cap

Oct. 31 (UPI) — The Trump administration will permit a record-low 7,500 refugees into the United States during the 2026 fiscal year, with most spots allocated to White South Africans.

The number, a drastic drop from the 125,000 that the previous Biden administration had set for 2025, is expected to be swiftly challenged by Democrats and human rights and immigration advocates.

The announcement was made Thursday, with the presidential determination being published in the Federal Register.

According to the document, the Trump administration said the number “is justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest.”

The document specifies that “admissions numbers shall primarily be allocated among Afrikaners,” in line with President Donald Trump‘s February executive order that sought to penalize South Africa over a land expropriation law allowing the government to confiscate land if it was in the public interest and in a few specific cases without compensation.

Trump has claimed, without evidence, that Black-majority South Africa would use the law to take land from White Afrikaners. He has said that they were victims of “racial discrimination” and “large-scale killings.”

South Africa has repeatedly refuted the characterization.

In May, the first 49 Afrikaners granted refugee statues by Trump arrived in the United States.

About two weeks later, tensions flared between South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and Trump at the White House as the American leader said he had heard “thousands of stories” about violence against White South Africans in the country.

The International Refugee Assistance Project criticized the Trump administration for issuing the decision without consultation with Congress, as required by law. It also rebuked the administration for reserving admissions mostly for Afrikaners, at the expense of at-risk refugees.

It said the Trump administration was valuing “politics over protection.”

“Today’s announcement highlights just how far this administration has gone when it comes to abandoning its responsibilities to displaced people around the world,” IRAP President Sharif Aly said in a statement.

The 7,500 is the lowest since Trump set the refugee limit at 15,000 for fiscal year 2021, during his first term.

The Trump administration will limit the number of refugees admitted to the US to 7,500 over the next year, and give priority to white South Africans.

The move, announced in a notice published on Thursday, marks a dramatic cut from the previous limit of 125,000 set by former President Joe Biden and will bring the cap to a record low.

No reason was given for the cut, but the notice said it was “justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest”.

In January, Trump signed an executive order suspending the US Refugee Admissions Programme, or USRAP, which he said would allow US authorities to prioritise national security and public safety.

The previous lowest refugee admissions cap was set by the first Trump administration in 2020, when it allocated 15,000 spots for fiscal year 2021.

The notice posted to the website of the Federal Register said the 7,500 admissions would “primarily” be allocated to Afrikaner South Africans and “other victims of illegal or unjust discrimination in their respective homelands”.

In February, the US president announced the suspension of critical aid to South Africa and offered to allow members of the Afrikaner community – who are mostly white descendants of early Dutch and French settlers – to settle in the US as refugees.

South Africa’s ambassador to Washington, Ebrahim Rasool, was later expelled after accusing Trump of “mobilising a supremacism” and trying to “project white victimhood as a dog whistle”.

In the Oval Office in May, Trump confronted South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa and claimed white farmers in his nation were being killed and “persecuted”.

The White House also played a video which they said showed burial sites for murdered white farmers. It later emerged that the videos were scenes from a 2020 protest in which the crosses represented farmers killed over multiple years.

The tense meeting came just days after the US granted asylum to 60 Afrikaners.

The South African government has vehemently denied that Afrikaners and other White South Africans are being persecuted.

On his first day in office on 20 January, Trump said the US would suspend USRAP to reflect the US’s lack of “ability to absorb large numbers of migrants, and in particular, refugees, into its communities in a manner that does not compromise the availability of resources for Americans” and “protects their safety and security”.

The US policy of accepting white South Africans has already prompted accusations of unfair treatment from refugee advocacy groups.

Some have argued the US is now effectively shut to other persecuted groups or people facing potential harm in their home country, and even former allies that helped US forces in Afghanistan or the Middle East.

“This decision doesn’t just lower the refugee admissions ceiling,” Global Refuge CEO and president Krish O’Mara Vignarajah said on Thursday. “It lowers our moral standing.”

“At a time of crisis in countries ranging from Afghanistan to Venezuela to Sudan and beyond, concentrating the vast majority of admissions on one group undermines the programme’s purpose as well as its credibility,” she added.

Refugees International also slammed the move, saying it “makes a mockery of refugee protection and of American values”.

“Let us be frank: whatever hardships some Afrikaners may face, this population has no plausible claim on refugee status – they are not fleeing systematic persecution,” Refugees International said in its statement.

The South African government has yet to respond to the latest announcement.

During the Oval Office meeting, President Ramaphosa said only that he hoped that Trump officials would listen to South Africans about the issue, and later said he believed there is “doubt and disbelief about all this in [Trump’s] head”.

Earlier this year, Ramaphosa signed a controversial law allowing the government to seize privately-owned land without compensation in some circumstances.

While the country does not release race-based crime figured, figures published earlier this year showed that 7,000 people were murdered in South African between October and December 2024.

Of these, 12 were killed in farm attacks and only one of the 12 was a farmer. Five others were farm dwellers and four were employees, who are likely to have been black.

If this World Series is going to turn into a food fight about the economics of baseball, Dave Roberts tossed the first meatball.

The Dodgers had just been presented with the National League Championship trophy. Roberts, the Dodgers’ manager, had something to say to a sellout crowd at Dodger Stadium, and to an audience watching on national television.

“They said the Dodgers are ruining baseball,” Roberts hollered. “Let’s get four more wins and really ruin baseball.”

The Dodgers had just vanquished the Milwaukee Brewers, a team that did everything right, with four starting pitchers whose contracts total $1.35 billion.

The Brewers led the major leagues in victories this year. They have made the playoffs seven times in the past eight years, and yet their previous manager and general manager fled for big cities, in the hope of applying small-market smarts to teams with large-market resources.

The Dodgers will spend half a billion dollars on player payroll and luxury tax payments this year, a figure that the Brewers and other small-market teams might never spend in this lifetime, or the next one.

The Brewers will make about $35 million in local television rights this year. The Dodgers make 10 times that much — and they’ll make more than $500 million per year by the end of their SportsNet LA contract in 2038.

Is revenue disparity a problem for the sport?

The owners say yes. They are expected to push for a salary cap in next year’s collective bargaining negotiations. A cap is anathema to the players’ union. At the All-Star Game, union executive director Tony Clark called a cap “institutionalized collusion.”

The union could say, yes, revenue disparity is the big issue and propose something besides a cap.

