debt

Paramount Chairman David Ellison’s latest offer to buy Warner Bros. Discovery contained a twist:

Should Paramount, backed by tech billionaire Larry Ellison, pull off the purchase, Warner Bros. Discovery Chief Executive David Zaslav could stay on to help lead the combined enterprise.

“They’re sweetening the pot,” Paul Hardart, a professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business, said of the Ellison family. “It just shows all the little arrows in their quiver they’re using to try to push this deal.”

David Ellison’ unexpected olive branch to Zaslav was contained in a letter this month to Warner Bros. Discovery’s board that offered $58 billion in cash and stock for the entire company. The move underscores the family’s determination to win the entertainment company that includes HBO, CNN and Warner Bros. film and television studios — and an obstacle in their path.

After hustling for decades to get to the big stage, Zaslav, 65, isn’t ready to relinquish the reins. He’s eager to prove critics wrong and complete a turnaround after three painful years of setbacks and cost cuts to reduce the company’s mountain of debt.

Warner Bros. Discovery board members, including Zaslav, have unanimously voted to reject Paramount’s three bids, viewing them as too low and not in the best interest of shareholders, according to two people close to the company who were not authorized to comment.

The board supports Zaslav’s desire to forge ahead with a planned split of the company next spring. But it also has opened the auction to other potential suitors, which is expected to lead to the firm changing hands for the third time in a decade.

Representatives of Zaslav, Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount declined to comment.

David Ellison’s audacious offer is being guaranteed by his father, Larry Ellison, the world’s second richest man with a net worth that exceeds $340 billion. The Ellisons’ proposal includes paying 80% cash to Warner shareholders and the rest in stock, according to two people familiar with the matter who weren’t authorized to comment. The most recent offer was $23.50 a share.

The Ellisons began their campaign last month, just weeks after David Ellison’s Skydance Media, along with RedBird Capital Partners, picked up the keys to Paramount, which includes CBS, MTV, Nickelodeon and the Melrose Avenue film studio, which has been depleted by decades of underinvestment.

Since then, the 42-year-old Ellison has led Paramount on a buying bonanza, paying $7.7 billion for UFC media rights and $1.25 billion over five years to Matt Stone and Trey Parker to continue creating their cartoon “South Park.” It also wooed Matt and Ross Duffer, the duo behind “Stranger Things,” away from Netflix with an exclusive four-year deal. This week, it announced a planned East Coast expansion, signing a 10-year lease for a film and TV production center under construction in New Jersey.

The proposed addition of the more vibrant Warner Bros. would give the Ellisons an unparalleled entertainment portfolio with DC Comics including Superman, “Top Gun,” Scooby-Doo, Harry Potter, “The Matrix” and “The Gilded Age.”

The family would control streaming services HBO Max and Paramount+, nearly three dozen cable channels, including HGTV, Food Network and TBS, and two legacy news operations — CNN and CBS News.

It would also accelerate the trend of uber billionaires, including Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and SpaceX’s Elon Musk, of owning prominent news, entertainment and social media platforms. Larry Ellison also is part of a U.S.-based consortium lined up by President Trump to buy TikTok from its Chinese owners.

“If a trade deal with China is imminent, and TikTok would be aligned, then it would create a new media colossus, the likes of which we haven’t seen,” said veteran executive Jonathan Miller, chief executive of the investment firm Integrated Media Co.

Paramount is in talks to merge with Warner Bros. Discovery.

(Al Seib / Los Angeles Times; Dania Maxwell / Los Angeles Times)

The drama is unfolding as Paramount on Wednesday slashed 1,000 workers in the first round of cuts since Ellison took over. A second wave of layoffs — affecting another 1,000 workers — is expected in the coming weeks, helping fulfill a promise made to Wall Street by Ellison and Redbird to reduce expenses by more than $2 billion.

Combining with Warner Bros. would bring more layoffs, analysts said, and a potential hollowing out of a historic studio.

“Merger after merger in the media industry has harmed workers, diminished competition and free speech, and wasted hundreds of billions of dollars better invested in organic growth,” the Writers Guild of America West, said last week in a statement in opposition to the proposed unification. “Combining Warner Bros. with Paramount or another major studio or streamer would be a disaster for writers, for consumers, and for competition.”

Critics point to a long list of media merger misfires, including the disastrous AOL Time Warner merger a quarter century ago. Some critics contend Walt Disney Co.’s $71-billion purchase of much of Rupert Murdoch’s entertainment holdings didn’t live up to expectations, and AT&T whiffed its $85-billion deal for Time Warner, handing it to Zaslav’s Discovery four years later for $43 billion.

The New York native, a descendant of Jewish immigrants from Poland and Ukraine, had spent 16 years running the Discovery cable channel group, a respectable business, but one that lacked Hollywood flash.

Zaslav grew up on the fringe of New York City, in Ramapo, N.Y., where he’d been a promising tennis player who proudly wore his athletic gear to middle school. Tennis was his identity — until he started getting beat by players he used to whip.

Zaslav’s coach sat him down, bluntly saying he wasn’t putting in the work.

“I vowed that day I would never be outworked again,” Zaslav said during a 2023 commencement address to Boston University graduates. Underlings have long marveled at his indefatigable work ethic.

The speech was meant to be his triumphant return to his alma mater. Zaslav had finally made it to Hollywood, where he was now holding court in an exquisite corner office that had belonged to studio founder Jack Warner.

Zaslav had big plans to turn around Warner Bros. But, in Boston, he suffered a beatdown.

The Writers Guild of America had just gone on strike against his and other Hollywood studios. Protesters heckled Zaslav. Students booed. A plane flew overhead, waving a banner that read: “David Zaslav Pay Your Writers.”

