Read the daily news to learn English

Middle East crisis live: agreement signed by US-Iran presidents; Tehran claims it will charge ships to transit strait of Hormuz

A handful of US Senate Republicans have sharply criticised the agreement Donald Trump reached with Iran, accusing the administration of committing “the worst foreign policy blunder in decades”. Washington is framing the accord as a “major win” for the US, even though it makes significant political and financial concessions to Iran to reopen the strait of Hormuz and prevent what Trump said would otherwise be a “worldwide depression”. “Reagan is rolling over in his grave,” outgoing Republican senator Bill Cassidy declared on X. Iran’s nuclear ambitions were not curbed, and they have learned that threatening the strait of Hormuz works and will undoubtedly leverage it in the future. Now, Iran gets to build brand-new infrastructure under this deal. Senior administration officials said the deal would help prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but critics argue the deal achieves less than the one Barack Obama negotiated with Iran in 2015. The Republican senator Lindsey Graham, one of Trump’s most vocal congressional allies, said in the immediate aftermath of the deal’s announcement he was “somewhat concerned that Iran’s view of the agreement seems different than what the American negotiating team is claiming”. Republican senator Thom Tillis said it was “concerning” the Trump administration was considering a $300bn fund for Iran as part of the accord. See the full report here:

Inspired by Ukraine, and worried by China: Taiwan teaches its citizens how to fly drones

In a small, crowded room in Taipei, Pan Chien-chin is trying to keep a drone hovering steadily. Imagining himself flying a plane, he gently nudges controller joysticks to guide the insect-like device as it hums through the air. Cheers break out as Pan, who has never flown a drone before, steers it around a rectangular course marked by traffic cones without crashing. Around him are about two dozen fellow trainees, all signed up for the same course: Taiwan’s first civil defence drone training programme. “The war in Ukraine has really changed how drones are used,” says Pan, 48, a food company worker. “It’s like giving myself another skill, something I can use if it’s ever needed one day,” he adds. The pioneering programme, launched in May, is another sign of Taiwan’s civil defence movement drawing lessons from Ukraine, where drones have played an increasingly critical role in pushing back the Russian invasion since 2022. Taiwan has seen an island-wide boom in emergency rescue and first aid training in recent years, with more than 30 local, volunteer-led civil defence groups now active. Tang Tsong-yi, a spokesperson at Kuma Academy, the civil defence NGO that runs the training, says the course helps beginner drone pilots understand the capabilities of drones on the battlefield. The course has emerged as part of a broader effort to improve drone literacy among the public in Taiwan, a self-ruled democracy that faces a growing military threat from China. The number of registered drones in Taiwan surpassed 39,000 in December, according to Taiwan’s Civil Aviation Administration, which lowered the minimum age for drone registration to 14 in 2024. Some high schools in Taipei have started holding summer camps to teach students how to assemble drones from scratch and use them for search-and-rescue operations. Sessions at Kuma Academy’s drone piloting course have sold out through August; about 75 people can be trained each month. On the Saturday afternoon Pan attended his first class, he was joined by a diverse group: two teenagers, and adults ranging from their 30s to their 60s. More than half were women. Karren Wang, a 65-year-old retiree, says that flying drones could be one of her best ways to contribute in a crisis given her age. Speaking after the class, she rated her first attempt at drone piloting “not too bad”, thanks to a supportive atmosphere in the group. “Even if you crashed terribly, they would still say: ‘Great job’,” she says. The five participants who spoke to the Guardian had all taken part in other training run by local civil defence groups, including first aid and casualty evacuation. With drone training added to the toolkit, civil defence groups are moving into a field seen as increasingly important to Taiwan’s security. In a Chinese invasion scenario, unmanned systems could be particularly useful for frontline surveillance across the island’s mountainous terrain. In Ukraine, drone pilots fly thousands of attack missions each day. Military officials estimate drones account for 60% of Russians killed and wounded. The main goal of the course is not to arm civilians, Tang says, but people can “move from passive defence like sheltering to a more active role in observing risks and sharing information”. “I may not be a soldier, but if [a China invasion] ever happened here, as a citizen, I’d like to have the ability to help in some way,” says one participant, who asked to remain anonymous because they work at a defence company with links to the government. Lighter than 100 grams, the drones in the class are entirely Taiwanese-made, with no GPS or self-driving technology. The reason is simple: operators need to learn how to fly by sight and manual reflexes in modern warfare, as automated commercial drones may fail due to electronic jamming. The choice also aligns with Taiwan’s recent efforts to build a “China-free” global supply chain for unmanned aerial vehicles. However, a special defence budget recently passed by the opposition-dominated legislature stripped out funding for domestic drone production. Taiwan produces some weapons domestically but remains heavily reliant on US arms sales for major defence systems. Donald Trump has yet to sign a $14bn arms package for the island after meeting Chinese leader Xi Jinping in Beijing last month. For Taiwanese citizens like Pan, domestic political divisions and growing uncertainty over US-Taiwan relations reinforce their desire to take part in civil defence activities. “We can’t change the broader environment, so the only thing we can do is prepare ourselves as best we can,” Pan says.

