Analysis

2025: The Year That Reshaped Our World

Published

3 weeks ago

December 24, 2025

Abdul Rahman

Defining moments of 2025 including climate disasters, technological transformation, political upheaval, and conflict resolution attempts

Table of Contents

A Political Analyst’s Reflection on Twelve Months That Redefined Power, Progress, and Planetary Limits

When historians thumb through the annals of the early 21st century, 2025 will stand out—not for a single cataclysmic event, but for the way disparate forces converged to accelerate transformations already underway. It was the year artificial intelligence moved from boardroom buzzword to economic driver, when climate records tumbled with disturbing regularity, and when geopolitical fault lines cracked open in ways that will shape international relations for decades.

I’ve covered politics and global affairs for two decades, but few years have felt as consequent as this one. From my perch watching these events unfold, 2025 revealed something fundamental: the post-Cold War order isn’t gradually evolving—it’s being actively dismantled and rebuilt, often simultaneously, by forces ranging from Silicon Valley boardrooms to Kathmandu’s streets.

The AI Gold Rush: When Technology Became Infrastructure

If 2023 introduced the world to generative AI’s possibilities, 2025 was the year it became undeniable infrastructure. The numbers tell a staggering story: global AI spending reached approximately $1.5 trillion this year, according to Gartner projections, while private investment in AI companies surged to $202.3 billion—a 75% increase from 2024.

The United States dominated this landscape with almost imperial confidence. U.S. private AI investment hit $109.1 billion in 2024 data, nearly twelve times China’s $9.3 billion. The San Francisco Bay Area alone captured $122 billion in AI funding this year—more than three-quarters of U.S. investment. When President Trump announced the $500 billion “Stargate” project with OpenAI, SoftBank, and Oracle, it wasn’t just industrial policy; it was a declaration that whoever controls AI’s commanding heights will shape the global economy.

But this gold rush came with costs that extend beyond quarterly earnings. Business usage of AI jumped from 55% of organizations in 2023 to 78% in 2024, and that acceleration continued through 2025. Yet as JP Morgan economists noted, AI-related capital expenditures contributed 1.1% to GDP growth in the first half of 2025—actually outpacing consumer spending as an engine of expansion.

The human toll proved harder to quantify. Companies increasingly cited AI adoption when announcing mass layoffs. The technology stands accused of fueling misinformation campaigns, faces mushrooming copyright lawsuits, and has sparked fears of a speculative bubble reminiscent of the 1990s dot-com crash. China’s DeepSeek R1 demonstrated that the computing gap between Beijing and Silicon Valley is narrowing faster than many anticipated, adding geopolitical urgency to what was already an economic arms race.

By year’s end, 88% of organizations reported regular AI use—but most had yet to embed these tools deeply enough to realize material benefits. The promise of transformation remains largely that: a promise, expensive and unproven at scale.

Trump’s Return: Disruption as Governing Philosophy

Donald Trump’s return to the White House on January 20 marked more than a political restoration. At 78, he became the oldest person to win the presidency and only the second to serve non-consecutive terms. But age and precedent mattered less than the velocity of change he unleashed.

Within hours of taking office, Trump signed executive orders withdrawing from the World Health Organization and the Paris Climate Agreement, initiated what he termed “mass deportations” of undocumented immigrants, and set in motion the dismantling of diversity and inclusion programs across the federal government. The National Guard deployed to Democratic-voting cities. Media outlets faced presidential intimidation. The administrative state found itself under systematic assault.

Yet Trump’s most consequential policy lever proved to be the one Alexander Hamilton championed in the Federalist Papers: tariffs. What began as campaign rhetoric evolved into the most aggressive trade policy since the Great Depression. The administration imposed a minimum 10% tariff on all trading partners, with China facing rates reaching 60%, and specific sectors like steel, aluminum, semiconductors, and pharmaceuticals hit with targeted increases.

The economic impact unfolded like a slow-motion collision. The Tax Foundation calculated that Trump’s imposed tariffs would raise $2.1 trillion over a decade while reducing GDP by 0.5%—and that’s before accounting for foreign retaliation. Penn Wharton’s Budget Model projected even grimmer consequences: an 8% GDP reduction and 7% wage decline, costing a middle-income household approximately $58,000 over their lifetime.

Real-world effects arrived swiftly. The U.S. economy actually contracted at an annual rate of 0.6% in early 2025 as businesses braced for the tariff onslaught. Brazilian coffee exports to the United States fell by 32.2% after facing 50% tariffs. Switzerland’s economy shrank in the third quarter at the fastest rate since the pandemic. By November, only 36% of Americans approved of Trump’s economic stewardship—his worst mark in six years of polling.

The tariffs raised $30 billion monthly by August, but revenue projections kept declining as economists factored in reduced trade volumes, foreign retaliation, and slower economic growth. What Trump positioned as economic nationalism increasingly resembled fiscal folly: the largest tax increase as a percentage of GDP since 1993, implemented to fund tax cuts that benefited primarily the wealthy while raising consumer prices for everyone else.

Climate’s Unrelenting March

While politicians debated policy, the planet delivered its verdict. Data from multiple scientific agencies confirmed 2025 as either the second or third warmest year on record, with global average temperatures running 1.42°C above pre-industrial levels through August. More ominously, the three-year average for 2023-2025 exceeded 1.5°C for the first time—the threshold scientists had long warned against breaching.

The past eleven years, from 2015 to 2025, now constitute the eleven warmest in the 176-year observational record. Arctic sea ice extent after winter freeze reached the lowest level ever recorded. Ocean heat content hit new records. And approximately 7% of Earth’s surface experienced record warming in just the first six months of the year.

These weren’t abstract statistics. The Los Angeles wildfires that erupted January 7 burned for a month, destroying more than 16,000 structures and killing 30 people. With costs estimated between $76 billion and $131 billion, it became one of the costliest disasters in U.S. history. Typhoon Kalmaegi killed more than 200 people across the Philippines, Vietnam, and Thailand in November. Catastrophic flooding in Southeast Asia claimed over 1,700 lives when tropical cyclones struck in late November, demonstrating how climate change intensifies the water cycle—for every degree Celsius of warming, air holds 7% more moisture.

