The United States has privately warned Middle Eastern allies to prepare for renewed military operations against Iran following the 3 November congressional elections, according to diplomatic sources. Although President Donald Trump has not authorised further strikes, the warnings have heightened concerns about regional escalation, energy infrastructure and the consequences for European economies already facing rising fuel costs.

American officials have advised several governments in the Middle East to prepare for possible new military strikes against Iran after next week’s US midterm elections, raising the prospect of another escalation in a conflict that has already disrupted international energy markets.

According to an Associated Press investigation published on 29 October, two diplomats familiar with the warnings said US officials had urged regional allies to consider the possibility of Iranian retaliation against energy facilities and other critical infrastructure.

The diplomats emphasised that President Donald Trump had not made a final decision to resume military operations.

Nevertheless, Washington’s warnings suggest that preparations are being discussed for a potential campaign extending over several days.

Regional governments are concerned that retaliatory action by Iran or organisations aligned with Tehran could prolong the fighting beyond the duration initially envisaged by the United States.

The White House and American officials declined to comment on the reported communications.

Military Preparations and Political Timing

The warnings come as Trump approaches the final days of campaigning ahead of the 3 November elections.

The president has repeatedly suggested that further military action against Iran could follow the vote, although he has also claimed that the conflict may be approaching its conclusion.

During a campaign appearance in Texas, Trump said the war could end within weeks, while reiterating his insistence that Iran must not acquire nuclear weapons.

The timing of possible military action remains uncertain.

The Pentagon has increased its regional military presence, including the deployment of the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt and additional amphibious forces.

Approximately 9,000 military personnel were associated with the deployment announced in September.

However, the movement of forces does not establish that an attack has been authorised or that particular targets have been selected.

American military preparations can also serve as deterrence, signalling and contingency planning.

The distinction is important because the political consequences of renewed strikes would depend on their scale, objectives and Iranian response.

Tehran Maintains That Diplomacy Remains Possible

Iran has indicated that it remains willing to pursue negotiations.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on 28 October that Tehran was continuing to consider diplomatic proposals and wanted elements of its earlier ceasefire initiative to form the basis for renewed discussions.

That proposal had previously been rejected by Washington.

The continuing disagreement concerns both the conditions for ending military operations and wider questions about Iran’s nuclear programme.

The United Arab Emirates has urged the parties to seek political solutions and avoid returning to large-scale fighting.

Regional governments face a particularly difficult position because they may be exposed to retaliation even when they are not directly involved in American military operations.

Energy facilities, airports, ports and other infrastructure could become targets during an escalation.

Such attacks would also affect civilian populations and commercial activity beyond the immediate combatants.

The Conflict Has Already Spread

The war involving Iran, the United States and Israel began in late February and has subsequently affected other parts of the Middle East.

Iran-aligned Houthi forces have carried out attacks on Saudi oil infrastructure and airports, prompting retaliatory operations by a Saudi-led coalition against targets in Yemen.

These developments have complicated attempts to contain the conflict geographically.

The United States has not conducted a strike against Iran since early September, according to the reporting available on 29 October.

However, the absence of recent American attacks has not removed the risk of renewed operations.

Regional governments are therefore considering a range of possible developments, including limited strikes, a longer military campaign or retaliatory attacks preceding any American operation.

None of these scenarios should be treated as inevitable.

Europe Faces Another Energy Risk

For the European Union, a renewed confrontation would have implications extending well beyond diplomatic relations with Washington.

The Middle East remains a major source of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies.

The Strait of Hormuz is particularly important to international energy shipping, connecting producers in the Persian Gulf with markets in Europe and Asia.

An increase in attacks on shipping, production facilities or export terminals could place further pressure on global energy prices.

The consequences would not necessarily be confined to countries purchasing oil or gas directly from the region.

European consumers compete in internationally connected markets, meaning supply disruptions can influence prices even where import arrangements have been diversified.

The EU has substantially reduced its dependence on Russian pipeline gas since 2022, but growing reliance on liquefied natural gas creates exposure to fluctuations in international supply and demand.

A further Middle Eastern escalation could therefore complicate Europe’s efforts to rebuild gas reserves and contain industrial energy costs before winter.

Higher fuel prices would also affect transport, food production and household expenditure.

The Strategic Dilemma for European Governments

European governments must balance several interests.

They support efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation, maintain relations with the United States and preserve stability in the Middle East.

At the same time, they have a direct economic interest in avoiding prolonged disruption to maritime trade and energy production.

A new American military campaign could revive debates concerning the legality, necessity and proportionality of military action, particularly if diplomatic alternatives remain available.

European governments may also face decisions about the protection of their nationals, regional diplomatic missions and commercial shipping.

The immediate significance of Washington’s warnings lies in the possibility of renewed hostilities, not in confirmation that such hostilities have been ordered.

With the American elections approaching, governments across the Middle East and Europe are preparing for developments that remain contingent on decisions in Washington and Tehran.

Whether the warnings lead to military action or renewed diplomacy will determine the next phase of a conflict whose economic effects are already being felt far beyond the region.

Photo: Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Kaylianna Genier / US Navy / Wikimedia Commons (Public Domain).

Experts round on chancellor over ‘scattergun’ budget, saying he ducked big tax and spending decisions

John Healey has backed away from cutting the cost of welfare this parliament, amid dire warnings his first budget could lead to brutal spending cuts because of a £28bn shortfall in public finances.

