Disruptions in Global Energy Markets

War With Iran Could Create “Historic” Disruptions in Global Energy Markets

High oil prices could bring economic ripple effects that cut both ways for the environment.

Nicholas Kusnetz

The US and Israeli war against Iran is disrupting energy markets and driving oil and gas prices higher in the United States and globally. While those increases are modest so far, experts say the war has the potential to cause more severe and lasting impacts if Iran damages the region’s energy infrastructure or restricts shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

Already, the three-day-old bombing campaign has killed hundreds of people in Iran, including the country’s leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Iran has retaliated by hitting a broad range of targets across the region, including oil and gas sites. On Monday, Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Energy said its Ras Tanura oil refinery sustained “limited” damage after the interception of two drones. QatarEnergy said Monday it was halting production of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, after military attacks on two facilities.

“We are really quickly into a really dangerous phase here of which there is no precedent.”

About one-fifth of global oil and LNG supplies pass through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway connecting the Persian Gulf with the Arabian Sea. On Sunday only five oil tankers moved through the strait, according to S&P Global Energy, compared with about 60 per day before the war.

Analysts say global markets can withstand these types of cuts over the short term—global oil prices were up about 7 percent Monday compared to the day before bombing began. But the conflict also has the potential to cause “the largest oil supply disruption in history,” said Jim Burkhard, vice president and head of crude oil research at S&P Global Energy, in a note.

“If the reduction in tanker traffic continues for a week or so it will be historic,” Burkhard wrote. “Beyond that it would be epochal for the oil market with prices rising to ration scarce supply and impacts in financial markets.”

Any lasting disruptions could prove even more meaningful for global gas markets, said Daniel Sternoff, senior fellow and head of corporate partnership strategy at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy. Countries generally have smaller inventories of gas than oil to cushion disruptions, Sternoff said, though the impacts would be most pronounced in Asia and Europe. The United States is the world’s largest gas producer and a net exporter, so he said consumers would be somewhat insulated.

The biggest question now, Sternoff said, is whether Iran damages oil and gas facilities around the region. “All of this looks like a deliberate Iranian choice to escalate really quickly against its neighbors and to try to use world energy markets and prices as a pressure point,” Sternoff said, referring to the attacks in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. “We are really quickly into a really dangerous phase here of which there is no precedent.”

A sustained increase in crude oil prices will push up the price of gasoline, too. And unlike with natural gas, American consumers are not insulated from the global oil market, experts say. Even though the United States is a net exporter of oil, refiners still import large volumes of crude.

If prices remain elevated for no more than a couple of weeks, there may be little lasting impact, said Alan Krupnick, a senior fellow and director of the industry and fuels program at Resources for the Future, an environmental and energy think tank. But if high prices hang on for months, Krupnick said, that could have ripple effects that cut both ways with respect to climate change and fossil fuel output.

Higher gasoline prices could, over time, push more consumers toward electric vehicles, Krupnick said. But they would also create an incentive for US oil companies to drill more. Domestic oil output fell for the second consecutive month in December, the most recent data available, according to the US Energy Information Administration, and had plateaued in the months before that. 

Some environmental advocates have argued that the war’s impact on energy markets highlights the volatility of fossil fuel markets and underscores the need to transition to cleaner sources of energy. As it is, they argue, the attack on Iran will drive up energy costs for consumers everywhere.

If you didn't hear.....

 Trump is deflecting Epstein Files, world has to pay...

Cyprus travel warning

US issues Cyprus travel warning as Middle East war edges closer to Europe

“Threat of armed conflict” sparks warning from State Department.

By Milena Wälde

The U.S. State Department has urged people to “reconsider travel” to Cyprus and authorized the departure of nonemergency government personnel and their families, citing growing security risks as war in the Middle East ripples across the eastern Mediterranean.

American and Israeli strikes on Iran have triggered a broader regional conflict as Tehran fires missiles and drones at countries across the Gulf.

The State Department warned Americans to reconsider travel because of the “threat of armed conflict” and said “there have been significant disruptions to commercial flights” since hostilities between the United States, Israel and Iran began on Feb. 28.

Cyprus is increasingly being pulled into the conflict.

A drone strike hit a runway at the British RAF Akrotiri base earlier, Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides said, prompting Nicosia to cancel an informal meeting of EU affairs ministers.

U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Britain would deploy the destroyer HMS Dragon, while French President Emmanuel Macron announced France would send a frigate and air-defense systems to the island.

With Greek F-16s now on the island and European warships moving into the eastern Mediterranean, Cyprus will continue to be the epicenter of EU concern about the war spilling over onto its territory.

Outside international law

US strikes on Iran ‘outside international law,’ says Macron

Macron joins Spanish PM Pedro Sánchez in calling the legality of the strikes into question.

By Clea Caulcutt and Laura Kayali

French President Emmanuel Macron said the U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran that began Saturday and killed the country's supreme leader were conducted "outside of international law" and that Paris "cannot approve of them."

Though Macron laid the blame for the current conflagration in the Middle East squarely on Iran during an address on national television Tuesday night, his criticisms could land him in hot water with Washington.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez's decision to publicly slam the war as illegal and bar American military planes from using Spanish bases in attacks on Iran prompted U.S. President Donald Trump to threaten to cut off trade with Madrid at a press conference Tuesday.

While German Chancellor Friedrich Merz did not leap to the defense of his Spanish counterpart at the White House press conference where Trump made his trade threat, Macron now seems to be aligning more closely with Sánchez's view of the illegality of the war.

Despite Trump saying he believes the fight will last a matter of days or weeks, Macron during his speech warned that the conflict does not have an obvious end in sight.

"Strikes will likely continue in the coming days to weaken Iran and destroy its counterattack capabilities. And in response, Iranian strikes in the whole region are expected to continue," Macron said.

To protect French interests in the Middle East, Macron said that the Charles de Gaulle, the country’s only aircraft carrier, was being deployed to the Mediterranean alongside fighter jets and air defense systems.

"We will continue this effort as long as it is needed," he said. 

Macron also confirmed that France had sent anti-missile systems to Cyprus, as previously reported by POLITICO.

"Cyprus, an EU member state, a country with which we have signed a strategic partnership … requires our support," he said. 

Macron insisted that France’s "credibility" was at stake and Paris needed to honor its defense agreements with allies such as Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, where about 800 French military personnel are stationed.

Iranian drones struck a French naval base in the UAE on Sunday, though no injuries were reported.

French fighter jets flew over the UAE this weekend as part of "sky security operations," French Foreign Affairs Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said on Tuesday. 

Military operations in Ecuador

US launches military operations in Ecuador

The joint military operation with Ecuador targeted what the U.S. called "designated terrorist organizations" in the country.

