dollar

A Republican from the South Bay who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars running unsuccessfully against Rep. Maxine Waters four times while promoting QAnon conspiracy theories was sentenced to four years in federal prison for misusing campaign funds, the Department of Justice announced Monday.

Omar Navarro, 37, pleaded guilty in June to a single count of wire fraud for defrauding his own election campaign. The perennial candidate had raised hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years from prominent right-wing figures while promoting QAnon conspiracy theories but never cracked 25% of the vote.

He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Mark C. Scarsi, who ordered Navarro immediately remanded into federal custody. A restitution hearing will be scheduled at a later date to determine how much money Navarro must pay to compensate victims.

Narvarro ran to represent Los Angeles County residents in California’s 43rd Congressional District in the 2016, 2018, 2020 and 2022 election cycles.

From July 2017 to February 2021, he funneled tens of thousands of dollars in donations to his campaign committee back to himself through his mother, Dora Asghari, and friend Zacharias Diamantides-Abel, prosecutors said. In total, his scheme diverted around $266,00 in campaign funds, more than $100,000 of which went directly into his pocket, prosecutors said.

“Defendant could have used that money to buy radio advertisements, purchase billboard space, or send a mailer to aid him in the election,” prosecutors wrote in their sentencing memorandum. “He chose instead to steal his donors’ dollars and fund his lavish lifestyle, including using it to pay for Las Vegas trips, fancy dinners, and even criminal defense attorneys for his criminal stalking charge after he had the audacity to use his campaign money to pay a private investigator to stalk her.”

He set up a sham charity called the United Latino Foundation to embezzle additional funds for his personal use. He also wrote thousands of dollars’ worth of checks to Brava Consulting, a company owned by his mother. This money was allegedly payment for campaign work, but the bulk of it was simply funneled back to him.

Initially, Navarro denied the allegations publicly, writing on X last year that the claims were “baseless” and suggested Waters herself was behind the investigation. He pleaded guilty months later.

Prosecutors argued that a significant sentence was necessary given the “prolonged and pervasive” nature of his fraud and to discourage others from engaging in similar behavior “that undermines the very fabric of the campaign finance system, a system designed to promote trust in government.”

The other two people connected to the case were also criminally charged.

Navarro’s mother pleaded guilty in June 2025 to one count of making false statements after lying to the FBI when questioned about receiving funds from her son’s campaign. She will face up to five years in federal prison at her April 13 sentencing hearing.

Diamantides-Abel pleaded guilty in May 2025 to one count of conspiracy and awaits sentencing.

Authors: Ajay Kumar Mishra and Shraddha Rishi*

At the Davos World Economic Forum, Mark Carney, the prime minister of Canada, shared his thoughts on the hegemonic and subservient world order. When integration turns into a source of subordination, one cannot “live within the lie” of mutual benefit in the midst of a collapsing global order. The trading communities appear to have a hegemonic and subservient relationship as a result of the dollar’s adoption as the world’s reserve currency. Furthermore, the competing global order between the US and China appears to be caving in to Chinese modus operandi without investigating the reasons for US authoritarian dominance, which could result in the acceptance of Chinese domination. The recognition of the US dollar as the worldwide currency and its dominance over oil, one of the most traded commodities, have put the US in leadership of the world trading regime. Furthermore, it appears that China’s monopoly over rare earth elements (REEs) is giving the Chinese yuan the same reserve currency power. Therefore, the globe might witness a change of control from the US to China, thus jeopardizing the world trading system to the whims and fancies of the country holding the reserve currency.

:

According to this essay, the dollar’s reserve currency status is the true cause of the world order’s disintegration, which equates to allowing the US to take the only seat at the table. It contends that a multipolar currency is essential for a multipolar world order. This understanding is necessary to prevent the rule of any country based on currency supremacy. Diversifying the currency basket for trade transactions is encouraged. To show how the currency dominance of a reserve currency would rise to currency imperialism, this article looks into the petrodollar problem and the duality of reserve currency and trade deficit to delegitimize the necessity of the dollar as a reserve currency. Any currency in question is subject to the same reasoning. Thus, a multi-currency trading framework is advocated in this article.

