The UK and the US are facing criticism over their handling of the deepening crisis in Afghanistan.
Donald Trump has called for Joe Biden to resign in the wake of the Taliban’s takeover – describing the current situation as a “disgrace”.
In a statement, the former president wrote: “What Joe Biden has done with Afghanistan is legendary. It will go down as one of the greatest defeats in American history!”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
However, Mr Trump has also been strongly criticised for the situation in Afghanistan as it was his administration which made the decision to withdraw troops and which made a deal with the Taliban in exchange for security guarantees.
Meanwhile, UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab has been accused of “going AWOL” after spending the past week on holiday abroad as the situation was unravelling.
More on Afghanistan
Tom Tugendhat, a veteran and Conservative MP who now chairs the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, told the BBC that he does not know how the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will respond – adding this is “the biggest single policy disaster since Suez”.
Government officials have said that Mr Raab is personally overseeing the Foreign Office’s response, has engaged with international partners, and returned to the UK yesterday.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said that the Taliban should not be recognised as the government of Afghanistan, but added it was clear there will be a new administration in the country very soon.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
PM: ‘There is a change of regime happening’
He has also called for the West to adopt a “united position … so that we do whatever we can to prevent Afghanistan lapsing back into being a breeding ground for terror”.
Mr Johnson confirmed that Sir Laurie Bristow, the UK’s ambassador to Afghanistan, has been “working around the clock” to evacuate British citizens – and has been at Kabul’s airport to help process applications.
The prime minister added: “Our priority is to make sure that we deliver on our obligations to UK nationals in Afghanistan, to all those who helped the British effort in Afghanistan over 20 years, and to get them out as fast we can.
“We are going to get as many as we can out in the next few days.”
The UN Security Council is going to meet later today.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Afghans try to flee at airport
Another 1,000 troops have been sent to Afghanistan to help evacuate US personnel and keep Kabul’s airport secure – taking over air traffic control in the process.
However, the rapid collapse of the country’s government means American officials are increasingly concerned about the potential for a rise in terrorist threats against the US.
Back in June, senior leaders at the Pentagon had said that an extremist group such as al Qaeda could regenerate in Afghanistan and pose a threat to the US homeland within two years.
Because of the evolving situation, they now believe that terrorist organisations may be able to grow much faster than expected.
US intelligence agencies are now working on a new timeline based on these developing threats.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
The moment the Taliban took over Kabul
All of this comes as officials push back against criticism of what has widely been seen as an intelligence failure – and the hurried evacuations out of Kabul have been likened to the 1975 fall of Saigon.
Last month, President Joe Biden said the prospects of the Taliban “overrunning everything and owning the whole country is highly unlikely” – something that the hardline Islamist group has now managed to achieve in just over a week.
One senior intelligence official told the AP news agency: “A rapid Taliban takeover was always a possibility … As the Taliban advanced, they ultimately met with little resistance. We have always been clear-eyed that this was possible, and tactical conditions on the ground can often evolve quickly.”
Veterans have also expressed dismay at how quickly Afghanistan has fallen after 20 years of conflict, with more than 450 British personnel losing their lives during the war.
Jack Cummings, a former Royal Engineer, said: “Was it worth it, probably not. Did I lose my legs for nothing, looks like it. Did my mates die in vain, Yep.”
In the deep blue waters of the Caribbean, visible from space, an unremarkable grey smudge.
Image: The USS Gerald R Ford seen off the US Virgin Islands on 1 December. Credit: Copernicus
But this is the USS Gerald R Ford: the largest, most deadly aircraft carrier in the world. And it is only part of an armada, apparently set on Venezuela.
Image: The Gerald R Ford, USS Winston S Churchill, USS Mahan and USS Bainbridge in the Atlantic on 13 November. Source: US Department of Defense
From being able to count on one hand the number of warships and boats in the Caribbean, since August we can see the build-up of the number, and variety of ships under US command.
And that’s only at sea – air power has also been deployed, with bombers flying over the Caribbean, and even along the Venezuelan coast, as recently as this week.