But that is not what the union is saying. The union does not agree that revenue disparity is the issue, at least to the extent that the players should participate in solving it. Put another way: Tarik Skubal should not get less than market value in free agency to appease the owner of the Pittsburgh Pirates.

For the most part, the union believes the owners should resolve the issue among themselves.

And the fundamental difference might be this: To most of the owners, the Dodgers’ spending is the big problem, or at least the symptom of a big problem. This was Commissioner Rob Manfred at the owners’ meetings last February: “Do people perceive that the playing field is balanced and fair and/or do people believe that money dictates who wins?”

To the union, the problem is not one of perception. The union believes the problem is that the Dodgers’ spending exposes other owners who would love a salary cap that would give them cover — not to mention cost certainty that could increase profits and franchise values.

“Players across the league show up every day ready to compete and ready to win,” Clark told The Times. “Excuses aren’t tolerated between the lines, and they shouldn’t be accepted outside them either.

“When decision-makers off the field mirror the competitive drive exhibited on it, everybody wins and baseball’s future is limitless. Fans and players alike deserve — and should demand — far more accountability from those to whom much is given.”

Tony Clark, executive director of the MLB Players’ Assn., speaks during a news conference in New York in March 2022.

(Richard Drew / Associated Press)

In its annual estimates, Forbes had the Dodgers’ revenue last season at a league-leading $752 million and the Pirates’ revenue at $326 million. The Pirates turned a profit of $47 million and the Dodgers turned a profit of $21 million, according to those estimates.

The Pirates — and other small-market teams — make more than $100 million each year in their equal split of league revenue (national and international broadcast rights, for instance, and merchandising and licensing) and revenue shared by the Dodgers and other large-market teams. That means the Pirates can cover their player payroll before selling a single ticket, beer, or Primanti sandwich stuffed with meat, cheese and fries.

“The current system is designed so larger markets share massive amounts of revenue with smaller markets to help level the playing field,” Clark said. “Small-market teams have other built-in advantages, and we’ve proposed more in bargaining — and will again.”

The union would be delighted to get a salary floor — that is, a minimum team payroll. The owners would do that if the union agreed to a maximum team payroll — that is, a salary cap.

Whether the owners believe recent and potential future changes — among them a draft lottery, more favorable draft-pick compensation for small-market teams losing free agents, providing additional draft picks for teams that promote prospects sooner and for small-market teams that win — can begin to mitigate revenue disparity is uncertain. Whether the players can condition revenue sharing on team progress also is uncertain.

And, perhaps most critically to owners, the collapse of the cable ecosystem means many teams have lost local television revenue that might not ever bounce completely back, even if Manfred can deliver on his proposed “all teams, all the time, in one place” service.

Whatever the issues might be, fans are not throwing up their hands and walking away. The league sold more tickets this year than in any year since 2017. Almost every week brought an announcement from ESPN, Fox or TNT about a ratings increase, and the league did not complain about the outstanding ratings the Dodgers and New York Yankees attracted in last year’s World Series.

Dodgers fans celebrate after Shohei Ohtani hits the second of his three home runs in Game 4 of the NLCS against the Brewers at Dodger Stadium on Oct. 17.

(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)

Payroll is under the control of an owner. Market size is not.

Of the top 15 teams in market size, six made the playoffs. Of the bottom 15 teams in market size, six made the playoffs.

Is that a reasonable exhibition of competitive balance? Would the Dodgers winning the World Series in back-to-back years define competitive imbalance, even if they would become the first team in 25 years to repeat? The only other team currently dedicated to spending like the Dodgers — the New York Mets — has not won the World Series in 39 years.

The Kansas City Chiefs have played in the Super Bowl five times in six years, winning three times. That is because they have Patrick Mahomes, not because the NFL has a salary cap.

In the past three years, the Dodgers are the only team to appear in the final four twice — more diversity than in the final four in the NFL, NBA or NHL, each of which has a salary cap.

The league used to happily distribute information like that. After the winter chants about the Dodgers ruining baseball, the league started talking about how no small-market team had won the World Series in 10 years.

Payroll itself should not define competitive balance, but that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy if an owner decides competing with the Dodgers would be no less futile by spending another $25 million on players.

It is premature to count heads now. However, at this point, you wonder whether any team besides the Dodgers and Mets would lobby against the league pursuing a salary cap in negotiations. If the owners really want a salary cap, they need to be prepared to do what the NHL did to get one: shut down the league for an entire season.

We should be talking about the magic of Shohei Ohtani and Mookie Betts. Instead, on its grandest stage, the talk around baseball will be all about whether its most popular team is ruining the game to the point of depriving us of it come 2027. Well done, everyone.

SCRAPPING the two-child benefit cap may not help with a child’s early development and being ready for school, a report says.

The new study says ending the policy would massively help reduce child poverty but it currently has “no adverse” impact on kids by the end of their reception year.

1

Sir Keir Starmer is under pressure to end the cap from ex-Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell.

But ending the policy that came into effect in 2017 would cost between £2 billion and £3.5 billion by the end of the decade.

The government has a goal of raising the proportion of children starting school ready to learn from the current 68 per cent to 75 per cent by 2030.

Report author Tom Waters, of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said: “This suggests that it might be hard for the Government to ‘kill two birds with one stone’ – simultaneously reducing child poverty and raising school readiness – through scrapping the two-child limit.”

The government is expected to set out its strategy to tackle child poverty this Autumn.

Cabinet Minister Bridget Phillipson said scrapping the cap is “on the table” while drumming up support for her bid to be Labour’s deputy leader, following Angela Rayner leaving the role.

Sept. 15 (UPI) — Shares of Google‘s parent company Alphabet soared on Monday, pushing the tech conglomerate’s market capitalization past the $3 trillion mark for the first time.

The development puts the search engine giant among a handful of other tech companies that have reached the milestone, which include Apple and Microsoft, as well as AI chipmaker Nvidia. Shares of Alphabet were up by more than 4% and were hovering at around $250 as of Monday afternoon.

The company’s all-time high follows its precipitous stock rise that began in early September when a federal judge ruled that Google would not have to sell off its Chrome browser or Android operating system. The ruling by Judge Amit Mehta was in response to antitrust lawsuit brought by the Justice Department accusing the company of running illegal search engine monopoly.

The ruling meant that Google dodged some of the most consequential remedies sought by federal prosecutors and Mehta still ordered the company to share some search engine data with rivals. The order also barred Google from contracts with other companies making its search engine and other products the default options on their products.