Experts rounded on Healey’s steady-as-she-goes budget on Thursday, with the Institute for Fiscal Studies saying he had left himself a mountain to climb by ducking big tax and spending decisions.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Wiktor Szymanowicz/Future Publishing/Getty Images

© Photograph: Wiktor Szymanowicz/Future Publishing/Getty Images

© Photograph: Wiktor Szymanowicz/Future Publishing/Getty Images

US vice-president writes to top Iranian security official in sign Washington has not abandoned diplomacy

Hopes of averting a major new conflagration between Iran and the US soon after Tuesday’s midterm elections could rest on Iran’s response to a personal letter from the US vice-president, JD Vance, offering to restart diplomacy.

The letter, written after predominantly Qatari mediation, was sent to the secretary of Iran’s supreme national security council, Mohsen Rezaei on Sunday. It requires Tehran to agree to make commitments on its nuclear programme at the start of a process that would lead to the opening of the strait of Hormuz within seven days in return for US sanctions relief.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Evan Vucci/Pool Reuters/AP

© Photograph: Evan Vucci/Pool Reuters/AP

© Photograph: Evan Vucci/Pool Reuters/AP

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will let pharmacies produce and sell treatments involving six peptides that aren't specifically approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The move is meant to provide a "controlled alternative" to buying peptides from possibly sketchy foreign pharmacies, HHS said.

Under the new HHS policy, the agency will not "take enforcement action against a State-licensed pharmacy, Federal facility, or licensed physician compounding a drug product" using one of six named "peptide bulk drug substance[s]."

This is a major win for peptide proponents, compounding pharmacies, and health freedom—and hints that HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. may be feeling frustration with the slow pace of things at the FDA.

The six peptides in question—BPC-157, Epitalon, KPV, MOTS-c, Semax, and TB-500—were the subject of a summer meeting of the FDA's Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee (PCAC).

Up for debate was whether these six "bulk drug substances" and another, Emideltide, should be put on the FDA's Section 503A Bulks List. That list governs which substances licensed physicians and specialty pharmacies can compound into drug products without them being a component of an already FDA-approved drug or having "an applicable United States Pharmacopeia (USP) or National Formulary (NF) monograph."

In July, the panel voted to put six of the seven peptide-related substances under consideration (all except Emideltide) on the bulks list. But the panel's vote is not binding.

It's ultimately up to FDA authorities to decide whether they accept the advisory committee's recommendations. So far, no decision has been released.

But yesterday, HHS unveiled an "Enforcement Discretion Policy Regarding 503A Compounding Using Certain Peptide Bulk Drug Substances." And it effectively puts the committee's recommendations into practice by proxy.

Kennedy can't ensure FDA approval, of course. But he can—and will—stop HHS from taking action against physicians or pharmacies that compound and distribute these substances under his prescribed rules.

In an explainer about the new policy, HHS notes that "compounded drugs are not FDA-approved, which means FDA does not review their safety, effectiveness, or quality before they are marketed." Nonetheless, "compounded drugs can serve an important medical need for certain patients" and "there is significant interest in the use of these peptides in compounding," it says.

Opponents of allowing more peptide-based treatments to be compounded by licensed U.S. pharmacies often focus on the fact that these products don't have FDA approval and may not have the extensive experimental backing required of FDA-approved treatments.

But people are already taking BPC-157, MOTS-c, and other peptides anyway, buying them from companies selling them under "for research use only" labels or obtaining them from foreign distributors. Peptides can even be found on discount everything-marketplaces like the China-based AliExpress.

Allowing licensed physicians and pharmacies in the U.S. to compound these substances without fear of being punished gives people access to safer options than they might otherwise have.

Pharmacies compounding peptide-based products under the rules set forth by federal law still have to be licensed in the states where they operate and follow certain rules, including a requirement that active ingredients used for compounding must be "accompanied by valid certificates of analysis" and "be compounded based on the receipt of a valid patient-specific prescription." Per the new HHS policy, they must also follow several other rules regarding the packaging and labeling of these peptides.

"The Secretary of HHS has determined that this limited enforcement-discretion policy will discourage the continued, widespread use of certain research-use-only peptides supplied by foreign manufacturers that pose a safety risk to US patients," notes the HHS explainer. "By allowing limited compounding of the substances addressed in this guidance under appropriate safeguards, the policy provides patients with a more controlled alternative."

It's an astoundingly reality-based policy for government health officials, who often act as if matters like this come down to a binary between perfect health and safety on one hand and certain danger on the other.

Rather than relegating peptides to gray or black markets until they (may be) pronounced all clear by the FDA, RFK Jr.'s HHS has chosen to balance safety with "patient choice and freedom," as the HHS states.

The post RFK Jr. Institutes Backdoor Approval of 6 Peptides appeared first on Reason Magazine.

The prime minister’s ambitions might be ambiguous, but unlike the Conservative leader, he is following voters and the facts

British politics is still polarised around Brexit, although 10 years on from the referendum, the terms of debate are very different. Or they should be. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has moved discussions of European solidarity from the realm of abstraction to a matter of urgent defence partnership. Donald Trump’s presidency in the US, marked by scorn for European democracies and indulgence of Vladimir Putin, has undermined confidence that Britain can rely on any “special relationship” with Washington.