He had assumed control a year earlier, in April 2022, just as Wall Street soured on media companies that were spending wildly to build streaming services to compete with Netflix.

Zaslav inherited a venture bleeding billions of dollars to get into streaming. The merger itself saddled the company with $55 billion of debt. Warner’s stock plummeted.

He and his team spent the first few years slashing divisions, canceling TV programs and contracts, and shelving movies. To further reduce expenses, the company laid off thousands of workers. Hollywood soon viewed Zaslav with derision.

It didn’t help that Zaslav has long been one of the most handsomely compensated executives in America.

There were high-profile stumbles, including jettisoning staff of the tiny Turner Classic Movies channel and an ill-conceived rebrand of its streamer to “Max” before changing the name back to HBO Max.

“The Warner Bros. Discovery merger was a well-intended failure,” Hardart said. “The cable subscriber base shrank at a faster rate than most people had forecast. … Thousands have lost their jobs, the HBO brand has been reimagined and reimagined, films have been mothballed and the future of the Warner Bros. studio is today uncertain.”

Warner Bros. Discovery paid down $20 billion in debt, but $35 billion remains. The debt load has nearly suffocated the company, making it a vulnerable target.

“There was a lot of fixing that David Zaslav and his team had to do,” Bank of America media analyst Jessica Reif Ehrlich said in a recent interview. “It’s been three years of incredibly heavy lifting — but that’s pretty much done now.”

In a note to investors last week, Ehrlich wrote Warner’s strong franchises, including DC Comics, and its voluminous library make it “an extremely attractive potential acquisition target,” one that could fetch $30 a share. Her firm carries a “buy” rating on the stock.

Warner Bros. Discovery Chief Executive David Zaslav and AT&T Chief Executive John Stankey shake hands on May 17, 2021, in New York City.

(Preston Bradford / Discovery)

Last summer, Zaslav announced plans to split the company in two halves.

Zaslav would run Warner Bros., which would consist of the Burbank studios, HBO and the HBO Max streaming service. Longtime lieutenant Gunnar Wiedenfels would helm Discovery Global, made up of the firm’s international businesses and basic cable channels, which face an uncertain future in the streaming era.

Those who know Zaslav believe he’s working to stave off the Ellison takeover, in part, because he wants the chance to bring the company back to its glory, which would ultimately make it more valuable for its investors and prospective buyers.

For Warner management, that’s part of the rub. The Ellisons showed up just as the company was displaying signs of a turnaround, including a hot streak by Warner Bros. that includes “A Minecraft Movie,” Ryan Coogler’s “Sinners,” James Gunn’s “Superman,” Formula One adventure “F1: The Movie,” and horror flick “Weapons.”

In addition, HBO returned to its winning ways at last month’s Emmys, collecting an industry-leading 30 awards, tied with Netflix.

Larry, from left, Megan and David Ellison attend the premiere of Paramount Pictures’ “Terminator Genisys” at Dolby Theatre on June 28, 2015.

(Lester Cohen / WireImage)

Ellison’s bidding was designed to thwart Warner’s planned corporate breakup.

For now, analysts said, Zaslav and the Warner board’s current strategy is solid because they have effectively driven up the stock price, which has doubled to $21 a share since the Ellison’s interest became known in mid-September.

“They are doing the right thing,” Hardart said. “In any sale, you try to beat the bushes and get as many people interested. But at some point the board is going to have to make a decision.”

Added one investor: “They’ve gotten Paramount-Skydance to bid against itself, and that only goes so far.”

Analysts expect Philadelphia giant Comcast, owner of NBCUniversal, and potentially Netflix, Apple or Amazon to take a look at the company’s studio, library and streaming assets.

But many see the Ellison’s Skydance as having the edge.

Paramount, in its recent letter to the Warner board, argued that it was the best and most logical buyer.

“What Skydance offers WBD, in many ways, is what it offered Paramount: The ability to be aggressive and push all aspects of the business in a way that most people or companies that have less capital just can’t do,” Miller said. “They are deploying real capital, and they are being the most aggressive folks in the industry right now.”

Argentina’s President Javier Milei sang to his supporters after early results showed he had won the country’s midterm elections, bolstering his push for radical economic reforms closely watched by the US.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Midterm vote

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

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

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

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

SIR Elton John’s glasses firm owes a whopping £3.7million, latest figures have revealed.

The Rocket Man star’s glasses are available via his website and at high street giant Specsavers.

However, the firm that receives cash from the sale of the eyewear has substantial debts.

Accounts for Elton John Optical Company Ltd show that it is £3.7m in the red for the 12 months to the end of March this year.

The company has cash reserves of £308,173 and paid just £1,020 in Corporation Tax on its taxable income for the most recent trading period.

The bulk of the cash is owed to firms called William A Bong Ltd, J Bondi Inc and J Bondi LLP – outfits that form part of the star’s business empire.

GOODBYE YELLOW

Watford in major kit change ditching yellow shirt thanks to Elton John

STAR LOOK

Brit actor looks unrecognisable with bushy beard – but can you guess who it is?

Elton, 78, offers fans two pairs of glasses for £130 at Specsavers.

Buyers are told: “Introducing the Elton John Eyewear glasses collection.
“Designed by the man himself, the Elton John Eyewear range is bursting with his love of individualism and flamboyant style. Inspired by Elton’s journey, you’ll find pops of colour, smatterings of glitter and twists on classic designs.”

He recently admitted that his eyesight was failing and he can now only sign autographs with his initials.

The pop legend lost vision in his right eye in July last year after contracting an infection on holiday in the South of France, and said his left eye is “not the greatest”.

