Germany’s government plans to give its intelligence services broader powers for actions such as disabling sabotage and hacking attempts in response to a rising threat from powers such as Russia and extremists.
The Cabinet on Wednesday approved draft legislation meant to strengthen Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service, the BND, and its domestic intelligence service, the BfV, and reduce the reliance of the European Union’s most populous nation on tips from its allies.
The powers of Germany’s intelligence services have long lagged behind those of major European counterparts. Modern Germany has traditionally been sensitive to data protection concerns, not least because of memories of repression under the Nazis and later by communist East Germany’s secret police.
Like what you just read? Give us a high five . Or better yet, donate five dollars.▼
The Government Technology & Services Coalition’s Homeland Security Today (HSToday) is the premier news and information resource for the homeland security community, dedicated to elevating the discussions and insights that can support a safe and secure nation. A non-profit magazine and media platform, HSToday provides readers with the whole story, placing facts and comments in context to inform debate and drive realistic solutions to some of the nation’s most vexing security challenges.
French, German and British diplomats are working on a format for future negotiations — even if Russia has shown little interest.
Rescue workers at the site of a Russian strike on a residential building in Odesa, Ukraine, this week.Credit…Nina Liashonok/Reuters
Nervous about being excluded by President Trump from any talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, three European countries are working together to make sure Europe has a seat at the table, according to five European officials.
European diplomats are working on a format for future negotiations to protect European interests that would be led by France, Germany and Britain.
France and Germany are taking the lead in developing the European position, according to two senior European diplomats and a senior European official monitoring the effort. Britain, which has a new prime minister, is more hesitant, in part because it is nervous about testing its relations with Mr. Trump, the diplomats said.
There is little indication that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia is ready for serious negotiations. The Europeans expect that any negotiation with Russia over Ukraine would be led by the United States, and as Russia is increasing its ballistic missile attacks on Ukrainian civilians, they are pushing for Mr. Trump and his envoys to re-engage with Moscow.
But a Ukraine settlement and relations with Russia are too important to Europe to be outsourced indefinitely to a Trump administration that appears increasingly unpredictable, said the officials, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. They want to ensure no deal is cut over their heads by Washington and Moscow.
Western officials and analysts expect the war to become more destructive as Mr. Putin presses for a winter offensive against Ukrainian lines and civilian infrastructure as Ukraine runs severely short of air defenses. Some expect Mr. Putin to order a modest if unpopular mobilization of new troops, but only after parliamentary elections in mid-September. And some even worry that Mr. Putin, feeling cornered, might try to escalate the war and test the solidarity of NATO, beyond hybrid attacks in Europe.
Mr. Putin has said that Russia must at the least obtain complete control over the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine. If the Russians cannot do that by autumn 2027, officials and analysts said, talks would be more likely. And key decisions must be made in advance.
Image
President Vladimir Putin of Russia speaking with defense ministry officials in a photo released by Russian state media this month.Credit…Alexander Kazakov/Sputnik, via Reuters
Asked for comment, the British Foreign Office said the discussion remained speculative, while an E.U. official insisted that various diplomatic efforts were complementary rather than competitive, and that a divisive discussion about representation now was not helpful.
For Europe, the stakes are enormous. Ukraine is a major security challenge, and a Russian victory there would have huge consequences. At the same time, Mr. Trump has made it clear that Ukraine is a European responsibility. Europe is already funding Ukraine’s war, and it is expected to provide security assurances to Ukraine after any settlement. President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine “wants Europe at the table,” said Alexander Gabuev, the director of the research institute Carnegie Russia.
Want to stay updated on what’s happening in France, Germany and the United Kingdom? , and we’ll send our latest coverage to your inbox.
The 27-member European Union, which has passed 21 sets of sanctions against Russia and possesses the bulk of Russia’s frozen assets, would need to play a role. Both issues would be central to any diplomatic solution.
Britain, France and Germany believe they should be the core negotiators in support of Ukraine, three European officials said. The three countries, known as the “E3,” are the heart of the “coalition of the willing” supporting Ukraine and have drawn up options for military and security guarantees for the country after a settlement.
Poland, Italy and the Nordic countries must also be consulted and the European Union kept informed and later involved, the officials said, because some smaller countries, particularly those neighboring Russia and Ukraine, like the Baltic States and Hungary, do not fully trust Germany and France to represent their interests.
There was a flurry of meetings and debate around the issue in June as Mr. Zelensky pushed to prepare for talks with Russia and the United States.
Mr. Zelensky had reached out to Britain, France and Germany and met their leaders in London on June 7 to discuss the European role in future negotiations with Russia and to set out principles for any agreement. Four days later, the ambassadors of the three European countries had an unusual meeting in Moscow with Mikhail Y. Galuzin, a Russian deputy foreign minister who handles Ukraine.
Image
President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine stood outside 10 Downing Street in London with Chancellor Friedrich Merz of Germany, Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain and President Emmanuel Macron of France after the June 7 summit.Credit…Henry Nicholls/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Kaja Kallas, the E.U. foreign-policy chief, acknowledged Mr. Zelensky’s outreach to Britain, France and Germany and said that the three were respecting “European core security interests,” including sanctions relief and the unfreezing of Russian assets. It was still too early to be definitive about representation, she said, but those core interests had to be heeded.