Under these circumstances, it would be absurd to deny that a reappraisal of Brexit is in order. The prime minister acknowledged this in his speech at the Labour party conference last month, calling for a national conversation about the future relationship with every option, including rejoining, on the table. The Eurosceptic opposition are having none of it. The Conservative leader, Kemi Badenoch, accuses the government of stirring division by raising the European question. She told MPs this week that Labour should thank the Tories for the Brexit deal they negotiated.

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: House of Commons/PA

© Photograph: House of Commons/PA

© Photograph: House of Commons/PA

Christine Lagarde’s unexpected decision to leave the European Central Bank nine months ahead of schedule has triggered a politically sensitive succession process at a time when renewed inflation, rising borrowing costs and economic uncertainty are testing the eurozone’s monetary institutions.

Christine Lagarde will step down as president of the European Central Bank (ECB) on 7th February 2027, bringing her tenure to an early conclusion and opening negotiations among European Union governments over one of the continent’s most influential economic appointments.

The announcement, made by the ECB on 29th October, came on the same day that its Governing Council decided to leave interest rates unchanged, despite renewed inflationary pressure linked to rising energy prices.

Lagarde, who has led the institution since November 2019, was originally expected to remain in office until October 2027. Her departure will therefore bring forward a succession contest that had already attracted considerable attention in European financial and political circles.

Speaking after the announcement, Lagarde explained that she wanted greater freedom to address matters beyond monetary policy, arguing that the restrictions associated with central bank leadership prevented her from contributing publicly to wider debates.

Her explanation leaves open questions about the political consequences of her departure, particularly as EU governments prepare for difficult negotiations over the institution’s future leadership.

A Succession Shaped by European Politics

Under Article 283 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the ECB president is appointed by the European Council, acting by qualified majority following consultations with the European Parliament and the ECB’s Governing Council.

Although the process is formally governed by treaty provisions, appointments to the ECB’s Executive Board have historically involved negotiations among the eurozone’s largest economies.

Two former national central bank governors have emerged as prominent potential successors: Klaas Knot of the Netherlands and Pablo Hernández de Cos of Spain.

Both have substantial experience in monetary policy, although their possible candidacies remain subject to the political calculations of EU governments.

The timing is especially significant for France, which faces a presidential election in April 2027 against a background of domestic political instability and mounting concerns about public finances.

An appointment concluded before that election would be negotiated by the existing European leadership, potentially affecting the balance of influence over one of the eurozone’s principal institutions.

However, Lagarde has not publicly identified the French election as the reason for her departure.

The succession process will also coincide with other changes to the ECB’s Executive Board, increasing the importance of negotiations over the geographical and institutional balance of its leadership.

Inflation Returns to the Foreground

The leadership announcement coincided with a difficult monetary policy decision. On 29th October, the ECB maintained its deposit facility rate at 2.5 per cent, leaving the main refinancing and marginal lending rates at 2.65 and 2.90 per cent respectively.

Eurozone inflation reached 3.8 per cent in September, substantially above the ECB’s medium-term target of 2 per cent. Rising energy prices have complicated the institution’s position. Higher gas and oil costs threaten to increase consumer prices while simultaneously weakening industrial output and household purchasing power.

The ECB acknowledged that the energy shock could produce further inflationary pressures and reduce growth.

At the same time, tighter financial conditions across the eurozone have increased the risks associated with additional monetary tightening.

This leaves policymakers confronting a familiar but difficult problem: raising interest rates may restrain inflation, but it can also deepen economic weakness and increase borrowing costs for governments, businesses and households.

The next president will inherit these competing pressures rather than a settled monetary environment.

France Adds Another Complication

Financial developments in France have added urgency to the debate.

French government bond yields have risen sharply, with ten-year borrowing costs reaching levels not seen since 2002.

This reflects market concerns about the country’s fiscal position and political uncertainty, while raising wider questions about financial stability within the eurozone.

For the ECB, the challenge is particularly delicate.

Its mandate requires monetary policy to be directed towards price stability across the currency union. However, the economic consequences of higher interest rates differ considerably between member states.

Countries with elevated public debt face greater pressure from rising financing costs, while economies exposed to higher energy prices may experience weaker investment and industrial production.

The ECB possesses instruments intended to address disorderly financial-market conditions, but these do not eliminate the underlying fiscal and political differences between eurozone members.

The appointment of Lagarde’s successor will therefore take place against a backdrop of renewed debate about the relationship between monetary independence and national economic interests.

An Institution Facing a Different Europe

Lagarde’s presidency began before the pandemic, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent European energy crisis.

During her tenure, the ECB navigated emergency monetary interventions, unusually high inflation and substantial changes in interest rates.

Her successor will confront a different combination of challenges: renewed geopolitical disruption, economic competition with the United States and China, and growing demands for European investment in defence and industrial development.

These priorities are primarily the responsibility of governments, but they influence the economic conditions in which the central bank operates.

The immediate question is who will replace Lagarde. The more consequential question is how the next ECB president will manage monetary policy in a eurozone whose economic and political divisions are becoming increasingly difficult to separate.

For EU leaders, the succession is an opportunity to determine the institution’s leadership. For the ECB, it will be another test of its ability to maintain monetary independence while managing the consequences of Europe’s changing political economy.

