Business and Economy

Washington, DC – Preliminary data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has found that international development aid from its members dropped by about 23 percent from 2024 to 2025.

Much of that decline was attributed to a major shortfall in funding from the United States.

The forum, which includes many of the the largest economies across Europe and the Americas, said on Thursday that the US saw a nearly 57 percent drop in foreign aid in 2025.

The OECD’s four other top contributors — Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan and France — also saw declines in their foreign aid assistance.

The report marked the first time foreign development assistance from all five of the OECD’s top donors simultaneously declined. The total assistance for 2025 totaled only $174.3bn, down from $214.6bn the year before, representing the largest annual drop since the OECD began recording the data.

OECD officials warned the dramatic decrease comes at a time when global economic and food security has been cast into doubt amid the stresses of the US-Israeli war with Iran.

“It’s deeply concerning to see this huge drop in [development funding] in 2025, due to dramatic cuts among the very top donors,” OECD official Carsten Staur said in a statement.

Thursday’s preliminary data shows that only eight member countries met or exceeded their funding from 2024.

“We are in a time of increasing humanitarian needs,” Staur added, citing growing global uncertainty and extreme poverty. “I can only plead that DAC donors reverse this negative trend and start to increase their [assistance].”

The data covers the 34 members of the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC), which provide the vast majority of global foreign assistance.

But the numbers offer an incomplete picture of global development aid, as it fails to include influential non-DAC members including Turkiye, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and China.

The data tracked by the OECD distinguishes official development assistance from other forms of aid, including military funds.

US drives ‘three-quarters of the decline’

In its preliminary assessment, the OECD noted that the US “alone drove three-quarters of the decline” in 2025, the first year of President Donald Trump’s second term.

Trump has overseen widespread cuts to the US’s aid infrastructure, including dissolving the US Agency for International Development (USAID) as part of a wider effort to shrink government spending.

The US contributed about $63bn in official development assistance in 2024, which was cleaved to just short of $29bn in 2025, according to OECD.

Research this year from the University of Sydney has suggested that cuts to US funding over the past year have corresponded with an increase in armed conflict in Africa, as state resources grow more scarce.

Other experts have noted that the slashed assistance is likely to prompt upticks in cases of HIV-AIDS, malaria and polio.

Analysts at the Center for Global Development have projected that the US cuts were linked to between 500,000 and 1,000,000 deaths globally in 2025 alone. A recent article published in the medical journal The Lancet found that a “continuation of current downward trends” in development funding could lead to over 9.4 million new deaths by 2030.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, has maintained it is transforming, not eschewing, the US aid model.

In recent months, it has struck a handful of bilateral assistance agreements with African countries that it says are in line with its “America First” agenda.

But while the details of such deals have not been made public, critics note that some negotiations appear to have involved requests for African countries to share mineral access or health data.

‘Turning their backs’

Oxfam, a confederation of several non-governmental aid organisations, was among those calling on wealthy countries to change course following Thursday’s report.

“Wealthy governments are turning their backs on the lives of millions of women, men and children in the Global South with these severe aid cuts,” Oxfam’s Development Finance Lead Didier Jacobs said in a statement.

Jacobs added that governments are “cutting life-saving aid budgets while financing conflict and militarisation”.

As an example, he pointed to the US, where the Trump administration is expected to request between $80bn and $200bn for the US-Israeli war with Iran, which has currently been paused amid a tenuous ceasefire.

The administration has separately requested a historic $1.5 trillion for the US military for fiscal year 2027.

“Governments must restore their aid budgets and shore up the global humanitarian system that faces its most serious crisis in decades,” Jacobs said. 

The United States and Iran may have agreed to a ceasefire for now, but the world’s supply chains will continue to feel the effects.

Beyond oil and gas, Iran’s near closure of the Strait of Hormuz has blocked shipments of critical raw materials from the Gulf.

Petrochemicals, helium and aluminium are just some of the products that have not been able to reach manufacturing hubs around the world.

Many everyday items are affected, from plastic packaging to the advanced semiconductors in our smartphones.

How will our supply chains recover, and can they become more resilient to global shocks?

What exactly is stagflation, and why do some economists and investors believe the global economy could be heading toward it? Al Jazeera’s Yasmeen ElTahan explains.

It’s not clear under what legal authority Trump can tack on this tariff, and analysts called it an ’empty threat’.

United States President Donald Trump has said imports from countries supplying Iran with military weapons will face immediate 50 percent tariffs with no exemptions, announcing the threatened duty in a social media post just hours after agreeing to a two-week ceasefire with Tehran.

Trump’s Truth Social post on Wednesday did not specify which legal authority he would invoke to impose such tariffs, as the Supreme Court in February struck down his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act [IEEPA] to impose broad global tariffs, prompting a lower court to order refunds of some $166bn collected over the course of a year.

The 1977 IEEPA law has been used extensively for decades to back financial sanctions against Iran, Russia and North Korea, but the court ruled that Trump overstepped his authority in using it to impose trade tariffs.

“A Country supplying Military Weapons to Iran will be immediately tariffed, on any and all goods sold to the United States of America, 50%, effective immediately. There will be no exclusions or exemptions! President DJT,” Trump wrote.

However, “it’s a lot more complicated to do that after IEEPA was struck down”, Rachel Ziemba, adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, told Al Jazeera. “There’s no immediate policy lever and authorisation that is available for the US to do that. So they need either an act of Congress or need to adapt some other trade tool, and there isn’t really a national security-oriented trade tool.”

Trump did not name any countries that could face punitive tariffs. China and Russia have helped Iran build military capacity to counter US and Israeli pressure, supplying missiles, air defence systems and technology intended to bolster deterrence.

But that support appeared capped during the US-Israeli attacks on Iran. Both Beijing and Moscow have denied supplying any weapons recently, although allegations against Moscow have persisted.

The Reuters news agency has previously reported that Tehran was considering a purchase of supersonic antiship cruise missiles from China. In March, Reuters reported that China’s top semiconductor maker, SMIC, has sent chipmaking tools to Iran’s military, according to two senior Trump administration officials.

“This is a China-related threat, the way I read it. And China will read it that way,” said Josh Lipsky, vice president and chair of international economics at the Atlantic Council.

Although drone and missile parts routinely flow from Chinese entities to Iran, evading US sanctions, Lipsky said Trump was unlikely to follow through with new tariffs in the near term because that would derail his planned trip to Beijing to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping in mid-May.

“US tariffs on Chinese products have gone down a lot since the court ruling,” said Ziemba, “and slapping on 50 percent tariffs now would be very expensive, especially for US importers and consumers.”

Moreover, with the Trump-Xi meeting looming, “this is kind of an empty threat, but shows that when push comes to shove, Trump comes back to tariffs”, Ziemba said.

Trump does have active “Section 301” unfair trade practices tariffs on Chinese goods from his first term, to which he may be able to add duties and similar pending cases related to excess industrial capacity and China’s compliance with a 2020 trade deal. But these would require a public notice period before they could take effect.

Trump also may be able to invoke Section 232 of the Cold War-era Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows sector-specific tariffs to protect strategic domestic industries on national security grounds, but using this law would require a new months-long investigation and public comments.

Russia has been another source of arms technology for Iran, but US imports of Russian goods have fallen sharply since the invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and the wave of financial sanctions imposed on Moscow as a result.

US imports from Russia, one of the only countries not subject to Trump’s now-cancelled “reciprocal” tariffs, jumped 26.1 percent to $3.8bn in 2025. These are dominated by palladium used in automotive catalytic converters, fertilisers and their ingredients, and enriched uranium for nuclear reactors. The US Department of Commerce is already moving to impose punitive tariffs on Russian palladium after an anti-dumping investigation.

Billionaire investor Bill Ackman’s Pershing Square has proposed a takeover of Universal Music Group in a $64bn deal, the latest twist in his nearly five-year quest for the music label giant.

Pershing Square proposed a cash-and-shares offer on Tuesday through its acquisition vehicle that values Universal Music at about 30.40 euros ($35) per share, a 78 percent premium to the last closing price of 17.10 euros ($20), making the deal worth 55.75 billion euros ($64.31bn).

Universal Music Group (UMG) – the company behind international superstars, including Taylor Swift, Billie Eilish and Kendrick Lamar – is expected to move its listing to New York from Amsterdam, paving the way for more investors, including index funds, to own the company and ultimately lead to more robust earnings and a higher valuation.

Universal Music declined a Reuters news agency request for comment.

For Ackman, one of the world’s most voluble investors, who cemented his fame and fortune as an activist investor, forcefully pushing corporate America to adopt changes, this is a far friendlier approach, investors and industry analysts said.

