The Pentagon had announced on Friday that about 5,000 troops would be withdrawn from Germany over the next six to 12 months, but Trump said the reduction would go significantly beyond that figure.“We’re going to cut way down, and we’re cutting a lot further than 5,000,” Trump told reporters in Florida, offering no detailed explanation for the expanded drawdown.

The move escalates tensions with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and comes amid broader disputes between Washington and European allies over defense spending, the war in Iran and trans-Atlantic trade.Germany currently hosts around 36,000 U.S. service members, including major strategic facilities such as Ramstein Air Base, the headquarters of U.S. European Command and U.S. Africa Command, and the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, a major military hospital serving overseas operations.

A withdrawal of 5,000 troops would represent roughly one-seventh of the U.S. military presence in Germany, though the Pentagon has not clarified which units or operations would be affected by the larger reduction Trump indicated.

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said earlier on Saturday that the initial drawdown was expected and reflected a broader reality that Europe must take greater responsibility for its own security.“The presence of American soldiers in Europe, and especially in Germany, is in our interest and in the interest of the U.S.,” Pistorius told German news agency dpa.

“We Europeans must take on more responsibility for our security,” he added, pointing to Germany’s increased defense spending, faster procurement and military modernization efforts.NATO also responded cautiously, with spokesperson Allison Hart saying the alliance was working with Washington to understand the details of the force posture changes.

“This adjustment underscores the need for Europe to continue to invest more in defense and take on a greater share of the responsibility for our shared security,” she said in a post on X, while noting progress toward the alliance’s defense spending target of 5% of GDP among member states.

The troop reduction has faced immediate resistance in Washington from both Democrats and senior Republicans, who warned that it could weaken deterrence against Russia as Moscow’s war in Ukraine enters its fifth year.

Republican lawmakers Senator Roger Wicker and Representative Mike Rogers, who chair the Senate and House armed services committees, said they were “very concerned” the decision would risk “undermining deterrence and sending the wrong signal to Vladimir Putin.”They also said the Pentagon had canceled the planned deployment of the Army’s Long-Range Fires Battalion, a move they argued would further weaken NATO’s eastern posture.

Trump’s renewed push to scale back troop deployments follows longstanding criticism of European allies for relying too heavily on U.S. defense guarantees while underinvesting in their own militaries.His frustration has deepened over Europe’s reluctance to fully support Washington’s military campaign with Israel against Iran, as well as over trade disputes with the European Union.

Trump recently accused the EU of failing to comply with a trade agreement and said he would raise tariffs next week on European-made cars and trucks to 25%, a step likely to hit Germany’s export-driven auto sector particularly hard.

Merz last week criticized U.S. strategy toward Iran, saying Washington was being “humiliated” by Iranian leadership and lacked a coherent approach.Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said the troop withdrawal followed “a thorough review” of U.S. force posture in Europe and reflected operational needs and current conditions on the ground.

A U.S. defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said military branches had no prior notice of the decision and learned of the reduction in real time, underscoring internal concerns over the abruptness of the move.

Germany remains central to U.S. military operations in Europe, with permanent Army and Air Force deployments, logistical hubs and strategic nuclear assets, making any significant troop reduction symbolically and operationally sensitive for NATO.

Under the 1973 law, Congress must authorize military action within 60 days of its start or require its end. The deadline followed U.S. operations that began on Feb. 28, but Senate Republicans took no action before leaving for a one-week recess.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he did not expect a vote on authorizing force in Iran, while Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued the deadline no longer applied because a ceasefire with Iran that began in early April had effectively paused the conflict.

Democrats rejected that claim, saying U.S. military operations continue as the Navy enforces a blockade linked to the Strait of Hormuz crisis.

Some Republicans, including Senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, said Congress should still have a formal role, with Collins calling the deadline “a requirement” and not a suggestion.

A senior administration official said the hostilities that began on Feb. 28 had “terminated” for purposes of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, arguing that the U.S. military and Iran have not exchanged fire since a two-week ceasefire took effect on April 7.

The position builds on remarks by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who told lawmakers during Senate testimony earlier Thursday that the administration believes the ceasefire pauses or stops the 60-day clock mandated under the law.

“We are in a ceasefire right now, which our understanding means, the 60-day clock pauses or stops,” Hegseth said before the Senate Armed Services Committee.Under the War Powers Resolution, Congress must authorize military action within 60 days of a president notifying lawmakers of hostilities or the administration must end the campaign, with a possible 30-day extension allowed for withdrawal.

