Officials issue warning as destructive creatures hitch rides into Great  Lakes: 'Thousands and thousands of pounds of these things'

Christine Dulion
Thu, February 19, 2026 
TCD


Photo Credit: iStock

New ballast water standards in the U.S. only apply to newly built Great Lakes vessels and oceangoing ships, leaving existing "lakers" exempt from regulations.


While Canada moves to tighten freighter restrictions across the Great Lakes, a regulatory gap in the United States continues allowing invasive species to hitch rides in ballast water — costing hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

What's happening?

In September 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency finalized new ballast water standards to slow the spread of invasive species, but environmentalists say the rules fall short. They only apply to newly built Great Lakes vessels and oceangoing ships — not to the roughly 63 "lakers" that already operate within the freshwater system, the Chicago Tribune reported.

Considering Canada will require ballast water treatment systems on all ships by 2030, this imbalance is problematic.

Environmental advocates have filed a petition arguing that most of today's ships are getting a "free pass." They asked for the rules to include existing freighters.

"Why exempt ships when we know that there is technology that they can put on that will at least try to reduce the spread of invasive species?" National Wildlife Federation policy director Marc Smith asked the Tribune.

Why are invasive species concerning?

When ships load or unload cargo, they pump millions of gallons of water into ballast tanks for stability. That water often contains microscopic organisms, larvae, and invasive species. When discharged elsewhere, they can establish new infestations.

Invasive species devastate ecosystems by outcompeting native species for food and habitat — disrupting food chains and threatening biodiversity. Zebra and quagga mussels, for example, cause over $500 million in annual damage to the Great Lakes region by clogging pipes and reducing fish populations, per the Tribune.

"These mussels build up huge masses, thousands and thousands of pounds of these things on water intake pipes. They can plug and damage infrastructure," said Greg McClinchey, director of policy and legislative affairs for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. "It costs huge amounts of money for the cities to keep our water structures working."

What's being done to protect the Great Lakes?

Quick action is imperative to prevent the spread of invasive species, as Canada's response to an infestation in a Manitoba lake proved. Governments have also taken steps to address invasions, including with bipartisan bills to support coordinated responses such as the Save the Great Lakes Fish Act.

Stopping the spread of invasive species from ballast water would make a big difference. In the U.S., research teams are testing systems that use filtration and ultraviolet light to kill organisms before water is discharged. But environmental groups say the region needs a universal standard.

"Why not set the standard and let technology catch up?" Smith said. "We just want all vessels regulated. We want the Great Lakes to be protected."

Canadians kind of hate America now. Our new poll shows just how much.

Nick Taylor-Vaisey and Anna Wiederkehr
Thu, February 19, 2026 
POLITICO

OTTAWA — It's the world's most awkward breakup.

More than a year after U.S. President Donald Trump casually joked about absorbing Canada and repeatedly threatened debilitating tariffs on its goods, many Canadians are convinced their former pals to the south have lost the plot.

New results from The POLITICO Poll suggest a lasting chill has settled over the world's former bosom buddies. Americans are rosy as ever about their northern neighbors, but Canadians don't share the love.

Their message to America: It's not us, it's you.

Canadians don't see Trump's America as merely an annoyance, the survey found. They consider the superpower next door the world's greatest threat to peacetime.

The POLITICO Poll — in partnership with U.K. polling firm Public First — finds Canadians increasingly view the United States as a source of global volatility instead of as a stabilizing ally.

In survey question after survey question, Canadians say the U.S. no longer reflects their values, is more likely to provoke conflict than to prevent it and, as a result, is pushing Canada to consider closer ties with other global powers — including overtures to China that would have seemed unthinkable only a couple of years ago.

Here's the Canada-U.S. schism explained in five charts.


The POLITICO Poll with Public First(Anna Wiederkehr/POLITICO)

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney rose to power on a pledge to defend Canada from Trump. When the realities of a prolonged trade war set in, he promised to reduce Canada's reliance on its nearest neighbor.

Roughly three-quarters of Canadian exports find their way to U.S. customers. Carney has traveled the world in search of new partnerships with the European Union, China and Qatar. A new defense industrial strategy sets targets aimed at building up domestic production and buying overseas kit for the military only when necessary.

Carney put a finer point on his worldview with a headline-making rallying cry in Davos: In a world of great-power rivalry and fewer rules, middle powers need to band together.

The POLITICO Poll shows Carney's approach is popular at home.

Canadians were the most likely — among respondents in Canada, Germany, France and the U.K. — to say the U.S. is not a reliable ally (58 percent).

A slight 42 percent plurality of respondents from Canada go even further, saying the U.S. is no longer an ally of Canada. Only about one in three Canadians, 37 percent, said “The US is still an ally of Canada.”

Other results that reveal the extent of Canada's mistrust:


57 percent of Canadians in the poll said the U.S. cannot be depended on in a crisis.


67 percent say the U.S. "challenges" — as opposed to supports — its allies around the world.


69 percent agree the U.S. tends to create problems for other countries rather than solve them.

POLITICO Poll with Public First(Anna Wiederkehr/POLITICO)

Europeans see the greatest threat to world peace in their own backyard.

Slight majorities in the three European countries in the poll chose Russia, which upended the global order nearly four years ago with its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, as the largest threat: Germany (56 percent), France (55 percent) and the UK (53 percent).

Canadians are likewise worried about what's next door.

Almost half of Canadians point a finger at the U.S. — a 19-point lead over Russia, which took the next largest share (29 percent). A large plurality of Canadians (43 percent) see the U.S. as "mostly a threat" to global stability. Another 34 percent say Americans are "sometimes a force for stability, sometimes a threat."

Conservative voters agree that the U.S. is the top threat to peace — but only 35 percent of them. Another 30 percent picked Russia, followed by 22 percent who said China.


POLITICO Poll with Public First(Anna Wiederkehr/POLITICO)

More than two out of three Canadians believe Trump is actively seeking conflict with other countries.

Liberal voters who powered Carney's stunning victory last year — a rare fourth-consecutive win for the party — overwhelmingly see things that way. Progressive New Democrats are even likelier than the centrist governing party to hold that view.

But even Conservative voters, who broadly support close and enduring ties with Americans, have mixed feelings. A 57 percent majority say the U.S. president is looking around the world for a fight.

And that foreign intervention worries them, too: 47 percent of Canadians say U.S. involvement overseas makes the world less safe.


The POLITICO Poll with Public First(Anna Wiederkehr/POLITICO)

In the middle of the Covid pandemic, Canadians viewed Beijing with deep suspicion.

Chinese authorities had for more years imprisoned two Canadians, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, on espionage charges.

Ottawa and Western allies widely viewed the so-called Two Michaels' prolonged detention as retaliation for Canada's arrest of Huawei exec Meng Wanzhou as part of an extradition request from Washington.

In 2021, several months before the Two Michaels were released, a Research Co. survey revealed a low point in Canadians' take on China: only 19 percent held a positive view.

The U.S. president’s torching of the relationship with Canada has flipped public opinion.

Forced to pick, a majority of Canadians (57 percent) now say they'd rather depend on China than Trump’s America.

Asked whether Canada should deliberately move closer to China, 39 percent agreed — with a majority of those respondents (60 percent) directly naming Trump as the reason to build bridges across the Pacific.


The POLITICO Poll with Public First(Anna Wiederkehr/POLITICO)

Any prolonged Canada-U.S. tension feels deeply personal to many border-town residents. The rivers and lakes and straight-line boundaries that divide the two countries were for decades just technicalities.

Ask a Canadian who grew up on the Ontario side of Niagara Falls, and they'll talk about going "over the river" — not across a border — to visit friends and family, go to work or have a night out.

But Canadian visits to the U.S. have dropped significantly since Trump's inauguration. Tourists are taking their money elsewhere. Snowbirds who flock annually to Florida and Arizona have found other sunny options.

A declining state of affairs has frayed countless deeply woven ties.

Still, respondents expressed some optimism about the future.

Forty-one percent of Canadians say Trump represents a lasting change. But nearly half (49 percent) said the relationship between the United States and Canada will recover in a post-Trump era.

A similar proportion of Canadians share that optimism across party lines: Liberal (51 percent), Conservative (50) and NDP (46).

But then there's the solid core of skeptics — 29 percent of the country is convinced there is no going back.

Carney won on an "elbows up" rallying cry that urged Canadians to stand up for themselves. Now they're reckoning with the everyday impact of a lasting cross-border rupture.

The country seems to have settled on a new maxim for now: America if necessary, but not necessarily America.

Take off, EH: This poll reveals just how badly the U.S. has damaged its relationship with Canada

John L. Micek
Thu, February 19, 2026 
MASS. LIVE



Looks like all those “51st state” jokes and tariff threats have taken a toll as the U.S. and Canada have gone through the most awkward break-up in recent geopolitical memory.

Nearly 6 in 10 (58%) of Canadians say they no longer see the United States as a reliable ally after two centuries of cross-border partnership. And a plurality (48%) say we’re a bigger threat to peace than Vladimir Putin’s Russia, according to a new Politico poll published Thursday.

The poll, conducted with London-based Public First, tested the opinions of America’s closest allies. And after more than a year of bellicose rhetoric from Republican President Donald Trump’s White House, the relationship with the nation’s nearest northern neighbor is on shaky ground.

