Business and Economy

South Africa, Nigeria, Mozambique, Burkina Faso removed from Financial Action Task Force’s financial crimes list.

A global money-laundering watchdog has taken South Africa, Nigeria, Mozambique and Burkina Faso off its “grey list” of countries subjected to increased monitoring.

The Financial Action Task Force’s (FATF), a financial crimes watchdog based in France, on Friday said it was removing the four countries after “successful on-site visits” that showed “positive progress” in addressing shortcomings within agreed timeframes.

The FATF maintains “grey” and “black” lists for countries it has identified as not meeting its standards. It considers grey list countries to be those with “strategic deficiencies” in their anti-money laundering regimes, but which are nonetheless working with the organisation to address them.

FATF President Elisa de Anda Madrazo called the removal of the four “a positive story for the continent of Africa”.

South Africa revamped its tools to detect money laundering and terrorist financing, she said, while Nigeria created better coordination between agencies, Mozambique increased its financial intelligence sharing, and Burkina Faso improved its oversight of financial institutions.

Nigeria and South Africa were added to the list in 2023, preceded by Mozambique in 2022 and Burkina Faso in 2021.

Officials from the four countries – which will no longer be subject to increased monitoring by the organisation – welcomed the decision.

Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu said the delisting marked a “major milestone in Nigeria’s journey towards economic reform, institutional integrity and global credibility”, while the country’s Financial Intelligence Unit separately said it had “worked resolutely through a 19-point action plan” to demonstrate its commitment to improvements.

Edward Kieswetter, commissioner of the South African Revenue Service, also cheered the update but said, “Removing the designation of grey listing is not a finish line but a milestone on a long-term journey toward building a robust and resilient financial ecosystem.”

Leaders in Mozambique and Burkina Faso did not immediately comment, though Mozambican officials had signalled for several months that they were optimistic about being removed.

In July, Finance Minister Carla Louveira said Mozambique was “not simply working to get off the grey list, but working so that in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing, when the FATF makes its assessment in 2030, it will find a completely different situation from the one detected in 2021,” MZ News reported at the time.

More than 200 countries around the world have pledged to follow the standards of the FATF, which reviews their efforts to combat money laundering, as well as terrorist and weapons financing.

The FATF’s black or “high-risk” list consists of Iran, Myanmar and North Korea.

Last year, Reliance Industries Ltd signed a deal with Russian major Rosneft to import nearly 500,000 barrels per day.

India’s top importer of Russian oil, the conglomerate Reliance Industries Ltd, says it will abide by Western sanctions, ending several days of speculation about how the company will manage new measures targeting Russia’s two largest oil companies.

Reliance “will be adapting the refinery operations to meet the compliance requirements”, a company spokesperson said in a statement on Friday, while maintaining its relationships with suppliers.

“Whenever there is any guidance from the Indian Government in this respect, as always, we will be complying fully,” the statement added.

On Wednesday, the United States Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated Russian majors Rosneft and Lukoil for the first time as President Donald Trump becomes increasingly frustrated with Russia’s unremitting war on Ukraine.

US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent said the move was the result of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “refusal to end this senseless war” and encouraged allies to adhere to the new sanctions.

The following day, the European Union adopted its 19th package of measures against Russia, which includes a full transaction ban on Rosneft. The EU has previously said that, starting January 21, it will not receive fuel imports from refineries that received or processed Russian oil 60 days prior to shipping.

Reliance, chaired by billionaire businessman Mukesh Ambani, operates the world’s biggest refining complex in western Gujarat. The company has purchased roughly half of the 1.7-1.8 million barrels per day (bpd) of discounted Russian crude shipped to India, the news agency Press Trust of India reported this week.

In 2024, Reliance signed a 10-year deal with Rosneft to buy nearly 500,000 bpd, Reuters reported at the time. It also buys Russian oil from intermediaries.

Reliance did not offer details on how, exactly, it planned to navigate the sanctions – nor the fate of the 2024 Rosneft agreement – but emphasised it would comply with European import requirements.

“Reliance is confident its time-tested, diversified crude sourcing strategy will continue to ensure stability and reliability in its refinery operations for meeting the domestic and export requirements, including to Europe,” the company spokesperson said.

The sanctions also arrive as India navigates the fallout from Trump’s tariffs on Indian exports, which rose to 50 percent starting in August as a penalty for importing Russian oil. China and India are the world’s largest importers of Russian crude.

Trump has claimed multiple times over the past month that India has agreed to stop buying Russian oil as part of a broader trade deal, an assertion the Indian government has not confirmed.

Neither India’s Ministry of External Affairs nor oil ministries have responded since the sanctions were announced on Wednesday.

Growing up in Rawalpindi, a city adjacent to Pakistan’s capital Islamabad, Mahnoor Omer remembers the shame and anxiety she felt in school when she had periods. Going to the toilet with a sanitary pad was an act of stealth, like trying to cover up a crime.

“I used to hide my pad up my sleeve like I was taking narcotics to the bathroom,” says Omer, who comes from a middle-class family – her father a businessman and her mother a homemaker. “If someone talked about it, teachers would put you down.” A classmate once told her that her mother considered pads “a waste of money”.

“That’s when it hit me,” says Omer. “If middle-class families think this way, imagine how out of reach these products are for others.”

Now 25, Omer has gone from cautious schoolgirl to national centrestage in a battle that could reshape menstrual hygiene in Pakistan, a country where critics say economics is compounding social stigma to punish women – simply for being women.

In September, Omer, a lawyer, petitioned the Lahore High Court, challenging what she and many others say is effectively a “period tax” imposed by Pakistan on its more than 100 million women.

Pakistani governments have, under the Sales Tax Act of 1990, long charged an 18 percent sales tax on locally manufactured sanitary pads and a customs tax of 25 percent on imported ones, as well as on raw materials needed to make them. Add on other local taxes, and UNICEF Pakistan says that these pads are often effectively taxed at about 40 percent.

Omer’s petition argues that these taxes – which specifically affect women – are discriminatory, and violate a series of constitutional provisions that guarantee equality and dignity, elimination of exploitation and the promotion of social justice.

In a country where menstruation is already a taboo subject in most families, Omer and other lawyers and activists supporting the petition say that the taxes make it even harder for most Pakistani women to access sanitary products. A standard pack of commercially branded sanitary pads in Pakistan currently costs about 450 rupees ($1.60) for 10 pieces. In a country with a per capita income of $120 a month, that’s the cost of a meal of rotis and dal for a low-income family of four. Cut the cost by 40 percent – the taxes – and the calculations become less loaded against sanitary pads.

At the moment, only 12 percent of Pakistani women use commercially produced sanitary pads, according to a 2024 study by UNICEF and the WaterAid nonprofit. The rest improvise using cloth or other materials, and often do not even have access to clean water to wash themselves.

“If this petition goes forward, it’s going to make pads affordable,” says Hira Amjad, the founder and executive director of Dastak Foundation, a Pakistani nonprofit whose work is focused on promoting gender equality and combating violence against women.

And that, say lawyers and activists, could serve as a spark for broader social change.

The court docket describes the case as Mahnoor Omer against senior officials of the government of Pakistan. But that’s not what it feels like to Omer.

“It feels like women versus Pakistan.”

‘It’s not shameful’

Bushra Mahnoor, founder of Mahwari Justice, a Pakistani student-led organisation whose name translates to “menstrual justice”, realised early just how much of a struggle it could be to access sanitary pads.

