NATO Scrambles Supersonic Fighter Jets Amid 'Massive' Russian Attacks
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
🎙️ Voice is AI-generated. Inconsistencies may occur.
Fighter jets from NATO nations Poland and Sweden responded to a "massive" Russian aerial assault on Ukraine overnight, the Polish military said on Monday.
"Operations of Polish and allied aviation have begun, and ground-based air defense and radar reconnaissance systems have reached a state of highest readiness," the Polish military said in a statement posted to social media early on Monday.
Gripen fighter jets belonging to Sweden's air force, stationed in northern Poland, "helped ensure the safety of Polish skies tonight," Warsaw's Operational Command said.
Sweden and the United Kingdom currently have a rotation of fighter jets stationed in Poland as part of NATO's air policing mission.
Poland later said no Russian targets crossed into Polish airspace during its "massive missile attack on Ukrainian territory."
Two JAS 39 Gripen fighters flying above Sweden in 2013.
Two JAS 39 Gripen fighters flying above Sweden in 2013.
JONATHAN NACKSTRAND/AFP via Getty Images
This is a developing story. More to follow.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
6 months in, Trump's unorthodox foreign policy is rewriting the rules
President Trump's return to office has marked a fundamental departure from conventional foreign policy approaches that have dominated Washington for decades. His first six months demonstrate how unorthodox methods — transactional negotiations, direct pressure and strategic leverage — can achieve breakthroughs that traditional diplomatic playbooks consistently failed to deliver. The results challenge long-held assumptions about international relations. Where successive administrations have relied on multilateral consensus-building and careful diplomatic protocol, Trump has moved decisively to address longstanding challenges through direct engagement and clear incentives. The outcomes speak for themselves: concrete achievements that decades of conventional wisdom could not produce. The June NATO summit in Brussels exemplifies this transformation. Trump secured an unprecedented agreement from member nations to increase defense spending to 3.5 percent of GDP by 2035, with Poland, Estonia, and Lithuania committing to reach 5 percent within the decade. This represents the largest collective defense spending increase since the alliance's founding. For decades, American presidents from both parties have struggled to convince NATO allies to shoulder more of the defense burden. George W. Bush, Barack Obama and others made passionate appeals with minimal results. Trump's direct pressure on individual leaders — including frank conversations about the consequences of continued free-riding — achieved what 20 years of diplomatic consensus-building could not. The breakthrough reveals how Trump's willingness to challenge diplomatic norms can produce substantive results. When allies understand that America's patience with free-riding has limits, they respond accordingly. Perhaps nowhere is Trump's departure from conventional wisdom more evident than in Iran policy. His coordination with Israel on strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities in July set back Tehran's nuclear program by up to two years according to Pentagon officials cited by Reuters — a more concrete achievement than decades of sanctions and diplomatic engagement that was slow-walking Tehran to having a nuclear bomb. This wasn't reckless escalation — it was calculated deterrence after years of failed accommodation strategies that spanned multiple administrations. Iran's subsequent diplomatic overtures to European partners suggest the strikes achieved their intended effect. Where traditional approaches allowed Iran's regional influence to grow unchecked, Trump's decisive action has forced Tehran to recalculate its strategic position. The success challenges the foreign policy establishment's preference for extended diplomatic processes over direct action. Sometimes, as Trump demonstrates, credible threats require credible follow-through. Immigration policy demonstrates another area where Trump's approach has succeeded. New agreements with Mexico and Central American nations include enhanced enforcement provisions and expanded return protocols, contributing to a more than 90 percent reduction in detected border crossings in May compared to the previous year, according to Department of Homeland Security data. The key difference lies in leverage. Trump used trade access and visa negotiations to secure these commitments, demonstrating that America's economic power can be an effective diplomatic tool. Mexico agreed to deploy additional forces along its southern border in exchange for streamlined trade procedures — a classic win-win arrangement that Biden's team never successfully negotiated. This success highlights a broader truth about international relations: Countries respond to clear incentives and consequences. When America articulates its interests clearly and backs them with appropriate leverage, even reluctant partners find ways to cooperate. Trump's approach to Africa represents a fundamental departure from the aid-focused diplomacy that characterized previous administrations. Rather than continental tours filled with promises of development assistance, Trump has hosted five African leaders at the White House in recent months, emphasizing trade and investment opportunities. This shift addresses a critical gap in American foreign policy. While recent presidents maintained traditional approaches that often created dependency relationships, Trump is building partnerships based on mutual economic interest. Early agreements with Liberia and Senegal focus on critical mineral extraction and energy partnerships — arrangements that benefit both American businesses and African development. The message is clear: America seeks partners, not dependents. By reframing relationships around mutual economic interest rather than charity, Trump is building more sustainable and dignified partnerships. Perhaps most surprisingly, Trump's tough approach has yielded diplomatic breakthroughs that eluded his predecessor. In late June, he hosted talks between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo that produced a cease-fire agreement including troop withdrawals and commitments to joint economic development. The success came from Trump's willingness to use America's full diplomatic and economic weight — not to lecture, but to incentivize. This contrasts sharply with Biden's reactive approach to international crises, which often left the U.S. struggling to respond effectively to fast-moving global events. As we assess these first six months, the question isn't whether Trump's methods conform to diplomatic norms — it's whether they work. The evidence suggests they do. In a world where traditional institutions struggle to address complex challenges, Trump's transactional approach offers a compelling alternative. His first six months suggest that sometimes bold action succeeds where diplomatic convention fails. Kurt Davis Jr. is a Millennium Fellow at the Atlantic Council and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He is also an advisor to private, public, and state-owned companies and their boards as well as creditors across the globe on a range of transactions.