US releases text of Iran peace plan as Trump says deal averts ‘worldwide depression’

The Trump administration has released the text of its 14-point agreement with Iran, claiming it delivered a “major win” for the United States – even as it made significant political and financial concessions to Iran to reopen the strait of Hormuz and prevent a “worldwide depression”. In extraordinary remarks on Wednesday, Donald Trump went from threatening Iran with a new wave of attacks to suggesting the country had basic rights to enrich uranium for civilian use, that he would not pressure Tehran to abandon its ballistic missiles programme and the US was “going to have to give back” billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets. Those remarks, as well as the full text of the agreement – which was hailed by the Hezbollah chief, Naim Qassem, as a “great victory” – are likely to fuel anger in Israel and among hardliners in the Republican party who had urged Trump not to make a deal with Tehran. Iran’s chief negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, said: “The agreement is a record of US failure. People will see it and judge.” Defending the deal, Trump said no US president had ever been as tough on Iran as him, and “there is nothing as smart as the market – and the market loves it”. Trump said that “the alternative would be a worldwide depression”, arguing that if he had not struck a deal, “the strait [of Hormuz] would never have been opened. They don’t like floating billion-dollar ships up and down the strait when their rockets are flying overhead and there are mines all over the place.” Senior administration officials said the deal would help prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, pointing to an agreement to discuss down-blending its 440kg stockpile of highly enriched uranium, which could be further enriched for use in a nuclear weapon. Trump has said he was open to the stockpile being diluted inside Iran under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Trump and Iran’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, signed the agreement on Wednesday. The US vice-president, JD Vance, is also expected to sign the deal at a more formal ceremony in Geneva on Friday. The Trump administration had delayed the release of the full text of the memorandum of understanding, which is essentially a 60-day ceasefire agreement, in order to hold more comprehensive nuclear and permanent peace talks with Iran. The 14-point plan was dictated to journalists during a background briefing by senior administration officials as Trump spoke at the end of the G7. The deal would provide important financial incentives to Iran, including the immediate lifting of a US naval blockade on Iranian ports and the issuance of waivers for Iranian crude oil to be shipped abroad, as well as the potential lifting of all international sanctions against Iran, the unfreezing of billions of dollars in Iranian assets, and plans to develop a $300bn (£224bn) reconstruction fund for Iran funded by regional partners in the Gulf. Trump angrily rejected suggestions that the US would be contributing to the $300bn fund, instead saying payouts by Gulf states were likely to be conditional on Iran’s good behaviour. “Anyone who wants to can invest. What do you expect me to say: no one is allowed to invest? But we’re not investing; we’re not putting up even 10 cents,” he said. The ceasefire deal included Lebanon, a key Iranian demand, which would restrain Israel from conducting military operations in the country, according