companies

June 23 (UPI) — U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called for AI companies to disclose what the environmental impact of data centers will be by 2030 during a speech Tuesday at London Climate Action Week.

Guterres said that the AI boom and the world’s dependence on oil are driving the climate crisis and laid out plans to curb the damage.

“These crises may seem separate but they share the same destructive origin: fossil fuels,” Guterres said. “And they demand the same answer: a fast, fair transition to clean energy and a surge in adaptation, resilience and climate justice for those already facing climate harm.”

The United Nations’ seven-point plan for energy independence includes quickly cutting emissions to reach net zero emissions by 2050. This would mean the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere are balanced out by the amount of greenhouse gases removed from the atmosphere.

The plan also calls for an acceleration of developing and adopting clean energy, transparency from AI firms on their environmental impact by 2030, ensuring the transition to clean energy is equitable in its job creation and community support, investment in early warning systems, expanding funding for developing countries and combatting climate disinformation.

The United Nations said scientists it supports are warning that average annual temperatures are likely to exceed the 1.5-degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels target set out by the Paris Climate Accords adopted in 2016. It notes that the United States withdrew from the agreement for the second time under President Donald Trump.

“Every fraction of a degree matters,” Guterres said.

June 22 (UPI) — China announced Monday that it is adding 10 U.S. defense companies to its export control list, restricting business with those firms.

The move prohibits Chinese companies from exporting certain items to those companies, including drones, robotic hardware and software that is used for defense and national security capabilities. There are also items for nonmilitary uses that are restricted.

The companies added to the export control list are: AVEOX, Red Cat Holdings, Teal Drones, IMSAR, Jaia Robotics, Ball Aerospace and Technologies, Oshkosh Defense, L3Harris Maritime Services, MP Materials and USA Rare Earth.

“Exporters are prohibited from exporting dual-use items to the aforementioned 10 entities, and any organization or individual from any country or region is prohibited from transferring or providing dual-use items originating in China to the aforementioned entities; any ongoing related export activities must be immediately ceased,” the Chinese Ministry of Commerce announced.

The Chinese Finance Ministry also announced that 46 U.S. companies are banned from participating in government procurement projects. Many of those companies are also defense contractors.

Companies that are banned from participating in government procurement projects include Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and General Atomics.

Both bans take effect immediately, however China has included some flexibility in situations where exporting is “truly necessary.”

China’s new trade restrictions are in response to the Pentagon accusing a number of Chinese companies of aiding its military. The Pentagon updated its list of companies believed to be aiding the Chinese military earlier this month, blocking the Department of Defense from awarding direct contracts to those companies.

The update included the additions of Alibaba Group, Baidu and BYD, a Chinese automaker.

U.S. President Donald Trump has said he is exploring ways to ensure Americans benefit directly from the rapid growth of artificial intelligence, raising the possibility of the government acquiring stakes in leading AI companies. The idea comes as firms such as OpenAI and Anthropic pursue valuations that could make them among the most valuable companies in the world, fueling debate over whether the public should share in the wealth generated by AI technologies.

Why the Idea Is Gaining Attention

The AI boom is expected to create enormous wealth for technology companies, investors and founders. Policymakers and advocates argue that because AI development relies heavily on public infrastructure, government research and vast amounts of publicly generated data, ordinary citizens should receive some of the financial benefits.

The debate has intensified as major AI developers seek billions of dollars to build data centers, chip infrastructure and advanced computing systems.

Option One: Taxing AI Companies Through Equity

One proposal would require AI companies to pay part of their taxes in shares rather than cash.

Under this approach, the government would gradually accumulate ownership stakes in AI firms without directly investing taxpayer money. Supporters argue that it would allow the public to benefit from future growth while avoiding large government expenditures.

Some advocates have gone further, proposing substantial government ownership stakes and board representation to give the public a direct voice in how AI companies operate.

Option Two: Equity in Exchange for Government Support

Another model would involve the government receiving equity stakes in return for financial assistance or incentives.

This approach mirrors previous arrangements in strategic industries where federal funding was provided in exchange for ownership interests. Given the enormous capital requirements of AI infrastructure, government funding could potentially become a source of financing for companies building advanced computing facilities, semiconductor plants and other critical projects.

Supporters argue this would allow taxpayers to benefit if publicly supported companies become highly profitable.

Critics contend that such arrangements could blur the line between regulation and investment, potentially creating conflicts between public policy goals and financial interests.

