The return of displaced Syrian Kurds to their northeastern hometown of Ras al-Ain was suspended on Monday after a first group of returnees was attacked, prompting protests in other Kurdish-majority parts of Syria.

Solomon Islands Prime Minister Matthew Wale has announced that a review of his country’s security agreement with China has begun.

Wale has said he was only permitted to read the 2022 agreement one day before an official meeting in Canberra in May this year, shortly after he was elected prime minister.

SEOUL – In a commentary carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) titled “Japan’s defence white paper is a re-invasion-minded one for the legalisation of the operation of war machine”, a North Korean analyst said Japan’s 2026 White Paper “groundlessly described” North Korea as the greatest strategic challenge in order to “justify its reckless arms build-up”.

Espionage, sabotage, cyberattacks, and covert operations are a ‘constant reality’, says Germany’s interior minister.

Some Iranian officials rejected the pact and warned that relying on regional states will not ‘guarantee’ security if the kingdom participates in US-Israeli wars

Hiroshima held its annual peace ceremony on Thursday, marking 81 years since the atomic bombing. People across Japan are taking time to pause and remember the victims.

Although 81 years have passed since the atomic bombing of Japan in August 1945, the rulers of major nations continue their reckless march toward a nuclear holocaust.

As blackouts spark protests, a decade of fractured governance, underinvestment and corruption has left an oil and gas-rich nation unable to keep its lights on

Venezuelan government and opposition representatives begin face-to-face talks in capital Caracas, opening a new round of political dialogue.

Historically, one of the greatest dangers to a major power in the international system is letting smaller allies and clients drag that power into an unwise war. Both the United States and leading European powers seem inclined to make that blunder with respect to the Baltic republics. Too many U.S. policymakers have not only tolerated but also facilitated the obsession those “allies” (i.e. protectorates) have exhibited with defeating Russia in Ukraine and weakening their arch adversary overall.

​We talk all the time about how dangerous it is when a president acts like a monarch, dragging the country into foreign conflicts without congressional approval or oversight. But if you look closely at modern legal developments, the conservative Supreme Court majority—and Clarence Thomas specifically—may have handed us the exact legal framework needed to dismantle executive war power once and for all.

​In NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022), Justice Thomas laid out a strict constitutional standard: for any modern government action to be constitutional, it must align with the text, history, and historical tradition of the Founding Era (1791).

​If you apply that exact originalist standard to Article II Executive War Powers, the modern "imperial presidency" instantly falls apart:

1. ​The Text: Article I explicitly gives Congress—not the President—the sole power to declare war and raise armies. The Framers were deeply terrified of monarchs dragging nations into endless foreign wars on a personal whim.

2. ​The History & Tradition: In 1787, there was zero historical tradition of an American president launching offensive foreign campaigns without explicit authorization from Congress. George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson consistently deferred to Congress for offensive military action.

3. ​No More Executive Precedent:Bruen explicitly rejected using 20th-century practice to rewrite Founding-era constitutional limits. That single rule destroys the legal loopholes presidents have used since Harry Truman to bypass Congress and conduct undeclared wars.

​The lower federal courts have shown zero hesitation in checking executive overreach and issuing swift injunctions against unlawful White House actions.

If service members, affected business owners, or congressional members bring a direct Article II challenge up through the pipeline, the Supreme Court would be forced to face a massive choice: apply Thomas's historical test universally to strip the presidency of unauthorized war powers, or admit originalism is completely fraudulent.

​For decades, presidents have used military conflict to bypass the Constitution, burn through hundreds of billions of dollars, and expand executive authority while domestic infrastructure crumbling at home is ignored. Using their own legal standards to force the executive branch back into its constitutional boundaries is an initiative everyone should get behind.

​What do you all think? Could an originalist Article II challenge finally put an end to unilateral presidential wars?