Indeed, 42% of respondents believe the United States is no longer an ally. Barely 1 in 3 (37%) said they consider the U.S. an ally of Canada.

More findings:

A clear majority of Canadians (57%) believe the country can no longer be depended on in a crisis.

More than two-thirds (67%) said the U.S. “challenges” rather than supports its allies around the world, according to the poll.

And nearly 7 in 10 (69%) agreed that the U.S. tended to create problems for other countries rather than solve them.

European respondents to the poll saw Russia as the bigger threat to their security: Germany (56%), France (55%) and the United Kingdom (53%).

The poll of 2,000 Canadians, conducted from Feb. 6 to Feb. 9, comes as officials in Massachusetts have sought to shore up relations with Canadian provincial leaders and to strengthen trade and economic partnerships.

Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, for instance, traveled to Nova Scotia, at a cost of $13,365 to city taxpayers, as she visited with leaders and to procure Boston’s annual Christmas tree.

Last summer, Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey hosted a roundtable with Canadian provincial leaders and northeastern governors at the State House in Boston to talk trade, tariffs and Trump.

Canadians Trash Trump’s America as a Bigger Threat Than Russia

Martha McHardy
Thu, February 19, 2026 

The Daily Beast 


BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / AFP via Getty Images(BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI)

Donald Trump is now seen as a bigger threat to global peace than even Russia by some of America’s former allies.

A POLITICO Poll conducted Feb. 6–9 with over 2,000 respondents each from Canada, the U.K., France, and Germany, found Canadians are far more likely than Europeans to view the U.S. as a greater threat to global peace than Russia.

Nearly half of Canadians, 48 percent, ranked the United States as the biggest threat to world peace, compared with just 29 percent naming Russia. Sixty-nine percent of Canadian respondents said Trump is actively seeking conflict with other countries with no provocation.

The Daily Beast has contacted the White House for comment.

The survey results come as relations between the U.S. and Canada, historically close allies, have broken down since Trump began his second term.

Trump has floated the idea of annexing the country and making it the 51st U.S. state, and slapped tariffs on Canadian steel, aluminum, and automobiles.

The move sparked trade tensions, which Canada met with its own retaliation. Trump has most recently threatened to block the opening of a $4.6 billion bridge connecting Detroit, Michigan, with Windsor, Ontario, demanding the U.S. be given 50 percent ownership.

It is perhaps no surprise, then, that the poll shows a sharp decline in trust toward Washington, with 58 percent of Canadians saying the U.S. is not a reliable ally—the highest share among respondents in Canada, Germany, France, and the U.K.

Even more striking, 42 percent of Canadians said the U.S. is no longer an ally at all, while only 37 percent insisted the partnership remains intact.

The survey also highlights broader concerns about U.S. actions overseas following Trump’s operation in Venezuela and push to seize Greenland from Denmark, a NATO ally: 43 percent of Canadians see the U.S. as “mostly a threat” to global stability, while another 34 percent say America is “sometimes a force for stability, sometimes a threat.”

President Donald Trump met with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney in the Oval Office of the White House, Oct. 7, 2025, in Washington. / The Washington Post / The Washington Post via Getty Im

Almost half, 47 percent, said U.S. involvement abroad actually makes the world less safe.

In response to the poll, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle told the Daily Beast: “The ultimate poll was November 5, 2024 when nearly 80 million Americans overwhelmingly elected President Trump to deliver on his popular and commonsense agenda.

“The President has already made historic progress not only in America but around the world. It is not surprising that President Trump remains the most dominant figure in American politics.”

Other surveys confirm that the U.S. is increasingly seen as a threat in Canada and beyond.

A Kekst CNC poll conducted earlier this month of 11,099 people across G7 nations found Canadians are now nearly as likely as Chinese respondents to view the U.S. as a danger to their country’s security.

Among all countries surveyed, Canadians showed the largest jump in perceived threat from Washington, from 29 percent in November, to 44 percent this month.

Meanwhile, YouGov European tracker data monitoring attitudes in Britain, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain from Jan. 9 to 27, showed that perceptions of the U.S. are the worst they have been since YouGov started tracking in 2016.

Despite these deep doubts, the POLITICO poll showed that Canadians remain cautiously optimistic about the post-Trump future.

About 49 percent said they expect U.S.-Canada relations to recover once a new administration takes office, though 29 percent remain convinced the damage is irreversible.

 

China overturns Canadian's death sentence after Carney visit, lawyer says

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney shakes hands with President of China Xi Jinping at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, China on Friday, Jan. 16, 2026. Sean Kilpatrick/Pool via REUTERS

Mon, February 9, 2026
By Laurie Chen

BEIJING, Feb 9 (Reuters) - China's top court has overturned a Canadian man's death sentence on drug charges, his lawyer said on Monday, marking a breakthrough in a case that has strained ​diplomatic relations between Ottawa and Beijing for years.

Robert Schellenberg was arrested in China in 2014 for suspected drug ‌smuggling and convicted in 2018, initially receiving a 15-year prison sentence. He was subsequently condemned to death in a January 2019 retrial - one month ‌after Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou was arrested in Vancouver on a U.S. warrant.

China's Supreme People's Court on Friday ruled against a death sentence passed by the lower court, Beijing-based lawyer Zhang Dongshuo told Reuters. The case will be sent to Liaoning Provincial High People's Court for retrial, he said.

The breakthrough came less than a month after Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney made a ⁠four-day visit to China, where he hailed ‌both countries' improving ties after they had soured under Canada's previous leader Justin Trudeau.

A spokesperson for Canada's foreign ministry told Reuters they were aware of the Supreme Court's decision and would ‍continue providing consular services to Schellenberg and his family, without elaborating on the decision.

"Judging from both countries' official remarks after the Canadian prime minister visited China, the likelihood of the Supreme Court's decision (being related) is very high, according to my experience," said Zhang.

However, he added ​that the possibility of Schellenberg being eventually acquitted was not high, given the severity of the original sentence.

"Chinese ‌judicial organs independently heard the relevant case and issued a judgement in accordance with the law," Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said during a briefing on Monday when asked about Schellenberg's case.

Four Canadian citizens were executed by China last year on drug smuggling charges, Canada said at the time.

Schellenberg's death sentence had been upheld by the Liaoning court in 2021 after an appeal hearing, drawing condemnation from Ottawa at the time.

China had detained two Canadians on spying accusations shortly ⁠after Meng was detained, prompting international accusations of hostage diplomacy. They were ​released in 2021 on the same day the U.S. dropped its extradition ​request for Meng and she returned to China.

Diplomatic ties were further strained after Canada's government imposed tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles in 2024, following similar U.S. curbs.

China retaliated last March with tariffs ‍on more than $2.6 billion of ⁠Canadian farm and food products, such as canola oil and meal, followed by tariffs on canola seed in August.

After Carney's visit, both countries agreed to slash tariffs on EVs and canola in a major reversal of previous ⁠policy.

Analysts say the rapprochement between Canada and China could reshape the political and economic context in which Sino-U.S. rivalry unfolds, although Ottawa is ‌not expected to dramatically pivot away from Washington.

(Reporting by Laurie Chen in Beijing; Additional reporting by Allison ‌Lampert in Montreal and Beijing newsroom; Editing by Lincoln Feast.)

In the Arctic, the major climate threat of black carbon is overshadowed by geopolitical tensions

PETER PRENGAMAN
Mon, February 9, 2026 


FILE - An Icebreaker makes the path for a cargo ship with an iceberg in the background near a port on the Alexandra Land island near Nagurskoye, Russia, May 17, 2021. (AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko, File)(ASSOCIATED PRESS)


REYKJAVIK, Iceland (AP) — As rising global temperatures speed up the melting of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, it’s set off a boom of ships taking routes that previously were frozen and not traversable.

The increase in marine Arctic traffic, which received increased attention as U.S. President Donald Trump pushed for the United States to take over Greenland, has come with a heavy environmental cost: black carbon, or soot, that spews from ships and makes the ice melt even faster. Several countries are making a case for ships in the Arctic to use cleaner fuels that cause less pollution in meetings this week with international shipping regulators.

Glaciers, snow and ice covered in the soot emitted by ships have less ability to reflect the sun. Instead, the sun’s heat is absorbed, helping to make the Arctic the fastest warming place on Earth. In turn, melting Arctic sea ice can affect weather patterns around the world.

“It ends up in a never-ending cycle of increased warming,” said Sian Prior, lead adviser for the Clean Arctic Alliance, a coalition of nonprofits focused on the Arctic and shipping. “We need to regulate emissions and black carbon, in particular. Both are completely unregulated in the Arctic.”

In December, France, Germany, the Solomon Islands and Denmark proposed that the International Maritime Organization require ships traveling in Arctic waters to use “polar fuels,” which are lighter and emit less carbon pollution than the widely used maritime fuels known as residuals. The proposal includes steps that companies would take to comply and show they are using cleaner fuels and the geographic area it would apply to — all ships traveling north of the 60th parallel. The proposal was expected to be presented this week to the IMO’s Pollution Prevention and Response Committee and possibly another committee in April.

