What’s new:
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday he considers himself on a “historic and spiritual mission” and is “very” connected to the idea of “Greater Israel” — a vision of significant Israeli territorial expansion (The Times of Israel, 2025; Middle East Monitor, 2025; Truthout, 2025; Daily Sabah, 2025; YouTube, 2025).

Defining Greater Israel:

• Modern political scope: Could mean full Israeli control over Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights (Mondoweiss, 2024; The Times of Israel, 2024).

• Ideological scope: For some Zionists in Netanyahu’s government, it extends further — into Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia — based on biblical interpretation (Mondoweiss, 2024; Wikipedia, n.d.; Paradigm Shift, 2024; The Times of Israel, 2024; The Times of Israel, 2023; Middle East Eye, 2025).

The exchange:
The remarks came during an i24 interview when Netanyahu was gifted an amulet depicting “Greater Israel” (The Times of Israel, 2025; Middle East Monitor, 2025; Truthout, 2025; Daily Sabah, 2025). The amulet was not shown on camera, so its exact borders remain unclear (The Times of Israel, 2025; Daily Sabah, 2025). Asked if he felt connected to the vision, Netanyahu replied: “very much” (The Times of Israel, 2025; Middle East Monitor, 2025; Truthout, 2025; Daily Sabah, 2025).

Past signals:

• Netanyahu has previously displayed maps showing Gaza and the West Bank as part of Israel, including at the UN weeks before October 7 (Middle East Monitor, 2024; The Jerusalem Post, 2023; The Times of Israel, 2023; Al Jazeera, 2023).

• In 2023, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich appeared beside a map of Greater Israel including Jordan, sparking controversy (Axios, 2023; YouTube, 2023; Al Jazeera, 2023; The Times of Israel, 2023; The New Arab, 2024).

Smotrich’s stance:
In an interview for Arte, Smotrich said Israel would expand into Arab countries “little by little” and that “it is written that the future of Jerusalem is to expand to Damascus” (Middle East Eye, 2024; Middle East Monitor, 2024; The New Arab, 2024).

Netanyahu’s mission:
When asked if he saw himself acting for the “Jewish people,” Netanyahu called it “a mission of generations” — linking his leadership to the aspirations of past and future Jews. “If you’re asking if I have a sense of mission, historically and spiritually, the answer is yes” (The Times of Israel, 2025; Middle East Monitor, 2025; Truthout, 2025; Daily Sabah, 2025; YouTube, 2025).

The big picture:

Amid growing global condemnation of Israel’s military actions and worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza, even from staunch ally Britain, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee stepped forward on Friday to defend the assault. His defence, aired on Fox News’ Fox & Friends, invoked one of World War II’s most notorious Allied atrocities: the firebombing of Dresden (The Guardian, 2025a).

Tensions with the UK:

Huckabee targeted the United Kingdom after Prime Minister Keir Starmer criticized Israel’s U.S.-backed plan to fully occupy Gaza and potentially displace roughly 1 million Palestinians from the coastal enclave (The Guardian, 2025a; The Guardian, 2025b). Starmer’s remarks reflect international concern over the scale and humanitarian toll of the operation.

Huckabee’s Defence:

“They never get credit for the things they do to try to prevent civilian loss of life,” Huckabee claimed of Israel, despite the devastating human cost: over 55,104 Palestinians dead, 127,394 wounded, and thousands missing amid looser rules of engagement effectively permitting more civilian casualties while targeting Hamas (The Associated Press, 2025; The New York Times).

He pressed: “You have got the Brits out there complaining about humanitarian aid and the fact that they don’t like the way Israel is prosecuting the war. I would remind the British to go back and look at their own history. At the end of World War II they weren’t dropping food into Germany, they were dropping massive bombs. Just remember Dresden – over 25,000 civilians were killed in that bombing alone” (The Guardian, 2025a; Wikipedia, n.d.).

Historical Parallels – The Dresden Bombing:

In February 1945, U.S. and British warplanes unleashed a devastating firebombing campaign on Dresden using 4,000-pound “blockbusters” and incendiary explosives (Wikipedia, n.d.). The resulting inferno melted flesh and incinerated tens of thousands of civilians, including men, women, children, the sick, elderly, refugees, Allied POWs, and even zoo animals.

Kurt Vonnegut, an American POW imprisoned in Dresden during the attack and author of Slaughterhouse-Five, famously called the bombing “carnage unfathomable” (The National WWII Museum, 2020; Wikipedia, n.d.). After seeing the destruction, then-British Prime Minister Winston Churchill questioned, “Are we beasts? Are we taking this too far?”

Postwar Accountability and Conventions:

Though the Allies were never held accountable for such atrocities, the aftermath of World War II led to landmark legal frameworks designed to prevent future horrors. The Nuremberg trials, the Fourth Geneva Convention, and the Genocide Convention sought to prohibit acts like Nazi and Japanese war crimes, and what British officials had termed the “terror bombing” of Germany (HeinOnline Blog, 2019).

Backlash and Criticism:

Huckabee’s comments ignited sharp criticism on social media. A U.S. military veteran commented on X: “So Mike Huckabee’s defense of mass civilian death is… referencing more mass civilian death?” He added, “Justifying today’s atrocities by pointing to yesterday’s doesn’t make it moral. It makes it monstrous. The lesson of Dresden should be never again, not ‘do it again.’ But here we have a U.S. diplomat cosplaying a foreign country’s mouthpiece for atrocities” (Odinikaeze, 2025).

What’s new:

Doctors Without Borders (Médecins Sans Frontières, MSF) has issued a scathing statement accusing the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF)—a US-funded aid agency allowed by Israel to operate in Gaza—of facilitating “sites of orchestrated killing and dehumanization” (Doctors Without Borders, 2025; Doctors Without Borders, 2025; United Nations, 2025).

Key findings:

• MSF’s report, based on medical data, patient testimonies, and clinic observations, alleges targeted and indiscriminate violence by Israeli forces and private American contractors at GHF food distribution points (Doctors Without Borders, 2025; Médecins Sans Frontières, 2025; Al Jazeera, 2025).

• MSF treated over 1,000 people near GHF sites and received 28 bodies, including 25 children under 15 who were shot (Médecins Sans Frontières, 2025; PBS NewsHour, 2025; Médecins Sans Frontières Australia, 2025).

• The report concludes that the killings—especially of children—were intentional (Devex, 2025; Doctors Without Borders, 2025; Arab News Japan, 2025).

MSF’s words:

• “In MSF’s nearly 54 years of operation, rarely have we seen such levels of systematic violence against unarmed civilians” (Devex, 2025; Médecins Sans Frontières Australia, 2025; Doctors Without Borders, 2025).

• “There is no way to describe the murder of children as anything but intentional… the global inaction to stop GHF is baffling” (Al Jazeera, 2025; Devex, 2025; Arab News Japan, 2025).

Context:

• In March 2025, PM Benjamin Netanyahu broke the hostage exchange and ceasefire deal with Hamas by imposing a total blockade on Gaza, halting all aid (NBC News, 2025; AP News, 2025; Middle East Eye, 2025; NPR, 2025; Mondoweiss, 2025; OSW Centre for Eastern Studies, 2025).

• By late May 2025, Israel allowed limited food entry only through GHF, continuing to block UN aid (AJC, 2025; CBS News, 2025; Doctors Without Borders, 2025; Wikipedia, 2025; ABC News).

• GHF runs just four sites, distributing food for mere minutes daily (The Washington Post, 2025; Doctors Without Borders, 2025).

Risks to civilians:

• Palestinians must cross active war zones to reach GHF sites (PBS NewsHour, 2025; Al Jazeera English (YouTube), 2025; Democracy Now!, 2025; Responsible Statecraft, 2025; BBC News, 2025; Zeteo, 2025; HuffPost, 2025).

• Over 1,400 Palestinians have been killed while trying to access aid (UN News, 2025; United Nations, 2025; Wikipedia, 2025; NPR, 2025).

MSF’s demands:

• Immediate dismantling of the GHF system (Doctors Without Borders, 2025; Doctors Without Borders, 2025).

• Restoration of UN-led humanitarian aid mechanisms (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2025; Médecins Sans Frontières, 2025).

• As the occupying power, Israel is obligated to ensure safe, sufficient, and unimpeded humanitarian aid (Doctors Without Borders, 2025; Doctors Without Borders, 2025; Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2025; Amnesty International USA, 2025).

Bottom line:
MSF accuses the GHF—and by extension, Israeli and American actors—of weaponizing food aid in Gaza, turning survival into a deadly gamble.

The big picture:
By mid-1945, Japan’s military was crushed, cities devastated, and food scarce. Publicly committed to fighting on, Japan’s top leaders—the Big Six—were quietly seeking peace.

Why it matters:
Despite clear signs Japan wanted to end the war on terms short of unconditional surrender, the U.S. chose to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima (Aug. 6) and Nagasaki (Aug. 9). A growing body of evidence suggests Japan might have surrendered without them.

Peace overtures Japan made

1. Japan’s emperor seeks Soviet help — July 13, 1945:
In a top-level telegram, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo told Ambassador Naotake Sato that the Emperor wished to end the war and proposed Prince Fumimaro Konoye as a peace envoy.

