Business and Economy

Warning comes as 400 million barrels of oil are being released from global reserves during waterway’s closure.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) says it will not allow “a litre of oil” through the Strait of Hormuz as the closure of the key Gulf waterway continues to roil global energy markets during the US-Israeli war on Iran.

A spokesperson for the IRGC’s Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters said on Wednesday that any vessel linked to the United States and Israel or their allies “will be considered a legitimate target”.

“You will not be able to artificially lower the price of oil. Expect oil at $200 per barrel,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “The price of oil depends on regional security, and you are the main source of insecurity in the region.”

Global oil prices have fluctuated wildly this week during continued US-Israeli attacks against Iran, which has retaliated by firing missiles and drones at targets across the wider Middle East.

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which about one-fifth of the world’s oil supplies transit, and production slowdowns in some Gulf countries have raised concerns of further disruptions.

Concerns around the duration of the war, which began on February 28 and has shown no sign of abating, are also adding to uncertainty, sending oil prices soaring.

On Wednesday, three ships were hit by projectiles in the Strait of Hormuz, maritime security and risk firms said, including a Thai-flagged cargo vessel that came under attack about 11 nautical miles (18km) north of Oman.

Release of oil reserves

World leaders, including members of the Group of Seven (G7) and the European Union, have been mulling what action to take in response to the war’s impact on global economies.

Christian Bueger, a professor of international relations at the University of Copenhagen and an expert in maritime security, said Europe will be facing “a major energy supply crisis” if the Strait of Hormuz is not reopened.

“For the shipping industry right now, it’s impossible to go through the Strait of Hormuz,” Bueger told Al Jazeera. “And if there are not stronger signals in the near future that they can at least try to go through the strait, then we are looking at a major shipping crisis, which can last weeks if not months.”

On Wednesday, the International Energy Agency (IEA) announced that its 32 member countries had unanimously agreed to release 400 million barrels of oil from their emergency reserves to try to lower prices.

“This is a major action aiming to alleviate the immediate impacts of the disruption in markets,” IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said during an address from the agency’s headquarters in Paris.

“But to be clear, the most important thing for a return to stable flows of oil and gas is the resumption of transit through the Strait of Hormuz,” he added.

The reserve supplies will be made available “over a timeframe that is appropriate” for each member state, the IEA said in a statement without providing details.

German Economy and Energy Minister Katherina Reiche said earlier in the day that the country would comply with the release while Austria also said it would make part of its emergency oil reserve available and extend its national strategic gas reserve.

Meanwhile, Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry said it would release about 80 million barrels from its private and national oil reserves.

Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi said the country, which gets about 70 percent of its oil imports through the Strait of Hormuz, would begin releasing the reserves on Monday.

Brazzaville, Republic of Congo – On main roads and public squares across the Congolese capital, posters are up featuring the seven main candidates vying for president.

But at the Moukondo Market in Brazzaville’s fourth district – between lively discussions, people jostling for space and saleswomen trying to attract customers – many voters are less than enthusiastic about this weekend’s election.

Fortune, a 27-year-old unemployed university graduate who did not want to give his last name, said he does not expect much to come from the polls.

“When you see how money is spent during the campaign, you wonder if those in power really care about the living conditions of the population,” he said.

While Congo is the third largest oil producer in sub-Saharan Africa, about half the country’s population of about six million people live below the poverty line.

A few metres away, Gilbert, 44, shared similar sentiments. The civil servant explained that his salary is not enough to cover all his household expenses.

“I do odd jobs to supplement my income. At my age, believing that these elections will change our daily lives would be almost suicidal,” he said.

“I’ve known practically the same leader all my life,” Gilbert added. “Some call it stability. Others say that nothing changes.”

It’s a sentiment shared by many in the country: That after 40 years under a single leader, political continuity has become the norm.

President Denis Sassou Nguesso, 82, who is once again standing in the election, first came to power in Congo in 1979. After a period of political transition in the early 1990s, he returned to the presidency in 1997 after a civil war and has ruled the country without interruption ever since.

Two major constitutional revisions have marked his political trajectory. The 2002 constitution and the one adopted in 2015 notably changed certain eligibility requirements, allowing the head of state to continue to run for office.

For Nguesso’s supporters, this political longevity is primarily attributed to the stability the country has managed to maintain in a region often marked by conflict.

Congo’s neighbours include the conflict-racked Central African Republic; Gabon, which witnessed a coup in 2023; and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where the government is facing armed groups, most notably M23.

In official discourse, peace and institutional continuity are regularly presented as the main achievements of the Nguesso government.

However, several foreign observers painted a more nuanced picture of the political situation. The pro-democracy organisation Freedom House classified Congo as a “not free” country while the Ibrahim Index of African Governance highlighted limited progress in democratic participation and political accountability.

‘Asymmetrical political competition’

In the last presidential election in 2021, the official results gave Nguesso more than 88 percent of the votes cast with a reported voter turnout of 67 percent.

Nguesso is widely expected to win again when the country goes to the polls on Sunday.

Some analysts said the president’s political longevity can be partly explained by the country’s political structure.

Charles Abel Kombo, a Congolese economist and public policy observer, described the political system as a hybrid model.

“The Congolese political system combines formally pluralistic institutions – elections, political parties, parliament – with a high degree of centralisation of executive power,” he explained. “Nguesso’s political longevity can be explained in part by the structure of the institutional apparatus and the predominant role of the executive branch in the management of the state.”

According to him, the continuity of power is also linked to perceptions of stability in a country marked by the conflicts of the 1990s.

“In this historical context, this continuity can be seen as a factor of stability. But it is also accompanied by asymmetrical political competition.” In other words, political change remains theoretically possible but politically difficult.

For the economist, however, the issue goes beyond political change alone.

“The central challenge remains the ability of political actors to propose a credible plan for economic transformation. Countries dependent on natural resources need a strategic state capable of diversifying the economy and guiding productive transformation.”

Other observers took a more critical view of this political longevity.

For economic and political analyst Alphonse Ndongo, the stability often touted by the authorities must be examined with caution.

“There is indeed a stabilising regime because it has succeeded in maintaining peace. This is what is being sold today as the main recipe for success: There is no war, so the country is at peace. But this peace also allows those in power to remain there. We are in a kind of democratic illusion where elections often resemble a deal,” he said.

According to him, the current political architecture makes a change in leadership unlikely in the short term.

“It is difficult for the institutions responsible for managing elections to produce a result that differs from what everyone already expects. Everything is structured, from voter registration to the organisation of the ballot. Under these conditions, a surprising result seems unlikely,” he said.

‘Political alternatives exist’

As the debate continues in Congolese society over whether the country’s political continuity is a mark of stability or a system that is hard to change, the opposition appears fragmented and weakened.

Some established parties are boycotting the vote while some prominent potential ⁠candidates are in prison or exile.

In June, the party of opposition leader Clement Mierassa was removed from the official list of recognised political parties.

For him, the conditions for a truly democratic election are not in place.

“We have always called for essential reforms: a truly independent national electoral commission, reliable voter rolls and a law regulating campaign spending,” he said. “Without these guarantees, it is difficult to talk about free and transparent elections.”

Other political actors, however, have chosen to run in the election.

Christ Antoine Wallembaud, spokesperson for candidate Destin Melaine Gavet, said participation remains a way of defending the political space.

“The electoral system has flaws, but that does not mean that those who participate in it condone fraud. Participating also serves as a reminder of the need for reform and shows that a political alternative exists.”

For many observers, access to the media is also a key issue during election campaigns.

“Access to public media remains a recurring problem for opposition candidates. The ruling party candidate always gets the lion’s share even though the High Council for Freedom of Communication has established a list of appearances on state media so that all candidates can present their programmes,” said a Congolese journalist who requested anonymity.

Faced with these difficulties, opposition candidates often turn to private media outlets to spread their messages.

Congolese authorities, for their part, insisted that civil liberties are fully guaranteed for all.

The prime minister and spokesperson for Nguesso, Anatole Collinet Makosso, recently said freedom of opinion and expression “is doing very well”.

“Freedom of expression is alive and well in Congo. The proof is the multitude of foreign journalists here to cover this election. No journalist has been arrested because of their work or prosecuted,” he said.

For the government, this international media presence is evidence of the transparency of the electoral process and the ability of the media to work freely in the country.

However, some press freedom organisations paint a different picture. In its World Press Freedom Index, Reporters Without Borders regularly highlights the difficulties faced by local journalists, particularly in terms of access to public information, political pressure and economic constraints.

Adapting to circumstances

In the working-class neighbourhoods of Brazzaville, reactions to Sunday’s election range from resignation to pragmatism.

In Bacongo, a young man on the street explained that he has learned to adapt to circumstances.

“When the country goes left, we go left. When it goes right, we go right. Doing the opposite can be dangerous,” he said while refusing to give his name.

Beyond the political debate, economic concerns remain central.

The Congolese economy is heavily dependent on oil, which accounts for about 70 percent of its exports and nearly 40 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP), according to the World Bank. This dependence exposes the country to fluctuations in international energy prices.

Public debt has also reached high levels in recent years, exceeding 90 percent of the GDP before being partially restructured under agreements with international creditors.

In this context, several economists said the electoral stakes go beyond the single issue of political change.