A 2024 ban on using a type of residual known as heavy fuel oil in the Arctic has had only modest impacts so far, partly because of loopholes.

Concerns overshadowed by geopolitics

The push to reduce black carbon, which studies have shown has a warming impact 1,600 times that of carbon dioxide over a 20-year span, is happening at a time of conflicting interests, both internationally and among the countries that have coastlines in the Arctic.

In recent months, Trump's periodic comments about the need to “own” Greenland to bolster U.S. security have raised many issues, from Greenland's sovereignty to the future of the NATO alliance. Pollution and other environmental issues in the Arctic have taken a backseat.

Trump, who has called climate change a “con job,” has also pushed back against global policies aimed at fighting it. Last year, the IMO was expected to adopt new regulations that would have imposed carbon fees on shipping, which supporters said would have pushed companies to use cleaner fuels and electrify fleets where possible. Then Trump intervened, lobbying hard for nations to vote no. The measure was postponed for a year, its prospects at best uncertain. Given that, it’s hard to see the IMO making fast progress on the current proposal to limit black carbon in the Arctic.

Even inside Arctic nations, which are most impacted by black carbon and other shipping pollution, there are internal tensions around such regulations. Iceland is a good example. While the country is a world leader in green technologies such as carbon capture and the use of thermal energies for heating, conservationists say the country has made less progress on regulating pollution in its seas. That is because the fishing industry, one of the country’s most important, holds huge sway.

“The industry is happy with profits, unhappy with the taxes and not engaged in issues like climate or biodiversity,” said Arni Finnsson, board chair of the Iceland Nature Conservation Association.

Finnsson added that the costs of using cleaner fuels or electrifying fleets have also prompted resistance.

“I think the government is waking up, but they still have to wait for the (fishing) industry to say yes,” he said.

The country has not taken a position on the pending polar fuels proposal. In a statement, Iceland's Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate said the proposal was “positive with regard to its purpose and basic content,” but that further study was needed. The statement added that Iceland supports stronger measures to counter shipping emissions and reduce black carbon.


Arctic ship traffic and black carbon emissions both rise

Soot pollution has increased in the Arctic as cargo ships, fishing boats and even some cruise liners are traveling more in the waters that connect the northernmost parts of Iceland, Greenland, Canada, Russia, Norway, Finland, Sweden and the United States.

Between 2013 and 2023, the number of ships entering waters north of the 60th parallel increased by 37%, according to the Arctic Council, an intergovernmental forum made up of the eight countries with territory in the Arctic. In that same period, the total distance traversed by ships in the Arctic increased 111%.

Black carbon emissions have also increased. In 2019, 2,696 metric tons of black carbon was emitted from ships north of the 60th parallel compared with 3,310 metric tons in 2024, according to a study by Energy and Environmental Research Associates. The study found that fishing boats were the biggest source of black carbon.

It also found that the 2024 ban on heavy fuel oil would only result in a small reduction in black carbon. Waivers and exceptions allow some ships to continue using it until 2029.

Environmental groups and concerned countries see regulating ship fuel as the only way to realistically reduce black carbon. That is because getting nations to agree to limit traffic would likely be impossible. The lure of fishing, resource extraction and shorter shipping distances is too great. Ships can save days on some trips between Asia and Europe by sailing through the Arctic.

Still, the path known as the Northern Sea Route is only traversable a few months of the year, and even then ships must be accompanied by icebreakers. Those dangers, combined with Arctic pollution concerns, have driven some companies to pledge to stay away — at least for now.

“The debate around the Arctic is intensifying, and commercial shipping is part of that discussion,” wrote Søren Toft, CEO of Mediterranean Shipping Company, the world's largest container shipping company, in a LinkedIn post last month. “Our position at MSC is clear. We do not and will not use the Northern Sea Route.”

___

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.


Scientists 'surprised' by findings from new Arctic study on polar bears: 'People don't see it ... people don't care'

Calvin Coffee
Thu, February 19, 2026 
TCD


Photo Credit: iStock

A new study of polar bears in Norway's Svalbard region found that despite rapid sea ice loss, many bears have improved body condition by shifting their diets to alternative prey.

A new study of polar bears in Norway's Svalbard region has left scientists conflicted. While the bears appeared healthier despite rapid sea ice loss from rising global temperatures, researchers warned that these findings aren't good news.
What's happening?

Research published in Scientific Reports analyzed over two decades of data from nearly 800 adult polar bears in the Barents Sea from 1995 to 2019. The team expected to see worsening body condition as sea ice declined, as the area has lost ice faster than most polar bear habitats, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Instead, they found that after an initial decline in the late 1990s, the body condition of many bears improved from around 2000 onward.

"I was surprised," Jon Aars, the study's lead author and scientist at the Norwegian Polar Institute, told Vox. "I would have predicted that body condition would decline. We see the opposite."

Aars noted that the bears appeared heavier even as ice-free days increased by 100 days a year during the study period.

Scientists believe the bears may be adapting by shifting their diets. They're relying more on alternative prey such as reindeer, walrus carcasses, more seal species, or coming into closer contact with humans — like one encounter caught on video in Svalbard last year — when traditional hunting conditions deteriorate.
Why is this shift concerning?

While the findings complicate the narrative around polar bears and ice loss, researchers stress that the broader trend remains troubling. Polar bears still depend on sea ice to hunt, travel, and reproduce. Other populations across the Arctic, including Canada's Hudson Bay, have seen sharp declines in survival and more underweight bears as ice disappears.

The concern around ice loss extends beyond these bears. Loss of sea ice accelerates ocean warming, disrupts the base of food systems, and threatens coastal communities that rely on stable Arctic seasons and ecosystems. Other Arctic animals, like multiple kinds of seals and whales, struggle to adapt to rapid ice loss, with population shifts harder to detect.

"Many of those are more at risk than polar bears," Aars told Vox. "There are also changes in Svalbard, in the sea, that are much more profound than what we see on land with polar bears. But people don't see it, or people don't care."
What's being done about this?

The study's authors emphasize the importance of continued monitoring across different regions rather than drawing broad conclusions from a single population of polar bears. They warned that Svalbard's bears may only be temporarily resilient in an unbalanced ecosystem and could face sudden declines if alternative prey populations decline.

Ultimately, protecting Arctic ecosystems requires reducing pollution driving global temperature increases and ice sheet loss, safeguarding endangered habitats, and expanding conservation efforts that support a stable future for all.

Giant Trump banner hanging outside DOJ building stirs strong reactions online: ‘Full blown North Korea vibes’

Josh Marcus
Thu, February 19, 2026
THE INDEPENDENT

A huge banner featuring President Trump’s face and the words “Make America Safe Again” was installed on the front of Justice Department headquarters, sparking online outrage and comparisons to authoritarian regimes.


Workers installed a huge banner featuring President Trump’s face and the words “Make America Safe Again” on the front of Justice Department headquarters in Washington on Thursday, provoking online outrage and comparisons between the administration and authoritarian regimes.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a frequent Trump critic, said the gesture was “beyond parity.”

“How many dictatorship-style monuments, building name changes, and fake awards do Americans have to endure?” he wrote on X, echoing another commentator who said the banner had totalitarian “North Korea vibes.”

Since Trump took office, the president and his allies have renamed the Kennedy Center and the U.S. Institute of Peace to include Trump’s name.

Newsom wasn’t the only Democratic lawmaker sounding off on the banner.

Critics of the president were alarmed on Thursday after workers installed a huge banner of Trump on the headquarters of the Department of Justice (AFP via Getty Images)

“Americans believe in the rule of law,” Rep. Ted Lieu of California wrote on X. “MAGA Republicans believe in the rule of Trump. November is coming.”

Others argued the image undermined the Justice Department’s position as an independent institution tasked with impartially applying the law.

“Trump is plastering his face on the building that’s supposed to investigate him,” Rep. Jimmy Gomez, also of California, added on X. “There was once a time when a president couldn’t boss the Attorney General around like his own personal lapdog.”

Some commentators and reporters were also critical of the move.

“Could also be Germany 1930s, Soviet Union 1950s,” The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols wrote on X. “Could be many places, but shouldn't be America.”

Others, like Ken Dilanian, argued the banner was highly ironic given Republicans’ longstanding claims that the Biden administration had politicized the DOJ.

Banners of the president have been put on multiple government agencies since Trump took office (AFP/Getty)

“This is a stunning confirmation of the grim reality, which is that Donald Trump has seized control of the once independent Justice Department and is using it to pursue his political objectives—including trying to punish his perceived enemies,” he wrote on X. “Exactly what his supporters baselessly accused the previous administration of doing.”

Critics of the administration have pointed to federal prosecutions of Trump critics like former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, as well as Democrats who encouraged military members to ignore illegal orders in a video last year, as evidence of this alleged erosion in the separation of powers.


The Trump administration defended the symbol, arguing it was a part of the larger efforts to celebrate the U.S.’s 250th anniversary.

“We are proud at this Department of Justice to celebrate 250 years of our great country and our historic work to make America safe again at President Trump’s direction,” a DOJ spokesperson told The Independent.

Similar banners of the president’s face have previously hung at the Departments of Agriculture and Labor, at a cost of thousands of dollars to taxpayers.

