in the event of a vacancy and signaled he’s prepared to fill multiple seats if the opportunity arises. 

“In theory, it’s two – you just read the statistics – it could be two, could be three, could be one,” Trump said. “I don’t know. I’m prepared to do it. But when you mention Alito, he is a great justice.“

However, for now, the door appears closed. Sources close to both Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas told CBS News that neither man plans to retire in 2026, effectively throwing cold water on the speculation that has been building for months within Republican circles.

But Senate Republicans aren’t exactly ready to write it off yet. They’re treating the possibility of a fall vacancy as hot enough to plan around, even while keeping their mouths carefully shut in public.

The calculus is straightforward. Republicans currently hold a 53-seat Senate majority, but party strategists privately acknowledge that margin is vulnerable. The nonpartisan Cook Political Report recently shifted four Senate races — Ohio, North Carolina, Nebraska, and Georgia — toward Democrats. Meanwhile, Trump’s job approval has slipped into the low 30s. Democrats have a credible path to flipping the upper chamber if they can make inroads in Ohio, Alaska, Texas, or Iowa.

What Senate Republicans are hoping for is a potential October surprise. 

GOP strategist and former Senate aide Brian Darling argues that a vacancy and confirmation battle hitting in October would “have the whole agenda change,” pulling Senate races away from economic grievances and back toward the Court. It would “shift” the focus of contested races and “may motivate MAGA voters to get reengaged and show up to vote.” As Darling put it, “An October surprise is when some issue comes up that people aren’t expecting that completely changes the debate,” adding that such a development “clearly is something that would be welcomed by the Trump administration going into the midterms.”

It sounds like a risky strategy that could backfire, as such events could easily motivate both sides. However, Republicans have a recent data point to anchor that theory.

In 2018, Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation fight landed so close to Election Day that it likely helped Republicans flip a few Senate seats despite losing 42 House seats and majority control of the lower chamber. The Senate outcome diverged sharply from the national wave, and vulnerable Democrats in red-leaning states paid the price. Sens. Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Joe Donnelly of Indiana both held polling leads heading into the Kavanaugh vote. Both lost. McCaskill later acknowledged on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that, before the confirmation battle, there had been “a double-digit difference in enthusiasm” favoring Democrats, but that Supreme Court fight changed the dynamics completely.

The 2016 Scalia precedent is also part of the institutional memory here. After Scalia died in February of that year, then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell held the seat open through the presidential election, effectively turning the race into a referendum on the Court’s direction. Justice Neil Gorsuch was confirmed in April 2017. Republicans believe that the gambit helped deliver the White House.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) believes a Supreme Court vacancy “would be a galvanizing issue for Republicans,” but was careful to note that justices make their own decisions. “I don’t give Supreme Court justices advice,” Cornyn said, praising Alito’s record by saying simply, “Alito’s been great.”

There certainly is reason for Republicans to be careful. Barack Obama infamously failed to convince Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to retire while he was president. She stubbornly stayed on the court, despite her advanced age and poor health, and passed in 2020, giving a third Court pick.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) was equally careful about nudging Alito, 76, or Thomas, 77, about retiring. He said he has “seen the articles” speculating about Alito’s retirement and acknowledged that “the rumor started somewhere.” On whether either justice might step down, Kennedy said it “depends on their health,” then added, “I don’t know where this rumor came from; it may well be true.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune pointed to Republicans’ demonstrated ability to confirm quickly, referencing both 2018 and the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett in 2020 — completed less than two months after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, just before a presidential election.

“It seems like it could happen,” one senior Republican aide said. “We’ll get somebody confirmed. The fight will be interesting.”

The question isn’t whether Republicans want a Supreme Court vacancy before November — it’s whether they’ll get one. And if they do, history suggests the political fallout could be severe for Democrats defending seats in territory that was never really theirs to begin with.

Via The Cradle

The administration of US President Donald Trump has been “spying” on Pope Leo XIV as part of a years-long intelligence campaign by Washington against the Vatican, US investigative journalist Ken Klippenstein said in a report released Friday. 

Klippenstein – an independent, Washington-based investigative journalist who formerly wrote for The Intercept – cited sources as saying that Trump’s recent comments on the new Pope were taken by the intelligence community as “a directive to prioritize spying on the Vatican.”

via Reuters

Trump had said earlier this month that Pope Leo was “terrible on foreign policy” and “weak on crime.” According to Klippenstein’s sources, Washington has “for years” been spying on the Vatican. 

