economic

All eyes are on Beijing as the Communist Party of China (CPC) convenes to outline the next five years. These meetings take place amidst heightened trade tensions with Washington and mounting domestic challenges. This fourth plenary session of the CPC Central Committee, known as the “Fourth Plenum,” is a pivotal political event in the country, shaping future policies. The four-day closed-door meeting aims to finalize China’s new Five-Year Plan for 2026-2030, an economic and political roadmap outlining the priorities of the world’s second-largest economy for the coming years. Approximately 370 members of the Central Committee, led by “Xi Jinping,” are participating in the meeting, with expectations of changes in some leadership positions, although details of these changes may not be revealed for several days or weeks. The full details of the plan are expected to be announced during the annual session of the National People’s Congress in March 2026.  Perhaps the most important things for the Chinese leadership at the moment are stability, legitimacy, and continued support. Therefore, it is crucial that they demonstrate their ability to improve the quality of life, as this is the cornerstone of their legitimacy in the eyes of the Chinese people.

 Many objectives of the 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-2025) have come to fruition. The assessment of the key economic and social development achievements under the 14th Five-Year Plan, according to my view, is very positive, especially since they have global impacts in many aspects, such as economic growth, new quality productive forces, high-level opening-up, green transition, technological innovation, international cooperation, cultural and academic exchange, etc.

  As China’s 14th Five-Year Plan period (2021-2025) draws to a close, the country has achieved a number of notable accomplishments, including fostering a resilient economy and making tangible strides in technology, manufacturing, economic reform, sustainability, and innovation. The country’s strategic plan has supported the country’s high-quality development, contributing to national progress across various sectors in China. China’s five-year plans are strategic guidance documents that chart the country’s development path over five years and form the overall framework for national planning. China will continue its 15th five-year plan in its opening-up and reform process to achieve more balanced and comprehensive development.

 China’s 15th Five-Year Plan will cover the period from 2026 to 2030. Planning began in December 2023. The plan aims to achieve General Secretary Xi Jinping’s goal of doubling the size of the economy between 2020 and 2035. The recommendations of the 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-2025) outlined several actionable plans and programs for the national economic and social development of the People’s Republic of China. These plans focus on innovation-driven growth, low-carbon development, and urban-rural integration while deepening social inclusion and addressing the problem of population aging.

 The Fourth Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) was held in Beijing from October 20 to 23, 2025. A total of 168 members and 147 alternate members of the Central Committee attended the plenary session. Members of the Standing Committee of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection and responsible comrades from relevant departments attended as observers. Some comrades from grassroots units and a number of experts and scholars who were delegates to the 20th CPC National Congress also attended as observers. The plenary session was presided over by the Political Bureau of the Central Committee, and “Xi Jinping”, General Secretary of the Central Committee, delivered an important speech. The plenary session heard and discussed a work report delivered by Chinese President “Xi Jinping”, in his capacity as General Secretary of the CPC, commissioned by the Political Bureau of the Central Committee, and approved, after consideration, the “Proposals of the CPC Central Committee on Compiling the 15th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development.” President Xi Jinping made explanations to the plenary session on the draft of the “Proposals.”

 The Fourth Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China will be held from October 20 to 23, 2025, to discuss proposals for formulating the 15th Five-Year Plan for China’s Economic and Social Development. China has achieved significant achievements during the 14th Five-Year Plan, both domestically and internationally. In the new plan, it will continue its pursuit of high-quality development and strengthen international cooperation to achieve a more prosperous shared future.

The 14th Five-Year Plan focuses on achieving high-quality development, encompassing key areas such as scientific and technological innovation, the green economy, improving living standards, and balanced regional development. China’s achievements during this period were not limited to domestic matters but rather extended their impact to the entire world.

  This year, 2025, marks the conclusion of the implementation of China’s 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-2025). Chinese authorities recently reviewed the most significant achievements made during this period, a development that received widespread attention from the international community. China’s achievements in innovation during the 14th Five-Year Plan represent a global model of scientific and technological self-reliance. Not only did it increase spending on research and development, but it also succeeded in transforming knowledge into a sustainable, productive, and economic force. This reflects a strategic vision that has made China a leader in the fields of artificial intelligence, clean energy, advanced manufacturing, and modern communications. Giant Chinese companies, such as Huawei, Alibaba, Xiaomi, and BYD, have become symbols of this transformation. They have not only succeeded in building global brands but also established integrated innovation systems that blend scientific research with practical application.

 China’s five-year plans have always been an effective tool for driving progress across all sectors. According to my analysis as an Egyptian expert on Chinese politics and the policies of the ruling Communist Party of China, China’s 14th Five-Year Plan is described as “diverse, innovative, and open.” I expect China’s upcoming 15th Five-Year Plan to continue prioritizing technological innovation, artificial intelligence, social welfare, scientific research, the digital economy, and carbon reduction. China’s development model is unique, with its sole goal of ensuring the prosperity of the Chinese people, under the motto “from the people, for the people.” Taking effective measures and prioritizing the protection and improvement of citizens’ livelihoods have been key factors behind China’s rapid development. This Chinese development model has become an inspiring example by transforming human capital into an engine of growth.

  Based on the previous analysis, perhaps what most caught my attention during China’s 14th Five-Year Plan is the significant Chinese focus on the innovation sector at the forefront. Over the past five years, the country’s total investment in research and development (R&D) has reached record levels. By 2024, China’s R&D spending will have increased by about 50 percent, or 1.2 trillion yuan, since the end of the 13th Five-Year Plan period (2016-2020), according to China’s National Development and Reform Commission.

SAN DIEGO — As a bemused crowd of would-be illegal immigrants looked on from a makeshift hilltop refreshment stand, Republican presidential candidate Patrick J. Buchanan on Tuesday stepped into a confrontational arena that sums up his often confrontational campaign: the U.S.-Mexico border.

“I am calling attention to a national disgrace,” Buchanan told reporters, his suit and shoes dusty from a Border Patrol tour of the rugged terrain. “The failure of the national government of the United States to protect the borders of the United States from an illegal invasion that involves at least a million aliens a year. As a consequence of that, we have social problems and economic problems. And drug problems.”

Saying that up to 1,000 illegal immigrants were among those arrested during the Los Angeles riots, Buchanan repeated his previous calls to fortify key sections of the border with ditches and concrete-buttressed fences and to deploy U.S. military forces there if necessary.

Buchanan also advocated doubling the size of the Border Patrol to 6,600 agents, staffing immigration checkpoints on Interstates 5 and 15 24 hours a day and charging a $2 toll on legal crossings to pay for tougher enforcement.

“I don’t believe in being brutal on anyone,” he said. “But I do think that any country that wants to call itself a nation has got to defend its borders.”

Illegal immigration lies at the heart of Buchanan’s vision of what is wrong with America; the issue is perhaps the strongest attention-getter in Southern California for his fading GOP challenge.

Buchanan’s first visit to the San Diego-Tijuana border made for strange media theater. The candidate arrived by four-wheel-drive vehicle to a hot, dusty ridge overlooking Smuggler’s Canyon, a prime crossing area, where a new corrugated steel barrier meets an old, battered chain-link fence. Buchanan supporters in suits and ties reached across the international line to buy soft drinks at a makeshift refreshment stand.

About 25 Mexican migrants, most of whom had heard only vaguely of Buchanan, chatted with security agents and tried to make sense of the pin-striped visitor.

“He’s a presidential candidate?” asked a man named Guillermo. “Does he speak Spanish? Ask him if he can pull the migra out of here for 24 hours, then he can do whatever he wants. Ask him if he can give me a ride to Los Angeles.”

Filoberto, a wiry 23-year-old from Mexicali, scoffed when informed that Buchanan advocates sealing the border and giving the Border Patrol more agents and equipment.

“They have all kinds of technology,” said Filoberto, who was waiting to make his fourth attempt at crossing in a week. “But we are smarter; people are smarter than machines. We are still going to cross. In fact, as soon as all of you people get out of here, we are going to go for it.”

To the discomfort of Buchanan aides, neo-Nazi Tom Metzger showed up with a handful of raucous supporters.

Metzger’s group hovered at the edges of the press conference, yelling insults about illegal immigrants, Republicans and Democrats.

Metzger, a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan and the White Aryan Resistance, was recently convicted of unlawful assembly in a Los Angeles cross-burning. He was sentenced to six months in jail but released after 46 days because of his wife’s illness and subsequent death. He said he wanted to talk to Buchanan about getting “action” to control the border.

But Buchanan rejected Metzger, saying that if Metzger contributed money to his campaign it would be returned. “I don’t have anything to do with him,” he said.

Buchanan said he thinks that he can influence President Bush’s policy–despite the fact that Bush has the GOP nomination locked up. “I think we are going to get George Bush to do something about this before that election, or at least speak to this,” he said. “He’d better do it, or he’s going to have problems.”

The following is the full transcript of President Obama’s remarks in Osawatomie, Kan., Tuesday as provided by the White House.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I want to start by thanking a few folks who’ve joined us today. We’ve got the mayor of Osawatomie, Phil Dudley is here. (Applause.) We have your superintendent Gary French in the house. (Applause.) And we have the principal of Osawatomie High, Doug Chisam. (Applause.) And I have brought your former governor, who is doing now an outstanding job as Secretary of Health and Human Services — Kathleen Sebelius is in the house. (Applause.) We love Kathleen.

Well, it is great to be back in the state of Tex — (laughter) — state of Kansas. I was giving Bill Self a hard time, he was here a while back. As many of you know, I have roots here. (Applause.) I’m sure you’re all familiar with the Obamas of Osawatomie. (Laughter.) Actually, I like to say that I got my name from my father, but I got my accent — and my values — from my mother. (Applause.) She was born in Wichita. (Applause.) Her mother grew up in Augusta. Her father was from El Dorado. So my Kansas roots run deep.

My grandparents served during World War II. He was a soldier in Patton’s Army; she was a worker on a bomber assembly line. And together, they shared the optimism of a nation that triumphed over the Great Depression and over fascism. They believed in an America where hard work paid off, and responsibility was rewarded, and anyone could make it if they tried — no matter who you were, no matter where you came from, no matter how you started out. (Applause.)

And these values gave rise to the largest middle class and the strongest economy that the world has ever known. It was here in America that the most productive workers, the most innovative companies turned out the best products on Earth. And you know what? Every American shared in that pride and in that success — from those in the executive suites to those in middle management to those on the factory floor. (Applause.) So you could have some confidence that if you gave it your all, you’d take enough home to raise your family and send your kids to school and have your health care covered, put a little away for retirement. Today, we’re still home to the world’s most productive workers. We’re still home to the world’s most innovative companies. But for most Americans, the basic bargain that made this country great has eroded. Long before the recession hit, hard work stopped paying off for too many people. Fewer and fewer of the folks who contributed to the success of our economy actually benefited from that success. Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and their investments — wealthier than ever before. But everybody else struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren’t — and too many families found themselves racking up more and more debt just to keep up.

