Motorists drive their vehicles past a political billboard featuring U.S. President Donald Trump and the Strait of Hormuz along Valiasr Square in Tehran on May 26, 2026.
| Photo Credit:
AFP

U.S. forces carried out new defensive strikes on Wednesday (May 27, 2026) on an Iran military facility after downing Iranian attack drones, according to U.S. officials.

The strikes came after President Donald Trump asserted on Wednesday that Iran is “negotiating on fumes” and insisted that November’s midterm elections will not make him rush into a deal to end the nearly three-month-old conflict that has spurred unease across the global economy. 

Also read: Iran says war unlikely as Trump warns he may ‘finish the job’

Under the potential deal, Tehran would agree to give up its stockpile of highly-enriched uranium, in return for sanctions relief. 

Follow for live updates:

U.S. President Donald Trump’s ​director of national ⁠intelligence Tulsi Gabbard
| Photo Credit: Reuters

File photo of U.S. President Donald Trump
| Photo Credit: Reuters

Republicans struggled Thursday (May 21, 2026) to find the votes to dismiss legislation that would compel President Donald Trump to withdraw from the war with Iran, delaying planned votes on the matter into June.

The House had scheduled a vote on a war powers resolution, brought by Democrats, that would rein in Mr. Trump’s military campaign. But as it became clear that Republicans would not have the numbers to defeat the bill, GOP leaders declined to hold a vote on it.

Republicans are also working to ensure they have the votes to dismiss another war powers resolution in the Senate that advanced to a final vote earlier this week, when four GOP senators supported the resolution and three others were absent from the vote.

The actions by congressional leaders showed the increasing difficultly of maintaining political backing for Mr. Trump’s handling of the war. Rank-and-file Republicans are increasingly willing to defy the president over the conflict.

Frustration with Iran war grows on Capitol Hill

On Capitol Hill, patience with the war has worn thin as the stalemate in the Strait of Hormuz disrupts global shipping and elevates gas prices in the U.S Another House war powers resolution nearly passed last week, falling on a tie vote as three Republicans voted in favor.

Democratic Rep Gregory Meeks of New York, who sponsored the war powers resolution, had said he expected to have the votes this time around.

“Congress has a constitutional duty. It has a duty to act, not to cheerlead, especially not to cheerlead an open-ended war of choice,” Mr. Meeks said.

The lone Democrat who voted against the war powers resolution last week, Rep Jared Golden of Maine, had said he would vote in favour of the legislation this time. Meanwhile, leaders of both parties dealt with several absences that could have shifted the vote either way in the closely divided chamber.

Republicans have been broadly supportive of Mr. Trump’s efforts to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities, but some are now saying the president’s legal timeline to wage a war without congressional approval has expired. Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, presidents have 60 days to engage in a military conflict before Congress must either declare war or authorise the use of military force.

“We have to follow the law,” said Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, a Pennsylvania Republican, shortly after he voted for an Iran war powers resolution for the first time last week.

The dispute over war powers

The White House argues that the requirements of the War Powers Resolution no longer apply because of the ceasefire with Iran. At the same time, Trump has said he was just an hour away from ordering another strike on Iran earlier this week, but held off because Gulf allies said they were engaged in negotiations to end the war.

Still, Mr. Trump said on social media that military leaders should “be prepared to go forward with a full, large scale assault of Iran, on a moment’s notice, in the event that an acceptable Deal is not reached.” Trump has repeatedly set deadlines for Tehran and then backed off.

Sen Thom Tillis, a Republican who has so far voted against the war powers resolutions, expressed frustration with the Trump administration’s stance, especially from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

“The current status quo, Pete Hegseth demonstrates how incompetent he is,” Tillis told reporters, adding that he would be willing to vote for an authorization for use of military force.

Democratic senators rallied outside the Capitol Wednesday alongside VoteVets, a left-leaning veterans’ advocacy group. They placed signs on the Capitol lawn noting that the nationwide average price of gasoline had risen to USD 4.53.

Sen Tammy Duckworth, an Illinois Democrat who served in the Iraq War with the Air National Guard, argued that the Iran war has amounted to a strategic blunder for Trump.

“Trump started a war, and he’s made things worse than before,” Duckworth said, pointing to Iran’s new leadership and the country’s willingness to put a chokehold on commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

Republican leaders praised Mr. Trump for taking what they said was bold action to directly confront Iran, a nation that has been a US adversary for decades.

“I’m an American. I don’t believe in getting hit and walking away and pretending as though it didn’t happen,” said Rep. Brian Mast, the Republican chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

For Congress, the growing momentum to pass a war powers resolution could eventually lead to a legal showdown over who has the final authority over military conflicts.

