Demographics

Families in Taiwan will receive cash incentives for newborns and fertility treatment.

Taiwan has announced that it is fighting back against low population growth with a new subsidy programme to encourage families to have more children.

Taiwan’s cabinet on Thursday approved standardised cash payouts to families for each newborn and the coverage of a larger proportion of infertility treatment costs, Focus Taiwan reported.

Under the new plan, families will receive $3,320 per newborn, Taiwan News reported, with twins qualifying for a payment of nearly $7,000. The previous system included payouts that ranged from $1,300 to $2,300 per baby, depending on the mother’s employment status.

Taiwan became a “super-aged society” in 2025, meaning that more than 20 percent of its population is aged 65 or older. The island nation has one of the lowest birth rates in the world, CNN reported last year, with its total birth rate in 2022 hitting just .087.

Countries need to maintain a total fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman to hit what the French Institute for Demographic Studies calls “replacement level,” meaning the number of children a couple must have to replace themselves in the population.

Taiwan saw its ninth consecutive year of declining birth rates in 2024, according to Taiwan’s Ministry of the Interior.

The country’s benefits will also extend to couples facing infertility. Women aged 39 and under will reportedly be eligible to receive subsidies for up to six attempts at in vitro fertilization (IVF). Women between the ages of 39 and 45 will receive subsidies for their first three attempts.

Low-and middle-income households will be eligible to receive nearly $5,000 per attempt at IVF.

Minister without Portfolio Chen Shih-chung told Taiwan News the recently announced subsidies are expected to help more than 120,000 families.

Other countries in the region have experimented with the type of programme Taiwan is looking to implement. Parents in Hong Kong receive over $2,500 for each newborn, and parents in South Korea can receive over $2,200 once they’ve had two or more children, CNN reported.

Taiwan’s policy changes are expected to go into effect in January 2026.

United States President Donald Trump has marked the 90th anniversary of Social Security with a defence of his administration’s policies toward the programme — and attacks on his Democratic rivals.

On Thursday, Trump signed a presidential proclamation in the Oval Office, wherein he acknowledged the “monumental” importance of the social safety-net programme.

“I recommit to always defending Social Security,” the proclamation reads.

“To this day, Social Security is rooted in a simple promise: those who gave their careers to building our Nation will always have the support, stability, and relief they deserve.”

But Trump’s second term as president has been dogged by accusations that he has undermined programmes like Social Security in the pursuit of other agenda items, including his restructuring of the federal government.

What is Social Security?

Social Security in the US draws on payroll taxes to fund monthly payments to the elderly, the spouses of deceased workers, and the disabled. For many recipients, the payouts are a primary source of income during retirement.

The programme is considered widely popular: In 2024, the Pew Research Center found that 79 percent of Americans believe Social Security should not be cut in any way.

Additionally, four out of 10 people surveyed sided with the view that Social Security should be expanded to include more people and more benefits.

But the programme faces significant hurdles to its long-term feasibility.

Last year, the Social Security Administration (SSA) published a report that found the costs for old-age, disability and survivors’ insurance outstripped the programmes’ income.

It noted that the trust funds fuelling those programmes “are projected to become depleted during 2033” if measures are not taken to reverse the trend.

At Thursday’s Oval Office appearance, Trump sought to soothe those concerns, while taking a swipe at the Democratic Party.

“ You keep hearing stories that in six years, seven years, Social Security will be gone,” Trump said.

“And it will be if the Democrats ever get involved because they don’t know what they’re doing. But it’s going to be around a long time with us.”

He added that Social Security was “going to be destroyed” under his Democratic predecessor, former President Joe Biden, a frequent target for his attacks.

Criticism of Trump’s track record

But Trump himself has faced criticism for weakening Social Security since returning to the White House for a second term in January.

Early on, Trump and his then-adviser Elon Musk laid out plans to slash the federal workforce and reduce spending, including by targeting the Social Security Administration (SSA).

In February, the Social Security Administration said it would “reduce the size of its bloated workforce and organizational structure”, echoing Trump and Musk’s rhetoric.

The projected layoffs and incentives for early retirement were designed to cut Social Security’s staff from 57,000 to 50,000, a 12.3-percent decrease.

Under Trump, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has also announced plans to pare back Social Security’s phone services, though it has since backtracked in the face of public outcry.

In addition, Musk and Trump have attacked Social Security’s reputation, with the former adviser telling podcast host Joe Rogan, “Social Security is the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time.”

The two men even claimed Social Security is paying benefits to millions of long-dead individuals, though critics point out that those claims do not appear to be true.

The COBOL programming system used by the Social Security Administration marks incomplete entries with birthdates set 150 years back, according to the news magazine Wired. Those entries, however, generally do not receive benefits.

The Office of the Inspector General overseeing the Social Security Administration has repeatedly looked into these older entries. It confirmed that these entries are not active.

“We acknowledge that almost none of the numberholders discussed in the report currently receive SSA payments,” a report from 2023 said.

It also indicated that the Social Security Administration would have to pay between $5.5m and $9.7m to update its programming, though the changes would yield “limited benefits” in the fight against fraud.

Still, Trump doubled down on the claim that dead people were receiving benefits on Thursday.