In December, he explained he was unable to watch his new musical version of The Devil Wears Prada.

He added: “I haven’t been able to come to many of the previews because, as you know, I have lost my eyesight.

“But I love to hear it.”

And interviewed on Good Morning America, he said. “It kind of floored me, and I can’t see anything.

“I can’t read anything, I can’t watch anything.”

Thirty-two African nations now spend more servicing external debt than funding healthcare

More than 30 leading economists, former finance ministers and a central banker have called for immediate debt relief for low- and middle-income countries, warning that loan repayments are preventing governments from funding basic services.

In a letter released on Sunday, in advance of next month’s World Bank and IMF annual meetings, the group says countries are “defaulting on development” even when they keep up with debt payments.

“Countries around the world are paying exorbitant debt servicing costs instead of paying for schools, hospitals, climate action or other essential services,” the letter said.

Among the signatories are Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, former Central Bank of Colombia Governor Jose Antonio Ocampo, and former South African Finance Minister Trevor Manuel.

The economists say African governments now spend an average of 17 percent of state revenue on debt servicing. Thirty-two African nations spend more servicing external debt than funding healthcare, while 25 allocate more to debt than to education.

The letter says capping the average ratio of state revenue used on debt servicing at 10 percent could provide clean water to about 10 million people across 21 countries, and prevent approximately 23,000 deaths of children below five years of age each year.

The call comes as healthcare systems across Africa show signs of severe strain.

According to an ActionAid report published earlier this year, 97 percent of health workers in six African countries said their wages were insufficient to cover basic costs. Almost nine in 10 reported shortages of medicines and equipment due to budget cuts.

The public sector funding crisis is exacerbated by shrinking aid budgets. The United States, previously the world’s largest donor, has cut funding this year as the administration of President Donald Trump has shifted priorities away from aid.

The International Rescue Committee said 10 of the 13 countries hit hardest by the US aid cuts are African.

Economists warn that current debt relief efforts have failed. A framework under the auspices of the Group of 20 has so far relieved just 7 percent of the total external debt owed by at-risk countries.

They are calling on leaders to urgently reduce debt burdens, reform how the World Bank and IMF assess debt sustainability, and support a “Borrowers’ Club” so countries can negotiate from a position of strength.

“Bold action on debt means more children in classrooms, more nurses in hospitals, more action on climate change,” the letter concludes.

For those who still have significant debts from school, figuring out financial decisions can be tough. In terms of investing — should you? — the answer isn’t exactly one-sided. There are many things to consider when choosing whether to invest while you still have student debt.

The student debt landscape: A reality check

Before diving into strategy, let’s start with the facts. As of 2025, American student loan debt sits at roughly $1.8 trillion, held by about 42 million to 43 million borrowers. The average federal student loan balance is north of $37,000. Meanwhile, delinquency rates are rising. Around 5.8 million borrowers were 90+ days behind on payments as of April 2025 — nearly one in three of those with payments due. With collections restarted after pandemic-era pauses, many borrowers are now facing renewed pressure and risk of credit score damage.

Given all of that, it’s a compelling question: If you’re carrying student debt, should you pause investing to focus on paying it off? Or is there a smarter path that balances paying off debt with trying to make money in the market?

Image source: Getty Images.

Investing vs. paying down debt

There’s no one-size-fits-all best path. Here are key trade-offs to consider.

1. Interest rates matter

If your student debt has a high interest rate (say, 6% or more), that’s a strong argument for paying it down aggressively. Money you put toward debt repayment gives you a guaranteed “return” if you look at it in terms of interest saved. Meanwhile, the stock market is volatile. While its long-term average might exceed 7% to 8%, that’s not guaranteed in any given period.

However, if your interest rate is low or if you’re eligible for subsidies, income-driven repayment plans, or forgiveness options, you’ve got more room to instead use your money in the market. 

2. The power of time

Time in the market is a hard-to-beat advantage. Something as simple as an investment in JPMorgan Chase  (NYSE: JPM) has returned 206% over the last five years. Even modest investments made early can grow significantly over decades. That’s especially true for investments in tax-advantaged accounts like 401(k)s or IRAs. If you can contribute 5% to 10% of your paycheck now (while still meeting debt obligations), that can create future momentum.

3. Hybrid approach

For many, the optimal route is splitting resources. If you have a job and are making a decent income, pay more than the minimum on your student loans while also investing a portion of your income. This way, you get debt reduction and exposure to market upside. The trick is to calibrate how much weight you give each goal depending on interest rates, cash flow, and risk tolerance. Before investing in the stock market, you’ll want to make sure you have an emergency fund set up and have paid off any high-interest debt. And don’t invest any money you’ll need in the short term, say, for your wedding next year or the round-the-trip adventure you’re planning a few years out. 

When investing while in debt makes sense

Here are cases where it may be prudent to keep investing despite having student loans:

• Employer match: If your employer offers a 401(k) match, that’s free money. You generally shouldn’t leave that on the table.
• Low-interest or forgiveness paths: If your loan is on an income-driven plan, or you qualify for Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) or other debt relief, more room opens for investing.
• Strong cash-flow buffer: If you still have discretionary money after expenses and loan payments, investing some of it helps you build a nest egg, rather than waiting until all debt is paid.
• Time horizon is long: If you’re young and decades away from retirement, the upside of investing early can outweigh the drag of debt, especially if your debt rate is modest.