Stock market analysts anticipated the asendance of Alphabet’s stock following the ruling, and the company’s gains Monday account for nearly a third of its value this year, reported Investopedia.

The milestone for Google comes nearly two decades after the company’s first IPO when it began selling publicly traded stocks.

NBA commissioner Adam Silver on Wednesday pulled back the reins as allegations swirled about the Clippers circumventing the salary cap by orchestrating an endorsement deal for star forward Kawhi Leonard.

Silver, speaking to the media after a previously scheduled meeting of all 30 team owners in New York, said an NBA investigation would need to uncover clear evidence that the Clippers violated rules for owner Steve Ballmer to be punished.

“The burden is on the league if we are going to discipline a team, an owner, a player or any constituent members of the league,” Silver said. “I think, as with any process that requires a fundamental sense of fairness, the burden should be on the party that is, in essence, bringing those charges. …

“I think as a matter of fundamental fairness, I would be reluctant to act if there was sort of a mere appearance of impropriety.”

The Clippers and Ballmer are under league investigation after it was alleged last week on the podcast of Pablo Torre that Leonard was paid $28 million for a do-nothing endorsement role by Aspiration, a sustainability firm that had agreed to a $330-million sponsorship deal with the Clippers and had offered $1 billion for naming rights to the arena that instead became the Intuit Dome.

Aspiration turned out to be a fraudulent company, and co-founder Joseph Sanberg has agreed to plead guilty to defrauding multiple investors and lenders.

Silver said he would hesitate to take action against the Clippers if even a shred of doubt about the situation remains following the investigation, which will be conducted by a law firm experienced in probing wrongdoing by sports franchises, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen and Katz.

“Bringing in a firm that specializes in internal investigations adds a level of expertise and creates separation between the league and the investigation of a team,” said Michael McCann, a sports law expert and a visiting professor at Harvard. “The investigators have a background in prosecutorial work, insight into what documents to request and questions to ask.”

McCann and other legal experts said the investigation would center on whether Ballmer’s $50-million investment into Aspiration was a quid pro quo for the firm to turn around and give Leonard $28 million in cash and $20 million in Aspiration stock to essentially do nothing.

Ballmer is embarrassed by the allegations and about his apparent infatuation with Aspiration — which entered into a $330-million sponsorship arrangement with the Clippers and was nearly awarded naming rights to what became the Intuit Dome, only to be revealed as a fraudulent company run by scam artists.

McCann said the investigation would need to uncover concrete evidence that Ballmer or someone else representing the Clippers directed Aspiration to make the deal with Leonard. The only evidence presented on Torre’s podcast was hearsay — an audio clip of an anonymous former Aspiration employee saying that someone else in the company told them the endorsement deal “was to circumvent the salary cap, LOL. There was lots of LOL when things were shared.”

LOL typically is used in written communication, so if the allegation was made in an email or text, the next step for investigators would be to interview the person who wrote it and determine whether Ballmer was involved.

The investigation presumably will examine all of this. Silver tends to be methodical when conducting a probe and is expected to act on what can be proved, not on the perception of wrongdoing. But he also is charged with protecting and growing franchise values. Anything that could damage the integrity of the league would be a huge concern to him and team owners.

“Silver has quite a few very interesting relationships to protect and to nurture: other owners, his corporate sponsors, the media networks that are distributing the content,” said David Carter, a USC professor of sports business and principal of the Sports Business Group. “Everybody attached to the league is interested in getting to the bottom of this. So he has to balance different stakeholder interests and he is very good at doing that.

“So I have a feeling he will — working with the law firm — get to the bottom of it and then decide to what extent if any punishment is warranted. He’ll do that with the intent of making sure he’s protecting the interests of the other owners.”

Leonard joined the Clippers in July 2019 on a three-year, $103-million contract after leading the Toronto Raptors to the NBA title. The 6-foot-7 forward from Moreno Valley signed a four-year, $176.3-million extension in 2021, when Aspiration made its sponsorship deal with the Clippers and Ballmer invested and became a minority owner in the company.

After signing a three-year, $153-million extension a year ago, Leonard will have been paid or is under contract for $375 million in career salary over 14 years with three teams.

The NBA looked into allegations that the Clippers paid Leonard or his representative and uncle, Dennis Robertson, a side deal when he first joined the team in 2019. No wrongdoing was found, although this week the Toronto Star reported that Robertson made demands of the Raptors in 2019 “that line up almost perfectly with what Leonard reportedly got from Aspiration.”

The Star reported that Robertson demanded $10 million a year in sponsorship income but that Leonard didn’t want to do anything for the money. The Raptors rejected the demand, and Leonard signed with the Clippers.

Should the Clippers be found guilty of circumventing the salary cap, they could be forced to forfeit draft picks and be fined heavily. Ballmer and other team executives could be suspended, and perhaps Leonard’s contract could be voided.

Silver will proceed carefully.

“The goal of a full investigation is to find out if there really was impropriety,” he said. “In a public-facing sport, the public at times reaches conclusions that later turn out to be completely false. I’d want anyone else in the situation Mr. Ballmer is in now, or Kawhi Leonard for that matter, to be treated the same way I would want to be treated if people were making allegations against me.”

At the heart of the uproar over allegations that Kawhi Leonard of the Los Angeles Clippers received millions in undisclosed payments from a tree-planting startup is a National Basketball Association rule that caps the the total annual payroll for teams.

According to a report by Pablo Torre of the Athletic, bankruptcy documents show that the tree-planting startup Aspiration Partners paid Leonard $21 million — and still owes him another $7 million — after agreeing to a $28 million contract for endorsement and marketing work at the company.

The report claims there is no evidence to show that Leonard did anything for Aspiration Partners, whose initial funding came in large part from Clippers owner Steve Ballmer. Torre alleges that the payment to Leonard was a way to skirt the NBA salary cap and pad his contract.

The Clippers have forcefully denied that they or Ballmer “circumvented the salary cap or engaged in any misconduct related to Aspiration.”

Still, the NBA said it was launching an investigation into the matter.

The salary cap is a dollar amount that limits what teams can spend on player payroll. The number is determined based on a percentage of projected income for the upcoming year. In 2024-25, the salary cap was $140.6 million.

The purpose of the cap is to ensure parity, preventing the wealthiest teams from outspending smaller markets to acquire the best players. Teams that exceed the cap must pay luxury tax penalties that grow increasingly severe. Revenues from the tax penalties are then distributed in part to smaller-market teams and in part to teams that do not exceed the salary cap.