“We had 12.4 million names where they were over 120 years old,” Trump said. “There were nearly 135,000 people listed who were over 160 years old and, in some cases, getting payments. So somebody’s getting those payments.”

Questions after ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’

Critics have also questioned whether Trump’s push to cut taxes will have long-term effects that erode Social Security.

In July, Trump’s signature piece of legislation, the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), cemented his 2017 tax cuts. It also increased the tax deductions for earners who rely on tips or Social Security benefits.

But groups like the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan think tank, estimate that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will shorten the timeline for Social Security’s insolvency.

“The law dictates that when the trust funds deplete their reserves, payments are limited to incoming revenues,” the committee said in late July.

“For the Social Security retirement program, we estimate that means a 24 percent benefit cut in late 2032, after the enactment of OBBBA.”

Still, Trump has repeatedly promised to defend Social Security from any benefit cuts. He reiterated that pledge in Thursday’s appearance.

“American seniors, every single day, we’re going to fight for them. We’re going to make them richer, better, stronger in so many different ways,” Trump said.

“But Social Security is pretty much the one that we think about, and we love it, and we love what’s happening with it, and it’s going to be good for 90 years and beyond.”

More than 69.9 million Americans received Social Security benefits as of July.

Early Saturday morning, New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani stepped on stage in the historically Black neighbourhood of Harlem.

His message was a familiar one: that he would be the best candidate to fight for the city’s marginalised and working classes.

“There have been many a question as to whether this city will simply become a museum of a place that once was — a museum of where working people could thrive,” Mamdani told the crowd.

On June 24, Mamdani scored an upset, winning New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary over frontrunner Andrew Cuomo, a former governor.

Just this Tuesday, the round-three results were released, showing Mamdani with a whopping 56 percent of the ranked-choice vote, dwarfing Cuomo’s 44 percent.

That dominant performance sent ripples around the United States political sphere. But it also led to scrutiny about where Mamdani’s weaknesses may lie.

Preliminary results suggest that Mamdani struggled in lower-income neighbourhoods like Brownsville and East Flatbush, where Cuomo took a marked lead.

In both of those areas, more than 60 percent of residents are Black. The neighbourhoods also share high poverty rates, with Brownsville at 32.4 percent and East Flatbush at 18.9, compared with the citywide rate of 18.2 percent.

One widely cited analysis from The New York Times found that 49 percent of precincts with a low-income majority tilted towards Cuomo, compared with 38 percent for Mamdani.

In precincts with a majority of Black residents, the pro-Cuomo number rose to 51 percent.

Those statistics raised questions about whether Mamdani’s promise to restore affordability in New York failed to resonate — or whether the numbers conceal a more complicated story.

A big-name opponent

Even before the primary results were called, there were some indications that Mamdani faced a steep challenge among lower-income and Black voters.

A Marist poll (PDF) from May found that 47 percent of respondents whose household income was less than $50,000 planned to vote for Cuomo as their first choice.

Mamdani was a distant second among the nine possible candidates, with 11 percent support. Meanwhile, he came in third place in the poll among Black voters, with 8 percent support to Cuomo’s 50 percent.

Experts say Cuomo had several factors weighing in his favour. Jerry Skurnik, a political consultant, pointed out that Cuomo was a well-known figure before June’s primary.

Not only was Cuomo a two-time governor, but he is also the son of a former governor.

His decades-long career in politics included stints in the cabinet of President Bill Clinton. Establishment figures like Congressman Jim Clyburn of South Carolina ultimately backed his campaign.

Mamdani, by contrast, is newer to the political arena: The 33-year-old has served in the New York State Assembly since 2020.

“Most people expected Cuomo to do well in the minority areas,” Skurnik said.

“He had name recognition, and he also had endorsements in most of those areas by local elected officials.”

Skurnik also noted that primaries typically attract older voters, who are considered a greater part of Cuomo’s voting bloc.

There, however, Skurnik points out that Mamdani defied the odds. A New York Times analysis suggested that voters in their 20s and 30s turned out in significantly higher numbers than for the 2021 mayoral primary.

That contributed to the highest overall Democratic primary turnout since 1989, when David Dinkins campaigned to become the first Black mayor of New York City.

“Younger voters came out in much higher numbers than anticipated,” Skurnik said. “Even in areas that Mamdani lost, he did by lower margins than people anticipated, paving the way for his victory.”

Courting the risk-averse

Other experts speculated that Mamdani, as a progressive candidate facing a centrist, might have been perceived as a riskier option.

John Gershman, a professor of public service at New York University, indicated that uncertainty can affect voter choices, particularly for those from vulnerable communities or precarious economic circumstances.

“For low-income families and the Black community, I think very much the calculus is not so much who’s the best candidate, but with which candidate am I risking the least, or am I least likely to lose?” Gershman said.

“In some ways, the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t.”

Gershman added, however, that Mamdani fit into a broader trend within the Democratic Party.

He pointed out that low-income voters leaned rightwards towards Republican Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election despite Democrats having a stronger “anti-poverty element” in their agenda.

Trump even made headway among Black voters, though the majority remain Democrats.

Gershman tied the trend back to name recognition and media habits. More low-income voters, he said, get their news from legacy media sources like television and newspapers.