When it makes more sense to focus on debt

On the flip side, it may be wise to pause or dial back investments in certain scenarios:

• High interest rates or variable rates: These can erode your financial flexibility if interest rates spike.
• Limited cash cushion: Don’t end up with no cash on hand for rainy days. If making both payments leaves little buffer, you’re vulnerable to emergencies.
• Credit consequences: Missed student loan payments can damage your credit, making future borrowing (for a house, car, etc.) more expensive.
• Just wanting it done: Maybe you just don’t want debt anymore. That’s not a bad thing. Paying off your loans before investing might not be the most balanced approach, but if it’s what you want, it’s not a bad plan.

A sample game plan

1. Understand your debt terms: Know your interest rates, whether your loans are subsidized, whether you’re eligible for forgiveness, and how flexible your repayment plan is (e.g., income-driven plans).
2. Target the “extra money” bucket: After covering essentials and making minimum payments, decide how much extra you can allocate.
3. Allocate smartly: You might do something like this: 60% of your extra goes toward accelerating paying off student debt, while 40% goes to investing. Adjust this plan based on your personal risk appetite.
4. Max out employer match first: If your employer match exists, treat it as a no-brainer priority before accelerating debt.
5. Reassess regularly: As your income, interest rates, or life stage change, revisit your mix.

Class dismissed

Carrying student debt doesn’t mean you have to shelve investing entirely — but it does require balance. The ideal strategy often lies in a hybrid approach that respects both the guaranteed benefit of paying debt and the growth potential of investing. If your debt’s cost is manageable and you can access employer-matching or tax-advantaged accounts, continuing to invest while silencing your loans can set you up for a stronger financial future.

French Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu has plunged France further into a political deadlock after he resigned just hours after forming a cabinet as Paris struggles to plug its mounting debt.

Lecornu – whose tenure, which ended on Monday, was the shortest in modern French history – blamed opposition politicians for refusing to cooperate after a key coalition partner pulled support for his cabinet. He joins a growing list of French prime ministers who since last year have taken the job only to resign a short time later.

Opposition parties in the divided French Parliament have increased pressure on President Emmanuel Macron to hold snap elections or even to resign – as have politicians and allies in his own camp. Analysts said Macron now appears to be caught on the back foot since Lecornu was widely seen as his “final bullet” to solve the protracted political crisis.

Here’s what to know about Lecornu’s resignation and why French politics are unstable:

What happened?

Lecornu and his ministers resigned on Monday morning after he had named a new government the previous day.

Lecornu took up his office on September 9 after his predecessor Francois Bayrou stepped down. His tenure lasted 27 days, the shortest since 1958 when France’s Fifth Republic began. He was France’s fifth prime minister since 2022 and its third since Macron called snap elections in June last year. He was formerly the minister of the armed forces from 2022 until last month.

In an emotional television address on Monday morning, Lecornu blamed political leaders from different ideological blocs for refusing to compromise to solve the crisis.

“The conditions were not fulfilled for me to carry out my function as prime minister,” the 39-year-old Macron ally said, adding that things could have worked if some had been “selfless”.

“One must always put one’s country before one’s party,” he said.

Macron, in what appeared to be a final attempt at stability, then asked Lecornu on Monday evening to stay on until Wednesday as the head of a caretaker government and to hold “final negotiations” with political parties in the interests of stability. It’s unclear what exactly these talks might entail or whether Lecornu might still emerge as prime minister at the end of them.

In a statement late on Monday on X, Lecornu said he accepted Macron’s proposal “to hold final discussions with the political forces for the stability of the country”. He added that he will report back to Macron by Wednesday evening and the president can then “draw his own conclusions”.

France expert Jacob Ross of the Hamburg-based German Council on Foreign Relations said the caretaker agreement was a “bizarre” one, even if legal, and underscored Macron’s desperation to project some form of control even as his options appear to be running out.

“For me, this really secures the narrative that Lecornu was Macron’s last bullet” to solve the current crisis, Ross said.

Why did Lecornu quit?

France has a deeply divided parliament that makes consensus difficult. Far-right and left-wing parties together hold more than 320 seats in the 577-seat lower house and abhor each other. Macron’s centrist and conservative bloc, which has tried to win conditional support from the left and right to rule, holds 210. No party has an overall majority.

After forming his government on Sunday, Lecornu immediately lost the support of the right-wing Republicans party (LR), which holds 50 seats, because of his choice for defence minister — former Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire.

LR President Bruno Retailleau, who was set to be interior minister in the government, announced on X on Sunday evening that his party was pulling out of the coalition because it did not “reflect the promised break” from pro-Macron ideologies initially assured by Lecornu. He said later on the broadcaster TF1 that Lecornu did not tell him Le Maire would be part of the government.

Le Maire is seen by many critics as representing Macron’s pro-privatisation economic policies and not the radical shifts that Lecornu promised in the three weeks of negotiations before forming a cabinet. Others, meanwhile, hold Le Maire responsible for overseeing the large public deficit during his term as finance minister from 2017 to 2024.

Lecornu’s exit affected the markets with stocks of prominent French companies dropping sharply by about 2 percent on the CAC 40, France’s benchmark stock index, although it has somewhat recovered since then.

Ministers who were supposed to form the government will now remain as caretakers until further notice. “I despair of this circus where everyone plays their role but no one takes responsibility,” Agnes Pannier-Runacher, who was set to be reappointed as ecology minister, said in a post on X.

Why has France’s politics become unstable?

The issues go back to the snap elections in June 2024, which produced a hung parliament consisting of Macron’s centrist bloc as well as left and far-right blocs. With Macron failing to achieve a majority and with parliament consisting of such an uncomfortable coalition, his government has faced hurdles in passing policies.

Added to the political impasse are Macron’s attempts to push through deeply unpopular austerity measures to close widening deficits that resulted from COVID-19-era spending.

