Opinion

Today, Donald J Trump will take the oath of office as the 47th President of the US, marking the beginning of his second term. This moment represents a significant chapter in American politics, underscoring the enduring resilience of democratic institutions in the face of intense polarisation.Trump’s return to the presidency comes at a time of deep political divisions, but the peaceful transition of power — long a hallmark of American democracy — stands as a reaffirmation of the US commitment to constitutional governance. Despite a contentious political landscape, his second term inauguration will symbolise the unity of process, even in times of stark ideological differences.The peaceful transfer of power reminds the world of the strength of US institutions, even amid discord. Trump’s inauguration serves as a reminder that democratic systems, while imperfect, endure through the adherence to shared principles. As his presidency begins anew, the coming years will test the ability of the US to navigate challenges while striving for unity and progress within.In his first inaugural address, Trump reiterated promises to prioritise “America First” policies, economic revitalisation, and a focus on national sovereignty. His second term presents an opportunity to address unfinished policy agendas while grappling with pressing global challenges, including Russia-Ukraine war, Israeli continued aggression in the Middle East, Iran nuclear deal, China’s economic prowess, water scarcity and climate change...to name a few.Iran’s nuclear ambitionsIran and its nuclear programme containment present one of the many complex foreign policy challenges the Trump Administration will face. US foreign policy toward Iran under Trump’s leadership may very well indicate the challenges and complexities of addressing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, ballistic missile programmes, and regional influence. The “maximum pressure” strategy, aimed to coerce Iran into curbing its nuclear activities while limiting support for regional proxies, inflicted significant economic harm but fell short of achieving its primary objectives. Iran not only continued but intensified its nuclear activities and maintained support for its regional militias, exposing the limitations of economic sanctions when not paired with comprehensive diplomatic efforts or alternative strategies addressing security concerns.Significant regional developments have weakened Iran’s strategic position. The diminishing influence of Iranian proxies and vulnerabilities exposed by Israeli military actions create potential leverage for renewed negotiations. However, these opportunities are time-sensitive, particularly given Iran’s advanced uranium enrichment capabilities. With the potential to achieve nuclear weaponisation within weeks, urgent and multifaceted policy measures are necessary to mitigate the risk.China and Russia play pivotal roles in complicating US efforts to isolate Iran. Their economic and political support for Tehran significantly bolsters its resistance to sanctions. The dynamic underscores the importance of adopting a multilateral approach that addresses the strategic interests of Beijing and Moscow while diplomatically isolating Iran.Military action remains a contentious option for addressing Iran’s nuclear advancements. While the approach could serve as a last resort to prevent Tehran from crossing the nuclear threshold, the risks of regional destabilisation are considerable. This precarious balance between coercive measures and the pursuit of peaceful solutions illustrates the need for calculated and strategic decision-making. Navigating the complexities of US-Iran relations requires a cohesive approach that integrates economic, diplomatic, and strategic tools. Combining these measures with a clear vision of desired outcomes is essential to address Iran’s nuclear ambitions while promoting US hegemonic stability in the Middle EastNotwithstanding, internal divisions within the Trump Administration may emerge as a significant obstacle to policy coherence. The ideological diversity among hardliners and “America First” advocates complicated the formation of unified objectives and strategies. These internal disagreements risk stalling diplomatic progress and underscore the importance of aligning strategic goals to achieve effective foreign policy outcomes.Maximum pressure strategy in UkraineAlina Polyakova, writing in Foreign Affairs, contends that President Trump must first intensify pressure on Russia if he hopes to negotiate a viable deal with President Putin over Ukraine. She argues: “Trump has said that he aims to pursue a deal with Putin, and he is right to want to bring a lasting and sustainable peace to a war that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives and destabilised geopolitics around the globe.”I do underline that the protracted conflict in Ukraine necessitates a recalibration of US strategies to accelerate a resolution and uphold the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity. The approach of maximum pressure strategy does offer a compelling framework to achieve these objectives. While the Biden Administration has demonstrated steadfast support for Ukraine, its cautious approach fell short of the decisive action required to force meaningful negotiations with Moscow. Inherited the Russia-Ukraine war, it is imperative for Trump’s foreign policy approach to be of a maximum pressure strategy to alter the Kremlin’s calculus and bring an end to the conflict.Although economic sanctions remain a cornerstone of international pressure campaigns, current measures targeting Russian financial institutions and key industries have constrained Moscow’s economic manoeuvrability but lack the comprehensiveness needed for maximum impact. Expanding sanctions to encompass all Russian banks and implementing secondary sanctions on entities that enable Russia’s evasion tactics, particularly in collaboration with China, would deepen the economic toll. The Trump Administration should aim to target Russia’s lucrative energy exports by imposing sanctions on its oil providers and promoting alternative energy sources for European allies would further erode its war-financing capabilities.Equally critical is the provision of advanced military aid to Ukraine. The West’s incremental approach to supplying defensive and offensive capabilities has allowed Ukraine to hold its ground, but more robust support is needed to shift the balance on the battlefield decisively. Providing long-range missile systems, such as ATACMS and HIMARS, alongside sophisticated air defence systems like Patriot interceptors, would bolster Ukraine’s ability to defend its sovereignty and potentially reclaim occupied territories. Simultaneously, the Trump Administration needs to be pressing European allies to contribute comparable military resources would reinforce a unified front against Russian aggression.Israel-Hamas ceasefireTom O’Connor of Newsweek highlights the significant international challenges awaiting Trump as he takes office, listing the Israel-Gaza and Russia-Ukraine conflicts among the most pressing. O’Connor emphasises that “given the potential for some of the most volatile of these ongoing conflicts to directly impact US interests at a time when the nation is engaged in a global great power competition with rivals such as China and Russia, the stakes are high in the second Trump administration’s efforts to revamp foreign policy in order to ‘Make America Great Again’ on the world stage.”Mediated by Qatar, Egypt and the US, the Israel-Hamas ceasefire represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing Middle Eastern conflict, but it is also a harbinger of broader geopolitical shifts, particularly with the anticipated influence of Trump’s future foreign policy agenda. The ceasefire, which temporarily halts the violence that has devastated Gaza and Israel, sets the stage for a redefined US foreign policy approach in the region. The Trump Administration’s strategy will likely build on past policy directions, emphasising unwavering support for Israel, confronting Iran, and consolidating alliances across the Middle East, with significant implications for both the ceasefire’s longevity and the broader regional balance of power.In Israel, the ceasefire serves as an immediate tactical and diplomatic necessity, with Prime Minister Netanyahu facing internal opposition to any deal that does not fully dismantle Hamas. His government, however, is acutely aware of the Trump Administration’s likely role in shaping Israeli policy in the months and years ahead. As highlighted by political analysts in the Atlantic Council, the so-called “Trump effect” has already exerted substantial pressure on Israel to conclude a ceasefire before his inauguration, with the promise of strong US support in confronting Iran, advancing Israeli settlement activities in the West Bank, and pushing back against any perceived political concessions to Palestinians. The Trump Administration’s consistent stance of supporting Israel on key security issues and its approach to strengthening ties with Saudi Arabia will further cement the US-Israel relationship, but it will also introduce significant challenges.In the broader regional context, the Trump Administration is poised to consolidate alliances with key Arab states, including Saudi Arabia and the UAE, both of which have tacitly aligned with Israel on shared security concerns, particularly regarding Iran. The potential for greater normalisation of ties between Israel and these Arab states, as witnessed in the Abraham Accords during Trump’s first term, could further complicate the broader regional dynamics, as the Palestinian issue becomes increasingly sidelined in favour of geopolitical and security interests. This shift could influence the effectiveness of any ceasefire ongoing or future ones, as regional actors might be less inclined to push for a comprehensive peace agreement that prioritises Palestinian statehood over security concerns.The future of the Israel-Hamas ceasefire will be shaped by these intersecting forces. While the ceasefire offers a temporary halt to hostilities, the challenge will be to translate it into a durable peace process — something that remains elusive in the region. The Trump Administration’s foreign policy, which prioritises Israeli security, countering Iranian influence, and bolstering alliances with Arab states, will continue to shape the contours of the conflict. However, the region’s deep-rooted tensions and competing interests make the prospect of a lasting peace uncertain, and I underline that the Trump Administration’s ability to navigate these challenges will determine whether the ceasefire serves as a prelude to a more stable regional order or merely a pause in an ongoing struggle for influence and security in the Middle East.•The author is an Associate Professor of International Relations and Diplomacy, and an Abshire-Inamori International Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank based in Washington DC. Social media platforms @khalid.aljufairi (instagram) and @khalidaljufairi (X)