Cuomo relied more heavily on those outlets for publicity. While Mamdani did make a sizable TV ad buy, he also campaigned heavily on social media with videos that were more informal and conversational.

Some conservative commentators, however, seized upon The New York Times’ analysis to arrive at a different interpretation about why certain voters might perceive risk in Mamdani’s campaign.

Speaking to Fox News, Republican strategist Karl Rove cited the statistics to argue that low-income voters may fear the tax burden that might accompany greater anti-poverty spending.

“Low-income voters said, ‘You know what? We’re not dumb enough to think that this is all going to be cost-free,’” Rove said, taking a swipe at Mamdani.

“There aren’t enough rich people to pay all of the promises he’s making.”

A complex demographic patchwork

But many experts say the broad voting trends fail to capture the complexity and overlaps of the communities they represent.

Michael Lange, a writer and political strategist who researched the primary, noted that many low-income communities in New York are Hispanic or Asian — demographics that gave strong backing to Mamdani.

“There were many lower-income neighbourhoods that Zohran Mamdani did well in, particularly in Queens, [like] Elmhurst and Flushing, that are almost exclusively Asian,” Lange said.

Those areas, he added, “verge on low income to working poor to working class”.

Activist and local historian Asad Dandia, who supports Mamdani, warned it would be wrong to see his campaign as solely drawing white or upper-class voters.

Rather, Dandia argued that Mamdani’s candidacy brought together a patchwork of diverse communities, from the Pakistani enclave in Brighton Beach to the Latino majority in Corona, Queens.

Even in some Black and low-income neighbourhoods, Dandia pointed out that Mamdani came out on top.

“How can you say that he’s not appealing to low-income voters when he’s winning Harlem?” Dandia asked.

But communities are constantly evolving, as are their politics. Juan Battle, a professor at the City University of New York, emphasised that every election cycle is different — and voter priorities can shift.

He pointed out that, during the last mayoral election, crime was the dominant theme. It helped buoy the current mayor, former police officer Eric Adams, to power.

“If this were happening four years ago, where crime was a big issue, I don’t think that Mamdani would have won,” Battle said. “Cuomo would have definitely won.”

No monoliths in election season

Mandami is set to face Adams himself in November’s general elections. Cuomo, too, has not yet ruled out a third-party run on the final ballot.

Still, as the Democratic nominee, Mamdani has become the frontrunner in the race — and his campaign is likely to continue building its coalition, including through appeals to the demographics it may have lost in the primary.

That includes Black voters. But in order to succeed, Portia Allen-Kyle, the executive director of the racial justice group Color of Change, believes that Mamdani needs to understand the spectrum of viewpoints in the Black community.

“Black voters are not a monolith, as we saw that on [election] day,” she said.

Allen-Kyle believes authenticity and innovation will be key to reaching Black voters come November. She also warned against relying too heavily on the same popular shows where other politicians make appearances.

“In the same way you can no longer just go to churches to reach Black voters, we’re not all listening to The Breakfast Club or to Ebro in the Morning,” she explained, referencing two radio shows that Mamdani has appeared on.

As he continues to reach out to Black voters ahead of November, Mamdani has made allies with a civil rights icon: Reverend Al Sharpton.

At Saturday’s event, Sharpton himself reflected on The New York Times’ findings about Mamdani and the Black vote.

“There was a story in The New York Times, two days after the primary, about Black votes,” Sharpton told the crowd.

He pointed out that Mamdani could have chosen to appeal to other communities, where his support was stronger. But Mamdani’s “courage” had won his support.

“Any other kind of politician would have played against the Black community,” Sharpton said. “He decided to come to the Black community.”

Millions of people around the world are unable to have the number of children they desire, and financial constraints, lack of quality healthcare and gender inequality are some of the barriers to reproductive choices, according to a UN report.

The UN Population Fund (UNFPA) unveiled its State of the World Population report on Tuesday, warning that a rising number of people are being denied the freedom to start families due to elevated living costs, wars and lack of suitable partners and not because they reject parenthood.

Roughly 40 percent of respondents cited economic barriers – such as the costs of raising children, job insecurity and expensive housing – as the main reason for having fewer children than they would like, according to the report based on an online survey conducted by the UN agency and YouGov.

Fertility rates have fallen to below 2.1 births per woman – the threshold needed for population stability without immigration – in more than half of all countries that took part in the survey.

On the flip side, life expectancy continues to grow across almost all regions of the world, according to the survey conducted in 14 countries that are home to one-third of the world’s population.

Right-wing nationalist governments, including in the United States and Hungary, are increasingly blaming falling fertility rates on a rejection of parenthood.

But the 2025 State of the World Population report found most people did indeed want children. The survey findings indicated that the world is not facing a crisis of falling birth rates but a crisis of reproductive agency.

How was the study conducted?

UNFPA surveyed 14,000 people from four countries in Europe, four in Asia, three in Africa and three in the Americas.

The study examined a mix of low-, middle- and high-income countries and those with low and high fertility rates.

They were picked to try to represent “a wide variety of countries with different cultural contexts, fertility rates and policy approaches”, according to the report’s editor, Rebecca Zerzan.

South Korea, which is included in the study, has the lowest fertility rate in the world. The report also looked at Nigeria, which has one of the highest birth rates in the world.