The European Union then made some tentative steps to open channels with Russia after Mr. Zelensky asked António Costa, the president of the bloc’s intergovernmental body, the European Council, to raise Ukraine with Moscow. Mr. Costa’s chief of staff, Pedro Lourtie, spoke with Russian officials including Yuri V. Ushakov, who has been the main Russian contact for Mr. Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff, to try to open up a diplomatic channel.
“We cannot depend only on others to interpret Russian messages, and we must be able to convey directly to Russia our own messages,” Mr. Costa said after a European meeting June 19. But he conceded there were no “credible signs” from Moscow that it wanted to engage in “serious negotiations for the time being.”
In both cases, the official Russian response was dismissive, with Mr. Galuzin complaining that the three countries were “pushing Ukraine to continue the war against Russia.”
Inevitably, Mr. Costa’s outreach provoked divisions, with both France and Germany criticizing him for overreaching, Austria and Belgium supporting him, and the Baltic nations dismissing any approach to Moscow as playing into Russia’s hands.
President Emmanuel Macron of France, for his part, said that “when there are negotiations, the Europeans will have to be around the table,” and that “President Costa, within the competencies defined for him, will have a place.”
Image
“We must be able to convey directly to Russia our own messages,” António Costa, one of the European Union’s top officials, said.Credit…Damien Eagers/Reuters
Chancellor Friedrich Merz of Germany emphasized that the three nations were acting “at the express request of Ukraine.” He added: “It also makes a certain internal logic that Britain, Germany and France are working closely together here; these are major European states, and they are also the ones contributing significantly to Ukraine’s military support.”
As for who would speak for the European Union, he said, “We will decide that when talks take place.”
Given Mr. Putin’s lack of interest, Europeans are engaged in wishful thinking, said Norbert Röttgen, a German legislator and security expert. “At some point Europe must be there, because European security is at stake and is no longer seen by Washington as a vital American interest,” he said.
“But for now,” Mr. Röttgen continued, “Putin sees an advantage in trying to divide the West and handle Europe through Washington.”
Others see a European approach to Russia as long overdue.The stakes are so high that Europe’s lack of direct channels to Russia since it invaded Ukraine in 2022 “is almost a criminal dereliction of duty,” said Mark Leonard, director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, a research institute.
Hans-Dieter Lucas, a former German diplomat who has served as ambassador to NATO, France and Italy, said that there were lessons from the multinational talks with Iran over the 2015 nuclear deal, which he helped to negotiate.
“We cannot be behind the curve as we were” in November 2025, when Mr. Trump and Mr. Witkoff came up with their initial 28-point “peace plan” with Moscow, he said. “The Europeans have cards, but we need to play them smartly.”
Still, Mr. Lucas said, “We will need very close cooperation and coordination with the United States — otherwise the Russians drive wedges between us.” And here, he added, “We are back to the fundamental question of Mr. Trump and the trans-Atlantic relationship.”
Jeanna Smialek contributed reporting from Brussels.
Steven Erlanger is the chief diplomatic correspondent in Europe and is based in Berlin. He has reported from over 120 countries, including Thailand, France, Israel, Germany and the former Soviet Union.
Michael_Novakhov shared this story
from Al Jazeera – Breaking News, World News and Video from Al Jazeera.
Ukraine has declared the successful end of an operation in which it recaptured 745 square kilometres (287 square miles) of its territory this year in its southern region of Dnipropetrovsk.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced on Wednesday that the campaign was carried out “exactly as it was determined” and said almost 10,000 Russian soldiers were killed in the process.
The counteroffensive deprived Russia of almost all the territory it had gained in Dnipropetrovsk since entering that region in June 2025, and pushed it back over the regional borders of Donetsk and Zaporizhia.
But this good news for Ukrainians was overshadowed by intensified Russian missile strikes against their cities, which remain increasingly defenceless after the exhaustion of Patriot interceptors.
Combined strikes of drones and ballistic or hypersonic missiles hit Kyiv on August 8 and 11, plunged Odesa in darkness on August 9, and struck the city of Zaporizhzhia on August 11, killing at least nine people across all strikes.
Ukraine pushing back on the ground
Zelenskyy said the Dnipropetrovsk operation alone had liberated 26 settlements.
The Institute for the Study of War, a Washington-based think tank that assesses territorial control using geolocated open-source information, conservatively assessed that Ukraine had clawed back at least 627sq km (242 square miles) in the area.
Smoke rises in the city during a Russian missile strike in Kyiv, Ukraine, on August 11, 2026 [Gleb Garanich/Reuters]
“This operation once again proved that the Ukrainian army is capable not only of steadfastly holding its defences, but also of launching offensives, seizing the initiative, and liberating Ukrainian land,” said former commander-in-chief Oleksandr Syrskii, who planned it.
The ISW assessed that across the front, Russia has suffered a net loss of 233sq km (90 square miles) this year.
This is despite concerted Russian offensives in the eastern Donetsk region, whose capture Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly prioritised.
Want to come back to this article? Save it for later.
Russian assaults in June and July have been launched out of Pokrovsk towards Dobropillia, and out of Chasiv Yar towards Kostiantynivka. In both areas, Russia has captured territory and infiltrated large areas beyond it, but this has come at a cost.