The legislation before the House Thursday was a concurrent resolution that lawmakers said would take effect without Trump’s signature if it passed both chambers of Congress.

But Mr. Trump has also argued that the 1973 law — passed by Congress during the Vietnam War era in an attempt to take back its power over foreign conflicts — is unconstitutional.

Published – May 22, 2026 06:18 am IST

File photo of U.S. President Donald Trump
| Photo Credit: Reuters

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the press aboard Air Force One en route to the U.S. File
| Photo Credit: Reuters

Repeated setbacks faced by U.S. President Donald Trump in American courts have further heightened uncertainty over the U.S. tariff regime, and India should wait for the United States to evolve a more stable and legally predictable trade framework before moving ahead with the proposed bilateral trade agreement, experts said.

They said that this ruling is a crucial reminder that Mr. Trump’s global tariffs violated WTO (World Trade Organisation) rules, and their striking down by U.S. courts is a positive signal for multilateral trade norms.

In another setback to the White House, a U.S. federal court has struck down the 10% global tariffs slapped by Mr. Trump, terming them “invalid” and “unauthorised by law”.

These new tariffs were imposed by Mr. Trump on all countries, including India, on February 24 for 150 days following an earlier US Supreme Court verdict that struck down his earlier sweeping levies.

“The continuing uncertainty around US tariff policy, with major Trump-era tariffs repeatedly struck down by courts, makes any long-term trade commitments by India difficult to justify,” think GTRI Founder Ajay Srivastava said.

He said that India should wait until the United States develops a more stable and legally reliable trade system before concluding the Bilateral Trade Agreement.

“At present, the U.S. is also not prepared to reduce its standard Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) tariffs, while expecting India to lower or eliminate its MFN duties across most sectors. Under such conditions, any trade deal risks becoming one-sided, with India offering permanent market access concessions without receiving any meaningful tariff benefits in return,” Mr. Srivastava said.

Shishir Priyadarshi, president, Chintan Research Foundation, former Director, WTO, said that the federal court’s ruling is a crucial reminder that Trump’s global tariffs are in violation to the rules of the violated WTO rules, and their striking down is a positive signal for multilateral trade norms.

“However, with the decision held in abeyance, uncertainty lingers. We must remain vigilant, as the US may still seek new avenues to circumvent the ruling,” Mr. Priyadarshi said.

The United States Court of International Trade, in a 2-1 ruling on May 7, said the Trump administration had gone beyond the powers given by Congress under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. It was struck down less than 50 days after they were introduced on February 20.

According to the GTRI, the decision currently applies only to the parties that filed the case, the state of Washington, spice importer Burlap & Barrel, and toy maker Basic Fun!.

“The tariffs will continue for other importers while the US government appeals the ruling. The court chose not to block the tariffs nationwide at this stage. The court limited relief to the litigants before it rather than issuing a nationwide injunction, a practice sometimes followed by U.S. courts in politically sensitive disputes involving executive authority,” Srivastava said.

With both the reciprocal tariffs and the Section 122 tariffs now invalidated by courts, the U.S. tariff system is largely returning to its pre-Trump structure based on standard Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) tariff rates under the WTO framework.

Section 122, allows the president to impose import tariffs of up to 15% for a maximum of 150 days without congressional approval to deal with serious balance-of-payments difficulties.

The tariffs had been imposed on February 20, 2026, a few hours after the Supreme Court of the United States struck down reciprocal tariffs.

On Section 122 tariffs, the GTRI founder also said that the levies were on weak legal footing because the law was originally enacted to deal with serious balance-of-payments crises and persistent dollar outflows.

“However, since 1973 the United States has operated under a free-floating dollar system, where trade imbalances are adjusted through exchange rates and global capital flows rather than import restrictions. The U.S. continues to run large trade deficits while still attracting massive foreign investment because the dollar remains the world’s dominant reserve currency,” he added.

With courts striking down both the reciprocal tariffs and the Section 122 tariffs, the Trump administration is now expected to rely more on targeted trade measures such as Section 301 investigations and Section 232 national-security tariffs.

These tools could be used against partner countries for sectors like steel, semiconductors, automobiles, pharmaceuticals, and critical minerals.

“The legal uncertainty around U.S. tariffs is also affecting trade negotiations. Malaysia has already walked away from its trade deal with the U.S., while several other countries are rethinking trade deals with the US,” Srivastava said.

Published – May 08, 2026 01:33 pm IST

The United States is not looking at imminent military action against Havana despite President Donald Trump’s repeated threats that “Cuba is next” and that American warships deployed in the West Asia for the Iran conflict could return by way of the island, US officials say.