Option Three: Public Wealth Funds and Citizen Dividends

A third proposal focuses less on government ownership and more on distributing AI-generated wealth directly to citizens.

Under this model, revenue generated through AI-related taxes or investments would flow into a public wealth fund, which would then distribute dividends to Americans.

The concept resembles Alaska’s Permanent Fund, which uses energy revenues to provide annual payments to residents. Advocates argue a similar system could ensure that AI-driven economic gains are shared more broadly across society rather than concentrated among a small number of technology firms and investors.

Some AI companies have expressed interest in versions of this idea, including proposals for digital dividends funded by taxes on the sector.

Why AI Companies Matter

The debate carries major financial implications because leading AI developers are becoming increasingly valuable.

OpenAI and Anthropic have both reportedly taken steps toward potential public listings, while companies across the sector are raising unprecedented sums to fund AI expansion. Some analysts believe the industry could generate trillions of dollars in economic value over the coming decade.

As a result, even relatively small government stakes could potentially produce significant long-term returns.

Challenges and Obstacles

Any effort to give the government ownership in AI companies would face significant legal, political and economic hurdles.

Questions remain over:

• How ownership stakes would be valued
• Whether companies would voluntarily participate
• The impact on private investment
• Potential conflicts of interest for regulators
• How revenues would be distributed to citizens

There is also likely to be strong opposition from free-market advocates who argue that government ownership could discourage innovation and distort competition.

What Happens Next

Trump has not outlined a specific mechanism for acquiring stakes in AI companies, and no formal proposal has been introduced.

However, the discussion highlights a growing debate over who should benefit from the AI revolution and whether existing economic structures are sufficient to distribute the gains from one of the most transformative technologies in modern history.

Analysis

The significance of Trump’s proposal lies less in whether the government ultimately acquires stakes in AI firms and more in what it signals about the future political debate surrounding artificial intelligence. As AI companies approach trillion-dollar valuations, pressure is likely to grow for policymakers to ensure that the economic gains extend beyond investors and technology executives.

The discussion mirrors earlier debates over natural resources, where governments sought ways to ensure that public assets generated public benefits. In this case, supporters argue that AI is built on public research, public infrastructure and publicly generated data, creating a rationale for broader wealth sharing.

At the same time, the proposal raises fundamental questions about the relationship between government and the private sector. Direct ownership stakes could provide taxpayers with financial upside, but they could also create tensions between the government’s role as regulator and its role as investor.

The debate is likely to become more prominent as AI companies grow larger, seek additional funding and exert greater influence over economic growth, employment and national competitiveness. Whether through equity ownership, taxation or public wealth funds, the central political question is increasingly becoming not whether AI will generate enormous wealth, but who will ultimately receive it.

With information from Reuters.

For decades, historian’s discussion about colonialism has revolved around large armies, territorial conquests and vast empires. Yet, they often fail to focus on the fact that one of the most powerful empires did not begin with soldiers – it emerged because of corporations. The British East India Company, in 1600 started its commercial activities in the sub-continent, initially as a trading merchandise seeking profit in foreign markets. Within the period of two centuries, it acquired its own military, expanded its territorial influence, and started acting as a ruling government that ultimately blurred the difference between private capitalist enterprises and sovereign national authority. More than two hundred years later, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the latest incarnation of that colonial legacy. Unlike previous forms of colonialism of territory and resources, this control is primarily centered around data, algorithmic decision-making systems, and automated computation. Their territories are not like land, it is the dominance over data ecosystems; their currency is not raw materials, it is ‘data’, and their empires are not built on castles, but are gigantic ‘data-centers’. Instead of emancipation for the marginalized, this technology creates new forms of dependency known as ‘digital dependency’.  

The 21^st century is witnessing a growth of an imperial empire that is built on establishing control over datasets, computational power, and algorithmic sovereignty. Where a few Chinese and American tech giants such as NVIDIA, Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud, and Microsoft Azure are controlling the digital markets through complete ownership of cloud platforms, chip production, and algorithmic intelligence. These hegemonic corporations act as imperial powers that perpetuate similar inequalities to traditional colonists, in which the global south risks becoming a resource for the tech giants. The comparison might seem like an exaggeration, but in reality AI colonialism follows similar patterns. Historically great economies were built on extraction; they extracted raw materials from peripheries, and then the industrial base at the center transformed into a worthy product, geopolitical influence, innovation, and wealth. Cotton flowed from subcontinent to Britain; rubber moved from southeast Asia to European countries, while minerals obtained from Africa were sent to imperial empires.

