Top World News
Shadowy deals and Trump's Kennedy Center at the heart of MAGA couple's quick union: report
A recent report from the New York Times sheds new light on the speedy marriage between a Turkish billionaire and one of President Donald Trump's former lawyers. Alina Habba, a former U.S. attorney in the Trump administration, and 29-year-old Turkish businessman Turhan Mildon married last month after getting together earlier this year. While the MAGA power couple's wedding was attended by high-ranking Trump officials like FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Todd Blanche, the timeline of the couple's relationship raises questions about some of the shady deals that were up in the air around the time Habba and Mildon got together, according to the report. For instance, the Times noted that Venezuelan leader Delcy Rodríguez had her sights set on Mildon's business interests before she learned of his relationship with Habba. Rodríguez had planned to audit one of the state-owned cement factories that Mildon operated, "citing a failure to meet investment targets," the report noted. She had also supported the U.S.'s efforts to sanction Mildon, which could have crippled his businesses, according to the report. "But there was a bright spot: Mr. Mildon had met Ms. Habba, one of Mr. Trump’s most prominent legal defenders," the report reads in part. "They started dating this year, soon after Mr. Maduro’s downfall. By this past summer, the couple’s burgeoning romance had begun to draw attention. Specifically, it caught the eye of Ms. Rodríguez, according to two people close to her. Mr. Mildon was in a serious relationship with a woman who had high-level access to Mr. Trump — the one person keeping Ms. Rodríguez in power."Mildon also made some intentional steps to further integrate himself within Trumpworld, like frequently attending the Kennedy Center and networking with its president, Richard Grenell. Mildon met Habba at one of the events in 2025, according to the report. Mildon also used his experience as a back-channel diplomat between the Maduro regime and the Trump administration to get closer to Republican officials who helped him repair his relationship with Rodríguez, according to the report. "When Christopher Ruddy, the chief executive of Newsmax, a pro-Trump news channel, secured a meeting with her in February, Mr. Mildon tagged along. The spokesman for Mr. Mildon said he has spoken with Ms. Rodríguez several times since," it reads. These circumstances raised questions about the quick wedding that Habba and Mildon threw together, which the Times noted took just 60 days. Habba denied advocating for her husband's businesses in her meetings with Trump. “I have never, under any circumstances, got involved with this White House or administration on behalf of my husband, nor would he ever ask me to,” she told the outlet.
Trump's 'certainly traitorous' deal could fund two of America's enemies at once: expert
A plan to import Russian diesel would route American money to Moscow that might wind up helping Iran in its fight against U.S. forces, argued Daily Beast columnist and security expert David Rothkopf in an analysis published Monday.Rothkopf said the purchase, which he wrote was already moving with a first cargo of about 300,000 metric tons, won’t make a dent in prices at the pump. That shipment, he calculated, covers about half a day of the country’s diesel use. He added that the U.S. is likely paying more than it would to proven suppliers like Canada, that Russia’s own diesel supply is under strain, and that the arrangement relaxes sanctions on Russia.His main concern is where the money ends up. In his telling, the cash would help sustain a Russian economy under pressure and bankroll its war in Ukraine. He then cited reports that Russia is rebuilding Iran’s missile stocks and passing along intelligence Iran could use to target U.S. and allied forces. The column doesn’t specify the sources for those reports.“Trump is funding an enemy to help an enemy,” Rothkopf wrote.He argued Trump’s comments about the deal deepened the worry. Per the column, Trump said Ukraine, not Russia, bears responsibility for the war and that Ukraine should dump its president. Rothkopf inferred that’s aimed at finding a leader more willing to accept Russian terms. He also faulted envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner for leaning toward Moscow.Rothkopf conceded the legal charge of treason wouldn’t apply without a declaration of war, but calls the move “certainly traitorous.”The column placed the diesel deal inside a longer critique of Trump’s posture toward Russia, from his early courting of Putin to the Alaska summit and strained ties with allies. It also noted Trump’s announced “energy ceasefire,” which Rothkopf said collapsed almost immediately.It’s unclear what other understandings may sit behind the deal, Rothkopf added, urging voters to hold Trump and his party accountable in November.