“It is His Majesty’s heart’s desire to see the swift termination of the war,” the cable read.
But Japan still insisted on terms that preserved “national honour,” resisting unconditional surrender (Foreign Relations of the United States, 1945, Vol. I, Doc. 582).

2. U.S. intelligence already knew — July 12, 1945:
“Magic” intercepts of Japanese diplomatic cables had revealed these overtures to Washington. Truman’s diary on July 18 confirms Stalin mentioned the Japanese Emperor’s peace request (Long, n.d.; National Security Archive, 1945).
→ Historian Gar Alperovitz argues Truman knew Japan was seeking a way out.

3. Portugal & Swiss backchannels — May 1945:

• In Portugal, Masutaro Inoue informed a U.S. contact Japan was ready to end hostilities—if they could retain their home islands and avoid unconditional surrender (FRUS, 1945, Vol. VI, Doc. 356; Vol. VI, Doc 357).

• In Switzerland, Japanese naval officer Fujimura Yoshikazu tried reaching U.S. OSS officer Allen Dulles. Talks failed, lacking official backing, but confirm early peace signals (Project Muse, 2005).

Bottom line:
These peace feelers began at least three months before Hiroshima.

What U.S. military leaders thought

Many of the top U.S. commanders didn’t think the atomic bombs were needed.

General Dwight Eisenhower:
Opposed the bomb outright. In The White House Years, he recalled telling Secretary of War Stimson in July 1945:

“Japan was already defeated... dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary” (Eisenhower, 1963; NYT, 1963).

Admiral William Leahy:

“The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender” (Origins: Current Events in Historical Perspective, 2001).

Others who shared this view:
Generals Douglas MacArthur, Henry “Hap” Arnold, Curtis LeMay and Admirals Nimitz, King, Halsey. Seven of eight five-star officers rejected the bombings (Los Angeles Times, 2020).

Strategic Bombing Survey (1946):
Commissioned by Truman post-war, it concluded:

“Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”
(U.S. Government Printing Office, 1946)

Civilian impact data:
By mid-1945, Japanese per capita calorie intake had dropped to 1,680, down from 2,000 pre-war. Civilian morale was collapsing (Harry S. Truman Library & Museum, 1946).

Surrender after the bombs

Japan rejects Potsdam Declaration — July 26, 1945:
The demand for unconditional surrender stalled peace efforts. Japan wanted to retain the Emperor.

Then came Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
After both bombings and the Soviet invasion on Aug. 9, Japan offered to surrender on Aug. 10 via Swiss channels—if the Emperor stayed in place (Office of the Historian, 1945).

U.S. reply:
Agreed—Emperor could remain under Allied authority. Japan accepted on Aug. 14. The formal surrender came on Sept. 2, 1945 (National Archives, 1945).

So what changed?
The bombings gave Japan the justification to surrender with the Emperor intact—something they'd sought for months.

Motives beyond Japan

Geopolitics may have played a role:
Presidential advisor James Byrnes told Truman that using the bomb would let the U.S. “dictate the terms of ending the war” (Los Angeles Times, 2020).
→ Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal noted Byrnes’ anxiety to act before Soviet entry (History News Network, 2008).

Revisionist view:
Historians like Alperovitz argue the bombs were used less to defeat Japan than to intimidate the Soviet Union.

The takeaway

What we know:
Japan sought peace as early as May 1945. The U.S. knew through intercepted messages. Many U.S. military leaders doubted the bombs were necessary. The postwar Strategic Bombing Survey agrees Japan likely would’ve surrendered without them.

The question:
Was the bomb dropped to end the war, or to shape the post-war world?

Why it matters:

The humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza has worsened, with over 61,000 Palestinians killed, 90% displaced, and aid delivery severely obstructed. Recent US and Israeli political moves point toward a shift from conflict management to full military occupation, despite warnings of catastrophic consequences.

War’s Toll: 61,020 Dead, 90% Displaced

Since Hamas’s attack on October 7, 2023, Israel has launched relentless military operations across Gaza, killing at least 61,020 Palestinians, according to the Hamas-run health ministry (BBC, 2025).

• Israel now controls 75% of Gaza, after initially withdrawing in 2005.

• The UN accuses Israel of blocking aid, worsening living conditions for 90% of Gaza’s 2.1 million residents, now displaced and trapped in overcrowded shelters (BBC, 2025).

Trump: “Up to Israel” to Occupy Gaza

On August 5, 2025, President Donald Trump said it's “up to Israel” to decide whether to occupy Gaza fully, avoiding direct opposition to Israeli plans and instead focusing on getting “people fed” (Al Jazeera, 2025).

• His remarks align with a February 2025 proposal to “clear Gaza” and turn it into a “Riviera of the Middle East”.

• Trump also referenced $60 million in U.S. aid, with $30 million directed to the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), claiming a focus on stopping infant starvation (Al Jazeera, 2025).

Netanyahu’s Push for Reoccupation

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu is advancing a plan to fully reoccupy Gaza, convening his security cabinet on August 5 (BBC, 2025).

• Opposition is growing within Israel’s military. The army chief is reportedly considering resignation in protest (BBC, 2025).

• Public sentiment is split: 75% of Israelis support a ceasefire deal instead of further war escalation.

• Hostage families warn that this strategy may endanger the estimated 20 surviving hostages (BBC, 2025).

Meanwhile, hundreds of retired Israeli security officials urged Trump to help end the war in a joint letter, and the Palestinian Authority condemned the plan, calling for international intervention (BBC, 2025).

U.S. Green Light for “Aggressive” Military Action

On August 4, reports confirmed that Trump had approved more aggressive Israeli operations in Gaza, including steps that may precede full occupation (Ynetnews, 2025).

• This follows stalled ceasefire and hostage negotiations, and is seen by some as a negotiation tactic.

• Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir, Israel’s Chief of Staff, cancelled a US trip, reflecting the gravity of military planning (Ynetnews, 2025).

• Military leaders warn about risks to hostages, while right-wing Israeli ministers push occupation plans forward (Ynetnews, 2025).

U.S. Takes Over Gaza Aid Amid GHF Controversy

As criticism mounts over Israeli aid obstruction, the Trump administration is preparing to take over Gaza’s humanitarian aid distribution, coordinating with Qatar, Jordan, and Egypt (Axios, 2025).

• Trump is “not thrilled” about this role but sees no alternative to address starvation.

• The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF)—funded by $30 million from the U.S.—has delivered 46 million meals, but faces serious allegations (Al Jazeera, 2025).

Aid Killings & Legal Risks

The GHF is under fire after 549 Palestinians were killed while waiting for food aid at or near its centres (Al Jazeera, 2025).

• On one recent Friday, 83 were killed in Israeli attacks, including 6 near a GHF site in Rafah.

• Witnesses report people being shot or run over by trucks near aid sites guarded by Israeli forces and U.S. private contractors.

• Human rights lawyer Kate Mackintosh warned GHF staff could face war crimes charges, stating that targeting civilians seeking food is a prima facie war crime (Justice for Palestine, 2025).

• The GHF denies any wrongdoing, saying it coordinates closely with Israeli troops (Al Jazeera, 2025).

Global Reactions: Calls for Ceasefire & Accountability

• The UN, aid groups, and rights advocates are urging Israel to lift all restrictions on aid and agree to an immediate ceasefire (GOV.UK, 2025; United Nations, 2025).

• UN official Miroslav Jenca warned that total occupation could bring “catastrophic consequences” and insisted Gaza remain part of a future Palestinian state (Al Jazeera, 2025).

• Israel has allowed a partial resumption of aid, including baby food and hygiene items, but access remains severely restricted (BBC, 2025).

• Israel’s transformation of 86% of Gaza into militarized zones and the killing of over 61,000 people have led UN experts and rights groups to accuse Israel of genocide (Al Jazeera, 2025).

The Bottom Line

The Trump administration’s stance—deferential to Israel, focused on managing optics, and willing to expand US involvement—coincides with Netanyahu’s push for full reoccupation of Gaza. But with mass civilian casualties, aid failures, and rising global condemnation, both countries face growing pressure to abandon military escalation in favour of diplomatic solutions.

The Big Picture

A new report reveals that the Trump administration linked at least $1.9 billion in FEMA disaster funds to a controversial anti-Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) requirement, triggering fierce backlash and a partial walk-back by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

What Happened

A DHS document dated April 18, 2025, required that states and cities certify they would not boycott Israel or companies doing business with Israel to receive federal emergency funds (Department of Homeland Security, 2025).

• This condition applied to FEMA funding for disaster preparedness, including search-and-rescue gear and emergency personnel salaries [Reuters, 2025].

• DHS defined the requirement as a ban on discriminatory prohibited boycotts (Department of Homeland Security, 2025).

• The policy explicitly targeted the BDS movement, which seeks economic pressure on Israel over its occupation of Palestinian territories, including in Gaza (Reuters, 2025).

• Violators risked suspension of federal funds, according to the DHS document (Department of Homeland Security, 2025).

The Backlash

The policy ignited a wave of outrage, not from Democrats, but from Trump’s own base.

• Candace Owens called it a “betrayal,” writing: “Denying Americans who won’t support the genocide being conducted by your friends. Trump has fully betrayed America for [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu” (Owens, 2025).