Giant banner of Donald Trump hung at Justice Department headquarters

Hannah Rabinowitz, CNN
Thu, February 19, 2026 


Members of the National Guard walk past a banner of President Donald Trump, hanging on the Department of Justice building in Washington, DC, on Thursday. - Allison Robbert/AP


A large banner of Donald Trump was hung outside of the Justice Department headquarters in Washington, DC, on Thursday, emphasizing the White House’s control over the nation’s top law enforcement branch that once pursued criminal prosecutions against the president.

The image of Trump in shades of blue is a remarkable addition to the storied Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building, which is occupied by a department that traditionally has made painstaking efforts to separate itself from politics.

Since Trump retook office last year, the Justice Department has faced repeated accusations of targeting the president’s perceived enemies on his behalf. Those prosecutions include that of former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General and Letitia James, as well as investigations into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and several Democratic representatives who recorded a video urging service members to disobey any illegal orders.

Similar banners of Trump’s face have been draped across other federal departments including the Department of Labor and the Department of Agriculture, each with their own text: “American workers first” and “growing America,” respectively.

The new sign at the Justice Department reads “make America safe again,” the slogan of the Trump administration’s violent crime crackdown.

The Trump Justice Department has repeatedly stated that its investigations under Trump are not political, and said that the department is course-correcting from alleged “weaponization” under the previous administration.

Chief among their examples are the two federal criminal cases brought against Trump by former special Jack Smith for retaining classified documents in his home at Mar-a-Lago and for his alleged role in instigating the 2021 Capitol riot. The classified documents case was dismissed by a judge, and the election interference case was dropped when he won election in November 2020.

“We are proud at this Department of Justice to celebrate 250 years of our great country and our historic work to make America safe again at President Trump’s direction,” a Justice Department spokesperson said.

Trump’s DOJ Bulldog Scolds Prosecutors for Forgetting the President Is Their ‘Chief Client’

Wiktoria Gucia
Thu, February 19, 2026 
DAILY BEAST


SAUL LOEB / AFP via Getty Images

A top Justice Department aide admitted the agency exists to serve one person: President Donald Trump.

During a January meeting with the leaders of 93 U.S. attorneys’ offices, Associate Deputy Attorney General Aakash Singh called President Trump, 79, the federal prosecutors’ “chief client,” three people briefed on the meeting told Bloomberg Law.

The 33-year-old, whose relatively short legal career has included a charge for driving under the influence (DUI), told participants that anyone unwilling to support the administration’s agenda should step aside, the outlet reported.

Aakash Singh, far right, told U.S. Attorney's offices that the president is their

The remarks reportedly startled meeting participants, as they came on the heels of the resignation of six Minnesota federal prosecutors who quit rather than pursue charges against the widow of Renee Good, 37, who was killed by an ICE agent—a development Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz condemned as “the latest sign that President Trump is pushing nonpartisan career professionals out of the Department of Justice and replacing them with his sycophants.”

U.S. attorneys are charged with ensuring “that the laws be faithfully executed,” according to the department’s website.

Yet Singh—described by a colleague as an octopus with 93 tentacles, one for each office— has pushed prosecutors to align their work with the Trump administration’s priorities.

A banner showing President Donald Trump is hung from the Department of Justice, Thursday, Feb. 19, 2026, in Washington, D.C. / Allison Robbert/AP

“You cannot micromanage US attorneys’ offices from Washington—not in the long run—and I’ve never found managing by fear to be very effective in the long run either,” Mark Calloway, a former US attorney in Charlotte, told Bloomberg Law.

Since his promotion to Associate Deputy Attorney General after Trump took office, Singh has allegedly exercised tight control over U.S. attorneys’ offices, often demanding emails with case-specific data—a practice some former career officials have described as bullying.

One email obtained by Bloomberg Law was sent just before Thanksgiving and instructed all 93 federal prosecutors to submit data showing their offices’ compliance with fulfilling Trump-directed crackdowns on immigration, political violence, and other policy priorities.

In another virtual meeting, Singh requested that all U.S. attorneys’ offices identify federal judges perceived to engage in judicial activism, so the information could inform potential impeachment referrals to Congress.

A DOJ spokesperson who confirmed Singh’s meeting request told Fox News Digital that the Trump administration is “facing unprecedented judicial activism from rogue judges who care more about making a name for themselves than acting as impartial arbiters of the law.”

In August, Singh met with federal prosecutors in Washington, D.C., as the Justice Department sought to bring severe charges against people protesting the military and federal police presence in the capital ordered by the president.


According to the New York Times, he advised prosecutors to impanel new grand juries if a sitting grand jury refused to indict in efforts to pursue more serious charges.

Attorney General Pam Bondi has executed Trump's demands. / Alex Wong / Getty Images

“That’s way out of line and completely unlike anything I ever heard at the DOJ,” Ken White, a former federal prosecutor, told The Guardian.

Bloomberg Law reported that Singh’s influence has raised concern primarily among institutionalists in the department—officials who prioritize protecting the Justice Department’s independence and long-standing rules—because it departs from norms that emphasize prosecutorial independence and impartiality.

Since the start of his second term in office, Trump’s influence over the actions of the DOJ has been apparent, with the 79-year-old president posting on social media a private message to Attorney General Pam Bondi, insisting that she prosecute his enemies—a step she ultimately took.

Donald Trump's private message to Pam Bondi he posted on Truth Social in September. / Truth Social

“Normally these political appointees are chosen not only for political reasons, but because they have credentials that are impeccable, with extensive prosecutorial and managerial experience,” former federal prosecutor Mark Rasch told The Guardian, commenting on the unusualness of Singh’s appointment to such a high position despite a DUI charge and relatively limited experience, which includes five years as an assistant U.S. attorney.


“But political fealty seems to be the single qualification now,” he added, referring to the second Trump administration.

Cuba is quickly nearing a point of no return as the U.S. weaponizes its Venezuelan oil supplies

Jordan Blum
Fri, February 20, 2026 


A man walks past graffiti celebrating the late Cuban leader Fidel Castro on a street in Havana on February 16, 2026.(YAMIL LAGE / AFP—Getty Images))

The Trump administration’s embargo on Cuba—effectively cutting off 75% of the communist-ruled island’s crude oil supplies—is quickly pushing the Havana leadership to a point of no return amid escalating fuel shortages and frequent blackouts.

Some six weeks after the U.S. violently ousted Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, and with the U.S. having seized control of that country’s oil production, geopolitical and energy analysts said the next “domino” in Cuba is close to toppling under economic pressure unless a diplomatic resolution is reached.

The evolving situation could include potential conflict with Russia, which is aiming to supply Cuba with oil tanker shipments. While a repeat of the Cuban Missile Crisis 64 years later is highly unlikely, the U.S. could end up seizing Russian tankers, something that has already occurred with ships en route to Venezuela. Such moves would escalate already heightened tensions between the U.S. and Russia, said Skip York, a global energy expert for Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.

“The fuel situation in Cuba will get pretty dire pretty fast. That’s going to put tremendous pressure on the government because energy—whether it’s oil or electricity—is the lifeblood of any country,” York said.

“And, if the U.S. stays the course, they will board any sanctioned tankers that are heading toward Cuba,” he added.

Not only is Cuba facing dwindling vehicle and jet fuel supplies, but most of Cuba’s electric grid relies on crude oil, too. The island has very limited natural gas and renewable energy assets.

Cuba produces only a little bit of oil domestically, not nearly enough to sustain itself. About 75% of Cuba’s oil imports typically come from Venezuela and Mexico. The U.S. cut off Venezuelan supplies to Cuba at the beginning of this year. And a Trump executive order at the end of January, which threatened tariffs against countries that supply Cuba with petroleum, led to Mexico reluctantly ceasing exports as well. In the meantime, Cuba is leaning on whatever reserve stockpiles it has left.

Cuba says Trump is creating a dangerous precedent of using tariffs to strangle and starve individual nations. Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel accused the Trump administration of acting with a “fascist, criminal, and genocidal nature of a clique that has hijacked the interests of the American people for purely personal ends.”

Russia said the U.S. is trying to “suffocate” Cuba, and said it planned to send more oil supplies to Cuba. But how such plans would play out is not yet clear. In the meantime, Russia has suspended civilian flights to Cuba after evacuating its tourists from there.

The White House has confirmed the embargo remains in effect, and argues that it is holding Cuba accountable for its alleged long support of regional instability and terrorism.

Speaking earlier this week on Air Force One, Trump said, “Cuba is right now a failed nation, and they don’t even have jet fuel to get airplanes to take off. They’re clogging up their runway.”

Trump argued the Cuban leadership “should absolutely make a deal,” not stating what the U.S. is demanding in return.

“We are talking,” Trump added. “In the meantime, there’s an embargo. There’s no oil, there’s no money, there’s no anything.”
What happens next

Forcing political change in Cuba—even if not a full regime change—could mark a strong accomplishment for the Trump administration. Prominent figures in Trump’s inner circle include “Florida hawks” such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is Cuban-American, and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, said Fernando Ferreira, director of the geopolitical risk service at Rapidan Energy Group.