By Aaron Pellish and Eric Bazail-Eimil

U.S. forces have launched military operations with Ecuador against “designated terrorist organizations” inside the South American country, Southern Command said Tuesday.

The military released no details on the operations but suggested in a statement that it was an extension of strikes carried out by the Trump administration against suspected drug trafficking organizations in the region.

“We commend the men and women of the Ecuadorian armed forces for their unwavering commitment to this fight, demonstrating courage and resolve through continued actions against narco-terrorists in their country,” said Marine Gen. Francis L. Donovan, commander of U.S. Southern Command.

Since President Donald Trump took office, the U.S. has taken aggressive steps to curb the flow of drugs from the Southern hemisphere. The administration has conducted about 45 strikes against suspected smuggling vessels in the Caribbean and Pacific Ocean, killing more than 150 people.

In January, U.S. military forces executed a raid in Venezuela to capture President Nicolas Maduro and take him to New York to face charges that include drug trafficking.

Security in Ecuador has deteriorated in recent years. The Andean nation has become a major hub for cocaine trafficking.

The situation took a dramatic turn in January 2024, when gangs stormed a TV station, taking staff hostage during a live broadcast and launched a wave of violence that prompted President Daniel Noboa to declare a state of emergency. Since then, the government has been engaged in a low-level internal armed conflict with the gangs as it tries to stabilize the nation.

Noboa has courted the Trump administration over the past year in the hopes of securing assistance. He came to Washington for Trump’s second inauguration and Secretary of State Marco Rubio visited Ecuador in September, and told reporters that the U.S. would “blow up” criminal groups if needed.

During Rubio’s trip to Ecuador, the U.S. designated two criminal groups in Ecuador, Los Lobos and Los Choneros, as terrorist organizations.

Until now, the U.S. had conducted military operations near Ecuador but had not publicly disclosed anything inside the country.

The Coast Guard had been deployed in the eastern Pacific, off the coast of Ecuador, Colombia and other countries, helping interdict cocaine shipments in a mission known as Operation Pacific Viper.

After the operation to capture Maduro, Trump did not rule out using military force against targets in other countries in the name of combatting drug trafficking. The expectation, however, had been that Trump would conduct strikes in Mexico and Colombia, both of which have a more significant role in the drug trade.

Forced outing.....

Supreme Court sides with parents in lawsuit over California’s ban on ‘forced outing’ of students

The emergency ruling overrules a temporary stay an appeals court issued.

By Eric He

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that California schools cannot prevent teachers from notifying parents about their child’s gender identity while a lawsuit over the issue plays out.

The court, split along its ideological divide between conservative and liberal members, granted an emergency request from a group of parents and teachers to reverse a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In that decision, the appeals court temporarily blocked a ruling by a lower court judge, who found that California law violates the rights of teachers and parents by barring teachers from sharing information about a child’s gender transition without the child’s permission. In undoing the 9th Circuit’s intervention, the high court found that parents are likely to prevail in their lawsuit and that California’s policies amount to hiding information about a child’s “gender dysphoria.”

“These policies likely violate parents’ rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children,” the ruling stated.

The court’s three liberal justices dissented. Justice Elena Kagan, in an opinion joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, criticized the conservative majority for rushing to a decision and issuing a “terse, tonally dismissive ruling designed to conclusively resolve this dispute.”

In a response, Justice Amy Coney Barrett — joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh — claimed that they were not being impatient, but rather temporarily allowing parents to take part in “consequential decisions about their child’s mental health and wellbeing” while the case winds through the courts.

The case is rooted in a 2024 California law that prohibits school districts from requiring staff to inform parents about a student’s gender identity without the child’s permission.

The Trump administration in January claimed that the policy violates federal law, threatening to pull federal education dollars to California. Attorney General Rob Bonta has sued to preemptively block the funding threat.

Conservatives were quick to celebrate Monday’s ruling. Corrin Rankin, chair of the state’s Republican Party, said in a statement she was “thrilled the Supreme Court told California Democrats what we all know and believe, that parents are not optional, despite them acting as if they were.”

Paul M. Jonna, an attorney at Thomas More Society, a law firm representing parents who brought forth the lawsuit, called the order a “watershed moment for parental rights in America.”

Behavior Change

Forget Regime Change. How About Behavior Change?

In Iran, Venezuela and Cuba, Trump’s top priority is making sure whoever’s left in charge deals differently with the United States.

By Nahal Toosi

As President Donald Trump himself might put it: Many people are asking if he is going for regime change in Iran.

The massive U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign in the country might suggest a simple “yes,” and that’s what many Iranians want to hear after decades of tyranny under the clerics in Tehran.

But as I’ve followed what Trump is doing and saying about Iran, I’ve come to realize he might be willing to eliminate the top ranks of a regime but still not remove it. Zoom out further — to Venezuela, Cuba and even Trump’s first term pressure on Iran — and there’s lots of evidence that Trump is eager to embrace novel ways of remaking a government he doesn’t like.

Remember: Trump isn’t a die-hard for democracy. He’s happy to work with authoritarians — from Saudi Arabia to El Salvador — if they do what he wants. One way to look at Trump’s approach is that he is willing to settle for changing the behavior of a regime if he can’t oust a whole regime. And the behavior he’s most interested in changing is how that regime deals with the United States.

“Our version of regime change is behavior change,” one U.S. official told me. “We’ve learned some lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan.” I granted the official anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to a reporter.

I’m not saying Trump has thought this all through; he keeps contradicting himself in interviews.

The semantics and nuances are confusing, too. I’ve heard everything from “regime change” to “regime collapse” in conversations with officials and analysts. Besides, how many people do you have to oust before a “regime” is gone? Could enough change in a regime’s behavior amount to a change of a regime?

Regimes, after all, aren’t just about the people running them. They’re also about how political power is obtained, allocated and used.

“‘Regime change’ requires a degree of state building that these guys don’t want to do,” argued Ali Vaez, a top Iran analyst with the International Crisis Group — “these guys” meaning Team Trump.

Vaez prefers the term “regime transformation” to describe what Trump is doing in Iran. That approach, he said, “means that the structure more or less remains in place but behavior changes in a way that it is in line with U.S. interests — not necessarily with U.S. values, but with U.S. interests.”

Trump’s attack on Iran shows he’s willing to take extraordinary risks to force a regime to do what he wants (once he figures out what that is). When compared to his moves in Venezuela and Cuba, it also shows that he is treating each country as distinct and is willing to tailor his tactics. That may get him the behavior change he seeks in all three.