The other countries included, in order of population size, are India, the US, Indonesia, Brazil, Mexico, Germany, Thailand, South Africa, Italy, Morocco, Sweden and Hungary.

The survey is a pilot for research in 50 countries later this year.

When it comes to age groups within countries, the sample sizes in the initial survey are too small to make conclusions.

But some findings are clear.

What were the key findings from the report?

According to UNFPA, 39 percent of people said financial limitations prevented them from having a child.

Job insecurity and fear of the future – from climate change to war – were cited by 21 percent and 19 percent of respondents, respectively, for reasons to avoid reproducing.

Elsewhere, 13 percent of women and 8 percent of men pointed to the unequal division of domestic labour as a factor in having fewer children than desired.

Only 12 percent of people cited infertility or difficulty conceiving for not having the number of children they wanted.

That figure was higher in countries like Thailand (19 percent), the US (16 percent) and South Africa (15 percent).

In many cases, there were significant differences in responses depending on which country people were reporting from.

But for Natalia Kanem, executive director at UNFPA, a universal finding from the report is that “fertility rates are falling in large part because many feel unable to create the families they want.”

In South Korea, three in five respondents reported financial limitations as an obstacle to having children.

It was just 19 percent in Sweden, where both men and women are entitled to 480 days of paid parental leave per child, which may also be transferred to grandparents.

Still, birth rates in Sweden are among the lowest in the world.

Zerzan pointed out that one factor alone does not account for falling fertility rates.

“I fully agree with that,” said Arkadiusz Wisniowski, professor of social statistics and demography at the University of Manchester.

“The decision to have a child is complex. Yes, it’s about money. But it’s also about time and access to the right kind of childcare,” he told Al Jazeera.

What role can immigration play?

When deaths outpace births, that is an indication that fertility rates are falling. “That’s not currently true at the global level,” Wisniowski said. “But it is true for numerous countries around the world, especially wealthier nations.”

“And some governments are having to navigate the reality of falling birth rates against the backlash against immigration. Clearly, immigrants can fill labour market gaps, and there is evidence they contribute to economic growth,” he said.

“But it’s no panacea.”

What can governments do about this?

“We can see both the problem and solution clearly,” the UNFPA report noted. “The answer lies in reproductive agency, a person’s ability to make free and informed choices about sex, contraception and starting a family – if, when and with whom they want.”

UNFPA warns against simplistic and coercive responses to falling birth rates, such as baby bonuses or fertility targets, which are often ineffective and risk violating human rights.

“We also see that when people feel their reproductive choices are being steered, when policies are even just perceived as being too coercive, people react and they are less likely to have children,” Kanem said.

Instead, the UN body urged governments to expand choices by removing barriers to parenthood identified by their populations.

Its recommended actions included making parenthood more affordable through investments in housing, decent work, paid parental leave and access to comprehensive reproductive health services.

“The recommendations [in the report] are all good,” Wisniowski said. “They would all empower people to try and achieve their family-linked aspirations. But these comprehensive policies will come with a cost.”

For years, labour economists have warned that falling fertility poses a threat to future prosperity because it increases fiscal pressures due to ageing populations – when the number of pensioners in relation to workers rises.

“Governments may need to tax working people more or take on more debt to address the reality of fewer young people,” Wisniowski noted. “But fertility isn’t something that you can easily tinker with. We are facing considerable uncertainty.”

The fate of millions of immigrants is at stake as Italians vote in a two-day referendum that proposes to speed up the process of acquiring citizenship for foreigners who legally entered the country.

The referendum also seeks to roll back labour reforms to provide enhanced job protections.

Polling stations opened on Sunday at 7am local time (05:00 GMT), with results expected after polls close on Monday at 3pm (13:00 GMT).

The measures – backed by opposition parties, labour unions and social activists – are aimed at revising citizenship laws to help second-generation Italians born in the country, to non-European Union parents, integrate more easily.

However, the vote may fail to generate sufficient turnout to be deemed valid – a turnout of more than 50 percent is required for a referendum to be legally binding.

Ahead of this weekend’s vote, the citizenship issue has garnered plenty of attention in a nation where concerns over the scale of immigration helped propel right-wing Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s anti-migration coalition to power in late 2022. Immigration has emerged as a key issue, particularly in Western Europe as well as the United States under President Donald Trump.

So, what does the referendum propose, and what does it mean for immigrants whose lives are in limbo due to the slow process of naturalisation in the EU member nation?

What are the Italian citizenship requirements, and how many immigrants are waiting for citizenship?

The question on the ballot paper asks Italians if they back reducing the period of residence required to apply for Italian citizenship, by naturalisation, from 10 years to five.

The change proposed by the referendum would allow nearly 1.5 million foreigners to obtain citizenship immediately, according to an estimate by Idos, an Italian research centre. That would include nearly 300,000 minors, who would obtain citizenship if their parents did.

About half of Italy’s 5.4 million foreign residents could be eligible to apply for citizenship if the vote is passed.

The vote comes as Meloni has tightened citizenship laws, making it hard for resident immigrants to obtain nationality.

Currently, immigrants from countries outside the EU can apply for citizenship only after 10 years of uninterrupted residency in Italy.

