Politics
Pentagon’s Hegseth okays US Navy next-generation fighter, say sources

- New Navy fighter jet pits Boeing vs Northrop.
- Announcement likely this week, says source.
- Hegseth signs off on advancing plan last week.
After months of delay, the Pentagon will select as soon as this week the defence company to design and build the Navy’s next stealth fighter, a US official and two people familiar with the decision said, in what will be a multibillion-dollar effort for a jet seen as central to US efforts to counter China.
Boeing Co and Northrop Grumman Corp are competing to be chosen to produce the aircraft, dubbed the F/A-XX. The new carrier-based jet will replace the Navy’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fleet, which has been in service since the 1990s.
The decision to move ahead with a selection was made by Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth on Friday, the US official and one of the people said.
The US Navy could announce the winner of the competition to build its fighter as soon as this week, one of the people said. But last-minute snags have delayed progress on the Navy jet in the past and could do so again, sources said.
The Navy and the Pentagon did not respond to several requests for comment.
Holdups on F/A-XX highlight broader questions about the future of naval aviation and the role of aircraft carriers in confronting China. Delaying the program or starving it of funds could leave the Navy without a modern fighter capable of operating from carriers in the 2030s and beyond, potentially undermining the fleet’s ability to project power.
The F/A-XX is expected to feature advanced stealth capabilities, improved range and endurance, and the ability to integrate with both uncrewed combat aircraft and the Navy’s carrier-based air defence systems.
China has been “incredibly ambitious in prototyping 6th generation aircraft and fielding 5th generation fighters and bombers, so this award could be viewed as an important decision to keep pace,” said Roman Schweizer, an analyst at TD Cowen.
Delay
A funding dispute in the spring and summer between the Pentagon and Congress delayed the program’s advancement.
The Pentagon sought $74 million for the jet to keep it on “minimal development funding.” Some Pentagon officials had sought to delay the program by up to three years, citing concerns about engineering and supply chain capacity, Reuters reported in May.
Congress and the Navy had wished to move forward with awarding a contract. Congress put $750 million to speed the F/A-XX jet into the massive tax-cut and spending bill which was signed into law this summer. Additionally, Congress earmarked an additional $1.4 billion for F/A-XX in fiscal 2026.
Beyond the funding dispute, there was also debate during the months-long delay about whether defence contractors Northrop and Boeing would struggle to make the jet on schedule.
Defence officials debated whether Boeing could employ enough engineers for the project after it was awarded a contract to build the US Air Force’s F-47 jet in March, sources said. They also debated whether Northrop would strain under the ballooning costs of the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile program, aimed at replacing the aging Minuteman III missiles, the sources said.
The quantity of F/A-XX jets, the value and exact timelines of the program remain classified, but previous such contracts — such as that for the F-35 — have been worth tens of billions of dollars over their lifetime.
The US Navy still plans to buy more than 270 Lockheed Martin Corp F-35C jets for its carrier fleet. Earlier this year, Lockheed Martin was ejected from the F/A-XX competition.
The first production jets are expected to enter service in the 2030s, while F/A-18s are expected to remain in service into the 2040s.
Politics
Netanyahu says he was successfully treated for prostate cancer

- Netanyahu does not disclose when treatment occurred.
- Delayed release of medical report by two months: Israeli PM.
- Move aimed at preventing Iran from spreading “propaganda”.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday said that he had received successful treatment for early-stage prostate cancer, without specifying when the treatment took place.
In a statement on social media, as his annual medical report was released, Netanyahu, 76, said an early stage malignant tumor had been discovered during a routine checkup. He said “targeted treatment” had removed “the problem” and left no trace of it.
According to the medical report, which otherwise said the prime minister was in good health, Netanyahu was treated with radiation therapy for early-stage prostate cancer.
Neither the medical report nor Netanyahu said when the treatment occurred.
Israel’s longest-serving prime minister said that he had delayed the release of the medical report by two months to prevent Iran from spreading “false propaganda against Israel”.
In March, during the fighting with Iran, rumors that circulated on social media and aired on Iranian state media claimed that Netanyahu had died.
The Israeli leader recorded a video of himself visiting a Jerusalem cafe in March to refute the claims.
Netanyahu underwent surgery on his prostate in 2024 after he was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection resulting from a benign prostate enlargement. In 2023, he was fitted with a pacemaker. Elections are due to be held in Israel by October.
Politics
Strategic Assertion or Legal Breach? Deconstructing India’s Indus Waters Doctrine

