Saturday, April 11, 2026

An Orban loss in Hungary’s election could be the turning point Putin fears

ANALYSIS

Hungary's legislative elections on Sunday are being closely watched in Moscow. Prime Minister Viktor Orban has long been Russian President Vladimir Putin's closest ally within the European Union, and a victory for the opposition Tisza party led by Peter Magyar could undermine the Kremlin's influence in the bloc.


Issued on: 11/04/2026 -
FRANCE24
By: Sébastian SEIBT

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban with Russian president Vladimir Putin in the background. © Alexander Nemenov, AFP

After 16 years in power doing Russia's bidding in Brussels, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s Fidesz party is at risk of losing power in Sunday's parliamentary elections, with challenger Peter Magyar significantly ahead in polls.

The Kremlin appears to have pulled out all the stops to boost its man in Budapest. An internal intelligence report for Russia’s SVR intelligence service revealed in March outlined a strategy dubbed “the Gamechanger”, which included staging an assassination attempt against Orban to “fundamentally alter the entire paradigm of the election campaign”.

The Hungarian campaign has seen a major escalation in interference, including “documented influence operations, disinformation campaigns and reports of intelligence-linked activities”, says Edit Zgut-Przybylska, a research affiliate at the Democracy Institute of the Central European University in Budapest and a specialist on democratic backsliding.

Moscow has also been accused of dispatching a team of election "specialists" – linked to the GRU, Russian military intelligence – to Budapest to closely monitor these interference operations.

At this point, "what we are seeing is not interference but the collusion between the Hungarian government and Russia", says Anton Shekhovtsov, director of the Center for Democratic Integrity in Austria and an expert on the links between Moscow and Europe's far-right parties.

Shekhovtsov noted that US Vice President JD Vance’s joint appearance with Orban in Budapest earlier this week was another attempt by “foreign interests” to influence the vote. Rightwing US President Donald Trump has even promised to boost Hungary’s economy if Orban wins re-election.

Putin's translator and Moscow’s 'Trojan Horse'

The appointment of Daria Boyarskaya, a former interpreter for Russian President Vladimir Putin, to the observer team overseeing the vote for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has come under fire from Hungarian rights groups as well as European lawmakers. An open letter signed by 56 members of the European Parliament last week called for Boyarskaya to be removed from the role, citing her ties to Moscow.

“Russia has a clear interest in keeping Orban in power, because Hungary has consistently acted as a Trojan Horse of the Kremlin who worked against EU decisions on Ukraine and sanctions against Russia,” says Zgut-Przybylska.

Putin would lose his "most loyal and reliable" partner within the European Union, she says – a position only underscored by the leak last week of a conversation in which Orban said he was ready to help Putin in any way he can.

"I am at your service," he told the Russian president.

Russia has also tried to help Orban leverage the war in neighbouring Ukraine to “reframe the election as an existential choice between ‘Peace and stability’ under Fidesz and ‘Chaos and war' under Tisza”, Zgut-Przybylska says.

But Moscow's attempts to sow fear do not appear to have convinced an electorate of disgruntled voters who want the government to do more to help them in their daily lives, including in areas like public education and health care. Opposition challenger Magyar, a former member of Orban's Fidesz who advocates a more pro-European policy, is leading by some 10 points in the polls.

Incremental change

Even a win for Tisza would not guarantee that it is able to successfully govern Hungary, observes Shekhovtsov, noting that after 16 years in power, Orban’s party and his allies have made deep inroads into Hungarian political institutions. The current prime minister has done everything he can to ensure his allies, political institutions and friendly media outlets outlive him.

But a Magyar win could mean that Hungary “would begin distancing itself from Russia, though Russian influence would not disappear overnight”, Zgut-Przybylska says. Moscow's influence could even ramp up, as the Kremlin might actively “work to weaken” a new Hungarian government that was looking to normalise relations with the EU.

“Of course there will be huge attempts by the Russians to undermine Magyar,” Shekhovtsov agrees, adding that Moscow can also expect continued support from Orban from within Hungary.

And Russia still has allies in Europe beyond Hungary – notably in rightwing Prime Minister Robert Fico's Slovakia – that could continue to undermine pro-Ukraine and pro-European Union policies.

Slovakia would, however, be a weaker replacement as a Russian partner since it is more integrated into the European system and thus has less room for manoeuvre. “Slovakia is part of the eurozone, [so] Fico has more constraints within the EU decision-making system and is less isolated than Hungary,” Zgut-Przybylska says.

'Vladimir Putin absolutely nervous' about Hungary's election, expert says

© France 24
08:21



Russia might still be able to rely on Hungarian help even if Magyar wins. While he has promised a more Russo-sceptical approach, he is unlikely to make a complete break with Moscow.

“It's not good for Russia, but it's not a complete catastrophe for them either,” says Michael Toomey, a specialist in populism in Central Europe at the University of Glasgow, of a possible Magyar win.

Slovakia and Hungary have insisted on retaining access to cheap Russian oil and gas, arguing against or even blocking sanctions on Moscow.

Magyar reportedly also wants to ensure access to Russian energy resources.

“There are a lot of structural reasons for Hungary to want to continue to push for access to Russian oil and gas,” Toomey notes. So while Magyar is more likely than Orban to be supportive of Ukraine – and will be “less of a thorn in the side for the EU” – that does not necessarily mean he will always fall into line.