The cap was implemented before the 1984-85 season at a mere $3.6 million. Ten years later, it was $15.9 million, and 10 years after that it had risen to $43.9 million. By the 2014-15 season it was $63.1 million.

The biggest spike came before the 2016-2017 season when it jumped to $94 million because of an influx of revenue from a new nine-year, $24 billion media rights deal with ESPN and TNT.

Salary cap rules negotiated between the NBA and the players’ union are spelled out in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Proven incidents of teams circumventing the cap are few, with a violation by the Minnesota Timberwolves in 2000 serving as the most egregious.

The Timberwolves made a secret agreement with free agent and former No. 1 overall draft pick Joe Smith, signing him to a succession of below-market one-year deals in order to enable the team to go over the cap with a huge contract ahead of the 2001-2002 season.

The NBA voided his contract, fined the Timberwolves $3.5 million, and stripped them of five first-round draft picks — two of which were later returned. Also, owner Glen Taylor and general manager Kevin McHale were suspended.

Then-NBA commissioner David Stern told the Minnesota Star-Tribune at the time: “What was done here was a fraud of major proportions. There were no fewer than five undisclosed contracts tightly tucked away, in the hope that they would never see the light of day. … The magnitude of this offense was shocking.”

Current commissioner Adam Silver is just as adamant as Stern when it comes to enforcing salary cap rules, although the current CBA limits punishment.

According to Article 13 of the CBA, if the Clippers were found to have circumvented the cap, it would be a first offense punishable by a $4.5 million fine, one first-round draft pick, and voiding of Leonard’s contract. However, the Clippers don’t have a first-round pick until 2027.

Leonard, one of the Clippers stars, is extremely well compensated. He will have been paid $375,772,011 by NBA teams through the upcoming season, according to industry expert spotrac.com.

A former Aspiration finance department employee whose voice was disguised on Torre’s podcast said that when they noticed the shockingly large fee paid to Leonard, they were told that, “If I had any questions about it, essentially don’t, because it was to circumvent the salary cap, LOL. There was lots of LOL when things were shared.”

Aspiration Partners was a digital bank that promoted socially responsible spending and investments that, at one point, brought in a star-filled roster of investors that included Drake, Robert Downey Jr., and Leonardo DiCaprio. Founded in 2013, it offered investments in “conscious coalition” companies and offered carbon credits to businesses. The company was valued it at $2.3 million at one point.

But in August, the company’s co-founder, Joseph Sanberg, agreed to plead guilty to charges that he defrauded investors and lenders. Federal prosecutors accused Sanberg of causing more than $248 million in losses, calling him a “fraudster.”

Prosecutors alleged that Sanberg and another member of the company’s board, Ibrahim AlHusseini, fraudulently obtained $145 million in loans by promising shares from Sanberg’s stock in the company. AlHusseini allegedly falsified records to inflate his assets to obtain the loans, and Sanberg concealed from investigators that he was the source for revenue that was recognized by the company.

Sanberg had also recruited companies and individuals to claim they would be paying tens of thousands of dollars to have trees planted, but instead Sanberg used legal entities under his control to hide that he was making these payments, not the customers.

Aspiration, which was partially funded by Ballmer with a $50 million investment, filed for bankruptcy in March.

The company was expected to pay more than $300 million over two decades as a sponsor for the Clippers’ Intuit Dome, which opened in August 2024. But before the new arena opened, the Clippers said Aspiration was no longer a sponsor, just as the Justice Department and Commodity Futures Trading Commission began looking into allegations that Aspiration had misled customers and investors.

During Aspiration’s bankruptcy proceedings, documents emerged citing KL2 Aspire as a creditor owed $7 million, one of four yearly payments of that amount agreed upon in a 2022 contract. KL2 is a limited liability company that names Leonard — whose jersey number is 2 — as its manager.

Aspiration was partially funded by a $50-million investment from Ballmer. It is not known whether Ballmer was aware of or played a role in facilitating the employment agreement between Aspiration and Leonard.

The Clippers issued a lengthy statement Thursday, attempting to explain why Leonard being paid by Aspiration was unrelated to his contract with the Clippers.

“There is nothing unusual or untoward about team sponsors doing endorsement deals with players on the same team,” the statement said in part. “Neither Steve nor the Clippers organization had any oversight of Kawhi’s independent endorsement agreement with Aspiration. To say otherwise is flat-out wrong.”

“The Clippers take NBA compliance extremely seriously, fully respect the league’s rules, and welcome its investigation related to Aspiration.”

In his reporting, Torre noted that Leonard’s contract with Aspiration included an unusual clause that said the company could terminate the endorsement agreement if Leonard was no longer a member of the Clippers.

Mark Cuban, part owner of the Dallas Mavericks, took to X.com to suggest that Torre’s reporting was faulty.

‘I’m on Team Ballmer,” Cuban wrote. “As much as I wish they circumvented the salary cap, First Steve isn’t that dumb. If he did try to feed KL money, knowing what was at stake for him personally, and his team, do you think he would let the company go bankrupt ? “

Torre responded by inviting Cuban on his podcast, “Pablo Torre Finds Out.”

July 9 (UPI) — The Nvidia technology company now stands alone at the top of the worth list as on Wednesday it became the first publicly traded company to reach $4 trillion in market value.

Its stock went up 2.5% on Wednesday to hit a record single trading day high that pushed it over the $4 trillion line. It’s had a sensational 2025 so far, growing approximately 20% due in part to its key role in the AI boom.

Apple had entered the year at around $3.9 trillion, which at that point made it the world’s most valuable company, but it took a hit during the chaotic tariff rollout of President Donald Trump.

Nvidia and Microsoft have both ebbed and surged in value so far this year, trading places as the most valuable company on Earth, but as of Wednesday Nvidia has found itself in the highest weight class of all time.

It first found fortune for its graphics processing units, a big hit in the PC gaming world, and now it can brag of new AI models intended to power autonomous vehicles and robots, and this comes at an extremely opportune time as its chips power the data centers that companies like Google, Amazon and Microsoft need to keep their AI models and cloud services humming.

Nvidia created $44.1 billion in revenue for the quarter that ended in April, 69% up from the same period from the year before.

The future for Nvidia certainly bodes well as AI investments are expected to keep swelling upwards, as market research by the International Data Corporation portends global spending on AI infrastructure will pass $200 billion by 2028.

In an interview with CNBC Wednesday, Goldman Sachs Asset Management co-head of public tech investing Brook Dane reacted to Nvidia’s ascent to a $4T market cap by saying, “We’re at the early stages of the biggest tech transformation we’ve seen in decades.”