ALSO READ : The Role of Middle Powers in a Multipolar World

The World Meteorological Organization projected that without dramatic emission reductions, multi-decadal global temperatures will at least temporarily exceed 1.5°C within the next decade. UN Environment Programme modeling found the world now heading toward 1.8°C warming before potentially falling back below 1.5°C before century’s end—but only if nations implement aggressive mitigation policies they’ve mostly failed to enact.

“Each year above 1.5 degrees will hammer economies, deepen inequalities and inflict irreversible damage,” WMO Secretary-General Celeste Saulo warned. Yet greenhouse gas concentrations continued rising throughout 2025, and the gap between climate commitments and climate action grew wider, not narrower.

Gaza: A Fragile Peace After Years of Devastation

Few conflicts commanded global attention like the Gaza war, which entered its third year before President Trump brokered a ceasefire that went into effect October 10. The numbers behind the agreement were staggering and tragic: the war had killed at least 67,869 Palestinians according to Gaza’s Health Ministry, following the Hamas-led attack on October 7, 2023, that killed 1,144 Israelis.

Trump’s 20-point peace plan, announced September 29, required Hamas to release all living hostages and hand over deceased hostages’ remains within 72 hours of Israeli forces withdrawing to designated “yellow lines” within Gaza. Israel agreed to release 2,000 Palestinian prisoners, including 250 serving life sentences. On October 13, all 20 remaining living Israeli hostages walked free.

But if the ceasefire formally ended the war, it did little to resolve the underlying conflicts. According to Gaza’s Government Media Office, Israel violated the ceasefire at least 875 times between October 10 and December 22—through shootings, raids, bombings, and property demolitions. Since the ceasefire began, Israeli attacks killed at least 406 Palestinians and injured 1,118 more.

The deadliest incident occurred October 29, when Israel killed 104 people, including 46 children, after accusing Hamas of ceasefire violations. Trump defended the strikes from Air Force One, saying Israel “should hit back” and warning that Hamas would be “terminated” if they didn’t “behave.”

The peace plan’s subsequent phases remain mired in fundamental disagreements. Israel refuses to allow a Palestinian state. Hamas refuses to disarm. The UN Security Council approved a U.S. resolution on November 17 establishing an International Stabilization Force for Gaza and calling for the Palestinian Authority to assume governance by 2027, but implementation faces massive obstacles. The World Bank estimates Gaza reconstruction will cost more than $70 billion—and no one has explained where that funding will come from.

The Gen Z Uprising: Youth Demand Their Voice

September 8 marked the beginning of the most dramatic Gen Z protest of 2025: thousands of students in Nepal took to the streets to oppose the government’s sweeping social media ban. The uprising created vivid images—protesters hanging a Jolly Roger flag from the manga One Piece on gates as the Singha Durbar government complex burned behind them. By the time the demonstrations subsided, at least 22 people were dead, hundreds were injured, and Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli had resigned.

Nepal’s revolt formed part of a broader pattern. From Morocco to Indonesia, young people under 30 led mass movements against poor living standards, social media censorship, and elite corruption. Australia implemented a social media ban for those under 16 on December 10, applying to YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, X, and TikTok. India’s government grappled with youth protests over economic opportunities. In Morocco, the government promised social reforms but then prosecuted more than 2,000 demonstrators.

These movements enjoyed mixed success, but they revealed something significant: a generation that came of age during global financial crisis, pandemic lockdowns, and climate anxiety refuses to accept the world older generations are handing them. They’re digitally native, globally connected, and increasingly willing to risk state violence to demand change.

Ukraine: The War That Wouldn’t End

The war in Ukraine ground through its fourth year with punishing arithmetic. Russia lost roughly 1,000 soldiers daily, according to estimates, yet increased its control of Ukrainian territory by less than 1% throughout 2025. Those meager gains came at costs that strain comprehension—both in lives and treasure.

Russia intensified its missile and drone campaigns, repeatedly striking Ukrainian cities and causing heavy civilian casualties. In March, Russian forces reclaimed Kursk province, which Ukraine had seized in a surprise invasion the previous August. Ukraine stunned observers in June with Operation Spiderweb—a covert drone strike deep into Russia that hit five air bases. Yet the attack failed to change the war’s basic dynamics.

President Trump’s approach oscillated between engagement and confrontation. In February, he berated President Zelensky in the Oval Office, accusing him of risking World War III. An August summit with Putin in Alaska ended early, with Washington accusing Moscow of not being serious about peace. Trump later imposed his first major sanctions package on Russia. By November, international negotiations based on a draft U.S. plan commenced, though Kyiv and European allies initially considered the proposal largely favorable to Moscow.

Experts continue debating how long both sides can sustain the conflict, but most agree Ukraine’s position looks increasingly precarious. The EU approved a €90 billion loan for Ukraine over two years, structured so Kyiv only repays once Russia pays reparations—a condition that acknowledges peace remains distant and uncertain.

The Bondi Beach Massacre: Terror Returns to Australia

December 14 brought Australia’s deadliest terrorist incident in history when a father and son opened fire on a Hanukkah celebration at Sydney’s Bondi Beach, killing 15 people and injuring more than 40. Police fatally shot one gunman; both were said to be motivated by Islamic State ideology.

The attack shook a nation that had implemented some of the world’s strictest gun laws following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre. It raised uncomfortable questions about radicalization, security screening, and whether bureaucratic delays in gun licensing contributed to the tragedy. An Australian state leader later revealed the main suspect faced lengthy delays in obtaining a gun license due to administrative backlogs, not suspicion.

The massacre also highlighted the persistent threat of ISIS-inspired violence even as the Islamic State’s territorial caliphate had collapsed years earlier. The ideology proved more durable than the territory, capable of inspiring attacks from New Orleans (where a man inspired by ISIS drove into crowds on New Year’s Day, killing multiple people) to Sydney’s beaches.

The First American Pope and the Church’s New Direction

On May 8, the College of Cardinals elected Cardinal Robert Prevost as Pope Leo XIV, making him the first American pontiff in Catholic Church history. The Chicago-born clergyman, who spent nearly 20 years as a missionary in Peru and obtained citizenship there, took the papal name Leo XIV at age 69.

