Carney Says Canada Met With European Suppliers Amid F-35 Review

 

Prime Minister Mark Carney said he met with European defense suppliers about jets and submarines, and expects to conclude a review of a major contract for Lockheed Martin Corp. F-35 jets as soon as this summer.

The remarks came minutes after he signed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization pledge to increase core defense spending as a share of gross domestic product to 3.5% from 2% over a decade. Carney has said Canada should stop sending the vast majority of its defense dollars to the US, after President Donald Trump imposed punishing tariffs and repeatedly said Canada should be an American state.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-25/carney-says-canada-met-with-european-suppliers-amid-f-35-review

New AHA Scientific Statement Reconsiders Moderate Alcohol Use Relation to Cardiovascular Health

 Several medical groups have concluded regular consumption of alcohol in any amount poses a health risk, but a new scientific statement from the American Heart Association (AHA) offered more qualified guidance.

The premise that moderate alcohol use reduces cardiovascular risk has been widely accepted for decades. The authors of a 1993 editorial in The New England Journal of Medicine concluded “there now seems little doubt” that such a benefit exists. However, a review of the evidence in 2025 produced a more cautious summary.

“Considering the level of evidence, it remains unknown whether drinking is part of a healthy lifestyle, and therefore, clinicians should reinforce healthy lifestyle behaviors such as regularly engaging in physical activity, avoiding tobacco use, and maintaining healthy body weight,” the AHA document stated.

Complex Mix

“Data from recent studies using new methodologies (eg, individual participant-level data meta-analysis and Mendelian randomization [MR]) have challenged the idea that any level of alcohol consumption has positive health effects,” according to authors of the new statement, led by Mariann R. Piano, RN, PhD, senior associate dean for research at the Vanderbilt University School of Nursing, in Nashville, Tennessee.

Prior to the new methodologies, protection against coronary artery disease from moderate alcohol use was derived from many observational studies. These studies used a variety of definitions of moderate drinking but typically considered that threshold to be two or fewer drinks per day for men and one or fewer drinks per day for women. In pooled analyses cited in the AHA statement, reductions in risks of 10%-15% relative to no drinking were common.

Yet analyses of alcohol consumption are complex, even leaving aside how a standard drink is defined or whether the risk calculations are needed for every type of alcohol, according to Piano and her colleagues. In addition, any potential benefit is eliminated by moderate drinkers who binge intermittently, according to several examples in the AHA statement.

The new methodologies for addressing the question of the safety of moderate drinking do not fully reverse conclusions that it is beneficial. They suggest little or no protection rather than harm. In one pooled analysis of MR studies, the finding was a “weak association” for benefit, which differs markedly from assertions that moderate drinking might be justified for a benefit to cardiovascular health.

Following a detailed review of the evidence for both moderate and heavy alcohol use on cardiovascular risks and risk factors, the AHA statement summarized messages clinicians can deliver to patients, but strict conclusions were limited to the harm of heavy drinking. The messages on moderate drinking largely consisted of talking points.

For coronary artery disease specifically, the AHA statement acknowledged that moderate drinking “may provide some risk reduction” for the condition even if this reduction has been rendered less clear by studies using analyses designed to apply more rigor for evaluating observational data.

For heart failure, the statement concluded that low-to-moderate alcohol consumption has not been associated with any beneficial or detrimental effect, although this statement is qualified with a citation suggesting five or more drinks per week may contribute to left ventricular dysfunction.

Moderate Alcohol and Hypertension

For patients who already have hypertension, the statement cautioned even moderate consumption of alcohol can contribute to elevated blood pressure — one of the few statements to link moderate alcohol use to a specific adverse effect on a cardiovascular risk factor. The authors characterized alcohol abstention as a reasonable part of lowering blood pressure in hypertensive patients.

For stroke, moderate alcohol use has produced mixed results, according to the AHA statement. One possible explanation for the increased risk for stroke in some studies might relate to the association of moderate alcohol with elevations in blood pressure among those who already have hypertension.

