While Trump retreats, China plants its flag in Africa’s skies—building satellites, telescopes, and alliances to dominate space and surveillance.

As Trump guts foreign aid, China ramps up space partnerships across Africa, embedding surveillance tech and satellites that could shift the balance in the global space race—and military power.

Space for Sale: How China Is Colonizing Africa’s Skies as America Pulls Back

While the United States under President Trump slashes development aid and scales down soft power, China is quietly launching a space takeover in Africa—one satellite, telescope, and military-grade surveillance system at a time.

From a space lab outside Cairo to high-powered telescopes tracking orbital objects from Egyptian hilltops, China is embedding itself deep into Africa’s burgeoning space infrastructure. Beneath the banner of cooperation and development, Beijing is not just gifting technology—it’s harvesting data, expanding its global surveillance network, and establishing a strategic military and political footprint across the continent.

This is no secret to Washington. Intelligence veterans like Nicholas Eftimiades warn that China is “democratizing space to enhance its authoritarian capabilities”—a global dragnet cloaked in diplomacy. And it’s working. More than 23 African nations now partner with China on space ventures, from satellite launches and ground stations to a proposed joint moon base that openly rivals NASA’s Artemis program.

The Space City outside Cairo, where Chinese engineers outnumber locals, is emblematic. The “African-built” satellites launched there? Mostly assembled in China. Data ownership? Officially Egyptian—but insiders say Beijing still taps into the stream. It’s not just soft power—it’s hardware dominance with military consequences, including anti-satellite warfare readiness and real-time surveillance of joint U.S.-Egyptian exercises.

As China builds eyes in the sky, Trump’s America is going dark—cutting U.S. Agency for International Development funds and retreating from space diplomacy. Meanwhile, SpaceX’s Elon Musk races ahead in military-grade satellite networks, but there’s little sign of the U.S. competing with China’s ground-level infiltration across Africa.

The result? A Cold War-style showdown in orbit, with Africa as the battlefield—and Trump’s retreat from development aid and soft power may have handed Beijing the launch codes for a new global order in space.

China isn’t just investing in Africa—it’s outsourcing its space program onto the continent, collecting data, projecting power, and rewriting the rules of 21st-century dominance. The moon may be next, but the race is already raging here on Earth. And right now, Beijing is winning.

Congressional panel demands data from universities as Beijing warns against violating rights of Chinese nationals studying in the U.S.

Tensions between Washington and Beijing have flared again, this time over Chinese students studying at U.S. universities. A congressional panel led by the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party has formally requested data from six leading American institutions—Carnegie Mellon, Stanford, Purdue, USC, and others—regarding Chinese nationals in STEM fields. The panel alleges that these students may be embedded by Beijing to illicitly access sensitive research and advanced technologies.

The request, issued by committee chair Rep. John Moolenaar, reflects a growing wave of suspicion in Washington about the role of foreign students in U.S. research infrastructure. He described the current environment as a “dangerous crossroads,” where financial dependence on international tuition may be compromising national security. He further warned that academic campuses serve as “soft targets” for espionage, with the student visa system acting as a “Trojan Horse for Beijing.”

The accusations, while not new, signal an intensifying political push to scrutinize Chinese students and researchers more broadly. Lawmakers argue that Chinese nationals in U.S. programs tied to cutting-edge innovation—particularly in artificial intelligence, semiconductors, aerospace, and quantum computing—may be exploited by Beijing for strategic advantage.

Requests from the committee include data on research topics, funding sources, and institutional safeguards to prevent unauthorized access to federally funded projects. The implication is clear: lawmakers believe U.S. universities may be unwittingly contributing to China’s technological rise, particularly in areas with dual-use military potential.

However, this hardline stance has sparked significant backlash. Critics argue that sweeping generalizations about Chinese students risk veering into racial profiling and could undermine the very scientific openness that drives American innovation. Universities rely heavily on international students, especially from China, both for tuition and for their contributions to research and development.

Beijing was quick to condemn the move. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning urged the U.S. to “stop overstretching the concept of national security” and to uphold the rights of Chinese students abroad. She emphasized that Chinese nationals make up roughly 25% of the international student population in the U.S. and contribute meaningfully to economic and technological advancement.

The latest controversy arrives amid an already fragile U.S.-China relationship, with disputes ranging from trade and technology to military posture in the Indo-Pacific. Beijing views the escalating rhetoric against its students as part of a broader campaign to contain China’s rise by restricting access to knowledge and collaboration.

Adding fuel to the fire, Republican Rep. Riley Moore introduced the “Stop CCP Visas Act”, which proposes banning Chinese citizens from studying or participating in exchange programs in the U.S. While the bill is unlikely to pass, it has generated alarm among civil rights groups and educators, who draw parallels to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882—a now-defunct law that restricted Chinese immigration for over 60 years.