ALSO READ : Asian Union: Will the Asian Countries unite to form Asian Union with the merger of ASEAN ,SAARC,NAM?: Prospects , Possibilities and Challenges

Pope Leo XIV inherited a church grappling with declining attendance in the Global North, clergy abuse scandals, and questions about its relevance to younger generations. His predecessor, Pope Francis, had died April 21 at age 88 after hospitalization for respiratory issues. Francis had been canonized for his focus on the poor, migrants, and the environment—causes Leo XIV signaled he would continue.

Yet the new pope also offered reassurances to conservative circles by ruling out, at least in the short term, the ordination of women as deacons and recognition of same-sex marriage. This balancing act—progressive on economic justice and climate, traditional on doctrine and gender roles—will define his papacy and likely determine whether the Church can retain influence as secularization accelerates across developed nations.

Carlo Acutis, who died at age 15 from leukemia, was canonized on September 7, becoming widely venerated as “the first millennial saint” and “the patron saint of the Internet” for his interest in using digital communication to teach others. His canonization reflected the Church’s attempt to remain relevant in an increasingly digital age.

Democracy Under Strain: Elections and Erosions

The year delivered a mixed verdict on democratic governance. In New York City, Zohran Mamdani, a self-described democratic socialist, won the mayoral race on November 4, defeating better-known candidates with promises to make the city more affordable. India won its first Women’s Cricket World Cup on November 2, a cultural milestone in a nation where women’s sports traditionally received little support or recognition.

But democratic backsliding accelerated elsewhere. Charlie Kirk, the conservative activist and Trump ally who founded Turning Point USA, was assassinated on September 10 while speaking at Utah Valley University. His killing sent shockwaves through American political movements on both left and right, raising fears of escalating political violence.

Elections across Europe and Asia revealed voters’ discontent with incumbent governments yet offered few clear alternatives. Czech elections on October 3-4 saw former Prime Minister Andrej Babiš win a plurality but fail to reach a majority. Bulgaria’s government resigned in December following major protests, extending a political crisis that began in 2021. Chile elected José Antonio Kast as president, marking a rightward shift in a nation that had recently elected progressive leaders.

The pattern suggested voters everywhere wanted change but disagreed fundamentally about what kind. Populism continued gaining ground, traditional parties fragmented, and the center struggled to hold.

Notable Passages and Cultural Moments

Not everything in 2025 spoke to crisis. Rebecca Yarros published Onyx Storm, the third installment in her Empyrean “romantasy” series on January 21, breaking sales records with more than 2.7 million copies sold in its first week—the fastest-selling adult fiction title in 20 years. The cultural hunger for escapist fantasy suggested audiences wanted relief from a relentlessly difficult present.

Inter Miami CF, led by Lionel Messi, won its first Major League Soccer Cup on December 6, marking a triumph for both the legendary player and American soccer’s growing ambitions. The fictional K-pop group from the Netflix series K-Pop Demon Hunters saw their song “Golden” hit No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100, becoming the first K-pop girl group, real or fictional, to reach the top slot. The movie became Netflix’s most-watched film of all time.

On October 19, thieves dressed as workers used a furniture ladder to break into Paris’s Louvre Museum, fleeing on scooters with Crown Jewels valued at €88 million (though they dropped a diamond-encrusted crown during their escape). Three suspects were charged and jailed, but the stolen treasures remained missing—a crime that sparked worldwide headlines and debates about security at the world’s most-visited museum.

And on December 16, the world celebrated the 250th anniversary of Jane Austen’s birth, a reminder that some cultural touchstones endure regardless of technological disruption or geopolitical turbulence.

What 2025 Revealed About Our Trajectory

Standing at year’s end, several patterns emerge from the chaos. First, the American-led international order that structured global affairs since 1945 is dissolving faster than any replacement is being built. Trump’s tariffs, his simultaneous courtship and confrontation with traditional allies, and his transactional approach to alliances all signal that the rules-based system is giving way to something more Hobbesian—though what precisely remains unclear.

Second, climate change has moved from future threat to present reality in ways that penetrate public consciousness even as political action remains inadequate. When Los Angeles burns and Southeast Asian floods kill thousands, the connection between fossil fuel emissions and human suffering becomes harder to dismiss as alarmist speculation.

Third, artificial intelligence is reshaping economic structures at a pace that makes measured policy responses nearly impossible. By the time regulators understand last year’s technology, next year’s innovation has already been deployed. The $1.5 trillion in AI spending this year will seem quaint when we look back from 2030.

Fourth, young people globally are losing patience with systems that offer them diminishing opportunities while demanding their compliance. From Kathmandu to New York, Gen Z is increasingly willing to take risks their parents avoided. Whether this energy produces meaningful reform or violent backlash will shape the decade ahead.

Fifth, the search for peace in long-running conflicts—Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen—keeps producing agreements that paper over rather than resolve fundamental disagreements. Ceasefires hold, barely, while the underlying causes of war remain unaddressed. This is not stability; it’s a fragile pause before the next round.

Looking Forward: 2026 and Beyond

As we enter 2026, several questions demand answers. Can AI deliver on its enormous promises without triggering economic dislocation or enabling authoritarian control? Will democracies find ways to address voter anger, or will that anger keep empowering demagogues who offer simple answers to complex problems? Can the international community mobilize the resources needed to prevent climate change from triggering mass displacement and resource wars?

And perhaps most fundamentally: Is the post-1945 liberal international order worth saving, or should we accept that we’re entering a multipolar world where might increasingly makes right?

The optimist in me notes that humanity has navigated periods of comparable disruption before. The pessimist observes that such transitions typically involved considerable suffering before new equilibria emerged.

What’s undeniable is that 2025 represented not an aberration but an acceleration. The forces reshaping our world—technological, environmental, political, demographic—aren’t slowing down. If anything, they’re compounding, creating feedback loops that make prediction increasingly hazardous.

Those of us who chronicle these changes bear a responsibility to document not just events but patterns, not just what happened but what it might mean. And what 2025 meant, I believe, is this: the old world is dying, the new world struggles to be born, and in this interregnum, many monsters appear.

Whether 2026 brings us closer to resolution or deeper into crisis, one lesson from 2025 endures: change is the only constant, and our capacity to shape that change depends on our willingness to see clearly, think honestly, and act courageously in the face of enormous complexity.

The year ahead will test whether we’re equal to that challenge.