Russia suffered a reported 39,000 casualties in June and nearly 43,000 in July – its highest losses since January 2025.
One of the keys to Ukraine’s success on the battlefield has been its scaling up of short-range, first-person view (FPV) drone production, where it now fields 16 drones to every Russian 10. Such drones caused more than 70 percent of Russian casualties in June and July.
Ukraine’s success in disarming Russia of its own FPV drones has also been climbing.
Ukraine downed more than 40,000 Russian drones in July, almost one and a half times as many as it downed in May, Ukraine’s defence ministry said.
Russia goes ballistic
Russia has held command of the air throughout its war in Ukraine, unleashing glide bombs, long-range drones and missiles. It is now pressing that advantage by increasing ballistic and hypersonic missiles, deputy military intelligence chief Vadym Skibitskyi told the news service RBC Ukraine.
Ukraine has only been able to intercept these types of missiles with Patriot systems, but has now run out of interceptors because, said Zelenskyy, it has received almost three times fewer this year from its allies than it did in 2025.
Skibitskyi said Russia has stopped producing missiles Ukraine became adept at shooting down, and diverted components to build greater numbers of Iskander-M ballistic missiles and S-400 hypersonic missiles.
The latter were designed as a surface-to-air missile against enemy aircraft, but have been reprogrammed to follow steep ballistic trajectories and have proven as effective as the Iskanders.
This retooling is yielding results, said Skibitskyi, as Russian industry is beating production targets in most missile categories.
“In April there were 61 ballistic missiles, in May – 107, in June – 134,” he said. “If we talk about ballistic and hypersonic missiles … the enemy launched 198 of them in July. This is the highest figure this year.”
Russia currently produces more than 100 ballistic and hypersonic missiles a month, and may have dipped into stockpiles to launch 56 of these missiles at Ukraine in just the first week of August, but it plans to increase stockpiles for a massive winter campaign against Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, Skibitskyi said.
Last winter, Russia caused up to $70bn of damage to Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, and nearly succeeded in plunging Kyiv into darkness.
A Russian strike in Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine, on August 11, 2026 added to the war-torn nation’s woes [Reuters]
Russia may also be planning a massive strike on Kyiv before Ukraine’s Independence Day on August 24, said Ukraine’s Center for Strategic Communications.
Several Ukrainian sources said North Korea was sending a force with up to 120 ballistic missiles to Russia’s western region of Voronezh, adjacent to Ukraine, where barracks were being built for it.
In an interview with Serhiy Sternenko, former defence minister Mykhailo Fedorov said Ukraine’s best response to Russian ballistics was to rush its own successfully tested ballistic missile into production and engage in “counter-ballistic warfare”.
“The Russians must understand that a few minutes after the launch, the entire team that launches the missile must die from our ballistic missile,” Fedorov said.
Skibitskyi also said Russia was prioritising production of its jet-powered Geran 4 and Geran 5 drones, which are harder to intercept than slower-flying, piston-engine drones.
He said Russia was launching its own version of the Starlink satellite network, called Rassvet, ahead of schedule, with 16 satellites now up and a planned increase to 292 in 2027.
Russia suffered a setback when last February, Starlink disabled the terminals it was using to communicate on the battlefield and coordinate accurate counter-battery fire.
Ukraine’s long reach
Ukraine has destroyed almost a third of Russia’s refining capacity this year with its long-range drones. During the past week it struck four refineries, including Gazprom’s Neftekhim Salavat refinery in the Republic of Bashkortostan, 1,300km (810 miles) from Ukraine.
Ukraine has also pursued medium-range strikes on Russian military logistics and Russian oil tankers, starving the front line of weapons and fuel. During the past week, it brought to 218 the number of ships it has sunk or disabled, and destroyed six air defence systems.
Its most spectacular hit was on the Russian main Black Sea port of Novorossiysk on August 12, where it struck two frigates, a missile ship, a landing ship and a patrol ship. It also hit Russia’s Sheshkharis oil offloading terminal, part of a campaign to starve Russia of fossil fuel export revenue.
Zelenskyy called the operation “unique” because it was the first time Ukraine had coordinated 14 types of domestically built aerial and surface drones simultaneously.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The two most senior members of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, flew out of last month’s NATO summit in Turkey on what was effectively a decoy plane following an Iranian threat, while Trump was secretly moved to a smaller military jet, a senior U.S. official said Wednesday.
The official, who was briefed on the situation and spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive details of presidential travel, said Rubio was aware of the switch and details of the threat behind it but could or would not say why he had stayed on the plane. The official said Bessent was likely aware but did not know for sure.
Under the U.S. Constitution, the secretaries of State and Treasury follow the vice president and the highest ranking member of each chamber of Congress in the presidential line of succession.
Trump had flown to the annual gathering of NATO country leaders in Ankara, Turkey, in a new Qatari-gifted and retrofitted red, white and navy blue jet. But ahead of departing Turkey, he said he would fly partway home on an older-model baby blue Air Force One plane instead.
The president at the time said the new luxury jet was being flown out ahead of his departure from Ankara to give some U.S. troops based in eastern England a chance to check out the new Air Force One.
