A new bill in Congress aims to defund and withdraw the U.S. from the United Nations. Rep. Chip Roy leads the charge, calling the U.N. a “corrupt globalist organization” that undermines American interests. 

The battle over America’s role in the world just escalated. Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) has re-introduced the DEFUND Act of 2025, a bill designed to cut all U.S. funding to the United Nations and withdraw from the global body entirely. Backed by high-profile Republicans, including Sen. Mike Lee and House Armed Services Chairman Mike Rogers, the legislation reflects growing frustration over what conservatives see as a bloated, corrupt institution hostile to American interests.

Roy pulled no punches. “The United Nations has enjoyed American tax money while undermining our interests, attacking our allies, and bolstering our adversaries,” he declared. “Despite decades of funding, the U.N. has failed to prevent wars, genocides, human rights violations, and pandemics.”

Sen. Mike Lee echoed the sentiment, blasting the U.N. as a “platform for tyrants” that wastes U.S. resources while pushing a globalist agenda. He argued that with Donald Trump leading an “America First” revolution in foreign policy, the time has come to ditch the U.N. and focus on real alliances that actually benefit the U.S.

The bill targets key U.N. agencies that conservatives see as hostile to U.S. interests:

UNRWA, accused of supporting terrorism

WHO, criticized for parroting Chinese Communist Party talking points during COVID

UN Population Fund, slammed for its “Orwellian” globalist agenda

UN Human Rights Council, labeled as anti-Israel and pro-dictator

The DEFUND Act has strong support from Trump-aligned Republicans, including Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Thomas Massie, Anna Paulina Luna, and Sen. Marsha Blackburn.

While past efforts to defund the U.N. have faced resistance, the shifting political landscape under Trump’s leadership could bring the U.S. closer than ever to cutting ties with the global body. With tensions rising between Washington and international institutions, will 2025 be the year America finally walks away from the United Nations?

Congo’s crisis spirals as hundreds of police officers defect to M23 rebels in occupied Bukavu. With government forces collapsing, is the DRC losing control of its east? 

The Democratic Republic of Congo is slipping deeper into chaos. In a scene that signals just how fragile the government’s hold on its eastern territories has become, hundreds of Congolese police officers have defected to the M23 rebel group in occupied Bukavu, reinforcing fears that the rebels are cementing their control over the strategic city.

Wearing brand-new uniforms and black berets, the defecting officers stood in formation as M23 leaders prepared them for retraining under their rule. “May you come back to us in good shape so that together we can continue to liberate our country,” said Police Commander Jackson Kamba, signaling the rebels’ intent to govern rather than retreat.

M23’s advance into Bukavu last week came with barely a fight, as Congolese forces withdrew in disarray. The rebels, now an occupying force, have absorbed 1,800 defected police officers, with another 500 expected to join, according to AFC rebel alliance spokesperson Lawrence Kanyuka.

The Congolese government remains silent on the mass defection, but the implications are staggering. As M23 consolidates its grip, the conflict threatens to spiral into a broader war. The United Nations Security Council has demanded the rebels withdraw, but on the ground, their control is growing.

M23’s offensive is not limited to Bukavu. The strategic mountain town of Minembwe fell to a Tutsi militia allegedly allied with the rebels, further expanding their footprint. With government forces overstretched, an East African defense summit in Nairobi acknowledged that the true scope of the crisis remains unclear.

Despite international calls for dialogue, Congo refuses to negotiate with M23, branding them terrorists. But as defections mount and the military crumbles, the question is unavoidable—can Kinshasa afford to keep ignoring the rebels while losing control of its own forces?

Somaliland Power Grab? KAAH’s Mohamud Hashi Threatens to Become the Strongest Opposition if Irro Refuses His Demands

Somaliland’s political tension is escalating as KAAH Chairman Mohamud Hashi Abdi demands control over key government positions, clashing with President Irro. Will Irro stand firm, or is Somaliland heading for a fierce new opposition? 

Somaliland’s new government is barely settling in, and already a major political storm is brewing. A secret dispute between KAAH Chairman Mohamud Hashi Abdi and President Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi Irro has erupted, threatening to shake the ruling administration to its core.

