Business and Economy

The race for access to Central Asia’s natural resources is intensifying.

United States President Donald Trump has set his sights on the C5 nations, comprised of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan.

He hosted a summit with their leaders at the White House, as Washington aims to get access to the mineral-rich region and reduce its reliance on China for imports of critical minerals.

But the leaders of the C5 face a delicate balancing act to make deals with the US without annoying Moscow or Beijing.

The meeting in Washington came just a month after Russia’s Vladimir Putin attended a summit with the C5.

And earlier in the year, the Chinese president also met C5 leaders, hoping to maintain China’s role in the region.

So, can Washington succeed in a region long dominated by Russia, and where China is making inroads?

Presenter: Nick Clark

Guests:

Zhumabek Sarabekov – Acting Director at the Institute of World Economics and Politics in Kazakhstan

William Courtney – Senior Fellow at the RAND Corporation

Dakota Irvin – a Senior Analyst at PRISM Strategic Intelligence

United States Senate Majority Leader John Thune has promptly swatted down a Democratic offer to reopen the US government and extend expiring healthcare subsidies for a year, calling it a “nonstarter” as the partisan impasse over the shutdown continued into its 38th day.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer made the offer to reopen the government on Friday as Republicans have refused to negotiate on their demands to extend healthcare subsidies. It was a much narrower version of a broad proposal Democrats laid out a month ago to make the health tax credits permanent and reverse Medicaid cuts that Republicans enacted earlier this year.

Schumer offered Republicans simultaneous votes to end the government shutdown and extend the expiring healthcare subsidies, along with a bipartisan committee to address Republican demands for changes to the Affordable Care Act.

“All Republicans have to do is say yes,” Schumer said.

But Republicans quickly said no, and Thune reiterated that they would not trade offers on healthcare until the government is reopened. “That’s what we’re going to negotiate once the government opens up,” Thune said after Schumer made his proposal on the floor.

Thune said he thinks the offer is an indication that Democrats are “feeling the heat”.

“I guess you could characterise that as progress,” he said. “But I just don’t think it gets anywhere close to what we need to do here.”

It was unclear what might happen next. Thune has suggested a weekend Senate session was possible. US President Donald Trump called on the Senate to stay in town “until they have a Deal to end the Democrat Shutdown”.

Despite the impasse, lawmakers in both parties were feeling increased urgency to alleviate the growing crisis at airports, pay government workers and restore delayed food aid to millions of people. Thune pleaded with Democrats as he opened the Senate on Friday to “end these weeks of misery”.

Moderates continue to negotiate

As leaders of the two parties disagreed, a small group of Democrats led by New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen continued to negotiate among themselves and with rank-and-file Republicans on a deal that would end the shutdown.

The group has been discussing for weeks a vote for a group of bills that would pay for parts of government – food aid, veterans programmes and the legislative branch, among other things – and extend funding for everything else until December or January. The three annual spending bills that would likely be included are the product of bipartisan negotiations that have continued through the shutdown.

But the contours of that agreement would only come with the promise of a future healthcare vote, rather than a guarantee that Affordable Care Act subsidies are extended by the end of the year. Many Democrats have said that this is unacceptable.

Still, Republican leaders only need five additional votes to fund the government, and the group involved in the talks has ranged from 10 to 12 Democratic senators.

Republicans eye new package of bills

Trump urged Republicans at a White House breakfast on Wednesday to end the shutdown quickly and scrap the legislative filibuster, which requires 60 Senate votes for most legislation, so that they bypass Democrats altogether and fund the government.

“I am totally in favour of terminating the filibuster, and we would be back to work within 10 minutes after that vote took place,” Trump said on Friday.

Republicans have emphatically rejected Trump’s call, and Thune has instead been eyeing a bipartisan package that mirrors the proposal the moderate Democrats have been sketching out. But it is unclear what Thune, who has refused to negotiate, would promise on healthcare.

The package would replace the House-passed legislation that the Democrats have now rejected 14 times. That bill would only extend government funding until November 21, a date that is rapidly approaching after six weeks of inaction.

A choice for Democrats

A test vote on new legislation could come in the next few days if Thune decides to move forward.

Then Democrats would have a crucial choice to make: Do they keep fighting for a meaningful deal on extending the subsidies that expire in January, while prolonging the pain of the shutdown? Or do they vote to reopen the government and hope for the best as Republicans promise an eventual healthcare vote, but not a guaranteed outcome?

After a caucus meeting on Thursday, most Democrats suggested they would continue to hold out for Trump and Republican leaders to agree to negotiations.

“That’s what leaders do,” said Senator Ben Ray Lujan, Democrat from New Mexico. “You have the gavel, you have the majority, you have to bring people together.”

Hawaii Democrat Senator Brian Schatz said Democrats are “obviously not unanimous”, but “without something on healthcare, the vote is very unlikely to succeed”.

Johnson delivers setback to bipartisan talks

Democrats are facing pressure from unions eager for the shutdown to end and from allied groups that want them to hold firm. Many Democrats have argued that the wins for Democrats on Election Day show voters want them to continue the fight until Republicans yield and agree to extend the health tax credits.

A vote on the healthcare subsidies “has got to mean something”, said Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. “That means a commitment by the speaker of the House, that he will support the legislation, that the president will sign.”

But Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, made clear he will not make any commitments. “I’m not promising anybody anything,” Johnson said on Thursday when asked if he could promise a vote on a healthcare bill.

Shareholders approved the pay package with as much as 75 percent support on Thursday.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has scored a resounding victory as shareholders have approved a pay package of as much as $878bn over the next decade, endorsing his vision of morphing the electric vehicle (EV) maker into an AI and robotics juggernaut.

Shares of Tesla rose more than 3 percent in after-hours trading after the shareholders voted on Thursday. The proposal was approved with more than 75 percent support.

Musk took to the stage in Austin, Texas, along with dancing robots. “What we are about to embark upon is not merely a new chapter of the future of Tesla, but a whole new book,” he said. “This really is going to be quite the story.”

He added: “Other shareholder meetings are like snooze fests, but ours are bangers. I mean, look at this. This is sick.”

Shareholders also re-elected three directors on Tesla’s board and voted in favour of a replacement pay plan for Musk’s services because a legal challenge has held up a previous package.

The vote, analysts have said, is a positive for Tesla’s stock, whose valuation hangs on Musk’s vision of making vehicles drive themselves, expanding robotaxis across the United States and selling humanoid robots, even though his far-right political rhetoric has hurt the Tesla brand this year.

A win for Musk was widely expected as the billionaire was allowed to exercise the full voting rights of his roughly 15 percent stake after the carmaker moved to Texas from Delaware, where a legal challenge has held up a previous pay rise.

The approval comes even after opposition from some major investors, including Norway’s sovereign wealth fund.

Tesla’s board had said Musk could quit if the pay package was not approved.

The vote will also allay investor concerns that Musk’s focus has been diluted with his work in politics as well as in running his other companies, including rocket maker SpaceX and artificial intelligence startup xAI.

The board and many investors who lent their endorsement have said the nearly $1 trillion package benefits shareholders in the longer run, as Musk must ensure Tesla achieves a series of milestones to get paid.

Goals for Musk over the next decade include the company delivering 20 million vehicles, having one million robotaxis in operation, selling one million robots and earning as much as $400bn in core profit. But in order for him to get paid, Tesla’s stock value has to rise in tandem, first to $2 trillion from the current $1.5 trillion, and all the way to $8.5 trillion.

Under the new plan, Musk could earn as much as $878bn in Tesla stock over 10 years. Musk would be given as much as $1 trillion in stock but would have to make some payments back to Tesla.

The DOJ argued that the federal judge did not have the authority to make the decision.

A United States judge in Texas has approved the Department of Justice’s request to dismiss a criminal case against Boeing despite his objections to the decision.

On Thursday, Judge Reed O’Connor of the US District Court in Fort Worth dismissed the case, which will allow the plane maker to avoid prosecution over charges related to two deadly 737 MAX crashes: the 2018 Lion Air crash in Indonesia and the 2019 Ethiopian Airlines crash.

O’Connor said he disagreed with the Justice Department’s argument that ending the case served the public interest, noting that he lacked the authority to overrule it.

The government argued Boeing has improved, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is providing enhanced oversight. Boeing and the government argued O’Connor had no choice but to dismiss the case.

He said the deal with the aerospace giant “fails to secure the necessary accountability to ensure the safety of the flying public”.

In September, O’Connor held a three-hour hearing to consider objections to the deal, questioning the government’s decision to drop a requirement that Boeing face oversight from an independent monitor for three years and instead hire a compliance consultant.

