Opinion

Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr has vowed to address rising US autism rates as atop health priority for the Trump administration.Last month, he pledged $50mn to help identify environmental causes of autism, to be issued as grants by the National Institutes of Health, and has announced plans to create a national “autism registry”.Yet during the first four months of 2025, the NIH has reduced funding for autism-related research by an estimated $31mn to $116mn from $147mn in the same period in 2024, according to a Reuters analysis of NIH data. The spending is 26% lower than the prior four-year average for that period, the analysis found.In some cases, the NIH has cancelled projects because they involved diverse populations, studied differences in gender or took place at research universities currently under scrutiny by the Trump Administration. For others, funding for autism projects has simply halted or money for new projects has not been approved.Reuters analysed nearly 300,000 projects funded by the NIH since 2021 to identify autism research for its review. The agency has funded about 4,600 autism-related projects since 2021, with an annual average of $525mn over the past four years.Reuters calculated its funding estimates for autism-related research by counting NIH grants awarded between 2021 and 2025 for projects with the terms “autism” or “autistic” in the titles or abstracts. Seven autism researchers and one former NIH employee said the analysis provides a fair assessment of funding trends.Among the autism-related grants reviewed by Reuters, five totalling more than $10mn were listed as “Terminated” by “Department Authority” on the NIH’s website. The grants, which described research into “sexual and gender minority autistic adults,” auditory hearing, and genetic risks among people with autism, were all cancelled within two weeks of each other in March.The NIH’s site did not provide a reason for the terminations. The Reuters analysis could not determine the reason for the reduction in funding, whether an existing project was halted pending review or if money for a new grant was being held back.More autism research could also be impacted by the Trump administration’s withholding of federal funding from research universities, such as Harvard University or Columbia University’s Autism Center for Excellence, which receives funding from the NIH.Taken together, autism researchers fear funding cuts will delay progress in discovering the possible causes and best treatments for autism.“A cut of that magnitude would devastate efforts to understand autism and develop novel therapies aimed at improving the lives of individuals on the spectrum,” said Dr Josh Gordon, former director of the NIH’s National Institute of Mental Health and former chair of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee.A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services said some programmes identified by Reuters were cancelled due to President Trump’s executive orders on diversity, equity, and inclusion or for promoting “gender ideology.”The spokesperson denied that the Trump administration had “reduced its overall commitment to autism research.”“HHS remains fully committed to advancing our understanding of Autism Spectrum Disorder, a complex and heterogeneous condition now estimated to affect 1 in 31 children, according to the CDC’s 2025 data,” the spokesman said in a statement.Autism rates in the US have climbed steadily in the last two decades, and since 2006, over $5bn in funding has been authorised by Congress under the Autism CARES Act to support research, services, training and monitoring at the NIH, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Health Resources and Services Administration.Researchers say government funding plays a vital role in the study of autism because it is so widespread and not well understood.“It’s one of those areas that private funding cannot get the job done, because the task is so large,” said Andrea Roberts, a principal research scientist at Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, who studies autism. Reducing funding, she added, will slow the pace of important discoveries about the cause and treatment of the disease.Dr Laura Anthony, a psychologist and autism researcher at Children’s Hospital Colorado, said an NIH-funded project that she’s a part of had been abruptly cancelled.The project had followed hundreds of children with autism for more than a decade to better understand their experiences and needs. One of its aims was to clarify the reasons why some children are diagnosed later in life, leading to delayed intervention, to help prevent similar delays in the future.“Losing the progress with those kids is not only about the kids in this study. It’s also about every new child or family who comes into the clinic and asks for help,” Anthony said.Others have seen their funding delayed.Dr Helen Tager-Flusberg, director of Boston University’s Center for Autism Research Excellence, is co-leading astudy at Boston Children’s Hospital following 450 babies from infancy through age two to track developmental and language delays.Earlier this year, her team had applied for additional funding to follow the same children, who are from diverse demographic backgrounds, through age three, but she has not received an update from the NIH since February. “If studies like these lose funding, it’s a huge loss,” she said.Some projects that lost funding had focused on specific groups with autism, such as girls, who are diagnosed less often, said Alycia Halladay, chief scientific officer of the Autism Science Foundation, a non-profit organisation that funds autism research. “We need to do a better job understanding them,” she said.Researchers say both genetic and environmental factors likely contribute to autism , and that much of the increased prevalence is largely due to an expanded definition of the condition and more widespread screening.Kennedy, however, has that environmental toxins are to blame and has launched a study into already debunked claims that vaccines may contribute to autism. He has suggested new research initiatives investigating mold, pesticides, food additives, ultrasounds and medicines.In testimony before Congress last Wednesday, Kennedy denied autism was linked to genetic causes alone, and accused the NIH of deliberately avoiding research on environmental causes. “So I don’t think we should be funding that genetic work anymore,” he said.Some advocates within the autism community have expressed hope that Kennedy would draw more attention to the condition, while wary that the health secretary may direct new research based on unproven assumptions about its causes.Jill Escher, president of the National Council on Severe Autism, said Kennedy’s push for autism research is “an incredible opportunity for science and understanding autism.”“Kennedy has been pretty emphatic about trying to identify the causes of autism,” she said. “But I’m not at all convinced that they will spend that money wisely. If they spend it on mold, vaccines or similar exposures unlikely to pose any autism risk, that’s not a good expenditure of research dollars.” - Reuters

With one foot braced on the helicopter’s landing skid, a veterinarian lifted his air rifle, took aim and fired a tranquilliser dart at a polar bear.The predator bolted but soon slumped into the snowdrifts, its broad frame motionless beneath the Arctic sky.The dramatic pursuit formed part of a pioneering research mission in Norway’s Svalbard archipelago, where scientists, for the first time, took fat tissue biopsies from polar bears to study the impact of pollutants on their health. The expedition came at a time when the Arctic region was warming at four times the global average, putting mounting pressure on the iconic predators as their sea-ice habitat shrank.“The idea is to show as accurately as possible how the bears live in the wild — but in a lab,” Laura Pirard, a Belgian toxicologist, told AFP.“To do this, we take their (fatty) tissue, cut it in very thin slices and expose it to the stresses they face, in other words pollutants and stress hormones,” said Pirard, who developed the method.Moments after the bear collapsed, the chopper circled back and landed. Researchers spilled out, boots crunching on the snow.One knelt by the bear’s flank, cutting thin strips of fatty tissue. Another drew blood. Each sample was sealed and labelled before the bear was fitted with a satellite collar.Scientists said that while the study monitors all the bears, only females were tracked with GPS collars as their necks are smaller than their heads — unlike males, who cannot keep a collar on for more than a few minutes. For the scientists aboard the Norwegian Polar Institute’s research vessel Kronprins Haakon, these fleeting encounters were the culmination of months of planning and decades of Arctic fieldwork.In a makeshift lab on the icebreaker, samples remained usable for several days, subjected to controlled doses of pollutants and hormones before being frozen for further analysis back on land.Each tissue fragment gave Pirard and her colleagues insight into the health of an animal that spent much of its life on sea ice. Analysis of the fat samples showed that the main pollutants present were per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) — synthetic chemicals used in industry and consumer goods that linger in the environment for decades. Despite years of exposure, Svalbard’s polar bears showed no signs of emaciation or ill health, according to the team. The local population has remained stable or even increased slightly, unlike parts of Canada, where the Western Hudson Bay group declined by 27 percent between 2016 and 2021, from 842 to 618 bears, according to a government aerial survey.Other populations in the Canadian Arctic, including the Southern Beaufort Sea, have also shown long-term declines linked to reduced prey access and longer ice-free seasons.Scientists estimate there are around 300 polar bears in the Svalbard archipelago and roughly 2,000 in the broader region stretching from the North Pole to the Barents Sea. The team found no direct link between sea ice loss and higher concentrations of pollutants in Svalbard’s bears. Instead, differences in pollutant levels came down to the bears’ diet.Two types of bears — sedentary and pelagic — feed on different prey, leading to different chemicals building up in their bodies.With reduced sea ice, the bears’ diets have already started shifting, researchers said. These behavioural adaptations appeared to help maintain the population’s health.“They still hunt seals but they also take reindeer (and) eggs. They even eat grass (seaweed), even though that has no energy for them,” Jon Aars, the head of the Svalbard polar bear programme, told AFP.“If they have very little sea ice, they necessarily need to be on land,” he said, adding that they spend “much more time on land than they used to... 20 or 30 years ago”.This season alone, Aars and his team of marine toxicologists and spatial behaviour experts captured 53 bears, fitted 17 satellite collars, and tracked 10 mothers with cubs or yearlings.“We had a good season,” Aars said.The team’s innovations go beyond biopsies. Last year, they attached small “health log” cylinders to five females, recording their pulse and temperature. Combined with GPS data, the devices offer a detailed record of how the bears roam, how they rest and what they endure.Polar bears were once hunted freely across Svalbard but since an international protection agreement in 1976, the population here has slowly recovered.The team’s findings may help explain how the bears’ world is changing, and at an alarming rate.As the light faded and the icebreaker’s engines hummed against the vast silence, the team packed away their tools, leaving the Arctic wilderness to its inhabitants.