Now, for many years, credit cards and home equity loans papered over this harsh reality. But in 2008, the house of cards collapsed. We all know the story by now: Mortgages sold to people who couldn’t afford them, or even sometimes understand them. Banks and investors allowed to keep packaging the risk and selling it off. Huge bets — and huge bonuses — made with other people’s money on the line. Regulators who were supposed to warn us about the dangers of all this, but looked the other way or didn’t have the authority to look at all.

It was wrong. It combined the breathtaking greed of a few with irresponsibility all across the system. And it plunged our economy and the world into a crisis from which we’re still fighting to recover. It claimed the jobs and the homes and the basic security of millions of people — innocent, hardworking Americans who had met their responsibilities but were still left holding the bag.

And ever since, there’s been a raging debate over the best way to restore growth and prosperity, restore balance, restore fairness. Throughout the country, it’s sparked protests and political movements — from the tea party to the people who’ve been occupying the streets of New York and other cities. It’s left Washington in a near-constant state of gridlock. It’s been the topic of heated and sometimes colorful discussion among the men and women running for president. (Laughter.)

But, Osawatomie, this is not just another political debate. This is the defining issue of our time. This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and for all those who are fighting to get into the middle class. Because what’s at stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, secure their retirement.

Now, in the midst of this debate, there are some who seem to be suffering from a kind of collective amnesia. After all that’s happened, after the worst economic crisis, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, they want to return to the same practices that got us into this mess. In fact, they want to go back to the same policies that stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for way too many years. And their philosophy is simple: We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.

I am here to say they are wrong. (Applause.) I’m here in Kansas to reaffirm my deep conviction that we’re greater together than we are on our own. I believe that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, when everyone plays by the same rules. (Applause.) These aren’t Democratic values or Republican values. These aren’t 1 percent values or 99 percent values. They’re American values. And we have to reclaim them. (Applause.)

You see, this isn’t the first time America has faced this choice. At the turn of the last century, when a nation of farmers was transitioning to become the world’s industrial giant, we had to decide: Would we settle for a country where most of the new railroads and factories were being controlled by a few giant monopolies that kept prices high and wages low? Would we allow our citizens and even our children to work ungodly hours in conditions that were unsafe and unsanitary? Would we restrict education to the privileged few? Because there were people who thought massive inequality and exploitation of people was just the price you pay for progress.

Theodore Roosevelt disagreed. He was the Republican son of a wealthy family. He praised what the titans of industry had done to create jobs and grow the economy. He believed then what we know is true today, that the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history. It’s led to a prosperity and a standard of living unmatched by the rest of the world.

But Roosevelt also knew that the free market has never been a free license to take whatever you can from whomever you can. (Applause.) He understood the free market only works when there are rules of the road that ensure competition is fair and open and honest. And so he busted up monopolies, forcing those companies to compete for consumers with better services and better prices. And today, they still must. He fought to make sure businesses couldn’t profit by exploiting children or selling food or medicine that wasn’t safe. And today, they still can’t.
And in 1910, Teddy Roosevelt came here to Osawatomie and he laid out his vision for what he called a New Nationalism. “Our country,” he said, “…means nothing unless it means the triumph of a real democracy…of an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him.” (Applause.)

Now, for this, Roosevelt was called a radical. He was called a socialist — (laughter) — even a communist. But today, we are a richer nation and a stronger democracy because of what he fought for in his last campaign: an eight-hour work day and a minimum wage for women — (applause) — insurance for the unemployed and for the elderly, and those with disabilities; political reform and a progressive income tax. (Applause.)

Today, over 100 years later, our economy has gone through another transformation. Over the last few decades, huge advances in technology have allowed businesses to do more with less, and it’s made it easier for them to set up shop and hire workers anywhere they want in the world. And many of you know firsthand the painful disruptions this has caused for a lot of Americans.
Factories where people thought they would retire suddenly picked up and went overseas, where workers were cheaper. Steel mills that needed 100 — or 1,000 employees are now able to do the same work with 100 employees, so layoffs too often became permanent, not just a temporary part of the business cycle. And these changes didn’t just affect blue-collar workers. If you were a bank teller or a phone operator or a travel agent, you saw many in your profession replaced by ATMs and the Internet.

Today, even higher-skilled jobs, like accountants and middle management can be outsourced to countries like China or India. And if you’re somebody whose job can be done cheaper by a computer or someone in another country, you don’t have a lot of leverage with your employer when it comes to asking for better wages or better benefits, especially since fewer Americans today are part of a union.

Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt’s time, there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes — especially for the wealthy — our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.

Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. (Applause.) It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ‘50s and ‘60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.

Remember in those years, in 2001 and 2003, Congress passed two of the most expensive tax cuts for the wealthy in history. And what did it get us? The slowest job growth in half a century. Massive deficits that have made it much harder to pay for the investments that built this country and provided the basic security that helped millions of Americans reach and stay in the middle class — things like education and infrastructure, science and technology, Medicare and Social Security.

Remember that in those same years, thanks to some of the same folks who are now running Congress, we had weak regulation, we had little oversight, and what did it get us? Insurance companies that jacked up people’s premiums with impunity and denied care to patients who were sick, mortgage lenders that tricked families into buying homes they couldn’t afford, a financial sector where irresponsibility and lack of basic oversight nearly destroyed our entire economy.

We simply cannot return to this brand of “you’re on your own” economics if we’re serious about rebuilding the middle class in this country. (Applause.) We know that it doesn’t result in a strong economy. It results in an economy that invests too little in its people and in its future. We know it doesn’t result in a prosperity that trickles down. It results in a prosperity that’s enjoyed by fewer and fewer of our citizens.

Look at the statistics. In the last few decades, the average income of the top 1 percent has gone up by more than 250 percent to $1.2 million per year. I’m not talking about millionaires, people who have a million dollars. I’m saying people who make a million dollars every single year. For the top one hundredth of 1 percent, the average income is now $27 million per year. The typical CEO who used to earn about 30 times more than his or her worker now earns 110 times more. And yet, over the last decade the incomes of most Americans have actually fallen by about 6 percent.

Now, this kind of inequality — a level that we haven’t seen since the Great Depression — hurts us all. When middle-class families can no longer afford to buy the goods and services that businesses are selling, when people are slipping out of the middle class, it drags down the entire economy from top to bottom. America was built on the idea of broad-based prosperity, of strong consumers all across the country. That’s why a CEO like Henry Ford made it his mission to pay his workers enough so that they could buy the cars he made. It’s also why a recent study showed that countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run.

Inequality also distorts our democracy. It gives an outsized voice to the few who can afford high-priced lobbyists and unlimited campaign contributions, and it runs the risk of selling out our democracy to the highest bidder. (Applause.) It leaves everyone else rightly suspicious that the system in Washington is rigged against them, that our elected representatives aren’t looking out for the interests of most Americans.

But there’s an even more fundamental issue at stake. This kind of gaping inequality gives lie to the promise that’s at the very heart of America: that this is a place where you can make it if you try. We tell people — we tell our kids — that in this country, even if you’re born with nothing, work hard and you can get into the middle class. We tell them that your children will have a chance to do even better than you do. That’s why immigrants from around the world historically have flocked to our shores.

And yet, over the last few decades, the rungs on the ladder of opportunity have grown farther and farther apart, and the middle class has shrunk. You know, a few years after World War II, a child who was born into poverty had a slightly better than 50-50 chance of becoming middle class as an adult. By 1980, that chance had fallen to around 40 percent. And if the trend of rising inequality over the last few decades continues, it’s estimated that a child born today will only have a one-in-three chance of making it to the middle class — 33 percent.

It’s heartbreaking enough that there are millions of working families in this country who are now forced to take their children to food banks for a decent meal. But the idea that those children might not have a chance to climb out of that situation and back into the middle class, no matter how hard they work? That’s inexcusable. It is wrong. (Applause.) It flies in the face of everything that we stand for. (Applause.)

Now, fortunately, that’s not a future that we have to accept, because there’s another view about how we build a strong middle class in this country — a view that’s truer to our history, a vision that’s been embraced in the past by people of both parties for more than 200 years.

It’s not a view that we should somehow turn back technology or put up walls around America. It’s not a view that says we should punish profit or success or pretend that government knows how to fix all of society’s problems. It is a view that says in America we are greater together — when everyone engages in fair play and everybody gets a fair shot and everybody does their fair share. (Applause.)

So what does that mean for restoring middle-class security in today’s economy? Well, it starts by making sure that everyone in America gets a fair shot at success. The truth is we’ll never be able to compete with other countries when it comes to who’s best at letting their businesses pay the lowest wages, who’s best at busting unions, who’s best at letting companies pollute as much as they want. That’s a race to the bottom that we can’t win, and we shouldn’t want to win that race. (Applause.) Those countries don’t have a strong middle class. They don’t have our standard of living.

The race we want to win, the race we can win is a race to the top — the race for good jobs that pay well and offer middle-class security. Businesses will create those jobs in countries with the highest-skilled, highest-educated workers, the most advanced transportation and communication, the strongest commitment to research and technology.

The world is shifting to an innovation economy and nobody does innovation better than America. Nobody does it better. (Applause.) No one has better colleges. Nobody has better universities. Nobody has a greater diversity of talent and ingenuity. No one’s workers or entrepreneurs are more driven or more daring. The things that have always been our strengths match up perfectly with the demands of the moment.

But we need to meet the moment. We’ve got to up our game. We need to remember that we can only do that together. It starts by making education a national mission — a national mission. (Applause.) Government and businesses, parents and citizens. In this economy, a higher education is the surest route to the middle class. The unemployment rate for Americans with a college degree or more is about half the national average. And their incomes are twice as high as those who don’t have a high school diploma. Which means we shouldn’t be laying off good teachers right now — we should be hiring them. (Applause.) We shouldn’t be expecting less of our schools –- we should be demanding more. (Applause.) We shouldn’t be making it harder to afford college — we should be a country where everyone has a chance to go and doesn’t rack up $100,000 of debt just because they went. (Applause.)

In today’s innovation economy, we also need a world-class commitment to science and research, the next generation of high-tech manufacturing. Our factories and our workers shouldn’t be idle. We should be giving people the chance to get new skills and training at community colleges so they can learn how to make wind turbines and semiconductors and high-powered batteries. And by the way, if we don’t have an economy that’s built on bubbles and financial speculation, our best and brightest won’t all gravitate towards careers in banking and finance. (Applause.) Because if we want an economy that’s built to last, we need more of those young people in science and engineering. (Applause.) This country should not be known for bad debt and phony profits. We should be known for creating and selling products all around the world that are stamped with three proud words: Made in America. (Applause.)

Today, manufacturers and other companies are setting up shop in the places with the best infrastructure to ship their products, move their workers, communicate with the rest of the world. And that’s why the over 1 million construction workers who lost their jobs when the housing market collapsed, they shouldn’t be sitting at home with nothing to do. They should be rebuilding our roads and our bridges, laying down faster railroads and broadband, modernizing our schools — (applause) — all the things other countries are already doing to attract good jobs and businesses to their shores.