to a senior administration official. It also included a clause ensuring the “territorial integrity” of Lebanon, although an administration official when asked did not confirm that meant Israel would be forced to withdraw from the swathe of the country it has occupied as a “buffer zone” against Hezbollah. In return, Iran would agree to restrain its foreign allies including Hezbollah in Lebanon, and “reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons”. The agreement would also allow the toll-free passage of ships for 60 days through the strait of Hormuz, but on Wednesday Ghalibaf said Iran would charge ships travelling through the waterway at the end of the period stipulated in the memorandum of understanding. In an interview aired on state television, Ghalibaf said the “strait of Hormuz will not return to prewar conditions”, adding: “Iran has the right to sovereignty over the strait of Hormuz and of course we will receive a fee for services.” Suzanne Maloney, the vice-president and director of the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution, said: “Realistically, the level of expertise and detail that is required to hammer out even the nuclear piece of this seems overwhelming for an administration that is flying by the seat of his pants in these negotiations. “So much is front loaded for the Iranians … they’re going to be able to export oil without the sanctions regime, which is almost surreal at this point in time. They’re going to make an awful lot of money very quickly.” Trump backed a G7 leaders’ joint statement that welcomed the deal but said a follow-on agreement was necessary to rein in Iran’s ballistic missile programme, an issue not directly addressed in the memorandum of understanding. “They have to have some, because other people have some. You got to have some,” Trump said. “What am I going to do? Am I going to let Saudi Arabia have missiles, but they can’t have them?” he added, referring to previous discussions with advisers on Iran’s missile arsenal. France’s president, Emmanuel Macron, called it a “very good deal”, adding that US allies in the G7 support it “because it’s an agreement that puts a stop to a situation of great instability that had terrible consequences for our economies”. But the G7 proposal for further talks involving European leaders about Iran’s ballistic missiles and support for proxy forces is certain to be rejected by Iran. Tehran has been negotiating exclusively with the US and regards Europe as largely irrelevant. Iran is also likely to reject France and Britain’s plan for a taskforce to escort ships through the strait, a proposal endorsed in the G7 leaders’ statement. The G7 leaders said the agreement provided “a historic opportunity to prevent Iran from acquiring any nuclear weapon and tackling the threats related to its regional and ballistic activities. We support and are ready to contribute to its implementation.” Trump also sounded a conciliatory note on returning frozen assets to Iran, a stipulation of the Obama administration’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that he had attacked in 2015. “We have taken a lot of their money,” Trump told reporters. “It’s not our money, it’s their money, and we froze it at a certain point in time. I guess we’re going to have to give it back, you know, if we didn’t give it back, nobody would ever invest in the dollar again.” Trump claimed the price of a barrel of oil had fallen to $72 – Brent crude dipped below $80 on Tuesday – and would soon fall below the level it had been at before the war.