Mahnoor – no relation to Omer – grew up in Attock, a city in the northwestern part of Pakistan’s Punjab province, with four sisters. “Every month, I had to check if there were enough pads. If my period came when one of my sisters had hers too,” finding a pad was a challenge, she says.

The struggle continued in school, where, as was the case with Omer, periods were associated with shame. A teacher once made one of her classmates stand for two entire lectures because her white uniform was stained. “That was dehumanising,” she says.

Mahnoor was 10 when she had her first period. “I didn’t know how to use a pad. I stuck it upside down; the sticky side touched my skin. It was painful. No one tells you how to manage it.”

She says that shame was never hers alone, but it’s part of a silence which starts at home and accompanies girls into adulthood. A study on menstrual health in Pakistan shows that eight out of 10 girls feel embarrassed or uncomfortable when talking about periods, and two out of three girls report never having received information about menstruation before it began. The findings, published in the Frontiers in Public Health journal in 2023, link this silence to poor hygiene, social exclusion and missed school days.

In 2022, when floods devastated Pakistan, Mahnoor began Mahwari Justice to ensure that relief camps did not overlook the menstrual needs of women. “We began distributing pads and later realised there’s so much more to be done,” she says. Her organisation has distributed more than 100,000 period kits – each containing pads, soap, underwear, detergent and painkillers – and created rap songs and comics to normalise conversations about menstruation. “When you say the word ‘mahwari’ out loud, you’re teaching people it’s not shameful,” she says. “It’s just life.”

The same floods also influenced Amjad, the Dastak Foundation founder, though her nonprofit has been around for a decade now. Its work now also includes distributing period kits during natural disasters.

But the social stigma associated with menstruation is also closely tied to economics in the ways in which its impact plays out for Pakistani women, suggests Amjad.

“In most households, it’s the men who make financial decisions,” she says. “Even if the woman is bringing the money, she’s giving it to the man, and he is deciding where that money needs to go.”

And if the cost of women’s health feels too high, that’s often compromised. “[With] the inflated prices due to the tax, there is no conversation in many houses about whether we should buy pads,” she says. “It’s an expense they cannot afford organically.”

According to the 2023 study in the Frontiers in Public Health, over half of Pakistani women are not able to afford sanitary pads.

If the taxes are removed, and menstrual hygiene becomes more affordable, the benefits will extend beyond health, says Amjad.

School attendance rates for girls could improve, she said. Currently, more than half of Pakistan’s girls in the five to 16 age group are not in school, according to the United Nations. “We will have stress-free women. We will have happier and healthier women.”

‘Feeling of justice’

Omer says her interest in women’s and minority rights began early. “What inspired me was just seeing the blatant mistreatment every day,” she says. “The economic, physical, and verbal exploitation that women face, whether it’s on the streets, in the media, or inside homes, never sat right with me.”

She credits her mother for making her grow up to be an empathetic and understanding person.

After completing school, she worked as a gender and criminal justice consultant at Crossroads Consultants, a Pakistan-based firm that collaborates with NGOs and development partners on gender and criminal justice reform. At the age of 19, she also volunteered at Aurat March, an annual women’s rights movement and protest held across Pakistan on International Women’s Day – it’s a commitment she has kept up since then.

Her first step into activism came at 16, when she and her friends started putting together “dignity kits”, small care packages for women in low-income neighbourhoods of Islamabad. “We would raise funds with bake sales or use our own money,” she recalls.

The money she was able to raise enabled her to distribute about 300 dignity kits that she and her friends made themselves. They each contained pads, underwear, pain medication and wipes. But she wanted to do more.

She got a chance when she started working at the Supreme Court in early 2025, first as a law clerk. She’s currently pursuing postgraduate studies in gender, peace and security at the London School of Economics and says that she will go back to Pakistan to resume her practice after she graduates.

She became friends with fellow lawyer Ahsan Jehangir Khan, who specialises in taxation and constitutional law. The plan to challenge the “period tax” emerged from their conversations.

“He pushed me to file this petition and try to get justice instead of just sitting around.”

Khan, who is a co-petitioner in the case, says that fighting the taxes is about more than accessibility and affordability of sanitary pads – it’s about justice. “It’s a tax on a biological function,” he says.

Tax policies in Pakistan, he says, are written by “a privileged elite, mostly men who have never had to think about what this tax means for ordinary women”. The constitution, he adds, “is very clear that you cannot have anything discriminatory against any gender whatsoever”.

To Amjad, the Dastak Foundation founder, the fight for menstrual hygiene is closely tied to her other passion – the struggle against climate change. The extreme weather-related crisis, such as floods, that Pakistan has faced in recent times, she says, hit women particularly hard.

She remembers the trauma many women she worked with after the 2022 floods described to her. “Imagine that you are living in a tent and you have mahwari [menstruation] for the first time,” she says. “You are not mentally prepared for it. You are running for your life. You don’t have access to safety or security. That trauma is a trauma for life.”

As temperatures rise on average, women will need to change sanitary pads more frequently during their periods – and a lack of adequate access will prove an even bigger problem, Amjad warns. She supports the withdrawal of taxes on sanitary pads – but only those made from cotton, not plastic ones that “take thousands of years to decompose”.

Amjad is also campaigning for paid menstruation leave. “I have come across women who were fired because they had pain during periods and couldn’t work,” she says. “When you are menstruating, one part of your brain is on menstruation. You can’t really focus properly.”

Meanwhile, opponents of the taxes are hoping that Omer’s petition will pressure the Pakistani government to follow other nations such as India, Nepal and the United Kingdom that have abolished their period taxes.

Taking on that mantle against the government’s policies didn’t come easily to Omer. Her parents, she says, were nervous at first about their daughter going to court against the government. “They said it’s never a good idea to take on the state,” she says.

Now, they’re proud of her, she says. “They understand why this matters.”

To her, the case is not just a legal fight. “When I think of this case, the picture that comes to mind … It’s not a courtroom, it’s a feeling of justice,” she says. “It makes me feel a sense of pride to be able to do this and take this step without fear.”

For decades, China powered spectacular growth through exports, infrastructure and cheap credit. But that old model is running out of steam, even as it hits a record trade surplus with the world this year.

The property sector is drowning in debt, confidence is fading, and consumers are holding back. Now, Beijing faces its toughest test yet: how to keep the world’s second-largest economy growing without relying much on the engines that once drove it.

A new five-year plan promises “high-quality growth” built on technology and self-reliance. But trade tensions with the United States could make the climb even steeper.

Washington has announced new sanctions against Russia’s two largest oil companies, Rosneft and Lukoil, in an effort to pressure Moscow to agree to a peace deal in Ukraine. This marks the first time the current Trump administration has imposed direct sanctions on Russia.

Speaking alongside Nato Secretary-General Mark Rutte in the Oval Office on Wednesday, US President Donald Trump said he hoped the sanctions would not need to be in place for long, but expressed growing frustration with stalled truce negotiations.

“Every time I speak to Vladimir [Putin], I have good conversations and then they don’t go anywhere. They just don’t go anywhere,” Trump said, shortly after a planned in-person meeting with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, in Budapest was cancelled.

Trump’s move is designed to cut off vital oil revenues, which help fund Russia’s ongoing war efforts. Earlier on Wednesday, Russia unleashed a new bombardment on Ukraine’s capital, Kyiv, killing at least seven people, including children.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the new sanctions were necessary because of “Putin’s refusal to end this senseless war”. He said that Rosneft and Lukoil fund the Kremlin’s “war machine”.

How have Rosneft and Lukoil been sanctioned?

The new measures will freeze assets owned by Rosneft and Lukoil in the US, and bar US entities from engaging in business with them. Thirty subsidiaries owned by Rosneft and Lukoil have also been sanctioned.

