NATO Leaders Flex Muscle to Avert a $1.5 Trillion War
By and Alberto Nardelli
Save
Hi, this is Milda Seputyte in Vilnius and Alberto Nardelli in Brussels. Welcome to our weekly newsletter on what's shaping economics and investments from the Baltic Sea to the Balkans. You can subscribe here.
To much fanfare in the Hague this week, NATO leaders agreed to boost defense spending to 5% of gross domestic product and renewed their 'ironclad commitment' to mutual security. It was a win for Donald Trump, who has lambasted his European allies for underspending. In return, the US will remain committed to collective defense should a member come under attack.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
34 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Scores War Powers Win: 'National Security Moves Fast'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate on Friday rejected a Democratic effort to limit President Donald Trump's authority to launch further military action against Iran—just hours after Trump said he was weighing additional airstrikes. The chamber voted 53–47 against the war powers resolution, which would have required the president to seek congressional approval for any new hostilities against Iran. Every senator cast a vote, but the tally remained open late into the evening. In a notable split, Democrat John Fetterman broke with his party to vote "no," while Republican Rand Paul crossed the aisle to vote "yes." Why It Matters The vote came days after Trump ordered airstrikes on three major Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend, escalating tensions amid Iran's conflict with Israel. Iran retaliated by firing missiles at a U.S. military base in Qatar on Monday. Although Tehran and Tel Aviv agreed to a ceasefire on Monday, the Israel Defense Forces have since accused Iran of breaching that agreement and have threatened strikes on Tehran in response—an accusation Iran's military denies. The Senate's decision marks a clear victory for the White House and shows how much latitude both Republicans and some Democrats are willing to give Trump to take unilateral military action against Iran. President Donald Trump speaks to the media, Friday, June 27, 2025, in the briefing room of the White House in Washington. President Donald Trump speaks to the media, Friday, June 27, 2025, in the briefing room of the White House in Washington. Jacquelyn Martin/AP What To Know The measure, sponsored by Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, would have invoked the War Powers Act—the 1973 law designed to limit a president's authority to enter armed conflicts without congressional consent. It would have required the White House to notify lawmakers and secure approval from both the House and Senate before U.S. forces could take any additional military action against Iran. Many Democrats, and even some Republicans, argued that the White House should have sought congressional approval before authorizing last weekend's strike. They point out that the Constitution gives Congress—not the president—the power to declare war, and say the War Powers Act exists to stop presidents from sidestepping that responsibility. Under the Constitution, war powers are divided but not always clearly defined. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power "to declare war," "raise and support armies," "provide and maintain a navy," and "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." This means Congress has the explicit authority to decide when the U.S. goes to war. But the last time Congress formally declared war was World War II. Since then, military actions—from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq, Libya, and Syria—have typically been carried out under broad authorizations, U.N. resolutions, or purely at the president's discretion. At the same time, Article II, Section 2 names the president as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States." This gives the president broad authority to direct the military once it is in action. In 1973, after the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to rein in presidential war-making. It requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and limits such deployments to 60 days—with a 30-day withdrawal period—unless Congress explicitly approves or declares war. Still, presidents of both parties have often argued that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, or they've simply ignored its requirements. During his first term, Trump twice vetoed measures passed under the War Powers Act, including one aimed specifically at restricting his ability to strike Iran. Congress wrestled with similar questions in 2011, when President Barack Obama ordered airstrikes on Libya without explicit approval, drawing criticism that he had exceeded his authority. This time, the Trump administration has enjoyed strong backing from Republican leaders on Capitol Hill. House Speaker Mike Johnson has gone so far as to argue that the War Powers Act itself is unconstitutional. Meanwhile, Republican leaders have accused Democrats of using the issue for political gain and say the president needs flexibility to respond to threats quickly. "Democrats, of course, rushed to turn this successful strike into a political fight," said Senator John Barrasso, the chamber's No. 2 Republican, insisting that "national security moves fast" and that requiring consultation with Congress could "prevent the president from protecting us in the future." But some Republicans disagree. Senator Rand Paul cited the framers' original intent to keep war-making powers in the hands of Congress. "Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers that the executive is the branch most prone to war. Therefore, the Constitution, with studied care, vested that power in the legislature," Paul said, explaining his rare break with his party. For its part, the Trump administration argues the president already has all the authority he needs. In a letter to Congress this week, Trump cited his constitutional powers as commander in chief and his responsibility for foreign policy, framing the Iran strike as an act of "collective self-defense of our ally, Israel." What People Are Saying Republican Senator John Barrasso said on the Senate floor: "Democrats, of course, rushed to turn this successful strike into a political fight. National security moves fast. That's why our Constitution says: 'Give the commander in chief real authority.'" Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen said: "What would we have said if Iran or any other country had flown bombers over our country and struck our facilities? We would rightly call it what it was: an act of war." Democratic Senator Tim Kaine said: "War is too big an issue to leave to the moods and the whims and the daily vibes of any one person." What Happens Next Efforts to rein in Trump's military powers are also underway in the House, where similar measures have been introduced, but they face uncertain prospects in a Republican-led chamber unlikely to defy the White House.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Leeds Make Move for Out-of-Favour Juventus Midfielder