O’Connor said the government’s position is “Boeing committed crimes sufficient to justify prosecution, failed to remedy its fraudulent behaviour on its own during the [deferred prosecution agreement], which justified a guilty plea and the imposition of an independent monitor, but now Boeing will remedy that dangerous culture by retaining a consultant of its own choosing”.

The DOJ first criminally charged Boeing for the crashes in January 2021, but also agreed to deferred prosecution in the case.

The plane maker was charged with one count of conspiracy to defraud the US. Courts found that Boeing deceived the FAA about what is called the manoeuvring characteristics augmentation system, which affects flight control systems on the aircraft.

“Boeing’s employees chose the path of profit over candor by concealing material information from the FAA concerning the operation of its 737 Max airplane and engaging in an effort to cover up their deception,” acting Assistant Attorney General David P Burns of the DOJ’s criminal division said in a statement at the time.

O’Connor said in 2023 that “Boeing’s crime may properly be considered the deadliest corporate crime in US history”.

Under the non-prosecution deal, Boeing agreed to pay an additional $444.5m into a crash victims’ fund to be divided evenly per victim of the two fatal 737 MAX crashes, on top of a new $243.6m fine and more than $455m to strengthen the company’s compliance, safety, and quality programmes.

On Wall Street, Boeing’s stock was up by 0.2 percent as of 11am in New York (16:00 GMT).

The US Supreme Court has questioned US President Donald Trump’s authority to use emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs on trading partners around the world.

In a closely watched hearing on Wednesday in Washington, DC, conservative and liberal Supreme Court judges appeared sceptical about Trump’s tariff policy, which has already had ramifications for US carmakers, airlines and consumer goods importers.

The US president had earlier claimed that his trade tariffs – which have been central to his foreign policy since he returned to power earlier this year – will not affect US businesses, workers and consumers.

But a legal challenge by a number of small American businesses, including toy firms and wine importers, filed earlier this year, has led to lower courts in the country ruling that Trump’s tariffs are illegal.

In May, the Court of International Trade, based in New York, said Trump did not have the authority to impose tariffs and “the US Constitution grants Congress exclusive authority to regulate commerce”. That decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC, in August.

Now, the Supreme Court, the country’s top court, is hearing the issue. Last week, the small business leaders, who are being represented by Indian-American lawyer Neal Katyal, told the Court that Trump’s import levies were severely harming their businesses and that many have been forced to lay off workers and cut prices as a result.

In a post on his Truth Social Platform on Sunday, Trump described the Supreme Court case as “one of the most important in the History of the Country”.

“If a President is not allowed to use Tariffs, we will be at a major disadvantage against all other Countries throughout the World,” he added.

What happened in Wednesday’s Supreme Court hearing, and what could happen if the court rules against Trump’s tariffs?

Here’s what we know:

What was discussed at the Supreme Court on Wednesday?

During a hearing which lasted for nearly three hours, the Trump administration’s lawyer, Solicitor General D John Sauer, argued that the president’s tariff policy is legal under a 1977 national law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

According to US government documents, IEEPA gives a US president an array of economic powers, including to regulate trade, in order “to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat”.

Trump invoked IEEPA in February to levy a new 25 percent tax on imports from Canada and Mexico, as well as a 10 percent levy on Chinese goods, on the basis that these countries were facilitating the flow of illegal drugs such as fentanyl into the US, and that this constituted a national emergency. He later paused the tariffs on Canada and Mexico, but increased China’s to 20 percent. This was restored to 10 percent after Trump met Chinese President Xi Jinping last month.

In April, when he imposed reciprocal tariffs on imports from a wide array of countries around the world, he said those levies were also in line with IEEPA since the US was running a trade deficit that posed an “extraordinary and unusual threat” to the nation.

Sauer argued that Trump had imposed the tariffs using IEEPA since “our exploding trade deficits have brought us to the brink of an economic and national security catastrophe”.

He also told the court that the levies are “regulatory tariffs. They are not revenue-raising tariffs”.

But Neal Katyal, the lawyer for the small businesses that have brought the case, countered this. “Tariffs are taxes,” Katyal said. “They take dollars from Americans’ pockets and deposit them in the US Treasury. Our founders gave that taxing power to Congress alone.”

What did the judges say about tariffs?

The judges raised another sticking point: Also, under the US Constitution, only Congress has the power to regulate tariffs. Justice John Roberts noted that “the [IEEPA] statute doesn’t use the word tariff.”

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan also told Sauer, “It has a lot of actions that can be taken under this statute. It just doesn’t have the one you want.”

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was appointed by Trump during his first term as president, asked Sauer, “Is it your contention that every country needed to be tariffed because of threats to the defence and industrial base?

“I mean, Spain, France? I could see it with some countries, but explain to me why as many countries needed to be subject to the reciprocal tariff policy,” Coney Barrett said.

Sauer replied that “there’s this sort of lack of reciprocity, this asymmetric treatment of our trade, with respect to foreign countries that does run across the board,” and reiterated the Trump administration’s power to use IEEPA.

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor took issue with the notion that the tariffs are not taxes, as asserted by Trump’s team. She said, “You want to say that tariffs are not taxes, but that’s exactly what they are.”

According to recent data released by the US Customs and Border Protection agency, as of the end of August, IEEPA tariffs had generated $89bn in revenues to the US Treasury.

During the court’s arguments on Wednesday, Justice Roberts also suggested that the court may have to invoke the “major questions” doctrine in this case after telling Sauer that the president’s tariffs are “the imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always been the core power of Congress”.

The “major questions” doctrine checks a US executive agency’s power to impose a policy without Congress’s clear directive. The Supreme Court previously used this to block former President Joe Biden’s policies, including his student loan forgiveness plan.

Sauer argued that the “major questions” doctrine should not apply in this context since it would also affect the president’s power in foreign affairs.

Why is this case the ultimate test of Trump’s tariff policy?

The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority and generally takes several months to make a decision. While it remains unclear when the court will make a decision on this case, according to analysts, the fact that this case was launched against Trump at all is significant.

In a recent report published by Max Yoeli, senior research fellow on the US and Americas Programme at UK-based think tank Chatham House, said, “The Supreme Court’s outcome will shape Trump’s presidency – and those that follow – across executive authority, global trade, and domestic fiscal and economic concerns.”

“It is likewise a salient moment for the Supreme Court, which has empowered Trump and showed little appetite to constrain him,” he added.

Penny Nass, acting senior vice president at the German Marshall Fund’s Washington DC office, told Al Jazeera that the verdict will be viewed by many as a test of Trump’s powers.

“A first impact will be the most direct judicial restraint at the highest level on Presidential power. After a year testing the limits of his power, President Trump will start to see some of constraints on his power,” she said.

According to international trade lawyer Shantanu Singh, who is based in India, the global implications of this case could also be huge.

“One objective of these tariffs was to use them as leverage to get trade partners to do deals with the US. Some countries have concluded trade deals, including to address the IEEPA tariffs,” he told Al Jazeera.

After the imposition of US reciprocal tariffs in April and again in August, several countries and economic blocs, including the EU, UK, Japan, Cambodia and Indonesia, have struck trade deals with the US to reduce tariffs.

But those countries were forced to make concessions to get those deals done. EU countries, for example, had to agree to buy $750bn of US energy and reduce steel tariffs through quotas.

Singh pointed out that an “adverse Supreme Court ruling could bring into doubt the perceived benefit for concluding deals with the US”.

“Further, trade partners who are currently negotiating with the US will have to also adjust their negotiating objectives in light of the ruling and how the administration reacts to it,” he added.

Other countries including India and China are currently actively engaged in trade talks with the US. Trade talks with Canada were terminated by Trump in late October over what Trump described as a “fraudulent” advertisement featuring former President Ronald Reagan speaking negatively about trade tariffs, which was being aired in Canada.

What happens if the judges rule against Trump?

Following Wednesday’s Supreme Court Hearing, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who was at the court with Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, told Fox News that he was “very optimistic” that the outcome of the case would be in the government’s favour.

“The solicitor general made a very powerful case for the need for the president to have the power,” he said and refused to discuss the Trump administration’s plan if the court ruled against the tariff policy.

However, Singh said if the Supreme Court does find these tariffs illegal, one immediate concern will be how tariffs collected so far will be refunded to businesses, if at all.

“Given the importance that the current US administration places on tariffs as a policy tool, we can expect that it would quickly identify other legal authorities and work to reinstate the tariffs,” he said.

Nass added: “The President has many other tariff powers, and will likely quickly recalibrate to maintain his deal-making efforts with partners,” she said, adding that there would still be very complicated work for importers on what to do with the tariffs already collected in 2025 under IEEPA.