At the moment, many of Trump’s U.S. aides and allies are avoiding the phrase “regime change” about Iran, despite Trump’s calls for Iranian citizens to “take over” their government.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Monday muddied the topic further when he said the U.S.-Israeli operation in Iran is “not a so-called regime change war, but the regime sure did change.” Some Trump allies, such as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), are dismissing the idea that the U.S. is responsible for what happens in Iran if the regime does fall.

The joint U.S.-Israeli operation in Iran has killed dozens of regime figures, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. (Israel has taken the lead on the assassinations but obviously with Trump’s blessing.)

The operation indicates that Trump — free from having to seek reelection and more comfortable in the role of commander in chief — feels unbound and willing to fundamentally reshape global dynamics. He’s been frank about the likelihood of many U.S. casualties and has said the campaign could last “four to five weeks,” or “far longer.”

His moves against Iran also are an escalation from how he approached the Islamic Republic in his first term. Back then, the Trump administration issued a list of demands on Tehran so expansive that it was as if they were asking the regime to change its DNA. (At the time, Trump aides said they sought behavior change.) Back then, Trump heaped sanctions on Iran instead of going to war, but that did not change the regime nor its overall behavior.

Still, even now, as he’s bombing them, Trump says he’s willing to negotiate with remnants of Iran’s Islamist leadership, a sign that he’s willing to keep the basic structure of the existing regime in place. (A top Iranian security official, Ali Larijani, said Monday on social media that Iran “will not negotiate with the United States.”) Trump also has mentioned having Iran’s armed forces “peacefully merge with the Iranian Patriots” — whoever those are.

The bottom line is that, from what’s publicly known, the U.S. has no fresh government-in-a-box to put in Tehran once the strikes end.

Trump has said the U.S. is determined to take out Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs and end its support for terrorist groups — all of which pose a threat to America’s national security.

Should what’s left of Iran’s regime agree to his demands on such issues, that might be enough behavior change for Trump to end the military phase.

Another possibility if it turns out Trump miscalculated the regime’s willingness to deal: He leaves behind a failed Iranian state whose land becomes a terrorist playground. Or Iran’s armed forces seize power in full, imposing a new tyranny. Neither bodes well for U.S. national security.

Still, even if the U.S. ends its military campaign in Iran, Trump isn’t likely to lift sanctions or reduce other leverage over Iran until he’s confident the country’s new leaders are keeping their word, the U.S. official told me.

Trump’s operation in Venezuela seems simple in comparison. The U.S. captured Venezuelan autocrat Nicolás Maduro in a fairly quick incursion and spirited him to New York on grounds that he was wanted in the United States for his alleged role in narco-trafficking.

Trump had Maduro’s ready-to-deal cronies to turn to, however. The remaining leadership, led by Delcy Rodríguez, has given the U.S. access to Venezuelan oil and taken other steps to gain his administration’s favor, including releasing some political prisoners.

The Venezuelan regime’s behavior is changing slowly, but it’s enough that Trump bragged about “our new friend and partner, Venezuela,” in his State of the Union address. Trump in particular seems to like Rodríguez, and with him a good personal relationship can go a long way. Just ask Vladimir Putin.

Trump’s willingness to flex America’s military might in Iran is surely being watched closely by Caracas. If the Iran operation goes well, Venezuela’s new-ish leadership has even more incentive to stay in Trump’s good graces. If the Iran operation becomes a quagmire, Venezuelan leaders may take advantage of a distracted United States.

Cuba, too, is watching Trump’s Middle East moves closely as the Trump administration ramps up pressure on its communist regime. Iran’s regime has been an important partner for Cuba (as well as Venezuela) and now that connection is in danger.

Trump has said his administration is in talks with representatives of the Cuban government. There’s no suggestion of a U.S. military attack, but the U.S. has upped economic sanctions on the impoverished island to an unusual degree, largely cutting off its access to oil and other crucial products.

Trump recently said the U.S. could stage a “friendly takeover” of Cuba.

That could involve some changes to the make-up of the regime, which is more of a collective leadership than what Maduro ran in Venezuela or Khamenei oversaw in Iran. More likely, though, based on what Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been saying in recent weeks, the U.S. will insist on economic reforms in Cuba first.

Rubio has long wanted to end the regime in Havana. But last month, Rubio told Bloomberg News that “Cuba’s fundamental problem is that it has no economy.” In remarks to reporters later in the month, Rubio even said that Cuba “doesn’t have to change all at once.“

“If they want to make those dramatic reforms that open the space for both economic and eventually political freedom for the people of Cuba, obviously the United States would love to see that. We’d be helpful,” he said.

Those economic changes could include Cuba privatizing some industries and permitting more foreign investment in exchange for easing of sanctions, the U.S. official told me. The U.S. could also push for the release of political prisoners. (I can already hear the screams of Barack Obama aides who say that was the same strategy they tried to use with Cuba and which Rubio fought against.)

Maybe the leaders of Iran, Cuba and Venezuela — well, the ones who survive — will change their regimes’ behavior enough to make Trump happy.

Perhaps they will eventually also change their behavior enough to allow for fundamental political changes that give their citizens more freedom.

Many people are hoping for that.

Iran threatens to attack

Europe braces as Iran threatens to attack 

As authorities tighten security, this is where Europe is most at risk from Iranian drones, missiles, cyberattacks and assassinations. 

By Tim Ross, Sam Clark, Veronika Melkozerova, Mason Boycott-Owen, Chris Lunday and Mathieu Pollet

The Iranian regime is warning it will attack European cities in any country that joins Donald Trump’s military operation and governments across the region are stepping up security in response.

So far, Iranian drones have already targeted Cyprus, with one striking a British Royal Air Force base on the island, and others shot down before they could hit. That prompted the U.K., France and Greece to send jets, warships and helicopters to Cyprus to protect the country from further drone attacks.

But with the British, French and German leaders saying they are ready to launch defensive military action in the Middle East, Tehran threatened to retaliate against these countries with attacks on European soil.

“It would be an act of war. Any such act against Iran would be regarded as complicity with the aggressors. It would be regarded as an act of war against Iran,” Esmail Baghaei, Iran’s foreign ministry spokesperson, told Iranian state media.

Mark Rutte, the former Dutch Prime Minister who now leads NATO, warned on Tuesday that Tehran posed a threat that reached deep into Europe.

“Let’s be absolutely clear-eyed to what’s happening here,” Rutte said. “Iran is close to getting its hands on a nuclear capability and on a ballistic missile capability, which is posing a threat not only to the region — the Middle East, including posing an existential threat to Israel — it is also posing a huge threat to us here in Europe.” Iran is “an exporter of chaos” responsible over decades for terrorist plots and assassination attempts, including against people living on European soil, he said. 