What is more, the children of lawful immigrants can apply for passports only once they have turned 18 and if they have continuously lived in the country since birth.

On the other hand, generous bloodline laws allowed people of Italian descent, even if remote, to obtain citizenship, helping maintain a link with the diaspora.

Between 2016 and 2023, for instance, Italy granted citizenship to more than 98,300 people, mostly living in Latin America, based on their claims of Italian ancestry.

With Italy’s birthrate in sharp decline, economists say the country needs to attract more foreigners to boost its anaemic economy.

Francesco Galietti, from political risk firm Policy Sonar, told the Reuters news agency that keeping such rules tight was “an identity issue” for Meloni, but she was also being pushed by businesses to open up the borders of an ageing country to foreign workers.

“On the one hand, there is the cultural identity rhetoric, but on the other, there are potential problems paying pensions and an economy that relies on manufacturing, which needs workers,” Galietti said.

For context, Italy’s constitution allows citizens to repeal laws through referendums, part of the system of checks and balances devised after Benito Mussolini’s fascist rule in the 1940s.

What are the other proposals in the referendum?

The referendum seeks to make it harder to fire workers and increase compensation for those laid off by small businesses, reversing a previous law passed by a centre-left government a decade ago.

One of the questions on the ballot also addresses the urgent issue of security at work, restoring joint liability to both contractors and subcontractors for workplace injuries.

Campaigners gathered more than 4.5 million signatures, according to the Italian General Confederation of Labour (CGIL) union, far more than needed to trigger the referendum, which will comprise five questions – four on the labour market and one on citizenship.

“We want to reverse a culture that has prioritised the interests of business over those of workers,” CGIL general secretary Maurizio Landini told the AFP news agency.

Who backed the referendum and why?

The referendum was promoted by a coalition of relatively small political parties – More Europe, Possibile, the Italian Socialist Party, the Italian Radicals and the Communist Refoundation Party – and numerous civil society associations.

It is also being backed by the centre-left Democratic Party, which is jockeying for Italian citizenship laws to be more aligned with EU-wide standards.

Research shows that access to citizenship has positive causal effects.

Immigrants who naturalise experience lower unemployment rates, earn higher incomes and are less likely to be overqualified for their jobs.

By contrast, protracted waiting periods for naturalisation delay or dampen these effects.

These findings support the claim that naturalisation is not only a reward, but also an important catalyst for integration.

The majority of Italians think that citizenship accelerates the integration process as well.

The last Eurobarometer on the integration of immigrants reports that 87 percent of Italians believe that acquiring citizenship is an important factor for the successful integration of immigrants in Italy.

Even if it passes, however, the reform will not affect the law many consider deeply unfair – that children born in Italy to foreign parents cannot request nationality until they reach 18.

Does PM Meloni back the new citizenship rules?

Opposition left-wing and centrist parties, civil society groups and a leading trade union have latched on to the issues of labour rights and Italy’s demographic woes as a way of challenging Meloni’s right-wing coalition government.

Meloni has said she would show up at the polls but not cast a ballot – a move widely criticised by the left as antidemocratic, since it will not help reach the necessary threshold to make the vote valid.

Activists and opposition parties have denounced the lack of public debate on the measures, accusing the governing centre-right coalition of trying to dampen interest in sensitive issues that directly affect immigrants and workers.

A Demopolis institute poll last month estimated turnout would be in the range of 31-39 percent among Italy’s roughly 50 million electors, well short of the required threshold.

Leaders of two of the governing coalition’s right-wing parties, Antonio Tajani of Forza Italia and Matteo Salvini of the League, have opposed the vote.

The referendum is “dangerous” and would extend access to citizenship “indiscriminately”, Salvini, Italy’s deputy prime minister, said in May.

How significant is the referendum?

Supporters say this reform would bring Italy’s citizenship law in line with many other European countries, promoting greater social integration for long-term residents.

It would also allow faster access to civil and political rights, such as the right to vote, eligibility for public employment and freedom of movement within the EU.

Italy is also confronting one of Europe’s most acute demographic crises.

Its population is ageing rapidly, with about a quarter of Italians aged above 65 years and just 12 percent aged 14 or younger. The referendum could ease some of these pressures.

Vietnam’s declining birthrate is most pronounced in urban areas, while nationally, male births still outnumber female.

Vietnam has scrapped its longstanding two-child policy as it aims to reverse its declining birthrate and ease the pressure from an ageing society.

All restrictions were removed this week, and couples will be free to have as many children as they choose, according to Vietnamese media.

Minister of Health Dao Hong Lan said that a future shrinking population “threatens Vietnam’s sustainable economic and social development, as well as its national security and defence in the long term,” the Hanoi Times reported.

Between 1999 and 2022, Vietnam’s birthrate was about 2.1 children per woman, the replacement rate needed to keep the population from shrinking, but the rate has started to fall, the news outlet said.

In 2024, the country’s birthrate reached a record low of 1.91 children per woman.

Regional neighbours like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong all have declining birthrates, but their economies are more advanced than Vietnam’s.

Vietnam’s working-age population is expected to peak around 2040, according to the World Bank, and it aims to avoid the trap of “getting old before it gets rich”.

