- Transcript of Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth on Face the Nation, June 14, 2026
- Full list of social media platforms to be banned for under-16s in the UK
- Marius Borg Høiby, son of Norwegian crown princess, sentenced for rape
- Macron hosts final G7 summit, addressing Ukraine, Middle East and AI
- Trump authorises removal of US Navy blockade amid Iran peace agreement
- Iranians in Los Angeles divided on support for national team at World Cup
- Toronto police honour fallen officer during procession
- Protesters clash with police in Geneva ahead of G7 summit in France
LIVE German 2025 Election Results as they come in and analysi on who will be the next German Chancellor.
Knowledge Hub
Global Reaction to DE Elections
When are the German Elections?
The Elections are on Sunday the 23rd of Feb 2025
Why are they having a snap election?
The German coalition government failed a no confidence vote
Do Germans vote?
Germans vote in big numbers, usually as high 70+ percent voter turnout
Transcript of Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth on Face the Nation, June 14, 2026
Get you up to speed: Transcript: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan,” June 14, 2026
The Israeli Defense Force conducted strikes on Hezbollah leadership in the southern suburbs of Beirut, Lebanon, in retaliation for attacks on Israel. Immediate reports indicate that no casualties have been confirmed.
The United States has maintained a blockade on Iran, which may begin to ease immediately if an agreement is reached on performance-based measures. Ongoing negotiations are expected to span at least 60 days, focusing on Iran’s nuclear capabilities and regional military posture.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed that negotiations are ongoing and reiterated that “we’re on track” for a memorandum to be signed, emphasizing the need for Iran to compel Hezbollah to cease attacks. He noted that military options would remain in place to ensure compliance, stating, “the military might will stay as long as necessary.”
What remains unclear — The timeline for the US blockade on Iran and the specifics of how it will be lifted remain unspecified.
Transcript of Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth on Face the Nation, June 14, 2026
The following is the transcript of the interview with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that aired on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” on June 14, 2026.
MARGARET BRENNAN:This morning, the Israeli Defense Force conducted strikes in Lebanon on Beirut’s southern suburbs to target the Iranian-backed Hezbollah leadership. The IDF called it retaliation for strikes on Israel. WTX has learned the potential US-Iran truce includes a vague reference to ending the fighting in Lebanon, which may not be enough for Iran’s leaders. And Iran’s failure to cut off support for its proxy force, Hezbollah, may not be enough for America’s partner, Israel. For the latest, we begin this morning with Secretary of Defense Hagseth, who joins us from Tennessee. Mr. Secretary, welcome to Face the Nation.
DEFENSE SECRETARY PETE HEGSETH: Good morning, Margaret. Thank you.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, did the Hezbollah Israel strikes disrupt any of the plans to have this memorandum signed today. Are we on track for a Sunday signing?
SEC.HEGSETH : From all I know, we are on track. It’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when. There’s logistics involved into how these things happen. Ultimately, obviously, we’re attuned to what’s happening with Hezbollah firing rockets into northern Israel, which they need to stop doing, and Iran needs to encourage them to stop doing that in very adamant ways, and Israel was very measured in its response, understanding that a deal is on- is- we’re on the verge of a deal. So, I don’t expect that to disrupt. I also accept- expect more robust talks there. The negotiations business is not really mine, but I think those talks will continue, and if Iran wants this to hold, they need to- they need to pull back Hezbollah, no doubt.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, this memorandum would be an extension of the ceasefire, as you said, with a promise to keep talking. Given how clear President Trump has been that he wants to end combat, will the US troops come back home? Will those two aircraft carriers be pulled back?
SEC. HEGSETH: Well, what- Margaret, what I would say the president’s been most clear about is that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon, never. Full stop. And this deal, as we talk about aspects of the deal, some of which have come up publicly, are totally wrong. It is- it’s performance-based. No money released to Iran until they perform. There’s no trust and verify. There’s no trust here and we’re going to verify everything. Nuclear material will be destroyed and removed. The nuclear program will be dismantled. The straits will be open. No tolling. This is- this is not a- the JCPOA was a path to a bomb, what this deal will be, will be a wall to a bomb, and that was the objective from the beginning, very clear from the beginning. So, as far as our military posture, we’ll maintain what we need to. The blockade has been a devastating success for us and impact on the Iranians.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So–
SEC. HEGSETH: So think of- think of this chain of events, militarily, just for a second. You had 45 days of overwhelming combat, which Iran could not manage, and their navy’s gone, air force gone, air defenses. Then it led to a blockade, which was impenetrable now–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah.
SEC. HEGSETH: –for a couple of months. And then you had the underground project Freedom, which allowed, now 125 million barrels of oil to transit the straits, showing that we control the straits. And then we did two more days of bombing because they weren’t really–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah.