For arrhythmias and cardiomyopathies, low alcohol intake or abstention might be better than moderate or heavier drinking, even if data supporting this contention are limited, according to the AHA statement. For example, although a prospective study associated abstinence with a reduction in the burden of atrial fibrillation, the analysis, like the vast majority of studies cited in the AHA statement, was not a randomized comparison.

The focus of the new document was on cardiovascular health, but several health organizations taking a broader view of health risks have recently cautioned against alcohol use in general. Among them are the World Health Organization, which issued a statement in 2023 that “no level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health,” and the CDC, which earlier this year called for warning labels on alcoholic beverages linking consumption to cancer.

A 2023 report from the Canada called the Guidance on Alcohol and Health also called for drinking less as a general step to better health.

In the US, where a 2023 governmental survey found more than 50% of adults reported drinking alcohol within the past month, the US Department of Agriculture did not make definitive claims about the relationship between low-level alcohol use and health risks in its recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

Despite the recommendations the AHA listed for clinicians when advising patients, an urgent call was made for prospective studies that can confirm benefit, or at least the absence of risk, regarding moderate drinking. The list of gaps in knowledge in the statement was long.

The orientation regarding moderate alcohol use in relation to cardiovascular disease has shifted, according to Jamal S. Rana, MD, PhD, a clinical cardiologist and adjunct investigator in the Division of Research at Permanente Medical Group, Oakland, California.

At this point, “I think we should move away from the overarching public messaging that one should drink because it is good for heart health,” said Rana, who has been involved in several studies regarding alcohol use and cardiovascular risk.

For moderate use, he suggested the caution about potential risks should not exceed the evidence. Even if newer evidence is challenging the long-held belief that moderate alcohol offers some degree of cardioprotection, significant harm has been most closely associated with heavy alcohol use.

As for advising patients, he said he agrees in general with the AHA statement summary of the evidence: Risks should be emphasized to patients who drink more than moderately, but “drinking socially with low amounts of alcohol is okay.”

Piano and Rana reported having no potential financial conflicts of interest.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/new-aha-scientific-statement-reconsiders-moderate-alcohol-2025a1000g00

Short on Specifics, Insurers’ New Prior Authorization Pledge Draws Skepticism

 As US health insurers promote a new joint plan to overhaul prior authorization (PA) as a major advance, clinician and patient advocates say insurers have provided few specifics about what will change and how they’ll be held accountable.

For example, the voluntary plan unveiled on Monday promises that insurers will reduce the PA burden on providers and patients, but no numbers are provided. And insurers only pledged to “work” toward overhauling the electronic PA system with a goal of implementation by 2027.

“There are some incremental things that go above and beyond what they’re required to do, but there are few concrete commitments,” California-based consultant and former healthcare executive Seth Glickman, MD, MBA, told Medscape Medical News. “There’s not a lot here to ensure their actions are going to match their words.”

Glickman also highlighted what he called a “one-sided” accompanying report by the America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) trade association that defends PA as a “critical safeguard in patient care,” says it “is only selectively used,” and blames “a number of physicians” who don’t follow evidence-based medicine.

The growing use of PA to reflexively deny healthcare has sparked outrage from clinicians and patients, leading to action from state and federal lawmakers.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology has tracked more than 110 PA bills in 40 states. The 2024 assassination of UnitedHealthCare CEO Brian Thompson spotlighted the burdens insurers have placed on patients and providers.

“There’s violence in the streets over these issues," said Mehmet Oz, MD, MBA, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), at a press conference announcing the new PA reform plan. “This is not something that is a passively accepted reality anymore — Americans are upset about it.”

Here’s a closer look at the PA reform plan and the reaction from the medical community.

A Framework to ‘Simplify’ PA

AHIP announced on Monday that leading commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid managed care coverage insurers covering 257 million Americans will voluntarily “simplify” PA.

“For patients, these commitments will result in faster, more direct access to appropriate treatments and medical services with fewer challenges navigating the health system,” an AHIP press release said. “For providers, these commitments will streamline prior authorization workflows, allowing for a more efficient and transparent process overall, while ensuring evidence-based care for their patients.”

