Democratic Rep. Gerald “Gerry” Connolly of Virginia died on Wednesday at the age of 75. His family said in a statement posted on his X account that Connolly died Wednesday morning in his home while surrounded by his loved ones. The statement didn’t share a cause of death. Connolly had announced in November 2024 that he was diagnosed with cancer of the esophagus, and would be undergoing chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Last month, he said his cancer had returned, and that this would be his last term in Congress. “We were fortunate to share Gerry with Northern Virginia for nearly 40 years because that was his joy, his purpose, and his passion,” his family said in the statement on Wednesday. “His absence will leave a hole in our hearts, but we are proud that his life’s work will endure for future generations. We thank you for your love of Gerry, and know he loved you all so much.” Connolly, a champion for federal workers and harsh critic of the Trump Administration, was elected to Congress in 2008. Here are some key actions that he took while in office. He advocated for federal employees Connolly, whose district is home to many federal employees, was known for his outspoken advocacy for the federal workforce. He was a cosponsor of the 2010 Telework Enhancement Act, which mandates that federal agencies permit some of their employees to telework at least one day each week. He also pushed for legislation to provide federal employees with a raise, reintroducing the Federal Adjustment of Income Rates (FAIR) Act each year. Enterprises eye China’s huge consumer market Branded Content Enterprises eye China’s huge consumer market By China Daily Connolly holds a forum each year for federal employees to help keep them informed about their benefits during the federal government’s Open Season, according to his website. The Virginia congressman fiercely defended government workers in the wake of President Donald Trump’s election as the Administration sought to cut federal funding and employees. “The federal workforce is our country’s single greatest asset,” Connolly said in a statement when introducing the FAIR Act for a final time in January. “Even after serving dutifully through a global pandemic and enduring the Trump Administration’s cruel personal attacks, unsafe work environments, pay freezes, government shutdowns, sequestration cuts, furloughs, and mindless across-the-board hiring freezes, they come to work every day in service to the American people.” He took on a leadership role on the House Oversight Committee Last year, Connolly was elected by Democrats to serve as the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee. In that position, Connolly urged inspectors general to investigate the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a controversial Trump Administration initiative led by Elon Musk that focuses on reducing federal spending and bureaucracy. Connolly’s ascension to the leadership position was tinged with controversy, as he defeated Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York to win the role amid a push by some Democrats for a younger generation to take on more power within the party. In April, when announcing the return of his cancer, Connolly said he would step down as ranking member. He criticized President Donald Trump Connolly vocally criticized Trump throughout his time in the White House and joined the majority of Democrats in supporting both efforts to impeach the President during his first term. “To extort a foreign country to investigate your political opponent is an unconstitutional abuse of power. To solicit foreign interference in an American election is an unconstitutional abuse of power,” Connolly said on the House floor in support of Trump’s first impeachment in 2019. “The delicate balance of power that underpins our democracy is threatened when a President disregards the Constitution by obstructing Congress to cover up illegal behavior. In doing that, President Trump violated his oath.” He supported abortion and LGBTQ+ rights Connolly was a supporter of both abortion and LGBTQ+ rights. He condemned the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022, saying it had “plunged the country into a reproductive care crisis” and put the U.S. on “a dark and dangerous path.” He was also an original cosponsor of the Equality Act, which would explicitly bar discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation in employment, public education, housing, public accommodations, credit, jury service, and federally funded programs.

Donald Trump is moving forward with an ambitious and expensive national missile defense system, saying Tuesday that he aims to get it up and running before the end of his term. Alongside Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Space Force Vice Chief of Operations Gen. Michael Guetlein, the President announced the so-called “Golden Dome”—a defense system of missiles, satellites, and sensors named after his favorite color and akin to Israel’s “Iron Dome,” which the U.S. has in large part funded. Trump tasked Guetlein with spearheading the new project. If completed as planned, the “Golden Dome” would mark the first time the U.S. puts weapons in space. Trump, who promised an Iron Dome for America on the campaign trail, is not the first President to propose such a defense system. Ronald Reagan proposed a space-centric Strategic Defense Initiative (nicknamed “Star Wars”) in 1983, though it never materialized due to financial, political, and technological constraints. “Once fully constructed, the Golden Dome will be capable of intercepting missiles even if they are launched from other sides of the world, and even if they're launched from space,” Trump said. “We will truly be completing the job that President Reagan started 40 years ago, forever ending the missile threat to the American homeland.” Here’s what to know. What would the Golden Dome look like? While flanked by posters depicting a literal dome around the U.S., Trump provided few details for the exact structure of his proposed “Golden Dome,” though it is clear that it is envisioned as a constellation of on-ground and space-based sensors and missile-interceptors. Hegseth said the system will protect the U.S. from “cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, hypersonic missiles, drones, whether they're conventional or nuclear.” The system, according to an order outlining the President’s expectations back in January, is expected to intercept missiles during any of four stages of an attack: before launch, early flight, midcourse flight, and descent towards a target. Who will build the Golden Dome? Reuters reported in April that SpaceX, the company helmed by Trump ally Elon Musk, in collaboration with software firm Palantir and drone manufacturer Anduril was among the frontrunners to be contracted to develop the “Golden Dome.” Citing unnamed sources, the three firms reportedly met with top officials in the Trump Administration and the Pentagon in recent weeks to propose a plan to build and launch from 400 to over 1,000 satellites around the globe to detect and track missiles. The report added that more than 180 companies have expressed interest in developing and building the “Golden Dome.” The Associated Press reported that the Pentagon, after Trump’s January order, has studied options for the program, tiered by cost and scale based on how many satellites, sensors, and space-based interceptors would be purchased. The AP initially reported that the Trump Administration had chosen a mid-tier option. How much would the Golden Dome cost? A “Golden Dome” will likely require significantly more resources than Israel’s Iron Dome—which the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated cost about $100 million per battery to produce and has 10 batteries—as the U.S. is more than 400 times larger than Israel, which is about the size of New Jersey. Trump, in his announcement, said the project would cost $175 billion over the next three years, with $25 billion earmarked in his tax spending megabill for the initial costs. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said earlier this month that the overall cost of a space-based interceptor system could depend on launch costs, which may vary in the future. The CBO estimated that the total cost of deploying and operating such a system, over 20 years, could range from $161 billion to $831 billion in 2025 dollars. What are other concerns about the Golden Dome? The proposal has faced considerable opposition from lawmakers and analysts over various issues from costs to capacity. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D, Mass.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D, Texas) have led a group of 42 members of Congress urging an investigation into the project’s awarding process, including Musk’s reported involvement. In a May 13 congressional hearing, Sen. Angus King (I, Maine) also questioned defense officials about the Dome’s capability to thwart attacks, asking if such a system “could deny a substantial missile attack from Russia or China.” Even Republican Senator Tim Sheehy of Montana reportedly flagged that the cost of building such a system would be in the “trillions.” Critics of the “Golden Dome” have also raised concerns about spurring an arms race, pushing military adversaries like Russia and China to develop their arsenal to maintain credible deterrence. When asked about criticisms of the proposal, Trump simply said, “Well, they're wrong. It’s about as close to perfect as you can have in terms of real production.”