Trump’s Iran deal is result of unrealistic ambitions for an untenable war

As the adage goes: no plan of battle survives first contact with the enemy. Donald Trump entered the war with Iran with maximalist goals: eliminating the country’s nuclear programme, destroying its ballistic missile programme and ending its support for regional military groups including Hezbollah and Hamas. He exits it with Iran’s word not to build a bomb and to hold further nuclear discussions, no mention in writing of the ballistic missile programme and with Hezbollah celebrating a “victory” as the memorandum of understanding (MOU) instituted a ceasefire in Lebanon, where Israel has seized a swath of the country as a “buffer zone”. Iran’s key asset ended up being the strait of Hormuz, the waterway that almost every previous simulation of the war predicated would be quickly cut off by Iran. To reopen the strait, the administration was forced to fold on its broader goals or face what Trump called a “worldwide depression”. Barbara Leaf, a distinguished diplomatic fellow at the Middle East Institute and a former US assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs, said the US had started the war with “disastrously unrealistic assessments of the regime’s resilience”, as well as Iran’s readiness to seize the strait of Hormuz and attack US and foreign facilities in the Gulf. “The US rapidly found that overmatching an adversary that has spent four decades honing its asymmetrical warfighting doctrine and skills would not be the war it had prepared for,” she said. “And the rapid escalation of economic pain globally that eventually came to American consumers made the war all the more untenable.” Now, she added, Trump faced a conundrum: “He doesn’t want to go back to warfighting. But he’s tossed away so much of the leverage he might have had if the war had ended in the first or second week.” It has been clear for days that the Trump administration was skittish about putting out the text of its MOU. It was only finally read out by a senior administration official on a briefing call on Wednesday, and the White House still has not published a copy online. The reasoning is clear: many in Trump’s own party will hate this deal. The outgoing US senator Bill Cassidy, of Louisiana, called it the “worst foreign policy blunder in decades”. “Reagan is rolling over in his grave,” he wrote. “Iran’s nuclear ambitions were not curbed, and they have learned that threatening the strait of Hormuz works and will undoubtedly leverage it in the future. Now, Iran gets to build brand-new infrastructure under this deal.” Thom Tillis, Republican senator for North Carolina, said the 14 points published on Wednesday were “not sufficient for me to say it’s a good deal”. Trump has for years attacked the Obama-era joint comprehensive plan of action (JCPOA), saying that the former president had sent over “pallets of cash” to bribe Iran into not making a bomb. But when it came time for Trump to make his own peace with Iran, he found himself justifying the potential turnover of a far larger set of assets – as well as other financial incentives, backing a ceasefire in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah, and allowing Iran and Oman to discuss the future of the strait. “It’s not our money, it’s their money, and we froze it at a certain point in time,” Trump said of the frozen Iranian assets. “I guess we’re going to have to give it back.” At moments on Wednesday, it almost seemed that Trump was echoing Iranian talking points, saying that if US ally Saudi Arabia has ballistic missiles then Iran had a point that it should too. As to the potential for Iran’s uranium enrichment, he said: “It’s a little hard when other people have it, other adjoining states have it, and you’re not letting them have it for purposes of electricity and things like that. You have to use a little common sense.” The MOU was ultimately a pragmatic decision by the Trump administration that the conflict must end as quickly as possible despite the political cost. Leaf said she was “deeply relieved that this ill-conceived war appears to be ending”, but added that there was “little to ensure that the administration won’t find itself slipping back into conflict”. Robert Malley, a former state department official and negotiator on the JCPOA , wrote that there is not much value in comparing the two agreements, which were “fundamentally different agreements that emerged from starkly different contexts”. “The bottom line is that the MOU is far preferable to any of the alternatives on offer,” he wrote. “Period.”

US-Iran deal takeaways: reopening the strait of Hormuz, waived oil sanctions and Lebanon