While the EU has called for all member states to end their reliance on Russian energy by 2027, Magyar has already made clear that Hungary would not be able to do this before 2035.

No one expects Budapest to cut ties with Moscow, says Shekhovtsov. What is expected, he says, is for Hungary “to be a responsible member of the European Union and follow the line of the European Union on Russia”.

And any real break from Russia can only happen if Tisza secures a comfortable majority in Sunday's vote, which would allow it to avoid making significant ideological compromises just to form a government.

If Magyar wins but doesn't secure such a majority, Shekhovtsov says, “he will have a huge uphill battle to fight”.

This article has been translated from the original in French.

 

Americans back NATO; Republicans split along Trump-party lines



Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania

Americans' views of NATO membership 

image: 

Source: IOD National Survey, Feb.-March 2026. N = 1,330, MOE = +/- 3.5 Annenberg Public Policy Center 2026

view more 

Credit: Annenberg Public Policy Center




A nationally representative survey conducted by the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) of the University of Pennsylvania finds that a majority of Americans value U.S. membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and consider it a meaningful security asset, but views are sharply divided along partisan lines.

In addition, Republican attitudes diverge by whether respondents identify mainly as supporters of President Donald Trump or of the Republican Party more generally, a pattern that points to a broader fracturing of party consensus on U.S. foreign policy commitments.

The Annenberg survey, released following Trump’s April 8th meeting with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte at the White House, comes amid an ongoing debate among Republican leaders over U.S. participation in NATO. In early April, Senators Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) and Thom Tillis (R., N.C.) broke with Trump after he said he was considering U.S. withdrawal from the alliance, warning that an exit would undermine U.S. security. Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.), however, has been supportive of Trump’s declared desire to leave NATO and of his constitutional authority to withdraw without requiring Senate approval.

Findings

The survey, by the Annenberg Public Policy Center’s Institutions of Democracy division, was conducted among a nationally representative sample of 1,330 U.S. citizens age 18 and older from Feb. 17-March 20, 2026. (Download the topline here.) The survey finds that:

  • A majority of U.S. adults (61%) say that the United States remaining a member of NATO is at least moderately important;
  • Just over half of Americans (52%) say U.S. security benefits a moderate amount or more from NATO membership;
  • Nearly 4 in 10 Americans (38%) have a somewhat or very favorable opinion of NATO – more than twice as many as those who hold an unfavorable opinion (18%);
  • There is a deep divide among Republicans: fewer than 1 in 4 (22%) who identify primarily as Trump supporters say NATO provides at least a moderate amount of benefit to U.S. security, while nearly half (47%) who identify primarily with the Republican party do.

“Although President Trump has repeatedly condemned NATO and said he’s considering withdrawing the U.S. from it, a majority of Americans say that the United States should remain a NATO member and that U.S. security benefits from NATO membership,” said Matthew Levendusky, director of APPC’s Institutions of Democracy division and a professor of political science and communication at the University of Pennsylvania.

NATO membership and U.S. security benefits

The survey finds broad but not universal U.S. support for NATO. Overall, 61% of Americans say remaining in NATO is at least moderately important, compared with 21% who say it is only a little or not at all important and 18% who are not sure. Just over half of Americans (52%) say U.S. security benefits at least a moderate amount from NATO membership – including 19% who say it benefits a great deal and 14% who say it benefits a lot – compared with 26% who say U.S. security benefits a little or not at all, and 22% who say they are not sure.

Party differences: The survey respondents were asked in a prior wave of this survey whether they identify with or lean toward the Republican party or the Democratic party, or are independent/some other party.

Democrats are the most supportive of NATO: 79% say it is moderately or more important the U.S. remain a NATO member and 68% say NATO provides at least a moderate security benefit.

Republicans are notably less likely to hold those views: 44% say NATO membership is at least moderately important, while 34% report moderate or greater security benefits – a Republican-Democrat gap of 35 and 34 points, respectively, on NATO membership and U.S. security.

Respondents who are self-described independents or members of other parties fall between the two partisan poles, with 58% seeing NATO membership as important and 55% seeing security benefits to the United States.

NATO favorability

Beyond security-benefit and membership-importance questions, the survey also measures overall favorability toward NATO. About 4 in 10 Americans (38%) hold a somewhat or very favorable view of NATO, more than twice as many as those (18%) with a somewhat or very unfavorable view of it. But 28% say their view of NATO is neither favorable nor unfavorable and 17% report that they don’t know enough to say. Partisan differences are significant: 55% of Democrats express favorable views, compared with 21% of Republicans and 35% of independents.

Foreign policy

The survey also asks whether U.S. foreign military interventions more often improve or worsen situations in the countries where they occur. Overall, 42% say such interventions worsen the situations, while 20% say such interventions improve them. About 4 in 10 Republicans (39%) say they think that U.S. foreign military interventions improve conditions where they occur, while 6% of Democrats do, a 33-point gap. Only 10% of independents say U.S. interventions improve situations.

The Republican divide: Trump loyalists vs. party identifiers

One striking finding concerns divisions solely within the ranks of Republicans. A prior wave of this survey had asked Republicans whether they consider themselves more of a supporter of Donald Trump, more of a supporter of the Republican Party, both equally, or neither.