“It could mark the success of this ‘Donroe Doctrine,’ accomplishing regime change or political change in two U.S. adversaries in the region,” Ferreira said. “Starting with Venezuela, there’s a very clear domino impact. Cuba has been largely dependent on Venezuela for oil supplies and for political cover.

“The lack of fuel supplies into Cuba is having fairly severe impacts,” Ferreira added. “It’s going to have a humanitarian impact in Havana and the rest of Cuba. What I don’t know is how quickly or to what extent it’s going to lead to political change on the island.”

Rubio is taking the lead on such matters with a “pretty long leash,” York said. Rubio is likely to be more “adversarial” with Cuba than typical U.S. diplomats, but it still comes down to Trump being the moderator and dealmaker.

Diaz-Canel is the first non-Castro to lead Cuba in 60 years. A key question is whether he is willing to find a resolution with the U.S. or if he will be perceived as weak for compromising with Trump, York said.

“[Diaz-Canel] might be concerned about his legacy and his physical safety if he’s the weak chain that broke,” York added.

It’s unclear what the U.S. would require in a deal as well. Is leadership change on the table? An opening up of the communist economy? Reducing Cuba’s ties with Russia and China?

What we do know is that Cuba’s leadership has relatively limited options and that the energy crisis could further escalate rapidly.

“Cuba is a pretty opaque part of the Western Hemisphere,” York said. “My guess is over the next few weeks, few months, that curtain is going to get drawn back a little bit, and we’re going to get to see the inner workings of the Cuban government.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

BIOLOGIAL WARFARE BY ANYOTHER NAME

Trump’s total blockade buries Cuba in rubbish

Lily Shanagher
Fri, February 20, 2026
THE TELEGRAPH



People hold their nose while walking through the rubbish-strewn Havana streets - Ramon Espinosa/AP


Outside a decrepit colonial mansion in Havana where clothes hang from its iron balcony, the hot Cuban sun beats down on an enormous pile of rubbish on the street corner.

People walk by and empty bags onto the growing mound while others pick through the plastic packaging and cardboard boxes, hoping to find something of use. The stench rises as food putrefies in the Caribbean heat.

Like much else in Cuba, the bin collection has ground to a halt in recent weeks as the island spirals into an economic freefall.

In the capital, only 44 of Cuba’s 106 rubbish trucks can operate, following Donald Trump’s ban on oil or money reaching the island’s shores.

After the capture of Nicolas Maduro, the former leader of Venezuela and long-time ally of Havana, the country went from receiving 35,000 barrels of oil a day to none, pushing it into a full-blown crisis.

1902 Cuban crude imports

Not satisfied, Mr Trump is now reportedly considering a naval blockade to bar shipments reaching the island.

He is backed by Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, who, like most Cuban-Americans, is vehemently opposed to Fidel Castro and his legacy.

Alexei, 72, a retired chemistry teacher who studied in the Soviet Union, told The Telegraph that the blockade is “killing the people at a slow burn”.

With oil reserves and food drying up, blackouts lasting up to 24 hours have shuttered businesses and hospitals.

A vintage car drives past garbage piled up on a street in Havana - YAMIL LAGE / AFP via Getty Images

Public transport has all but ceased, emptying the streets and putting an end to socialising after the 6pm sunsets.




Canadians kind of hate America now. Our new poll shows just how much.
Politico1.5K


Gaza death toll a third higher than previously thought
The Telegraph

The litter has reportedly led to outbreaks of disease, but with no medical equipment or fuel, hospitals have been forced to close. Pharmacies place signs in the windows: no medicine here.

The government has introduced emergency measures, shortening school and working weeks and rationing fuel.

It has banned the refilling of jets for the next month and closed hotels. But with Canada and Russia evacuating tourists and the UK advising against all but essential travel to the island, Cuba now risks losing one of its last economic lifelines.

On Avenida Linea, a straight strip of road cutting through the Vedado district in Havana just a few blocks from the sea, only the petrol station is lit up. Drivers inch towards the glow, queuing for the dwindling fuel reserves.

A woman pushes a broken down car as Cuba continues to suffer from dwindling fuel reserves - Ernesto Mastrascusa/EPA/Shutterstock

One of those is José, a middle-aged man who joined the line in his blue 1980s Lada at 5am. By midday, he was still there. “The waiting isn’t the worst part,” he told The Telegraph. “It’s the uncertainty.”

“Today we’re limited to 20 litres per person and we have to pay in dollars. But tomorrow, when there isn’t any oil left to supply, what’s going to happen?” he asks quietly.

Since Castro toppled the US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista in 1959, Washington has sought to exact revenge through attacks including the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1962 and an embargo that lasted until 2015, when Barack Obama thawed relations.

But when Mr Trump returned to office, he again designated Cuba a state sponsor of terror and reinstated sanctions. Even Cuba’s long-time allies Mexico, Russia and China have offered little more than humanitarian aid shipments and statements of criticism.

The streets are littered with rubbish in Havana following Trump’s intervention - Photo © 2026

Miguel Diaz-Canel, the president, has refused to give in to US pressure. But the obstinacy of the government is building resentment among Cubans suffering their worst crisis since the fall of the Soviet Union, especially young people who say they never benefited from the “fruits” of the revolution.

Mariana, 25, a fifth-year medical student, rode her electric motorbike to classes at the Fajardo Hospital by Revolution Plaza only to discover they had been suspended.

“I don’t care if the United States invades us or does the same thing it did in Venezuela. I want change. If it’s worse, so be it. At least it will be different,” she tells The Telegraph. “My whole life has been the same here; I can’t take it any more. I hope the US comes. I hope we get annexed, anything but this.”


Alexei added: “What they’re doing is killing the people at a slow burn, not the government. Do you think government officials are affected by the apagones [blackouts] or the food shortages?

“They have food; they have generators. The US will only create more hate toward them among Cubans. They won’t succeed in pushing the population to topple the regime this way.”

Bloggers have taken to social media to share the difficulties of daily life in the country. A meal can cost £4 to make. With high inflation and a rapidly devaluing currency, some salaries are £13 a month.

The lack of fuel has driven prices up to as much as $10 (£8) a litre. The few taxis that run at the moment are mainly thanks to drivers who have stockpiled fuel and are running on those reserves, pushing prices higher.

Many people, especially retirees on state pensions, line up outside bodegas with their libretas [ration books] that provide just one bread roll a day. But the wealthy, or those receiving money from family abroad, visit private shops laden with goods at a high price. A carton of eggs can cost 2,800 pesos in a country where the average monthly state salary is 6,900 pesos.

In Nuevo Vedado, a middle-class residential neighbourhood in the capital, a primary school is unable to function without electricity, says its principal, Álvaro, 55. “Without power, classrooms are plunged into darkness, water can’t be pumped and sent to the school’s reservoir, and it becomes impossible to cook for the children in the cafeteria,” he tells The Telegraph.

Locals walk past garbage piled up on a street in Havana - YAMIL LAGE / AFP via Getty Images

William LeoGrande, a professor at American University in Washington, says that “denying a country access to energy in the absence of a state of war, in order to coerce it into concessions by impoverishing the civilian population, can be considered a crime against humanity.”

The United Nations warns Cuba is moving towards humanitarian “collapse”. But experts cast doubt on the efficacy of Washington’s plans beyond mass human suffering.

“Cuba is not Venezuela,” Sebastian Arcos, interim director of the Cuba Research Institute in Florida, told The Telegraph. “This is a fully totalitarian regime entrenched for almost 70 years.”

While Venezuela was a largely self-serving government led by Mr Maduro with a clear chain of command, Cuba operates as a coalition of factions dominated by the Communist Party and military. It is rooted in ideology, rendering the chance of finding another Delcy Rodríguez, Venezuela’s cooperative new president, unlikely within Cuba’s tightly controlled regime.

Tom Long, a professor of International Relations at the University of Warwick, told The Telegraph: “The cynical ploy of the Trump administration is that if you deepen misery enough the people will ultimately rebel.

“But a lot of revolutions don’t necessarily happen at the lowest point, because people are too desperate. A lot of the Cuban population is so focused on surviving day-to-day, they’re not necessarily plotting overthrows – or have the means and wherewithal to launch one.”

Rachel, 30, sums up this resigned fatigue that has become routine: “Luckily I have gas to cook, but many people now have to cook with charcoal. Here, we’re moving backwards.” She pauses. “We have no choice but to breathe and try to keep going.”

NEW POLL: TWICE as Many Americans Think Trump Is ‘Racist’ Than Say He Isn’t Amid White House Protestations

Tommy Christopher
Thu, February 19, 2026 

A new poll shows that 47% of Americans believe President Trump is racist, while only 24% disagree.

By a two-to-one margin, more Americans believe that President Donald Trump is racist than think he is not, even as Trump and his White House protest what they call “false” accusations of racism.

While never far away, the subject of Trump and racism was top of mind when the president issued a denial of racism as he commented on the death of Reverend Jesse Jackson, and that denial was blown up in a White House briefing exchange.

Trump White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt was challenged by CBS News White House correspondent Ed O’Keefe to provide examples of the “false” accusations Trump referred to in his statement.

