Latest news with #AmericaFirst
Korea Herald
2 hours ago
- Business
- Korea Herald
Hegseth urges Asian allies to boost defense spending, do 'their part' in face of 'real' China threats
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called Saturday for Asian allies to increase their defense spending and do their part as "force multipliers," as he portrayed China's evolving threats as "real" and potentially "imminent," and warned against economic "entanglement" with the Asian superpower. Speaking at the Shangri-La Dialogue, an annual defense forum in Singapore, Hegseth also reassured allies and partners of America's commitment to the Indo-Pacific and vowed to increase the United States' focus on the region "if allies share the burden." His remarks came amid lingering concerns that President Donald Trump's America First policy might lead to a scaling back of the US' costly overseas security engagements in the midst of increasingly complicated challenges from China, North Korea, Russia and others. "It is hard to believe a little bit, after some trips to Europe that I am saying this, but thanks to President Trump, Asian allies should look to countries in Europe as a newfound example. NATO members are pledging to spend 5 percent of their GDP on defense, even Germany," he said. GDP is short for gross domestic product. "It doesn't make sense for countries in Europe to do that, while key allies and partners in Asia spend less on defense in the face of an even more formidable threat, not to mention North Korea." His remarks appeared to mark a subtle shift from the Trump administration's focus on some members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) that the president once called "delinquent." Hegseth stressed that defense spending should reflect "the dangers and threats we face today." "Deterrence does not come cheap," he said. "Time is of the essence. We must step up and move out with urgency." Speculation has persisted that the Trump administration might call for a rise in South Korea's share of the cost for stationing the 28,500-strong US Forces Korea. Trump has said that America was not sufficiently "reimbursed" for what he called its "big-time" military protection of the Asian ally. Hegseth highlighted the need for US allies to do their part to help counter Chinese threats. "We ask -- indeed, we insist -- that our allies and partners do their part on defense. Sometimes, that means having uncomfortable and tough conversations. Partners owe it to each other to be honest and realistic ... This is the essence of a pragmatic, common-sense defense policy," Hegseth said. "But you will also see that we are -- and will remain -- loyal to our allies and partners ... In fact, the only way to ensure lasting alliances and partnerships is to make sure each side does its part and see the benefit." Moreover, he said that an alliance cannot be "ironclad" if "in reality or perception," it is seen as one-sided." The secretary reiterated that "America First" does not mean "America alone," as he requested that US allies and partners work as "force multipliers" alongside the US in the midst of shared threats. "We will stand with you and work alongside you to deter Chinese aggression. And we will do so in a rational and pragmatic manner," he said. "Each day, together, creating more and more dilemmas and complications, should they decide to overturn the status quo." He went on to say that no one should doubt America's commitment to its Indo-Pacific allies and partners. "We will continue to wrap our arms around our friends and find new ways to work together -- not only our treaty allies here, but also our key defense partners in ASEAN and across the Indo-Pacific," he said. ASEAN stands for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Excoriating China's assertive behavior in the region, the secretary cautioned against the perils of economic reliance on the Asian power. "We know that many countries are tempted by the idea of seeking both economic cooperation with China and defense cooperation with the United States ... But beware the leverage the CCP seeks with that entanglement," Hegseth said. CCP is short for the Chinese Communist Party. "Economic dependence on China only deepens their malign influence and complicates our decision space during times of tension or conflict." He strongly castigated China's threats against Taiwan and in the South China Sea. "China seeks to become the hegemonic power in Asia. No doubt it hopes to dominate and control too many parts of this vibrant and vital region," he said. "Through its massive military build-up and growing willingness to use military force to achieve its goals, including gray zone tactics in hybrid warfare, China has demonstrated that it wants to fundamentally alter the region's status quo." China's behavior towards its neighbors and the world is a "wake-up" call, he noted, calling attention to Chinese President Xi Jinping's order for his military to be capable of invading Taiwan by 2027. "To be clear, any attempt by Communist China to conquer Taiwan would result in devastating consequences for the Indo-Pacific and the world," he said. "There is a no reason to sugarcoat it. The threat China poses is real. And it could be imminent. We