That concept was echoed by a June research note from the Loop Capital investment firm, which speculates that Nvidia could hit a $6 trillion market cap by 2028.

An insatiably popular city on the French Riviera has revealed it is clamping down on over-tourism with a bold cap on cruise passengers – in a huge blow to UK holidaymakers

A popular EU hotspot is clamping down on over-tourism after unveiling a brutal visitor cap.

Every year, around three million tourists flock to the ultra-chic city of Cannes, lured in by its golden sandy beaches, designer shops, and A-list-studded film festival. The influx is largely attributed to cruise passengers travelling through the French Riviera, who get dropped off in huge crowds for day-trips.

In fact, in 2024, a staggering 460,000 cruise passengers flocked to Cannes – resulting in concerns of pollution and overcrowding, as well as straining local amenities for permanent residents. However, in a major crackdown confirmed by the council – this could all soon change.

Starting next year, a maximum of 6,000 cruise passengers will be allowed to disembark in Cannes per day. The number of mega ships carrying more than 5,000 passengers will also be cut by 48 per cent, with a long-term aim of banning all vessels carrying more than 1,300 people by 2030.

The harsh limit follows in the footsteps of the nearby city of Nice, which vowed to ban ships more than 190m long and with a capacity of more than 900 passengers from docking in its port, as well as the neighbouring Villefranche-sur-Mer from next summer. However, authorities have since backtracked on the ruling, now permitting ships carrying up to 2,500 people to dock in Villefranche-sur-Mer, but only one at a time, with a cap of 65 per year.

According to EuroNews, cruise operators have criticised the move in Cannes – arguing such restrictions are ‘damaging’ to tourist destinations and holidaymakers. Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA) says such a strict cap ‘imposes unjustified restrictions on a sector that enables millions of people to discover the world’.

Want the latest travel news and cheapest holiday deals sent straight to your inbox? Sign up to our Travel Newsletter

The company argued that cruises ‘actively contribute to the vitality of port cities’ by bringing in income to the area. However, Mayor David Lisnard was quick to defend the decision and double down on the cap.

“Cannes has become a major cruise ship destination, with real economic benefits,” the politician said in a statement. “It’s not about banning cruise ships, but about regulating, organising, setting guidelines for their navigation.”

As reported by the Express, Mayor Lisnard has already imposed an environmental charter on cruise companies back in 2019. Back then, he threatened to block passenger excursions if they failed to comply.

Other popular cities including Venice, Barcelona and Amsterdam have also capped cruise ships in recent years – following a string of anti-tourist protests that have erupted across the continent. While it puts the future of Brits’ cruise holiday into jeopardy – it’s likely the move will be well received by fed-up locals, who have long demonstrated against overcrowding and spikes in holiday rentals.

What do you think of the tourist cap? Let us know in the comments section below

NEW YORK — The monthlong celebration of LGBTQ+ Pride reached its crescendo as New York and other major cities in the U.S. and around the world hosted parades and marches Sunday.

Pride celebrations are typically a daylong mix of jubilant street parties and political protest, but this year’s iterations took a more defiant stance as Republicans, led by President Trump, have sought to roll back LGBTQ+ rights.

The theme of the festivities in Manhattan was “Rise Up: Pride in Protest.” San Francisco’s Pride theme was “Queer Joy Is Resistance,” while Seattle’s was simply “Louder.”

Lance Brammer, a 56-year-old teacher from Ohio attending his first Pride parade in New York, said he felt “validated” as he marveled at the size of the city’s celebration, the nation’s oldest and largest.

“With the climate that we have politically, it just seems like they’re trying to do away with the whole LGBTQ community, especially the trans community,” he said, wearing a vivid, multicolored shirt. “And it just shows that they’ve got a fight ahead of them if they think that they’re going to do that with all of these people here and all of the support.”

Doriana Feliciano, who described herself as an LGBTQ+ ally, held up a sign saying, “Please don’t lose hope,” in support of friends she said couldn’t attend Sunday.

“We’re in a very progressive time, but there’s still hate out there, and I feel like this is a great way to raise awareness,” she said.

Manhattan’s parade wound its way down Fifth Avenue with more than 700 participating groups greeted by huge crowds. The rolling celebration will pass the Stonewall Inn, the famed Greenwich Village gay bar where a 1969 police raid triggered protests and energized the LGBTQ+ rights movement.

The site is now a national monument. The first Pride march was held in New York City in 1970 to commemorate the one-year anniversary of the Stonewall uprising.

Later Sunday, marchers in San Francisco, host to another of the world’s largest Pride events, planned to head down Market Street to concert stages set up at the Civic Center Plaza. San Francisco’s mammoth City Hall is among the venues hosting a post-march party.

Denver, Chicago, Seattle, Minneapolis and Toronto were among the other major North American cities hosting Pride parades on Sunday.

Several global cities including Tokyo, Paris and São Paulo held their events earlier this month, and others come later in the year, including London in July and Rio de Janeiro in November.

Since taking office in January, Trump has issued orders and implemented policies targeting transgender people, removing them from the military, preventing federal insurance programs from paying for gender-affirmation surgeries for young people and attempting to keep transgender athletes out of girls’ and women’s sports.

Peter McLaughlin said he’s lived in New York for years but had never attended the Pride parade. The 34-year-old Brooklyn resident said he felt compelled this year as a transgender man.

“A lot of people just don’t understand that letting people live doesn’t take away from their own experience, and right now it’s just important to show that we’re just people,” McLaughlin said.

Gabrielle Meighan, 23, of New Jersey, said she felt it was important to come out to this year’s celebrations because they come days after the 10th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark June 26, 2015, ruling in Obergefell vs. Hodges that recognized same-sex marriage nationwide.

“It’s really important to vocalize our rights and state why it’s important for us to be included,” she said.

Manhattan on Sunday also hosted the Queer Liberation March, an activism-centered event launched in recent years amid criticism that the more mainstream parade had become too corporate.

Marchers holding signs that included “Gender affirming care saves lives” and “No Pride in apartheid” headed north from the city’s AIDS Memorial to Columbus Circle near Central Park.

Among the other headwinds faced by gay rights groups this year is the loss of corporate sponsorship. American companies have pulled back support of Pride events, reflecting a broader walking back of diversity and inclusion efforts amid shifting public sentiment.