Senior US officials have revealed the contents of a preliminary memorandum of understanding (MOU) between Washington and Tehran to end the 110-day conflict which has cost thousands of lives and devastated the world economy. The officials dictated the MOU to journalists on Wednesday, before it was signed by Donald Trump and Iranian counterpart Masoud Pezeshkian. Both sides have 60 days to negotiate the terms before a final agreement. This is what the deal includes: An immediate, permanent halt to fighting on both sides – including in Lebanon To start, both the US and Iran, along with their allies, agree to declare an end to military operations on all fronts the moment the document is signed. Senior officials on the call read out the line: “The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war by signing this MOU declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon.” The inclusion of Lebanon is significant, and it effectively requires Iran to rein in Hezbollah. Israel retains the right to strike back if Hezbollah attacks regardless, officials added. Israel was not a party to the negotiations or the MOU, and may not feel bound by the agreement. Iran agrees to down-blend enriched uranium US officials claimed that Iran conceded that its enriched uranium stockpile would at “minimum” be down-blended (or diluted) on Iranian soil, under the supervision of the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). But rather than a concession from Iran, this appears to be a compromise from the US; Iranian negotiators offered to down-blend their 440kg stockpile of highly enriched uranium under the supervision of the IAEA inside Iran in February, two days before the US and Israel launched their war. In those negotiations Iran had resisted calls to ship the uranium out of the country which proved to be a major sticking point with the US. A large number of issues related to the nuclear program remain unanswered, with much to be negotiated over the next 60 days. “The two parties also agreed to discuss the issue of enrichment and other mutually agreed matters related to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear needs, based on a satisfactory framework being agreed upon in the final deal.” Sanctions relief is tied to a final agreement on the nuclear program Much of the coverage of the deal has treated sanctions relief and the nuclear question as separate tracks. Officials on the call said the two paragraphs use identical language and are deliberately intertwined. “The United States of America undertakes to terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran … in an agreed upon schedule as part of the final deal.” “The sanctions relief in seven is tied to the nuclear settlement in eight,” a senior official said, referring to the paragraph numbers in the agreement. “To the extent that you perform on the nuclear questions, you will get the sanctions relief.” So: Iran will not receive broad sanctions removal simply by signing the agreement. An oil sanctions waiver Iran will receive waivers for crude oil exports, petroleum products and associated banking services the moment the document is signed. “Immediately upon the signing of the MOU … US Department of Treasury will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products and derivatives, and all associated services, including banking transactions and services, transportations, etc.” Officials defended the move, arguing that Iranian oil was already flowing to China regardless – and that existing sanctions were simply giving Beijing a steep discount. But critics have argued that such a move allows Iran to immediately start to refill its coffers, before negotiations over the nuclear program even begin, and surrenders a key tool of economic leverage that the US had before the war began. Iran must restore strait of Hormuz traffic within 30 days Iran is required to ensure toll-free passage for commercial vessels for at least 60 days, with full restoration of traffic within 30 days. Senior US officials said the Gulf states would never agree to any longer-term arrangement that charges for access. However, Iran’s chief negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, later said Tehran would charge ships using the strait after the 60-day fee-free period. Ghalibaf said in an interview on state television that the “strait of Hormuz will not return to pre-war conditions”, adding: “Iran has the right to sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz and of course we will receive a fee for services.” Senior officials said for the first time in the 100 days of war, Iran fired on no vessels in the strait of Hormuz the day before the call. Iran’s frozen assets will only be released after they implement the terms of the agreement According to the officials on the call, the text makes clear that access to Iran’s frozen funds is contingent on the regime actually implementing the agreement’s terms, not at signing as Iranian officials had hoped. “Such funds … shall be made fully usable for payment to any ultimate beneficiary designated by the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran … upon the implementation of the MOU.” Both sides have 60 days to negotiate The agreement gives both sides 60 days to negotiate a comprehensive final agreement, extendable by mutual consent. A binding UN security council resolution would be required to endorse any final deal. “The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran commit to negotiating and achieving the final deal in maximum 60 days extendable with mutual consent.” But the fragility shouldn’t be understated – one senior US official explained: “Either side can walk away at any time.” If talks collapse, they indicated the US was prepared to tighten the economic pressure significantly.

Titan sub: design flaws and company groupthink central to catastrophe, report finds