The country’s communist government introduced the two-child policy in 1988 to ensure it had adequate resources as it transitioned from a planned to a market economy. At the time, Vietnam was also still overcoming the effects of decades of war.

Vietnam’s two-child policy was most strictly enforced with members of Vietnam’s Communist Party, according to the Associated Press, but families everywhere could lose out on government subsidies and assistance if they had a third or fourth child.

As well as a declining birthrate, Vietnam is also facing significant imbalances across different regions and social groups, the Ministry of Health said.

The declining birthrate is most pronounced in urban areas such as Ho Chi Minh and the capital Hanoi, where the cost of living is highest. But there are also significant disparities in gender. Last year, Vietnam’s sex ratio at birth was 111 boys to every 100 girls.

The disparity between male and female births is most pronounced in North Vietnam’s Red River Delta and the Northern Midlands and Mountains, according to the World Bank, and lowest in the Central Highlands and Mekong River Delta.

Vietnam prohibits doctors from telling parents the sex of their children to curb sex-selective abortions, but the practice continues, with doctors communicating via coded words, according to Vietnamese media.

Left unchecked, the General Statistics Office warned there could be a “surplus of 1.5 million men aged 15-49 by 2039, rising to 2.5 million by 2059”.

In a bid to reverse this trend, the Health Ministry separately proposed tripling the fine for “foetal gender selection” to about $3,800.

The Dutch government collapsed on Tuesday after far-right politician Geert Wilders pulled out of the right-wing coalition after a dispute over anti-immigration measures his party had proposed.

Wilders’ decision prompted the Dutch cabinet and Prime Minister Dick Schoof to resign.

Here is what triggered the government’s collapse, and what happens next:

Why did Wilders withdraw?

Wilders announced the withdrawal of his right-wing party, the Party for Freedom (PVV), from the 11-month-old right-wing Netherlands coalition government. Wilders said the other three parties in the coalition had failed to back his plans to crack down on asylum for refugees.

“No signature under our asylum plans. The PVV leaves the coalition,” Wilders wrote in an X post on Tuesday after a brief meeting in parliament with party leaders. Besides PVV, the coalition comprised People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), the Farmer-Citizen Movement (BBB) and the New Social Contract (NSC).

On May 26, Wilders announced a 10-point plan to extensively slash migration, deploying army officials at the Dutch land borders and rejecting all asylum seekers. Wilders threatened, back then, that his party would pull out of the coalition if migration policy was not toughened.

The four parties cumulatively held 88 seats in the country’s 150-seat House of Representatives.

The PVV won the latest November 2023 election with 23 percent of the vote and 37 seats, the highest number of seats in the parliament out of all parties.

The majority mark in the House is 76 seats. The withdrawal leaves the coalition with only 51 seats.

When did Schoof step down?

After Wilders announced the withdrawal, an emergency cabinet meeting was called. After this, Schoof announced that he would step down, hours after the PVV withdrawal.

“I have told party leaders repeatedly in recent days that the collapse of the cabinet would be unnecessary and irresponsible,” Schoof said in the emergency cabinet meeting. “We are facing major challenges both nationally and internationally that require decisiveness from us.”

How did other Dutch leaders react?

Other leaders in the coalition called Wilders “irresponsible” and blamed him for putting his own political interests ahead of the country.

“There is a war on our continent. Instead of meeting the challenge, Wilders is showing he is not willing to take responsibility,” said Dilan Yesilgoz, leader of the VVD, which has 24 seats in the the House.

“It is irresponsible to take down the government at this point,” NSC leader Nicolien van Vroonhoven said about Wilders. The NSC has 20 seats.

Head of the opposition GreenLeft-Labour alliance Frans Timmermans said he could “see no other way to form a stable government” than early elections.

What’s next?

Schoof will now formally submit his resignation to the head of state, Dutch King Willem-Alexander. After this, elections are expected to be called. It is likely that the election will be held sometime in October or November, based on previous cycles.

As of May 31, polls show that Wilders’ PVV has lost a little of its support, from 23 percent in the 2023 election to 20 percent.

This brings the party almost at par with the GreenLeft-Labour alliance, which has 19 percent of support and 25 seats in the lower house of parliament, the second highest number of seats after the PVV.

The fragmented politics of the Netherlands makes it difficult to predict which party will win the election. It is unlikely for a single party to win the 76-seat majority and it takes months for a coalition to form. According to the Dutch election authority’s data, no single party has ever won a majority since the first direct elections in 1848.

What happens until elections?

Schoof has said he and the other ministers of the coalition will continue with their positions in a caretaker government until a new government is formed after elections.

The political crisis comes as the Netherlands is scheduled to host a summit of NATO leaders at The Hague on June 24-25. Mark Rutte, the current secretary-general of NATO, was the prime minister of the Netherlands from 2010 to 2024. Rutte was affiliated with the VVD.

Schoof had also been involved in European efforts to provide support to Ukraine in its war against Russia. In February, the Dutch PM was present at a meeting with other European leaders in Paris where the leaders pledged to provide Ukraine with security guarantees.

By contrast, about six out of 10 LGBTQ adults said gay and lesbian people are generally accepted in the US. 