According to insiders, Hashi is pressuring Irro to appoint his chosen candidate as Berbera Port Manager—one of the most coveted positions in Somaliland’s new administration. Irro, who has already rewarded KAAH with numerous high-ranking government positions, now faces an ultimatum: give in to Hashi’s demands or prepare for the fiercest opposition Somaliland has ever seen.

Hashi, a seasoned political player, is not backing down. Despite securing ministerial and director-level posts for his party, he wants more—direct influence over the government. If Irro refuses, Hashi has warned of launching an aggressive opposition campaign that could derail the new government’s momentum.

While the Kulmiye party has honored former President Muse Bihi’s promise of a 100-day political truce, Hashi is playing by different rules. He has been holding secret meetings in Hargeisa, rallying his allies and preparing to challenge Irro’s authority.

Irro is focused on presenting his 100-day performance, but Hashi’s political maneuvering is threatening to overshadow the administration’s progress. This is no longer just about a port position—it’s a battle for control of Somaliland’s political future.

Will Irro assert his power and keep Hashi in check, or will the KAAH leader emerge as a new force of opposition? The next moves will determine whether Somaliland’s government remains stable or faces an internal war that could redefine its political landscape.

Will Britain and France Replace America’s Failing Shield?

Europe is waking up to a new reality—Trump’s America can no longer be trusted to defend the continent. With NATO hanging by a thread and Washington tilting toward Moscow, Germany’s future leader Friedrich Merz is pushing for an unprecedented nuclear pact with Britain and France. This seismic shift signals the end of Europe’s blind faith in American protection.

For decades, Germany relied on U.S. nuclear guarantees under NATO’s umbrella. But Trump’s cold dismissal of European security has shattered that trust. Now, Berlin is turning to London and Paris, calling for nuclear-sharing agreements that could redefine Europe’s defense strategy.

France has long hinted at expanding its nuclear deterrent to cover Europe, but Germany always resisted—until now. With Trump floating a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Germany, European leaders are scrambling to take control of their own survival. British and French warheads may now be the only credible shield against a Russian threat.

As panic spreads, European politicians are rallying for urgent action. Calls for Britain to step up its defense leadership grow louder. Meanwhile, France, traditionally protective of its nuclear arsenal, is seeing renewed interest in a shared deterrent. If the U.S. truly abandons NATO, Europe has no choice but to build its own nuclear shield—or risk being left defenseless.

This isn’t just a policy shift—it’s the most dramatic shake-up in European security since World War II. With the future of NATO in doubt, the question remains: can Europe unite before it’s too late?

U.S. President Donald Trump is pushing for a resolution to Russia’s three-year war in Ukraine, but what that looks like remains deeply contested. Experts and policymakers have outlined several potential paths—each carrying profound consequences for the war’s outcome and global stability.

One approach, advocated by the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), is a maximum pressure strategy to force Russia into genuine negotiations. This plan demands an immediate flood of Western weapons to Ukraine, harsher sanctions targeting Russia’s financial sector, and the release of frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s defense. CEPA insists Ukraine and Europe must be at the negotiating table, with European peacekeepers enforcing a future ceasefire.

Another route, proposed by the German Marshall Fund’s Josh Rudolph, leans on tactical negotiations with Russia but from a position of American strength. His recommendations include escalating economic warfare by driving down oil prices, hitting Moscow with more sanctions, and ensuring Europe shoulders more of the financial and military burden. He also suggests fully arming Ukraine, deploying 100,000 European peacekeepers, and tying U.S. military aid to economic incentives for American workers.

The economic argument plays a major role in a separate proposal from the American Enterprise Institute, which warns that a Russian victory would cost the U.S. far more in the long run. The think tank estimates that abandoning Ukraine could force an $808 billion increase in U.S. defense spending over five years, while an accelerated commitment to Ukrainian victory would stabilize Europe and allow Washington to focus on countering China.

A middle-ground approach, outlined in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, reflects divisions within the conservative movement. It suggests limiting U.S. support to military aid while making Europe take full responsibility for Ukraine’s economic needs. The report also frames China—not Russia—as the real long-term threat, arguing that U.S. strategy must shift accordingly.