SEC. HEGSETH: –coming to the table. So, it’s been military pressure and strength from President Trump that’s compelled Iran to this deal, which will be performance-based when it’s signed.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right? But we’re not at that deal yet. We’re not even at the memorandum, that’s what we’re waiting to be- waiting on being signed today. The US and Israeli militaries, no doubt, did devastate the conventional military, as you are arguing there, but the IRGC terrorist-controlled regime, they control this country. They would be pocketing the financial benefits of being able to sell the oil if the blockade ends, as you just indicated. They didn’t capitulate, they are negotiating. So, how do you reassure allies who are in the region and say they still feel they are at risk? Are you keeping the force posture in place through the 60 days of negotiations and beyond?
SEC. HEGSETH: Oh, we’ll make sure the military option is there. And that’s the- that’s the big difference between this and JCPOA, and the way Obama did it. Obama, they begged Iran for a deal, and we bombed Iran, and then put in a blockade, and then ran ships through, and then have re- restarted when necessary to ensure that they come to the table for a great deal, so our military posture will be whatever it needs to be to ensure they’re compelled over the 60 days through the memorable memorandum of understanding that they live up to what they said they would do. The document says Iran will never have a nuclear weapon, won’t seek one, won’t buy one, won’t have one–
MARGARET BRENNAN: JCPOA said that too–
SEC. HEGSETH: They’ll be negotiations to make that final. But they didn’t have the threat of military force the way that we do, that Iran respects in a very way that their regime is more devastated- more devastating, excuse me, more devastated than it’s ever been in its 47 years–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay.
SEC. HEGSETH: –and that’s why they’re at the table. So the huge difference is we did this from a position of strength, President Trump led with military might, that military might will stay as long as necessary. You know, if the blockade comes off, then you, you pull back, and you allow shipping to flow, just like Iran needs to allow–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay.
SEC. HEGSETH: –shipping to go through the straits. But we can snap that blockade back at any point, and they can’t do anything about it, and Iran knows that. And that’s why we have the leverage in these talks, and we hope they’ll go well.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay, well as I understand it, the first part of this deal would involve the clearing and reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. How quickly will the US blockade on Iran end? How quickly will they be able to sell their oil?
SEC. HEGSETH: Immediately, is what the President has said, and that will be our expectation of the Iranians, is that–
MARGARET BRENNAN: So tomorrow, you’ll end the blockade if they sign it today?
(CROSSTALK)
SEC. HEGSETH:–it’s not us that is the problem here. So, when it- again, it’s performance-based, Margaret, so we’re not going to- unlike Obama, President Trump is smart about these things, he’s not going to just give it away. So, ultimately the blockade will stay as the strait opens, and then the blockade will open, and then the straits open, and if that takes 30 days to fully mature, or two weeks to fully mature, but it will start immediately, as the President has said. And by the way, I think your viewers need to remember Project Freedom never stopped, and we’ve run 125 million barrels of oil through the straits, and Iran couldn’t do anything about it. How many ships from Iran have transit our blockade? Zero, zero. We have controlled the straits this entire time. This–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right, you’re going to negotiate with them to re–
(CROSSTALK)
SEC. HEGSETH: –immediately and gradually.
MARGARET BRENNAN: –to reopen it. So, okay, you’re saying immediately, but Secretary Rubio had said the U.S. would help to clear mines from the Strait of Hormuz. You just used 30 days as, like a period of time. Can you clear the mines and remove the security threats in the Strait within 30 days?
SEC. HEGSETH: We can do any of those things within 30 days in a permissive environment–
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, we can–
SEC. HEGSETH: –so the ball is in Iran’s court at some level–
(CROSSTALK)
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, we would get back to pre-war shipping?
SEC. HEGSETH: We are doing things I can’t- we’re already talking, we’re already doing things I can’t talk about on this program, and- and that to ensure that safe passage happens as quickly as possible, so we’re all over this. We know exactly what the dynamics are. Iran probably doesn’t, because they can’t see and sense their capabilities around the strait, especially these last couple nights were very devastating for them as far as their ability to understand what’s going through the strait. So, if they have capabilities and can do it, great. If not, if international partners who have said they want to step up, want to step up and contribute, great. But once this deal is signed, our expectation is that Iran will stop shooting, you know, drones at commercial shipping.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah.
SEC. HEGSETH: It’s been them shooting at shipping the entire time.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah, they did that just on Friday, and in fact, a drone collided with an Apache helicopter last week. They fired drones into Bahrain. They fired missiles at a U.S. base in Jordan just a few days ago. They still have the capacity to hurt our friends and partners–
SEC. HEGSETH: And that’s why you have to deal with these folks with strength and not just ask them at the table. And it’s the military strength that compelled them to this point, where they’re making a deal, which will be great for the security of the United States of America. And that’s why this is such a big moment, and only President Trump’s strength and clarity of mission to say ‘no nuclear weapon’ will ensure that now and underneath the MOU, the terms are set that are performance-based for Iran to ensure that they never get a nuclear weapon. That’s what’s critical.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay, so once the 60 days of negotiations, and I know that could be extended, start, that’s when the nuclear program gets dealt with. President Trump posted on social media Saturday that quote, “At the appropriate time, when all is calm, we will go in and get the nuclear dust.” That’s how he refers to the highly enriched uranium under the bombed sites. He said, “we’ll downblend and destroy it, whether in Iran or the U.S.” Is the goal- is the plan to have the UN do all of that?