Diversifying the economy, creating jobs for a predominantly young population and improving public services are major challenges in the years ahead.

But many Congolese aren’t hopeful that Sunday’s election will make a difference to their material reality because political and economic power will likely remain in the same hands.

“We all understand the system in this country,” Fortune said. “The [economic] crisis doesn’t affect everyone, nor does poverty.”

International Energy Agency chief says talks aim to assess conditions as US-Israel war on Iran fuels global uncertainty.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) is set to hold an emergency meeting to assess the situation in the Middle East as the US-Israeli war on Iran continues to roil global energy markets.

Fatih Birol, the agency’s executive director, said representatives of IEA member states would meet on Tuesday to assess “the current security of supply and market conditions” amid the conflict.

“I have convened an extraordinary meeting of IEA member governments, which will take place later today to assess the current security of supply and market conditions to inform a subsequent decision on whether to make emergency stocks of IEA countries available to the market,” Birol said.

This week, oil prices hit their highest levels since mid‑2022 amid concerns of prolonged shipping disruptions linked to the war and reduced output from some key producers in countries that have been targeted by retaliatory Iranian strikes.

While the market reversed late in the day on Monday, with benchmarks falling below $90 a barrel, uncertainty persists around how long the United States-Israel war will drag on.

The Strait of Hormuz, a critical Gulf waterway through which about one-fifth of the world’s oil supplies passes, has effectively been shut down as a result of the war.

“If this drags on, it is not just going to be energy prices” that are affected, Al Jazeera’s Osama Bin Javaid explained. “It is going to have an impact on global economies.”

Bin Javaid noted that the extraordinary IEA meeting comes after Group of Seven (G7) countries met to discuss possible actions to help stabilise global energy markets.

European governments have been on edge about the prospect of a repeat of the energy crisis they faced in 2022, when prices surged to record peaks after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

“The IEA will ⁠be presenting an ⁠in-depth analysis of the pros and ⁠cons of releasing stocks ⁠now,” the European Union’s Energy Commissioner ‌Dan Jorgensen said before the agency’s meeting.

Earlier on Tuesday, G7 energy ministers stopped short of deciding on the release of strategic oil reserves in a call, instead asking the IEA to assess the situation before acting.

“Everyone is willing to take measures to stabilise the market, including the United States,” French Finance Minister Roland Lescure told reporters after the latest talks.

“We have asked the IEA to elaborate scenarios for a potential oil stock release; we need to be ready to act at any moment,” he added.

EU leaders also will discuss competitiveness, including energy prices, on a call later in the day with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever, and others.

The United States and Israel’s war on Iran has caused the largest energy supply shock in decades.

The Strait of Hormuz is in effect closed, and attacks are being carried out on energy facilities in the Middle East, rattling oil markets.

From Americans filling their tanks at the pump to European factories and Asian economies, the impact is already being felt.

US President Donald Trump says the rise in oil prices is a “very small price to pay” for “safety and peace”. But investors warn that if the conflict drags on, there’s danger of stagflation.

Surging energy prices caused by the US-Israel war on Iran could ripple across the United States economy, heaping further strain on consumers at a time when cost-of-living issues are already a primary concern.

The price of crude oil increased from about $67 per barrel before the war began on February 28 to nearly $97 on Monday, as the conflict snarls production and transport in one of the most energy-rich regions on earth. Oil temporarily passed $100 per barrel on Sunday before slightly easing back.

The price tracker GasBuddy reported on Monday that the average price of gas in the US has risen by 51 cents per gallon over the last week.

“Yes, yes, definitely,” said 52-year-old Alma Newell when asked if she was worried about price increases at a gas station in the coastal city of Goleta, California.

Newell said she is out of work with a shoulder injury and worried that rising costs could stretch her already limited budget.

“The prices have a big impact because I’m not working right now,” she said. “Food and rent are already very expensive.”

“It’s crazy,” she added. “Because the war is so unnecessary.”

Cost of living issues

Rising prices could deepen frustration with the administration of US President Donald Trump and put greater political pressure on the White House, already struggling to address cost-of-living issues with the crucial midterm elections set to take place later this year.

“I think the current price increase in oil suggests the US will see $3.50 to $4 gasoline by next week, and $5 diesel this week,” said Gregory Brew, a senior analyst on Iran and oil at the Eurasia Group.

The highest recorded average for gas prices at the pump was in June 2022, when prices soared to $5.034, months after the Russian war on Ukraine started, according to Gas Buddy, which tracks fuel prices going back to 2008.

“The impact 1773123967 is more political than economic, as high gasoline prices generate negative press and can add to the perception that the government is not properly handling the economy. That means Trump will feel more political pressure to end this war quickly.”

A Pew Research Center poll in early February suggested widespread anxiety about the rising cost-of-living before the US and Israel launched attacks on Iran, with 68 percent of respondents saying they were very or somewhat concerned about gas prices.

“I’m not too worried myself because I have a hybrid car and ride my bike,” said 72-year-old Bjorn Birmir at the gas station in Goleta, California. “But for people in general, it will make life more expensive. Prices are already high, and it will make them even higher.”

Ongoing disruptions

The disruptions caused by the war include the shuttering of the Strait of Hormuz, a key node in global transit and shipping. Iran has long said that it could close down the strait in the event of a showdown with the US and Israel.

About 20 percent of global oil and a significant portion of natural gas pass through the strait, predominantly to Asia, supplies that are now stranded as traffic through the narrow waterway has ground to a halt. Iranian attacks on energy infrastructure in countries across the region have also led some countries to scale back production.

Other economic sectors are also feeling the squeeze.

Goods such as fertiliser, vital for agricultural production, are seeing price increases just ahead of the spring planting season in the Northern Hemisphere. About one-third of the global fertiliser trade passes through the Strait of Hormuz.

Effects of the war could ripple throughout the global economy, with poor countries especially hard-hit. Pakistan announced a series of austerity measures and cuts to fuel subsidies on Monday, while Bangladesh shuttered universities and announced restrictions on fuel use as a result of the war.

US officials and countries around the world have already discussed measures to help ease the shock of rising energy prices, including the potential release of strategic oil reserves in a bid to temporarily boost global supply.

The G7 said on Monday that it would take “necessary measures” to support energy supplies, but held off on announcing the release of strategic reserves, with energy ministers set to meet on Tuesday to discuss the matter further.

The US has a strategic oil reserve of more than 415 million barrels, one of the largest in the world, that it could release in coordination with allied countries.

But it is unclear when these measures would kick in and how long such steps could help fill the gaps created by the war.

Rachel Ziemba, adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, says that much depends on whether the war is brought to a speedy conclusion or continues on for weeks or even months, with the possibility of further escalation.

Thus far, neither the US and Israel nor Iran has suggested it are willing to stop the war anytime soon, although Trump told CBS News on Monday that “the war is very complete, pretty much”, comments that helped ease some of the price swings in oil and stocks.

“If the war continues, we would see oil prices not only remain elevated, but perhaps rally further as markets price in a more protracted outage,” said Ziemba. “There’s also the question of, when it does end, how much damage will be done to infrastructure and just how quickly supplies could come back online.”

Initial polling has suggested that the war is unpopular in the US, with a Quinnipiac University poll released on Monday finding that 53 percent of voters who responded oppose Trump’s military action in Iran, including 60 percent of political independents.

That lack of popular support could present a political headache for Trump and his Republican Party if voters connect the war to increasing prices. Thus far, Trump has largely dismissed concerns about the war’s possible impact on the rising cost of living.

“Short term oil prices, which will drop rapidly when the destruction of the Iran nuclear threat is over, is a very small price to pay for USA, and World, Safety and Peace,” Trump said in a Truth Social post on Sunday. “ONLY FOOLS WOULD THINK DIFFERENTLY!”

French President Emmanuel Macron has said France and its allies are preparing a “purely defensive” mission to escort vessels through the Strait of Hormuz once the “most intense phase” of the US-Israeli war on Iran ends.

Speaking in Cyprus on Monday, Macron said the “purely escort mission” must be prepared by both European and non-European countries.

Its purpose “is to enable, as soon as possible after the most intense phase of the conflict has ended, the escort of container ships and tankers to gradually reopen the Strait of Hormuz”, the French president said, without providing further details.

Macron’s comments come as global oil prices have surged amid continued attacks by the United States and Israel against Iran, as well as retaliatory Iranian missile and drone strikes across the wider region.

The war has effectively shut down the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic Gulf waterway through which about 20 percent of the world’s oil supplies pass, while Iranian attacks on energy infrastructure in the Middle East also have raised concerns.

Responding to Macron’s comments, top Iranian security official Ali Larijani said, “It is unlikely that any security will be achieved in the Strait of Hormuz amid the fires of the war ignited by the United States and Israel in the region.”

Larijani added in a social media post that security is also unlikely to be restored as a result of plans designed by “parties that were not far removed from supporting this war and contributing to its fanning”.

While European countries have been largely sidelined as the war escalates, several – including France, the United Kingdom and Greece – have sent military assets to Cyprus following an Iranian-made drone attack on a British base on the island.

Greece has dispatched four F-16 fighter planes to the Paphos airbase and its two state-of-the-art frigates Kimon and Psara are patrolling offshore Cyprus, tasked with intercepting any missiles or drones.