On NATO membership, 28% of Trump supporters vs. 59% of Republican party supporters say continued membership is at least moderately important. On the benefits to U.S. security, the difference is similarly pronounced: 22% of Republicans who identify primarily as Trump supporters say NATO provides at least a moderate amount of benefit to U.S. security – compared with 47% among those who identify primarily with the GOP, a 25-point difference.

Republicans who say they are supporters of both Trump and the party fall between the two groups, with 38% seeing the benefits of U.S. membership in NATO and 31% seeing the benefits of NATO to U.S. security.

“What we’re seeing is not simply a partisan divide on foreign policy — the data may also suggest a fracturing within the Republican coalition itself. Although these subgroup patterns are based on smaller sample sizes, the different views on NATO between Trump supporters and party supporters are significant,” said Shawn Patterson Jr., a research analyst at APPC. “This has real implications for American foreign policy.”

APPC’s Institutions of Democracy survey

The Annenberg Public Policy Center’s Institutions of Democracy survey was fielded with a nationally representative sample of 1,330 U.S. citizens ages 18 and older from Feb. 17-March 20, 2026. The survey was conducted for APPC by SSRS, an independent research company, primarily online, with a small sample of phone respondents. Respondents were weighted to align with population benchmarks. The margin of error for the full sample is ±3.5 percentage points, and it is larger for subgroups.

Download the topline and the survey methodology. See the topline for question wording.

APPC’s Institutions of Democracy division studies democratic institutions, public opinion, political behavior, and information environments. IOD conducts original survey research and related empirical work to provide rigorous, nonpartisan evidence on contemporary political and public-affairs questions.

The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania was established in 1993 to educate the public and policy makers about communication’s role in advancing public understanding of political, science, and health issues at the local, state, and federal levels.

Americans' views of NATO membership 

Source: IOD National Survey, Feb.-March 2026. N = 1,330, MOE = +/- 3.5 Annenberg Public Policy Center 2026

Americans' views on U.S. military interventions 

Source: IOD National Survey, Feb.-March 2026. N = 1,330, MOE = +/- 3.5 Annenberg Public Policy Center 2026

Republican views on NATO and military intervention 

IOD National Survey, Feb.-March 2026. N = 1,330, MOE = +/- 3.5 Annenberg Public Policy Center 2026

Poll: Catholic Support For President Donald Trump Drops Below 50% Amid Iran War

April 11, 2026 
EWTN News
By Tyler Arnold

President Donald Trump was elected in 2024 with support from a majority of Catholic voters, but a poll shows his support from Catholics dipping below 50% amid the U.S. war against Iran.

The poll, conducted March 20–23 jointly by Republican pollster Shaw & Co. Research and Democratic pollster Beacon Research, found that 48% of Catholic voters approve of the job Trump is doing as president and 52% disapprove.

It found that 23% of Catholics strongly approve of the job he is doing, 25% somewhat approve, 12% somewhat disapprove, and 40% strongly disapprove. The pollʼs margin of error is plus or minus 3%.

Pope Leo XIV and Catholic bishops in the United States and globally have encouraged Trump to pursue peace and diplomacy, as opposed to war, in Iran. With peace negotiations underway, the Holy Father echoed his call for more diplomacy in an April 10 post on X.

“God does not bless any conflict,” Leo said. “Anyone who is a disciple of Christ, the Prince of Peace, is never on the side of those who once wielded the sword and today drop bombs. Military action will not create space for freedom or times of peace, which comes only from the patient promotion of coexistence and dialogue among peoples.”

In the 2024 election, Trump won the Catholic vote by a 12-point margin, securing 55% of the voting bloc’s support, compared with former Vice President Kamala Harris’ 43%. In 2020, Trump won 49% of the Catholic vote, compared with former President Joe Biden’s 50%.

This poll comes as Trump’s support is dwindling with the broader American public as well. The poll found that only 41% of all voters approve of the president, and 59% disapprove.
Iran war disapproval

The poll found that most Catholics disapprove of Trump’s actions in Iran and the use of military force against the country but still favor some American influence in the region.

According to the poll, only 40% of Catholics approve of the way Trump has handled the conflict with Iran, and 60% disapprove. It found that 45% of Catholics support military force against Iran and 55% oppose military force. Similarly, 45% of Catholics believe military action against Iran is going well, and 55% believe it is not going well.

The poll found that 39% of Catholics believe attacks on Iran will make the country safer, 38% believe it will make the country less safe, and 23% believe it will not make much of a difference.

Alternatively, 71% of Catholics believe ending Iran’s nuclear program is important, and 29% said it is not important. It found 61% said it is important to bring about changes in Iran’s government, and 39% said it is not important.

The poll also found that 71% of Catholics believe it is important to protect the flow of oil from the region, and 29% believe it is not important. It found that 73% of Catholics believe it is important to reduce Iran’s support for terrorism, and 27% believe it is not important.

According to the poll, 74% of Catholics are concerned about Iran potentially getting a nuclear weapon, and 26% are not concerned.
2024 coalition ‘in tatters’

John White, professor emeritus of politics at The Catholic University of America, told EWTN News that he believes Trump’s 2024 coalition “is now in tatters [and] Catholics are no exception.”