Geoeconomics of the Petrodollar Crisis’s Spiral

The dollar controls trade, payments, and reserves. About 96 percent of trade in the Americas, 74 percent in the Asia-Pacific area, and 79 percent in the rest of the world is denominated in the currency. About 60 percent of international and foreign currency claims (mainly loans) and liabilities (mostly deposits) are in US dollars. Its proportion of foreign exchange transactions is roughly 90 percent. Approximately 60% of the world’s official foreign reserves are in US dollars. Furthermore, in Q1 2025, the US dollar’s percentage of global foreign exchange reserves dropped to 53.6%. Additionally, the 50-year security agreement with Saudi Arabia to price oil only in dollars and invest surpluses in U.S. Treasury bonds in exchange for military protection expired in 2024. This could result in a shift toward accepting different currencies, albeit it won’t happen right away. Additionally, countries like Russia, China, and Iran are increasingly using non-dollar currencies for energy trade, aiming to reduce reliance on Western financial networks.

To achieve its geoeconomic goals, US authorities have attempted to preserve the dollar’s reserve currency status in several ways, compensating for economic weaknesses such as a lack of competitiveness in particular. The US appears to be addressing the growing trade deficit by maintaining the dollar as the world’s currency and matching China’s hegemony over rare earth elements. The US’s current dominance over the trade regime is largely due to dollar-based trade. The oil trade in dollars gives the US significant influence to shape geopolitics globally, both bilaterally and multilaterally, as oil holds a premier position in the international trading landscape.One commodity (oil) and one currency (the US dollar) have the power to both destabilise and stabilise the global price system. Its “as good as gold” quality can only be maintained in a world where the dominant currency is no longer associated with gold if it is associated with oil, that is, if wealthy people have faith that oil prices won’t continue to rise relative to the US dollar. The US gains influence over the oil trade by controlling the petro-dollar trade.

The globe is essentially on an “oil-dollar standard” during the post-Bretton Woods system, when currencies are meant to be “floating.” The US is under pressure to control oil sources, which it does through coercion or persuasion, to maintain wealth-holders’ faith in the value of the dollar, without which the global economy will experience severe financial turmoil, particularly given the ongoing US current account deficit. In a nutshell, war is a result of today’s necessity to preserve US financial stability. It does, however, produce a spiral effect. To control a significant oil source for financial stability, the US attacked oil-rich Iraq and, more recently, Venezuela. However, as a result of the opposition this strike provoked, oil prices skyrocketed, increasing the threat to financial stability and the temptation to wage war on other oil-rich nations like Iran. Additionally, the US would experience the same spiral consequences in a much more severe form if it decided to go to war with Iran.

The Reserve Currency and Trade Deficit “Trade-off”

Trade deficit and reserve currency operate in a trade-off scenario wherein a nation whose currency serves as the world’s reserve currency must maintain a trade deficit. It is based on two fundamental ideas. The first is the ‘policy trilemma’ or ‘impossible trinity’ thesis of economists Robert Mundell and Marcus Fleming. It contends that an economy cannot sustain unrestricted capital flow, a fixed exchange rate, and an autonomous monetary policy at the same time. The second paradox bears the name of Robert Triffin, an economist. This states that where their money works as the global reserve currency, a nation must run huge trade deficits to meet the demand for reserves. Any candidate for a new global reserve currency position must run significant current account deficits and risk an intolerable loss of economic control.

However, trade imbalances are thought to be self-correcting. A nation’s currency is predicted to lose value when it has a trade imbalance. Exports will then rise, while imports will fall, resulting in a reduction in the trade deficit. However, as the dollar is the world’s reserve currency, this idea does not apply to the US economy. A large portion of a country’s foreign exchange reserves is invested in US government securities. As a result, the dollar is overpriced. A chronic trade deficit results from higher imports and lower exports due to an overpriced dollar. Therefore, the US has a trade deficit not because it imports more goods, but rather because it supplies the world’s reserve currency.

In the face of “unfair” trade and an overpriced currency, how can the US bring manufacturing back and lower the country’s trade deficit? Enter duties on imports. Tariffs will decrease imports and increase their cost, lowering the trade imbalance. By shielding American manufacturers from import competition, they will promote domestic production. However, the US’s return to a more protectionist policy through tariffs has led to increased bilateral commerce in non-dollar currency. For instance, India-Russia oil trade and China’s increasing use of bilateral currency swaps with its trading partners have caused major concern for the US reserve currency supremacy. Moreover, it caused a spiral effect. For example, the reserve currency of the central banks has become less dollarized as a result of the recent US policy of reciprocal tariffs to safeguard trade transactions in dollars. It promotes asking about options for a reserve currency basket and the possibility of de-dollarization. Trump has made no secret about retaining the US dollar’s global supremacy, even threatening the BRICS nations with 100% additional tax should they move forward with a unified currency to “degenerate” and “destroy” the dollar. After all, de-dollarization has the potential to tip the scales against the United States and reduce its capacity to influence international financial markets and the global economy. Furthermore, to protect dollar dominance from the assault of renewable energy, the US withdrawal from India’s solar alliance must be considered.