Last week, Macron ordered the French frigate Languedoc to waters off Cyprus to bolster the country’s anti-drone and anti-missile defences.

“When Cyprus is attacked, then Europe is attacked,” Macron said after meeting with Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides and Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis in Paphos on Monday.

The French president said he would also deploy a total of eight warships, two helicopter carriers and the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle to the Eastern Mediterranean and the wider Middle East region, calling the move “unprecedented”.

France’s objective “is to maintain a strictly defensive stance, standing alongside all countries attacked by Iran in its retaliation, to ensure our credibility, and to contribute to regional de-escalation”, Macron said.

“Ultimately, we aim to guarantee freedom of navigation and maritime security.”

With the closure of the Strait of Hormuz sending oil prices soaring, finance ministers from the Group of Seven (G7) countries met in Brussels on Monday to discuss how to respond.

Crude oil prices have increased by about 50 percent since the US and Israel launched the war last month, with international benchmark Brent crude prices surpassing $100 a barrel on Monday.

French Finance Minister Roland Lescure told reporters that the G7 ministers did not make a decision on the potential release of emergency oil stocks amid the war. “What we’ve agreed upon is to use any necessary tools if need be to stabilise the market, including the potential release of necessary stockpiles,” Lescure said.

Paul Hickin, editor-in-chief and chief economist at Petroleum Economist, said getting the Strait of Hormuz reopened is the main priority. “That’s not going to happen in any shape or form until there’s a resolution to the conflict,” Hickin told Al Jazeera.

He explained that several countries in the Middle East, such as Kuwait and Iraq, are dependent on the strait to get their energy supplies to market.

“Kuwait and Iraq and those producers, they are really having a shut-in, and it will take a little bit of time to get back up and running,” said Hickin.

“That is the big risk, the knock-on effect … Getting those ships back, getting that infrastructure back up and running, it’s a slow process. So prices won’t come back down as quickly as many may think.”

A year ago, engineers at Snowflake, the American cloud-based data platform, still spent part of their day on routine tasks – such as scanning dashboards to ensure systems were running smoothly and chasing colleagues for data to complete trend analyses.

Now, says Qaiser Habib, the company’s Toronto-based head of Canada engineering, AI agents handle much of that groundwork, allowing engineers to focus on higher-level decisions.

Habib spends 20 to 30 hours a week interacting with five AI agents. Snowflake has built agents to review product design or to help on-call engineers to help during an outage or an incident, among other uses. He estimates the average engineer works with three or four agents daily, using them to carry out coding projects under human supervision.

“You don’t have to bother a human for basic questions any more,” Habib said, noting that he still collaborates with colleagues on more complex work, such as troubleshooting coding problems.

As companies experiment with AI agents – systems designed to plan, reason and carry out multistep tasks – the technology is beginning to reshape office hierarchies across the United States and Canada. Unlike chatbots, which respond to prompts, AI agents can adapt to changing contexts such as business goals and draw on reference tools including calendars, meeting transcripts and internal databases, to complete work with limited human oversight.

In some workplaces, AI systems are not just completing tasks but also assigning them to human workers. As the technology improves, AI agents are also beginning to manage each other. One agent might generate code, for example, while another reviews it for errors and fixes bugs before a human signs off on the final version.

These agent-to-agent workflows can help companies scale faster. But they also intensify concerns that AI is moving beyond assistance into supervision – and potentially, job replacement.

The leaner office

Anthropic recently expanded access to its cowork agents, allowing users without technical expertise to grant Claude – its AI assistant – permission to specific folders on their computers so it can read, edit, create and organise files autonomously.

The growing use of AI agents is transforming how organisations function around the world, even in companies that aren’t focused on building technology products. For example, some companies are using AI tools to track performance, recommend promotions, role changes, and even identify roles for elimination.

The shift comes as white-collar jobs continue to disappear, particularly in the US. A slew of US employers have announced mass layoffs, mostly affecting entry-level and middle-management workers, and executives have pointed to automation and AI-driven efficiency as part of the rationale. When Amazon said in October that it planned to eliminate about 14,000 jobs, executives cited AI’s potential to help the company operate with fewer layers and greater efficiency. UPS, Target and General Motors also announced deep cuts last year, and this January saw more layoffs than any January in the US since 2009. Several more companies, including Pinterest and HP, continued to cite AI initiatives as part of the reason.

Goldman Sachs has estimated that 6 to 7 percent of US workers could lose their jobs due to AI adoption, with higher risks for computer programmers, accountants, auditors, legal and administrative assistants, and customer service representatives. Overall employment effects, the bank said in August, may be “relatively temporary” as new roles emerge.

Middle management squeezed

Early predictions suggested AI would mainly replace entry-level technical jobs, and some experts tie recent high unemployment rates for new graduates to AI adoption. But the bigger disruption, said Roger Kirkness, founder of AI software firm Convictional in Toronto, is occurring in middle management.

His company’s tools translate executive strategy into operational tasks – a role once handled by supervisors – delivering daily assignments and feedback to employees through a user-friendly inbox interface.

In companies of more than 50 people, “where CEOs can’t speak with each manager, our platform continually surfaces the context that the organisation has that is relevant to leadership decision-making”, Kirkness told Al Jazeera.

This doesn’t mean humans have become irrelevant. But there is growing pressure to reskill, and those who thrive in strategic thinking are better-positioned to adapt to AI-integrated work environments, Kirkness said.

“People are basically becoming managers of their prior jobs,” he said, because AI is now able to perform many of the tasks that previously fell within their roles. Instead of completing tasks such as coding or designing marketing assets, humans are focusing on higher-level strategy while monitoring AI systems, he added.

However, recent research indicates that job cuts reflect companies’ anticipation of AI’s potential, rather than its current ability to replace human workers fully.

A December Harvard Business Review survey of 1,006 global executives found that while AI has played little direct role in replacing workers so far, many companies have already cut jobs or slowed hiring in anticipation of its promised impact.

Most CEOs say they’re still waiting on AI’s payoff: 56 percent report no revenue or cost benefits so far, according to consulting firm PwC’s latest Global CEO Survey of 4,454 executives across 95 countries and territories.

Trust and control

Stefano Puntoni, a behavioural scientist at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, has found that AI usage is also already affecting workplace communication habits. His research shows employees are often more willing to delegate tasks to AI than to colleagues, which can help to reduce burnout. “There’s no social cost,” he said. “You don’t worry about burdening an AI.”

Still, Puntoni argues the biggest barrier to adoption is psychological, not technical. Even effective systems can fail if workers do not trust them. Generative AI, he said, can threaten employees’ sense of competence, autonomy and connection.

“If workers feel threatened, they may want the system to fail,” Puntoni said. “At scale, that guarantees failure.”

In other words, deploying AI primarily as a cost-cutting tool can backfire. Layoffs framed as efficiency gains may reduce cooperation and limit the productivity benefits companies hope to unlock with technology, Puntoni said.

Trust, Kirkness agreed, is the real constraint. To build staff confidence in the tools it sells – and to avoid layoffs – Convictional adopted a four-day workweek, framing it as a way to share AI-driven productivity gains with employees.

“Mass layoffs in the name of automation destroy trust,” he said.

The human premium

In the US, lawsuits have begun to challenge AI-driven corporate decisions, particularly in areas such as insurance claim denials and alleged AI-enabled hiring discrimination.

Some experts warn that as AI systems become more autonomous, humans risk losing meaningful oversight – and that these agents themselves could become targets for cyberattacks. Yet regulation has struggled to keep pace with innovation. Neither the US nor Canada has clearly defined rules governing AI agents.

Business leaders are testing which functions can be automated and which still require sustained human involvement. For some workers, that uncertainty has become a source of unease.

One employee at a multinational firm, who is based in Vancouver, said she sometimes wonders whether the online “coach” used to support employee development is an AI system or a human relying so heavily on AI tools that the distinction has blurred. She requested anonymity because of concerns about professional repercussions.

Some organisations are setting boundaries. New Ground Wellness, a Canadian clinical counselling and wellness firm, uses AI tools such as chatbots in its daily operations, but recently declined a 20,000 Canadian dollar ($14,600) proposal for an agentic AI intake system that would match therapists with clients.

After receiving feedback from callers, the company concluded that the efficiency gains would not outweigh potential damage to trust. Their decision also reflects multiple surveys showing a strong preference among Western consumers for human customer service workers.

“We are open to revisiting AI systems in the future,” said New Ground Wellness cofounder Lucinda Bibbs, “but at this stage, preserving human connections remains our highest priority.”

As the United States and Israel’s war on Iran unfolds over the coming days and weeks, the scale of the fallout for the global economy will be measured at the petrol pump.

The biggest threat the conflict poses to global economic health lies in rising energy prices.

Iran’s effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz and Iranian attacks on key energy production facilities in Qatar and Saudi Arabia have paralysed a substantial chunk of the world’s energy supply.

For a global economy already rattled by US President Donald Trump’s tariffs and what many see as his unravelling of the post-World War II order, much now depends on how long the disruption lasts.

A sustained surge in energy prices would drive up the cost of everyday goods.