Post Views: 896

Discover more from The Monitor

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Up Next

How Liberal Democracy Can Survive an Age of Spiraling Crises: A Conversation With Daron Acemoglu

Don't Miss

The Jack Smith Report: What We Know About the Sealed Classified Documents Investigation—And Why It Matters

Click to comment

Analysis

‘I’m Embarrassed’: ICE Agents Break Silence on Minneapolis Shooting as Trump Doubles Down on Hardline Tactics

Published

6 hours ago

January 15, 2026

Abdul Rahman

Introduction:
“In the wake of the fatal shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis, a chilling whisper has emerged from within the ranks of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE): ‘I’m embarrassed.’ As the Trump administration staunchly defends Agent Jonathan Ross, claiming he acted in self-defense, current and former ICE agents are speaking out—not in support, but in dismay. This incident has become a flashpoint, exposing deep-seated concerns about the agency’s conduct, its operations in Minneapolis, and the administration’s aggressive push to expand its ranks. But what does this mean for the future of immigration enforcement in America?

According to a Washington Post analysis . ICE operations under Trump have intensified, with a 40% increase in arrests in sanctuary cities like Minneapolis. Yet, internal dissent suggests the agency may be spiraling into uncharted—and dangerous—territory.”

1. The Shooting of Renee Good: A Tragic Flashpoint
On January 7, 2026, Renee Good, a 37-year-old American citizen, was fatally shot by ICE Agent Jonathan Ross during an operation in Minneapolis. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) swiftly defended Ross, stating he “dutifully acted in self-defense.” However, eyewitness accounts and leaked internal memos paint a murkier picture. The New York Times reports that Ross fired his weapon within seconds of confrontation, raising questions about the use of lethal force.

Keyword Integration: ICE agent shooting Minneapolis, Renee Good fatal shooting

2. ‘I’m Embarrassed’: ICE Agents Speak Out
Behind closed doors, current and former ICE agents have expressed profound discomfort with the incident. “This isn’t what we signed up for,” one agent told Reuters on condition of anonymity. “The pressure to meet quotas and the lack of de-escalation training are pushing us into situations we’re not prepared for.”

ALSO READ : Biden's Absence from the NH Primary Ballot and Key Insights for the Upcoming Presidential Primaries

These concerns echo a broader pattern. A ProPublica investigation revealed that ICE agents in Minneapolis have faced increasing pressure to conduct high-risk operations, often with minimal oversight.

ICE agent conduct, Minneapolis protests

3. Trump’s Hardline ICE Policies: A Recipe for Disaster?
The Trump administration’s aggressive recruitment drive has added fuel to the fire. Since 2017, ICE has hired over 5,000 new agents, many with limited training, according to a Mother Jones report. This rapid expansion has raised alarms about accountability and professionalism.

“We’re seeing a culture of fear—both within the agency and in the communities we serve,” said a former ICE official in an interview with The Guardian . “This isn’t law enforcement; it’s a political tool.”

Keyword Integration: Trump administration ICE policies, Homeland Security controversies

4. The Broader Implications: A Nation at a Crossroads
The Minneapolis shooting is more than a tragedy—it’s a symptom of a broken system. As protests erupt across the city, demanding justice for Renee Good, the question remains: How much longer can ICE operate with impunity?

Data from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) shows that ICE operations in sanctuary cities have led to a 30% increase in reports of civil rights violations. Yet, the administration remains undeterred, promising to deploy hundreds more agents to Minneapolis.

Keyword Integration: Minneapolis protests, ICE operations

Conclusion:
The shooting of Renee Good has torn the veil off ICE’s operations, revealing a crisis of conscience within the agency itself. As Trump doubles down on his hardline tactics, the voices of embarrassed ICE agents serve as a stark warning: This path is unsustainable.

Will the administration heed these warnings, or will it continue to sacrifice accountability for political gain? The answer may determine not just the future of ICE, but the soul of a nation.

Post Views: 170

Discover more from The Monitor

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

ALSO READ : Defending Washington: The Extraordinary Battle Against the Chinese Balloon Invasion

Analysis

The Best, Worst, and Most Memorable Moments of the 2026 Golden Globes

Published

1 day ago

January 14, 2026

Abdul Rahman

From Nikki Glaser’s biting monologue to shocking upsets, explore the 2026 Golden Globes’ most unforgettable highlights, controversies, and cultural moments.

The 83rd Golden Globe Awards descended upon the Beverly Hilton on January 11, 2026, with all the glitz Hollywood could muster—and with it came the predictable chaos that makes the Globes less stuffy cousin to the Oscars and more like that smart friend who drinks too much at dinner parties and says what everyone’s thinking. Hosted for the second consecutive year by comedian Nikki Glaser, the ceremony pulled in 8.66 million viewers, a modest 7% drop from 2025, yet generated 43 million social media interactions—proof that the Globes remain more about viral moments than viewership dominance.

This year’s ceremony felt like a bellwether for Hollywood’s ongoing identity crisis: streaming giants battling theatrical legacy, international cinema demanding recognition, diversity gains shadowed by glaring omissions, and an industry trying desperately to appear relevant while Los Angeles burned and political fractures deepened. Paul Thomas Anderson’s One Battle After Another swept with four wins, while Chloé Zhao’s Hamnet shocked pundits by taking Best Drama over Ryan Coogler’s Sinners—a decision that crystallized this year’s most contentious debates about merit, momentum, and whose stories Hollywood deems worthy of its highest honors.

Let’s dissect what worked, what flopped, and what will reverberate through Oscar season and beyond.

Table of Contents

The Best Moments: When the Globes Got It Right

Nikki Glaser’s Surgical Opening Monologue

If hosting the Golden Globes requires walking a tightrope between roasting and reverence, Glaser’s second outing proved she’s mastered the art of the comedic tightrope walk. Her 10-minute opening salvo spared no sacred cow: Leonardo DiCaprio’s dating preferences (“The most impressive thing is you were able to accomplish all that before your girlfriend turned 30”), the redacted Epstein files (“The Golden Globe for best editing goes to… the Justice Department!”), and CBS News’ recent credibility nosedive (“America’s newest place to see BS news”).