Nothing good happens after midnight,” Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania recalled his late mother warning him. It’s a lesson that seemed to come true in the early hours of Wednesday morning, as a 1 a.m. hearing on President Donald Trump’s sweeping tax and spending bill spiraled into disarray. What was supposed to be a late-night procedural step toward delivering Trump’s signature domestic agenda—dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill”—instead exposed the deep and widening fractures within the House Republican conference. By Wednesday evening, more than 16 hours since the overnight hearing began, lawmakers were still debating the provisions of Trump’s bill—leaving the fate of the measure in flux as a few GOP holdouts continued to demand more immediate spending reductions in Medicaid and quicker phaseouts of clean-energy tax breaks. In an attempt to bridge internal differences, Trump requested a meeting with House Speaker Mike Johnson and some of those holdouts at the White House on Wednesday afternoon, a day after he tried to rally them behind his bill at the Capitol. Johnson told reporters after Wednesday’s meeting that he plans to hold a vote on the measure that night or on Thursday morning, despite demands from conservative hard-liners that they need more time to negotiate. He added that Republicans will only be making “minor” changes to the bill. “There’s not much changing here, because the underlying product we thought was so well done,” he said after returning from the White House meeting he called “productive.” “We're excited. I believe we are going to land this airplane,” Johnson added, echoing a statement from White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who described the meeting as “productive” and said Trump pressed for the bill's quick passage. ExploreClose Subscribe Updated: May 22, 2025 3:26 AM IST ‘Nothing Good Happens After Midnight’: Trump’s ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ Sputters as House GOP Scrambles Politics republicans by Nik Popli and Chad de Guzman House Rules Committee Holds Late Night Meeting On Budget Bill Rep. Chip Roy, a Texas Republican, listens during a marathon, late-night meeting of the House Rules Committee on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act at the U.S. Capitol on May 21, 2025.Kevin Dietsch—Getty Images “Nothing good happens after midnight,” Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania recalled his late mother warning him. It’s a lesson that seemed to come true in the early hours of Wednesday morning, as a 1 a.m. hearing on President Donald Trump’s sweeping tax and spending bill spiraled into disarray. What was supposed to be a late-night procedural step toward delivering Trump’s signature domestic agenda—dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill”—instead exposed the deep and widening fractures within the House Republican conference. By Wednesday evening, more than 16 hours since the overnight hearing began, lawmakers were still debating the provisions of Trump’s bill—leaving the fate of the measure in flux as a few GOP holdouts continued to demand more immediate spending reductions in Medicaid and quicker phaseouts of clean-energy tax breaks. Advertisement 00:13 03:00 Read More In an attempt to bridge internal differences, Trump requested a meeting with House Speaker Mike Johnson and some of those holdouts at the White House on Wednesday afternoon, a day after he tried to rally them behind his bill at the Capitol. Johnson told reporters after Wednesday’s meeting that he plans to hold a vote on the measure that night or on Thursday morning, despite demands from conservative hard-liners that they need more time to negotiate. He added that Republicans will only be making “minor” changes to the bill. “There’s not much changing here, because the underlying product we thought was so well done,” he said after returning from the White House meeting he called “productive.” “We're excited. I believe we are going to land this airplane,” Johnson added, echoing a statement from White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who described the meeting as “productive” and said Trump pressed for the bill's quick passage. Advertisement Branded Content XPRIZE at the 2025 TIME100 Summit: Making the Impossible, Possible By XPRIZE Passage of the bill would be a major win for Trump, cementing a host of conservative priorities. But he’s operating under very tight margins: House Republicans have one of the thinnest majorities in history at 220-212, meaning Speaker Johnson can only afford to lose three members of his caucus if all Democrats are opposed. As of Wednesday evening, at least a half dozen GOP members do not support the current proposal. House Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris, a Maryland Republican and one of the fiscal hawks threatening to sink the measure, told reporters that the White House offered a proposal late Tuesday on Medicaid and energy tax credits, but would not share the details of the proposal. “There’s broad agreement in the House Freedom Caucus that if that’s included in the package, I think it’s passed,” he said Wednesday, calling on leadership to “figure out” how to incorporate it into the bill. “I think this package is en route to get passed. I don’t think it can be done today.” Trump and congressional leaders have set July 4 as the deadline for final approval of the legislation, with the Speaker insisting the House must pass the bill before Memorial Day, which is Monday. Some of the holdouts have taken issue with the timeline, saying they won’t be rushed into a deal without concessions. “This is a completely arbitrary deadline set by people here to force people into a corner to make bad decisions,” Pennsylvania Rep. Scott Perry, another member of the Freedom Caucus, told reporters Wednesday. “If today comes and goes…it doesn't mean that prospect is off the table—it just means it might not happen today.” Johnson has struggled to craft a bill that slashes enough spending to satisfy right-wing members of his party without losing support from GOP moderates, who are wary of cutting too much from widely used safety-net programs. Late Tuesday, he appeased one faction of the party by striking a deal with blue-state moderates for a more generous state and local tax (SALT) deduction of $40,000 annually—an increase from the current $10,000 cap and from Johnson’s initial offer of $30,000. But conservative hard-liners on the other side of the GOP have been less willing to budge. “You have to work with every member and hear their concerns [to] try to meet the equilibrium point,” Johnson told reporters Wednesday. Trump has grown increasingly impatient with Republican holdouts, labeling some of them as "grandstanders" who should leave the party. He even publicly threatened to support primary