Image: A Boeing B-52H Stratofortress near Venezuelan coast from Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, on 3 December. Credit: FlightRadar24
Sky’s Data & Forensics unit has verified that in the past four months since strikes began, 23 boats have been targeted in 22 strikes, killing 87 people.
Datawrapper
This content is provided by Datawrapper, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Datawrapper cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Datawrapper cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Datawrapper cookies for this session only.
It was the first such strike since 15 November and since the defence secretary, sometimes referred to as secretary of war, Pete Hegseth, came under scrutiny for an alleged “second strike” in an earlier attack.
The US says it carried out the action because of drugs – and there has been some evidence to support its assertion.
The Dominican Republic said it had recovered the contents of one boat hit by a strike – a huge haul of cocaine.
Legal issues
Whatever the cargo, though, there are serious, disputed legal issues.
Firstly, it is contested whether by designating the people on the boats as narcoterrorists, it makes them lawful military targets – or whether the strikes are in fact extra judicial murders of civilians at sea.
And more specifically… well, let’s go back to that very first video, of the very first strike.
What this footage doesn’t show is what came afterwards – an alleged “second strike” that targeted people in the water posing no apparent threat.
And the 4 December strike shows this strategy isn’t over.
The strikes are just part of the story, as warships and planes have headed toward the region in huge numbers.
Drugs or oil?
Some have said this isn’t about drugs at all, but oil.
Venezuela has lots – the world’s largest proven reserves.
Speaking to the faithful on Fox News, Republican congresswoman – and Trump supporter – Maria Salazar said access to Venezuela would be a “field day” for American oil companies.
And Maduro himself has taken up that theme. A few days later, he wrote this letter to OPEC – which represents major oil producing nations – to “address the growing and illegal threats made by the government of the United States against Venezuela”.
That’s how Maduro has framed this – a plan by the US “to seize Venezuela’s vast oil reserves… through lethal military force”.
Lethal military force – an understatement when you think of the armada lying in wait.
And it may be called upon soon. Trump on Tuesday said he’s preparing to take these strikes from international waters on to Venezuelan territory.
Maduro has complained of 22 weeks of “aggression”. There may be many more to come.
Additional reporting by Sophia Massam, junior digital investigations journalist.
The Data X Forensics team is a multi-skilled unit dedicated to providing transparent journalism from Sky News. We gather, analyse and visualise data to tell data-driven stories. We combine traditional reporting skills with advanced analysis of satellite images, social media and other open source information. Through multimedia storytelling we aim to better explain the world while also showing how our journalism is done.
Donald Trump’s bruising assessment of Europe as “weak” and “decaying” is a bitter blow to nations already reeling from the release of his national security strategy.
At the end of the 45-minute interview with Politico, EU leaders might be forgiven for thinking, with friends like these, who needs enemies?
“Europe doesn’t know what to do,” Trump said, “They want to be politically correct, and it makes them weak.”
Image: Trump meets leaders from Ukraine, Germany, France, the UK, Italy, and Finland, as well as the EU and NATO, in August Pic: Reuters
On the contrary, I would imagine some choice words were being uttered in European capitals as they waded through the string of insults.
First up, the US president criticised European leaders for failing to end the war between Russia and Ukraine.
“They talk but they don’t produce. And the war just keeps going on and on,” he said.
The fact that the Russians have shown no real commitment to stopping the invasion they started is not mentioned.
More on Donald Trump
Related Topics:
Image: EU Flags at the European Commission Building. Pic: iStock
Instead, the blame is laid squarely at the feet of Ukraine and its allies in Europe.
“I think if I weren’t president, we would have had World War III,” Trump suggested, while concluding that Moscow is in the stronger position.
Critics claim that the White House has emboldened the Kremlin and brought Putin in from the cold with a summit and photo opportunities.
Trump highlights the fact that his return to office forced many European NATO members to increase defence spending drastically.
Image: Trump meeting European leaders in the Oval Office in August. Pic: @RapidResponse47
On this, he is correct – the growing insecurity around how long America can be relied on has brought security into sharp focus.
The release of the new US national security strategy has only added to the feelings of unease.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on Tuesday claimed some of its contents were unacceptable from a European point of view.