Donald Trump will be sworn in as president of the United States today, ushering in his second term in office and capping one of the most astounding political comebacks in American history.Inauguration Day is, by tradition, largely dedicated to pomp and circumstance. One president leaves the White House, and another moves in. But Trump, a Republican, also has pledged to sign a flurry of executive orders on subjects ranging from border security to oil and gas production on his first day in office.Here is what we know about Inauguration Day so far:When is the inauguration?Trump will take the oath of office, administered by Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, at 12pm EST (1700 GMT). It was originally due to take place in front of the US Capitol but will now take place inside the congressional complex because of bitter cold. Trump will then deliver his inaugural address. In interviews, he has said he intends it to be uplifting and unifying. That would mark a departure from his first Inauguration Day speech in 2017, which detailed a broken country he described as “American Carnage.” The outgoing president, Democrat Joe Biden, has said he plans to attend the ceremony and witness the transfer of power, a courtesy Trump did not afford him four years earlier. Country music star Carrie Underwood is scheduled to perform at the swearing-in ceremony, according to a copy of the official programme seen by Reuters.Who is invited?Trump has broken with precedent and invited several foreign leaders to the ceremony. Historically, they have not attended the inauguration due to security concerns and have sent diplomats in their stead.Argentina’s president, Javier Milei, a strong supporter of Trump’s, has said he will attend, according to reports. Another Trump backer, Hungary’s Viktor Orban, will not be attending, his spokesman said this week. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has said she hopes to attend. Chinese President Xi Jinping is not attending, despite an invitation, but is sending a senior envoy. Trump adviser Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, Jeff Bezos, executive chairman of Amazon and Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta Platforms, are also attending.Parade to the White HouseThe temperatures have also forced organisers to scrap a planned parade down Pennsylvania Avenue of military regiments, school marching bands, floats and citizens’ groups. The parade will now take place at the 20,000-seat Capital One Arena in downtown Washington.Getting to workTwo sources familiar with the planning said Trump is preparing a flood of executive orders and directives that could total more than 100 starting on Day One. He is expected to sign orders that give immigration officers more latitude to arrest migrants with no criminal records, send more troops to the US-Mexico border and restart construction of a border wall.The orders will include a drive to increase energy production and follow through on Trump’s oft-stated campaign vow to “drill, baby, drill.” Trump also is likely to issue a first wave of pardons for defendants convicted for their participation in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.Parties and a rallyThere will be at least 18 inaugural galas held throughout Washington over the weekend and today, three of which are considered official and which Trump is expected to attend.Yesterday, on the eve of the inauguration, Trump held a campaign-style “Make America Great Again Victory Rally” at the Capital One Arena.Such an event likely will help spur thousands of Trump’s supporters to pack the city for the inaugural festivities. It would be Trump’s first rally in the District of Columbia since the January 6, 2021, incident.Today, Meta’s Zuckerberg will co-host a reception for billionaire Republican donors along with casino magnate Miriam Adelson and Houston Rockets owner Tilman Fertitta, Trump’s pick for ambassador to Italy.Oil and gas tycoon Harold Hamm, a top Trump donor, will host an inauguration watch party today on the roof of the historic Hay-Adams hotel near the White House.Who covers the costsThe official events are financed by Trump’s inauguration committee, which is chaired by longtime Trump allies Steve Witkoff, a real estate developer who is Trump’s pick to be his Middle East envoy, and Kelly Loeffler, a former US senator and Trump’s choice to head the Small Business Administration.The committee will be responsible for covering the costs of everything but the swearing-in ceremony at the Capitol, which is borne by taxpayers. Bezos and Zuckerberg pledged to donate $1mn each to the committee, as have Apple CEO Tim Cook and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman. Uber and its CEO, Dara Khosrowshahi, have each donated $1mn to the fund.Trump raised a record $106.7mn for his 2017 inauguration festivities. His committee has raised more than $170mn this time, according to media reports. – Reuters

Global growth is expected to hold steady at 2.7% in 2025-26, although the World Bank says it appears to be settling at a low growth rate that will be insufficient to foster sustained economic development.In its latest economic outlook, the World Bank feels there is a possibility of further headwinds from heightened policy uncertainty and adverse trade policy shifts, geopolitical tensions, persistent inflation, and climate-related natural disasters.Against this backdrop, emerging market and developing economies (EMDEs) — which fuel 60% of global growth — are set to enter the second quarter of the 21st century with per capita incomes on a trajectory that implies substantially slower catch-up toward advanced-economy living standards than they previously experienced.Without course corrections, most low-income countries are unlikely to graduate to middle-income status by the middle of the century, the World Bank noted.Policy action at both global and national levels is needed to foster a more favourable external environment, enhance macroeconomic stability, reduce structural constraints, address the effects of climate change, and thus accelerate long-term growth and development.Global growth is stabilising as inflation returns closer to targets and monetary easing supports activity in both advanced economies and emerging market and developing economies.This should give rise to a broad-based, moderate global expansion over 2025-26, at 2.7% per year, as trade and investment firm. However, growth prospects appear insufficient to offset the damage done to the global economy by several years of successive negative shocks, with particularly detrimental outcomes in the most vulnerable countries.From a longer-term perspective, catch-up toward advanced economy income levels has steadily weakened across EMDEs over the first quarter of the 21st century, the World Bank opined.Heightened policy uncertainty and adverse trade policy shifts represent key downside risks to the outlook.Other risks include escalating conflicts and geopolitical tensions, higher inflation, more extreme weather events related to climate change and weaker growth in major economies.On the upside, faster progress on disinflation and stronger demand in key economies could result in greater-than-expected global activity.The subdued growth outlook and multiple headwinds underscore the need for decisive policy action.Global policy efforts are required to safeguard trade, address debt vulnerabilities, and combat climate change.National policy makers need to resolutely pursue price stability, as well as boost tax revenues and rationalise expenditures in order to achieve fiscal sustainability and finance needed investments.Moreover, to raise longer-term growth and put development goals on track, interventions that mitigate the impact of conflicts, lift human capital, bolster labour force inclusion, and confront food insecurity will be critical.Against a backdrop of heightened trade restrictive measures and subdued global growth, EMDE regions face varying growth prospects this year. Growth is projected to moderate in East Asia and Pacific, amid weak domestic demand in China, as well as in Europe and Central Asia due to decelerations in some large economies following strong growth last year.In contrast, a pickup is anticipated in Latin America and the Caribbean, the Middle East and North Africa, South Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa, partly underpinned by robust domestic demand.In 2026, growth is expected to strengthen in most regions, the World Bank noted.