Rosneft, which is controlled by the Kremlin, is Russia’s second-largest company in terms of revenue, behind natural gas giant Gazprom. Lukoil is Russia’s third-largest company and its biggest non-state enterprise.

Between them, the two groups export 3.1 million barrels of oil per day, or 70 percent of Russia’s overseas crude oil sales. Rosneft alone is responsible for nearly half of Russia’s oil production, which in all makes up 6 percent of global output.

In recent years, both companies have been hit by rolling European sanctions and reduced oil prices. In September, Rosneft reported a 68 percent year-on-year drop in net income for the first half of 2025. Lukoil posted an almost 27 percent fall in profits for 2024.

Meanwhile, last week, the United Kingdom unveiled sanctions on the two oil majors. Elsewhere, the European Union looks set to announce its 19th package of penalties on Moscow later today, including a ban on imports of Russian liquefied natural gas.

How much impact will these sanctions have?

In 2022, Russian oil groups (including Rosneft and Lukoil) were able to offset some of the effects of sanctions by pivoting exports from Europe to Asia, and also using a “shadow fleet” of hard-to-detect tankers with no ties to Western financial or insurance groups.

China and India quickly replaced the EU as Russia’s biggest oil consumers. Last year, China imported a record 109 million tonnes of Russian crude, representing almost 20 percent of its total energy imports. India imported 88 million tonnes of Russian oil in 2024.

In both cases, these are orders of magnitude higher than before 2022, when Western countries started to tighten their sanctions regime on Russia. At the end of 2021, China imported roughly 79.6 million tonnes of Russian crude. India imported just 0.42 million tonnes.

Trump has repeatedly urged Beijing and New Delhi to halt Russian energy purchases. In August, he levied an additional 25 percent trade tariff on India because of its continued purchase of discounted Russian oil. He has so far demurred from a similar move against China.

However, Trump’s new sanctions are likely to place pressure on foreign financial groups which do business with Rosneft and Lukoil, including the banking intermediaries which facilitate sales of Russian oil in China and India.

“Engaging in certain transactions involving the persons designated today may risk the imposition of secondary sanctions on participating foreign financial institutions,” the US Treasury Department’s press release on Wednesday’s sanctions says.

As a result, the new restrictions may force buyers to shift to alternative suppliers or pay higher prices. Though India and China may not be the direct targets of these latest restrictions, their oil supply chains and trading costs are likely to come under increased pressure.

“The big thing here is the secondary sanctions,” Felipe Pohlmann Gonzaga, a Switzerland-based commodity trader, told Al Jazeera. “Any bank that facilitates Russian oil sales and with exposure to the US financial system could be subject.”

However, he added, “I don’t think this will be the driver in ending the war, as Russia will continue selling oil. There are always people out there willing to take the risk to beat sanctions.

“These latest restrictions will make Chinese and Indian players more reluctant to buy Russian oil – many won’t want to lose access to the American financial system. [But] it won’t stop it completely.”

According to Bloomberg, several senior refinery executives in India – who asked not to be named due to the sensitivity of the issue – said the restrictions would make it impossible for oil purchases to continue.

On Wednesday, Trump said that he would raise concerns about China’s continued purchases of Russian oil during his talk with President Xi Jinping at the 2025 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in South Korea next week.

Have oil prices been affected?

Oil prices rallied after Trump announced US sanctions. Brent – the international crude oil benchmark – rose nearly 4 percent to $65 a barrel on Thursday. The US Benchmark, West Texas Intermediate, jumped more than 5 percent to nearly $60 per barrel.

Pohlmann Gonzaga, however, predicted that the “market will correct from this 5 percent over-jump. You have to recall that sentiment in energy markets is still negative due to the gloomy [global] economic backdrop.”

The figure amounts to roughly $111,000 of debt for every person in the US, think tank says.

The United States national debt has topped $38 trillion, as the gap between government spending and revenues in the world’s largest economy expands at a rapid pace.

The US Department of the Treasury included the staggering figure in its latest report on the nation’s finances, with the debt standing at $38,019,813 as of Tuesday.

The figure amounts to roughly $111,000 of debt for every person in the US, and is equivalent to the value of the economies of China, India, Japan, Germany and the United Kingdom combined, according to the Peter G Peterson Foundation, a Washington, DC-based think tank.

The milestone comes a little over two months after debt in the US surpassed $37 trillion in mid-August. The debt stood at $36 trillion in November 2024, and $35 trillion that July.

Michael A Peterson, CEO of the Peter G Peterson Foundation, said US lawmakers were failing to live up to their “basic fiscal duties”.

“Adding trillion after trillion to the debt and budgeting-by-crisis is no way for a great nation like America to run its finances,” Peterson said in a statement.

“Instead of letting the debt clock tick higher and higher, lawmakers should take advantage of the many responsible reforms that would put our nation on a stronger path for the future.”

In May, Moody’s ratings downgraded the US government’s credit rating from Aaa to Aa1, citing the failure of successive administrations to “reverse the trend of large annual fiscal deficits and growing interest costs”.

The move followed similar downgrades by rating agencies Fitch and Standard & Poor’s in 2011 and 2023, respectively.

While there is debate among economists about how much debt the US can take on before triggering a financial crisis, there is widespread agreement that the current trajectory is unsustainable.

In a 2023 analysis, economists at the Penn Wharton Budget Model estimated that financial markets would not tolerate US debt levels above 200 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the debt could reach 200 percent of GDP by 2047, in part due to sweeping tax cuts included in US President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

The lawsuit comes amid growing concerns about how AI fuels the spread of misinformation.

Conservative activist Robby Starbuck sued Google, alleging that the tech giant’s artificial intelligence systems generated “outrageously false” information about him.

On Wednesday, Starbuck said in the lawsuit, filed in Delaware state court, that Google’s AI systems falsely called him a “child rapist,” “serial sexual abuser” and “shooter” in response to user queries and delivered defamatory statements to millions of users.

Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said most of the claims were related to mistaken “hallucinations” from Google’s Bard large language model that the company worked to address in 2023.

“Hallucinations are a well-known issue for all LLMs, which we disclose and work hard to minimise,” Castaneda said. “But as everyone knows, if you’re creative enough, you can prompt a chatbot to say something misleading.”

Starbuck is best known for opposing diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

“No one — regardless of political beliefs — should ever experience this,” he said in a statement about the lawsuit. “Now is the time for all of us to demand transparent, unbiased AI that cannot be weaponized to harm people.”

Starbuck made similar allegations against Meta Platforms in a separate lawsuit in April. Starbuck and Meta settled their dispute in August, and Starbuck advised the company on AI issues under the settlement.

According to Wednesday’s complaint, Starbuck learned in December 2023 that Bard had falsely connected him with white nationalist Richard Spencer. The lawsuit said that Bard cited fabricated sources and that Google failed to address the statements after Starbuck contacted the company.

Starbuck’s lawsuit also said that Google’s Gemma chatbot disseminated false sexual assault allegations against him in August based on fictitious sources. Starbuck also alleged the chatbot said that he committed spousal abuse, attended the January 6 Capitol riots and appeared in the Jeffrey Epstein files, among other things.

Starbuck said he has been approached by people who believed some of the false accusations and that they could lead to increased threats on his life, noting the recent assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

Starbuck asked the court for at least $15m in damages.

Starbuck lawsuit comes amid growing concerns that AI-generated content has become easy to create and can facilitate the spread of misinformation. As Al Jazeera previously reported, Google’s VEO3 AI video maker allowed users to make deceptive videos of news events.