Trump's 'problematic' Russia deal unmasked by expert: 'Not going to move the needle'
President Donald Trump's deal to buy Russian diesel fuel ahead of the midterms is more bluster than it is substantive, according to one expert. Last week, Trump announced that the U.S. would buy more than 300,000 tons of diesel this month as an attempt to lower gas prices ahead of the midterm elections. The move was announced at a time when the national average price for a gallon of diesel fuel was above $6.20, according to figures from AAA. The deal has also sparked significant pushback from Republican lawmakers in Congress. Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, said on CNN that the deal, while lucrative for Russia, likely won't have the significant and sustained impact on U.S. fuel prices that Trump hopes. "I'm very skeptical that Russia simply has this amount of diesel sitting by," De Haan said, noting that Ukraine has been attacking Russia's oil infrastructure since the beginning of the war in 2022. "We've seen long, long lines for diesel in Russia. So I think that's problematic, whether the supply exists." Gas prices have become a focal point of the second Trump administration. During the 2024 campaign, Trump promised to lower gas prices as part of his efforts to reduce the overall cost of living. However, stubborn inflation combined with Trump's decision to attack Iran has caused fuel prices to spike. De Haan noted that the amount of oil Trump is buying, while nominally large, is a drop in the bucket compared to the needed intervention to stem the rising tide of gas prices. "The amount of diesel that we are said to be importing from Russia over time is less than a week's supply," he said. "This initial 300,000 tons is only about a day and a half of what we are producing as a nation on a daily basis. So there's just a lot of concern. Ultimately, this is not going to move the needle much. Again, only a day and a half of supply. This is not something that's going to have a material impact. It may have a psychological impact until the market unpacks whether or not this diesel is actually coming from Russia."
Trump taunted as economic lifeline named new ‘explicit target’ for US adversary: report
Middle East crude exports have nearly rebounded to where they stood before the U.S. war against Iran, thanks largely to what Reuters called a “vital lifeline” — but on Sunday, Tehran named that lifeline its new “explicit target” as a senior official appeared to “taunt” President Donald Trump, Al Jazeera reported.That lifeline has been ship-to-ship transfers using corridors along the coast of Oman in an effort to bypass Iranian interference in the Strait of Hormuz, with coordination and protection of the U.S. military. On Sunday night, however, Mohsen Rezaei, the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran, vowed that shipping through the alternate route would soon come to an end.“You are smuggling, but the strait is under Iran’s control, and we manage it,” Rezaei said.Al Jazeera’s Maziar Motamedi went on to report that Rezaei named the ship-to-ship transfer system as “an explicit target for Tehran,” and characterized Rezaei’s comments as a “taunt aimed at Trump, who hailed energy exports at times reaching pre-war levels over recent weeks.”“Rezaei appeared to give the impression that Iran wants to have lasting authority over Hormuz, and promised a harsh response if Iran’s energy and civilian infrastructure were attacked again,” Motamedi wrote.The average cost for a barrel of crude oil reached its peak in early April at nearly $113. It plummeted to its lowest point since the war began at just under $69 in early July — shortly after the United States agreed to its short-lived peace agreement with Iran on June 14 — before ramping back up to nearly $106 last month. As of Monday, the average cost for a barrel of crude stood at just under $94, though it risks climbing again should Iran prove successful in disrupting the alternative route along the coast of Oman.“Tehran says shipping will be disrupted so long as the US continues its choking naval blockade against Iran, which has also stepped up its efforts to counter efforts by Arab states to export oil,” Motamedi continued. “At least 15 ships are believed to have been targeted in October so far, according to [Windward].”
Indian opposition figures lead march to police barricades around supreme court
Thousands join rally to deliver petition calling for resignation of election commissionerDelhi police have again obstructed protests in India’s capital as thousands of people returned to the streets, led by opposition leaders, to demand the resignation of the election commissioner.After mass unrest in the capital over the weekend, when thousands were detained and harassed by police as they attempted to take part in a protest led by the gen Z Cockroach movement, on Monday the main opposition leaders led another procession through Delhi, this time to the supreme court. Continue reading...
‘High’ likelihood Trump gearing up for drastic — and imminent — escalation: Fox News
The chances that President Donald Trump authorizes a significant military escalation in the Middle East — and soon — are “relatively high,” Fox News’ Trey Yingst said Monday as the White House weighs its response to a recent strike on a major U.S. ally.On Saturday, Yemen’s Houthi militants carried out a deadly attack on Saudi Arabia, striking the King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh and killing at least 12 people and injuring more than 300. Trump told reporters he was considering joining Saudi Arabia in retaliating against the Houthis, and despite skepticism from one expert, Yingst said he expected Trump to follow through.“The question now is how Saudi Arabia will respond and if the United States could be involved,” Yingst said, reporting from Tel Aviv, Israel. “The chances [that the United States gets involved militarily] are relatively high just given recent history. The Saudis are asking for support, and that support is going to come in a variety of different ways: one has to do with intelligence, and the other, military action.”Yingst went on to list the variety of ways the U.S. military could directly strike Houthi militants, who have made significant territorial gains in recent weeks and have strengthened their hold on the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, a critical global shipping chokepoint in the Red Sea, much like the Strait of Hormuz.Fox News’ Rachel Campos-Duffy questioned whether the deep unpopularity of Trump’s war against Iran would factor into the White House’s response.“We're in a political season, and the war is not very popular among a lot of people,” Campos-Duffy said. “Do you think that will impact how — and to what scale — the American military gets involved?”Yingst suggested that, despite Trump’s claims that the midterms had no bearing on his decisions regarding his war in the Middle East, it was impossible to know for sure.“It certainly would be a question for the president as he will be the person who decides, ultimately, if U.S. strikes move forward,” Yingst said.