During Wednesday’s hearing, Justice Coney Barrett asked Katyal, the lawyer for the small businesses contesting Trump’s tariffs, whether this process of paying money back would be “a complete mess”.

Katyal said the businesses he’s representing should be given a refund, but added that it is “very complicated”.

“So, a mess,” Coney Barrett stated.

“It’s difficult, absolutely, we don’t deny that,” Katyal said in response.

In an interview with US broadcaster CNN in September, trade lawyers said the court could decide who gets the refunds. Ted Murphy, an international trade lawyer at Sidley Austin, told CNN that the US government “could also try to get the court to approve an administrative refund process, where importers have to affirmatively request a refund”.

What tariffs has Trump imposed so far, and what has their effect been?

Trump has imposed tariffs of varying rates on imports from almost every country in the world, arguing that these levies will enrich the US and protect the domestic US market. The tariff rates range from as high as 50 percent on India and Syria to as low as 10 percent on the UK.

The US president has also imposed a 50 percent tariff on all copper imports, 50 percent on steel and aluminium imports from every country except the UK, 100 percent on patented drugs, 25 percent levies on cars and car parts manufactured abroad, and 25 percent on heavy-duty trucks.

According to the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model, which analyses the US Treasury’s data, tariffs have brought in $223.9bn as of October 31. This is $142.2bn more than the same time last year.

In early July, Treasury Secretary Bessent said revenues from these tariffs could grow to $300bn by the end of 2025.

But in an August 7 report, the Budget Lab at Yale University estimated that “all 2025 US tariffs plus foreign retaliation lower real US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth by -0.5pp [percentage points] each over calendar years 2025 and 2026”.

Meanwhile, according to a Reuters news agency tracker, which follows how US companies are responding to Trump’s tariff threats, the first-quarter earnings season saw carmakers, airlines and consumer goods importers take the worst hit from tariff threats. Levies on aluminium and electronics, such as semiconductors, also led to increased costs.

Reuters reported that as tariffs hit factory orders, big manufacturing companies around the world are also struggling.

In its latest World Economic Outlook report released last month, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) said the effect of Trump’s tariffs on the global economy had been less extreme.

“To date, more protectionist trade measures have had a limited impact on economic activity and prices,” it said.

However, the IMF warned that the current resilience of the global economy may not last.

“Looking past apparent resilience resulting from trade-related distortions in some of the incoming data and whipsawing growth forecasts from wild swings in trade policies, the outlook for the global economy continues to point to dim prospects, both in the short and the long term,” it said.

The agency made the announcement as it confronts staffing shortages caused by air traffic controllers who are working unpaid.

The United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will reduce air traffic by 10 percent across 40 “high-volume” markets beginning Friday morning to maintain safety during the ongoing government shutdown, it has said.

The agency made the announcement on Wednesday as it confronts staffing shortages caused by air traffic controllers, who are working unpaid, with some calling out of work during the shutdown, resulting in delays across the country.

FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford said the agency is not going to wait for a problem to act, saying the shutdown is causing staffing pressures and “we can’t ignore it”.

Bedford and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said they will meet later Wednesday with airline leaders to figure out how to safely implement the reduction.

Widespread delays

The shutdown, now in its 36th day, has forced 13,000 air traffic controllers and 50,000 Transportation Security Administration officers to work without pay. This has worsened staff shortages, caused widespread flight delays and extended lines at airport security screening.

The move is aimed at taking pressure off air traffic controllers. The FAA also warned that it could add more flight restrictions after Friday if further air traffic issues emerge.

Duffy had warned on Tuesday that if the federal government shutdown continued another week, it could lead to “mass chaos” and force him to close some of the national airspace to air traffic, a drastic move that could upend American aviation.

Airlines have repeatedly urged an end to the shutdown, citing aviation safety risks.

Shares of major airlines, including United Airlines and American Airlines, were down about 1 percent in extended trading.

An airline industry group estimated that more than 3.2 million passengers have been affected by flight delays or cancellations due to rising air traffic controller absences since the shutdown began on October 1. Airlines have been raising concerns with lawmakers about the impact on operations.

Airlines said the shutdown has not significantly affected their business, but have warned bookings could drop if it drags on. More than 2,100 flights were delayed on Wednesday.

On Tuesday, FAA’s Bedford said that 20 percent to 40 percent of controllers at the agency’s 30 largest airports were failing to show up for work.

The federal government has mostly closed as Republicans and Democrats are locked in a standoff in Congress over a funding bill. Democrats have insisted they would not approve a plan that does not extend health insurance subsidies, while Republicans have rejected that.

There have already been numerous flight delays as the FAA slows down or stops traffic when it is short of controllers.

United States Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has said that there could be chaos in the skies next week if the government shutdown drags on and air traffic controllers miss a second paycheck.

Duffy made his comments on Tuesday as the US government shutdown dragged into its 35th day, matching the shutdown in US President Donald Trump’s first term as president and which was the longest at the time.

There have already been numerous delays at airports across the country — sometimes hours long — because the Federal Aviation Administration slows down or stops traffic temporarily anytime it is short on controllers. Last weekend saw some of the worst staff shortages, and on Sunday, flights at Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey were delayed for several hours.

Duffy and the head of the air traffic controllers union have both warned that the situation will only get worse the longer the shutdown continues and the financial pressure continues to grow on people who are forced to work without pay. FAA employees already missed one paycheck on October 28. Their next payday is scheduled for next Tuesday.

“Many of the controllers said, ‘A lot of us can navigate missing one paycheck. Not everybody, but a lot of us can. None of us can manage missing two paychecks,’” Duffy said. “So if you bring us to a week from today, Democrats, you will see mass chaos. You will see mass flight delays. You’ll see mass cancellations, and you may see us close certain parts of the airspace, because we just cannot manage it, because we don’t have air traffic controllers.”

Most of the flight disruptions so far during the shutdown have been isolated and temporary. But if delays become more widespread and start to ripple throughout the system, the pressure will mount on US Congress to reach an agreement to end the shutdown.

Normally, airlines strive to have at least 80 percent of their flights depart and arrive within 15 minutes of when they are scheduled. Aviation analytics firm Cirium said that since the shutdown began on October 1, the total number of delays overall has not fallen significantly below that goal because most of the disruptions so far have been no worse than what happens when a major thunderstorm moves across an airport.

But on Sunday, only about 56 percent of Newark’s departures were on time, and the Orlando airport reported that only about 70 percent of its flights were on time, according to Cirium.

As of midday Tuesday, there have been 1,932 flight delays reported across the US, according to www.FlightAware.com. That is lower than what is typical, although the FAA did say that flights in Phoenix were being delayed on Tuesday morning because of staffing shortages. Strong winds are also causing delays at the Newark and LaGuardia airports on Tuesday.

Starbucks has announced it will sell the majority stake in its Chinese business for $4bn to a Hong Kong-based private equity firm after years of losing market share to local competitors in China.

Starbucks announced the sale on Monday, which will see the firm Boyu Capital take a 60 percent stake in its Chinese retail operations through a joint venture.

Boyu Capital has offices in Shanghai, Beijing and Singapore, and its cofounders include Alvin Jiang, the grandson of former Chinese President Jiang Zemin, according to the Reuters news agency.

The US coffee giant will retain a 40 percent interest in its China operations while maintaining its ownership of the company’s brand and intellectual property, the company said.

The deal marks a “new chapter” in Starbucks’s 26-year-long history in China, the company said in a statement.

It will also give Starbucks a much-needed injection of funding and logistical support as it tries to expand its business deeper into China, according to Jason Yu, the Shanghai-based managing director of CTR Market Research.

Starbucks has 8,000 locations across China, but it aspires to open as many as 20,000 through its joint venture, the company said in a statement.

“Starbucks used to be a pioneer in coffee in China, where it was probably the first coffee chain in many cities, but this is no longer the case as the local competition already outpaced Starbucks in their expansion,” Yu told Al Jazeera.

Top competitors include homegrown Luckin Coffee, which has more than 26,000 locations worldwide, mostly in China.

Starbucks has historically been concentrated in first- and second-tier cities like Shanghai, Beijing and Shenzhen while Luckin has expanded into much smaller cities.

Luckin has also built a reputation around offering customers much cheaper drinks than Starbucks through its loyalty programme and in-app discounts.

A small Americano coffee at Starbucks costs 30 yuan ($4.21), but at Luckin, the same drink retails on average for about 10 yuan ($1.40), according to Yu.

Olivia Plotnick, founder of the Shanghai-based social marketing company Wai Social, told Al Jazeera that Starbucks has been unable to keep up with competitive pricing and consumer preferences.