Even as the music industry is flourishing, UMG’s share price has lagged, something Ackman is pledging to fix with this proposed deal.

Ackman’s letter to Universal Music Group’s board carried a mixed tone, at times complimentary of current management, led by chairman and chief executive Lucian Grainge, and critical of the company’s “underutilized balance sheet” and handling of its 2.7 billion euro ($3.1bn) investment in Spotify Technology.

Fears of AI disrupting the music industry have played a role in UMG’s lacklustre performance. Its share of the music market has been sliding, and streaming growth is decelerating, Wells Fargo analysts noted. In March, UMG delayed its plans for a US listing.

Nonetheless, Ackman will need the support of UMG’s top shareholders – Bollore Group, which holds an 18.5 percent stake, and Vivendi, which owns 13.4 percent – to push through any transaction. China’s Tencent is a significant shareholder. French billionaire Vincent Bollore’s family controls 80 percent of UMG’s voting rights.

Old target

Ackman first flirted with Universal Music Group in 2021, when his Pershing Square Tontine Holdings, a shell corporation created to take a private company public, zeroed in on its target. But Ackman shelved the complex deal in the wake of heavy US regulatory scrutiny. Instead, Pershing Square became one of UMG’s biggest investors in 2021, and Ackman sat on its board until last year.

Post transaction, Ackman said Grainge should remain Universal Music’s chief executive.

Ackman said he and former Hollywood super-agent Michael Ovitz met with Grainge over dinner “a couple of weeks ago” to discuss the potential merger.

“Lucian encouraged us to send it in,” Ackman said.

Ackman proposed adding new directors, including Ovitz – who shepherded the careers of Madonna and Michael Jackson – who would become the board chair. Additionally, two representatives from Pershing Square would get seats, he said, not saying yet whether he would be one of the directors.

Shares of UMG, which is listed in Amsterdam, were up 13 percent on Tuesday, while Bollore Group climbed 5 percent. Shares in Vivendi were up more than 10 percent.

Pershing bought a 10 percent stake in UMG from Vivendi ahead of its 2021 Amsterdam IPO and has since repeatedly pressed for a New York listing, arguing it would boost UMG’s share price and liquidity.

Pershing currently has a 4.7 percent stake, making it UMG’s fourth-biggest shareholder.

UMG’s shares have lost almost a third of their value since its IPO.

Even as global music revenues grow year after year, UMG and other major labels, like Sony and Warner Music, are scrambling to stay competitive as streaming services from Spotify, Amazon, Apple and Deezer take an ever greater share.

They are now also contending with disruptions brought on by the expansion of AI – from copyright disputes to the advent of song-generating AI tools – that threaten to upend how music is created, consumed and monetised.

One survey last year found that a staggering 97 percent of listeners could distinguish between AI-generated and human-composed songs.

Under Tuesday’s proposal, Pershing’s SPARC Holdings would merge with UMG, and the new entity would become a Nevada corporation listed on the New York Stock Exchange.

The war in Iran has created an energy shock in Africa.

The continent relies heavily on oil and gas imports from the Middle East.

Much of this supply is currently stuck on tankers near the Strait of Hormuz, which is closed.

Countries including Kenya, Ethiopia and Zambia are reporting shortages.

Africa’s largest oil refinery in Nigeria is pumping out crude at maximum capacity, but that’s nowhere near enough to meet the continent’s needs.

In addition, Africa’s energy infrastructure has suffered from years of underinvestment.

So, what choices do governments have to contain the crisis?

Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam – After a long day of ferrying passengers to and fro recently, e-hailing driver Nguyen was dejected to find he had spent half of his earnings on fuel.

“I drove for around seven or eight hours, making around 240,000 Vietnamese dong [$9.11] and then I paid 120,000 Vietnamese dong [$4.56] on petrol,” Nguyen, a motorcyclist who connects with passengers via the locally developed super-app Be, told Al Jazeera, asking not to be identified by his real name.

“I can’t survive with this amount of money in the city.”

In Vietnam, the ripples of the US-Israel war on Iran are hitting many gig workers hard.

The Southeast Asian country normally sources about 80 percent of its crude oil from Kuwait, but shipments have dried up amid Iran’s effective blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, driving up fuel prices.

Diesel prices have more than doubled, while petrol prices have risen almost 30 percent, making getting from point A to point B an increasingly expensive proposition in cities such as Ho Chi Minh City, home to more than 7 million motorcycles.

“Because the petrol price is so high, so many drivers are turning off the app, going home and just not working,” Nguyen said.

“After today, I will turn off the app and stop working for a few days to see if the price goes down or if the government is helping in any way.”

Vietnam’s government has rolled out a series of emergency measures to cushion the blow for citizens.

Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh last month announced that an environmental tax on diesel, petrol, and aviation fuel would be suspended until April 15 to help stabilise prices.

Nguyen Khac Giang, a Vietnamese-born visiting fellow at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore, said authorities had been forced to act to stave off rising disgruntlement among citizens.

“There are a lot of complaints and frustrations about rising living costs, because gas prices are everything in Vietnam,” Giang told Al Jazeera.

“It’s not only necessary in terms of making the population feel relief about the rise of gas prices, but at the same time, it will keep the macroeconomic stability intact, given the turbulence outside Vietnam.”

Despite the government sacrificing an estimated $273m in revenue via the tax cut, signs of strain are mounting across the economy.

Public transportation is stretched to capacity in major cities, while domestic carriers such as Vietnam Airlines and Vietjet Air have slashed flights.

“As a very, very open economy, Vietnam is super vulnerable to international shocks,” Giang said.

Gig workers have been particularly exposed due to the double whammy of heavy fuel consumption and minimal labour protections.

“Their income is changeable due to factors beyond their control,” Do Hai Ha, a research fellow at the University of Melbourne who has studied Vietnam’s gig platforms, told Al Jazeera.

“They have no chance to negotiate with the platforms.”

Many drivers have had no choice but to work longer hours as they are “excluded from labour protection, so there’s no guarantee in terms of minimum wages or overtime pay”, Do said.

Companies, too, are feeling the crunch.

Anh Dao, who collects fares on Ho Chi Minh City’s bus route 13, said the bus operator has been losing money due to the surge in diesel prices, despite raising ticket prices by 3,000 Vietnamese dong ($0.11).

“As we already signed the contract, we cannot just stop running the buses,” Ahn told Al Jazeera.

For one fisherman in the coastal region of Binh Thuan, about 200km (124 miles) from Ho Chi Minh City, rising fuel costs have prompted a frantic search for cheaper options to power his basket boat.

“Now that fuel prices are rising, it’s having a big impact,” the fisherman told Al Jazeera, asking not to be identified by name. The middlemen he does business with have been citing weak demand to justify offering lower prices for his catch, he said.

“What I was usually able to sell for 800,000 Vietnamese dong [$30] is now only selling for 650,000 Vietnamese dong [$24],” he said.

Families kept apart

For some low-income families, the rising costs are reshaping daily life in other ways.

After a weeklong trip to the Mekong Delta region, Uyen Pham, a communications manager for the Saigon Children’s Charity, said she has seen the strain firsthand.

“Several parents noted that the cost of bottled cooking gas has nearly doubled,” Pham told Al Jazeera.

“Most of our beneficiary families have always relied on wood-fired stoves or a hybrid of wood and gas to save money. With the recent price hike, they are now strictly limiting their gas usage even further, relying almost entirely on wood to cut every possible expense.”

For many parents, the rising fuel costs have also meant less time with family.

“Many parents in remote areas must leave their children with grandparents to work in cities,” Pham said.

“Rising fuel prices directly increase their commuting costs, while manual labour wages remain stagnant. This pinches their take-home pay and, in some cases, reduces how often they can afford to travel home to see their children.”

For the government in Hanoi, the price volatility has intensified the focus on greater energy independence, Giang, the visiting fellow, said.

“The longer-term question this crisis has enacted is a very important question about the strategic autonomy of Vietnam in terms of energy dependencies, especially when we are a net importer of oil,” he said.

Policymakers will need to “more aggressively accelerate Vietnam’s energy independence by building more refineries,” Giang said, “because now we only have two refineries, which is not enough for the Vietnamese market.”

With long-term solutions likely to take years to come to fruition, authorities are scrambling for short-term fixes.

Late last month, Vietnam’s prime minister and a delegation from the Ministry of Industry and Trade visited on the Nghi Son Refinery and Petrochemical Complex, the country’s largest refinery, in Thanh Hoa, a coastal city about 1,500km (932 miles) north of Ho Chi Minh City.

