Cracks within his own camp - Trump’s Iran policy faces extreme resistance from his own supporters!
The criticism is not coming from the outside, it is coming from within his own camp. On Truth Social, Donald Trump’s platform, thousands of his supporters are reacting with growing anger to his course in the Iran conflict. What was long considered a solid base of support is now visibly beginning to crack. Under his posts, comments are piling up that range from disappointment to open rejection. Users who describe themselves as loyal supporters write that they feel ashamed, lost, or simply betrayed. Some warn that an attack on Iran would not only damage him politically, but isolate him completely. Others go even further and say he has “lost his mind” or is destroying his presidency. His aggressive wording, especially around threats against Iran, has unsettled many. Statements about the destruction of entire structures of a country are meeting resistance even among convinced supporters. There is also another point that runs deep: many supported Trump precisely because he positioned himself against new wars. Now they see exactly the opposite.
The reactions show that this expectation was not a fringe opinion, but a central part of his support. It is striking that even users who defended him for years are now publicly distancing themselves. Some openly write that they voted for him multiple times and can no longer support this course. At the same time, part of the base remains loyal and calls for a hard line, but the tone has changed. Support is no longer unified, but visibly divided. This creates a problem for Trump that cannot simply be communicated away. When criticism emerges within one’s own environment, it carries a different weight. It shows that decisions do not only mobilize opponents, but can also shake the very foundation of support.
Judge Paul Friedman blocks Pentagon again - Hegseth’s course against the media fails in court
For the second time in a short period, federal judge Paul Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has prohibited the Pentagon from restricting journalists’ access, thereby stopping another attempt by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to control media activity in the building. The new rules, introduced after an earlier version had already been struck down, were again ruled fundamentally unconstitutional by Friedman, who made clear that they were not legitimate security measures, but an attempt to circumvent the effect of his earlier ruling. Specifically, the case involved stricter access restrictions, mandatory escorts for reporters inside the building, and the closure of workspaces for accredited journalists that had been used for years within the Pentagon. The court was particularly critical of new requirements that sought to regulate how journalists may obtain information from sources, including potential consequences for certain inquiries. These provisions were also struck down.
The court also ordered the Department of Defense to restore New York Times reporters’ access to the level they had before the restrictions. A Pentagon spokesman, Sean Parnell, disagreed with the ruling and announced plans to challenge it, while pointing to the alleged need to ensure the building’s security and operations. On the side of the New York Times, attorney Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. emphasized that the ruling reaffirmed both the authority of the court and the importance of press freedom. The court thus sets a clear boundary once again: even in a national security environment, independent reporting remains protected and cannot be restricted through administrative rules.
Beijing weighs its options - China’s role in the Iran ceasefire becomes a geopolitical factor
While the ceasefire between the United States and Iran is holding for now, attention is shifting to Beijing, where the leadership around Xi Jinping is weighing its next steps. China has already exerted influence behind the scenes and pushed Iran back to the negotiating table, a move confirmed by several diplomats. This does not displease Donald Trump, who already sees it as a contribution by China to de-escalation. At the same time, it shows how strongly Beijing is now able to exert political influence through economic leverage, as the largest buyer of Iranian oil, giving it direct access to Tehran’s core interests. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning emphasized that China has actively worked to end the conflict, but left open how far this engagement will go. For China, the decision is not symbolic, but calculated. Around one fifth of global oil flow normally passes through the Strait of Hormuz, and its blockage directly affects the Chinese economy. Premier Li Qiang has already signaled weaker growth, and the uncertainty caused by the conflict adds further pressure.
At the same time, the situation offers opportunities. A stabilizing role could strengthen Beijing’s position in upcoming talks with Trump, which are now planned for next month. Observers like Danny Russel see this not as an altruistic step, but as a clear pursuit of interests. Ali Wyne also points out that China can present itself as a stable actor, while Washington has come under pressure due to the course of the war. In Beijing itself, it is carefully noted that Trump has stepped back from his own threats, an impression also reflected in social media. Xi Jinping is nevertheless proceeding cautiously, avoiding direct confrontation and keeping all options open. Support for long-term security guarantees for Iran is not on the table, although Tehran is demanding exactly that. At the same time, China is positioning itself for potential negotiations in Pakistan. Voices like Steve Bannon are already arguing that a lasting deal will hardly be possible without Beijing. In the end, for China it is about energy, trade, and influence, not political gestures.
Underwater conflict in the North Atlantic - London and Oslo halt Russian activity near critical infrastructure
While attention is focused on the war with Iran, a different picture has emerged in the North Atlantic. Over several weeks, the United Kingdom and Norway conducted a military operation to track and deter Russian submarines near sensitive underwater infrastructure. Defense Secretary John Healey confirmed that a Royal Navy frigate, aircraft, and numerous forces were deployed to monitor a Russian attack submarine as well as two specialized reconnaissance vessels. These units are attributed to Russia’s deep-sea directorate GUGI, which specifically surveys infrastructure on the seabed.