“Between domestic players such as Luckin and later Cotti Coffee undercutting Starbucks on price, footprint and flavour fuelled by tech, wider beverage competition from the rise of milk tea brands and delivery platform wars, Starbucks have lost their once very competitive edge,” Plotnick said. By “delivery platform wars”, Plotnick referred to the cutthroat competition between apps for delivery services that drives down prices of goods like coffee.

Starbucks’s joint venture with Boyu Capital will offer the company more capital for investment but also help with logistics, infrastructure and managing commercial property as it opens more storefronts in regional cities, Yu said.

The company is following a familiar playbook used by other international brands in China, he said.

In 2016, after a major food safety scandal, KFC and Pizza Hut owner Yum Brands sold a stake in their China business to the China-based Primavera Capital and an affiliate of the e-commerce giant Alibaba Group, according to Reuters. The China business was later spun off into an independent entity.

In 2017, McDonald’s sold off a majority stake in its China, Hong Kong and Macau businesses to the Chinese state-backed conglomerate CITIC and the private equity group Carlyle Capital although it later bought back some of its business, according to CNBC.

After the deal with CITIC, McDonald’s doubled its outlets in China to 5,500 as of late 2023, CNBC said, and aims to open 10,000 restaurants by 2028.

The announcement comes less than week after Amazon laid off 14,000 people.

OpenAI has signed a new deal valued at $38bn with Amazon that will allow the artificial intelligence giant to run AI workloads across Amazon Web Services (AWS) cloud infrastructure.

The seven-year deal announced on Monday is the first big AI push for the e-commerce giant after a restructuring last week.

The new deal will give the ChatGPT maker access to thousands of Nvidia graphics processors to train and run its artificial intelligence models.

Experts say this does not mean that it will allow OpenAI to train its model on websites hosted by AWS – which includes the websites of The New York Times, Reddit and United Airlines.

“Running OpenAI training inside AWS doesn’t change their ability to scrape content from AWS-hosted websites [which they could already do for anything publicly readable]. This is strictly speaking about the economics of rent vs buy for GPU [graphics processing unit] capacity,” Joshua McKenty, CEO of the AI detection company PolyguardAI, told Al Jazeera.

The deal is also a major vote of confidence for the e-commerce giant’s cloud unit, AWS, which some investors feared had fallen behind rivals Microsoft and Google in the artificial intelligence (AI) race. Those fears were somewhat eased by the strong growth the business reported in the September quarter.

OpenAI will begin using AWS immediately, with all planned capacity set to come online by the end of 2026 and room to expand further in 2027 and beyond.

Amazon plans to roll out hundreds of thousands of chips, including Nvidia’s GB200 and GB300 AI accelerators, in data clusters built to power ChatGPT’s responses and train OpenAI’s next wave of models, the companies said.

Amazon already offers OpenAI models on Amazon Bedrock, which offers multiple AI models for businesses using AWS.

OpenAI’s sweeping restructuring last week moved it further away from its non-profit roots and also removed Microsoft’s first right to refusal to supply services in the new arrangement.

Image hurdles

Amazon’s announcement about an investment in AI comes only days after the company laid off 14,000 people despite CEO Andy Jassy’s comment in an earnings call on Thursday saying the layoffs were not driven by AI.

“The announcement that we made a few days ago was not really financially driven, and it’s not even really AI-driven, not right now at least,” Jassy said.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has said the startup is committed to spending $1.4 trillion to develop 30 gigawatts of computing resources – enough to roughly power 25 million United States homes.

“Scaling frontier AI requires massive, reliable compute,” said Altman. “Our partnership with AWS strengthens the broad compute ecosystem that will power this next era and bring advanced AI to everyone.”

This comes amid growing concerns about the sheer amount of energy demand that AI data centres need to operate. The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory estimates that AI data centres will use up to 12 percent of US electricity by 2028.

An AP/NORC poll from October found that 41 percent of Americans are extremely concerned about AI’s impact on the environment, while another 30 percent say they are somewhat concerned as the industry increases its data centre footprint around the US.

Signs of a bubble

Surging valuations of AI companies and their massive spending commitments, which total more than $1 trillion for OpenAI, have raised fears that the AI boom may be turning into a bubble.

OpenAI has already tapped Alphabet’s Google to supply it with cloud services, as Reuters reported in June. It also reportedly struck a deal to buy $300bn in computing power for about five years.

While OpenAI’s relationship with Microsoft, which the two forged in 2019, has helped push Microsoft to the top spot among its Big Tech peers in the AI race, both companies have been making moves recently to reduce reliance on each other.

Neither OpenAI nor Amazon were immediately available for comment.

On Wall Street, Amazon’s stock is surging on the news of the new deal. As of 11:15am in New York (16:15 GMT), it is up by 4.7 percent.

Canadian PM says anti-tariff ad featuring Ronald Reagan ‘offended’ Trump, who has since cut off trade talks with Canada.

Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney says he apologised to Donald Trump over an anti-tariff advertisement that has drawn the United States president’s ire and disrupted trade talks between the two countries.

During a news conference in South Korea at the end of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit on Saturday, Carney stressed that he is responsible for negotiating Canada’s ties with its largest trading partner.

“I did apologise to the president. The president was offended,” the prime minister said of the advertisement, which was produced by the Canadian province of Ontario.

“I’m the one who’s responsible, in my role as prime minister, for our relationship with the president of the United States, and the federal government is responsible for the foreign relationship with the US government,” Carney added.

“So, things happen – we take the good with the bad – and I apologised.”

The US-Canada relationship has deteriorated over the past year amid Trump’s global tariffs push, which saw him impose steep duties on his country’s northern neighbour.

Ontario’s commercial, which featured a 1980s speech by former US President Ronald Reagan in which Reagan said tariffs can lead to “fierce trade wars” and unemployment, worsened that already tense situation.

The Trump administration suspended trade talks with Canada over the advertisement, which Washington has claimed misrepresented Reagan’s views and sought to unfairly influence a looming US Supreme Court decision on Trump’s tariff policy.

Last weekend, the US government also announced an additional 10 percent levy on Canadian goods after the commercial was not immediately pulled from broadcasts in the US.

On Friday, Trump told reporters that he did not plan to resume trade negotiations with Canada despite getting an apology from Carney.

“I have a very good relationship, I like him a lot – but you know, what they did was wrong,” the US president said.

“He [Carney] was very nice, he apologised for what they did with the commercial because it was a false commercial. It was the exact opposite; Ronald Reagan loved tariffs and they tried to make it look the other way.”

The Ontario commercial used real excerpts of Reagan’s speech, but the statements were presented in a different order than how they were originally delivered.

The US and Canada, which share the world’s longest land border, traded $761.8bn worth of goods last year, according to the Office of the US Trade Representative.

Relations nosedived in 2018 after Canada arrested a senior Huawei executive and have remained rocky ever since.

The leaders of China and Canada have taken a step towards mending the long-fractured ties between their countries with a meeting in South Korea during the Asia-Pacific Economic Summit.

Chinese President Xi Jinping and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney met on Friday and called for improving ties in a pragmatic and constructive manner, according to both sides.

“The leaders agreed that their meeting marked a turning point in the bilateral relationship,” a Canadian statement said.

Xi was quoted as saying that relations are showing signs of recovery, thanks to the joint efforts of both sides.

“We are willing to work together with Canada to take this meeting as an opportunity to promote the return of bilateral relations to a healthy, stable and sustainable track as soon as possible,” Xi said, according to an official report distributed by China’s state media.

Carney, who became prime minister in March, accepted an invitation from Xi to visit China, the Canadian statement said, without specifying any date.

Carney also later told reporters he was “very pleased” with the outcome.

“We now have a turning point in the relationship, a turning point that creates opportunities for Canadian families, for Canadian businesses and Canadian workers, and also creates a path to address current issues,” he said.

“The meeting signals a change in tone and an openness to relations at the highest levels, but this is not a return to strategic partnership,” said Vina Nadjibulla, vice president of the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada. “Canada needs to proceed with caution because there’s nothing to suggest the Chinese Communist Party’s actions have changed since the prime minister named China as a foreign security threat.”

She said Carney should keep talking with Chinese leaders but stay mindful of China’s threats to Canada’s security interests, including its efforts to play a greater role in Arctic affairs.

Shaky relations

Relations took a nosedive in late 2018 after Canadian authorities arrested a senior executive of Chinese tech giant Huawei as part of its extradition agreement with the United States. China then arrested two Canadian citizens and charged them with espionage.