“The CIA has human spies working inside the Holy See bureaucracy. The NSA and CIA seek to intercept telecommunications, emails, and texts. The FBI investigates crimes committed against and by the Vatican. The State Department closely follows the ins and outs of Papal diplomacy and politics. All of these agencies liaise with the Vatican’s own foreign policy, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies,” the report stated. 

Klippenstein pointed to a “longstanding – and quietly extensive – relationship between the US national security apparatus and the Vatican” involving diplomatic, law enforcement, and cybersecurity cooperation.

Much of it is “genuine” but also serves as a “convenient cover for collecting intelligence.”

“The first Trump administration sought to beef up its coordination with Italian intelligence agencies and Vatican officials on things like cybersecurity, white collar crime, human trafficking, art theft, and other issues. One particular project was to help the Vatican actively thwart cyber intrusions into its networks. The FBI also regularly provides threat intelligence to the Pope during his travels,” Klippenstein cited FBI documents as saying. 

“The State Department, meanwhile, maintains a daily Vatican-centric news digest circulated to diplomats worldwide… The department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research has analysts dedicated to producing classified assessments on Vatican affairs,” he added, referring to other documents he obtained.

“Even the US military has a Vatican-specific language code on its books as a distinct linguistic capability. ‘QLE’ designates Ecclesiastical Latin – the Vatican’s preferred liturgical register – as distinct from classical Latin.”

The report follows recent tensions between Trump and the Holy See. Trump said earlier this month:

“Pope Leo is WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy. I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a Nuclear weapon. I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s terrible that America attacked Venezuela, a Country that was sending massive amounts of Drugs into the US … And I don’t want a Pope who criticizes the President of the US.”

Prior to that, the pope had condemned what he called the “delusion of omnipotence,” fueling the US-Israeli war against Iran. 

“Enough of the idolatry of self and money! Enough of the display of power! Enough of war!” he said. The pope also recently said that a “handful of tyrants” were ruling the world, before later clarifying that his comments were not meant as a jab at Trump and were written before the US president criticized him. 

Additionally, the papacy referred to Trump’s threat to wipe out the Iranian civilization as unacceptable.

President Trump responds to Pope Leo XIV: “He shouldn’t be talking about war, he has no idea what’s happening.”

Trump responds to Italian PM Meloni saying his words about Pope Leo XIV are “unacceptable”: “It’s her who is unacceptable… I thought she was brave, but I was wrong.” pic.twitter.com/YwkiUDfwR2

— The American Conservative (@amconmag) April 14, 2026

Pope Leo’s remarks came weeks after dozens of US lawmakers demanded a probe due to hundreds of complaints from service members saying that military commanders portrayed the war on Iran as “divinely ordained” and linked to biblical prophecy, including claims that Trump had been “anointed by Jesus.”

Well over 2,000 people have been killed by the US-Israeli war on Iran, and the country’s infrastructure has been ravaged. 

Only about one-third of the infrastructure destroyed in Iran’s capital during the US-Israeli war was military-linked, Bloomberg revealed on 21 April in an analysis of the damage caused by Washington and Tel Aviv.

Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

The economy has been the number one issue for U.S. voters for several years in a row, and it isn’t because things are good.

Consumer confidence is at an all-time low, inflation is starting to accelerate once again, mass layoffs are being conducted all over the nation, and delinquencies and foreclosures are soaring. Nobody can dispute any of the facts that I am about to share with you. We have an enormous economic mess on our hands, and now the crisis in the Middle East threatens to plunge the entire global economic system into chaos in the months ahead. In other words, conditions are not good now and the outlook for the future is not promising at all.

The following are 18 shocking facts that prove that the U.S. economy is in far worse shape than most people realize…

#1 Consumer confidence in the United States has fallen to an all-time record low…

Consumer confidence plunged to a record low in April as fears mounted over rising energy prices and the broader impact of the Iran war, according to a University of Michigan survey Friday.

The university’s headline index of consumer sentiment tumbled to 47.6, down 10.7% from the March survey to its lowest on record. Current conditions and expectations indexes also saw double-digit monthly declines.

#2 Student loan delinquencies have exploded to a level that we have never seen before…

Student loan delinquency has climbed to roughly 25 percent of borrowers with payments due during the first year of the current Trump administration, according to new analysis.