Canadian safety officials have issued a damning report on the catastrophic final voyage of the Titan submersible, finding that the US company behind the expedition was overcome by “groupthink” and “confirmation bias” and failed to understand the profound risks confronting their largely untested craft. The 6.7-metre (22ft) carbon fibre submersible dipped below the surface of the Atlantic Ocean in June 2023 en route to the wreckage of the Titanic ocean liner. But nearly two hours after it departed with five passengers, communications went dark. The disappearance prompted a frantic international search, with Canada and the US marshalling all available resources. OceanGate, the company behind the expedition, operated trips to the final resting place of the Titanic, which struck an iceberg in 1912 and sank, killing more than 1,500 of the 2,200 passengers and crew. Onboard the submersible were Hamish Harding, 58, a British explorer and pilot; Shahzada Dawood, 48, a British-Pakistani businessman, and his son Suleman, 19; Paul-Henri Nargeolet, a deep diver, submersible pilot, former French navy commander and leading authority on the Titanic wreck site; and Stockton Rush, the founder of OceanGate. Within days, investigators found the wreck of the vessel nearly 400 miles (640km) off the coast of Newfoundland and concluded all passengers died instantly when the structure imploded near the wreckage of the Titanic. In its report released on Wednesday, Canada’s transportation and safety board (TSB) said that numerous failures in the submersible’s design and the broader company culture were central factors in the disaster. OceanGate positioned itself as an ambitious undersea exploration company that had pioneered a carbon fibre submersible to venture deep below the surface. Inspectors said: “There was no precedent for diving a human-occupied carbon fibre submersible to the deep ocean, and the company acknowledged both internally and publicly that its operations involved risk.” The Washington state-based company built a pair of 1/3 scale models of the Titan to test how it responded to pressure. Six tests were done on these scale models. Both failed at depths above the resting place of the Titanic. The company changed the design and manufacturing to mitigate the “ply waviness” of the carbon fibre. Waviness can dramatically weaken the strength of the material. But unbeknown to the company, the Titan’s carbon fibre cylinder was accumulating damage each time it was exposed to extreme pressures on deep-ocean dives. “Normal engineering practice would be to expose full-scale models to a very significant number (hundreds, possibly thousands) of test cycles,” inspectors wrote. OceanGate did relatively little testing of the final craft. While it did conduct tests equivalent to the Titanic depth and deeper, there was no further analysis to understand if and when the hull might fail after repeated use. “The number of cycles at extreme pressure that the full-scale pressure hull could withstand was therefore unknown,” the report said. The report noted that different materials and shapes were used in conventional submersible design to increase safety when operating at immense depths. It called the design of the Titan “novel” and found “the construction and testing of the Titan did not follow standard engineering practices”. Inspectors were able to examine offcuts of the material used to construct the hull and found structural defects that would weaken the craft’s integrity. Inspectors also point to a number of instances in which the craft might have sustained damage, including when it collided with the port bow of the Titanic in 2022 and a loud bang when the Titan was surfacing from another dive days later. The craft was also left outside and exposed to the elements for nearly a year between 2022 and 2023. “Every time a structure is stressed, small damages may accumulate,” the report said. “The higher the imposed stress on the structure, the more quickly these damages will accumulate.” While the craft successfully completed 13 dives, the accrued weaknesses in the materials meant the 14th trip was fatal. While not all of the debris was recovered, investigators estimate the hull failure happened 5.397 seconds after the submersible crew sent a text message at a depth of more than 3,000 metres. The acoustic monitoring system used to alert crews of a looming structure failure “had not been tested to demonstrate that it would consistently provide enough advance warning” and when catastrophe struck “it did not function as intended during the occurrence”, according to the report. While the physical structure of the craft raised concerns with inspectors, they also found the company culture exhibited “closed-mindedness, pressures toward uniformity and overestimation of the group’s power”– traits that amplified the riskiness of the endeavour. “Over the course of OceanGate’s operating history … employees with expertise in specific areas left the company or were dismissed after raising safety-related concerns or expressing differing perspectives from the CEO,” the report found, adding that confirmation bias was “affecting OceanGate’s decisionmaking and risk management with respect to the structural integrity and lifespan of the Titan pressure hull”. In July 2023, Oceangate posted a one line statement on its website saying it had stopped “all exploration and commercial operations”. Inspectors found the world of submersibles was largely unregulated and that there were “no external checks on OceanGate’s risk assessment processes from the regulators” in any of the countries in which it operated, nor was there oversight from a classification society. Because there was limited information sharing between Transport Canada (TC) and other government departments, TC often lacked key information about the Titan. In one instance, the department of fisheries and oceans joined an OceanGate mission in 2021 and found the Titan had not been approved or certified by any regulatory body, was constructed from a material not widely used for submersibles that carry people and OceanGate was not carrying insurance. TC said that without a change to policy “there is a risk that vessels and crews will continue to operate without the minimum defences … leading to unsafe conditions and potentially fatal” accidents. Yoan Marier, the chair of the TSB, said: “We have been calling for stronger regulatory surveillance in the marine sector for years. Lives are at risk when safety gaps are left unaddressed.”