Specifically, insurers agreed to:

• Aim to release a framework by January 1, 2027, that will “ work toward implementing common, transparent submissions for electronic prior authorization.” As the AHIP’s own report noted, an insurer survey found that “almost half of prior authorization requests are submitted manually by phone, fax, or mail.”
• Reduce PA requirements in fully insured, ACA Marketplace and Medicare Advantage coverage, “with demonstrated reductions” by January 1, 2026. The plans “further commit that they will provide data to allow industry reporting of the extent of such reductions reflecting actions taken since January 2024.”

There’s no specific goal for reduction of PA requirements.

According to an AHIP survey, 96% of prescription drug claims and 93% of medical claims are not subject to PA. However, a 2025 KFF report found that “virtually all enrollees in Medicare Advantage (99%) are required to obtain prior authorization for some services.”

Real-Time Responses and Limiting Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The plans also agreed to:

• Honor previous PA authorizations for benefit equivalent in-network services during 90-day transition periods between plans as of January 1, 2026. Medicare Advantage plans are currently required to provide a variation of this.
• By January 1, 2026, “provide clear, easy-to-understand explanations of prior authorization determinations, including support for appeals and guidance on next steps.”

According to the AHIP survey, commercial plans have PA denial rates of 3% for medical services and 10% for prescription medicines.

The KFF report about Medicare Advantage plans found that insurers fully or partially denied 6.4% of PA requests in 2023, and 11.7% of those requests were appealed. While appeals were rare, 81.7% were partially or fully overturned.

• “Commit to an acceleration of the percentage of prior authorization requests for medical services answered in real time if submitted electronically by providers with all necessary clinical documentation. By 2027, for all coverage types, at least 80% of prior authorization approvals will be answered in real time.”

According to the AHIP survey, about 20% of current PA requests for medical services are approved in real time; the data for prescription medications were not provided.

• “Affirm that all non-approved requests based on clinical reasons will continue to be reviewed by medical professionals — a standard already in place.”

The AHIP survey says all responding health plans said, “AI or algorithms without clinician or practitioner review are not used to deny prior authorization requests that involve medical necessity or clinical considerations.”

Insurers Are Responding to Pressure

Glickman, the consultant, said efforts to “put a face and a name to the people who are impacted by prior authorization requirements and denials of care” have made a difference.

He added that the Biden Administration helped pave the way for changes at the federal level. “It would be disingenuous,” he said, for the Trump Administration “to say they’re the ones setting the priorities.”

However, the Trump Administration now has the power to force changes in PA requirements.

“We’re throwing money away on administrative costs financially. We’re also wasting people’s time,” Oz said, according to NBC Chicago. “The most important reality is the administration has made it clear we’re not going to tolerate it anymore. Either you fix it, or we’re going to fix it. They wisely decided they should fix it.”

Medical Organizations Respond Cautiously

Medical organizations support the announced reforms — but also called for more than promises.

“Patients and physicians will need specifics demonstrating that the latest insurer pledge will yield substantive actions to bring immediate and meaningful changes, break down unnecessary roadblocks, and keep medical decisions between patients and physicians,” said Bobby Mukkamala, MD, president, American Medical Association, in a statement.

Chet Speed, JD, chief policy officer of the American Medical Group Association, told Medscape Medical News that “the vast majority of PA denials are an inefficient, bureaucratic exercise.”

As he noted, researchers have found that high rates of denials are overturned on appeal. And a 2022 federal analysis of a small group of Medicare Advantage PA denials found that 13% would have been cleared under traditional Medicare.

Speed also highlighted a 2022 American Medical Association survey of 1000 physicians that found 94% of physicians said PA at least sometimes leads to delays in care, and 7% said it “resulted in a serious adverse event leading to a patient’s disability, permanent bodily damage, congenital anomaly, birth defect, or death.”

“Anecdotally, we have heard from medical groups and systems that this delay is especially problematic on Fridays when PA offices close for the weekend,” Speed said, “meaning patients stay in the hospital when a transfer to a post-acute setting would have been more clinically appropriate.”