Alphabet — Google’s parent company’s stock is relatively flat on the news of the lawsuit. As of 2:30pm in New York (18:30 GMT), it is up by 0.06 percent.

Economists credit US President Donald Trump’s tariff campaign with reducing trade between Germany and the US, its top trading partner last year.

China overtook the United States as Germany’s largest trading partner during the first eight months of 2025, preliminary data from the German statistics office has shown.

The data indicated that German imports and exports with China totalled $190.7bn (163.4 billion euros) from January to August, while trade with the US amounted to $189bn (162.8 billion euros), according to Reuters calculations.

The US was Germany’s top trading partner in 2024, ending an eight-year streak for China. Germany had sought to reduce its reliance on China, citing political differences and accusing Beijing of unfair practices.

But trade dynamics shifted again this year, with US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House and his renewed tariff campaign.

The tariffs have pushed down German exports to the US, which fell 7.4 percent in the first eight months of the year compared with 2024.

In August, exports to the US also fell 23.5 percent year-on-year, showing that the trend is accelerating.

“There is no question that US tariff and trade policy is an important reason for the decline in sales,” said Dirk Jandura, president of the BGA foreign trade association.

Jandura added that US demand for classic German export goods, such as cars, machinery and chemicals, had fallen.

With the ongoing tariff threat and the stronger euro, German exports to the US are unlikely to rebound any time soon, said Carsten Brzeski, global head of macro at the financial institution ING.

Exports to China fell even more sharply than those to the US, dropping 13.5 percent year-on-year to $63.5bn (54.7 billion euros) in the first eight months of 2025.

By contrast, imports from China rose 8.3 percent to $126.4bn (108.8 billion euros).

“The renewed import boom from China is worrying – particularly as data shows that these imports come at dumping prices,” said Brzeski.

He warned that the trend not only increases German dependence on China, but could add to stress in key industries where China has become a major rival.

“In the absence of economic dynamism at home, some in Germany may now be troubled by any shifts on world markets,” said Salomon Fiedler, an economist at the bank Berenberg.

Relations between the United States and China are tense, once again, with experts saying that the administration of US President Donald Trump “doesn’t quite know how to deal with China”.

The latest flare-up took place when Beijing, on October 9, expanded its restrictions on the export of rare-earth metals, increasing the number of elements on the list.

China has the largest reserves and the majority of processing facilities of rare-earth metals that are used in a range of daily and critical industries like electric vehicles, smartphones, laptops and defence equipment.

In a first, it also required countries to have a licence to export rare-earth magnets and certain semiconductor materials that contain even trace amounts of minerals sourced from China or produced using Chinese technology.

China’s actions on rare-earths also came after the US expanded its Entity List, a trade restriction list that consists of certain foreign persons, entities or government, further limiting China’s access to the most advanced semiconductor chips, and added levies on China-linked ships both to boost the US shipbuilding industry and loosen China’s hold on the global shipping trade. China retaliated by applying its own charges on US-owned, operated, built or flagged vessels.

“For the US, its actions on chip exports and shipping industry fees were not related to the trade deal with China,” said Vina Nadjibulla, vice president for research and strategy at the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada.

Since then, the two countries have also been in an “information war”, said Nadjibulla, each blaming the other for holding the world hostage with its policies.

But beyond the rhetoric, the world is seeing China really up its game.

“For the first time, China is doing this extra-terrestrial action that applies to other countries as well [with its amped up export restrictions on rare-earths]. They are prepared to match every US escalation, and have the US back down,” Nadjibulla said. “This is a very different kind of a trade war than we were experiencing even three months ago.”

This was a “power play” by China in the run-up to a planned meeting later this month between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in South Korea because “China has decided that the leverage is on their side,” said Dexter Tiff Roberts, a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council Global China Hub, pointing out that after some initial noise with Trump saying there was no reason to meet Xi any longer, the meeting is back on.

“If you look at the approach of the Trump administration right now, they are all over the place,” said Roberts.

Roberts was referring not only to the multiple tariff threats that the US has issued both on China and on specific industries and the carve-outs that were soon announced on those, but also in its statements on the Trump-Xi meeting, with Trump saying it was not happening, only to reverse that two days later.

“The Trump administration doesn’t quite know how to deal with China,” said Roberts. “They don’t understand that China is willing to accept a lot of pain,” and will not be easily cowed by US threats.

Beijing, on the other hand, has realised that Trump is determined to get his big deal with China and wants his state visit to seal that, maybe because “he feels that is important to his credentials as a big deal maker,” added Roberts, but that he cannot get there without giving more to China.

“China saw that they could push harder in the lead-up to the meeting.”

Wei Liang, a professor at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies who specialises in international trade and Chinese economic foreign policy, agrees.

“Trump has a track record of TACO,” she said, referring to a term coined by a Financial Times columnist in May, which stands for “Trump always chickens out” in reference to his announcing tariffs and then carving out exemptions and pushing out implementation dates.

“He cares more than any other US president [about] stock market reactions, so definitely will be more flexible to making concessions. This is the inconsistency that has been captured by his negotiation partners,” Liang said.

China’s defiant stance also comes at a time of its own political concerns, Liang added.

While the domestic economy is “a black box” with no reliable data available on growth, employment and other criteria, the consensus among China experts is that the country has been hit by the tariffs, economic growth has slowed, and unemployment has ramped up.

As China started its four-day fourth plenary session on Monday where it plans to approve the draft of its next five-year national economic and social development plan, Xi can use the moment to tell his domestic audience that the country’s problems are stemming from Trump’s policies and the whole world is suffering because of those tariffs and it’s not related to Chinese policies, Liang said.

A possible decoupling

All of this also signals that Beijing seems to be prepared to “decouple” from the US more than ever, a significant change in mentality, as, in the past, the standard response to the idea was that it would be a “lose-lose” situation for both countries, Liang told Al Jazeera.

But in the last few years, China has diversified its exports to other countries, especially those in its Belt and Road Initiative, the ambitious infrastructure project that it launched in 2013 to link East Asia through Europe and has since expanded to Africa, Oceania and Latin America.

Even when it comes to things that it needs from the US – soya beans, aeroplanes and high-tech chip equipment – it can find other suppliers or has learned to work around that need, as is the case for the chip equipment, Liang pointed out.

In the meantime, especially in the years since the US-China trade war started under Trump as president in his first term, China has brought in a set of national security laws – including its version of the US Entity List, through which it is setting limits on those exports, Nadjibulla said.

“Everybody should have been preparing the way the Chinese have been preparing. We breathed a sigh of relief when there was a change in government [in the US after the first Trump administration], but China kept preparing,” she said.

“This should be a wake-up call for all countries to find other sources for its needs. Everyone should be redoubling their efforts to diversify, because we have now seen the Chinese playbook.”

The central bank said deal was part of a comprehensive strategy to help it respond to forex and capital markets volatility.

The Central Bank of the Argentinian Republic (BCRA) said it has signed a $20bn exchange rate stabilisation agreement with the United States Treasury Department, six days ahead of a key midterm election.

The central bank’s statement on Monday said the agreement sets forth terms for bilateral currency swap operations between the US and Argentina, but it provided no technical details.

The central bank said: “Such operations will allow the BCRA to expand its set of monetary and exchange rate policy instruments, including the liquidity of its international reserves”.

The Argentinian peso closed at a record low, down 1.7 percent on the day to end at 1,475 per dollar.

The BCRA said the pact was part of a comprehensive strategy to enhance its ability to respond to foreign exchange and capital markets volatility.