Douglas Luiz and Juventus: A Misfit Marriage Nearing Its End Tumultuous Year in Turin Douglas Luiz's Italian adventure looks set to end as abruptly and awkwardly as it began. Just a year on from his big-money move to Juventus, the Brazilian midfielder has become a peripheral figure. Once expected to be a pivot in the Turin club's midfield, Luiz now finds himself cast aside, a '100% foreign body' in a side that appears to have moved on without him. Advertisement His difficulties are not purely physical. Yes, minor injuries have hampered his rhythm, but it is the deeper issue of cultural and tactical adaptation that has left him struggling to impose himself. Igor Tudor's mass rotation against Manchester City, a 5-2 defeat, saw many squad players receive meaningful minutes. Luiz, notably, was not among them. Just 45 minutes of action in a game already lost highlighted his dwindling importance. Photo IMAGO Premier League Door Reopens What appears to be a closed chapter in Italy may yet be a new beginning in England. 'The Premier League has not forgotten his talent,' notes CalcioMercato, and Juventus may be ready to capitalise. With the summer transfer window approaching, Luiz's name is being whispered in corridors across the English footballing landscape. Advertisement His brief moment on the sidelines with Pep Guardiola sparked inevitable speculation, but Manchester City have yet to table a formal offer. Manchester United, reportedly involved in discussions regarding Jadon Sancho, might enter the fray. Yet it is Leeds United who appear to be the most realistic suitor. Contact has been made and a deal before 30 June could benefit all parties. Financial Incentive Looms Large For Juventus, the timing is everything. The club is not desperate for a sale to balance the 2024/25 books, but shifting Luiz would align with their improving finances and upcoming UEFA Financial Fair Play scrutiny. A transfer before the 30 June deadline, ideally at cost or better, would 'give a positive boost to the club's accounts,' according to the original report. There is no urgency, but there is opportunity. Juventus can recoup funds, Luiz can reignite his career, and an English club can land a player still capable of commanding matches when confident and correctly deployed. Departure Feels Inevitable There's a growing sense of inevitability about Luiz's departure. His Juventus tenure has never truly sparked. No lasting moments, no indelible performances. The talent remains, but in the wrong setting it has withered. A move back to the Premier League feels like the only viable route now. 'Douglas Luiz's future will be far from Turin' concludes CalcioMercato. Few would disagree. Our View – EPL Index This is the kind of rumour that gets the blood pumping. Douglas Luiz might not have hit the heights in Serie A, but anyone who watched him at Aston Villa knows what he brings. Technically sound, physically strong, and composed on the ball, he could be the midfield fulcrum Leeds have been craving since promotion. The fact that he's even being considered suggests Leeds mean business, and with Premier League survival now steady, it's time for smart investment. Advertisement There will be concerns. Why didn't it work at Juventus? Was it attitude, style, or something more systemic? But let's be honest, Serie A isn't always kind to Premier League exports, and Luiz thrived in England once before. He's 26 and entering his prime. If Leeds can close the deal before 30 June, it'll be a huge signal of intent. 'Luiz in white, orchestrating midfield at Elland Road,' now that's a vision supporters can rally behind. It's not done yet, but it feels like a fit. His comeback story might just begin in Yorkshire.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tesla Is Set To Report Deliveries Wednesday. Here's What To Expect.
Tesla is expected to report second-quarter deliveries data Wednesday, with analysts anticipating another year-over-year decline. Demand has slowed this year amid pushback against CEO Elon Musk's involvement with the Trump administration. Some analysts have said the second quarter could be a low point for Tesla's deliveries before improving later in the (TSLA) is widely expected to report quarterly delivery numbers on Wednesday morning, with analysts anticipating another double-digit decline year-over-year. The company is projected to post deliveries of just under 400,000 vehicles for the second quarter, according to estimates compiled by Visible Alpha. That would be down 10% from the same time a year ago, when Tesla reported north of 440,000 deliveries, while production is forecast to increase to about 434,200 vehicles from 410,831 in the year-ago quarter. Demand for Tesla's vehicles has taken a hit this year in key markets like the U.S. and Europe amid a political backlash against CEO Elon Musk's involvement with the Trump administration. The company's first-quarter deliveries fell well below estimates. The latest deliveries data also comes days after the departure of Omead Afshar, who oversaw Tesla's sales and manufacturing in North America and Europe, and became the latest in a string of executive departures, Bloomberg reported. Analysts from Deepwater Asset Management said in a recent report that they expect the second quarter could be the low point for Tesla's delivery numbers, with a recovery likely in the second half of the year, citing improving brand perception among other things. Analysts from RBC Capital Markets on Thursday forecast about 366,000 deliveries, below the Street consensus, suggesting demand could be delayed with some consumers waiting for the more affordable model Musk has said would launch in the first half of this year. Baird analysts, who said the more affordable model may be delayed, told clients Wednesday that "while deliveries still remain an important piece of the fundamentals, we note that the recent launch of robotaxi and excitement regarding this opportunity will likely take precedence in the near term." Tesla's stock has divided analysts tracked by Visible Alpha, with 10 "buy" ratings compared to four "hold," and four "sell" ratings. Their price targets range from $160 to $500, with an average near $306, below the stock's recent levels. The shares have lost about a fifth of their value in 2025 so far, at just over $323 as of Friday's close. Read the original article on Investopedia Sign in to access your portfolio