As for the new reform plan, Speed said “the big deal” is that the White House, Department of Health and Human Services, and CMS support it. “We believe the plan is a good first step,” he said, although he acknowledged that its details about reducing PA burden are “vague.”

Experts Weigh in With Skepticism — and Hope

Kaye Pestaina, JD, director of the Program on Patient and Consumer Protections at KFF, told KFF Health News that she’s not sure how the reform plan changes the fact that many patients don’t realize they need PA until it’s denied.

“So much of the prior authorization process is behind the black box,” she said.

Adam Gaffney, MD, MPH, a critical care physician and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, was skeptical too. He told NBC News that the plan is “going to streamline it [PA] in some incremental ways only.”

Sabin Dang, MD, a retinal specialist in St. Louis, told Medscape Medical News that the plan won’t solve all PA problems.

However, “one of the things I’m most excited about is real-time answers, using technology to get answers while patient is sitting in the chair and then start the treatment process,” he said. This is much better than forcing patients to wait a week “while they’re suffering with decreased vision,” he added.

Last year, Dang led a study that found 96.2% of PA requests for 2225 anti-VEGF drugs were approved, but most — 59.6% — remained unresolved after 24 hours. Most requests resulted in a delay of care, and an analysis showed that staff members needed to spend a median of 100 minutes on each request.

The standardizing of PA technology will also be helpful, Dang said. “We have many digital tools and websites to visit,” he said, although he added that fixing the system will be a “huge logistical hurdle.”

For his part, consultant Glickman said instant approvals raise questions about the true purpose of PA. “If they’re going to be auto-authorized, why are we requiring providers to jump through all these hoops to get authorization in the first place?”

Glickman and Dang reported having no disclosures.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/short-specifics-insurers-new-prior-authorization-pledge-2025a1000h1q

Disgruntled DOJ Lifers Set Sights on Trump Nominee Emil Bove

 The knives are out for Emil Bove, the principal assistant deputy attorney general and President Donald Trump’s nominee for an opening on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals; Bove faces what is expected to be a heated confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday morning.

Opposition to Bove’s nomination is not based on his resume – he graduated at the top of his class from Georgetown Law and spent 10 years as a top prosecutor at the U.S. Attorney’s office in the southern district of New York among other accomplishments – but because he represented the president in two criminal matters: Special Counsel Jack Smith’s so-called documents case in Florida and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s business records case in New York.

But Bove really rankled the old guard at the Department of Justice – and establishment DOJ’s defenders in the Democratic Party and national news media – by aggressively addressing corruption at the department, one of the president’s top priorities. Consistent with the president’s executive order to end the weaponization of government, particularly at the DOJ, Bove, the acting deputy attorney general at the time, quickly enacted a series of reforms. Known partisans at the department were fired or reassigned to a new immigration enforcement unit, prompting many to resign.

Bove launched an investigation into potential corrupt FBI practices related to the massive Jan. 6 investigation and fired temporary assistant U.S. attorneys hired exclusively to handle J6 prosecutions since the so-called “Capitol Siege” unit was shuttered after Trump’s inauguration. FBI agents and officials tied to the August 2022 armed raid of Mar-a-Lago were ousted.

But his move to dismiss the federal indictment of New York Mayor Eric Adams landed Bove in the media’s crosshairs and resulted in an internal mutiny of sorts with prosecutors openly defying his order to drop the case. New Trump #resistance stars were born after some DOJ officials issued public resignation letters defending the politically tainted case and condemning Bove’s directive. Rather than take the insubordination lying down, Bove opened an investigation into their misconduct.

Now, scorned DOJ employees are looking for revenge. A New York Times hit piece on Bove, published roughly 24 hours before the start of his confirmation hearing, claimed he discussed the possibility of defying court orders related to the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), one of the president’s signature deportation policies. 

