The United States and Iran continue sliding toward war as diplomacy fails once again
"We're gonna be hitting them very hard because it's our turn to hit them. They know it's coming. They're asking us not to do it. It’s our turn."
Donald Trump is once again talking about negotiations, but events on the battlefield tell a completely different story. After the missile attack on an American base in Jordan, the president announced severe retaliation and declared that the time had come to hit Iran "very hard." At the same time, Washington claims Tehran wants to return to the negotiating table. Iran has responded directly, saying no one has requested talks for more than two weeks. The level of distrust between the two sides has now reached the point where every new diplomatic effort collapses before it even begins. While diplomats continue searching for a way out, the war keeps expanding militarily.
Saudi Arabia has now openly joined the United States in carrying out airstrikes against Iranian-backed militias in Iraq. At the same time, American targets have once again come under attack, drone strikes have triggered fires at an Egyptian port for the first time, and even close allies are warning that the situation could spiral out of control. Behind the scenes, concern is also growing over dwindling American stockpiles of advanced air defense missiles. Military advisers have reportedly warned the White House that Patriot and THAAD interceptors are being used up faster than they can be replaced. At the same time, pressure on global oil markets continues to grow, while anxiety ahead of the November congressional elections keeps rising. Instead of a political solution, threats, airstrikes, and retaliation once again dominate the situation. That is exactly what has defined relations between Washington and Tehran for decades. History shows that every failed attempt at negotiations makes the next war more likely.
On August 1, we will publish our most comprehensive documentation yet on the current developments in the Iran conflict. Our investigative team is currently on its way back. Right now, we are giving top priority to the Iran conflict alongside our investigations and assistance in the ICE cases. Few issues today have the potential to reshape global politics as profoundly as this one. That is precisely why we believe independent, in-depth investigative reporting is more important than ever.
Trump keeps fighting the Carroll verdict and once again turns to the Supreme Court
Donald Trump has no intention of ending his legal battle with E. Jean Carroll. Together with the U.S. Department of Justice, scandalous enough on its own, he has asked the Supreme Court to throw out the entire $83 million defamation judgment. The argument remains exactly the same as it has been for years: the statements he made about Carroll were made while he was serving as president and are therefore protected under federal law.
At the center of the case is the Westfall Act. The law generally shields federal employees from personal civil lawsuits when they act within the scope of their official duties. The Justice Department now argues that Trump's public statements from 2019 fall squarely under that protection. The administration maintains that a sitting president should not face personal liability on this scale for statements made while carrying out the duties of the office.
Trump's attorneys go even further. They accuse the appellate court of avoiding the real question of presidential immunity. They also argue that the $83 million award is grossly excessive and describe the case as historically unprecedented because, in their view, no president has ever before been held personally liable for statements made while serving in office.
Carroll sued Trump after he publicly claimed that her allegations of sexual assault were fabricated and insisted that he did not even know her. In early 2024, a jury awarded her $83 million in damages. That payment has been put on hold until the Supreme Court decides whether it will even hear the case. At the same time, Trump is still trying to overturn the separate $5 million judgment after the Supreme Court declined to review that case back in June.
Eleven years after the Germanwings crash, victims' families are now suing the German government
More than eleven years after the crash of Germanwings Flight 4U9525, the tragedy is returning to court. Thirty surviving family members have filed lawsuits against the Federal Republic of Germany, seeking compensation ranging from €500 to €110,000. The case will be heard by the Regional Court in Braunschweig because Germany's Federal Aviation Office is headquartered there. The plaintiffs accuse the Federal Ministry of Transport and the aviation authority under its supervision of failing to carry out their oversight responsibilities. According to the lawsuits, the mental fitness of co-pilot Andreas Lubitz was not properly monitored. They argue that if his psychological condition had been thoroughly evaluated, the disaster might have been prevented. On March 24, 2015, the 27-year-old deliberately flew an Airbus A320 into a mountain in the French Alps during a flight from Barcelona to Düsseldorf. All 150 people on board were killed, including 144 passengers and six crew members. Investigators later concluded that Lubitz had been suffering from depression and intentionally caused the crash in order to take his own life.