hope not." However, he pointed out that Washington does not seek conflict with its Asian competitor. "The U.S, especially under President Trump, does not seek war. We do not seek to dominate or strangle China ... We do not seek regime change," he said. "Instead, we seek peace. But we must ensure that China cannot dominate us -- or our allies and partners. Maintaining the status quo requires strength. That's just a rational, common sense goal that we should all be able to live with." In another stern message to China that he views as seeking regional dominance, Hegseth underlined that America will continue to stay as an Indo-Pacific nation. "Here in the Indo-Pacific, our futures are bound together. The prosperity and security of the American people are linked to those of your people," he said. "We share your vision of peace and stability, and of prosperity and security, and we are here to stay." (Yonhap)
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- General
- Yahoo
What to Know as Supreme Court Lets Trump End Migrant Program
Venezuelan migrants deported from the United States deplane at the Simon Bolivar International Airport in Maiquetia, Venezuela, Friday, May 2, 2025. Credit - Ariana Cubillos—AP Photo Hundreds of thousands of migrants could be at risk of deportation after a divided Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Trump Administration can—for now—end a Biden-era program that extended humanitarian parole protections to migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The CHNV special-parole program allowed migrants from the four countries to travel legally to the U.S. and stay and work in the country for up to two years. It was used by at least 530,000 migrants since late 2022. The Supreme Court's ruling, the latest of several decisions the court has issued green-lighting the Trump Administration's aggressive approach to immigration, gives Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem the discretion to revoke the parole program while legal challenges to its termination move through the courts. '[The Biden Administration] allowed more than half a million poorly vetted aliens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela and their immediate family members to enter the United States through these disastrous parole programs; granted them opportunities to compete for American jobs and undercut American workers,' Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said after the ruling came down. 'Ending the CHNV parole programs, as well as the paroles of those who exploited it, will be a necessary return to common-sense policies, a return to public safety, and a return to America First.' Several immigration advocacy groups said the decision will have 'devastating consequences' on immigrant communities. 'This is a deeply tragic decision that penalizes half a million people for complying with our immigration laws,' Todd Schulte, president of an immigration and criminal justice reform advocacy organization, wrote in a statement emailed to TIME. 'This decision will have devastating and immediate consequences…The government failed to show any harm remotely comparable to that which will come from half a million people losing their jobs and becoming subject to deportation.' Here's what to know about the program and the Supreme Court's decision. The program, rolled out during the Biden Administration, allowed migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to obtain authorization to come to the United States legally, as well as to stay and work legally in the country and seek humanitarian relief or other immigration benefits, if they were eligible, during a two-year parole period. It was initially adopted in 2022 as a response to high levels of illegal immigration, specifically for Venezuelan immigrants, says David Beir, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute. The program was predated by a similar program created in early 2022 for Ukrainian immigrants in response to the surge of Ukrainians who came to the border seeking asylum after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The program required migrants from Venezuela to obtain a sponsor in the United States who would be willing to take some measure of financial responsibility for them, as well as an airline ticket to fly directly, and legally, to the United States. The Biden Administration rolled out the program in hopes that it would give the government control to vet incoming migrants and manage the flow of arrivals through air travel, rather than across the southern U.S. border, Beir wrote in 2023. Eligibility for the protections was later extended to people from Cuba, Nicaragua, and Haiti, as well. The Supreme Court's Friday decision overruled a lower court in Massachusetts that temporarily blocked the federal government from implementing Noem's March 25 order to revoke the legal status given to migrants under the program. That order was in line with President Donald Trump's Jan. 20 Executive Order 'Securing Our Borders,' which instructed Noem to 'terminate all categorical parole programs that are contrary to the policies of the United States established in my Executive Orders.' The Supreme Court ruling will allow the Administration to end the program while the case proceeds. The decision was unsigned and not accompanied by an explanation. Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson issued an incensed dissent, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, stating that the court 'has plainly botched this assessment today.' The program had been widely lauded by immigrant rights groups as a 'humanitarian relief' program utilized to help those in unstable conditions in their own countries seek refuge. 'Even within an immigration system that is decades overdue for a Congressional overhaul, the CHNV parole processes stood out as an innovative model for creating legal and orderly pathways,' wrote Schulte, of 'Granting parole to people fleeing harm dramatically reduced unauthorized migration to the southern border, and it allowed people to work and contribute, bringing greater stability to families, employers, and communities across the country.' Beir, of the Cato Institute, said that terminating the program could quickly end the legal status of migrants who have been protected under the program. 'The administration's already empowered its agents to arrest people who are on parole, to arrest people who are applicants for asylum,' Beir told TIME. 'The practical upshot is that a lot of these people had parole for two years, and if they haven't applied for asylum, then there's really no basis for them to be in the country, and they start accumulating unlawful presence as soon as this decision takes effect.' According to Beir, it is unclear how many migrants will be affected and potentially deported due to the ruling. 'Certainly half a million came in through the program,' Beir said. 'But then, a lot of these people were from Haiti and Venezuela, have temporary protected status, which you know the administration is eventually going to revoke as well. And then, of course, the backstop of being an asylum applicant for many people will be another way for them to be able to keep working legally and, you know, going through the process and stay here.' Beir says an important aspect of this decision that must be highlighted is that the migrants who used the program went through legal pathways to enter the United States—pathways opened based on promises made by the United States government when the program began: 'They pay for their own flights. They travel on airlines like any other visitors to the United States and the other you know, part of this is really completely unprecedented for an administration to en masse terminate the status of people who've come to the United States legally like this.' Contact us at letters@
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
5 Things Elon Musk Can Tell His Manager He Accomplished As A Federal Employee
Elon Musk — world's richest man, major government contractor, top donor and adviser to the president of the United States and guy who pays to cheat at video games — ended his tenure as a special government employee on Friday with a cheerful goodbye and thank-you from President Donald Trump. Asked by a reporter Friday if his time in government was worth it and what he would have done differently, Musk, sporting a bruise over his right eye, complained his 'Department of Government Efficiency' had become a 'bogeyman' and seemed to concede defeat to the federal bureaucracy. 'There are many things that occur in the government because it's, it's the banal evil of bureaucracy. It's sort of the frankly, largely, largely uncaring nature of bureaucracy,' he said. So was it worth it? 'I think it was an important thing,' Musk said. 'I think it was a necessary thing and I think it will have a good effect in future.' One of Musk's key early initiatives was a requirement for all federal government employees to send emails to their bosses outlining five things they accomplished the week prior. Musk originally threatened to fire any employee who didn't send such an email, but later backed down. Workers at the Social Security Administration are still sending the emails as of this week, while the Department of Defense asked employees for their final submissions this week as well. In honor of Musk's departure, HuffPost has compiled a list of five things Musk could point to as accomplishments in a sign-off email to Trump. In a February appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference, the president of Argentina, who is a darling of right-wingers, handed Elon Musk a power tool and, in so doing, created the indelible image of the Musk era of Trump's second term. 'This is the chainsaw for bureaucracy,' Musk said as he waved the chainsaw around, posing for the photographs that would be used for hundreds of news stories about his efforts to cut federal agencies. The chainsaw at once symbolized Musk's power and his recklessness. Musk and his team had already pushed federal agencies to fire thousands of employees and halt grants, causing courts to jump in and order the money unfrozen, but not before nonprofits that oversee things like Meals on Wheels and heating assistance warned their services were imperiled. Courts ordered federal agencies to rehire workers, only for the Supreme Court to put the rehiring on hold while the case moves through lower courts. On Friday, a reporter asked Musk about the bruise on his face. He said his 5-year-old son did it. 