During their visit, officials said the refinery, which supplies about 40 percent of Vietnam’s petrol needs, would urgently need to find alternative sources of crude, as current supplies were expected to run out by the end of May.

The war on Iran also appears to be reshaping at least some domestic investment.

Vingroup, Vietnam’s largest conglomerate, last month informed authorities that it wanted to halt plans to build the country’s largest liquefied gas-fired power plant and put the funds towards a renewable energy project instead, according to a letter reported by the Bloomberg and Reuters news agencies.

In the letter, the company cited “the significant risk of high fuel prices for LNG power projects” due to the war.

In the meantime, Duy, who works at a cafe tucked behind a Ho Chi Minh City petrol station, is feeling some relief after the government’s fuel tax cut, which authorities projected would reduce petrol prices by about one-quarter and diesel prices by about 5 percent.

“I usually pay 100,000 Vietnamese dong [$3.80] a week on gas, but at the peak of the high prices a few days ago, it was almost double that,” she told Al Jazeera.

“It affected my income.”

Additional reporting by Nguyen Hao Thanh Thao

A United States federal judge has once again batted down a pair of subpoenas from the administration of President Donald Trump seeking information about Jerome Powell, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, the country’s central bank.

In a brief, six-page opinion published on Friday, Judge James Boasberg rejected the Department of Justice’s motion to reconsider his earlier ruling rejecting the subpoenas.

“The Government’s arguments do not come close to convincing the Court that a different outcome is warranted,” Boasberg wrote.

On March 13, Boasberg, a judge for the federal court in the District of Columbia, nullified the subpoenas on the basis that they were issued for an “improper purpose”: to pressure Powell into compliance with the president’s demands.

Trump and Powell — an appointee from the president’s first term — have been at loggerheads since the Republican leader returned to the White House in January 2025.

Although the Federal Reserve is an independent government agency, not subject to political demands, Trump has repeatedly called on the bank to slash interest rates, and he has denounced Powell as “incompetent”, “crooked” and a “fool” for not following suit.

For months, pressure had been building from the Trump White House to investigate Powell and push him prematurely from his job as Federal Reserve chair. Powell’s term is slated to expire in May.

Much of the Trump administration’s focus has fallen on renovations to the Federal Reserve’s historic 1930s buildings in Washington, DC, which have gone over budget.

The administration has pointed to the cost overruns as evidence of malfeasance.

Last July, for instance, Trump appointee William Pulte called on Congress to investigate Powell for “political bias” and “deceptive” testimony related to the renovation project.

The following month, Trump posted on his platform Truth Social that he was considering “a major lawsuit against Powell” in response to “horrible, and grossly incompetent” work on the renovations.

The pressure reached a climax on January 11, when Powell made a rare statement announcing he was under a Justice Department investigation over the renovation project. He dismissed the probe as a “pretext” to undermine the Federal Reserve’s leadership over monetary policy.

“The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the president,” Powell said.

The Federal Reserve has since sought to have the subpoenas into Powell’s behaviour tossed.

Boasberg sided with the central bank in his initial ruling, and in Friday’s opinion, he called the Trump administration’s efforts to change his mind insufficient.

The Justice Department had argued that it does not need to produce evidence of a crime to seek a grand jury subpoena.

Boasberg agreed with that point, but he said subpoenas were also subject to a legal standard that bars them from being issued for “improper” purposes.

“The subpoena power ‘is not unlimited’ and may not be abused,” Boasberg wrote, citing court precedent.

He therefore ruled that the lack of evidence overall against Powell was relevant to the legality of the subpoenas.

“The controlling legal question is what these ‘subpoena[s’] dominant purpose’ is: pressuring Powell to lower rates or resign, or pursuing a legitimate investigation opened because the facts suggested wrongdoing,” Boasberg said.

“Resolving that question requires probing whether the Government’s asserted basis for the subpoenas — suspicions of fraud and lying to Congress — is colorable or tenuous. That inquiry, in turn, means asking how much evidence there is to back up the Government’s assertions.”

Boasberg underscored that he has seen no suggestion that Powell committed criminal wrongdoing and pointed to the long list of statements Trump has made attacking the Federal Reserve chair, suggesting an ulterior motive.

“The Government’s fundamental problem is that it has presented no evidence whatsoever of fraud,” he concluded.

Friday’s ruling is likely to set the stage for the Trump administration to appeal. US Attorney Jeanine Pirro has previously denied any political motivation for the investigation.

She has also asserted that Boasberg is “without legal authority” to nullify the subpoenas.

The Panama Papers, one of the biggest ever data leaks, revealed the vast scale of offshore financial networks used by the global elite.

On April 3, 2016, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) and the German newspaper Suddeutsche Zeitung released more than 11.5 million documents from the Panama-based law firm Mossack Fonseca. It exposed a network of offshore shell companies linked to the global financial elite, including current and former government leaders.

More than 350 journalists from over 80 countries worked in secrecy for more than a year to analyse 2.6 terabytes of leaked data then published their findings.

Here’s what we know about the Panama Papers ten years on, and whether the leak led to any changes.

What was the Panama Papers scandal about?

The 2016 Panama Papers scandal was about the leak of 11.5 million confidential documents including emails, contracts and banking statements from the law firm Mossack Fonseca.

The papers revealed a massive global network of offshore shell companies linked to some of the world’s richest people including politicians, business leaders and public figures, spanning countries from the United Kingdom to Russia, Australia to Brazil. They were using companies based in tax havens such as the British Virgin Islands, the Bahamas and Panama to move and store wealth away from the scrutiny of tax authorities.

About 214,000 entities were linked to individuals and companies in over 200 countries and territories. The documents covered from the 1970s up to 2016.

Who leaked the Panama Papers?

The Panama Papers were leaked by an anonymous whistleblower using the pseudonym John Doe, who initially shared the documents with Suddeutsche Zeitung, which then collaborated with journalists worldwide on reporting and releasing the findings.

P Vaidyanathan Iyer, managing editor at The Indian Express and one of the hundreds of journalists who worked on the Panama Papers, said that the process of identifying the information was like “looking for a needle in a haystack”.

“We were continuously, for about six to eight months, just reading data,” he told Al Jazeera.

“My team of three and I had a small cubicle to ourselves in the office, and we were cut off from the rest. Day and night, we were going through data, downloading documents onto our laptops and computers, which were all very secure, with restricted access. It was arduous work,” he added.

Who was exposed?

Hundreds of people, including more than 140 politicians, were identified as directors, shareholders or beneficiaries of offshore shell companies revealed in the Panama Papers. Among them were Mauricio Macri, then president of Argentina, and Petro Poroshenko, who was Ukraine’s fifth president from 2014 to 2019.

Other leaders, including former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and former Icelandic Prime Minister Sigmundur Gunnlaugsson, were also named – all linked to ownership of shell companies in offshore tax havens.

What are offshore shell companies?

Offshore companies are legal entities incorporated in a jurisdiction outside the owner’s country of residence.

Shell companies, on the other hand, are entities that have “no real substantial business or operations in its place of incorporation or registered office,” Kehinde Olaoye, a professor of commercial law and business law associations at Hamad bin Khalifa University in Qatar, told Al Jazeera.

Shell companies are often used to create legal paperwork to cover for fraudulent or dodgy financial transactions. If they’re based in a country other than the owner’s, they’re offshore shell companies.

Are offshore shell companies illegal?

No. Offshore shell companies are not automatically illegal. The purpose of such companies is to create trusts, which then can be used to protect wealth or create estate planning.

However, “there is always a thin line between legitimate and illegitimate purposes” in using offshore shell companies, Olaoye noted.

“Usually, individuals and companies receive advice from financial advisers and legal advisers on how they can structure their business to take advantage of ‘favourable’ tax benefits,” she said.

Did anyone get in trouble for the Panama Papers?

A month after the Panama Papers were leaked, Iceland’s Gunnlaugsson resigned as prime minister following mass protests. According to the leaked documents, Gunnlaugsson and his wife allegedly established a company, Wintris, in the British Virgin Islands with the assistance of the Panamanian law firm. His resignation led to the fall of the Icelandic government at the time.

In 2017, Pakistan’s Supreme Court also disqualified then prime minister Sharif from office following the leaks, despite an earlier ruling that found insufficient evidence of corruption. The Panama Papers revealed that his children held several companies in the British Virgin Islands. In 2018, Sharif was banned from politics for life.