The ECB faces an ugly choice as eurozone inflation hits 3.8pc

Musician wrote a ‘love letter’ to Canada with a new album – and some pointed commentary about the US president

Lake Ontario, the vast body of water that straddles the US-Canada border, has gone by many names over the centuries: Lac Saint-Louis, Lacus Ontarius, Skaniadorio, Cataraqui Lake. But one thing it will never be called, says the Canadian rock star Bryan Adams, is Lake America.

In his new song Lake Ontario, Adams takes aim at the US president, Donald Trump, accusing him of “breaking the peace” between the people who live on the lake’s shores.

The ‘lake of shining waters’ is what the Iroquois called her

It’s a First Nations name – not an executive order.

But things weren’t going his way in Iran

So like a baby tossing the toys from the pram

You can push us to the brink

But where the open road divides

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Christopher Polk/Billboard/Getty Images

© Photograph: Christopher Polk/Billboard/Getty Images

© Photograph: Christopher Polk/Billboard/Getty Images

John Healey aced the morning-after media round because his Martin Lewis measures left nothing to challenge him on

Maybe it had been one of the greatest acts of political genius after all. The day after the budget is usually the moment when things start to fall apart. When clued-up journalists and economists have had a chance to go through all the fine points the chancellor would rather everyone had missed. The forecasts that suggest everything is predicated on a wing and a prayer. The hidden unfunded tax cuts. The greater-than-expected spending commitments.

But on Thursday morning Andy Burnham and John Healey could afford themselves a sigh of relief. All had gone about as well as they could have hoped. It turns out that when you don’t make any massive tax or spending commitments, there isn’t a great deal to unravel. All there had been was a raft of small-scale interventions designed to help people with their personal finances. Call it the Martin Lewis budget. In fact, Healey and Lewis now seem unable to get through the day without spending some time with each other. They certainly can’t stop talking about one another. It’s becoming unhealthily co-dependent. The gods of small things.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: WPA/Getty Images

© Photograph: WPA/Getty Images

© Photograph: WPA/Getty Images

The Hill is thrilled to present the third annual “Bang for Your Buck: Get the Most from Your 2027 Medicare Benefits.” This year’s event is expanded in scope beyond prescription drug plans to address the most common questions about Medicare during open enrollment, which runs from Oct. 15 to Dec. 7. Healthcare costs and affordability…

The Hill is thrilled to present the third annual “Bang for Your Buck: Get the Most from Your 2027 Medicare Benefits.” This year’s event is expanded in scope beyond prescription drug plans to address the most common questions about Medicare during open enrollment, which runs from Oct. 15 to Dec. 7. Healthcare costs and affordability…

Prime minister wrote to ministers saying he did not want them to ‘advocate for specific options or opine on the likely outcome of the process’

Selling nicotine-free vapes to children under the age of 18 has become illegal from today, the government has said.

Children were already banned from buying vapes containing nicotine. But, under the Tobacco and Vapes Act, shops across the UK will now be banned from selling nicotine-free vapes, and nicotine pouches, to children.

Vaping can be a way to help established adult smokers who are already addicted to nicotine from tobacco to swap to a less dangerous product. Vaping is considered safer than smoking, but that is a low bar. Vapes should therefore never be used by children or non-smokers.

Some children have already come to harm from bad reactions to vapes. The long-term health harms of vaping in today’s children will only become clear over time. They are however unlikely to be good; inhaling multiple, often heated, chemicals into the lungs may well do irreversible harm.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Darren Staples/AFP/Getty Images

© Photograph: Darren Staples/AFP/Getty Images

© Photograph: Darren Staples/AFP/Getty Images

Despite supposed potential plans to build something other than a data center on the land, the possibility of a massive AI data center coming to San Diego is ruffling a lot of feathers.

Despite supposed potential plans to build something other than a data center on the land, the possibility of a massive AI data center coming to San Diego is ruffling a lot of feathers.

Thinktank says chancellor has given himself a mountain to climb after ducking big decisions in low-key speech

John Healey has paved the way for a “brutal” spending review next year after his budget failed to cover a £28bn shortfall in the public finances needed to avoid a return to austerity, according to Britain’s leading tax and spending experts.

A day after his address to the Commons, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said the chancellor had left himself a mountain to climb by ducking several big decisions in his debut tax and spending statement.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: WPA/Getty Images

© Photograph: WPA/Getty Images

© Photograph: WPA/Getty Images

War Secretary Pete Hegseth fired one of the Pentagon’s senior strategic planners amid an investigation into allegations he leaked classified information to journalists about the Iran war, Russia’s war in Ukraine and other sensitive matters, a Department of War official told Fox News.

The official said Lt. Gen. Brett Sylvia failed three polygraph examinations related to alleged disclosures of classified information. The investigation has been referred to the Justice Department. 

Sylvia is also accused of meeting journalists outside the Pentagon with the alleged intention of leaking classified material after Hegseth imposed new media restrictions requiring reporters to be escorted inside the building.

HEGSETH ANNOUNCES JOINT TASK FORCE WITH DOJ TO PROSECUTE LEAKS TO JOURNALISTS 'WITH THE FULL FORCE OF THE LAW'

Fox News Digital has reached out to the DOJ and Sylvia for comment but did not hear back at time of publication. 