challengers for at least one Republican member of Congress who opposed his bill. Four months into his presidency, Trump has largely avoided direct confrontations with Congress—leaning heavily on executive action to carry out his agenda. But his so-called big, beautiful tax and spending bill marks one of the few times he’s needed to plead with Congress to help deliver many of his campaign promises, making these negotiations a high-stakes test of the President’s hold over his party. Trump’s legislation, at more than 1,100 pages, would permanently extend his 2017 tax cuts set to expire at the end of this year while introducing new policies like tax exemptions for tips and overtime wages. It also boosts spending on defense and border security, while reducing spending on Medicaid and food stamps. The measure would also roll back green energy tax credits from the Biden Administration, including the $7,500 electric vehicle tax credit incentive. Nonpartisan research groups studying the proposal have estimated that it would add more than $2.5 trillion to the federal debt over the next ten years. A senior White House official refuted those projections to TIME, claiming that the legislation would actually reduce the nation’s debt by generating an additional $2.6 trillion in revenue over the next ten years through increased economic growth. But despite the Administration’s posturing on the debt impact, hardline conservatives are not convinced the legislation cuts spending enough. Some holdouts have complained that the bill should halt clean-energy tax breaks sooner than proposed, and that new work requirements for some Medicaid recipients should start earlier than 2029. Democrats have warned that the measure would force millions of low-income Americans off Medicaid and food assistance programs, to fund tax cuts for the wealthy. “The structure of this bill is such that low- and middle-income households bear the brunt, while the wealthy reap significant benefits,” says Daniel Hornung, the former Deputy Director of the National Economic Council under President Joe Biden. An analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released Tuesday shows that the wealthiest households are expected to gain from the bill, while the lowest-income households would lose out on resources because of the spending cuts. A separate CBO report estimated that the proposed changes to Medicaid could leave 7.6 million Americans without insurance. “President Trump promised to lower the high cost of living in America. He has failed,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said in a statement on Wednesday. “Costs aren’t going down, they are going up. The GOP Tax Scam will make life more expensive for everyday Americans and it’s his toxic legislation that represents the ultimate betrayal.” By Wednesday evening, House members were still waiting for Republican leaders to release a revised bill, even though the House Rules Committee had started debating it at 1 a.m.. The bill would need to pass the committee before heading to a full vote in the House.

After months of escalating tensions between the U.S. and South Africa, President Donald Trump hosted South African President Cyril Ramaphosa at the White House on Wednesday. Prior to the meeting, Ramaphosa expressed hopes of reaching a trade deal with the U.S., but the Oval Office sit-down proved to be a tense affair. Trump showed a video and printed news articles of what he said was evidence of the persecution of white South Africans. Ramaphosa vehemently denied allegations of a "white genocide," as he has done before. A reporter in the Oval Office asked what it would take for Trump "to be convinced that there's no white genocide” in South Africa.

Two Evangelical Christian leaders sent an open letter to President Trump on Wednesday, warning of the dangers of out-of-control artificial intelligence and of automating human labor. The letter comes just weeks after the new Pope, Leo XIV, declared he was concerned with the “defense of human dignity, justice and labor” amid what he described as the “new industrial revolution” spurred by advances in AI. “As people of faith, we believe we should rapidly develop powerful AI tools that help cure diseases and solve practical problems, but not autonomous smarter-than-human machines that nobody knows how to control,” reads the open letter, signed by the Reverends Johnnie Moore and Samuel Rodriguez. “The world is grappling with a new reality because of the pace of the development of this technology, which represents an opportunity of great promise but also of potential peril especially as we approach artificial general intelligence.” Rodriguez, the President of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, spoke at Trump’s first presidential inauguration in 2017. Moore, who is also the founder of the public relations firm Kairos, served on Trump’s Evangelical executive board during his first presidential candidacy. The letter is a sign of growing ties between religious and AI safety groups, which share some of the same worries. It was shared with journalists by representatives of the Future of Life Institute—an AI safety organization that campaigns to reduce what it sees as the existential risk posed by advanced AI systems. The world’s biggest tech companies now all believe that it is possible to create so-called “artificial general intelligence”—a form of AI that can do any task better than a human expert. Some researchers have even invoked this technology in religious terms—for example, OpenAI’s former chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, a mystical figure who famously encouraged colleagues to chant “feel the AGI” at company gatherings. The emerging possibility of AGI presents, in one sense, a profound challenge to many theologies. If we are in a universe where a God-like machine is possible, what space does that leave for God himself? “The spiritual implications of creating intelligence that may one day surpass human capabilities raises profound theological and ethical questions that must be thoughtfully considered with wisdom,” the two Reverends wrote in their open letter to President Trump. “Virtually all religious traditions warn against a world where work is no longer necessary or where human beings can live their lives without any guardrails.” Though couched in adulatory language, the letter presents a vision of AI governance that differs from Trump’s current approach. The president has embraced the framing of the U.S. as in a race with China to get to AGI first, and his AI czar, David Sacks, has warned that regulating the technology would threaten the U.S.’s position in that race. The White House AI team is stacked with advisors who take a dismissive view of alignment risks—or the idea that a smarter-than-human AI might be hostile to humans, escape their control, and cause some kind of