The families therefore argue that responsibility does not rest solely with the pilot or the airline. They also believe government agencies that were responsible for overseeing his medical fitness should be held accountable. The court, however, has already indicated before the first hearing that the lawsuits are unlikely to succeed. According to the court's preliminary assessment, German liability law generally prevents claims against the government when victims have another legal avenue for seeking compensation. In this case, the judges believe those claims could primarily be directed at the airline. For that reason, the court has already described the lawsuits as potentially lacking sufficient legal grounds. No evidentiary hearing is currently planned. The first hearing is scheduled for August 28. Regardless of the outcome, the proceedings show that the legal consequences of one of Europe's deadliest aviation disasters are still not over more than a decade later.
Republicans block Trump's attorney general nominee and demand answers
Todd Blanche was supposed to clear the key hurdle in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday. Instead, the vote was canceled just before it was set to begin. The opposition did not come from Democrats but from within Trump's own party. Republican Senators John Cornyn and Thom Tillis are refusing to support Blanche until the Department of Justice provides written answers about Trump's controversial settlement with the Internal Revenue Service. At the center of the dispute is Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS. The settlement not only included dropping tax claims against the president, it also originally created a $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund. The money was supposed to compensate people who believe they were politically targeted by the Justice Department. After fierce bipartisan criticism, the Justice Department announced that the fund would not move forward. However, it has never provided a formal written guarantee that the proposal is permanently dead.
Read also our article: "I Am His Lawyer" - One Sentence That Ended the Confirmation Hearing of the Next Attorney General
Another part of the agreement has become just as controversial because it could shield Trump from future tax audits. Cornyn is demanding language that clearly limits the agreement to audits that are already underway and makes clear that future tax filings are not protected. Without that clarification, he says he will not support Blanche's confirmation. Blanche left Capitol Hill without answering a single question from reporters. Behind closed doors, Justice Department officials spent hours negotiating with Republican senators. At the same time, President Trump dismissed concerns about the nomination and described his former personal attorney as an outstanding candidate. The fact that Republican senators themselves have now delayed his confirmation shows just how much resistance to the settlement has grown, even within Trump's own party.
COVID reckoning escalates as Fauci refuses to answer more than 100 questions before the Senate
Anthony Fauci, the former immunologist and longtime adviser to multiple U.S. presidents, became the public face of America's health agencies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Few government officials shaped the country's pandemic response as much as he did. That role has also made him the primary target for many Republicans to this day. On Wednesday, Fauci was once again called before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. This time he did not appear voluntarily. Committee Chairman Rand Paul subpoenaed him to testify under oath and made it clear before the hearing even began that he has spent years arguing Fauci should face criminal prosecution.
In his opening statement, Fauci explained why he would invoke the Fifth Amendment on the advice of his attorney. According to Fauci, Rand Paul has spent years publicly declaring that he wants to prosecute him and ultimately see him behind bars. Fauci said he no longer believes these hearings are about honestly examining the government's response to the pandemic. Instead, he believes the goal is to pressure him into making statements that could later be used against him in court. For that reason, Fauci refused to answer questions more than one hundred times during the hearing, which lasted over three hours.
Many observers initially found that surprising because President Joe Biden issued Fauci a preemptive pardon shortly before leaving office in early 2025. The move came amid concerns that a future Trump administration would attempt to prosecute Fauci over decisions made during the COVID-19 pandemic. That pardon, however, only covers potential federal offenses committed before it was issued. It does not protect someone from crimes committed afterward. That meant Fauci could still face prosecution if he made false or contradictory statements under oath during this hearing. His legal team concluded that remaining silent was the safest course of action.
Rand Paul rejected that argument completely. For years, the Republican senator has accused Fauci of lying to Congress. His allegations focus primarily on Fauci's testimony about the origins of the coronavirus, federal funding for scientific research in China, and so-called gain-of-function research. Those experiments involve altering viruses in laboratories to better understand how they behave. Critics have argued for years that such research could increase the risk of dangerous laboratory accidents.
One of the biggest points of contention remains the federal funding provided to EcoHealth Alliance. The nonprofit organization worked with scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology to study bat coronaviruses. Republicans have repeatedly accused Fauci of misleading Congress about both the scope and the nature of that research. Fauci has consistently denied those accusations. He has argued that the projects funded through his agency did not meet the government's definition of high-risk gain-of-function research. He has also repeatedly maintained that the bat viruses studied in Wuhan could not have evolved into the virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic.