Bayrou, who was prime minister from December to September, proposed budget cuts in July to ease what he called France’s “life-threatening” debt burden and cut public spending by 44 billion euros ($52bn) in 2026. His plans included a freeze on pensions, higher taxes for healthcare and scrapping two holidays to generate economic activity. However, they were met with widespread furore in parliament and on the streets and resulted in waves of protests across France. Parliament eventually rejected Bayrou’s proposals in September, ending his nine-month run.

Lecornu, meanwhile, had abandoned the holiday clause and promised to target lifelong privileges enjoyed by ministers. He had negotiated with each bloc for three weeks, hoping to avoid a vote of no confidence. By Monday, it was clear that his approach had not worked.

Public anger has increasingly also been directed at Macron since he first imposed higher fuel taxes in 2018 – and later scrapped them after large-scale protests. In April 2023, Macron again drew popular anger when he forced through pension reforms that raised the retirement age from 62 to 64. That policy was not reversed despite large protests led by trade unions. At present, the French president’s popularity in opinion polls has sunk to record lows.

“There is a numb anger in the voter base, a sense that politicians are playing around, and a huge part of the French electorate is disgusted,” Ross said. “My fear is that it is a potentially promising starting position to call for new elections but also a referendum on topics like migration and even France staying on in the European Union.”

What’s next for Macron?

Macron, due to be in office until April 2027, is increasingly under pressure. Opposition groups are capitalising on Lecornu’s resignation, and his own allies are publicly distancing themselves from him in a bid to boost their standing in the next elections, analysts said.

The anti-immigrant and anti-EU National Rally (RN) on Monday urged Macron to hold elections or resign. “This raises a question for the president of the republic: Can he continue to resist the legislature dissolution? We have reached the end of the road,” party leader Marine Le Pen told reporters on Monday. “There is no other solution. The only wise course of action in these circumstances is to return to the polls.” The RN is expected to gain more seats if elections are held.

Similar calls came from the left with members of the far-left France Unbowed party asking for Macron’s exit.

The president, who has not made a public statement but was spotted walking alone along the River Seine on Monday, according to the Reuters news agency, is also isolated within his own camp. Gabriel Attal, prime minister from January to September 2024 and head of Macron’s Renaissance party, said on the TF1 television channel that he no longer understood Macron’s decisions and it was “time to try something else”.

Edouard Phillipe, a key ally of Macron and prime minister from 2017 to 2020, also said Macron should appoint a caretaker prime minister and then call for an early presidential election while speaking on France’s RTL Radio. Phillipe, who is running in the 2027 elections under his centrist Horizons party, slammed what he said is a “distressing political game”.

France needs to “emerge in an orderly and dignified manner from a political crisis that is harming the country”, Philippe said. “Another 18 months of this is far too long.”

“People are seriously speculating that he might step down, and his allies are seeing him as political [dead] weight,” Ross said.

Macron, he added, has three options: elect yet another prime minister who might still struggle to gain parliamentary consensus, resign or more likely call for snap parliamentary elections – which could still fail to produce a majority government. All three options would come with their own challenges for the president, he noted. Macron has repeatedly ruled out stepping down.

The crisis, Ross said, is similarly affecting the president’s political standing on the international front as head of the EU’s second most populous economy.

US President Donald Trump blames Democrats for looming federal layoffs as shutdown enters fifth day.

The White House has warned that mass layoffs of federal workers could begin if US President Donald Trump concludes that negotiations with congressional Democrats to end a partial government shutdown have reached a dead end.

As the shutdown entered its fifth day on Sunday, White House National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett told CNN’s programme State of the Union that he believed there was still a chance Democrats would yield and avoid what could become a costly political and economic crisis.

“President Trump and Russ Vought are lining things up and getting ready to act if they have to, but hoping that they don’t,” Hassett said, referring to the White House budget director. “If the president decides that the negotiations are absolutely going nowhere, then there will start to be layoffs.”

Trump, speaking to reporters on Sunday, described the potential job cuts as “Democrat layoffs”, saying, “Anybody laid off, that’s because of the Democrats.”

Talks remain frozen

There have been no meaningful negotiations since Trump last met congressional leaders, with the impasse beginning on October 1 — the start of the federal fiscal year — after Senate Democrats rejected a short-term funding bill to keep government agencies open through November 21.

“They’ve refused to talk with us,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer told the CBS programme Face the Nation, insisting that only renewed talks between Trump and congressional leaders could end the standoff.

Democrats are demanding a permanent extension of enhanced premium tax credits under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and assurances that the White House will not unilaterally cut spending agreed to in any deal.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he was open to addressing the Democrats’ concerns, but urged them to first back reopening the government. “It’s open up the government or else,” Thune told Fox News. “That’s really the choice that’s in front of them right now.”

Trump said Republicans were also willing to discuss healthcare reform. “We want to fix it so it works. Obamacare has been a disaster for the people, so we want to have it fixed so it works,” Trump said.

No deal in sight

Rank-and-file senators from both parties have held informal talks on healthcare and spending to break the deadlock, but progress has been minimal. “At this point, no,” Democratic Senator Ruben Gallego told CNN when asked if lawmakers were closer to a deal.

The Senate is set to vote again on Monday on competing funding bills — one backed by the Republican-controlled House and one proposed by Democrats — though neither is expected to win the 60 votes required to advance.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, nearly 750,000 federal employees face being furloughed as long as the shutdown continues, with total lost compensation estimated at $400m per day. While federal workers are guaranteed back pay under the 2019 Government Employee Fair Treatment Act, payments will only resume once the shutdown ends.

The United States Supreme Court says it will hear arguments over President Donald Trump’s efforts to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook from her post. The court’s announcement means Cook will stay in the job for now.