Yes, business, and not government, will always be the primary generator of good jobs with incomes that lift people into the middle class and keep them there. But as a nation, we’ve always come together, through our government, to help create the conditions where both workers and businesses can succeed. (Applause.) And historically, that hasn’t been a partisan idea. Franklin Roosevelt worked with Democrats and Republicans to give veterans of World War II — including my grandfather, Stanley Dunham — the chance to go to college on the G.I. Bill. It was a Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower, a proud son of Kansas — (applause) — who started the Interstate Highway System, and doubled down on science and research to stay ahead of the Soviets.

Of course, those productive investments cost money. They’re not free. And so we’ve also paid for these investments by asking everybody to do their fair share. Look, if we had unlimited resources, no one would ever have to pay any taxes and we would never have to cut any spending. But we don’t have unlimited resources. And so we have to set priorities. If we want a strong middle class, then our tax code must reflect our values. We have to make choices.

Today that choice is very clear. To reduce our deficit, I’ve already signed nearly $1 trillion of spending cuts into law and I’ve proposed trillions more, including reforms that would lower the cost of Medicare and Medicaid. (Applause.)

But in order to structurally close the deficit, get our fiscal house in order, we have to decide what our priorities are. Now, most immediately, short term, we need to extend a payroll tax cut that’s set to expire at the end of this month. (Applause.) If we don’t do that, 160 million Americans, including most of the people here, will see their taxes go up by an average of $1,000 starting in January and it would badly weaken our recovery. That’s the short term.

In the long term, we have to rethink our tax system more fundamentally. We have to ask ourselves: Do we want to make the investments we need in things like education and research and high-tech manufacturing — all those things that helped make us an economic superpower? Or do we want to keep in place the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans in our country? Because we can’t afford to do both. That is not politics. That’s just math. (Laughter and applause.)

Now, so far, most of my Republican friends in Washington have refused under any circumstance to ask the wealthiest Americans to go to the same tax rate they were paying when Bill Clinton was president. So let’s just do a trip down memory lane here.

Keep in mind, when President Clinton first proposed these tax increases, folks in Congress predicted they would kill jobs and lead to another recession. Instead, our economy created nearly 23 million jobs and we eliminated the deficit. (Applause.) Today, the wealthiest Americans are paying the lowest taxes in over half a century. This isn’t like in the early ‘50s, when the top tax rate was over 90 percent. This isn’t even like the early ‘80s, when the top tax rate was about 70 percent. Under President Clinton, the top rate was only about 39 percent. Today, thanks to loopholes and shelters, a quarter of all millionaires now pay lower tax rates than millions of you, millions of middle-class families. Some billionaires have a tax rate as low as 1 percent. One percent.

That is the height of unfairness. It is wrong. (Applause.) It’s wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker, maybe earns $50,000 a year, should pay a higher tax rate than somebody raking in $50 million. (Applause.) It’s wrong for Warren Buffett’s secretary to pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. (Applause.) And by the way, Warren Buffett agrees with me. (Laughter.) So do most Americans — Democrats, independents and Republicans. And I know that many of our wealthiest citizens would agree to contribute a little more if it meant reducing the deficit and strengthening the economy that made their success possible.

This isn’t about class warfare. This is about the nation’s welfare. It’s about making choices that benefit not just the people who’ve done fantastically well over the last few decades, but that benefits the middle class, and those fighting to get into the middle class, and the economy as a whole.

Finally, a strong middle class can only exist in an economy where everyone plays by the same rules, from Wall Street to Main Street. (Applause.) As infuriating as it was for all of us, we rescued our major banks from collapse, not only because a full-blown financial meltdown would have sent us into a second Depression, but because we need a strong, healthy financial sector in this country.

But part of the deal was that we wouldn’t go back to business as usual. And that’s why last year we put in place new rules of the road that refocus the financial sector on what should be their core purpose: getting capital to the entrepreneurs with the best ideas, and financing millions of families who want to buy a home or send their kids to college.

Now, we’re not all the way there yet, and the banks are fighting us every inch of the way. But already, some of these reforms are being implemented.

If you’re a big bank or risky financial institution, you now have to write out a “living will” that details exactly how you’ll pay the bills if you fail, so that taxpayers are never again on the hook for Wall Street’s mistakes. (Applause.) There are also limits on the size of banks and new abilities for regulators to dismantle a firm that is going under. The new law bans banks from making risky bets with their customers’ deposits, and it takes away big bonuses and paydays from failed CEOs, while giving shareholders a say on executive salaries.

This is the law that we passed. We are in the process of implementing it now. All of this is being put in place as we speak. Now, unless you’re a financial institution whose business model is built on breaking the law, cheating consumers and making risky bets that could damage the entire economy, you should have nothing to fear from these new rules.

Some of you may know, my grandmother worked as a banker for most of her life — worked her way up, started as a secretary, ended up being a vice president of a bank. And I know from her, and I know from all the people that I’ve come in contact with, that the vast majority of bankers and financial service professionals, they want to do right by their customers. They want to have rules in place that don’t put them at a disadvantage for doing the right thing. And yet, Republicans in Congress are fighting as hard as they can to make sure that these rules aren’t enforced.

I’ll give you a specific example. For the first time in history, the reforms that we passed put in place a consumer watchdog who is charged with protecting everyday Americans from being taken advantage of by mortgage lenders or payday lenders or debt collectors. And the man we nominated for the post, Richard Cordray, is a former attorney general of Ohio who has the support of most attorney generals, both Democrat and Republican, throughout the country. Nobody claims he’s not qualified.

But the Republicans in the Senate refuse to confirm him for the job; they refuse to let him do his job. Why? Does anybody here think that the problem that led to our financial crisis was too much oversight of mortgage lenders or debt collectors?

AUDIENCE: No!

THE PRESIDENT: Of course not. Every day we go without a consumer watchdog is another day when a student, or a senior citizen, or a member of our Armed Forces — because they are very vulnerable to some of this stuff — could be tricked into a loan that they can’t afford — something that happens all the time. And the fact is that financial institutions have plenty of lobbyists looking out for their interests. Consumers deserve to have someone whose job it is to look out for them. (Applause.) And I intend to make sure they do. (Applause.) And I want you to hear me, Kansas: I will veto any effort to delay or defund or dismantle the new rules that we put in place. (Applause.)

We shouldn’t be weakening oversight and accountability. We should be strengthening oversight and accountability. I’ll give you another example. Too often, we’ve seen Wall Street firms violating major anti-fraud laws because the penalties are too weak and there’s no price for being a repeat offender. No more. I’ll be calling for legislation that makes those penalties count so that firms don’t see punishment for breaking the law as just the price of doing business. (Applause.)

The fact is this crisis has left a huge deficit of trust between Main Street and Wall Street. And major banks that were rescued by the taxpayers have an obligation to go the extra mile in helping to close that deficit of trust. At minimum, they should be remedying past mortgage abuses that led to the financial crisis. They should be working to keep responsible homeowners in their home. We’re going to keep pushing them to provide more time for unemployed homeowners to look for work without having to worry about immediately losing their house.

The big banks should increase access to refinancing opportunities to borrowers who haven’t yet benefited from historically low interest rates. And the big banks should recognize that precisely because these steps are in the interest of middle-class families and the broader economy, it will also be in the banks’ own long-term financial interest. What will be good for consumers over the long term will be good for the banks. (Applause.)

Investing in things like education that give everybody a chance to succeed. A tax code that makes sure everybody pays their fair share. And laws that make sure everybody follows the rules. That’s what will transform our economy. That’s what will grow our middle class again. In the end, rebuilding this economy based on fair play, a fair shot, and a fair share will require all of us to see that we have a stake in each other’s success. And it will require all of us to take some responsibility.

It will require parents to get more involved in their children’s education. It will require students to study harder. (Applause.) It will require some workers to start studying all over again. It will require greater responsibility from homeowners not to take out mortgages they can’t afford. They need to remember that if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.

It will require those of us in public service to make government more efficient and more effective, more consumer-friendly, more responsive to people’s needs. That’s why we’re cutting programs that we don’t need to pay for those we do. (Applause.) That’s why we’ve made hundreds of regulatory reforms that will save businesses billions of dollars. That’s why we’re not just throwing money at education, we’re challenging schools to come up with the most innovative reforms and the best results.
And it will require American business leaders to understand that their obligations don’t just end with their shareholders. Andy Grove, the legendary former CEO of Intel, put it best. He said, “There is another obligation I feel personally, given that everything I’ve achieved in my career, and a lot of what Intel has achieved…were made possible by a climate of democracy, an economic climate and investment climate provided by the United States.”

This broader obligation can take many forms. At a time when the cost of hiring workers in China is rising rapidly, it should mean more CEOs deciding that it’s time to bring jobs back to the United States — (applause) — not just because it’s good for business, but because it’s good for the country that made their business and their personal success possible. (Applause.)

I think about the Big Three auto companies who, during recent negotiations, agreed to create more jobs and cars here in America, and then decided to give bonuses not just to their executives, but to all their employees, so that everyone was invested in the company’s success. (Applause.)

I think about a company based in Warroad, Minnesota. It’s called Marvin Windows and Doors. During the recession, Marvin’s competitors closed dozens of plants, let hundreds of workers go. But Marvin’s did not lay off a single one of their 4,000 or so employees — not one. In fact, they’ve only laid off workers once in over a hundred years. Mr. Marvin’s grandfather even kept his eight employees during the Great Depression.

Now, at Marvin’s when times get tough, the workers agree to give up some perks and some pay, and so do the owners. As one owner said, “You can’t grow if you’re cutting your lifeblood — and that’s the skills and experience your workforce delivers.” (Applause.) For the CEO of Marvin’s, it’s about the community. He said, “These are people we went to school with. We go to church with them. We see them in the same restaurants. Indeed, a lot of us have married local girls and boys. We could be anywhere, but we are in Warroad.”

That’s how America was built. That’s why we’re the greatest nation on Earth. That’s what our greatest companies understand. Our success has never just been about survival of the fittest. It’s about building a nation where we’re all better off. We pull together. We pitch in. We do our part. We believe that hard work will pay off, that responsibility will be rewarded, and that our children will inherit a nation where those values live on. (Applause.)

And it is that belief that rallied thousands of Americans to Osawatomie — (applause) — maybe even some of your ancestors — on a rain-soaked day more than a century ago. By train, by wagon, on buggy, bicycle, on foot, they came to hear the vision of a man who loved this country and was determined to perfect it.

“We are all Americans,” Teddy Roosevelt told them that day. “Our common interests are as broad as the continent.” In the final years of his life, Roosevelt took that same message all across this country, from tiny Osawatomie to the heart of New York City, believing that no matter where he went, no matter who he was talking to, everybody would benefit from a country in which everyone gets a fair chance. (Applause.)