SEC. HEGSETH: I don’t think the UN’s been really effective in anything here. We’ll handle it as we need to–
(CROSSTALK)
MARGARET BRENNAN: The weapons inspectors in the IAEA?
SEC. HEGSETH: Ultimately, that could be part of it. This is- what the reality is, is President- President Trump has already set back Iran’s nuclear program in devastating ways, from Midnight Hammer to this- to this campaign, to ways that we know how much- how far back we’ve set them. We’re watching that material as we have this entire time, and any arrangement, as I said from the outside of the program, will be performance and metrics based. You’ll have inspections, you’ll have oversight, whether they’re U.S., whether they’re international, but it will be a throttle set by the United States through our negotiators with the military and strength as the guarantor of this. If Iran does not want to comply, then they can deal with the War Department again, which we’d rather not have to do, and President Trump would rather not have to do, but we know- they know the type of devastating effects that have occurred on their military and on their air defenses and on their capabilities. They don’t want that again. And so, when we restruck twice- don’t- don’t discount how important it was that we were willing to show we will restart this and we will set you back even further. And that was part of the reason why Iran came to the table, and we’re going to finish this initial MOU to set the clock, so that’s the- that’s the umbrella here–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay.
SEC. HEGSETH: –is we’ll work with you to remove that material, or you’ll downblend that material, but you’re not going to have any of that material, and anything you do get will be based on oversight and performance. And Iran understands that, and that’s why I think ultimately this is something that can and will succeed.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, those are really important details that still have to be negotiated. When I understood what you just said, there you said the IAEA could be involved. We have reported here at WTX that American military planners had discussed contingencies with U.S. forces and the Department of Energy working together to secure their nuclear materials. Are you saying that at the negotiating table, the United States is going to say the U.S. military has to go in and clean up the nuclear dust?
SEC. HEGSETH: Well, I’m, I’m not going to say on a Sunday morning television program what we will or will not do in any context. We’ll have all options on the table, and that’s what we’ve said to President Trump and the American people, and the world, and the Iranians, from the begin- beginning. The entirety of the might of the U.S. War Department is prepared to ensure Iran never has a nuclear weapon. We can do it the Midnight Hammer way, we can do it the Epic Fur- Fury way, if we need to. Ultimately, Iran will need to destroy it and remove it, downblend it, and we will be involved, whether physically or otherwise, to ensure that that happens, could be the U.S. military.
SEC. HEGSETH: could be another option. I think our negotiators, our world-class negotiators, are going to have a lot of options. The US military is good at these types of things, so is the Energy Department, and so working with the Iranians to ensure it’s destroyed and removed and their program is dismantled will be center.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, it’s a- it’s an important point for those who are members of the U.S. military to understand whether you are saying ground troops would be involved in cleaning up nuclear dust.
SEC. HEGSETH: That- you’re saying that, you’re trying to put words in my mouth–
MARGARET BRENNAN:–No, I am asking you.
SEC. HEGSETH: –to create a headline. What I’m saying is we have- we have plans, no, we have plans for everything, and should the president need, you know, a compel option, we have compel options, and many different types of compel options. But right now we’ve set the conditions for 60 days to ensure that that material is downblended, destroyed, or removed, whatever the president decides is in the best interest of the United States of America, and the War Department is there to support that effort.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Let me ask you about Venezuela, because there was also big news within the past few days. President Trump said the U.S. military killed Niño Guerrero, the leader of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, or TdA, in an airstrike earlier this week. He had been indicted in the Southern District of New York for many crimes. I’m wondering, why go with a strike option. Why not snatch and grab him and make him face justice in a US court, like you did with Nicolás Maduro?
MARGARET BREANNAN: –Yeah, energy- energy prices are pretty high right now–
SEC. HEGSETH: –huge deal–
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, I don’t know that the independence is helping people at the pump–
SEC. HEGSETH: –they are coming down and you’ve seen it. They are.
MARGARET BRENNAN. We’ll talk about that later in the program, but I want to come back to the Venezuela point, given that the U.S. military just carried out this operation, should Americans understand that the US will remain militarily involved in Venezuela? Should they expect similar operations in places like Ecuador and Guatemala, where the US is working with their government?
SEC. HEGSETH: Yes, they should. It’s called the Americas Counter Cartel Coalition, A3C, and we’re forming it with partner governments all around Central and South America to go after, defeat, and destroy foreign terrorist organizations, drug cartels. And all those countries you named are stepping up to work on partnerships with the United States, where we work with their governments and their militaries with their special capabilities and our special capabilities to hunt terrorist networks in our own hemisphere, just like we showed we were very good at with ISIS and al-Qaeda in the Middle East for 20 years. It’s an incredible reinforcement of the Monroe Doctrine, now the Donroe Doctrine. We’re taking back control of our hemisphere and ensuring the poisoning and attacks on the American people end. So, it’s- it’s a beautiful, it’s a beautiful military thing to behold, other countries coming to us to work with us, and we’re going to take full advantage of it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Let me ask you, before you go, about what is going on with U.S. munitions and stockpiles. Here, Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy was on this program a few weeks ago. He made a plea, not just for more interceptors, but for the ability to produce them, for friendly governments to be able to produce patriots, some Republican lawmakers support this idea. Do you?