Here, POLITICO sets out what Iran is capable of, and where European countries may be at greatest risk. 

Missiles aimed at Athens and even Berlin

According to reports, Iran has been developing an intercontinental ballistic missile with a range of 10,000 kilometers, which would put European and even American territory potentially within range, said Antonio Giustozzi from the Royal United Services Institute think tank in London. It is not clear whether, under constant attack, Tehran would be able to manufacture and deploy an experimental missile like this, he said. 

“Realistically, the further away you fire them, the less precise they will be,” Giustozzi told POLITICO. “Let’s say they had four or five long-range missiles. There may be some value to target something in Europe just to create some excitement and scare public opinion from intervening.” 

Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal is known to include several medium-range systems that stretch to roughly 2,000 kilometers, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Missile Threat database.

The solid-fueled Sejjil and Khorramshahr missiles are both assessed to have about that range, which would extend to parts of southeastern Europe from Iranian territory, including areas of Greece, Bulgaria and Romania, depending on the launch location.

Romania has a U.S. missile shield site at Deveselu in the southern part of the country which was built to intercept potential missile attacks from Iran. This week, military security was stepped up at the site, according to Romania’s defense minister. 

Tehran has long described 2,000 kilometers as a self-imposed ceiling for its ballistic missile program — a limit that keeps most of Europe outside of the envelope while preserving regional reach. 

Defence Express, a Kyiv-based defense consultancy group, said the Khorramshahr missile may be capable of hitting targets 3,000 kilometers away if it was fitted with a lighter warhead, potentially bringing Berlin and Rome within range. However, the number of such long-range missiles in Iran’s arsenal is unlikely to be large. 

‘Shahed’ drones and toys packed with explosives 

Iran has invested heavily in drone development and production, and these uncrewed projectiles may be its best flexible weapon. Iran’s “Shahed” drones have been deployed by Russian forces since the early days of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. These one-way attack drones have a range claimed to be as much as 2,500 kilometers. 

To reach targets inside European territory they would need to fly at low altitude across countries such as Turkey and Jordan, though Cyprus has already found out it is within range. Analysts believe the drone that hit U.K.’s RAF Akrotiri air base in Cyprus was likely a shahed-type, and may have been fired from Lebanon by Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy. 

But Giustozzi said commercially available drones — even toys — could be used to cause havoc inside Europe. Iran is known to have a network of sleeper agents operating across many countries in Europe, he said, who use criminal groups to carry out attacks. 

They could be tasked with a coordinated effort to fly drones over civilian airports, forcing flights to be halted and causing chaos to air traffic across Europe, he said. This would be cheap and easy to do. More ambitious attacks could include striking military targets with drones loaded with explosives.

But such risk may be low, Giustozzi said, as Iran may not have been able to smuggle bomb making components into European countries as this has not been its primary mode of operation in the region in recent years. 

Hit squads and terrorists 

Tehran’s recent focus has been on intimidating and targeting people and groups who are critical of the regime, particularly among the large Iranian diaspora dispersed widely across European countries, according to analysts. 

According to an intelligence summary from one Western government, Iran has a long record of plots to assassinate and attack targets inside Europe. Its state-sponsored terrorism involves a mix of direct operations by Iranian forces and, according to the intelligence summary, a growing reliance on organized criminal gangs to maintain “plausible deniability.” 

In the past decade, incidents have included the arrest of Iranian diplomat Assadollah Assadi for providing explosives to a couple tasked with bombing a large rally of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI). Assadi was sentenced to 20 years in prison. 

After massive cyberattacks against state infrastructure, the Albanian government formally severed all ties with Iran in 2022. Four years earlier, Albania expelled the Iranian ambassador and several diplomats for plotting a truck bomb attack against an Iranian dissident camp. The Dutch government accused Iran of involvement in the targeted killing of two dissidents, in 2015 and 2017. 

Suspected Iranian-backed assassination plots and other attacks have also been reported in Belgium, Cyprus, France, Germany, Sweden, and the U.K., among other countries in Europe. 

Cyber attacks 

The threat to Europeans from Iran is not just physical, with the regime long being regarded as a capable actor in cyber warfare.  

Experts and officials warned Iran could launch fresh cyber operations against Europe in the wake of the war started by the U.S. and Israel, either by targeting governments directly or by hitting critical infrastructure operators. 

“We have to monitor now the situation very carefully when it comes to our cyber security and especially our critical infrastructure,” European Commission Executive Vice President Henna Virkkunen told POLITICO. “We know that the online dimension is also very important, the recruiting channel and especially the propaganda is also spread very much online.”

Iran is typically seen as one of the big four cyber adversaries to the West — alongside Russia, China and North Korea. So far, however, there is little evidence to suggest it’s actively targeting Europe.

In fact, Iran’s cyber activity has largely stopped since the U.S. bombing began, according to one senior European cybersecurity official, granted anonymity to discuss ongoing assessments. 

If and when European countries make their support for U.S. and Israeli activities more explicit, that will likely draw them into the firing line, cyber industry officials said. “Europe should definitely expect that exactly what happened in the Gulf could happen and should happen in Europe,” said Gil Messing, chief of staff at Israeli cyber firm Check Point.

Messing said his firm is already seeing evidence of cyberattacks in Cyprus, the only EU country that Iran has targeted with physical attacks so far. There’s no evidence of attacks in other European countries but it’s likely coming down the tracks, he said.

And if attacks do take place, Iran’s capabilities, though lessened in recent years, remain significant, experts said. Iran’s security and intelligence services have cyber units comprising hundreds of people, with tens of millions of dollars of funding, Messing said.

“If the regime lasts,” the senior official quoted above said, “they will be back.”

Obstructing.......

Internal DHS watchdog: Noem is obstructing our work

The Office of the Inspector General said in a letter he has been denied access to records in at least 10 investigations.

By Eric Bazail-Eimil

The Department of Homeland Security has hindered internal investigations amid scrutiny for its handling of President Donald Trump’s aggressive crackdown on immigration, the agency’s official watchdog warned in a letter to Congress.

DHS has been “systematically obstructing” investigations by withholding records, Inspector General Joseph Cuffari said in a letter released Tuesday — hours after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem faced withering bipartisan questioning at a Senate hearing.

Cuffari’s letter, dated Monday, outlined at least 10 investigations in which his office has been denied access to records and information it requested.

Cuffari said the lack of cooperation by DHS violates the law and “longstanding principles of comity” between internal watchdogs and the agencies they oversee.

In one particularly striking case, Cuffari said DHS set conditions on OIG’s access to information it demanded as part of a criminal investigation in which it was assisting. The conditions would have required the watchdog “to reveal details of the investigation to individuals who do not have a need to know, and who may be related somehow to the allegation(s) or individual(s) under investigation,” Cuffari wrote.