Looming midterms paralyze Trump's ability to help US ally after deadly attack: analyst
Yemen’s Houthi militants carried out a deadly attack on U.S. ally Saudi Arabia Saturday that killed at least 12 people and injured more than 300, but the looming midterms will likely limit the Trump administration’s response, according to conflict analyst Hisham Al-Omeisy.“Fortunately, I don’t see them rushing for major action,” Al-Omeisy, senior Yemen adviser at the European Institute of Peace, told Al Jazeera for its report published Sunday. “The last thing the administration needs is getting stuck in another quagmire in the region, especially with what’s happening in Hormuz that has not been resolved yet.”Saturday’s attack saw the Iran-backed Houthis strike Riyadh's King Khalid International Airport, which the group previously struck last week and last month. Trump told reporters on Saturday that his administration “may” retaliate against the Houthis militarily, but according to Al-Omeisy, that was unlikely given the administration’s unresolved conflict with Iran, which continues to keep fuel prices elevated heading into the midterms.The Houthis have continued their campaign to exert more control over the Bab al-Mandab Strait, a critical global shipping chokepoint in the Red Sea, much like the Strait of Hormuz. The group announced a blockade on all Saudi oil exports transiting the Bab al-Mandab Strait in July, one that its territorial gains have only made stronger in recent weeks.Even if the Trump administration were to move forward with strikes against the Houthis, such efforts would prove futile, warned F. Gregory Gause, a Saudi specialist at the Middle East Institute in Washington, D.C.“The only realistic solution for the Saudis is an end to the Iranian-American war, in which the U.S. gets the Iranians to commit the Houthis to an end of hostilities as part of the overall deal,” Gause told The New York Times Sunday. “Unfortunately for the Saudis, it is not clear how much President Trump listens to them on this.”
'News to me': Zelenskyy blindsided by Trump's surprise warfare announcement
President Donald Trump raced to Truth Social Sunday to announce the brokering of a new ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine — an announcement that stood for mere minutes before it was contradicted by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, according to Axios’ Barak Ravid.Trump claimed that “effective immediately,” a ceasefire had been agreed to by Russia and Ukraine to halt strikes on energy infrastructure. Moments later, however, Ravid claimed to receive conflicting information after speaking with Zelenskyy by phone.“The announcement about the ceasefire was news to me,” Zelenskyy said, according to Ravid.Trump has made similar claims before. In September, he announced that Russia and Ukraine had agreed to stop striking energy targets, only for Ukraine to hit a major Moscow-area oil refinery days later.Nevertheless, Zelenskyy said that if Russia did agree to pause striking energy targets, Ukraine would follow suit.“But if the Russians agree to a ceasefire in the energy sector, Ukraine will also agree,” he said, according to Ravid. “If President Trump agreed to this with Putin — please let us know when the ceasefire begins. We are ready and will agree to it.”
Trump announces major development in Russo-Ukraine war: 'Do not break it!'
President Donald Trump announced a major development in the Russo-Ukraine war Sunday morning, one he said was “effective immediately.”“Effective immediately, there is an ENERGY CEASEFIRE in the War between Russia and Ukraine,” Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social. “Both parties have agreed. Do not break it!”Despite the celebratory nature of Trump’s announcement, the president had made similar claims in the past, only to be rebuked on the world stage. In September, Trump claimed that Russia and Ukraine had agreed to avoid striking energy infrastructure targets only for Ukraine to strike “one of Russia’s key oil industry facilities” days later.The strike, which Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy proudly boasted about on social media, was the largest drone attack on the Moscow region since Russia’s 2022 invasion and killed at least two people and injured 20 others, BBC reported.Critics have accused Trump of making similar announcements to “manipulate markets,” which have proven responsive to the president’s various claims regarding global conflicts.