Mossack Fonseca, which had over 40 offices worldwide, also faced significant operational impacts following the leaks, including staff reductions, and ultimately shut down in 2018. Its co-founders, Jurgen Mossack and the late Ramon Fonseca, were acquitted by a Panamanian court, along with 26 others accused of setting up shell companies implicated in scandals in Brazil and Germany.

How much tax revenue has been recovered since 2016?

Between 2016 and 2026, governments worldwide recovered around $2bn in taxes, penalties and levies, according to the ICIJ. Countries such as the UK, Sweden and France each recovered between $200-250m, while others, including Japan, Mexico and Denmark, recovered around $30m each.

However, the amount that remains unaccounted for is significantly higher.

In India alone, the government brought forward close to 425 tax cases, according to Iyer.

“But the amount realised in taxes, which the government got back into its treasury was just about 150 crore rupees, which is around $16m. Whereas the total tax which was brought under investigation was about $1.5bn,” he noted.

Other countries, including Austria, Slovenia and New Zealand recovered between $1m and $8m.

Panama, the country where the leak was revealed, recovered about $14.1m.

Did the Panama Papers lead to changes in the legal system?

Since the release of the Panama Papers, governments have taken steps to curb the misuse of shell companies by introducing new laws and regulations. They include the Corporate Transparency Act in the US, which requires the disclosure of “beneficial owners”—individuals who ultimately profit from offshore entities — as well as measures to improve information sharing between tax authorities.

The United Nations is also considering draft proposals for a Convention on Taxation. In addition, several nations have signed bilateral double-taxation treaties to reduce tax avoidance and prevent income from being taxed in multiple jurisdictions.

But gaps remain in the global tax system. There’s no one overarching international taxation principle that everyone needs to follow — and often there are overlapping treaties and agreements that allow those with the shrewdest financial advisors to choose, or shop, from among those pacts, based on whatever works best for them.

“The main challenge in international tax law is that there is no multilateral tax convention, which creates problems of tax competition and ‘treaty shopping’,” Olaoye said.

Fuel shocks from the US-Israel war on Iran are rippling worldwide, as Strait of Hormuz disruptions push prices higher. From Nigeria to Vietnam and India, workers face soaring costs, longer hours and lost jobs amid a deepening global energy crisis.

US president has said that he will use tariffs to bring down costly pharmaceutical drugs, but the impact remains uncertain.

United States President Donald Trump has signed an executive order that could slap long-threatened tariffs of up to 100 percent on some patented drugs if pharmaceutical companies don’t reach deals with his administration in the coming months.

Under Thursday’s executive order, companies that have signed a “most favoured nation” pricing deal and are actively building facilities in the US will have a zero-percent tariff.

For those that don’t have a pricing deal but are building such projects in the US, a 20 percent tariff will apply, but it will increase to 100 percent in four years.

A senior administration official told reporters on a press call that companies still have months to negotiate before the 100 percent tariffs kick in. Bigger companies will have 120 days, and 180 days are offered for everyone else.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity to preview the executive order before it was issued, did not identify any companies or drugs that were in jeopardy of getting hit with the increased tariffs.

But the source noted the administration had already reached 17 pricing deals with major drugmakers, 13 of which have signed.

In Thursday’s executive order, Trump wrote that he deemed the tariffs necessary “to address the threatened impairment of the national security posed by imports of pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients”.

The order arrived on the first anniversary of Trump’s so-called Liberation Day, when the president unveiled sweeping new import taxes on nearly every country in the world, sending the stock market reeling. Those “Liberation Day” tariffs were among the duties the Supreme Court overturned in February.

Critics, pharmaceutical leaders and medical groups warned of the consequences the new tariffs could bring.

Stephen J Ubl, the CEO of the pharmaceutical company trade group PhRMA, said taxes “on cutting-edge medicines will increase costs and could jeopardize billions in US investments”.

He pointed to America’s already large footprint in biopharmaceutical manufacturing and noted medicines sourced from other countries “overwhelmingly come from reliable US allies”.

Trump has launched a barrage of new import taxes on US trading partners since the start of his second term and repeatedly pledged sky-high levies on foreign-made drugs.

But the administration has also used the threat of new levies to strike deals with major companies — like Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Bristol Myers Squibb — over the last year, with promises of lower prices for new drugs.

Beyond company-specific rates, a handful of countries have reached trade frameworks with the US to further cap tariffs on drugs sent to the US.

The European Union, Japan, Korea and Switzerland will see a 15 percent US tariff on patented pharmaceuticals, matching previously agreed rates for most goods.

Meanwhile, the United Kingdom will get 10 percent, which Thursday’s order noted would “then reduce to zero” under future trade agreements.

The UK previously said it secured a zero-percent tariff rate for all British medicines exported to the US for at least three years.

Gurdaspur, Punjab, India – Ramesh Kumar, 42, is anxiously doing the calculations for his crops this year.

Standing at the edge of his wheat field in northwest Punjab’s Gurdaspur, he runs through the numbers in his head, totting up fertiliser costs, expected yield, and market prices.

Then he shifts to more personal concerns: School fees, household expenses, loan repayments and the money he has been saving for his daughter Varsha’s wedding.

“I don’t know if we can afford it this year,” he says. “Everything depends on the crop.”

The uncertainty has crept in quietly.

Fertiliser, once a fairly predictable staple in farming, has become more expensive and harder to secure in time. For Kumar, it is not so much a question of cost as it is the difference between stability and strain.

“If prices go up more, we will have to cut somewhere,” he says. “Maybe delay the wedding. If things get worse … even children’s education becomes difficult.”

School fees for his eldest son, Amit, 12, are due in the coming weeks, and Kumar has been setting aside money for his younger daughter Varsha’s future wedding.

It’s never easily affordable, even in good times. “We somehow manage,” Kumar says. “But if the harvest is weak, then we have to think about what to prioritise, what to delay.”

For farmers like him across South Asia, the United States-Israel war on Iran – unfolding thousands of kilometres away – is not just a matter of distant geopolitics.

It is shaping decisions inside their homes.

A distant crisis with local consequences

At the centre of the unfolding crisis is the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow shipping lane more than 2,000km (1,240 miles) from India’s northern plains. It lies between Iran and Oman, linking the Gulf and its oil producers to the open ocean and, from there, to global markets.

About one-fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies pass through this body of water, which Iran closed down shortly after the first US-Israeli strikes on Tehran on February 28.

Vast volumes of LNG, essential for manufacturing nitrogen-based fertilisers, are transported from Gulf producers to Asia via this route. Any disruption can delay shipments, push up freight and insurance costs and place a stranglehold on supply.

Interruptions to the supply of fertiliser can ripple quickly, reducing crop yields, increasing costs and raising food prices.

The risks are already being felt thousands of kilometres away.

South Asia, home to nearly two billion people, relies heavily on fertiliser-intensive farming to produce staple crops such as wheat and rice. Over the past few decades, the increasing use of fertilisers – which can hugely boost crop yields – has played a key role in agricultural productivity across the region.

The agriculture sector now employs about 46 percent of the workforce in India, about 38 percent in Pakistan, nearly 40 percent in Bangladesh, and more than 60 percent in Nepal.

The degree to which countries in the region depend on the Strait of Hormuz varies, but all rely heavily on the trade in fertilisers that this shipping route facilitates.

In India, the agriculture sector is worth $400bn, according to Indian government and World Bank data, and supports the livelihoods of more than half the population, either directly or indirectly. More than 100 million farming families are directly dependent on the sector.

The country imports a substantial share of its fertiliser requirements and other key raw materials, particularly phosphates and potash, as well as natural gas used to manufacture fertiliser, with about 30–35 percent of these supplies moving through or originating from routes that pass via the Strait of Hormuz.

In Pakistan, the agriculture sector contributes close to 20 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), according to Pakistan government estimates, and employs millions. About 20-25 percent of Pakistan’s fertiliser imports, particularly DAP (diammonium phosphate), pass through the Strait of Hormuz at some point in transit. Additionally, the sector relies on domestic natural gas for the production of urea, a key nitrogen-based fertiliser and, with Gulf natural gas supplies held up in the Strait of Hormuz, the price of natural gas everywhere – even at home – is on the rise.

In Bangladesh, where millions of smallholder farmers rely heavily on imported fertilisers, the agricultural sector accounts for about 12-13 percent of GDP, according to government data. The country’s farming industry relies heavily on imported fertilisers to sustain crops, meaning farmers are highly exposed to international supply shocks and price swings.

Furthermore, roughly 25-30 percent of Bangladesh’s imported fertiliser is shipped via routes passing through the Strait of Hormuz.