A new poll by the Pew Research Centre has found that transgender people experience less social acceptance in the United States than those who are lesbian, gay or bisexual, according to LGBTQ adults.

About six out of 10 LGBTQ adult participants in the poll said there is “a great deal” or “a fair amount” of social acceptance in the US for gay and lesbian people, according to “The Experiences of LGBTQ Americans Today” report released on Thursday.

Only about one in 10 said the same for non-binary and transgender people — and about half said there was “not much” or no acceptance at all for transgender people.

The survey of 3,959 LGBTQ adults was conducted in January, after US President Donald Trump’s election, but just before his return to office when he set into motion a series of policies that question transgender people’s existence and their place in society.

On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order calling on the government to recognise people as male or female based on the “biological truth” of their future cells at conception, rejecting evidence and scientific arguments that gender is a spectrum.

Since then, Trump has barred transgender women and girls from taking part in female sports competitions, pushed transgender service members from the military and tried to block federal funding for gender-affirming care for transgender people under age 19.

A poll conducted by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research in May found that about half of US adults approve of the way Trump is handling transgender issues.

Transgender people are less likely than gay or lesbian adults to say they are accepted by all their family members, according to the Pew poll. The majority of LGBTQ people said their siblings and friends accepted them, though the rates were slightly higher among gay or lesbian people.

About half of gay and lesbian people said their parents did, compared with about one-third of transgender people. Only about one in 10 transgender people reported feeling accepted by their extended family, compared with about three in 10 for gay or lesbian people.

According to the Pew poll, about two-thirds of LGBTQ adults said the landmark US Supreme Court ruling that legalised same-sex marriage nationally on June 26, 2015, increased acceptance of same-sex couples “a lot more” or “somewhat more”.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule in the coming weeks on whether Tennessee can enforce a ban on gender-affirming care for minors in what is seen as a major case for the transgender community.

Johannesburg, South Africa – On a chilly Sunday evening in Johannesburg, OR Tambo International Airport was filled with tourists and travellers entering and exiting South Africa’s busiest airport.

On one side of the international departures hall, a few dozen people queued – their trollies piled with luggage, travel pillows and children’s blankets – as they waited to board a charter flight to Washington Dulles International Airport in the United States.

Dressed casually and comfortably for the 13-hour journey that would follow, the group – most young, all white – talked among themselves while avoiding onlookers. Although they blended into the bustling terminal around them, these weren’t ordinary travellers. They were Afrikaners leaving South Africa to be refugees in Donald Trump’s America.

When Charl Kleinhaus first applied for refugee resettlement in the US earlier this year, he told officials he had been threatened and that people attempted to claim his property.

The 46-year-old, who claimed to own a farm in Limpopo, South Africa’s northernmost province, was not required to present proof of these threats or provide details regarding when the alleged incidents occurred.

On Sunday, he joined dozens of others accepted by the Trump administration as part of a pilot programme granting asylum to people from the Afrikaner community – descendants of mainly Dutch colonisers that led the brutal apartheid regime for nearly five decades.

The Trump administration claims white people face discrimination in South Africa – a country where they make up some 7 percent of the population but own more than 70 percent of the land and occupy the majority of top management positions.

“I want you all to know that you are really welcome here and that we respect what you have had to deal with these last few years,” US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau told Kleinhaus and the others when they landed at the Dulles International in Virginia.

“We respect the long tradition of your people and what you have accomplished over the years,” he said on Monday.

Speaking to a journalist at the airport, Kleinhaus said he never expected “this land expropriation thing to go so far” in South Africa.

He was referring to the recently passed Expropriation Act, which allows the South African government to, in exceptional circumstances, take land for public use without compensation. Pretoria says the measure is aimed at redressing apartheid injustices, as Black South Africans who make up more than 80 percent of the population still own just 4 percent of the land.

South African officials say the law has not resulted in any land grabs. There is also no record of Kleinhaus’s property being expropriated.

Kleinhaus was unaffected by any threats and the government was unaware of anyone who might have threatened his property, Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni told Al Jazeera.

“The people of South Africa have not been affected by the expropriation of land. There’s no evidence. None of them are affected by any farm murders either,” the minister emphasised.

Discredited ‘genocide’ claims

In February, when Trump signed an executive order granting refugee status to Afrikaners, he cited widely discredited claims that their land was being seized and that they were being brutally killed in South Africa.

On Monday, Trump again claimed that Afrikaners were victims of a “genocide” – an accusation South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and other experts maintain is based on lies.

“Farmers are being killed,” Trump told reporters. “White farmers are being brutally killed, and the land is being confiscated in South Africa.”

Ramaphosa has also debunked claims that the group who left this week faced any persecution at home.

“They are leaving because they do not wish to embrace the democratic transformation unfolding in South Africa,” he said.

For 60-year-old Sam Busa, watching Kleinhaus and the 48 other South Africans leave to be resettled in the US was a hopeful moment.

Busa, who has also applied for asylum, is waiting in anticipation for an interview that would qualify her for resettlement. She has begun selling excess household items in anticipation of her new life in the US.

The semi-retired businesswoman has been at the forefront of efforts – through a website called Amerikaners – encouraging Afrikaners to take an interest in the US offer to grant refugee status on the grounds that they face racial persecution in South Africa.