Escalation fears mount as US strikes civilian vessel: 'What a disaster'
Fears of escalation in the Middle East mounted Saturday night after the U.S. military carried out a strike on a civilian vessel in the Gulf of Oman.“U.S. Central Command forces disabled a commercial cargo vessel in the Gulf of Oman, Oct. 10, after the ship’s crew ignored repeated warnings and attempted to run the ongoing naval blockade against Iran,” reads a statement from U.S. Central Command. “The large cargo vessel was attempting to transit regional waters after having previously departed an Iranian port.”According to U.S. Central Command, the vessel, a Panama-flagged cargo ship, was struck with a “precision munition,” which fully disabled the ship’s propulsion “without harming the crew.”Reacting to news of the strike, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) questioned what the Trump administration’s long-term strategy was, arguing that the U.S. blockade had no clear endgame despite its exorbitant cost to taxpayers.“What is this all for? Why are taxpayers paying billions to hit [commercial] ships?” Murphy asked in a social media post on X. “Apparently the goal is to gain leverage in order to convince the Iranians to let us pay them billions to return everything to the way it all was before the war. What a disaster.”Geopolitical expert Brett Erickson noted that the strike was “the first strike we have seen from the United States in a long time now,” and questioned whether it would prompt Iranian retaliation.“This will be interesting to see whether or not Iran escalates in retaliation to this, or if this was merely a test to see if the U.S. would seriously maintain their blockade in the lead-up to the midterms,” Erickson wrote in a social media post on X.President Donald Trump’s deeply unpopular war against Iran has sent fuel prices soaring across the United States and has coincided with the president’s approval plummeting to career lows in the lead-up to the midterms next month.What is this all for? Why are taxpayers paying billions to hit commericals ships?Apparently the goal is to gain leverage in order to convince the Iranians to let us pay them billions to return everything to the way it all was before the war.What a disaster.— Chris Murphy ???? (@ChrisMurphyCT) October 11, 2026
GOP lawmaker defies Trump with plan to block president's 'gift to Putin': 'It will pass'
Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) said over the weekend he will force a House vote to block Russian oil purchases. The move directly challenges President Donald Trump’s new diesel deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Axios reported.Fitzpatrick co-chairs the Congressional Ukraine Caucus. He said he would introduce the “Ronald Reagan Peace Through Strength Act” and use a discharge petition to get around Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.). A discharge petition needs 218 signatures to bring a bill to the floor without leadership’s approval.“It will be forced to the Floor via discharge and it will pass overwhelmingly,” Fitzpatrick wrote on X.Retiring Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) told Axios he has “already agreed” to sign it.Trump announced Friday that Russia would immediately supply more than 300,000 tons of diesel to U.S. and global markets. He has pitched the deal as a way to lower fuel prices, but energy analysts doubt it will make much difference. Critics also warn it could help pay for Russia’s war in Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called the deal “not fair and not honest.” On Saturday, Trump called for Ukraine to replace Zelensky.Fitzpatrick and Bacon used the same tactic earlier this year to force a House vote on Ukraine aid and Russia sanctions. That bill passed the House but stalled in the Senate.Time is short this time too. The House isn’t scheduled to vote again until after the Nov. 3 midterms. Any bill would still need to pass the Senate and could face a Trump veto.
Explosive report alleges US pressured ally to bomb Iran to protect Trump ahead of midterms
The Trump administration pushed a key U.S. ally to carry out strikes on Iran in a bid to “avoid political fallout” before the midterms, according to an explosive report from The Jerusalem Post published on Saturday — a report that two U.S. officials denied within hours of its publication.Citing a report from the Hebrew-language Israeli newspaper Maariv, The Jerusalem Post details a supposed pressure campaign from the Trump administration to urge Israel into carrying out strikes on Iran “over the past two weeks.”“Washington wanted Israel to assume the political risks of a military operation ahead of the US midterm elections, rather than US President Donald Trump,” The Jerusalem Post’s report reads, citing Maariv’s report.“American officials reportedly believed Israel would be interested in striking Iran before its own elections, while a US operation ahead of the midterms could have negative political consequences for Trump.”Trump’s approval among Americans has plummeted to career lows in large part due to his deeply unpopular war against Iran, which continues to keep fuel prices elevated. On Saturday, the average cost of diesel fuel was $6.28, around 25 cents lower than the all-time high reached late last month. The average cost of regular fuel was $4.37 on Saturday, far above the $3.10 recorded a year ago.According to The Jerusalem Post, the Trump administration had since “backed down from its demand, at least for now,” citing Maariv’s reporting. Two U.S. officials and an Israeli official denied the report, according to Axios’ Barak Ravid.Trump has ramped up threats to resume strikes on Iran in recent weeks, including as recently as Friday during a rally in New York, warning that he may opt to “finish it off” if Iran refused to accept a deal.Two U.S. officials and one Israeli official denied this report and told me the U.S. didn't ask Israel to initiate a strike against Iran before the elections— Barak Ravid (@BarakRavid) October 10, 2026