What elevated Glaser beyond cheap shots was her evident affection for the room. As The Hollywood Reporter noted, she delivered “a top-tier monologue ahead of a show that otherwise pretended all’s well with the world.” Her joke about Michael B. Jordan playing twins in Sinners—”When I saw that, I was like Nikki B. Jerkin”—landed precisely because it was both juvenile and oddly charming. She closed by honoring late director Rob Reiner with a Spinal Tap hat and the film’s iconic line: “I hope we found the line between clever and stupid.” They did.

Teyana Taylor’s Triumph and Tearful Advocacy

One of the night’s genuine surprises came when Teyana Taylor won Best Supporting Actress for One Battle After Another, defeating frontrunner Amy Madigan (Weapons) and Wicked: For Good‘s Ariana Grande. Taylor’s performance as revolutionary Perfidia Beverly Hills had been critically lauded but overshadowed in the awards conversation—until it wasn’t.

Her acceptance speech transcended typical thank-yous, becoming one of the ceremony’s most culturally resonant moments. “To my brown sisters and little brown girls watching tonight,” Taylor said, voice breaking, “our softness is not a liability. Our depth is not too much. Our light does not need permission to shine. We belong in every room we walk into.” In an era where diversity gains in Hollywood feel fragile, Taylor’s win and words offered both validation and challenge.

Owen Cooper Makes History at 16

Netflix’s Adolescence—a single-take murder investigation drama that dominated with four wins—produced the evening’s most heartwarming moment when 16-year-old Owen Cooper became the youngest male supporting actor winner in Golden Globes history. The teen’s speech was disarmingly humble: “Standing here at the Golden Globes, it just does not feel real whatsoever… I’m still very much an apprentice.” He closed with a shout-out to Liverpool F.C.: “Bring on 2026. You’ll never walk alone.”

The juxtaposition of Cooper’s youthful sincerity against Hollywood’s practiced polish felt refreshing. His co-star Stephen Graham was caught on camera wiping away tears—a reminder that awards can still feel genuinely meaningful when they recognize emerging talent rather than coronating the expected.

Wagner Moura’s Groundbreaking Win

Brazilian actor Wagner Moura’s Best Actor in a Drama victory for The Secret Agent marked a significant milestone: he became the first Brazilian to win in the category. His speech connected the film’s themes of generational trauma to broader societal healing: “If trauma can be passed along through generations, values can, too. This is to the ones sticking with their values in difficult moments.” He concluded in Portuguese: “Long live Brazilian culture.”

ALSO READ : Women Empowerment is the Need of Time specially in decision Making : Advisor to PM Malik Amin Aslam

Moura’s win, alongside Brazil’s The Secret Agent taking Best International Feature, signals (perhaps) a genuine shift in how Hollywood’s international voters evaluate non-English cinema—not as exotic “foreign” curiosities but as equal contenders. Whether this translates to Oscar recognition remains the billion-dollar question.

K-pop Breaks Through

In a category debut, “Golden” from Netflix’s KPop Demon Hunters became the first K-pop song to win Best Original Song at the Golden Globes. Songwriter EJAE’s emotional acceptance speech resonated widely: fighting through tears, she described being rejected by the K-pop industry for a decade before this triumph. The moment felt emblematic of how streaming platforms are democratizing global storytelling, even as traditional gatekeepers resist.

The Worst Moments: When the Globes Missed the Mark

The Sinners Snub: A Troubling Pattern

Perhaps no moment encapsulated the Globes’ disconnect more than Ryan Coogler’s Sinners being systematically sidelined. Despite entering with seven nominations and massive cultural momentum—the vampire film set in the Jim Crow South had become one of 2025’s most discussed originals—it left with only Cinematic and Box Office Achievement (a relatively new, lesser category) and Best Score, which wasn’t even televised.

Coogler lost Best Director and Best Screenplay to Paul Thomas Anderson for One Battle After Another—a defensible choice on merit, perhaps, but one that stings when Sinners‘ entire creative team walked away empty-handed. Michael B. Jordan’s dual performance drew raves but no nomination, a conspicuous oversight. As one critic noted, the treatment reflects “a familiar pattern in how Black art is acknowledged in Hollywood, yet still overlooked on these prestigious industry stages.”

The pattern feels uncomfortably familiar: nominate the Black film, celebrate its commercial success (because that’s “safe”), but when it’s time to hand out the major creative trophies, suddenly the work doesn’t quite measure up. Sinners remains a strong Oscar contender, but the Globes’ cold shoulder will make that hill steeper to climb.

Frankenstein and Wicked: The Five-Nomination Shutouts

Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein, despite five nominations and support from major guilds, went home empty. So did Wicked: For Good, the sequel to 2024’s box-office behemoth. Both films faced the Globes’ genre categorization problem: Frankenstein competed in Drama (where Hamnet and Sinners dominated conversation), while Wicked: For Good fell into Musical/Comedy (where One Battle After Another swept).

The shutouts felt less like snubs and more like mathematical inevitabilities of an awards show that splits films by genre. Still, as Variety observed, it’s jarring when films with genuine guild support—traditionally the best predictor of awards viability—can’t convert a single win.

Television’s Big Three Get Blanked

On the TV side, The White Lotus (six nominations), Severance (four), and Only Murders in the Building (four) all went home empty-handed. These aren’t marginal shows; they’re Emmy winners, cultural touchstones, and viewer favorites. Their collective shutout felt less like careful consideration of merit and more like the Globes’ penchant for chaos—spreading awards around to avoid looking predictable, consequences be damned.

Severance in particular stung. The Apple TV+ series has redefined prestige television with its Orwellian corporate satire, and its erasure felt symbolic of how the Globes prioritize buzz over craftsmanship. Then again, maybe that’s the point: the Globes have never pretended to be serious arbiters of artistic merit.

The Podcast Category’s Identity Crisis

The Globes’ new Best Podcast category—won by Amy Poehler’s Good Hang, which launched in March 2025—immediately sparked confusion. Poehler’s podcast is charming, but it’s barely nine months old. Meanwhile, established juggernauts like Smartless (six years running) and high-profile political podcasts were conspicuously absent from nominations.

The category felt simultaneously overdue (podcasts are massive) and half-baked (why these nominees?). Glaser’s Nicole Kidman AMC ad parody preempting the category was the highlight—which tells you everything about how seriously anyone took it.

