Politics

Beneath the Atlantic seabed, England and Argentina are both losing out

Published

1 hour ago

July 15, 2026

It’s win or bust for England and Argentina in Atlanta tonight.

But in one area of global affairs — in a part of the world very familiar to leaders in London and Buenos Aires — both are about to lose.

As first reported by the Financial Times, developers are prepping to drill the Sea Lion oil field north of the Falklands, the tiny archipelago and British Overseas Territory over which Argentina and Britain went to war in 1982.

Any windfall from an oil boom — and developers reckon revenues could run to hundreds of millions of pounds a year — would be directed to the Falklands government, much to the annoyance of Argentinian President Javier Milei, who insisted any resources “belong to Argentina.”

Not that Brits will look on particularly happily. Oil field cash flowing into Falklands’ coffers (and not to the British state) will be a reminder that the fossil fuel economy in the North Sea, once a powerhouse for jobs and Treasury income, is dwindling fast.

By 2034, according to Navitas Petroleum, co-owners of the Sea Lion field, its revenues could be worth £280 million to the island. By that point, the FT noted, its annual value to the Falklands would outstrip U.K. oil and gas revenues, which are set to dip to just £100 million by 2031.

The Falklands’ government is likely to use the money to rebuild knackered energy infrastructure. Meanwhile, lobby group Offshore Energies UK says, the decline of the North Sea is already costing a thousand jobs a month.

Politics

‘Sport is not war.’ Except when Argentina plays England.

Published

54 minutes ago

July 15, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

“It’s a soccer match. Nothing more to it. Period.”

That’s how Argentina coach Lionel Scaloni described his team’s upcoming World Cup semifinal against England to journalists.

No one believes him, least of all Argentinians themselves.

For many in the South American nation, the match is more than a stepping stone toward the World Cup title. It is a long-awaited chance to restore their national pride, over four decades after the British established de facto control over a cluster of islands in the South Atlantic.

For Argentina’s President Javier Milei, the timing couldn’t be better. Unpopular at home over multiple corruption scandals and rampant inflation, yet buoyed by his close alliance with U.S. President Donald Trump, he has sought to rally Argentinians around the flag by breathing new life into the dispute which claimed 649 Argentine and 255 British lives.

“Argentina is a very polarized country, like so much of the Americas. But this is an issue that unites everyone,” said Rebecca Bill Chavez, who served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for western hemisphere affairs under former President Barack Obama.

“It doesn’t matter in Argentina: Left, right, center — you’re all for the Malvinas, as they call it,” Bill Chavez adds, referencing the name Argentinians use for the Falklands.

On Saturday, five days before the match, Argentina’s Foreign Minister Pablo Quirno came out swinging with a lengthy opinion piece in the conservative daily “La Nación.”

The Malvinas, he argued, were Argentinian “by history, by right, and by conviction” and the Brits guilty of an “illegal occupation.”

On the eve of the game, the country’s vice president, Victoria Villarruel, amped up the rhetoric in a post on X that referred to England as “invaders” and “usurping pirates.”

It is the latest in a series of jabs at Westminster, marking a notable shift for the government of Milei, who distinguished himself from his predecessors by taking a relatively moderate — and domestically sensitive — stance on the Falklands.

He has openly praised Margaret Thatcher, the British prime minister who sent troops to the islands in 1982. And he seemed to accept the results of a 2013 referendum in which 99.8 percent of the Falklands’ residents voted to remain under British rule (only three people voted against).

One day, Milei fantasized in a speech on Veterans Day in April just last year, the islanders might find Argentina so attractive that they’d “vote for us” voluntarily.

But that was then.

This April he announced on X that the Falklands “were, are and will always be Argentine.”

The jingoistic post came hours after Reuters reported that an internal Pentagon memo had suggested Washington could review its diplomatic support for the British position on the Falklands in retaliation for its foot-dragging on Iran.

Milei’s brashness, and the absence of a U.S. response, is evidence of his close relationship with the White House under Trump, notes Bill Chavez.

“In the past, if an Argentine government had made such a statement, I think it would have caused real tension in the U.S.-Argentine relationship,” she said.

But she cautions that neither the leaked memo nor American support for Argentina’s acquisition of F16s in 2025 under the Biden administration indicates an actual shift in U.S. policy on the Falklands.

For Milei, the Falklands issue is not straightforward either.

If the topic becomes too central, “Milei loses,” said Andrés Gilio of Opina Argentina, a pollster.

In a survey it conducted in April, an overwhelming majority of respondents, 79 percent, argued the country should pursue sovereignty over the islands “without concessions.”

“Either Milei ‘Malvinizes’ his discourse, aligning himself with public opinion but straining relations with the United States and blurring his ideological profile, or he remains faithful to his ideas, downplaying the sovereignty claim, at the risk of going against most of society’s wishes,” said Gilio.

