America
Hegseth defends $1.5 trillion budget and Iran war strategy in heated House hearing
US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, appearing alongside Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine, testified before the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday regarding the Pentagon’s record-breaking budget request for fiscal year 2027.
Hegseth provided his first formal responses to congressional inquiries concerning ongoing military operations conducted by the US and Israel against Iran. During a tense, hours-long session, Hegseth and Caine faced pointed questions regarding the long-term objectives and timeline of the conflict, which began with strikes on Iran on Feb. 28. Hegseth largely demurred on providing a specific exit strategy or schedule.
Throughout the hearing, Hegseth defended the policies of President Donald Trump and reaffirmed the White House’s request for a historic $1.5 trillion defense budget.
Testifying alongside Hegseth, Pentagon Acting Comptroller Jules Hurst III disclosed the official cost of the war for the first time, placing it at $25 billion. Hurst stated that the bulk of these expenditures is tied to munitions, the repositioning of military assets to Western Asia, and equipment lost in combat. Under subsequent questioning, Hegseth did not provide clear details on whether this figure accounts for damage sustained by US military bases in the region or the total cost of replenishing depleted weapons stockpiles.
While US media outlets have reported that the administration is considering a request for an additional $200 billion in war funding from Congress, no formal supplemental request has yet been submitted.
Democratic members of the committee pressed Hegseth on the war’s impact on domestic gasoline and food prices. Hegseth dismissed these inquiries, labeling them a “trap” designed to pivot toward internal political issues. In a sharp exchange with Democratic Representative Salud Carbajal over the financial burden on US taxpayers, Hegseth struck a defiant tone, asking what the acceptable price would be to ensure Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon.
The Secretary faced his most rigorous questioning regarding Iran’s nuclear program, as lawmakers challenged the fundamental objectives of the military campaign.
Democratic Representative Adam Smith highlighted what he characterized as contradictory statements from the Secretary. Smith noted that Hegseth had previously claimed Iran’s nuclear infrastructure was “leveled” following a 12-day conflict in 2025. Smith questioned why the program was described as an “imminent threat” necessitating a new war 60 days ago if it had already been destroyed, suggesting the program remains in the same state it was prior to the current hostilities.
Hegseth responded by stating that while physical facilities had been bombed and destroyed, Tehran’s “ambitions” remained intact and that the Iranian leadership had focused on constructing a “conventional shield.”
In one of the day’s most heated moments, Hegseth reacted strongly after Democratic Representative John Garamendi characterized the war as a “quagmire” and a “political and economic disaster at every level.” The Secretary accused the congressman of providing “propaganda material” to adversaries, arguing that the greatest challenge the administration faces is the “defeatist rhetoric” from Democrats and certain Republicans in Congress.
Representative Seth Moulton later revisited those remarks, asking whether it was “wise or incompetent” for Congress to have given the Bush administration a “blank check” for the Iraq War. Hegseth, an Iraq War veteran, rejected the comparison as a “false equivalence.”
Moulton further questioned Hegseth on his past statements suggesting US forces should show “no quarter” or mercy to enemies. When asked if he stood by rhetoric that could imply the killing of surrendering soldiers—a war crime under international law—Hegseth stated that the Department of Defense “fights to win” and ensures that combatants have the rules of engagement necessary to operate with maximum effectiveness.
Representative Ro Khanna questioned the Secretary on the cost of missiles used in a strike on a school in Minab, where at least 120 children were reportedly killed. Hegseth declined to provide a cost estimate, noting that the incident remains under investigation.
Democratic Representative Sara Jacobs shifted the focus to President Donald Trump’s mental fitness for office within the context of his rhetoric regarding Iran. Jacobs asked if the President was mentally competent to serve as Commander-in-Chief. Hegseth countered by asking if similar questions had been directed at Joe Biden during his four-year term, alleging that Biden had been “hardly able to speak” and suffered from health issues.