And well into our third century as a nation, we have grown and we’ve changed in many ways since Roosevelt’s time. The world is faster and the playing field is larger and the challenges are more complex. But what hasn’t changed — what can never change — are the values that got us this far. We still have a stake in each other’s success. We still believe that this should be a place where you can make it if you try. And we still believe, in the words of the man who called for a New Nationalism all those years ago, “The fundamental rule of our national life,” he said, “the rule which underlies all others — is that, on the whole, and in the long run, we shall go up or down together.” And I believe America is on the way up. (Applause.)

Thank you. God bless you. God bless the United States of America.

Oct. 23 (UPI) — U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping are to meet and discuss trade and other matters during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit in Busan, South Korea.

Trump is scheduled to leave the United States on Friday, with stops planned in Malaysia and Japan ahead of the APEC conference that has a leaders meeting scheduled for Oct. 31 and Nov.1.

He and Xi agreed to meet on Oct. 30, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt announced on Thursday.

The planned meeting comes after Trump announced he would impose 100% tariffs on top of existing tariffs on all Chinese-made goods in retaliation for China’s earlier announcement of global restrictions on the use of rare earth minerals.

China dominates the world’s rare earth minerals market and intends to restrict their export and require companies to sign licensing agreements to use them, no matter where those firms might be headquartered.

“We’ll make a deal on everything,” Trump told media while at the Oval Office on Wednesday.

The in-person meeting would be the first between the two since 2019 and could include discussions regarding the war in Ukraine.

Trump said Xi would “like to see that war end,” Politico reported.

The president also anticipates discussing a variety of issues with the Chinese leader, including nuclear power, China’s reliance on Russian oil and trade.

The bilateral summit will be a “pretty long meeting” to enable the two world leaders to “work out a lot of our questions and our doubts,” Trump said, as reported by the South China Morning Post.

Trump will depart the United States late Friday night and arrive in Malaysia on Sunday morning, local time.

“President Trump will participate in a bilateral meeting with the prime minister of Malaysia in the afternoon, and then we will attend the [Association of Southeast Asian Nations] leaders’ working dinner that evening,” Leavitt said.

The president will depart Malaysia on Monday morning and arrive in Tokyo to meet with new Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, who is the first woman to be elected to the position.

Following his meeting with Takaichi, Trump will continue to Busan, South Korea, to hold a bilateral meeting with South Korean President Lee Jae Myung ahead of his meeting with Xi.

The president will return to the United States after meeting with the Chinese president, Leavitt said.

STOCKTON — Four of California’s gubernatorial candidates tangled over climate change and wildfire preparedness at an economic forum Thursday in Stockton, though they all acknowledged the stark problems facing the state.

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican, stood apart from the three other candidates — all Democrats — at the California Economic Summit by challenging whether the spate of devastating wildfires in California is linked to climate change, and labeling some environmental activists “terrorists.”

After a few audience members shouted at Bianco over his “terrorists” comment, the Democratic candidates seized on the moment to reaffirm their own beliefs about the warming planet.

“The impacts of climate change are proven and undeniable,” said Tony Thurmond, a Democrat and California superintendent of public instruction. “You can call them what you want. That’s our new normal.”

The fires “do have a relationship with climate change,” said former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

Besides environmental issues, the hour-and-a-half forum at the business-centric California Forward’s Economic Summit focused primarily on “checkbook” topics as the candidates, which also included former state Controller Betty Yee, offered gloomy statistics about poverty and homelessness in California.

Given the forum’s location in the Central Valley, the agricultural industry and rural issues were front and center.

Bianco harped on the state and the Democratic leaders for California’s handling of water management and gasoline prices. At one point, he told the audience that he felt like he was in the “Twilight Zone” after the Democrats on stage pitched ways to raise revenue.

Other candidates in California‘s 2026 governor’s race, including former Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra and former Rep. Katie Porter, were not present at Thursday’s debate. Former Assembly Majority Leader Ian Calderon planned to come, but his flight from Los Angeles was delayed, audience members were told.

All are vying to lead a state facing ongoing budget deficits caused by overspending. A state Legislative Analyst’s Office report released this month cited projected annual operating deficits ranging from roughly $15 billion to $25 billion through 2029. At the same time, federal cutbacks by the Trump administration to programs for needy Californians, including the state’s Medi-Cal healthcare program, will put more pressure on the state’s resources.

All of the candidates had different pitches during the afternoon event. Asked by moderator Jeanne Kuang, a CalMatters reporter, about ways to help rural communities, Thurmond cited his plan to build housing on surplus property owned by the state. He also repeatedly talked about extending tax credits or other subsidies to groups, including day-care providers.

Yee, discussing the wildfires, spoke on hardening homes and creating an industry around fire-proofing the state. Yee received applause when she questioned why there wasn’t more discussion about education in the governor’s race.

Villaraigosa cited his work finding federal funds to build rail and subway lines across Los Angeles and suggested that he would focus on growing the state’s power grid and transportation infrastructure.

Both the former mayor and Yee at points sided with Bianco when they complained about the “over-regulation” by the state, including restrictions on developers, builders and small businesses.

Few voters are probably paying much attention to the contest, with the battle over Proposition 50 dominating headlines and campaign spending.

Voters on Nov. 4 will decide whether to support the proposition, which is a Democratic-led effort to gerrymander California’s congressional districts to try and blunt President Trump’s attempt to rig districts in GOP-led states to retain control of the House of Representatives.

“Frankly, nobody’s focused on the governor’s race right now,” Yee said at an event last week.

During a recent meeting of Egypt’s Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty with Prime Minister Narendra Modi in New Delhi, on Friday, October 17, Egypt’s Foreign Minister Abdelatty reiterated that “the resolution of the Palestinian question” remains central to the progress of the IMEC connectivity project and strengthening the strategic ties between India and Egypt. His comments captured the essence of the challenge that confronts the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), that grand infrastructure schemes in this region cannot be separated from enduring political conflicts. Abdelatty’s emphasis indicated that IMEC, which was launched with so much enthusiasm at the 2023 G20 Summit hosted by New Delhi, will only move from rhetoric to reality if its architects reconcile geography with geopolitics.

The Strategic Vision: What IMEC proposes

IMEC was announced as a transformative connectivity framework which aims to link India, the Arabian Peninsula, and Europe through maritime, rail, energy, and digital networks. The project promised to reconfigure the trade routes and foster sustainable growth by involving India, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan, Israel, and the EU with the support of the United States and major European economies. It also emerged as a counterpart initiative against China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). However, the “IMEC vs BRI” debate is as much about the narrative competition as about logistics. Yet translating that narrative into a functioning framework is a complex process.

IMEC’s blueprint comprises two interconnected legs. An eastern maritime route between India and Gulf ports and a northern corridor of railways across Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Israel leading into Europe. Furthermore, it envisions plans for electricity grids, a hydrogen pipeline, and digital fibre networks. The idea is to reduce shipping time between India and Europe by nearly 40% and diversify global supply chains away from vulnerable checkpoints such as the Suez Canal and the Red Sea.

Barriers to the Vision

The road to the execution of this vision remains riddled with obstacles. IMEC’s future depends on bridging political divides and closing financial gaps. The physical links across the Arabian Peninsula are still incomplete, and key rail segments between Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Israel exist largely on paper. Different technical standards and varied customs regimes with no unified authority to synchronise investment or implementation make the project susceptible. Moreover, the funding model lacks transparency. Neither a dedicated corpus nor a multilateral mechanism has been finalised, which leaves the corridor vulnerable to delays and competing priorities.

Furthermore, there is uncertainty due to diplomatic and security dynamics. The Israel-Gaza war has frozen Saudi-Israeli normalisation efforts that initially spirited the IMEC. Egypt’s renewed engagement suggests that Cairo intends to shape any connectivity framework that intersects its sphere of influence. Given the role of Egypt in the control of the Suez Canal and its political weight in the Arab World, Cairo’s participation is crucial. Abdelatty’s linkage of IMEC’s viability to progress on the Palestinian question implies that diplomatic legitimacy will precede logistical cooperation. Unless the participants address the regional trust deficit, the corridor politics may remain trapped between ambition and ambiguity.

Divergent Priorities of Participants

Each participant in IMEC has divergent goals. For India, the project aligns with its “Act West” policy and its long-time desire to consolidate middle-power status through connectivity leadership. For the Gulf monarchies, IMEC represents a channel to diversify beyond hydrocarbons and attract investments in technology and management. Europe views it as a hedge against over-dependence on Chinese infrastructure. To reconcile these varied interests, it is required to focus on continuous negotiations and proper planning. Tensions among Gulf states and between regional powers such as Iran and Turkey could further complicate the situation. The overlapping interests may blur the line between cooperation and competition, which will undermine cohesion before the corridor gains momentum.

From India’s viewpoint, IMEC holds immense significance if managed strategically. It will not only strengthen the supply-chain resilience but will also enhance energy security and expand India’s diplomatic footprint in the Middle East. The corridor perfectly aligns with global efforts to provide transparent alternatives to Chinese financing, for instance, the U.S.-led Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment. However, this association might expose IMEC to great power rivalry, turning a development initiative into another strategic sport. This might dilute the economic rationale of the corridor.

Egypt and the Latest Turning Point

A new dimension has been added as Egypt re-emerges as a key stakeholder in the project. Cairo’s interests not only stem from geography but also from economic logic. The Suez Canal is the lifeline of the Egyptian economy, so any alternative corridor must complement rather than compete with it. Abdelatty’s emphasis on integrating political stability with economic planning reflects a broader regional lesson that peace and prosperity must progress together. Incorporating Egypt as a central player through port linkages or co-investment in logistics could enhance IMEC’s legitimacy and reliability. Contrary to this, if Egypt gets excluded, it may trigger diplomatic resistance or perceptions of marginalisation.

The most important question in the current context is whether IMEC can survive the cyclical turbulence of the world’s most unstable region. The region where energy markets are unstable and unresolved conflicts fuel the mistrust among participating states. Moreover, the delays in implementation might erode momentum. To demonstrate progress and sustain the confidence of investors, IMEC needs measurable milestones such as pilot projects, customs harmonisation or digital integration.  Even partial success, such as improved India-Gulf maritime connectivity or cooperation in renewable energy, could build credibility.

The Way Forward for IMEC

IMEC challenges the prevailing assumptions about how connectivity projects emerge in contested regions on a conceptual note. It suggests that strategic corridors can no longer depend solely on geopolitical alliances. They require inclusive governance, transparent financing, and conflict-sensitive design. Egypt’s diplomatic stance on the palestinian question and IMEC implies that development without justice is unsustainable. For India, the opportunity lies in using its credibility with multiple actors, such as Arab states, Israel, Europe and the U.S. to keep the corridor protected from zero-sum politics. This would present New Delhi not just as a participant but also as a facilitator.

In conclusion, IMEC is both a promise and a puzzle. It incorporates the aspiration for cooperative connectivity but remains hostage to the very divisions it aims to bridge. Abdelatty’s statement in New Delhi, which echoed across regional capitals, was less a warning than a reminder that infrastructure cannot transcend politics and it must be engaged with constructively. The corridor might evolve from a strategic deal into a genuine intercontinental partnership if India and its allies can translate this vision into sustained diplomacy and practical implementation. However, if it fails, IMEC will join the long list of visionary projects that turned out unsuccessful in the Middle East.