The letter did not specify the agency OIG was assisting or disclose details of the criminal investigation.

The inspector general said Noem recently asked the watchdog to provide a list of all pending OIG matters, including criminal investigations “so that she may consider whether any audits, inspections, or investigations should be terminated.”

DHS did not respond to a request for comment about the letter, which was sent as bipartisan frustrations with Noem on Capitol Hill are bubbling to the surface.

The letter, shared with POLITICO, was referenced in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing where Noem was testifying. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who has called on Noem to resign, mentioned it in his questioning, then addressed the letter in a speech on the Senate floor.

“Do you have any idea how bad it has to be for someone embedded in a department to publish a letter about the obstruction of the secretary of that department?” Tillis said.

The Wall Street Journal first reported the letter.

Beyond the criminal investigation, Cuffari says in the letter that ICE revoked the inspector general’s access to its Enforcement Integrated Database. The inspector general had used the data in that system to conduct audits and inspections for 10 years.

DHS also revoked OIG’s access to a database that tracks which employees and contractors can access classified information, which the watchdog said it needs for investigations involving national security and other sensitive matters, according to the letter.

In addition, TSA is not providing OIG access to the Secure Flight System database, leaving the inspector general’s team unable to verify data. The watchdog has also faced resistance when seeking access to a Border Patrol database that tracks arrests, detentions and releases.

OIG argues that making case-by-case requests adds delays to its audits and probes of potential wrongdoing and that the lack of access hinders how much the watchdog can verify data shared with it as part of investigations and run analytics.

Cuffari attached a letter sent to him from DHS General Counsel James Percival in which Percival accused the OIG of “bad faith and bordering on a material misrepresentation” if the complaints about access were sent to Congress and accused the watchdog of engaging in “fishing trips” in investigating possible misconduct.

Cuffari said in his letter to lawmakers that OIG is not seeking unfettered access to data, saying it would be inefficient and illegal to “rummage through DHS records with no clear purpose.”

Running out of time.....

Trump is running out of time to sell his rationale for Iran war

Senior officials keep offering justifications for the conflict with Tehran that the president upends.

By Myah Ward, Felicia Schwartz, Alex Gangitano and Connor O'Brien

The Trump administration hasn’t figured out how to sell Iran — and it’s running out of time.

Four days into the war, senior administration officials are only able to say what this conflict is not: It is not Iraq. It is not a forever war. It is not a war of choice.

And even that message is muddled by President Donald Trump, whose myriad asides to reporters have undercut nearly every rationale.

As the administration scrambles to explain the attacks — suggesting that Iran was either on the precipice of having nuclear weapons, possessing ballistic missiles or attacking Israel — Trump allies are warning the window for the White House to make its case to the president’s most loyal supporters is closing.

“I don’t put a timeline, I put a bodycount,” said a former Trump official, who like others in this report, was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “That’s a narrative in the media that erodes how people feel about this war.”

Six U.S. service members have been killed since Saturday’s strikes began.

The war comes as MAGA Republicans have urged leaders to focus on problems at home and are wary of a prolonged conflict that could drive up gas prices and undercut the president’s affordability message — demoralizing voters crucial to the party’s success in November.

Trump’s America First movement was built, in large part, on skepticism of neoconservative interventionism, posing a challenge for a White House forced to square an operation some MAGA allies say runs directly against what the president once promised his voters. Prominent conservative commentators and Trump allies, including Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly and Matt Walsh, have all criticized the Iran attack and the administration for not successfully explaining its reasoning for the war.

“A significant, if not majority of the base, will be with him no matter what he does, but there are growing voices in this coalition, some of which is generational. Some of which is sensational,” said GOP strategist Matthew Bartlett, who served in Trump’s first administration. “Yet at the end of the day, they do pose some legitimate questions: If things go longer or go wrong, those questions will only grow, as will their concerns and skepticisms.”

Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby on Tuesday was the latest administration official to attempt to allay those concerns and insist that the war against Iran is targeted in its scope and doesn’t conflict with Trump’s “America First” agenda.

“As we understand from [Trump] and the goals of the military campaign, this is certainly not nation building,” Colby told the Senate Armed Services Committee. “This is not going to be endless.”

But Trump, in a social media post, said “wars can be fought ‘forever.’” He has also at varying times suggested the war could be over in a matter of days or last four or five weeks.

The danger for the Trump administration is that it could lose control over when the war ends. Iran has a say, too. And already its attacks are forcing the United States to close embassies in the region, evacuate American citizens and insure oil tankers.

Trump didn’t speak to the timeline in Iran during an appearance Tuesday with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, despite his supporters demanding that the operation will be quick.

“MAGA is not anti-force; It is anti-forever war,” said Vanessa Santos, CEO of Renegade DC, a conservative PR firm that represents MAGA media voices. “Support holds if this is quick, limited, low casualty, and avoids boots on the ground. The moment it looks open-ended or like nation-building, political support weakens quickly.”

At least one official expressed concern that Trump hadn’t given a detailed explanation to the public, beyond his brief one-on-one interviews with reporters and two videos he shared that were each less than 10 minutes.

Elliott Abrams, U.S. special representative for Iran in Trump’s first term, said he was surprised that the president has not given a formal speech.

“He will need public support if this continues beyond next week and there are many casualties, so he should be working at this now,” Abrams said.

Two senior administration officials briefed reporters Tuesday on the earlier diplomatic talks with Tehran led by peace envoys Steve Witkoff and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, and suggested that the attack happened only after it became clear that Iran was not negotiating in good faith and had no intention of giving up its nuclear program. While the administration has made this argument before, it shared what the officials described as new details of how Iran had no intention to negotiate in good faith in two rounds of talks last month.

“There was no deal that they were willing to do in the short term that we felt would have been a good deal that would make America and the world a safer place,” said the first senior administration official. “It was very clear they were just trying to buy time in order to preserve whatever they could to get past the term of President Trump in order to get a nuclear weapon.”

While Iran repeatedly argued through the process that enrichment was its “national right and national pride,” for the Trump administration, “our red lines were no enrichment whatsoever,” a second administration official said.

The U.N.’s nuclear watchdog has said Iran has no structured program to build a nuclear weapon. The two officials brushed those claims aside.

“They basically could have been days or weeks away from a weapon if they would have put the effort into it,” the first official said.

The administration has focused more on ballistic missiles since the campaign began, but Witkoff and Kushner excluded that concern from their diplomatic efforts, leaving that for other conversations, the second official said. Iran was supposed to initiate discussions with regional powers on the West’s concerns about those, but never did. That was “disturbing to us,” the second administration official said.