Cartoon

Food rations that could supply 3.5mn people for a month are mouldering in warehouses around the world because of US aid cuts and risk becoming unusable, according to five people familiar with the situation.The food stocks have been stuck inside four US government warehouses since the Trump administration’s decision in January to cut global aid programmes, according to three people who previously worked at the US Agency for International Development and two sources from other aid organisations.Some stocks that are due to expire as early as July are likely to be destroyed, either by incineration, using them as animal feed or disposing of them in other ways, two of the sources said.The warehouses, which are run by USAID’s Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA), contain between 60,000 to 66,000 metric tonnes of food, sourced from American farmers and manufacturers, the five people said.An undated inventory list for the warehouses – which are located in Djibouti, South Africa, Dubai and Houston – stated that they contained more than 66,000 tonnes of commodities, including high-energy biscuits, vegetable oil and fortified grains.Those supplies are valued at over $98mn, according to the document reviewed by Reuters, which was shared by an aid official and verified by a US government source as up to date.That food could feed over a million people for three months, or the entire population of Gaza for a month and a half, according to a Reuters analysis using figures from the World Food Programme, the world’s largest humanitarian agency.The UN body says that one tonne of food – typically including cereals, pulses and oil – can meet the daily need of approximately 1,660 people. The dismantling of USAID and cuts to humanitarian aid spending by President Donald Trump come as global hunger levels are rising due to conflict and climate change, which are driving more people toward famine, undoing decades of progress.According to the World Food Programme, 343mn people are facing acute levels of food insecurity worldwide. Of those, 1.9mn people are gripped by catastrophic hunger and on the brink of famine. Most of them are in Gaza and Sudan, but also in pockets of South Sudan, Haiti and Mali.A spokesperson for the State Department, which oversees USAID, said in response to detailed questions about the food stocks that it was working to ensure the uninterrupted continuation of aid programmes and their transfer by July as part of the USAID decommissioning process.“USAID is continuously consulting with partners on where to best distribute commodities at USAID prepositioning warehouses for use in emergency programmes ahead of their expiration dates,” the spokesperson said.Although the Trump administration has issued waivers for some humanitarian programmes – including in Gaza and Sudan – the cancellation of contracts and freezing of funds needed to pay suppliers, shippers and contractors has left food stocks stuck in the four warehouses, the sources said.A proposal to hand the stocks to aid organisations that can distribute them is on hold, according to the US source and two former USAID sources briefed on the proposal. The plan is awaiting approval from the State Department’s Office of Foreign Assistance, the two former USAID sources said.The office is headed by Jeremy Lewin, a 28-year-old former operative of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, who is now overseeing the decommissioning of USAID.The Office of Foreign Assistance, DOGE and Lewin himself did not respond to requests for comment. Nearly 500 tonnes of high-energy biscuits stored at a USAID warehouse in Dubai are due to expire in July, according to a former USAID official and an aid official familiar with the inventories. The biscuits could feed at least 27,000 acutely malnourished children for a month, according to Reuters calculations.The biscuits are now likely to be destroyed or turned into animal feed, the former USAID official said, adding that in a typical year only around 20 tonnes of food might be disposed of in this way because of damage in transit or storage.Some of those stocks were previously intended for Gaza and famine-stricken Sudan, the former official said.The State Department spokesperson did not directly respond to questions on how much of the food aid in storage was close to expiry and whether this would be destroyed.USAID plans to fire almost all of its staff in two rounds on July 1 and September 2, as it prepares to shut down, according to a notification submitted to Congress in March. The two former USAID sources said many of the critical staff needed to manage the warehouses or move the supplies will depart in July. The United States is the world’s largest humanitarian aid donor, amounting to at least 38% of all contributions recorded by the United Nations. It disbursed $61bn in foreign assistance last year, just over half of it via USAID, according to government data.US food aid includes ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF) such as high-energy biscuits and Plumpy’Nut, a peanut-based paste.Navyn Salem, the founder of Edesia, a US-based manufacturer of Plumpy’Nut, said termination of transportation contracts by USAID had created a massive backlog that had forced the firm to hire an additional warehouse to store its own production. The resulting stockpile of 5,000 tonnes, worth $13mn, could feed more than 484,000 children, she said.Salem said that e-mail exchanges with Lewin have left her “hopeful” that a way will be found soon to get her product to the desperate children who need it.The UN children’s agency Unicef warned in late March that RUTF stocks were running short in 17 countries due to funding cuts, potentially forcing 2.4mn children suffering from severe acute malnutrition to go without these crucial supplies for the rest of the year.The four USAID warehouses contain the majority of the agency’s pre-positioned food stockpiles. In normal times, these could be rapidly deployed to places like Sudan, where 25mn people – half the country’s population – face acute hunger.Jeanette Bailey, director of nutrition at the International Rescue Committee, which receives much of its funding from the US, said it was scaling back its programmes following the cuts.She said the impact of global shortages of therapeutic foods due to the disruption to US aid flows is difficult to measure, particularly in places where aid programmes no longer operate.“What we do know, though, is that if a child’s in an inpatient stabilisation centre and they’re no longer able to access treatment, more than 60% of those children are at risk of dying very quickly,” she said.Action Against Hunger, a non-profit that relied on the United States for over 30% of its global budget, said last month the US cuts had already led to the deaths of at least six children at its programmes in the Democratic Republic of Congo, after it was forced to suspend admissions.The Bureau for Humanitarian Affairs, which coordinates the US government’s aid efforts overseas, was plunged into chaos by the Trump administration’s cutbacks, the five sources said.The bureau’s staff were among thousands of USAID employees put on administrative leave pending their terminations. While some staff were brought back to work until their severance dates, aid administration has not recovered.Three sources told Reuters that the contract to maintain USAID warehouses in the South African port city of Durban had been cancelled, raising questions about future aid distribution. Reuters was unable to confirm that independently.Two former USAID officials said that the Djibouti and Dubai facilities would be handed over to a team at the State Department which has yet to be formed. The State Department did not comment.A spokesperson for the WFP, which relies heavily on US funding, declined to comment on the stranded food stocks.Asked if it was engaged in discussions to release them, the spokesperson said: “We greatly appreciate the support from all our donors, including the US, and we will continue to work with partners to advocate for the needs of the most vulnerable in urgent need of life-saving assistance”. – Reuters

As Russia’s war on Ukraine rages on Europe’s eastern frontier, the continent’s leaders are finally willing to admit they have the power to revive their ailing economies. After decades of austerity, they are ready to spend again – but not to end poverty, accelerate decarbonisation, or reverse the collapse of essential public services. Instead, Europe’s fiscal firepower is being directed toward tanks, missiles, and fighter jets.Reorganising the economy around state-supported defence spending is known as military Keynesianism, though John Maynard Keynes – who rose to prominence by condemning the punitive post-World War I peace treaty that was opposed on Weimar Germany, which ultimately helped set the stage for Hitler’s rise and another war – would probably not have endorsed the term.The reasoning behind the resurgence of military Keynesianism is not entirely without merit, as the pursuit of austerity policies has left many European economies punching below their weight. European productivity, which has grown at half the pace of the United States over the past decade, declined by 1% in 2023. Real wages fell by 4.3% in 2022 and 0.7% in 2023, following a decade of stagnation. Meanwhile, investment is nowhere near where it needs to be to tackle the twin crises of inequality and climate breakdown.Europe’s self-defeating commitment to austerity is epitomised by the German doctrine of “schwarze Null” (“black zero”). Even when Germany’s economic miracle was in full swing, politicians refused to invest in long-term growth. As a result, Germany – like most of the continent – has suffered from chronic underinvestment in physical and social infrastructure, constraining productivity.Against this backdrop, rearmament may look like an easy fix. Unlike social expenditure, defence spending faces little political resistance. It enables politicians to appear tough – a valuable asset in an age of strongman politics – and keeps the arms industry, a powerful lobby with deep ties to political elites, flush with public money.But military Keynesianism is a dead end – both economically and politically. For starters, it’s a weak engine of long-term growth. Modern weapons production relies on advanced manufacturing processes that use relatively little labour, so the industry has low multipliers compared to investments in health, education, or green energy. It creates fewer jobs per euro spent and contributes little to the broader economy’s productive capacity.Military Keynesianism also deepens Europe’s dependence on fossil fuels, given that modern militaries are among the planet’s largest institutional fossil-fuel consumers. Expanding defence capabilities means locking in demand for carbon-intensive technologies at a time when Europe should be phasing them out.Worse still, prioritising defence over decarbonisation sustains the very system of petropolitics that gives regimes like Russian President Vladimir Putin’s the resources to wage war in the first place. As the Guardian reported earlier this year, the European Union has spent more on Russian fossil-fuel imports over the past three years than it has on financial aid to Ukraine. If the EU is serious about defeating Russia – not just on the battlefield, but geopolitically – then the bloc must confront the real source of the Kremlin’s power: oil and gas exports. Russia, after all, is a petrostate, and its war machine is financed by the revenues that flow from Europe’s addiction to fossil fuels.Oil and gas revenues have accounted for 30-50% of Russia’s federal budget over the past decade and still represent roughly 60% of its export revenues. These industries provide the vital dollars that enable Russia to import military technologies and other critical inputs. Without that income, the Russian economy would quickly collapse under the weight of hyperinflation. The most effective long-term strategy for countering Russian aggression, then, is not to ramp up military spending but to accelerate the green transition. What Europe needs is a real Green New Deal: a democratic, continent-wide mobilisation to decarbonise the economy, ensure energy security, and create millions of well-paying green jobs. To be sure, this would require massive investment in renewable energy, public transit, retrofitting, and industrial electrification. It would also mean reshaping supply chains, restoring public ownership of key infrastructure, and breaking the stranglehold of fossil-fuel capital on European politics.But a Green New Deal would do more to strengthen the EU’s geopolitical standing than any number of new tanks and artillery shells. A Europe that produces its own clean energy, builds resilient green industries, and reduces its dependence on volatile global commodity markets is a Europe that cannot be held hostage by petro-tyrants.Europe’s political elite faces a stark choice: continue propping up a broken growth model by funnelling public money into the military-industrial complex, or invest in a liveable future rooted in solidarity, sustainability, and democratic control. In the long run, building an inclusive green economy is the only way to counter the rage and alienation fuelling the rise of far-right forces – the greatest and most immediate threat to Europe’s democracies. — Project Syndicate