The Washington Post reported this week that Trump wasn’t on the old Air Force One on the return flight from Turkey and that he instead was smuggled onto another jet via a catering cart to avoid a possible Iranian assassination plot. The ruse was carried out as journalists and some White House staff members were led to believe they were on the same plane as the president as he began his journey back to Washington.
The New York Times and CBS News had reported last month that intelligence officials had raised concerns about a potential attack on the president or his jet, triggering additional precautions and the decision not to use the newly inaugurated aircraft gifted to Trump by Qatar for the first leg of Trump’s trip home from Ankara.
Trump acknowledged the transfer late Tuesday.
“It’s only up to the Secret Service. I just follow what they’d like to do, so I go by Secret Service and the military,” the president told reporters at Joint Base Andrews. “They wanted me to go on a different flight, a different plane, equal safety, but they wanted me to do it, so I do it, I do what they say.”
Sign up to receive the Early Edition in your inbox here.
A curated weekday guide to major news and developments over the last 24 hours. Here’s today’s news:
IRAN WAR
A senior Iranian source told Reuters that “one of the issues being discussed via mediators is the U.S. returning to the interim agreement [with Iran] and defining a time frame for implementing the commitments. The source added that “there has been absolutely no progress on this issue.” The source further dismissed a Turkish news report quoting Pakistani government sources saying they had agreed to extend the interim deal’s 60-day period. Parisa Hafezi and Elwely Elwelly report.
IRAN WAR – LEBANON
The Washington Post reports that the announcement in June of a preliminary peace deal between Israel and Lebanon has had little impact on daily life in southern Lebanon. According to residents, Israeli forces continue to restrict their movement, leaving many feeling trapped. “We are trapped in a prison,” Ayoub Khreish, mayor of Ain Ebel, said. “Even ambulances need permission to enter and leave.” Mohamad El Chamma reports.
Israel and Lebanon have agreed on Britain, Italy, Switzerland, and Indonesia as potential contributors to a proposed mechanism that could see foreign troops deployed to Lebanon to verify Hezbollah’s disarmament, sources said. Alexander Cornwell and Maya Gebeily report for Reuters.
IRAN WAR – OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
U.S. intelligence officials were skeptical of an Iranian assassination threat against President Trump that was relayed by Israel last month, and prompted Trump’s secret Air Force One swap, current and former U.S. officials told the Washington Post. CIA analysts did not view the Israeli intelligence as compelling and conveyed this to Trump administration officials, one source said. Another called the threats “Israeli-derived, not U.S.-generated, and viewed as low confidence.” The Secret Service, however, deemed a threat that Trump could be targeted by a shoulder-fired missile to be credible and imminent. A source declined to tell Reuters where the intelligence came from but said officials had little time to prepare and devised the plane swap plan at the last minute. Warren P. Strobel, John Hudson, and Dan Lamothe report; Steve Holland reports.
RUSSIA-UKRAINE WAR
A Ukrainian attack yesterday hit warships at a naval base and forced two major grain terminals in Russia’s Black Sea port city of Novorossiysk to halt operations, according to Russian and Ukrainian officials. The Ukrainian attacks killed at least two people, including an 8-year-old child, regional Governor Veniamin Kondratyev said. As Russia is the world’s largest wheat exporter, the strikes on the grain terminals raised fears of a disruption to global supplies. Chicago wheat futures rose around 3% yesterday after the attack on Novorossiysk. Reuters reports.
ISRAEL-HAMAS WAR
The Trump administration was initially “disappointed” that Israel responded to the 15-point peace plan by escalating attacks in Gaza earlier this month, but is pleased that it has since eased its assault, a U.S. official said. The official added that the administration is willing to give Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu some leeway on domestic messaging around the peace plan ahead of elections in Israel. But in turn, “they need to give us a little bit of space in terms of no targeted killings in order to allow us to try to get to the next phase,” the official said. Myah Ward and Megan Messerly report for POLITICO.
An Israeli drone strike yesterday hit a Hamas commander in northern Gaza, the Israeli military said, though it remains unclear if he was killed. It was the first targeted strike Israel has announced since Aug. 3. The Gaza Health Ministry has reported 45 people killed since Aug. 1. AP News reports.
WEST BANK VIOLENCE
Two Palestinian families have been trapped since Sunday inside their homes in the village of Qusra in the occupied West Bank by a group of Israeli settlers. Residents report that about 10 to 15 settlers have been attacking them consistently for days, throwing stones and an axe. Although Israeli soldiers arrived early Wednesday and used tear gas to disperse the attackers, they left within hours, and the settlers resumed their attacks, residents and army officials said. The Israeli army said last night that it was assigning an extra battalion to the West Bank to “strengthen order and operational control in the area.” David M. Halbfinger, Fatima AbdulKarim, and Natan Odenheimer report for the New York Times.
OTHER GLOBAL DEVELOPMENTS
The Taliban’s General Director of Intelligence detained two Afghan members of the U.N. political mission in Herat, Afghanistan on Sunday, a U.N. spokesman said yesterday. The spokesman added that the U.N. mission has not been informed of the charges against the two men or been able to visit them. Edith M. Lederer reports for AP News.