Ties did not improve much even after the 2021 release of the two Canadians, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, and the Chinese executive, Meng Wanzhou, who is the daughter of Huawei’s founder.

More recently, relations have been shaken by Canada’s decision to levy a 100 percent tariff on electric vehicles (EVs) from China in 2024 and a 25 percent tariff on steel and aluminium. China retaliated with its own steep tariffs on canola, seafood and pork, and has offered to remove some of those import taxes if Canada drops the EV tariff.

Canada made the move last in tandem with the US.

The Canadian statement said that both leaders directed their officials to move quickly to resolve trade issues and irritants and discussed solutions for specific products such as EVs, canola and seafood.

Xi called for expanding “pragmatic” cooperation in areas such as the economy, trade and energy. Both Canada and China have been hit by tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump.

The attempt at rapprochement comes as Carney looks to diversify Canada’s trade away from the US and as Trump says he plans to raise tariffs on imports of Canadian goods by an extra 10 percent. Canada’s free trade agreement with the US is up for review.

Earlier on Friday, Carney told a business event that the world of rules-based liberalised trade and investment had passed, adding that Canada aimed to double its non-US exports over the next decade.

Nadjibulla said China should not be viewed as the solution to Canada’s issues with the US, however.

“We should not diversify away from the US and go deeper into China,” she said. “Canada’s overdependence on both the US and China has been shown to be a vulnerability we cannot afford.”

Advocates say new rules let Education Department to politically punish groups working on immigration, transgender care.

The United States Department of Education has finalised new rules that could bar nonprofits deemed to have undertaken work with a “substantial illegal purpose” from a special student loan forgiveness programme.

Those rules, finalised on Thursday, appear to single out certain organisations that do work in areas that President Donald Trump politically opposes, including immigration advocacy and transgender rights.

Under the new rules, set to take effect in July 2026, the education secretary has the power to exclude groups if they engage in activities like the “chemical castration” of children, using a politically charged term for gender-affirming healthcare, including puberty-delaying medication.

It also allows the education secretary to bar groups accused of supporting undocumented immigration or “terrorist” organisations.

The Trump administration has said its decisions “will not be made based on the political views or policy preferences of the organization”.

But advocates fear the move is the administration’s latest effort to target left-leaning and liberal organisations.

Trump has already threatened to crack down on several liberal nonprofits, which the White House has broadly accused of being part of “domestic terror networks”.

Thursday’s rules concern the Public Service Loan Forgiveness programme, created by an act of Congress in 2007.

In an effort to direct more graduates into public service jobs, the programme promises to cancel federal student loans for government employees and many nonprofit workers after they have made 10 years of payments.

Workers in the public sector, including teachers, medical professionals, firefighters, social service professionals and lawyers, are among those who can benefit.

In a statement, the Trump administration defended the updated rules, calling them a necessary bulwark to protect taxpayer funds.

The programme “was meant to support Americans who dedicate their careers to public service – not to subsidize organizations that violate the law, whether by harboring illegal immigrants or performing prohibited medical procedures that attempt to transition children away from their biological sex”, said Education Undersecretary Nicholas Kent.

Critics, however, have denounced the administration for using false claims of “terrorism” or criminal behaviour to silence opposing views and restrict civil liberties.

Michael Lukens, executive director of the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, said the new rules weaponised loan forgiveness.

Lukens explained that many of the lawyers, social workers and paralegals who work at his organisation handle cases to stop deportations and other immigration litigation.

They count on public service loan forgiveness to take jobs that pay significantly less than the private sector, he said.

“All of a sudden, that’s going away,” Lukens told The Associated Press news agency. “The younger generation, I hope, will be able to wait this out for the next couple of years to see if it gets better, but if it doesn’t, we’re going to see a lot of people leave the field to go and work in a for-profit space.”

Organisations have raised concerns over the education secretary’s broad power to determine if a group should be barred. Short of a legal finding, the secretary can decide based on a “preponderance of the evidence” whether an employer is in violation.

The National Council of Nonprofits was among the associations criticising the change.

It said the rules would allow future administrations from any political party to change eligibility rules “based on their own priorities or ideology”.

New York City, United States – Sitting in a room of hundreds of Jewish New Yorkers, Zohran Mamdani received cheers and applause at the Erev Rosh Hashanah service of progressive Brooklyn synagogue Kolot Chayeinu on a Monday evening last month.

This was one of the Democratic mayoral nominee’s recent appearances at synagogues and events over the Jewish High Holy Days, and a visible step towards navigating a politically charged line: increasingly engaging the largest concentration of Jewish people in any metropolitan area in the United States, and holding firmly anti-Zionist views before the general election on November 4.

Historically, Mamdani has held a strong stance on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, even founding a chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine during his undergraduate days at Bowdoin College. A little more than a decade later, as Mamdani’s name began to gain recognition, his longstanding unapologetically pro-Palestinian stance became a rallying force behind his platform as well as a point of criticism from opponents.

Mamdani received endorsements and canvassing support from progressive Jewish organisations like Bend the Arc, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action and Jews for Racial and Economic Justice (JFREJ), organisations that have each confronted Israel’s role in the war in Gaza through statements on their websites.

Simultaneously, he has sustained attacks from far-right activists, Jewish Democrats on Capitol Hill and Zionist activist groups for his firm support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and refusal to call Israel a Jewish state.

But despite mixed responses, the polls are clear: Mamdani is leading among Jewish voters overall in a multiway race.

‘No group is a monolith’

In July, a publicly released research poll by Zenith Research found that Mamdani led with a 17-point lead among Jews and by Jewish subgroups. In the scenario of Mayor Eric Adams dropping from the race, Mamdani still dominated, 43-33.

“Me being Jewish, I understand that there are many cleavages within the Jewish community,” said Adam Carlson, founding partner of Zenith Research. “As a pollster, one of my big things is that no group is a monolith, and if you have a large enough sample size, you can break it out and glean some nuances … what we found was a better-than-expected result for Mamdani among Jewish voters in New York City.”

Beth Miller, political director of the political advocacy organisation Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action and a member of Kolot Chayeinu, shared what it was like to witness a fraction of this support at the Erev Rosh Hashanah that Mamdani attended last month.

“He was basically swarmed at the end because people were so excited that he was there,” said Miller. “And that’s not because he’s a celebrity, it’s because people are excited about what we can all build together if he becomes mayor.”

JVP Action, a day-one endorser of Mamdani, represents one organisation among a growing group of Jewish supporters for Mamdani, like JFREJ, a group that has played a part in spearheading canvassing efforts among the diverse Jewish communities of NYC.

JFREJ’s electoral arm, The Jewish Vote, has supported Mamdani since he was first running for state assembly in 2020. Since then, JFREJ members and Mamdani have worked, canvassed and protested together.

Alicia Singham Goodwin, political director of JFREJ, has personally been arrested at protests alongside Mamdani.

“That’s the kind of thing that gives me faith in his commitments,” Goodwin told Al Jazeera regarding the arrests. “He’s willing to take on big risks for the things that matter.”

JFREJ has played a large role in spreading Mamdani’s message by knocking on doors and phone banking Jewish voters.

“We care about what our neighbours are worried about, excited and hopeful for — what they need for their families, and we’re ready to meet them there with our analysis of how the city needs to move to get to affordable housing, universal childcare, or to combat the real rise in anti-Semitism and hate violence,” said Goodwin. “We believe that Zohran is the strongest candidate for that, as well as for all the other issues we talk about.”

Courting the Jewish vote

While there is no doubt that the canvassing army of 50,000 volunteers has served Mamdani well, the mayoral hopeful has also been strategic in his pursuit of the Jewish vote.

“He has definitely modulated his rhetoric and has made a concerted effort to reach out to liberal congregations,” said Val Vinokur, professor of literary studies and director of the minor in Jewish culture at The New School. “This has made him more palatable to some progressive Zionists, much to the outrage of his anti-Zionist supporters.”

One example of Mamdani’s subdued rhetoric includes his response to continued backlash over the phrase “globalise the intifada”.

The phrase, used by pro-Palestinian activists, sparked tension between Mamdani and parts of the Jewish community. To some, it represents a call for solidarity with Palestinian resistance, while others view it as anti-Semitic and violent.

Mamdani resisted rejecting the phrase before the June election, but The New York Times reported that since then, he said he would “discourage” its use.

On the second anniversary of the Gaza war, Mamdani posted a four-paragraph statement on X where he acknowledged the atrocities of Hamas’s attack, and then called Israel’s response genocide and ended on a note of commitment to human rights.