NYC Pride said this month that about 20% of its corporate sponsors dropped or reduced support, including PepsiCo and Nissan. Organizers of San Francisco Pride said they lost the support of five major corporate donors, including Comcast and Anheuser-Busch.

Marcelo and Shaffrey write for the Associated Press.

Pope Leo XIV is a huge Chicago White Sox fan.

It’s a good thing too — otherwise the event being thrown in his honor at the team’s home stadium this weekend might be a little awkward.

While the White Sox play the Rangers in Texas on Saturday afternoon, the Archdiocese of Chicago will be at Rate Field celebrating the new leader of the Catholic Church — who was born and raised on the city’s South Side — with a Mass by Chicago Archbishop Blase J. Cupich and other festivities.

While the man once known as Robert Prevost won’t be there in person, he will appear in what event organizers describe as “a video message from Pope Leo XIV to the young people of the world.”

Leo will also be represented in mural form. The White Sox unveiled a graphic installation featuring his likeness on a concourse wall before a May 19 game against the Seattle Mariners, less than two weeks after Leo was selected as the first U.S.-born pope. He replaced Pope Francis, who died on April 21 at age 88.

The Chicago White Sox have commemorated the fandom of Pope Leo XIV with a graphic installation at Rate Field.

(Nam Y. Huh / Associated Press)

The graphic was installed next to Section 140, where Leo sat in Row 19, Seat 2 for Game 1 of the 2005 World Series between the White Sox and Houston Astros. As remarkable as it might sound, there is footage from Fox’s national broadcast of that Oct. 22, that shows the man then-known as Father Bob in the stands at the stadium then-known as U.S. Cellular Field.

Hosting a World Series game for the first time since 1959, the White Sox led by two runs with one out in the top of the ninth inning. Chicago closer Bobby Jenks had just thrown a 95-mph fastball past Houston’s Adam Everett for an 0-1 count and was preparing for his next pitch.

That’s when the camera panned to a nervous-looking Father Bob, who appears to be wearing a team jacket over a team jersey.

Viewers never got to see the future pope’s reaction to what happens next, but he must have been ecstatic as Jenks strikes out Everett in two more pitches for a 5-3 Chicago win. The White Sox would go on to sweep the Astros for their first World Series win since 1917.

“That was his thing. He liked to get out and go to a game once in a while,” Louis Prevost told the Chicago Tribune of his brother, the future pope. “Eat a hot dog. Have some pizza. Like any other guy in Chicago on the South Side.”

His favorite team may have fallen on harder times since then — the White Sox are an American League-worst 23-45 and 20.5 games behind the first-place Detroit Tigers in the Central Division — but Leo is still willing to put his fandom on display for the world to see.

On Wednesday, he wore a White Sox hat along with his traditional papal cassock while blessing newly married couples in St. Peter’s Square outside the Vatican.

Kelly and Gary DeStefano, who live in Haverhill, Mass., and are Boston Red Sox fans, gave him the hat. Kelly DeStefano told Boston.com they were just trying to get the new pope’s attention.

“I just wanted to make sure everyone at home knew that we did not turn on our team,” she told Boston.com. “It was all in joke and good fun.”

Chicago White Sox fans dress up like fellow White Sox fan Pope Leo XIV to watch a game against the Cubs on May 17 at Wrigley Field.

(Paul Beaty / Associated Press)

It worked, with Boston.com reporting that Leo gave the couple a good-natured ribbing once he found out where they are from.

“You’re going to get in trouble for this,” he told them, in a video of the meeting.

“Don’t tell anyone in Massachusetts,” Kelly DeStefano replied.

While Leo might be a little too busy to attend a game anytime soon, White Sox executive vice president, chief revenue and marketing officer Brooks Boyer said last month that the pope is welcome to return to Rate Field whenever he wants.

“He has an open invite to throw out a first pitch,” Boyer said. “Heck, maybe we’ll let him get an at-bat.”

AS KING Canute found over a thousand years ago, it is quite difficult to stand on a beach and order the tide to recede. 

Today, it is equally difficult to make the argument that giving families cash is not always the best way of lifting them out of poverty. 

2

This is especially true when one particular measure becomes the symbol of whether or not you’re on the right side of the debate about child poverty.

But as someone who now can afford the comforts of life, I constantly remind myself of my childhood.

The grinding poverty that I experienced when my father was killed
in a work accident when I was 12 – leaving my mother, who had serious health problems, to fight a long battle for minimal compensation.

Having only bread and dripping in the house was, by anyone’s standards, a hallmark of absolute poverty.

Why on earth would I question, therefore, the morality of reversing a Tory policy introduced eight years ago?

This restricts the additional supplement to universal credit – worth over £3,000 a child per year – to just two children. 

I should know, my friends tell me, that the easiest and quickest way of overcoming the growth in child poverty is to restore the £3.5 billion pounds it would cost to give this additional money for all the children in every family entitled to the credit.

It is true that the policy, introduced in 2017, failed its first test.

Women did not stop having more than two children even when they were strapped for cash. It is still unclear why. 

After all, many people have to make a calculation as to how many children they can afford.

2

But one thing must be certain: namely, that if you give parents a relatively substantial additional amount of money for every child they have whilst entitled to benefits, they are likely to have more children.

Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK, said as much last week. His argument for restoring the benefit to the third and subsequent children was precisely that we needed to persuade low- income families to have more children.

Surely having children that you cannot afford to feed is the legacy of a bygone era?

All those earning below £60,000 are entitled to the basic child benefit, so the argument is about just over £60 a week extra per child.

One difficulty in having a sensible debate about what really works in overcoming intergenerational poverty is the lack of reliable statistics.

Some people have claimed, over recent days, that over 50 per cent of children in Manchester and Birmingham live in poverty. 

I fear that such claims should be treated with scepticism.

Those struggling to make ends meet – sometimes having not just one but two jobs – who pay their taxes and national insurance and plan their lives around what can be afforded, have the right to question where their hard-earned wages go.

The simple and obvious truth is that child poverty springs from the lack of income of the adults who care for them.

Transforming their lives impacts directly on the children in their family.

There is a limit to how much money taxpayers are willing to hand over to pay for another family’s children. 

Helping them to help themselves is a different matter.

So, what would I do?

Firstly, I would ensure that families with a disabled youngster automatically have the entitlement restored.

This would self-evidently apply also to multiple births. 

In both cases, life is not only more difficult, it is also harder to get and keep a job.

I would come down like a ton of bricks on absent parents.

My mum was a single parent because she was widowed; many others are single in the sense that the other partner has walked away.