That deadline falls on Friday for Trump’s Iran operation.The White House has not sought formal approval from Congress, even as U.S. naval operations continue in the Gulf and Iran maintains pressure over the Strait of Hormuz while Washington enforces a blockade aimed at preventing Iranian oil exports.

Democrats and some Republicans have argued that the administration is legally required to obtain congressional approval and that the ceasefire does not suspend the statute.

Senator Susan Collins of Maine, one of the few Republicans to back a Senate effort to halt military action without authorization, said the deadline was binding and not optional.

“That deadline is not a suggestion; it is a requirement,” Collins said, adding that any further military action must have “a clear mission, achievable goals, and a defined strategy for bringing the conflict to a close.”

The Senate on Thursday rejected, for a sixth time, a Democratic-led measure seeking to end U.S. military action in Iran absent congressional approval, allowing Republicans to avoid a direct confrontation with Trump as the legal deadline approached.

Some GOP lawmakers who had supported limited strikes against Tehran have increasingly signaled they want Congress to reassert its constitutional authority if the operation becomes prolonged.The administration’s interpretation has drawn criticism from legal experts who argue the War Powers Resolution contains no mechanism allowing the 60-day period to be paused because of a temporary ceasefire.

Katherine Yon Ebright, counsel with the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program, said the administration’s argument marked a significant expansion of prior executive branch interpretations of the law.

“To be very, very clear and unambiguous, nothing in the text or design of the War Powers Resolution suggests that the 60-day clock can be paused or terminated,” she said.Previous administrations have often argued that limited or intermittent military actions did not rise to the level of “hostilities” under the law.

But legal analysts say the sustained U.S. military campaign against Iran, including naval deployments and direct strikes, would be difficult to classify under that narrower interpretation.

Richard Goldberg, a former National Security Council official during Trump’s first term, said he had advised administration officials to transition the current operation into a separate mission focused on reopening the Strait of Hormuz and defending maritime navigation.

He suggested a follow-up mission could be framed as a self-defense operation rather than a continuation of the existing war authorization timeline.“That to me solves it all,” said Goldberg, now a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

The dispute highlights the long-running constitutional struggle between Congress and the presidency over control of U.S. military engagements, a conflict that has persisted since lawmakers passed the War Powers Resolution during the Vietnam War era to curb unilateral presidential war-making.

Recent remarks by U.S. President Donald Trump regarding Iran have prompted renewed discussion among some Democratic lawmakers about the potential use of the 25th Amendment to remove a sitting president from office.

The debate, however, reflects more of a political signal than a viable constitutional pathway, given the significant institutional and partisan barriers involved.The 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967 following the assassination of John F. Kennedy, was designed to clarify presidential succession and ensure continuity of executive authority.

It addressed longstanding gaps in the Constitution, particularly the absence of a clear mechanism for filling a vacancy in the vice presidency. Historical data from the Congressional Research Service indicates that between 1789 and 1967, the vice presidency remained vacant for a cumulative total exceeding 37 years due to deaths, resignations, or succession.

The amendment comprises multiple sections, but current political discussion has centered on Section 4, which outlines a process for involuntarily transferring presidential powers if the president is deemed unable to discharge the duties of the office. Under this provision, the vice president, together with a majority of the cabinet or another congressionally designated body, can declare the president unfit.

If the president contests the determination, Congress must convene within 48 hours, and a two-thirds majority in both chambers is required to uphold the decision.While Section 3 of the amendment has been used in limited circumstances, primarily involving temporary medical incapacitation, Section 4 has never been invoked.

In 2021, then-President Joe Biden temporarily transferred authority during a medical procedure, illustrating the amendment’s routine procedural application rather than its more controversial provisions.

Calls to consider Section 4 have surfaced previously, most notably after the January 6 United States Capitol attack, when some Democratic leaders urged then-Vice President Mike Pence to initiate the process. Among those advocating such action were Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Those efforts did not advance, reflecting both political constraints and the high constitutional threshold required.The current discussion emerges in a similarly constrained environment. Republicans maintain narrow majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, making bipartisan cooperation essential for any attempt to proceed.

Analysts note that without substantial defections from within the president’s party, the two-thirds congressional requirement effectively renders the mechanism unattainable under present conditions.

Scott Anderson, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, characterized the prospect as politically unworkable, citing the improbability of sufficient Republican support.

Public opinion data further underscores this dynamic, with approximately 82 percent of Republican voters expressing approval of Trump’s presidency, reinforcing party cohesion at a critical juncture.The political risks for Democrats are also significant.