The officials involved in preliminary discussions with Cuban authorities also told The Associated Press that they are not optimistic the communist government will accept an offer for tens of millions of dollars in humanitarian aid, two years of free Starlink internet access for all Cubans, agricultural assistance and infrastructure support.

But they say Cuba has not yet outright refused the offer, which comes with conditions that the government has long resisted, even after the Trump administration imposed new sanctions Thursday (May 7, 2026) on Havana.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private talks, say there is still time for the government to accept. They cautioned, though, that Mr. Trump could change his mind at any time and that military options are still on the table.

The Treasury and State departments announced those sanctions after Mr. Trump signed an executive order last week expanding the administration’s authority to impose penalties on Cuba.

Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez described the measures as “collective punishment” and denounced the U.S. government’s “genocidal intent against Cuba”.

“These actions rely on the assumption that the United States can impose its will on the world while threatening foreign citizens and businesses with illegitimate coercion,” Mr. Rodríguez wrote on X.

Shortly after signing the order on Friday (May 1, 2026), Mr. Trump gave a speech mentioning that “Cuba’s got problems” and suggesting that a military show of force there may be in the offing.

He said one of the U.S. aircraft carriers on its way back from the West Asia could “come in, stop about 100 yards offshore, and they’ll say: Thank you very much. We give up”.

One official involved in the discussions said the new sanctions authority was intended, however, to make clear to the Cubans that the Trump administration’s immediate goal is “not regime change, but changing the regime’s failed policies”.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants who has long taken a hard line against Cuba’s leadership, has said repeatedly that the country’s government has failed. He said this week that Cuba’s economic model doesn’t work and those in power “can’t fix it”.

“And the reason that they can’t fix it is not just because they’re communist. That’s bad enough,” he told reporters Tuesday at the White House. “But they’re incompetent communists. The only thing worse than a communist is an incompetent one.” Mr. Rubio is visiting Rome and Vatican City, meeting Pope Leo XIV on Thursday (May 7, 2026) in part to discuss Cuba, where the Catholic Church has significant influence.

One U.S. official said it is an open question as to whether Cuba’s top leadership is willing to meet US conditions, which include the release of political prisoners, an end to political and religious repression, and an opening to American private sector investment.

At the same time, the official said the door has not closed to dialogue that could help both countries given Cuba’s proximity to the U.S. The United States sees a national security threat in what the official called increasing influence on the island by China and Russia, including intelligence and logistics cooperation.

Cuban officials are adamant, though, that its internal governance is not up for negotiation.

“Negotiations on issues like regime change or removing the president are out of the question,” Cuban Ambassador to the United Nations Ernesto Soberón Guzmán told reporters last week. “No internal affairs of Cuba are on the table.” Mr. Guzmán also told The Associated Press last month that Havana will not abide by any American “ultimatums” to release political prisoners and that Cuba’s leaders are “preparing for all scenarios” if Trump makes good on threats to intervene.

The White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment about military action in Cuba.

Contacts between the Trump administration and Cuba have increased, including a meeting earlier this year in the Caribbean nation of St. Kitts and Nevis between Rubio and Raúl Guillermo Rodríguez Castro, who is believed to carry significant influence in Havana. He is the grandson of former Cuban leader Raúl Castro.

More recently, two senior State Department officials — Jeremy Lewin, who is in charge of all US foreign assistance, and Michael Kozak, the top U.S. diplomat for Latin America — led a delegation to Havana on April 10 and met with the grandson, according to one US official familiar with the meetings.

The top State Department participants had not been previously reported. It was the first U.S. government flight to land in Cuba other than at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay since 2016, during former President Barack Obama’s period of rapprochement with the island.

That meeting was “professional and cordial” but did not produce definitive results, leaving the US delegation skeptical that the Cuban leadership is willing to consider even modest reforms that could ameliorate deteriorating humanitarian conditions, that official said.

U.S. officials have often rejected Cuban complaints that the American embargo on the island and, more recently, the Trump administration’s energy blockade are responsible for the country’s hardships.

But Cuba’s crises have deepened following the energy blockade, imposed after the US in January removed Nicolás Maduro as leader of Venezuela, which was Cuba’s main source of energy.

Cuban officials have denounced the U.S. rejection of their complaints.

“Travelling 4,500 miles to meet with the Pope, supposedly to request his good offices’ in delivering US humanitarian assistance to the Cuban people through the Church, while at the same time claiming that the blockade does not exist, is a blatant insult to human intelligence,” Guzmán said Thursday in a statement.

Published – May 08, 2026 08:23 am IST

File photo shows U.S. and Israeli soldiers convene at the Civil Military Coordination Centre, the U.S.-led centre overseeing the implementation of President Donald Trump’s plan to end the war in Gaza, in Kiryat Gat.
| Photo Credit: Reuters