• Milo Yiannopoulos, the Hodgetwins, and others on the MAGA right echoed similar concerns (Newsweek, 2025).

• Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene opposed related anti-BDS legislation, warning that it threatened free speech (Newsweek, 2025).

DHS Walks It Back—Sort Of

In response, DHS posted a clarification on X (formerly Twitter) on August 4, 2025, at 17:31 EDT, claiming:

“There is NO FEMA requirement tied to Israel in any current NOFO. No states have lost funding… DHS will enforce all anti-discrimination laws and policies, including as it relates to the BDS movement, which is expressly grounded in antisemitism” (Department of Homeland Security, 2025; Euronews, 2025).

Though framed as a reversal, the statement reaffirmed enforcement potential, especially against “racial discrimination,” suggesting continued scrutiny of BDS-aligned actions (Department of Homeland Security, 2025; Euronews, 2025).

Bigger Policy Landscape

The U.S. has long seen Israeli interests protected through legislation at the state level.

• As of 2022, at least 38 states had passed anti-BDS laws or executive orders, including Tennessee (2015), Florida (2016), and New Hampshire (2023) (Jewish Virtual Library, 2022).

• Many laws mandate contract certifications or state pension fund divestments from companies participating in BDS.

• A 2020 post by @IsraeliPM acknowledged:

“In recent years, we have promoted laws in most US states... against whoever tries to boycott Israel” (IsraeliPM, 2020).
This foreign involvement raises sovereignty concerns among critics.

Ben & Jerry’s Case Study

In July 2021, Ben & Jerry’s announced it would stop selling ice cream in West Bank settlements, saying:

“We believe it is inconsistent with our values… in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” (Ben & Jerry’s, 2021).

That led to:

• Israeli officials urging 35 US states to act under anti-BDS laws (The Times of Israel, 2021).

• Florida divested $139 million from parent company Unilever, joined by Arizona, New Jersey, and New York (Florida Politics, 2021).

• In June 2022, Unilever sold its Ben & Jerry’s operations in Israel to local licensee Avi Zinger, allowing continued sales under a new brand (Reuters, 2022).

Why It Matters

This clash shows how foreign policy, federal funding, free speech, and political loyalty intersect, especially around Israel.

• Trump’s FEMA policy, though retracted, exposed growing divisions on the American right over Israel’s actions in Gaza.

• It revealed longstanding foreign influence in US lawmaking, particularly concerning anti-BDS efforts.

• And it reignited debates on corporate social responsibility, free expression, and who gets to define “discrimination” in the 21st century.

What to Watch

• Whether DHS enforces anti-BDS conditions under new or existing rules

• Potential legal challenges over free speech and federal funding

• The MAGA movement’s evolving stance on Israel amid accusations of genocide

• Increased scrutiny on foreign influence in domestic legislation

Bottom Line:
The Trump administration's attempt to tie FEMA disaster aid to Israel loyalty sparked rare pushback from the MAGA base and forced DHS to walk back—but not entirely abandon—the policy. This moment reflects deeper tensions in U.S. politics over Israel, free speech, and foreign influence.

What happened

On July 28, 2025, U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), a vocal figure within the MAGA-aligned wing of the Republican Party, made headlines by describing Israel’s military campaign in Gaza as “genocide” in a social media post.

“It’s the most truthful and easiest thing to say that Oct 7th in Israel was horrific and all hostages must be returned, but so is the genocide, humanitarian crisis, and starvation happening in Gaza.” (The New York Times, 2025)

If confirmed, Greene’s statement marks the first time a Republican member of Congress has used the term “genocide” to describe Israel’s actions in Gaza—a term with profound legal and political implications under the UN Convention on Genocide, which defines it as acts committed with intent to destroy a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group (The New York Times, 2025).

Why it matters

• Shifting GOP rhetoric: Greene’s comment suggests a rare and potentially significant break within Republican ranks, traditionally unified in their support for Israel.

• Legal implications: The use of the word “genocide” aligns with allegations currently under review at international courts, including the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice (NPR, 2025).

• Timing: Her post came as international scrutiny intensifies over Israel’s actions in Gaza following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack and the subsequent military response (NPR, 2025).

The AIPAC-Fine controversy

Greene’s remarks were also prompted by developments involving AIPAC and Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL).

On July 29, 2025, AIPAC dropped Fine from its list of pro-Israel candidates following backlash to his inflammatory comment suggesting Palestinians in Gaza should “starve away”, amid escalating malnutrition deaths linked to Israel’s blockade (The Times of Israel, 2025).

Greene reacted strongly:

“I can only imagine how Florida’s 6th district feels now that their Representative, that they were told to vote for, openly calls for starving innocent people and children.” (The New York Times, 2025)

She added that a Jewish U.S. representative advocating such views is “disgraceful” and risks fueling antisemitism (The New York Times, 2025).

AIPAC later downplayed Fine’s removal, stating his endorsement might still be reconsidered later in the election cycle (The Times of Israel, 2025).

Greene vs. other Congress members

Greene now joins a small group of lawmakers willing to label Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide. Until now, this group included only nine House Democrats:

• Rashida Tlaib (MI)

• Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY)

• Ilhan Omar (MN)

• Ayanna Pressley (MA)

• Summer Lee (PA)

• Al Green (TX)

• Delia Ramirez (IL)

• Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ)

• John Garamendi (CA) (The New York Times, 2025)

Notably, Rep. Tlaib faced censure in 2023 for making similar accusations, underlining the political risk of such statements (NBC News, 2023).

Greene’s position—as a Republican—makes her stance even more notable, possibly signalling a rift within her party (The New York Times, 2025).

Legislative push: Cutting Israel’s military aid

Greene backed her words with action.

On July 29, 2025, she introduced an amendment to cut $500 million in U.S. military aid to Israel as part of the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (The New York Times, 2025).

The amendment gained support from only five other representatives:

• Al Green

• Ilhan Omar

• Summer Lee

• Rashida Tlaib

• Thomas Massie (R-KY) (The New York Times, 2025)

Although Rep. Massie has consistently pushed to end U.S. military aid to Israel, he has not used the term “genocide”, distinguishing his position from Greene’s (The New York Times, 2025).

Broader international context

Her comments come as Israeli human rights groups—B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel—have formally accused the Israeli government of genocide in Gaza (NPR, 2025).

Their reports, released July 28, 2025, are based on:

• Eyewitness accounts

• Testimonies

• Official documents

• Legal expert analyses (NPR, 2025)

These two groups are the first Jewish-led Israeli NGOs to issue such a conclusion during the nearly 22-month war.

They join Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International in asserting that Israel is committing crimes that meet the legal threshold for genocide, which has contributed to the growing number of cases before international courts (NPR, 2025).

Israel has denied all such allegations, calling them antisemitic, and says civilian casualties are the fault of Hamas’s tactics, including the use of human shields (NPR, 2025).

The bottom line

Rep. Greene’s statements mark a rare—and possibly groundbreaking—fracture in Republican support for Israel amid the war in Gaza.

She’s now:

• The first GOP member to call it a genocide

• One of only six House reps backing cuts to military aid

• Challenging both AIPAC orthodoxy and her own party’s position

As the war enters its second year, Greene’s shift could signal a broader reshuffling of U.S. political discourse, with implications for aid, diplomacy, and global accountability.

What’s new:
On July 29, 2025, Gaza’s Health Ministry reported that Israeli forces had killed at least 112 Palestinians and wounded 637 in just 24 hours (Antiwar.com, 2025).

Cumulative toll since Oct. 7, 2023:

• 60,034 killed

• 145,870 wounded (PBS, 2025)

• Among the dead:

  • 18,592 children (30.8%)

  • 9,782 women (16.3%)

  • 4,412 elderly (7.3%)

  • 55% civilians (Antiwar.com, 2025)

The ministry also noted that many victims remain buried under rubble or lying in the streets, making them difficult to recover amid ongoing violence.

The death toll is likely much higher

Independent estimates reveal severe undercounting of fatalities.

The Lancet study

A rigorous analysis published in The Lancet by Jamaluddine et al. (2025) estimates 64,260 deaths from traumatic injuries by June 30, 2024, reflecting a 41% underreporting by Gaza’s Health Ministry.

• 59% of those killed were women, children, or elderly civilians.

Haaretz investigation

A separate study cited by Haaretz estimates:

• 75,200 violent deaths by Jan. 2025

• 8,540 indirect deaths (from hunger, disease, and medical collapse)

• Total: ~83,740 before Jan.

• Add another 10,000+ deaths since, bringing the probable toll to nearly 100,000.

Bottom line: Independent researchers believe the actual death toll is 40–70% higher than official figures, especially when factoring in indirect causes of death.

Civilian toll remains staggering

Matthew Ghobrial Cockerill, a PhD student at the London School of Economics, has closely examined the Gaza toll.

• His research with Action on Armed Violence (AOAV) and frequent updates on X (@History__Speaks) validate that a majority of deaths—especially early in the war—were women and children.

• He noted that by mid-2025, the proportion fell to around 47%, likely due to increased adult male casualties near aid distribution sites run by the U.S. and Israeli-supported GHF.