catastrophe. “We believe you are the world’s leader now by Divine Providence to also guide AI,” the letter says, addressing Trump, before urging him to consider convening an ethical council to consider not only “what AI can do but also what it should do.” “To be clear: we are not encouraging the United States, and our friends, to do anything but win the AI race,” the letter says. “There is no alternative. We must win. However, we are advising that this victory simply must not be a victory at any cost.” The letter echoes some themes that have increasingly been explored inside the Vatican, not just by Pope Leo XIV but also his predecessor, Pope Francis. Last year, in remarks at an event held at the Vatican about AI, Francis argued that AI must be used to improve, not degrade, human dignity. “Does it serve to satisfy the needs of humanity, to improve the well-being and integral development of people?” he asked. Or does it “serve to enrich and increase the already high power of the few technological giants despite the dangers to humanity?” To some Catholic theologians, AGI is simply the newest incarnation of a long-standing threat to the Church: false idols. “The presumption of substituting God for an artifact of human making is idolatry, a practice Scripture explicitly warns against,” reads a lengthy missive on AI published by the Vatican in January. “AI may prove even more seductive than traditional idols for, unlike idols that ‘have mouths but do not speak; eyes, but do not see; ears, but do not hear’, AI can ‘speak,’ or at least gives the illusion of doing so. Yet, it is vital to remember that AI is but a pale reflection of humanity—it is crafted by human minds, trained on human-generated material, responsive to human input, and sustained through human labor.”

Amid protracted negotiations between the Trump Administration and Iran over a potential nuclear deal, Israel is preparing a possible strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, multiple U.S. officials told CNN in a Tuesday report. Washington and Tehran have for more than a month been negotiating a diplomatic deal over Iran’s nuclear program. An Israeli strike on Iran could upend those efforts and also risk escalating Israel’s war in Gaza to a wider conflict in the Middle East. Officials told CNN that it’s not yet certain whether or not Israel will decide to ultimately act on its plans, adding that Israeli leaders are likely watching for how the U.S.-Iran deal evolves. The National Security Council, the Israeli Prime Minister’s office, and the Israeli Embassy in Washington did not confirm the reports when asked by CNN and Reuters. “The chance of an Israeli strike on an Iranian nuclear facility has gone up significantly in recent months,” one source familiar with the matter told CNN. “And the prospect of a Trump-negotiated U.S.-Iran deal that doesn’t remove all of Iran’s uranium makes the chance of a strike more likely.” Here’s what to know. Israel appears to consider a strike on Iran U.S. intelligence reportedly intercepted Israeli communications that suggest a potential strike. That’s in addition to apparent military preparations, including the movement of air munitions and the completion of an air exercise by Israel, CNN reported, although those movements could also be an attempt to pressure Iran amid its talks with the U.S. Senior Israeli officials have on multiple occasions signalled that they are considering strikes on Iran. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz posted on X in November: “Iran is more exposed than ever to strikes on its nuclear facilities. We have the opportunity to achieve our most important goal—to thwart and eliminate the existential threat to the State of Israel.” In February U.S. intelligence agencies warned that Israel will likely attempt a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities this year. “I think it’s more likely they strike to try and get the deal to fall apart if they think Trump is going to settle for a ‘bad deal,’” one person familiar with U.S. intelligence told CNN. “The Israelis have not been shy about signaling that to us … both publicly and privately.” It’s unclear, though, to what degree Israel will be able to carry out strikes without support from the U.S., which a source familiar with the Trump Administration told CNN is unlikely to materialize without a major provocation from Iran. Iran’s nuclear facilities are deep underground and heavily fortified. An effective attack by Israel would require U.S. assistance for both mid-air refueling and munitions, according to the February intelligence report. President Donald Trump said in February that he wants a “verified nuclear peace agreement” with Iran, which joint military action with Israel would jeopardize. “I would like a deal done with Iran on non-nuclear. I would prefer that to bombing the hell out of it,” Trump told the New York Post. “If we made the deal, Israel wouldn’t bomb them.” Trump also reportedly told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on April 7, the same day he announced talks with Iran, that the U.S. opposed military strikes on Iran. Trump told TIME in an April 22 interview that he had not stopped Israel from attacking Iran’s nuclear sites but that he “didn’t make it comfortable for them, because I think we can make a deal without the attack. … Ultimately I was going to leave that choice to them, but I said I would much prefer a deal than bombs being dropped.” But, Trump told TIME that he would be “leading the pack” in a war with Iran if a deal isn’t reached. “It’s possible we’ll have to attack because Iran will not have a nuclear weapon.” U.S.-Iran talks Talks between the U.S. and Iran began on April 12 in Muscat, Oman. U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi have met four times since, with the latest round of negotiations in Oman on May 11. Recent talks have included technical discussions that an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson said were “difficult but useful,” but disagreements remain. The deal will likely involve limits to Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for lifting economic sanctions on Iran, officials have said. Trump told NBC on May 4 that he is seeking a “complete dismantlement” of Iran’s nuclear program, which Iran has rejected. Witkoff told ABC News on Sunday that Washington “cannot allow even 1% of an enrichment capability.” Other Trump officials, including Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have made conflicting comments on the degree to which the U.S. would require Iran to dismantle its uranium enrichment. Netanyahu has publicly put pressure on the U.S. to push for zero enrichment and a complete dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program. “This is the clearest sign yet of how high the stakes are in the U.S.