Sports Betting Chyrons: The Visual Pollution

A smaller but irritating misstep: Polymarket (a prediction market platform) graphics appearing before commercial breaks, showing odds for upcoming categories. As TVLine groaned, “It’s always an eyesore when sports betting graphics show up during major pop culture moments.” The intrusion felt emblematic of how awards shows increasingly treat audiences as consumers to monetize rather than viewers to entertain.

The Most Memorable Moments: What We’ll Still Talk About

Timothée Chalamet’s First Globe—and That Kiss

After four nominations without a win, Timothée Chalamet finally took home Best Actor in a Musical/Comedy for Marty Supreme, Josh Safdie’s ping-pong drama. The win felt earned—Chalamet’s portrayal of narcissistic athlete Marty Mauser showcased range beyond his usual mopey-prince typecasting. But what made it unforgettable was the kiss he gave Kylie Jenner before heading to the stage, followed by his on-air thank you to her.

In an era when celebrity relationships feel performatively private, the moment felt genuinely tender. Whether it softens Chalamet’s chances at the Oscars (where voters prefer tortured suffering to rom-com swagger) remains to be seen, but for one night, Hollywood’s most mysterious young couple reminded us why we care about celebrities in the first place.

ALSO READ : Airbags on Collision Course: Automakers Clash with US over 52 Million Potentially Faulty Inflators

Rose Byrne’s Reptile Expo Confession

Winner of Best Actress in a Musical/Comedy for If I Had Legs I’d Kick You, Rose Byrne delivered a delightfully bizarre acceptance speech. After thanking her director and cast, she pivoted: “I want to thank my husband, Bobby Cannavale. He couldn’t be here because he’s, um—we’re getting a bearded dragon, and he went to a reptile expo in New Jersey.”

The admission was so charmingly specific that it went instantly viral. Byrne had explained on The Tonight Show days earlier that their sons wanted a bearded dragon, and Cannavale was attending Reptilecon the same day as the Globes. The image of Bobby Cannavale choosing lizards over Hollywood glamour felt like the most honest moment of the night.

Macaulay Culkin’s 35-Year Return

When Macaulay Culkin walked onstage to present Best Screenplay—his first Globes appearance since his 1990 Home Alone nomination—the Beverly Hilton erupted in a standing ovation. Culkin, now 45, leaned into the moment with self-deprecating wit: “I know it’s weird to see me outside the holiday season. Shockingly, I do exist all year round.”

The response spoke to something deeper than ’90s nostalgia. Culkin’s public journey—from child star to tabloid cautionary tale to well-adjusted adult working on his own terms—feels redemptive in ways Hollywood rarely allows. His return was less about the ceremony and more about collective relief that he’s okay.

The Hamnet Upset Nobody Saw Coming

When Chloé Zhao’s Hamnet was announced as Best Drama over presumed frontrunner Sinners, even Zhao looked shocked. Her acceptance speech graciously acknowledged Coogler: “I have to shout out Sinners. Ryan, you’re a master.” The win, while contested, signals Oscars voters might be more receptive to quieter, literary adaptations (Maggie O’Farrell’s novel about Shakespeare’s son) than Twitter buzz would suggest.

Yet the upset also crystallizes awards season’s fundamental unpredictability. Hamnet had strong reviews and Steven Spielberg producing, but it wasn’t dominating precursors. Sometimes the Globes’ international voting body simply… zigs when pundits expect a zag. Whether that’s admirable independence or chaotic incoherence depends on your perspective.

Jean Smart’s Third Win and Political Undercurrent

Jean Smart’s Best Actress in a TV Comedy win for Hacks (her third Globe) came with a trademark quip: “What can I say, I’m a greedy bitch.” But her red carpet interview earlier, where she expressed concern about the country’s political turning point, added subtext. Smart’s ability to balance comedy with conscience felt like a masterclass in using Hollywood platforms wisely.

Throughout the night, politics simmered beneath the surface: celebrities like Mark Ruffalo wearing “Ice Out” pins honoring Renée Macklin Good (killed by ICE), Glaser’s CBS News jab, and acceptance speeches urging “compassion and understanding.” The Globes didn’t become overtly political, but the undercurrent suggested Hollywood knows it’s watching an administration hostile to its values—and hasn’t decided how loudly to push back.

What It All Means for Oscar Season and Beyond

The 2026 Golden Globes reinforced several industry realities. First, Warner Bros. Discovery—amid its contentious sale to Netflix/Paramount—had a blockbuster night with One Battle After Another, Sinners (box office award), and The Pitt dominating. The irony that WBD CEO David Zaslav sat in a room where his company’s sale wasn’t mentioned once speaks to Hollywood’s gift for compartmentalization.

Second, streaming’s dominance continues unabated. Netflix’s Adolescence won four TV awards, KPop Demon Hunters took two film prizes, and Apple TV+’s The Studio and The Pitt (HBO Max) split comedy/drama TV honors. Theatrical cinema is fighting for relevance—Sinners‘ box office award felt almost patronizing, a pat on the head for daring to play in cinemas at all.

Third, the diversity conversation remains maddeningly incomplete. Teyana Taylor, Wagner Moura, and EJAE winning felt significant, but Sinners‘ snubs and the absence of major Black films in top categories suggest progress remains halting. As one analysis noted, while streaming has increased diverse storytelling, awards recognition lags frustratingly behind cultural impact.

Fourth, the Globes’ viewership decline—8.66 million is respectable but trending downward—mirrors broader questions about awards shows’ relevance. Younger audiences increasingly don’t care about industry back-patting, and the ceremony’s 43 million social interactions (up 5% year-over-year) suggest its future might be as meme-generating content farms rather than appointment television.

The Verdict

The 2026 Golden Globes succeeded where it often does: as a chaotic, entertaining, occasionally insightful preview of Oscar season that reminds us why we watch celebrities behave like humans for three hours. Nikki Glaser proved she’s the host Hollywood needs right now—sharp enough to cut, warm enough to charm. The wins for Teyana Taylor, Owen Cooper, and Wagner Moura provided genuine emotional heft. And One Battle After Another‘s sweep positions Paul Thomas Anderson as Oscar frontrunner, though Hamnet‘s upset and Sinners‘ snubs ensure nothing is settled.