Nepal, where agriculture contributes about 24 percent of GDP, imports nearly all of its fertiliser needs, with about 25-30 percent of arriving via India, via the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.

Livelihoods at stake

Overall, even minor disruption in the Gulf – let alone the complete closure of the critical Strait of Hormuz – can have dire consequences for hundreds of millions of people.

The Indian government has sought to reassure farmers that supplies remain secure – for now.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi told Parliament on March 23: “Adequate arrangements have been made for fertiliser supply for the summer sowing season…The government has diversified options for oil, gas and fertiliser imports… Domestic production of urea, DAP and NPK [nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilisers] has been expanded… Farmers now have access to Made in India Nano Urea and are encouraged to adopt natural farming…”

He added: “Under the PM Kusum scheme, more than 22 lakh (2.2 million) solar pumps have been provided, reducing dependence on diesel… I am confident that through joint efforts, India will manage these challenges effectively and continue to support our farmers.”

On the ground, however, confidence is low. Farmers say uncertainty is already influencing decisions.

In Pampore, in the south of Indian-administered Kashmir, 53-year-old mustard farmer Ghulam Rasool says price signals travel faster than supply disruptions.

“We hear about war, about shipping problems,” he tells Al Jazeera. “Even before shortages happen, fertiliser becomes expensive.”

Rasool says farmers often respond early by cutting down on the amount of fertiliser they are using, even before actual shortages emerge.

“If we use less, production will fall,” he says. “But sometimes we have no choice.”

In Pakistan’s South Punjab, wheat farmer Muneer Ahmad, 45, is preparing for the next sowing cycle.

“If fertiliser becomes expensive, it will affect everyone here,” he says.

Government officials have expressed confidence in Pakistan’s fertiliser supply amid the Middle East conflict, and claim the government is fully prepared to ensure adequate supplies during the region’s peak sowing period, which typically begins between April and June, depending on the crop.

According to a statement by Pakistan’s federal secretary for agriculture to Al Jazeera, Federal Minister Rana Tanveer Hussain told a meeting on March 25 that the government has started proactive monitoring, is expanding domestic urea and DAP production and taking steps to ensure fertilisers reach farmers at affordable prices.

However, urea production requires supplies of natural gas, meaning global energy price shocks can still translate into rising production costs.

For farmers, even small increases matter

“We already have loans and expenses,” Ahmad says. “If costs go up, we feel it immediately.”

In Rangpur, northwestern Bangladesh, farmer Mohammad Ibrahim, 41, says fertiliser supplies are already becoming unpredictable.

“Sometimes it is available, sometimes not,” he says. “And when it comes, the price is higher.”

Meanwhile, in Nepal’s Gulmi district, farmer Meghnath Aryal, 38, worries that crops will be reduced if a major supply problem does appear.

“If fertiliser does not arrive on time, the crop suffers,” he says. “If it becomes expensive, we reduce use.”

Bangladesh’s Agriculture Secretary Rafiqul Mohammad told Al Jazeera the government is “closely monitoring the situation” and officials have tried to reassure farmers that fertiliser supplies are sufficient for the coming months.

The government has finalised plans to import about 500,000 tonnes of urea in the near term, while also exploring alternative suppliers such as China and Morocco to secure additional supplies in the longer term.

There is no immediate shortage at present, the Agriculture Ministry says.

Ram Krishna Shrestha, joint secretary at Nepal’s Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development, told Al Jazeera that fertiliser distribution within the country remains largely stable for now, with supplies already secured for the upcoming rainy season, particularly for paddy crops such as rice.

However, he warned that there may be delays to contracted shipments as a result of the Middle East crisis.

“We have managed fertilisers for the upcoming season, but there could be challenges in timely supply because of the current situation,” he said, pointing to global price increases and logistical disruptions, including those caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

Shrestha added that as companies report shortages and rising prices in international markets, the government has asked suppliers to expedite deliveries.

“Authorities are also advising farmers to increase the use of traditional nutrient sources such as farmyard manure, compost, green manuring and azolla [a natural fertiliser] to offset any potential shortfall in chemical fertilisers,” he said.

No immediate new fertiliser subsidies have been announced, he said, though adjustments remain under discussion as the situation evolves.

Rising food prices on the horizon

The implications extend beyond individual farmers.

Across South Asia, fertiliser use has been central to maintaining crop yields – and keeping large populations fed. Any reduction in availability or increase in costs can quickly lower production. That, in turn, pushes up food prices, a sensitive issue in a region where households spend a large proportion of their income on food.

For governments, the challenge is complex.

In the past, subsidies have kept fertilisers affordable for farmers, but this becomes a fragile balancing act if global prices rise, placing additional pressure on public finances.

In India, Ramesh Kumar is already making adjustments – but he is walking a tightrope.

He has decided to use less fertiliser this season, even though he knows it could reduce yields.

“It is a risk,” he says. “But what choice do we have?”

Lower production will mean less income and harder decisions at home.

“School fees have to be paid,” he says. “Household expenses cannot stop.” He looks across his field.

“And the wedding… we will see.”

Ultimately, sacrifices will have to be made in his household.

Across borders, the same uncertainty is unfolding.

In Pakistan, Ahmad is worried about rising costs. In Bangladesh, Ibrahim is mostly concerned about the availability of fertiliser and, in Nepal, Aryal fears delays in supply.

For Ramesh Kumar, the stakes are clear.

“For others, this is about war,” he says. “For us, it is about whether we can take care of our family.”

One nation that’s hoping to gain from the United States-Israel war on Iran is Russia, the world’s third largest oil producer. Higher crude prices due to the disruption in the Strait of Hormuz have allowed Russia to earn more from its oil and gas exports. A sanctions waiver announced by the US is also helping Moscow.
But its revised budget plans are at risk after repeated Ukrainian attacks on its ports and oil refineries. Russia has banned petrol exports to protect against domestic fuel shortages. So can Russia help fill the global energy gap, or is its capacity already under threat?

A Russian tanker has delivered enough fuel to meet Cuba’s energy needs for up to 10 days, following a three-month blockade.

A Russia-flagged tanker carrying 730,000 barrels of oil has docked in Cuba, marking the first time in three months that an oil tanker has reached the island nation.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump allowed the Anatoly Kolodkin to proceed despite an ongoing US energy blockade. The Aframax tanker entered the Bay of Matanzas – the country’s largest supertanker and fuel storage port – on Tuesday at daybreak.

The vessel, under US sanctions, entered Cuban territorial waters late on Sunday, not far from the US Navy base at Guantanamo Bay. The United States said it was allowing the tanker to deliver fuel for humanitarian reasons.

The Anatoly Kolodkin entered the Bay of Matanzas under clear skies and light winds at sunrise. Much of the nearby city – and the majority of Cuba – was without power when the tanker arrived at the port area.

Cuba has not received an oil tanker in three months, according to President Miguel Diaz-Canel, exacerbating an energy crisis that has led to seemingly endless blackouts across the country of 10 million people and brought hospitals, public transportation, and farm production to the brink of collapse.

Cubans, including Energy and Mines Minister Vicente de la O Levy, cheered the ship’s arrival. A shortage of petroleum has exacerbated a deep economic crisis, leaving the population mired in long blackouts and facing severe shortages of food and medicine.

“Our gratitude to the Government and People of Russia for all the support we are receiving. A valuable shipment that arrives amidst the complex energy situation we are facing,” de la O Levy wrote on X.

The fuel, if delivered, would give Cuba’s communist-run government breathing room amid growing pressure from the Trump administration, which has promised change in Cuba.

It will take days before the crude on board the Anatoly Kolodkin can be processed domestically and turned into motor fuel and refined products, such as diesel and fuel oil for power generation.

The ship is carrying Russian Urals, a medium sour crude, which is a good fit for Cuba’s ageing refineries.

Cuba produces barely 40 percent of its required fuel and relies on imports to sustain its energy grid. Experts say the anticipated shipment could produce about 180,000 barrels of diesel, enough to feed Cuba’s daily demand for nine or 10 days.

Cuba used to receive most of its oil from Venezuela, but those shipments have been halted ever since the US attacked the South American country and abducted its leader, Nicolas Maduro, in early January.

The disruption in the Strait of Hormuz has cut access to one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas supply, leaving many countries scrambling for alternatives.

So what can they rely on to make up for the shortfall in a quick time?

Many Asian countries are turning to coal, reopening shuttered plants and expanding production.

Policymakers say immediate energy needs supplant environmental concerns.

Others are hoping to turn to renewables. Solar power is now the cheapest form of electricity in many parts of the world. But renewables, especially wind, have faced hostility from the Trump administration.