Today, the AI economy adopts an akin model where “data” is the vital material for digital functioning.  Millions of people from the south utilize these platforms; every search, GPS location, digital personal profile, and digital transaction becomes part of the data ecosystem that is required for its training, but their economic value is located elsewhere. It is particularly evident in African countries, where millions of people rely on these foreign platforms for information. Their data from search engines, digital databases, and social media, is then used to train the AI models, whilst the African community receives little economic benefit or no influence over how these technologies are deployed in their region. By controlling these giant data ecosystems, these tech conglomerates also gain leverage over their political, social, cultural, and economic affairs. Even though having a digital footprint is a sign of progress, when it is foreign owned or funded by external actors, it can be manipulated as imperialistic power that not only controls the data system, but also significantly affects the local traders and businesses.

Similar to east India companies, these tech corporations operate across national jurisdictions, shape economic trajectories and influence domestic governments to sustain their digital dominance. They shape information systems, and their regimes of truth. They decide which technology should be introduced in the market, at what cost, what conditions, and for whom. The east India company governed India not through military conquests but because the local leaders became dependent on the commercial and political networks controlled by the corporation. Their economic dependency paved the way for the east India company’s takeover. Today, the danger is not that the tech corporations will rule the state directly, rather it is the fear that the national governments will become so dependent that the exercises of their sovereign autonomy will be meaningless. AI colonialism is at the front, recreating the colonial dependency traps.

Another manifestation of ‘digital colonialism’ in the global south is the extraction of data through coercive bundles of consent forms. Most people from third-world countries click ‘accept all’ to install an app or to log into a website without reading its full contents. It is an illusion of ‘choice’ created by these companies, but in actuality, these people have no choice. If they ‘refuse’ to click they might lose their access to digital accounts, bank apps, or mobile services. Colonial powers used a similar tactic of ‘terra nullius’ ­to lay claim on foreign land and resources. The new digital ecosystems are now integrating modern forms of terra nullius to govern the global data and algorithmic infrastructures. In addition to controlling the databases, the new AI colonial world order exploits the cheap labor services of the global south to maximize their profits. During Venezuela’s economic crisis, the prime educated force was readily exploited as ‘cheap labor’ by the Silicon Valley. In exchange for survival income, they were exposed to precarious working conditions, pay-cuts, unstable contracts. This reflects that the AI colonialism is following the legacy of historical empires step-by-step; controlling foreign ecosystems, exploiting cheap labor, and profiting over their raw materials.

The digital hegemony in the global south extends beyond economical matrix; it is the struggle over political influence, power, and raw materials that will ultimately determine who will produce the knowledge, who controls the technology, and who profits off the wealth generated by AI ecosystems. Colonial history should not be merely viewed as the ancient past, but as a lesson to reject the ‘modern empires’. In order to do so, the global south must invest in indigenous technology companies, data systems and regulatory digital frameworks to protect the local’s data. Unless the global south acts collectively against AI colonialism, it may again serve as a colony supplying critical resources that enrich others whilst itself remains excluded from the global power centers. 

Chinese embassy in Washington, DC, condemns designation, calling it ‘discriminatory’.

The United States has designated Chinese corporate giants Alibaba, BYD and Baidu as companies that support China’s military, expanding its blacklist to some of the country’s best-known commercial brands.

The Pentagon included the firms in an update on Monday that is likely to complicate the fragile detente under way between Washington and Beijing after years of rocky relations.

China’s embassy in Washington, DC, condemned the listing as “discriminatory” and an example of the US government “overstretching” the concept of national security.

“Chinese companies that do business overseas have been strictly observing laws and regulations of their host countries,” an embassy spokesperson said.

“The US should stop its wrong practice and create a fair, just and non-discriminatory environment for Chinese companies.”

Alibaba, BYD and Baidu did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The Pentagon’s list of “Chinese military companies,” which is updated annually, now includes 188 firms, up from 134 in 2025.

Firms included on the list, which was created in 2021, will be barred from consideration for US defence contracts from later this month.

The Pentagon defines “Chinese military companies” as entities owned or controlled by the Chinese military, or that contribute to China’s “military civil fusion”, referring to Beijing’s strategy of melding civilian and defence-related research and innovation.

Companies must also carry out some of their operations in the US to be designated.

The expansion of the blacklist comes less than a month after US President Donald Trump met Chinese leader Xi Jinping in Beijing for a two-day summit aimed at lowering the temperature in their countries’ years-long trade war and tech rivalry.