The proposal has been met with strong resistance, not only from Democrats but also from within the higher education sector, which warns of long-term harm to America’s reputation as a global hub for academic excellence.

This clash over Chinese students encapsulates a broader dilemma in U.S.-China relations: how to safeguard national security without undermining openness and academic collaboration. While lawmakers raise valid concerns about espionage and intellectual property theft, targeting students en masse risks harming diplomatic relations, educational institutions, and America’s own innovation ecosystem.

At a time when global collaboration is vital to address challenges from climate change to pandemics, narrowing educational channels may prove counterproductive. How Washington navigates this balance will shape not only its scientific leadership but also the character of its global partnerships.

Beijing intensifies cyber warfare accusations, exposing operatives linked to Taiwan’s ruling party as regional military activities surge.

China’s Ministry of State Security has publicly identified four individuals it claims are members of Taiwan’s cyber warfare unit. This announcement comes as tensions continue to rise over Taiwan’s sovereignty and China’s assertive postures in the region. According to Beijing, these individuals are linked to the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and have been involved in disseminating disinformation and conducting pro-independence cyber activities.

The Chinese government released photographs and personal details of the alleged cyber operatives, aiming to expose what it sees as covert operations directed against its sovereignty and territorial integrity. This move is part of a broader strategy by Beijing to counter what it perceives as Taiwanese provocations under the guidance of the DPP, which it labels as a secessionist force.

In response, Taiwan’s defense ministry has vehemently denied these accusations, labeling them as baseless and indicative of China’s continued psychological warfare tactics. These exchanges underscore the deep-seated mistrust and the complex web of geopolitical tensions surrounding the Taiwan Strait.

The timing of China’s accusations is particularly significant, coinciding with the 20th anniversary of China’s Anti-Secession Law, which legally binds the country to prevent Taiwan’s independence by force if necessary. This law remains a cornerstone of Beijing’s policy towards Taiwan, reinforcing its claim over the island and justifying military preparedness.

Recent statements from a member of President Xi Jinping’s leadership team have reiterated China’s commitment to taking “resolute action” against Taiwanese secessionist activities, further heightening tensions. Meanwhile, Taiwan’s President Lai Ching-te has called China a “hostile external force” and has pledged to bolster Taiwan’s counter-espionage efforts in face of growing threats.

The identification of Taiwanese cyber operatives by China coincides with increased military activities around Taiwan. Beijing’s recent deployment of fighter jets and naval vessels around the island is seen by many as an attempt to intimidate and coerce the Taiwanese government into subservience.

These developments are closely watched by the international community, as they not only affect regional stability in Asia but also involve global powers, particularly the United States, which maintains a policy of strategic ambiguity regarding Taiwan’s defense.

The exposure of alleged Taiwanese cyber operatives by China marks a new phase in the cyber dimension of the cross-strait relations. It reflects the modern battleground where information warfare complements physical military might. As both nations bolster their cyber and espionage defenses, the potential for missteps or escalation increases, making the need for diplomatic engagement and restraint more crucial than ever.

The unfolding scenario will likely influence the strategic calculations of other regional players and global powers, shaping future diplomatic, economic, and military interactions in the Indo-Pacific region. The international community must remain vigilant and possibly mediate to prevent these tensions from spiraling into a broader conflict.

How Saudi Arabia’s Investment Could Redefine the Berbera Port  and Horn of Africa’s Geopolitical Landscape.

Saudi Arabia is setting the stage for a profound strategic shift in the Horn of Africa through its planned multi-billion-dollar investment in Eritrea’s Assab port. This move not only positions Riyadh as a key player in the region but also challenges the existing dominance of other global powers such as the UAE, Turkey, and China within the crucial Red Sea trade corridor.

The investment in Assab port could significantly disrupt Ethiopia’s maritime ambitions. Given Ethiopia’s landlocked status, its government under Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed has long coveted access to the sea, viewing Eritrea’s ports as vital gateways. Secret reports suggest that Ethiopia might even consider military action to secure such access. However, Saudi Arabia’s involvement could deter such aspirations by enhancing Eritrea’s defensive capabilities and economic stability, making any aggressive move by Ethiopia both costly and politically untenable.

For Eritrea, aligning with Saudi Arabia could serve as a protective strategy against Ethiopian military ambitions, ensuring that its sovereignty over Assab remains unchallenged. This partnership would not only fortify Eritrea’s position but could also shift the regional power dynamics, potentially neutralizing Ethiopia’s influence over the Red Sea access points.

The potential Saudi investment in Assab port signifies more than just economic development; it reflects a strategic realignment in the Horn of Africa’s geopolitics. This realignment underscores a growing partnership between Saudi Arabia and Eritrea, aimed at safeguarding their interests along one of the world’s most vital maritime routes. Such a partnership could significantly alter regional power balances, offering Eritrea the backing needed to withstand Ethiopian pressures and enhancing Saudi influence in African geopolitics.