“It got s*** on from all sides,” said Carlson. “He made nobody happy, which in my mind, is kinda the correct way to go about it … Sometimes, pleasing nobody is the job of the mayor, and I think he’s learning that now. It’s like a microcosm of what he’s about to face as mayor, assuming he wins. Sometimes, you have to piss off everybody a little bit for compromises.”

Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism

As Carlson’s Zenith Research poll reflected, the NYC Jewish community has a wide diversity of opinion about politics and positions on Israel and Palestine. The community most clearly differentiates along lines of age, and secular versus conservative practice, but as Jewish support for Mamdani increases, it is evident that these divides are not always so distinct.

“While it’s true that there are major trends that younger American Jews are more progressive and sympathetic to Palestinians, it’s also true that for as long as Zionism has existed, there have been anti-Zionist Jews,” said Miller. “I learned a lot from elders who were in their 70s, 80s and 90s who have been anti-Zionist since Israel was created because they never felt that what they wanted or needed was an ethnostate to represent them.”

Alternatively, Zionist groups like Betar worldwide are troubled by these trends within the Jewish community of New York.

“It’s heartbreaking to see members of the Jewish community support Zohran Mamdani, who openly opposes Zionism — the national liberation movement of the Jewish people,” said Oren Magnezy, spokesperson of Betar worldwide.

Jonathan Boyarin, American anthropologist and Mann professor of modern Jewish studies at Cornell University, wondered whether anti-Zionism has done much to help Palestinians, but distinguished the line that Mamdani is walking.

“It’s been said that there are two kinds of people who confuse anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism: Zionists and anti-Semites. I don’t think Zohran Mamdani belongs in either of those categories,” said Boyarin.

‘New political moment’

Ultimately, experts like Vinokur predict Mamdani will win, barring a scenario in which Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa drops out. Regardless, Vinokur expects Mamdani to secure the Jewish vote.

“He will win the Jewish vote despite and not because of his anti-Zionist background,” said Vinokur. “Younger Jewish voters are overwhelmingly liberal, have been galvanised by the dynamism of his campaign, and ultimately want to make the city a more livable, affordable, and equitable place.”

Mamdani’s message and campaign were celebrated at the JFREJ annual gala fundraiser, the Mazals. NYC Comptroller Brad Lander and Mamdani were honoured together during a night filled with music, ritual and tradition with more than 1,000 attendees.

“I would say it was probably the largest single gathering of Jews for Zohran,” said Goodwin. “They cement this new political moment that we’re in, where people like JFREJ members, movements like ours, are not fringe or aspirational, but we are popular among a majority of New Yorkers.”

Tensions between China and the US have escalated amid Donald Trump’s tariff threats and new restrictions on exports.

The United States Federal Reserve has cut its benchmark interest rate by 25 basis points to 3.75 – 4.00 percent, amid signs of a slowing labour market and continued pressure on consumer prices.

The cut, announced on Wednesday, marks the US central bank’s second rate cut this year.

“Job gains have slowed this year, and the unemployment rate has edged up but remained low through August; more recent indicators are consistent with these developments. Inflation has moved up since earlier in the year and remains somewhat elevated,” the Fed said in a statement.

“Uncertainty about the economic outlook remains elevated.”

The cuts were largely in line with expectations. Earlier on Wednesday, CME Fed Watch — which tracks the likelihood of rate cuts — said there was a 97.8 percent probability of rate cuts.

After the September cut, economists had largely been expecting two additional rate cuts for the rest of this year. Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, HSBC, and Morgan Stanley, among others, forecast one more 25-basis-point reduction by year’s end following Wednesday’s cut. Bank of America Global Research is the only major firm that is not anticipating another 25-basis-point cut in 2025.

“The Fed has a challenging line to walk; lower interest rates to support labour markets and growth, or raise them to tamp down inflation. For now, they are taking a cautious approach tilted a bit towards the growth concerns,” Michael Klein, professor of international economic affairs at The Fletcher School at Tufts University in Massachusetts, told Al Jazeera.

Despite forecasts, Federal reserve chairman Jerome Powell isn’t necessarily inevitable.

“We haven’t made a decision about December,” Powell told reporters in a press conference.

“We remain well-positioned to respond in a timely way to potential economic developments.”

Government shutdown implications

The cuts come as economic data becomes increasingly scarce amid the ongoing government shutdown, now in its 29th day as of Wednesday, making it the second-longest in US history, behind the 35-day shutdown during the first presidency of Donald Trump in late 2018 and early 2019.

Because of the shutdown, the Department of Labor did not release the September jobs report, which was scheduled for October 3. The only major government economic data released this month was the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which tracks the cost of goods and services and is a key measure of inflation. The CPI rose 0.3 percent in September on a month-over-month basis to an inflation rate of 3 percent.

That data was released because the Social Security Administration required it to calculate cost-of-living adjustments for 2026. As a result, Social Security beneficiaries will receive a 2.8 percent increase in payments compared to 2025.

The shutdown, however, could have a bigger impact on next month’s central bank decision as the Labor Department is currently unable to compile the data needed for its November reports.

However, amid the limited government data, private trackers are showing a slowdown.

“We are not going to be able to have the detailed feel of things, but I think if there were a significant or material change in the economy one way or another, I think we would pick that up,” Powell said.

Consumer confidence lags

Consumer confidence fell to a six-month low, according to The Conference Board’s report that was released on Tuesday.

The data showed that lower-income earners – those making less than $75,000 a year – are less confident about the economy as fears of job scarcity loom. This comes only days after several large corporations announced waves of layoffs.

On Wednesday, Paramount cut 2,000 people from its workforce. On Tuesday, Amazon cut 14,000 corporate jobs. Last week, big box retailer Target cut 1,800 jobs. This, as furloughs and layoffs weigh on government workers. The US government is the nation’s largest employer.

Those making more than $200,000 annually remain fairly confident and are leading consumer spending that is keeping the economy afloat, according to The Conference Board.

Pressures both on consumer spending and the labour market are largely driven by tariffs weighing on consumers and businesses.

US markets are ticking up on the rate cut. The Nasdaq is up 0.5, the S&P 500 is up 0.1, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average is up by 0.26 as of 2pm in New York (18:00 GMT).

Voters in Tanzania are heading to polling booths on Wednesday to vote for a new president, as well as members of parliament and councillors, in elections which are expected to continue the ruling Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) – or Party of Revolution’s – 64-year-long grip on power.

Despite a bevy of candidates in the lineup, incumbent President Samia Suluhu Hassan, analysts say, is virtually unchallenged and will almost certainly win, following what rights groups say has been a heavy crackdown on popular opposition members, activists and journalists.

Key challengers Tundu Lissu of the largest opposition party, Chadema, and Luhaga Mpina of ACT-Wazalendo, have been barred from standing, thus eliminating any real threat to Hassan. Other presidential candidates on the ballot lack political backing and are unlikely to make much impact on voters, analysts say.

The East African nation is replete with rolling savannas and wildlife, making it a hotspot for safari tourism. It is also home to Africa’s tallest mountain, Mount Kilimanjaro, as well as a host of important landmarks, like the Ngorongoro Crater and the Serengeti. Precious minerals, such as the unique tanzanite – a blue gemstone – and gold, as well as agricultural exports, contribute significantly to foreign earnings.

Central Dodoma is the country’s capital, while the economic hub is coastal Dar-es-Salaam. Swahili is the lingua franca, while different local groups speak several other languages.

Here’s what to expect at the polls:

What are people voting for and how will the elections be decided?

Voters are choosing a president, parliament members and local councillors for the 29 regions in mainland Tanzania. A president and parliament members will also be elected in the autonomous island of Zanzibar.

Winners are elected by plurality or simple majority vote – the candidate with the most votes wins.

Authorities declared that Wednesday would be a public holiday to allow people to vote, while early voting began in Zanzibar on Tuesday.

How many people are voting?

More than 37 million of the 60 million population are registered to vote. To vote, you must be a citizen aged 18 or over.

Voter turnout in the last general elections in 2020 was just 50.72 percent, however, according to the International Foundation for Electoral Systems.

Who is President Samia Suluhu Hassan and why is she regarded as a shoe-in?

Formerly the country’s vice president, Hassan, 65, automatically ascended to the position of president following the death of former President John Magufuli in March 2021, to serve out the remainder of his term.

Hassan is presently one of only two African female leaders, the other being Namibia’s Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah. She is the sixth president and the first female leader of her country. She was previously minister of trade for Zanzibar, where she is from.

This will be Hassan’s first attempt at the ballot, and the election was supposed to be a test of how Tanzanians view her leadership so far. However, analysts say the fact that her two strongest challengers have been barred from the polls means the president is running with virtually no competition.