Cartoon

After becoming the first country to cut a new trade “deal” (or at least the framework of a deal) with the United States, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour government is approaching its highly anticipated spending review and the publication of its ten-year infrastructure strategy. This may be the last chance for a government that promised to make economic growth its highest priority to persuade the country that it is serious.The government has been constrained not only by external circumstances, but also by its own timidity. Since last year’s election campaign, Starmer has nominally organised Labour’s strategy around five “missions”, the first of which is to achieve the fastest economic growth in the G7. But soon after taking office last July, his government decided to focus on the United Kingdom’s fiscal challenges, which implied austerity and contradicted the spirit of the primary objective.True, the government’s fall 2024 budget introduced a bolder fiscal framework and increased capital spending for schools and the National Health Service (NHS); but these are not growth-boosting, productivity-enhancing forms of infrastructure investment. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts no improvement from the pre-existing growth trend line.What if, instead of piling more on to the NHS, the UK increased investments in preventing infections and other illnesses? I suspect most forecasters would see such outlays as more growth-enhancing over the long term. Similarly, most would agree that investing in early childhood education and support services would have larger long-term multiplier effects than a new school cafeteria (though the latter might marginally improve the day-to-day educational experience).In a speech this past February, UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves aimed to show that the government is still prioritising economic growth above all else. She duly mentioned plans for a new runway at Heathrow Airport and an Oxford-Cambridge rail corridor (the “OxCam Arc”) to connect two of the country’s research hubs. But these are old favourites. As far as I could tell, there were no major new projects in the works, nor did she mention the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA), the forthcoming infrastructure strategy, or a separate new fiscal rule that was supposed to increase borrowing for long-term investments.And whatever happened to this government’s ambitions for the country’s north? Reeves has only reiterated her commitment to existing projects, leaving many outside the London-Oxford-Cambridge nexus understandably irritated. I sometimes wonder whether I imagined previous statements and policy changes from the past ten months. The new fiscal framework, strategic investment, and the forthcoming infrastructure strategy were supposed to be central. But when I talk to people about these topics, they react as though I’m from another planet.Reeves’s focus on the OxCam Arc is correct in spirit, and I personally wish Patrick Vallance, the minister for science and research, the best of luck with it. But the project feels mostly like an effort to find more space and affordable housing for those two crowded university cities. As such, I would prefer to see it go through NISTA’s new transparent framework for proposed projects, where it would have to prove its worth alongside others.After all, the counties around and between Oxford and Cambridge represent total gross value added that is on par with Greater Manchester’s, and less than half that of the broader region (Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, and Liverpool) targeted by the Northern Powerhouse initiative that I led for a few years after 2016. Connecting this region with what then-Chancellor George Osborne called HS3 – high-speed rail across northern England – would presumably yield significant growth multipliers. Since Treasury officials surely looked into the business case for such a rail line long ago, it should already be on NISTA’s list. But funding never materialised, because the project (like many others) did not satisfy previous Tory governments’ fiscal rules.That could change now. NISTA has finally been established, and it has a new CEO. It will have inherited a list of projects from its precursor, the National Infrastructure Commission, and these presumably will now be subject to a transparent cost-benefit analysis. Such studies should anchor the broader spending review.The shock from US President Donald Trump’s tariffs has understandably diverted the government’s attention from its manifesto pledges. But that does not have to remain the case. Starmer’s government could frame the latest crisis as a reason to take its manifesto more seriously, especially now that it has the levers it needs to achieve more sustainable long-term growth.For example, it could present the UK as a welcoming place for entrepreneurs and innovators, both attracting many of those who no longer feel supported in the US and alleviating some of the tension from the rising UK inheritance tax. Moreover, why not seize the moment to abandon the “triple lock” (an extremely burdensome guarantee to increase pension payments each year)? Doing so would allow for many more long-term projects that could dramatically improve the country’s growth prospects and financial health. — Project Syndicate• Jim O’Neill is a former chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management and a former UK Treasury minister.

Qatar Airways’ recent order for up to 210 Boeing widebody aircraft marks a pivotal moment for both the airline and Boeing, significantly influencing their respective growth trajectories.The national airline has placed the largest aircraft order in its history with manufacturing partner Boeing, as part of its strategic fleet growth plan that will help meet the strong demand for air connectivity globally.The landmark order includes up to 210 Boeing wide-body jets – 160 firm and 50 option, which is the largest wide-body order and the largest 787 Dreamliner order in the American aerospace company’s history.This positions Qatar Airways to become the largest Dreamliner operator in the Middle East, enhancing its capacity for long-haul routes and reinforcing its status as a leading global carrier.By investing in next-generation aircraft, Qatar Airways aims to operate one of the youngest and most fuel-efficient fleets, aligning with global sustainability goals and reducing operational costs.The new aircraft are expected to feature advanced cabin designs, including the anticipated Qsuite Next Gen, offering passengers improved comfort and privacy, thereby strengthening the airline’s premium service offerings. This deal represents Boeing’s largest-ever widebody aircraft order, including the most significant single order for 787 Dreamliners. It underscores strong market confidence in Boeing’s widebody aircraft lineup and provides a substantial boost to its commercial aircraft division.The agreement is projected to support approximately 400,000 jobs in the United States, highlighting the deal’s significant economic impact and reinforcing Boeing’s role in the US manufacturing sector.Securing such a substantial order from a leading international carrier like Qatar Airways enhances Boeing’s global market share and competitiveness, particularly in the Middle East, a region of strategic importance for aviation growth.The signing of this deal during President Donald Trump’s visit to Qatar last week signifies strengthening economic and diplomatic ties between Qatar and the United States, potentially paving the way for future collaborations in aviation and other sectors.This order is widely seen to influence competitive dynamics in the aviation industry, prompting other manufacturers to innovate and offer competitive solutions to meet the evolving needs of global carriers. Qatar Airways’ substantial investment in Boeing aircraft is a strategic move to enhance its global operations and customer experience, while providing Boeing with a significant commercial victory that reinforces its market position and economic contributions.Qatar Airways has also signed an agreement with GE Aerospace for more than 400 engines, including 60 GE9X and 260 GEnx engines, with additional options and spares, to power its next-generation Boeing 777-9 and Boeing 787 aircraft – the largest wide-body engine purchase in the history of GE Aerospace. This positions the national airline to enhance its long-haul capabilities and maintain one of the youngest, most fuel-efficient fleets globally. According to industry analysts, the GE9X and GEnx engines offer significant improvements in fuel efficiency and emissions reduction. The GE9X, for instance, provides better specific fuel consumption than its predecessor, contributing to Qatar Airways’ sustainability goals.The deal is expected to positively impact GE’s manufacturing facilities in the US, supporting thousands of jobs and stimulating economic growth in the region.Securing such a substantial order from a leading global carrier like Qatar Airways enhances GE Aerospace’s market share and competitiveness, particularly in the Middle East.Qatar Airways Group Chief Executive Officer Badr Mohammed al-Meer said: “We are happy to announce our agreement with Boeing and our partnership in the largest wide-body aircraft order in Boeing’s history and the biggest aircraft order in our history. This is a critical next step for Qatar Airways on our path as we invest in the cleanest, youngest and most efficient fleet in global aviation. This is so we can meet the strong demand in the airline as we seamlessly connect passengers to the world better than anyone.“Our latest agreement with GE Aerospace reflects our confidence in the performance of the GE9X and GEnx engines to power our fleet of Boeing 777-9 and 787 aircraft.”Qatar Airways has one of the most modern fleets in the industry and these historic orders with Boeing and GE Aerospace will solidify that leadership for years to come.