But the ceremony also exposed uncomfortable truths: Hollywood still struggles to fully embrace Black-led cinema beyond commercial categories, international films remain ghettoized despite lip service, and the industry’s political convictions feel muted when self-interest intrudes. The Globes are never meant to be profound—they’re the drunk friend who tells uncomfortable truths at parties—but perhaps that’s their value. In showing us both what’s celebrated and what’s ignored, they reveal Hollywood’s priorities more honestly than any Oscar speech ever will.

As awards season accelerates toward March’s Oscars, the 2026 Golden Globes will be remembered for Glaser’s monologue, the Sinners controversy, and the night Rose Byrne chose bearded dragons over bobby pins. Sometimes, that’s exactly enough.

Post Views: 209

Discover more from The Monitor

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Analysis

Trump, Hawley & War Powers Act: Congress vs Executive Authority Explained

Published

6 days ago

January 9, 2026

Abdul Rahman

You’ve likely seen headlines about President Trump and a War Powers Act fight that pulled a handful of Republicans into a high-stakes vote. You should know the War Powers Resolution limits a president’s ability to expand military action without Congress, and recent votes by Senators like Josh Hawley and Todd Young turned that law into a live flashpoint between the White House and Capitol Hill.

This dispute matters because it reshapes how much control Congress can exert over future military moves and signals shifting alliances within the GOP. Expect this post to unpack the legal mechanism, the political calculations behind the bipartisan votes, and the broader implications for executive power and party dynamics.

Key Takeaways

The War Powers framework restricts unilateral presidential military action.
Congressional votes by GOP senators altered the political balance on oversight.
The debate will influence future executive-legislative clashes over force.

Overview of the War Powers Act

The War Powers Act defines congressional and presidential responsibilities for introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities, sets time limits for deployments without explicit authorization, and creates reporting requirements to Congress.

Historical Context and Purpose

Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973 in response to the Vietnam War and concerns that presidents had committed U.S. forces to prolonged hostilities without adequate congressional oversight. Lawmakers sought a statutory check on unilateral executive action by clarifying when and how the president must consult and notify Congress.

The statute aims to restore the constitutional balance between the legislative power to declare war and the president’s role as commander in chief. It reflects bipartisan frustration at secret or extended military commitments and intends to force deliberation—either authorization or withdrawal—within defined timeframes.

Key Provisions and Requirements

The Act requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent. That notification must explain the legal basis, scope, and estimated duration of the deployment.

After notification, the Act limits military engagement to 60 days of continuous hostilities, plus a 30-day withdrawal period, unless Congress enacts a declaration of war, an authorization for use of military force (AUMF), or specific statutory approval. It also mandates regular reports to Congress and allows Congress to require removal of forces by concurrent resolution (though the constitutional and practical effect of that mechanism has been disputed).

Comparison to the War Powers Resolution

The terms “War Powers Act” and “War Powers Resolution” refer to the same 1973 statute; “Resolution” often appears in political reporting. The statute functions as a resolution passed by both houses and presented to the president, who signed—or in some administrations, contested—its constitutionality.

Presidents from both parties have challenged aspects of the law, citing executive prerogatives and arguing the reporting and withdrawal triggers can interfere with operational flexibility. Congress and the courts have produced limited, mixed rulings on enforcement, which has left practical compliance uneven and often politicized—especially when specific cases, like proposed actions involving Venezuela, prompt votes on related resolutions.

President Trump’s Approach to the War Powers Act

Trump frequently framed the War Powers Act as a constraint on the commander-in-chief role, while also using unilateral military options that tested the statute’s limits. His statements, deployments, and legal posture led to congressional pushback and rare bipartisan votes to assert oversight.

Policy Actions and Statements

Trump publicly criticized the War Powers Resolution, calling it an impediment to presidential authority as commander in chief. He argued that the statute—originally passed in 1973—restricted the executive branch’s ability to act swiftly in foreign crises.

Administrations under Trump notified Congress for some operations within the 48-hour reporting window the law requires, but also pursued strikes and special operations that raised questions about the need for further congressional authorization. His administration emphasized reliance on inherent constitutional authority and authorizations for use of military force (AUMFs) when defending actions.

ALSO READ : Kashmir and the Administration of Justice-I

Statements from Trump and senior officials prioritized flexibility and speed. That posture influenced how legal advisers framed the administration’s justification for kinetic actions and limited the administration’s willingness to seek new, explicit congressional approvals for some operations.

Significant Presidential Decisions

Trump ordered several high-profile uses of force that highlighted tensions with the War Powers Resolution. The January 2020 strike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani prompted Congress to reexamine executive war-making authority.

Operations in Venezuela and targeted counterterrorism strikes in Syria, Afghanistan, and elsewhere also drew scrutiny. Some of those actions led senators to press for a formal war powers resolution to constrain further military engagement without congressional approval.

On occasion the administration complied with reporting requirements but stopped short of seeking a new statutory authorization tied specifically to the operation. This pattern produced recurring legal questions about when notification satisfies the resolution versus when congressional approval becomes necessary.

Controversies and Criticism

Critics argued Trump’s approach eroded legislative oversight and increased risk of unauthorized, prolonged military engagements. Lawmakers across parties cited specific strikes and special operations as examples where the administration should have sought clearer congressional authorization.

Supporters countered that rapid, targeted actions protected U.S. interests and that existing AUMFs or constitutional authority justified the moves. Still, votes in the Senate—where five Republicans joined Democrats to advance a war powers measure—reflected bipartisan concern over executive overreach in at least some cases.

Legal scholars and members of Congress debated enforcement mechanisms within the War Powers Resolution, noting that courts rarely intervene and that political remedies, such as withholding funding or passing resolutions, remain the primary checks.

Congressional Perspectives and Political Debates

Congressional debate centers on which branch controls the decision to use U.S. military force, how to limit executive flexibility, and which statutory fixes would restore clear authorization and oversight.

Roles of Congress in War Declarations

Congress holds the constitutional power to declare war and to raise and support the armed forces, while the president serves as commander in chief. In practice, Congress has rarely issued formal declarations since World War II, relying instead on Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs) and budgetary controls to influence military action.

Members emphasize two practical levers: statutory authorizations that explicitly define scope and duration of force, and appropriations riders that can constrain funding for specific operations. Committees—especially Armed Services and Foreign Relations—conduct oversight hearings, subpoena witnesses, and review classified briefings to assess ongoing engagements.