Leavitt responded with a shocked affect and a claim that “radical Democrats” and members of the media “in this room” have “accused this president falsely of being a racist”:

ED OKEEFE: In his statement about Jesse Jackson, the president said “Despite the fact that I am falsely inconsistently called a racist by the scoundrels and lunatics on the radical left, Democrats all, it was always my pleasure to help Jesse along the way.” Where or when does the president believe he has been falsely called racist?

KAROLINE LEAVITT: You’re kidding, right? I will pull you plethora of examples. He has absolutely been falsely called and smeared as a racist, and I’m happy to provide you those receipts.

In fact, O’Keefe has posted multiple tweets that referenced “racist tweets” from Trump that were also denounced by a “chorus” of Republicans at the time.

Trump also protested his innocence at a Black History event at the White House on Wednesday by citing the defenses of his friend Mike Tyson:

Mike Tyson. Boy, I tell you, Mike has been loyal to me. Whenever they come out, they say, “Trump’s a racist.” You know, it’s like a statement. “Trump’s a racist.” Mike Tyson goes, “He’s not a racist. He’s my friend.” He’s been there from the beginning. Good times and bad. But Mike Tyson’s a great guy, and he was so loyal. Always been loyal.

But according to a new The Economist/YouGov poll taken February 13 – 16, 2026, an overwhelming majority of Americans who have an opinion on the issue disagree with Trump, Leavitt, and Tyson.

Asked if the word “racist” describes Trump, 47 percent agreed it does versus only 24 percent who said it does not, with the remainder responding “no opinion.”

Mike Tyson notwithstanding, among Black voters who expressed an opinion, 90 percent said Trump is racist, versus 10% who said he is not.

But there’s more. The pollster tested a series of descriptors, and it did not go well. By about two to one, Americans do not view Trump as “honest,” but do view him as “corrupt,” “divisive,” “cruel,” and “out of touch.”

Wide pluralities said Trump is not “inspiring” (43 percent to 19 percent) or “intelligent” (39 percent to 31 percent).

More than double — 50 percent to 20 percent — said he’s “dangerous” versus those who say he is not.

There were descriptors that polled well for Trump, including “bold,” “strong,” and by a narrow plurality, “effective.”

How Iran plans to go to war with the US – and win

Akhtar Makoii
Fri, February 20, 2026 


Tehran’s battle plan involves launching a colossal counterattack against US military targets - Reuters

Iran has revealed its vision for war with the United States, detailing how it would overcome the world’s most powerful military and severely disrupt the global economy.

In a detailed battle plan published by Tasnim, the news agency affiliated to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Iran’s leadership envisages strikes on US bases, new fronts opened up by proxy allies, cyber warfare and the paralysis of the global oil trade. Middle Eastern geography would win out against American technology, Iran insists.

The two arch enemies held the second round of renewed indirect talks this week in Geneva. Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister, said that both sides agreed on “guiding principles” but they fell short of a full deal.

One US aircraft carrier strike group is already in the region with another on its way. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has threatened to send them “to the bottom of the sea”.

“They constantly say we have sent an aircraft carrier towards Iran,” the Islamic Republic’s supreme leader said. “Very well, an aircraft carrier is certainly a dangerous machine, but more dangerous than the carrier is the weapon that can send it to the bottom of the sea.”

1402 US Navy’s deployed carrier strike groups and amphibious ready groups

Mr Khamenei’s threats to sink US warships are likely aimed primarily at a domestic audience rather than Washington, but nonetheless risk angering Donald Trump.

Mr Trump warned that Tehran had 10 to 15 days to make a “meaningful deal” with Washington or “bad things” would happen. Iran’s envoy to the United Nations said Tehran will respond “decisively” to any “military aggression” by the United States.

If the two countries do go to war, here is how Iran plans to defeat the United States.
Stage one: US strikes Iran

Iran’s scenario begins with US air and missile strikes targeting nuclear sites, military installations and IRGC bases, most of which are located in densely populated areas.

It is likely that US forces would launch attacks from aircraft carriers, including the USS Abraham Lincoln strike group currently in the region, strategic bombers flying from home or European bases, and possibly land-based systems in allied countries.

The Pentagon has conducted extensive planning for such operations over decades and carried out strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities last June. Mr Trump has made repeated threats to strike the country again after anti-regime protesters were brutally put down by government forces, with thousands killed.

Speaking to The Telegraph’s Planet Normal Podcast, Sir Richard Dearlove, the former MI6 chief, said: “I think the possibility of an attack is reasonably high, and the reason it’s reasonably high is because it’s what the Israelis are urging Trump to do.”

Credit: X/@Tasnimnews_Fa

American strike packages would entail stealth aircraft, precision-guided munitions and coordinated salvos designed to overwhelm Iranian air defences while minimising US aircraft losses.

Technological advances in hypersonic weapons and electronic warfare would give the US significant advantages.

However, Iran believes it has prepared for this scenario through hardening and dispersing critical assets, building redundant command structures, and developing extensive underground facilities that would survive initial strikes.

Tehran’s calculus depends not on preventing damage but on retaining sufficient capability to launch counter-attacks.

“We are ready for any action by enemies,” Maj Gen Abdolrahim Mousavi, chief of staff of the armed forces, said on Wednesday as he toured an IRGC missile city.

“After the 12-day war, we changed our military doctrine from defensive to offensive by adopting a policy of asymmetric warfare and a crushing response to enemies,” he said.
Stage two: Iran strikes back – with help

Iran’s response would expand the battlefield beyond its borders immediately. Within hours, Tehran would launch barrages of ballistic missiles and drones at US military installations across the region, the plan envisaged.

Primary targets would include Al-Udeid air base in Qatar, which hosts the US Central Command’s forward headquarters and serves as the main air operations hub. Iran attacked this base last year after its own nuclear sites were struck by US B-2 bombers.

In Kuwait, Ali Al Salem air base and Camp Arifjan, a major logistics centre for US ground forces, would come under attack, while facilities across the United Arab Emirates and a US base in Syria, where 2,000 US troops remain, would also be targeted.

Amir Akraminia, Iran’s army spokesman, claims access to US bases is “easy”.

Iran hit Ain al-Asad air base in Iraq with ballistic missiles after Qassem Soleimani’s assassination in 2020, causing traumatic brain injuries to more than 100 American soldiers. It could try to do so again, even though US troops completed a “full withdrawal” from the base in January.

The report said: “Iran does not see itself as an ‘isolated island’ in war, but rather as the centre of a potential network of confrontations.”

The Iranian strategy envisages overwhelming US defences through volume by launching hundreds or thousands of projectiles simultaneously to saturate Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defence batteries.

Iran’s arsenal includes Shahed-136 drones with 50kg payloads, Kheibar Shekan ballistic missiles with manoeuvrable warheads designed to evade missile defences, Emad ballistic missiles with 750kg payloads, and Paveh cruise missiles with a 1,000-mile range.

Credit: Telewebion

While many would be intercepted, Iran believes enough would penetrate to inflict significant casualties and damage critical infrastructure. Simultaneously, it is imagined that Iran’s “axis of resistance” would activate across multiple fronts.

Hezbollah in Lebanon has said it considers a war on Iran its own war and could launch rockets and missiles at Israel, forcing the US ally to divert resources for defence.

Yemen’s Houthi rebels would intensify attacks on ships in the Red Sea, Israel and US bases in the region. Iraqi militia groups aligned with Tehran would strike US personnel and diplomatic facilities.

However, this multi-proxy strategy faces significant challenges. Israel’s recent military operations have severely degraded the capabilities of Hezbollah and Hamas.

The assumption that these groups would immediately coordinate effective attacks while simultaneously defending against Israeli and US countermeasures appears optimistic.

Host countries, including Iraq and Lebanon, could actively work to prevent their territory from being used for attacks that would bring devastating retaliation.

But the multi-front approach aims to spread America’s forces thin in the region by opening multiple conflicts in disparate locations, limiting Washington’s ability to concentrate forces against Iran itself.

Any country providing airspace, basing or logistical support to US operations would be declared a “legitimate target”, Tehran warned.
Stage three: cyber warfare

Iran plans to launch cyber attacks targeting what it perceives to be American vulnerabilities: transportation networks, energy infrastructure, financial systems and military communications.

Tehran believes cyber operations could disrupt US logistics, complicate command and control, and sow chaos in allied countries hosting American forces.

By attacking civilian infrastructure, such as power grids or water systems, Iran hopes to pressure host governments to expel US forces.

Iranian hackers have previously demonstrated capabilities against regional targets. In 2012, the Shamoon virus disrupted 30,000 computers at Saudi oil giant Aramco.

More recently, Iranian groups have examined US infrastructure, though with limited success against hardened military networks.

However, US Cyber Command has spent years preparing for such scenarios. American cyber capabilities dwarf Iran’s, with the ability to conduct counter-attacks on Iranian infrastructure, which is more vulnerable than US systems.

The Pentagon could disable Iranian power generation, disrupt missile guidance systems and compromise communications networks.
Stage four: paralysing global oil supplies

Iran’s most potent weapon, it says, is geographic: control over the Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately 21 million barrels of oil pass daily – roughly 21 per cent of global petroleum.

The IRGC closed the strait for several hours on Tuesday for live-fire naval drills in the north-west of the USS Abraham Lincoln strike group this week.

Iranian state television broadcast footage showing cruise missiles being fired towards targets during the exercises.