Sylvia served as director of the Joint Staff’s Directorate for Strategy, Plans and Policy, known as the J5, a senior role responsible for developing military strategy and advising the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. The J5 has been sidelined from that role since the spring, according to well-placed sources who spoke to Fox News.

The official stressed that Sylvia was not a central planner of the Iran war, which falls under U.S. Central Command and its commander, Adm. Brad Cooper.

The Atlantic first reported Sylvia’s ouster Wednesday night, citing sources who said Hegseth had lost confidence in the three-star general amid tensions with Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby.

Sylvia is the second officer leading the J5 to be removed under Hegseth, following Lt. Gen. John McGee. Hegseth also removed Lt. Gen. Douglas Sims, then director of the Joint Staff, earlier this year.

The abrupt removal comes as the Pentagon reportedly weighs renewed military action against Iran.

PENTAGON RACES TO BUY 10X MORE MISSILES AS IRAN WAR DWINDLES ARSENAL, THREATENS READINESS FOR CHINA AGGRESSION

U.S. officials have reportedly warned allies in the Middle East to prepare for possible renewed strikes after next week’s midterm elections and potential Iranian retaliation, while additional U.S. forces are moving into the region.

A 1994 West Point graduate, Sylvia has served more than three decades in the Army, including multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, and was wounded in combat. Before taking over the J5 in December, he commanded the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell and had previously served as the J5’s vice director.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Sylvia’s removal is the latest in a broader turnover of senior military leadership under Hegseth, with nearly two dozen generals, admirals and other senior leaders fired, pushed out or otherwise departing during his tenure.

Assume the following: A person unlawfully entered the United States 20 years ago and has since started a business and raised U.S.-citizen children, has no criminal record, and has never been found to be dangerous. Should federal immigration law treat that person the same way it treats someone who was just apprehended at the border? Should the law treat that person as if Congress had specifically made them subject to mandatory detention for criminal or terrorism-related conduct?

Under the Trump administration, the answer is yes. President Donald Trump's current policy treats noncitizens who entered without lawful admission as subject to mandatory detention without bond throughout removal proceedings, even if they have lived in the United States for decades and have no criminal record⁠. The executive branch adopted that position in new Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) guidance issued in July 2025⁠, reversing its prior interpretation of the same detention law.

The U.S. Supreme Court will now decide whether Congress actually required the result Trump is seeking. On October 1, the justices agreed to hear the case of Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha⁠. Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, a Brazilian national, entered the United States without inspection around 2005. He later applied for asylum, received work authorization, and eventually bought a home. He operates a small construction business and lives with his wife and two U.S.-citizen children. He has no criminal record. But immigration officers still arrested him while he was driving to work in Massachusetts in September 2025.

After Cunha challenged his detention, a federal court ordered a bond hearing and an immigration judge found that he posed neither a danger nor a flight risk and therefore released him on bond while his case proceeded. The Trump administration then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and lost. Now the Supreme Court will have the final word⁠.

The Supreme Court is not deciding whether Cunha may ultimately remain in the country. Instead, it is deciding the narrower question of whether the Immigration and Nationality Act mandates detention pending removal proceedings for someone like Cunha who is present in the United States without having been lawfully admitted⁠.

The legal dispute turns on two phrases in one section of this federal immigration law. According to Section 1225, a noncitizen present in the United States who has not been legally admitted is considered an "applicant for admission." But when Congress imposed mandatory detention later in that same section, it used additional language, applying it to an applicant for admission who is "seeking admission."

That distinction may sound technical and trivial, but its consequences are enormous. If every statutory "applicant for admission" is automatically still "seeking admission," then the government can treat someone who crossed the border 20 years ago the same as someone arriving today and keep them in jail without the possibility of bond. If the two phrases mean two different things, however, then Cunha and others like him are generally eligible for a bond hearing under Section 1226, which permits both detention and release on bond or conditional parole⁠.

The Trump administration argues that if Congress has deemed someone an applicant for admission, that person must necessarily still be seeking the admission for which they are considered an applicant. But the administration's argument asks the Court to stretch federal law beyond its reasonable limits. Congress expressly deemed certain people "applicants for admission." It did not separately deem them to be "seeking admission."

This case, in short, is about textualism. And as the late Justice Antonin Scalia and his co-author Bryan Garner argue in their book, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts, one of the key principles of textualism is that "a material variation in terms suggests a variation in meaning." When Congress uses different words in closely related provisions, in other words, courts should hesitate before assuming that the different words mean the exact same thing.

In ordinary English, it is certainly difficult to describe a man driving from home to work after living in the United States for over two decades as presently "seeking admission." He is not seeking to enter the U.S.; he already entered decades earlier. The 2nd Circuit's unanimous opinion—written by Judge Joseph Bianco, a Trump appointee—reached this conclusion, holding that "seeking admission" describes ongoing activity rather than merely a retained statutory status⁠.

Meanwhile, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the administration's position in a similar case, Judge Dana Douglas, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, invoked the same Scalia-Garner textualist principles in dissent. 

The legal dispute, therefore, does not follow neat partisan lines. Judges from different ideological backgrounds have both concluded that the administration's reading goes beyond the words that Congress wrote.