The high court announced the decision on Wednesday.

The White House has been trying to remove Cook in the first-ever bid by a president to fire a Fed official, an unprecedented challenge to central bank independence.

The justices declined to immediately decide a Department of Justice request to put on hold a judge’s order temporarily blocking the Republican president from removing Cook, an appointee of Democratic former President Joe Biden, while litigation over the termination continues in a lower court.

The justices said they would hear the case in January.

In creating the Fed in 1913, Congress passed a law called the Federal Reserve Act, which included provisions to shield the central bank from political interference, such as allowing governors to be removed by a president only “for cause”, although the law does not define the term or establish procedures for removal. The law has never been tested in court.

Washington, DC-based US District Judge Jia Cobb on September 9 ruled that Trump’s claims that Cook committed mortgage fraud before taking office, which Cook denies, likely were not sufficient grounds for removal under the Federal Reserve Act.

Trump on August 25 said he was removing Cook from the Fed’s Board of Governors, citing allegations that before joining the central bank in 2022, she falsified records to obtain favourable terms on a mortgage. Her term is set to expire in 2038.

Cook, the first Black woman to serve as a Fed governor, sued Trump soon after. Cook has said the claims made by Trump against her did not give the president the legal authority to remove her and were a pretext to fire her for her monetary policy stance.

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a 2-1 ruling on September 15 denied the administration’s request to put Cobb’s order on hold.

Expansive view of presidential powers

In a series of decisions in recent months, the Supreme Court has allowed Trump to remove members of various federal agencies that Congress had established as independent from direct presidential control despite similar job protections for those posts. The decisions suggest that the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, may be ready to jettison a key 1935 precedent that preserved these protections in a case that involved the US Federal Trade Commission.

But the court has signalled that it could treat the Fed as distinct from other executive branch agencies, noting in May in a case involving Trump’s dismissal of two Democratic members of federal labour boards that the Fed “is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity” with a singular historical tradition.

Trump’s bid to fire Cook reflects the expansive view of presidential power he has asserted since returning to office in January. As long as the president identifies a cause for removal, Cook’s sacking is within his “unreviewable discretion”, the Department of Justice said in a September 18 filing to the Supreme Court.

“Put simply, the President may reasonably determine that interest rates paid by the American people should not be set by a Governor who appears to have lied about facts material to the interest rates she secured for herself – and refuses to explain the apparent misrepresentations,” the filing stated.

Cook’s lawyers told the Supreme Court on September 25 that granting Trump’s request, “would eviscerate the Federal Reserve’s longstanding independence, upend financial markets and create a blueprint for future presidents to direct monetary policy based on their political agendas and election calendars”.

A group of 18 former US Federal Reserve officials, Treasury secretaries and other top economic officials who served under presidents from both parties also urged the Supreme Court not to let Trump fire Cook.

The group included the past three Fed chairs, Janet Yellen, Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan. In a brief to the court, they wrote that allowing this dismissal would threaten the Fed’s independence and erode public confidence in it.

Cook took part in the Fed’s highly anticipated two-day meeting in Washington, DC, in September, at which the central bank decided to cut interest rates by a quarter of a percentage point as policymakers responded to concerns about weakness in the job market. Cook was among those voting in favour of the cut.

Pressure on Fed

Concerns about the Fed’s independence from the White House in setting monetary policy could have a ripple effect throughout the global economy.

The case has ramifications for the Fed’s ability to set interest rates without regard to the wishes of politicians, widely seen as critical to any central bank’s ability to function independently and carry out tasks such as keeping inflation under control.

Trump this year has demanded that the Fed cut rates aggressively, berating Fed Chair Jerome Powell for his stewardship over monetary policy as the central bank focused on fighting inflation. Trump has called Powell a “numbskull,” “incompetent” and a “stubborn moron”.

In December last year, Talle Bello* received his appointment letter to join Nigeria’s Federal Fire Service. Like many others, he saw it as a turning point, a chance to finally support his family with stability and contribute meaningfully to his country. 

But nearly ten months later, he has not received a single salary payment. 

Talle is yet to be enrolled on the Integrated Payroll and Personnel Information System (IPPIS), the country’s central platform for paying federal workers, despite being among the first set of officers who reported in Abuja, North Central Nigeria, for training and documentation. When the IPPIS team arrived, they announced they could only handle a limited number of people each day.

More than 200 officers showed up for the first two days. Like many others, Talle waited patiently but was not captured. Then, the IPPIS team stopped showing up completely. 

Weeks later, he received a call from a friend notifying him that the IPPIS staff would be returning. He dropped everything and rushed to the command in Kubwa. But when he arrived, it was announced that only those on the “special list” of the service’s former Comptroller General, Abdulganiyu Jaji, would be enrolled.

Talle and other officers were not on this list. Since then, there has been no update. The existence of such lists in government workplaces reveals a grave loophole, one that blurs the line between formal professionalism and informal relationships, creating space for favouritism, especially against recruits like Talle who lack “connections”. 

Despite not being captured by IPPIS, he was posted to his duty station. He reports to work wearing the uniform, but he is not on the payroll. 

“We’ve been working without pay since December,” he told HumAngle. The exact number of affected officers remains unclear, as no official figures have been released. However, Talle said he knows of 15 other officers who have yet to receive their salaries.

IPPIS was launched in 2007 as part of efforts to strengthen Nigeria’s public finance system and plug loopholes left by the Government Integrated Financial Management Information System (GIFMIS). It ensures salaries are processed directly into the bank accounts of enrolled employees.