In his June 17 article, “The vanishing children,” Cockerill investigated the removal of names from Gaza’s child fatality list and found over 80% were confirmed or likely dead—evidence of undercounting, not deception (AOAV, 2025).

Aid sites becoming death traps

Aid seekers are dying in large numbers, particularly near GHF-run distribution centres.

According to Wikipedia’s "2025 Gaza Strip aid distribution killings" page (updated July 30, 2025):

• 1,373 Palestinians seeking aid have been killed

• 859 of those near GHF sites

Additional reports:

• NPR (July 23, 2025): 1,000+ killed, mostly near GHF locations

• UN News (July 15, 2025): 875 dead by July 13; 674 near GHF sites

• Wounded: At least 7,957 injured while trying to access aid (NPR, 2025; UN News, 2025; Wikipedia, n.d.)

Eyewitnesses and NGOs report Israeli gunfire, chaotic crowd conditions, and lack of protection for civilians.

Specific incident: Nuseirat refugee camp

On July 28, 2025, Israeli airstrikes hit tent shelters in the Nuseirat Refugee Camp, killing:

• 30 civilians, including

  • 12 children

  • 14 women (AP News, 2025)

Just two weeks earlier (July 13), a separate Israeli strike on Nuseirat killed 10 more civilians (BBC, 2025). These repeated incidents reflect a pattern of deadly force targeting densely populated areas.

Credibility and controversy

Israeli officials have long challenged Gaza’s Health Ministry statistics, but multiple independent and peer-reviewed studies show consistent or higher tolls, not exaggeration.

The UN and WHO accept Health Ministry figures as the most comprehensive source available, while acknowledging likely undercounting (London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 2025; WHO, 2025).

In response to rising fatalities near aid sites, 170 humanitarian groups have demanded the closure of GHF, citing violations of humanitarian principles (Reuters, 2025; BBC, 2025; The Jerusalem Post, 2025).

The big picture

The war in Gaza has evolved into one of the deadliest conflicts for civilians in recent memory.

With independent estimates placing deaths near 100,000, and nearly half of all casualties being children, women, or elderly, the data presents a sobering indictment of the humanitarian cost.

As the conflict continues, so do calls for international accountability, reform of aid mechanisms, and investigations into potential war crimes.

What’s new:

Only 32% of Americans now support Israel’s military actions in Gaza — a historic low, according to a new Gallup poll published on July 29, 2025. That’s a 10-point drop from September 2024, and the lowest approval level since Gallup began tracking the conflict in November 2023 (Gallup, 2025).

Just 60% disapprove, up from 48% in September 2024 — a signal of growing American frustration with Israel's war effort (Gallup, 2025).

Methodology check:

• Gallup conducted telephone interviews with a random sample of 1,002 U.S. adults, 18+, across all 50 states.

• Margin of error: ±4 percentage points, 95% confidence level (Gallup, 2025).

Partisan breakdown:

Support for Israel in Gaza shows a stark political divide:

• Democrats: 8% approval (down 16 points from 2024)

• Independents: 25% approval (also down 16 points)

• Republicans: 71% approval (up from 66%) (Gallup, 2025)

This gap shows how the Gaza war has become a deeply polarizing issue, with progressives distancing themselves and conservatives digging in.

Iran factor:

The poll also looked at American views on Israel’s recent military strikes against Iran, targeting suspected nuclear and military sites:

• 38% approve overall

• 54% disapprove

• Partisan gap: 12% of Democrats approve vs. 78% of Republicans (Gallup, 2025)

Why it matters: The Iran numbers suggest growing skepticism about aggressive Israeli military actions abroad, not just in Gaza.

Netanyahu’s image crumbles:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s favourability among Americans is at its lowest:

• 29% favourable, down from 33% in December 2023

• 52% unfavourable, up from 47% (Gallup, 2025)

Context: On November 21, 2024, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, accusing him of:

• War crimes

• Crimes against humanity

• Using starvation as a method of warfare (ICC, 2024; Wikipedia, 2025)

As a result, Netanyahu risks arrest in any of the 125 ICC member states if he enters their territory (Haaretz, 2024).

Gaza’s humanitarian collapse:

Public discontent tracks closely with the worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

• On July 28, 2025, the UN confirmed at least 16 children under five died from hunger-related causes since mid-July (United Nations, 2025).

• The World Health Organization (July 27) noted that 63 of 74 malnutrition-related deaths in 2025 occurred in July alone, including 24 young children (World Health Organization, 2025).

• IPC data (July 2025) showed:

  • Acute malnutrition doubled in Khan Younis

  • 70% spike in Deir al-Balah (IPC, 2025)

AP News and OCHA reported:

• 59,219 Palestinian deaths as of July 23, 2025

• 1.9 million displaced people, in urgent need (AP News, 2025; OCHA, 2025)

Demographic divide:

Who’s more likely to support Israel?

• Older Americans (55+): Nearly 50% support Israel’s Gaza campaign

• Younger adults (<35): Only 10% support (Gallup, 2025)

• Men and White adults also show higher approval rates and more favourable views of Netanyahu

Generational values and media consumption are likely influencing these stark splits in public opinion.

U.S. policy implications:

The drop in support — especially among Democrats and Independents — could:

• Pressure U.S. policymakers to reconsider military aid or diplomatic support

• Complicate foreign policy strategy as the 2026 election cycle nears

• Influence calls for a ceasefire and increased humanitarian aid

Meanwhile, Israel’s food aid restrictions, reported during the survey period, may have fuelled public anger, especially in light of famine reports (Gallup, 2025; The Times of Israel, 2025).

The bottom line:

American public opinion is undergoing a seismic shift on Israel’s military campaigns. With Netanyahu under ICC indictment, images of starving children, and deepening partisan and generational divides, support for Israel is slipping — and it’s likely to reshape how Washington engages with the Gaza conflict going forward.

Why it matters:

A retired U.S. special forces officer, Anthony Aguilar, has made grave allegations implicating Israeli forces in war crimes and exposing serious failures by American-backed humanitarian contractors in Gaza. His account comes amid rising Palestinian casualties at aid sites and mounting international criticism.

Who is Anthony Aguilar?

Aguilar is a former U.S. special forces officer who, in May 2025, was hired as a subcontractor for UG Solutions, an entity linked to the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF)—a U.S. and Israeli-backed aid project. His role placed him at the heart of GHF’s controversial aid distribution operations in Gaza.

What he saw:

In interviews with BBC and France24, Aguilar recounted disturbing events that he directly witnessed:

• Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) allegedly fired on unarmed Palestinian crowds, including with Merkava tank shells and mortar rounds.

• A stun grenade thrown into a crowd left a Palestinian woman unconscious. Aguilar described her as “lifeless” and “wasn’t moving” (France24, 2025).

• He stated bluntly:

“Without question, I witnessed war crimes… firing tank rounds into unarmed civilians is a war crime.” (BBC, 2025)

GHF Contractors Under Fire:

Aguilar also criticized the GHF operation as dangerously incompetent:

• Called the contractors “amateur, inexperienced, untrained”, with no understanding of “operations of this magnitude” (BBC, 2025).

• Labelled the conduct “criminal” and described the force used on starving civilians as unparalleled in his career (France24, 2025).

The social media echo chamber:

Aguilar’s claims were amplified by credible voices on X (formerly Twitter):

• @Dr_LCorredor (July 27, 2025):

“Lt. Col. Anthony Aguilar saw Israeli forces shoot at starving Palestinians, fire tank shells into civilians & launch mortars at crowds.”

• @EvaKBartlett (July 26, 2025):

Reported Aguilar saw U.S. and Israeli forces deliberately target civilians at aid distribution sites.

Casualty figures:

The number of Palestinian civilians killed while seeking aid continues to rise:

• UN Human Rights Office (via NPR, July 23, 2025):

1,054 Palestinians killed since late May 2025.
▪️ 766 at GHF sites
▪️ Others near UN convoys and aid points

• UN Report (July 15, 2025):
  ▪️ 875 killed as of July 13
  ▪️ 674 near GHF locations (UN News, 2025)

• Al Jazeera (July 29, 2025):

147 deaths “directly” linked to famine-related aid seeking. This may reflect selective incidents, not the overall toll.

Israel’s response:

The Israeli military has partially acknowledged the issue:

• Reuters (June 30, 2025):
  IDF admitted harm to civilians at distribution centres and issued new rules following Southern Command’s internal review.

• BBC (July 31, 2025):
  IDF claims they only fired “warning shots” and deny knowledge of casualties, directly contradicting Aguilar’s and others’ testimonies.

The credibility gap:

This growing divide between eyewitness accounts and military denials fuels widespread controversy:

• Israel accuses the UN of parroting Hamas numbers.

• Haaretz reports investigations into war crimes, while Times of Israel mentions misfired artillery killing 30–40 people, but no official transparency or shared documentation yet (Reuters, 2025).

Health Ministry vs UN data:

• Gaza Health Ministry (PBS, July 29, 2025):
  Reports over 60,000 deaths during the war—includes all causes, not just aid-related incidents.

• UN figures (NPR, July 23, 2025):
  Deaths specifically related to aid-seeking surpass 1,000.

• UNISPAL (July 1, 2025):
  Cites a Palestinian letter claiming 200,000 casualties—but this figure is unverified and not necessarily UN-endorsed.