According to allegations in a whistleblower complaint by Erez Reuvini, a career DOJ official, Bove said during a meeting on March 14, the day Trump signed the act, that “DOJ would need to consider telling the courts ‘fuck you’ and ignore any such court order” to halt the removal of illegal Venezuelans covered by the AEA. (The following day, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of five illegals covered by the AEA in the courtroom of D.C. District Court Judge James Boasberg. The case became a flashpoint in the lawfare against the president as Boasberg banned the removal of the AEA subjects; the Supreme Court overturned his ban on April 7. Boasberg also opened a contempt investigation into the administration for allegedly defying an “oral” order to return planes, out of U.S. airspace at the time, carrying AEA subjects. The Supreme Court also suspended that inquiry.)

“Mr. Reuveni’s account highlights the tensions that have been roiling the Justice Department for months, where many current and former career lawyers have come to fear that the department’s political leadership, chosen by Mr. Trump, is engaged in a systematic effort to undermine the rule of law,” Devlin Barrett wrote on June 24. “[Hundreds] of department lawyers have quit rather than follow the course being set by the Trump administration. Scores of others have been demoted or fired.”

Despite the unsubstantiated account by Reuveni – who was fired for insubordination in April for failing to “zealously advocate on behalf of the United States and engaging in conduct prejudicial to your client” after Reuveni refused to sign a brief in the Garcia case – and the fact the Supreme Court later vacated Boasberg’s orders in the case, the Timesstory went viral. “Top Justice Department leaders and judicial nominee tried to mislead judges, whistleblower says,” CNN reported. “Trump DOJ Lackey Told Underlings to Say ‘F*** You’ to Court Orders,” the Daily Beast breathlessly claimed. (Important to note the written court orders in the Alien Enemies Act were followed, a point not disputed by Boasberg.)

Key Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee also weighed in. Senator Cory Booker posted on X that “Emil Bove has no respect for the rule of law and court orders. He does not belong on the federal bench.” Senator Adam Schiff worried aloud that Bove could wind up on Trump’s Supreme Court shortlist at some point.

Hard to think of better non-endorsements.

Ousted DOJ officials added their voice to the anti-Bove bandwagon in a video produced by Justice Connection, a group of displaced and disgruntled DOJ employees. Michael Romano, who led the Jan. 6 investigation and publicly blasted Trump’s pardon of J6ers, described Bove as the president’s “personal attack dog” and insisted he “could not be impartial on the court of appeals.” A prosecutor on the Eric Adams case also said Bove was unfit for the bench: Ryan Crosswell, an attorney at the now-shuttered public integrity unit at the DOJ, accused Bove of making a “political calculation” in dropping the Biden-era indictment against one of Biden’s most outspoken Democratic critics.

So, what gives? One would think in this era of judicial defiance that represents a courtroom coup of sorts against the duly elected president and his administration, these “rule of law” hawks could certainly find more deserving targets of their ire. Where is their outrage against Judge Brian Murphy, who just announced he would ignore a Supreme Court ruling overturning his order to halt the deportation of criminal illegals to third-party countries? Or basically any judge on the D.C. District Court responsible for single-handedly gutting key executive orders without any basis or authority?

Further, where was this righteous indignation when the DOJ relentlessly pursued Trump, his White House aides, his political advisors, and nearly 1,600 supporters who protested at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021?

The anti-Bove operation represents an old playbook – administrative state saboteurs working behind the scenes to thwart Trump, then taking their unsubstantiated gripes public to the open arms of the media and Democrats in Congress – used successfully during the first Trump administration to run loyalists out of his administration.

It is important not to let history repeat itself in the Bove nomination. 

Julie Kelly is an independent journalist. Her work can be found on Substack at Declassified with Julie Kelly.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2025/06/25/trump_court_of_appeals_nominee_faces_tough_confirmation_hearing_152951.html

Hims ‘Won’t Cave’ to Novo Demands Over Copycat Weight-Loss Shots, CEO Says

 

Hims & Hers Health Inc. won’t back down from selling cheap weight-loss shots, its chief executive officer said one day after Novo Nordisk A/S abruptly ended its distribution partnership.

