Search
AI-powered search, human-powered content.
scroll to top arrow or icon

{{ subpage.title }}

Syria's interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa speaks during a Ministerial formation of the government of the Syrian Arab Republic, in Damascus, Syria, on March 29, 2025.

REUTERS/Khalil Ashawi

Hard Numbers: Syria gets new Cabinet, US steps up Houthi strikes, Top US vaccine official resigns, Hamas offers hostages for ceasefire, Trump eyes third term, Kashmir violence turns deadly, Trump shrugs off high car prices

23: Syria has a new transitional Cabinet. Interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa swore in his new 23-member team on Saturday, replacing caretakers who had been in those roles since former President Bashar Assad was ousted in December. While the new Cabinet is largely filled with al-Sharaa allies, it is religiously and ethnically diverse, a sign that Syria is moving forward to rebuild in the post-Assad and post-civil war era.

Read moreShow less
- YouTube

Leaked Signal chat shows Trump team's mindset

Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take on the back of the full transcript of these Signal chat that's going on about the bombing of the Houthis. A few things here. First of all, are we surprised that a journalist is actually publishing what is clearly classified data? And there's no question, it's classified data. I mean, you're talking about the targets, the exact timing in advance of US military strikes, incredibly sensitive information, against people that are described as terrorists in the chat. And clearly, if that information had gotten out in advance when Jeffrey Goldberg had received it in real time, it would have put the operation at risk. It would have prevented it from going on. It would have been denounced as leaking classified information, and he would be facing some legal charges from the administration. So I don't think it's credible to say that this is not classified.

But since Trump and members of administration have now said that it isn't classified, there was nothing classified in it, I guess that provides legal cover since it is ultimately in the charge of the president to be able to determine, as president, whether or not something is classified. That there's nothing illegal in Goldberg and the Atlantic Magazine now taking all of that information and putting it out to the public. So is that embarrassing for the US with its allies in terms of how they're handling such a chat? The answer is of course, yes. And I expect that we're going to see a significant amount of continued focus on this topic. A lot of people are going to be asking questions about how it was that this conversation could have been had on Signal and also how it was that Goldberg could have been brought on board. But say that as it may. I mean if you are the Trump administration here, it is age-old tactic, full denial responsibility is actually of your political adversaries so blame Goldberg. Imply that maybe he tried to get on the call through nefarious ways.

It's all his fault. It's overstated. He's a fake news, no news journalist. No one should pay attention to him. He's a bad guy. I mean all of that stuff. And I was particularly bemused by Elon Musk sharing a post from the Babylon Bee saying that, "If you wanted to ensure that nobody ever saw information you'd put it on page 2 of the Atlantic." And of course, that is true for Elon, and it's true for Trump supporters. And this is why the strategy works, is because the Atlantic and the people that read the Atlantic and support the Atlantic are all considered disinformation by those that are loyal to Trump. And vice versa. Fox, and Newsmax and all of the right-wing podcasts. Those are considered fake news by people that don't support, that dislike Trump. And that allows a strategy of full denial, not engaging with the facts and blaming those that are coming after you to be successful. Now, I still think that there are interesting pieces of information here.

Perhaps the most important is that the actual policy conversation, not the details of the war fighting itself, but rather whether or not it was a good idea to be attacking the Houthis, in a big way that was potentially going to increase energy prices. And that was much less of a fight of the Americans than it would be of those in the region that are engaged in the direct proxy war with Iran or the Europeans who have a lot more directly at stake, in terms of their trade in transit. And that was a very reasonable question, and it was strongly, in other words, Vice President Vance opposed these strikes and he's the most important person. He's the most senior ranking person in this chat. Trump isn't on the chat. And he's not saying the president is wrong. He's saying, "I don't believe the president is fully informed and this clearly is not in his interest, in his policy interest."

Now, the reason this is important is because in Trump's first term, I think you would have had a very similar conversation from people like Mike Pence and Mike Pompeo and others that would have been on this chat, but then they would have brought it to the president. And many, many instances in the first term of policy disagreements that then came up and said, "Mr. President. Respectfully, we think we've got additional information and we can better carry out your will by doing X, Y, and Z." And there were checks. There were internal checks on executive authority. What we see this time around is we see JD Vance, who's obviously a very smart guy saying, "I think this is a really bad idea. We shouldn't be doing it, but I'm prepared not to raise it to the president unless I have everybody around me supporting me because I can't do this by myself. I'm just going to get my head chopped off." And there's a little bit of back and forth.

And Stephen Miller, the deputy chief of staff for policy in the White House and a full-on Trump loyalist, says, "Nope, the president wants this. I'm ending the conversation." And that's the end of the conversation, and it never gets to Trump. And then they go ahead and they bomb. So whatever you think about whether this was a good or a bad decision, the challenge here is that we have a big cabinet, some of whom are very capable, some of whom are absolutely not capable. But first and foremost is not getting the best information to the president because he's extremely confident. He believes that his policies are always the right ones, and he is absolutely punishing anything that feels like disloyalty, inside or outside of his team. That's why Pompeo, for example, John Bolton, have had their security details stripped away. Even though the Iranian government has been trying to assassinate them, right? Why? Because they were disloyal to Trump. That's not why they're trying to assassinate him. That's why Trump took away their security detail and that is a very strong message to everybody that is on this chat.