Economists fear that tariffs go against the concept of economic efficiency. Tariffs, they warn, will imply greater expenses for American consumers, an increase in the inflation rate, and an inefficient manufacturing sector. Moreover, tariffs will encourage nations to undermine the dollar’s standing as a reserve currency by making imports more expensive. It will portend the trading of multiple currencies. Even when Trump managed the inevitability of a trade deficit because of having a reserve currency, the US was still faced with two additional problems: the increasing bilateral trade in member countries’ currencies and China’s control over modern-era gold, ‘rare earth minerals’ critical for key industries. China’s hegemony over REEs and chip production challenges the US dollar’s hegemony.

Conclusion

It reflects that the actual geo-economic strength of the US lies in the acceptability of its currency as a global reserve and its hold over one of the most traded commodities, oil. The rise of China and the evolving structure of international trade are changing the dynamics of this area, even though the US dollar continues to be the most important reserve currency. However, there wouldn’t be any surpluses to invest or deficits to finance if trade were more bilaterally balanced over time, which would lessen the demand for a reserve currency like dollars. The world looks to be headed towards a multi-currency structure for harmonious commercial ties. By encouraging alternate payment methods among trading nations and choosing the currency used for the IMF’s reserve holdings, for instance, it is necessary to end the US monopoly on currency arrangements. The structure can be extended to incorporate trading blocs, where imbalances net out amongst members when aggregated. It suggests a world with several reserve and trade currencies.

This bilateral or multilateral currency autarky might unleash the potential to trade freely as well as to obtain investment capital for emerging economies. Moreover, this strategy is embedded in the evolving industrial structure driven by economic sovereignty. Meanwhile, the US’s capacity to finance its ongoing budget and trade deficits would be impacted by the dollar’s declining value. Dollar interest rates may have to climb, and the currency may depreciate. The role of its capital markets and financial institutions would shrink. It would give more space for the formation of a multipolar currency regime.

*Shraddha Rishi teaches Political Science at Magadh University, Bodhgaya. She has obtained her PhD from the Centre for South Asian Studies, JNU, New Delhi.

United States Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has claimed that Washington engineered a dollar shortage in Iran to send the rial into freefall and cause protests on the streets.

In December and January, Iran was faced with one of the biggest antigovernment protests the country has seen since the Islamic revolution of 1979, prompted by the severe economic crisis.

Protests over soaring prices in Iran began with shopkeepers in Tehran who shuttered their shops and began demonstrating on December 28, 2025, after the rial plunged to a record low against the US dollar in late December. The protests then spread to other provinces of Iran.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s government responded with force. More than 6,800 protesters, including at least 150 children, are thought to have been killed in a sweeping crackdown by the government on the protest movement.

So, how did Washington create a “dollar shortage” in Iran, ultimately causing the rial to tank? And what effect has that had on the Iranian people?

What is a ‘dollar shortage’?

A “dollar shortage” refers to when a country does not have enough US dollars to pay for things it needs from the rest of the world.

The US dollar is the main currency used in global trade, especially for oil, machinery and loan repayments, which means countries need a steady supply of it.

If exports fall and sanctions block access to the US financial system, dollars can become scarce. As a result, the local currency weakens, prices of imported goods rise, and inflation worsens.

In Iran, a “dollar shortage” was engineered by simultaneously blocking the two main channels of foreign exchange (FX) inflow: Oil exports and international banking access, said Mohammad Reza Farzanegan, an economist at Germany’s Marburg University. The US did this by imposing sanctions on Iranian oil, meaning anyone buying or selling it would be subject to punitive measures.

Given Iran’s dependence on oil for revenue, economic sanctions on its oil can create a severe FX constraint.

“By using secondary sanctions to threaten any global entity trading in dollars with Iran, the US traps Iran’s existing reserves abroad and prevents new dollars from entering the domestic market,” Farzanegan told Al Jazeera.