Alibaba, Baidu, and BYD are among China’s most prominent brands, claiming the top spots in the e-commerce, internet search and electric vehicle markets, respectively.

The addition of several household brands not normally associated with the defence sector mirrors last year’s designation of tech firm Tencent, the owner of the ubiquitous messaging app WeChat.

Other additions to the list include RoboSense Technology, an AI and robotics company with headquarters in Shenzhen, and Hangzhou-based Unitree Robotics.

RoboSense Technology and Unitree Robotics did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Dennis Wilder, a national security expert who worked on China at the CIA and the White House’s National Security Council, expressed scepticism about the feasibility of implementing such a “broad-brush” blacklist.

“Although it may make some US firms wary of engaging with the labelled entities, in fact, many US firms already have deep relationships with these entities, that they are not going to give up unless there are real penalties attached to working commercial deals with them,” Wilder told Al Jazeera.

“Sanctions that range this widely are sanctions that don’t work. Unless the US is willing to decouple from the Chinese economy altogether, these sanctions are simply performative,” Wilder said.

Caracas, June 3, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan government headed by Acting President Delcy Rodríguez has instructed airlines and shipping companies to direct fuel payments to a US Treasury account.

Spanish newspaper El Diario published a May 28 letter from state oil company PDVSA addressed to “aviation and maritime customers” that laid out the “banking coordinates” for foreign currency payments concerning JET A1, MGO, and IFO 380 purchases.

JET A1 is a kerosene-based fuel widely used by commercial airplanes, while Maritime Gas Oil (MGO) and Intermediate Fuel Oil (IFO) 380 are standard for ship engines.

“We urge our customers to take the necessary precautions and forward the payment receipt to PDVSA sales representatives so that the payment is cleared and fuel supply is assured,” the letter read.

An attached US Treasury information sheet contains details for Fedwire payments to a “Venezuela custody account” and requires information about “source of funds, e.g., oil, gold, minerals, etc.”

The leaked letter is the first publicly available document from a Venezuelan state institution directing foreign currency payments to an account run by the US Treasury Department as opposed to the country’s Central Bank (BCV) or some alternative state-run mechanism.

Since the January 3 military strikes and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration has seized control of the country’s export revenues. The White House has likewise extracted concessions in the form of pro-business reforms, preferential access for Western corporations to natural resources, and external audits of the Venezuelan Central Bank.

US Treasury general licenses allowing select Western corporations to engage in oil and gas activities mandate that all Venezuela-owed payments for royalties, taxes, and dividends be deposited in US Treasury accounts. Additional sanctions waivers imposed similar constraints on mining sector services and exports.

Neither US nor Venezuelan authorities have disclosed information about the funds, the timings of their disbursements back to Caracas, and the percentage kept by the Trump administration. The US president stated in a May interview that Washington has “made a fortune” from Venezuelan oil sales.

Both Washington and Caracas have acknowledged the use of Treasury-held Venezuelan revenues for the purchase of medicines and medical equipment from US manufacturers. In January, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a Senate hearing in January that Venezuela would need to submit a “budget request” to access its own funds.

According to reports, Washington is mandating that the Venezuelan Central Bank distribute the returned foreign currency to private sector importers via exchange table auctions run by public and private banks. The BCV has reportedly allocated more than US $5 billion thus far in 2026.

The Rodríguez acting government’s diplomatic rapprochement with the Trump White House, coupled with reforms to attract Western investment, has led to a growing number of international airlines reestablishing flights to the Caribbean nation. American Airlines currently runs two daily direct Caracas-Miami flights, while United Airlines will launch a Caracas-Houston connection in August. Jetblue, for its part, is set to initiate its first-ever Venezuela route later in the year.

Venezuelan authorities have likewise recorded increased shipping activity at the country’s ports.

NEW YORK — American businesses big and small have started receiving tariff refunds after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that President Trump lacked the constitutional authority to impose higher import taxes on goods from nearly every other country.

The process could grind to a halt, however, after the Trump administration said Friday that it intended to appeal a federal judge’s order to allow all companies that paid the illegal import taxes to seek refunds, not just the ones that filed lawsuits.

Until the Department of Justice informed the judge of its planned appeal, the refund system overseen by U.S. Customs and Border Protection had been working fairly smoothly. Refunds reached the bank accounts of the first successful applicants on May 12, about three weeks after American importers and their customs brokers could start submitting claims through an online system, according to CBP.

Applications for refunds totaling $85 billion — more than half of the $166 billion the agency estimated the government owes to companies that paid the illegal tariffs on imported goods — were accepted for processing as of May 22, CBP reported in a legal filing earlier in the week. It said it had so far directed the Treasury Department to issue $20.6 billion in refunds.