The succession of global shocks over the past two decades – including the 2008 global financial crisis, the Covid-19 pandemic, Russia’s invasions of Ukraine, and rising inflation – has fuelled a resurgence of industrial policy across Europe. But the added shock of Donald Trump’s return to the White House has underscored the urgency of bolstering domestic economic resilience and integrating national and regional security priorities into economic policymaking.For the European Union and the United Kingdom – which are now facing an openly hostile US administration – the digital economy must become a central focus. Former European Central Bank President Mario Draghi’s report on EU competitiveness and the UK’s AI Opportunities Action Plan both highlight digital and AI technologies as potential engines of future innovation and growth.The challenge, however, lies in reducing Europe’s heavy reliance on major US tech firms. Whereas president Joe Biden’s administration took a confrontational approach toward Big Tech, the Trump administration has signalled that any future trade agreement will hinge on the EU scaling back its push for new digital regulations and taxes.For Europe, business as usual is no longer an option. Policymakers must develop a coherent and strategic alternative to reliance on American technology. If this sounds like a quixotic endeavour, consider the creation of Airbus, which started as Europe’s answer to Boeing. An “Airbus for AI” – a publicly funded, commercially operated alternative to US-based platforms – is both feasible and necessary.Recent experience has exposed the vulnerability of Europe’s public services and private sector to the whims of US tech executives whose top priority is to remain on good terms with their own government. Elon Musk’s willingness to breach Starlink contracts with European governments has fuelled concerns about the reliability of American platforms, as have efforts by other US firms to exploit trade tensions to lobby against European tech regulations like the EU’s Digital Markets Act and the UK’s Online Safety Act.Consequently, even if the Trump administration were to reverse its protectionist policies tomorrow, doubts about the trustworthiness of US tech companies would persist. And since Chinese tech platforms are equally problematic, it is increasingly evident that European governments must begin developing an independent digital and AI ecosystem.Politicians often shy away from necessary decisions that seem too difficult or costly. Yet in a new policy brief, Joshua Tan, Brandon Jackson, and I argue that a public-private commercial model for building large-scale European AI systems – known as foundation models – is technically and financially viable, and could be launched quickly.While European research laboratories and institutes already collaborate, they still lack a coordinated product strategy and a clear pathway from innovation to market. Airbus should serve as a blueprint. The company was established in 1970, when European governments recognised that their national aviation firms were too fragmented to compete with Boeing. France and Germany – later joined by the UK and Spain – formed a consortium that pooled expertise, resources, and funding to develop cutting-edge, innovative aircraft.Although the Airbus project emphasised commercial viability from the outset, it was also supported by public financing and industrial-policy tools such as advance purchase commitments, research investment, and technical training. Domestic political imperatives were addressed by distributing the benefits among participating countries through supply-chain specialisation.The Airbus project achieved a major breakthrough with the A300, demonstrating the potential of aligning scientific research with market needs. Developing a twenty-first-century AI equivalent will require similarly large infrastructure investments and sustained political commitment.Fortunately, the building blocks for such a model are already in place and could be mobilised quickly by a select group of European governments. Many are already investing in national public computing facilities, and several leading European labs – such as those participating in LLMs4Europe – have begun releasing cutting-edge foundation models that push the boundaries of AI research.Coordinating these efforts will be essential to achieving the necessary scale. In addition to creating value for taxpayers, this will help European alternatives differentiate themselves from dominant US tech firms – a key condition for commercial viability. Private companies like France’s Mistral show that a robust European market could be catalysed and given a defensive moat through coordinated strategic action. Singapore has also demonstrated the potential for effective public-private partnerships – though not yet at scale – and other successful models have emerged in the semiconductor sectors of Japan and the US.Given US incumbents’ first-mover advantage, any European initiative will require significant public support. But such support doesn’t have to come solely through direct funding. It can also take the form of access to public computing resources, tax advantages tied to public-interest commitments, preferential access to government datasets unavailable to US firms, and purchasing commitments from public institutions.Moreover, market demand can be further stimulated through targeted measures. For example, the EU’s AI Champions initiative, which focuses on high-value industrial applications, could serve as a powerful catalyst once a European consortium is ready to supply the necessary technology.The strategic and economic case for developing an alternative to US and Chinese AI is compelling. But a public-private, commercially driven European AI initiative should do more than serve industrial policy and security objectives; it must also reflect the culture and values of the continent’s middle powers. American-developed AI models increasingly project a US-centric worldview – one that is rapidly, and perhaps irrevocably, diverging from Europe’s. It is time for European countries to chart their own course. — Project SyndicateDiane Coyle, Professor of Public Policy at the University of Cambridge, is the author, most recently, of The Measure of Progress: Counting What Really Matters.

Syrian officials and economic experts have affirmed that lifting sanctions on Syria would offer a genuine opportunity for the country to re-engage with the international economic system and pave the way for a new phase of recovery and economic improvement. They emphasised that lifting sanctions reflects an international political will more than it does a legal matter.In exclusive statements to Qatar News Agency (QNA), they indicated that current signs suggest the sanctions will be lifted quickly and without bureaucratic obstacles, thanks to direct support from major powers, led by the US, the United Kingdom, and France, which have already lifted their economic sanctions on Syria.Syria’s reintegration into the global financial system, they said, will facilitate financial transfers, stimulate the economy, and spur investment and reconstruction booms.In this context, Syrian Minister of Energy, Engineer Mohammad al-Bashir, said that lifting the economic sanctions imposed on Syria will open the door to a new phase of joint recovery and rebuilding and improving the economic situation. He praised the efforts of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkiye in supporting the lifting of the sanctions.The minister of energy stressed that this pivotal role will have a profound impact on reopening Arab communication channels, fostering a climate of openness and mutual co-operation, and enhancing the economic outlook.He added that the government highly appreciates the efforts made by Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkiye in supporting the push to lift sanctions on Syria, adding that these efforts stemming from a sincere commitment to Arab unity and alleviating the humanitarian suffering of the Syrian people.For his part, Dr Osama al-Qadi, head of the Qadi Center for Economic and Financial Consulting, affirmed that lifting sanctions reflects a political decision more than a legal one. He noted that US President Donald Trump had given clear signals of support for the new Syrian administration and even invited the Syrian president to visit the US, a move al-Qadi described as a direct invitation to partnership.He explained that current political indicators suggest the lifting of sanctions will proceed quickly and without bureaucratic hurdles, due to direct backing from major countries, chiefly the US, UK, and France, which have already lifted their economic sanctions on Syria. He added that Syria’s reintegration into the global financial system will facilitate financial flows, reinvigorate the economy, and create a surge in investment and construction.Al-Qadi stressed that Syria’s economic environment needs technical support from sister countries, which have supported, and continue to support, the Syrian people through various stages. He expects these countries to contribute to rebuilding the banking sector and providing the necessary support to develop it in line with global standards.He added that Syria now has a real opportunity to emerge from isolation, and that success in seizing this pivotal moment will require a comprehensive national effort, including legal and institutional reforms, eliminating corruption from the business environment, and restoring Syria’s international reputation. He emphasised that Syria can become a reconstruction hub attracting investment from around the world and breathing new life into its battered economy.Dr Firas Shaabo, a Professor of financial management at Bahcesehir University in Istanbul, said that lifting sanctions could be seen as a positive signal to markets and foreign investors, allowing for an influx of investment and boosting commercial activity. It would also enable the Syrian market to open up to modern technologies and advanced infrastructure.He added that the biggest challenge lies in the assumption that sanctions are the sole reason for economic dysfunction and that their removal will automatically improve the economy. He clarified that real improvement requires efficient management of state resources, the development of strategic economic plans, and governance of government operations.He pointed out that the challenges facing the Syrian economy include widespread infrastructure destruction, weak financial institutions, corruption, and political instability.Regarding the Syrian banking system, Shaabo said that the capital base of Syrian banks is very small; there are 16 private banks, the largest of which has capital of no more than $10mn. Six banks have capital below $3.5mn, and the rest between $1mn and $500,000. He concluded as a result that the banks’ capital must increase.He stressed the important role that Gulf and regional banks will play in the next phase, noting that Gulf banks already have a presence through Syrian banks that are considered extensions of them. He said that lifting sanctions will encourage international institutions to return gradually to Syria, and the pace of their return will depend on Syria’s commitment to required reforms and the stability of the country’s overall situation.Dr Sinan Hathat, an expert in population affairs, said that lifting sanctions would open the door to international and regional investment, especially in sectors experiencing growing demand such as energy, transportation, logistics, and real estate. He explained that the Syrian market appears attractive to investors seeking new opportunities, which would create both direct and indirect job opportunities and help revitalise production chains in the agriculture and industry sectors.He added that the expected return of investment will have a dual effect; the first is that it will help rehabilitate the national economy, and on the other, it will generate direct and indirect jobs for Syrian workers, whether in construction or through the activation of industrial and agricultural value chains.Dr Nawar Najmeh, political affairs researcher and member of the Syrian National Dialogue Committee, described the sanctions as having created an economic and diplomatic prison for Syria, blocking the flow of goods and money and preventing interaction with the global economic system. He said their removal is a step toward liberating the Syrian economy and reconnecting it to the international system. He added that the coming period could see an influx of goods, medical equipment, and technology, which would allow for fundamental reforms in infrastructure and public services.Dr Yasser al-Hussein, an academic specialising in political economy, considered the lifting of US sanctions specifically to be a strategic shift in the Syrian file, potentially opening the door for Syria to reconnect with the global financial system after years of isolation.He said that the destruction inflicted on infrastructure requires investments exceeding $400bn, including for water, electricity, and road networks, as well as the construction of housing, health, and educational facilities. Lifting sanctions, he said, would allow international companies to enter and implement these projects, which would increase competitiveness and reduce operational and insurance costs.Al-Hussein pointed out that economic openness will help rehabilitate the social environment by encouraging the return of Syrian refugees from neighbouring countries and Europe, especially as resources become available to rebuild schools, hospitals, and basic services. He explained that this new climate could help reduce poverty levels, which, according to UN estimates, have exceeded 90%, by creating new job opportunities especially in the private sector and small and medium enterprises.In the same context, Dr Ibrahim Nafi Qushji, an economist and banking expert, said that lifting sanctions marks a turning point for the future of the Syrian economy, as it paves the way for reintegration into global markets and enhances trade and investment flows. He noted that achieving sustainable recovery will depend on the readiness of the economic infrastructure and the ability of Syrian institutions to interact with the global financial system.Qushji explained that the positive effects of the decision will appear gradually, starting with the liberalisation of financial transactions such as access to the SWIFT international transfer system, followed by the removal of trade restrictions, and eventually a broader opening to regional and international markets. However, he stressed that this path requires comprehensive reforms, including modernising infrastructure, restructuring the Central Bank of Syria, and developing monetary policies to control inflation and stabilise the exchange rate.On the policy front, he emphasised the need to reform the legal and institutional environment to build investor confidence by enacting transparent investment laws, offering genuine economic incentives, and streamlining procedures related to business establishment and profit repatriation.