Previous efforts to remove Trump through impeachment during his first term failed to secure conviction in the Senate, despite passage in the House. Those experiences continue to inform strategic calculations within the party, particularly as lawmakers prepare for upcoming midterm elections in which control of Congress remains contested.

Some Democratic legislators have indicated a preference to prioritize policy initiatives over procedural challenges to the presidency. Representative Madeleine Dean of Pennsylvania stated that pursuing impeachment or similar measures at this stage may not represent the most effective use of legislative time, emphasizing instead issues such as economic policy, inflation, and childcare access.

Republican leaders have responded critically to the renewed focus on the amendment. House Speaker Mike Johnson described the discussion as politically motivated, arguing that it reflects a lack of substantive policy direction among Democratic lawmakers.

The exchange highlights the broader partisan divide that shapes both the feasibility and the framing of constitutional mechanisms in contemporary U.S. politics.

The renewed attention to the 25th Amendment illustrates its enduring relevance as a constitutional safeguard, while also underscoring the practical limitations of its most consequential provisions.

Although designed to address extraordinary circumstances, its application remains contingent on political consensus at the highest levels of government, a condition that appears absent in the current landscape.

Today, Soomro’s name is largely absent from Pakistan’s textbooks and official narratives.

In the narrative of Pakistan’s creation, the story is often framed as a unified struggle for a Muslim homeland. Yet, this overlooks the voices of dissent, none more compelling than Allah Bux Mohammed Umar Soomro, the former Premier of Sindh. A devout Muslim and staunch Indian nationalist, Soomro rejected the Muslim League’s Two-Nation Theory, advocating for a secular, united India. His defiance of Muhammad Ali Jinnah and his mysterious assassination in 1943 expose the contradictions and betrayals at the heart of Pakistan’s founding.

A Muslim Nationalist’s Stand

Allah Bux Soomro was no ordinary leader. As Premier of Sindh, he refused to let his Muslim identity be weaponized for political ends. Aligning with Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian National Congress, he championed a vision of India where civic identity trumped religious divides. “I am first an Indian and then a Muslim,” he declared, a statement that encapsulated his commitment to pluralism and unity.

His principles were matched by action. In 1942, Soomro returned his knighthood, a prestigious British honor, as a protest against colonial oppression and in support of the Quit India Movement. This bold move infuriated the British and alienated pro-British Muslim leaders, marking him as a true nationalist. While the Muslim League, led by Jinnah, avoided the Quit India Movement, Soomro’s government backed it, further antagonizing both colonial authorities and the League, which saw Sindh as crucial to its Pakistan agenda.

A Threat to Jinnah’s Vision

By 1943, Soomro’s influence was growing beyond Sindh, reaching Punjab and the North-West Frontier Province (now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa). His message of secularism and unity resonated with Muslims who saw no conflict between their faith and Indian identity. This alarmed the Muslim League, which relied on communalism to consolidate power. Soomro’s popularity threatened Jinnah’s narrative that only the League spoke for India’s Muslims.

Jinnah viewed Soomro as a formidable obstacle, publicly dismissing him as a “Congress stooge.” Soomro’s principled stand made him a target, not just in Sindh but in regions critical to the League’s vision of Pakistan. His ability to rally diverse communities around a pluralist ideal posed a direct challenge to the League’s momentum.

A Mysterious Death

On May 14, 1943, Allah Bux Soomro was assassinated near Shikarpur, Sindh, reportedly by a hired killer posing as a beggar. The official account cited personal motives, but the political context suggests otherwise. Soomro had been ousted from his premiership under pressure from the British and the Muslim League. His rising influence, particularly as his ideas spread to Punjab, made him a threat to Jinnah’s communal agenda. The timing of his death, just as his vision gained traction, points to a calculated act to silence dissent.

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, a leading Muslim nationalist and Congress president, mourned Soomro’s death as a blow to India’s unity. In India Wins Freedom, Azad praised him as a “man of great character,” lamenting the loss of a leader driven by conscience, not communalism. The murder was not just a personal tragedy but a blow to the vision of a united India.

Erased from History

Today, Soomro’s name is largely absent from Pakistan’s textbooks and official narratives. This erasure is deliberate. His life and death challenge the myth that Pakistan was the unanimous will of Indian Muslims. Many Muslims, like Soomro, opposed partition, advocating for a democratic, pluralist India. His assassination silenced a voice that could have altered South Asia’s trajectory, sparing it the horrors of division.