“The Iran War is unpopular with the American public and Catholics reflect that,” he said. “What may carry more resonance with Catholic voters are the strong and blunt statements about the war from Pope Leo. It is not unreasonable to assume that there is a higher level of cognitive dissonance among Catholics who support Trump but are hearing the words of the pope. For some, that may result in their shifting opinions.”

Susan Hanssen, history professor at the University of Dallas — a Catholic institution — had a similar view about why Catholic support has dipped, telling EWTN News “a reversal of positions seems to be underway within the Catholic community.

“During Trump‘s campaign, Trump‘s supporters expressed hopes for a fundamental realignment of America’s foreign policy, particularly withdrawing from ‘forever wars,’ while many of Trump’s Catholic critics expressed concern during his campaign that he would disengage America from its support for Ukraine or [for] Israel,” she said. “Support for Trump’s strong stance on Iran seems to be coming now … from Catholics who were wary of Trump earlier.”

Vice President JD Vance, a Catholic, has departed the U.S. for his trip to Pakistan, where he plans to directly negotiate with Iranian leaders for a long-term peace while both sides hold off on military strikes during a two-week ceasefire.


EWTN News is the rebranding of the Catholic News Agency (CNA), following the decision by EWTN — which was launched as a Catholic television network in 1981 by Mother Angelica, PCPA — that brings CNA and its affiliated ACI international outlets under a single, unified identity. Previous CNA articles may be found by clicking here.
‘Truly Insane’: Pentagon Threatened Pope After He Condemned Trump’s Military Attacks

The US “has the military power to do whatever it wants in the world,” a top official told the Vatican’s US representative. “The Catholic Church had better take its side.”


Pope Leo XIV leads his weekly general audience in St. Peter’s Squarein Vatican City on April 8, 2026.
(Photo by Maria Grazia Picciarella/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)


Julia Conley
Apr 09, 2026
COMMON DREAMS


Pope Leo, the first American to be named the head of the worldwide Catholic Church, has spoken out against President Donald Trump’s policies frequently this year as the US has invaded Venezuela and Iran and threatened Cuba’s 10 million people with an oil blockade that has crippled the island’s economy and healthcare system—and according to new reports, his criticism has followed a warning from a Pentagon official who demanded the Vatican take the “side” of the White House in foreign disputes.

The Free Press originally reported this week that after the pope’s “State of the World” address on January 9, US Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby called Cardinal Christophe Pierre, the Vatican’s US diplomatic representative, to Washington..


In Latest Rebuke of Trump and Hegseth, Pope Says ‘God Does Not Bless Any Conflict’


Colby told Pierre that the US “has the military power to do whatever it wants in the world.”

“The Catholic Church had better take its side,” he said, according to The Free Press.

Another Pentagon official alluded to the Avignon papacy, a period in the 14th century in which the French monarchy ordered an attack on Pope Boniface VIII and forced seven successive popes to relocate from Rome to Avignon in France.

According to Christopher Hale of the Substack blog Letters From Leo, who independently confirmed the meeting had taken place, Vatican officials took the remarks about the Avignon papacy as “a threat to use military force against the Holy See.”

“Bringing up the Avignon papacy as a threat is truly insane,” said progressive organizer Jonathan Cohn.



The pope is unlikely to visit the US during Trump’s presidency as a result of the meeting, Hale reported. Pope Leo rejected an invitation to the White House for the United States’ 250th anniversary celebration on July 4, and is reportedly planning to visit the island of Lampedusa in the Mediterranean that day, where thousands of North African immigrants have arrived as they attempt to reach Europe.

The pope, reported Hale, “is too deliberate a man to have chosen that date by accident.”

The Pentagon meeting took place days after Pope Leo angered the Trump administration, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, by lamenting the fact that “a diplomacy that promotes dialogue and seeks consensus among all parties is being replaced by a diplomacy based on force, by either individuals or groups of allies.”



He made the comments days after the US invaded Venezuela, killing dozens of people and abducting President Nicolás Maduro, and as the US continued its boat bombing campaign that began last year in Latin America.

Since then, the pope has made numerous statements in recent weeks as the US joined Israel in bombing Iran and Trump issued increasingly bellicose threats to attack the country’s population of 93 million people.

He said on Tuesday, hours before a two-week ceasefire was reached between the US, Iran, and Israel, that Trump’s threat to wipe out the “whole civilization” of Iran was “truly unacceptable.”

“There are certainly issues of international law here, but even more, it is a moral question concerning the good of the people as a whole, in its entirety,” said Pope Leo. “Let’s look for solutions in a peaceful way.”

He also appeared to reject a call from Hegseth last month when the defense secretary asked Americans to pray for US troops in Iran “in the name of Jesus Christ.”

“Brothers and sisters, this is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war,” said the Pope in his homily on Palm Sunday days later. “He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them, saying: ‘Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen: your hands are full of blood.’”

The New Republic reported that prior to the January meeting Pierre was called to, there were no public records of meetings between the Vatican and Pentagon officials, “let alone an instance in which the world power suggested that it could force the Bishop of Rome into captivity.”

When asked about the meeting on Wednesday, Vice President JD Vance—a Catholic convert—at first claimed not to know who the Vatican’s US representative was, before saying the reported was “uncorroborated.”


The Defense Department also denied The Free Press’ account of the meeting, saying the characterization was “highly exaggerated and distorted.”