Central banks would then likely raise borrowing costs to curb inflation, dampening consumer spending and dragging down economic growth.

“It’s really a question on how long the disruption of flows through the Strait of Hormuz lasts and whether there will be destruction of physical assets,” said Anne-Sophie Corbeau, an analyst at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.

“For the moment, the market is pricing a short disruption and no destruction. But that may change in the future. We simply do not know right now how this whole crisis ends.”

While Iran’s threats to shipping have halted traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, the conduit for one-fifth of the world’s oil, crude prices have seen relatively modest gains so far.

Brent crude hovered about $84 a barrel on Friday morning, US time, up about 15 percent compared with pre-conflict prices.

That gain pales in comparison with past crises.

During the 1973-74 oil embargo led by OPEC’s Arab members, prices quadrupled in just three months.

Since then, the world’s dependence on Middle Eastern oil has declined substantially.

Today, the US is the biggest producer globally, producing some 13 million barrels a day, more than Iran, Iraq and the UAE combined, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

But if supply disruptions extend beyond a few weeks, oil prices could rise precipitously.

Storage capacity constraints

The seven oil-producing Gulf nations – Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE – are likely to run out of crude oil storage capacity in less than a month if the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, according to an analysis by JPMorgan Chase.

With storage capacity depleted, producers would be forced to cut production.

“While there will be some capacities elsewhere, and some options to use pipelines rather than shipping, it is incredibly difficult to replace the sheer volume as we are talking about an average of 20 million barrels of oil per day that usually cross the Strait of Hormuz,” said Sarah Schiffling, a supply chains expert at the Hanken School of Economics in Helsinki.

“This important maritime chokepoint provides very significant leverage in the global economy.”

This week, Goldman Sachs analysts estimated that global oil prices will likely hit $100 a barrel – a threshold not seen since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine – if shipping through the waterway stays at the current reduced levels for five weeks.

In an interview published by The Financial Times on Friday, Qatar’s energy minister Saad al-Kaabi warned that producers in the region could halt production within days and that oil could soar as high as $150 a barrel.

Such increases would reverberate through the global economy.

The International Monetary Fund has estimated that global economic growth is reduced by 0.15 percent for every 10 percent rise in oil prices.

The pain would not be spread evenly.

About 80 percent of the oil shipped through the strait goes to Asia.

India, Japan, South Korea and the Philippines, which are all highly dependent on foreign energy imports, would be among the economies most vulnerable to spikes in the cost of necessities such as food and fuel.

“The effect would be felt in Asia and Europe in particular,” said Lutz Kilian, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

“Some countries, such as China, have ample oil reserves to help weather a temporary outage, while others do not.”

Liquefied natural gas (LNG), which is also shipped through the strait and has fewer alternative suppliers outside the region than crude oil, has already seen much steeper price rises.

European prices of LNG surged by as much as 50 percent on Monday after state-run QatarEnergy, which ships about one-fifth of global supply through the waterway, announced a halt to production following drone attacks blamed on Iran.

“Gas will be more impacted because the market was still relatively tight and stocks are low in Europe as we are at the end of winter; also, there is no replacement for the LNG lost,” Corbeau said.

Prolonged uncertainty

With US President Donald Trump signalling that he intends to continue the assault on Iran for at least several more weeks, the extent to which Tehran is willing – or able – to keep the strait closed will be critical to the global economy.

At least nine commercial vessels have been targeted in attacks in or near the strait since the start of the conflict, prompting multiple insurance firms to cancel coverage for vessels in the Gulf.

While traffic through the strait has not halted, it is down about 90 percent compared with normal levels, according to ship tracker MarineTraffic.

“The uncertainty itself is probably the most dangerous part. Supply chains hate uncertainty,” Schiffling said.

“It is possible to plan for almost anything, but not knowing what will happen makes it really challenging to adapt operations.”

On Wednesday, Trump said he had ordered the US International Development Finance Corporation to start insuring shipping lines in the region in order to keep trade flowing.

Trump also said the US Navy could begin escorting vessels through the strait if necessary.

“As long as Israel and the US are able to suppress Iranian drone and missile attacks in the strait to the point that the bulk of the oil tankers gets through, and as long as the United States provides back-up insurance for shippers and their cargo, the global economy may make it through this war without a recession,” Kilian said.

“On the other hand, if there is a severe disruption of oil traffic, the economic costs will grow the longer the disruption lasts.”

The licence follows a push from US President Donald Trump to open Venezuela’s resource sector to international investment.

The United States government has authorised a limited licence for the export of Venezuelan gold, following a high-level meeting to expand mining in the country.

On Friday, a notice appeared on the US Department of the Treasury’s website announcing the licence.

It allows Venezuela’s state-run mining company Minerven and its subsidiaries to export, transport and sell Venezuelan gold to the US, within the parameters set out under US law.

Under the licence, however, no Venezuelan gold will be permitted to be exchanged with Cuba, North Korea, Iran or Russia.

The licence also requires payments to sanctioned individuals to flow through Treasury accounts known as Foreign Government Deposit Funds, the same system that has been used to store the proceeds from Venezuelan oil sales.

Minerven and other state-owned industries have faced US sanctions for years, as a penalty for the push to nationalise Venezuela’s resources under former President Hugo Chavez.

But the US has been pushing for inroads into Venezuela’s oil and mining sectors since January 3, when it launched an operation to abduct and imprison the country’s then-president, Nicolas Maduro.

The January 3 military operation has been condemned as a violation of international law, and critics argue that US President Donald Trump has since sought to exploit Venezuela’s natural resources for his country’s gain.

Trump and his allies maintain that Venezuela’s oil resources were stolen from the US, citing the expropriation of assets from US businesses in 2007.

But international law guarantees that countries have permanent sovereignty over their own natural resources, which cannot be exploited by foreign powers without consent.

So far, the government of interim Venezuelan President Delcy Rodriguez has complied with Trump’s requests to surrender oil to the US and open the country’s oil and mining sectors to foreign investment.

Just this week, Rodriguez agreed to send a mining reform law to the country’s National Assembly, following a two-day visit from Trump’s Interior Secretary Doug Burgum.

And in late January, Rodriguez signed into law a separate reform that allowed for the expansion of private investment from abroad in Venezuela’s oil sector and lowered taxes on the industry.

Venezuela’s economy has struggled under tightening US sanctions and government mismanagement, forcing millions of citizens from the South American country to flee its borders over the last decade.

Proponents of the reforms say outside investment can help revive Venezuela’s ailing economy and fund upgrades to its outdated mining infrastructure.

On Friday, Venezuela’s central bank released its first inflation statistics since November 2024, showing that inflation skyrocketed to 475 percent in 2025, when the US placed an embargo on Venezuelan oil exports.

Gold production from Venezuela in 2025 amounted to nearly 9.5 tonnes, according to the government, and the country sits on some of the largest oil deposits in the world.

Over the past two decades, China has quietly eclipsed the United States as the dominant trading partner in parts of Latin America.

But since taking office for a second term, United States President Donald Trump has pushed to reverse Beijing’s advance.

That includes through aggressive manoeuvres directed at China’s allies in the region.

Already, the Trump administration has stripped officials in Costa Rica, Panama and Chile of their US visas, reportedly due to their ties to China.

It has also threatened to take back the Panama Canal over allegations that Chinese operatives are running the waterway. And after invading Venezuela and abducting President Nicolas Maduro, the US forced the country to halt oil exports to China.

But on Saturday, Trump is taking a different approach, welcoming Latin American leaders to his Mar-a-Lago estate for an event dubbed the “Shield of the Americas” summit.

How he plans to persuade leaders to distance themselves from one of the region’s largest economic partners remains unclear.

But experts say the high-level meeting could signal that Washington is prepared to put concrete offers on the table.

Securing meaningful commitments from Latin American leaders will take more than a photo op and vague promises, according to Francisco Urdinez, an expert on regional relations with China at Chile’s Pontifical Catholic University.

Even among Trump’s allies, Urdinez believes significant economic incentives are required.

“What they’re really hoping is that Washington backs up the political alignment with tangible economic benefits,” he said.

‘Reinforcing the Donroe Doctrine’

Already, the White House has confirmed that nearly a dozen countries will be represented at the weekend summit.

They include conservative leaders from Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, and Trinidad and Tobago.

Mexico and Brazil, the region’s largest economies, have been notably left out. Both are currently led by left-leaning governments.

In a post on social media, the Trump administration framed the event as a “historic meeting reinforcing the Donroe Doctrine”, the president’s plan for establishing US dominance over the Western Hemisphere.

Part of that strategy involves assembling a coalition of ideological allies in the region.

But rolling back Chinese influence in a region increasingly reliant on its economy will not be an easy feat, according to Gimena Sanchez, the Andes director at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), a US-based research and advocacy group.

The US “is trying to get countries to agree that they’re not going to have China be one of their primary trading partners, and they really can’t at this point”, Sanchez said.

“For most countries, China is either their top, second or third trading partner.”

China, after all, has the second-largest economy in the world, and it has invested heavily in Latin America, including through infrastructure projects and massive loans.

The Asian giant has emerged as the top trading partner in South America in particular, with bilateral trade reaching $518bn in 2024, a record high for Beijing.