But that explanation, so far, has not quelled the concern that Trump has broken a core promise: keep the U.S. away from a quagmire that drains blood and treasure for decades.

“It needs to be over quick, otherwise, this is a fucking nightmare,” said a person close to the White House. “It already is a nightmare because you’ve got the MAGA coalition just tearing at the seams.”

Texas Senate GOP race

Cornyn, Paxton head to runoff in Texas Senate GOP race

Sen. John Cornyn is in the fight of his career — and national Republicans fear they could lose the seat if he falls.

By Liz Crampton

Texas Sen. John Cornyn and Attorney General Ken Paxton advanced to a runoff in the Senate GOP primary, extending an already-bruising fight into late May that some Republicans worry could hurt their chances of holding onto the seat — and the Senate.

Tuesday night’s result showed some surprising strength for Cornyn, who had trailed Paxton in most public polls and whose allies were worried might finish far behind the MAGA firebrand. And it indicates the four-term senator still has a real chance to retain his seat in late May.

National Republicans widely expected the runoff when Rep. Wesley Hunt, who finished third, jumped into the race last fall. But while Cornyn is still in the battle, saving him will continue to be an expensive endeavor — and one that risks further damaging Paxton, who could still be their nominee.

The senator and his allies already spent more than $100 million to defeat Paxton, highlighting his political and personal baggage, like his recent divorce, accusations of infidelity, ethics complaints and impeachment proceedings.

Paxton brings huge support from the hyper-conservative grassroots – a devoted following derived from his decade serving as Texas’ top lawyer. He has long been closely aligned with President Donald Trump, supporting his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.

Trump has not yet endorsed in the race.

Democrats believe they have a shot at flipping Texas after decades of falling short, bolstered by a wave of enthusiasm within the party and backlash to the Trump administration over its immigration and economic policies. They’re hoping that the scandal-plagued Paxton emerges victorious from the runoff and gives them a better opening to entice moderate Republicans and independents.

But Cornyn showed Tuesday that he still has some fight left in him.

Puzzle for Europe

Trump’s strikes on Iran pose a puzzle for Europe’s far right

From Paris to Berlin, party leaders face the uncomfortable choice of whether to back American and Israeli bombing — or remain faithful to their sovereignty-first principles.

By Marion Solletty

The U.S. and Israeli bombing of Iran is exposing a fault line at the heart of Europe’s far right.

Across the continent, leaders aligned with the MAGA agenda are being forced to choose between their anti-interventionist instincts and embracing an offensive against an Islamist regime they have long cast as a threat to Western security. 

The escalation lays bare a long-standing contradiction within Europe’s nationalist parties. Many define themselves in opposition to what they describe as the Islamization of the Europe and see Israel as a natural ally. Yet they also campaign against what they portray as American imperial overreach and costly foreign entanglements. 

At the same time, they fear a fresh Middle East conflict could destabilize the region and trigger new migration flows.

In France, the far-right National Rally — which is polling in first place ahead of a presidential election next year — had taken a principled stand against the U.S. intervention in Venezuela in January, casting the capture of the country’s leader Nicolás Maduro as a violation of national sovereignty.

The response to the U.S.-Israeli campaign in Iran has been far more cautious, erring on the side of supporting the strikes.

“We support the actions taken by the United States, even if, frankly, we do not like the unilateral aspect of them,” Sébastien Chenu, vice-president of France’s National Rally, said on Tuesday. 

In recent months, the National Rally has sought to present itself as a staunch supporter of Israel, with its president Jordan Bardella casting the “Islamist threat” as a common enemy for France and Israel.

Bardella traveled to the country in a historic first last year, in a move widely seen as a way to further distance the party from the antisemitic and Holocaust-minimizing remarks of its late founder, Jean-Marie Le Pen.

French pivot

That positioning makes outright opposition to an offensive against a fundamentalist Islamist regime that has pledged to destroy Israel politically difficult.

Marine Le Pen, the party’s de facto leader, responded cautiously as the bombs began to fall. While campaigning for local elections on Saturday, she initially limited herself to noting the strikes, waiting until Sunday to issue a formal statement on X expressing solidarity with France’s allies in the region hit by Iranian counterstrikes. “France must meet the moment: alongside its allies and fully mobilized to protect its citizens,” she said. 

Notably absent was any condemnation of the unilateral offensive against Iran — a sharp contrast with the forceful language she used after the U.S. operation in Venezuela just a month earlier.

National Rally vice-president Sébastien Chenu, who said “we support the actions taken by the United States, even if, frankly, we do not like the unilateral aspect of them.” | Telmo Pinto/NurPhoto via Getty Images

“The sovereignty of states is never negotiable, regardless of their size, power, or continent,” she wrote at the time, in a statement that was widely praised across her party, which traditionally opposes what it sees as American imperialism. “To renounce this principle today for Venezuela, or for any other state, would be to accept our own servitude tomorrow.” 

Seemingly aware of the bind, Bardella sought to strike a careful balance, stressing in a press release that any “legitimate and sustainable” regime change must come from the Iranian people. He quickly pivoted to the domestic impact of the conflict, urging the EU and the French government to shield citizens from an expected surge in energy prices.

Chenu on Tuesday sought to explain the apparent contradiction between the party’s stance on the Iran attacks and his party’s previous position on Venezuela.

“It is different here because there is imminent danger, because a nuclear [threat] is at stake and Israel is in a situation where they can be annihilated by Iran,” he said in the same radio interview. 

German split

Across the Rhine, the issue has proved similarly delicate for the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD).

The party’s co-leaders Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla expressed “great concern” over the attacks during the weekend, warning that “renewed destabilization of the Middle East” was “not in Germany’s interest” and “must be ended.”  

That stance did not sit well with senior party figures who believe the offensive against Iran’s Islamist regime should be supported. 

After the party leadership’s statement, AfD MP Andreas Bleck wrote in a Telegram group chat that he felt “not represented in terms of content” and that the party line needed to be clarified, reported Welt, which is a sister publication of POLITICO in the Axel Springer Group.

Others publicly voiced their dissent, accusing the party leadership of echoing calls for restraint coming from center-left figures such as former Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, a prominent member of the Green party. 

The AfD, which is challenging the Christian Democrats as the country’s most popular party, has traditionally backed Israel. In recent months, however, that support has softened. Chrupalla has called for an end to German arms deliveries following civilian deaths in Gaza and for a broader reassessment of Berlin’s relationship with Israel.

The repositioning reflects the growing influence of a pro-Russian, anti-American wing rooted in eastern Germany, where the AfD is expected to perform strongly in upcoming regional elections.