Despite these intentions, labour unions such as the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) have consistently opposed the platform, arguing that it fails to accommodate the unique operational and administrative structures of institutions like Nigerian universities. An academic study underscores this rejection as a critical issue, pointing to the software’s inability to reflect the sector’s specific needs and complexities.

For Talle, the consequences are deeply personal. 

He is the eldest male in his family and the breadwinner. His two younger sisters, aged 21 and 23, are both in university — one studying nursing and the other law. Before his appointment, he supported them through the menial jobs, particularly bricklaying. It was hard but manageable. Now, with no income, it’s nearly impossible.

He told HumAngle that bricklaying usually paid him about ₦7,000 per day, from which he has to save, feed, and transport. But the jobs are now rare. 

“I often borrow money from my friends to send to my sisters,” he told HumAngle. “Sometimes, I go weeks without any work at my disposal.” 

From his old pictures on his battered Itel smartphone, Talle looks chubbier. But lately, the weight has melted off, not from gym routines or diet plans, but from the quiet erosion of stress and financial strain.

“I feel like giving up on everything sometimes because life has been unfair to me in the first place. I had to take on responsibilities at a very young age to care for my siblings. It is mentally and physically overwhelming,” he added.

Families bear the brunt

The toll is not only personal. The strain has fallen squarely on his family, who are now struggling to stay afloat. Zainab, Talle’s* sister, is in her second year at a federal university in northern Nigeria. 

Her academic journey has become a daily struggle. With her elder brother unpaid, she has had to navigate university life with little to no financial support.

“Sometimes I feel like I’m falling behind because everyone else is buying the latest study materials, but I just make do with whatever I can find,” she told HumAngle. 

Accommodation and feeding are also major concerns. She shares a cramped room off-campus with two other students, and meals are irregular when she can’t afford to buy food. “There are days I go to class without eating,” Zainab said. 

On some days, she skips lectures just to avoid the embarrassment of not having transport fare, which costs ₦600 daily. 

“I used to get money from my brother every week,” she said. “Now, I wait for his call, hoping he has found someone to lend him money.” 

Social pressures add another layer of difficulty. Zainab is aware of the risks young women could face when they lack financial stability. “There are people who would offer to help, but you know some will always come with conditions,” she said. “I try to stay focused, but it’s hard when you feel like you are constantly at the mercy of others.” 

Her brother’s inability to support her has left her vulnerable, and she worries about how long she can keep resisting. “I know my brother is trying,” she said. “He is doing everything he can. But I just wish the system would recognise that we’re not asking for favours, we’re asking for what’s due.”

For Talle, the burden weighs heavily. He often has to choose which sister gets support and which one waits. “They are both girls,” he said. “I worry about what could happen if they don’t have enough. When I got this job, I thought it would end my struggles, but things have only gotten worse.”

In Nigeria, poverty is a trap that deepens the discrimination and danger faced by women and girls. Struggling to survive, they are exposed to heightened risks of violence, abuse, and denied access to the very social safety nets that could lift them out. 

A pattern of delay

Talle’s experience, however, fits into a longer history of financial neglect within the Federal Fire Service. In October 2020, officers raised alarms over unpaid salaries and allowances. Many reported working for over two months without pay, despite being required to report daily and respond to emergencies.

The leadership attributed the delay to insufficient funds in its personnel cost head, stating that other ministries were also affected. However, staff disputed this, pointing out that sister agencies under the same Ministry of Interior, such as the Nigerian Correctional Service and Immigration Service, had received their payments.

More recently, the service announced it had offset salary arrears for 2,000 personnel, describing it as a fulfilment of a promise. Yet, for new officers like the ones in Kubwa, the wait continues.

Some officers who spoke to HumAngle attributed these issues to the tenure of Jaji, the immediate past head of the service. When he retired, some officers of the service publicly jeered him following news of his retirement and replacement. 

In a viral video, uniformed personnel were seen chanting “He don go,” “Barawo,” and “Oloshi”—Pidgin English, Hausa, and Yoruba slurs meaning “He’s gone”, “Thief”, and “Useless person”. The spectacle underscores deep-seated resentment within the ranks, possibly fuelled by controversies surrounding Jaji’s tenure, including alleged mismanagement and attempts to extend his stay beyond the statutory retirement age. 

These recurring delays, especially in the cases of these affected officers, suggest a systemic issue—one that leaves officers unpaid, unsupported, and struggling to care for their families. 

When contacted, Paul Abraham, the spokesperson of the service, told HumAngle that the authorities are aware of the concerns and the matter is under review. He, however, revealed that some of these officers could be in possession of fake appointment letters, thinking they have genuine cases to be looked into.

“Even though I am not sure of the cases of these persons [referring to Talle and the other officers], we could have people with fake appointment letters that cannot be captured for IPPIS, and we could have those who said they were posted, but we didn’t employ them,” Abraham said. 

However, Emmanuel Onwubiko, National Coordinator of the Human Rights Writers of Nigeria, countered this claim. He argued that, unless there is a systemic issue within the service, it is impossible for someone to not be genuinely employed and yet be officially posted for duties by the same government agency.

Emmanuel, while calling for a forensic investigation into the issue, emphasised that the service issuing appointment letters ought to have a mechanism to detect which ones are authentic or not. 

“You do not give people appointments, and in the middle of the job, you are coming out to say they have fake appointment letters,” he told HumAngle. “The government agency should be able to point out those who have fake letters and explain how they were unable to detect them. If they can’t, it means that there is a systemic problem that needs to be investigated forensically by the Department of State Security.”

Captured yet unpaid

Not every unpaid officer is awaiting capture on IPPIS, like Talle. Falmata David* was enlisted into the Federal Fire Service in February. She completed her documentation, got captured for IPPIS in Abuja, and submitted her file after thorough verification. 