TECH DEVELOPMENTS
Taiwan detected AI-assisted cyberattacks on government agencies last month, but the affected bodies successfully handled the incident, the Taiwanese Ministry of Digital Affairs said today. The investigation results showed the attacks displayed clear characteristics of an “overseas source,” with hackers employing a hybrid approach that combined manual operations with AI agent-assisted attacks, such as Open Claw, it said. Ben Blanchard and Raphael Satter report for Reuters.
Before stepping down as Google DeepMind CEO, Demis Hassabis held discussions with government officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and leaders of other AI labs about forming a new independent AI safety entity, sources said. Hassabis has likened the proposed entity to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the nuclear watchdog. Robbie Whelan, Amrith Ramkumar, and Keach Hagey report for the Wall Street Journal.
Anthropic’s new models will add machine-readable “watermarks” to Claude-generated text and files to comply with new EU transparency regulations. Simon Hernandez-Arthur reports for Axios.
U.S. FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Ukrainian drone units easily spotted and defeated U.S. troops and armored vehicles during a military exercise in Germany earlier this year, sources told the Wall Street Journal. The exercise, held in April and May, tested visiting troops’ ability to operate and defend against the proliferation of smaller, front-line drones that have dominated the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Alistair MacDonald, Lara Seligman, and Daniel Michaels report.
“We do bad things to bad people,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told civilian defense leaders and generals at a meeting of a U.S.-led counter-cartel coalition in Panama yesterday, adding that the collective goal is “to degrade, dismantle, and destroy narco-terrorist networks.” Hegseth also raised the possibility of joint strikes on Colombian armed groups, as he welcomed Colombia into the coalition. Eric Schmitt and Annie Correal report for the New York Times; Phil Stewart reports for Reuters.
U.S. foreign-aid cuts have disrupted maternal and child-health programs in Nepal, already leading to increased pregnancy complications and deaths, according to government officials, aid workers, and families interviewed by AP News. Kristen Gelineau reports.
U.S. IMMIGRATION DEVELOPMENTS
The State Department announced this week that it has created a task force to crack down on “birth tourism,” reviewing visa holders worldwide and revoking visas of people involved. The department said more than 600 visas have already been revoked. Laura Kelly reports for The Hill.
ICE agent Adam Saracco pleaded guilty yesterday to misdemeanor battery after throwing immigration activist Robert Held to the ground and taking his phone during an altercation near Chicago in December. Madaleine Rubin reports for the New York Times.
A masked ICE agent in Virginia pointed a gun at Carolina Molina on Monday after accusing her of trying to run over agents with her car, but videos from the encounter appear to show her vehicle stationary and provide no evidence of an attempted attack.Madaleine Rubin reports for the New York Times.
U.S. DOMESTIC DEVELOPMENTS
Former Southern Property Law Center official Heidi Beirich was charged yesterday with fraud and conspiracy as part of a revised indictment accusing the group of cheating its donors by using their money to pay informants inside right-wing extremist organizations. “I believe she was part of the effort to open bank accounts in completely fictitious companies’ names and make payments to individuals for reasons that were not accurate as described,” Attorney General Todd Blanche said. Alan Feuer reports for the New York Times.
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS
Karoline Leavitt will be stepping down from her role as White House press secretary at the end of this month, Trump announced yesterday on social media, adding that Leavitt is leaving to spend more time with her family. Herb Scribner and Avery Lotz report for Axios.
The Trump administration plans to spend at least $900 million for construction projects on the White House grounds, according to records reviewed by the Washington Post, with more funding coming from taxpayers and money redirected from federal agencies, rather than through direct congressional appropriations. The Post reports that the administration has routed much of the funding through the relatively obscure White House maintenance account. Jonathan O’Connell and Sarah Blaskey report.
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION LITIGATION
The Trump administration again asked the Supreme Court yesterday to intervene to fully implement Trump’s executive order restricting the use of mail-in ballots ahead of the November midterm elections. Andrew Chung reports for Reuters.
The Intercept, a news organization, and the Freedom of the Press Foundation filed a lawsuit yesterday against Trump over his social media platform’s program that offers paid early access to his posts, after the scheme went live earlier this month. The plaintiffs argue that the $100,000-a-month program violates their First Amendment rights to access presidential statements “on equal terms with other members of the press and public.” Emilio Perez Ibarguen reports for POLITICO.
If you enjoy listening, Just Security’s analytic articles are also available in audio form on the <a href=”http://justsecurity.org” rel=”nofollow”>justsecurity.org</a> website.
ICYMI: Yesterday on Just Security
FEATURED IMAGE: WASHINGTON – JANUARY 23: Clouds move as the sun sets against the west front of the United States Capitol building January 23, 2007 in Washington, DC. U.S. President George W. Bush is scheduled to deliver his State of the Union speech before a joint meeting of Congress at 9:00 PM Eastern. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
President Trump speaks to reporters on the tarmac at Joint Base Andrews as White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt stands nearby.
Karoline Leavitt will be stepping down from her role as White House press secretary at the end of the month, President Trump announced Wednesday in a Truth Social post.
The big picture: Leavitt is leaving to spend more time with her family, the president said.A member of Trump’s team who followed him from his presidential campaign to the White House, she’s been a fiercely loyal face of the White House.