Writer Pedro Gonzalez noted that former Trump adviser Steve Bannon discussed strategies to “take down” the late Pope Frances with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, according to files on Epstein that were released by the Department of Justice.

“It is for this and other reasons that people take seriously the report about the Trump-Vance administration threatening Pope Leo to bend the knee or else,” said Gonzalez. “These people are insane. Their hunger for power is bottomless. Moral resistance will be met with intimidation and threats, whether it’s in America or in Rome.”

Catholic Herald journalist confirms Pentagon delivered 'bitter lecture' to Vatican official


Pope Leo XIV leads the Angelus prayer from a window of the Apostolic Palace, at the Vatican, February 15, 2026. REUTERS/Remo Casilli

Sarah K. Burris
April 09, 2026 
ALTERNET

A journalist with The Catholic Herald has confirmed that the Pentagon attacked Pope Leo XIV and the Catholic Church. What appears to be in dispute, however, is which U.S. Pentagon official made the threat.

Niwa Limbu, an accredited Vatican correspondent, wrote on X that two sources said it was not Elbridge Colby who threatened the Vatican in a closed-door meeting this week. The DOD's undersecretary of defense for policy had been accused by The Free Press of being the source of a "bitter lecture."

"The United States has the military power to do whatever it wants in the world. The Catholic Church had better take its side," he was accused of saying.

But Limbu said that details about Colby are now in dispute.

In a post on X, Limbu said that Cardinal Christophe Pierre suggested over the phone that there was a media blackout over the topic. His Eminence commented, "I would prefer not to speak."

Holy See Press Office aide Matteo Bruni also declined to comment on the Pentagon meeting.

Writer and humorist Emily Zanotti, who is Catholic, argued that it isn't unusual for the Vatican to screw up PR.

She also had a few comments on getting down to the truth on Vatican issues.


"A few things can be true here: 1) It doesn’t quite make sense why the PENTAGON summoned a Vatican ambassador; 2) Bringing up Avignon is straight up insane, if it happened, which seems likely, and that’s aggressive towards Catholics," she wrote.

She also pointed out that she doesn't believe Christopher Hale is a reliable source. She wondered if "the Vatican probably just went 'WTF' and moved on, and until an actually reliable source, like @PillarCatholic confirms any Vatican response, you simply shouldn’t believe any suggestions."

Vice President JD Vance told reporters he wants to get the situation sorted out.

“I would actually like to talk to Cardinal Christophe Pierre and, frankly, to our people, to figure out what actually happened,” he said. “I think it’s always a bad idea to offer an opinion on stories that are unconfirmed and uncorroborated, so I’m not going to do that.”

There is a larger conversation in the Catholic community because Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's brand of Christian nationalism, and the broader evangelical-focused "MAGA" movement, has made Catholics feel unwelcome. The DOD was criticized last week for having a "Protestant-only" Good Friday service. Typically, there isn't a mass on Good Friday. What was odd to some, however, is that the email sent to all staffers singled out Catholics when it didn't need to.

"There will be a Protestant Service (No Catholic Mass) for Good Friday today at the Pentagon Chapel,” the email read last week.

Anti-Catholicism dates back generations. President John F. Kennedy's candidacy was in question as voters wondered whether he was loyal to the U.S. or the Vatican.

Hegseth's pastor, Doug Wilson, has a history of anti-Catholicism that is well documented. As Right Wing Watch reported in March, Wilson explained in his ideal Christian nation, “public displays of idolatry” would be banned, including Catholic parades. Wilson is one of many in the Trump administration with some anti-Catholic sentiment and antisemitic beliefs, an MS NOW column explained.


Pentagon denies Trump official threatened war against the Pope


Newly elected Pope Leo XIV, Cardinal Robert Prevost of the United States appears on the balcony of St. Peter's Basilica, at the Vatican, May 8, 2025. REUTERS/Yara Nardi
April 09, 2026 
ALTERNET

On Wednesday, reports emerged that the Trump Pentagon threatened to wage war against the Pope. The following day, however, the agency released a statement denying the claims, asserting that the meeting between Administration and Vatican officials was “respectful and reasonable.”

The denial of hostility comes in the wake of a story involving a closed-door meeting between Under Secretary Elbridge Colby and Cardinal Christophe Pierre — Pope Leo XIV’s then-ambassador to the United States — in which the former told the latter, “America has the military power to do whatever it wants in the world. The Catholic Church had better take its side.”

According to Pope Leo XIV chronicler Christopher Hale, as tensions rose, one U.S. official “reached for a fourteenth-century weapon and invoked the Avignon Papacy, the period when the French Crown used military force to bend the bishop of Rome to its will.”


Supposedly, this “bitter lecture” from the Trump Administration came in response to the president’s anger over the Pope’s January state-of-the-world address, particularly his advocacy for “a diplomacy that promotes dialogue and seeks consensus among all parties is being replaced by a diplomacy based on force.”

Trump and the Pentagon took this as a challenge to the president’s so-called “Donroe Doctrine,” a portmanteau of “Donald” with the “Monroe Doctrine,” the latter of which historically asserted American supremacy over the Western Hemisphere.


But now, while a Pentagon statement confirms that the meeting happened, it denies the belligerent tone.

