Trump nominates Darryl Nirenberg as new US ambassador to Romania
The White House and State Department have yet to comment on the outcome of Romania's presidential election on Sunday, which was won by the centrist mayor of Bucharest, Nicusor Dan, who defeated a far-right candidate.
Nirenberg, a longtime Washington lawyer currently at Steptoe & Johnson law firm, was chief of staff for late Republican Senator Jesse Helms, a conservative who died in 2008, and was a counsel for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The nomination requires approval by the U.S. Senate, which is dominated by Trump's fellow Republicans.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
Photos from 'In Women's Words' exhibition that showcases modern Iranian women artists
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on an EU army: leadership and unity remain elusive
The Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, called for the creation of a European army earlier this year, suggesting that, this time, the continent might finally be serious. Defence budgets are rising. Threats are mounting. The US is distracted. Surely now is the moment. Except, of course, it isn't. For all the political soundbites that rattle sabres with increasing confidence, Europe is probably no closer to fielding a unified military force than it was when the French rejected the European Defence Community in 1954. The problem is not one of capacity. Europe, including the UK, collectively boasts about 1.5m active military personnel, and some of the world's most successful defence firms. The problem, as ever, is politics. Or more precisely: who leads? Germany, claiming a Zeitenwende (turning point), and asking the EU to exempt military investment from budget rules, might be the frontrunner. Poland is spending more as a share of GDP than anyone. The French would like to think they would be at the front of any queue. But their Gaullist, unilateral instincts run deep. Italy has industrial knowhow but lacks the economic heft. Post-Brexit, the UK is building bridges with the EU's military powers but it still sees itself as Nato's keystone. And the Baltic states? They want no European project that might scare off Washington. Even defining a European army is difficult. Would it be a single force under the EU flag, combining the 27 national armed forces of the EU members into one common force? Or something looser, to keep Irish and Austrian neutrality intact? Could it be a smaller European intervention force? Or a joint effort by regional groupings in a new hat? The short answer is no one can agree on anything but disagreement. Squabbling might not be the best response to an increasingly assertive, hawkish and unpredictable Russian giant. Moscow's full-scale invasion of Ukraine made territorial defence a pressing concern. Suddenly, Europe remembered why armies exist. Brussels pins its hopes of an industrial renaissance on a five-year rearmament plan that is meant to reduce reliance on US contractors. European firms like Rheinmetall and MBDA are scaling up, but the economies of scale found in the US military industrial complex elude the continent. Everyone wants to protect their local champion. No wonder the bloc has appointed a commissioner for defence whose role is about overseeing the companies making drones, shells and missiles – not the armed forces per se. A Gallup poll in 45 countries last year showed deep ambivalence toward war among Europeans. Four of the five least willing to fight were in the EU – including Spain, Germany, and Italy, where only 14% said they'd take up arms. Even in frontline states like Poland and Lithuania, fewer than half were willing to fight. This pacifist mood reflects an EU integration designed to make war between member states unthinkable. The irony is that the European army is seen as a symbol of independence from the US – while quietly relying on American satellites, command structures and munitions. Many European countries have upped defence spending, but they are not ready to go it alone. An integrated force would demand pooled sovereignty, unified command and a level of political consensus that don't currently exist. That may change. But for now, Europe continues to depend on Washington's capricious leadership – even as it dreams of 'strategic autonomy'.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Like Clement Attlee, Keir Starmer must rise to the occasion
Martin Kettle rightly says Aneurin Bevan is the one politician other than Clement Attlee whom Labour leaders regularly invoke (Critics say Starmer is no Attlee – and they're right. Labour must look to the future, not the past, 31 July). Keir Starmer has drawn on Harold Wilson for inspiration, but more pertinent to Kettle's argument is David Lammy claiming a role model in Ernest Bevin. Made minister of labour in 1940 and foreign secretary in 1945, Ernie Bevin dominated the decade. Bevin sought a continued US military presence in Europe but had no illusions about the 'special relationship'. The 1956 Suez crisis was a calamitous reality check, confirming the White House's prioritising of US self-interest above any presumed obligation to an ally, however close. Larry Elliott's pessimism over Trump's trade deal with Europe is understandable (This trade deal is the EU's Suez moment – its subservience to Trump is on show for all to see, 31 July), but the EU can take heart from how France responded to the United States torpedoing its joint effort with the UK to regain control of the Suez canal: a renewed commitment to pan-European economic collaboration saw the swift confirmation of a six-nation common market, and a determination that French foreign policy would never again be subject to transatlantic pressure saw the Fourth and then the Fifth Republic develop its own advanced weaponry, both conventional and nuclear. Had Attlee, not Eden, been prime minister in 1956, we can be certain that he would never have sanctioned collusion with France and Israel to invade Egypt, and then repeatedly denied having done so. Attlee's greatest quality wasn't succinctness – it was SmithEmeritus professor of modern history, University of Southampton I do not feel Martin Kettle is entirely fair or correct to say that Clement Attlee, on becoming prime minister, 'pulled Britain out of India as fast as he could'. Attlee had been closely involved in India for more than 20 years, going back to the Simon commission, which had been established in 1927, specifically to consider the possibility of Indian independence and self-rule. As an MP and a member of the commission, Attlee visited India several times before the war (no mean feat in those days), understood the issues and knew the leaders of the political parties and factions. He did not underestimate the problems that independence might bring (although certainly not the violence and bloodshed), noting that partition would 'necessarily leave minorities in both states' but emphasising that his Labour government was 'in earnest in seeking to implement the promises made by Britain'. Eighty years on, another Labour prime minister now faces similar challenges over Palestine. I am sure Keir Starmer, like his distinguished predecessor, will rise to the EvansFormer chair of the south Asia delegation, European parliament Martin Kettle's interesting article on Clement Attlee referred to his wife driving him to Buckingham Palace to meet King George VI on his historic 1945 victory over Churchill. Mrs Attlee was apparently a notoriously bad driver. My late father told me Mrs Attlee once collided with his car when driving the prime minister on a foggy night in London. Fortunately, no one was ArnfieldVancouver, Canada Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