The US, however, remains the biggest outside trade force in Latin America and the Caribbean overall, due in large part to close relations with its neighbour, Mexico.

As of 2024, US imports from Latin America jumped to $661bn, and its exports were valued at $517bn.

Rather than choosing sides, though, many countries in the region are trying to strike a balance between the two powers, Sanchez explained.

Still, she added that the US cannot come empty-handed to this weekend’s negotiations.

“If the US is very boldly telling countries to cut off strengthening ties with China”, Sanchez emphasised that “the US is going to have to offer them something.”

What’s on the table?

Trump has already extended economic lifelines to Latin American governments politically aligned with his own.

In the case of Argentina, for instance, Trump announced in October a $20bn currency swap, meant to increase the value of the country’s peso.

He also increased the volume of Argentinian beef permitted to be imported into the US, shoring up the country’s agricultural sector, despite pushback from US cattle farmers.

Trump has largely tied those economic incentives to the continued leadership of political movements favourable to his own.

The $20bn swap, for instance, came ahead of a key election for Argentinian President Javier Milei’s right-wing party, which Trump supports.

Isolating China from resources in Latin America could also play to Trump’s advantage as he angles for better trade terms with Beijing.

A show of hemispheric solidarity could give Trump extra leverage as he travels to Beijing in early April to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Urdinez pointed out.

Then there’s the regional security angle. The US has expressed particular concern about China’s control of strategic infrastructure in Latin America and the critical minerals it could exploit in the region to bolster its defence and technology capabilities.

Bolivia, Argentina and Chile, for instance, are believed to hold the world’s largest deposits of lithium, a metal necessary for energy storage and rechargeable batteries.

The Trump administration referenced such threats in its national security strategy, published in December.

“Some foreign influence will be hard to reverse,” the strategy document said, blaming the “political alignments between certain Latin American governments and certain foreign actors”.

But Trump’s security platform nevertheless asserted that Latin American leaders were actively seeking alternatives to China.

“Many governments are not ideologically aligned with foreign powers but are instead attracted to doing business with them for other reasons, including low costs and fewer regulatory hurdles,” the document said.

It argued that the US could combat Chinese influence by highlighting the “hidden costs” of close ties to Beijing, including “debt traps” and espionage.

‘More aspiration than reality’

Henrietta Levin, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, believes that many Latin American countries would prefer to deepen economic engagement with the US over China.

But in many cases, that hasn’t been an option.

She pointed to Ecuador’s decision to sign a free trade agreement (FTA) with China in 2023 after it failed to negotiate a similar agreement with the US under President Joe Biden.

Some US politicians had opposed the deal as a threat to domestic industries. Others had encouraged Biden to reject it due to alleged corruption in Ecuador’s government.

Critics, though, said the resistance pushed Ecuador into closer relations with China.

“ When Ecuador signed their free trade agreement with China a couple years ago, their leader actually made quite clear that they had wanted an FTA with the US and would’ve preferred that,” said Levin.

“But the US didn’t want to negotiate such an agreement, and China did.”

As a result, Ecuador became the fifth country in Latin America to ink a free trade pact with China, after Chile, Peru, Costa Rica and Nicaragua.

For Levin, the question looming over this weekend’s summit is whether the Trump administration will step up and provide alternatives to the economic engagement China has already delivered.

Options could include trade agreements, financing for new development and investments with attractive terms.

But without such offers, Urdinez, the Chilean professor, warns that Trump will face limits to his ambitions of checking China’s growth in Latin America.

“Until Washington is willing to fill the economic space it’s asking countries to vacate, the rollback strategy will remain more aspiration than reality,” said Urdinez.

Lutnick’s relationship with the late financier and sex offender has come under scrutiny after files revealed closer ties than previously known.

US Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick has agreed to give testimony to lawmakers about his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, the head of a committee investigating the late sex offender has said.

Lutnick, who lived next door to Epstein in New York for more than a decade, “proactively agreed” to provide a transcribed interview to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, panel chair James Comer said on Tuesday.

“I commend his demonstrated commitment to transparency and appreciate his willingness to engage with the Committee. I look forward to his testimony,” Comer, a Kentucky Republican, said on X.

Axios, which first reported the commerce secretary’s intention to testify, quoted Lutnick as saying he had done nothing wrong and he wished to “set the record straight”.

Lutnick’s relationship with Epstein, who died in 2019 while awaiting sex trafficking charges, has come under mounting scrutiny after he appeared to misrepresent the extent of his associations with the notorious financier.

In a podcast interview last year, Lutnick said he decided to “never be in the room” with Epstein again following an uncomfortable encounter at the sex offender’s Manhattan penthouse in 2005.

But files released by the Justice Department earlier this year showed that Lutnick met and communicated with Epstein for years after the reported 2005 encounter, and the commerce secretary later acknowledged that he visited the financier’s private island of Little Saint James in 2012.

Comer said on Tuesday that he had also sent letters to seven individuals seeking written testimony about their knowledge of Epstein’s crimes, including Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates, private equity investor Leon Black, and top Goldman Sachs lawyer Kathryn Ruemmler.

Gates, Black and Ruemmler have repeatedly denied wrongdoing in connection with Epstein, or having knowledge of his abuse of women and girls.

The committee’s requests for testimony come after former US President Bill Clinton and his wife, ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, appeared before lawmakers last week to answer questions about their ties to Epstein.

Bill Clinton told the committee he did nothing wrong and “saw nothing that ever gave me pause” while interacting with Epstein.

Hillary Clinton told lawmakers she had no recollection of encountering Epstein and that she never “flew on his plane or visited his island home or offices”.

“We’re going to cut off all trade with Spain.” Donald Trump targeted Spain in an Oval Office tirade, complaining about Madrid’s refusal to let its bases be used for attacks on Iran. He also joined the German chancellor in saying Spain doesn’t spend enough on its military.

Narendra Modi’s visit to Israel has drawn criticism at home amid tensions over Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi says India and Israel will collaborate more closely on defence technology while pursuing a free trade agreement, as he wrapped up a controversial two-day visit.

Modi and his Israeli counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu said at a joint news conference in Jerusalem on Thursday that they would also foster collaboration on technologies, such as artificial intelligence and cybersecurity, as their countries concluded more than a dozen bilateral agreements.

“The future belongs to those who innovate and Israel and India are bent on innovation,” said Netanyahu. “We’re proud ancient civilisations, very proud of our past. But absolutely determined to seize the future, and we can do it better together.”

A joint statement highlighted cooperation in the field of “horizon scanning”, describing it as a mechanism that “helps identify emerging global trends in areas like technology, economy and society, by leveraging data”.

Israel also agreed to allow 50,000 more Indian nationals into the country, where tens of thousands of South Asians have filled construction and caregiving jobs since new restrictions were placed on Palestinian workers at the start of its war on Gaza.

Strategic embrace

Modi’s visit, his second since he took office in 2014, has drawn criticism at home, signalling an ongoing expansion of India’s strategic embrace of Israel amid ongoing tensions over Israel’s genocidal war against Palestinians in Gaza, which has killed more than 72,000 people.

Confirming their growing ties, the leaders’ joint statement referenced the Hamas-led attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, and an April 2025 attack on tourists and civilians in Pahalgam, in Indian-controlled Kashmir.

“Terrorism cannot be accepted in any form or expression,” said Modi, who has historically supported the establishment of a Palestinian state yet has sometimes abstained from criticism of Israel in international forums, including the United Nations.

Earlier this month, India was among the countries that condemned Israeli measures to effectively deepen its control over the occupied West Bank.

Both countries also lauded United States President Donald Trump’s plan to advance the “ceasefire” in the Gaza Strip.

Tariffs: The most beautiful word in the dictionary, as Donald Trump says, or unlawful?
The Supreme Court has ruled that the president cannot use emergency powers to impose them.
It’s a significant check on his power and a major setback to his second-term agenda.
But despite the ruling, Trump has already found new ways to keep his trade barriers in place.
Tariffs remain central to his economic policy, both to boost US manufacturing and generate revenue.
The court may have disarmed one of Trump’s trade weapons, but the turn towards protectionism is far from over.

German Chancellor visits eastern city, home to AI firm DeepSeek and e-commerce giant Alibaba, with business leaders.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has arrived in the tech hub of Hangzhou on the second day of his first official trip to China, flanked by a delegation of business leaders seeking contracts in the eastern city.

Merz travelled from Beijing to the city of some 12 million people on Thursday, where he was due to tour some leading companies, including Germany’s Siemens Energy and Unitree, a Chinese firm producing humanoid robots.

Hangzhou is a major hub in China’s tech sector, home to giants, including artificial intelligence company DeepSeek and e-commerce platform Alibaba.

Before leaving Beijing, Merz, who is being accompanied by a delegation, including executives of German car giants Volkswagen, BMW and Mercedes, visited a Mercedes plant in the Chinese capital where he tested a self-driving vehicle.

‘Improved’ trade relationship sought

Merz’s trip to China, which became Germany’s largest trading partner last year, seeks to deepen decades-old economic ties with the world’s second-largest economy in the wake of tariffs imposed by the United States last year.