SEC. HEGSETH: Nobody makes better and more munitions than the United States of America, and we are open to co-production wherever we can. And because of this administration, we’re supercharging our arsenal of freedom, building more, building faster, opening up the Pentagon, ripping through the Pentagon bureaucracy to force industry to move faster so–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –but there are- a crisis–
SEC. HEGSETH: –our stockpiles are strong and they will only get stronger in the future–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –there is a crisis with those stockpiles right now in fact an industry–
SEC. HEGSETH: –no there’s not–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –you have testified to it in front of Congress.
SEC. HEGSETH:That is a manufactured story that the media wants to peddle. And ultimately, we are our stockpiles are great, and they’ll only get stronger because of the way this president has–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –You testified under oath that it would take years to rebuild those–
SEC. HEGSETH: –if anything it was the Biden administration that gave away munitions to the- you don’t have to read back to me what I, what I testified, I speculated some munitions take more time than others. We’ve got lots of them, we’re building more than ever before. The Biden administration gave away hundreds of billions to Ukraine, and so President Trump had to refill, and he has, and we have in real time.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, the answer to Zelenskyy’s request is a no or a yes?
SEC. HEGSETH: Ultimately, we’ve worked with them, and Ukraine is buying munitions that Europe pays for, and it’s great to see Europe finally step up and pay for those.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay. Well, he was asking for the ability to produce, but I’ll leave it there for today. Secretary Hegseth thank you for joining us.
Full list of social media platforms to be banned for under-16s in the UK
Get you up to speed: Full list of social media platforms that will be banned for under-16s | News Tech
Sir Keir Starmer announced that children under 16 will be banned from using social media in the UK, following a similar initiative in Australia. The policy plan is expected to be detailed in July 2024, with no immediate effect until regulations are passed by Christmas 2025, aiming for implementation by 2027.
The full policy details for the social media ban are expected to be announced in July, with the government aiming for regulations to be passed by Christmas 2026, putting the ban into effect by 2027. Currently, no list of specific platforms to be banned has been confirmed, although YouTube is included, while messaging apps like WhatsApp and Signal are anticipated to be exempt.
Sir Keir Starmer has announced a ban on social media use for children under 16, aiming to implement regulations by Christmas for enforcement in 2027. Critics warn that while the intention is positive, previous bans have been ineffective, and the Royal Society for Blind Children cautions against the social isolation this may cause for vulnerable youth.
What remains unclear — The full details of the policy plan enforcing the social media ban will not be revealed until July.
Full list of social media platforms to be banned for under-16s in the UK
Those of us who grew up before the advent of technology might fondly remember playing outdoors as children – and lament how the youth of today spend their time staring at their phones.
Soon, however, youngsters will have no choice but to put down their screens once more.
Sir Keir Starmer announced today that children under 16 will be banned from using social media, following in Australia’s footsteps.
Here’s everything we know so far about the upcoming changes.
Which social media platforms would be banned for teens?
The government hasn’t confirmed a list yet, but they have initially outlined plans to limit access to:
Are WhatsApp or Roblox included?
WhatsApp and Signal are expected to be exempt because they’re messaging apps.
Meanwhile, while YouTube is included in the ban, youngsters will be able to access YouTube Kids.
AI chatbots may also be blocked.
Adults will still be able to access all of the above, though they must prove they’re over 18 by uploading card details or having their face scanned via a webcam.
Should social media be banned for under-16s?
Stay up to date with the stories everybody’s talking about by signing up to WTX’s News Updates newsletter.
How will the social media ban for under-16s work?
We still don’t have the policy plan – that will come in July – but the government has given some idea of how the ban will look.
Starmer said that the ban won’t mean a child can never log onto Instagram ever again, but it will be a lot tougher to do so.
‘They get around other laws,’ Starmer said. ‘But we don’t say, “oh look, a teenager managed to get a drink somehow, so let’s not bother banning alcohol sales to children”.’
Social media giants will require users to verify their age from the get-go.
Platforms will also have to prevent children from live-streaming, including on gaming platforms such as Discord.
Strangers won’t be able to contact children under 16 or send disappearing messages, with this setting on by default for anyone under 17.
Overnight curfews and compulsory scrolling breaks for under-18s are also being considered.
How does the ban compare to Australia’s?
Again, the full policy has not been announced yet – but at first glance, it looks a bit tougher.
The Aussie ban uses tools such as checking browsing history or verifying if phone activity aligns with school times to work out a user’s age, rather than requiring stringent age verification.
A platform disables an account if it identifies a user as underage. There is no penalty for the minor using social media, but firms are fined.
Australia’s ban also includes Reddit, Threads, Kick and Twitch.
The UK is also said to be considering banning ‘stranger pairing’, something the Aussies have not done.
Tim Levy, the managing director of global digital safeguarding company Qoria, cautioned against following Australia’s lead.
