NATO Leaders Map Out U.S. and European Roles in Ukraine’s Defense
By: Ark-La-Tex Staff Writer
Published August 24, 2025
NEW YORK, NY — NATO leaders are working to define the roles of the United States and European allies in Ukraine’s defense as the war continues and discussions over long-term security guarantees move forward. Meetings between defense chiefs from the U.S., France, Germany, Italy, Finland, the United Kingdom, and Ukraine were held in Washington this past week to consider a range of military options, including European troop deployments, U.S. air support, intelligence cooperation, and potential enforcement of no-fly zones. Officials described the talks as “candid” but stressed that no final decisions have been made.
European leaders, led by figures such as French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, are advancing the idea of a “coalition of the willing,” a multinational reassurance force that could operate inside Ukraine if a ceasefire is reached. The proposal reflects a growing expectation that Europe will carry the bulk of any long-term security commitments on the ground.
U.S. officials, meanwhile, have made clear that Washington’s role will remain more limited. Vice President JD Vance has said that Europe should shoulder the “lion’s share” of post-war security responsibilities, while Defense Undersecretary Elbridge Colby has repeated in private discussions that the U.S. intends to avoid leading ground operations. Instead, American involvement is likely to focus on air support, intelligence, and logistics.
Another area of discussion has been air protection. European defense planners have proposed an initiative known as the European Sky Shield, designed to deploy aircraft and integrated defenses to protect Ukrainian territory without requiring NATO to commit ground forces. However, German military officials have cautioned that any effective long-term presence would still require tens of thousands of troops from Europe’s largest states, underlining the scale of the commitment.
Diplomatic efforts have continued in parallel with military planning. European leaders recently left the White House with assurances from President Trump that the U.S. would assist with security guarantees for Ukraine, though he ruled out sending American ground forces. NATO members have also agreed to increase defense spending to five percent of GDP by 2035, with a portion expected to be directed toward Ukraine’s security needs.
For now, NATO’s strategy remains under review, balancing political will with operational realities. While Europe prepares to take a leading role in force deployments and financial support, the United States is expected to remain a critical partner through air defense, intelligence, and diplomatic engagement. The outcome of these discussions will help shape whether Ukraine emerges from the war with a fragile ceasefire or a more durable framework for security.
Famine declared in Gaza City as food security deteriorates
By: Ark-La-Tex Staff Writer
Published August 24, 2025
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a stark escalation of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, the United Nations–backed Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) has confirmed famine in Gaza City, the first such declaration in the Middle East. Over half a million people are now grappling with catastrophic hunger amid a relentless conflict, displacement, and blocked aid.
The IPC evaluation, which applies rigorous global standards to assess food insecurity, raised Gaza City to Phase 5: Famine, signaling widespread starvation, acute malnutrition, and hunger-related deaths. The designation followed data showing that all three core famine thresholds, severely reduced food consumption, sharply rising malnutrition, and famine-related mortality, have been crossed.
This crisis is projected to spread. The IPC warns that by late September, nearly 641,000 people, almost one-third of Gaza’s population, could be facing catastrophe-level conditions, while approximately 1.14 million more would continue to live under emergency food insecurity conditions.
According to a UN joint analysis from FAO, UNICEF, WFP, and WHO, adult hunger in Gaza has nearly doubled within months: “More than one in three people (39 percent) indicated they were going days at a time without eating.” In Gaza City, child malnutrition has surged, quadrupling in recent months.
UN officials have condemned the situation as “entirely man-made” and emphasized its preventability. António Guterres described the famine as a “moral indictment” of the international community, asserting that as the occupying power, Israel has a legal duty to allow humanitarian aid; failure to act, he warned, risks accountability for possible war crimes.
On the ground, the toll is rising. Gaza’s health ministry reported that the number of starvation-related deaths climbed to 289, including many children. In one tragic incident, four Palestinians seeking food were shot and killed near an aid distribution site in Gaza City.
Meanwhile, aid organizations accuse Israel of impeding aid entry and using food as a weapon. The Norwegian Refugee Council warned that military operations, roadblocks, and bureaucratic restrictions are cutting off supplies essential for survival, and turning Gaza into a “man-made famine.”
Voices from afar reflect the broader humanitarian resonance: Palestinian Americans are coordinating aid and emotional support via WhatsApp, sharing updates and vigilantly tracking the safety of loved ones trapped in Gaza.
Calls for action are intensifying. UN agencies urge an immediate ceasefire, restoration of humanitarian access, and mass food and medical aid deliveries. As the window for life-saving intervention narrows, global attention continues to sharpen on Gaza’s crisis.