As peace talks loom, Trump faces the challenge of choosing between these competing visions. His decision will define not just Ukraine’s fate, but the future of American power and alliances worldwide.

With Trump threatening NATO’s future, the EU faces a do-or-die moment—build a real army or remain a geopolitical pawn.

For years, Europe has enjoyed the luxury of U.S. military protection, relying on NATO as its security backbone. But Trump’s America-first stance is shaking that foundation, leaving Europe with one clear choice: build a real army or become strategically irrelevant.

The EU’s piecemeal defense efforts—deploying small peacekeeping missions, joint training, and token budgets—are laughably inadequate for modern warfare. The 5,000-troop “Rapid Deployment Capacity” is nothing more than a symbolic gesture when stacked against Russia’s battle-hardened military or China’s expanding global footprint.

Trump’s threats to abandon “freeloading” NATO allies and his unilateral peace talks with Russia signal a future where Europe is left to fend for itself. The U.S. shift toward China as its primary adversary means Washington has little patience for European complacency.

To survive, the EU must massively expand defense production, integrate its 27 national armies into a cohesive European force, and develop independent nuclear deterrence. Anything less will leave Europe vulnerable to Russian aggression, Chinese economic expansion, and an unpredictable White House.

The silver lining? Trump’s chaos is forcing Europe to grow up. If the EU gets serious about defense, it could emerge as a real military power—not just an economic giant playing diplomatic games.

The era of European dependence is over. The only question is whether the EU will seize the moment or collapse under the weight of its own indecision.

Brazil’s former president faces historic charges of plotting a coup, assassination, and poisoning—will the nation see justice or chaos?

Brazil is standing at the edge of a political firestorm as former President Jair Bolsonaro faces formal charges of plotting a coup to stay in power. The allegations are staggering—not just election fraud, but an attempt to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes and poison President Lula.

The 272-page indictment paints Bolsonaro as the ringleader of a conspiracy to overturn the 2022 election results, using military pressure, mass riots, and even an assassination plot. The scheme, codenamed “Green and Yellow Dagger,” sounds like something out of a dystopian thriller—but Brazil’s prosecutors say the evidence is real.

For Bolsonaro, this is both a legal and political battle. His base, still strong despite his 2026 election ban, will likely rally behind him, framing this as a political witch hunt. The far-right leader has already dismissed the accusations as “zero concern,” despite overwhelming digital and manuscript evidence collected by federal investigators.

The Supreme Court will now decide if Bolsonaro goes to trial, a move that could shatter his political future and plunge Brazil into another wave of unrest. If convicted, Bolsonaro could face prison, sending a stark warning to other leaders with authoritarian ambitions.

But will Brazil’s justice system follow through? Or will Bolsonaro turn this indictment into a rallying cry for a return to power?

New Port Deal Aims to Transform Barawa Into a Key Trade Hub While Raising Concerns Over Governance and Federal Oversight

The $500 million deal between the South West State administration and Kuwait’s Arabic Holding to develop Barawa Port is a game-changer for Somalia’s maritime trade. The project, spanning 200 square kilometers, aims to modernize the port, expand road networks, and create industrial zones. If executed effectively, Barawa could rival Mogadishu and Bosaso as a major commercial hub, particularly for landlocked nations like Ethiopia and South Sudan.

However, the agreement raises serious political and governance concerns. South West State, like other Somali federal member states, operates under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government of Somalia (FGS). Yet, this multi-billion-dollar project was signed without a formal federal endorsement—a major flashpoint in Somalia’s fragile federal system.

Key Questions:

Who controls the revenue? With a 25-year concession handing control to Arabic Holding, how much will Somalia actually gain? Will revenue be reinvested locally or flow into private accounts?

Federal vs. regional power struggles: Will Mogadishu recognize this deal, or will it escalate tensions between federal authorities and South West State?

Security Risks: Given Al-Shabaab’s historical presence in Lower Shabelle, can South West State guarantee the port’s security against militant threats?

This strategic partnership with Kuwait and Egypt could redefine trade routes in the Horn of Africa, but unless there’s transparent federal oversight, Barawa’s future may be just as politically unstable as Somalia itself. Will this be an economic success story, or another geopolitical tug-of-war?