“We’re upset that Novo is feeling the pressure and not comfortable, but ultimately, I think us holding strong to fighting on behalf of customers is just who we are,” Hims CEO Andrew Dudum said Tuesday in his first interview since the news broke. “There’s just no way in hell we’re going to cave on that, no matter who the pharma company is or what the partnership looks like.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-24/hims-won-t-cave-to-novo-demands-over-copycat-shots-ceo-says

Trump US CDC nominee backs vaccines as life-saving

 U.S. President Donald Trump's nominee for director of the CDC was pulled into political contention over U.S. vaccine policy on Wednesday, describing the medications as "life-saving" and telling a Senate panel that she has not seen evidence linking vaccines and autism.

If confirmed, Susan Monarez, a career public health official who served as acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention until her nomination, will report to U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has long questioned the safety of vaccines contrary to scientific evidence, including suggesting a link between them and autism.

"I have not seen a causal link between vaccines and autism," Monarez told the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions during her confirmation hearing in response to a question from Senator Bernie Sanders.

She said she would prioritize vaccine availability if confirmed.

The hearing took place at the same time as a crucial meeting of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices that reviews vaccine data for the agency and recommends who should get them.

Kennedy previously fired the entire 17-member panel of outside vaccine experts and replaced them with his own picks. One left the committee hours before the meeting.

Several of the ACIP members Kennedy appointed have published papers, posted on social media, or written online biographies with anti-vaccine views, including against the mRNA vaccine technology used in some of the newest immunizations such as the COVID-19 vaccine.

Asked by the committee's Republican chairman Senator Bill Cassidy if she would recommend that ACIP be constituted with members with experience of research on the technology and knowledge of both sides of the safety discussion, Monarez said she would.

"I have no a priori prejudices against mRNA platform or any other approach that is being taken to develop vaccines," she said, adding that the Food and Drug Administration has approved mRNA vaccines as safe.

Monarez said that if confirmed, she would focus on making CDC leadership accountable, prioritize bringing state-of-the-art technologies to detect outbreaks early and implement predefined protocols to avoid confusion and delays in responding to outbreaks.

If confirmed, Monarez would lead the response to public health threats including the growing measles cases in the United States, especially the outbreak in West Texas and New Mexico that has killed three people, and play a critical role in tackling the spread of bird flu.

She would be leading a diminished agency, with the White House seeking to cut the CDC's budget by almost $3.6 billion, leaving it with a $4 billion budget, and Kennedy enacting a layoff plan that cut 2,400 employees. Kennedy said on Tuesday he had since rehired 722 people.

The Atlanta-based CDC tracks and responds to domestic and foreign threats to public health. Roughly two-thirds of its budget provides funds to the public health and prevention activities of state and local health agencies.

Monarez is Trump's second nominee for the position after he withdrew his nomination of former Republican congressman and vaccine critic Dave Weldon in March hours before his scheduled confirmation hearing.

The committee will vote on whether to send Monarez to the full Senate for a confirmation vote, which she is likely to secure; Republicans control the chamber and have backed nearly all Trump's nominees.

Monarez would be the first CDC director to require Senate confirmation following amendments to the Public Health Service Act, and if confirmed, would be the first director without a medical degree since 1953.

https://gazette.com/news/us-world/trump-us-cdc-nominee-backs-vaccines-as-life-saving/article_77edb330-aa3b-5b0e-9b6f-bca64ab6282d.html

Trump Declares At NATO Summit: '12-Day Iran-Israel War Is Over' & Nuclear Sites 'Totally Obliterated'

 Summary: A main message of President Trump upon his closing press Q&A remarks (and echoed by Hegseth, who also spoke) is that Iran's nuclear facilities have been 'obliterated, totally obliterated'. "You know they have guys that go in there after the hit, and they said it was total obliteration,” Trump told reporters at the NATO summit in The Hague, in reference to the bombing of Fordo. He actually at times referenced Israeli and Iranian sources. "Israel is doing a report on it now, I understand, and I was told that they said it was total obliteration. I believe it was total obliteration, and I believe they didn’t have a chance to get anything out because we acted fast," Trump said.