The bottom line:

Aguilar’s testimony—corroborated by media outlets, echoed on social media, and contextualized by alarming UN casualty reports—presents a damning picture of both Israeli military actions and the failure of U.S.-linked humanitarian efforts in Gaza.

With international scrutiny rising, these revelations may pressure Washington, Tel Aviv, and aid contractors to reckon with allegations of war crimes, operational negligence, and moral complicity in a humanitarian disaster.

What to watch:

• Will the U.S. or Israel officially respond to Aguilar’s claims?

• Will there be independent investigations into GHF site killings?

• Will humanitarian operations in Gaza be restructured—or remain shielded from accountability?

Why it matters:
Tensions are rising between Donald Trump’s team and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, revealing deep fractures in the U.S.-Israel alliance and raising urgent questions about the motives behind Israel’s aggressive military actions.

Inside Trump’s frustration:
A July 20, 2025 Axios article quoted a Trump White House official who said, “Bibi acted like a madman. He bombs everything all the time,” in response to Israeli strikes on Damascus.

• The comment came after a string of controversial Israeli attacks, including the bombing of a Catholic church in Gaza, which reportedly infuriated Trump.

• Trump demanded explanations from Netanyahu, signalling rare public dissent between the two right-wing leaders.

But here’s the rub: calling Netanyahu a “madman” might miss the point.

Calculated, not chaotic:
Contrary to the “madman” framing, evidence suggests Netanyahu’s military and diplomatic actions are calculated, aimed at consolidating power, delaying legal consequences, and shaping the regional map to his advantage.

Netanyahu’s strategy: Divide to rule
Netanyahu’s long-standing tactic has been to keep Palestinians politically fractured—and Hamas has played a central role in that.

• A New York Times report revealed that Netanyahu tolerated, even encouraged, Qatari funding to Hamas over a decade, seeing it as a way to “buy quiet” in Gaza.

• The Times of Israel confirmed in October 2023 that Netanyahu viewed Hamas as a “strategic asset”, helping prevent Palestinian unity and statehood.

The goal? Undermine the Palestinian Authority, delay peace talks, and present himself as Israel’s indispensable leader.

Military strikes, political wins
Netanyahu has a track record of leveraging military escalation for political survival:

• In November 2019, just before a government-forming deadline, Israel killed a top Islamic Jihad commander in Gaza.

• The Independent reported this move helped Netanyahu press opposition leader Benny Gantz into a coalition, portraying himself as a wartime necessity.

• Death toll: 24 Palestinians, including three children—no Israeli casualties.

• In May 2021, as opposition parties closed in on unseating him, violence flared around Al-Aqsa Mosque.

• Al Jazeera and Wikipedia note that Netanyahu let tensions spiral into full-blown conflict—Operation Guardian of the Walls.

• Result: stalled coalition talks, postponed his corruption trial, and rebranded him as Israel’s “protector.”

Syria strikes: Strategy or smokescreen?
Following Bashar al-Assad’s fall in December 2024, Israel has launched repeated strikes in Damascus.

• Targets include military HQs and government buildings.

• Justification: Protecting the Druze minority.

• Timing? Telling.

On June 30, 2025, The Guardian reported that Netanyahu’s corruption trial hearings were cancelled due to “classified diplomatic and security grounds,” with lawyers citing focus on regional conflicts. Trump even called the trial a “witch hunt”, linking U.S. aid to Israel with ending the proceedings.

The Syrian vacuum
The fall of Assad created a power vacuum that Netanyahu appears ready to exploit.

On March 29, 2025, Ahmed al-Sharaa was appointed to lead a transitional Syrian government (Wikipedia, 2025; CNN, 2025).

But chaos reigns:

• Over 1,000 revenge killings (mainly targeting Alawites)

• 90% of Syrians live below the poverty line

• Food aid has been slashed

• U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) remain unintegrated

The U.S. State Department warned of possible attacks during Eid al-Fitr, underlining the new government’s fragility (CNN, 2025).

For Netanyahu, this weak state may present an opportunity for territorial expansion—and a distraction from mounting legal trouble at home.

The “madman” theory, revisited
Some analysts compare Netanyahu’s methods to Nixon’s “madman theory”—a tactic where leaders act unpredictably to intimidate adversaries.

• Trump himself was known to embrace similar chaos-driven foreign policy moves.

• In Netanyahu’s case, what looks like instability may be controlled chaos—designed to:

  • Shift domestic attention

  • Delay legal processes

  • Keep enemies off balance

  • Cement power through perpetual crisis

Bottom line:
Netanyahu’s recent actions—backed by a decade-long pattern of exploiting regional instability—are more strategic than erratic.

While Trump officials may label him a “madman,” the evidence suggests a calculated campaign: destabilize the region, weaken adversaries, and delay personal accountability.

In short, it’s not madness. It’s method.

Why it matters:

President Donald Trump has publicly contradicted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s denial of a hunger crisis in Gaza, acknowledging widespread starvation and pledging greater U.S. involvement, marking a rare and sharp rift between the two allies.

“That’s real starvation stuff”

Speaking from his Turnberry resort in Scotland, Trump addressed growing concerns over Gaza’s humanitarian catastrophe:

“That’s real starvation stuff, I see it, and you can’t fake that. So we’re going to be even more involved” (Politico, 2025).

This statement contrasts starkly with Netanyahu’s persistent claim that “there is no starvation in Gaza”—despite mounting evidence, including images of emaciated children and international calls for urgent action.

Aid Delivery System Under Fire

Trump’s comments come amid intensifying scrutiny of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF)—the current U.S.-backed aid mechanism.

• Aid groups and U.N. agencies report that over 1,000 Palestinians have been shot at GHF distribution sites since late May.

• Humanitarian workers describe these areas as “killing fields,” accusing Israeli forces of opening fire on civilians seeking food (The Independent, 2025).

• The GHF has been criticized for setting up distribution hubs perilously close to Israeli military zones, putting desperate Gazans directly in harm’s way.

Ceasefire Talks Break Down

Trump also distanced himself from Israel’s hardline approach to ceasefire negotiations with Hamas.

• After U.S. and Israeli officials pulled out of talks in Doha, Trump said Hamas “didn’t really want to make a deal” and suggested their leaders know they’ll be “hunted down” once all hostages are released (Al Jazeera, 2025).

• Still, he praised Netanyahu’s aim to “finish the job,” showing continued support for Israel’s military campaign despite the humanitarian toll.

No Shift in U.S. Military Support

While Trump’s remarks drew attention, they’re unlikely to translate into major policy changes.

• Senior U.S. officials say Trump remains “very firmly in Israel’s camp” (Semafor, 2025).

• Republican allies downplay any suggestion of a broader strategic rift, emphasizing that Trump’s comments reflect concern over public optics, not a shift in alliance.

Gaza on the Edge of Famine

The humanitarian stakes continue to escalate:

• The U.N.’s Emergency Relief Coordinator described Gaza’s crisis as “catastrophic hunger,” with more than 100 aid groups calling for an immediate and permanent ceasefire (United Nations News, 2025).

• Though Israel has allowed limited daily pauses and aid corridors, these are inadequate to prevent mass starvation, according to global relief agencies.

Stalemate Over Hostage Deal

Hamas has maintained its willingness to release all remaining hostages in exchange for a permanent ceasefire—a demand Israel has repeatedly rejected (Politico, 2025).

Netanyahu insists the war must continue until Hamas is dismantled and all hostages are freed, a position made more intractable by the lack of sustained U.S. pressure.

What’s next?

Trump’s break with Netanyahu may signal political recalibration ahead of the U.S. election—but without meaningful policy shifts, the humanitarian crisis is poised to worsen.

Gaza faces starvation, violence at aid sites, and stalled peace efforts—all while major powers refuse to force a resolution.

Bottom line: Trump’s remarks underscore global concern—but until words become action, Gaza’s catastrophe will deepen.

Why it matters:

For the first time in history, major Israeli human rights groups—B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights Israel (PHRI)—have jointly accused the Israeli government of committing genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Top-tier international media outlets have independently verified their findings.

The big report: “Our Genocide”

Released in July 2025, B’Tselem’s official report delivers its gravest conclusion yet:

“Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip,” and
“An examination of Israel’s policy in the Gaza Strip and its horrific outcomes, together with statements by senior Israeli politicians and military commanders about the goals of the attack, leads to the unequivocal conclusion that Israel is taking coordinated action to intentionally destroy Palestinian society in the Gaza Strip” (B’Tselem, 2025).

Systematic dismantling of Gaza’s life-support systems

In coordination with B’Tselem, PHRI detailed what they call a deliberate and systematic strategy:

• Targeted attacks on hospitals

• Obstruction of medical aid and evacuations

• Killing and detention of healthcare workers

This amounts to the destruction of Gaza’s health and life-sustaining systems (The Times of Israel, 2025).

The legal framework: Genocide under international law

PHRI emphasized that Israel’s actions constitute three acts of genocide as defined under the UN Genocide Convention:

1. Killing members of the group

2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm

3. Deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to destroy the group (The Times of Israel, 2025)

Media confirmation

These explosive claims were verified by major international outlets, including:

• BBC News (2025)

• NPR (2025)

• The Washington Post (2025)

• The Times of Israel (2025)

Each outlet confirmed that this is the first time prominent Israeli civil society groups have used the term “genocide” to describe Israeli policy.