“We can confirm that Cardinal Christophe Pierre had a meeting on January 22, 2026, at the Pentagon where he and several officials had discussed current affairs,” the statement read, but went on to claim that the “characterization of the meeting is highly exaggerated and distorted. The meeting between Pentagon and Vatican officials was a respectful and reasonable discussion. We have nothing but the highest regard and welcome continued dialogue with the Holy See.”

Whatever the content of the meeting, it was an unprecedented event, as there is no previously documented case of a Vatican official being summoned to the Pentagon.

In Echoes of Corbyn and Mamdani, Insurgent Candidate Wins Canadian New Democratic Party Leadership


Avi Lewis now leads the New Democratic Party after a campaign reminiscent of left-leaning politicians in the US and UK.

April 8, 2026

At the center is leader of Canada's New Democratic Party Avi Lewis.Canada’s NDP / Le NPD du Canada

Truthout is an indispensable resource for activists, movement leaders and workers everywhere. Please make this work possible with a quick donation.

Canada’s left-leaning New Democratic Party (NDP) has elected a new leader, someone whose campaign drew comparisons to the politics and style of U.S. figures like Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Zohran Mamdani. On March 29, the NDP elected Avi Lewis on the first round of balloting with 55 percent of the vote in his first successful political campaign.

The NDP was decimated in the April 2025 federal election. Former leader Jagmeet Singh lost his own electoral district, and the party only won seven seats, four short of what’s needed to maintain its official party status. It was the worst showing for the NDP in its 64-year history.

Lewis also came in third in that election in his electoral district, his second third-place finish in the two elections that he has run in.

But a commitment to be unapologetically left and a promise to overhaul the party were his key to his victory in the NDP leadership race. Lewis’s allies won key positions within the party, clearing the path for him to implement his campaign promises.

For decades, the NDP has watered down its left-wing policies. But with a Liberal government that has promised to pull tens of billions of dollars from federal departments to fund the military, party members are hungry for a left turn. Are Canadians ready for it?


Advocates Put Palestinian Rights on the Ballot as Canada’s Election Nears
Over 300 Canadian electoral candidates have endorsed a 5-point “Vote Palestine” platform thanks to activist pressure. By Jillian Kestler-D’Amours , TruthoutApril 23, 2025


Who Is Avi Lewis?

Lewis’s campaign was ambitious. He promised to implement national rent controls, build 1 million public housing units, increase taxes on the wealthy, expand the electricity power grid to phase out oil and gas, and fund free public transit. “We can have nice things, but we gotta fight for them together,” he said in one campaign video. The promise to be boldly progressive was music to the ears of many New Democrats who have been frustrated that the NDP has not been able to articulate a compelling reason for the high cost of housing and food, or a solution to the crisis.

Lewis’s campaign capitalized on widespread opposition to U.S. foreign policy, including the thousands of actions that Canadians have taken to show their solidarity with Gaza over the past several years. During his victory speech, he took aim at both U.S. foreign policy and Canada’s willingness to go along with it, saying:

We need a government … that acts with moral clarity when it matters. When missiles are falling on schools and hospitals; when Israel commits a genocide in Gaza, we call it by its name and we do everything in our power to bring it to an end. When the U.S. and Israel start an illegal and reprehensible war against Iran that sets the world on fire, we say Canada should have absolutely no role in it whatsoever.

While other NDP leadership candidates had similar positions on U.S. foreign policy, Lewis was able to rise above his peers by taking cues from social movement organizing, activists, and successful left-wing campaigns south of the border.

Lewis has very little partisan political experience himself, though he comes from a political dynasty. His grandfather, David Lewis, led the federal NDP from 1971 to 1975, and Avi Lewis’s father, Stephen Lewis, led the Ontario wing of the party from 1970 until 1978. His mother is iconic feminist journalist Michele Landsburg. Lewis, 57, has mostly stayed out of public life, until his first election campaign in 2021.

Some Canadians will remember Lewis as a host on the television channel MuchMusic. After that, he worked for CBC on the debate show “CounterSpin” and later, for Al Jazeera. He has produced a handful of documentaries. His wife, Naomi Klein, is a key left-wing voice in American politics. His campaigns have featured non-Canadian celebrity endorsements from Jane Fonda, Billy Bragg, and V (formerly known as Eve Ensler).

The Liberals under Prime Minister Mark Carney managed to eat most of the NDP’s support by framing a vote against Carney as a de facto vote for Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre. The strategy worked during the 2025 election, and many people who would normally vote NDP voted Liberal, hoping that Carney would take on Donald Trump and protect Canada’s sovereignty.

While the NDP is now riddled with campaign debt, Lewis nonetheless out-fundraised all of the other candidates combined by pulling in more than 1 million Canadian dollars. That is equivalent to one-quarter what the entire party raised in the 2025 election.

A Rising Left to Combat a Right-Wing Liberal Party?

From 2022 to 2024, the NDP propped up Justin Trudeau’s deeply unpopular minority Liberal government. Trudeau betrayed his promise on electoral reform, souring many progressive Canadians on his tenure. And he became a symbol of Canadians’ frustrations with how the pandemic was handled, thanks to an aggressive right-wing movement to pin every pandemic-related inconvenience on Trudeau personally. In exchange for minor concessions like a dental care program for some low-income Canadians and coverage for diabetes medication and birth control under the public health insurance program, the NDP voted “yes” on confidence motions to keep Trudeau in power. Over the course of the agreement, the NDP voted 38 times alongside the Liberals out of 55 motions total, including for motions that wouldn’t have triggered an election.