It’s easy to miss the confidence of Billy Wilder or Frank Capra whenever some brave soul tries to make a comedy that takes America’s temperature by straddling cynicism and optimism. Those Hollywood masters could handily juggle the sweet, sour and satirical and, in Wilder’s case, even leave you believing in a happy ending.

With his writing-directing feature debut, “Good Fortune,” however, Aziz Ansari, who stars alongside Seth Rogen and Keanu Reeves (as an angel named Gabriel), swings big, hoping to capture that jokey truth-telling vibe about the State of Things. His subject is a fertile one too: the gig economy fostering our crushing inequity, but also the desperation of the have-nots and how oblivious the wealthy are about those who made them rich. So let’s stick it to the billionaires! Let Keanu help the downtrodden!

Ansari’s high-low morality tale, set in our fair (and unfair) Los Angeles, is a friendly melding of celestially tinged stories (“Heaven Can Wait,” “Wings of Desire”) and body-swap comedies (“Trading Places”). But as agreeable as it is, it can’t square its jabs with its sentimentality. It’s got heart, kind eyes, a wry smile and some funny lines, but no teeth when you really need things bitten into, chewed up and spit out.

Ansari plays Arj, living a serious disconnection between his professional identity — wannabe Hollywood film editor — and how he actually exists: task-gigging for scraps and living in his car. When a garage-reorganizing job for Jeff (Rogen), a Bel-Air venture capitalist, turns into an assistant position, Arj feels secure enough to use the company card for a fancy dinner with occasional colleague and romantic interest Elena (an underused Keke Palmer). Jeff clocks the charge the next day, though (a realistic detail about the rich watching every penny), and immediately fires Arj.

All along, Arj’s sad situation has touched Reeves’ long-haired, khaki-suited angel, whose life-saving purview (he specializes in jostling distracted drivers) is low in the hierarchy overseen by boss guardian Martha (Sandra Oh). Gabriel wants a big healing job to show Arj, with a little role-reversal magic, that being Jeff isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Except, of course, it is. (David Mamet’s line “Everybody needs money — that’s why they call it money” comes to mind.) The newly luxe-and-loving-it Arj shows no signs of wanting to switch back (which is apparently his call to make in the rules of this scenario), leaving out-of-his-depth Gabriel in the position of convincing a sudden billionaire why he should go back to being poor.

Which is where “Good Fortune,” for all its grasp of how Depression-era screwball comedies made the filthy rich mockable, struggles to match its issue-driven humor with its fix-it heart. While it’s funny to watch Rogen’s freshly desperate character suffer food-delivery humiliation, buying the script’s changes of heart — and the film’s naïve idea of where everyone should be at the end — is another matter. That’s why screwball comedies didn’t try to upend capitalism, just have some clever fun with it and let a simple love story stick the landing. Ansari’s ambition is admirable but he’s better at diagnoses than solutions.

His gold-touch move is giving the hilariously deadpan Reeves one of his best roles in years: a goofy meme brought to disarming life and the movie’s beating heart. Doing good can be hard work; understanding humans is harder. Plus, Reeves makes eating a burger for the first time a sublimely funny reaffirmation that sometimes, indeed, it is a wonderful life.

EUCLID, Ohio — Campaigning in a key battleground state, Mitt Romney said Monday that President Obama has failed in his promises to reduce unemployment, improve the nation’s housing market and right the nation’s economy.

“At the convention, the Democratic Convention about four years ago, the president got up and spoke about hope, change and together we can do anything. But he hasn’t lived up to those kinds of expectations,” Romney told hundreds of people gathered in a heavy gauge-stamping warehouse just outside Cleveland. “The American people are good-hearted people with the desire for good things to happen to one another and we hoped that this president would be able to be successful. I sure did. And he has not been. I know how many people are struggling. I want to do my very best to help them and I’m convinced that my experience will help me get this economy going and get people back to work and good jobs, which they need.”

Romney made his remarks while campaigning in Ohio, a state that has picked every president since 1964 and where Obama officially kicked off his reelection bid Saturday. The GOP candidate’s comments, six months before the election, come the same day that two new polls showed the men in a statistical dead heat, and on the day that Obama launched a $25-million monthlong television ad buy in Ohio and eight other swing states.

Romney did not mention the ad or Obama’s appearance here over the weekend, but he argued that by Obama’s own benchmarks, such as getting unemployment below 8%, and other indicators such as a drop in median incomes and rising healthcare, food and fuel costs, the president’s policies have not worked.

“Americans in the middle class are feeling squeezed, even if they have a job. And obviously most of our citizens have a job, but boy, these are tough times,” Romney said.

A Romney backer who introduced the presumptive GOP nominee said Obama does not understand the middle class.

“I’m tired about hearing him talk about the middle class as though he knows anything about us,” said state auditor Dave Yost to loud applause, before reeling off a list of vacations the Obamas have taken since coming to the White House.

Yost said the tally was 17 vacations, including one last Christmas that cost $1.5 million. “Mr. President, that’s not middle class. And you stop lecturing us about our lives!”

Follow Politics Now on Twitter

[email protected]

Original source: Romney focuses on Obama’s economic record in Ohio

Tensions over border disputes had sharply escalated in July during a five-day conflict between the neighbouring countries.

Thailand’s new prime minister has said his government will propose a referendum to address an ongoing dispute with its neighbour, Cambodia, over a demarcation agreement.

Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul told reporters on Monday that “in order to avoid further conflict”, the government will push for a vote on whether Thailand should revoke the existing memorandum of understanding on border issues with Cambodia.

Thailand and Cambodia have long argued over undemarcated points along their 817km (508-mile) land border, but tensions sharply escalated in July during a five-day conflict. The fighting ended after a ceasefire was brokered by Malaysia on July 28.

In the worst fighting between the two countries in a decade, at least 48 people were killed and hundreds of thousands were temporarily displaced.

But for years, the two countries have relied on an agreement, signed in 2000, which sets out the framework for joint survey and demarcation of the land boundary.

In another agreement in 2001, it provided a framework for cooperation and potential resource sharing in maritime areas claimed by both countries.

However, in Thailand, the agreements have come under public scrutiny over the past decade, especially following the latest clashes.

According to Charnvirakul, the new referendum would provide a clear mandate on the matter of the agreements.

Panitan Wattanayagorn, a political scientist at Bangkok’s Chulalongkorn University, cautioned against the revocation of the agreements as solving the issue.

“Their revocation may not be a direct solution to the conflict between Thailand and Cambodia, because it could create a vacuum,” he told the Reuters news agency.

“The government must make clear what will replace them, and this has to be agreed by Cambodia as well,” he said.

At the same time, Charnvirakul also pledged in his inaugural speech in Parliament to address the country’s economy and push for a new and more democratic constitution as he faces a self-imposed deadline to call for elections in four months.

Herat, Afghanistan – At the Islam Qala border, the relentless wind carries stinging dust that clings to skin as temperatures soar to 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit), transforming the ground into a scorching furnace.

Families huddle in narrow strips of shade, children protecting their faces with scarves as they await assistance.

For many, this harsh landscape represents their first glimpse of home after years in exile.

Since September 2023, more than four million Afghans have returned from Iran and Pakistan, almost 1.5 million of them in 2025 alone. Simultaneously, International Organization for Migration (IOM) data reveals nearly 350,000 Afghans were displaced within the first four months of the year, including internal displacement and cross-border migration.

This mass movement stems primarily from deteriorating economic conditions and escalating climate change impacts.

In Iran, Afghans were not merely temporary workers; they were vital to the economy, filling essential roles in construction, agriculture, and manufacturing. Their departure has created significant gaps in Iran’s workforce, while those returning face profound uncertainty in Afghanistan.

“Now I have nothing – no job, no home, and no one to turn to,” says Maryam, a widow with two children, who had lived in Iran for six years.

Despite suffering from kidney problems, her greatest pain comes from watching her 15-year-old son, Sadeq, search for work instead of attending school. He keeps his educational aspirations secret to spare his mother additional worry. For Maryam, this unspoken dream weighs heavier than any physical ailment.

The World Bank’s 2025 Development Update indicates Afghanistan’s economy remains precarious.

The massive influx of returnees has intensified unemployment pressures, with an estimated 1.7 million additional young people expected to enter an already overwhelmed labour market by 2030. Without substantial investment in skills development, entrepreneurship, and job creation, many may be forced to migrate again.

Since 2024, IOM has provided skills training to nearly 3,000 returnees, internally displaced people, and vulnerable host community members. The organisation has also supported more than 2,600 businesses — 22 percent of which are owned by women — helping to generate almost 12,000 jobs, including over 4,200 for women.

While these initiatives bring crucial stability and dignity, they represent only a fraction of what is needed. With increased funding, IOM can provide greater stability, reduce repeat migration risks, and help returnees rebuild dignified lives.

This photo gallery was provided by the International Organization for Migration.

BEIRUT — Saudi Arabia and Qatar are ready to invest in an economic zone in south Lebanon near the border with Israel that would create jobs for members of the militant Hezbollah group and its supporters once they lay down their weapons, President Trump’s envoy to the Middle East said Tuesday.

Tom Barrack made his comments in Beirut after trips to Israel and Syria where he discussed with officials there the ongoing situation in Lebanon following this month’s decision by the Lebanese government to disarm Hezbollah by the end of the year. Hezbollah’s leader rejected the government’s plan, vowing to keep the weapons.

On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israeli forces could begin withdrawing from territory they hold in southern Lebanon after the Lebanese government’s “momentous decision” to disarm Hezbollah.

The U.S.-backed Lebanese army is preparing a plan for Hezbollah’s disarmament that should be ready by the end of August. The government is expected to discuss the army’s plan and approve it during a meeting scheduled for Sept. 2.

“We have to have money coming into the system. The money will come from the Gulf,” Barrack told reporters after meeting President Joseph Aoun. “Qatar and Saudi Arabia are partners and are willing to do that for the south (of Lebanon) if we’re asking a portion of the Lebanese community to give up their livelihood.”

“We have 40,000 people that are being paid by Iran to fight. What are you gonna do with them? Take their weapon and say ‘by the way, good luck planting olive trees’? It can’t happen. We have to help them,” Barrack said. He was referring to tens of thousands of Hezbollah members who have been funded since the early 1980s by Tehran.

“We, all of us, the Gulf, the U.S., the Lebanese are all gonna act together to create an economic forum that is gonna produce a livelihood,” Barrack said.

When asked why the U.S. doesn’t go to discuss the Hezbollah issue directly with Iran rather than traveling to Israel and Syria, Barrack said: “You think that’s not happening? Goodbye.” Barrack then ended his news conference and walked out of the room.

Speaking on the U.N. peacekeeping force that has been deployed in south Lebanon since Israel first invaded the country in 1978, Barrack said the U.S. would rather fund the Lebanese army than the force that is known as UNIFIL. Speaking about this week’s vote at the United Nations in New York, Barrack said the U.S. backs extending UNIFIL’s term for one year only.