Researchers from The Century Foundation and Protect Borrowers said the sharp rise in missed payments, nearly triple the pre-coronavirus pandemic rate, has pushed millions into default risk and lowered credit scores, warning of broader financial fallout for households and colleges facing higher nonpayment rates.

#3 The monthly cost of owning a home has risen to absurd heights…

All in, the median monthly housing payment for an owner — including mortgage principal and interest, taxes, homeowners insurance, and estimated maintenance expenses — has ballooned to more than $2,800, a staggering 72% jump from $1,635 six years earlier.

#4 Foreclosure filings were way up in 2025, and so far in 2026 we are 26 percent above last year’s pace…

A fresh wave of foreclosures is sweeping across the United States, with more than 118,000 homes caught up in the crisis in just the first three months of 2026.

It is a grim omen – with echoes of the run up to the 2008 Great Recession – that financial pressure is mounting for thousands of families.

New Attom data shows 118,727 properties were hit with a foreclosure filing in the first quarter – up 26 percent on the same period last year.

#5 The number of Americans that cannot pay their credit card bills in full each month has reached another record high…

More than 111 million people could not pay off their monthly credit-card bills in full at the end of last year, marking a new record, according to new estimates from consumer advocates. That’s roughly 2 million more people unable to pay in full compared to the end of 2024, they noted.

These card holders now owe banks more than $1 trillion — and most are inching closer to maxing out their credit lines, according to researchers at the Century Foundation, a progressive think tank, and Protect Borrowers, a nonprofit group that advocates for borrowers.

#6 As the cost of living soars, people are pulling money out of their 401(k) plans at a record rate in a desperate attempt to make ends meet…

More Americans are digging into their retirement savings because of financial emergencies.

Last year, a record 6% of workers in 401(k) plans administered by Vanguard Group took a hardship withdrawal. That is up from 4.8% in 2024 and a prepandemic average of about 2%, according to Vanguard.

#7 Food prices continue to escalate, and the price of coffee has more than doubled since 2019…

A 16-item basket of groceries made up of staples like eggs, bread, and meat — no truffle cheese in our cart — rang in nearly 43% higher in March compared to the same month in 2019.

A few key categories are behind the rise: Coffee prices have more than doubled since the pandemic, while beef prices have soared more recently.

#8 For the first time ever, the price of a pound of ground beef is now higher than the federal minimum wage in many parts of the country…

The cost of a pound of ground beef has hit a major threshold. Depending on where you shop, the grocery staple likely costs more than the federal minimum wage.

Money analyzed ground beef prices at seven of the most popular grocery chains across the U.S., finding that 1 pound of the typical 20% fat ground beef costs between $6.49 and $8.96. Organic, grass-fed and leaner varieties tend to cost much more.

On the other hand, the federal minimum wage sits at $7.25 per hour.

#9 The Federal Reserve is telling us that 42.5 percent of recent college graduates were underemployed at the end of 2025…

Historically, college graduates have tended to find jobs faster and experience lower unemployment than workers without a degree. But recent data suggests it’s now harder to find a job that fits your skill set once you graduate.

According to the Federal Reserve of New York, 42.5% of recent college graduates (aged 22 to 27 with a bachelor’s degree or higher) are underemployed as of December 2025 — the highest rate since October 2020. Underemployment refers to working in a role that underutilizes your skills, usually at a lower wage or in a part-time position.

#10 We continue to see retailers close locations all over the nation at a staggering rate. For example, Grocery Outlet has announced that they will be permanently closing 36 stores…

Grocery Outlet – the California-based retailer famous for selling products at steep discounts – says it will close 36 stores nationwide as part of a sweeping restructuring plan designed to improve profitability.

The company revealed the move while reporting its latest financial results, saying it had conducted a ‘strategic, financial and operational analysis’ of its entire store network.

#11 Not to be outdone, Papa John’s has announced that they will be closing approximately 300 restaurants…

Pizza chain Papa John’s said it plans to close hundreds of underperforming restaurants in North America by the end of next year.

“We have identified approximately 300 underperforming restaurants across North America that are not meeting brand expectations or lack a clear path to sustainable financial improvement, as well as locations where we can effectively transfer sales to a nearby restaurant,” Papa John’s Chief Financial Officer Ravi Thanawala said last week during the company’s fourth-quarter earnings call.