In early 2025, staring down a federal election, the Liberals swapped Trudeau out for former two-time central banker Mark Carney. The NDP didn’t pivot, and Jagmeet Singh, who had attached himself to Trudeau through the confidence motions, came in third in his own electoral district.

Carney’s tenure has been a radical departure from the Trudeau era. He has promised more than $60 billion in cuts from the federal budget — cuts so deep that some journalists have noted similarities between his plan and what Trump’s so-called “Department of Government Efficiency” managed to accomplish.

Carney’s cuts are far-reaching. For example, they will result in fewer food inspectors, close experimental farms where research is done to make improvements to agriculture in Canada, and eliminate prison-based librarians. While there has been some outrage over these cuts, Carney’s popularity has grown slightly since he was elected. He has enticed enough politicians to change their party affiliation to the Liberals, NDP members included, that a majority government is within reach: Of the three by-elections to be held on April 13, two seats are seen as Liberal strongholds, and the Liberals won the third riding by a single vote in 2025. If Carney wins two of these seats, he will have his majority, and, due to Canada’s parliamentary system, will not need to form a coalition government.

Lewis is starting his tenure on difficult political terrain. He was barely noticed outside of the party faithful during the leadership race. The NDP membership only grew to 100,000 people during the race compared to 124,000 during the party’s last leadership race in 2017. When Naheed Nenshi ran to be leader of the Alberta NDP in 2024, 69,000 people in that province alone joined to vote in it. Despite the fact that the race had started on September 1, by mid-March, one poll showed that just 13 percent of Canadians selected Avi Lewis as their first choice (44 percent said they didn’t recognize any of the candidates’ names). While that was higher than the other leadership candidates, it has not turned Lewis into a household name, and many Canadians will first hear about him from a mainstream press, other politicians, and pundits who are antagonistic to left politics.


Backlash

Already, backlash to Lewis has been intense. One of the party’s seven members of parliament (MPs) switched to the Liberal Party during the final days of the leadership campaign (with rumors that Lewis will lose another MP to the provincial left-wing party Québec Solidaire). Then, immediately after Lewis’s victory, the leaders of the Alberta and Saskatchewan wings of the NDP criticized him publicly for being too far left. The leader of the Manitoba wing, Premier Wab Kinew, assured reporters that he supported Lewis even if their views didn’t line up perfectly.

Pundits and journalists were next. The National Post warned people to not “underestimate the appeal of Lewis’ Third Worldism”; the Calgary Herald said that a Lewis NDP “looks more communist than social democratic”; and The Globe and Mail columnist Konrad Yakabuski declared that in the wake of Lewis’s win, the NDP has “an antisemitism problem.” Never mind that Yakabuski is not Jewish, and Lewis — along with his new principal secretary and the new president of the party Niall Ricardo — are.

In anticipation of these attacks, the grassroots organization Independent Jewish Voices reminded Canadians that “the NDP is now Canada’s most Jewish-led party.”

A letter to the editor in The Globe that went viral on social media pointed out that Lewis’s father Stephen, who died shortly after Avi won the leadership race, was being praised by the same news outlets that were denigrating Avi Lewis, despite the two having virtually the same politics.

The Lewis campaign has so far withstood the attacks without giving into criticism, something that his team has no doubt learned from watching how other, similar campaigns in the U.K. and U.S. have unfolded.

Replicating Other Campaigns?

On March 30, Lewis delivered a speech to more than 1,000 delegates gathered in Winnipeg for the NDP convention. His victory was assured when, the day before, a slate critical of the party establishment and supportive of Lewis swept in through a very narrow election. His victory speech felt more like a victory lap than a crossing of the finish line.

He ended the speech with a nod to his cross-border allies: “This is about all of us, coming together to find our place and our power in the thrilling work in building our shared future. A government that works for the many, not for the money.” That slogan harkens to Jeremy Corbyn’s famous slogan for the many, not the few, and has appeared on podium signs behind Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez during some of her public events. Lewis’s campaign demands and rhetoric closely mirror the populist rhetoric that underpinned Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders’s “Fighting Oligarchy” tour.

This isn’t too surprising, given that Lewis has worked with Ocasio-Cortez before. He co-wrote the script for the short video A Message from the Future with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in 2019, working alongside Naomi Klein, who has been involved in campaigns for Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, and Zohran Mamdani. Lewis’s statement celebrating Mamdani’s victory said that Mamdani’s energy is “the same energy and vision that’s driving our campaign here in Canada.” He promised to create a public grocery service, a nod to one of Mamdani’s central campaign promises.

Lewis isn’t an insurgent member of a party that has enough reach in national politics to win the highest offices of the state, like Ocasio-Cortez is. Nor has he been elected before and practiced in the art of being a politician like Mamdani is. But he has clearly learned from their successes, hoping to borrow their more effective tactics. In a video with Klein the night of Mamadani’s victory, Lewis talked about how progressives need to understand that audacious proposals are key to securing electoral victories, which is what he takes from the Mamdani campaign.

Lewis doesn’t have the internal opposition that Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have faced within the Democratic Party; the NDP leaders who have criticized him are now marginal in the party. The federal council and party executive support him; the path is clear for Lewis to put his bold words into action.