Judicially, courts have been reluctant to resolve political-branch disputes over war powers, leaving Congress to negotiate internal remedies through legislation, oversight, and political pressure.

Recent Legislative Attempts to Amend the Law

Lawmakers have proposed several statutory changes aimed at clarifying the War Powers Resolution and replacing broad AUMFs. Proposals range from tightening time limits for troop deployments to requiring pre-authorization for significant kinetic strikes and mandating regular congressional reporting on military operations.

In the Senate, bipartisan bills have sought to require specific congressional approval for hostilities beyond short-term emergency responses. Some versions would restore a 60- to 90-day automatic withdrawal timeline absent explicit approval. Others focus on transparency: enhanced reporting, public disclosure of legal memos, and stricter criteria for defining “hostilities.”

Efforts face hurdles: presidents resist measures they view as eroding operational flexibility, and intra-Congress divisions—between hawks wanting fewer constraints and reformers pushing for stronger checks—complicate consensus. Appropriations and procedural rules also affect the odds of passage.

Bipartisan Positions on Executive Military Authority

Republicans and Democrats split on how much authority the president should retain, but crossover exists. Some Republicans, including defense hawks, argue strong executive flexibility is essential for rapid response to threats. Other Republicans, like members advocating for institutional prerogatives, favor restoring congressional authorizations to check unilateral action.

Democrats similarly divide: progressive members push for narrow executive authority and strict congressional reassertion, while moderates sometimes support limited flexibility for counterterrorism and alliance operations. Bipartisan coalitions have formed around transparency measures and sunset provisions that appeal to both oversight-minded legislators and practical-security advocates.

High-profile senators from both parties—who have sponsored reform bills or joined oversight efforts—shape the legislative terrain. Their negotiations typically focus on time limits, reporting requirements, and definitions of “hostilities,” which determine the practical balance between presidential agility and congressional control.

ALSO READ : Women Empowerment is the Need of Time specially in decision Making : Advisor to PM Malik Amin Aslam

Josh Hawley and Todd Young: Legislative Initiatives

Both senators have sponsored high-profile measures addressing executive power and ethics in government. Hawley has pushed anti-insider-trading legislation and joined limits on presidential war-making; Young has worked with colleagues to invoke congressional authority over military action.

Key Sponsorships and Resolutions

Josh Hawley sponsored the Honest Act variant that sought to ban stock trading by members of Congress and extend the ban to the president and vice president after negotiations added those offices. His vote to advance that measure in committee positioned him as a lone or rare GOP supporter on ethics restrictions, drawing public rebuke from former President Trump.

Todd Young co-sponsored and voted with other Republicans and Democrats on a War Powers Resolution aimed at limiting unilateral presidential military action in Venezuela. Young joined Senators Murkowski, Collins, and others in advancing the measure to assert Congress’s constitutional role in authorizing force.

Both senators also backed related procedural moves to bring these bills to the floor, signaling willingness to cross partisan lines on specific institutional reforms. Their sponsorships combined ethics and war-powers items that altered ordinary Republican caucus dynamics.

Motivations and Public Statements

Hawley framed his anti-trading push as restoring public trust and preventing conflicts of interest, emphasizing transparency and stricter rules for lawmakers’ financial activities. He publicly defended the trade ban as necessary even when it elicited criticism from the Trump administration.

Young argued that the War Powers Resolution was about reasserting Congress’s constitutional prerogative to declare war, citing concerns over executive branch overreach in foreign operations. He described the vote as a check on the use of military force, not a partisan attack on a particular president.

Both senators couched their actions in institutionalist language—protecting democratic norms and institutional integrity—while avoiding rhetoric that directly blamed colleagues. Their statements aimed to appeal to voters concerned with both ethics and separation of powers.

Impact on National Discourse

Hawley’s backing of the stock-trading ban shifted conversations within the GOP about ethics reform, making a previously marginal idea more mainstream and prompting public confrontation with presidential allies. Media coverage highlighted the intra-party split and framed the episode as a test of Republican unity on governance reforms.

Young’s vote on the War Powers Resolution contributed to renewed debate about Congress’s role in authorizing military action, particularly regarding U.S. policy toward Venezuela. The bipartisan nature of the vote strengthened legislative claims to oversight and encouraged further proposals to clarify war-authority limits.

Combined, their initiatives pushed institutional questions—ethics rules and constitutional war powers—into legislative and public arenas, prompting hearings, op-eds, and follow-on bills that continued to shape policy discussions.

Implications for U.S. Politics and Future Policy

Congressional moves to constrain presidential military action and proposals to ban stock trading by officials signal shifting priorities about executive accountability and ethical constraints. The dynamics will shape interbranch relations, legislative agendas, and campaign messaging as lawmakers weigh national security, oversight, and electoral consequences.

Balance of Power Between Branches

Legislative efforts to use the War Powers Act or a War Powers Resolution to restrict a president’s ability to order strikes highlight a renewed assertion of congressional authority over decisions to use force. Senators from both parties, including a handful of Republicans, have voted to advance measures that would limit unilateral executive military action.

That bipartisan movement could normalize congressional consultation or statutory limits on certain categories of force, putting the White House on the defensive when seeking authorization for strikes. For the judiciary, increased litigation is likely if a president claims inherent authority; courts may be asked to resolve questions about justiciability and separation of powers.

Political signaling matters: members of Congress who press constraints can pursue oversight, budgetary levers, or targeted authorizations as alternatives to sweeping executive discretion. Those tools will shape future crises and how administrations craft legal justifications for military options.

Potential Legal and Political Outcomes

Legal outcomes will hinge on litigation contours and judicial appetite to engage separation-of-powers disputes. Challenges to executive action under new or reasserted war-powers statutes could reach federal appellate courts and possibly the Supreme Court, producing precedents on the limits of commander-in-chief authority.

Politically, constraints on presidential war-making may become campaign issues. Opponents could argue that limits hinder rapid response, while proponents will frame them as necessary checks. Legislative bans or reforms—such as clarity on when congressional authorization is required—could survive as law if bipartisan coalitions hold in conference and the president signs or is overridden.

Practical effects include changes to military planning timelines, interagency approval processes, and the use of covert actions or proxy measures. Lawmakers and administrations will likely adapt through clearer statutory definitions, reporting requirements, and built-in sunset clauses to reduce ambiguity and manage political risk.

Post Views: 488