#12 One of our “too big to fail” banks has decided that now is the time to cut about 2,500 jobs…

Morgan Stanley is slashing about 3% of its global workforce — roughly 2,500 jobs — across its key divisions, as the Wall Street giant realigns priorities amid a banner year for profits, sources familiar with the matter have told The Post.

The cuts hit the Ted Pick-led lender’s investment banking, trading, and wealth management units, the people close to the situation said.

#13 EBay will be conducting yet another round of layoffs. This time around approximately 800 workers will get the axe…

EBay said Thursday it is cutting about 800 roles, or 6% of its workforce, in the latest round of layoffs at the e-commerce company.

“We are taking steps to reinvest across our business and align our structure with our strategic priorities, which will affect certain roles across our workforce,” an eBay spokesperson said in a statement. “We are grateful for the contributions of the employees impacted and are committed to supporting them with care and respect.”

#14 At one time Wendy’s was doing great, but in 2026 it will be permanently shuttering hundreds of locations…

Fast-food chain Wendy’s will shutter 5% to 6% of its stores nationwide in the first half of 2026 as part of an ongoing downsizing plan.

Interim CEO Ken Cook first told investors in a Nov. 7 quarterly earnings call that the company would be closing a “mid single-digit percentage” of its nearly 6,000 locations nationwide.

#15 Meta, the parent company of Facebook, apparently intends to let nearly 8,000 employees go in the very near future…

Meta is preparing to cut thousands of jobs as early as next month, with deeper layoffs expected later this year, according to a report.

The tech giant intends to slash roughly 10% of its global workforce — or nearly 8,000 employees — in an initial round of cuts on May 20, sources told Reuters.

The company is also planning additional layoffs in the second half of the year, though details including timing and scope remain unclear, the outlet reported.

#16 From coast to coast, thousands of supply chain workers have been told to hit the bricks in recent weeks…

A wave of layoffs across U.S. supply chains — from EV battery plants and auto parts factories to warehouses and rail terminals — has affected nearly 4,000 workers in recent weeks, according to company announcements and WARN filings across multiple states.

Recent WARN filings and company announcements show job cuts across at least a dozen companies in states including California, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, Ohio, South Carolina, Pennsylvania and Alabama.

The largest layoffs in the recent wave are coming from the automotive and industrial supply chain. SK Battery America said it laid off 958 workers — about 37% of its workforce — at its electric vehicle battery plant in Commerce, Georgia, citing shifting EV demand as automakers reassess production plans.

#17 According to Newsweek, the following list of companies have all announced layoffs during the month of April…

Blue Shield of California
Zenith Logistics
Perdue Foods
ERN Services
Boston Electrometallurgical Corporation
First Brands Group
GEODIS
MicroVision
IPIC Theaters
Goulet Trucking
CJ Logistics
L3Harris
Supernal
Heritage Bank of Commerce
Angel City Brewery
VCA Bay Area Veterinary Specialists
Monroe Operations
Meteor Creative
Viskon-Aire Corporation
C3.ai
Safari West
Main Street Sports Group Cincinnati
Raley’s
Koppers
Wells Fargo
Lucid Group
Hornblower Cruises and Events
Charles River Laboratories
Wescom Financial
Bluum USA
CHS Northwest
Catalent
Liberty Dental Plan
GXO Logistics

#18 The total unfunded obligations of the U.S. government have now reached a staggering total of 130.12 trillion dollars…

On March 17, 2026, the U.S. Department of the Treasury quietly released the federal government’s fiscal year 2025 financial report. Buried in its tables is a number that should dominate our national conversation – but doesn’t: Total federal obligations now stand at $130.12 trillion.

That figure is not a rounding error or a political talking point. It is derived from the government’s own accounting – combining the reported negative net position (driven largely by bonded debt) with the present value of projected shortfalls in major social insurance programs. Yet public debate continues to revolve almost exclusively around the much smaller figure of Treasury securities outstanding.

There is no way that anyone can spin the facts that I have just shared with you to make them look good.

So if conditions are already this bad, what will things be like six months from now if the Strait of Hormuz is still closed?

We really are in unprecedented territory, and the truth is the economic conditions could easily get a lot worse during the months ahead.

Michael’s new book entitled “10 Prophetic Events That Are Coming Next” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can subscribe to his Substack newsletter at michaeltsnyder.substack.com.