Most indications are that the law has not been effective at keeping young teens off platforms – seven in 10 parents say their children still use it.
Levy said: ‘Whilst the Australian government touts substantial numbers of kids’ accounts being shut down, the reality has been that modestly determined children have avoided the ban or moved to more dangerous parts of the internet.’
When will the ban come into force and why is it happening?
The government hopes to pass regulations by Christmas, so the prohibition will go into effect by 2027.
There was no intention to restrict social media use when Labour came to power, with Starmer stressing in 2024 he would not go to ‘battle’ to do so.
But the government has faced pressure from politicians and parents worried about manipulative algorithms and alluring push notifications.
A ban prevents young people from seeing harmful content, like eating disorders and violence, or becoming targets of cyber-bullying.
Supporters also point to research that has found addictive social media can worsen mental health conditions and contribute to low self-esteem.
Jennifer Powers, the founder of the campaign group, Unplugged Coalition, said: ‘Childhood is the biggest winner from today’s announcement.
‘Stopping addictive-by-design tech platforms from exploiting our children is a crucial step in reclaiming childhood from the digital world.’
In March, the government opened a consultation that drew more than 116,000 responses.
Nine out of 10 parents backed a minimum age of 16 for access to social media, and 85% said the risks of social media outweigh the benefits.
Antony Walker, the deputy CEO of the trade association TechUK, which supported the consultation, said he’s heard many parents at the school drop-off wishing they could go ‘bam’ and shut down social media.
‘Parents feel they have no control or understanding of what their child’s online world is like,’ he says. ‘But when children go to school, you have no sense of what their life outside of home is like.’
Is anyone opposed to it?
Many critics say that banning youngsters from social media is an idea that comes from a good place. The execution, however, isn’t so good.
Studies show that children suffer from the same issues with or without a phone. Sometimes, it’s less about usage and more about the attitudes teens have about devices.
The bans have not yet been found to be effective, given how novel they are.
A ban also disproportionately affects teens living in remote areas or minority groups who may have found communities through social media.
The Royal Society for Blind Children said that social media is a ‘lifeline’ for blind and partially-sighted young people.
As much as the charity supports the ban, it added: ‘However, we are mindful that this ban risks cutting off vital routes to connection for children who are already too often excluded.’
Another risk is that a ban for some becomes one for all, Rob Jardin, the chief digital officer at NymVPN, said.
‘A free society should be able to protect children without normalising surveillance,’ he added.
‘Once everyone has to prove who they are to speak or read online, that infrastructure doesn’t disappear, it expands.’
What worries Walker, of TechUK, is that politicians see a ban as an easy fix.
Fewer pupils attend after-school clubs, the high street is ‘dying’ and more than two-thirds of council-funded youth centres have closed over the past 14 years amid budget cuts.
‘Are we going to start investing in youth centres and sports fields?’ Walker asks.
‘There are lots of other things that inadvertently drive children indoors, and this raises questions about how we want to bring up young children.’
Comments
Add as preferred source
Marius Borg Høiby, son of Norwegian crown princess, sentenced for rape
Get you up to speed: Norwegian crown princess’s son Marius Borg Høiby guilty of rape | News World
Marius Borg Høiby, the 29-year-old son of Norway’s Crown Princess Mette-Marit, has been sentenced to four years in prison by the Oslo District Court after being found guilty on two counts of rape. He faced a total of 38 charges, with judges clearing him of two rape counts while convicting him on various other charges.
Marius Borg Høiby was sentenced by the Oslo District Court after being found guilty on two counts of rape, with his lawyers indicating plans to appeal the verdict. The trial has garnered significant attention due to Høiby’s familial ties to the Norwegian royal family, despite him not holding any official royal status or duties.
Marius Borg Høiby has been sentenced to four years in prison after being found guilty on two counts of rape, with his lawyers planning to appeal the verdict. The Norwegian royal family has reiterated that Høiby is not a public figure and has no official duties, emphasising his independence from the royal household.
What remains unclear — It is not confirmed how the royal family will respond to the sentencing and the appeal.
Marius Borg Høiby, son of Norwegian crown princess, sentenced for rape

Marius Borg Hoiby has been sentenced to four years in prison (Picture: AFP)
The son of Norway’s crown princess has been sentenced to four years in prison after being found guilty on two counts of rape.
Marius Borg Hoiby, 29, is the eldest son of Crown Princess Mette-Marit and stepson of Crown Prince Haakon, the heir to the throne in the Norwegian royal family.
He faced 38 charges, including the rape of four women, assaulting and threatening a girlfriend and damaging her flat, drug charges and driving offences.
Judges at the Oslo District Court cleared him of two counts of rape, but he was found guilty of some of the other charges brought against him.
His lawyers are expected to appeal the verdict, having called for a sentence of just 18 months for the crime.
Sign up for all of the latest stories

He is the stepson of Crown Prince Haakon (Picture: Reuters)
The Norwegian royal family has repeatedly said that Høiby is not a public figure. He has no official duties and is outside the line of succession.
But his proximity to the monarchy means his trial has attracted international attention.