After taking office in 2021, Hassan immediately began reversing controversial policies implemented by Magafuli, an isolationist leader who denied that COVID-19 existed and refused to issue policies regarding quarantines or vaccines.

Under Hassan, Tanzania joined the international COVAX facility, directed by institutions like the World Health Organization, to help distribute vaccines to developing countries, especially in Africa.

Hassan also struck a reconciliatory tone with opposition leaders by lifting a six-year ban on political rallies imposed by Magufuli.

She focused on completing large-scale Magafuli-era development projects and launched new ones, especially around railway infrastructure and rural electrification. The president’s supporters, therefore, praise her record in infrastructure development, improving access to education and improving overall stability of governance in the country.

However, while many hoped Tanzania would become more democratic under her leadership, Hassan’s style of governance has become increasingly authoritarian, analysts say, and now more closely resembles that of her predecessor.

In a report ahead of the elections, Amnesty International found that Hassan’s government has intensified “repressive practices” and has targeted opposition leaders, civil society activists and groups, journalists and other dissenting voices with forced disappearances, arrests, harassment and even torture.

Tanzania’s government has consistently denied all accusations of human rights violations.

Hassan’s campaign rallies have been highly visible across the country – but hers has been nearly the only major national campaign, with smaller parties sticking to their particular regions.

Some opposition parties are now calling for a boycott of the elections altogether. Speaking to Al Jazeera, Chadema party member John Kitoka, who is currently in hiding to avoid arrest, said the elections are “completely a sham”.

How are opposition parties being dealt with?

Last week, Hassan urged Tanzanians to ignore calls to boycott the vote and warned against protests.

“The only demonstrations that will exist are those of people going to the polling stations to vote. There will be no other demonstrations. There will be no security threat,” she said.

Tanzania’s police have also warned against creating or distributing “inciting” content on social media, threatening that those caught will face prosecution. The country routinely restricts access to social media on specific occasions, such as during protests. Only select traditional media have been approved to provide coverage of the elections.

In the autonomous Zanzibar, which will also elect a president and parliament members, there is more of an atmosphere of competitive elections, observers say. Incumbent leader Hussein Mwinyi of the ruling CCM is facing off against the ACT-Wazalendo candidate Othman Masoud, who has been serving as his vice president in a coalition government.

Why have key opposition candidates been barred from standing?

Tundu Lissu, 57, is the charismatic and widely popular opposition Chadema candidate who lived in exile in Belgium for several years during the Magufuli era. His party, which calls for free elections, reduction of presidential powers, and promotion of human rights, has been barred from the vote for failing to meet a submission deadline, and Lissu is currently in custody for alleged “treasonous” remarks he made ahead of the elections.

The move followed Lissu’s comments during a Chadema rally in the southern town of Mbinga on April 3, during which he urged his supporters to boycott the elections if Hassan’s government did not institute electoral reforms before the vote. Lissu was calling on the government to change the makeup of the Independent National Election Commission, arguing that the agency should not include people appointed directly by Hassan.

Government officials claimed his statements were “inciting” and arrested Lissu on April 9.

Three days later, the electoral commission disqualified Chadema from this election – and all others until 2030 – on the grounds that the party had failed to sign a mandatory Electoral Code of Conduct due on April 12.

Local media reported that two Chadema party members attending a rally in support of Lissu on April 24 were also arrested by the Tanzanian police.

Last week, Chadema deputy chairperson John Heche, deputy chairperson of Chadema, was detained while attempting to attend Lissu’s trial at the Dar-es-Salaam High Court. He has not been seen since.

Lissu has been detained often. He survived an assassination attempt in 2017 after he was shot 16 times.

In August, the elections commission also barred opposition candidate Luhaga Mpina, 50, of the ACT-Wazalendo, the second-largest opposition party. Mpina, a parliament member who broke away from the ruling CCM in August to join ACT-Wazalendo – also known as the Alliance for Change and Transparency – was barred for allegedly failing to follow the rules for nominations during the presidential primaries.

Hassan will compete with 16 other candidates –  none of whom are from major national parties or have an established political presence.

What are the key issues for this election?

Shrinking democratic freedoms

Observers say Tanzania’s democracy, already fragile during the presidency of Magafuli, is at risk as a result of the Hassan government’s tightening of political freedoms and crackdowns on the media.

Amnesty International notes that electoral rights violations were apparent in 2020 under Magufuli, but have worsened ahead of this week’s polls.

Human Rights Watch and the United Nations human rights agency (UNHCR) have similarly documented reports of rights violations under Hassan’s government, noting in particular the disappearance of two regional activists, Boniface Mwangi from Kenya and Agather Atuhaire from Uganda, who travelled to witness Lissu’s trial but were detained in Dar-es-Salaam on May 19, 2025.

Mwangi was reportedly tortured and dumped in a coastal Kenyan town, while Atuhaire reported being sexually assaulted before also being abandoned at the border with Uganda.

“More than 200 cases of enforced disappearance have been recorded in Tanzania since 2019,” the UNHCR noted.

Business and economy

Tanzania’s economic growth has been stable with inflation staying below the Central Bank’s 5 percent target in recent years, according to the World Bank.

Unlike its neighbour, Kenya, the lower-middle-income country has avoided debt distress, with GDP boosted by high demand for its gold, tourism and agricultural commodities like cashew nuts, coffee and cotton. However, the World Bank noted that 49 percent of the population lives below the international poverty line.

While growth has attracted foreign investment, government policies have negatively impacted the business landscape: In July, Hassan’s government introduced new restrictions banning foreigners from owning and operating businesses in 15 sectors, including mobile money transfers, tour guiding, small-scale mining and on-farm crop buying.

Officials argued that too many foreigners were engaging in informal businesses that ought to benefit Tanzanians. The move played to recent protests against the rising influx of Chinese products and businesses in Tanzanian markets, analysts say. Foreigners are also banned from owning beauty salons, souvenir shops and radio and TV stations.

The move proved controversial in the regional East African Community bloc, particularly in neighbouring Kenya, whose citizens make up a significant population of business owners in the country, having taken advantage of the free-movement policy within the bloc.

Conservation challenges

While abundant wildlife and natural resources have boosted the economy via tourism, Tanzania faces major challenges in managing human-wildlife conflict.

Clashes between humans, particularly in rural areas, and wild animals are becoming more common due to population growth and climate change, which is pushing animals closer to human settlements in search of food and water.

Human-elephant flare-ups are most common. Between 2012 and 2019, more than 1,000 human-wildlife mortality cases were reported nationwide, according to data from Queen’s University, Canada.

While the government provides financial and material compensation to the families of those affected by human-wildlife conflict incidents, families often complain of receiving funds late.

Meanwhile, there is tension between the government and indigenous groups such as the Maasai, who are resisting being evicted to make more room for conservation space to be used for tourism.

Last year, crackdowns on Maasai protesters and resulting outrage from groups led to the World Bank suspending a $150m conservation grant, and the European Union cancelling Tanzania’s eligibility for a separate $20m grant.

More air traffic controllers are calling in sick, often to work another job to pay for groceries and medicines.

United States air traffic controllers will miss their paycheques because of the ongoing government shutdown, raising concerns that mounting financial stress could take a toll on the already understaffed employees who guide thousands of flights each day.

Paycheques were due on Tuesday.

Flight delays are becoming more common across the country as more controllers call out sick because the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was already so short on controllers before the shutdown.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and National Air Traffic Controllers Association President Nick Daniels have continued to emphasise the pressure that controllers are feeling. They say the problems are likely to only get worse the longer the shutdown continues.

Not only are controllers worrying about how to pay for their mortgages and groceries, but Daniels said some of them are also grappling with how to pay for the medicine needed to keep their children alive.

Duffy said he heard from one controller who had to tell his daughter she couldn’t join the travelling volleyball team she had earned a spot on because he couldn’t afford the cost during the shutdown.

“Air traffic controllers have to have 100 percent of focus 100 percent of the time,” Daniels said Tuesday at a news conference alongside Duffy at LaGuardia Airport in New York City. “And I’m watching air traffic controllers going to work. I’m getting the stories. They’re worried about paying for medicine for their daughter. I got a message from a controller that said, ‘I’m running out of money. And if she doesn’t get the medicine she needs, she dies. That’s the end.’”

The FAA restricts the number of flights landing and taking off at an airport anytime there is a shortage of controllers to ensure safety. Most of the time, that has meant delays — sometimes hours long — at airports like New Jersey’s Newark Liberty International Airport or Burbank Airport in California. But over the weekend, Los Angeles International Airport actually had to stop all flights for nearly two hours.

Controllers are planning to assemble outside at least 17 airports nationwide on Tuesday to hand out leaflets urging an end to the shutdown as soon as possible.

