Top World News

The building that houses London’s oldest restaurant has been donated to Europe’s biggest conservation charity

President Donald Trump once again claimed ownership of Greenland in a late-night Truth Social boast.The post, at about 12:17 a.m. EDT Wednesday, described “Massive Oil, Gas, and Mineral Exploration” getting ready to begin in “our new and beautiful Greenland.” Greenland is a self-governing territory of Denmark, not a U.S. territory.Trump’s message read in full:“Massive Oil, Gas, and Mineral Exploration is getting ready to begin in our new and beautiful Greenland! There are Experts that are saying that the amount of easily available Oil is far greater than that of almost any land, anywhere in the World and, even more importantly, from a Security Purpose in the Defense and Offense of both the United States of America, and Europe, is second to none. Any future attack on the United States will have to come across Greenland, where our Defense will routinely knock down drones, missiles, or any other form of weapon not yet even conceived. It gives us time, location, and sightline, like nowhere else in the World! Thank you for your attention to this matter.”Trump did not name the experts or say which exploration projects he meant.Last month, Trump announced a security agreement with Denmark and Greenland, signed Sept. 22 at the United Nations, that expands the U.S. military presence on the island. Trump said it gives the United States “permanent control” over Greenland’s security. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said the deal recognizes Danish sovereignty and Greenlanders’ right to self-determination. Danish and Greenlandic lawmakers must still ratify it, according to ABC News.

President Donald Trump has spent the past five days doing favors for Russian President Vladimir Putin, but with the midterm elections just three weeks away, Republicans are left with the political fallout.The 80-year-old U.S. president is renewing his scandal-plagued relationship with the reviled Russian dictator as American voters begin casting early ballots, and Axios reported that his moves haven't gone over well on Capitol Hill, where GOP senators called the arrangement a “betrayal” and “a gift to our adversary.”After a phone call with Putin, Trump announced a deal Friday to let millions of tons of Russian diesel flow onto global markets, loosening sanctions meant to cut off Moscow’s war funding. The next day, he tore into Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky over Kyiv’s strikes on Russian refineries and called for Ukraine to replace its leader.On Sunday, Trump caught Zelensky off guard by declaring an immediate “energy ceasefire.” Russia has kept hammering Ukraine’s power grid since then, with no visible consequences from Washington. On Monday, Trump brushed aside months of intelligence-based reporting that Russia had been giving Iran information on U.S. military assets, and on Tuesday, he doubled down on the diesel deal and waved off concerns that the money could fund Russia’s war machine.The White House stood by the deal, despite GOP skepticism.“The President’s diesel deal will help lower prices for farmers, truckers, and families across the nation as he simultaneously urges both sides of the Russia-Ukraine conflict to stop strikes against refineries, which are driving up costs and hurting American consumers,” spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement.Energy analysts doubt the deal will do much to lower fuel prices, which spiked because of the Iran war. Meanwhile, the U.S. is breaking from its NATO allies just as Russia steps up a campaign of sabotage, cyberattacks and drone incursions across Europe.A January YouGov poll found that 81 percent of Trump’s own 2024 voters view Putin unfavorably, but Trump stood by the Russian leader anyway on Monday. “I think, actually, Putin wants to make a deal more than Zelensky,” he told reporters.The timing is bad for a party already watching its polling numbers sink, and losing control of Congress could stall Trump’s agenda and open his administration to years of investigations and subpoenas.The president doesn’t seem worried. In a Truth Social post Tuesday, Trump wrote: “I’m not running in the Elections, I’ve already won, IN A MASSIVE LANDSLIDE.”

Lufthansa is buying a 44.9% stake in TAP Air Portugal in a deal valued at 1.3 billion dollars

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.

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."

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].”

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.