-Iran nuclear talks and the lengths Israel may go to if Iran insists on maintaining its commercial nuclear capabilities,” Robert Rennie, head of commodity and carbon research for Westpac Banking Corp, told Bloomberg in reference to the intelligence reports of a potential Israeli strike. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Tuesday that he does not expect talks to “reach a conclusion” and called the U.S. demand for Iran not to enrich uranium “excessive and outrageous” and a “big mistake.” Iran maintains that its uranium enrichment is part of its right to a peaceful nuclear program under the United Nations’ Treaty on Nuclear Non-Proliferation. In a mid-March letter to Khamenei, Trump set a deadline of 60 days to reach an agreement, officials told CNN. It’s been 60 days since the letter and more than a month since talks began. Talks may continue this week in Europe, Witkoff told ABC News. History between Israel and Iran Iran and Israel have in recent decades been described as “archenemies.” But it wasn’t always that way. Iran was one of 11 members on the U.N. Special Committee on Palestine in 1947 that concerned the future of the Palestinian territory after British control ended. Along with India and Yugoslavia, Iran voted against the U.N.’s partition plan out of concern that it would lead to violence in the region. The three countries instead proposed a federated state of Palestine, which would have kept the territory as a single state but with Arab and Jewish cantons. “That was Iran’s compromise to try to maintain positive relations with a pro-Zionist West and the Zionist movement itself, and also with its Arab and Muslim neighbouring countries,” Oxford historian Eirik Kvindesland told Al Jazeera. Still, in 1950, Iran became the second Muslim-majority country, after Turkey, to recognize Israel as a sovereign state following the first Arab-Israeli War in which Israel broadened its territory beyond the bounds of the U.N.’s plan and forcibly displaced more than 700,000 Palestinians from their homes. At the time, Iran was ruled by Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, the second shah in the Pahlavi dynasty. At the same time, Israel was pursuing its “periphery doctrine,” under which Israel sought to establish relations with non-Arab states, including Iran and Turkey, to “end its isolation in the Middle East,” Kvindesland told Al Jazeera. In 1951, however, Iran’s new Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh severed ties with Israel as part of an effort to nationalize oil in Iran and push out a British monopoly over the industry. Mosaddegh saw Israel as an extension of Western interests and cutting ties as “collateral damage,” Kvindesland told Al Jazeera. Mosaddegh was toppled from his seat in a 1953 coup led by the Iranian army and backed by the U.K. and the U.S. In the two decades that followed, Iran’s now pro-Western, secular government began a friendly relationship with Israel, including establishing an active Israeli embassy in Tehran in 1960, exchanging ambassadors in the 1970s, and a supply of Iranian oil to Israel. In 1979, the Iranian Revolution led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini overthrew the shah and established the Islamic Republic of Iran. The new leadership brought about a radical shift in foreign policy towards a more pro-Islamic, anti-Western approach—and a reversal of its stance towards Israel. Iran ended diplomatic ties with Israel, rejected Israel’s legitimacy as a state, cancelled flight routes and civilian travel between the countries, and turned the Israeli embassy in Tehran into a Palestinian embassy. Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Al Jazeera that Iran adopted a “more aggressive position on the Palestinian issue to brandish its leadership credentials in the Islamic world and to put Arab regimes allied with the United States on the defensive.” The makings of a modern conflict The two countries have engaged in proxy conflicts across the region. Iran has backed a “resistance axis” of groups including Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, as well as groups in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. Meanwhile Israel has supported groups deemed terrorist organizations by the Iranian government, including Mojahedian-e Khalq and Kurdish armed groups in Iraqi Kurdistan. Iran has blamed Israel for a number of attacks over the years, including alleging that Israel and the U.S. were behind the Stuxnet malware attack on Iranian nuclear facilities in the 2000s, as well as alleging that Israel was behind the 2020 murder of Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. Israel has accused Iran of a number of cyberattacks and strikes on Israeli-owned oil tankers. After the Hamas attack on Oct. 7, 2023, that ignited Israel’s war in Gaza, tensions were brought into sharp relief. Iran has remained staunch in its support of Palestinians, early on calling Israel’s siege on Gaza an attempt to seek “genocide.” In the months since, Iran and Israel have engaged in tit-for-tat strikes. In April last year, Iran said an Israeli air strike on an Iranian consulate building in Syria had killed several officials in the Revolutionary Guard Corps. That prompted Iran’s first direct attack on Israel, with around 300 missiles and drones targeting sites in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights as well as two airbases—nearly all of which were intercepted without causing damage, according to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Israel responded with a strike on a missile defence system in Iran’s Isfahan region. Iran also blamed Israel for the assassination of Hamas political chief Ismail Haniyeh in an explosion in Tehran last July and warned Israel of a “crushing response” after Israeli strikes killed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, as well as a high-ranking Iranian official, in Beirut last September. At the start of October last year, Iran launched more than 180 ballistic missiles at Israel in response to those deaths. Then-President Joe Biden said the attack appeared to have been “defeated and ineffective.” The U.S. Department of Defense and the IDF said they intercepted a majority of the missiles. Israel carried out airstrikes on military sites in Iran later that month. The October strikes have pushed Iran into its weakest military position in years, while Israel’s continued bombardment of Gaza and strikes on Lebanon, Yemen, and Syria have weakened Iran’s proxies. At the heart of their escalating tensions is Iran’s nuclear program. While Israel is thought to possess clandestine nuclear weapons in its arsenal, it has insisted it will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear bomb. And with a weakened Iran and potentially dissatisfactory U.S.-Iran talks, U.S. officials told CNN, Israel could see more of an opportunity than a risk in attacking Iran.