Credit: @TM_911/ Fars News

Russian warships joined the IRGC later in the week for “naval exercises” in the Gulf of Oman.

Alireza Tangsiri, the IRGC navy commander, warned during those drills that “weapons that come to the field [of war] are different from the ones in drills.”

This waterway, just 24 miles wide at its narrowest point, is one of the world’s most critical energy choke points. Iran has repeatedly threatened to close the Strait during periods of heightened tension.

Iran’s tactic would involve mining the waterway, attacking tankers with missiles and drones, and potentially sinking vessels to block shipping channels.

IRGC naval forces have practised swarming tactics, using small boats armed with rockets and torpedoes, designed to overwhelm larger warships.

Such actions would send oil prices soaring, potentially to $200 (£160) or more per barrel, inflicting severe economic damage worldwide and putting pressure on the US to back down.

Hossein Shariatmadari, a representative of Khamenei, said: “We can impose restrictions against the United States, France, Britain and Germany in the Strait of Hormuz and not allow them to navigate.”

Iran calculates this economic weapon could fracture the international coalition supporting US military action.

The US has contingency plans for keeping Hormuz open, including mine-sweeping operations, destroyer escorts for tanker convoys and strikes on Iranian coastal installations.

However, even partially degraded shipping through the Strait of Hormuz would roil global markets. Iran believes the economic cost would ultimately force Washington to negotiate rather than sustain an extended war.

Yet this strategy carries risks for Iran itself. Oil exports account for the majority of government revenue, and closing Hormuz would devastate Iran’s economy even more than its enemies’.
Stage five: the endgame

Tehran’s strategy banks on the US and its allies concluding that the costs of sustained conflict would exceed any benefits.

By threatening global energy supplies, imposing continuous attacks across multiple countries and potentially inflicting significant US casualties, Iran hopes to create an unsustainable multi-front situation.

Iranian planners believe the US has limited appetite for protracted wars after Afghanistan and Iraq.

Fighting simultaneously against entrenched proxies in Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq and potentially Syria, while defending Gulf allies and maintaining open shipping lanes, would strain even US military resources.

Iran’s strategy relies on the premise that the US president will determine the price of war to be too costly - Yuri Gripas/Abaca/Bloomberg

Iran views its strategy as one of asymmetric endurance. It cannot win militarily, but believes it can make victory too expensive for Washington to pursue.

This calculus depends on the US choosing to de-escalate rather than applying its full conventional capabilities, which could devastate Iranian infrastructure and military forces.

The ultimate question is political will rather than military capability.

The strategy also assumes rational decision-making on both sides, but escalation dynamics in war are notoriously unpredictable. What Iran intends as calibrated pressure could trigger overwhelming US retaliation, especially if American casualties are high.

Iran knows this. While the plan envisages victory, there is quiet hope that it will never be put into action.

Bombshell Report Reveals Trump Positioned For All Out War With Iran By Saturday

Alex Griffing
Wed, February 18, 2026
 Mediaite



President Trump has been briefed by top national security officials that the military is ready for potential strikes on Iran as soon as this weekend, but a final decision has not yet been made.

Jennifer Jacobs, CBS News’s senior White House reporter, dropped an exclusive report on Wednesday night detailing when President Donald Trump will be fully positioned for an all-out assault on Iran.

The U.S. has been moving a vast amount of military assets into the Middle East as talks between Iran and the U.S. continue – under the explicit threat of military action if no agreement on dismantling Iran’s nuclear program is reached.

“Top national security officials have told Trump the military is ready for potential strikes on Iran as soon as this weekend, but the timeline for any action is likely to extend beyond Saturday or Sunday, sources say,” Jacobs wrote on social media, detailing some of the key points in her scoop. She added:

Trump has not yet made a final decision. Over the next 3 days, Pentagon is moving some personnel out of the Middle East region — primarily to Europe or back to US — ahead of potential action or counterattacks by Iran. It’s standard practice for the Pentagon to shift assets and troops ahead of a potential military activity and doesn’t necessarily signal an attack on Iran is imminent, one of the sources said.

Axios’s Barak Ravid reported earlier on Wednesday that “a U.S. military operation in Iran would likely be a massive, weeks-long campaign that would look more like full-fledged war than last month’s pinpoint operation in Venezuela, sources say.”

Ravid added that his sources believe the campaign would be a joint U.S.-Israeli effort and would be “more existential for the regime — than the Israeli-led 12-day war last June, which the U.S. eventually joined to take out Iran’s underground nuclear facilities.” Ravid also detailed more of the military assets Trump has moved into the region as he ratchets up the threat of all-out war:

Trump’s armada has grown to include two aircraft carriers, a dozen warships, hundreds of fighter jets and multiple air defense systems. Some of that firepower is still on its way.

More than 150 U.S. military cargo flights have moved weapons systems and ammunition to the Middle East.

Just in the past 24 hours, another 50 fighter jets — F-35s, F-22s and F-16s — headed to the region.

Trump, according to Ravid, was very close to attacking Iran in January over the mass slaughter of pro-democracy protestors in the country, but wrote “when the window of opportunity passed, the administration shifted to a two-track approach: nuclear talks paired with a massive military build-up.”


Is Trump about to go to war with Iran?

"You're gonna be finding out over the next, probably, 10 days," the president said on Thursday.

Andrew Romano, Reporter
Updated Fri, February 20, 2026

In recent weeks, President Trump has amassed what he’s described as an “armada” of destroyers, aircraft carriers, warships, submarines and attack planes within striking distance of Iran — a build-up that has “progressed to the point [where he] has the option to take military action … as soon as this weekend,” the New York Times reported on Wednesday.

At the same time, the president has said that regime change “would be the best thing that could happen” to Iran, which has been ruled by supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei since 1989.

“We have to make a meaningful deal, otherwise bad things happen,” Trump told his Board of Peace in Washington, D.C., on Thursday. “They can't have a nuclear weapon and they've been told that very strongly."

So is Trump about to launch a major war with Iran? Here’s what we know.

How we got here

If a possible U.S. attack on Iran sounds familiar, that’s because Trump already launched one in June 2025, striking the regime’s Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear sites in concert with Israel.

The president claimed at the time that Iran’s facilities had been “completely and totally obliterated,” putting a “stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's number one state sponsor of terror.”

Yet other reports suggested that the Iranians might have moved their stash of enriched uranium before the strikes — and that the U.S. bombings left at least some of Tehran’s nuclear program intact.

During his first term, Trump withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal that had "dismantled much of [Iran’s] nuclear program and opened its facilities to more extensive international inspections in exchange for billions of dollars’ worth of sanctions relief,” according to the Council on Foreign Relations — at which point Iran “resumed its nuclear activities.”

When protests broke out in Iran late last year — and when the regime launched a violent crackdown that reportedly killed thousands — Trump started weighing another round of strikes, repeatedly declaring that the U.S. military was “locked and loaded” and ready to attack. Then, in mid-January, Trump abruptly backed down at the urging of Israel and several Arab nations after Iranian authorities said they had canceled hundreds of scheduled executions.

So why is Trump saber-rattling again — and beefing up America’s firepower in the region?

According to Vice President JD Vance, “our primary interest here is we don’t want Iran to get a nuclear weapon.”

To that end, American and Iranian officials held three hours of indirect talks in Geneva, Switzerland, on Tuesday that ended with a “set of guiding principles,” according to Iran’s foreign minister, as well as an agreement to exchange drafts of a potential deal within two weeks.

But Trump allies have also been pushing for regime change rather than diplomacy.

“I talked to the president the day before yesterday and we talked about Iran,” Texas Sen. Ted Cruz told Fox News on Wednesday. “I said the regime is teetering, the ayatollah is in his last days — and I said do not let this opportunity pass.”
Where things stand right now

Trump seems to be moving forward on two tracks at once. Yes, he’s pursuing a diplomatic deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program. But he’s also pressuring Tehran to meet his terms by surging U.S. military forces to the region — forces he says he’s prepared to deploy if diplomacy falls short.

“So now we may have to take it a step further, or we may not,” Trump said on Thursday. “You’re gonna be finding out over the next, probably, 10 days.”

The question now is whether a deal on Trump’s terms is really attainable.

According to the Times, “three Iranian officials familiar with [Tuesday’s] talks said that Iran had indicated a willingness to suspend nuclear enrichment for three to five years — which would cover the duration of Mr. Trump’s presidency — and then join a regional consortium for civilian grade enrichment.” The Times also reported that Iran had offered to “dilute its stockpile of uranium on its own soil in the presence of international inspectors.” In exchange, the U.S. would have to “lift financial and banking sanctions and the embargo on [Iran’s] oil sales.”

The problem is that Iran has insisted that the talks be strictly limited to its nuclear program — but the Trump administration is also demanding that Tehran curb the range of its ballistic missiles and stop supporting militias across the region.

In a speech on Tuesday, the ayatollah accused the Trump administration of an “illogical” attempt to interfere with Iran’s self-defense. “Any country without deterrent weapons will be crushed under the feet of its enemies,” he said.

A day later, Vance told Fox News “it was very clear that the president has set some red lines that the Iranians are not yet willing to actually acknowledge and work through.”