Kenyan activist Boniface Mwangi has been part of countless demonstrations over the years, but the anti-government protests that hit the country last June and July defied all expectations.Mwangi said he witnessed something unprecedented - a powerful awakening of the Kenyan youth who leveraged social media to mobilise against a finance bill which proposed a raft of tax hikes.“The biggest mobilisers of the protest were the Gen Zs. They were on TikTok, Instagram and on X. The majority of the people in the streets were young people,” Mwangi told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.“For the first time in history, Kenyans were united for one purpose, to defeat the finance bill,” he said. “It was us waking up to the power we have and becoming active citizens to demand accountability and meaningful change in our country.”The nationwide protests forced President William Ruto to make a historic U-turn by scrapping his reviled law, sacking cabinet ministers and pledging a slate of measures to cut wasteful spending of public funds.Africa, home to the world’s youngest population, has seen a wave of youth-led protests fuelled by frustrations over rampant corruption, poor governance, high living costs and rising unemployment.Gen Z and millennials protested in Kenya, Ghana, Uganda, Nigeria and Mozambique in 2024, and some analysts expect this activism to intensify in 2025 as grievances persist.Murithi Mutiga, program director for Africa for the International Crisis Group, said frustrations partly arise from Africa’s struggle to recover from economic shocks like Covid-19 and the Russia-Ukraine war, which has driven up food and fuel prices.There is also growing resentment among a generation increasingly aware of its rights, empowered by the internet to take action for change, said Mutiga.“The young want more than their parents. They are more informed. They are more politically active,” he said. “I think it’s possible that you’ll see more protests in 2025.”Youth disillusionmentAfrica has the fastest growing, youngest population of any continent, with 70% of sub-Saharan Africa’s people under the age of 30.Fuelling their growing wave of disillusionment are scarce job opportunities. Some 53mn youth - more than one in five - in sub-Saharan Africa are not engaged in any form of employment, education or training, says the UN’s International Labour Organisation.A 2024 survey of African youth found three-quarters of respondents said it was difficult to find a job, and two-thirds were dissatisfied with their governments’ efforts to create employment opportunities.The survey, which polled more than 5,600 Africans ages 18-25 in 13 countries, also found that four in five were worried about corruption, most notably in the government, private sector and the police.“Most are dissatisfied with efforts to tackle corruption and there is widespread support for a range of policies to address it,” the Africa Youth Survey said.Political analysts and observers said it was not surprising to see youth beginning to push back against their governments.Aslak Orre, a senior researcher at Chr. Michelsen Institute, a development research institute based in Norway, said young people across the region were exasperated with poor economic growth, few jobs, high public debt and austerity measures.“And for that, they blame the politicians from a different generation, who they see as working for themselves rather than the public good,” Orre said.In Mozambique, a disputed October election that extended the Frelimo party’s 49-year rule sparked more than three months of protests against corruption, living costs and unemployment.“We are demanding change,” said Ronaldo António, a 25-year-old street vendor in Maputo, during December protests when crowds marched, whistled and chanted, blocking traffic with trash bins, stones and tyres.“We eat chicken feet and necks while government officials are eating the chickens,” he added.In Ghana, ahead of December 7 presidential and parliamentary elections, young people mounted street protests against the nation’s debt crisis and high inflation, which have triggered the worst economic crisis in a generation.Ghanaian filmmaker Kwame Addae, 26, said he voted for businessman Nana Kwame Bediako, even though he knew the newcomer would not win against seasoned politician and former president John Mahama.“We are tired of the status quo, and I wanted someone like him (Bediako) that was thinking of the digital economy as a means to provide jobs and move us to a modern Ghana,” said Addae, adding that Bediako’s political message resonated with young voters.Activists noted that the protests across Africa had particularly significant impact because young people can skillfully wield digital activism.In Mozambique, Ângelo do Rosário, who is known as Maxh on social media, said he used his 1.2mn Facebook and more than 300,000 TikTok, Instagram and YouTube followers respectively to encourage young Mozambicans to demand their rights.“(We demand) quality education in Mozambique, the availability of a decent health service and all of this the people believe is the result of the bad governance we have in Mozambique,” said Rosário.Police killings, abductionsThe protests across the continent have not been without consequence.Hundreds of young people have been detained or killed in clashes with police, and scores of protesters remain missing.In Kenya, some prominent rights groups have accused authorities of a cover-up of dozens of alleged police killings, unexplained abductions and illegal detentions related to the Gen Z protests.Kenya’s National Commission on Human Rights, a government-funded body, recorded 82 cases of enforced disappearances in the period between the protests, from June and December. Of those, 29 people remain unaccounted for. At least 40 people have been killed.In Mozambique, at least 278 people have been killed in police crackdowns against protesters, and more than 2,000 families have fled and sought refuge in neighbouring Malawi.In November, Nigeria charged 76 people, including children, with treason and inciting a military coup after deadly August protests erupted against economic hardship and spiralling inflation.Nigerian activist Rinu Oduala - one of the organisers of prominent #EndSARS protests against police brutality in 2020 - warned that youth uprisings are unlikely to die down anytime soon.“Protests by young people aren’t a crime, we are doing it out of love for our countries and hope for a better future - they must be seen as calls for change and what’s rightfully ours,” said Oduala, 24, who has more than 800,000 followers on X.“But the lesson is clear: ignoring youth voices will be a huge political risk to any government going forward,” she added. - Thomson Reuters Foundation

This year’s annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, where participants will address the theme of “Collaboration for the Intelligent Age”, comes at a critical juncture for the planet. Ecosystems are straining under the pressure of climate change, and the interconnected cycles that maintain freshwater availability, soil moisture, ocean health, and plant growth are spinning out of balance at an alarming pace.At least 420mn hectares of forest globally have been lost to deforestation since 1990, causing biodiversity loss to accelerate and fuelling climate volatility. Freshwater resources have declined so precipitously – owing to rising temperatures, groundwater mismanagement, saltwater intrusion, pollution, land degradation, and increased population density – that demand is predicted to exceed supply by 40% by 2030. And wildlife populations in freshwater habitats fell by 85% between 1970 and 2020.The paradox is that we continue to degrade the systems that sustain life on Earth despite knowing more about their fragility than ever before. In the search for solutions, we often look to technology – especially artificial intelligence (AI) – as a panacea. But AI alone cannot save the planet. Instead, we must ensure that AI complements, rather than replaces, human capabilities to realise its full potential.While AI models can identify patterns, they often use incomplete or biased data, and thus lack important context. This is where “augmented intelligence” comes in. Augmented intelligence combines powerful algorithms with human knowledge and lived experience to ensure that these advanced tools account for cultural, economic, and ecological considerations.For example, indigenous communities have learned how to manage resources sustainably by tracking nature’s cycles and observing the environment for centuries. This expertise can help reveal subtle trends that data fail to capture, ensuring that technology serves real-world needs. Using both indigenous insights and scientific data has provided a more accurate picture of polar bear populations in Canada’s Northwest Territories, while an AI-driven model that factored in such traditional knowledge has helped Inuit communities in the Arctic identify new fishing grounds amid changing climate conditions.But indigenous populations are not the only ones with valuable insights. Local communities and private-sector actors, from smallholder farmers to multinational corporations, accumulate site-specific data when responding to droughts, adopting regenerative agriculture practices, investing in biodiversity projects, and decarbonising their supply chains. Sharing this knowledge, which reflects cultural traditions and economic realities and is enriched by human judgment, strengthens the data on which AI models rely. Humans and machines learn from each other, creating a feedback loop that leads to more effective solutions.Greater openness fosters trust, which in turn accelerates the adoption and refinement of AI tools. Before long, the willingness to share data, insights, and innovations will be seen as a mark of leadership and prestige, rather than a risk. Those who advocate data sharing will facilitate collective progress, demonstrating the co-operation and wisdom needed to guide us toward a safe and healthy planet.Augmented intelligence should be at the heart of global strategies for biodiversity conservation and climate mitigation and adaptation. Policymakers can take steps to bridge the gap between digital innovators and local environmental stewards. Businesses can align their investments with nature-positive goals and share any resulting knowledge. Innovators can create accessible tools that take into account cultural contexts and input from communities – turning top-down interventions into agile, responsive, and collaborative efforts.When political leaders and executives convene in Davos, they must acknowledge that technology is not a cure-all for climate change and biodiversity loss. Without human guidance – bolstered by our capacity for empathy, cultural understanding, and ethical reasoning – it will be impossible to unlock AI’s potential. In the Intelligent Age, coupling advanced tools with lived experience will enable us to transcend the zero-sum mentality that pits people against machines.