President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful” tax-and-spending bill could come with a big, ugly cost, economists warn. Nonpartisan research groups studying the proposal have estimated that it would add more than $2.5 trillion to the federal debt—currently at an all-time high of $36.8 trillion—over the next decade. Despite those projections, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on Monday insisted that the bill would actually save the federal government $1.6 trillion: “This bill does not add to the deficit,” she told reporters. “It is the largest savings for any legislation that has ever passed Capitol Hill in our nation’s history.” Advertisement The $1.6 trillion figure, a senior White House official told TIME on Tuesday, reflects the cumulative savings identified by House committees based on instructions from Republican leadership—pointing to a preliminary estimate from the Congressional Budget Office that projected $1.695 trillion in deficit reduction. They added that those figures remain in flux due to ongoing negotiations. On top of those savings, the White House official pointed to a projection that the bill will generate an additional $2.6 trillion in revenue over the next ten years through increased economic growth. That, plus the expected savings more than offsets the cost of the legislation, leading to an overall reduction in deficits, says the official. Fiscal watchdogs have sharply disputed such estimates, citing the bill’s steep tax cuts—estimated at $3.8 trillion—and relatively modest spending reductions. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that the House bill in its current form will increase debt by $3.3 trillion through 2034, and increase annual deficits by $2.9 trillion to $3.3 trillion. Deficits are high on the minds of a handful of Republican fiscal hawks in Congress whose wariness over the bill’s spending could doom it. Trump’s 2017 tax cuts are set to expire at the end of the year, and simply extending them would cost $4.6 trillion over a decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The Republican bill also reduces taxes on tips and overtime, and increases spending on the military and border security. Republicans plan to offset that spending in part by cuts to Medicaid, food stamps, and federal subsidies for clean energy projects. Republican leaders have struggled to strike the right balance of lowering the bill’s price tag while not losing support from moderates who are wary of cutting too much from widely used safety-net programs. Trump is expected to attend the House Republicans’ conference meeting at the Capitol on Tuesday to shore up support for the bill. Advertisement The bill's cost-saving measures include work requirements for Medicaid recipients, a reduction in nutrition assistance, and tighter eligibility for undocumented migrants to access federal benefits. Critics argue that these reductions disproportionately impact low-income Americans. “The structure of this bill is such that low- and middle-income households bear the brunt, while the wealthy reap significant benefits,” Daniel Hornung, a former Deputy Director of the National Economic Council under President Joe Biden, tells TIME. He adds that “there’s really no way to look at this where deficits are lower because of this bill.” Debate over the measure’s final cost has exposed rifts within the Republican Party. Fiscal conservatives argue that the bill’s spending reductions are too modest and that the promised savings are illusory. “We can and must do better before we pass the final product,” Texas Rep. Chip Roy wrote on social media late Sunday, after the House Budget Committee narrowly advanced the bill in a 17-16 vote—with four deficit hawks voting “present” so the measure could advance. Five Republican fiscal hawks on the committee had joined with all Democrats in voting against the bill last Friday. Advertisement House Speaker Mike Johnson and his leadership team spent the weekend in frantic negotiations before passing the bill out of the Budget committee on Sunday. The bill could reach the House floor as early as this week, as Johnson has pledged to bring the bill to a vote before Memorial Day. After that, it would go to the Senate, where Republicans have their own concerns and, like in the House, Republicans will need the support of virtually all of their caucus. “The One Big Beautiful Bill will almost certainly add to our deficits and debt,” Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin wrote in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed. “I can’t imagine that they want Republicans to increase annual deficits. That’s why I can’t support this bill as it’s currently being discussed and doubt that it will pass the Senate.” Economists warn that the bill’s impact on deficits could be even more severe than current projections, given that the bill puts end dates on some tax cuts to keep the cost lower. Congress has a long history of ultimately extending temporary tax cuts beyond their expiration dates. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has estimated that extending the bill’s tax cuts for a full decade could push the total increase in deficits to as high as $5.3 trillion. Advertisement Fiscal hawks in Congress aren’t the only ones concerned about deficits. Moody’s Ratings recently downgraded the U.S.’s AAA rating, citing doubts about the country’s ability to maintain fiscal discipline. The bill's passage could further pressure U.S. bond yields, which have already climbed above 5%, signaling growing investor anxiety over American debt. House Republicans have insisted that the bill will stimulate economic growth, which they argue will generate enough revenue to offset the increased debt. Jason Smith, chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, said the economy would “go gangbusters” under Trump’s tax and regulatory agenda.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on Tuesday incorrectly explained what “habeas corpus” is, saying that it means the Commander in Chief has a “constitutional right” to deport people. She made the remark during a Senate hearing on Tuesday, when Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire asked Noem to define habeas corpus. “Well, habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the President has to be able to remove people from this country,” Noem said. Advertisement “That’s incorrect,” Hassan replied. “Habeas corpus is the foundational right that separates free societies like America from police states like North Korea.” The exchange comes at a fraught time for the Trump Administration, as many deportation cases make their way through the courts. Several of these pending cases are based on habeas corpus, including the deportation of Venezuelan migrants alleged by the Trump Administration to be a part of the Tren de Aragua gang. Another high-profile immigration case centers on Kilmar Abrego Garcia. The Maryland man was deported to El Salvador by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in March, in what was initially called an administrative error. Abrego Garcia entered the U.S. illegally years ago, but in 2019 a judge granted him "withholding of removal" status, after determining that his fears of persecution if he were returned to El Salvador were credible. The Supreme Court ordered the federal government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia's return to the United States, but it has yet to do so. The literal meaning of habeas corpus is “you should have the body,” but as a legal principle, it gives a person the ability to challenge a detention in court. “Federal habeas corpus is a procedure under which a federal court may review the legality of an individual's incarceration,” per Congress. “It is most often the stage of the criminal appellate process that follows direct appeal and any available state collateral review.” This right also extends to noncitizens held within the United States, and in the case of those migrants who have been detained by the federal government, pending removal from the country as a part of Trump’s mass deportation plans, habeas corpus can be used to challenge. In Article I of the Constitution, it is stated that habeas corpus can be suspended only “in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion [when] the public Safety may require it.” This is described, though, under the powers of Congress, not the Executive Branch.The history of habeas corpus dates back centuries to English law and is seen as a protection against arbitrary detentions by local and national governments. “The reason that habeas corpus has been designed to protect everybody is because over the centuries, people have understood that the people in power can come for you next,” says Eric M. Freedman, a professor of law at Hofstra University. “You can be in power today, and you can be an out-group tomorrow. And so the whole concept is to protect whoever is temporarily unpopular with the ruling government.”