In response, Jacobs presented an image shared by Trump depicting himself as Jesus Christ. Jacobs, noting her Jewish faith, stated that while the image did not personally offend her, it could be seen as sacrilegious by many Christians, and asked Hegseth to explain the post.
While Democrats on the committee maintained a confrontational stance, Republican members largely signaled support for Hegseth and the war effort.
This political alignment is critical as Friday marks 60 days since Trump officially notified Congress of the strikes. Under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, the President must begin withdrawing troops after 60 days unless he receives a formal authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) from Congress. Despite controlling both the House and the Senate, Republican leadership has indicated they may avoid a formal authorization vote, a move that could leave the legal basis for the ongoing conflict in a state of uncertainty.
Republican Representative Nancy Mace reaffirmed her support for the Secretary, stating that Hegseth had “exceeded all expectations.”
America
Wealthy Americans drive surge in New Zealand golden visa demand
More than 700 wealthy foreign nationals have applied for New Zealand residency under the country’s “golden visa” programme over the past 14 months, compared with just 115 applications during the previous three years.
Applicants are required to invest at least NZ$5 million in local funds, companies or charitable organisations within three years.
A further 127 people have applied under a separate programme that requires an investment of NZ$10 million in passive assets such as bonds for five years.
The surge followed a relaxation of rules governing property purchases, investment requirements and the amount of time applicants must spend in the country to qualify.
According to the Financial Times (FT), the increase in applications for the right to live, work and study indefinitely in New Zealand has coincided with a period of geopolitical uncertainty that has made the country’s security and remote location increasingly attractive.
Dozens of countries around the world, from Portugal to the US, offer preferential immigration treatment in exchange for investment or, in some cases, cash payments.
Many have had mixed experiences with such schemes. Ireland, Malta and Australia have scrapped their programmes because of insufficient demand or concerns over abuse.
In New Zealand’s case, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon hopes the visas will attract more foreign investment and help reverse a “brain drain” that threatens the country’s economic growth.
Although tourists often fall in love with New Zealand and dream of moving there, many young New Zealanders leave in search of better economic opportunities.
According to Luxon, New Zealand start-ups have already begun benefiting from the policy.
“While everyone else around the world is tightening restrictions, we’ve opened the doors and our start-ups have benefited enormously from the capital flowing in, as well as from the knowledge and technical expertise these investors have brought,” he said.
Since the programme was comprehensively overhauled in April 2025, applicants from North America, Europe and Asia have committed a combined NZ$4.8 billion, through investments of either NZ$5 million or NZ$10 million each.
That figure is comparable to the NZ$14.8 billion in foreign investment recorded during the first quarter of this year.
Lachlan Nixon, co-founder of venture capital firm Motion Capital, said the programme had become “a badge of honour in Silicon Valley”.
Data show that 277 applications have come from Americans, with Californians showing particularly strong interest in obtaining New Zealand residency.
“A massive influx of capital is coming, but what really matters is the quality of the people now investing in the New Zealand economy,” Nixon said. He added that 40% of a recent NZ$27 million fundraising round for high-growth New Zealand companies came from 30 holders of “golden visas”.
According to Luxon, companies benefiting from the programme include critical minerals firm Zethos, which appointed European steel industry veteran Francesc Rubiralta to its board.
Nixon said other companies backed under the programme include seed oil protein producer Miruku and magnesium mining company Aspiring Materials.
In the mountain town of Queenstown, a preferred destination for many applicants, locals refer to billionaires such as Peter Thiel and Anthony Malkin, whose foundation owns New York’s Empire State Building, as “the secret residents on the hills”.
Most prefer to keep their wealth and presence private. Thiel’s citizenship was inadvertently revealed during a parliamentary debate, while Malkin’s presence became public after fireworks he set off on New Year’s Eve sparked grass fires.
According to Cotality, their arrival has made Queenstown New Zealand’s most expensive property market, with a median home price of NZ$1.8 million, double the national average.