India’s unilateral suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty under the pretext of security concerns constitutes a flagrant violation of international law , devoid of any legal basis within the Treaty framework. By invoking unsubstantiated claims surrounding the Pahalgam incident , India advances a dangerous doctrine that legitimizes treaty erosion and the coercive weaponisation of shared resources.
The Indus Waters Treaty is a binding bilateral instrument that contains no provision permitting unilateral suspension , reinterpretation, or conditional compliance, thereby rendering India’s decision to hold it in abeyance legally untenable and inconsistent with the principle of pacta sunt servanda. The attempt to justify this breach through allegations linked to the Pahalgam incident remains entirely unsubstantiated in international fora, exposing the claim as a politically motivated pretext rather than a lawful justification. By conflating disputed security narratives with treaty obligations, India not only undermines the integrity of a long-standing water-sharing regime but also sets a pernicious precedent that threatens the stability of transboundary agreements and the broader rules-based international order.
India’s unilateral move to hold the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance is not a policy shift, it is a shameless act of legal defiance , openly violating the most basic rule of international law; pacta sunt servanda.
The weaponization of a water-sharing treaty exposes the dangerous ideological imprint of the RSS mindset , where majoritarian extremism overrides legal commitments India’s attempt to justify its conduct through the Pahalgam incident collapses under scrutiny even after a year; no evidence, no accountability, no credibility, only a politically convenient narrative weaponized to rationalize treaty violations.
Dragging terrorism allegations into a binding water treaty is not strategy, it is blatant and reckless escalation , dismantling decades of carefully insulated cooperation and replacing it with instability and mistrust.
By sidestepping proceedings at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, India has revealed a pattern of selective legality , embracing international law when convenient and abandoning it when constrained. Moreover, India yet remains silent to the UN Special Rapporteurs queries even after 130 days.
The weaponisation of water by an upper riparian state is nothing short of hydro-political terrorism , targeting the economic and agricultural lifeline of millions and crossing the line from governance into coercion.
This conduct represents a shameful erosion of treaty sanctity , sending a chilling message to the world that binding agreements can be hollowed out by power politics and ideological rigidity.
Pakistan’s position remains unequivocal; treaties are not conditional favors but binding obligations, and no state has the authority to unilaterally rewrite or suspend them under the guise of security narratives.
The growing international concern surrounding India’s actions underscores a simple reality: Unilateralism is isolating, destabilizing, and fundamentally incompatible with a rules-based order.
At its core, this doctrine of “blood and water cannot flow together” is not a principle of justice, it is a dangerous precedent, legitimizing collective punishment and transforming a historic instrument of peace into a tool of strategic pressure.
Politics
India rebukes Trump for sharing ‘hellhole’ remarks on birthright citizenship

- Trump shares commentary on birthright citizenship on his social media.
- Conservative talk show host called China, India ‘hellhole’ places.
- India says inappropriate comments do not reflect reality of India-US ties.
India has dismissed as “uninformed” comments shared by US President Donald Trump that described the country as a “hellhole”, saying they were inappropriate and inconsistent with the strong relationship between the two countries.
The comments were made by conservative commentator Michael Savage in an episode of The Savage Nation talk radio show. Trump posted a transcript of the show on his Truth Social account on Thursday without any comments.
“A baby here becomes an instant citizen, and then they bring the entire family in from China or India or some other hellhole on the planet,” Savage said, according to the transcript.
“That there’s almost no loyalty to this country amongst the immigrant class coming in today, which was not always the case. No, they’re not like the European Americans of today and their ancestors.”
Reuters could not immediately contact Savage.
Trump has issued a directive seeking to restrict birthright citizenship in the United States, a move that has been challenged in the US Supreme Court. Earlier this month, he attended a hearing on the issue in a historic visit to the court.
India’s foreign ministry late on Thursday reacted strongly to the comments.
“The remarks are obviously uninformed, inappropriate and in poor taste,” Indian foreign ministry spokesperson, Randhir Jaiswal, said in a statement.
“They certainly do not reflect the reality of the India-US relationship, which has long been based on mutual respect and shared interests.”
The US embassy in New Delhi said: “The president has said ‘India is a great country with a very good friend of mine at the top’.”
China’s foreign ministry did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.
India’s main opposition Congress party called the “hellhole” remark “extremely insulting and anti-India. It hurts every Indian”.
“Prime Minister Narendra Modi should take up this matter with the US President and register a strong objection,” the party said on X.
Indian government data shows nearly 5.5 million people of Indian origin live in the United States. Indian Americans and Chinese Americans are the two biggest groups of Asian origin in the US.
Trump and Modi enjoyed warm ties during Trump’s first term, but relations cooled after India was hit last year with some of the highest US tariffs, many of which were rolled back this year. India and the US are now working on a trade deal aimed at preventing any renewed increase in tariffs and boosting sales to each other.
-
Fashion1 week agoFrance’s LVMH Q1 revenue falls 6%, shows resilience amid Iran war
-
Tech1 week agoCYBERUK ’26: UK lagging on legal protections for cyber pros | Computer Weekly
-
Sports5 days agoWWE WrestleMania 42 Night 2: Live match results and analysis
-
Business1 week agoPepsiCo earnings beat estimates as North American food business improves
-
Sports5 days agoNCAA men’s gymnastics championship: All-time winners list
-
Tech1 week agoAnthropic Plots Major London Expansion
-
Tech1 week agoCyber Essentials closes the MFA loophole but leaves some organisations adrift | Computer Weekly
-
Business1 week agoOil prices fall again amid Middle East ceasefire hopes