'I said, 'Go ahead, punch me in the face,' and he did,' Musk said. Musk's signature achievement as head of DOGE was the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development, the part of government most contrary to Trump's notions of 'America First.' Musk bragged he put the agency 'into the wood chipper.' (This was before he'd been given the chainsaw.) The decapitation of the agency resulted in the cutoff of lifesaving aid to people, including children, in poorer countries around the world. A Boston University professor estimates more than 300,000 people, two-thirds of them children, have already died in the four months since the cuts were implemented. Musk took big swings against federal agencies and picked some questionable targets, including the Social Security Administration, purveyor of monthly benefits to more than 70 million Americans. He falsely claimed Social Security was full of fraud and championed cuts to services Democrats used to portray Musk as the biggest villain of Trump's government. 'What we found was happening was that if there were any cuts anywhere, people would assume that was done by DOGE,' Musk said Friday. 'And so we became, essentially, the DOGE bogeyman, where any cut, anywhere, would be ascribed to DOGE.' Musk's approval rating tanked, sinking lower than the president's, and so did the stock performance of his electric car company, Tesla. He mused last week that he might have spent too much of his time on politics. On Friday, Trump vouched for his top campaign funder and efficiency czar. 'He's done a lot of things,' Trump said. 'Frankly, I don't think he gets credit for what he's done. He's a very good person. He happens to be a really good person who loves the country.' Musk claimed during the campaign that he could easily save the federal government $2 trillion out of its nearly $7 trillion annual budget simply by rooting out fraud and waste. After Trump won, Musk scaled his ambition down to $1 trillion in savings. On Friday, Musk conceded that DOGE had come up with only $160 billion in savings, though the estimates posted on the DOGE website have frequently proven unreliable. 'I'm confident that, over time, we'll see a trillion dollars of savings,' Musk said Friday. Much of what generated public opposition to DOGE was the agency's seemingly relentless quest for more data. For privacy reasons, government data is often siloed off, with access restricted only to key decision makers at different agencies. DOGE pushed aside agency heads and cybersecurity professionals to get previously protected data from the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Social Security Administration. Why? According to published reports, it was to build a master database to speed up immigration enforcement and make it easier for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to find local undocumented immigrants and deport them. The database would be key to achieving Trump and top White House adviser Stephen Miller's goals of 'mass deportation' at a time when ICE is reportedly not meeting its deportation goals. Elon Musk Explains Why He Has A Black Eye Tim Walz's 6-Word Response To Elon Musk's Government Exit Is Hilariously Accurate Elon Musk Is Leaving The Trump Administration After Criticizing 'Big Beautiful Bill'
Time Magazine
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Time Magazine
What to Know About the Biden-Era Migrant Program the Supreme Court Just Let Trump End
Hundreds of thousands of migrants could be at risk of deportation after a divided Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Trump Administration can—for now—end a Biden-era program that extended humanitarian parole protections to migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The CHNV special-parole program allowed migrants from the four countries to travel legally to the U.S. and stay and work in the country for up to two years. It was used by at least 530,000 migrants since late 2022. The Supreme Court's ruling, the latest of several decisions the court has issued green-lighting the Trump Administration's aggressive approach to immigration, gives Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem the discretion to revoke the parole program while legal challenges to its termination move through the courts. '[The Biden Administration] allowed more than half a million poorly vetted aliens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela and their immediate family members to enter the United States through these disastrous parole programs; granted them opportunities to compete for American jobs and undercut American workers,' Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said after the ruling came down. 'Ending the CHNV parole programs, as well as the paroles of those who exploited it, will be a necessary return to common-sense policies, a return to public safety, and a return to America First.' Several immigration advocacy groups said the decision will have 'devastating consequences' on immigrant communities. 'This is a deeply tragic decision that penalizes half a million people for complying with our immigration laws,' Todd Schulte, president of an immigration and criminal justice reform advocacy organization, wrote in a statement emailed to TIME. 