Voices of concern

Yuli Novak, Executive Director of B’Tselem, issued a direct warning about the future:

“One crime does not justify another. This policy could soon extend to Palestinians in the West Bank” (Antiwar.com, 2025).

Context: A historic shift

• Previously, criticism of Israeli military actions in Gaza typically came from international organizations or foreign governments.

• This time, the allegation of genocide comes from within Israel itself, shattering long-standing political and cultural taboos.

What’s next?

The international community faces urgent questions:

• Will international courts act?

• Will Western governments—especially those supplying arms—respond?

• Will this internal Israeli reckoning shift global opinion?

Why it matters

Ceasefire negotiations in Doha, Qatar — long seen as one of the last diplomatic off-ramps in the Gaza conflict — have unravelled. Both US and Israeli envoys have now pulled out of the talks, citing Hamas’s most recent counter-proposal as proof of bad faith (BBC News, 2025; Al Jazeera, 2025).

This major setback comes amid escalating violence and a growing humanitarian catastrophe, with millions of Palestinians on the brink of famine.

What happened

• Israel withdrew first, following a new Hamas counter-offer.

• The US followed suit soon after, with special envoy Steve Witkoff announcing the recall of his team for “consultations.”

• Both countries blamed Hamas, alleging the group was not serious about ending the war.

“Hamas does not appear to be coordinated or acting in good faith,” Witkoff wrote on X, adding that their response “clearly shows a lack of desire to reach a ceasefire” (Al Jazeera, 2025).

What’s next?

Witkoff hinted at a shift in US policy:

“We will now consider alternative options to bring the hostages home and try to create a more stable environment for the people of Gaza… We are resolute in seeking an end to this conflict and a permanent peace in Gaza” (Al Jazeera, 2025).

While no specifics were offered, Israel has already launched a new ground offensive in central Gaza, especially around Deir el-Balah — an area believed to hold remaining hostages (Politico, 2025).

Hamas responds

Hamas denied claims of obstruction, calling Witkoff’s remarks “surprising” and affirming its openness to continued dialogue:

“The mediators have expressed their welcome and satisfaction with this constructive and positive position… The Movement reiterates its commitment to continuing negotiations and engaging in them to help overcome obstacles and reach a permanent ceasefire agreement” (BBC News, 2025).

Sticking points in the talks

1. Truce terms: Hamas wants a guaranteed pathway from a 60-day truce to a permanent ceasefire — a red line for Israel (The New York Times, 2025).

2. Prisoner swap scope:

   • Hamas: Release 2,000 Palestinian prisoners, including those detained after Oct. 2023.

   • Israel/US: Willing to release 1,200 (Politico, 2025).

3. Israeli troop withdrawals: Disputes persist over whether Israel should withdraw to the positions it held during the brief January 2025 ceasefire (The New York Times, 2025).

Humanitarian toll

The breakdown of talks comes as Gaza teeters on collapse:

• The Israeli blockade — backed by the US — has throttled food, fuel, and medical aid into the enclave.

• Aid groups and journalists report an alarming rise in hunger-related deaths.

• Over 2 million Palestinians are facing severe food shortages, and starvation is accelerating (Al Jazeera, 2025).

The bottom line

With the US and Israel walking away from the table and a new ground offensive underway, prospects for a diplomatic breakthrough are bleak.
Meanwhile, Gaza’s civilian population — already ravaged by war and hunger — is left with few options and little hope.

Why it matters:

The Western media’s portrayal of the Ukraine war has long shaped public understanding—and by extension, support—for military aid. But recent shifts in tone, facts emerging from the battlefield, and critical academic assessments are challenging this media narrative.

General Media Bias: Skewed Perspectives

The big picture:
Western mainstream outlets—especially CNN and the BBC—have consistently emphasized the Ukrainian viewpoint while downplaying or dismissing Russian perspectives.

• Stereotyping Russia: Russian narratives are often framed in overly negative or simplistic terms.

• Downplaying Ukrainian losses: Casualties and battlefield struggles faced by Ukraine are often minimized or wrapped in optimistic language.

• What this does: It potentially normalizes controversial aspects of Ukraine's wartime governance and bolsters Western public support for aid (DiVA Portal, 2023).

Major Media Begin to Recalibrate

What’s new:
U.S. flagship newspapers have begun to change their tone.

• The New York Times warns of a “particularly precarious time for Ukraine,” pointing to dwindling Western aid and a surge in Russian air assaults (The New York Times, 2025).

• The Washington Post now concedes that “Ukraine can still lose” the war, marking a departure from earlier optimism (Washington Post, 2025).

Bottom line: The shift reflects growing concerns about Ukraine’s battlefield position and the sustainability of foreign military support.

Battlefield Realities vs. Media Language

Advances reframed:
Russia’s recent military progress is labelled as “sluggish” in Western coverage.

• In reality: Russia gained 173 square miles in May and 214 square miles in June 2025. While modest compared to Ukraine’s size, these gains are putting significant pressure on Ukrainian forces (The New York Times, 2025).

• Attritional warfare: Analysts now agree this is less about land and more about draining the enemy’s manpower and resources (CSIS, 2025).

So what? Western media’s continued emphasis on square mileage may obscure the true strategic nature of the conflict.

Casualties: Reporting vs. Reality

What’s being said:
President Zelensky most recently estimated 45,100 to 46,000 Ukrainian soldiers killed and around 390,000 wounded. These numbers—often quoted in Western reports—do not include the missing or captured (Kyiv Independent, 2025; BBC News, 2024; TASS, 2025).

But external estimates are starker:

• CSIS & NYT say the real figure could be 60,000–100,000 killed, with total Ukrainian casualties nearing 400,000.

• Total war toll: Close to 1.4 million combined casualties, including both Ukrainian and Russian forces (CSIS, 2025; The New York Times, 2025).

• Le Monde’s finding: Ukrainian cemeteries are full or expanding, suggesting death tolls far higher than Kyiv’s official line (TASS, 2025).

The takeaway: These broader figures are often underplayed in Western narratives, creating a gap between reality and perception.

Metrics and Motivations: How the War is Framed

Counting the wrong things?
CNN and others keep focusing on territorial gains—or the lack thereof.

• But experts argue this metric is outdated. Attritional wars are decided by manpower, morale, and material depletion, not just captured terrain (DiVA Portal, 2023).

The motivational angle:
There’s growing concern that Western media may selectively report to sustain public support for Ukrainian aid.

• How? By minimizing Ukrainian casualties, exaggerating Russian losses, and emphasizing Ukraine’s resilience (Washington Post, 2025).

Critical voices say: This kind of framing may serve policy goals more than truth.

Scholarly Reflections: Time for Nuance

Call to action:
Academics are urging audiences to step back and ask hard questions.

• Are casualty numbers accurate?

• Are battlefield reports balanced?

• Are media motives influencing coverage?

Fisher (2023) calls for a more nuanced understanding that critically evaluates media sources, particularly on emotionally charged topics like death tolls and territorial control.

The bottom line:
Western media framing is evolving. But for too long, it has leaned into optimistic portrayals of Ukraine and dismissive narratives about Russia. With the war dragging into a prolonged and brutal phase, there’s a growing need for sober, critical, and fact-based reporting—however uncomfortable those facts may be.

Why it matters:

Gaza’s 2.1 million residents face starvation due to Israel’s blockade, worsened since March 2025 (World Food Programme, 2025). On July 20, 2025, 18 malnutrition deaths were reported, totalling 86 since October 2023, including 76 children (Anadolu Agency, 2025). This “silent massacre” demands urgent action.

By the numbers:

• 86 starvation deaths: 76 children, 10 adults (Anadolu Agency, 2025).

• 470,000 face catastrophic hunger; 71,000 children need urgent treatment (World Food Programme, 2025).

• 57 child deaths by May 2025, showing rapid escalation (WHO, 2025).

Human impact:

Four-year-old Razan Abu Zahe died after 27 days in the hospital; her mother cited no milk. Three-month-old Yehia al-Najjar also died. Blocked formula imports kill infants (CNN, 2025; Antiwar.com, 2025a; Haaretz, 2025).

Medical insights:

Mohammed Abu Afash warns of collapsing women and children. Nick Maynard reports surgical failures and starving staff. Al-Shifa’s director says staff work 24 hours without food, calling it “genocide” (Antiwar.com, 2025a; Antiwar.com, 2025b). No food in 36 hospitals (Countercurrents, 2025).

Aid crisis:

One in three Palestinians skips meals for days. 116,000 tons of food wait outside Gaza (World Food Programme, 2025). UN reports confirm children die before aid arrives (OCHA oPt, 2025; UNRWA, 2025).

Legal context:

ICC warrants target Israeli leaders for war crimes. ICJ genocide case cites starvation as a weapon (Anadolu Agency, 2025). Amnesty International confirms starvation tactics (Amnesty International, 2025).

What’s needed: Open crossings for food and medicine. WFP’s Cindy McCain warns that waiting for famine confirmation is too late (World Food Programme, 2025).

The bottom line:

Gaza’s starvation crisis, with 86 deaths and rising malnutrition, demands immediate global action to avert mass tragedy, especially for children.