The broader statutory structure also supports that conclusion. Congress has long required mandatory detention in Section 1226 for specified criminal and terrorism-related grounds⁠. And the Laken Riley Act of 2025 expanded those mandatory-detention categories⁠. But if nearly everyone who ever illegally entered the country is already subject to mandatory detention, as the administration asserts, then all of those carefully drawn separate categories for mandatory detention suddenly become superfluous and pointless for noncitizens who illegally entered the country, an objection that Douglas raised in dissent⁠.

History also clarifies the point. For nearly 30 years, across five presidential administrations (including Trump's first), the government generally treated people like Cunha as potentially eligible for bond. Trump only reversed course in July 2025. The 2nd Circuit thus accurately described the earlier interpretation as a well-established executive branch practice⁠.

Of course, past executive practice cannot override clear statutory language. But if Congress really did mandate a sweeping detention regime in 1996⁠, it is striking that every presidential administration since then has operated under a totally different understanding⁠.

None of this gives Cunha lawful immigration status. Nor does it guarantee his release or prevent the government from deporting him. Rather, it allows an immigration judge to ask a basic question: Is keeping this particular person in jail actually necessary while his case proceeds?

The administration may believe mandatory detention makes immigration enforcement faster or more effective. And Congress is free to adopt that policy if it chooses to do so. But Congress does have to choose it first.

Protecting the constitutional separation of powers is one of textualism's most important functions. Textualism is often described as a conservative method of statutory interpretation. But its deeper value is constitutional. It forces both courts and presidents to follow the law Congress actually passed. Sometimes that produces harsher results. Sometimes it produces more humane ones. But either way, it restrains the executive and judicial branches from exceeding their proper spheres.

Whether mandatory detention would accelerate Trump's deportation program is a question of policy. Whether it is just is a question of ethics. Whether Congress authorized it is a question of law.

In Cunha, the best textualist reading is that Congress preserved the possibility of bond and left room for an immigration judge to determine whether detention is necessary. That textualism, liberty, and compassion point to the same result is not the reason to reach it. In this case, however, it is a welcome coincidence.

The post Trump's Mandatory Immigration Detention Policy Fails the Textualist Test appeared first on Reason Magazine.

President Trump on Wednesday evening slammed U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes’s decision this week to extend an order blocking tree removal at a golf course in Washington, D.C., that he wants to renovate into a championship-level course.  In a Truth Social post, the president wrote that his administration would hold Reyes “fully responsible for anybody…

President Trump on Wednesday evening slammed U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes’s decision this week to extend an order blocking tree removal at a golf course in Washington, D.C., that he wants to renovate into a championship-level course.  In a Truth Social post, the president wrote that his administration would hold Reyes “fully responsible for anybody…

In advance of the midterms, Trump is blaming Kyiv for high gas prices while making clear moves to support Russia

As the US midterms approach, Donald Trump is abandoning Ukraine’s democracy in a desperate effort to deny responsibility for worsening inflation. Yet this past weekend’s dramatic elections in Brazil and Serbia show that voters can see through such subterfuge.

There is nothing like a political party’s corrupt indifference to the plight of ordinary people to galvanize voter turnout. If US voters follow in the footsteps of their Brazilian and Serbian counterparts, a Democratic landslide is likely.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters

© Photograph: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters

© Photograph: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters

La capacità di attrarre investimenti, sostenere la ricerca e garantire ai pazienti un accesso tempestivo alle nuove terapie è diventata una questione centrale per la competitività dell’Italia e dell’Europa. In uno scenario in cui Stati Uniti e Cina accelerano sul fronte dell’innovazione farmaceutica, il continente europeo è chiamato a ripensare le proprie politiche industriali e sanitarie, superando le frammentazioni regolatorie e costruendo condizioni più favorevoli allo sviluppo delle scienze della vita. È attorno a queste priorità che si è sviluppato il confronto del “Forum salute e innovazione: rafforzare la competitività in Italia e in Europa”, promosso da Novartis con il supporto organizzativo di Forum in Masseria e Comin & Partners, che ha riunito a Roma rappresentanti del governo, delle istituzioni regionali, dell’industria farmaceutica e della comunità scientifica.

La sfida del governo tra innovazione e competitività

A richiamare il ruolo delle politiche pubbliche è stato innanzitutto il ministro della Salute Orazio Schillaci, che ha individuato nella capacità dei sistemi sanitari di tenere il passo con il progresso scientifico una delle principali sfide dei prossimi anni. L’innovazione procede infatti a una velocità che le norme e la burocrazia non sempre riescono a seguire. “Non possiamo non cogliere le opportunità che ricerca e industria ci portano, dobbiamo assicurare che l’industria continui a investire in Italia e che i pazienti italiani possano avere accesso in tempi rapidi ai farmaci innovativi”, ha sottolineato, ribadendo l’impegno a lavorare per ampliare il fondo innovazione.

Una sfida che investe direttamente anche la politica industriale, e qui il ministro delle Imprese e del Made in Italy, Adolfo Urso, ha messo enfasi sulla velocità come uno dei principali fattori della competizione internazionale. “Accelerare sia nel campo della ricerca, della produzione, nell’accesso al mercato. Il fattore maggiore per la competitività è l’accelerazione”, ha osservato, indicando nella semplificazione, nella riduzione della burocrazia e nell’utilizzo dell’intelligenza artificiale alcune delle leve su cui intervenire, a livello nazionale ed europeo.