The debate over the origin of the coronavirus remains just as divided. Rand Paul continues to argue that a laboratory accident in Wuhan is the most likely explanation and accuses Fauci of deliberately minimizing that possibility. Fauci has long said publicly that he has never ruled out either scenario but believes the available scientific evidence continues to point more strongly toward a natural spillover from animals to humans. No new scientific evidence proving either theory was presented during Wednesday's hearing.
Because Fauci refused to answer nearly every question, Rand Paul used much of the hearing to present his accusations in detail. He accused Fauci of four decades of abusing power, dishonesty, and serious misconduct while leading America's public health establishment. Paul also announced that the committee will vote next week on whether Fauci should be held in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions. Whether that could eventually lead to criminal proceedings remains unclear. Paul also publicly questioned whether Biden's pardon should have allowed Fauci to invoke the Fifth Amendment at all.
The hearing escalated further when Fauci's attorney, David Schertler, attempted to speak without being recognized by the chairman. Rand Paul immediately ordered him removed from the hearing room, and security escorted him out. Schertler later condemned the proceeding, saying the committee had no interest in finding the truth and was instead determined to publicly attack his client.
Democratic senators rallied behind Fauci throughout the hearing. Senator Maggie Hassan argued that the entire proceeding had been designed to trap him into making statements that could later be turned into criminal charges. More than 150 infectious disease experts also released an open letter before the hearing, saying there is still no credible evidence supporting the accusations against Fauci. They urged elected officials to stop what they described as years of politically motivated attacks against the former government scientist.
Rand Paul also increased the political pressure before the hearing by releasing more than 1,000 pages from Fauci's personal pandemic diaries. Paul claimed the private notes showed Fauci saying one thing behind closed doors while telling the American public something different. Portions of those entries, however, had already appeared in Fauci's memoir and earlier interviews. Much of the material documents the uncertainty that existed during the first months of the pandemic, when scientists around the world were still trying to understand a completely new virus.
President Donald Trump also weighed in during the hearing. He said he gradually lost confidence in Fauci during the pandemic because he believed Fauci made the wrong decisions on masks, lockdowns, and other public health measures. Trump later told reporters that he watched the entire hearing. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. also announced that his department had located Fauci's diaries on government property and turned them over to the Senate committee.
In the end, the hearing produced very little new information about the COVID-19 pandemic itself. Instead, it underscored that America's political battle over the pandemic is far from over. Republicans continue trying to hold Fauci personally responsible for decisions made by federal health agencies, while Democrats argue the investigation has become a political campaign against a man who advised seven presidents and whose name remains inseparable from the COVID-19 pandemic.
BMW to cut 8,000 jobs as the crisis finally reaches Germany's last major automaker
For years, BMW was seen as the one major German automaker that had managed to avoid the deep cost-cutting measures sweeping through the industry. While Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Porsche had already announced thousands of layoffs or major restructuring plans, BMW largely stayed on the sidelines. That is now coming to an end. By the end of 2027, the company plans to eliminate 8,000 jobs worldwide. According to reports from Germany, roughly half of those cuts are expected to affect employees in Germany itself. Of BMW's approximately 154,000 workers, around 84,000 are based in the country. Nearly every part of the company could be affected, although production employees are currently expected to be exempt. Management plans to reduce the workforce primarily through natural attrition and voluntary severance packages rather than forced layoffs. At the same time, BMW estimates that restructuring the company will cost around €1 billion.
The decision highlights just how dramatically conditions have changed for Germany's auto industry in a very short period of time. Chinese manufacturers are putting growing pressure on Germany's traditional brands by offering modern electric vehicles at significantly lower prices while rapidly expanding their global market share. Ironically, China, once one of the most profitable and important markets for German automakers, has now become one of their biggest challenges. On top of that, American tariffs continue driving up export costs, while the ongoing crisis in the Middle East is weighing on the global economy. Those pressures are disrupting supply chains, discouraging investment, and weakening demand. BMW's decision to launch a major round of job cuts makes one thing unmistakably clear: these problems are no longer limited to a handful of manufacturers. For the first time, every major German automaker is facing serious pressure at the same time. The entire industry is undergoing a profound transformation while international competitors continue growing faster and gaining ground in markets that German companies once dominated.