What has US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said?

Replying to a query about dealing with Iran at a Congressional hearing last week, Treasury Secretary Bessent described the US strategy to send the Iranian currency plunging.

“What we [have done] at Treasury is created a dollar shortage in the country,” Bessent said, adding that the strategy came to a “grand culmination in December, when one of the largest banks in Iran went under … the Iranian currency went into freefall, inflation exploded, and hence, we have seen the Iranian people out on the street.

“We have seen the Iranian leadership wiring money out of the country like crazy,” Bessent added. “So the rats are leaving the ship, and that is a good sign that they know the end may be near.”

Before this, speaking with Fox News at the World Economic Forum last month in Davos, Bessent explained the role US sanctions played in driving the recent nationwide protests.

“President Trump ordered Treasury … to put maximum pressure on Iran, and it’s worked,” he said. “Because in December, their economy collapsed. They are not able to get imports, and this is why the people took to the streets.”

In both instances, Bessent referred to his earlier remarks at the Economic Club of New York, in March last year, when he outlined how the White House would leverage President Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign to collapse Iran’s economy.

In his address there, Bessent said the US “elevated a sanctions campaign against [Iran’s] export infrastructure, targeting all stages of Iran’s oil supply chain”, coupled with “vigorous government engagement and private sector outreach” to “close off Iran’s access to the international financial system”.

What effect did the dollar shortage have in Iran?

In January, the Iranian rial was trading at 1.5 million to the dollar – a sharp decline from about 700,000 a year earlier in January 2025 and about 900,000 in mid-2025. The plummeting currency triggered steep inflation, with food prices an average of 72 percent higher than last year.

In 2018, during his first presidency, Trump withdrew from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, a deal between Iran and global powers limiting Tehran’s nuclear programme in return for sanctions relief.

Since re-election last January, President Trump has doubled down on his so-called “maximum pressure” to cripple Iran’s economy and corner Tehran to renegotiate its nuclear and regional policies. Last month, Trump threatened a 25 percent tariff on countries doing business with Iran.

Through the rigorous blocking of Iran from the global financial system by creating a dollar shortage, the US pushed Tehran towards a severe “import compression, [and as a result, Iran] cannot pay for the intermediate goods and machinery required for domestic production”, said Farzanegan, the economist.

The US strategy, he said, “is particularly devastating because it leverages commercial risk management against humanitarian needs”. In short, Washington’s strategy “makes the small Iranian market a commercial liability” for any company, even if they are only dealing with medicine, for instance, Farzanegan added.

A research paper published by Farzanegan and Iranian American economist Nader Habibi last year found that the size of Iran’s middle class would have expanded by an annual average of approximately 17 percentage points, between 2012 and 2019, if it were not for US action.

In 2019, the estimated size of loss in the middle-class share of the population in Iran was 28 percentage points, the research found.

“People lost their purchasing power, and savings were wiped out,” the economist told Al Jazeera. “This is a long-term destruction of the country’s human capital.”

Besides the US action is the existing vulnerability of Iran’s economic structure, with factors like long-term mismanagement, high rates of corruption and over-reliance on oil revenues making it fragile.

While the US sanctions created external shock, a lack of domestic structural reforms left the government with “no fiscal space to cushion the blow”.

What is the US’s endgame here – and will it succeed?

Bessent’s admission that Washington deliberately created a “dollar shortage” signals the US’s shift towards a total economic warfare narrative.

“This is economic statecraft; no shots fired,” Bessent said at the WEF in Davos last month.

“This admission may complicate the US’s diplomatic standing, as it confirms that the humanitarian channels for food and medicine are often rendered useless if the entire banking system is being targeted for collapse,” Farzanegan said.

Bruce Fein, a former US associate deputy attorney general who specialises in constitutional and international law, told Al Jazeera that this type of economic coercion is “as common as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west”, pointing to economic sanctions against Russia, Cuba, North Korea, China and Myanmar.

However, unlike in other cases where the US has applied economic pressure, Farzanegan said Iran’s case is “a unique experiment due to the duration and intensity of the pressure”.

Unlike Russia, which has a more diversified export base and larger reserves, Iran has been facing varied forms of sanctions for decades since the supreme leader took power in 1979.