Sul versante internazionale, il vicepresidente del Consiglio e ministro degli Esteri Antonio Tajani ha sottolineato il contributo della farmaceutica alle esportazioni italiane, richiamando la necessità di diversificare i mercati di destinazione anche alla luce delle nuove tensioni commerciali. “La farmaceutica rappresenta per noi un’industria di grandissima qualità che ci permette di occupare spazi in tantissimi mercati”, ha dichiarato, ribadendo l’importanza di rafforzare la presenza delle imprese italiane oltre i tradizionali mercati europei e statunitensi.

Dal governo sono arrivati anche segnali sulla revisione del payback. Tajani ha annunciato che “nella manovra ci sarà un segnale per quanto riguarda il payback, che è molto atteso dalle imprese che innovano e investono di più”. Un orientamento confermato da Urso, secondo cui l’obiettivo è procedere verso un migliore utilizzo del meccanismo e, quando possibile, il suo superamento, per evitare che diventi un freno agli investimenti.

La competizione globale e il rischio europeo

La dimensione internazionale della sfida è stata al centro anche degli interventi dei vertici di Novartis. Secondo Giovanni Caforio, Board Chair del gruppo, il progresso scientifico sta aprendo prospettive terapeutiche senza precedenti, ma la capacità dell’Europa di tradurle in benefici per i pazienti è sempre più condizionata dalla competizione globale.

“Per i pazienti, la promessa dell’innovazione scientifica non è mai stata così grande. Eppure l’Europa sta perdendo terreno nella competizione globale per l’innovazione farmaceutica”, ha avvertito Caforio. Per invertire questa tendenza, occorre riconoscere salute e innovazione come asset strategici di lungo periodo, creando condizioni più prevedibili per gli investimenti e accelerando l’accesso alle nuove terapie.

Una preoccupazione condivisa dal presidente di Farmindustria, Marcello Cattani, che ha richiamato il rapido superamento della Cina negli studi clinici. Per Cattani, Italia ed Europa si trovano a un punto di svolta, nel quale è necessario conciliare due obiettivi: preservare la capacità industriale e mantenere l’attrattività del mercato europeo per lo sviluppo e il lancio dei nuovi farmaci.

Il presidente di Farmindustria ha ricordato il peso economico del comparto, ricordando che nel 2025 la farmaceutica ha generato un saldo commerciale europeo superiore a 220 miliardi di euro. Un contributo che, nella sua lettura, giustifica una governance di livello strategico, capace di coordinare politiche industriali, ricerca e sanità.

Per Patrick Horber, President International di Novartis, la capacità di attrarre innovazione dipende dalla qualità dell’ecosistema in cui le imprese operano. “L’innovazione va dove viene riconosciuta e valorizzata”, ha osservato, indicando tra le priorità “regole prevedibili, una solida tutela della proprietà intellettuale, maggiori investimenti nei farmaci innovativi e percorsi di accesso per i pazienti capaci di tenere il passo con la scienza”.

Payback e accesso, i nodi della governance italiana

Se la competitività rappresenta la cornice generale, è sul terreno delle regole e del finanziamento dell’innovazione che emergono alcune delle principali criticità del sistema italiano.

A partire dal payback farmaceutico, sul quale Federico Mambretti, Country President e amministratore delegato di Novartis Italia, ha richiamato la necessità di un intervento capace di restituire prevedibilità alle imprese. “Il payback è oggi una delle principali fonti di incertezza per il settore: aumenta l’esposizione delle imprese e rende più complessa la pianificazione degli investimenti di lungo periodo”, ha spiegato.

La proposta avanzata da Mambretti è quella di “introdurre un tetto temporaneo, non superiore ai livelli del 2023”, come misura di stabilizzazione in attesa di una riforma strutturale. Il tema, secondo il manager, deve essere inserito in una riflessione più ampia sul superamento dei silos di spesa e sulla necessità di riconoscere il valore generato dall’innovazione farmaceutica, anche in termini di qualità della vita, produttività e sostenibilità del sistema.

Sulla stessa questione è intervenuto Cattani, richiamando il peso crescente dei ripiani a carico delle aziende e la necessità di definire un percorso pluriennale di uscita dall’attuale meccanismo.

La prospettiva delle istituzioni è stata illustrata da Francesco Zaffini, presidente della Commissione Affari sociali del Senato, che ha ricondotto il problema alla necessità di individuare risorse e priorità all’interno del bilancio sanitario. La definizione di un tetto al payback richiede infatti una scelta politica e finanziaria, così come il rafforzamento dei percorsi di accesso precoce ai farmaci innovativi, sui quali il sistema italiano continua a registrare ritardi.

A sottolineare l’esigenza di bilanciare attrattività degli investimenti e tenuta del sistema pubblico è stato anche Massimiliano Fedriga, presidente della Conferenza delle Regioni e della Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia. La certezza delle regole è fondamentale per le imprese, ma deve accompagnarsi a una “responsabilità condivisa tra governo, Regioni e industria”. In questo quadro, Fedriga ha indicato nell’appropriatezza prescrittiva e diagnostica uno degli strumenti per migliorare l’impiego delle risorse disponibili.