The US Treasury did not immediately respond to a request for details on the new swap line and has not issued its own statement about the arrangement.

US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent said last week that the arrangement would be backed by International Monetary Fund Special Drawing Rights held in the Treasury’s Exchange Stabilization Fund that will be converted to dollars.

Bessent has said that the US would not put additional conditions on Argentina beyond President Javier Milei’s government continuing to pursue its fiscal austerity and economic reform programmes to foster more private-sector growth.

He has announced several US purchases of pesos in recent weeks, but has declined to disclose details.

Midterm vote

Argentinian Minister of Economy Luis Caputo said last week that he hoped the swap deal framework would be finalised before the October 26 midterm parliamentary vote, in which Milei’s party will seek to grow its minority presence in the legislature.

Milei, who has sought to solve Argentina’s economic woes through fiscal spending cuts and dramatically shrinking the size of government, has been handed a string of recent political defeats.

US President Donald Trump said last week that the US would not “waste our time” with Argentina if Milei’s party loses in the midterm vote. The comment briefly shocked local markets until Bessent clarified that continued US support depended on “good policies”, not necessarily the vote result.

He added that a positive result for Milei’s party would help block any policy repeal efforts.

The French bank will pay more than $20m to three plaintiffs amid allegations of human rights abuses.

BNP Paribas shares have tumbled as much as 10 percent after a United States jury found the French bank helped Sudan’s government commit genocide by providing banking services that violated American sanctions, raising questions about whether the lender will be exposed to further legal claims.

The bank’s shares were down on Monday morning in New York.

The federal jury in Manhattan on Friday ordered BNP Paribas to pay a combined $20.5m to three Sudanese plaintiffs who testified about human rights abuses perpetrated under former President Omar al-Bashir’s rule.

The Paris, France-based bank said it will appeal the verdict.

“This result is clearly wrong and ignores important evidence the bank was not permitted to introduce,” the company said in a statement on Monday.

Uncertainty about whether BNP Paribas could face further claims or penalties weighed on the bank’s shares on Monday, and would likely continue to do so, traders and analysts said.

The shares dropped as much as 10 percent at one point, and were last down 8.7 percent – set for their biggest daily fall since March 2023.

Lawyers for the three plaintiffs, who now reside in the US, said the verdict opens the door for more than 20,000 Sudanese refugees in the US to seek billions of dollars in damages from the French bank.

BNP said, “this verdict is specific to these three plaintiffs and should not have broader application. Any attempt to extrapolate is necessarily wrong as is any speculation regarding a potential settlement.”

Nonetheless, analysts say the news will likely drag on the bank’s shares in the coming months.

“A combination of a lack of visibility on the potential financial impact and next legal steps, a reminder of 2014 share price performance as well as a capital path that leaves relatively little room for error, is likely to hang over the shares until more visibility is provided,” analysts at RBC Capital Markets said in a note.

BNP Paribas in 2014 agreed to plead guilty and pay an $8.97bn penalty to settle US charges that it transferred billions of dollars for Sudanese, Iranian and Cuban entities subject to economic sanctions.

RBC said the bank’s shares underperformed the sector by 10 percent from the first litigation provision booked in early 2014 to the settlement in June 2014.

For Scott Smith, the cuts to the Corporation For Public Broadcasting are existential.

He is the general manager of Allegheny Mountain Radio, which he runs alongside programme manager Heather Nidly. The funds were slashed as part of United States President Donald Trump’s vast tax cut and spending bill that was signed into law in July. As a result, the station, which has been on air for more than four decades, lost 65 percent of its funding.

“We are here to serve our communities and to fulfill our mission of giving them news, giving them entertainment, giving them emergency alerts and giving them school closings. We do lost and found pet notices. We do funeral announcements. We have a listing of community events that is read multiple times a day. We do weather forecasts. We’re a critical part of the community,” Smith told Al Jazeera.

The rescissions bill that Trump signed allows the US Congress to claw back funding that had been approved and pulls back $9bn in funding, including $1bn from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CFB). At the end of September, those funds officially dried up.

The money had already been allocated by the previous Congress to fund public media for 2026 and 2027. Now stations are scrambling to find ways to fill the holes.

The Trump administration has gone after news organisations that have presented any critical coverage of him, including the Wall Street Journal, after its coverage of a suggestive letter purportedly written by Trump to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein for his birthday. In September, he tried to sue The New York Times for allegedly being a “virtual mouthpiece” for the Democratic Party.

His leverage over public media is significant because that is partially funded by federal tax dollars. The White House first signed an executive order to defund public media in May. That was quickly blocked because funding decisions are made by Congress, not the White House.

Next, Trump pressured Congressional Republicans to put forth the rescissions bill that fulfilled the mission of his previous executive order. To justify his call for cuts, in May, the White House released a list of segments from NPR and PBS programmes that it says had liberal bias, as it included many segments about the experience of the trans community.

The White House also cited a report alleging PBS favoured Democrats. That report was from the openly partisan Media Research Center, which has a stated goal to promote conservative values.

A key, but overlooked, problem with the cuts is that they overwhelmingly harm stations that do not even cover the White House or much national politics at all.

Allegheny Mountain Radio (AMR) is one of those stations. Comprising three affiliates for three counties straddling the West Virginia and Virginia border, on their airwaves, listeners will find gospel, folk and country music, as well as coverage of local football games and town hall meetings.

AMR carries NPR’s national newscast and, more importantly, serves as the on-the-ground voice when severe weather hits.

Unlike in other regions of the county, there is no other alternative to get real-time local news. The nearest local news station is several hours away, separated by winding country roads. When there’s severe weather, AMR is the only way locals get vital information like road closure announcements because of floodwaters.

“Just a few years ago, we had a deluge of rain coming down and flooding parts of the county. At that point, when something like that happens, the radio station really is the only way to get that information out quickly to our listeners and let them know where it’s happening,” AMR programme manager Nidly told Al Jazeera.

AMR is in a part of the country where cellphone signal and wireless access are sparse because of its proximity to what is called the National Radio Quiet Zone (NRQZ) near the Green Bank Observatory, which limits the use of radio frequency and other signal methods so that they do not interfere with their equipment. This requires special equipment to point radio signals away from the observatory.

With the region’s low population density, there’s a limited business case for a station. But there is a case for public service. The community depends on AMR for emergency alerts – even on a personal level. During major storms, Smith said, people have shown up at their stations when their phones stopped working, asking if AMR could broadcast a message to let their family and friends know they were safe.

Despite their strong community focus, these stations may not benefit from the same level of donor support seen by larger public stations across the country, due to limited local enterprise and resources.

It is trying. In order to stay afloat, the station is actively soliciting donations on its website.

While small community stations – like those serving Bath and Pocahontas Counties in West Virginia, and Highland County, Virginia, through AMR – don’t produce national newscasts or air segments that ruffle feathers in Washington, they are still the ones that are most at risk of being hit hardest.

“Small stations like ours are the ones who will suffer because of these cuts. We feel like we are the baby that got thrown out with the bathwater because there’s so much emphasis on the talking points around NPR and PBS. It’s like the rest of us, the small community stations, have absolutely been forgotten in this equation,” Smith told Al Jazeera.

The cuts, however, hit stations across the US in big markets too. WNYC in New York City lost 4 percent of its funding. WBUR in Boston, San Francisco’s KLAW, and KERA in Dallas, Texas, all saw 5 percent cuts.

Stations like these have large donor bases or “listeners like you”, as their hosts say during pledge drives. Big market stations might be able to make up the difference, says Alex Curley, a former product manager at NPR who recently launched a platform called Adopt A Station, which shows which public media stations are at most risk of losing funding.