Why it matters:

The Ukraine-Russia war—ignited by Crimea’s annexation in 2014 and deepened with Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022—has reached another crossroads.

This time, the turning point comes not from the battlefield, but from Washington.

Under President Donald Trump’s new administration, the U.S. strategy appears to be shifting. A July 4, 2025, phone call with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, along with a series of public statements and policy proposals, has ignited concerns over a possible escalation—military and nuclear.

The Trump–Zelensky call that set off alarms

What happened: On July 4, 2025, Trump and Zelensky spoke on the phone. The question Trump reportedly asked:

“Volodymyr, can you hit Moscow? Can you hit St. Petersburg too?” (Financial Times, 2025)

Zelensky didn’t flinch. His response:

“Absolutely. We can if you give us a weapon.” (Financial Times, 2025)

Why it matters:
According to Financial Times, Trump’s aim was strategic—using pressure tactics to force Russia to the negotiating table by making them “feel the pain.” But the phrasing raised eyebrows across global capitals.

Walkback begins:
Shortly after, Trump denied having plans to provide long-range weapons and told reporters Zelensky shouldn’t target Moscow (BBC News, 2025).

A White House official clarified:

“President Trump was merely asking a question, not encouraging further killing. He's working tirelessly to stop the killing and end this war.” (BBC News, 2025)

Still, the damage was done. In high-stakes diplomacy, perception is everything.

Long-range weapons: A risky leap forward

The dilemma: The possibility of supplying Ukraine with long-range U.S. weapons has sparked anxiety over nuclear escalation.

Reports indicate Ukraine has been offered weapons like Tomahawk cruise missiles, with a range exceeding 1,000 miles (The Guardian, 2025).
But there’s a catch: Ukraine lacks the launch platforms (ships or bombers) typically needed to deploy them.

Flashback:
Back in November 2024, the Biden administration approved the use of ATACMS missiles, which have a range of ~190 miles.
That allowed Ukraine to strike Russian targets in regions like Kursk, where North Korean troops had been deployed (The New York Times, 2024).

Russia’s response:
In return, Russia formally revised its nuclear doctrine, lowering the threshold for nuclear use in response to conventional attacks involving nuclear-equipped states (NBC News, 2024).

Bottom line:
Every new weapon risks changing the conflict’s trajectory—not just in Ukraine, but globally.

Trump’s new plan: Arms and tariffs

Military support ramped up:
On July 15, 2025, Trump unveiled a NATO-based plan where allies buy U.S. weapons and send them to Ukraine (CNN, 2025).
Key systems include:

• Patriot missile defences

• Short- and medium-range missiles

• Equipment from existing U.S. stockpiles

The idea: speed and firepower to Ukraine—fast.

The economic hammer:
Trump also issued a stark ultimatum:
If no peace deal is reached in 50 days, the U.S. will:

• Impose 100% tariffs on Russia

• Enforce secondary sanctions on countries trading with Moscow, namely China and India

Given limited U.S.-Russia trade, the effectiveness hinges on squeezing Russia’s partners.

Russia hits back—with words

Former President Dmitry Medvedev dismissed Trump’s warning as a “theatrical ultimatum” (CBS News, 2025).
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov added that "any attempts to make demands, especially ultimatums, are unacceptable” (CBS News, 2025).

The message: Moscow isn’t blinking.

What it all means

These recent moves mark a dramatic shift in U.S. posture—one that combines military and economic pressure under Trump’s signature deal-making style.

But here’s the risk:
Each new long-range missile or threat of sanctions raises the stakes. Russia’s updated nuclear doctrine signals it may not wait long before escalating.

For Ukraine:
More weapons could bolster defence, maybe even shift the tide.
For Russia:
Pressure may harden their resolve.

For the world:
The margin for miscalculation is narrowing.

Why it matters:
Taiwan has long held a pivotal role in the Indo-Pacific, balancing its democratic identity, economic clout, and strategic geography against rising Chinese aggression. But as Donald Trump returns to the White House in 2025, Taiwan finds itself walking a tightrope, facing increased demands from its strongest security partner while managing sharp internal political divides.

The U.S.-Taiwan Relationship: Longstanding, Yet Evolving

The roots:
The 1979 Taiwan Relations Act remains the foundation of the U.S.-Taiwan relationship. Though Washington formally recognized Beijing that year, this legislation mandates that the U.S. provide Taiwan with defensive arms and maintain the capacity to resist threats to its security (Congress.gov, n.d.).

Strengthening ties:
Over the past decade, bipartisan support in Washington has reinforced U.S.-Taiwan relations. Both the Trump and Biden administrations approved major arms sales, supported Taiwan’s international participation, and emphasized its strategic value in deterring Chinese expansion (The Diplomat, 2025; U.S. Department of State, n.d.).

Taiwan isn’t just a defence partner—it's the U.S.’s ninth-largest trading partner, a key player in global supply chains, especially semiconductors (The Asia Group, 2024; International Trade Administration, 2024).

Trump’s Return: Harder Bargains, Tougher Terms

“America First,” again:
Trump’s 2025 return signals a shift. He’s pushed Taiwan to raise its defence spending, mirroring his longstanding criticism of NATO members for “free riding” on U.S. military support (The Japan Times, 2025).

Trump and his nominee for Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Elbridge Colby, said that Taiwan should spend 10% of its GDP on defence, stressing the urgent need to build deterrence against China (Reuters, 2025; Foreign Policy Research Institute, 2025).

Economic friction:
Trump hasn’t limited his focus to military matters. In the 2024 campaign, he accused Taiwan of having “stolen America’s semiconductor business through unfair trade practices,” implying that future U.S. support may hinge on economic concessions (Wikipedia, n.d.).

Recent posts on X reflect this burden-sharing mentality, calling on allies to define their roles in potential conflicts (WorldWarRoar, 2025; Financial Times, 2025).

Taiwan’s Response: Mixed Messages, Tight Budgets

Increasing spending—up to a point:
Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te responded in March 2025 with plans to boost defence spending to over 3% of GDP—a historic high (Associated Press, 2025). But Premier Cho Jung-tai was quick to push back against Trump’s demands, saying 10% of GDP was “impossible” due to fiscal constraints (Focus Taiwan, 2025).

Political gridlock:
Taiwan’s 2024 elections led to a divided legislature. Lai won the presidency with 40.05% of the vote, but no party holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan. The KMT (52 seats) and TPP (8 seats) formed a coalition against the DPP (51 seats), opposing several of Lai’s defence initiatives (Wikipedia, n.d.).

In fact, the coalition slashed Taiwan’s 2025 budget by US$6.34 billion, complicating military planning (East Asia Forum, 2025).

Public skepticism:
Many Taiwanese are wary of sharp defence increases. Polling and analysis show a strong preference for economic development and social welfare, further limiting the government’s flexibility (War on the Rocks, 2025).

Strategic Significance: Silicon and Geography

Taiwan’s "silicon shield":
Taiwan produces over 60% of the world’s semiconductors and 90% of the most advanced chips. TSMC, its tech crown jewel, powers everything from iPhones to fighter jets. The sector makes up 15% of Taiwan’s GDP (The Guardian, 2024), providing both economic strength and strategic leverage (Stimson Center, 2022).

Location, location, location:
Taiwan is the linchpin of the first island chain, a key barrier against Chinese naval expansion. If China were to control Taiwan, it would gain a platform to threaten Japan, South Korea, and major shipping lanes, with far-reaching consequences for regional security (Council on Foreign Relations, 2023).

War Games and Warning Bells

U.S. concern is growing:
In June 2025, retired U.S. officials—including Admiral Michael Mullen and Admiral Dennis Blair—joined Taiwanese think tanks in a war game simulating a 2030 Chinese invasion (Taipei Times, 2025).

The outcome? Not good. The simulation showed the PLA seizing key islands like Penghu, establishing forward bases, and exploiting gaps in Taiwan’s energy, food, and communications infrastructure (South China Morning Post, 2025).

Conditional U.S. support:
At the post-exercise briefing, Admiral Blair clarified that U.S. support is not guaranteed:

“If a conflict were triggered by Taiwanese moves towards formal independence, US support would be far less certain” (South China Morning Post, 2025).

This highlights a key concern in Washington: the U.S. expects Taiwan to hold out for 2–3 weeks while reinforcements are mobilized, a time it may not have.

What’s Uncertain? Everything.

Economic demands: Trump’s team wants more than military spending. They’re demanding reforms in Taiwan’s trade and industrial policies, especially around semiconductors (Wikipedia, n.d.).

Strategic restraint: Taiwan is expected to avoid provocation. Yet the DPP government has taken a firmer stance, calling China a “foreign hostile force” (Foreign Policy, 2025), while the KMT-TPP coalition pushes for dialogue with Beijing.

Legislative gridlock: With opposing camps locked in battle, Taiwan risks paralysis. And that could become a “major headache” for Washington, especially if budget cuts weaken Taiwan’s defences (East Asia Forum, 2025).

False confidence?
Foreign Minister Joseph Wu has expressed confidence in continued U.S. backing. But as war games and rhetoric suggest, that support is not unconditional.