Conflict escalated to war in September 2024, before November ceasefire

A low-level conflict between Israel and Hezbollah started a day after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led attack against Israel from Gaza, when Hezbollah began launching rockets across the border in support of its Palestinian ally. The conflict escalated into war in September 2024 and left more than 4,000 people dead, and caused destruction worth $11 billion in Lebanon, according to the World Bank.

The war ended in November with a U.S.-brokered ceasefire and since then Hezbollah says it has ended its presence along the border area. Israel has continued almost daily airstrikes that have killed dozens of Hezbollah members.

Amnesty International in a report released Tuesday said it had identified more than 10,000 buildings that were “heavily damaged or destroyed” in southern Lebanon between October 2024 and January this year.

Israeli forces remained in much of the border area for weeks after the ceasefire agreement went into effect and are still holding five strategic points.

Amnesty’s report alleged that Israeli forces may have violated international law by destroying civilian property in areas they were controlling with “manually laid explosives and bulldozers” after the active fighting had ended and there was no longer an “imperative military necessity.”

Barrack chides journalists before news conference, provoking ire

At the start of the joint news conference with U.S. envoy Morgan Ortagus, Barrack warned journalists at the presidential palace to be quiet, telling them to “act civilized, act kind, act tolerant.” He threatened to end the conference early otherwise.

“The moment that this starts becoming chaotic, like animalistic, we’re gone,” said Barrack. He then asked: “Do you think this is economically beneficial for Morgan and I to be here putting up with this insanity?”

None of the journalists present responded to his comments but the Lebanese press syndicate issued a statement about the “inappropriate treatment” that the Lebanese journalists were subjected to and called on Barrack and the State Department to apologize. It added that if no apology were made, it could escalate by calling for boycotting Barrack’s visits and meeting.

The Presidential Palace also issued a statement regretting the comments made by “one of our guests” and greeted journalists who cover news at the palace, thanking them for their “hard work.”

Mroue and Chehayeb write for the Associated Press. AP writer Abby Sewell contributed to this report.

Maputo, Mozambique – Down the main aisle of a bustling conference pavilion in Mozambique’s capital, Maputo, Lucia Matimele stands surrounded by lush green leaves, peppers on the stalk, and bunches of ripe bananas.

“We have land, we have water, we have farmers!” she enthuses. “What we need is investment.”

Matimele is the director of industry and commerce for Gaza province, a region about 200km (125 miles) away that is one of the country’s main breadbaskets. She and her team packed up some of their most promising crops and joined thousands of others – from within and outside Mozambique – to exhibit their wares and make industry connections as the government works to promote economic growth and development in what has been a politically challenging year.

More than 3,000 exhibitors from nearly 30 countries are in Mozambique this week for the 60th annual Maputo International Trade Fair (FACIM) – the largest of its kind in the country. Tens of thousands are expected to attend the seven-day event, the government said.

Crowds of exhibitors and eager attendees gathered at the sprawling conference site on the outskirts of Maputo for day one of the event on Monday. A dozen pavilions are hosting local businesses, provincial industry leaders, such as Matimele, and regional and international companies looking to trade in or with Mozambique.

Standing before delegates and businesspeople at the opening ceremony, Mozambican President Daniel Chapo focused on the need to ensure a good environment for foreign investors, while also building an inclusive and sustainable local economy.

“Mozambique has a geostrategic location, with ports, development corridors and various other potentialities; vast resources, mineral, natural, agricultural, tourist, and above all a humble, hard-working, friendly and welcoming people,” Chapo said in Portuguese, highlighting the country’s “unique opportunities” for international partners.

But at home, he affirmed, “economic independence starts with agriculture workers, farmers, the youth, women – all of us together”.

With that in mind, the government, with financing from the World Bank, has instituted a new $40m Mutual Guarantee Fund to help finance small and medium enterprises in the country. It will provide credit guarantees to at least 15,000 businesses and aims to assist mainly women and young people, the president said.

“One of the concerns we hear repeatedly at all the annual private sector conferences is the difficulty in accessing financing,” Chapo said while launching the fund at FACIM on Monday.

“We know that high interest rates have been almost insurmountable barriers for small- and medium-sized businesses, which represent the heart of the national business fabric, hence the creation of this fund, specifically dedicated to this group of companies, because they are responsible for 90 percent of the dynamism of our economy, generating income mainly for young people.”

He added: “This instrument is not just a financial mechanism, it is a bridge to the recovery of the Mozambican economy.”

‘We can feed our people best’

Mozambique has “ample resources”, the World Bank says, including arable land, abundant water sources, energy, mineral resources and natural gas deposits.

However, its gross domestic product (GDP) growth for 2025 is projected to be just 3 percent (it was 1.8 percent in 2024 and 5.4 percent in 2023).

Experts point to a raft of challenges facing the Southern African nation: for years it was besieged by a $2bn “hidden debt” corruption scandal that implicated senior government officials; it is still recovering from post-2024 election protests that affected tourism; and it faces an ongoing rebellion by armed fighters in the northern Cabo Delgado province, home to offshore liquefied natural gas (LNG) reserves.

The armed rebellion has halted TotalEnergies’ $20bn LNG project, and, with it, put added strain on the region’s finances and near-future economic prospects, noted Borges Nhamirre, a Mozambican researcher on security and governance with the Institute for Security Studies.

“The economy of Mozambique was prepared for the next 20, 30 years to rely on natural resources … But now the most recent problem is the insurgency in the northern part of the country. So that affects the economy of Mozambique deeply,” Nhamirre said.

“And unfortunately, Mozambique did not diversify the source of revenues, did not invest in other sectors like agriculture, industry, manufacturing – relying mostly on natural gas,” he added.

“Mozambique needs to bet on producing its own food,” the researcher said, noting that it is not affordable to keep importing when the country has the potential to feed itself. “The land for agriculture is there, water is there. So, the problem is just mentality and a bit of capital.”

At her booth in one of the pavilions at FACIM, Matimele has similar thoughts. “We can feed our people best,” she said, surrounded by fresh produce from small farms in Gaza province. Across the aisle from her, another booth boasts supplies from the province of Tete: grains, seafood, vegetables, livestock; while throughout FACIM, businesses are selling locally sourced items, including coffee and honey.

In Gaza, Matimele says, people farm rice, bananas, cashews and macadamias, much of which they send abroad to countries such as South Africa and Vietnam – and she would like to increase exports and reach new places.

The challenge for them is not production, but processing and distribution, she says.

“We need big industry getting into this business,” Matimele said, adding that small farmers need guarantees that what they produce will be sold and not go to waste.

“FACIM helps us by giving us a secure market,” she explained.

Without funding, ‘you will get stuck’

For other observers, FACIM’s focus this year on investment and the Mutual Guarantee Fund are a step in the right direction, especially for small business owners in the agricultural sector.

“Agriculture is our main resource. It employs millions of people and feeds millions more,” said Rafael Shikhani, a Mozambican historian and researcher. Yet, there remains a longstanding “problem” with the sector, he noted from Maputo.

“[Historically], we have had so many breakups in that [agriculture] cycle,” he said, highlighting the 1977-92 civil war, and in the midst of that, a severe drought that hit the country from 1982 to 1984. “It was a sort of disruption to production,” he said, one that has had ripple effects.

Current challenges facing Mozambican agriculture, the researcher said, include a lack of capital for farming, as well as some people preferring to take an easier route by importing food from neighbouring South Africa to sell locally instead of growing it from scratch.

“In many areas, the funding is a key motivation,” Shikhani said. “If you don’t have funds, you can [still] start a very nice business, but there will be a certain way you will get stuck – you’ll need equipment, you’ll need to pay people, you’ll need a truck, you’ll need to put up a fence; for whatever, you will need money.”

That is where the Mutual Guarantee Fund could come in handy.

“More investment in agriculture is good,” Shikhani said. It will also help the sector evolve from individuals farming small plots of land to small and medium-sized farming businesses that make more informed choices about “the type of land, where you farm, and how you exploit your land”.

For analyst Nhamirre, the way the Chapo government goes about tackling the country’s most pressing economic issues will go a long way in determining the outcome.

But he remarks that external factors, such as the armed rebellion in the north and internal governance issues, will also play a part.

“There are internal things that the government needs to do well … The people are still very frustrated,” he said, pointing to the past year’s post-election violence, saying there is a chance protests may flare up again.

Meanwhile, Shikhani looks at the issue through a historian’s lens. “There is a cycle of crisis: if there is an economic crisis, it leads to a political crisis, and it leads to social unrest. If you deal with economics and you feed people, there will be no more social unrest, and there will be no political crisis. So, you start with economics,” he said.

“Give people food, give people jobs, give people hope – they will work and make money.”

At her booth in FACIM, Matimele and her team stand ready in matching red shirts emblazoned with the words: “Gaza, the route of progress” in Portuguese. Ahead of them is a week of networking that they hope will lead to more – more food, more jobs, more hope.

“Investment is the right way to follow,” said the provincial industry chief. “If we have investment, we can solve all the issues.”

United States President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin are set to meet in Anchorage, Alaska, on Friday in a bid to try and end Russia’s three-year assault on Ukraine.

In the run-up to the meeting, Trump said that he believes Putin is ready to agree to a ceasefire. But his suggestion that Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy could “divvy things up” has alarmed observers in Kyiv.

For their part, remarks from top Russian officials suggest that Moscow has tried to water down discussions about the war by linking them with other bilateral issues, particularly restoring economic ties with the US.

On Thursday, Putin sat down with top officials at the Kremlin to discuss the Alaska meeting. He said that he believed the US was making “sincere efforts to stop the fighting, end the crisis and reach agreements of interest to all parties involved in this conflict”.

Earlier on Thursday, Yuri Ushakov, one of Putin’s top foreign policy aides, told reporters about Russia’s preparations for the talks. He said it was “obvious to everyone that the central topic will be the settlement of the Ukraine crisis”.

“An exchange of views is expected on the further development of bilateral cooperation, including in the trade and economic sphere,” he said, pointing out that: “I would like to note that this cooperation has a huge and, unfortunately, untapped potential.”

Ushakov also announced that in addition to Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s delegation in Alaska would also include the country’s finance minister, Anton Siluanov, and Kirill Dmitriev, Putin’s envoy on foreign investment and economic cooperation.

The inclusion of Siluanov and Dmitriev is another sign that the Kremlin hoped to discuss economic matters at the summit.

What does Russia-US trade look like?

In 2021, before Russia’s full-fledged invasion of Ukraine, total trade between Russia and the US amounted to $36.1bn. This included $6.4bn in US exports to Russia, and $29.7bn in US imports from Russia – amounting to a US trade deficit of $23.3bn.

For context, Russia was America’s 30th largest trade partner in 2021. Since then, after numerous rounds of American sanctions, trade between Russia and the US has fallen roughly 90 percent.