Il rapporto tra governo centrale e territori rappresenta, del resto, uno dei principali fattori che incidono sull’equità di accesso. Emanuele Monti, presidente della IX Commissione del Consiglio regionale della Lombardia, ha ricordato come tra una Regione e l’altra possano registrarsi differenze anche di un anno o un anno e mezzo nella disponibilità delle cure, richiamando la necessità di ridurre gli ostacoli burocratici e rafforzare il coordinamento istituzionale. Un problema evidenziato anche da Ornella Barra, presidente del Board di The Boots Group, che ha posto l’accento sulla frammentazione e sulla disomogeneità delle procedure italiane ed europee. Regole e strumenti di controllo rimangono indispensabili, ma la loro complessità rischia di rallentare l’arrivo dei medicinali ai pazienti e di aumentare gli oneri per le imprese.

Dalla spesa al valore delle cure

Il nodo dei tempi di accesso assume una rilevanza particolare quando viene osservato dalla prospettiva clinica e dei pazienti. Giuseppe Curigliano, presidente eletto della European Society for Medical Oncology (Esmo), ha richiamato la necessità di valutare le nuove terapie sulla base del loro beneficio clinico, considerando gli anni di vita guadagnati e il numero di pazienti che possono essere guariti nelle fasi precoci della malattia. Un approccio che richiede di superare una valutazione prevalentemente finanziaria dell’innovazione e di considerare anche le ricadute sulla ricerca clinica.

Secondo Curigliano, infatti, una riduzione delle opportunità di rimborso può compromettere l’attrattività dell’Italia per gli investimenti in ricerca, con conseguenze dirette sulla disponibilità futura delle terapie.

A condividere questa impostazione è stato Francesco De Lorenzo, già presidente della Federazione italiana delle Associazioni di volontariato in oncologia (Favo), che ha richiamato l’esigenza di “passare dalla logica del costo a quella del valore e superare la logica dei silos”. Il prezzo di un farmaco, ha osservato, non restituisce necessariamente i benefici che può produrre nel tempo, sia per il singolo paziente sia per il sistema sanitario.

Una riflessione che trova riscontro anche nell’esperienza clinica illustrata da Fabio Calabrò, direttore dell’Oncologia medica dell’Istituto nazionale tumori Regina Elena. Pur riconoscendo i punti di forza del Servizio sanitario nazionale, Calabrò ha evidenziato le disuguaglianze che possono prodursi durante l’intervallo tra l’approvazione europea di una terapia e la sua effettiva disponibilità in Italia. Ridurre questi tempi e rafforzare le reti cliniche rappresenta, nella sua prospettiva, una condizione essenziale per garantire qualità e uniformità dell’assistenza.

Le implicazioni concrete di questa sfida sono emerse nell’approfondimento dedicato alle terapie con radioligandi, una delle frontiere più promettenti della medicina oncologica di precisione. Questi trattamenti combinano la capacità di riconoscere specifici bersagli molecolari con l’impiego di isotopi radioattivi, permettendo di indirizzare l’azione terapeutica sulle cellule tumorali. Un ambito nel quale l’Italia dispone di competenze industriali e scientifiche rilevanti, a partire dal sito Novartis di Ivrea, che integra attività di ricerca, sviluppo e produzione e rappresenta un centro di eccellenza nella rete globale del gruppo.

“La terapia con radioligandi ne è un esempio chiaro: l’innovazione avanzata raggiunge i pazienti più rapidamente solo quando scienza, produzione, competenze cliniche e politiche sanitarie lavorano insieme in modo integrato”, ha sottolineato Horber. Il manager ha inoltre richiamato i progressi compiuti negli ultimi due anni nell’ampliamento della rete italiana di somministrazione, che conta oggi 47 centri, evidenziando tuttavia le disuguaglianze ancora presenti nella loro distribuzione sul territorio. L’obiettivo è ampliare l’accessibilità di queste terapie, accompagnando lo sviluppo di nuove indicazioni oncologiche e delle future generazioni della piattaforma. La complessità organizzativa di questi trattamenti è stata approfondita da Raffaele De Vincentis, vicepresidente dell’Associazione italiana di medicina nucleare e imaging molecolare, che ha richiamato i vincoli legati alla produzione e alla distribuzione degli isotopi radioattivi. La loro disponibilità, spesso soggetta a tempi estremamente ristretti, impone una programmazione nazionale delle infrastrutture e una rete di centri adeguatamente attrezzati. Una sfida che coinvolge anche i percorsi assistenziali e che, come osservato da Barra, nel caso specifico dei radioligandi richiede modalità di distribuzione e somministrazione particolarmente sofisticate, con un ruolo centrale delle strutture ospedaliere specializzate.

Il caso dei radioligandi restituisce, dunque, su scala concreta, le questioni affrontate nel corso del Forum: la capacità di sviluppare innovazione sul territorio nazionale, la disponibilità di infrastrutture e competenze per renderla accessibile e la necessità di un coordinamento nazionale fra gli stakeholder del settore.

Questa prospettiva riporta, infine, il confronto al suo punto di partenza: la competitività farmaceutica si misura nella capacità di trasformare il potenziale della ricerca in investimenti, crescita industriale e benefici effettivi per i pazienti. Per l’Italia, la sfida sarà preservare il ruolo acquisito nelle filiere internazionali delle scienze della vita, creando le condizioni perché le innovazioni sviluppate e prodotte nel Paese possano anche raggiungere tempestivamente chi ne ha bisogno.