As a result, “senior U.S. officials remain skeptical that the Iranians will agree to a deal that satisfies Mr. Trump, who has shown a growing impatience with the negotiations,” according to the Times.

Other outlets have been blunter. “The Trump administration is closer to a major war in the Middle East than most Americans realize,” Axios reported on Wednesday. “There's no evidence a diplomatic breakthrough with Iran is on the horizon. But there's more and more evidence that a war is imminent.”
What’s next

Last June, Trump also indicated that he would take the next two weeks to decide between continued talks and military action. Following Israel’s lead, U.S. forces attacked three days later.

Citing two Israeli officials, Axios reported on Wednesday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is “pushing for a maximalist scenario targeting regime change as well as Iran's nuclear and missile programs” — and “preparing for a scenario of war within days.”

According to CBS News, Trump has “not yet made a final decision about whether to strike,” but top national security officials have told him that “the military is ready” to attack Iran “as soon as Saturday.”

“The boss is getting fed up,” one Trump adviser told Axios. “Some people around him warn him against going to war with Iran, but I think there is a 90% chance we see kinetic action in the next few weeks.”

How that action unfolds — and what it involves — remains to be seen. Experts say Trump might be tempted to attack because the ayatollah has been weakened by age, sanctions, economic upheaval and protests. But dislodging him would not be as simple as, say, toppling Nicolás Maduro.

In fact, “a U.S. military operation in Iran would likely be a massive, weeks-long campaign that would look more like full-fledged war than last month's pinpoint operation in Venezuela,” according to Axios’s sources — with surefire retaliation against U.S. and Israeli targets.

“An aircraft carrier is certainly a dangerous piece of equipment,” the ayatollah said on Tuesday, shortly after Trump ordered a second one to the region. “But more dangerous than the carrier is the weapon that can send it to the bottom of the sea.”

Britain blocking use of air bases Trump says would be needed for strikes on Iran, UK media reports

Brad Lendon, CNN
Fri, February 20, 2026 


Flight crew from US Air Force 501st Combat Support Wing and 307th Bomb Wing walk towards a B-52 Stratofortress bomber aircraft at RAF Fairford on September 19, 2025. - HENRY NICHOLLS/AFP/AFP via Getty Images

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has blocked a request from US President Donald Trump to allow US forces to use UK air bases during any preemptive attack on Iran, saying it could break international law, according to multiple reports in British media citing government sources.

According to The Times of London, which first reported the split over airbase access, Starmer has denied the use of RAF Fairford in England and Diego Garcia – the British overseas territory in the Indian Ocean – for any strike on Iran.

The two bases have long served as crucial overseas US military staging posts for operations far from home, with Diego Garcia a key airfield for the US’ heavy bomber fleet.

The Times reports Britain is concerned that allowing the US to use the bases “would be a breach of international law, which makes no distinction between a state carrying out the attack and those in support if the latter have ‘knowledge of the circumstances of the internationally wrongful act.’”

The Times cited UK government sources. The BBC, The Guardian and The Telegraph also subsequently published their own reports on the UK blocking access to the bases, citing sources.

The UK Ministry of Defence declined to comment on what it called operational matters. “There is a political process ongoing between the US and Iran, which the UK supports. Iran must never be able to develop a nuclear weapon, and our priority is security in the region,” a government spokesperson said.

American requests to use UK bases for operational purposes historically have been considered on a case-by-case basis, with precise criteria withheld for security reasons under long-standing agreements.

“All decisions on whether to approve foreign nations’ use of military bases in the UK for operational purposes considers the legal basis and policy rationale for any proposed activity,” Veterans Minister Al Carns wrote in response to questions from independent British member of parliament Jeremy Corbyn, according to a January report from the UK Defence Journal.

Starmer and Trump held a phone call on Tuesday evening, with readouts saying the two discussed peace in the Middle East and Europe.

The following day Trump took to his Truth Social platform to withdraw support for a deal that would see sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, the Indian Ocean chain that is home to the joint US-UK Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia, handed to Mauritius in return for a 99-year lease on the military base.

CNN has approached the White House for comment.

Britain had split the Chagos Islands from Mauritius before that colony gained independence, something that has been a source of diplomatic friction as well as multiple legal battles with locals who were evicted. In 2019, the International Court of Justice ruled Britain should return the islands “as rapidly as possible,” so that they could be decolonized.

A deal to return them has been making its way through British government channels since, with London arguing a lease compromise would ward off further expensive and likely futile legal battles while maintaining military access in the Indian Ocean.

After initially opposing the UK-Mauritius deal, Trump in early February said it was the “best” Britain could get under the circumstances.

But as the US has been surging forces into the region for a possible attack on Iran, Trump reversed course, saying in a Truth Social post that Starmer is “making a big mistake” in agreeing to the lease deal with Mauritius.

“Prime Minister Starmer is losing control of this important Island by claims of entities never known of before. In our opinion, they are fictitious in nature,” Trump’s post said.

But just a day earlier, the US State Department issued a statement saying in part that Washington “supports the decision of the United Kingdom to proceed with its agreement with Mauritius.”

Asked about the discrepancy between the Truth Social post and the State Department statement, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the president’s post should be taken as the “policy” of the Trump administration.

In his social media post, Trump directly referenced the two UK airbases, cited by British media, as important in a possible strike on Iran.

“It may be necessary for the United States to use Diego Garcia, and the Airfield located in Fairford, in order to eradicate a potential attack by a highly unstable and dangerous Regime,” Trump wrote.

Neither Diego Garcia nor Fairford, the key forward operating base for US strategic bombers in Europe, was used in last June’s one-time B-2 bomber strike on Iranian nuclear sites. In that case, the stealth bombers flew a round trip of about 37 hours from their home base in Missouri.

But analysts are expecting that any new US attack on Iran might be a much longer campaign, possibly of weeks or more.

In such a campaign, having the B-2s, as well as B-1 and B-52 bombers, using bases thousands of miles closer to Iran would enable quicker turnarounds to rearm and refuel for more strikes.

While the US may have access to other bases in friendly countries closer to Iran, using them could put its prized heavy bomber fleet in reach of retaliatory Iranian missile strikes.

CNN’s Christian Edwards contributed reporting.

Trump Leading U.S. Into War To End A Weapons Program He Claimed He Already ‘Obliterated’

S.V. Date
Thu, February 19, 2026 
HuffPost

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump has put the United States on the verge of war against Iran with the goal of ending that nation’s nuclear weapons program, less than eight months after proclaiming he had “completely and totally obliterated” that same program.

The United States Navy already has one carrier strike group within aircraft and missile range of Iran in the Arabian Sea. Another is underway to the Eastern Mediterranean, where it would also be in range and available to protect Israel and American bases in the region from retaliatory strikes.

Trump told reporters on Air Force One Thursday that Iran had to “make a deal” in the coming days. “I would think that would be enough time: 10-15 days. Pretty much maximum,” he said on his way to a rally in Georgia.

That language is nearly identical to what he said on June 19, 2025: Iran had to make an agreement to abandon its nuclear program “within the next two weeks.” Trump, though, ordered the military to hit three weapons sites in Iran after just two days.

Eight months later, Trump has not explained why a second attack on Iran is necessary now if the country’s nuclear weapons program was, in fact, destroyed by his air strike last year.

“Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated,” he told the nation in a White House speech hours after the June 21, 2025 attack.

Politics: Trump Claims 'Peace' With Iran Will Come While Threatening Further War

“We obliterated Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity, making it impossible for them to have a nuclear weapon, which they would have had probably in about two months from then,” he said again in a Sept. 29, 2025, photo opportunity with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Indeed, the White House even posted a page on its website accusing those who questioned Trump’s use of that word of pushing “fake news.”

Trump was specifically asked last week, given those earlier claims, why it was necessary to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities again. His answer, however, was difficult to understand.

“Well, you could get whatever the dust is down there. Uh, that’s really the least of the mission. If we do it, that would be the least of the mission. But we’d, you know, probably grab whatever’s ― whatever’s left. It has been obliterated, as you know,” he told reporters as he prepared to board Air Force One on his way to conduct a political rally at Fort Bragg in North Carolina.

Thursday morning, Trump told his “Board of Peace” meeting that discussions with Iran are continuing but that Iran needs to make “a deal.”

“They cannot continue to threaten the stability of the entire region and they must make a deal or, if that doesn’t happen, I maybe can understand if it doesn’t happen, it doesn’t happen. But bad things will happen if it doesn’t,” he said.

Representatives from Iran and the United States met Tuesday in Geneva, Switzerland, but were unable to reach a deal. Progress towards any agreement seems halting at best.

Trump also appears to be ignoring Congress entirely as he moves forward with what could be a major war. Unlike former President George W. Bush, who went to Congress for authorization to attack Iraq in 2002, Trump does not appear to have given congressional leaders an update on his intentions, even as his buildup of Air Force and Navy planes and ships in the area continues.

Global: Israel Considering Military Attack On Iran Amid Stalled Nuclear Bomb Talks: Reports

Under the Constitution, only Congress can declare war, but presidents since World War II have increasingly taken military action on their own initiative.

Congress passed the War Powers Act in 1973 in an attempt to rein that in, but the law only requires a president to notify congressional leaders after the military engagement has already taken place.