Newsweek
13 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Casey DeSantis Edges Out Byron Donalds in New Florida Governor Poll
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Florida first lady Casey DeSantis held a narrow lead over Representative Byron Donalds in a new University of North Florida (UNF) poll of the state's 2026 Republican gubernatorial primary. Newsweek reached out to Donalds' campaign and the DeSantis office for comment via email Why It Matters Florida's 2026 gubernatorial race is closely watched, as Governor Ron DeSantis cannot run again due to term limits. Donalds, who has announced his campaign, is viewed as an early frontrunner, having received support from President Donald Trump. But first lady DeSantis' potential candidacy remains a key question ahead of the midterm elections. What To Know Thirty-two percent of respondents said they would vote for DeSantis if she chooses to run, according to the University of North Florida's Public Opinion Research Lab survey of 797 Republican voters from July 14 to July 22. Donalds closely followed with support from 29 percent of Republicans. Former Representative Matt Gaetz had support from 8 percent of respondents, while 2 percent backed Miami Mayor Francis Suarez. Commissioner of Agriculture Wilton Simpson had support from 1 percent of respondents. An additional 18 percent said they were not sure who they would vote for in the primary. Florida first lady Casey DeSantis speaks at a campaign event in Council Bluffs, Iowa on January 13, 2024. Florida first lady Casey DeSantis speaks at a campaign event in Council Bluffs, Iowa on January 13, margin of error for the poll was +/- 3.9 percentage points. While DeSantis led in the overall sample, Donalds led among voters who participated in the 2024 GOP primary by 37 percent to 22 percent, according to the poll. A St. Pete Polls survey, conducted July 8 to July 10, 2025, showed Donalds with a lead (35 percent to 27 percent). The poll sampled 831 likely Republican primary voters and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points. A May 2025 poll by the James Madison Institute, a conservative Tallahassee think tank, showed DeSantis with a one-point lead over Donald (29 percent to 28 percent). However, when respondents were informed of Trump's endorsement of Representative Donalds, his support jumped to 44 percent, while DeSantis' fell to 25 percent. That poll surveyed 516 registered voters from May 5 to May 7, 2025, and had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.77 percentage points. On the Democratic side, former Representative David Jolly, who served in Congress as a Republican but has switched parties, has made a formal campaign announcement. Former Senate Democratic leader Jason Pizzo is running as an independent. What People Are Saying Dr. Michael Binder, UNF PORL faculty director and professor of political science, wrote in the polling memo: "Casey DeSantis was an early favorite when we asked about this in fall of 2023 with 22%, ahead of Donalds with 9%, and 40% undecided, but after Trump's endorsement of Donalds and as we get closer to August 2026, DeSantis's lead has all but disappeared, now inside the margin of error for this poll." Donalds on CBN News, according to Florida Politics: "I have the support of President Donald Trump. I have the support of [Florida's GOP] Senator Rick Scott. I have the support of most of the Republican congressional delegation. And we're picking up steam every single day. I've been crisscrossing the state nonstop for the last six weeks, except when I'm here doing my job here in Washington." Casey DeSantis on whether she'll run for governor, in remarks reported by the Florida Phoenix: "We'll see." What Happens Next The Republican primary for Florida governor is scheduled for August 18, 2026. As of July 2025, Byron Donalds is the highest-profile candidate to have officially entered the field. The race between Donalds and DeSantis remains fluid, with candidate announcements, campaign developments, and evolving voter priorities shaping the contest in the months ahead. The Cook Political Report currently classifies the race as being Safe Republican.