Internal divisions

The timing is delicate. Both parties are riding high in the polls, with France’s National Rally leading ahead of next year’s presidential election and the AfD vying to become Germany’s dominant political force. A new international crisis risks exposing their internal divisions just as they seek to convince voters they are ready to govern.

Foreign policy has already proven a fault line, particularly over defense policy and the war in Ukraine — vulnerabilities their centrist opponents are eager to exploit. 

France’s 2027 presidential election “will largely be decided on international matters,” Gaspard Gantzer, formerly a communications advisor with Socialist President François Hollande, said ahead of the attack on Iran. “One won’t want to send to the Elysée someone who can’t stand up to [Donald] Trump or Xi [Jinping].”

Not all European parties are so conflicted. 

George Simion, leader of the Alliance for the Union of Romanians, told POLITICO: “In Iran, Venezuela and other places in the world the Trump administration is doing what is needed for the safety of the free world and democracy.”

Dutch far-right firebrand Geert Wilders on Sunday cheered the death of “Islamic Devil” Ali Khamenei, while Trump ally Nigel Farage slammed Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s response to the crisis as “pathetic,” criticizing his initial refusal to allow the U.S. access to U.K. bases for missions against Iran. 

The difference in clarity was visible on Monday as Farage doubled down on his position in a press conference, saying Starmer’s slow decision-making threatens the U.K.’s “special relationship” with the U.S., and poses a “major threat to NATO.” 

Bardella, by contrast, canceled a press conference meant to focus on local elections scheduled for the same day, citing the international situation.

He did not immediately announce a new date.

Autonomous trucks

California politics could cause a reversal on autonomous trucks

A new Democratic governor could shift gears away from the Newsom years on autonomous trucks to appease labor.

By Chase DiFeliciantonio

For years, Gov. Gavin Newsom has swatted down union-backed efforts to shield trucking jobs from automation. Now, politically powerful union leaders are pushing his would-be successors to change course, a move that could pump the brakes in California on an industry that’s starting to accelerate elsewhere.

The pressure on Democratic candidates competing for labor’s support in the crowded June primary comes as the Newsom administration plans to finalize new rules as soon as next month to allow the testing of autonomous big-rigs on state roads.

The march toward driverless freight is emerging as a political litmus test here, with several Democrats surveyed by POLITICO signaling they would slow or rein in autonomous trucking — drawing a stark contrast with Newsom and aligning themselves with union demands.

“There are safety issues. There are employment issues. I think that we’re going to have to,” billionaire Tom Steyer said when asked if he would back a mandate requiring human safety drivers in autonomous delivery vehicles. “We should be making sure that we don’t make dramatic changes in the way that people work.”

Lorena Gonzalez, head of the influential California Federation of Labor Unions, said in an interview that protecting middle-class jobs, especially delivery and driving jobs, is the group’s “No. 1 priority.”

While labor has largely been losing the fight against self-driving vehicles in California, a new governor in Sacramento could change all that with a signature.

The campaign for former Rep. Katie Porter, who secured an early endorsement from the California Teamsters last year, said she would support legislation backed by the union to largely prohibit autonomous delivery to homes and businesses.

And longer-shot candidates, like former California State Controller Betty Yee and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, said they would get behind legislation requiring safety drivers in some autonomous vehicles. Antonio Villaraigosa, the former Los Angeles mayor and former Assembly speaker, said he too believed drivers should be present until the technology can be proven fully safe.

For the moment, at least one of the leading Democratic candidates is staying mum on the details — as tech money pours into the Golden State this cycle. Rep. Eric Swalwell hasn’t committed to a position on autonomous vehicles, and neither have the two Republicans in the field who are notching big poll numbers in deep-blue California. None of the three responded to questions from POLITICO.

California is the only state that prohibits even the testing of autonomous big rigs on public roads — a sore point for the tech industry.

But Newsom has stymied legislative efforts in recent years to more permanently protect delivery jobs from the technology, vetoing bills in 2023 and 2024 that would ban heavy duty self-driving vehicles or require safety drivers in autonomous vehicles over 10,000 pounds. In one veto the governor called the legislation “unnecessary” given his administration’s commitment “to addressing the present and future challenges for work and workers in California, and the existing regulatory framework.”

Now, the Department of Motor Vehicles under Newsom may loosen the state’s testing ban before he leaves office, as labor also bristles at the influx of robotaxis on California roads. A new regulation could come as soon as April, with permits potentially issued later this year.

Asked about the DMV’s proposed trucking rules, Newsom spokesperson Anthony Martinez stressed they balanced public safety and innovation, saying the regulations “establish rigorous safety standards while responsibly opening the door to emerging transportation technologies that are already rapidly advancing in states across the country and around the world, helping define the future of mobility.”

The administration has previously said the autonomous trucking industry stands to create thousands of jobs and spur investment in the state, warning that limiting it could push those benefits elsewhere. But allowing self-driving trucks on California highways would run afoul of unions like the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which represents tens of thousands of union drivers in the state.

“We’re hopeful to have a governor who is more engaged in those discussions and not just simply saying ‘no’ because of innovation,” Gonzalez said.

Tia Orr, the executive director of SEIU California, said in a statement that “innovation cannot come at the cost of worker livelihoods or community safety.” The union has yet to endorse a candidate but has ruled out the tech-friendly Democratic San Jose mayor, Matt Mahan, along with the Republican contenders.

Teamsters California Co-Chair Peter Finn said California voters “want a leader willing to relentlessly stand up for people and not be afraid to fight to protect the good middle class jobs that our communities depend on.”

Beyond job protections, casting doubt on the safety of autonomous vehicles has been central to the argument for driver requirements, which some candidates have echoed.

“Until we have thoroughly tested all of this, we need a butt in the cab,” Villaraigosa said in an interview. “That’s what Teamsters call it.”

That position would likely be welcomed by California Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, who has tried unsuccessfully for four years running to either require safety drivers in trucks or prohibit autonomous vehicles from hitting the delivery routes.

Her bill to limit autonomous deliveries to most homes and businesses statewide, introduced last year, is still moving through the Legislature. That measure also drew opposition from tech industry groups like Chamber of Progress, which echoed Newsom’s veto language in calling it “unnecessary” and saying it could choke off innovation.

“No matter who’s in office, my focus won’t change — I’ll continue to be worried about what automation means for public safety and for jobs,” Aguiar-Curry said in a statement.

Martinez, the spokesperson for Newsom, declined to take a position on Aguiar-Curry’s pending bill. “California is committed to leading the nation in both technological innovation and public safety,” he said.

Autonomous vehicle proponents say the state’s existing restrictions are already causing damage.