“Iran has a sophisticated internal mechanism for sanctions circumvention that makes the ‘dollar shortage’ a game of cat-and-mouse rather than a one-time shock,” the economist said.

With a US armada currently stationed in the Arabian Sea, the US and Iran are in talks to defuse tensions. The US wants three key things from Iran: To stop enriching uranium as part of its nuclear programme, to get rid of its ballistic missiles and to stop arming non-state actors in the region.

Ultimately, observers say, the US wants regime change in Iran.

But Fein said his experience shows that economic sanctions alone “seldom, if ever, topple regimes … Regime change comes externally only with the use of military force.

“Iran’s dollar shortage will not oust the mullahs or Revolutionary Guard,” he said, referring to Iran’s current administrative structure.

The impoverishment of Iranians will diminish, Fein told Al Jazeera, “rather than promote the likelihood of a successful revolution because day-to-day survival will be the priority”.

Not long after Pacific Palisades and Altadena had burned, Gov. Gavin Newsom summoned reporters and television cameras to Dodger Stadium. Newsom stepped behind a podium dropped within a stadium parking lot, with a commanding view of Los Angeles as the backdrop.

He was there to unveil LA Rises, a signature initiative under which the private sector and philanthropists could unite to help Southern California rebuild and recover.

The most valuable player that day: Mark Walter, the Dodgers’ chairman and controlling owner. The big announcement: Walter and two of his associated charities — his family foundation and the Dodgers’ foundation — would contribute up to $100 million as “an initial commitment” to LA Rises.

“We should clap for that,” Dodgers co-owner Magic Johnson told the assembled media. “A hundred million dollars, that’s an outstanding thing.”

One year later, Newsom’s initiative has struggled to distinguish itself amid a panoply of wildfire relief efforts. LA Rises has delivered $20 million to date, including $7.8 million from Walter’s family foundation, according to Newsom’s office.

“If it’s a number of 20 million after one year, after such a severe occurrence, and with Los Angeles having the giving capacity to meet that goal, I would have expected to hear that there had been more commitments, at a minimum,” said Casey Rogers, founder of Santa Barbara-based Telea Insights, which advises philanthropists and leaders of nonprofit organizations.

“Maybe not all of those commitments would have been paid. Maybe they would have been commitments over a number of years. But it would have been closer to the goal.”

Walter stands by his pledge, Dodgers president Stan Kasten said. A representative of Newsom’s office said Walter’s pledge did not come with a timeline.

“I know we haven’t spent the full 100 yet,” Kasten said, “but this is a long-term commitment.”

Rather than solicit large donations up front and determine how to use the money later, LA Rises prefers to identify “impactful opportunities for investment” as they arise and then “coordinate financial support from a variety of private, public and philanthropic donors, including the Walter Family Foundation,” said Dee Dee Myers, director of Newsom’s office of business and economic development.

Of the Walter foundation contributions, $5 million went toward grants for impacted small business, workers and nonprofits, with $2.8 million to Pasadena City College for modernizing and expanding technical education programs to train workers that can help rebuild their own communities.

LA Rises also funded programs that include day camps and mental health intervention to children affected by the fires; streamlined architectural planning and permits for survivors wishing to rebuild; and support for Habitat for Humanity in building new homes and rebuilding damaged ones.

“The administration is incredibly grateful for any philanthropic dollars that have gone towards the rebuilding efforts in Los Angeles,” Myers said.

The competition for those dollars is fierce. The Milken Institute reported that private giving toward wildfire relief — from individuals, corporations and other entities — hit nearly $1 billion last year.

“I know there has been a lot of money that has been paid to various programs,” Kasten said, “and there has also been some rethinking about how LA Rises is deployed and what foundational money from the Dodgers is used for. We continue to work hard with a lot of groups on that tragedy.

“There are talks ongoing about a variety of programs and a variety of ways of funding things. We are still very involved with this, both with LA Rises and other entities.”

Kasten did not rule out Walter shifting some or all of his remaining funding commitment to an organization outside LA Rises.

“I don’t know exactly what entity we will be formally engaged with — or doing it separately — but we’re absolutely committed to helping out those programs that need that kind of help,” he said. “We’ve done a lot of it already, and we can do a lot more.”

Walmart has reached a $1 trillion market valuation, a first for the big-box retailer.