Many fear that America’s withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement will undermine the international consensus to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Yet just in the last month, there have been two major steps toward widespread carbon pricing where it is needed most.To be sure, carbon pricing is not always the best policy, and not all sectors need to be subjected to schemes that require international consistency. If India electrifies its vehicle fleet more slowly than Europe, European industry suffers no competitive disadvantage. But the situation is different in long-distance shipping and aviation, and in heavy industries such as steel and chemicals, which account for around 25% of global emissions. Here, carbon pricing is key to cost-efficient decarbonisation, and must be imposed on an internationally consistent basis.Fortunately, the technologies needed to achieve net-zero emissions by mid-century in each sector already exist. For example, methanol or ammonia can be used instead of fuel oil in ship engines, and hydrogen can replace coking coal in iron production. As matters stand, these technologies would impose a significant “green cost premium” at the intermediate product level, but with only a small impact on consumer prices. For example, even if shipping-freight rates doubled, the price of a pair of jeans made in Bangladesh and bought in London would rise less than 1%. If making zero-carbon steel costs 50% more per ton, that would add around 1% to the price of an automobile made from green steel.Carbon pricing is essential to overcome the green cost premium, and it could drive cost-efficient decarbonisation at a trivial cost to consumers. But in each of these sectors, inherently international products (long-distance shipping) or the international trade in products (steel) make purely domestic approaches untenable. That is why the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) agreed on April 11 to impose a carbon levy reaching $380 per metric ton on ship operators whose emissions intensity exceeds a defined threshold.The IMO agreement is not perfect. The organisation aims to cut global shipping emissions by 20% by 2030, but the new pricing scheme would achieve only an 8% reduction. Still, concluding a new multilateral agreement despite a US boycott of the negotiations is a big step forward. China, India, and Brazil were among the 63 countries in favour.Carbon pricing could also drive decarbonisation in heavy industry, but if it is imposed in only some countries, production and emissions will simply move to others. Though the ideal solution would be common carbon prices worldwide for these energy-intensive sectors, there is no international rule-making body like the IMO. The second-best solution, then, is for individual countries to impose domestic carbon prices combined with border carbon tariffs.The European Union is pursuing this approach. Not only will its emissions-trading scheme likely price carbon around $140 per metric ton by 2030; it is also removing the free allowances that heavy industry previously enjoyed and introducing a border carbon adjustment mechanism (CBAM) to subject imports to the same carbon pricing as domestic production. In principle, this creates strong incentives for decarbonisation, while protecting domestic competitiveness.But the CBAM has been too weak, and heavy-industry decarbonisation projects have been delayed. As a result, in March the European Commission committed to strengthening the regime in three respects: by ensuring a level playing field for exports as well as domestic sales; by widening the product coverage; and by improving the measurement of imports’ carbon intensity.The crucial question now is how developing countries will respond. In the past, several governments – in particular China and India – have criticised CBAMs as protectionist. But their arguments are unconvincing. Combining a domestic carbon price with a CBAM does not give domestic producers a competitive advantage. It simply maintains the competitive balance that existed before both were introduced. Moreover, it is the only way that developed countries can truly decarbonise their heavy industry, rather than hypocritically claiming to reduce emissions that have merely moved to other countries. The objective of the policy is not to raise tariff revenue, but to encourage other countries to impose carbon prices at home.

A slowing global economy, rising trade tensions, and increased risks of recession could mean a perfect storm for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) burdened by high sovereign debt. Faced with exorbitant borrowing costs and an increasingly jittery international environment, these countries’ potential for economic growth and development will be severely curtailed.Given the circumstances, the current international financial architecture, particularly its approach to debt sustainability, needs to be overhauled. Only by embracing a new approach to developing-country debt will these countries be able to generate the investment flows they so desperately need to kickstart long-term growth.The concept of debt sustainability remains heavily influenced by the International Monetary Fund-World Bank Debt Sustainability Framework, even though economists within both institutions have long recognised the DSF’s inadequacies. It is supposed to balance the need for development financing with debt sustainability, but it often advocates suboptimal levels of government spending and investment, inadvertently contributing to future economic distress in developing countries. It also frequently fails to account for the scale of investment required, and it is insufficiently sensitive to economic and external shocks.Moreover, the DSF has historically overstated the potential of fiscal consolidation to spur economic growth, leading to persistent forecast errors and higher-than-anticipated debt ratios. One critical flaw is its limited consideration of the long-term benefits of debt-financed investments, particularly in areas like the green transition. The framework needs to evolve from a tool focused on debt reduction at all costs to one that incentivises investments designed to drive future growth and long-term fiscal sustainability.We are already seeing some advanced economies, namely Germany, moving beyond their debt ceilings to increase public spending on defence and other urgent needs. Policymakers in these countries understand that borrowing to fund government consumption is fundamentally different from making strategic investments in infrastructure or climate adaptation, which can offset future economic losses and bolster debt sustainability over time.Similarly, lending decisions for LMICs should be based on long-term models of debt sustainability, not simplistic rules-of-thumb like countries’ debt-to-GDP ratio. Achieving debt sustainability is more likely if adjustment programmes facilitate high investment, since this can underpin stronger economic growth. Investment-driven borrowing has been linked to low sovereign debt risks, and therefore should be encouraged.Of course, the most immediate issue is the large debt overhang many LMICs face. Past successful interventions have already shown that debt relief, deep reductions or suspensions of interest payments, cuts to charges and surcharges on credit, and increases in grant allocations and available special drawing rights (SDRs, the IMF’s reserve asset) should all be on the table.But addressing LMICs’ long-term financing needs requires broader reforms. A major boost in long-term, low-cost financing is essential. Multilateral development banks and international development finance institutions can and should play a central role in gradually increasing affordable lending. They are the only ones who can provide countercyclical lending when private financing is limited, commodity prices are falling, or the global economy is in crisis. We need more initiatives like the African Development Bank’s African Development Fund, which provides concessional funding, grants, project preparation resources, and guarantees for low-income regional members.Creating a permanent institutional mechanism for sovereign-debt restructuring is also essential. Such an instrument preferably would operate through the UN, but it also could be housed within the IMF, provided that decision-making is left to a specialised agency that is independent of the Executive Board and Board of Governors. This body could provide a structured, predictable, and fair framework for renegotiating debts through a three-stage process involving voluntary renegotiation, mediation, and arbitration, each with fixed deadlines.The current conception of debt sustainability for LMICs is based on a fallacy that hinders global growth and sustainable development. We must move from a narrow focus on debt reduction to a broader understanding of debt sustainability that focuses on long-term investment-driven growth.By rethinking debt sustainability, the international community can empower LMICs to embark on a path of sustained economic development. A bold reimagining of the international financial architecture is imperative to avert prolonged debt crises, restore fiscal sustainability, and ensure global economic stability.The Fourth UN International Conference on Financing for Development that will take place in Seville in July will give developing countries an opportunity to speak with one voice to the Western-backed institutions that oversee the current international financial architecture. – Project SyndicateKevin P Gallagher is Professor of Global Development Policy and Director of the Global Development Policy Center at Boston University.José Antonio Ocampo, a former UN under-secretary-general and a former minister of finance and public credit of Colombia, is a professor at Columbia University, a member of the UN Committee for Development Policy, and a member of the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation.Kunal Sen, Professor of Economics at the University of Manchester, is Director of the UN University World Institute for Development Economics Research (UNU-WIDER).