“When you think about stations that rely on federal funding for 50 percent or more of their revenue, it’s not because they’re asking for a handout. It’s a literal public service for those stations,” Curley told Al Jazeera.

But in counties where the population is sparse and industry is limited, that donor base is not as plentiful. That’s the case with AMR.

“We are in a very rural area. We are an area where there are not a whole lot of businesses. So that amount of income simply cannot be made up through extra donations or extra underwriting,” Smith added.

In a July Substack post, Curley, who was involved in NPR station finances until he left the network in 2024 amid layoffs, said that 15 percent of stations are at risk of closure. His website has provided some reprieve.

“I only expected maybe a few dozen people to visit the site. My biggest hope was to get a couple of donations that went towards a station at risk. It’s [the website] been shared thousands of times. I’ve even heard from stations that were identified as being at risk of closing. They told me they’re getting an influx of donations from out of state through the site. It’s been an incredible response,” Curley said.

However, he argues, this is a temporary fix.

“The real danger will be in six months, a year, two years, when people have forgotten about public media. These stations basically are losing federal funding forever. Donations in the short term are really great, but in the long term, they’re going to have to figure out ways to keep donors engaged and to keep donations flowing to them, or they might close,” Curley added.

“Public radio is also a lifeline, connecting rural communities to the rest of the nation, and providing life-saving emergency broadcasting and weather alerts. Nearly 3-in-4 Americans say they rely on their public radio stations for alerts and news for their public safety,” NPR’s Katherine Maher said in a statement on July 18 following the Senate vote.

“In fact, while the Senate considered amendments, a 7.3 earthquake struck off the coast of Alaska, prompting three coastal stations to start broadcasting live tsunami warnings, urging their communities to head to high ground,” Maher said.

Maher declined Al Jazeera’s request for an interview

PBS faces similar pressures, and many of its stations are also at risk of closure, according to Adopt A Station’s data.

“These cuts will significantly impact all of our stations, but will be especially devastating to smaller stations and those serving large rural areas. Many of our stations, which provide access to free, unique local programming and emergency alerts, will now be forced to make hard decisions in the weeks and months ahead,” PBS president and CEO Paula Kerger said in a statement after the Senate vote.

Kerger did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for additional comment.

The push to defund public media isn’t a new one for the GOP. Republicans have long argued that the media is not a core function of government. In 2012, GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney said he would eliminate subsidies to PBS – during a debate moderated, ironically, by then PBS NewsHour anchor Jim Lehrer.

In the 1990s, then House Speaker Newt Gingrich promised to “zero out” funding for CPB, arguing it should be privatised. And in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan attempted to slash $80m from public media – roughly $283m today – though Congress blocked the move.

Following global cuts

Cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting are the latest wave of the White House cutting back on government-funded media arms, including reductions to the US Agency for Global Media, led in part by senior adviser Kari Lake.

Lake is a former Phoenix, Arizona, news anchor known for denying the 2020 election results in which Trump lost to Democrat Joe Biden for the presidency. She is also known for promoting baseless conspiracy theories and for refusing to accept her own defeat for governor and senator bids in Arizona in 2022 and 2024, respectively.

She has been behind the agency effectively shuttering Voice of America (VOA), which has not published any new stories or uploaded new videos to its YouTube page since mid-March.

Last month, a federal judge in Washington blocked the firing of workers at VOA, which affected more than 500 staffers. The Trump administration called the decision “outrageous” and vowed to appeal.

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which broadcasts in 27 languages across 23 countries, faced challenges similar to VOA. However, the European Union has helped keep the network up and running with $6.2m in emergency funding.

Representatives for the US Agency for Global Media did not respond to our request for comment.

Looming threats to free expression

These cuts come alongside other threats to freedom of expression in the private sector. Soon after the funding cuts were signed into law, Paramount announced the cancellation of The Late Show. The host, comedian Stephen Colbert – a longtime critic of the president – had only days earlier called out Paramount, the show’s parent company, for settling a lawsuit with Trump.

The suit stemmed from Trump’s claim that an interview with his 2024 presidential rival Kamala Harris was doctored. Although the network had initially called the lawsuit meritless, it ultimately settled for $16m. Colbert called the settlement a “big fat bribe”, noting that Paramount had a then-pending merger with Skydance Media – owned by David Ellison, son of Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, a key Trump ally. The merger has since been approved. Paramount has said that the decision is purely financial in nature.

Months later, following stand-up comedian Jimmy Kimmel’s comments on Charlie Kirk’s death, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr appeared on a right-wing podcast to criticise the remarks and urged Disney – the parent company of ABC, where Jimmy Kimmel Live airs – to cancel the show.

Nexstar Media Group – one of the largest TV station operators in the US, and which is waiting on an FCC approval of its merger with Tegna – announced it would no longer carry the programme. Disney subsequently suspended the show, though the decision was short-lived, as it returned to the airwaves within a week.

The White House did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

The fire gutted import cargo terminals areas at Dhaka airport, destroying an estimated $1bn of ‘urgent air shipments’.

A fire that decimated a cargo complex in Bangladesh’s largest airport has caused devastating losses to garment exporters during the peak export season.

The blaze – which ripped through the cargo import area of Dhaka’s Hazrat Shahjalal International Airport on Saturday afternoon – gutted storage areas holding huge quantities of raw materials, apparel and product samples belonging to exporters.

“We have witnessed a devastating scene inside,” said Faisal Samad, director of the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA).

“The entire import section has been reduced to ashes,” he said, estimating losses could reach as high as $1bn.

Smoke continued to rise from the charred remains of the facility on Sunday as firefighters and airport officials assessed the damage.

Among the destroyed goods are “urgent air shipments”, including garments, raw materials, and product samples, added Inamul Haq Khan, senior vice-president of BGMEA.

He warned that the loss of samples could jeopardise future business in the country’s crucial garment industry, worth $47bn per year. “These samples are essential for securing new buyers and expanding orders. Losing them means our members may miss out on future opportunities,” he said.

Cause of blaze unclear

The airport cargo village that caught fire is one of Bangladesh’s busiest logistics hubs, handling more than 600 metric tons of dry cargo daily – a figure that doubles during the October to December peak season.

“Every day, around 200 to 250 factories send their products by air,” Khan said. “Given that scale, the financial impact is significant.”

The cause of the blaze has not yet been determined, and an investigation is under way.

The incident marks the third major fire reported in Bangladesh this week. A fire on Tuesday at a garment factory and an adjacent chemical warehouse in Dhaka killed at least 16 people and injured others. On Thursday, another burned down a seven-storey garment factory building in an export processing zone in Chittagong.

The government said the security services were investigating all incidents “thoroughly”, and warned that “any credible evidence of sabotage or arson will be met with a swift and resolute response.”

“No act of criminality or provocation will be allowed to disrupt public life or the political process,” it said, urging calm.

Bangladesh is the world’s second-largest exporter of apparel after China. The sector, which supplies major global retailers such as Walmart, H&M and the Gap, employs about four million workers and generates more than a tenth of the country’s GDP.

The fire is expected to delay shipments and pose additional challenges in meeting international delivery deadlines.

Commercial flights between the countries to restart as diplomatic thaw eases tensions over border clashes.

State-backed China Eastern Airlines will resume Shanghai-Delhi flights from November 9, the airline’s website shows, as China and India resume direct air links amid a diplomatic thaw, largely triggered by aggressive United States trade policies, after a five-year freeze.

