Children queuing for supplements killed in Israeli strike in Gaza, hospital says

A federal judge has temporarily blocked former President Trump’s efforts to challenge birthright citizenship, siding with immigrant rights groups who argue his directive could endanger the citizenship status of babies born in the U.S. The ruling comes despite a prior Supreme Court decision that seemed to favor Trump’s stance. Meanwhile, Erez Reuveni, a former Justice Department attorney, has handed over a batch of documents—including text messages—to the Senate Judiciary Committee, though their exact relevance to the case isn’t yet clear.

Editor’s Note: Birthright citizenship—the idea that anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen—has been a hot-button issue for years, and Trump’s attempts to reinterpret it could have far-reaching consequences. This legal back-and-forth isn’t just bureaucratic; it directly impacts families and could reshape who gets to call themselves American. The Reuveni documents add another layer of intrigue, hinting at behind-the-scenes tensions in the Justice Department. For now, the judge’s ruling is a win for immigrant advocates, but the fight’s far from over.

The UK and France have agreed to test a "one in, one out" returns scheme aimed at reducing the number of migrants crossing the Channel in small boats. Leaders Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron announced the pilot during a press conference, stressing that the current situation is unsustainable. The plan signals a tougher approach to illegal migration, though details remain scarce.

Editor’s Note: This story matters because the Channel crossings have been a political flashpoint for years, with governments under pressure to act. A returns deal could reshape migration dynamics, but critics will be watching closely—past agreements have often struggled with enforcement. It’s a high-stakes move for Starmer, who’s trying to show he can deliver on a contentious issue.

A group of Western allies, dubbed the "coalition of the willing," has agreed on key steps to support Ukraine after any potential ceasefire, including ramping up military aid. The UK’s prime minister criticized Putin for rejecting peace efforts, while Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy thanked partners for helping modernize its air force with F-16s and Mirages—a transition he called historically fast.

Editor’s Note: This isn’t just another meeting—it signals that Western support for Ukraine isn’t winding down, even as talk of ceasefires swirls. The rapid shift to advanced jets shows Ukraine’s backers are thinking long-term, ensuring Kyiv stays strong against Russia. For anyone worried about allies losing steam, this is a clear rebuttal: they’re digging in.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is calling on Western allies to ramp up sanctions against Russia after Kyiv suffered another devastating attack, killing two people—including a police officer—and injuring 23. He argues that sanctions need to hit harder and faster to make Russia "truly feel the consequences" of its aggression.

Editor’s Note: This isn't just another headline about the war—it's a stark reminder that Ukraine is still under relentless assault, and Zelenskyy is pushing for more than just sympathy. His plea highlights the gap between Western support and the urgency of the situation on the ground. If sanctions aren't tightened soon, Russia may keep escalating with little cost to itself, leaving Kyiv vulnerable to more deadly strikes.

Google co-founder Sergey Brin has accused the United Nations of being "transparently anti-Semitic" in response to a UN report claiming Google profited from Israel's actions in Gaza, which the report controversially labeled as "genocide." Brin’s sharp criticism adds fuel to an already heated debate about tech companies' roles in global conflicts and the UN's stance on Israel.

Editor’s Note: This isn’t just another corporate spat—it’s a high-profile clash between Silicon Valley and international diplomacy. Brin’s accusation throws gasoline on long-simmering tensions about bias in global institutions, while also dragging Big Tech deeper into geopolitical fights. Whether you agree with him or not, it’s a sign of how tech billionaires are increasingly willing to wade into explosive political debates.