In times of political turbulence, leading research universities often become both targets of populist rhetoric and beacons of hope. For voters dissatisfied with “elites” and the status quo, higher education bears responsibility for spawning the political class that they blame for all society’s ills. And yet, in the face of so many global crises – environmental, geopolitical, economic, social, technological, and health-related – the world desperately needs new solutions, independent research, and trained future leaders.In the United States, President Donald Trump’s administration and a substantial share of the electorate identify universities with a malign domestic and global “system,” and as a major battleground in the country’s long-running culture wars. The administration has cut universities’ federal research funding, threatened to revoke their tax-exempt status, and demanded institutional reforms that limit their autonomy and academic freedom. Some US universities have decided to pause or cancel research programmes and slow the recruitment of faculty.This is a tragedy, and not just for the US. Frontier research and education is a global public good. New insights and innovations relating to AI, climate change, health, inequality, and geopolitics benefit all of humankind, wherever they are generated. With US universities facing unprecedented political pressure, the rest of the world must step up its efforts to support pathbreaking research, education, and innovation.Doing so will require co-ordinated action among universities, which should roll out new research projects and recruit faculty who want to relocate from the US to pursue their work in a more welcoming and productive environment. It will also require large new contributions of public- and private-sector resources.There are already encouraging signs that this is happening. Canada’s University Health Network Foundation recently launched an initiative to raise $30mn to recruit 100 top early-career scientists from around the world. The British government is preparing a £50mn ($67mn) scheme to attract international research talent to the United Kingdom. The French government has announced a “Choose France for Science” platform that would fund 50% of initiatives to attract international talent to French universities and research institutions. And on May 5, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen delivered a passionate speech touting a new initiative, “Choose Europe for Science,” which will include a €500mn ($562mn) package (for 2025-27) to make Europe a “magnet for researchers.”But as impressive as these announcements are, public-sector efforts will not be enough. All the public initiatives announced so far represent less than what a single major US university risks losing in federal research funding this year. Worse, most governments face very tight fiscal constraints and cannot afford to plug the emerging global research funding gap. Private donors will have to step in.While private support for US universities could help them weather a loss of federal funding, financial resources alone will not address the government’s attack on academic freedom. Undue political pressure has already heightened the risk of an exodus of faculty from the US. A March Nature survey of US-based scientists found that 75% of respondents were looking for jobs abroad, particularly in Europe and Canada. An analysis of *Nature’s jobs-board data in April confirmed the beginning of a brain drain from the US.Trump’s assault on academic freedom also worries students. For international applicants looking at the US, the question is no longer just about an institution’s ranking or reputation. Even more important is whether they will be safe, welcomed, and included. Students from the Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia – especially those whose nationality may bring extra scrutiny – are increasingly cautious about pursuing higher education in today’s America. Students are becoming more reluctant about attending top US institutions as a matter not of protest, but of prudence. MBA students who previously would have viewed US schools as the gold standard are now considering more fundamental questions: Where will I feel welcome? Where can I be confident that my visa will be honoured for the duration of my studies? Where can I build an international network that isn’t vulnerable to political headwinds?For European universities and business schools, this shift creates both opportunities and responsibilities. Top schools outside the US must ensure that they will be equal to the moment. That means investing more in world-class faculty, building bridges with industry and government, and reaffirming their fundamental values of academic excellence, inclusion, and internationalism.It also means engaging donors who want to make a difference. UK and European universities and business schools with global ambitions often lack the billion-dollar endowments of their US peers. For philanthropists committed to open societies, inclusive education, and world-changing research, this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to invest in institutions that are ready to lead, but need the resources to match their mission. — Project Syndicate

Some European tech workers who might once have headed to the United States are looking at defence startups closer to home. Others are rushing back to Europe from jobs abroad.A sense of patriotism stirred by the war in Ukraine and US President Donald Trump’s upending of security alliances is a motivation for many, as well as the opportunity to make money as European governments boost military spending.For others, it’s the appeal of working on cutting-edge battlefield applications that use artificial intelligence.Reuters spoke to two dozen AI engineers, venture capital firms, government officials and defence companies in Europe who said the influx of tech talent reflected a changed political landscape as the United States retreats from its post-World War Two role as guarantor of Europe’s defences.“There are people that are really mission-focused, and what they want to do in their life is to have an impact and not only earn a big salary,” said Loïc Mougeolle, CEO of Paris-based battlefield AI provider Comand AI.“They’re really motivated to have an impact rebuilding Europe and change the course of history for Europe.” There are longstanding ethical concerns about the use of AI in battlefield contexts. But the technology appeals to investors: Comand AI raised $10mn in a December funding round, while Germany’s Alpine Eagle, which focuses on technology to counter autonomous drones, raised €10mn ($11.4mn) in March.Amid intense competition for AI talent, Mougeolle said Comand AI has recruited engineers and product managers from US-based ChatGPT maker OpenAI and data analytics provider Palantir Technologies.Alpine Eagle plans to hire across product, engineering, business development and sales as it looks to expand outside Germany. “Europe, in terms of defence and also public security, is a huge market,” CEO Jan-Hendrik Boelens told Reuters.Salaries in Europe can be significantly lower than in the United States: Glassdoor data shows Helsing – Europe’s only defence “unicorn”, valued at over $1bn – pays up to $150,000 per year for an AI engineer, compared with $270,000 at Palantir or $380,000 at Google.Helsing declined to comment for this story.As well as poaching experienced talent, companies like Comand AI, Helsing and Alpine Eagle are recruiting new graduates.Stelios Koroneos, founder of variene.ai, a Greek defence tech startup, said the war in Ukraine had reduced the stigma around working in defence for many young engineers.“Young people started realising freedom does not come for free,” Koroneos said. “You need to be able to defend yourselves. Some do it with guns and others do it with the knowledge they have and the things they build.”Julian Dierkes, a 27-year old doctoral student at Germany’s RWTH Aachen University, researches reinforcement learning, which trains software to make autonomous decisions to achieve optimal results and has broad applications for defence.“For me it is important if I do research in defence that I am protecting European democracies,” he told Reuters.Defence startups have surged since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, and technology – particularly drones – has helpedkeep Kyiv in the fight. PitchBook data shows venture capital investment in European defence companies reached $626mn in 2024, up from $254mn in 2023 and $62mn in 2022.And Europe’s rearmament plans promise more: the European Union aims to mobilise €800bn ($911bn) for defence while countries like Germany have pledged massive increases in their defence budgets.According to the Zeki State of AI Talent Report, European defence companies are targeting top engineers as even established firms shift focus from hardware to software for everything from drones to troop-tracking technology.Its analysis, based on a dataset of 800,000 people, found the number of top AI engineers in Europe’s defence sector based on published research soared to 1,700 in 2024 from 144 in 2014. Comparable US roles grew to 6,927 from 487 over the same period, according to Zeki data.Zeki defined top talent as engineers with a proven track record of breaking new ground in AI discovery such as published research.“We believe this represents significant and sustained growth in the sector,” Zeki’s chief executive Tom Hurd told Reuters. Investors, tech workers and recruiters said unease with the current US political environment was prompting some Europeans to seek opportunities at home. Deep cuts to funding for universities and research bodies by Trump’s administration have prompted scientists in other disciplines to consider moving to Europe.“Many of the world’s top AI researchers come from Europe. Some went to the US, but many are returning to work on European sovereignty, resilience, and long-term value creation,” said Jeannette zu Fürstenberg, managing director at US venture capital firm General Catalyst in Berlin.“I think that’s a powerful signal.”Benjamin Wolba last year co-founded the European Defense Tech Hub, which aims to connect tech founders, investors and policymakers and whose events have received sponsorship from Helsing and General Catalyst.He said more than 12 defence tech startups had emerged from hackathons it organised in Munich, Copenhagen and Paris in 2024 that were attended by around 440 people. The privately-owned network hosted a similar event in Amsterdam last month.“We’re seeing growing anecdotal evidence that AI graduates are increasingly open to working in defence, especially over the past 12 months,” Wolba said.British university student Michael Rowley, 20, said he had recently rejected offers of accounting and more traditional AI jobs to work for a company developing technology that allows sensors to better track troop movements.“When I decided to go into defence I had quite a few options, and for me it was the opportunity to do meaningful work,” said Rowley, whose Tiresias startup won a tech event in Munich in February. “If I want to work for most tech companies I might write code for advertising, but to be able to contribute to the front lines and help protect democracy is an opportunity not many people get.”Marie Inuzuka worked at OpenAI and Palantir before joining Comand AI as a product manager in December last year, attracted by the opportunity to do “more mission-driven, impactful work”.The 34-year-old is a descendant of survivors of the 1945 US bombing of Nagasaki.“My grandparents lived through the atomic bomb, so defence has always been very close to my heart,” she told Reuters.