The administration revealed its appeal preparations while objecting to a demand by Judge Richard K. Eaton for CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott to appear in the U.S. Court of International Trade to answer questions about how long it would take to repay all 330,000 importers that might be eligible for refunds. The judge has scheduled a June 9 hearing on why he shouldn’t require the government do whatever it takes to speed up the process.

Justice Department lawyers asked Eaton to allow one or two of Scott’s deputies to appear in his place, arguing that as a high-ranking presidential appointee, the CBP chief could not be compelled to testify in court. They also argued that Eaton exceeded his own authority when he determined in March that the Supreme Court’s ruling entitled “all importers of record’’ to refunds.

“For that reason, defendants intend to appeal the court’s universal injunction,” the lawyers wrote, adding that CBP would continue to move “as quickly as it can to process refunds in a phased approach” for businesses that filed some 485 pending trade court complaints to assert their rights to refunds.

In a terse reply Friday, Eaton said he needed to hear directly from Scott whether the government would return all of the money it collected between when Trump imposed what he called “reciprocal” tariffs on goods from most countries in April 2025 and when the Supreme Court struck them down in late February.

“This case involves $166 billion,” the judge wrote. “It is undisputed that the remedy for this unlawful collection is for the United States government to refund the unlawfully collected duties.”

Some national retail chains said they planned to use their tariff refunds to lower customer prices on some items. Walmart Chief Financial Officer John David Rainey told analysts last week that the company would implement price cuts even though the maximum refund it might be eligible for represented less than half of 1% of Walmart’s $483 billion in annual U.S. sales.

Some smaller companies told the Associated Press that the partial refunds they’ve received so far would go toward paying remaining or future tariffs, reducing debt or just keeping the lights on after more than a year of uncertainty and additional import costs.

Jay Foreman, chief executive of toy company Basic Fun, said he received about $450,000, or 7% of his total claim, over two consecutive days this month. He took the initial repayment as a positive sign but said that after having less than $10,000 refunded since then, the process seemed like a “total slow roll.”

“It’s time to release the funds back into the economy, especially given how much we and others need these funds to support our businesses and fund our operations,” Foreman said.

Anderson writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Congressional Black Caucus on Tuesday called on major corporations across the U.S., including those that previously expressed support for voting rights and racial justice, to oppose redistricting efforts by Republican-led states that seek to eliminate majority-Black U.S. House districts.

In a letter sent to more than 250 companies, members of the Black Caucus urge them to condemn the redistricting efforts, which the lawmakers describe as “coordinated efforts to silence Black voices at the ballot box.” Some of the companies had co-signed their own message to Congress five years ago urging lawmakers to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, a Democratic proposal to restore and update the Voting Rights Act.

That 2021 coalition, Business for Voting Rights, was backed by many of the country’s most valuable and influential companies, including Apple, Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, Tesla, Salesforce, Target, PayPal, Intel and Starbucks.

Tuesday’s letter is the latest effort by the Congressional Black Caucus and its allies to gather support for preventing more Republican-led states from redrawing their legislative maps in ways that would dilute Black political representation. Several states have moved to eliminate congressional districts represented by Black Democratic lawmakers after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last month that severely weakened a key provision of the Voting Rights Act.

“Corporations that have profited from Black consumers, relied on Black workers, and amassed wealth in part from Black communities cannot look away while Black political power is dismantled in plain sight,” Rep. Yvette Clarke, chair of the Black Caucus, said in an interview.

Clarke described the letter as “putting corporate America on notice,” but she said the caucus was not seeking an adversarial relationship with corporations. Among those receiving Tuesday’s letter were companies based overseas that have a significant presence in the U.S.

The caucus last week called for Black athletes to boycott public universities in states that are gerrymandering their congressional maps to eliminate districts held by Black lawmakers. The 59-member Congressional Black Caucus consists entirely of Democrats, including more than a third from Southern states.

Some lawmakers have said mass protests and federal legislation might be necessary to undo the efforts underway in Republican-led states. Any new federal voting rights law would almost certainly require Democrats to secure majorities in both chambers of Congress and win the presidency.

It is unclear how companies will respond to the demands. The Associated Press was making efforts to contact them.

“Many companies that previously issued statements after the murder of George Floyd, pledged billions toward racial equity initiatives, and spoke forcefully in defense of democracy following January 6 now face a defining test of whether those commitments were rooted in principle or convenience,” the caucus’ letter states.