But he has also sought to address “challenges” in the relationship, most notably tackling the massive imbalance which saw Germany’s trade deficit with China hit a record 89 billion euros ($105bn) last year, fuelling complaints from German businesses that Chinese competitors are flooding the market with cheaper goods.

In a meeting with Chinese Premier Li Qiang in Beijing on Wednesday, before he met Chinese President Xi Jinping, Merz said he wanted “to improve and make fair” the cooperation between the countries.

Following the talks with Xi and top Chinese leaders, Merz said China had agreed to buy up to 120 Airbus aircraft, and said other contracts were in the pipeline.

The two leaders stressed their commitment to developing closer strategic relations, with Xi telling Merz he was willing to take relations to “new levels”.

Ukraine, Taiwan discussed

The talks between Xi and Merz also touched on geopolitical issues, with the German leader saying any “reunification” with Taiwan, the self-ruled island China claims as its territory, must be done peacefully.

Merz also told reporters that he asked the Chinese government to use its influence with Russia to help end the war in Ukraine, amid frustrations among European leaders that Beijing was not doing enough to bring the war to an end.

“We know that signals from Beijing are taken very seriously in Moscow,” Merz said.

Following the meeting, the two countries released a joint statement saying they supported efforts to achieve a ceasefire and lasting peace in Ukraine, emphasising the importance of fair competition and mutual market access, and committing to resolving any concerns through dialogue, Chinese state media reported.

Merz is the latest in a string of Western leaders to visit Beijing in recent months, including the United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron and Canadian PM Mark Carney, amid the fallout from the Trump administration’s tariffs on long-established trade partners.

Monterrey, Mexico – Portraits of the missing cover Guadalajara’s “Roundabout of the Disappeared”, a landmark renamed by families to highlight the state’s disappearance crisis.

On February 22, the streets surrounding the memorial and throughout the city stood empty after the Mexican army killed Ruben Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, the longtime leader of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG).

In retaliation, cartel members set fire to buses and taxis, erecting a series of blockades that spread across 20 states.

The widespread unrest demonstrated the CJNG’s capacity for rapid coordination, fuelled by a ‘franchise’ model that allows smaller cells to operate under the cartel’s brand and vast financial network.

While the group’s economic reach extends into Europe and Asia, its power remains rooted in its paramilitary force. This structure relies on extortion, brutal violence and forced disappearances as its main tools to seize territory and control markets.

Oseguera Cervantes, known as “El Mencho”, consolidated one of Mexico’s most powerful criminal organisations in part due to a unique franchise-based structure.

According to the United States Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), the CJNG maintains a presence in every state of Mexico, with varying levels of influence, and operates in more than 40 countries across the Americas, Europe, Asia and Africa, and throughout the US. Its primary activity is the trafficking of cocaine, fentanyl and methamphetamine.

Raul Zepeda Gil, a teaching fellow in War Studies at King’s College London, notes that rather than following a “classic organisational pyramid”, the CJNG avoids a centralised financial network.

“Instead, profits can be distributed across many locations and groups simultaneously,” Zepeda told Al Jazeera.

Besides controlling key areas in western Mexico, the CJNG controls the Pacific Coast region, including the strategic ports of Manzanillo and Lazaro Cardenas, crucial for the import of synthetic precursor chemicals.

“Their most important activity is drug trafficking,” Zepeda said. “Chemical precursors that arrive from China reach Mexican ports and are then sent to the United States already in fentanyl form.”

The organisation also generates revenues through fuel theft, illegal mining, extortion, migrant smuggling and money laundering.

On February 19, the US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned a timeshare fraud network led by the CJNG that targeted elderly Americans.

“Timeshare fraud in Mexico has plagued American victims for decades, costing them hundreds of millions of dollars while enriching criminal organisations such as CJNG,” the Treasury Department stated in a press release.

The CJNG’s extensive reach and rapid growth are made possible by a vast, powerful network that protects drug trafficking operations and ensures impunity, says Carlos Flores, an investigator at the Centre for Research and Higher Education in Social Anthropology (CIESAS). Flores argues that these “hegemonic power networks”, shadow networks of business leaders, politicians, and criminals, have reconfigured state institutions to serve their own interests.

“These same networks, which control and administer state institutions – including security institutions – focus their actions primarily against their competitors, while simultaneously allowing these other networks to consolidate their power,” he added.

The rise of a deadly paramilitary force

Forced disappearances and extortion are crucial for the CJNG’s control of the market, seeding fear that silences communities and facilitates forced recruitment. This ensures a steady supply of disposable labour while following the ‘no body, no crime’ logic that minimises the political and legal costs of their operations.

Homicides and forced disappearances have surged in Jalisco since the group emerged in 2010. The CJNG rose from the remnants of the Milenio Cartel, a subordinate partner of the Sinaloa Cartel based in Oseguera Cervantes’s home state of Michoacan. While across Mexico more than 130,000 people are missing, Jalisco currently ranks at the top with at least 16,000 reported cases, and collectives of families continue to uncover mass graves and what they describe as “extermination sites”.

Raul Servin, a member of the Guerreros Buscadores, a collective representing more than 400 families of the disappeared, told Al Jazeera that their searches frequently reveal human remains in varying states of decay and torture. They have found victims who were shot, hanged or killed with bladed weapons that were left inside the bodies, he said.

“It’s a sadness and helplessness we feel when we see each body these people leave behind,” said Servin, who has been searching for his son since 2018.

Beyond its financial power, the CJNG is notorious for its extensive arsenal of military-grade weaponry, including armed drones, rocket-propelled grenades, and firearms.

On February 22, more than 25 National Guard members were killed in Jalisco. In the past, the organisation has also carried out high-profile attacks against public officials.

Last year in February, US President Donald Trump designated the Jalisco New Generation Cartel as a foreign terrorist organisation. In July, US prosecutors in Virginia unsealed an indictment against Petar Dimitrov Mirchev, a Bulgarian national accused of conspiring with East African associates to equip the CJNG with military-grade weaponry. The indictment states that Mirchev brokered these deals “despite knowing that the CJNG inflicts catastrophic suffering” to protect its prolific drug trafficking operations.

The indictment also revealed that the CJNG was attempting to buy surface-to-air missiles and anti-aircraft systems (ZU-23). Overall, Mirchev allegedly created a list of weaponry worth approximately $58m.

The paramilitary profile has allowed the CJNG to expand rapidly into rival territories and monopolise the market. Flores describes this training, deployment, and weaponry as being similar to an army, making them “practically uncontestable”.

“They operate under a different kind of logic,” Flores said. “They provide a kind of licence to [local] groups that associate with them. They fight their enemies and collaborate on trafficking in exchange for using the Jalisco New Generation Cartel as a label.”

The CJNG adopted a level of brutality similar to Los Zetas, whose founders were elite Mexican special forces soldiers trained by the US and Israel. In its early days, the CJNG was known as the “Matazetas”, or Zetas Killers.

Servin and the Guerreros Buscadores have seen the results of this brutality firsthand. Locating the missing becomes more difficult as concealment tactics evolve, Servin said. Disappearances have become a powerful economic tool to control and exploit territory. Collectives often find bodies buried under layers of dirt and animal carcasses to throw off the scent, or even encased in concrete.

“They make us work harder than necessary. If they took his life, why not leave him where we can find him quickly?”

Zepeda says that the CJNG leveraged military-grade tactics to fill the void left by the government’s crackdown on other cartels carried out between 2008 and 2010. In 2009, the Beltran-Leyva Organisation – which had been at war with the Sinaloa Cartel since their 2008 split – was reeling from a series of high-profile arrests and killings.

The death of Ignacio “Nacho” Coronel, a key finance operator for the Sinaloa Cartel, at the hands of the military in 2010 further cleared the way for new criminal players. Oseguera Cervantes was working under Coronel before breaking away to form what would become the CJNG.

“If we could summarise the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, it’s a reinvention of Los Zetas, which took over all the territory that the other cartels defeated by the Mexican government had occupied,” Zepeda added.

This history serves as a warning of what may follow the death of Oseguera Cervantes. Zepeda pointed out that the drug trade is an incredibly dynamic market where “there will always be a group of people willing to take control”.

Flores warns that “decapitating the leadership” is insufficient if power networks, along with the CJNG’s criminal and operational structures, remain intact.

“Without dismantling the power networks, yesterday’s victory will become the cause of new violence tomorrow,” Flores said. “We’ve seen this approach many times before, and we know what it leads to: It solves neither the transnational drug problem nor creates conditions of greater stability for the Mexican population.”

If Warner’s board changes course and deems Paramount’s latest offer superior, Netflix will be able to revise its bid.

Warner Bros Discovery (WBD) says it is reviewing a new takeover offer from Paramount Skydance, but it continues to recommend a competing proposal from Netflix to its shareholders in the meantime.

Warner disclosed on Tuesday that it had received a revised offer from Paramount after a seven-day window to renew talks with the Skydance-owned company elapsed on Monday. Paramount – which is run by David Ellison, son of United States President Donald Trump ally and Oracle cofounder Larry Ellison – confirmed it had submitted the proposal, but neither company provided details about it. The company was widely expected to have raised its offer.

A WBD buyout would reshape Hollywood and the wider media landscape, bringing HBO Max, cult-favourite titles like Harry Potter and, depending on who wins the Netflix vs Paramount tug-of-war, potentially even CNN under a new roof.