Who is Marius Borg Høiby?
Born on January 13, 1997 to Mette-Marit and father Morten Borg, Høiby was not born into royalty.
But when his mother married Prince Haakon in 2001, he was thrust into the spotlight and has been treated as a royal by the national media, despite having no official titles.
He has previously come under public scrutiny, having been associated with gang members in 2023.
After allegations of assault emerged, it was revealed he previously been arrested for using cocaine at a music festival in 2017.
His stepfather, Prince Haakon, said in a statement last week: ‘Marius Borg Hoiby is not part of the royal household. In that respect, he is independent. But of course we love him. He is an important part of our family.
‘And he is a citizen of Norway. With that, he has the same responsibilities as everyone else, but also the same rights.’
Comment now
Comments
Add WTX as a Preferred Source on Google
Breaking News
Never miss the biggest stories with breaking news alerts in your inbox.
Macron hosts final G7 summit, addressing Ukraine, Middle East and AI
Macron hosts final G7 summit, addressing Ukraine, Middle East and AI
French President Emmanuel Macron is hosting his last G7 summit before leaving office next year, with key agenda items including Russia’s war on Ukraine and the Middle Eastern conflict.
Macron’s final G7 summit prioritises critical global issues, including the security implications of Russia’s aggression, boosting unified responses to geopolitical tensions, and addressing emerging technological challenges.
“This summit is crucial for addressing the pressing global challenges we face, from security to technological advancements,” stated President Emmanuel Macron.
G7 summit: Leaders set to arrive in Évian after US-Iran ceasefire deal

French President Emmanuel Macron is hosting his last G7 summit before leaving office next year. High on the agenda are Russia’s war on Ukraine, the conflict in the Middle East, Chinese competition, AI and child safety online.
Trump authorises removal of US Navy blockade amid Iran peace agreement
Media Lens: Trump authorises removal of US Navy blockade amid Iran peace agreement
United States and Iran to sign peace agreement.
The United States and Iran are set to sign a peace agreement on Friday. This agreement comes as the U.S. authorizes the removal of the Navy blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, according to coverage in CBS News and Al Jazeera.
What happened
The United States and Iran are set to sign a peace agreement on Friday, which aims to conclude ongoing hostilities. This agreement has been described as the culmination of recent diplomatic efforts between the two nations.
Following the announcement, President Trump stated that the deal with Iran “is now complete,” and he has authorized the removal of the Navy blockade in the Strait of Hormuz. This development marks a significant turning point in U.S.-Iran relations and regional stability.
Key facts
- The United States and Iran are set to sign a peace agreement on Friday.
- Trump stated that the U.S. deal with Iran “is now complete.”
- The deal includes the removal of the Navy blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
- Tehran claims the peace deal ends the U.S. blockade and war on multiple fronts.
- The agreement comes amid live updates on the progress of the Iranian conflict.
Where coverage differs
- CBS News emphasizes the completion of the U.S. deal with Iran, while Al Jazeera highlights the end of the U.S. blockade and war.
- The New York Times foregrounds the framework for peace agreement, whereas The Atlantic frames it as America capitulating while Trump celebrates.
- CBS News prioritizes the formalities of the peace agreement, over broader geopolitical implications covered by Al Jazeera.
One story, four angles
CBS News – Trump says U.S. deal with Iran “is now complete,” authorizes removal of Navy blockade of Strait of Hormuz
Publication: CBS News | Primary framing pattern: political | Tone: assertive | Intensity: 7/10 | Sentiment: positive | Legal precision: moderate
Expand
Espresso Shot: CBS News emphasizes the completion of a crucial diplomatic agreement between the U.S. and Iran, highlighting President Trump’s support for its implementation. The framing foregrounds the removal of military barriers, pointing to a potential decrease in hostilities in the region.
Publication emphasis: The focus is on the agreement’s implications for U.S.-Iran relations and regional stability.
Framing analysis: The central theme is political achievement, with secondary elements including military consequences and potential peace benefits.
Bias: Selection: Emphasizes Trump’s involvement and authority; Language: Positive descriptors like “complete” and “authorizes”; Omission: Critique of potential consequences of the agreement.
Assessment: This outlet projects a narrative of success in diplomacy while glossing over dissenting opinions regarding the agreement’s effectiveness.
Al Jazeera – Iran war live: Tehran says ‘peace deal’ ends US blockade, war on all fronts
Publication: Al Jazeera | Primary framing pattern: consequence | Tone: hopeful | Intensity: 6/10 | Sentiment: positive | Legal precision: moderate
Expand
Espresso Shot: Al Jazeera frames the agreement as a significant development aimed at reducing hostilities and restoring peace between the U.S. and Iran. The emphasis is on the potential long-term benefits, including economic relief for the Iranian population.
Publication emphasis: The focus is on the consequences of the peace deal and its potential to end years of conflict.
Framing analysis: The consequences of the agreement take center stage, presenting it as a pathway to stability, while historical context is minimized.
Bias: Selection: Highlights positive aspects of the deal and Iran’s perspective; Language: Uses terms like “peace deal” and “ends war”; Omission: Challenges and potential risks are less emphasized.