The company’s shares hit a high on Tuesday morning trade as the stock continues to soar on the news of a new CEO and looming trade negotiations with India, where the Arkansas-based company maintains a large presence both in supply chain and domestic markets within India. The stock was up 2.1 percent from the market open in midday trading.

Walmart, which has 11,000 stores in 19 countries, joins a slate of nine corporate giants in the so-called trillion dollar club, including Nvidia, Apple, Alphabet, and Microsoft, among others. Amazon is the only other retailer that has broken the barrier and is now valued at $2.6 trillion.

Trade deal bump

On Monday, United States President Donald Trump announced a trade deal with India that would slash tariffs to 18 percent from 50 percent and that impacts Walmart, which has strategically shifted supply chain operations to India and away from China.

On Tuesday, in an interview with CNBC, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said that the White House is still ironing out the details of the deal, but that still hasn’t slowed Walmart’s stock from popping on the looming deal.

“We have an announcement of an India deal, but still no timeline about when it comes into effect and whether the secondary tariffs, the 25 percent linked to India’s purchase of Russian oil, when those would be removed, so I think there’s still a lot of questions,” economist Rachel Ziemba, founder of Ziemba Insights, told Al Jazeera.

While there are limited details on the specifics of the deal, markets are responding to tariffs likely to come down.

“Markets are, of course, forward-looking. I think this sort of reinforces a view in the marketplace that incremental tariffs will be less this year,” Ziemba said.

The big box retailer jumped from 2 percent of its global exports coming from India in 2018 to 25 percent in 2023, according to a Reuters review of import data in 2023. Walmart hopes to source $10bn in goods from India by next year.

At the time, the company also decreased its percentage of goods from China to 60 percent from 80 percent.

Walmart did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

The Federation of Indian Export Organisations (FIEO), a lobby for exporters, said the cut in US tariffs will significantly boost Indian exports, including textiles and apparel, putting them on par with Asian peers, such as Vietnam and Bangladesh.

According to data from ImportYeti, a platform that tracks import contracts for major companies, Walmart’s biggest import areas are in home fabrics, apparel and toys.

“Those are the products facing the highest tariffs, while consumer electronics and other categories have largely been shielded. If the India–US deal becomes a reality, it would put tariffs on Indian goods entering the US at roughly the same level as those from Southeast Asia, making that supply-chain realignment more attractive. You also highlight the importance of the Indian market,” Ziemba added.

While the trade deal is in focus, Walmart has also invested significantly in India domestically, as well, and holds an 80 percent stake in India’s e-commerce giant Flipkart.

C-suite changes

The surge also comes concurrently with a shake-up in the C-suite. On Monday, John Furner took over as Walmart’s chief executive, succeeding longtime CEO Doug McMillion who announced his retirement late last year.

Furner, who started at the company in a job stocking shelves, has climbed up the ladder. Most recently, he served as the CEO of Walmart US, where he focused on key initiatives driving growth, including curbside pick-up. Prior to that, he served as the CEO of Sam’s Club, Walmart’s wholesale chain.

Furner’s appointment comes as the company grows as an e-commerce giant and intends to double down in AI tech, healthcare services, e-commerce, and hybrid options with its brick-and-mortar footprint.

“As AI rapidly reshapes retail, we are centralizing our platforms to accelerate shared capabilities, freeing up our operating segments to be more focused on and closer to our customers and members,” Walmart said in a statement last month.

“Walmart is masterful at brick-and-mortar retail and remains highly competitive with Amazon. I love that because it shows consumerism is still alive and well. Five years ago, the narrative was the fall of the mall and the decline of retail. This confirms the opposite. Walmart also has a clear strategy for retaining consumers and managing the customer experience,” Brett Rose, CEO and founder of United National Consumer Suppliers (UNCS), a distributor that focuses on excess inventories, which it provides to more budget-friendly retailers, told Al Jazeera.

The tech-centric focus comes as e-commerce has grown for the company, which reported a 28 percent jump in e-commerce sales compared with the previous quarter. Walmart is slated to release its next earnings report on February 19.

“What you need to look at is that Walmart has successfully become a marketplace, not as big as Amazon, but big enough to give it a run for its money,” said Rose.

BUENOS AIRES, Jan. 29 (UPI) — Uruguay has raised warning signals in its economic policy after its currency appreciated the most in the world against the dollar this week — a situation the government views as a risk to export competitiveness and the pace of economic growth.