And I do worry, I worry that the three most powerful men in power today around the world, all in their 70s, Trump, Putin, and Xi Jinping, are also men that are incredibly confident about the rightness of their views. That loyalty is the key to the most important currency of power that exists inside those systems. And increasingly, they're not getting good information from their own advisers. That's a dangerous place for the world to be. It's a dangerous place for the world to be heading, and that's frankly the most important thing that I took out of this chat. So that's it for me. I'll talk to you all real soon, thanks.

- YouTube

What Trump team's war plans leak revealed

Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi everybody. Ian Bremmer here, and a Quick Take on this extraordinary story in The Atlantic. Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of this magazine, invited into a Signal chat, the Signal app, by the national security advisor, Michael Waltz, with all of the major national security related principles in the Trump administration, to discuss imminent attacks by the United States on the Houthis in Yemen, the single biggest war fighting that the Trump administration has been involved in the first two months of their term. A lot to think about here, a few points I think worth mentioning.

The first point, it's pretty clear this should not have happened. A discussion of this sort, classified, involving direct war preparation, should not have been happening on Signal, but clearly everyone in the conversation was aware and okay with that. So, I don't think you blame singularly Mike Waltz for the fact that he was the guy that happened to bring the outsider inadvertently in. This collective responsibility, everyone, this is the way the Trump administration is handling these sensitive national security conversations, that is what needs to be looked into and rectified going forward. Mike definitely made a mistake here, and what seems almost certainly to be the case is that he thought he was including the US trade representative, Jamieson Greer, JG, same initials as Jeffrey Goldberg - and The Atlantic editor-in-chief, and he's the only obvious person, Greer, that otherwise wasn't on this broader conversation. So, I would bet my bottom dollar that is the way this happened. And I think all the people that are calling for Mike Waltz to be fired, I certainly wouldn't let him go for that. The issue is the broader lack of operational security around war decisions and fighting.

Read moreShow less

Smoke rises after Israeli strikes near Sanaa airport, in Sanaa, Yemen, on Dec. 26, 2024.

REUTERS/Khaled AbdullahShareRewrite

Israel hits the Houthis: Is this the opening of a bigger campaign?

Israel on Thursday struck military sites and power infrastructure across parts of Yemen controlled by the Houthi militia.

The move is the latest in an escalating tit-for-tat between Israel and the Iran-backed rebels who control most of Yemen and have launched several missiles and drones at Israel over the past week alone.

Read moreShow less

An F/A-18 Hornet approaches the flight deck of aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt as USS McFaul trails behind, October 30, 2001. Theodore Roosevelt and its carrier airwing are conducting missions in support of operation Enduring Freedom.

(CREDIT REUTERS/U.S. Navy-Johnny Bivera)

Hard Numbers: US friendly fire downs F/A-18, Russia guns down prisoners, US court rules on Pegasus spyware case, China goes after Canadian activists

2: Two US Navy pilots were forced to eject from their F/A-18 fighter over the Red Sea on Sunday during a “friendly fire” incident when a US warship targeted their plane with a missile. Both pilots survived the ejection but one sustained minor injuries, and it is not immediately clear why the ship, which was on station to shoot down Houthi missiles launched from Yemen, fired upon the aircraft.

Read moreShow less

People, mainly Houthi supporters, rally to mark the anniversary of the birth of the Prophet Mohammad and to show solidarity with Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, in Sanaa, Yemen, September 15, 2024.

REUTERS/Khaled Abdullah

Netanyahu vows retaliation against Houthis, Hezbollah threatens war

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday vowed that the Houthis would pay a “heavy price” after a missile fired from Yemen struck central Israel. The Houthis credited theability of new hypersonic ballistic missiles to evade interception by Israel’s Iron Dome defense system and warned of more strikes ahead of the anniversary of Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks “in solidarity with the Palestinians.”

Read moreShow less

Flames and smoke rise from the site of Israeli air strikes at the port of Hodeidah, Yemen July 21, 2024.

REUTERS/Stringer

Israel and the Houthis escalate their fight

In support of Palestinians now under fire in Gaza, Houthi rebels based in Yemen have attacked ships they say are affiliated with Israel in the Red Sea and have sent missiles and drones flying toward Israeli targets. Israel, with help from the US and neighboring Arab countries, has blocked most of those attacks.

But last Friday, the Houthis claimed credit for adrone attack on a Tel Aviv apartment building that killed one Israeli man and injured eight more. Israel responded with air strikes on the Houthi-controlled Red Sea port of Hodeidah in Yemen. Authorities there said the Israeli attack killed three civilians and injured 80.

The Biden administration has designated the Houthis a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist Group,” but has so far stopped short of the more serious label as a ”Global Terrorist Organization” for fear that automatically resulting sanctions would do little to deter the group but deepen the misery of Yemen’s large number of starving people.

Read moreShow less

The Galaxy Leader commercial ship, seized by Yemen's Houthis last month, is seen off the coast of al-Salif, Yemen, December 5, 2023.

REUTERS/Khaled Abdullah

Hard Numbers: Migrant boat capsizes off Yemen coast, US banana giant found liable for murders, EU stocks up on bird flu vaccines, “Pink slime” crisis in America

49: At least 49 people are confirmed dead, and 140 are missing after a boat carrying migrants sank off the coast of Yemen. The vessel was carrying roughly 260 people, mainly from Somalia and Ethiopia, to Yemen, where they would have continued the treacherous onward journey to the wealthy Gulf kingdoms in search of work. Despite being wracked by a brutal, decade-long civil war, Yemen is a major immigration route, with some 380,000 migrants in the country right now.
Read moreShow less

Subscribe to our free newsletter, GZERO Daily

Latest