Incidentally, Russia’s overall trade balance – leaving the US – declined significantly following its decision to invade Ukraine. From 2022 to 2023, its international balance of payments fell by a whopping 70 percent, to just $86.3bn.

But back in 2021, Russia’s trade surplus with the US was concentrated almost exclusively in commodities. Oil, minerals and base metals like iron and steel made up roughly 75 percent of Russia’s exports. Meanwhile, US exports to Russia were concentrated in manufactured goods.

Were Russian exports to the US vital?

The short answer is no.

By the time Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, the US – whose energy sector was transformed by hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling in the early 2000s – was already the world’s largest oil producer, at 11.9 million barrels of oil per day.

One area where Russia did hold limited significance was in certain types of energy products. Russia supplied certain grades of crude oil – notably Urals – as well as refined products like vacuum gas oil (VGO), residual fuel oil and naphtha.

Russian VGO was especially important for making gasoline and diesel products in US refineries, which lacked enough domestic feedstock with the optimal chemical and physical properties.

Elsewhere, the US continues to import limited quantities of uranium hexafluoride, a chemical important in uranium processing, from Russia. Some US utility companies still have supply contracts with Russia, which accounted for about one-third of America’s enriched uranium needs when war broke out.

As with energy products, however, American firms exposed to Russian uranium supplies have readjusted their supply chains in response to sanctions. What’s more, US companies like X-energy and Orano have invested heavily in domestic production in recent years.

Does Russia have any other leverage?

In the wake of sanctions after February 2022, most Russian commodity shipments were rerouted from Western countries to China at discounted prices, including for energy products and uranium.

Indeed, trade between China and Russia has grown in parallel with sanctions on Russia. A common border, shared geopolitical perspectives and joint opposition to the US have deepened bilateral relations.

Russia-China trade saw annual growth of nearly 30 percent in both 2022 and 2023, when it hit $240.1bn, according to the Centre for European Policy Analysis. In 2024, Russia climbed to 7th place among China’s trading partners, up from 13th place in 2020.

During that time, China has supplied Russia with more high-end products – like advanced electronics and industrial machinery – while Moscow has solidified its position as a top supplier of oil and gas to Beijing.

What’s more, the two countries conduct regular naval exercises and strategic bomber patrols together. The US has consistently expressed concerns over joint military drills and views the China-Russia alignment as a threat to its global leadership role.

Putin will be aware of these dynamics heading into Friday’s meeting.

What else could Putin offer Trump?

In March, Putin’s investment envoy – Kirill Dmitriev – claimed that Russia and the US had started talks on rare earth metals projects in Russia, and that some American companies had already expressed an interest in them.

“Rare earth metals are an important area for cooperation, and, of course, we have begun discussions on various rare earth metals and (other) projects in Russia,” Dmitriev told the Izvestia newspaper.

China’s almost total global control over the production of critical minerals – used in everything from defence equipment to consumer electronics – has focused Washington’s attention on developing its own supplies.

The US Geological Survey estimates Russia’s reserves of rare earth metals at 3.8 million tonnes, but Moscow has far higher estimates.

According to the Natural Resources Ministry, Russia has reserves of 15 rare earth metals totalling 28.7 million tonnes, as of January 2023.

But even accounting for the margin of error hanging over Russia’s potential rare earth supplies, it would still only account for a tiny fraction of global stockpiles.

As such, the US has been pursuing minerals-for-security deals with the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Ukraine in recent months, in an effort to wrestle control of the global supply chain away from China.

It may try and do the same with Russia.

What does Russia want from these meetings?

Since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Western countries have imposed 21,692 sanctions on Russia, mostly against individuals.

Key sanctions on Moscow include import bans on Russian oil, a price cap on Russian fuel, and the freezing of Russian central bank assets held in European financial institutions.

But on July 14, Trump threatened to impose so-called secondary sanctions, that if carried out, would mark a notable shift.

Since then, he has targeted India – the second biggest buyer of Russian oil – by doubling a 25 percent tariff on its goods to 50 percent, as a penalty for that trade with Moscow. So far, Trump has not imposed similar secondary tariffs on China, the largest consumer of Russian oil.

But he has suggested that Beijing could face such tariffs in the future, as the US tries to pressure countries to stop buying Russian crude, and thereby corner Putin into accepting a ceasefire.

Members of Trump’s administration have also indicated that if the Trump-Putin talks in Alaska don’t go well, the tariffs on India could be increased further.

Meanwhile, lawmakers from both US political parties are pushing for a bill – the Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025 – that would also target countries buying Russian oil and gas.

The bill would give Trump the authority to impose 500 percent tariffs on any country that helps Russia. US senators are reportedly waiting on Trump’s OK to move the bill forward.

In Alaska, Putin is expected to demand that Western sanctions on Russia be eased in exchange for Moscow agreeing to any peace deal.

The firing of a top United States statistics official by President Donald Trump last week has drawn concerns from economists and policymakers regarding the credibility of data in the world’s biggest economy.

Trump’s dismissal of Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner Erika McEntarfer after the release of disappointing employment figures on Friday has raised fears over the integrity of Washington’s economic data, which are relied on by countless businesses and investors in the US and across the world.

The National Association for Business Economics warned that McEntarfer’s “baseless” ouster risked doing “lasting harm to the institutions that support American economic stability”.

“It could open the door to political meddling and certainly will undermine trust in federal statistics that businesses, policymakers and individuals use to make some of their most important decisions,” Erica Groshen, who led the Bureau of Labor Statistics under former President Barack Obama, told Al Jazeera.

If Trump’s dismissal of McEntarfer and other presidential appointees is allowed to stand, Groshen said, he could make a habit of firing any head of a statistical agency or other body that delivers “unwelcome news”.

“Then he is likely to replace them with appointees who prioritise serving his goals over serving the mission of their agencies, ethical standards or scientific integrity,” Groshen said.

Trump, who justified McEntarfer’s removal by claiming without evidence that the latest job figures were “rigged” to make him look bad, said on Sunday that he would announce a new Bureau of Labor Statistics head in three or four days.

‘Global ramifications’

A collapse in trust in official economic data about the US would have ramifications worldwide.

Despite the growing influence of emerging economies such as China and India, the US remains the world’s largest economy by some distance.

The US gross domestic product (GDP) at about $30.3 trillion accounts for more than one-quarter of the global economy. China’s estimated GDP is about two-thirds that amount.

US government data on trade, employment, consumer spending and GDP are considered important signals for the direction of the global economy and are closely followed by businesses and investors from London to Dubai and Tokyo.

Many countries, including democratic states, have faced accusations of fiddling with economic statistics for political reasons, often with serious reputational consequences.

In 2010, the European Commission published a withering report accusing Greece of deliberately falsifying data to conceal the poor state of its public finances.

In 2013, the International Monetary Fund officially censured Argentina for providing what it said was inaccurate data on inflation and economic growth.

‘Economic data manipulation’

Some research suggests that countries run by strong-arm leaders are especially prone to misrepresenting the state of their economies.

A 2024 study published in the European Journal of Political Economy found that economic openness and democracy decreased the likelihood of governments manipulating statistics although there were no observable positive effects from media freedom or the independence of the statistical office.

In a 2022 paper that used satellite imagery of nighttime light as a proxy for economic development, Luis Martinez, a professor at the University of Chicago, estimated that autocratic countries artificially inflated their annual GDP growth by about 35 percent.

“Economic data manipulation is pervasive in history, especially in autocracies and dictatorships to create narratives for the people – typically to embellish standards of living,” Tomasz Michalski, an associate professor of economics at the HEC Paris business school, told Al Jazeera.

“What is rarer, though, is to find such deliberate behaviour in countries that strive to be democracies or are more developed.”

After Trump’s firing of McEntarfer, a career economist who was appointed in 2024 with overwhelming bipartisan support, critics were quick to note parallels to tactics attributed to strongman leaders seeking to bolster public approval for their policies.

“It’s one more step on our rapid descent into banana republic status,” Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman said on Substack, a subscription-based newsletter platform.

Lawrence Summers, who served as US Treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton, described the firing as the “stuff of democracies giving way to authoritarianism”.

Scott Sumner, a professor of economics at Bentley University in Waltham, Massachusetts, said Trump’s move made the US “look more like a banana republic” although it remained to be seen whether he would seek to directly manipulate the government’s economic figures.

“It’s actually hard to fool the public, and almost no one was fooled by the Argentina manipulation,” Sumner told Al Jazeera.

“It’s too soon to say whether Trump will try to do the same. Any attempt to do so would likely fail.”

‘The quality of US economic statistics’

The quality of US economic data has been a growing concern for some time due in part to the Trump administration’s freeze on hiring federal employees and staff cuts at numerous agencies.

In March, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick dissolved two expert committees that advised the government on its economic statistics, prompting concern among some economists.

In June, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) announced that it had stopped collecting price-related data in three US cities – Buffalo, New York; Lincoln, Nebraska; and Provo, Utah – due to limitations in “current resources”.

But even before Trump’s return to the White House in January, declining response rates to surveys among the public in recent years had made the collection of data increasingly difficult, raising concerns about accuracy.

In a poll published by the Reuters news agency last month, 89 of 100 policy experts surveyed said they had at least some concerns about the quality of US economic statistics.

“Some data is just unreliable because people stopped responding to surveys or the responses became so biased given the nonhomogeneous response rates,” said Michalski, the HEC Paris associate professor.

“There are no easy remedies often for improving data collection given that many people are not using landlines, are unreachable or provide careless answers to investigators,” he said.

Even with sound methodology, data are always at risk of manipulation once politicians get involved, Michalski added.

“Even with correct numbers, it is possible to spin a story about inflation or GDP growth by changing the base years or selecting some specific periods to weave narratives,” he said.

“The incentives to manipulate and falsify are clearly there. There is little or no punishment.”

Groshen said that while she does not expect US economic data to stop being reliable in the immediate future, “we seem headed in that direction.”

“For now, the BLS will continue to operate as it has before,” she said.

“We will need to start worrying if and when the president’s people are embedded there.”

Neighbouring countries agree on terms of economic cooperation in several areas, including energy and supply chains for minerals.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda have agreed on terms of economic cooperation in several sectors, as the two countries move towards delivering on a peace deal signed in June.

The tenets agreed on Friday summarise a regional economic integration framework, which includes elements of cooperation on energy, infrastructure, mineral supply chains, national parks and public health, according to the State Department of the United States, which brokered the deal.

A source familiar with the matter said a preliminary draft of the framework has been agreed to and there would now be an input period to get reaction from the private sector and civil society before it is finalised, the Reuters news agency reported.

In the statement, Rwanda and the DRC affirmed that each country has “full, sovereign control” over the exploitation, processing and export of its natural resources, and recognised the importance of developing mineral processing and transformation capacity within each country, according to Reuters.

The DRC views the plundering of its mineral wealth as a key driver of the conflict between its forces and Rwanda-backed M23 rebels in the country’s east that has killed thousands of people.