Lead is everywhere, often hiding in plain sight – in the water you drink, the air you breathe, the food you eat, your personal care products, and your children’s toys. Despite being a useful metal, it is highly toxic and difficult to detect: its fumes and dust are odourless, and exposure to them does not immediately cause overt symptoms in most cases.This is particularly worrying because exposure to and ingestion of lead can negatively affect almost every part of the body. Recent research finds that exposure contributes significantly to cardiovascular disease, killing millions worldwide. But while lead poisoning is responsible for more deaths annually than HIV/Aids and malaria combined, and more than tuberculosis, it receives a small fraction of the funding allocated to these better-known diseases.The health effects are often irreversible and unequally distributed. For example, lead is especially harmful to children’s cognitive development, leading to lower IQs and behavioural problems. Today, one in three children worldwide have dangerous levels of the metal in their blood, and nearly all of them live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This inequality in exposure accounts for more than 20% of the learning gap between high- and low-income countries.Moreover, the annual economic losses from lead poisoning are enormous, amounting to around 6.9% of global GDP. Health care for those sickened by the toxin, coupled with additional financing for special-education services to address the developmental and behavioural issues caused by lead poisoning, costs millions of dollars each year in the US alone. Lead poisoning also reduces an individual’s lifetime earning potential, leading to lost tax revenue.This makes it all the more important to reduce and eliminate lead exposure. The good news is that it is possible to detect lead in soil, spices, food, paint, cookware, and other solid materials using a portable X-ray fluorescence analyser (pXRF), which provides near-instantaneous results and has already proven effective in many settings.In Nigeria, health officials used pXRFs to help identify and clean up the source of a lead-poisoning epidemic that killed more than 400 children, ultimately saving thousands of lives. An assessment of lead levels in consumer goods and foods used the devices to test samples in 25 LMICs, finding that 45% of ceramic tableware, 52% of metallic cookware, and 41% of paint exceeded regulatory limits. The technology has enabled some governments to test the safety of toys and playgrounds, enforce lead-paint regulations in houses, and investigate whether lead exposure is the cause of health incidents. Researchers using pXRFs identified dangerous levels of lead paint – which is still sold in many LMICs – in schools and playgrounds in Guyana.But very few LMICs currently use pXRFs to determine the sources of lead poisoning. In some cases, policymakers lack awareness that lead exposure is a major public-health issue. Perhaps most importantly, these devices are expensive to buy and maintain, and training on how to interpret the data they produce remains limited.What would it take to improve access to this valuable technology, so that LMICs can identify and eliminate the sources of lead poisoning that put their populations – especially their young people – at risk? To answer this question, a working group comprising global lead-poisoning experts, practitioners, policymakers, and funders gathered in “Room 3” – linked to Sustainable Development Goal 3 for Good Health and Wellbeing – within the 17 Rooms Initiative. In our discussions about how to make pXRFs universally available by 2030, we agreed that the recently launched Partnership for a Lead-Free Future (PLF), supported by the UN Children’s Fund (Unicef), is best positioned to bring together stakeholders to support such an initiative.Regional hubs, centrally co-ordinated by the PLF, could be established to provide pXRFs at low cost, training for authorised users, and technical support – both in terms of maintenance and data analysis – for governments, NGOs, and academic partners. With sufficient demand, the proposed hubs can negotiate directly with pXRF manufacturers to lower prices and tailor device design to ensure cost-effective and accurate screening for lead in different sources.The PLF could thus roll out this technology on a global scale – a breakthrough that would serve as a mechanism for international and local organizations to work together to raise awareness among LMIC governments about the importance of lead poisoning. This could include setting clear protocols and guidelines for using pXRFs to screen for lead in different sources and for acting upon the results.When it comes to lead exposure, prevention is the only option, because there is no cure. Increased access to pXRFs could help us win the fight against lead poisoning, safeguard the health and future potential of millions of children and young people, and unlock billions of dollars in economic benefits. – Project SyndicateAngela Bandemehr is International Environmental Protection Specialist focusing on Lead Pollution Capacity Building at the US Environmental Protection Agency. Albert Park is Chief Economist at the Asian Development Bank.

Some prominent economists argue that the revolution in artificial intelligence (AI) – particularly the rapid development of generative AI – will have only moderate effects on productivity growth but unambiguously negative effects on employment, owing to the automation of many tasks and jobs. We disagree on both counts.When it comes to productivity growth, AI’s impact can operate through two distinct channels: automating tasks in the production of goods and services, and automating tasks in the production of new ideas. When Erik Brynjolfsson and his co-authors recently examined the impact of generative AI on customer-service agents at a US software firm, they found that productivity among workers with access to an AI assistant increased by almost 14% in the first month of use, then stabilised at a level about 25% higher after three months. Another study finds similarly strong productivity gains among a diverse group of knowledge workers, with lower-productivity workers experiencing the strongest initial effects, thus reducing inequality within firms.Moving from the micro to the macro level, in a 2024 paper, we (Aghion and Bunel) considered two alternatives for estimating the impact of AI on potential growth over the next decade. The first approach exploits the parallel between the AI revolution and past technological revolutions, while the second follows Daron Acemoglu’s task-based framework, which we consider in light of the available data from existing empirical studies.Based on the first approach, we estimate that the AI revolution should increase aggregate productivity growth by 0.8-1.3 percentage points per year over the next decade. Similarly, using Acemoglu’s task-based formula, but with our own reading of the recent empirical literature, we estimate that AI should increase aggregate productivity growth by between 0.07 and 1.24 percentage points per year, with a median estimate of 0.68. In comparison, Acemoglu projects an increase of only 0.07 percentage points.Moreover, our estimated median should be seen as a lower bound, because it does not account for AI’s potential to automate the production of ideas. On the other hand, our estimates do not account for potential obstacles to growth, notably the lack of competition in various segments of the AI value chain, which are already controlled by the digital revolution’s superstar firms.What about AI’s implications for overall employment? In a new study of French firm-level data collected between 2018 and 2020,we show that AI adoption is positively associated with an increase in total firm-level employment and sales. This finding is consistent with most recent studies of the firm-level effects of automation on labour demand, and it supports the view that AI adoption induces productivity gains by helping firms expand the scope of their business.This productivity effect appears to be stronger than AI’s potential displacement effects (whereby AI takes over tasks associated with certain types of jobs and workers, thus reducing labour demand). We find that the impact of AI on labour demand is positive even for occupations that are often classified as vulnerable to automation, such as accounting, telemarketing, and secretarial work. To be sure, while certain uses of AI (such as for digital security) lead to positive employment growth, other uses (administrative processes) do tend to have small negative effects. But these differences appear to stem from different uses of AI, rather than from inherent characteristics of the affected occupations.All told, the main risk for workers is that they will be displaced by workers at other firms using AI, rather than by AI directly. Slowing down the pace of AI adoption would likely be self-defeating for domestic employment, because many firms will be competing internationally with AI adopters.While our interpretation of the data shows that AI could drive both growth and employment, realising this potential will require suitable policy reforms. For example, competition policy must ensure that the superstar firms that dominate the upper segments of the value chain do not stifle entry by new innovators. Our own study finds that AI adopters are predominantly much larger and more productive than non-adopters, suggesting that those already on top are positioned to be the biggest winners of the AI revolution.To avoid increased market concentration and entrenched market power, we must encourage AI adoption by smaller firms, which can be achieved through a combination of competition policy and suitable industrial policy that improves access to data and computing power. To enhance the employment potential of AI and minimise its negative effects on workers, broad-based access to high-quality education, together with training programs and active labour-market policies, will be crucial.The next technological revolution is already underway. The future of entire countries and economies will hinge on their willingness and ability to adapt to it. – Project SyndicatePhilippe Aghion is a professor at the College de France, INSEAD, and the London School of Economics. Simon Bunel is an economist at Banque de France. Xavier Jaravel is Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics.