US Department of Defense demands retraction of report alleging broker sought multimillion-dollar investment for Hegseth.

The United States Department of Defense has demanded the retraction of a newspaper report alleging that a broker for defence chief Pete Hegseth attempted to make a large investment in weapons companies in the run-up to the war on Iran.

Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell demanded the “immediate” retraction on Monday after The Financial Times reported that a wealth manager for the defence secretary contacted BlackRock about making a multimillion-dollar investment in a defence-related fund in the weeks leading up to the war.

Hegseth’s broker at Morgan Stanley ultimately did not go ahead with the investment in the exchange-traded fund, whose holdings include Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, because it was not yet available for purchase at the time, The Financial Times reported, citing three unnamed sources.

“This allegation is entirely false and fabricated. Neither Secretary Hegseth nor any of his representatives approached BlackRock about any such investment,” Parnell said in a post on social media.

“This is yet another baseless, dishonest smear designed to mislead the public.”

Hegseth and his department “remain unwavering in their commitment to the highest standards of ethics and strict adherence to all applicable laws and regulations,” Parnell said.

Al Jazeera could not independently confirm the Financial Times report.

The Defense Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment sent outside of usual business hours.

The Financial Times and Morgan Stanley also did not immediately respond to inquiries.

BlackRock declined to comment.

The report comes amid scrutiny of well-timed trades in financial and prediction markets that have fuelled speculation that figures with insider knowledge may be profiting off of US President Donald Trump’s war plans.

While The Financial Times reported that the attempted investment by Hesgeth’s broker did not go ahead, the defence chief would not have made money on such a purchase in the month since the war began.

While the iShares Defense Industrials Active ETF has risen more than 25 percent over the past year, it has fallen nearly 13 percent since the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran on February 28.

DEVELOPING STORYDEVELOPING STORY,

Crude prices continue to climb as world faces its biggest energy crisis in decades.

Oil prices have surged to their highest level in nearly two weeks amid escalation on multiple fronts of the US-Israel war on Iran.

Brent crude, the global benchmark, rose more than 3 percent on Monday morning to top $116 a barrel.

The latest climb took the global benchmark to its highest point since March 19, when it briefly touched $119 a barrel.

The surge came after Iran said it was prepared for a US ground invasion, with the speaker of the country’s parliament warning that Tehran was waiting for the arrival of US troops to “set them on fire” and “punish” their regional allies.

Tehran’s warning came as the conflict deepened over the weekend, with the Iranian-backed Houthis launching missiles at Israel for the first time in the war, and Israel expanding its invasion of southern Lebanon.

Iran’s effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for the US-Israel war has disrupted about one-fifth of global oil and liquified natural gas (LNG) supplies, plunging the world into its biggest energy crisis in decades.

Oil prices have risen nearly 60 percent since the start of the war, driving up fuel prices worldwide and forcing numerous countries to adopt emergency measures to conserve energy.

Analysts have warned that oil prices are likely to keep rising unless maritime traffic returns to normal levels in the strait.

Greg Newman, the CEO the Onyx Capital Group, which began as an oil derivatives trading house, said that energy markets were only beginning to feel the fallout of the turmoil.

“Physical oil moves around the world in loading cycles , and Europe has taken around three weeks to really start feeling the effects of the oil shortage,” Newman told Al Jazeera.

“Brent is starting to reflect the reality, and we think it’s a steady rise from here towards $120 and beyond.”

Newman said the scale of the disruption had yet to be fully appreciated.

No one in the market has ever seen the outages we are now suffering from – physical premiums are the highest ever. There is still a sense that the macro world is not taking this seriously enough, but it is worse than anything that has come before it,” he said.

“The reality will come out in the economic numbers over the coming months.”

More to follow…

United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio has offered wide-ranging remarks upon his departure from the latest Group of Seven (G7) ministers’ meeting in France, denouncing Iran’s continued chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz as well as settler violence in the occupied West Bank.

Standing on an airport tarmac on Friday, Rubio fielded questions from journalists about reports that Iran plans to implement a tolling system in the strait, a vital waterway for the world’s oil supply.

Rubio used the topic to double down on pressure for countries to participate in securing the Strait of Hormuz, a demand US President Donald Trump has repeatedly made.

“One of the immediate challenges we’re going to face is in Iran, when they decide that they want to set up a tolling system in the Strait of Hormuz,” Rubio said.

“Not only is this illegal, it’s unacceptable. It’s dangerous for the world, and it’s important that the world have a plan to confront it. The United States is prepared to be a part of that plan. We don’t have to lead that plan, but we are happy to be a part of it.”

He called on the G7 members — among them, Japan, Canada, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Germany and the European Union — as well as countries in Asia to “contribute greatly to that effort”.

Rubio calls toll plan ‘unacceptable’

The Strait of Hormuz is a key artery for the global transport of oil and natural gas, and prior to the start of the US and Israel’s war against Iran on February 28, an average of 20 million barrels of oil per day passed through the waterway.

That amounted to roughly 20 percent of the world’s liquid petroleum supply.

But since the outbreak of war, Iran has pledged to close the Strait of Hormuz, which borders its shores. The threat of attacks has ground most of the local tanker traffic to a standstill, though a few vessels, some linked to Iran or China, have been allowed to pass through.

Media reports suggest that Iran is setting up a “tollbooth system” that would require passing ships to put in a request through Iran’s armed forces, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). There would also be a fee to secure passage.

“ They want to make it permanent. That’s unacceptable. The whole world should be outraged by it,” Rubio said on Friday.

He added that he conveyed a warning about the polling scheme to his colleagues at the G7.

“All we’ve said is, ‘You guys need to do something about it. We’ll help you, but you guys are going to need to be ready to do something about it,’” Rubio said.

“Because when this conflict and when this operation ends, if the Iranians decide, ‘Well, now we control the Strait of Hormuz and you can only go through here if you pay us and if we allow you to, that’s not only is it illegal under international law and maritime law. It’s unacceptable, and that can’t be allowed to exist.”

The Trump administration, however, has struggled to rally allies and world powers to join the US in its offensive against Iran.

Legal experts have criticised the initial strikes against Iran as an unprovoked act of aggression, though the Trump administration has cited a range of rationales for launching the attack, including the prospect that Iran may develop a nuclear weapon.

Many of the US allies in Europe have maintained that they would limit their involvement to defensive actions. Trump, meanwhile, has accused members of the NATO alliance of being “cowards”, adding in a social media post, “We will REMEMBER.”

In a statement following the G7 meeting, member countries reiterated their stance that there should be an “immediate cessation of attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure”.

They also underscored the “absolute necessity to permanently restore safe and toll-free freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz”. But the statement fell short of pledging any resources or aid to the US and Israeli war effort.

Achieving goals ‘without any ground troops’?

It is unclear when the war might end. On Saturday, it reaches its one-month anniversary, having stretched for four weeks.

Rubio on Friday echoed Trump’s assessment that the war was going as planned and that the US was achieving its objectives, including to destroy Iran’s navy, missile stockpiles and uranium enrichment programme.

“ We are ahead of schedule on most of them, and we can achieve them without any ground troops, without any,” he said, addressing an oft-raised concern about the prospect of US troops being deployed to Iran.

Rubio also briefly addressed the increasing levels of Israeli settler violence against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank.

Footage has shown settlers this month torching Palestinian homes and vehicles, as well as assaulting residents.

On March 19, the United Nations estimated that more than 1,000 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank since Israel began its genocidal war in Gaza in October 2023. The international body underscored that a quarter of the victims were youths.

“ Well, we’re concerned about that, and we’ve expressed it. And I think there’s concern in the Israeli government about it, as well,” Rubio responded, adding that it was a “topic we follow very closely”.

He suggested that the Israeli government may take action to stop the violence, though critics argue that Israel has largely turned a blind eye to settler violence.

“Maybe they’re settlers, maybe they’re just street thugs, but they’ve attacked security forces, Israelis, as well. So, I think you’ll see the government going to do something about it,” Rubio said.

Upon taking office for a second term in January 2025, President Trump also moved to cancel sanctions against Israeli settlers accused of grave abuses in the West Bank.

It diversified energy supplies, built LNG terminals and reduced its dependence on Russia.

Europe thought it had learned its lesson after the war in Ukraine.
But today it’s facing another energy shock.

And this time it may be even worse, as the war in Iran disrupts supply through the Strait of Hormuz.

It’s happening when EU gas reserves are unusually low.

That means Europe will be competing with Asia to fill its storage tanks, which might force the price of LNG even higher.