When asked how she has experienced persecution because of her race, Busa recounted an incident where she was held at gunpoint at her home in Johannesburg – the commercial capital of South Africa and one of the most dangerous cities in the world.

She later moved to KwaZulu-Natal on the country’s east coast, where she ran a business that provided services to the government.

When asked whether she believed she was targeted because of her race or if she was simply a victim of common crime, Busa asserted it did not matter.

She didn’t feel safe, she said. “I am not overly sensitive. When I watch Julius Malema singing about killing the Boer, it is extremely terrifying.”

Malema, the far-left leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) political party, often sings a famous anti-apartheid song, Kill the Boer (Boer meaning farmer in Afrikaans), which the courts have ruled is not hate speech or an incitement to violence.

‘Persecution’

For Busa, much like Kleinhaus, new legislation passed to bolster racial transformation, which includes having specific hiring targets for employment equity, has been “the straw that broke the camel’s back”.

“Expropriation without compensation is a huge issue, along with the amendment to employment equity,” she said, restating her belief that white people don’t have a future in South Africa.

“It’s coming hard and fast, and it’s becoming clear to [white] South Africans that we struggle with fears of home invasion. I don’t live on a farm, but there are massive fears because of the constant threat of crime. It has become clear to white South Africans; it’s not disguised,” she claimed.

The narrative of fear is prevalent among those engaged in the refugee programme despite the fact that several experts have debunked the assertion that they were victims of racially motivated attacks and not common crime.

South Africa sees about 19,000 murders a year. According to data from the police, most victims of rural crime are Black, with evidence showing that white farmers are not disproportionately being killed.

Meanwhile, many participants in the US’s Afrikaner refugee resettlement programme do not even live on farms; many are urban dwellers, according to Minister Ntshavheni.

Katia Beedan, who lives in Cape Town, is also anticipating resettlement in the US. She told Al Jazeera that refugee hopefuls do not have to prove racial persecution but simply articulate it.

“For me, it’s racial persecution and political persecution,” she said about her reasons for wanting to leave South Africa.

The copywriter-turned-life coach pointed to racial transformation laws targeting employment equity and land expropriation, which she believes the government is “overwhelming us with”, as a key reason for her desire to flee.

However, many other South Africans see sections of the Afrikaner community – including their right-wing lobby groups like AfriForum that first pushed the false narrative of a “white genocide” – as struggling to exist equally in a country where they were once considered superior because of their race.

“I think AfriForum is struggling with the reality of being ordinary,” social justice activist and South Africa’s former public protector, Thuli Madonsela, told local TV channel, Newzroom Afrika, in March.

“The new South Africa requires all of us to be ordinary, whereas colonialism and apartheid made white people special people.

“I think some white people … [are] seeking to reverse the wheel and find reason to be special again. They seem to have found an ally in the American president,” she said.

‘Absurd and ridiculous’

In February, as Trump expedited efforts to resettle Afrikaners in the US, he was closing off his country’s refugee programme to other asylum seekers from war-torn and famine-stricken parts of the world.

For Loren Landau from the African Centre for Migration and Society at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, the Afrikaner refugee relocation is “absurd and ridiculous”.

“They have not been welcomed as tourists or work permit holders, but as refugees. The idea of a refugee system is to protect those who cannot be safeguarded by their own states and who fear persecution or violence because of who they are or their membership in a social group. Can Afrikaners make that case?” he asked.

Although “there are people in South Africa who discriminate against them,” and Afrikaners now “have less privilege and protection than during the apartheid era”, it cannot be said that this is indicative of state policy, he said, adding that many different people are robbed, killed, and face discrimination in South Africa.

“Are they [Afrikaners] specially victimised because of who they are? Absolutely not!” Landau added.

He said all statistics on land ownership, income, and education levels indicate that South Africa’s white population far outstrips others: “They are still by far in the top strata of South African society. No one is taking their land. No one is taking their cars.”

Even fringe groups that may have called for land grabs have done little to enact their threats, observers note.

However, for Busa, that doesn’t matter. “I fear for my children. You never know when the EFF decides they want you dead. It’s not a country I want to live in,” she said. The EFF has said those who decide to leave South Africa should have their citizenship revoked.

Confronted with the implications of this situation, the government is considering whether those who exit as refugees could easily return to the country. Ramaphosa is expected to discuss the ongoing matter with Trump at a meeting in the US next week.

Meanwhile, for the Afrikaners now in the US, most will settle in Texas, with others in New York, Idaho, Iowa and North Carolina, while the government helps them find work and accommodation.

They will hold refugee status for one year, after which they can apply for a US green card to make them permanent residents. At the same time, the Afrikaner resettlement programme remains open to others who want to apply.

When Kleinhaus and his group arrived in the US on Monday, they had smiles on their faces as they met officials and waved US flags.

Yet, for South Africa’s president, their resettlement in the US marks “a sad moment for them” – and something he believes may not last.

“As South Africans, we are resilient. We don’t run away from our problems,” he said at an agricultural exhibition in Free State province on Monday.

“If you look at all national groups in our country, Black and white, they’ve stayed in this country because it’s our country.

“I can bet you that they [the Afrikaners who left] will be back soon because there is no country like South Africa.”