Driving the news: Trump said in the surprise post that Leavitt will become one of his top outside advisers and “an influential voice within the Republican Party” heading into the midterm elections.
Leavitt, 28, said in a post that being a mother and welcoming a new baby while serving as press secretary “has been the most rewarding yet challenging season of my life, to say the least.”
She continued, “The truth is since returning to the White House after the birth of my daughter, I have felt in my heart that I cannot be the best mom my two young children deserve while devoting the constant time, energy, and attention required of the White House Press Secretary.”
When reached for comment, the White House pointed to statements made by Leavitt and Trump.
Zoom in: Leavitt made headlines for being the youngest White House press secretary to hold the role.
She defended the White House through multiple controversies and the biggest stories of the president’s second term so far, including the Signalgate scandal, the release of the Epstein files and the Iran war.
Even in her statement announcing her departure, she took aim at Democrats that she said seek “to destroy everything great about America.”
Leavitt also backed the Trump administration’s tightening of press coverage, telling Axios last year that the administration wanted to expand access — opening the press corps to influencers and MAGA-friendly voices — and not limit it.
Context: The president directly chooses the White House press secretary, a position that does not require Senate confirmation.
Trump had four press secretaries during his first term.
Editor’s note: This story was updated throughout with additional information.
Michael_Novakhov shared this story
from Comments on: CIA Enters ‘Scale Phase’ of AI Adoption.
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is entering the scale phase of its artificial intelligence (AI) implementation and has hundreds of AI projects underway, Israel Soong, deputy director of the CIA’s Office of AI, said Tuesday.
After years of work, Soong said during a Federal News Network webinar that the agency has successfully rolled out an AI literacy program to thousands of officers, built a state-of-the-art model repository, deployed a chatbot, and partnered with four major cloud providers to bring frontier model capabilities to the agency.
In some cases, Soong said that the agency is able to make new models available to users within seven to 10 days after they are released.
“Over the past few years, we’ve made significant investments in foundational infrastructure to make AI broadly available across the CIA,” Soong said. “And right now, we’re kind of at an inflection point. Like, we’ve moved decisively beyond asking, ‘Should we adopt AI?’ to asking, ‘How do we operationalize it responsibly at scale?’”
“In other words, we successfully completed an additional adoption phase, and now we’re expanding the capabilities and trying to transform mission execution,” he added.
The next step for the agency is to continue to accelerate the adoption of AI while eliminating redundancies and prioritizing resource allocations, Soong said.
“Now what we need is strategic stewardship,” he explained. “Now we’re trying to work AI into our mission workflows, not just as experimental tools, but as reliable capabilities changing how our workforce operates daily.”
One way the CIA is doing that is by embedding large language models, retrieval-augmented generation techniques, and chatbot-style interfaces directly into analysts’ daily workflows, Soong said. The goal, he added, is to free officers from time-consuming data review and allow them to focus on more complex mission tasks.
“Already, we’re seeing significant benefits to CIA’s intelligence mission,” Soong said. “It’s not the AI or the cloud in isolation, but all the elements of the AI tech stack working together, … that integrated approach of the two stacks is key.”
In the future, Soong says that AI agents will also play a role in the CIA’s daily operations, picturing a world where there are “teams of CIA officers managing teams of AI agents.”
“There’s a potential for AI to assist analysis, but also identify blind spots for the analyst and generate novel hypotheses for them to consider when they write about their analysis. Also, we could have AI autonomously identify intelligence gaps and generate novel collection strategies,” Soong explained, adding that the CIA is aiming to have officers spend 80% of their time thinking critically about intelligence instead of collecting it.
“Imagine this in the future,” he said. “AI agents have already … triaged the overnight intelligence for you. They’ve highlighted the most relevant operational developments, and they’re also combining and collating the intelligence reporting for you to review as you drink your morning coffee.”
For now, Soong said the CIA’s next AI push centers on deploying smaller models and AI agents at the tactical edge so officers in remote or hostile environments can use AI with little or no connectivity.
Army Col. (Ret.) Jonathan Sweet (@JESweet2022) served 30 years as a military intelligence officer. His background includes tours of duty with the 101st Airborne Division and the Intelligence and Security Command. He led the U.S. European Command Intelligence Engagement Division from 2012-14.
Mark Toth (@MCTothSTL) writes on national security and foreign policy. Previously an economist and entrepreneur, he has worked in banking, insurance, publishing and global commerce. A former board member of the World Trade Center, St. Louis, he has lived in U.S. diplomatic and military communities around the world.
French Catholic philosopher Chantal Delsol, a member of France’s prestigious Académie des Sciences Morales et Politiques, is known for her searing accounts of totalitarian ideology and her penetrating works on modern European politics and culture that richly reward any reader who gives them close attention. Over the years, many of her books have been translated into English, including Icarus Fallen: Search for Meaning in an Uncertain World and The Unlearned Lessons of the Twentieth Century: An Essay on Late Modernity. Her latest work to be translated into English, Prosperity and Torment in France , is an analysis of the current state of affairs in French politics, economics, and cultural life that reveals key lessons for modern democracies around the world.