With no seat in the House of Commons, Lewis has the benefit of being free from the demands of parliamentary life. He won’t be tied down in Ottawa, present in the House of Commons for votes where, as the leader of a party without status, he is given very little time to push forward any motions. However, he will need to win a seat in the next few years to cement his position in the Canadian political landscape.

As social conditions continue to deteriorate, fueled by global crises like the war on Iran, there has scarcely been a better time for a left-wing insurgency. Will Lewis be able to rise to the occasion?




Nora Loreto
Nora Loreto is a writer and activist based in Quebec City. She is also the president of the Canadian Freelance Union.

 

Naphtha shortages leading to petrochemical plants force majeures and record prices

Naphtha shortages leading to petrochemical plants force majeures and record prices
Naphtha is a critical feedstock for petrochemical plants, but shortages have led to some plants in Asia reneging on contracts and sent prices to a record highs. / bne IntelliNews
By Ben Aris in Berlin April 10, 2026

Petrochemical producers across Asia have begun shutting down operations after disruptions to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz sharply reduced supplies of naphtha and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), two critical feedstocks for the region’s chemical industry.

“Naphtha and LPG are the light end of the refining barrel, and boy, oh, boy, how important their roles are in the world that we live in,” Shanaka Anslem Perera, an independent analyst said, describing the immediate effect of constrained flows on Asia’s petrochemical system.

Indonesia's Chandra Asri (TPIA.JK) has declared force majeure on all contracts while two Japanese buyers, Maruzen Petrochemical and Mitsui Chemical, cancelled second-half April naphtha import tenders, Reuters reports. Pre-war Asia sourced roughly 4mn metric tonnes (36mn barrels) of Middle ​East naphtha monthly.

The disruption drove the benchmark naphtha ​refining margin in Asia to four-year high of about $173 per tonne over Brent crude. Naphtha was trading at $918 per tonne as of April 10, up by 88% YTD.

Some Asian buyers are mulling returning to Russian naphtha, another major supplier, in the worst case scenario. As of early 2026, Russia remains a top global exporter of naphtha, shifting its focus from Europe to Asia and the Middle East, with India and Taiwan as significant, though sometimes fluctuating, key buyers.

Last year between February 2022 and mid-2025, Taiwan became Russia’s biggest buyer, importing over $4.9bn in Russian naphtha, with Formosa Petrochemical the major buyer. This year South Korea's LG Chem (051910.KS) has also significantly stepped up imports from Russia, Reuters reports, after the US eased sanctions on buying Russian oil products in March. South Korea relies on imports to satisfy about 45% of its ‌naphtha demand, three quarters of which used to come from the Gulf.

Russian energy company Novatek is set to increase naphtha exports from its Ust-Luga complex in March to about 550,000 metric tons (t), from 360,000 t in February, market sources said and LSEG data showed.

Rising production in Ust-Luga and easing ice conditions in the Baltic Sea will allow Novatek to boost naphtha exports to Asian markets, where supply challenges due to the Gulf conflict have sent prices to record highs.

The Ust-Luga complex has three processing units with a capacity of 3 metric MMtpy each. It refines stable gas condensate into light and heavy naphtha, jet fuel, fuel oil and gasoil.

Novatek processed about 630,000 t of gas condensate at Ust‑Luga in February, when severe frost and heavy ice caused a shortage of ice‑class tankers, curbing loadings, traders said.

In March so far, processing rates at the Ust-Luga complex have averaged nearly 28,000 tonnes a day and could exceed 850,000 tonnes for the month, market sources added.

Despite sanctions, Russia supplies over one-fifth of the global market, with exports totalling roughly 30–35mn tonnes per annum.

Petchem building block

Naphtha, a light petroleum fraction also known in the industry as Tops, FRN, LVN or HVN, is the primary feedstock used in steam crackers. The process produces olefins including propylene, ethylene and butadiene, which form the basis for a wide range of plastics and chemical products.

“Naphtha is the basic building block for petrochemical plants. You feed naphtha into steam crackers to produce olefins like propylene, ethylene and butadiene, which is then used for downstream petchem products. This is the very starting point of where any of our plastics come from,” Perera said.

Asia relies heavily on Middle Eastern supplies of naptha. It is also used to dilute the super-heavy Venezuela crude that is so viscous it can’t be flowed through pipes like normal oil. About 60% of naphtha imports originate from the Gulf.

The supply squeeze has been compounded by lower refinery utilisation across the region, reducing domestic output of feedstocks. Steam crackers, like refineries, cannot operate at very low utilisation. It’s an all or nothing process.

Several Asian producers have already declared force majeure on petrochemical deliveries as feedstock shortages deepen.

LPG, which can also be used as a cracking feedstock, has provided little relief. Refining systems typically yield only about 1–2% LPG, meaning output falls sharply when refinery runs decline.

“The yield of LPG from the refining kit is only a mere 1–2%, yet imagine needing to turn down the intake and get only 0.5–1% yield. That's a drastic 50% reduction of available supply,” Pereras says.

Governments in major consuming markets have intervened to prioritise household supply. India and the Indonesian government then quickly mandated for maximum LPG to be diverted out from the petchem sector into cooking gas, another common use for LPG, as well as car fuel. The disruption could leave petrochemical plants offline for an extended period even if crude flows recover.