By April, salary payments had begun for her batch, but not for her. Despite being officially recognised and posted to her duty station, she has also not received a single pay cheque.

“I cross-checked everything before submitting, and I did everything right,” she told HumAngle, adding that she knows ten others like her who are also affected. She is currently in debt for transportation and feeding, though she declined to go into specific figures.

“If I don’t take food to the office, I work on an empty stomach,” she said, adding that the office is far from where she lives. 

For now, Falmata’s motivation and commitment to duty are on a decline, as she now shows up inconsistently and performs her duties with less focus and urgency.

“Sometimes, I don’t even feel like reporting for duty,” she confessed. “The lack of payment has drained my morale.”

Falmata was inspired to join the service after witnessing a destructive fire incident in her community, driven by both passion and the hope of supporting her family.  “It’s sad that despite being regarded as an officer, I can’t support them,” she said, her voice laced with grief. “When my colleagues receive their salaries, I feel bad. It’s not jealousy—it just demoralises me.”

When Falmata informed the salary department about the lack of pay, she was assured that the issue would be rectified. It has been months since then, and nothing has changed. 

Deductions without pay

For Musa Koroka*, the signs of employment are all there—an appointment letter dated December, IPPIS capture completed in February, and even pension contribution alerts received on three separate occasions. Yet, he has not received a single salary payment. 

“Not even once,” he lamented. 

The contradiction is hard to ignore. His file is in order. He followed every step required to be recognised by the system. Still, his bank account remains empty.

Hakeem Ikumoguniyi, a banking expert with over two decades of experience in the country, told HumAngle that it is only possible to receive a pension deduction without salary if the individual is on suspension. Musa is not facing any disciplinary action; he continues to report punctually and has never missed a day of work.

“But if these officers are not on suspension and there are deductions without salaries, then there is an internal problem somewhere with the central payroll of the service,” Hakeem noted. 

When asked how long the review would take for the officers to start receiving their salaries and arrears, since the issue has lingered for almost a year now, the spokesperson of the Federal Fire Service said, “The issue is not within the control of the service to determine. The Office of the Accountant General [of the Federation] is involved, and the IPPIS office is equally involved, but we are working tirelessly to resolve the issues.” 

To survive, he takes on menial jobs like motorcycle taxi, popularly called ‘okada’, after his 48-hour shift, where he earns around ₦8000 to ₦10,000 daily.

“After my duty, I proceed to hustle to feed myself and help my family,” Musa said. 

He has accrued debts as well, though he declined to reveal the amounts. The passion that brought him into the service is still there, but the lack of pay has made it less exciting. 

“My morale is very low. If I tell you that I am happy, I am lying to you,” he added.

*Names marked with an asterisk have been changed to protect the identities of the officers who requested anonymity.

The report comes as the White House pushes to fire fed governor Lisa Cook for a similar reason.

United States Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent agreed to occupy two different houses at the same time as his “principal residence”, an agreement similar to the one US President Donald Trump has called mortgage fraud in his effort to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook.

The story, first reported by the Bloomberg news service on Wednesday, cites Bessent’s mortgages with lender Bank of America and his pledge in 2007 to primarily occupy homes in New York and Massachusetts.

Mortgage experts told Bloomberg there was no sign of wrongdoing or proof of fraud in Bessent’s home-loan filings and said the issue highlights incongruities found in such documents.

Bank of America did not rely on Bessent’s pledges and never expected him to occupy both homes as his primary residences, Bloomberg reported, citing the mortgage documents.

Representatives for Bessent did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Republican president, who appointed Bessent to the Treasury post, and members of his administration have accused Cook, an appointee of Democratic former President Joe Biden, of committing mortgage fraud, a claim Cook denies.

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

Comparable to Cook

Congress included provisions in the 1913 law that created the Fed to shield the central bank from political interference. Under that law, Fed governors may be removed by a president only “for cause”, though the law does not define the term nor establish procedures for removal. No president has ever removed a Fed governor, and the law has never been tested in court.

Trump has sought to remove Cook for cause, citing the alleged fraud. A US appeals court on Monday declined to allow Trump to fire her. The White House has said it will appeal the decision to the US Supreme Court.

Trump’s Department of Justice also has launched a criminal mortgage fraud probe into Cook, issuing grand jury subpoenas in Georgia and Michigan, the news agency Reuters previously reported.

A loan estimate for an Atlanta home bought by Cook showed that she had declared the property as a “vacation home”, according to a document reviewed by Reuters. The property tax authority in Ann Arbor, Michigan, also said Cook had not broken rules for tax breaks on a home there that had been declared her primary residence.

Bloomberg, in its report on Wednesday, pointed to similar but not identical pledges made by a lawyer on Bessent’s behalf on September 20, 2007, agreeing to make a Bedford Hills, New York, house his “principal residence” over the next year, as well as another house in Provincetown, Massachusetts.

“There are people who think that President Trump is putting undue pressure on the Fed. And there are people like President Trump and myself who think that if a Fed official committed mortgage fraud, that this should be examined, and that they shouldn’t be serving as one of the nation’s leading financial regulators,” Bessent told Fox Business Network in an August 27 interview.

Bessent is not the only one. Close relatives of Bill Pulte – who was appointed by Trump as director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency and is the official who has accused Cook of mortgage fraud – have declared the same status on two homes in two different states, public records show.

Mark and Julie Pulte, the father and stepmother have claimed so-called “homestead exemptions” for residences in wealthy neighbourhoods in both Michigan and Florida, Reuters reported earlier, citing public records.

The exemption is meant to give a discount to homeowners on taxes for properties they use as their primary residence.