It also represents the latest instance of the caucus expressing frustrations with corporate America. A 2024 Black Caucus report noted that lawmakers were “troubled that some corporations that made pledges in 2020 have taken several steps in the opposite direction,” such as rolling back or failing to follow through on pledges to diversify their workforces.

“We understand who the occupant in the White House is and the reality of Republicans being in charge,” Democratic Rep. Steven Horsford of Nevada said of the caucus’ message. “But what corporate America also understands is that there will be a shift at some point.”

The letter calls on companies to publicly condemn the redistricting plans, meet with Black Caucus members to discuss corporate America’s role in protecting voting rights and disclose their political donations to Republican politicians in states that are redistricting their congressional maps.

President Trump last year kicked off the unusual mid-decade round of congressional redistricting when he pushed Texas lawmakers to redraw their maps in a way that would add Republican seats. Democratic-led California responded, but it has been mostly Republican states redrawing their lines since as the party tries to maintain its majority in the U.S. House during this year’s midterm elections.

The effort was supercharged by the Supreme Court decision, which allowed even more Republican states to redraw congressional maps that previously had protected minority communities.

Horsford, who chaired the Black Caucus during President Biden’s Democratic administration, said the caucus is demanding that companies “stand on the side of democracy, fairness and equal representation.”

“This is about power, who holds it and what it’s used for,” he said. “And when you’re diluting Black economic and political power, we need to know where these companies stand in this moment, and what side of history they’re on.”

Brown writes for the Associated Press.

Just because you have booked your break, doesn’t mean that is the price you will pay

Travel industry chiefs have warned that holiday prices could go up – even for people who have already booked. There are fears of cancellations, delays and disruptions this summer as oil supplies are restricted by the war in Iran.

And there are concerns that prices of travel will go up to cover the rising cost of fuel. But industry experts have also raised the spectre of the price of existing holiday bookings going up.

That means people who have already booked and paid for their holidays being asked to pay more if they still want to travel. Emma Brennan from travel agent and tour operator trade association ABTA said the legislation allows companies to ask for more money.

Speaking to BBC Money Box Live, she said: “There is something in the package travel regulations which just applies to package holidays, that travel companies could increase the cost of package holidays by what they call a fare charge. However, it very rarely happens, and there have been so many situations of disruption and uncertainty in recent years, and we haven’t seen this happening.

“And even if the travel company did choose to do it, there are quite strict rules around it. So, for example, it would have to have been in their terms and conditions, they can only do it up to the cost of eight per cent after that, and that’s a cost of eight per cent of the whole holiday – after that you would be offered a refund and it can only apply to various cost increases they are facing.”

According to Which? A 14-night package holiday can cost between £1,500 and £2,000 per person – meaning you could be asked to pay an extra £160 – or £640 for a family of four.

Airports Council International, which represents more than 600 airports, wrote recently to European commissioners for energy and transport and tourism, claiming that if the crucial Strait of Hormuz in Iran does not reopen in a “significant and stable way within the next three weeks” then “systemic jet fuel shortage is set to become a reality for the EU”.

Some airlines such as Virgin Atlantic have imposed fuel surcharges on passengers in response to higher oil prices, and others such as KLM have cancelled flights amid concerns about a shortage of fuel.

Susannah Streeter, chief investment strategist at Wealth Club, said: “Consumers are bracing for an energy crunch, and there are fears that just like the credit crunch of 2007-2008, there could be a long tail of repercussions. In the immediate term, there’s the prospect of holiday plans being ruined by a jet fuel crisis which could see thousands of flights cancelled.

“Lufthansa has already scrapped a big chunk of routes, and there are worries tourist destinations could be hit.”

THERE’S no need to give up on booking a summer getaway just yet.

If you’ve noticed holiday prices getting steeper, we’ve got some good news, as it turns out there are plenty of affordable holiday deals you can book for this summer.

Top UK travel companies have crunched the numbers to find the short-haul holiday spots ranking the cheapest for this summer.

From Travel Supermarket to TUI and Loveholidays, insiders have shared their tips on where to look for cheap breaks.

From white sand beaches that rival the Caribbean, to volcanic black sand islands that offer a natural spa setup – here’s the cheapest places to holiday abroad this summer.

Agadir, Morocco

Agadir has been named the most affordable destination for a seven-night summer holiday in 2026, according to research by Loveholidays.

The travel company analysed data for package holidays departing between 1st June and 31st August 2026, with Agadir coming out on top.