Cartoon

Russia’s vast Arctic oil business is facing major disruption from US sanctions on its tankers and depots, stranding crude supplies previously snapped up by Asian buyers in storage, according to three sources familiar with its logistics. The sanctions unveiled on Friday are the toughest yet on Russia’s oil sector, targeting major producers Gazprom Neft and Surgutneftegas as well as 183 vessels that have shipped Russian oil.Three sources who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity said all three of Russia’s Arctic oil grades - Novy Port, ARCO and Varandey, with about 300,000 barrels of output per day - face disruption.The vessels and infrastructure needed by Russia’s Arctic oil business, which accounts for a tenth of its seaborne oil exports, are unique, two of the sources said.Novy Port crude from Gazprom Neft’s Novoportovskoye field, where temperatures can hit -55 C, ARCO, from the Prirazlomnaya offshore platform, and Varandey, from Lukoil’s Timan-Pechora fields, are shuttled by a special type of ice-class vessel to the Umba and Kola floating storage facilities near Murmansk.It is then offloaded to larger vessels - Aframax or Suezmax that can carry 100,000-140,000 tonnes, compared to the smaller vessels’ 30,000 tons - for shipment to the international market.The United States has now sanctioned both Umba and Kola, and more than a dozen small tankers used as shuttle suppliers of oil from the fields.According to LSEG data, at least 15 of the tankers sanctioned by the US on Friday, including the Shturman Scherbinin, Mikhail Ulyanov and Aulis, have been actively involved in shipping Russian Arctic grades during the last two months.The smaller shuttle tankers were designed to operate in northern seas and have a specific design allowing them to load more oil without compromising keel clearance.“There is no option to replace those quickly. Nothing like this to buy elsewhere. The vessels were specifically built for the projects,” one of the sources said.That could leave Russia with millions of barrels of unsold oil in storage, the sources said. According to one, the limited storage capacities at all three projects mean a couple of weeks of loading disruptions might lead to cuts in output.Lukoil did not respond to Reuters’ requests for comment, while Gazprom Neft declined to comment.Gazprom Neft, which produces ARCO and Novy Port, was also added to the US sanction package directly, although Lukoil, which produces Varandey, was not.Novy Port and Varandey are favoured by refiners worldwide for their high quality - both are light, with 0.1-0.4% sulphur. The Arctic grades, which prior to a 2022 EU embargo had been purchased by refineries in northwest Europe, have more recently been snapped up by refiners in India and China.“Light Arctic oil grades from Russia were priced above the (G7) price cap due to their premium quality,” one of the sources familiar with dealings in the Indian oil market said. India and China have shown however that they are not ready to accept oil coming from sanctioned tankers, and have started to look for replacements for Russian oil.The absence of Russian Arctic oil grades in the market will likely push up prices of the US flagship WTI oil grade, which is also light, one of the traders in the Asian oil market said.India reduced US oil buying after it started to snap up cheap Russian barrels from the market a couple of years ago, but a source at one Indian refiner said his company is looking at buying more US oil.As all the oil volumes from the Arctic projects are bound for export, there is no logistical system in place for them to be fed into the Russian domestic oil pipeline system.This means that if there are no buyers for those oil grades, volumes will have to be kept in floating storage, or Gazprom Neft will need to curb output on both projects, the sources said.One of the sources said that while there is a possibility for some supplies of the grades to be shipped via sea to some refineries in the south of Russia, that might be costly and limited in volumes.Lukoil’s Varandey oil supplies could technically be loaded directly from its Varandey terminal straight to international markets. However, the cost of such shipments will be higher, and the company needs time to fetch replacement tankers to the region, one of the sources said. - Reuters

With just days to go in his presidency, US President Joe Biden is releasing a flurry of new measures that challenge China’s chip-making and shipbuilding and limit Russian oil, while a ceasefire in Gaza is said to be in reach after months of failed talks. The Biden administration is clearing the decks before Republican Donald Trump is inaugurated on January 20, wrapping up probes and issuing new policy. In many cases, analysts and officials say, these moves will benefit the incoming Trump administration, giving it new negotiating tools against China, Russia and others. In less than a week, the Biden White House has sanctioned Russian oil producers and ships, restricted semiconductor chip exports, found Chinese shipbuilding practices unfair, ceded federal land for AI centres and cemented plans to effectively bar Chinese vehicles.With his last-minute announcements, Biden is “trying to shape how history will remember him”, said Robert Rowland, a University of Kansas professor who specialises in presidential rhetoric. In doing so, “he’s giving Trump a lot of leverage”, he said, adding that Biden may not be helping himself.If Biden wanted to burnish his legacy, he “should have been doing these things a year ago. It’s too late now,” Rowland added. Biden delivered a farewell speech from the Oval Office Wednesday evening.The Biden team is teeing up some nearly final measures that Trump could use to fulfil campaign promises that helped Republicans best Democrats in every battleground state in the US election, political strategists said.The Biden administration’s investigation into Chinese shipbuilding, for example, recently concluded that Beijing used financial support, forced technology transfers and intellectual property theft to unfairly disadvantage US shipbuilders, sources told Reuters.Conducted under Section 301 of the US Trade Act, the probe’s findings allow Biden to take credit for holding Beijing accountable, while creating a legal pathway for Trump to make good his promise of raising tariffs on China.“In many ways, this is a test case for what we need to do domestically in terms of industrial policy to correct for decades of laissez-faire globalisation,” said one Democratic source following the probe. Republicans would be smart to use the probe to further their own plans, the source added.In some cases, Biden officials say they are deliberately advantaging Trump, including the new tough sanctions on Russian oil. But the longer-term impact may be more complicated.The White House and the Trump transition team declined to comment on how Biden’s final moves might boost Trump. On Monday, Biden national security adviser Jake Sullivan said the stepped-up sanctions would give Trump leverage to obtain a better deal for Ukraine in peace negotiations with Russia.“The new team is setting up for a negotiation, and in a negotiation, you need leverage, and part of that leverage has to come from the kind of economic pressure that makes (Russian President Vladimir) Putin see he’s going to continue to pay a significant price economically,” he said. Sullivan told reporters that Trump aides had been briefed on the strategy in advance, but they were not coordinated.The timing also leaves Trump’s administration to deal with any increase in gasoline prices at the pump. In the days since the sanctions were announced, oil prices have risen to four-month highs.Sullivan told reporters that Biden’s team decided that oil prices - which jumped to over $100 per barrel after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 before dropping to around $80 now - had subsided far enough to permit tougher action.He said Biden did not believe the new sanctions would allow Treasury to “hit Putin’s pocketbook without... taking too big a whack out of the American people’s pocketbook.”Top Biden officials say they have briefed the Trump team on issues ranging from Russian sanctions to controls on artificial intelligence technology, countering Chinese cyber-espionage and the Gaza hostage negotiations. Sullivan said on Monday that Biden had tasked him with working closely with Trump’s team.It has been part of a broader approach by Biden that prioritises a smooth transition, despite Trump’s continual scathing criticism of Biden even after his November election victory. Trump appointees and advisers continue to threaten to dismantle the federal workforce; Republicans say they could withhold federal aid from fire-stricken California, a Democratic stronghold.The hope inside the White House, however, is to create “new options so that a new team and Congress can really hit the ground running,” one Biden official said.