Furthermore, the move could recalibrate alliances and provoke reevaluations of strategic priorities among other regional players, including the UAE, Turkey, and China, all of whom have vested interests in the region’s maritime corridors. Each nation has been working to extend its influence through infrastructure investments and diplomatic engagements, and Riyadh’s new focus on Assab could prompt a rethinking of their strategies in response to the shifting sands of alliance and power.

For Somaliland, the developments surrounding Assab could have mixed implications. On one hand, a stronger Assab might divert some attention and resources away from Somaliland’s Berbera port, which has been backed by UAE investments. On the other hand, the geopolitical tensions and the strengthening of Assab could validate the strategic importance of having multiple allied ports along the Red Sea, potentially increasing the overall security and economic activity in the region.

The MOU signed between Somaliland and Ethiopia, which envisaged mutual recognition and economic cooperation, might also come under strain. Ethiopia’s potential isolation in the Red Sea arena could lead to a reevaluation of its foreign policy, especially towards its agreements with Somaliland.

Inconclusion, the anticipated Saudi investment in Assab is more than an economic venture; it is a strategic maneuver that could redefine regional alignments and power dynamics in the Horn of Africa. As the Red Sea becomes an increasingly contested geopolitical space, the actions of Saudi Arabia, coupled with the responses of other regional and global powers, will undoubtedly influence the future political landscape of this critical region.

Taiwan Monitors Intensified Chinese Military Activity Amid Rising Tensions

Tensions in the Taiwan Strait have escalated as Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense reported the detection of 47 Chinese military aircraft operating near the island over the past 24 hours. This activity coincides with the deployment of close to 90 Chinese navy and coast guard vessels near Taiwan, the southern Japanese islands, and the broader East and South China Seas.

China’s maneuvers have been linked to military assets from its northern, eastern, and southern theater commands. While Taiwan remains vigilant, the surge in naval and aerial presence has raised concerns about Beijing’s intentions. The developments come after China reserved airspace near Taiwan and escalated its military presence in strategic waters, moves likely intended to exert pressure on Taiwan and its allies.

Beijing’s assertive military posturing reflects its long-standing claims over Taiwan, a self-governed democracy that China views as a breakaway province. Meanwhile, Taiwan has increased its alert levels, maintaining readiness against potential escalations.

This show of force aligns with China’s broader regional ambitions, particularly in disputed maritime territories like the South China Sea. Analysts believe the recent activities are aimed at testing Taiwan’s defenses, projecting power to neighboring countries like Japan, and deterring U.S. influence in the region.

While Taiwan continues to monitor the situation, the international community, particularly the U.S. and its allies, is closely watching for signs of further escalation. The heightened activity underlines the fragility of the status quo in one of the most strategically sensitive regions globally.

Tehran accelerates uranium enrichment, alarming Western powers and risking global conflict.

Iran’s decision to accelerate uranium enrichment to 60% purity has raised alarm bells in the international community. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Tehran is dramatically increasing its capacity, producing uranium at rates seven to eight times higher than before. This enrichment level edges closer to the 90% threshold required for nuclear weapons, stoking fears that Iran may be positioning itself to produce a nuclear bomb.

While Iran insists its nuclear program is for civilian purposes, Western powers and non-proliferation experts are unconvinced. With Iran now capable of producing enough material for four nuclear weapons. The IAEA has urged Tehran to implement stricter safeguards, warning of the risk of misuse at enrichment facilities like Fordow and Natanz.

A Global Standstill

Efforts to resume diplomatic talks remain stalled. European nations and the U.S. have condemned Iran’s actions as a “serious escalation,” while Tehran resents recent resolutions faulting its cooperation with the IAEA. The collapse of the 2015 nuclear deal, exacerbated by Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the accord in 2018, has left negotiations in disarray. As Trump appears poised to re-enter the White House, the possibility of a renewed “maximum pressure” campaign looms.

With the nuclear deal set to expire in 2025, time is running out for a peaceful resolution. Experts like Kelsey Davenport warn that Iran’s rapid enrichment risks miscalculation and potential military confrontation. Meanwhile, rival powers like Israel have signaled a willingness to take preemptive action, heightening the risk of regional conflict.

A Dangerous New Era?

Iran’s enrichment surge represents a seismic shift in the global non-proliferation landscape. As Tehran moves closer to weapons-grade uranium, the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran becomes increasingly real, threatening to upend regional security and trigger a broader arms race. The lack of diplomatic progress underscores the urgency of the situation, leaving the international community on edge as the window for de-escalation narrows.

Whether through renewed negotiations or forceful deterrence, the world faces difficult choices in addressing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The next steps could define the course of Middle Eastern and global security for years to come.