For years Luis Treminio has provided guidance to farmers in El Salvador, using a US-backed famine monitoring system to boost crop production and help prevent hunger.Armed with public bulletins and regular food security alerts produced by the Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET), Treminio would relay the critical data to farmers.But it was funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and has been operating at sharply reduced capacity since President Donald Trump ordered a spending freeze on USAID in January.“It’s a very important early warning system tool,” said Treminio, who heads the Salvadorian Chamber of Small and Medium Agricultural Producers, an association of about 125,000 corn, beans, sorghum and rice growers.“If the programme’s early warning alerts disappear, I think producers would have worse losses than we already do,” he said.FEWS NET provided forecasts six to twelve months in advance, with drought and weather monitoring to help farmers plan when to plant their crops.The FEWS NET programme has shifted to a new website under the US Geological Survey (USGS) but with limited information, dealing a blow to those who relied on the service from local farming associations and international aid groups to governments and policymakers.USAID cuts have significantly affected humanitarian organisations around the world that were working on life-saving programmes from vital HIV health care to land demining and food aid.Created by the US government in 1985 after devastating famines in East and West Africa, FEWS NET reports have been a key resource for organisations deciding where and how to deploy humanitarian relief.On January 27, Chemonics International, which manages FEWS NET, received a stop-work order from USAID. Two days later, FEWS NET’s original website went dark and has been offline ever since.According to Mike Budde, USGS FEWS NET programme manager, work is underway to get the new website fully functioning, but it is likely to take some time.“The USGS FEWS NET website is in no way a replacement or replication” of the original site, Budde told Context/the Thomson Reuters Foundation in an e-mail.“There is a large gap in the resources we provide” compared with the earlier website, he said.“That said, we are in the process of coordinating across our science team to make available some of the information previously posted on that site in the interim.”Across Africa, food security experts and humanitarian workers said FEWS NET has been indispensable to humanitarian and development work - providing data-driven insights into food security, climate impacts and emerging crises. Its regular assessments and early warning reports enabled aid workers to anticipate and respond to acute food insecurity, especially in regions in East and West Africa affected by drought, conflict and economic shocks, they said. For example, during periods of severe drought or conflict, FEWS NET’s monthly and seasonal forecasts integrating climate data, crop conditions and market analysis helped identify vulnerable communities and prioritise interventions.This ensured that aid reached those most at risk before situations escalated into full-blown emergencies. “FEWS NET’s comprehensive approach... has supported ActionAid Ethiopia and partners in designing holistic responses to complex crises,” said Tinebeb Berhane, ActionAid Country Director in Ethiopia. “The network’s evidence-based recommendations are widely used not only by NGOs but also by government bodies and international agencies for coordinated humanitarian planning and policy action.”By leveraging FEWS NET’s robust early warning systems and localised data, Berhane said her organisation strengthened its anticipatory action and contributed to effective, targeted and life-saving assistance for vulnerable populations.Erin Lentz, associate professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at The University of Texas at Austin and an expert on international food security, said FEWS NET was “trying to do better early warning, how to think about these things holistically”.“That’s hard to do and takes a lot of training, understanding of global economic factors, requires the ability to think about how these things directly impact people’s lives and livelihoods,” she said. -Thomson Reuters Foundation

Mediation to resolve conflicts through peaceful means, dialogue, and preventive diplomacy is a top priority in Qatar’s foreign policy and a constitutional commitment. Article 7 of the Permanent Constitution, issued in 2003, states: “The foreign policy of the state is based on the principles of strengthening international peace and security by means of encouraging the peaceful resolution of international disputes, supporting the right of peoples to self-determination, not interfering in the domestic affairs of other states, and co-operating with all peace-loving nations.”Qatar has adhered to these principles and led successful mediation efforts since 2004, resulting in conflict resolutions and hostage releases in various parts of the world. These efforts have addressed ceasefires, the restoration of diplomatic relations, prisoner exchanges, support for national dialogues, border dispute resolutions, humanitarian assistance, and comprehensive peace agreements in regional and international conflicts.Qatar has chosen this role based on the belief that mediation is the most effective way to prevent or de-escalate conflicts and to reduce the rising human, economic, and developmental costs. Accordingly, it has played an active role in promoting mediation in co-operation with the international community, including the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly, as well as with friendly countries, notably the United States.Qatar’s record of mediation is filled with notable successes in resolving disputes between countries, political groups, armed factions, and opposition forces. These successes are attributed to the state’s reliable, effective, and neutral diplomacy, its strong relations with all parties, and its co-ordination with the United Nations General Assembly.Among the most prominent achievements of Qatari mediation is the peace agreement signed in February 2020 between the United States and the Taliban, which marked the end of a 19-year war and paved the way for US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.Qatar also successfully mediated a prisoner exchange in August 2023 between the US and Iran, involving the release of five Iranians detained in the US and the unfreezing of $6bn in Iranian funds. In December 2023, Qatar announced the success of its mediation between the US and Venezuela, which led to the release of 10 American prisoners in exchange for a Venezuelan detainee held by the US, after several rounds of mediation.In March 2025, Qatar facilitated the release of two American citizens, George Gleesman and Faye Hall, from Afghanistan. The US Department of State publicly thanked Qatar for its essential role and support in securing the release of American citizens in distress.Additionally, in January 2025, Qatar, in co-ordination with the US and Egypt, successfully mediated a ceasefire agreement in the Gaza Strip between Israel and the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas. The agreement included a prisoner and detainee exchange and lasted two months. Despite the subsequent resumption of Israeli aggression, Qatar’s efforts continue, underscoring its commitment to alleviating the suffering of the Palestinian people in Gaza.Earlier, in November 2023, Qatar also brokered a four-day humanitarian truce, extendable, which facilitated the exchange of 50 civilian women and children hostages held in Gaza for Palestinian women and children imprisoned in Israel. The truce also allowed for increased humanitarian aid, including fuel for critical services. Doha’s mediation efforts have extended beyond the Middle East. Qatar has played a crucial role in peace initiatives in Sudan, Yemen, Chad, Djibouti, Eritrea, and Afghanistan — regions where Qatari diplomacy has gained significant recognition.On March 18, 2025, Doha hosted a trilateral summit between His Highness the Amir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, President Paul Kagame of Rwanda, and President Felix Tshisekedi of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The leaders reviewed progress in the Luanda and Nairobi peace processes and reaffirmed their commitment to an immediate and unconditional ceasefire, as agreed during the joint East African Community and Southern African Development Community summit in Dar es Salaam on February 8, 2025.Presidents Kagame and Tshisekedi expressed their gratitude to Qatar and His Highness the Amir for hosting the productive meeting in Doha, which fostered trust and advanced efforts toward sustainable peace in the region.Qatari mediation has also contributed to reuniting children separated due to the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine since February 2022, demonstrating Qatar’s humanitarian and neutral stance in global crises.These achievements have significantly strengthened Qatar’s bilateral relations with the United States. Washington continues to recognise and commend Qatar’s role in promoting international peace, security, and dialogue. Qatar’s mediation strategy is rooted in promoting a culture of calm diplomacy, trust-building, and conflict prevention, reinforcing its stature as a dependable international partner.HE Dr Mohammed bin Abdulaziz al-Khulaifi, Minister of State at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, reaffirmed Qatar’s appreciation for the fruitful co-operation between the Afghan caretaker government and the US. He emphasised that Qatar consistently seeks to activate mediation as a tool for resolving complex international disputes peacefully, grounded in its foreign policy principles prioritising dialogue and stability.Qatar’s track record includes 21 years of successful mediation since 2004, marking a legacy of effective diplomacy. Its impartiality, integrity, and dedication have earned it credibility as a neutral arbiter trusted by all parties.In summary, Qatari mediation has produced tangible diplomatic results, including:• Strengthening Doha-Washington ties• Spreading the culture of dialogue and calm diplomacy• Positioning Qatar as a reliable regional and global partner• Promoting security and stability in conflict-affected regionsThese sustained efforts reflect Qatar’s unwavering dedication to mediation, peace-building, and international co-operation on all levels. (QNA)