Another important moment concerns nuclear talks, after Trump declared what he's calling the '12-day war' is 'over'. "We’re going to talk to them next week, with Iran. We may sign an agreement, I don’t know. To me, I don’t think it’s that necessary. I mean, they had a war, they fought, now they’re going back to their world. I don’t care if I have an agreement or not," Trump said.

"As you know, last weekend the United States successfully carried out a massive precision strike on Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities and it was very, very successful. It was called obliteration. No other military on earth could have done it, and now this incredible exercise of American strength has paved the way for peace with a historic ceasefire agreement," Trump said.

When pressed on the leaked US intelligence from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), he said "The document said it could be very severe damage. But they didn’t take that. They said it could be limited or it could be very severe. They really didn’t know other than to say it could be limited or it could be very, very severe."

President Donald Trump and his top officials, including Rubio and Hegseth, are in The Netherlands where they are defending this past weekend's strikes on Iran nuclear facilities. They are praising the B-2 bomber raid and execution of the pilots and all involved as having demolished the country's atomic capabilities.

Trump has achieved his vision of a massive defense spending boost, as on Wednesday the alliance has formally committed to a 5% of GDP spending goal over the next decade, with Secretary Rutte having earlier proclaimed 'no opt-outs' - aimed particularly at Spain and others - and further the US President has pledged that 'we're with NATO all the way.' For now, Trump seems mostly in the mood to defend his Iran attack, and proclaim the total destruction of the Islamic Republic's core nuclear program, in the face of a skeptical US and European press. He's expected to speak at the close of Wednesday's summit. WATCH LIVE:

Some developments from the ongoing NATO summit:

• NATO's 32 leaders proclaim: “Allies commit to invest 5% of GDP annually on core defense requirements as well as defence-and security-related spending by 2035 to ensure our individual and collective obligations.”

• AP: Many European countries face major economic challenges, and Trump’s global tariff war could make it even harder for Washington’s NATO allies to reach defense spending levels of 5% of their GDP.

• BBG: President Trump disputed an early intelligence report from the Pentagon that found the airstrikes he ordered on Iran had only a limited impact on its nuclear program. The attacks caused “total obliteration,” he said, while satellite imagery fails to provide conclusive evidence of deep penetration.

• BBG: And in a surprise announcement that appears to undermine years of US sanctions on Iran, Trump gave China the green light to buy Iranian oil.

• Hungarian PM: ‘Ukraine is not in NATO, my job is to keep it that way,’ Orbán tells press outside NATO summit

• AP: NATO leader praises Trump’s involvement in Iran-Israel war in private text: En route to The Hague yesterday, Trump posted a screenshot of a message sent to him by NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, which read, “Congratulations and thank you for your decisive action in Iran, that was truly extraordinary, and something no one else dared to do. It makes us all safer.”

• Defense Intelligence Agency on Monday found that Trump's strikes on Iran only set back the country's nuclear program by months.

• AP on Trump's response: Trump said media outlets were “disgusting” for reporting on the assessment, describing them as “very unfair to the pilots, who risked their lives for our country.”

• Trump on Article 5: “I stand with it, that’s why I’m here,” Trump said as he met with Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof. “If I didn’t stand with it I wouldn’t be here.”

• PBS: “There’s numerous definitions of Article 5. You know that, right?” Trump said. “But I’m committed to being their friends.” He signaled that he would give a more precise definition of what Article 5 means to him once he was at the summit.

Many developments being announced at the summit are fully expected and were long previewed, but the big wild-card as usual will be Trump's live comments to the press and to officials gathered.

Via Shutterstock

President Trump also on Wednesday has met with Ukraine's President Zelensky, and likely discussed new anti-Moscow sanctions and the purchase of a new weapons purchase. Trump has exhibited coolness toward the Ukrainian leader of late, and this is perhaps why Zelensky is dressed to impress, having actually shown up in a suit this time.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/watch-live-trump-speaks-nato-summit-after-bombing-iran