President-elect Donald Trump’s recent threats to impose 100% tariffs on BRICS nations over their perceived challenge to the U.S. dollar underscore a brewing global financial conflict. The rise of the BRICS bloc—an alliance that includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, now expanded to include Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the UAE—has placed U.S. economic dominance under scrutiny, with member nations exploring alternatives to the dollar.

The tension arises from BRICS’ ambition to reduce dependence on the dollar by creating alternative currencies or financial systems. At the heart of this initiative is Russia, which has sought to diminish the dollar’s influence in the wake of Western sanctions. Russian President Vladimir Putin has openly criticized Washington’s use of the dollar as a tool of geopolitical leverage, labeling it a “weaponized” currency.

BRICS nations have been vocal about the downsides of the dollar’s dominance, particularly its impact on developing economies. Dependency on the dollar means vulnerability to U.S. monetary policies and sanctions. A BRICS currency or payment system, detached from Western financial networks like SWIFT, would grant these nations economic autonomy while reducing risks tied to dollar volatility.

Russia and China have been especially proactive in this pursuit, exploring alternatives such as digital currencies and bilateral trade in local currencies. Their motivations are clear: bypassing sanctions and reducing exposure to Western financial influence. Other nations in the bloc, including oil-rich members like Iran and the UAE, view this shift as an opportunity to reshape the balance of global trade in their favor.

Trump’s response has been characteristically direct. On Truth Social, he declared that any move by BRICS to establish a new currency or undermine the dollar’s global status would trigger tariffs on imports from member nations. This threat reflects Washington’s broader concerns about maintaining its financial supremacy.

The U.S. dollar has long been the bedrock of global trade, backed by its status as the world’s primary reserve currency and its role in critical commodities like oil. However, Trump’s rhetoric risks deepening the divide between the U.S. and key emerging economies.

Trump’s proposed tariffs could destabilize U.S. trade relations, particularly with large economies like China, India, and Brazil, all of which are critical trade partners. A 100% tariff could provoke retaliatory measures, escalating into a trade war with significant economic repercussions.

Moreover, such a hardline stance could accelerate BRICS’ motivation to create alternatives to the dollar. Ironically, punitive measures may push these nations closer together, bolstering their resolve to reduce reliance on the U.S.-led financial order.

This unfolding conflict highlights broader geopolitical shifts. The BRICS bloc’s expansion, with nations like Turkey, Malaysia, and Azerbaijan expressing interest in membership, suggests a growing appetite among emerging economies to challenge Western dominance. While the dollar remains dominant in global finance, cracks in its foundation are becoming increasingly visible.

The U.S. must navigate this terrain carefully. Overreliance on threats and tariffs risks alienating trade partners, accelerating de-dollarization efforts, and isolating the U.S. on the global stage. Conversely, a more nuanced approach, engaging with BRICS nations diplomatically and addressing their concerns, could preserve the dollar’s status while reducing tensions.

Trump’s ultimatum to BRICS nations reflects a fierce determination to defend the U.S. dollar’s supremacy. However, the rise of alternative financial systems and the expanding BRICS bloc demonstrate that global economic dynamics are shifting. Whether Trump’s strategy of tariffs and economic coercion succeeds or backfires remains uncertain, but the outcome of this standoff could reshape the global financial landscape for decades to come.

The United States has voiced alarm over Iran’s decision to intensify its nuclear activities, according to a State Department spokesperson who spoke with VOA Persian. Washington emphasized that Tehran’s continued production of enriched uranium at levels up to 60% lacks a credible civilian purpose and urged Iran to cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The U.S. highlighted the IAEA Board of Governors’ demand that Iran resolve longstanding issues related to its nuclear obligations. These concerns have persisted for over five years, creating heightened tension amid stalled progress.

Britain and France have echoed these concerns. Nicolas Lerner, head of France’s foreign intelligence service, identified Iran’s nuclear activities as one of the most pressing security threats. Similarly, Richard Moore, head of the UK’s MI6, described Tehran’s nuclear ambitions as a global security challenge, even as Iran’s regional proxy groups face setbacks.

Diplomats from the UK, France, Germany, and the EU met with Iranian representatives in Geneva to explore ways to de-escalate regional tensions and address Iran’s nuclear program. Notably absent from these discussions was the United States. The Biden administration clarified it is not participating in negotiations with Iran but is closely coordinating with European allies to hold Iran accountable for its nuclear obligations.

Meanwhile, reports from the IAEA indicate Iran plans to install thousands of new centrifuges for uranium enrichment, further alarming Western nations. This development coincides with ongoing criticism from the U.S. and EU over Iran’s provision of drones and missiles to Russia, its role in Middle Eastern instability, and its human rights violations.

In response, Western nations have imposed sanctions on Iranian officials and entities. The U.S. reiterated its call for Tehran to comply with international safeguards, urging swift action to prevent further escalation.