Summer holidays in Agadir averaged at just £230pp for a week away – but we found deals even cheaper.

Sun-drenched Agadir offers a six-mile-long sweep of golden sand, attracting everyone from surfers to sun-worshippers.

Choose to spend your days soaking up the 30°C heat on a lounger, strolling along the palm-lined promenade, or sipping a chilled mint tea at the glitzy marina.

For those who want a break from the beach, the Souk El Had market offers a maze of stalls selling everything from vibrant spices to handmade jewellery.

Neapolitan Riviera, Italy

If you’ve had an escape to the scenic coast of Italy on your bucket list, there’s never been a better time to book.

According to Travel Supermarket, holidays in the Neapolitan Riviera have seen the biggest price drop since the start of the conflict in the Middle East.

Holidays in this region have seen an average price drop of a whopping £231.53, when compared to what travellers were paying for the same trips last summer.

The Neapolitan Riviera stretches along the sun-drenched coast of Campania in Italy, from foodie-heaven Naples to sunny Sorrento.

This shimmering stretch of coastline also includes some of the country’s trendiest resorts, such as the dramatic Amalfi Coast and the pretty town of Positano.

For an underrated coastal city break, take a trip to Naples, where you can sample world-class handmade pizza in the colourful Spanish Quarter.

Gran Canaria

Holidays to the Canary Islands are one of the most affordable options for a summer holiday abroad this year.

Holiday company TUI have revealed to The Sun that “Gran Canaria comes up trumps for families due to plenty of free kids’ places still available at family resorts” this year.

Gran Canaria is a total sun-soaked paradise, famous for its endless golden sands and sparkling Atlantic waters.

The star of the show is Maspalomas, where dramatic rolling dunes meet the sea, offering beach days with spectacular surroundings.

Along the coast in Meloneras, it’s all about shopping, dining and trendy beach clubs. As the sun sets, the beachfront boardwalks come alive with the buzz of outdoor bars.

The TUI BLUE Tres Vidas lines up family-sized apartments in a prime position for beach days on the sandy shores of Bahia Feliz.

Bodrum, Turkey

If you want to book a trip to the hotspot dubbed the St Tropez of Turkey, now’s the time.

According to Travel Supermarket, holidays to the stylish resort of Bodrum in Turkey are also much cheaper than usual, with average prices for a summer holiday dropping by £118.30 compared to the same period last year.

This upscale seaside spot balances ancient historical sites with plenty of glam beach clubs, fancy restaurants and rooftop cocktail bars.

Explore the glittering marina by strolling its palm-lined waterfront, dipping into a seafood restaurant for lunch or jetting out on a boat trip to a nearby bay.

Plus, history buffs will love a trip to the 15th-century Bodrum Castle perched upon a rocky peninsula, or the preserved Bodrum Amphitheatre that is free to explore.

Tenerife

Tenerife is a classic summer holiday favourite, but did you know that the island offers some of the cheapest trips for adults this summer?

Holiday company TUI told us that while “Great deals can be found across all of the islands…Tenerife comes out top for adults-only trips”.

When it comes to a classic fly and flop beach holiday, Tenerife is a top contender. The crescent of Playa de las Teresitas is straight out of a holiday magazine, with golden sands dotted with palm trees and calm, shallow waters.

Playa de la Arena, on the other hand, has a natural spa-like feel with mineral-rich, volcanic black sand.

And with the temperature hovering at 28°C in the summer months, this reliable and affordable hotspot continues to shine.

The adults-only TUI BLUE Los Gigantes sits at the ocean edge, so visitors get sea views from almost every vantage point. Glass-wrapped terraces give it a contemporary look, and with wine-tasting sessions, cocktail masterclasses and cooking courses all on offer.

Cape Verde 

For those craving a white-sand beach and turquoise waters without the long-haul flight or the Caribbean price tag, Cape Verde is your answer.

Holidays to this stunning archipelago have seen a significant price drop in price, with average costs falling by £98.82 compared to the same period last year, according to Travel Supermarket.

The country’s ten islands offer miles upon miles of pristine beaches and unspoilt volcanic landscapes.

On the popular island of Sal, you can laze on the golden sands of Santa Maria Beach, or explore the colourful town behind it, packed with lively surf bars and restaurants.

And with temperatures reaching 30°C in the summer months, it’s the perfect place to escape the unpredictable British weather and soak up some sun.

Costa Dorada, Spain

Spain‘s Costa Dorada ranks as the second cheapest place to book a summer holiday this year with Loveholidays.