'This decision will have devastating and immediate consequences…The government failed to show any harm remotely comparable to that which will come from half a million people losing their jobs and becoming subject to deportation.' Here's what to know about the program and the Supreme Court's decision. What is the CHNV program? The program, rolled out during the Biden Administration, allowed migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to obtain authorization to come to the United States legally, as well as to stay and work legally in the country and seek humanitarian relief or other immigration benefits, if they were eligible, during a two-year parole period. It was initially adopted in 2022 as a response to high levels of illegal immigration, specifically for Venezuelan immigrants, says David Beir, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute. The program was predated by a similar program created in early 2022 for Ukrainian immigrants in response to the surge of Ukrainians who came to the border seeking asylum after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The program required migrants from Venezuela to obtain a sponsor in the United States who would be willing to take some measure of financial responsibility for them, as well as an airline ticket to fly directly, and legally, to the United States. The Biden Administration rolled out the program in hopes that it would give the government control to vet incoming migrants and manage the flow of arrivals through air travel, rather than across the southern U.S. border, Beir wrote in 2023. Eligibility for the protections was later extended to people from Cuba, Nicaragua, and Haiti, as well. What did the Supreme Court rule? The Supreme Court's Friday decision overruled a lower court in Massachusetts that temporarily blocked the federal government from implementing Noem's March 25 order to revoke the legal status given to migrants under the program. That order was in line with President Donald Trump's Jan. 20 Executive Order 'Securing Our Borders,' which instructed Noem to 'terminate all categorical parole programs that are contrary to the policies of the United States established in my Executive Orders.' The Supreme Court ruling will allow the Administration to end the program while the case proceeds. The decision was unsigned and not accompanied by an explanation. Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson issued an incensed dissent, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, stating that the court 'has plainly botched this assessment today.' What will the impact of the ruling be? The program had been widely lauded by immigrant rights groups as a 'humanitarian relief' program utilized to help those in unstable conditions in their own countries seek refuge. 'Even within an immigration system that is decades overdue for a Congressional overhaul, the CHNV parole processes stood out as an innovative model for creating legal and orderly pathways,' wrote Schulte, of 'Granting parole to people fleeing harm dramatically reduced unauthorized migration to the southern border, and it allowed people to work and contribute, bringing greater stability to families, employers, and communities across the country.' Beir, of the Cato Institute, said that terminating the program could quickly end the legal status of migrants who have been protected under the program. 'The administration's already empowered its agents to arrest people who are on parole, to arrest people who are applicants for asylum,' Beir told TIME. 'The practical upshot is that a lot of these people had parole for two years, and if they haven't applied for asylum, then there's really no basis for them to be in the country, and they start accumulating unlawful presence as soon as this decision takes effect.' According to Beir, it is unclear how many migrants will be affected and potentially deported due to the ruling. 'Certainly half a million came in through the program,' Beir said. 'But then, a lot of these people were from Haiti and Venezuela, have temporary protected status, which you know the administration is eventually going to revoke as well. And then, of course, the backstop of being an asylum applicant for many people will be another way for them to be able to keep working legally and, you know, going through the process and stay here.' Beir says an important aspect of this decision that must be highlighted is that the migrants who used the program went through legal pathways to enter the United States—pathways opened based on promises made by the United States government when the program began: 'They pay for their own flights. They travel on airlines like any other visitors to the United States and the other you know, part of this is really completely unprecedented for an administration to en masse terminate the status of people who've come to the United States legally like this.'
Politico
9 hours ago
- Politics
- Politico
Israel feels fallout of Trump's ceasefire with Houthis