The Child Maintenance Service should step up efforts to identify and pursue absent parents who do not pay their fair share towards their child. 

We, the community, have a clear duty to support and assist those in need.

To help those where a helping hand will restore them to independence and self-reliance.

But there is an obligation on individuals as well as the State, and mutual help starts with individuals taking some responsibility for themselves.

Finally, if (and this is where I am in full agreement with colleagues campaigning to dramatically reduce child poverty) we make substantial sums of money available to overcome hardship, then a comprehensive approach to supporting the families must surely be the best way to achieve this.

As ever in politics there is a trade off. What you spend on handing over cash is not available to invest in public services: that is the reality.

Help from the moment a child is born, not just with childcare but with nurturing and child development.

Dedicated backing to gain skills and employment and to taper the
withdrawal of help so that it genuinely becomes worthwhile having and keeping a job. 

A contract between the taxpayer and the individual or household.
Government is about difficult choices, that is why Keir Starmer and his colleagues are agonising over what to do next.

US president says Harvard must ‘show us their list’ of foreign students to make sure they are not ‘troublemakers’.

United States President Donald Trump has intensified his dispute with Harvard University, saying the college should cap foreign enrolments and share information with the government about its international students.

“Harvard has to show us their lists. They have foreign students, almost 31 percent of their students. We want to know where those students come from. Are they troublemakers? What countries do they come from?” Trump told reporters at the White House on Wednesday. According to university enrolment data, foreign students make up 27 percent of Harvard’s student body.

“I think they should have a cap of maybe around 15 percent, not 31 percent,” Trump said, adding that he wants universities to accept “people who are going to love our country”.

The Trump administration has sought to pressure Harvard into compliance on a number of demands, including greater control over the university’s curricula, information about foreign students and further steps to crack down on pro-Palestine student activism, which the administration has characterised as anti-Semitic.

“Harvard has got to behave themselves. Harvard is treating our country with great disrespect, and all they’re doing is getting in deeper and deeper,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.

The university has resisted what it says is an effort to erode its independence from the government and commitment to academic freedom.

The Trump administration has severed grants worth billions of dollars to Harvard and announced that it would revoke Harvard’s ability to enrol international students entirely. The Department of Homeland Security said that order was a response to Harvard “fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party”.

The university said in a statement at the time that the order was part of a “series of government actions to retaliate against Harvard for our refusal to surrender our academic independence and to submit to the federal government’s illegal assertion of control over our curriculum, our faculty, and our student body”.

The university swiftly challenged the order in court, and it was temporarily blocked by a judge on Friday.

Patricia McGuire, president of Trinity Washington University, said on Wednesday that Trump’s actions against foreign enrolment at US universities “makes no sense”.

“It’s so irrational because higher education is one of the top US exports to the world and the international students who come to this country enrich American universities immensely and take their knowledge back to all of their countries around the globe for the improvement of their countries and their populations,” McGuire told Al Jazeera from Washington, DC.

However, McGuire said Trump’s actions are consistent with “an administration that has literally snatched students off the street and taken them to detention centres”, referring to Tufts University student Rumeysa Ozturk, who was forcibly taken into custody by masked federal agents in broad daylight on a street near her Massachusetts home in March.

This month, a court ordered the release of the 30-year-old Turkish doctoral student from the custody of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

“This is, in my view, completely anti-American values, and I think many academics are horrified by the fact that students are now being censored for their viewpoints,” McGuire said.

Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner has refused to confirm whether the government is planning to scrap the two-child benefit cap.

On Sunday, the Observer reported that Sir Keir Starmer had privately backed abolishing the limit and requested the Treasury find the £3.5bn to do so.

The policy prevents most families from claiming means-tested benefits for any third or additional children born after April 2017.

Asked on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg if she would like to see the cap go, Rayner said: “I’m not going to speculate on what our government is going to do.”

She pointed to the establishment of a Child Poverty Taskforce, which had been considering whether to remove it, among other measures.

“We’re looking in the round at the challenges. That is one element,” she said, giving plans to speed up housebuilding as an example.

It follows the delay of the government’s child poverty strategy – being worked on by the taskforce – which had been due for publication in the spring. The BBC has been told it could be set out in the autumn.

On Tuesday, a memo from Rayner’s department was leaked to the Daily Telegraph, which appeared to urge the chancellor to “claw back” child benefit payments from wealthier families, alongside several other suggestions.

Asked if she backed the proposal, Rayner refused to be drawn. She told Sunday with Laura Kuessberg that ministers were “looking at child poverty” and that she supported what the government had done so far.

She was also categoric in her denial of being behind the leak. “I do not leak. I think leaks are very damaging,” she said.

It was put to Rayner that some in Labour had characterised her as jostling for Sir Keir’s job as a result of the memo being shared.

“I do not want to run for leader of the Labour Party. I rule it out,” she said, adding that being the deputy prime minister was the “honour of my life”.

She also denied that there were splits in Sir Keir’s cabinet, saying: “I can reassure you the government is solid.”

Questions around the two-child benefit cap come after the prime minister announced a U-turn on cuts to winter fuel payments, following weeks of mounting pressure.

Sir Keir said the policy would be changed in the autumn Budget, adding that ministers would only “make decisions we can afford”.

Asked if any change would arrive before this winter, Rayner said it would be for Rachel Reeves to outline at the “next fiscal event”.

More than 10 million pensioners lost out on the top-up payments, worth up to £300 a year, when it was limited to those in receipt of pension credit only.

On Sunday, Nigel Farage said he would fully reinstate the allowance and scrap the two-child benefit cap, if Reform UK formed the next government.

“Farage says a lot of things,” Rayner said in response to a question about his intervention.

Asked about Farage’s intervention, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch later told the programme: “This is nonsense. People are just making promises, throwing out all sorts of things, but they won’t be delivered.”

The country could not afford to lift the two-child benefit cap, she said, adding the public are “sick and tired of politicians making promises they cannot keep”.

However, when asked about winter fuel payments, Badenoch urged the government to restore them in full.

UK tourists have been warned to look up locals rules before jetting off on holiday this year, as four Spanish hotspots still have a strict drinking cap in all-inclusive resorts

Brits have been urged to brush up on local rules – or risk getting caught out by strict drinking bans. Once upon a time, all-inclusive holidays meant you could guzzle down unlimited spirits (which, were likely watered down), and indulge on endless plate fulls of food.