Electricity bills are climbing.

Industry is under pressure.

Governments are stepping in to cushion the blow.

Kano, Nigeria – On a bustling day in northern Nigeria, Marian Shammah made her way to the Sabon Gari Market, one of the largest electronics hubs in Kano state.

The 34-year-old cleaner was in need of a refrigerator, but with rising costs and a meagre income, she saw the second-hand appliances sold at the market as a lifeline.

After locating the one she wanted, she paid the vendor 50,000 naira ($36) and took it home. But just a month later, the freezer collapsed.

“Only the top half of the refrigerator was working, and the freezer wasn’t working,” said Shammah.

Her food spoiled, her savings disappeared, and she was soon back in the market searching for another appliance.

Although Shammah could have bought a new local appliance for just over 30,000 naira ($30) more, she – like millions of Nigerians – believes second-hand products from America and Europe “last longer” than new products sold in Nigeria.

Observers say this trend is part of a larger crisis. Nigeria has become a major destination for the developed world’s discarded electronics – items often near the end of life, sometimes completely dead, and frequently toxic because they contain hazardous materials. When they break down, they add to landfills, worsening an already dire e-waste crisis on the African continent.

Around 60,000 tonnes of used electronics enter Nigeria through key ports each year, with at least 15,700 tonnes already damaged upon arrival, according to the United Nations.

The trade in used electronic goods is powered largely by foreign exporters. A UN tracking study between 2015 and 2016 showed that more than 85 percent of used electronics imported into Nigeria originated from Germany, the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, China, the United States, and the Republic of Ireland.

Many of these imports violate international restrictions, like the Basel Convention, an environmental treaty regulating the transboundary movement and disposal of hazardous electronic waste to developing countries with weaker environmental laws.

Across West Africa, the Basel Convention’s “E-Waste Africa Programme”, a project focused on strengthening e-waste management systems across the continent, estimates that Benin, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Liberia, and Nigeria collectively generate between 650,000 and 1,000,000 tonnes of e-waste annually – much of it the result of short-lifespan second-hand imports.

Health risks

The United Nations describes e-waste as any discarded device that uses a battery or plug and contains hazardous substances – like mercury – that can endanger both human health and the environment. Several of the toxic components commonly found in e-waste are included on the list of 10 chemicals of major public health concern maintained by the World Health Organization (WHO).

According to the WHO, used electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) presents a growing public health and environmental threat across Africa, with Nigeria at the centre of the trade.

“Much of the equipment shipped as used electronics is close to becoming waste,” said Rita Idehai, founder of Ecobarter, a Lagos-based environmental NGO, warning that devices imported and sold as affordable second-hand goods often fail shortly after arrival and quickly enter the waste stream.

The consequences are far-reaching. Many imported fridges and air conditioners, for instance, still contain CFC-based and HCFC-based refrigerants such as R-12 and R-22 – chemicals banned in Europe and the US for causing ozone depletion or being linked to cancer, miscarriages, neurological disorders, and long-term soil contamination. These gases live for 12 to 100 years, meaning leaking equipment adds to a multi-generational environmental burden.

After these imported items stop working or fall apart, informal recyclers then dismantle the electronics with their bare hands, Al Jazeera observed. In Kano, the recyclers inhale poisonous fumes and manage the heavy metals without protection. Their work earns them a meagre 3,500–14,000 naira ($2.50-$10) per week, they said, and the after-effects linger – including persistent coughing, chest pain, headaches, eye irritation, and breathing difficulties after long hours of burning cables and dismantling electronic devices.

The health crisis extends into Kano’s communities.

Among casual recyclers and residents who live close to e-waste dumps, many report symptoms that range from chronic headaches and skin irritation to breathing issues, miscarriages and neurological concerns, according to health surveys done by the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. These ailments are consistent with longtime toxic exposure, the researchers said.

Recent field assessments conducted by Nigeria’s Federal University Dutse also stressed that in and around Kano state, where the Sabon Gari Market is located, there are rising levels of heavy metals in soil and drainage channels.

Dr Ushakuma Michael Anenga, a gynaecologist at the Benue State Teaching Hospital and second vice president of the Nigerian Medical Association, warned that toxic exposure from informal e-waste recycling poses grave health risks to communities in Kano.

“Exposure to heavy metals and refrigerant gases in e-waste causes extreme brief and long-term health issues, generally affecting the breathing and renal organs,” he told Al Jazeera.

“Common casual practices like exposed burning and dismantling result in direct, high-level exposure for workers and nearby residents. Children and pregnant girls are particularly inclined due to the fact that those toxicants can disrupt development or even skip from mother to unborn baby, [while] recyclers who work without defensive equipment face repeated, frequently irreversible damage.”

Profits over protection

In Sabon Gari Market, second-hand electronics are advertised as less costly lifelines for households and poor business owners burdened by inflation.

Many customers say foreign-used home equipment appears sturdier and seems like better value for money than new imports from the developing world. Meanwhile, others are just looking for cheap options in difficult economic times.

“I usually go for second-hand or foreign-used electronics because brand-new ones are too expensive for me,” Umar Hussaini, who sells used electronics at the market, told Al Jazeera.

“Sometimes you can get them for half the price of new ones, and they look almost the same, so it feels like a good deal at the time.”

But the last refrigerator he bought stopped cooling after just three months. With no warranty or guarantee, the seller refused responsibility.

“For weeks, we couldn’t store food properly at home, and we ended up buying food daily, which was more expensive,” he said. “However, I have to buy another one again.”

For small business owners like Salisu Saidu, the losses can be even more devastating. He bought a used freezer for his shop, believing it had been serviced. Within weeks, it failed.

“I lost a lot of frozen food, which meant I lost money and customers,” he told Al Jazeera.

Around his neighbourhood, broken electronics are often dumped out in the street, sometimes emitting smoke or sparks.

“There’s also a lot of electronic waste piling up around,” he said, calling for tighter import controls, proper certification, and mandatory warranties to protect buyers from being sold what he described as “damaged goods disguised as fairly used”.

Bought as bargains, sold as burdens

At Sabon Gari Market, another vendor, Umar Abdullahi, is surrounded by imported refrigerators, air conditioners and washing machines stacked tightly together.

The products in his shop are advertised as “London use” or “Direct Belgium”, while he negotiates the sale of a double-door fridge for 120,000 naira ($87).

Abdullahi’s store is where Shammah returned after the refrigerator she bought failed. But he admits that much of what he sells to customers arrives unchecked.

“We buy them untested from suppliers in Europe, and we also sell them untested so we can make our profit,” he told Al Jazeera.

This despite the fact that international rules under the Basel Convention, as well as Nigerian environmental regulations, prohibit the shipment of material considered e-waste – with penalties including fines and jail terms.

Nwamaka Ejiofor, a spokesperson for Nigeria’s National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA), said the country does not permit the import of e-waste. However, the entry of used electronics is allowed under regulated conditions.

“The importation of used electrical and electronic equipment is regulated and may be allowed only where such equipment meets prescribed conditions, including functionality and compliance requirements,” she told Al Jazeera.

“Nigeria applies a combination of regulatory, administrative and enforcement measures to ensure that imported used electronics comply with national law and the country’s international obligations,” she added, listing out measures including environmental regulations, cargo inspection and verifying that imported equipment is “functional”.

However, despite this, some traders find loopholes in the system, including declaring cargo they plan to sell as personal belongings or second-hand household goods to avoid scrutiny.

Although NESREA says enforcement has improved, critics say the steady flow of mediocre goods continues largely unchecked. Even dealers at Sabon Gari Market acknowledge that most appliances are sold “as is”, without certification or guarantees.

‘Loopholes’

Behind the second-hand electronics trade is a network of collectors and exporters who source discarded appliances across Europe.

Baban Ladan Issa, who ships used electronics from Ireland to Nigeria, said items are gathered from weekend markets, private homes that are replacing old gadgets, and contractors clearing out equipment from offices, hotels and hospitals.

“Some suppliers mix working and damaged goods together,” he told Al Jazeera, noting that while he tries to avoid faulty items, not all buyers do the same.

Once assembled, shipments worth millions of naira are sent to Lagos through ships then down to sellers in the market in Kano state, sometimes packed in containers or hidden inside vehicles to reduce inspection risks.

Shipping records seen by Al Jazeera showed consignments labelled as “personal effects”, a classification that can limit detailed checks at ports.

Chinwe Okafor, an environmental policy analyst based in Abuja, said the problem is systemic.