With help from Maggie Miller, Paul McLeary, Joe Gould and Daniel Lippman Subscribe here | Email Robbie | Email Eric President DONALD TRUMP's ceasefire with the Houthi militant group in Yemen appears to be holding. But that hasn't stopped the Houthis from continually lobbing missiles at Israel, the United States' most important Middle East ally. The Houthis late Thursday night launched another ballistic missile at Israel — which Israeli air defenses successfully intercepted — marking the Houthis' sixth attempted attack in a week. It came days after Israel carried out its own airstrike against Houthi territory in Yemen. The attacks show how the Houthis are emerging as one of the most resilient Iran-backed militant groups in the region following a prolonged conflict that has seen Israel destroy a large part of Hamas and Hezbollah's military power. But the ongoing Houthi attacks also lay bare how Israel was left out of Trump's ceasefire deal with the Yemeni militants — a fact that could put the staunchly pro-Israel administration under new pressure to respond if the Houthi attacks escalate. 'Israel is not immune to America First foreign policy,' a former Trump administration official who worked on Middle East issues told NatSec Daily. 'And this was an America First negotiation.' Some pro-Israel groups have bridled at the Trump administration's decision to strike a deal with the Houthis that didn't include conditions on halting attacks on Israel. Leaving Israel out 'suggests there's daylight or divergence between the United States and Israel, which is always something Iran seeks to exploit,' said BLAISE MISZTAL of the Jewish Institute for National Security, a nonprofit advocacy group. But administration insiders, including the former official and one current official who we granted anonymity to speak candidly about internal deliberations, defended the Trump administration's decision. They argued that the Houthis would never halt attacks on Israel and that the administration simply took the least bad option it had available: Stop expending significant military resources and high-end munitions on a fight that had no end in sight. And, these people argued to us, the administration will use its resources better by focusing on tackling the root causes of the Houthi attacks. That includes a final ceasefire in Gaza and a deal with Iran, the Houthis' prime military backers, over its nuclear program. The Houthis have justified their attacks against Israel as a response to Israel's ongoing military offensive in Gaza. The militant group halted its missile attacks briefly during an Israel-Hamas ceasefire in January, then launched them again in March when Israel resumed its Gaza operations. 'The Houthis will continue these attacks to establish their jihadi street cred and axis of resistance street cred against Israel,' said the former Trump administration official. 'Everyone has tried to take on the Houthis militarily for a decade. And everyone has failed.' Spokespeople for the National Security Council and Israeli embassy in Washington didn't respond to NatSec Daily's request for comment. Still, the ongoing attacks may only serve to embolden the Houthis and bring them new resources, recruits and military prestige if left unchecked, other analysts warned. 'From a Houthi perspective, they're demonstrating not only 'You can go toe to toe with the United States and emerge,' but 'You can continue taking potshots at the most powerful military force in the Middle East and still be standing,'' said JON ALTERMAN of the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank. That, he argued, 'gives them tremendous credibility.' The Inbox HARVARD'S NEW VISA VETTING: The State Department unveiled new guidance for vetting visa applications of students, faculty members, staff and visiting speakers at Harvard University for online expressions of antisemitism, our own Nahal Toosi and Eric scooped. Per the cable issued Thursday and signed by Secretary of State MARCO RUBIO, consular officers should 'conduct a complete screening of the online presence of any nonimmigrant visa applicant seeking to travel to Harvard University for any purpose.' This goes beyond existing protocols, which primarily involved screening returning students who may have participated in pro-Gaza campus protests. And having no social media, or having accounts set to private, may cause applications to be rejected, as the cable tells consular officers to weigh those factors when evaluating an applicant's credibility. The policy is being described as a 'pilot' that could be expanded to visa applicants associated with other colleges and universities. NATO EXPANSION CONSENSUS? Russia is celebrating the Trump administration's public agreement that Ukraine shouldn't join NATO any time soon. U.S. special envoy to Ukraine KEITH KELLOGG said Thursday that Russia's worries about NATO's eastern expansion are 'a fair concern' and that 'Ukraine coming into NATO is not on the table.' It's the first public statement that Ukraine's NATO membership is truly a nonstarter amid negotiations to end Russia's invasion. The Kremlin embraced those comments today, per our European colleague Yurii Stasiuk. 