In particular, Delsol examines the seeming paradox of a wealthy France, whose people are unsatisfied with the current state of affairs despite the almost unrivaled free social services provided to its citizens. On one level, the book is a grim account of a nation that has become historically defined by various ideologies, turning even good ideas and political forms like republicanism into rigid concepts closed to further political development. In a style reminiscent of Tocqueville, Delsol considers how the French people are caught between the tremendous benefits provided by the government and their devotion to ideological abstractions like egalitarianism, individualism, and secularism.
“France,” Delsol declares, “is a country that is particularly smitten with ideologies. It prefers ideas to reality.” She remarks that “Marxism was so entrenched that it was necessary to wait until the fall of the Berlin Wall for it to fade away: only universal ridicule could put an end to it, but certainly not the lucidity of our brilliant brains.” Delsol describes how in a widespread appeal to a “farcical Marxism,” French domestic politics was dominated from 1972 into the early 1980s by the “Programme commun” or “Common Program,” signed into law by the French Socialist Party, the Communist Party and the Radical Party of the Left.
France’s national motto, “Liberté, égalité, fraternité,” originated during the Revolution of 1789. In this book, Delsol describes in withering detail how these ideological formulae have become closed and seemingly incapable of answering the severe challenges that confront France in the twenty-first century. France cannot afford to stand still or act as if these new controversies can be dismissed with the stand-pat answers that it has developed for decades, if not centuries.
The author also notes that “it is so good to live in France.” French citizens are “pampered by a welfare state the likes of which exists nowhere else.” Its citizens “do not pay for health care, or schooling.” France has some of the highest levels of welfare spending in the world, but also an economy with a high GDP and a significant level of economic redistribution. She observes that “French grief is incomprehensible in the face of the ‘fortune’ and the abundance that can be objectively verified. However, if a self-governing people orients itself politically by modern ideologies of egalitarianism or humanitarianism, it will be perpetually disappointed. [She concludes that] … this grief comes from a propensity to expect perfection here below—the habit of an ideologue.” The author anticipates that many will find her analysis “pessimistic.” Though she shares her belief that a nation with France’s history and longevity can reform itself, it cannot do so without “lucid diagnostics.”
French citizens now freely indulge in a technologically driven individualism, making it almost impossible to envisage the civic fraternity needed to make the republican ideal possible.
Delsol observes that France’s decline from being part of the leading cohort of nations to a mid-tier power has been difficult to endure. She also remarks that other values specific to “eternal” France are also fading. Delsol notes that the weight of its celebrated national education system now burdens the nation with its abundant mediocrity and declining performance. Delsol concludes that the suboptimal results are because of top-down control, and a purported ability to deliver free education at all levels with minimal cost consciousness guarantees. Yet, to critique it or to openly suggest that the stringent limits placed on private education should be lifted is to risk public censure. The social justice good that public schools supposedly serve endures in the national psyche, despite years of poor results. This, despite the angling and maneuvering by those with means to get into the best government schools or pull strings and gain admission to one of the few private school slots.
Likewise, the vaunted nature of the republican ideal in France also seems stilted, ideological even, in a country of tremendous individualism. France is starting to resemble other Western countries, and this has produced the impression that their national substance is being stolen from them. Less republican, egalitarian, and exceptional, what then will be left of France?
Delsol argues that republicanism requires generous actions, not ideological control over people. If citizens do not freely choose to place the country first, then forcing such actions smacks of authoritarianism. Yet French citizens now freely indulge in a technologically driven individualism, making it almost impossible to envisage the civic fraternity needed to make the republican ideal possible. No one, though, will admit to a reduced identification with republicanism. Delsol wonders why the former trappings of republicanism no longer captivate French hearts. She answers that republicanism as a government ideal has become ideologically corrupted.
Republicanism in France replaced the socialist ideal with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Until that moment, the national imagination was socialist, Delsol informs. Republicanism became something of a substitute for Marxism for leading intellectuals. This can be seen in how republicanism, which is always tied to a concrete place, a country, and for a specific people and their virtues, was reconceived as a humanitarian universalist program. Republicanism was for the world; thus, the spectacle of French youth, Delsol reports, rushing to various ports of entry to protest on behalf of migrants entering France. The French Republic must automatically accept them. But from socialist histrionics to republican humanitarianism are the “moments of great hope and moments of great bitterness.” France loves “the union of hearts in comparison with people’s freedom.” True, it seems, but the French nation in Delsol’s analysis suffers from a profound deficit of encountering reality on its truthful terms, choosing instead to attempt to fill reality with an exaggerated political longing.
Delsol argues that, in a period of individualism, the republican form must incorporate a “high degree of democracy.” The ideology of French republicanism is failing because it lauds an abstract sense of social justice and the common good at the expense of concrete local, religious, and even racial commitments; Delsol suggests that the solution is to extend citizens a greater freedom of choice than that currently offered by the French state. Only in this manner can the union of republicanism be open to a citizenry that no longer wants to ask the state for permission to engage in various commercial, educational, and consumer pursuits. However, another paradox emerges with this argument for greater individual liberty, and that is the French citizenry’s love for equality, which is necessarily threatened by perhaps allowing more options and choices in healthcare, schooling, work, and commerce. Can the French publicly admit that more substantial options are needed other than those provided by the government? The remedy itself is a threat to still cherished but hardly flourishing social settlements.