The travel company’s research found that a seven-night summer break this year averaged just £381pp.

This Spanish resort is ideal for anyone who wants to mix lazy beach days with action-packed family adventure.

You can spend your morning conquering the world-class rollercoasters and waterslides at PortAventura World, before retreating to the palm-lined promenade of Salou for a chilled drink.

For a dose of history, the ancient city of Tarragona is right on your doorstep. Here you can wander through a Roman amphitheatre that overlooks the Mediterranean Sea.

Antalya, Turkey

Antalya remains an affordable spot on the Turkish Riviera, offering a high-end feel for a fraction of the usual cost this year.

Summer holidays in the region are now costing £90.29 less than they did before the Iran conflict, according to Travel Supermarket.

To the east, the soft sands of Lara Beach are lined with luxury resorts, while the pebbled shores of Konyaalti on the west have clear waters backed by the impressive Bey Mountains.

With summer temperatures regularly hitting 34C, it is a paradise for those who want to tan with a view and warm waters to dive into.

Make sure to tick off Kaleiçi, where you can wander past Ottoman-era architecture and narrow cobblestone streets that lead down to the Roman harbour.

Majorca, Spain

Majorca is a firm British holiday favourite, and this year the Balearic gem is more affordable than usual.

According to Travel Supermarket, average holiday prices for the island have taken a dip of £86.28 compared to the same period last year.

This sunny Spanish island is full of variety. Lose yourself in the winding, cobblestone streets of Palma’s Old Town, overlooked by its massive Gothic cathedral, or head north to Puerto Pollensa for a more relaxed pace along its pine-lined promenade.

For nature lovers, the Drach Caves offer an otherworldly underground experience, with one of the largest subterranean lakes in the world.

Of course, the real draw is the sun-soaked coastline. With summer temperatures averaging a perfect 30C, the island’s Blue Flag beaches are calling this summer.

Es Trenc is a particularly beautiful beach, with shallow waters that are almost a luminous blue.

Rhodes, Greece

Rhodes continues to reign as one of TUI’s most affordable Greek destinations, and the holiday company have told us that there’s “an abundance of brilliant deals still to be found” there this summer.

The UNESO-listed medieval Old Town is home to historic sites and Gothic palaces, whilst the seaside tavernas that line the coast offer a scenic spot to enjoy a cold beer or a fresh Greek salad.

When it comes to beaches, Faliraki Beach boasts three miles of soft sands and shallow, bath-warm water that’s perfect for a lazy afternoon.

The resort of Ixia offers a cooling breeze that makes the 30C summer heat all the more comfortable.

In Ixia, the Lito Hotel has outdoor pools facing scenic coastal views, all just a 5-minute drive from the main town centre.

The Tesla (TSLA) Cybertruck has seen a boost from Elon Musk’s other companies, according to tracking by S&P Global Mobility. Notably, without sales to Elon Musk-led companies, Cybertruck registrations in Q4 would have fallen 51%.

SpaceX (SPACE) accounted for

April 15 (UPI) — U.S. advertising companies Dentsu, Publicis and WPP settled Wednesday with the Federal Trade Commission, which claimed they colluded over anti-misinformation policies that affected ad money for conservative publishers. The companies did not admit wrongdoing as part of the settlement.

In a press release, the FTC said the agencies “distorted America’s modern public square” and worked together to establish “brand safety” policies that limited the ads that could run on sites with content designated as misinformation. This affected ad revenues for conservative political websites and made it more difficult for them to make money from “disfavored political viewpoints,” the FTC release said. The commission filed a complaint Wednesday in the U.S.District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

A court must approve the settlement. The companies agreed not to collude to restrict ad-buying services over “news and political and social commentary content,” the FTC said.

The New York Times reported that a representative for Dentsu said the company was “fully committed to operating transparently, with integrity and in strict compliance with all applicable laws.” A representative for WPP told that Times the agreement “reflects our existing and ongoing commitment to provide our clients with unbiased advice as they decide where to place their media.” The companies own multiple ad agencies and buy digital ads on behalf of advertisers.

FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson said in the release that the agencies’ brand safety policies “turned competition in the market for ad-buying services on its head.” The collusion, he said, “distorted the marketplace of ideas by discriminating against speech and ideas that fell below the unlawfully agreed-on floor.”

This follows a longstanding claim by the Trump administration that the media and websites treat conservatives unfairly. Ferguson and the FTC in 2025 also opened other inquiries into alleged anti-conservative censorship through online content moderation.