'We are glad that these explanations of the president find their understanding, including in Washington,' Kremlin spokesperson DMITRY PESKOV said. That consensus indicates that the U.S. and Russia could write into any deal to end the war in Ukraine that Kyiv won't be admitted formally into the alliance. MACRON'S WARNINGS: French President EMMANUEL MACRON offered a warning to China at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore today: The future of NATO in Asia rests on China's ability to keep North Korea out of the war in Ukraine. Per our European colleague Laura Kayali, Macron said that 'North Korea in Ukraine is a big question for all of us. If China doesn't want NATO to be involved in Southeast Asia, it should prevent [North Korea] from being engaged on European soil.' It's a remarkable about-face for the French leader, who helped block previous efforts by NATO to expand its presence in Asia by creating a liaison office in Japan. 'I had objected to NATO having a role in Asia because I don't believe in being enrolled in someone else's strategic rivalry,' Macron said, hinting that Paris could change its stance. The comments highlight Europe's deep vexation with the growing Russia-North Korea partnership in Ukraine, which has seen Pyongyang offer Russia troops and ammunition for its three-year invasion of Ukraine in exchange for cutting edge defense technology. China, which has traditionally served as the main power with influence over the mercurial government in Pyongyang, has chafed at the growing ties between its two allies, but has done little to rein in North Korea. DRINKS WITH NATSEC DAILY: At the end of every long, hard week, we like to highlight how a prominent member of the national security scene prefers to unwind with a drink. Today, we're featuring KURT VOLKER, who served as Trump's envoy for Ukraine in his first administration and U.S. ambassador to NATO during the GEORGE W. BUSH administration. As a longtime Europe policy hand, it's perhaps no surprise that Volker's drink of choice involves European grapes: Tsolikouri, a dry white wine from the western region of Georgia in the South Caucasus. Volker said he first tried Georgian wine in 2005, when he was a member of then-President Bush's delegation visiting the country. 'It was wonderful. I've had Georgian wine from that time,' he said. (The rest of the trip after that, though, not so much: A Georgian man attempted to assassinate Bush later in the trip by throwing a grenade at him during a speech, but fortunately the grenade failed to detonate.) Another factor that may explain Volker's fondness for these dry white wines: Volker's wife, former Voice of America journalist IA MEURMISHVILI, has a vineyard in Georgia that produces wines including Tsolikouris. Maybe NatSec Daily should look at buying a vineyard to really upgrade the Drinks with NatSec Daily experience… But until then, cheers to you, Kurt! IT'S FRIDAY! WELCOME TO THE WEEKEND: Thanks for tuning in to NatSec Daily! This space is reserved for the top U.S. and foreign officials, the lawmakers, the lobbyists, the experts and the people like you who care about how the natsec sausage gets made. Aim your tips and comments at rgramer@ and ebazail@ and follow Robbie and Eric on X @RobbieGramer and @ebazaileimil. While you're at it, follow the rest of POLITICO's global security team on X and Bluesky: @dave_brown24, @HeidiVogt, @jessicameyers, @RosiePerper, @ @PhelimKine, @ak_mack, @felschwartz, @connorobrienNH, @paulmcleary, @reporterjoe, @JackDetsch, @samuelskove, @magmill95, @johnnysaks130 and @delizanickel Keystrokes BRING IT BACK: A group of Senate Democrats is urging Homeland Security Secretary KRISTI NOEM to reinstate a key federal advisory board tasked with investigating major cyber incidents, with the senators citing national security concerns, our own Maggie Miller writes in. Members of the Cyber Safety Review Board were dismissed during the first week of the Trump administration as part of an overhaul of DHS federal advisory boards, right as the CSRB was beginning to investigate the hack of U.S. telecommunications last year by Chinese government hacking group Salt Typhoon. Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chair MARK WARNER (D-Va.), along with Sens. RON WYDEN (D-Ore.), RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-Conn.) and ELISSA SLOTKIN (D-Mich.) sent a letter to Noem today outlining their concerns with closing the CSRB, in particular the interruption of the Salt Typhoon investigation. 'The January dismissal of CSRB members, and continued uncertainty about the future role of the board, has undermined cyber defense preparations for public and private entities across the United States,' the senators wrote. A spokesperson for DHS did not immediately respond to NatSec Daily's request for comment. The Complex WAITING ON HEGSETH: Friday was a busy day for Defense Secretary PETE HEGSETH, as he worked through his first Shangri-La Dialogue meeting in Singapore, our own Paul McLeary and Joe Gould write in. His meetings with allies presaged his highly anticipated Saturday keynote speech at the cornerstone annual event for nations to talk though security issues in the Indo-Pacific region. Hegseth's remarks are expected to be a major statement on the Trump administration's still undefined security policy in the region. 