Paramount wants to acquire Warner Bros in its entirety, including networks like CNN and Discovery, and went straight to shareholders with an all-cash, $77.9bn hostile offer just days after the Netflix deal was announced in December. Accounting for debt, that bid offered Warner stakeholders $30 per share, amounting to an enterprise value of about $108bn.

Paramount maintained on Tuesday that its tender offer remains on the table while Warner evaluates its latest proposal.

Netflix wants to buy only Warner’s studio and streaming business for $72bn in cash, or about $83bn including debt. Warner’s board has repeatedly backed this deal and on Tuesday maintained that its agreement with Netflix still stands.

Warner shareholders are to vote on the Netflix proposal on March 20.

If Warner’s board changes course and considers Paramount’s latest offer superior, Netflix would have a chance to match or revise its proposal, potentially setting the stage for a new bidding war. It could also choose to walk away.

Further consolidation

Paramount, Warner and Netflix have spent the last couple of months in a heated back and forth over who has the stronger deal. But along the way, lawmakers and entertainment trade groups have sounded the alarm, warning that either buyout of all or parts of Warner’s business would only further consolidate power in an industry already run by just a few major players. Critics said that could result in job losses, less diversity in filmmaking and potentially more headaches for consumers who are facing rising costs of streaming subscriptions as is.

Combined, that raises tremendous antitrust concerns – and a Warner sale could come down to who gets the regulatory greenlight. The US Department of Justice has already initiated reviews, and other countries are expected to do so too.

Both Paramount and Netflix have argued that their proposals are good for consumers and the wider industry. And the companies have taken aim at each other publicly with regulatory arguments.

Paramount has pointed to Netflix’s much larger market value, and it has argued that if the streaming giant acquires Warner, it would only give it more dominance in the subscription video-on-demand space. But Netflix is trying to persuade regulators that it’s up against broader video libraries, particularly Google’s YouTube, America’s most-watched TV distributor.

Paramount’s bid will create a studio bigger than market leader Disney and fuse two major TV operators, which some Democratic senators said would control “almost everything Americans watch on TV”.

It will also hand control of CNN to the conservative-leaning Ellisons, soon after they acquired CBS News and installed as its editor-in-chief Bari Weiss, a right-leaning opinion editor who had no prior TV experience. The network settled for $16m a lawsuit that Trump had filed, accusing CBS’s 60 Minutes programme of editing an interview with Kamala Harris to his 2024 presidential election rival’s advantage. It also appointed Kenneth Weinstein, a former Trump administration official, as ombudsman to investigate allegations of bias.

In December, Ellison visited the White House, media reports said, and told Trump that Paramount would execute “sweeping changes” if it acquired CNN’s parent company.

More recently, Trump, in a Truth Social post on Saturday, demanded that Netflix fire former US National Security Adviser Susan Rice from its board. Rice, a Black woman, had served under former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, both Democrats.

“This is a business deal. It’s not a political deal,” Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos told BBC Radio 4’s flagship Today programme on Monday. “This deal is run by the Department of Justice in the US and regulators throughout Europe and around the world.”

Trump previously made unprecedented suggestions about his involvement in seeing a deal through before walking back those statements and maintaining that regulatory approval will be up to the Justice Department.

The White House is set to impose a 15 percent tariff through Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 after the US Supreme Court ruled against Donald Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.

United States President Donald Trump has ramped up tariff threats following last week’s US Supreme Court decision that ruled that Trump’s sweeping global tariffs, imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, were unlawful.

On Monday, Trump said that any countries that wanted to “play games” after the high court’s ruling would be hit “with a much higher tariff ” in a post on his social media platform Truth Social.

In a separate post on the platform, Trump claimed that he does not need the approval of the US Congress for tariffs.

“As President, I do not have to go back to Congress to get approval of Tariffs . It has already been gotten, in many forms, a long time ago! They were also just reaffirmed by the ridiculous and poorly crafted supreme court decision!” Trump said in the post.

Trump does have some authority to impose other tariffs, but they are much more limited.

Following the court’s 6–3 decision on Friday, the president said he would introduce a 10 percent tariff, raising it to 15 percent by Saturday under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, the maximum limit under the statute that enables the White House to impose tariffs for 150 days.

The statute only requires a presidential declaration and does not require further investigation. Section 122 is only temporary; the tariffs would then expire unless Congress extends them.

Trump’s tariffs are overwhelmingly unpopular. A new Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll found that 64 percent of Americans disapprove of the president’s handling of tariffs.

Looming uncertainty

Experts warn that Trump’s newly imposed tariffs will fuel further economic uncertainty.

“What we do know is that it would continue to require all those parties affected to continue to live in uncertainty and, as many have already pointed out, such uncertainty is not good for our economy and has negative impacts on American consumers,” Max Kulyk, partner and CEO of Chicory Wealth, a private wealth advisory firm, told Al Jazeera.

“It’s impossible to plan. You hear that tariffs are off, and you are considering how to get refunds. Then a few hours later, it’s 10 percent. Then it’s 15 percent the next day…. Not having that stable framework is hurtful for activity, hiring, investment,” Gregory Daco, chief economist at EY-Parthenon, told the Reuters news agency.

Gold, which is considered a safe investment in times of economic uncertainty, surged by 2 percent on Monday, hitting a three-week high as tariff pressures remain unclear.

US markets are also taking a hit. The tech-heavy Nasdaq is down 1.1 percent in midday trading. The S&P 500 is also down by 1 percent, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average slumped by 1.5 percent since the market opened on Monday.

Stalling trade deals

Trump’s erratic approach has also deterred movement on looming trade deals.

On Monday, the European Parliament opted to postpone voting on a trade deal with the US. It is the second time the bloc has pushed back the vote. The first was in protest against Trump’s unsolicited attempts to acquire Greenland.

The assembly had been considering removing several European Union import duties on US goods. Committee chair Bernd Lange said the new temporary US tariff could mean increased levies for some EU exports, and no one knew what would happen after they expire in 150 days. EU lawmakers will reconvene on March 4 to assess if the US has clarified the situation and confirmed its commitment to last year’s deal.

After two years of a grinding war, Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are observing the holy month of Ramadan during an unabating economic catastrophe as Israel continues to impose restrictions on the entry of food and other supplies despite a “ceasefire” reached in October.

For most families, the daily struggle to secure a mere loaf of bread has replaced the traditional festive atmosphere before the war. An analysis by Al Jazeera, based on official data, reveals that skyrocketing prices for basic commodities have made a complete iftar meal to break the daily fast a distant dream for the vast majority of the population.

Skyrocketing costs

During periods when Israel tightened its siege or completely closed the crossings into Gaza, food prices spiked by more than 700 percent. While prices have retreated slightly since the “ceasefire” began in October, they remain significantly higher than pre-war levels.

According to Mohammed Barbakh, director general of policy and planning at the Ministry of Economy in Gaza, official data tracking prices from before the war began on October 7, 2023, to the first days of this Ramadan show staggering increases.

Al Jazeera’s analysis of the ministry’s price data reveals the following hikes:

• Chicken: Prices rose from 14 shekels ($4.49) to 25 shekels ($8.01) per kilogramme (2.2lb), an 80 percent increase.
• Frozen fish: Prices jumped from 8 shekels ($2.56) to 23 shekels ($7.37) per kilo, a 190 percent increase.
• Frozen red meat: Prices rose from 23 shekels ($7.37) to 40 shekels ($12.82) per kilo, a 75 percent difference.
• Eggs: A tray of 30 eggs now costs 35 shekels ($11.22) compared with 13 shekels ($4.17), a 170 percent increase.

Vegetables, a staple of the Palestinian diet, have also seen dramatic surges. Tomatoes have doubled in price while cucumbers have jumped by 300 percent, rising from 3 shekels ($0.96) per kilo to 12 shekels ($3.85). Cheese prices have increased by up to 110 percent, directly impacting the cost of suhoor, the predawn meal before the daily fasting during Ramadan begins.

The cost of a meal

Based on data from the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, Al Jazeera estimated the cost of a basic iftar for a family of six. The meal includes two chickens, rice, salad, appetisers, a soft drink, cooking gas and oil.

The price of the meal has risen to about 150 shekels ($48), up from 79 shekels ($25.32) before the war, an increase of 90 percent.

For suhoor, a simple meal of cheese, hummus, falafel and bread now costs 31.5 shekels ($10.10), compared with 18.6 shekels ($5.96) previously.

The combined daily cost to feed a medium-sized family now stands at 181.5 shekels ($58.17), an 88 percent jump from pre-war figures.

Economic obliteration

These price hikes coincide with a collapse in purchasing power. A United Nations report released in late 2025 indicated that the annual per capita income in Gaza plummeted to $161 (503 shekels) in 2024, down from $1,250 (3,900 shekels) in 2022.

The labour market has essentially vanished. In a statement issued in October, Sami al-Amsi, head of the General Federation of Palestinian Trade Unions, said unemployment stood then at more than 95 percent as workshops, farmland and fishing fleets were destroyed.

“The worker is no longer looking for a job because there is no work at all,” al-Amsi said. “Today, the Palestinian worker is looking for a food parcel to survive.”