Under the visa programme’s rules, participants may purchase only residential properties worth more than NZ$5 million, a provision designed to prevent their presence from distorting the broader housing market.
“There are a lot of billionaires here. They just wear gumboots,” one property adviser said.
However, doubts remain about the programme’s benefits. Sam Stubbs, chief executive of pension fund Simplicity, said people should make “genuine investments” in the country rather than seek special treatment in exchange for “a small amount of money” invested in a venture capital fund.
“Heaven comes at a price. It’s a price we all pay,” Stubbs said.
Some applicants have also voiced concerns. Courtney Andelman, who runs a venture capital fund in Santa Barbara with her husband Jim, successfully obtained a visa last year and now visits New Zealand regularly.
“There’s something magical in the air and the water. It’s an incredibly healthy place,” Andelman said.
However, she said she wanted to settle in a smaller South Island city such as Nelson, where her investments could have a greater impact, but found very few properties worth more than NZ$5 million.
She also complained that under New Zealand’s tax rules, if her family spends more than 183 days a year in the country, their worldwide income becomes subject to New Zealand taxation.
Andelman said she loved New Zealand but expressed concern and issued an implicit warning.
“How to make every dollar achieve its highest and best use is a question we constantly ask ourselves. If New Zealand doesn’t offer the best value, we’ll go somewhere else. Every one of those dollars is mobile.”
America
Oil industry lobbies White House to avert potential Trump export ban
Oil industry executives and White House officials are engaging in a new push to prevent any move by the administration to restrict US oil exports.
According to a report by Politico, industry representatives say these efforts extend to the White House Domestic Policy Council, the National Energy Dominance Council, the Department of Energy, and Chief of Staff Susie Wiles.
Trump believes that oil prices could harm the Republicans’ chances of maintaining control of Congress in the November mid-term elections.
“Everyone from the industry and within the administration is working hand in hand to prevent this,” an energy industry executive said.
The individual added that White House officials had not formally raised the idea, “but everyone knows Trump will act like Trump again.”
The White House maintains that export restrictions are not on the agenda.
White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in a statement: “While the President and the entire energy team are taking various measures to mitigate temporary disruptions in the energy market, the administration has been very clear: there is no plan to impose restrictions on oil and gas exports.”
White House representatives did not confirm whether industry lobbyists had approached specific agencies or officials to discuss the export issue. Department of Energy representatives did not respond to queries.
However, although administration officials have guaranteed since the early days of the Iranian war that an export ban was off the table, Trump’s directive to the Department of Justice in June to investigate oil companies on charges of price gouging put the sector on high alert.
Concerns within the industry mounted after Trump stated on Monday that oil giants Exxon Mobil and Chevron were making “too much money.”
Industry executives now fear Trump may try to make a move against them by restricting fuel export activities abroad, which have boomed since the start of the US-Israeli war against Iran.
Another industry official said the sector had reiterated its concerns regarding export controls to the White House “very recently.”
The Trump administration has already tried several different approaches to lower prices that enjoy broader support from the oil industry.
These include the release of millions of barrels of oil from the country’s strategic petroleum reserve and the temporary suspension of the Jones Act to make it easier for non-American vessels to transport oil and natural gas between US ports.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a former oil company CEO, and Vice President JD Vance have repeatedly opposed the idea of limiting or banning exports.
Wright stated in May that the administration had “definitely” ruled out the option of banning diesel exports.
Mike Sommers, president of the American Petroleum Institute, said he was “confident” Trump understood the need to maintain oil exports, recalling that early in the crisis, the president had encouraged other countries to buy American oil:
“The administration has repeatedly expressed that they are opposed to [export controls]. Therefore, I do not think there is any change in their stance at the moment. Frankly, it feels as though we have to clarify this issue every three weeks.”
In a note sent to clients on Tuesday, consultancy firm ClearView Energy stated that the moment for the White House to take a step toward limiting fuel exports “might be approaching.”