“Exporting nations regularly take advantage of loopholes by means of labelling nonfunctional e-waste as ‘second-hand goods’ or ‘for repair,’” she told Al Jazeera. “In some instances, research estimates that over 75 percent of what arrives in developing countries is truly junk.”

“This permits wealthy countries to keep away from highly-priced recycling at home while pushing unsafe materials into nations with weaker safeguards.”

Ibrahim Adamu, a programme officer with the NGO Ecobarter, added that mislabelling, poor inspection technology and corruption at ports make enforcement difficult.

“The highest profits are captured by exporters and brokers who arbitrage the gap between disposal costs in Europe or Asia and the strong demand for ‘tokunbo’ goods in Nigeria,” he said, using the local name for used imported electronics.

To forestall this, he said Nigeria “must reinforce border inspections” and implement a policy whereby producers and manufacturers bear financial responsibility. At the same time, “the international network has to adopt binding bans that [hold] manufacturers and exporters responsible”, Adamu said.

Little oversight, mounting risks

Although Nigeria has regulations governing the import of electrical and electronic equipment, enforcement gaps keep exposing markets like Kano’s Sabon Gari to ageing and near-end-of-life appliances, locals say.

Ibrahim Bello, a used electronics importer with a decade in the business, said many shipments that arrive from Europe are in less-than-ideal condition.

“Around 20 to 30 percent of the items we receive have issues when they arrive,” he told Al Jazeera. “Some are already damaged, while others stop working after a short time because they are old.

“That’s just part of the business.”

Retailer Chinedu Peter gave similar estimates. “From what I’ve experienced, maybe 40 percent of the electronics have some fault as they come,” he said, adding that environmental and protection checks don’t happen as they are meant to.

“Such a lot of items enter without special checks.”

Both men feel that clearer rules and certified testing systems will improve trust. But until then, thousands of ageing, unsuitable products will continue to flood Nigeria.

Shammah, back at Sabon Gari Market just weeks after her refrigerator broke, was once again searching through rows of stacked appliances, hoping her next purchase might last longer than the last.

“I don’t really trust these fairly used appliances again, but I still have to buy something because we need it at home,” she told Al Jazeera.

“This time I’m thinking … I can buy a new one from a proper shop, even if it takes longer, because I don’t want to lose my money again.”

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko gifted North Korean leader Kim Jong Un a gun after the two countries signed a friendship treaty during the Belarusian’s first official state visit.

A week into the United States-Israeli war on Iran, and Iran’s attacks on its Gulf neighbours, Jaya Khuntia spoke – as he often did – to his Doha-based son Kuna on the phone.

It was March 6, about 10pm, and Khuntia and the family were worried. “He told me, ‘I am safe here, don’t worry,’” the father recalled from the conversation with Kuna.

It was the last time they spoke.

The next day, the family in Naikanipalli village of India’s eastern Odisha state received a phone call from Kuna’s roommate telling them that the son had suffered a heart attack after hearing the sound of missiles and debris from interceptions falling near their residence. He collapsed and was later declared dead. Kuna’s body reached home days later.

Al Jazeera cannot independently confirm the cause of Kuna’s death, but the family of the 25-year-old, who worked as a pipe fitter in Qatar’s capital, is among millions across South Asia directly affected by the war in the Middle East.

Of the eight people killed in the United Arab Emirates in Iranian attacks, two were Emirati military personnel, a third a Palestinian civilian, and the remaining five were from South Asia: Three from Pakistan, and one each from Bangladesh and Nepal. All three people killed in Oman were from India. An Indian national and a Bangladeshi national are the only deaths in Saudi Arabia.

Migrant workers from South Asia total nearly 21 million people in the Gulf nations, a third of the total population of the region. At stake, for their families back home, is the safety of their loved ones and the future of their dreams.

The Khuntia family had taken on a 300,000-rupee ($3200) debt in 2025 for the marriages of their two daughters. Kuna’s income in Doha – where he had moved only in late 2025 – of 35,000 rupees ($372) was helping them collect what they needed to pay back the loan. Kuna had been sending back about 15,000 rupees ($164) every month.

“We thought our suffering was finally ending,” Jaya said, his voice trembling. “My only son would say, ‘Baba, don’t worry, I am here.’ He was our only hope… our everything.”

That hope is now extinguished. “That one call finished us,” Jaya cried. “He promised to return after clearing our debts … but he came back in a coffin. We have nothing left now. Losing our only son is the biggest debt we have to live with.”

‘I thought we would be next’

In all, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE – the six Arab countries in the Gulf – host 35 million foreign nationals, who form a majority of their total population, 62 million.

They include 9 million people from India, 5 million each from Pakistan and Bangladesh, 1.2 million from Nepal, and 650,000 from Sri Lanka. Most of them are engaged in blue-collar work, building or supporting the industries and services that are at the heart of the Gulf’s success and prosperity.

But since the US and Israel launched their war on Iran, these migrant workers have often been among the most vulnerable. That vulnerability extends beyond deaths and injuries to the very nature of their work: Oil refineries, construction areas, airports and docks, where many work, have been targeted in Iranian attacks.

The suspension of work at many of these facilities, coupled with fears of a major economic downturn in the region, has also left many workers and their families worried about the future of their jobs.

Hamza*, a Pakistani migrant labourer working at an oil storage facility in the UAE, recalled a recent attack that he witnessed. “A drone struck a storage unit right in front of us. We were completely shaken. Most of us there are from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

“We couldn’t sleep for nights after that. The drone was so close that it could have killed us, too,” Hamza added. “For a moment, I thought we would be next.”

Despite these dangers, he said, leaving is not an option.

“We want to go back, but we can’t,” Hamza said. “Our families depend on us. It’s dangerous here, but if we stop working, they will have nothing to eat. We have no choice.”

Experts say Hamza’s sentiment is common across South Asian blue-collar workers in the Gulf, because of poverty and limited employment opportunities back home.

Imran Khan, a faculty member at the New Delhi Institute of Management working on migration economics, said migrant labourers from South Asia are often driven by desperation to take up jobs in the Middle East. He said Western countries have, in recent years, dramatically raised entry barriers for less-educated blue-collar foreign workers.

“These workers are the worst affected during crises – whether war or natural disasters,” he says. “I have been speaking to several migrant labourers, particularly Indians in the Middle East, and many are living in distress since the conflict began.”

But, like Hamza, most cannot afford to leave, Khan said.

“They cannot simply quit. Their income would stop immediately, and there are very limited opportunities back home,” he explained. “They have families to support, and without these jobs, survival becomes difficult.”

Families – and societies – that depend on remittances

Middle Eastern countries remain a key source of remittances for South Asian nations such as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal. The remittances these five countries receive from the region, $103bn, are comparable to Oman’s total gross domestic product (GDP).

Just the remittances that India receives from the Gulf, $50bn, are more than Bahrain’s entire GDP. Pakistan receives $38.3bn in remittances, Bangladesh $13.5bn, Sri Lanka $8bn, and Nepal $5bn.

With the recent escalation of conflict in the Middle East, experts warn these flows could be significantly affected, especially if Gulf economies contract and layoffs follow.

Faisal Abbas, an expert in international economics and director at the Centre of Excellence on Population and Wellbeing Studies, a Pakistan-based research institute, said remittances from the Middle East form a crucial economic backbone for South Asian nations, not just families.

“Remittances are a critical pillar for Pakistan and other South Asian economies, and a large share comes from Middle Eastern countries,” he explained. “If the situation worsens, it will not be a positive development for the region.”

Pakistan’s remittances from the Gulf constitute nearly 10 percent of its GDP, about $400bn.

Abbas added that the effect may extend beyond remittance flows. “Migration patterns could also be disrupted. Many workers may return home, while those planning to migrate might reconsider,” he said. “This could further increase unemployment in a region already facing job shortages.”

Unlike Hamza, a number of South Asian workers are planning to return home.

Noor*, a migrant worker from Bangladesh employed at an oil facility in Saudi Arabia, said he no longer feels safe and plans to return home once his contract ends.

“I will never come back here again,” he said. “It’s too dangerous. We can’t even sleep at night. The fear never leaves us.”

Noor said drone attacks had occurred close to his workplace. “We saw it happen in front of us,” he said. “That fear stays with you… It doesn’t go away.”

His family, too, is deeply affected. “My children cry every time they call me. They are scared for my life,” he added.

He said he knows that returning to Bangladesh would mean more economic hardship for his family. But Noor said he had made up his mind.

“I would rather go back and struggle to survive with my family than live here in constant fear,” he said. “At least there, I will be with them.”

*Some names have been changed at the request of workers who fear retribution from contractors for speaking to the media.