Aides to President-elect Donald Trump have asked three senior career diplomats who oversee the US State Department’s workforce and internal co-ordination to step down from their roles, two US officials familiar with the matter said, in a possible signal of deeper changes ahead for the diplomatic corps.The team overseeing the State Department’s transition to the new administration, the Agency Review Team, has requested that Dereck Hogan, Marcia Bernicat and Alaina Teplitz leave their posts, the sources said.While political appointees typically submit their resignations when a new president takes office, most career foreign service officers continue from one administration to the next. All three officials have worked in both Democratic and Republican administrations throughout the years, including as ambassadors.Trump, who will be inaugurated January 20, pledged during his presidential campaign to “clean out the Deep State” by firing bureaucrats that he deems as disloyal.“There’s a little bit of a concern that this might be setting the stage for something worse,” one of the US officials familiar with the matter said.In response to a request for comment, a spokesperson for Trump’s transition team said: “It is entirely appropriate for the transition to seek officials who share President Trump’s vision for putting our nation and America’s working men and women first. We have a lot of failures to fix and that requires a committed team focused on the same goals.”A State Department spokesperson said the department has no personnel announcements to make. Hogan, Bernicat, Teplitz did not respond to requests for comment.Trump is likely to adopt a more confrontational foreign policy and has vowed to bring peace between Ukraine and Russia, and give more support to Israel. He has also pushed for unorthodox policies such as trying to make Greenland part of the United States and pushing Nato allies for higher defence spending. A diplomatic workforce that dutifully implements rather than pushes back will be key to achieving his goals, experts say.The decision to ask the three to step aside is reminiscent of staff shake ups at the State Department during the first Trump administration, when several key officials in leadership positions were removed from their jobs.According to two separate sources familiar with Trump’s plans for the State Department, the administration plans to appoint more political appointees to positions such as assistant secretary, which are typically filled by a mix of career and political bureaucrats.These sources said Trump’s team wants to get more politically appointed officials deeper into the State Department as there was a pervasive feeling among his aides that his agenda was “derailed” by career diplomats during his last term from 2017-2021.The Agency Review Team is already interviewing candidates for such positions, said the two sources.According to the State Department website, Hogan is the State Department’s executive secretary, the official that manages the flow of information between department bureaus and with the White House.Bernicat is the director-general of the US Foreign Service and director of global talent leading the recruitment, assignment, and career development of the Department’s workforce.Assistant Secretary Teplitz has been with the Department over three decades, serving overseas as well in Washington. Most recently, she has been implementing the duties of under secretary for management, which oversees more than a dozen bureaus responsible for issues from the budget to recruitment, procurement and human resources across the workforce.“These are not policy positions. This is all the mechanics of the bureaucracy,” said Dennis Jett, a professor at Penn State’s School of International Affairs who spent 28 years in the foreign service. “But if you want to control the bureaucracy, that’s the way you do it.”Choosing who fills the three roles would allow Trump’s team to divert resources to and from parts of the State Department, control the information gathered by the numerous bureaus and embassies and manage personnel decisions, he said.Shattering the ‘Deep State’The requests for the officials to step down came as Marco Rubio, Trump’s nominee for secretary of state, was testifying on Wednesday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for his confirmation hearing.On his campaign website Trump laid out how, in 10 steps, he would “shatter deep state” and “fire rogue bureaucrats and career politicians”.The first of those steps is to reissue a 2020 executive order that would have removed employment protections for certain civil servants, making it easier to fire them.Opponents of the plan — often called “Schedule F” after the new class of civil servants it would create — say stripping employment protections from government workers would be an effort by Trump to politicise the federal bureaucracy to carry out his policy agenda.Normally, presidents get to choose several thousand of their own political appointees to the federal bureaucracy, but the career civil service — around 2mn workers — is left alone. Schedule F would give Trump the power to fire up to 50,000 of those and replace them with like-minded conservatives.Taking charge of State’s personnel would “expedite” the process of appointing loyal officials, said Jett, the professor.Unions and government watchdogs have said they plan to sue Trump if he carries out his promise to re-introduce a Schedule F.

US President-elect Donald Trump says he wants to make Greenland a part of the United States and does not rule out using military or economic power to get Denmark to hand it over. Why does Trump want Greenland? Greenland’s strategic location and resources could benefit the US It lies along the shortest route from Europe to North America, vital for the US ballistic missile warning system. The US has expressed interest in expanding its military presence, including placing radars there to monitor the waters between the island, Iceland and Britain, which are a gateway for Russian navy vessels and nuclear submarines. The island, whose capital Nuuk is closer to New York than the Danish capital Copenhagen, boasts mineral, oil and natural gas wealth, but development has been slow. This has kept Greenland’s economy reliant on fishing, which accounts for over 95% of exports, and annual subsidies from Denmark, which cover roughly half of the public budget. In total, Denmark spends just under $1bn each year on Greenland, or $17,500 for each of its 57,000 residents. A 2023 survey showed that 25 of 34 minerals deemed “critical raw materials” by the European Commission were found in Greenland. They include materials used in batteries such as graphite and lithium, and so-called rare earth elements used in electric vehicles and wind turbines. What presence does the US have in Greenland now? The US military maintains a permanent presence at the Pituffik air base in Greenland’s northwest. A 1951 agreement between the United States and Denmark established the United States’ right to move around freely and construct military bases in Greenland as long as Denmark and Greenland are notified. Historically, Denmark has accommodated the US because Copenhagen does not have the capability to defend Greenland, and because of US security guarantees to Denmark through the Nato alliance, said Kristian Soeby Kristensen, senior researcher at Copenhagen University’s Centre for Military Studies. Could Trump buy Greenland? Trump’s Republican allies in the US House of Representatives are trying to build support for a bill, which, if passed, will allow the president to enter into negotiations with Denmark on January 20, when Trump takes office. According to Ulrik Pram Gad, senior researcher and expert on Greenland, the idea of buying Greenland is based on a misunderstanding of international law and the principle of self-determination, which gives people the right to choose their own political status. While Trump has declined to rule out the use of military or economic means to gain control of Greenland, Vice-President-elect J D Vance, speaking to Fox News, has dismissed the use of military force. What is Greenland’s status now? The island, a former colony of Denmark, became a formal territory of the Nordic kingdom in 1953 and is subject to the Danish constitution, meaning that any change to its legal status would require a constitutional amendment. In 2009, the island was granted broad self-governing autonomy, including the right to declare independence from Denmark through a referendum. Decades ago, the US under then-president Harry Truman sought to buy the island as a strategic asset during the Cold War for $100mn in gold, but Copenhagen declined to sell. Trump offered to buy it in 2019 but both Greenland and Denmark rejected the proposal. What does Greenland want? Relations between Greenland and Denmark have been strained following revelations of historical mistreatment of Greenlanders under colonial rule. A majority of Greenland’s inhabitants support independence, but they are divided over the timing and potential impact on living standards. Greenlandic politicians have since 2019 repeatedly said they are interested in strengthening cooperation and trade with the United States. However, Greenlandic Prime Minister Mute Egede, who has stepped up a push for independence, has stressed the island is not for sale and that only its people should decide their future. What if Greenland becomes independent? If Greenland becomes independent, it could choose to become associated with the US without becoming US territory. The island could form a so-called “free association” with the United States that would replace Danish subsidies with US support and protection in return for military rights, like the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau. While there is a push in Greenland to be independent from Denmark, Greenlanders are not interested in a new colonial master, according to Gad, the researcher. Gad also said that Greenlanders would likely ensure their future welfare before holding an independence referendum. What does Denmark say? Trump’s 2019 offer to buy the island was firmly rejected by Denmark and labelled “absurd” by Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen. When asked about Trump’s renewed interest in January, Frederiksen said Denmark needed to co-operate closely with the US, but stressed that Greenland should determine its future.