“I see no need for America to want to save democracy in Europe. If it was necessary to save it, we would manage it on our own,” he told a news conference in Rhineland-Palatinate, the German state where Trump’s paternal grandfather was born.
Image: Meeting between, left to right, Keir Starmer of the UK, Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine, Emmanuel Macron of France, Donald Tusk of Poland, and Friedrich Merz of Germany. Pic: AP
The leader of the EU’s biggest power also said that the new US strategy was not a surprise and largely chimed with the vice president’s speech at the Munich Security Conference in February.
For this reason, Merz reiterated that Europe and Germany must become more independent from America for their security policies.
However, he noted, “I say in my discussions with the Americans, ‘America first’ is fine, but America alone cannot be in your interests.”
For his part, while Trump said he liked most of Europe’s current leaders, he warned they were “destroying” their countries with their migration policies.
He said: “Europe is a different place, and if it keeps going the way it’s going, Europe will not be…in my opinion, many of those countries will not be viable countries any longer. Their immigration policy is a disaster”.
He added: “Most European nations… they’re decaying.”
Again, the comments echoed his security strategy, which warned immigration risked “civilisation erasure” in Europe.
There’s no doubt immigration is a major concern for many of the continent’s leaders and voters.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
8:11
Zelenskyy meets European leaders
However, irregular crossings into the EU fell 22% in the first 10 months of 2025 according to Frontex, a fact which seems to have passed the president and his team by.
“Within a few decades at the latest, certain Nato members will become majority non-European”, his security document warned.
It also suggested “cultivating resistance” in Europe “to restore former greatness” leading to speculation about how America might intervene in European politics.
Trump appeared to add further clarification on Tuesday, saying while he did not “want to run Europe”, he would consider “endorsing” his preferred candidates in future elections.
Spotify
This content is provided by Spotify, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spotify cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spotify cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spotify cookies for this session only.
This comment will also ruffle feathers on the continent where the European Council President has already warned Trump’s administration against interfering in Europe’s affairs.
“Allies do not threaten to interfere in the domestic political choices of their allies,” Antonio Costa said on Monday.
“The US cannot replace Europe in what its vision is of free expression… Europe must be sovereign.”
So, what will happen now, and how will Europe’s leaders respond?
If you are hoping for a showdown, you will likely be disappointed.
Like him or loathe him, Europe’s leaders need Trump.
They need the might of America and want to try to secure continued support for Ukraine.
While the next few days will be filled with politely scripted statements or rejections of the president’s comments, most of his allies know on this occasion they are probably best to grin and bear it.
Police officers found a handgun, a silencer and a red notebook described as a “manifesto” when they arrested Luigi Mangione.
The 27-year-old was arrested in December 2024 and charged with killing UnitedHealthcare chief executive Brian Thompson in New York City.
Mangione‘s lawyers want to block prosecutors from showing or telling jurors at his eventual trial in Manhattan about statements he allegedly made and items they said police seized from his backpack during his arrest at a McDonald’s in Pennsylvania.
The objects include a 9mm handgun prosecutors say matches the one used in the killing, a silencer, a magazine with bullets wrapped in underwear and a notebook in which they say Mangione described his intent to “wack” a healthcare executive.
Image: Mangione with his attorney. Pic: Reuters
The defence contends the items should be excluded because police did not get a warrant before searching Mangione’s backpack.
Prosecutors deny claims Mangione was illegally searched and questioned.
They also want to suppress some statements he made to police, such as allegedly giving a false name, because officers asked him questions before telling him he had a right to remain silent.
Last week, Mangione watched surveillance videos of the killing of Mr Thompson, 50, as he walked to a New York City hotel for his company’s annual investor conference.
Mangione has pleaded not guilty to state and federal murder charges.
The state charges carry the possibility of life in prison, while federal prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.
This week’s hearing concerns only the state case, but Mangione’s lawyers want to bar evidence from both cases.
In September, a judge dismissed two terrorism counts against Mangione, finding prosecutors had not presented enough evidence Mangione intended to intimidate health insurance workers or influence government policy.
Trial dates are yet to be set in either the state or federal cases.