So far, Milei has pressed the Falklands issue in international forums while refraining from a real confrontation.

The Argentinian Foreign Ministry declined to comment in time for this article’s publication.

Argentina has faced England five times at the World Cup, rarely without drama. Seared into Argentina’s national memory is the 1986 quarterfinal, just four years after the Falklands war, when Diego Maradona scored two historic goals.

“Although before the match we kept saying that football had nothing to do with the Falklands War,” Maradona would later write in his biography, “we knew that many young Argentine boys had died there, that they had been killed like little birds.”

This time around, Argentina’s players and fans have been anything but subtle, invoking the conflict long before they were drawn to face England. After winning against Egypt, the team’s players were filmed belting out a song calling for an Argentine World Cup victory, “for Malvinas,” in a video since gone viral.

Off-pitch, there have been skirmishes between British and Argentinian fans even as jubilant Argentine supporters have celebrated victories by singing “Whoever doesn’t jump is an Englishman.” As a precaution, FIFA has barred two of its English referees from officiating any Argentina matches.

Asked about the flaring tensions, a spokesperson for British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said this week that “The Falkland Islanders are British with the right to determine their own future.” Starmer, he said, was “solely focused on the semi-final and securing a spot in the final.”

But perhaps the strongest plea for restraint has come from Argentinian veterans.

“Sport is not war,” the April 2 veterans group wrote in a statement widely circulated by Argentinian media on Monday.

“The World Cup semifinal is a sporting event of global significance, not an armed act of revenge or historical compensation.”

Politics

England-Argentina dominates Keir Starmer’s final parliament grilling

Published

54 minutes ago

July 15, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The House of Commons was exercised on Wednesday about the prospect of England beating Argentina in tonight’s World Cup semifinal.

Ahead of Keir Starmer’s last Prime Minister’s Questions as premier before he exits the top job, Commons Speaker Lindsay Hoyle — the normally impartial chair — said he hoped the PM will be “bringing home” World Cup victory to widespread cheers.

Starmer, a huge soccer fan who cheers for Arsenal in the Premier League, opened PMQs by stressing his “important appointment with the television” this evening to watch the match live.

Opposition Conservative MP Graham Stuart compared the prime minister to England superstar Jude Bellingham by “scoring the winning goal, leading our team to victory,” though Starmer had “now been handed a red card by the 400 dodgy referees behind him,” referring to the 2024 election win before a Labour rebellion that helped topple him.

The PM continued on the subject of red cards by saying “I can’t tell him how much incoming I had … to get the England red card adjusted,” after President Donald Trump’s intervention to help overturn the suspension of U.S. striker Folarin Balogun.

Starmer said he didn’t follow the U.S. president’s example, after Jarell Quansah was sent off against Mexico and suspended.

Politics

Media advocates see NYT subpoenas as dangerous threat to a free press

Published

7 hours ago

July 15, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Dangerous. Brazen. Unprecedented. Uncharted territory.

Reaction in the media world has been swift and severe to the issue of subpoenas to five New York Times journalists who reported on security questions involving the new Qatari-gifted Air Force One — a legal maneuver seen as a troubling escalation of the Trump administration’s campaign to control and intimidate independent media outlets.

“The subpoenas are an extraordinary escalation in President Trump’s efforts to threaten and intimidate independent news organizations and have a chilling effect on the work of journalists across the country,” said Jodie Ginsberg, CEO of the Committee to Protect Journalists.

Media advocates and analysts expressed dismay at the tactic, even after months in which news organizations drawing President Donald Trump’s ire have been attacked both in courtrooms and in the court of public opinion; media access to corridors of power has been blocked; and a Washington journalist’s home has been searched by federal agents.

Staff lay a carpet on the tarmac before President Donald Trump exits Air Force One upon arriving for the NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey, Tuesday, July 7, 2026. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

“They have used the levers of power to intimidate and demonize professional journalists who report stories that are unfavorable to the administration’s desired narrative,” said Frank Sesno, a former BLN White House bureau chief who is now a media and public affairs professor at George Washington University.

He called Friday’s subpoenas “dangerous and uncharted territory, but merely an extension of what we have seen from this administration and president.”

“Don’t like a poll? Sue the Des Moines Register,” he said. “Don’t like the way an interview is edited? Sue ‘60 Minutes.’ Don’t like the coverage of the gifted Air Force One? Order the FBI to investigate and subpoena the journalists for what is, by the way, a story that is in the public interest.”

Some of the subpoenas were delivered to reporters at home

Some of the subpoenas were delivered to reporters at their homes, the Times said. Sought by Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan, they seek to force the reporters to testify before a federal grand jury in Manhattan this week.