According to information from London, the vessels left the area, and no concrete damage to cables or pipelines was detected. Norway’s Defense Minister Tore Sandvik also confirmed the activities in the maritime areas of both countries. The concern is clear: these systems are not only used for observation, but could be used in a crisis to target communication and energy supply. Healey issued a direct warning to Vladimir Putin and made clear that interference will not be tolerated. These developments show that the conflict has long moved below the surface. At the same time, Europe is debating how to respond to such operations, as mere observation will not be sufficient in the long term.
Putin announces Easter ceasefire - doubts remain after last year’s experience
Vladimir Putin has announced an Easter ceasefire in the war against Ukraine, set to begin on April 11 at 16:00 and last until the end of April 12. According to the Kremlin, hostilities are to be suspended across all front lines during this period, while troops remain instructed to respond at any time if provocations or attacks occur. Moscow says it expects Ukraine to follow this step. The announcement comes at a moment when both sides have once again exchanged the bodies of fallen soldiers, a process that underscores the ongoing nature of the war. On the same day, Dmitry Peskov had stated that no decision on a ceasefire had been made, making the sudden shift notable. On the Ukrainian side, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had previously signaled that he was generally open to discussing an Easter ceasefire and supporting various paths to end the war. Nevertheless, skepticism remains. Last year, Russia announced a similar ceasefire that was supposed to last around 30 hours. Shortly after it began, the Ukrainian side reported repeated violations. This experience shapes expectations for the new announcement. Whether the ceasefire will actually be observed is likely to become clear quickly.
Dance before Lincoln - protest against Trump and Epstein allegations reaches the center of Washington
In front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, twelve young women and girls stood blindfolded, their bodies moving for several minutes through a choreography that said more than any speech. The group First Amendment Troop brought “ResistDance vs Redaction” to the site, a performance referencing allegations surrounding Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump. The project is led by filmmaker Bryan Buckley and choreographer Matthew Steffens, supported by Nicole Lewandowski. The music was “Live to Tell” in a children’s choir version, while Devyn Scherff, 15 years old, opened the scene and remained alone at the end, fist raised. The costumes displayed passages from the so-called Epstein files, a direct reference to documents released by the Department of Justice in early March, including testimony from a woman accusing Trump and Epstein of sexual abuse. There is no publicly verifiable evidence for these allegations, and the White House rejects them entirely through spokesperson Abigail T. Jackson.
Nevertheless, the performance has an effect. Viewers like Peter and Anna Borsos from Stockholm speak of goosebumps, while others see it as a form of protest that works without words and therefore lingers. Buckley openly says that such work must be created quickly because public attention otherwise moves on. A previous piece by the group about the killing of Renée Good and Alex Pretti by federal agents in Minneapolis reached millions of views. This time again, it is about attention, visibility, and the question of what is shown and what is not. After the performance at the memorial, the group moved toward the Kennedy Center, but was stopped there by security forces due to lack of authorization. The moment remains brief, but it leaves a mark.
Arrests without cause - lawsuit accuses ICE of systematic profiling based on appearance in New York
In New York, a major class action lawsuit has been filed that fundamentally questions how authorities deal with migrants. Eight men and women, along with the Workers’ Center of Central New York, accuse Immigration and Customs Enforcement of targeting people based on their appearance and arresting them without concrete suspicion. The allegations refer to numerous cases across the state, especially in New York City, where thousands of arrests have been carried out since the start of intensified measures. According to the complaint, around 3000 people were detained on the street in the first six months of 2025 alone. Attorney Harold Solis describes situations in which people were approached on their way to work, while shopping, or while taking their children to school, without any specific suspicion.
One of the plaintiffs, Rene Antonio Benitez, reports that he was stopped and arrested while driving with his daughter, even though he was legally in the country. Another case involves Hesler Garcia Lanza, a college graduate with no criminal record, who was surrounded by multiple vehicles and arrested on his way to work despite presenting documents.
See also our article from July 17, 2025, as we have covered some of these cases:
A.M.C., father of two U.S. citizens, was also approached in front of his home, even though he did not recognize the person in a photo authorities were looking for. According to the lawsuit, white passersby were not checked in comparable situations. The allegations target multiple agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the U.S. Marshals Service. The Department of Homeland Security, of course, rejects all accusations and emphasizes that actions are based on “reasonable suspicion.” At the same time, the lawsuit describes a practice driven by numbers and pressure, with checks concentrated in certain neighborhoods and at specific times of day. In 2025 alone, we handled 83 cases from New York. At the same time, more than 30 additional cases are currently on our desks. For many affected individuals, one thing remains above all: the fear of leaving their own home.