Macron hails US alignment with G7’s ‘shared commitment’ on Ukraine

Emmanuel Macron has said the whole of the G7, including the US, recognises “the territorial integrity of Ukraine” as he hailed a “re-synchronisation” of positions on the issue. The French president welcomed a “very deep change in the US approach”, saying Donald Trump and all the leaders present at the G7 summit at Évian-les-Bains understood that Vladimir Putin was not interested in peace. “President Trump, like all of us, simply acknowledged that there was no serious willingness on Russia’s part today to discuss peace,” he said. Macron repeatedly emphasised a “shared commitment to making progress on this issue”, which he described as “a very profound shift and remobilisation of the G7”. The annual G7 meeting brings together the leaders of the world’s biggest economies: the US, France, Germany, Italy, the UK, Canada and Japan. Macron’s remarks were in sharp contrast to last year’s G7, when the chasm between Trump’s courtship of Putin and European support for Kyiv was so marked that the US president walked out early and there was no attempt to agree on a final statement. Trump also met the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, twice on the margins of the summit. Zelenskyy updated Trump on the Ukrainian military’s progress, which apparently impressed the US leader. The summit’s joint communique vowed to increase sanctions on Russia, including in the energy field. Challenged on whether Trump could be trusted to follow through on a commitment to consider further sanctions against Russia, Macron said: “I have always trusted President Trump. When he has made commitments to us he has always done what he said he would do.” Macron’s belief that Trump was re-engaging with the Ukraine issue was echoed by Canada’s prime minister, Mark Carney, who said he believed Trump had shifted to “a more realistic understanding of how this war will develop”. He described this as a gamechanger. Diplomats at the summit said they had sensed that Trump’s relief at the apparently imminent end of the Iran war had brought him to the G7 summit in a far better mood than expected, and he showed a genuine willingness to engage on issues. At his closing press conference, Macron said Zelenskyy had proposed that Putin come to the G7 summit to discuss the impasse, but “nothing had come back from Russia”. The US and several European G7 countries also agreed to produce long-range missiles and air-defence systems under license in Ukraine. The move will not only fill a hole in European defences, but also give Ukraine’s increasingly efficient arms factories extra income. The German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, said: “We are all currently producing too little, and this can be compensated for by granting licenses to companies that have these production capacities, including European and Ukrainian companies.” Trump has said he would look into US missiles being produced under licence, but there are bound to be issues involving commercial secrecy and patents.

Trump tells G7 summit he hopes Europe ‘finds its way’ on immigration and energy – as it happened

… and on that note, it’s a wrap for today! US president Donald Trump said he hoped “something will happen” in peace talks with Russia and Ukraine, as he praised “productive” talks with Volodymyr Zelenskyy in France and Vladimir Putin over the phone (18:34). His comments come at the end of a two-day G7 summit in France, with Emmanuel Macron (17:03, 17:07), Germany’s Friedrich Merz (13:32) and Italy’s Giorgia Meloni (16:34, 16:36) praising progress on getting the US closer to Europe’s position on supporting Ukraine. Nato’s secretary general Mark Rutte earlier said that the idea of potential talks with Russia was “clearly debated among allies” (11:44). If you have any tips, comments or suggestions, email me at jakub.krupa@theguardian.com. I am also on Bluesky at @jakubkrupa.bsky.social and on X at @jakubkrupa.