Assessment: Al Jazeera promotes an optimistic view of the agreement while downplaying any negative implications for regional dynamics.
The New York Times – Iran War Live Updates: U.S. and Tehran Agree on Framework for Peace
Publication: The New York Times | Primary framing pattern: legal | Tone: analytical | Intensity: 5/10 | Sentiment: neutral | Legal precision: high
Expand
Espresso Shot: The New York Times analyzes the legal framework established by the U.S.-Iran agreement, focusing on the implications for international law and regional security. The coverage is more investigative, addressing both legal and political nuances.
Publication emphasis: The focus is on the legal implications of the peace agreement and its standing in international law.
Framing analysis: A legal approach is taken, foregrounding the technicalities of the agreement while providing essential context regarding its geopolitical significance.
Bias: Selection: Examines legal frameworks rather than solely political narratives; Language: Utilizes precise legal terminology; Omission: Less emphasis on grassroots impacts or public opinion.
Assessment: This outlet provides a nuanced understanding of the agreement, appealing to readers interested in international law and policy ramifications.
The Atlantic – Trump Celebrates While America Capitulates
Publication: The Atlantic | Primary framing pattern: moral | Tone: critical | Intensity: 9/10 | Sentiment: negative | Legal precision: low
Expand
Espresso Shot: The Atlantic critiques the agreement as a capitulation by the U.S. to Iran, framing it as a moral failure. The piece emphasizes the broader implications for American credibility in international relations.
Publication emphasis: The focus is on the moral implications of the U.S. agreement with Iran and perceived weaknesses in U.S. foreign policy.
Framing analysis: The moral framing foregrounds criticism of U.S. actions, casting the agreement as a betrayal of American values and interests.
Bias: Selection: Centers on negative interpretations and criticisms of the deal; Language: Strongly negative descriptors such as “capitulate”; Omission: Less focus on potential benefits or diplomatic achievements.
Assessment: This publication presents a counter-narrative that highlights ethical concerns over diplomatic engagements with Iran, appealing to readers’ sense of national pride.
Food for thought
The strongest legal framing is presented by The New York Times, emphasizing a framework for peace that suggests an official diplomatic resolution, while the most escalatory framing comes from CBS News, highlighting the authorization to remove the Navy blockade as a significant shift in U.S.-Iran relations. Al Jazeera frames the situation as a comprehensive end to the blockade and ongoing hostilities, intensifying implications for future engagements. Each outlet conveys an interpretation of the same events, underscoring different dimensions of legality and escalation. The facts do not change. What changes is where scrutiny lands.
Iranians in Los Angeles divided on support for national team at World Cup
Get you up to speed: World Cup: Iranians in Los Angeles divided on whether to cheer or jeer Iran
Protests are expected as Iran prepares to begin its World Cup campaign against New Zealand in Los Angeles on June 15, 2026. The Iranian community in the area is divided over support for Team Melli, with protests planned outside the stadium.
Team Melli, having established its base in Mexico due to restrictions from the US, is set to play its matches in Los Angeles and Seattle. In response to anticipated protests, US authorities have increased security for the Iranian team, deploying several police vehicles to accompany their transport.
Iranian Sports Minister Ahmad Donyamali has warned that the national team will suspend play if “unofficial flags are brought or slogans against the national team are chanted in the stadiums.” Meanwhile, US authorities have increased security measures for the Iranian team in anticipation of potential protests from Iranian Americans during the World Cup matches.
What remains unclear — It is uncertain how stewards will respond if fans display antigovernment banners during the match.
Iranians in Los Angeles divided on support for national team at World Cup
News|World Cup 2026World Cup: Iranians in Los Angeles divided on whether to cheer or jeer Iran
US host city braces for protests near stadium as Iran prepares to start its World Cup campaign against New Zealand.
By Ali HarbPublished On 15 Jun 202615 Jun 2026
Los Angeles – From saffron-flavoured ice cream parlours to kabob shops and Farsi-language bookstores, it does not take long to see signs of the Iranian community in Los Angeles’s Westwood neighbourhood.
And with Iran’s pre-1979-revolution lion-and-sun flag on display across the area, alongside the occasional portrait of opposition figure Reza Pahlavi, the community’s stance against the Iranian government also becomes apparent.
Several protests have already taken place against the participation of Iran – known as Team Melli – in the tournament.
But as the Iranian national team prepares to kick off its World Cup in Los Angeles on Monday, business owner Roozbeh Farahanipour says Iranian Americans’ position on Team Melli is more nuanced than what the visuals may suggest.
“The community is divided,” Farahanipour told WTX News.
Some opposition activists view the squad as an extension of the governing system in Tehran, and are planning protests outside the stadium in Los Angeles.
But many other Iranian Americans just want to watch the game and are putting politics aside.
Opposition to the Iranian government runs deep in Westwood. Known as Tehrangeles, the area is a stronghold for supporters of Pahlavi, the son of Iran’s last monarch who was toppled by the 1979 revolution that established the Islamic republic.