“The economic benefits are moving to other states,” said Earl Adams Jr., general counsel with PlusAI, which makes autonomous trucking technology.

Adams, the former chief counsel of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, said companies like his are already testing their technology in places like Arizona, Nevada and Texas. He said his industry is hoping for an opening in California — and an overriding federal framework on autonomous trucks.

The business case for deploying autonomous trucks in particular focuses on a shortage of drivers in the U.S. and the creation of a market worth more than $500 billion, according to some estimates.

Between 3.4 million and 4.4 million truck driving jobs could disappear across the U.S. and Europe if the technology is deployed rapidly. Some in the industry argue automation will simply fill unmet driver demand. Testing and some autonomous trucking are already happening in Texas, Arizona, Nevada and elsewhere.

Mahan, the centrist mayor of San Jose, said he didn’t support the “butts in seats” approach when it came to autonomous vehicles, and said he was concerned about pushing innovation out of state, worries voiced by the Newsom administration.

“We can put our head in the sand and say, ‘No more AI, no more technology,’” Mahan said. “But that doesn’t mean that Texas and China won’t go full steam ahead with these industries and reap the benefits of it.”

Mahan, who has enjoyed a stream of early cash and support from Silicon Valley luminaries like Google co-founder Sergey Brin, said technology-driven change always includes transition periods “where the public sector must step in proactively to reduce the impact on people whose jobs are changing rapidly.”

Still, he said, he would rather have that innovation in California “and shape it to make people’s lives better … to make sure people have access to the jobs of the future.”

During a candidate forum last year, every Democrat in the race at the time expressed support for having a human operator present in big rigs, Gonzalez recalled. She said she was confident that more recent entrants like Swalwell understood the issue from the labor perspective.

But Swalwell’s campaign did not respond to multiple requests for comment about autonomous vehicles, and representatives for former Biden administration official Xavier Becerra, another Democrat in the race, also did not provide comment.

The Republicans in the race, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and Steve Hilton, did not respond to requests for comment.

Meanwhile, labor isn’t just interested in protecting its trucking lanes. Unions are expected to push for more protections for rideshare drivers as well this year, as Waymo and other robotaxis gain popularity and regulatory approvals to operate. A landmark deal last year allowed rideshare drivers to unionize with the SEIU union in California.

At least one candidate, Betty Yee, who is polling in the mid-single-digits, said she believed there should be human safety operators even in autonomous taxis, like Waymo, bringing up the December power outage in San Francisco that caused some cars in the fleet to freeze up when traffic lights went out.

“For something like that, where you’re really posing a danger to pedestrians and other drivers, absolutely” there should be safety drivers, Yee said in an interview.

Union members, including Finn’s Teamsters, showed up to a San Francisco hearing earlier this week on Waymos during the blackout. They held a rally and signs emblazoned with “Driverless is Dangerous” seeking to use the issue as a cudgel in their safety arguments against AVs.

Gonzalez, the labor leader, acknowledged there were no guarantees, even when candidates make promises on the campaign trail, adding “Somebody could get in and change their position.”

Ethics Committee

House Ethics panel launches investigation of Tony Gonzales

The announcement comes as the Texas Republican fights for his political life in a primary runoff.

By Chris Marquette

The House Ethics Committee launched a formal investigation into Rep. Tony Gonzales Wednesday, establishing a panel to probe allegations that the Texas Republican “engaged in sexual misconduct towards an individual employed in his congressional office” and “discriminated unfairly by dispensing special favors or privileges.”

The announcement comes as Gonzales faces a 12-week runoff campaign to keep the Republican nomination for the south Texas seat he has held for three terms. He narrowly trails challenger Brandon Herrera in the latest returns from Tuesday’s election but neither candidate is on track to win an outright majority, setting up a May 23 runoff.

Gonzales has denied wrongdoing and thus far resisted calls from within his own party to resign as details of an alleged relationship with a former staffer, Regina Santos-Aviles, have emerged in recent weeks. She died by suicide after setting herself on fire in 2025.

Gonzales did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, navigating a tight GOP majority, said last week that he wanted to see how the election played out and that Gonzales was entitled to due process. It could take months or longer for the Ethics Committee to finish its investigation and recommend any discipline.

Gonzales is alleged to have pursued a sexual relationship with Santos-Aviles and tried to coerce her into sending explicit photos, according to text messages published by the San Antonio Express-News and other publications. POLITICO has not independently reviewed the messages.

House rules prohibit members, such as Gonzales, from having “a sexual relationship” or engaging in “unwelcome sexual advances” with their staffers.

The Ethics Committee’s deliberations are usually shrouded in secrecy, and it sometimes takes years to deliver any sort of conclusion. Allegations that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) accepted improper gifts relating to the 2021 Met Gala, for instance, were not ruled upon until 2025.

Similarly, the Ethics panel took several years to issue a report on a 2020 stock trade made by the wife of Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) that was alleged to have been done using nonpublic information. Kelly was scolded in 2025 by the committee for not fully cooperating with the investigation with a strongly worded letter of disapproval.

Orion Nebula

How well do you know the night sky? OK, but how well can you identify famous sky objects in a very deep image? Either way, here is a test: see if you can find some well-known night-sky icons in a deep image filled with filaments of normally faint dust and gas. This image contains the Pleiades star cluster, Barnard's Loop, Orion Nebula, Aldebaran, Betelgeuse, Witch Head Nebula, Eridanus Loop, and the California Nebula. To find their real locations, here is an annotated image version. The reason this task might be difficult is similar to the reason it is initially hard to identify familiar constellations in a very dark sky: the tapestry of our night sky has an extremely deep hidden complexity. The featured composite reveals some of this complexity in a 16 hours of sky exposure in dark skies over Granada, Spain.

Jellyfish Nebula

Normally faint and elusive, the Jellyfish Nebula is caught in this alluring telescopic field of view. Floating in the interstellar sea, the nebula is anchored right and left by two bright stars, Mu and Eta Geminorum, at the foot of the celestial twins. The Jellyfish Nebula itself is right of center, seen as a brighter arcing ridge of emission with dangling tentacles. In fact, this cosmic jellyfish is part of bubble-shaped supernova remnant IC 443, the expanding debris cloud from a massive star that exploded. Light from the explosion first reached planet Earth over 30,000 years ago. Like its cousin in astrophysical waters the Crab Nebula supernova remnant, the Jellyfish Nebula is known to harbor a neutron star, the ultradense remnant of the collapsed stellar core. An emission nebula cataloged as Sharpless 249 fills the field at the upper left. The Jellyfish Nebula is about 5,000 light-years away. At that distance, this image would be about 300 light-years across.