Elon Musk’s expected hosting of Alice Weidel, leader of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, for a discussion on his X platform last Thursday was being watched by the European Commission to check for any spreading of misinformation before next month’s German election.The European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) is intended to address illegal content such as hate speech and intentional manipulation to influence elections.X has been under investigation under the DSA since 2023 over suspected dissemination of illegal content and the effectiveness of its measures to combat information manipulation.Since publicly supporting Donald Trump to become US president last year, Musk has endorsed Britain’s right-wing Reform party as well as the AfD on X. “The traditional political parties in Germany have utterly failed the people. AfD is the only hope for Germany,” he posted on X last month.Musk’s endorsement of the AfD, an anti-immigration, anti-Islamic party designated as right-wing-extremist by German security services, has caused consternation in Berlin, where all other parties rule out working with a party they regard as dangerous and undemocratic. After a Saudi doctor killed five people in a Christmas market last month in the German city of Magdeburg, Musk called German Chancellor Olaf Scholz an “incompetent fool” on X and urged him to resign.The DSA regulates big online platforms such as X and Meta with more than 45mn users per month in the European Union, as well as the app stores of companies such as Apple and Alphabet. Its main goal is to prevent illegal and harmful online activities and the spread of misinformation. Musk’s X was the first company to be investigated under DSA for illegal content, in December 2023.A company can be fined up to 6% of its global annual turnover for breaching the DSA, and up to 5% of daily worldwide turnover for each day of delay in complying with remedies.If the infringement persists and causes serious harm to users, the Commission can request suspension of the service. The Commission has also opened proceedings against Meta and China’s AliExpress, Temu and TikTok. All the cases including that against X are still open except for one against TikTok, closed after the video sharing platform addressed EU concerns.About 150 EU staff are responsible for enforcing the DSA, both at the Commission’s DG CONNECT department in Brussels and the European Centre for Algorithmic Transparency in Spain.Former EU industry commissioner Thierry Breton reminded Weidel on X about DSA rules intended to protect democracy around elections.Senior EU officials acknowledge the challenge presented by Musk but insist the DSA is up to the job.“Mr Musk is free to express his opinions in the EU online and offline, within legal boundaries,” said Michael McGrath, European commissioner for democracy, justice, the rule of law and consumer protection.The EU and Musk have clashed several times since he took over his social media platform, then called Twitter. Before Musk interviewed Trump last August, Breton urged him to comply with EU law as the livestream would be accessible in the EU. X CEO Linda Yaccarino called the letter an “unprecedented attempt to stretch a law intended to apply in Europe to political activities in the US”.The EU has accused X of deceiving users with its blue checkmark, which previously indicated that an account had been verified as belonging to a public figure but was changed to designate a paid subscriber. Musk threatened litigation, and accused the Commission, without providing evidence, of offering X an illegal secret deal to censor speech. Breton denied this. The commission has also accused X of failing to provide easy access to searchable and reliable information about advertisements, and blocking researchers from accessing its public data.

Donald Trump’s inauguration as America’s 47th president will be historic in several ways. He will be America’s oldest president. He will be the first who is a convicted felon. And he will be the first Republican president in two decades who won the popular vote – an achievement that both highlights and compounds the crisis of democracy the United States is now confronting.Since George W Bush defeated John Kerry by some 3mn votes in 2004, Republican presidents have won thanks to the Electoral College, which bolsters the influence of voters in less populous states. Many of these states lean Republican, lending a significant advantage to the party’s presidential candidates. That includes Trump, who won in 2016 despite receiving about 3mn fewer votes than Hillary Clinton.In 2020, however, this Electoral College advantage was not enough. With over 81mn votes – the largest number in US history – President Joe Biden trounced Trump by 7mn votes. But this time, Trump won over 77mn votes, compared to Kamala Harris’s 75mn. While a two-million-vote difference does not amount to anything close to a landslide, Trump and his team have presented the results as a major triumph and a powerful mandate to transform America.Trump’s victory can be attributed largely to his preternatural ability, shared with all successful demagogues, to identify an issue that resonates with voters, convince them that it is an even bigger problem than they think, and then offer “solutions” that are simultaneously facile and vague.Voters fear immigration? In 2016, Trump led chants of “Build the wall!” without an effective plan for doing so, let alone showing how a wall on the US border with Mexico – which was never built – would actually address illegal immigration. In 2024, he promised the “largest deportation operation in American history,” while providing few details about logistics, mitigating the economic and social fallout, or preventing human-rights violations. Ask questions, and all you would get was an inflated figure for undocumented immigrants and tirades about “criminals” who “eat pets.”Voters are struggling economically? That one is easy: blame Biden. In late 2019, the US economy was doing relatively well, giving the impression that Trump’s tax cuts and deregulation were working. But in 2020, the economy plummeted: between April and June, US GDP fell by about 30% compared to the previous quarter. Of course, the Covid-19 crisis caused the crash, but Trump’s response – or lack thereof – undoubtedly exacerbated it.From the start, Trump downplayed the pandemic’s seriousness, with severe repercussions for public health. So, by the time Biden became president, he had a huge mess to clean up. To limit the public-health fallout, his administration supported mask and vaccine mandates and other evidence-based measures aimed at stemming transmission. And to accelerate economic recovery and support people’s incomes, he launched an audacious fiscal-stimulus program.Such spending, together with supply-chain disruptions and other factors, contributed to a spike in inflation. While inflation has since been brought under control, and the US Federal Reserve is now cutting interest rates, prices remain elevated. For ordinary voters, the fact that inflation was a global phenomenon and that the US is outperforming its peers meant little. All that mattered was whether their living standards improved under Biden, and for many, the answer was no.To be sure, Trump’s opponents – first Biden, and then his replacement, Vice President Harris – did not mount an effective defense of their record. They failed to offer a convincing plan for managing immigration or to connect with the working-class voters who feel unheard and unprotected. While the Democrats touted complex industrial strategies involving massive public investment in climate-related projects, Trump simply shouted, “Tariffs!” Never mind that those tariffs will drive up prices for US consumers; he said they would fix everything, and that was good enough for desperate voters.It did not help that for nearly three years Americans had been seeing reports of seemingly huge amounts of aid going to Ukraine, leaving many wondering why that money was not going toward improving their lives. Whereas Biden and Harris promised to support Ukraine indefinitely, Trump declared that he would end the war in a day. Meanwhile, the Democrats alienated many young Americans by eagerly supporting Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza, which has led to a humanitarian disaster of historic proportions.Trump’s victory has set the stage for a lurch toward autocracy. But Americans need not resign themselves to the collapse of their democracy. The US, after all, has a long history of abandoning dangerous political projects when they go too far (McCarthyism is a case in point). And it cannot be stated too often that Trump defeated his opponent in the last election by only 1.5 percentage points.Contrary to the political theorist Francis Fukuyama’s famous declaration that the end of the Cold War meant we had reached the “end of history,” the work of defending democracy is never done. If Americans allow apathy to take hold, they might find themselves living in a post-democratic society, which the late Samuel P Huntington’s own Cold War postmortem warned could lead to civilisational conflict and the collapse of the international order that has underpinned relative world peace for several decades. — Project SyndicateKoichi Hamada, Professor Emeritus at Yale University, was a special adviser to former Japanese prime minister Abe Shinzo.

Republican President-elect Donald Trump has pledged to reshape U.S. policy with a blizzard of executive orders within hours of taking office next week.Here is a look at what the president can and cannot do by executive order.What is an executive order?An executive order is an order issued unilaterally by the president that has the force of law. Notable executive orders issued by Trump in his first term include a ban on travel from some Muslim-majority countries and an order expanding the leasing of offshore waters for oil exploration. Trump issued 220 executive orders in his first term, more than any other president in a single four-year term since Jimmy Carter. President Joe Biden issued 155 executive orders as of Monday.How fast can an executive order take effect?Once a president signs an executive order, it can take effect immediately or not for months, depending on whether it requires formal action from a federal agency.For example, Trump’s Muslim ban took effect immediately, because it invoked a 1952 federal law that explicitly gave the president the authority to bar “any class of aliens” from the country if he deemed them detrimental. Other executive orders instruct federal agencies to take action. For example, Democrat Biden ordered health agencies to take action to safeguard reproductive rights after the US Supreme Court allowed states to ban it. This had no immediate effect, but agencies in the following months passed new rules through the usual rulemaking process, such as a regulation meant to safeguard the privacy of people who exercise reproductive rights.Where does the power to issue executive orders come from?While the extent of the president’s executive order power has been disputed, legal experts agree that it comes either from Article II of the US Constitution, which makes the president the commander in chief of the military and the head of the executive branch of government, or from powers explicitly given to the president by Congress.Laws passed by Congress typically delegate rulemaking authority to federal agencies, which ultimately report to the president. Many executive orders instruct the agencies to take actions or make rules in order to fulfil certain goals, effectively functioning as an announcement of the president’s policies.What can’t the president do through executive orders?The president cannot make new law beyond the powers specifically given to him by the Constitution or Congress simply by issuing an executive order.If an executive order instructs agencies to take action, any resulting agency rulemaking is subject to the federal Administrative Procedure Act, which requires agencies to allow public comment on any rules and forbids rules that are “arbitrary and capricious”.Agency rules also cannot violate basic constitutional rights, such as due process and equal protection under the law, or laws that have been passed by Congress.Can executive orders be blocked by courts?Yes. Executive orders can be challenged in court and have been blocked for exceeding the president’s authority. A judge in 2017 blocked Trump’s order meant to withhold federal funding from so-called sanctuary cities that did not co-operate with his immigration policies, finding that the president could not impose new conditions on federal spending that had been approved by Congress. A federal appeals court in 2023 blocked Biden’s executive order requiring federal workers to be vaccinated against Covid-19, finding that it overstepped his authority by interfering with personal medical decisions. On the other hand, courts have often backed the president’s executive order powers, as when the Supreme Court in 2018 upheld the Muslim travel ban.