But while anti-regime sentiment is prevalent, Farahanipour said people here are not in full agreement on proverbially booing the Iranian team at the World Cup – or cheering for the US-Israel war against their homeland.
Farahanipour himself, a veteran opposition activist, is against the war, but he will not be supporting Team Melli.
“When this team is going to go to any international field, to me, they represent the regime, the system will kill many members of my friends and family,” he told WTX News.
Iran’s team or regime’s team?
Sudi Farokhnia, an Iranian American community organiser in Los Angeles, had a different view. She compared supporting the Iranian team while opposing the government to cheering for the United States as a critic of President Donald Trump.
“I’m anti-Trump as hell, but on Friday, when Team USA was playing, I had my USA shirt, I had my USA headpiece on, I had a flag around,” Farokhnia told WTX News.
“I don’t know what are the political views of those who are in the US team … and at this point I don’t care. That’s a separate topic. What I care about is the fact that they’re representing the USA.”
When it comes to Iran’s participation in the World Cup, the Trump administration did not separate the team from the government in Tehran, however.
Team Melli was not allowed to stay in the US and had to set up base in neighbouring Mexico, despite having all of its group stage matches on the other side of the border – two in Los Angeles and one in Seattle.
As the Iranian team arrived in the US on Sunday for its opener against New Zealand a day later, the prospect of renewed fighting between Tehran and Washington was subsiding as the two sides agreed to a ceasefire deal.
The diplomatic breakthrough, however, has done little to reduce the tensions around Iran at the World Cup.
Some anti-Iranian-government activists are adamant about making a show of opposing Team Melli with calls for protests inside and outside the stadium on Monday.
The flag issue
A huge point of contention will be the presence of Iran’s pre-revolution flag in the stands.
Both the old flag and the new, Islamic republic one consist of green, white and red strips from top to bottom, but the official flag features the name of God stylised in the middle.
While FIFA has not given specific guidance on the lion-and-sun emblem, the football governing body has a ban on political symbols that applies to that flag.
It is unclear how stewards will deal with fans if they unfurl antigovernment banners in the stadium.
Last week, Iranian Sports Minister Ahmad Donyamali warned that the team would suspend play if “unofficial flags are brought or slogans against the national team are chanted in the stadiums”.
Farahanipour, the business owner, decried FIFA’s restrictions, saying US guarantees of free speech should trump the federation’s rules.
“FIFA should have control over only the grass field … in the middle of the stadium,” he said. “FIFA don’t have a right to talk about the outside of the field, which is American soil.”
Sam Beykzadeh, who operates a book shop in Westwood, also denounced the FIFA ban.
“This is the Iranian flag,” Beykzadeh told WTX News, pointing to the lion and sun above his head.
He emphasised that he views Team Melli as representative of the Iranian government, not the people.
“That team belongs to [the] regime. It’s not Iranian. [The] Iranian team was those 45,000 people five months ago the regime killed out on the street,” he said, referring to opposition accounts of the death toll during antigovernment protests in January.
Iranian authorities have put the figure at 3,117, including members of the security forces, blaming the deaths on what it said were Israel-backed “rioters”.
Beykzadeh predicted unrest at Monday’s match.
“Monday is going to be a big conflict over there between Iranians and between that regime … and their own supporters they brought from other places over there for fighting with the people,” he said.
US authorities appear to have stepped up protection for the Iranian team. WTX News witnessed several police vehicles accompanying the Iranian team bus on Monday.
A protest near SoFi stadium outside Los Angeles calling on FIFA to suspend or expel Iran from international football, June 14, 2026 [Arafat Barbakh/Reuters]
‘Players are getting all the hate’
For Farokhnia, the hostility towards the Iranian team is unwarranted. She argued that after the failure of the US-Israel war to dislodge the governing system in Tehran, some Iranian Americans are channelling their anger at Team Melli players.
“Where you feel helpless and you feel like you don’t have any power to make a difference where it really counts, you look for any other venues where you can insert yourself,” Farokhnia said.
“And it just happens to be that the FIFA game is happening, so the players are getting all the hate.”
Iranian head coach Amir Ghalenoei told reporters on Sunday that his team wants to represent all Iranians at home and abroad when asked about anticipated protests by Iranian Americans.
“I am very happy to be representing the strong and proud nation of Iran,” he said.
“I hope that football will bring about joy and enjoyment and will bring closer cultures and countries, and I hope the World Cup will go well despite the travel problems we had.”
Iranian fans have also faced a travel ban by the US.
Yasmine Taeb, an Iranian American civil rights lawyer from Virginia, condemned the Trump administration’s treatment of the Iranian players and fans, saying it “runs counter to the World Cup serving as an open, global sporting event”.
Taeb also slammed protests against the team.
“I think it’s disgraceful, unfortunate and inappropriate. Sports bring people of all backgrounds and beliefs together, and Team Melli’s participation should certainly be seen as a positive development,” Taeb told WTX News.
Local insights
Related Election News
LIVE German 2025 Election
Subscribe to Updates
Get the latest creative news from FooBar about art, design and business.