The Bottom Line

Taiwan is caught between American pressure and domestic hesitation—all while China looms ever closer. With the U.S. demanding more militarily, economically, and politically, Taiwan must decide whether it can meet these expectations without tearing itself apart.

If it fails to strike that balance, the next crisis in the Taiwan Strait might not just test its military—it could test the very limits of American resolve.

Why it matters:
Space is no longer a quiet frontier. It’s now a warfighting domain—and the United States Space Force (USSF) is making sure it’s ready. With Resolute Space 25 (RS25), the Space Force has launched its largest-ever exercise to prepare for real-world conflict above Earth. Backed by a sharp budget increase, this signals a new era in U.S. military planning.

Background: The Space Force Takes Flight

When it started: December 20, 2019
Why it was created:
The U.S. Space Force was officially established under the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (Wikipedia, n.d.). Born out of the growing need to secure space against new threats, the USSF is the sixth and newest branch of the U.S. military, nested within the Department of the Air Force.

What it does:
Its mission is clear: “secure our Nation’s interests in, from, and to space” (United States Space Force, 2023). That includes three core functions:

• Space superiority – dominate the domain

• Global mission operations – support military action across the globe

• Assured space access – guarantee satellites and space tech remain operational

Resolute Space 25: The Largest Space Force Exercise Yet

What it is:
RS25, launched on July 8, 2025, is a high-stakes training operation designed to prepare Guardians—the members of the Space Force—for potential combat in space. It's the first Department-Level Exercise (DLE) since the Cold War and a key part of the Pentagon’s broader readiness push (Space.com, 2025).

Who’s involved:

• Over 700 Guardians

• Partnered with Air Force’s Resolute Force Pacific (REFORPAC)

• Connected to U.S. and international allies

Where it happened:
Exercises took place across major bases including:

• Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii

• Peterson, Schriever, and Buckley Space Force Bases

• Other U.S. and overseas sites

What they trained for:

• Space electromagnetic warfare

• Orbital warfare

• Navigational warfare

• Space domain awareness

How they did it:
Training blended live operations using real assets, along with virtual and synthetic environments—a bold shift from traditional exercises.

What Leaders Are Saying

“Resolute Space sends a clear message: Guardians are prepared to fight and win in space shoulder to shoulder with our joint and allied partners.”
— Gen. Chance Saltzman, Chief of Space Operations (United States Space Force, 2025)

“Resolute Space emphasizes our focus on readiness and training as we incorporate live, synthetic, and virtual space warfighting into an exercise of this magnitude.”
— Col. Jay Steingold, RS25 Exercise Director (Soldier Systems Daily, 2025)

Budget: A 40% Surge With the “One Big, Beautiful Bill”

FY2025 baseline:

• Initial budget: $29.4 billion

• Down 2% from the previous year

FY2026 turnaround:
On July 4, 2025, President Donald Trump signed the “One Big, Beautiful Bill,” a reconciliation bill funnelling $150 billion into defence. The Space Force’s slice? At least $11.3 billion in new funds, raising its total FY2026 budget to around $40 billion, a 40% increase (Air & Space Forces Magazine, 2025; SpacePolicyOnline.com, 2025).

What’s being funded:

• Facilities upgrades: $68 million

• Ground moving target indicator satellites: $150 million

• DARC and SILENTBARKER situational awareness: $528 million

• X-37B spaceplane: $1 billion

• Satellite development and protection: $3.65 billion

• Space communications systems: $125 million

• Space command and control: $350 million (Reconciliation Bill, 2025)

Big picture:
More money means more muscle for U.S. space operations—boosting satellite resilience, expanding space-based surveillance, and pushing the frontiers of orbital technology.

The Threat Landscape: Why Space Is Getting Dangerous

China:
Beijing has built a “kill web”—a network of hundreds of satellites feeding real-time targeting data to Chinese forces (POLITICO, 2025). This capability is seen as a potential game-changer in future military conflicts.

Russia:
Moscow is reportedly developing a nuclear-armed anti-satellite weapon, which could endanger global satellite infrastructure and disable essential communications (Air & Space Forces Magazine, 2024).

Why RS25 matters:
These developments show that space is becoming a contested domain. Exercises like RS25 are critical for developing tools and tactics to detect, deter, and defeat threats above Earth.

Key Takeaways:

• Exercise Name: Resolute Space 25 (RS25)

• Start Date: July 8, 2025

• Participants: 700+ Guardians + joint/international

• Training Focus: Electromagnetic, orbital, navigational warfare

• Training Format: Live + virtual + synthetic

• FY2026 Budget: $40 billion

• Top Investments: $1B X-37B, $3.65B satellites, $528M awareness

• Strategic Context: Countering Chinese and Russian threats

Final Thought

The U.S. Space Force is evolving fast—from an idea to a combat-ready force in just a few years. With Resolute Space 25 and billions in fresh funding, the message is clear: the U.S. plans to defend its interests in space as vigorously as it does on land, sea, and air.

The next fight may not happen on Earth—and when it does, Guardians will be ready.

Why it matters

Every year, the NDAA shapes how the US military operates, modernizes, and prepares for threats. It also reflects political priorities in Congress and the White House. For 2026, the proposed defence budget is climbing higher, potentially crossing the $1 trillion mark. This isn’t just about dollars. It's about how the world’s most powerful military is preparing for an era of strategic competition, especially with China and Russia.

Quick primer: What is the NDAA?

The NDAA is the annual law that sets defence policy and authorizes funding for the Department of Defense (DoD) and related agencies, including nuclear programs under the Department of Energy. While it doesn't directly allocate money (that’s the job of the appropriations bills), it determines what the US military can spend on and how.

Key point: It’s a must-pass bill. No NDAA, no new policies or programs for the military.

The Senate’s big ask: $924.7B

On July 11, 2025, the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) approved its version of the NDAA by a 26-1 vote, proposing $924.7 billion in national defence spending — a hefty $32.1 billion over President Trump’s base request (Senate Armed Services Committee, 2025).

Breakdown of SASC’s numbers:

• Department of Defense: $878.7B

• Department of Energy (Nuclear): $35.2B

• Other Defence-Related Activities: $10.8B

• Total: $924.7B

What’s driving the increase?
According to Breaking Defense (2025), the Senate added billions for:

• Shipbuilding: +$8.5B

• Munitions: +$6B

• F-35 fighter jets: Funding authorized for 34 F-35A aircraft

Chairman Roger Wicker called for “reindustrialization” and rebuilding the military structure. Ranking Member Jack Reed focused on “investments in servicemembers and technology to deter adversaries” (Senate Armed Services Committee, 2025).

The Trump plan: $1.01T+

President Trump’s FY2026 defence budget comes in two parts:

1. $892.6B in base discretionary NDAA spending

2. $113B in additional mandatory funds via the “Big Beautiful Bill” — a reconciliation package (Air & Space Forces Magazine, 2025; Breaking Defense, 2025)

Total request: $1.01 trillion

The administration pitched a 13% increase, targeting missile defence, naval strength, and a 3.8% pay bump for troops (White House, 2025).

If Congress adopts the Senate’s $924.7B NDAA and adds Trump’s $113B reconciliation funds, the total would hit approximately $1.0377 trillion — $27.7B more than Trump’s budget, though SASC officials often round it to $32B.

House takes a different route: $892.6B

The House Armed Services Committee (HASC) advanced its own version of the NDAA on July 15, 2025, by a 55-2 vote. The House’s version mirrors the Pentagon’s request more closely than usual, authorizing most major weapons programs without major boosts or cuts (SpaceNews, 2025; Breaking Defense, 2025).

The HASC’s bill (H.R. 3838) largely sticks to the $892.6B number, reflecting a more cautious approach.

What happens next?

The two chambers will now negotiate to reconcile their bills. Based on history, expect some Senate increases to be trimmed back.

Take FY2025:

• President’s request: $883.67B

• Senate proposed: $908.42B

• Final NDAA: $883.67B (matching the President’s ask)
  (CRS, 2025)

Bottom line: The SASC often pushes for more, but final numbers tend to land close to what the White House proposes.

What’s the real cost of US defence?

Even with trillion-dollar figures on the table, many experts argue that actual US military spending is far higher than official NDAA numbers.

Veteran analyst Winslow Wheeler (Straus Military Reform Project) estimated that in FY2025, total national security spending was about $1.77 trillion, based on an NDAA of $895B (Antiwar.com, 2025).

His estimate includes:

• Veterans Affairs

• Homeland Security

• Interest on national debt related to security

• Other hidden defence costs

This broader perspective reveals the true scale of America’s military commitment — and the long-term fiscal pressure it places on the US economy.

The big picture

The US isn’t just debating numbers — it’s redefining what military readiness looks like in a world of rising threats and global tension.

Whether the final NDAA ends up closer to the Senate’s $924.7B or the House’s $892.6B, all signs point to a record-breaking defence budget. With President Trump’s reconciliation funds added, we’re entering uncharted territory, both strategically and fiscally.

And while these debates may seem far removed from everyday life in Canada, they shape global military dynamics, alliances like NORAD and NATO, and how North America prepares for an increasingly uncertain world.

Stay tuned: The NDAA is far from final. As the House and Senate continue negotiations, the final bill will be a barometer of US defence priorities — and the balance of power between the White House and Congress.