This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Sign up here to get stories like this sent to your inbox. Joe Biden often forgot top White House aides’ names, occasionally resorting to shorthand descriptions of roles like “Press” for longtime communications chief Kate Bedingfield. There was discussions of him possibly needing a wheelchair in a second term, and he sometimes ate dinner as early as 4:30 p.m. He seemed completely unfazed by a jarring debate performance that sent the Democrats into a spiral and put donations on ice. While attending a glitzy Hollywood fundraiser for his crumbling re-election campaign, he at one point blanked when face to face with George Clooney, one of the biggest stars in the world. Advertisement These are just some of the details contained in the stunning and excellent Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again from journalists Alex Thompason of Axios and Jake Tapper of CNN. Through more than 200 interviews with Biden insiders after Election Day, Democratic operatives, and frustrated loyalists who feel betrayed, the pair paints a damning portrait of an insular President whose team coddled him to the point of severely limiting his evening bookings, shielding him from bad news, and letting him continue to spout information that was objectively not true. To say this book has been the talk of the town would undersell its current buzzy dominance. Even when Biden revealed a prostate cancer diagnosis on Sunday, it was hard to digest the news outside of the conversation reignited by Original Sin about how much Biden and his team were hiding about Biden’s capabilities to continue the job for four more years. Before the announcement of that cancer diagnosis, I sat down with Thompson for a chat about this project, which is out today. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity. TIME: What was Biden's team thinking? Thompson: I think in every political organization, regardless of party, there's a tension of loyalty to your principal and loyalty to the bigger mission. In Biden's camp, the tug of war clearly went to the side that cared more about him and themselves than they cared about the larger mission, the White House and the country. And I think that's how they rationalized, not just having him run for reelection, but rationalizing that this guy could do the job for four more years. Many believed that it eventually would've precipitated into a constitutional crisis because he would've not been up to the job. And the people around him were not willing to admit it. None of them confronted the principal. That's telling about the culture that was created in which questioning or stress-testing created suspicions of disloyalty. Who created that culture?

When Itay Sharon’s $3,500 worth of goods arrived at a U.S. port on May 13, the shipment was subjected to a staggering 170% tariff, or close to $6,000. That was the result of President Donald Trump’s “reciprocal” tariff hikes on China since April 2, which rose as high as 145%, on top of a 25% tariff on certain goods from his first term. Had the shipment arrived a day later, however, it would have faced a 55% levy, or less than $2,000. Sharon, who sells biodegradable and compostable bin bags, diaper bags, baby wipes, and pet wipes on Amazon in the U.S. and the U.K., hasn’t decided to what degree he should pass those costs onto the consumer in the form of higher prices, which would be necessary if his long-term costs are higher, or if he should absorb most of the hit assuming costs won’t dramatically rise again, as raising prices could impact demand. The problem is: no one knows what to expect next. “The uncertainty makes doing business very difficult,” Sharon tells TIME. Advertisement Trump stunned leaders, economists, and businesses around the world when he rolled out a slate of so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on imports from nearly every country in the world—with some as high as 50%. Just a week later, however, he announced a 90-day pause on the higher tariffs to allow for trade deal negotiations, temporarily reducing every country’s rate to 10% for most goods in the meantime. Except for China: the two countries instead began an escalating tariff war that in a matter of weeks saw U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports rise as high as 145% while Chinese tariffs on American imports rose to 125%. The trade tensions between the world’s two biggest economies meant that for weeks many cargo shipments from China to the U.S. were halted and ports emptied out. But following talks in Geneva last weekend, the U.S. and China reached a truce: beginning May 14 and lasting for 90-days, U.S. tariffs on most Chinese goods would be brought down to 30%, while China would lower its tariffs on U.S. imports to 10%. Read More: What the U.S.-China Trade Deal Means for Online Shoppers But for many businesses across the U.S. that rely on Chinese manufacturing, the crippling tariffs have already done some damage—and the uncertainty of what may come after three months has left businesses trying to adapt to a volatile policy situation without knowing exactly what they’re preparing for. Some have rushed to take advantage of the rollback by frontloading and stockpiling shipments. Container bookings for China to U.S. routes soared nearly 300% in the days after the truce was announced, particularly as businesses anticipate end-of-year holiday shopping demand. “Many retailers had paused or canceled shipments prior to the announcement,” Jonathan Gold, the National Retail Foundation’s vice president of supply chain and customs policy, tells TIME. “They are now working with their suppliers to quickly ramp up orders for arrival before the 90-day truce ends. This is currently the busiest time of year for retailers that are in the process of placing orders for the all-important fall and winter holiday seasons.” Not knowing what comes next has led “many importers to bring whatever possible into the U.S.,” says Peter Sand, chief analyst at Xeneta, an ocean and air freight rate analytics platform. But when the tariffs were first announced, several of the main container lines moved capacity away from the Pacific due to the fall in demand, Sand adds, so it will take a few weeks to redeploy them from other routes back to the China-U.S. route. Sea freight shipping from China to the U.S. typically takes two to five weeks, a timeline that makes it very difficult to quickly change course. “Bigger companies are better prepared for fluctuations like this, simply due to scale and also due to the fact that they may be able to absorb some of the higher tariffs better than smaller mom and pop shops,” Sand says. As big companies rush to secure cargo shipments, small and medium sized companies may also have to “scramble for what’s left in terms of capacity on board. It’s not just one rate, the big players out there pay lower freight rates, and the smaller ones often