HE Sheikh Meshal bin Hamad al-Thani, Qatar’s ambassador to the US, has said his country has emerged as an indispensable partner of the United States in promoting peace and stability across the Middle East, underscoring the significance of President Donald Trump’s visit to Qatar.In an interview, the ambassador described the visit as a major milestone in bilateral relations, reflecting deep mutual trust and a growing strategic alignment between the two nations on key regional and global issues. Highlights of the interview:Q: Your Excellency, what is the significance of President Trump’s visit to Qatar for US-Qatar relations?A: President Trump’s visit to Qatar is a major step toward further strengthening the Qatar-US relations. It is also a testament to the pivotal role that Qatar has played - and continues to play - in promoting peace and prosperity throughout the region. Most importantly, its timing reflects the depth of mutual trust and respect between the leadership of the two countries, as well as Washington’s appreciation for Qatar’s contributions - under the wise leadership of His Highness the Amir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani - to the consolidation of regional security and stability, and its unwavering commitment to co-operation in pursuit of these goals.Q: What were the main outcomes of President Trump’s meetings with Qatari leaders?A: The meeting between His Highness the Amir and Donald Trump was an important occasion to exchange views on a range of pressing regional and international issues of mutual interest. The two leaders discussed the situation in Palestine, the Iranian nuclear talks, and developments in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. They also addressed energy security and strategies to safeguard and preserve the stability and security in the Gulf region and the broader Middle East.This visit offered a unique opportunity for the leaders of both nations to explore pathways toward ending the ongoing conflict in the Gaza Strip, supporting reconstruction efforts, and giving a new lease of life to the peace process in line with international legitimacy and the two-state solution — thus ensuring the Palestinian people’s right to establish an independent state along the borders of June 4, 1967.Q: What are the key pillars of the current US-Qatar partnership?A: Our bilateral relations are multidimensional. They span diplomacy, trade, investments, security and military, education, culture, and people to people relations. Our two countries are reaping the fruits of an enduring relationship whose seeds were planted five decades ago.Since the signing of our first security agreement in June 1992, our commitment to further strengthening our bilateral relations has become one of the main tenets of our foreign policy. The alignment of our shared goals has led Qatari and US positions to align on a host of regional and global issues. Whether in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Sudan, or Afghanistan, we have worked hand in hand to ensure that the crises unfolding in these countries do not spiral out of control and can be resolved through peaceful means. The relations between the two countries were elevated to another dimension with the inauguration of the Qatar-US strategic dialogue in January 2018. Ever since, the dialogue has been held on a yearly basis.Q: How do you see the future of political and diplomatic ties between Qatar and the US?A: The prospects of Qatar-US ties are more promising than ever. (The fact that) Qatar is among the countries visited by President Donald Trump during his regional tour carries considerable political significance. Thanks to the proactive diplomacy that our country has adopted over the past decade, as well as the convergence of interests between the State of Qatar and the US, I can say with confidence that our relations have reached an advanced level of maturity. Today, the US political elite increasingly views Qatar as one of the region’s indispensable partners for ensuring Middle East stability.The fact that successive US administrations have systematically sought Qatar’s mediation in a wide range of regional conflicts speaks to the high level of trust Washington places in our country’s ability to act as a credible and effective mediator. I firmly believe that the outcome of President Trump’s visit to Doha will mark a new milestone and bring the Qatar-US relations to even greater heights.Q: What are the main opportunities for strengthening economic cooperation between both countries?A: Qatar and the US enjoy a strong economic alliance anchored in a strategic partnership valued at over $185bn. The US stands among Qatar’s most important economic partners, ranking as the country’s sixth-largest trading partner.Both nations are working closely to deepen their economic relationship, expand bilateral trade, and increase investment flows. Qatar and the US also collaborate on strategic projects in key sectors such as logistics, infrastructure, technology, energy, and real estate. Both countries are committed to supporting Qatar’s transition to a knowledge-based economy by facilitating the exchange of expertise and best practices in areas such as technology, education, and workforce development. The state of Qatar has also signed a series of memoranda of understanding with various US public and private sector entities to broaden co-operation across a wide range of industries.Q: How will Qatar continue to engage with the US on global issues like security, energy, and sustainability?A: Though Qatar and the US bilateral ties have long been strong, they lacked an institutional framework capable of allowing the two countries to deepen their co-operation in a structured and sustainable way. The situation has changed, however, with the launch of the Strategic Dialogue in 2018. Communication and engagement between the two capitals have become more consistent and frequent, with their senior officials meeting regularly.The Strategic Dialogue has provided a valuable platform to reaffirm both countries’ commitment to strengthening ties of co-operation and mutual trust, and to advancing their partnership to the highest levels.These annual meetings offer a structured platform to explore all avenues to enhance co-operation across a wide range of sectors, including trade, knowledge exchange, security, defence, technical collaboration, climate change, energy security, and investment promotion.The shared commitment to holding the Strategic Dialogue on a regular and consistent basis reflects the two countries’ determination to institutionalise the bilateral relationship and to ensure its long- term continuity.

With the spectre of deglobalisation looming large, developing economies are scrambling to devise new growth strategies. The most effective path to development in recent history – specialising in export-oriented, unskilled labor-intensive manufacturing – now appears to be blocked. The model that once propelled the economies of South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, China, and Vietnam is becoming less accessible for countries in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.What made the traditional development model so successful was its reliance on exports, which enabled countries like South Korea to tap into virtually unlimited global demand, freeing them from the constraints implied by narrow domestic markets. Exporting also fuelled supply-side efficiency, and reliance on unskilled labour meant that the benefits of growth were widely shared.Another key strength of the manufacturing-led growth model was that it ensured productivity gains were aligned with available labour resources, largely owing to the learning-by-doing dynamic that enabled countries to boost efficiency within existing sectors while gradually moving up the value chain. Economies could start with low-productivity exports and, as the workforce became more educated, shift to more skill-intensive and sophisticated export sectors. Consequently, growth was both rapid and inclusive, and thus more sustainable.But those days are long gone, or so it seems. As the world braces for an era of protectionism and deglobalisation, two alternative development strategies have come to the fore. The first, proposed by Rohit Lamba and Raghuram G Rajan, suggests that developing countries – India in particular – should focus on skill-intensive exportable services.While Lamba and Rajan’s proposal retains some of the advantages of the old manufacturing-led model – tapping into global demand and promoting efficiency – its biggest drawback is that only a minuscule fraction of the workforce can directly benefit from it. Even India – the posterchild for this strategy among developing countries – employed less than 2.5% of its workforce in the sectors that could be considered skill-intensive and tradable in 2024. For most poor countries, where skilled labour is scarce, such a strategy is simply not viable. And even where it is, pursuing it risks exacerbating inequality rather than fostering economic inclusion.The second strategy, proposed by Dani Rodrik and Rohan Sandhu, contends that the window for labour-intensive exports has narrowed dramatically, and that emerging technologies like AI and automation will further erode manufacturing’s ability to generate new jobs. In response, they advocate focusing on productivity gains in non-tradable services. Since the bulk of economic activity and employment in developing countries is concentrated in these sectors, this approach has the potential to foster more inclusive growth.The limitations of such a strategy are twofold. For starters, new technologies are just as likely to displace workers in non-tradable service sectors as they are in manufacturing. Moreover, as we have shown in previous research, non-tradable services are not uniformly low-skilled. Some sectors – such as telecommunications, finance, and real estate – are highly skilled and productive. By contrast, sectors like retail trade and care-giving are more accessible to unskilled workers but tend to have limited potential for productivity growth.This dynamic, famously captured by the so-called Baumol effect, means that non-tradable services are unlikely to become engines of sustained, inclusive economic growth in the way that manufacturing once did. To be sure, there may be some exceptions: construction and tourism, for example, are labour-intensive sectors that could become more productive. But these gains typically depend on adopting new technologies that are inherently labour-displacing, thereby limiting their capacity to drive inclusive development. So, where does this leave developing countries? Surprisingly, while the traditional manufacturing-led strategy is not as effective as it once was, it remains a viable path for today’s poor countries – provided that middle-income countries vacate the export space they currently dominate.Simple arithmetic helps illustrate this point. For example, Brazil, China, South Korea, Taiwan, and Mexico account for about two-thirds of low and mid-skilled manufacturing exports, which amounted to about $5.3 trillion in 2023. Over the coming decade, rising wages and geopolitical shifts – especially growing anti-China sentiment – will likely push these countries to move up the value chain or reduce their reliance on exports altogether.Such a shift could open up space for low-income countries to step in. If they were able to capture even half of the vacated export markets, along with a share of China’s growing domestic demand, which we estimate to be at least a half-trillion dollars, they could more than double their current exports to $2-2.5tn.