Newsweek
41 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Map Shows States Trying To Ban ICE Agents Wearing Masks
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A growing coalition of Democratic-led states is pushing legislation that would prohibit federal agents from wearing face coverings during immigration enforcement operations. California, New York, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania have introduced bills that would require federal officers to display visible identification—with limited exceptions for safety or undercover purposes—as part of a progressive effort to increase transparency and limit the agency's expanded powers under the Trump administration. Why It Matters Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has come under increased criticism for deploying agents in plain clothes and face coverings during operations, a tactic officials say is necessary to protect agents and their families from threats. The agency's approach has drawn heightened scrutiny amid the Trump administration's aggressive push to deport millions of undocumented migrants, placing ICE at the center of a highly visible crackdown on immigration. What To Know At the federal level, House Democrats have introduced the No Anonymity in Immigration Enforcement Act, which would require ICE agents conducting enforcement operations within the United States to display clear identification—with limited exceptions for public safety threats. Exceptions would be permitted only in limited circumstances, such as when there is an imminent threat to the agent's life or risk of serious bodily harm or when protective gear is necessary for health or safety reasons. In any case where an exception is used, a supervisor must review and document the incident within 48 hours to assess whether it was justified and determine whether disciplinary action is warranted. Senate Democrats have introduced the VISIBLE Act, which mandates that agents from ICE and Customs and Border Protection wear legible identification showing their names and agency affiliations. It would also prohibit the use of most face coverings during operations. Democratic Senators Alex Padilla of California and Cory Booker of New Jersey introduced the bill, saying the measure seeks to increase transparency and accountability in federal immigration enforcement. Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons defended agents' continued use of face coverings, even as the agency faces mounting criticism for obscuring personnel identities during enforcement actions. "I've said it publicly before, I'm not a proponent of the masks. However, if that's a tool that the men and women of ICE to keep themselves and their family safe, then I will allow it," Lyons said on CBS's Face the Nation. Representative Laura Friedman of California said in a news release: "I am deeply concerned about the prospect of ICE agents continuing to go about immigration raids in plainclothes, masks, and without identifiers that indicate what agency they're representing. The rules governing law enforcement should extend to federal immigration agents." Federal agents in a hallway awaiting individuals exiting hearings at an immigration court in New York. Federal agents in a hallway awaiting individuals exiting hearings at an immigration court in New York. Andrea Renault/STAR MAX/IPx At the state level, California is leading the way with its No Secret Police Act, introduced in June by Democratic state Senators Scott Wiener and Jesse Arreguín. Senate Bill 627 would prohibit all law enforcement officers operating in the state, including federal agents, from covering their faces during enforcement actions unless in specific, limited circumstances such as SWAT deployments, medical masking or undercover work. The California Senate Public Safety Committee advanced the bill last week, but it faces a legal gauntlet, particularly over whether a state can dictate how federal officers dress. In New York, Democratic Assemblymember Tony Simone introduced the Mandating End of Lawless Tactics (MELT) Act earlier this week. The MELT Act mirrors California's SB 627 by banning masks for state, local and federal officers, and it would require law enforcement officers to clearly display their names or badge numbers and ban most mask use during public duties. Violations would constitute misdemeanors. In Massachusetts, Democratic state Representative Jim Hawkins filed a similar bill on July 9, focused specifically on ICE personnel. He argues that ICE's use of face coverings in routine operations blurs the line between law enforcement and intimidation. In Pennsylvania, Democratic state Representatives Paul Friel and Rick Krajewski are preparing to introduce the Officer Visibility Act in early August. The bill would ban face coverings during public enforcement operations unless medically required or part of a covert investigation. What People Are Saying Tom Decker, a former director of ICE's New York field office, told Newsweek: "President Trump and his administration are doing exactly what he promised in his campaign, strengthening our borders and removing public safety threats from our communities, to include aliens in violation of our immigration laws." Representative Laura Friedman of California said in a statement shared with Newsweek: "I'll keep fighting to pass commonsense legislation, like the No Masks for ICE Act, to keep our communities safe." Scott Mechkowski, a retired ICE agent who worked for the agency between the mid-1990s and 2019, previously told Newsweek: "I think everyone knows the reasons for the masks. Every agent knows they would be doxxed [publicly identified] as would their families." John Sandweg, who served as acting director of ICE under former President Barack Obama from August 2013 to February 2014, previously told Newsweek: "If you're getting arrested by an officer or agent in a mask, especially if at that point they've not yet identified themselves as a federal officer, it creates a risk of bystanders thinking, rushing in to help, which could create the risk of violence or harm caused to the bystanders." Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, previously told Newsweek: "ICE officers are being doxed, physically assaulted, and attacked—in some cases, their families are even being threatened. Instead of spending their time further demonizing heroic ICE officers, Democrat politicians should dial back the rhetoric and tell their supporters to stop attacking law enforcement." Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem told CBS: "It's for the safety of those individuals or the work that they're doing as far as protecting their identity so they can continue to do investigative work."