Delsol notes that France is a disciple of the sixteenth-century thinker Jean Bodin, who emphasized centralized sovereignty of the state as opposed to that of Bodin’s contemporary, German thinker, Johannes Althusius, of the same period, who articulated a federalism and subsidiarity thesis of actions by people in intermediate groups and associations. The French rationalistic conception of state control leads to remarkably different outcomes from the subsidiarity model, Delsol concludes. One of those outcomes is an isolating individualism that results from the existence of only two densities: man and the state. “Centralization increasingly produces the need for the state.”
The individual becomes less, losing agency and direction, requiring increasing assistance from the state. Such is the direction of French politics, Delsol articulates, which evolved dramatically in the age of the twentieth-century welfare state, whose existence continues unabated into the present day. The result is maternalistic government. Delsol argues that this path can be tied directly to the French Revolution, which consisted of a regicide and then a coalescence “around the symbol of Marianne, the mother of the republic.” The arts of association were never possible in post-revolutionary France, as associations and corporations were abolished, leaving individuals solitary and reduced to their own capacities. Delsol pointedly asks, “What else can the individual do, without the right to associate when acting?” Consequently, the citizens are reduced to the welfare state and begging a maternalistic government to meet every need. The citizens have an “infantile attitude” constantly demanding more resources from a state that is always giving and promising. The state as mother and the citizen as infant need one another.
Delsol states that such servility to the government undergirds the French preference for “equality to liberty: they prefer everyone to be dealt with in the same manner.” The republican ideal in France requires one standard for everyone to maintain a proper political union. In the face of declining quality of public services and mounting debt, most French citizens still want the state “to decide for everyone about minimum wages, working hours, school curricula, retirement age, and so on.” The French would prefer the unemployed to be equally cared for by the state on a large level rather than be thrust into competitive employment situations and risk inequality, or work in “little jobs.” Delsol’s damning observation entails that freedom and responsibility for one’s life are removed from any conception of citizenship.
Delsol notes that Macron isn’t engaging in democratic politics, which makes way for alternatives, but in a style that leads to “a war against all.”
Such egalitarianism extends even to philanthropy, where it is done quietly for fear of offending people with displays of financial inequality. State subsidies are the first-order method for helping various causes. This even extended to donations to repair Notre-Dame Cathedral after the 2019 fire, where the public turned against anyone “chasing after glory” by making significant donations. Again, state grants for such repairs were foremost in their minds. The Pinault family (owner of luxury goods, fashion houses, Christie’s auction house, travel companies, and vineyards, among many others) announced that it would not seek a tax deduction for its considerable gift to the repair of the Cathedral. One of the wealthiest families in France wanted to announce its equal status with everyone else.
Yet considerable threats continue to mount to the French political model. The left-right divide now faces both communist and reactionary populist elements that capitalize on the deep mistrust that exists in French society for the justice system, unions, corporations, Parliament, and the rich. A system built on corporatism at the expense of the human person’s freedom is now seen as corrupt and governing at the cost of the public. The left-populist elements offer more government services and programs, more statism. But the right-populist element proposes to make the French nation the center of its rule. One struggles to see either populist movement engaging in the economic, education, and welfare state reforms described by Delsol to raise the quality of services, increase choice, and spark growth.
The secularism of French life faces a challenge posed by the millions of Muslims who have been given entrance to the country and who report in polling data and behavior great loyalty to the Koran and a much lower level of belief in the French constitution. In a less emphatic vein, rising numbers of young French citizens, despite the pressures placed on them to abdicate their Catholic faith or at least keep it private, remain loyal to the church. While Catholicism is undoubtedly weak in French life, and this by dint of political atheism dominating the country for over a century, perhaps the laity are rebounding in their faith as they watch former national promises made come apart at the seams.
But the most dramatic pressure comes from the challenge to French humanitarian values that undergird the European Union project. The populist right counteroffer is home, a concrete place called France, which can’t be rearranged by migratory flows, climate change regulation, and a flattening of human life without any sense of history, loyalty, and love. French President Emmanuel Macron surely senses this when he refers to the National Rally party, formerly the National Front party, as the “enemy.” Delsol notes that Macron isn’t engaging in democratic politics, which makes way for alternatives, but in a style that leads to “a war against all.” But if the French economic and social model is under duress, if not on the brink of collapse, and its defenders refuse to change, then the next metamorphic change in political leadership in France will likely have to be won decisively.
The only question is if the populists have a program that can restore common sense by giving voice to French citizens who want their country’s sovereignty enforced and expanding freedom and virtue in a manner suitable to the restoration of the nation. The French nation, so heavily defined by an interwoven collection of ideologies, will have to become less. A nation of independent citizens, creatures, family members, and workers will have to become more.
HSToday.
. Or better yet, donate five dollars.▼
Al Jazeera – Breaking News, World News and Video from Al Jazeera.
Smoke rises in the city during a Russian missile strike in Kyiv, Ukraine, on August 11, 2026 [Gleb Garanich/Reuters]
A Russian strike in Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine, on August 11, 2026 added to the war-torn nation’s woes [Reuters]
(Al Jazeera)
Just Security.
Comments on: CIA Enters ‘Scale Phase’ of AI Adoption.