In recent days, the Uruguayan peso strengthened more than comparable currencies and moved to the top of global foreign exchange performance. As a result, the dollar fell 3.1% in the local market, a deeper decline than those recorded in Brazil, Chile or Colombia.

The scenario set off alarms within the economic team. To counter the dollar’s weakness, the Central Bank of Uruguay announced a cut to its benchmark interest rate to 6.5% to discourage financial capital inflows and ease pressure on the local currency.

Along the same lines, the Economy Ministry confirmed forward dollar purchases and coordination with state-owned companies to increase demand for the U.S. currency. Those steps are complemented by measures aimed at reducing domestic costs and supporting economic activity, investment and employment, as concerns begin to mount in the productive sector.

Uruguayan economist Luciano Magnífico, of the Catholic University of Uruguay, said the dollar’s behavior in the country cannot be analyzed in isolation.

“The evolution of the dollar in Uruguay has closely tracked what has happened internationally, and particularly its performance against other regional currencies,” he told UPI.

According to Magnífico, the recent weakness of the U.S. currency largely reflects external factors.

“This weakening was closely linked to economic policies promoted during the first year of the Trump administration, especially on trade. That generated significant volatility in financial variables, and Uruguay was not immune to that dynamic,” he said.

The problem, he said, is that Uruguay’s economy already was expensive in terms of the dollar before this episode.

“According to the main indicators, Uruguay had been carrying an overvaluation for years, and this new drop in the dollar further aggravated that situation,” he said.

That combination hits exporters hardest because they are paid in dollars while many of their costs are in pesos. “When the exchange rate falls, the margin between income and expenses shrinks,” the economist explained. In some cases, that gap can become critical for business continuity.

Gonzalo Oleggini, a Uruguayan foreign trade consultant, focused on companies’ day-to-day operations.

“In Uruguay, as in many countries, foreign trade is conducted in dollars. An exporting industry, such as glass manufacturing, collects in dollars, but pays most of its costs in pesos,” he told UPI.

That mismatch becomes more visible when the dollar loses value.

“A year ago, each dollar brought in 40 pesos. A few days ago, it was 36. That means that for the same sale, a company receives less money to cover virtually the same costs, or even higher ones, because there is inflation and wages are rising,” he said.

Oleggini stressed that the impact is greater in labor-intensive sectors.

“Wages and social contributions weigh heavily in the cost structure. Since Uruguay does not have a highly automated industry, the blow remains strong,” he said.

As a result, much of the productive sector is affected.

“The meatpacking industry, plastics, services, logistics, tourism. The country becomes more expensive in dollar terms, making it harder to sell goods and services abroad,” he said. “Ultimately, the entire export sector, both goods and services, is the most affected.”

The concern is also explained by the weight of foreign trade in the economy.

Uruguay generates about $75 billion a year in economic output, and close to $24 billion of that comes from foreign trade in goods and services.

“It is one of the central pillars of the country’s production,” the consultant said.

One of the sectors generating the strongest concern is agriculture.

“That the dollar keeps falling and has been clearly below 40 pesos for several days is quite frustrating for us,” Rafael Ferber, president of the Rural Association of Uruguay, told local newspaper El Observador.

“We feel that macroeconomic measures continue to be taken in the wrong direction,” he said.

Ferber warned that the combination of factors pushing the exchange rate lower has made the situation “absolutely critical” for producers and exporters.

“Uruguay is basically an exporting country, something that is often poorly measured. It exports close to 70% of what it produces. Therefore, it depends on foreign currency much more than other countries,” he said.

Carmen Porteiro, president of the Uruguayan Exporters Union, said recent government decisions are moving in the right direction, although she noted the sector has been warning since last year about the impact of peso appreciation on competitiveness.

That loss of margins, she said, translates into lower investment, workforce adjustments and, in extreme cases, business closures, with direct effects on employment and future growth.

Oleggini said it is difficult to act against a global trend.

“The ability of a small economy like Uruguay’s to influence this is very limited,” he said.

“You can try to move the exchange rate a few pesos, as happened when it fell from 40 to 36 and then rose to 38, but there are no real chances of a strong peso depreciation, which is what exporters are seeking,” he said.

“From the United States, there is a positive view of a weaker dollar as part of its economic strategy. That makes it very difficult to think of a reversal,” he added.

The main tool applied in Uruguay has been the interest rate cut.