The hypocrisy is stark: a movement claiming to protect Muslim interests eliminated a Muslim leader who dared to prioritize unity over division. Soomro’s death was not at the hands of Islam’s foes but those who used faith to justify power. His murder underscores the cost of dissent in a movement that brooked no opposition.

A Legacy for Today

As Pakistan grapples with religious extremism and identity crises, Soomro’s story holds vital lessons. The unresolved tensions of its founding—when voices like his were silenced—continue to shape its challenges. Glorifying myths about Pakistan’s creation only deepens these divides. Honoring Soomro means confronting the uncomfortable truths of the past and embracing the values he died for: democracy, justice, and interfaith harmony.

Allah Bux Soomro was more than a Sindhi leader; he was a symbol of what South Asia could have been—a region united by shared ideals, not torn by faith. His mysterious death remains a haunting reminder of the price paid for dissent and the enduring need to reclaim his vision of unity.

According to officials, the searches were related to possible violations of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA). The agency targeted NGOs and firms funded by OSF and SEDF, as well as Aspada Investments Private Limited, a holding company of SEDF. Authorities stated that Aspada acts as an investment advisor and fund manager for SEDF in India and is a wholly owned subsidiary of a Mauritius-based entity.

Officials revealed that the agency traced a money trail of INR25 crore from Soros-linked companies to several Indian NGOs. Additionally, foreign direct investment (FDI) amounting to INR300 crore, funneled through OSF’s subsidiaries, is under scrutiny. It is believed that SEDF has funded over a dozen companies in India with investments totaling INR300 crore.

ED’s Investigation into Foreign Funding

A senior officer, speaking anonymously, confirmed that ED recently launched a FEMA probe against Soros and his companies. “Our teams carried out raids at eight locations in Bengaluru to investigate contraventions in FDI rules by SEDF and OSF and the subsequent utilization of those funds,” the officer said.

Preliminary investigations indicate that OSF was placed under the Ministry of Home Affairs’ (MHA) prior reference category in 2016, restricting it from making unregulated donations to Indian NGOs. However, officials suspect OSF circumvented these restrictions by establishing subsidiaries in India and routing funds under the guise of FDI and consultancy fees.

A second official noted that ED is examining the end-use of other FDI funds brought in by SEDF and OSF in India.

SEDF’s Investment History in India

According to VCCEdge, the data platform owned by HT Media, SEDF invested INR50 crore in its impact-focused subsidiary, Aspada Investments, in 2013. Aspada Fund 1, its first fund, later raised around INR271 crore, which it used to invest in over a dozen companies, including quick commerce platform Dunzo Digital, WayCool Foods and Products, and NeoGrowth Credit.

SEDF later sold a controlling stake in Aspada to LGT, a private banking and asset management group owned by the Princely House of Liechtenstein. In 2021, this entity was renamed Lightrock, which continues to invest in impact-driven businesses in India.

OSF’s Presence and Restrictions in India

OSF, one of the world’s largest private funders of human rights advocacy, impact investment, and justice-related initiatives, began operations in India in 1999. However, officials confirm that OSF does not have a formal office in the country.

The organization’s website acknowledges that its funding activities in India have been constrained since mid-2016 due to government restrictions.

Political Controversy Surrounding George Soros

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led central government has previously linked Soros to Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi. In December 2024, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey accused the Congress of collaborating with the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), a global investigative journalism initiative allegedly backed by Soros’ OSF, to undermine India’s Parliament and government. BJP MP Sambit Patra also alleged that Rahul Gandhi was part of a “triangle” with Soros and OCCRP aimed at destabilizing India.

Neither OSF nor SEDF has responded to queries regarding the ED’s latest actions.

In its election manifesto released on Tuesday, the Congress said it will take strong steps to bring an IPL franchise to Madhya Pradesh if it unseats Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s incumbent Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

Madhya Pradesh will be among five states that will elect new legislatures next month ahead of general elections due by May 2024, when Modi and BJP will seek a third straight term.

The annual IPL, with an estimated brand value of $8.4 billion, is hugely popular in India. It is one of the richest leagues in the world and has been attracting top players and coaches to India since its inaugural edition in 2008.

The tournament currently has 10 teams from across India but none from Madhya Pradesh, one of the most populous states in the country of 1.4 billion.

But the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), the custodian of the IPL, has said it has no immediate plans to add more teams.

