Category World News

In Washington, Qatar’s Prime Minister spoke with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio about the need for humanitarian aid to flow freely into Gaza. The peace agreement is also being threatened by Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani’s warning that ceasefire violations.

The US Senate voted overwhelmingly to approve its annual defence budget on Wednesday, authorising $901bn in military spending while also pressing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to hand over video footage of military strikes on suspected drug-running boats in international waters close to Venezuela.

The fiscal 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which includes a 3.8 percent pay rise for service members, advanced through Congress with broad support from both parties. Senators approved the bill 77–20 on Wednesday, as lawmakers prepared to leave Washington for a holiday recess. It will now go to Trump for signature.

But the more than 3,000-page-long bill also imposed some constraints on the Trump administration’s deployment of the military. In addition to demanding more information about maritime strikes on Venezuelan boats in the Caribbean, the bill locks in current US troop numbers in Europe and sets out new allocations for specific forms of military assistance to Ukraine, as demanded by Democrats who want greater oversight of military affairs and assurance of support for Ukraine.

The bill reflects a negotiated middle ground, therefore, shaped by rare areas of agreement between Republicans and Democrats on defence priorities. It enacts many of Trump’s executive actions, including proposals to dismantle diversity and inclusion initiatives within the armed forces, but also strengthens congressional scrutiny of the Department of Defense.

What objections were there to the bill?

Despite its passage, the expansive bill drew criticism from representatives of both parties. Two Republicans – Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee – and 18 Democrats voted against it.

They raised specific concerns over a provision that allows military aircraft to fly without transmitting precise location data – a practice that was used by an Army helicopter during a January midair collision with a commercial plane over Washington, DC, which killed 67 people.

“The special carve-out was exactly what caused the January 29 crash that claimed 67 lives,” Senator Ted Cruz, the Republican chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, said during a news conference this week.

Cruz said he plans to push for a bipartisan vote next month on legislation that would require military aircraft to use exact location-sharing technology and enhance coordination with commercial aviation in congested airspace.

Elsewhere, the NDAA does not include funding to pay for a name change from the Department of Defense to the Department of War, something Trump has said he wants but cannot formally do without congressional approval.

What did the Democrats demand?

Many of the Democrats’ concerns relate to Ukraine.

Democratic lawmakers have been repeatedly blindsided by the Trump administration over the past year, including on decisions to suspend intelligence sharing with Ukraine and to scale back US troop deployments in eastern NATO countries.

However, Democrats managed to ensure that the bill included a requirement for advance notice to Congress of such actions, as well as of the removal of senior military leaders – an area in which Democrats have also sought greater oversight.

Under the new legislation, the Pentagon must keep at least 76,000 troops and major military assets stationed in Europe, despite the release of Trump’s latest national security strategy, which is viewed by many as overly friendly to Russia and too critical of Europe.

Typically, between 80,000 and 100,000 US troops are deployed across Europe.

Congress also approved $400m annually over the next two years to produce weapons for Ukraine. Most of these funds have been earmarked for US weapons manufacturers.

What demands did Democrats make regarding Venezuela operations?

Since early September, the US has engaged in a series of aerial strikes against suspected Venezuelan drug trafficking operations in the Caribbean Sea. About 90 people have been killed in more than 20 strikes.

But lawmakers have grown increasingly sceptical about the boat strikes and their legality – many have expressed concern that the operation’s end game is, in fact, to oust Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

Many legal experts say targeting vessels in international waters likely violates US and international law and amounts to extrajudicial executions.

On Tuesday, Hegseth visited Capitol Hill to brief lawmakers about the US military operation in international waters near Venezuela. Reactions to the briefing were mixed, with most Republicans supporting the campaign and Democrats voicing unease, arguing they lacked sufficient information.

Representatives from both parties, therefore, agreed to freeze 25 percent of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s travel funds until he submits unedited footage of attacks off the coast of Venezuela – along with strike authorisation orders – to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees.

Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley, the Navy officer who ordered a “double-tap” strike – a second hit on a boat which had already been destroyed and which killed two survivors in the water in September – testified in a classified session before the committees on Wednesday, which did include video footage of the incident.

Democrats, however, are demanding that portions of the footage be released publicly and that all members of Congress be granted access to the full video.

“The American people absolutely need to see this video,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat.

“I think they would be shocked.”

Does this bill assuage Democrat fears about a potential war?

Not really. While the NDAA has strengthened legislative oversight over recent military operations in Venezuela, many lawmakers continue to worry about growing tensions between Washington and Caracas.

“The Constitution vests this body with authority over matters of war and peace. That power has too often been ceded to the executive branch,” Democratic Congressman Gregory Meeks said on the floor of the House of Representatives on Wednesday.

“Congress must make clear to all of us that no president can unilaterally draw the United States into a conflict,” he added.