'This is a really important speech, and the main reason for that is we don't know nearly as much as we would like to about where the Trump administration lies on Asia policy,' said MIRA RAPP-HOOPER, who was one of former President JOE BIDEN's top Asia advisers on East Asia and Oceania. 'There is uncertainty about how the United States is defining its own security role,' said Rapp-Hooper. 'So they don't really know how to gauge how strong the U.S. commitment is to them right now.' There's also concern that Hegseth will push Asian nations to increase defense spending to 5 percent of GDP, which is emerging as the new spending goal for European NATO members. Pentagon policy chief ELBRIDGE COLBY posted on X recently that 5 percent 'is the new standard for our allies around the world, especially Asia.' Rapp-Hooper said any such ask 'will not land particularly well,' with allies in Asia, particularly South Korea, Japan and Australia — which are currently increasing spending and ramping up their military readiness. Other countries in the region simply can't afford to spend that much on defense, she said. The Trump administration's new isolationist-meaning doctrine, spelled out by Trump during his visit to Saudi Arabia this month, and Vice President JD VANCE at the Naval Academy earlier this month, also might not entice allies to spend more just because Washington says so. 'When you threaten to pull back, it doesn't necessarily drive allies to spend more,' said ZACK COOPER, a former Pentagon official now with the American Enterprise Institute. 'It can empower the people in those capitals who are most skeptical of the U.S., who also happen to be skeptical of defense spending.' On the Hill MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS: Democratic lawmakers are demanding answers from a senior Trump administration Africa envoy over his efforts to resolve the ongoing conflict between Rwanda and the Congo and the role that U.S. investments in Congo's critical minerals is playing in any negotiations. Five Democratic lawmakers sent a letter to MASSAD BOULOS, the State Department's senior adviser on African affairs (who is also TIFFANY TRUMP's father-in-law). They said they had questions over expanded U.S. access to the Congo's critical mineral resources and 'how these resources will be managed transparently and equitably.' They also warned that the administration's cuts to humanitarian and health aid to the Congo will exacerbate the drivers of the ongoing conflict, including weak governance, corruption and lack of economic opportunity. The letter was signed by Reps. JOHNNY OLSZEWSKI (D-Md.), SARA JACOBS (D-Calif.), SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK (D-Fl.), JONATHAN JACKSON (D-Ill.) and PRAMILA JAYAPAL (D-Wash.). The State Department declined to comment, saying it doesn't comment on correspondence with Congress. Broadsides INDIA ISN'T BACKING DOWN: India is reminding Pakistan that it has only paused military operations against it. Per Indian outlet Mint, Indian Prime Minister NARENDRA MODI said at a rally today that 'Operation Sindoor is not over yet.' He continued: 'It showed the world power of indigenous weapons and 'Make in India.' We destroyed terrorist hideouts in Pakistan by going hundreds of miles inside. Indian weapons, Brahmos missiles, entered enemy territory and wreaked havoc.' Modi reiterated that India won't be cowed by threats from Pakistan about the use of nuclear weapons, echoing what's become a new strategic doctrine in Delhi as to relations with Islamabad. The comments come as India and Pakistan have reduced their troop buildup near their shared border. Pakistan has also signaled that the conflagration between both countries in late April and early May has increased the likelihood of further conflict and escalation. Transitions — Rubio announced today that former Ambassador to Jordan HENRY WOOSTER will become the chargé d'affaires at the U.S. embassy in Haiti as of June 12. DENNIS HANKINS, the outgoing U.S. ambassador, is retiring. Wooster is an Army veteran who previously worked at the U.S. embassy in Port-au-Prince and will bring a 'whole-of-government approach to U.S. policy on Haiti,' per Rubio. — JORDAN BREWER is leaving the Cato Institute after serving as a manager of government affairs. He will join the State Department as special adviser in the bureau of cyberspace and digital policy. — Retired Col. ERIC LECKEL has joined the National Guard Association of the United States as its chief of staff. He previously served on the NGAUS board of directors and was president of the Wisconsin National Guard Association. — Cambridge Global Advisors has added PATRICK LECHLEITNER, ELAINE DUKE, KATIE TOBIN, RYAN SCUDDER, PAUL THOMAS, TIM DEVINE and MORGAN RYAN. What to Read — Kathleen Kingsbury, The New York Times: The U.S. Deported This Chinese Scientist, in a Decision That Changed World History — Judd Devermont, Post Strategy: On Engagement — Matthew Kassel, Jewish Insider: How Congress became impotent on foreign policy Monday Today — Council on Foreign Relations, 12:15 p.m.: The Geopolitics of Critical Minerals: Risks, Resilience, and Resource Control — Atlantic Council, 1:30 p.m.: A book discussion on 'Decolonizing Ukraine: The Indigenous People of Crimea and Pathways to Freedom' Thanks to our editors, Heidi Vogt and Emily Lussier, who fail to pass any visa vetting requirements.