FBI raids John Bolton’s home, signaling intensified scrutiny of Trump-era national security figures
by: Dr. Kirkpatrick Williams
Published August 24, 2025
WASHINGTON, D.C.. — Federal agents conducted a court-authorized raid on the Maryland residence and Washington, D.C., office of John Bolton, former national security adviser to President Trump. The search, executed on the morning of August 22, 2025, focused on potential mishandling of classified materials. Bolton was not home at the time. The move is part of a reactivated inquiry into the transmission of sensitive documents via private email networks.
The investigation centers on allegations that Bolton may have emailed highly classified national security documents to family members through a private server. It appears to have been reopened following renewed scrutiny by the FBI under Director Kash Patel, who revived several dormant cases. Patel framed the raid with a social media declaration: “NO ONE is above the law.”
Bolton has not been charged. Officials affirm that the raid reflects a legal process rather than a presumptive cause for prosecution. Vice President JD Vance stressed that if no crime is found, prosecutors will not proceed, while denying any political motivation behind the investigation.
Critics caution the legal action may blur into political retribution. An editorial in The Wall Street Journal described it as “vindictive,” portraying the raid as part of a wider campaign against critics of the president. Meanwhile, commentators have linked it to a perceived pattern of selective enforcement under Patel’s leadership.
The raid marks the latest in a series of probes targeting individuals named in Patel’s 2023 book Government Gangsters, which targeted nearly 60 government officials, former allies and critics alike, accused of “weaponizing” federal institutions. Some analysts interpret this wave of investigations as politically charged, raising concerns about prosecutorial independence.
John Bolton, known for his hardline stances and fierce criticisms of Trump post-tenure, gained fame for his 2020 memoir The Room Where It Happened. A prior DOJ investigation into the book's content ended in mid-2021 without charges, though the current inquiry is separate and follows Bolton’s continued public criticism of the administration.
With demand intensifying for clarity on the impartiality of federal enforcement, legal observers are watching closely as the case unfolds. The outcome may have broader implications, particularly regarding how national security cases involving former senior officials are pursued, and whether political opposition increasingly invites legal scrutiny.
Subscribe to The Ark-La-Tex Gazette Newspaper
Never miss a story by subscribing to our newspaper. Get access to in-depth reporting, analysis, and opinion from our award-winning team of journalists. Sign up today and stay informed on the issues that matter most to you.
US takes a 10% stake in Intel
By: D.D. Reese
Published August 24, 2025
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a landmark move signaling the growing role of the federal government in strategic technology industries, the United States government has announced the acquisition of approximately a 10% stake in Intel. The deal, which converted $8.9 billion in unpaid funds from the CHIPS and Science Act and the Secure Enclave program into equity, positions the government as Intel’s largest shareholder, albeit without Board representation or governance control.
Under the agreement, the U.S. acquired 433.3 million shares at $20.47 each, below Intel’s recent closing price, while holding a five-year warrant to purchase up to an additional 5% if Intel’s ownership of its foundry unit drops below 51%. This strategic stake cost no new taxpayer funds, as it repurposed previously allocated grants, a point emphasized by both the Trump administration and Intel.
Despite becoming the largest shareholder, the government maintains a passive role: it has no Board seats, limited voting rights, and lacks active management authority. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick reassured stakeholders that the government will not meddle in Intel’s operations.
Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan expressed gratitude, positioning the agreement as a boost to domestic semiconductor manufacturing and U.S. technological leadership.
The announcement sparked a positive market reaction, Intel's share price rose approximately 5% to 7%, responding to the renewed confidence and infusion of funds.
On the same day, Japanese investment giant SoftBank revealed a $2 billion investment in Intel, further underscoring renewed global interest in the semiconductor sector.
Intel has faced significant setbacks in recent years, including a near $19 billion loss in 2024 and struggles to compete in the AI chip space against rivals like Nvidia and AMD. Reviving U.S. semiconductor capability is central to national security and economic strategy, especially amid increasing geopolitical tensions.
The funding stems from the CHIPS and Science Act, a federal industrial initiative aiming to revitalize domestic chip manufacturing through grants, tax credits, and R&D support. The Secure Enclave program, focusing on defense-related microelectronics, also contributed to the financial package.
Critics, including libertarian voices like Sen. Rand Paul, warned that this level of government intervention risks blurring the line between public policy and private enterprise. Analysts raised concerns that other tech firms may feel compelled to favor Intel chips to curry favor, or that future administrations could use similar leverage for political gains.
Supporters argue the infusion of capital and shared interest in Intel’s success could stabilize operations, preserve U.S. manufacturing capacity, and align corporate objectives with national strategic goals.