“It’s easy to get into a war. It’s hard as hell to get out of war,” Democratic Congressman Jim McGovern warned. “I’ve been around long enough to hear representatives of both parties talk about war as something simple, ‘You can get into it. We get out of it easy. No big deal.’ That’s never happened.

“Even the Pentagon says it will be very, very complicated to topple Maduro,” he said.

Furthermore, the bill was passed on the same night that a Democrat-led resolution requiring explicit congressional approval for US military action in Venezuela was voted down. Introduced by lawmakers including McGovern and Meeks, the measure reflected concern that Trump’s strikes risk sliding into an undeclared war.

Israel’s military has launched a number of strikes against southern and eastern Lebanon, accusing them of attacking Hezbollah’s training and weapons facilities. Israel has launched nearly daily strikes against the nation despite a ceasefire since last year.

A video showing a top minister pulling down the hijab of a Muslim woman during a government event has caused widespread outrage and condemnation across India.

Nitish Kumar, chief minister of the eastern state of Bihar, was seen removing the veil of the woman when she was being handed an appointment letter as doctor of alternative medicine at a ceremony in the capital Patna on Monday.

In a video that soon went viral on social media, Kumar, holding an official document in hand and flanked by a few other officials, points to what the doctor was wearing and asks her to remove it.

Before she could react, Kumar stretches his hand and pulls her hijab down, exposing her face, as a minister standing next to him makes a feeble attempt to stop him while others present on stage laugh.

Kumar, 74, has been Bihar’s chief minister for most of the past two decades. He is a close ally of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Last month, their alliance won the Bihar legislative assembly election, in which the BJP emerged as the single largest party for the first time.

The video was first posted on X by Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), a political party opposed to the Modi-Kumar coalition.

“What has happened to Nitish ji [“ji” is an honorific in Hindi]? Has his mental condition completely deteriorated, or has Nitish ‘Babu’ [another Hindi honorific] now become 100 percent Sanghi?” the RJD asked in its post.

Sanghi refers to a person affiliated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a 100-year-old secretive far-right organisation that aims to turn a constitutionally secular India into an ethnic Hindu state. Modi and most other BJP leaders are lifetime members of the RSS, which is the ideological fountainhead of what is referred to as the Sangh Parivar (or Sangh Family), with hundreds of Hindu organisations working under its umbrella.

The BJP and its allies have long campaigned against the use of hijab by Muslim women. In 2022, the then-BJP government in the southern state of Karnataka banned hijab in classrooms, triggering a huge protest by the Muslim community. Later that year, a two-judge Supreme Court bench delivered a split verdict in the case, which meant the debate and politics over hijab continued in the country of 200 million Muslims. Several Hindu groups have demanded a nationwide ban on hijab.

Nearly 18 percent of Bihar’s 127 million residents are Muslim.

Opposition parties and Muslim groups have condemned Kumar’s action and demanded his resignation.

“This is Bihar’s Chief Minister Nitish Kumar. A female doctor had come to collect her appointment letter, and Nitish Kumar pulled off her hijab. A man occupying the highest position in Bihar is openly indulging in such a vile act. Think about it – how safe will women be in the state? Nitish Kumar should immediately resign for this disgusting behaviour,” the main opposition Congress party posted on X.

On Wednesday, members of All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), a political party representing Muslims and other minorities, held a protest in Mumbai and demanded that criminal charges be filed against Kumar.

“A Muslim woman has been dishonoured,” shouted a protesting woman as she was dragged away by a group of police officers, according to a report by the Press Trust of India news agency. “Nitish Kumar should resign,” said another member there, wearing a hijab.

Zaira Wasim, a former actor from Indian-administered Kashmir, demanded an “unconditional apology” from Kumar. “A woman’s dignity and modesty are not props to toy with,” she posted on X. “Power does not grant permission to violate boundaries.”

Even the foreign minister of neighbouring Pakistan spoke out, calling the incident “shameful” and “extremely disturbing”.

“Such acts underscore the imperative to safeguard minority rights and to address the troubling rise of Islamophobia. Respect for women and religious beliefs must remain fundamental and non-negotiable principles in every society,” Ishaq Dar posted on X on Wednesday.

Kumar has not yet responded to the criticism. On Thursday, his party, the Janata Dal-United (JD-U), posted on X that the chief minister has always “supported the minorities” during his multiple tenures.

“The minorities are safe and secure in the Nitish government,” the party wrote, without referring to Monday’s incident.

In a statement emailed to Al Jazeera, Aakar Patel, India head of rights group Amnesty International, said Kumar’s act was “an assault on this woman’s dignity, autonomy, and identity”.

“When a public official forcibly pulls down a woman’s hijab, it sends a message to the general public that this behaviour is acceptable. No one has the right to police a woman’s faith or clothing,” he said.

Tariffs and a shift in economic power were at stake in 2025.