see something which is much higher.” And for many smaller companies, stockpiling isn’t as straightforward of an option. Anna Griffin, who owns an Atlanta-based small business selling luxury paper craft products that have been sourced from four factories in China since 2001, tells TIME that since her goods are designed by her company and at times even customizable, she can’t import more than a few months’ inventory. Sharon, too, says it doesn’t make sense in his business to stockpile inventory and have to pay potentially high storage costs. But even for larger companies, Donald Low, an economist at Hong Kong University of Science & Technology’s Institute of Public Policy, tells TIME that stockpiling is merely a “stop-gap measure.” The kind of “momentous, costly, sticky” business decisions, like shifting production out of China that the Trump Administration ostensibly wants, aren’t likely to be made within this 90-day window, Low says. “When companies relocate, it is not a kind of decision they take lightly. It is something that requires significant planning, financial investment, and reconfiguration of logistic arrangements. This is not something that is done in a matter of weeks or months,” says Low. “Why make any decisions if you only have a window of 90 days and you don’t know what is going to happen after?” Why relocating isn’t so easy “The last seven weeks have felt like seven years to me,” Griffin, the small business owner, tells TIME. Griffin spent the weeks after Trump’s initial tariff announcement looking at shifting production away from China. But she says, “we were met immediately with higher costs and an incredible learning curve—the quality was not going to happen in the first year of transitioning, and that’s if we could get production space” as thousands of other businesses were also looking at moving production to factories in other countries. Most factories in other countries also have higher minimum order quantities than those in China, says Ash Monga, who runs China-based supply chain management company IMEX Sourcing Services, and they often don’t have the same infrastructure that has allowed China to become such an efficient manufacturing environment. “China has been the world’s manufacturer, and they are experts at it,” Griffin says. Read More: Why China Laughs at the Idea of Americans Taking Their Manufacturing Jobs “It’s a long process,” Monga says of diversifying supply chains. In most cases, and especially for complex products or companies that hadn’t yet begun before the tariffs, it would take months, if not years. The process typically involves speaking to multiple factories, negotiating prices, and ordering and making samples—which can take multiple rounds of feedback depending on the complexity of the product—before finally being able to start production to sell. There’s a difference between “China time,” Monga says of the speed at which Chinese factories are able to go through that process, and everywhere else. “China has been doing it for so long, they’ve evolved over time and become very, very efficient.” Griffin also considered moving production into the U.S., but after speaking with multiple printers across the country, she says she found that none would be able to produce the same quality or even type of sticker that she gets made in China. “Not only could they not do it, but it was more than 200% of the cost that we’re currently paying”—even higher than paying the highest tariff to import it from China, she says. “I don’t think it’s possible for a small business to just change on a dime and find anywhere in the world,” she says. “It just couldn’t happen in the infinitesimal moment that was given to us to avoid business disruption.” Griffin has recently been able to move some production to a factory in Malaysia, which is run by the same director as the factories she works with in China, but the bulk of her production has remained in China. Sharon, who works with factories in both China and Vietnam, also looked into transitioning production to the U.S., but on top of likely increased production costs and higher minimum order quantities, he says he found that U.S. factories have been slow to respond during a critical time for his business. “I can’t work with them under these circumstances,” he says. “What’s at stake right now is the backbone of the U.S. economy, and small businesses that employ people are having to, whether we like it or not, absorb these tariffs,” Griffin says. “It’s not about getting manufacturing made in the U.S.—that’s just it: I can’t, we can’t.” Tariff uncertainty may even lead businesses toward China Over the last decade, more companies have begun pursuing a “China Plus One” strategy wherein businesses diversified their manufacturing and sourcing to include operations in at least one other country besides China to mitigate trade risks. That effort was further propelled by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on global supply chains, Low says. “It became quite clear to many businesses that were producing in China to serve the world that they needed more resilience in addition to just focusing on efficiency,” Low says. Trump’s global “reciprocal” tariffs, however, demonstrate “an effort to decouple not just from China but decouple from the rest of the world as well,” Low says. Potential beneficiaries of “China Plus One,” like Vietnam, Cambodia, and Malaysia, were also initially hit with punitive tariffs, and it is not yet certain what rates they will ultimately face after the 90-day rollback. Read More: How ‘Friendshoring’ Made Southeast Asia Pivotal to the AI Revolution While Trump’s trade war ceasefire brings some short-term relief, it also, Low says, “confirmed companies’ fears that these decisions were temporary, were not long lasting, were just arbitrary ones that could easily be reversed. And as we have seen, they have been reversed.” The result could actually mean more companies staying put in China, where at least production standards are high and costs other than tariffs are low, while waiting for more long-term policy clarity. “Brands that had started to diversify away from China are now stuck mid-transition, unsure whether to double down or pull back,” says Rachel Kibbe, founder and CEO of American Circular Textiles, a coalition of industry leaders advocating for more resilient domestic supply chains. Says Low of Trump’s trade volatility: “At best it created uncertainty, and at worst it might actually have reversed the trend of ‘China Plus One,’ the trend of shifting some of the production facilities out of China, because given the uncertainty, companies would just stick with the status quo until things become clearer.” “The market really moves to the tune of the policy uncertainty from the Trump administration,” says Sand. “Such a business environment here is pretty toxic for anyone working in supply chains where predictability, reliability and resilience are key words.”