Money worries

The number of controllers calling in sick has increased during the shutdown – both because of their frustration with the situation and because controllers need the time off to work second jobs instead of continuing to work six days a week, as many of them routinely do. Duffy has said that controllers could be fired if they abuse their sick time, but the vast majority of them have continued to show up for work every day.

Air traffic controller Joe Segretto, who works at a regional radar facility that directs planes in and out of airports in the New York area, said morale is suffering as controllers worry more about money.

“The pressure is real,” Segretto said. “We have people trying to keep these planes safe. We have trainees — who are trying to learn a new job that is very fast-paced, very stressful, very complex — now having to worry about how they’re going to pay bills.”

Duffy said the shutdown is also making it harder for the government to reduce the longstanding shortage of about 3,000 controllers. He said that some students have dropped out of the air traffic controller academy in Oklahoma City, and younger controllers who are still training to do the job might abandon the career because they can’t afford to go without pay.

“This shutdown is making it harder for me to accomplish those goals,” Duffy said.

The longer the 27-day shutdown continues, the more pressure will continue to build on the US Congress to reach an agreement to reopen the government. During the 35-day shutdown in President Donald Trump’s first term, the disruptions to flights across the country contributed to the end of that disruption. But so far, Democrats and Republicans have shown little sign of reaching a deal to fund the government.

The deal removes a major constraint on raising capital for OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT, and values the firm at $500bn.

Microsoft and OpenAI have reached a deal to allow the ChatGPT maker to restructure itself into a public-benefit corporation, valuing OpenAI at $500bn and giving it more freedom in its business operations.

The deal, unveiled on Tuesday, removes a major constraint on raising capital for OpenAI that has existed since 2019.

At the time, it had signed an agreement with Microsoft that gave the tech giant rights over much of OpenAI’s work in exchange for costly cloud computing services needed to carry it out. As its ChatGPT service exploded in popularity, those limitations had become a notable source of tension between the two companies.

Microsoft will still hold a stake of about $135bn, or 27 percent, in OpenAI Group PBC, which will be controlled by the OpenAI Foundation, a nonprofit, the companies said.

Microsoft, based in Redmond, Washington in the United States, has invested $13.8bn in OpenAI, with Tuesday’s deal implying that the firm had generated a return of nearly 10 times its investment.

Shares of Microsoft rose 2.5 percent, sending its market value above $4 trillion again.

The deal keeps the two firms intertwined until at least 2032, with a massive cloud computing contract and with Microsoft retaining some rights to OpenAI products and artificial intelligence (AI) models until then – even if OpenAI reaches artificial general intelligence (AGI), the point at which AI systems can match a well-educated human adult.

Simplified corporate structure

With more than 700 million weekly users as of September, ChatGPT has exploded in popularity to become the face of AI for many consumers after OpenAI’s founding as a nonprofit AI safety group.

As the company grew, the Microsoft deal constrained OpenAI’s ability to raise funds from outside investors and secure computing contracts as the crush of ChatGPT users and its research into new models caused its computing needs to skyrocket.

“OpenAI has completed its recapitalization, simplifying its corporate structure,” Bret Taylor, the OpenAI Foundation’s board chair, said in a blog post. “The nonprofit remains in control of the for-profit, and now has a direct path to major resources before AGI arrives.”

Microsoft’s previous 2019 agreement had many provisions that rested on when OpenAI reached that point, and the new deal requires an independent panel to verify OpenAI’s claims it has reached AGI.

“OpenAI still faces ongoing scrutiny around transparency, data usage, and safety oversight. But overall, this structure should provide a clearer path forward for innovation and accountability,” said Adam Sarhan, CEO of 50 Park Investments.

Gil Luria, head of technology research at DA Davidson, said the deal “resolves the longstanding issue of OpenAI being organized as a not-for-profit [organisation] and settles the ownership rights of the technology vis-a-vis Microsoft. The new structure should provide more clarity on OpenAI’s investment path, thus facilitating further fundraising.”

Microsoft also said that it has secured a deal with OpenAI where the ChatGPT maker will purchase $250bn of Microsoft Azure cloud computing services. In exchange, Microsoft will no longer have a right of first refusal to provide computing services to OpenAI.

Microsoft also said that it will not have any rights to hardware produced by OpenAI. In March, OpenAI bought longtime Apple design chief Jony Ive’s startup io Products in a $6.5bn deal.

Brazilian president expects ‘definitive solution’ in the coming days over tariffs raised by US over Bolsonaro jailing.

A trade deal between Brazil and the United States could be sealed within days, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has asserted.

Lula made the statement in Kuala Lumpur on Monday after meeting with US President Donald Trump. Lula has been seeking a deal since the White House slapped a 50 percent tariff on Brazilian exports in July due to legal pressure on Trump ally and former President Jair Bolsonaro.

Lula described his meeting with Trump on Sunday, on the sidelines of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit, as “surprisingly good”, and said he received assurance that a deal can be reached soon.

“He guaranteed to me that we will reach an agreement,” Lula told a news conference. “I am very confident that in a few days we will reach a solution.”

Later, as he made his way to Japan, Trump also signalled that a deal is likely following “a great meeting”.

“We’ll see what happens,” the US president told reporters. “They’d like to do a deal.”

A deal could avert punitive US tariffs after months of animosity between Lula and Trump, whose relationship has warmed since an unscheduled meeting at the United Nations in New York earlier this month.

The Trump administration imposed a tariff of 50 percent on Brazilian products in July. It linked the decision to what the US president described as a “witch hunt” against Bolsonaro.

Lula said that during the meeting in Malaysia he had presented Trump with a document outlining arguments against the tariff hike.

While the document acknowledged the US has the right to impose the measures, its move was based on “mistaken information”, the Brazilian president said.

Trump did not commit to suspending the tariff hikes, but also did not raise any conditions during their talks, Lula said.

“I’m convinced that in a few days we’ll have a definitive solution, you know, between the United States and Brazil, so that life can continue well and happily,” he concluded.

“He guaranteed to me that we will reach an agreement,” Lula said, speaking through an interpreter.

In a separate interview with reporters, Brazil’s Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira described the meeting as “very positive” and “very productive”.

“The meeting was very positive, and the final outcome is excellent. President Trump stated that he will instruct his team to begin a process, a period of bilateral negotiations,” Vieira added.

Lula has previously labelled the US tariff a “mistake”, citing a $410bn US trade surplus with Brazil over the past 15 years.

He has also noted that far-right political figure Bolsonaro, who has been sentenced to 27 years in prison for attempting a coup after losing the 2022 presidential election, had been given a fair trial, and that his case should not factor in their trade negotiations.

“Bolsonaro is part of the past now in Brazilian history,” he said.

US president says Ontario government’s anti-tariff ad featuring Ronald Reagan needed to be taken down ‘immediately’.

Donald Trump has announced an additional 10-percent tariff on Canada, as the United States president continues to slam his country’s northern neighbour over a contentious anti-tariff advertisement featuring former President Ronald Reagan.

In a social media post on Saturday, Trump said the ad “was to be taken down, IMMEDIATELY, but [Canada] let it run last night during the World Series, knowing that it was a FRAUD”.

“Because of their serious misrepresentation of the facts, and hostile act, I am increasing the Tariff on Canada by 10% over and above what they are paying now,” he said.

The advertisement, produced by the Canadian province of Ontario, features a 1980s speech by Reagan in which the former Republican leader had warned against the ramifications that high tariffs on foreign imports could have on the US economy.

The US government suspended trade talks with Canada this week over the ad, accusing the Ontario provincial government of misrepresenting Reagan’s position and seeking to influence a looming US Supreme Court ruling on Trump’s tariffs policy.

On Friday, Ontario Premier Doug Ford announced that, after consulting with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, the province would “pause its US advertising campaign effective Monday so that trade talks can resume”.

“Our intention was always to initiate a conversation about the kind of economy that Americans want to build and the impact of tariffs on workers and businesses. We’ve achieved our goal, having reached US audiences at the highest levels,” Ford wrote on X.

“I’ve directed my team to keep putting our message in front of Americans over the weekend so that we can air our commercial during the first two World Series games.”

The Canadian government did not immediately comment on Trump’s announcement of additional tariffs on Saturday.

It is unclear whether the ad will run during the second World Series game between the Toronto Blue Jays and the Los Angeles Dodgers, which is set for 8pm local time in Toronto on Saturday (00:00 GMT Sunday).

Since taking office in January, Trump has unveiled sweeping tariffs against a number of countries including Canada, straining relations with the US’s longtime ally.

More to come…