The flights will operate three times a week on Wednesdays, Saturdays and Sundays, the airline’s online ticket sales platform showed on Saturday.

China Eastern Airlines did not immediately respond to the Reuters news agency’s emailed request for comment.

India’s foreign ministry said earlier this month that commercial flights between the two neighbouring countries would restart after a five-year freeze.

The announcement followed Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s first visit to China in more than seven years, for a summit meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation regional security bloc. The two sides discussed ways to improve trade ties, while Modi raised concerns about India’s burgeoning bilateral trade deficit.

India and China’s foreign ministries did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the Shanghai-Delhi flights.

India’s largest carrier, IndiGo, previously announced it would start daily nonstop flights between Kolkata and Guangzhou.

State-backed Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport said at the time of the IndiGo announcement that it would encourage airlines to open more direct routes, such as between Guangzhou and Delhi.

Direct flights between the two countries were suspended during the COVID pandemic in 2020 and did not resume after deadly clashes along their Himalayan border led to a prolonged military stand-off later that year.

Four Chinese soldiers and 20 Indian soldiers were killed in the worst violence between the neighbours in decades.

India and China’s diplomatic thaw comes amid US President Donald Trump’s increasingly belligerent trade polices.

The US president raised the tariff rate on Indian imports to a stiff 50 percent in September, citing the nation’s continuing purchases of Russian oil.

He also urged the European Union to impose 100 percent tariffs on China and India, ostensibly as part of his efforts to pressure Moscow to end its war in Ukraine.

The electric carmaker had unveiled chief Elon Musk’s proposed $1 trillion compensation plan in September.

Tesla’s proposed $1 trillion pay package for CEO Elon Musk has come under renewed scrutiny after proxy adviser Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) urged investors to vote against what could be the largest compensation plan ever awarded to a company chief.

ISS’s comments on Friday marks the second consecutive year that it has urged shareholders to reject a compensation plan for Musk.

Proxy advisers often sway major institutional investors, including the passive funds that hold large stakes in Tesla.

The ISS recommendation adds pressure on Tesla’s board before a closely watched November 6 shareholder meeting and renews scrutiny of Musk’s compensation after a Delaware court earlier voided his $56bn pay package.

Musk’s record Tesla pay plan could still hand him tens of billions of dollars even if he falls short of most of its ambitious targets, however, thanks to a structure that rewards partial achievement and soaring share prices.

Last month, Tesla’s board proposed a $1 trillion compensation plan for Musk in what it described as the largest corporate pay package in history, setting ambitious performance targets and aiming to address his push for greater control over the company.

ISS said that while the board’s goal was to retain Musk because of his “track record and vision”, the 2025 pay package “locks in extraordinarily high pay opportunities over the next ten years” and “reduces the board’s ability to meaningfully adjust future pay levels.”

Tesla’s shares rose after the compensation plan was unveiled last month, as investors believe the pay package would incentivise Musk to focus on the company’s strategy.

“Many people come to Tesla to specifically work with Elon, so we recognise that retaining and incentivising him will, in the long run, help us retain and recruit better talent,” Director Kathleen Wilson-Thompson said in a video posted to Tesla’s X handle on Friday.

Unlike the 2018 pay deal, Musk will be allowed to vote using his shares this time, giving him about 13.5 percent of Tesla’s voting power, according to a securities filing last month. That stake alone could be enough to secure approval.

The proxy adviser cited the “astronomical” size of the proposed grant, design features that could deliver very high payouts for partial goal achievement and potential dilution for existing investors.

Tesla did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Reuters news agency.

ISS valued the stock-based award at $104bn, higher than Tesla’s own estimate of $87.8bn.

The grant would vest only if Tesla reaches market capitalisation milestones up to $8.5 trillion and operational targets, including delivery of 20 million vehicles, one million robotaxis and $400bn in adjusted core earnings.

The proxy adviser’s guidance on Musk’s pay was part of a wider set of voting recommendations issued on Friday.

As of 3:45pm in New York (19:45 GMT), Tesla’s stock was up 2.4 percent.

From the air, it looks like a city erased. Entire neighbourhoods have vanished from the map two years since Israel’s relentless bombardment of Gaza began. What were once homes, schools, hospitals, factories and power plants have been reduced to debris and dust. Thousands of Palestinians are now returning to ruins or rubble in a place that has lost the very fabric of daily life.

Economists estimate the cost of rebuilding at tens of billions of dollars – far beyond the capacity of Gaza’s shattered economy.

What is behind the $20bn lifeline to Argentina?

Plus, the European Union invests $13bn in South Africa.

A federal judge said the layoffs by the administration of US President Donald Trump seem politically motivated and ‘you can’t do that in a nation of laws’.

A United States federal judge in California has ordered President Donald Trump’s administration to halt mass layoffs during a partial government shutdown while she considers claims by unions that the job cuts are illegal.

During a hearing in San Francisco on Wednesday, US District Judge Susan Illston granted a request by two unions to block layoffs at more than 30 agencies pending further litigation.

Her ruling came shortly after White House Budget Director Russell Vought said on “The Charlie Kirk Show” that more than 10,000 federal workers could lose their jobs because of the shutdown, which entered its 15th day on Wednesday.

Illston at the hearing cited a series of public statements by Trump and Vought that she said showed explicit political motivations for the layoffs, such as Trump saying that cuts would target “Democrat agencies”.

“You can’t do that in a nation of laws. And we have laws here, and the things that are being articulated here are not within the law,” said Illston, an appointee of Democratic former President Bill Clinton, adding that the cuts were being carried out without much thought.

“It’s very much ready, fire, aim on most of these programs, and it has a human cost,” she said. “It’s a human cost that cannot be tolerated.”

Illston said she agreed with the unions that the administration was unlawfully using the lapse in government funding that began October 1 to carry out its agenda of downsizing the federal government.

A US Department of Justice lawyer, Elizabeth Hedges, said she was not prepared to address Illston’s concerns about the legality of the layoffs. She instead argued that the unions must bring their claims to a federal labour board before going to court.

‘Won’t negotiate’

The judge’s decision came after federal agencies on Friday started issuing layoff notices aimed at reducing the size of the federal government. The layoff notices are part of an effort by Trump’s Republican administration to exert more pressure on Democratic lawmakers as the government shutdown continues.

Democratic lawmakers are demanding that any deal to reopen the federal government address their healthcare demands. Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson predicted the shutdown may become the longest in history, saying he “won’t negotiate” with Democrats until they hit pause on those demands and reopen.

Democrats have demanded that healthcare subsidies, first put in place in 2021 and extended a year later, be extended again. They also want any government funding bill to reverse the Medicaid cuts in Trump’s big tax breaks and spending cuts bill that was passed earlier this year.

About 4,100 workers at eight agencies have been notified that they are being laid off so far, according to a Tuesday court filing by the administration.

The Trump administration has been paying the military and pursuing its crackdown on immigration while slashing jobs in health and education, including in special education and after-school programmes. Trump said programmes favoured by Democrats are being targeted and “they’re never going to come back, in many cases.”

The American Federation of Government Employees and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees claim that implementing layoffs is not an essential service that can be performed during a lapse in government funding, and that the shutdown does not justify mass job cuts because most federal workers have been furloughed without pay.

Trump has recently targeted India for its Russian oil purchases, imposing tariffs on Indian exports to the US.

United States President Donald Trump says that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has pledged to stop buying oil from Russia, and Trump said he would next try to get China to do the same as Washington intensifies efforts to cut off Moscow’s energy revenues.