The firm noted that former President Joe Biden had considered imposing export restrictions ahead of the 2022 mid-term elections following a “long summer of high petrol prices” caused by the war in Ukraine.
US crude oil exports increased by approximately 30% compared with last year, reaching nearly 3.5 million barrels per day by the end of July.
Shipments of refined products such as diesel, petrol, and other types of oil rose by 20%, exceeding 8 million barrels per day.
Opponents of exports argue that sending these cargoes abroad leads to rising prices domestically.
However, the oil and gas industry contends that closing the door to exports would harm the domestic market and cause their production to decline.
“Export bans may seem politically attractive, but ultimately they will lead to the exact opposite of the intended effect,” said a refining industry lobbyist who noted they were in contact with the White House on the matter, arguing that cutting off American exports from international markets would mean “a decline in US production, supply shortages, further upward pressure on domestic prices, and even greater disruptions in the global market.”
Chet Thompson, president and CEO of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, stated that export controls would force US refiners to produce less petrol because they would lose commercial channels to ship other surplus fuels, such as diesel, produced during the process.
America
US and Ukraine restore intelligence sharing to former levels
Three US senators have reported that intelligence sharing between Washington and Kyiv has reached its former level. The White House declined to disclose details of the current intelligence relationship, emphasizing that President Donald Trump remains focused on ending the conflict.
American senators reported that intelligence sharing between the US and Ukraine has returned to its previous level.
According to a report by Politico, the senators offering this assessment include Democratic Senator Mark Warner, a long-standing advocate for increasing aid to Ukraine.
Commenting on the matter, Warner said: “I don’t want to get into details, but things have improved.” Republican senators John Cornyn and Roger Wicker stated that information sharing has accelerated during a period of “strategic importance”.
Democratic Senator Tim Kaine also noted that he has observed signs of a revival in information sharing between the US and Ukraine.
The White House did not disclose details regarding the current state of its intelligence-sharing relationship with Ukraine. However, in comments to Politico, it emphasized that US President Donald Trump is focused on contributing to the termination of the conflict.
A White House official told Politico: “The President and his team remain committed to playing a constructive role in ending the war between Russia and Ukraine and remain optimistic that we will ultimately reach a peace agreement.”
Last autumn, the Financial Times reported that Trump had issued instructions to prepare for sharing intelligence data that could assist Ukraine in conducting strikes deep inside Russian territory.
Russian authorities are demanding that Western nations cease providing military aid to Ukraine, emphasizing that such assistance will not prevent Moscow from achieving its military campaign objectives.
Last year, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs requested that the US side clarify information regarding the transfer of intelligence data to Ukraine.
According to statements from the Kremlin, Russia has long been aware that the US and NATO countries collect intelligence and transfer it to the Ukrainian military, noting that this is “not a new development”.
Nevertheless, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that Russia will not tolerate attacks by the Armed Forces of Ukraine and will continue to respond forcefully.
In June, President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia is prepared to conduct negotiations with Ukraine on the basis of the agreements reached in Istanbul.
According to Putin, the parties must also take into account the agreements reached between Moscow and Washington in Anchorage, the situation on the front line, and the conditions for a settlement previously set out by Russia.
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoUK Prime Minister Andy Burnham pledges full support to Ukraine in meeting with Zelenskyy
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoUkraine targets first prototype of European Freyja missile defense system in early 2027
-
America1 week agoUS signs $135 billion defense contracts for nuclear submarines and missiles amid Iran conflict
-
America1 week agoElon Musk’s America PAC plans $100 million field operation for 2026 Republican midterm push
-
Europe1 week agoCeuta migration crisis sparks diplomatic row as Italy demands Spain’s suspension from Schengen
-
America1 week agoTrump administration seeks to reopen closed US oil refineries as war drives fuel prices up
-
America1 week agoAnthropic AI models breach corporate systems after escaping isolated test environment
-
Europe1 week agoMorawiecki launches Rozwój Plus movement following high-profile split from Poland’s PiS