Cartoon

Growing support for parties across Europe looks set to shape migration policy in 2025 after a bumper election year in which immigration became a major political battleground.With the European Union gearing up to implement its revamped asylum pact by 2026, some countries are calling for the rules fast-tracking asylum processes and returns to be sharpened or implemented sooner.Rights groups say this would risk rolling back people’s rights to seek asylum and put them at risk of arbitrary detention and increased pushbacks by authorities operating on Europe’s external borders.While immigration remains a highly sensitive topic in most of the bloc’s 27 member states, the number of irregular migrants arriving in Europe has dropped from around 1mn in 2015 to around 220,000 in 2024, according to data from the EU’s border agency Frontex.So what’s in store for migration policy in Europe in 2025?‘Smashing’ smugglingBritain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer has made cracking down on illegal migration by combatting gangs of people smugglers a cornerstone of his migration policy, reaching deals with his Italian and German counterparts to “smash the gangs”, as well as signing a security pact with Iraq to target smugglers and strengthen border cooperation.In 2025, EU lawmakers are set to vote on the new Facilitation Directive, which aims to tackle migrant smuggling in the bloc. However, humanitarian groups say the current draft fails to clearly exempt those who seek to help migrants, by providing food and shelter for example, from criminal sanctions.Rights groups add that the focus on smugglers fails to tackle the root cause of migration and could make Channel crossings from France more risky, with 2024 already being the deadliest year on record with at least 69 deaths, according to the Refugee Council.Rights groups say the crackdown on smuggling has reduced the supply of boats as well as opportunities to launch, leading smugglers to load more migrants onto flimsy vessels, increasing the risk of people being crushed or drowning.They want European governments to expand safe and legal pathways to international protection.Fast-track asylums and returnsEuropean governments are also looking at how to fast-track asylum procedures and increase deportation. Under the new asylum pact, people arriving at the bloc’s borders face a rapid screening, and, if rejected, a swift deportation process. Rights groups fear the new expedited border procedure will be used to reject asylum applications without properly assessing individual cases.Another proposal is to expand the number of ‘safe list countries’ — or countries where people are deemed less vulnerable to state persecution, violence, and armed conflict — to speed up asylum applications.Under the proposal, people from the ‘safe list countries’, which have a smaller chance of having their asylum applications accepted, can be deported more swiftly if their claims are rejected.In a major policy shift, the EU is also considering so-called “return hubs” outside the bloc to increase and fast-track deportations of rejected asylum seekers — a plan that has echoes of the United Kingdom’s scrapped plan to fly asylum seekers from Britain to Rwanda.EU leaders called on the bloc’s Commission to draft a law to speed up deportations last October. Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson recently said the EU could submit a proposal on the creation of so-called “return hubs” as soon as March.EU countries have also called on the Commission to make the rules governing deporting people that do not have the right to stay in a country more strict. That includes people whose requests for asylum have been rejected or those who lose the right to international protection due changing circumstances.A new proposal to sharpen the EU Returns Directive is expected in 2025.Outsourcing asylumThere is growing pressure from EU governments to process asylum applications outside the bloc in countries along the main migration routes.Last year, 14 countries — including Germany, France, and Italy — issued a joint call to send migrants arriving in the EU to partner countries.The first deal allowing a non-EU country to process migrants on another country’s behalf was agreed between Italy and Albania last year. But it has been plagued with legal challenges, and only a few of the up to 36,000 non-vulnerable migrants per year Italy said it could transfer to Albania have made it to reception centres.More than 100 NGOs issued a joint statement criticising the scheme, saying it risks leading to prolonged automatic detention and curbing people’s access to fair asylum procedures. They called on the EU to uphold the right to asylum.Walls and automated bordersIn order to deal with an increase in migrant arrivals and security concerns, some EU countries have extended temporary border checks within the bloc’s area of free movement, the Schengen zone, into 2025. These include Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, and Sweden.Right-wing lawmakers have called for more funding for physical barriers along external borders in the next EU budget, due to be discussed in the second half of the year.Europe is increasingly turning to artificial intelligence systems to strengthen border controls, an effort boosted by the bloc’s approval of the AI Act in 2024. The new rules ban high-risk AI tools from the EU from February 2025 but have exemptions for the use of AI in law enforcement and in border zones.Rights groups fear that AI-powered drones, cameras and other algorithmic profiling technologies are being deployed to detect and repel migrants and refugees, and create a double standard - with one set of rules for EU citizens, and another for migrants and asylum seekers.- Thomson Reuters Foundation

The Brics group of emerging-market powers — the acronym stands for Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — has gone from a slogan dreamed up at an investment bank two decades ago to a real-world club that controls a multilateral lender.Indonesia has become the newest member of the Brics group of developing nations, in a move that could further bolster the Global South as US President-elect Donald Trump’s trade policies pose risks to world economy.Comprising 10 member states, Brics pairs several major energy producers with some of the biggest consumers among developing countries.The bloc expanded in early 2024 to include Iran, the UAE, Ethiopia and Egypt. Saudi Arabia was also announced as a new member, though the kingdom has yet to take a final decision on whether to join.In November 2024, Turkiye said it had been granted “partner-country status”, short of its expectation that it would gain full admission.A number of other countries have also been offered such second-tier membership, which would come without voting rights.Nations still seeking to join include Malaysia and Thailand.The expansion push has been driven largely by China, now the world’s pre-eminent industrial power, which is trying to boost its global clout. South Africa and Russia have backed the expansion.India was initially hesitant because it was concerned that a bigger Brics would transform the group into a mouthpiece for China, while Brazil was worried about alienating the West — although both eventually agreed to an enlargement.For new members, Brics offers the potential for easier access to financing from its wealthier members, and a political venue independent of Washington’s influence.The addition of major fossil-fuel producers may give the bloc more scope to challenge the dollar’s dominance in oil and gas trading by switching to other currencies, a concept referred to as dedollarisation.That prospect has drawn the ire of Trump, who said any nation that abandons the greenback can forget about selling anything to America. The biggest achievements of the group have been financial. The countries agreed to pool $100bn of foreign-currency reserves, which they can lend to each other during emergencies. That liquidity facility became operational in 2016.They also founded the New Development Bank, a World Bank-inspired lending institution that has approved almost $33bn of loans since it began operations in 2015, mainly for water, transport and other infrastructure projects.By comparison, the World Bank committed $117.5bn to partner countries in fiscal 2024. For most of the time Brics has existed, China’s gross domestic product has been more than twice the combined economic output of the four other members prior to the expansion.In theory, that should give it the most sway. In practice, India, which recently surpassed China in population, has been a counterweight. There’s still interest in emerging markets. But Brics is largely irrelevant as an investment theme today due to geopolitical changes and the members’ different economic trajectories.US-led sanctions have put Russia off limits for most foreign investors, and some sectors in China — especially technology companies — have also been sanctioned or face potential investment bans. China also is a maturing economy, increasingly separated from other emerging markets and facing a structural slowdown. Brazil’s economy slowed markedly following the end of a global commodity boom about a decade ago.India is still a growth story that investment banks compare with China 10 or 15 years ago, though it’s unclear if it can follow China’s manufacturing-led model.In a wider sense, Brics membership is also a way of signalling increasing frustration with the US-led international order and key institutions that remain firmly in the control of Western powers, like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.