India and China are the two top buyers of Russian seaborne crude exports, taking advantage of the discounted prices Russia has been forced to accept after European buyers shunned purchases and the US and the European Union imposed sanctions on Moscow for its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Trump has recently targeted India for its Russian oil purchases, imposing tariffs on Indian exports to the US to discourage the country’s crude buying as he seeks to choke off Russia’s oil revenues and pressure Moscow to negotiate a peace deal with Ukraine.

“So I was not happy that India was buying oil, and he assured me today that they will not be buying oil from Russia,” Trump told reporters during a White House event.

“That’s a big step. Now we’re going to get China to do the same thing.”

The Indian embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to emailed questions about whether Modi had made such a commitment to Trump.

Russia is India’s top oil supplier. Moscow exported 1.62 million barrels per day to India in September, roughly one-third of the country’s oil imports. For months, Modi resisted US pressure, with Indian officials defending the purchases as vital to national energy security.

A move by India to stop imports would signal a major shift by one of Moscow’s top energy customers and could reshape the calculus for other nations still importing Russian crude. Trump wants to leverage bilateral relationships to enforce economic isolation on Russia, rather than relying solely on multilateral sanctions.

During his comments to reporters, Trump added that India could not “immediately” halt shipments, calling it “a little bit of a process, but that process will be over soon”.

Despite his push on India, Trump has largely avoided placing similar pressure on China. The US trade war with Beijing has complicated diplomatic efforts, with Trump reluctant to risk further escalation by demanding a halt to Chinese energy imports from Russia.

Stellantis announced a $13bn investment in the US, which will see production of the Jeep Compass move to the US from Canada.

Canada has threatened legal action against carmaker Stellantis NV over what Ottawa says is the company’s unacceptable plan to shift production of one model to a United States plant.

On Wednesday, Minister of Industry Melanie Joly sent a letter to Stellantis CEO Antonio Filosa noting that the company had agreed to maintain its Canadian presence in exchange for substantial financial support.

“Anything short of fulfilling that commitment will be considered a default under our agreement,” she said. If Stellantis did not live up to its commitment, Canada would “exercise all options, including legal”, she said.

Stellantis announced a $13bn investment in the US on Tuesday, a move that it said would bring five new models to the market. As part of the plan, production of the Jeep Compass will move to the US state of Illinois from a facility in Brampton in the Canadian province of Ontario.

A copy of the letter was made available to the Reuters news agency. The existence of the letter was first reported by Bloomberg.

Stellantis had paused retooling of the Brampton plant in February, shortly after US President Donald Trump announced tariffs against Canadian goods, upending the highly integrated North American auto industry.

In a statement on Tuesday night, Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney said Ottawa had made clear it expected Stellantis to fulfil the undertakings it had made to the workers at the plant.

“We are working with the company to develop the right measures to protect Stellantis employees,” he said.

Ontario is Canada’s industrial heartland and accounts for about 40 percent of its national gross domestic product (GDP).

“I have spoken with Stellantis to stress my disappointment with their decision,” Ontario Premier Doug Ford said on social media on Wednesday.

Stellantis spokesperson LouAnn Gosselin said the company was investing in Canada and noted plans to add a third shift to a plant in Windsor, Ontario.

“Canada is very important to us. We have plans for Brampton and will share them upon further discussions with the Canadian government,” she said in an emailed statement.

Elon Musk’s $56bn pay package from Tesla should have been restored by a vote of the company’s shareholders last year, a Tesla attorney has said to the Delaware Supreme Court in the United States.

The Tesla lawyer made his arguments on Wednesday as one of the biggest corporate legal battles entered its final stage after a lower court judge had in January 2024 rescinded the Tesla CEO’s record compensation. The company is also appealing a ruling by the lower court that rejected as legally invalid a vote by shareholders to restore the pay package.

“This was the most informed stockholder vote in Delaware history,” Jeffrey Wall, an attorney for Tesla, told the justices. “Reaffirming that would resolve this case.”

The case’s outcome could have substantial consequences for the state of Delaware, its widely used corporate law, and its Court of Chancery, a once-favoured venue for business disputes that has recently been accused of hostility towards powerful entrepreneurs.

The Court of Chancery ruling striking down Musk’s pay has become a rallying cry for Delaware critics. Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick ruled that the Tesla board lacked independence from Musk when it approved the pay package in 2018 and that shareholders lacked key information when they voted overwhelmingly in favour of it. As a result, she applied a demanding legal standard and found the pay unfair to investors.

Musk did not attend the arguments, which were held in a special court to accommodate the 65 people in attendance, mostly lawyers.

The defendants, current and former Tesla directors, denied wrongdoing and said McCormick misinterpreted the facts and the law.

Dexit

Tesla argued in Dover, Delaware that the five justices on Delaware’s high court had three avenues to reverse the lower court ruling.

They could find that Musk, who owned 21.9 percent of Tesla stock in 2018, did not control the board pay negotiations and that shareholders were fully informed when they voted to approve it that year. They could determine that rescinding the pay was an improper remedy because it did not undo the work that Musk had done or the gains that shareholders had received. Or they could determine that last year’s vote demonstrated shareholders wanted to accept the pay deal, despite the legal flaws.

“Shareholders in 2024 knew exactly what they were voting for,” Wall said.

Greg Varallo, an attorney for Richard Tornetta, the small investor who brought the case in 2018, said if the court accepted ratification, it would allow a party to change the outcome after a court case had run its course. “Lawsuits would be interminable”, he told the justices.

Varallo tried to convince the justices the lower court ruling was a result of careful fact-finding and based on settled law. “There is nothing extraordinary about this trial opinion,” he said. “What makes it truly extraordinary is that it addresses the largest pay package in human history, awarded to the richest man on earth, who is also one of the most powerful men on earth.”

After the Musk pay ruling, large companies, including Tesla, Dropbox, and the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, switched their legal homes to Texas or Nevada, where courts are friendlier toward directors. Delaware lawmakers responded to the corporate departures, a trend known as “Dexit,” by overhauling its corporate law.

If Musk loses the appeal, he will still reap tens of billions of dollars in stock from the electric vehicle (EV) company, which agreed in August to a replacement deal if his 2018 plan is not restored. Tesla has said the replacement plan will cost $25bn or more in accounting charges.

The company said the replacement award was meant to focus the attention of Musk, who said earlier this year that he was forming a new US political party, on transitioning Tesla to robotics and automated driving. Tesla is now incorporated in Texas, where it is far more difficult for a shareholder to challenge board decisions.

New pay plan

Tesla’s board last month proposed a $1 trillion compensation plan, highlighting confidence in Musk’s ability to steer the company in a new direction, even as Tesla loses ground to Chinese rivals in key markets amid softening EV demand.

The justices are considering the appeal of the pay ruling as well as the $345m legal fee that McCormick ordered Tesla to pay to the attorneys for Tornetta, who held just nine Tesla shares when he sued to block the pay deal. The court typically takes months to rule.

Tesla estimated in 2018 that the stock options plan would be worth $56bn if the company met operational and financial goals, which it did. Because the stock continued to appreciate, the options are currently worth closer to $120bn, by far the largest executive compensation ever. Musk is the world’s richest person with a fortune of around $480bn, according to Forbes.

The defendants have argued that McCormick erred in finding social and business ties to Musk compromised their independence, and said Tesla shareholders were informed of the economic terms of the pay deal before they approved the plan. The directors said she should have reviewed the pay package under the “business judgment” standard, which protects directors from second-guessing by courts.

The directors have long argued the pay package performed as hoped – it focused the attention of Musk, a serial entrepreneur, and he transformed Tesla from a startup into one of the world’s most valuable companies.