The new jet in question, a present from Qatar that Trump’s administration spent $400 million to retrofit and upgrade, entered service last week. But the Republican president used an older model Air Force One jet to leave a NATO summit in Turkey.

Air Force One sits on the tarmac as President Donald Trump switches planes at U.S. Air Force Base, RAF Mildenhall in Suffolk Eastern England, on his way back to Washington from the NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey ,Wednesday, July 8, 2026. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

The Times, citing anonymous sources, reported that the switch had come at the urging of the Secret Service and that the newer plane lacked some of the advanced security features of the older aircraft, including antimissile capabilities. On social media, Trump denied security concerns.

The subpoenas were issued after FBI Director Kash Patel and other Justice Department officials met at the White House on Friday to talk about the matter, according to a person familiar with the discussions who was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity. The Times said the meeting lasted around eight hours.

The fact that the operation was conducted from the White House itself was particularly egregious to analysts like Sesno, who called the coordination “unprecedented.”

“This graphically illustrates the pressure and influence the White House and president have brought to bear on law enforcement that is supposed to be independent and driven by facts, not politics,” he said.

The Justice Department has justified the subpoenas by saying that “to be clear, reporters are not the targets, those leaking classified information are.”

“We value and appreciate the important role that the press plays in this country,” the department said in a weekend statement. “But DOJ also plays an important role to make sure that the people entrusted with our nation’s secrets do what they’re supposed to do with that information, which means not sharing classified information.”

The National Press Club called on the Justice Department to immediately withdraw the subpoenas.

“Every American should understand what is at stake,” Mark Schoeff Jr., the club’s president, said in a statement. “When federal agents arrive at the homes of journalists with subpoenas, it is not ordinary law enforcement. It is an extraordinary assault on the freedom of the press that strikes at the heart of the First Amendment.”

Also expressing solidarity with the Times journalists was the White House Correspondents’ Association — which, in less than two weeks, holds its rescheduled dinner, with Trump planning to attend the event that celebrates the First Amendment. The first dinner was scuttled when a shooter opened fire in what prosecutors say was an attempt to kill the president.

“The White House Correspondents’ Association stands with the New York Times reporters who were targeted for doing their jobs to uphold the public’s right to know how its government operates,” said a statement from the group’s president, Weijia Jiang. “The WHCA condemns any act of intimidation against journalists, including attempts to pressure them into revealing sources.”

President Donald Trump speaks with reporters in flight on Air Force One after landing at U.S. Air Force Base at RAF Mildenhall, in Suffolk, Eastern England, Wednesday, July 8, 2026. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Trump’s administration has initiated multiple lawsuits against media outlets

Trump’s animosity toward news outlets whose agenda runs counter to his own isn’t new. But in his second presidential term, he has launched an escalation, often harnessing the levers of the federal government or attempting to do so. These efforts have taken place both in actual courtrooms and in the court of public opinion.

The president has sued various news organizations whose coverage he dislikes. He has also threatened to revoke TV broadcast licenses. His Federal Communications Commission chairman is seeking to penalize shows like ABC’s “The View,” where some hosts speak out against Trump, by having the FCC explore revoking its exemption from equal-time rules.

The legal skirmishes include an escalating dispute between the media and Trump’s Defense Department over reporters’ access to the Pentagon. The Times has filed two lawsuits over a policy requiring journalists to be accompanied by escorts at the military complex.

The White House has also battled with The Associated Press over the news organization’s refusal to follow Trump’s executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico. And it has battled with The Wall Street Journal over reporting about Jeffrey Epstein and his ties to the president — including an article that described a sexually suggestive letter that the newspaper said bore Trump’s signature.

Last month, the Justice Department withdrew subpoenas it had issued that sought to compel reporters at The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal to testify before a grand jury, according to people familiar with the matter.

The Post confirmed that one of its journalists received a subpoena from the Trump administration as part of a broader crackdown on media leaks that in January also included the extraordinary step of an FBI search of the home of another journalist at the newspaper and the seizure of her electronic devices. The media world was stunned by the search of the home of reporter Hannah Natanson, who was covering Trump’s transformation of the federal government.

The Times is now gearing up for battle against what its lawyer David McCraw has called “this brazen act.”

In an internal memo seen by the AP, the newspaper’s executive editor, Joseph Kahn, criticized the subpoenas, praised his journalists’ work and said: “We expect to prevail. We have the best legal team in the business. … The law protects news gatherers from this sort of retaliatory abuse of prosecutorial power. It is essential that the courts reaffirm that protection and quash this overreach. We are confident they will in this case.”

___

Jocelyn Noveck covers the intersection of media and entertainment for The Associated Press.