However, following a sharp rise in drunk and disorderly behaviour, the Balearic Island Government introduced a strict clampdown on boozy Brits last year. It marked an end to the iconic happy hour promotions, and stung all-inclusive holidaymakers wanting to drink themselves silly.

Despite being touted as two of Europe’s best party resorts, the Spanish islands of Majorca and Ibiza both implemented a six-drink cap for guests. Under the rules, which will last for at least two more years, Brits will only be allowed three alcoholic drinks during lunch and a further three alcoholic drinks with their evening meal.

However, contrary to popular belief, this only applies to select regions that have been struggling with rowdy guests. This includes one area of Ibiza and three areas of Majorca – but the strict ban doesn’t apply to the entirety of Menorca.

• Playa de Palma, Majorca
• S’Arenal (El Arenal), Majorca
• Magaluf, Majorca
• West End of San Antonio, Ibiza

So, if you’re planning a booze-filled trip at an all-inclusive, check out destinations such as Alcudia, Santa Ponsa, Santa Eulalia, and Es Cana. Alongside the cap, government rules dictate that any advertising that encourages alcohol consumption (such as open bars) is prohibited – and off-licences will close no later than 9.30pm.

“If you envisioned yourself bar hopping along Magaluf’s famous strip, think again!” travel firm Thomas Cook warned. “Any participation in organised pub crawls is now banned. You can, however, still attend a party boat excursion but they’ll no longer be advertised in the affected areas. Nor will they allow pick-ups and drop-offs in those resorts.

“Plus, keep your eyes peeled for the new no-drinking zones, where swigging in public is now banned. We don’t want you facing a fine for a sneaky sip in the street! Don’t worry though, bar terraces are open as usual, so you can still enjoy that alfresco cerveza.”

Want the latest travel news and cheapest holiday deals sent straight to your inbox? Sign up to our Travel Newsletter

If you’re undeterred by the strict rules, you can fly to Majorca or Ibiza from most major UK airports, including Birmingham, Glasgow, London, and Manchester. If you’re flexible with dates, you can grab return fares in June for as little as £28.

Accommodation on both islands is relatively affordable, which is great for those travelling on a tight budget. For example, a week’s stay (Monday, June 9-16) at Coconut Apartments costs just £779, based on two adults sharing. However, those wanting a more luxurious stay can opt for the Cooks Club Calvia Beach hotel – located just 400yards from Magluf’s centre – on the exact same dates for £1,028.

*Prices based on Skyscanner and Booking.com listings at the time of writing.

Is Spain’s anti-tourist clampdown putting you off from visiting? Email [email protected] for a chance to share your story

ENERGY bills are set to drop this July, bringing much-needed relief to millions of households.

The energy regulator Ofgem has confirmed the new price cap, which comes into effect on July 1, 2025.

The average gas and electricity bill is set to drop from £1,849 to £1,720, saving the typical household £129 a year.

But bear in mind the exact amount you pay can be higher or lower depending on your usage, and the cap is reviewed every three months.

This is significantly higher than the drop this time last year, when it decreased from £1,690 a year to £1,568.

The savings will still provide relief to millions, as over 22million households on standard variable tariffs are directly affected by the price cap, which is updated every three months.

Experts at Cornwall Insight had rightly predicted the energy price cap would drop to £1,720 in July.

Currently, the price cap sets annual energy costs at around £1,849.

However, many households may still pay more than Ofgem‘s headline figure.

This is because the price cap doesn’t cap total bills but limits the maximum cost per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of gas and electricity, along with daily standing charges.

Ofgem’s headline figure is based on the assumption that a typical household consumes 2,700 kWh of electricity and 11,500 kWh of gas annually.

So if you use more than a typical households expect to pay more.

However, energy experts say that households could make significant savings by switching to a fixed-rate energy deal now.

By choosing a fixed deal, customers can lock in consistent rates for a set period, potentially avoiding fluctuations in energy prices.

Of course, opting for a fixed energy deal carries the risk that, if energy prices drop further, you might end up paying more than you would on a variable tariff.

However, analysts have long said that households should not anticipate any significant drops in prices this year.

In response, National Energy Action Chief Executive Adam Scorer said: “Any fall in the price of energy is always welcome news, but this is a short fall from a great height. Bills remain punishingly high for low-income households.

“Four years of extraordinarily high energy bills has taken its toll. We hear heart-breaking cases every day.

“The likely expansion in eligibility for the Winter Fuel Payment will be a relief for some, but National Energy Action is calling for deeper energy bill support and a real focus to support households out of debt.”

How can I find the cheapest fixed deals?

To find the best fixed energy deals, start by visiting price comparison websites, which aggregate various offers from different energy suppliers.

The best sites include Uswitch.com and MoneySavingExpert’s Cheap Energy Club.

Enter your postcode and current energy usage details to receive a list of available deals tailored to your needs – it’ll take you less than five minutes.

You’ll then be able to compare the rates, contract lengths, and any additional features or benefits offered by each deal.

Next, visit the websites of individual energy suppliers to check if they have exclusive deals that are not listed on comparison sites.

Sometimes, suppliers offer special promotions or discounts directly to customers.

Compare these offers with those on the comparison websites to ensure you get the best possible rate.

Finally, consider customer service reviews and the overall reputation of the suppliers.

Once you have identified the best deal, follow the instructions to switch your energy provider.

What energy bill help is available?

There’s a number of different ways to get help paying your energy bills if you’re struggling to get by.

If you fall into debt, you can always approach your supplier to see if they can put you on a repayment plan before putting you on a prepayment meter.

This involves paying off what you owe in instalments over a set period.

If your supplier offers you a repayment plan you don’t think you can afford, speak to them again to see if you can negotiate a better deal.

Several energy firms have schemes available to customers struggling to cover their bills.

But eligibility criteria vary depending on the supplier and the amount you can get depends on your financial circumstances.

For example, British Gas or Scottish Gas customers struggling to pay their energy bills can get grants worth up to £2,000.

British Gas also offers help via its British Gas Energy Trust and Individuals Family Fund.

You don’t need to be a British Gas customer to apply for the second fund.

EDF, E.ON, Octopus Energy and Scottish Power all offer grants to struggling customers too.

Thousands of vulnerable households are missing out on extra help and protections by not signing up to the Priority Services Register (PSR).

The service helps support vulnerable households, such as those who are elderly or ill.

Some of the perks include being given advance warning of blackouts, free gas safety checks and extra support if you’re struggling.

Get in touch with your energy firm to see if you can apply.