“The idea is to reduce incentives to place money and push those pesos into the market, which could generate a slight depreciation of the exchange rate,” Oleggini said. “It is the strongest tool being used and the one that may have some effect, although always limited.”

The gap with exporters’ demands remains wide.

“Many talk about a dollar at 50 pesos, and today we are at 36 or 38. Even bringing it to 40 would already be a challenge,” he said. “Reaching that level in an economy like Uruguay’s, with a weak dollar globally, is today almost a utopia.”

Thousands of middle-class Californians who depend on the state-run health insurance marketplace face premiums that are thousands of dollars higher than last year because enhanced federal subsidies that began during the COVID-19 pandemic have expired.

Despite fears that more people would go without coverage with the end of the extra benefits, the number enrolling in Covered California has held steady so far, according to state data.

But that may change.

Jessica Altman, executive director of Covered California, said that she believes the number of people dropping their coverage could increase as they receive bills with their new higher premiums in the mail this month. She said better data on enrollment will be available in the spring.

Altman said that even though the extra benefits ended Dec. 31, 92% of enrollees continue to receive government subsidies to help pay for their health insurance. Nearly half qualify for health insurance that costs $10 or less per month. And 17% of Californians renewing their Covered California policies will pay nothing for premiums if they keep their current plan.

The deadline to sign up for 2026 benefits is Saturday.

Here’s help in sorting out what the expiration of the enhanced subsidies for insurance provided under the Affordable Care Act, often called Obamacare, means in the Golden State.

What expired?

In 2021, Congress voted to temporarily to boost the amount of subsidies Americans could receive for an ACA plan. The law also expanded the program to families who had more money. Before the vote, only Americans with incomes below 400% of the federal poverty level — currently $62,600 a year for a single person or $128,600 for a family of four — were eligible for ACA subsidies. The 2021 vote eliminated the income cap and limited the cost of premiums for those higher-earning families to no more than 8.5% of their income.

How could costs change this year for those enrolled in Covered California?

Anyone with income above 400% of the federal poverty level no longer receives subsidies. And many below that level won’t receive as much assistance as they had been receiving since 2021. At the same time, fast-rising health costs boosted the average Covered California premium this year by more than 10.3%, deepening the burden on families.

How much would the net monthly premium for a Los Angeles couple with two children and a household income of $90,000 rise?

The family’s net premium for the benchmark Silver plan would jump to $699 a month this year from $414 a month last year, according to Covered California. That’s an increase of 69%, costing the family an additional $3,420 this year.

Who else could face substantially higher health bills?

People who retired before the Medicare-qualifying age of 65, believing that the enhanced subsidies were permanent, will be especially hit hard. Those with incomes above 400% of the federal poverty level could now be facing thousands of dollars in additional health insurance costs.

How did enrollment in Covered California change after the enhanced subsidies expired on Dec. 31?

As of Jan. 17, 1,906,033 Californians had enrolled for 2026 insurance. That’s less than 1% lower than the 1,921,840 who had enrolled by this time last year.

Who depends on Covered California?

Enrollees are mostly those who don’t have access to an employer’s health insurance plan and don’t qualify for Medi-Cal, the government-paid insurance for lower-income people and those who are disabled.

An analysis by KFF, a nonprofit that provides health policy information, found that nearly half the adults enrolled in an ACA plan are small-business owners or their employees, or are self-employed. Occupations using the health insurance exchanges where they can buy an ACA plan include realtors, farmers, chiropractors and musicians, the analysis found.

What is the underlying problem?

Healthcare spending has been increasing faster than overall inflation for years. The nation now spends more than $15,000 per person on healthcare each year. Medical spending today represents about 18% of the U.S. economy, which means that almost one out of every five dollars spent in the U.S. goes toward healthcare. In 1960, health spending was just 5% of the economy.

What has California done to help people who are paying more?

The state government allocated $190 million this year to provide subsidies for those earning up to 165% of the federal poverty level. This money will help keep monthly premiums consistent with 2025 levels for those with an annual income of up to $23,475 for an individual or $48,225 for a family of four, according to Covered California.

Where can I sign up?

People can find out whether they qualify for financial help and see their coverage options at the website CoveredCA.com.

What if I decide to go without health insurance?

People without insurance could face medical bills of tens of thousands of dollars if they become sick or get injured. And under California state law, those without coverage face an annual penalty of at least $900 for each adult and $450 for each child.