The BCCI has strong links with the BJP – it is headed by Jay Shah, the son of federal interior minister Amit Shah – while IPL Chairman Arun Singh Dhumal is sports minister Anurag Thakur’s brother.

The IPL added two new franchises in 2022 when promoters of Lucknow and Ahmedabad cities paid a combined 127.15 billion rupees ($1.53 billion) to be part of the money-spinning league.

“The Congress demands that the bill be implemented as soon as possible,” said Gandhi, the first lawmaker to start the debate on the bill tabled by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government.

“For how many years women will have to wait for a larger role in the parliament?,” said Gandhi, 77.

The bill will require the approval of both houses of parliament and a majority of state legislatures to be passed.

While all political parties have welcomed the bill and are expected to vote in favour, its implementation depends on a complex drill of population census and boundaries of all political constituencies redrawn.

India’s once in a decade census was due to be completed in 2021 but was delayed because of the pandemic. Technical and logistical hurdles have set the survey back further.

Gandhi and other female lawmakers from regional parties also demanded a quota for women from backward castes within the overall 33% quota for women to ensure equal representation of women from all walks of life.

Increasing the number of women in India’s corridors of power is expected to serve as a game-changer for Modi’s ruling party as it aims to nominate women for a third of seats in the 2024 general elections.

Although Indian women are increasingly making their presence felt in society and professionally, they have largely been stuck on the sidelines of the political process, accounting for about one in 10 national and regional lawmakers.

“Women in India have made enormous sacrifices for the growth of India,” said Gandhi.

Italian-born Gandhi, the widow of former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi, has been the longest-serving president of the Congress party and has been credited with reviving the Congress when it won national elections in 2004.

Gandhi who could have become India’s first foreign-born prime minister, but had surprised everyone by turning down the top post and instead nominated economist Manmohan Singh to be prime minister.

“Come what may, my duty remains the same. Protect the idea of India,” Gandhi posted on social media after the verdict.

Following are some reactions from lawmakers and politicians:

Mallikarjun Kharge, president, Congress

“Truth Alone Triumphs! We welcome the verdict by the Hon’ble Supreme Court giving relief to Shri Rahul Gandhi. Justice has been delivered. Democracy has won. The Constitution has been upheld.”

Purnesh Modi, Bharatiya Janata Party State Lawmaker, Petitioner Against Gandhi

“Rahul Gandhi’s conviction was stayed in the Supreme Court today. In this legal process, we welcome the verdict. In sessions court our case will continue and our battle will continue.”

K.C. Venugopal, Member Of Parliament, Congress

“Justice has prevailed. No force can silence the voice of the people.”

Mehbooba Mufti, President, Jammu And Kashmir People’s Democratic Party

“I welcome the Supreme Court verdict staying Rahul Gandhi’s conviction in a case that had no legs to stand upon. Glad that he will be back in Parliament fighting for the idea of India.”

Mamata Banerjee, Chairperson, All India Trinamool Congress, West Bengal Chief Minister

“I am happy with the news about the MP-ship of Rahul Gandhi. This will further strengthen the resolve of the INDIA alliance to unitedly fight for our motherland and win. A victory of the judiciary!”

P. Chidambaram, Member Of Parliament, Congress

“The Supreme Court’s order today is a vindication of the argument that we have consistently pressed before every court – from the trial court to the Supreme Court … We maintain that the case was manufactured with the sole intention of keeping Mr Rahul Gandhi from Parliament.”

Supriya Sule, Member Of Parliament, Nationalist Congress Party

“In the pursuit of truth, the essence of Satyamev Jayate resonates once more. The unwavering voice of truth shall never be subdued. The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision on Rahul Gandhi Ji’s case is a herald of justice, warmly embraced. A hearty welcome back to Parliament!”

Akhilesh Yadav, President, Samajwadi Party

“The Supreme Court has restored people’s faith in the Indian democracy and judiciary by staying Rahul Gandhi’s sentence.”

Gandhi was convicted in March in a case brought by a lawmaker from the western state of Gujarat belonging to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), over comments he made in 2019 deemed insulting to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other people surnamed Modi, including the lawmaker.

Gandhi, 53, scion of a dynasty that has given India three prime ministers, was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment but the jail term was put on hold and he was granted bail.

He also lost his parliamentary seat following the conviction, since lawmakers sentenced to jail terms of two years or more are automatically disqualified.

Lower courts and the high court in Gujarat had rejected appeals by Gandhi to suspend the conviction, causing him to appeal to the Supreme Court.