Blockade and monopoly

Economic researcher Ahmed Abu Qamar attributed the inflation to Israel’s restrictive entry policies and “coordination fees” imposed on trucks.

“The humanitarian protocol stipulates the entry of 600 trucks daily, yet the Israeli occupation effectively allows only between 200 and 250 trucks,” Abu Qamar told Al Jazeera, noting that the Strip actually requires 1,000 trucks daily to meet minimum demand.

He also highlighted a monopoly system under which only about 10 merchants are authorised to import goods through four Israeli companies, restricting competition and keeping prices artificially high. He called for a return to a free market system and the full opening of crossings to alleviate the burden on a population already crushed by conflict.

US President Donald Trump has announced a 15 percent across-the-board tariff on all imports.

The move comes just a day after he set tariffs at 10 percent, enraged by a Supreme Court ruling that struck down much of his tariff regime.

Governments across the world, including those that already struck tariff deals with the United States, will be analysing the new policy.

What will the implications be for them? And how is the global economy reacting to Trump’s latest decision?

Presenter: Tom McRae

Guests:

Deborah Elms – head of trade policy, Hinrich Foundation

Rebecca Christie – senior fellow, Bruegel think tank

Garima Kapoor – deputy head of research, Elara Securities

At its peak, the BRICS coalition of economies – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – was seen as a serious attempt to move away from the United States dollar and the domination of Western economic institutions like the World Bank, Group of Seven (G7), and International Monetary Fund (IMF).

But BRICS members have different political agendas, and new forces are at play, argues economist Jim O’Neill, a member of Britain’s House of Lords.

O’Neill, who coined the term “BRIC” 25 years ago, tells host Steve Clemons that the US’s economic policies may be the driver of its own decline, coupled with the economic rise of China and India.

President Donald Trump has said he will raise global tariffs on imported goods to 15 percent after the United States Supreme Court struck down his previous trade measures.

The president announced his decision on Saturday, revising an earlier decision to impose a new 10 percent worldwide tariff after the Supreme Court ruling, which triggered immediate concern and responses from governments and markets.

The US top court’s ruling and Trump’s new tariffs have left countries grappling with the legal and economic fallout, raising questions about ongoing agreements, tariff reductions, and the legality of past duties.

Governments are now evaluating how the new levy will affect key industries, investment plans, and trade negotiations, while analysts warn that uncertainty could persist until legal and trade frameworks are clarified.

South Korea

In South Korea, one of the US’s closest allies, the presidential office, Blue House, has released a statement, saying the government will review the trade deal and make decisions in the national interest, casting a question mark over the agreement signed in November last year, which lowered tariffs from 25 to 15 percent in exchange for $350bn in cash and investments from South Korea in the US.

“For major South Korean companies in chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and semiconductors, the Supreme Court ruling has been positive: Even if Trump introduces the new 10 percent tariffs under Section 122, they would still pay a lower rate,” said Jack Barton, an Al Jazeera correspondent in Seoul.

“However, exporters of automobiles, more than half of which go to the US, remain subject to the 25 percent tariff, and steel exports are still hit with 50 percent duties under Section 232, which was not affected by the ruling.”

The South Korean government is expected to move cautiously. Exports account for 85 percent of South Korea’s gross domestic product, with the US as the second-largest market.

“Officials have indicated that rapid changes could jeopardise major agreements, including a recent multibillion-dollar shipbuilding deal with the US and other investments,” said Barton.

“While no definitive policy statement has been made yet, the Blue House has said that the trade deal will be under careful review and changes are likely.”

India

India has faced some of the highest US tariffs under Trump’s previous use of emergency trade powers. The president first imposed a 25 percent levy on Indian imports and later added another 25 percent on the country’s purchases of Russian oil, bringing the total to 50 percent.

Earlier this month, the US and India reached a framework trade deal. Trump said Prime Minister Narendra Modi agreed to stop buying Russian oil and that US tariffs would be lowered to 18 percent for India’s top exports to the US, including clothing, pharmaceuticals, precious stones, and textiles. Meanwhile, India said it will eliminate or reduce tariffs on all US industrial goods and a range of agricultural products.

According to political economist MK Venu, founding editor of Indian publication, The Wire, “Critics have argued New Delhi should have waited for the US Supreme Court decision before finalising the interim trade deal and even trade analysts previously connected with the government have maintained it would have been wiser to wait for the court verdict.”

Venu added that Trump was eager to finalise the trade deal, which includes a commitment to buy $500bn worth of new imports in defence, energy, and artificial intelligence (AI) from the US over the next five years.

While India, he said, welcomed the reduction of tariffs to 18 percent and the removal of penal duties on Russian imports, uncertainty remains over negotiations, as the Supreme Court ruling affects the legal basis of past tariffs.

“The Indian trade delegation is likely to wait for the final outcome of the Supreme Court verdict before proceeding with further negotiations, and countries around the world are expected to follow the court’s ruling rather than rush into trade agreements under legislation deemed unconstitutional,” he said.

China

China has reacted in a muted way to the Supreme Court ruling, with much of the country still on the Lunar New Year break.

Al Jazeera’s Rob McBride, reporting from Beijing, said, “The Chinese embassy in Washington has issued a blanket statement, noting that trade wars benefit nobody, and that the decision is likely to be broadly welcomed in China, which has long been a primary target of Trump’s tariff policies.”

Since last April, he said, China has faced multiple layers of tariffs, including 10 percent on chemicals used in fentanyl production exported to the US and 100 percent on electric vehicles.

Analysts have estimated that the overall tariff level, about 36 percent, could now fall to about 21 percent, providing some relief to an economy already under strain from the COVID-19 pandemic, a prolonged property market crisis, and declining exports.

Shipments from China to the US have reportedly fallen by roughly a fifth over the past year.

“Beijing has sought to offset losses in the US market by strengthening trade ties with Southeast Asian nations and pursuing agreements with the European Union,” McBride said.

“The Supreme Court ruling may also create a more favourable atmosphere ahead of a planned state visit by Trump in early April, when he is expected to meet President Xi Jinping, potentially opening space for a reset in relations between the world’s two largest economies.”

Canada

Canada has welcomed the US Supreme Court’s decision but has pointed out that there are still some challenges ahead.

Regional leaders across the country, including those of British Columbia and Ontario, have signalled that the ruling is a positive step, according to Al Jazeera’s Ian Wood, reporting from Toronto.

However, Minister for Canada-US trade Dominic LeBlanc has said that significant work remains, as Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminium, softwood lumber, and automobiles have remained in place.

Meanwhile, Ontario’s Premier Doug Ford has added that while optimism has grown, tension has persisted over what Donald Trump will do next, Wood said.

Mexico

Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum, said her government would be carefully reviewing the Supreme Court’s decision to assess its scope and the extent to which Mexico might be affected.

“The reality is that despite all we’ve heard over the last year about tariffs or the threat of tariffs, Mexico has actually ended up in quite a privileged, even competitive position, especially when compared to other countries,” said Al Jazeera’s Julia Gliano, reporting from Mexico City.

“We have to remember Mexico is the US’s largest trading partner, and the two countries, along with Canada, share a vast trading agreement that shields most products from the so-called reciprocal tariffs that President Trump announced.

“There were also punitive tariffs related to fentanyl and illegal immigration along the US border, which Mexico had managed to suspend while negotiations continued on those matters. Now the tariffs that Mexico has been subjected to on steel, aluminium, and car parts are not affected by today’s decision.”

So, the government here in Mexico, she said, is now standing by to see what the Trump administration comes up with next as it reels from today’s decision by the Supreme Court.

France

French President Emmanuel Macron hailed “the existence of checks and balances in democracies” after the Supreme Court’s decision, telling reporters at an event in the capital that his country wanted to continue exporting “under the fairest rules possible and not be subject to unilateral decisions”.

The country’s finance minister, Nicolas Forissier, told UK newspaper The Financial Times that the EU has the tools to hit back at the US over its tariff policy, suggesting a more combative approach.

Germany

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said he expected the tariff burden on his country’s economy to be lower after the US Supreme Court ruling, raising the prospect of German companies recouping billions in refunds.

Flagging an upcoming visit to Washington, Merz told Germany’s ARD broadcaster that he would present a “coordinated European position” on the matter, pointing out that tariff policy is determined by the European Union rather than individual member states.

Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil said Europe was strengthening its independence and sovereignty, building new trade relationships worldwide and concluding free trade agreements.

Limits of Trump’s tariff powers

A senior legal scholar told Al Jazeera that the US Supreme Court ruling marks a key moment in the legal battle over Trump’s tariffs, focusing on constitutional limits rather than economics.

Frank Bowman, professor emeritus at the University of Missouri School of Law, told Al Jazeera that the court has for the first time confronted what he called Trump’s broader challenge to the rule of law.

“This is a ruling that is important in several respects. The first, more broadly, is that this is the first time in the last year that the Supreme Court has stepped in and attempted to do something about Donald Trump’s generalised attack on the rule of law in the United States.

“And make no mistake, although tariffs certainly are about economics, what Trump has done over the last year is essentially to defy the law. And the Supreme Court happily decided that they had had enough and that they would say no. So, they’re not ruling on economic policy. They made a decision that the president simply exceeded his constitutional authority.”