This milestone marks a notable shift in U.S. industrial policy, signaling a willingness for direct equity involvement in leading tech firms for strategic purposes. It sets potential precedents for future government-backed "national champion" initiatives, as seen in rare-earth investments and "golden share" arrangements with other critical industries.
As the market, policymakers, and the tech sector digest this development, Intel’s ability to leverage these funds into operational improvements, and the administration’s adherence to a non-interventionist stance, will be watched closely.
Ghislaine Maxwell testifies that there's no existing Epstein client list
By: Ark-La-Tex Staff Writer
Published August 24, 2025
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Ghislaine Maxwell, the former associate of Jeffrey Epstein now serving a 20-year prison sentence for sex-trafficking convictions, recently told the U.S. Department of Justice that she has no knowledge of any so-called “Epstein client list.” In a transcript of a two-day interview held in July with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Maxwell denied ever seeing, hearing of, or imagining such a document existed.
The Justice Department released the full transcript and audio of the interview, conducted under limited immunity, after public pressure for transparency. In the recording, Maxwell also claimed she never witnessed any sexual misconduct by Epstein and did not implicate any prominent figures he associated with.
Maxwell described her interactions with former President Donald Trump as always polite and never inappropriate, calling him “a gentleman in all respects.” She similarly defended former President Bill Clinton, stating she observed no wrongdoing during her communications with him.
On the question of whether Epstein maintained any formal list of clients, names used for blackmail or compensation, Maxwell was unequivocal: “There is no list,” she told Blanche. “I’m not aware of any blackmail. I never heard that. I never saw it, and I never imagined it.”
Her statements align with a July memo from the Justice Department and FBI, which also concluded there was no credible evidence of a client list, blackmail scheme, or wrongdoing by uncharged third parties in the Epstein files.
However, the release of these interviews has not quelled criticism. Advocates for Epstein survivors argue that Maxwell’s testimony holds little weight, pointing to her criminal conviction and past perjury to question her credibility. They caution against giving her statements undue influence in ongoing public discourse.
The publication of her interview comes amid mounting public interest in the broader Epstein investigation, including pressure from congressional inquiries to disclose more case files, many of which remain sealed.
Maxwell, who has appealed her conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court, has not ruled out seeking a pardon. Her attorney emphasized that the interview supports her claims of innocence and refutes speculations linking her to broader criminal conspiracies.
As this chapter in the Epstein saga continues to unfold, Maxwell’s testimony adds another layer, but perhaps not a definitive one, to an already complex and emotionally charged investigation.
Trump expands cities targeted for possible military deployment to Baltimore in a spat with governor
By: Ark-La-Tex Staff Writer
Published August 24, 2025
WASHINGTON, D.C. — President Donald Trump has threatened to expand his military deployments to include Baltimore, Maryland, amid escalating tensions with Democratic leaders over crime control strategies. The move follows a public dispute with Maryland Governor Wes Moore, who criticized Trump's recent use of federal forces in Washington, D.C., and rejected the idea of military intervention in his state.
Governor Moore, a Democrat and military veteran, had invited President Trump to visit Baltimore to discuss public safety and witness firsthand the city's efforts to combat crime. In response, Trump dismissed the invitation and instead suggested the possibility of deploying National Guard troops to Baltimore, labeling the city as “out of control” and accusing Moore of failing to address its crime issues. Trump also threatened to withhold federal funding for the reconstruction of the collapsed Francis Scott Key Bridge unless Moore acted.
Governor Moore strongly opposed the idea of federal military intervention, emphasizing that Baltimore has experienced a significant decline in violent crime, with homicides dropping by 20% since he took office in 2023. He argued that Trump's threat was politically motivated and an overreach of federal authority, asserting that the National Guard should not be used for policing purposes without a clear and present danger. Moore further criticized the Trump administration for cutting funding to violence prevention programs, which he believes are essential for long-term public safety.
This dispute is part of a broader pattern of tensions between President Trump and Democratic governors over the use of federal military forces in urban areas. Trump has previously deployed National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., and has signaled intentions to do the same in other cities like Chicago and New York. Critics, including Illinois Governor JB Pritzker and civil rights leaders, argue that these actions disproportionately target cities with Democratic leadership and minority populations, raising concerns about racial bias and the misuse of military force for political gain.
The Pentagon has reportedly been preparing for potential deployments, particularly in Chicago, but no formal orders have been issued. Legal experts note that deploying troops to states without the consent of state officials could face significant constitutional challenges, as the Insurrection Act requires a clear and present danger and the request of state authorities.
As tensions continue to rise, the debate over the appropriate use of federal military forces in domestic law enforcement remains a contentious issue, with significant implications for the balance of power between federal and state governments.