‘Mineral deal first’

The deal signed in Washington, DC, on June 27 aims to attract Western investment to a region rich in tantalum, gold, cobalt, copper, lithium and other minerals. According to Human Rights Watch, it is “a mineral deal first, an opportunity for peace second”, linking economic integration and respect for territorial integrity with the promise of billions of dollars of investments.

The two countries are also committed to ensuring that the minerals trade no longer provides funding to armed groups and to creating a world-class industrial mining sector in the region. The deal would also ensure better cross-border interoperability on mineral supply chains, according to the statement.

They also agreed to connect new infrastructure to the US-backed Lobito Corridor, underscoring Washington’s aim of greater access to resources in the region and efforts to counter China.

The Ruzizi III hydropower project and Lake Kivu methane exploitation were the only specific projects mentioned in the statement, despite US emphasis on critical minerals. The countries said they intended to prioritise financing for Ruzizi and work together to exploit methane gas sustainably.

Friday’s announcement comes after the two countries held the first meeting of a joint oversight committee on Thursday in a step towards implementing the deal, even as other commitments are yet to be fulfilled.

In the Washington agreement, the two countries pledged to implement a 2024 agreement that would see Rwandan troops withdraw from eastern DRC within 90 days.

The Congolese military’s operations targeting the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), a Congo-based armed group that includes remnants of Rwanda’s former army and militias that carried out a 1994 genocide, are meant to conclude over the same timeframe.

The deal also said the DRC and Rwanda would form a joint security coordination mechanism within 30 days and implement a plan agreed upon last year to monitor and verify the withdrawal of Rwandan soldiers within three months.

But 30 days from the signing have passed without a meeting of the joint security coordination mechanism.

The source familiar with the matter said the joint security coordination mechanism meeting would be held on August 7 in Addis Ababa.

The DRC is also involved in direct talks with M23 hosted by Qatar, and last month the two sides pledged to sign a separate peace agreement by August 18, though many outstanding details need to be negotiated.

The White House has launched an aggressive public relations campaign promoting a narrative of economic strength during the first six months of United States President Donald Trump, with claims of his policies fueling “America’s golden age”.

But an Al Jazeera analysis of economic data shows the reality is more mixed.

Trump’s claims of his policies boosting the US economy suffered a blow on Friday when the latest jobs report revealed that the country had added a mere 73,000 jobs last month, well below the 115,000 forecasters had expected. The only additions were in the healthcare sector, which added 55,000 jobs, and the social services sector added 18,000.

US employers also cut 62,075 jobs in July — up 29 percent from cuts in the month before, and 140 percent higher than this time last year, according to the firm Challenger, Gray and Christmas, which tracks monthly job cuts. Government, tech, and retail sectors are the industries that saw the biggest declines so far this year.

It comes as this month’s jobs and labour turnover report showed an economic slowdown. There were 7.4 million open jobs in the US, down from 7.7 million a month before.

The Department of Labour on Friday released downward revisions to both the May and June jobs reports, significantly changing the picture the White House had previously painted.

“For the FOURTH month in a row, jobs numbers have beat market expectations with nearly 150,000 good jobs created in June,” the White House said in a July 3 release following the initial June report.

The Labor Department had reported an addition of 147,000 jobs in June. On Friday, it sharply revised down that number to just 14,000. May’s report also saw a big downgrade from 144,000 to only 19,000 jobs gained. Trump has since fired the head of the agency that produces the monthly jobs data, alleging that the data had been manipulated to make him look bad.

Even before the revisions, June’s report was the first to reflect early signs of economic strain tied to the administration’s tariff threats, as it revealed that job growth was concentrated in areas such as state and local government and healthcare. Sectors more exposed to trade policy – including construction, wholesale trade, and manufacturing – were flat. Meanwhile, leisure and hospitality showed weak growth, even in peak summer, reflecting falling travel demand both at home and abroad.

The administration also claimed that native-born workers accounted for all job gains since January. That assertion is misleading as it implies that no naturalised citizens or legally present foreign workers gained employment.

However, it is true that employment among foreign-born workers has declined – by over half a million jobs – claims that native-born workers are replacing foreign-born labour, are not supported by the jobs data.

Jobs lost in sectors with high foreign-born employment, including tech, have been abundant, driven by tariffs and automation, particularly AI. In fact, recent layoffs in tech have been explicitly attributed to AI advancements, not labour displacement by other groups.

Companies including Recruit Holdings — the parent company of Indeed and Glassdoor, Axel Springer, IBM, Duolingo and others have already made headcount reductions directly attributed to AI advancements.

Wage growth

The pace of rise of wage growth, an indicator of economic success, has slowed in recent months. That is partly due to the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates steady in hopes of keeping inflation stable.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, wages have been outpacing inflation since 2023, after a period of declining real wages following the COVID pandemic.

Wage growth ticked up by 0.3 percent in July from a month prior. Compared with this time last year, wage growth is 3.9 percent, according to Friday’s Labor Department jobs report.

Earlier this year, the White House painted a picture that wage growth differed between the era of former President Joe Biden and now under Trump because of policy.

“Blue-collar workers have seen real wages grow almost two percent in the first five months of President Trump’s second term — a stark contrast from the negative wage growth seen during the first five months of the Biden Administration,” the White House said in a release.

However, Biden and Trump inherited two very different economies when they took office. Biden has to deal with a massive global economic downturn driven by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Trump, on the other hand, during his second term, inherited “unquestionably the strongest economy” in more than two decades, per the Economic Policy Institute, particularly because of the US economy’s rebound compared with peer nations.

Inflation

Inflation peaked in mid-2022 during Biden’s term at 9 percent, before falling steadily because of the Federal Reserve’s efforts to manage a soft landing.

A July 21 White House statement claimed, “Since President Trump took office, core inflation has tracked at just 2.1 percent.” On Wednesday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessett said “inflation is cooling” in a post on X.

However, the Consumer Price Index report, which tracks core inflation – a measure that excludes the price of volatile items such as food and energy – was 2.9 percent in the most recent report and overall inflation was at 2.7 percent in June.

Prices

The most recent Consumer Price Index report, published July 15, shows that on a monthly basis, prices on all goods went up in June by 0.3 ,percent which is 2.7 percent higher from this time last year.

Grocery prices in particular are up 2.4 percent from this time last year and 0.3 percent from the prior month. The cost of fruits and vegetables went up 0.9 percent, the price of coffee increased by 2.2 percent and the cost of beef went up 2 percent.

New pending tariffs on Brazil, as Al Jazeera previously reported, could further drive up the cost of beef in the months to come.

Trump has pointed to falling egg prices in particular as evidence of economic success, after Democrats attacked his administration over their price in March. He has even gone so far as to claim that prices are down by 400 percent. That figure is mathematically impossible – a 100 percent decrease would mean eggs are free.

During the first few months of Trump’s term egg prices surged, and then dropped due to an outbreak of, and then recovery from, a severe avian flue outbreak, which had been hindering supply – not because of any specific policy intervention.

In January, when Trump took office egg prices were $4.95 per dozen as supply was constrained by the virus. By March, the average egg price was $6.23.  But outbreak and high prices drove away consumers, allowing farmers with healthier flocks to catch up on the supply side. As a result, prices fell to an average of $3.38. That would be a 32 percent drop since the beginning of his term and a 46 percent drop from their peak price – far from the 400 percent Trump claimed.

Trump also recently said petrol prices are at $1.98 per gallon ($0.52 per litre) in some states. He doubled down on that again on Wednesday. That is untrue. There is not a single state that has those petrol prices.

According to Gasbuddy, a platform that helps consumers find the lowest prices on petrol, Mississippi at $2.70 a gallon ($0.71 per litre) has the cheapest gas, and the cheapest petrol station in that state is currently selling gas at $2.37 ($0.62 per litre).

AAA, which tracks the average petrol price, has it at $3.15 per gallon ($0.83 per litre) nationwide, this is up from the end of January when it was $3.11 ($0.82 per litre).

While petrol prices have gone down since Trump took office, they are nowhere close to the rate he has continually suggested. In July 2024, for instance, the average price for a gallon of petrol nationwide was $3.50 ($0.93 per litre).

GDP

On Wednesday, the White House said that “President Trump has reduced America’s reliance on foreign products, boosted investment in the US”, citing the positive GDP data that had come out that morning.

That is misleading. While the US economy grew at a 3 percent annualised rate in the second quarter, surpassing expectations, that was a combination of a rebound after a weak first quarter, a drop in imports – which boosted GDP, and a modest rise in consumer spending.

The data beneath the headline showed that private sector investment fell sharply by 15.6 percent and inventories of goods and services declined by 3.2 percent, indicating a slowdown.

Manufacturing

The administration recently highlighted gains in industrial production, pointing to a boost in domestic manufacturing. Overall, there was a 0.3 percent increase in US industrial production in June. That was after stagnating for two months.

There have been isolated gains, such as increases in aerospace and petroleum-related sectors—1.6 percent and 2.9 percent, respectively.

But production of durable goods — items that are not necessarily for immediate consumption— remained flat, and auto manufacturing fell by 2.6 percent last month as tariffs dampened demand. Mining output also decreased by 0.3 percent.

According to the Department of Commerce’s gross domestic product report, manufacturing growth among non-durable goods has slowed. While there was a 1.3 percent increase, that’s a decline from 2.3 percent in the previous quarter.

This could change in the future, as several companies across a range of sectors have pledged to increase US production, including carmaker Hyundai and pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca, which just pledged a $50bn investment over the next five years.

Trade deals and tariffs

In April, the White House replaced country-specific tariffs with a 10-percent blanket tariff while maintaining additional levies on steel, cars, and some other items. It then promised to deliver “90 trade deals in 90 days.” That benchmark was not met. By the deadline, only one loosely fleshed out deal — with the United Kingdom — had been announced. As of 113 days later, the US has announced comparable deals with just a handful more countries and the European Union. The EU deal still needs parliamentary approval.

Contrary to the administration’s claims, tariffs do not pressure foreign exporters — they are paid by US importers and ultimately are likely to be passed on to US consumers. Companies, including big box retailer Walmart and toymaker Mattel, have announced price hikes as a direct result. Ford, for example, raised prices on three Mexico-assembled models due to tariff pressures.

To protect their own economies, many countries have pivoted their trade policies away from the US. Brazil and Mexico recently announced a new trade pact.

The White House and its allies continue to defend tariffs by highlighting the increased revenue they bring to the federal government, which is true. Since Trump took office, the US has brought in more than $100bn in revenue, compared with $77bn in the entire fiscal year 2024. The price of imports for consumers has only risen about 3 percent, but many expect that will change as the import taxes are passed on to consumers.

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

July 28 (UPI) — With more than $14.7 billion invested in Latin America and the Caribbean in 2024 and at least $9 billion in new credit lines announced this year, China is solidifying its role as one of the region’s leading economic players.

The growth of Chinese investment in Latin America has not only transformed infrastructure, trade and technological presence in the region. but It is also quietly reshaping the foundations of Latin American economic integration, experts and former leaders warned at the “Latin America in the New Global Geopolitics” forum, organized by the Latin American Presidential Mission in Costa Rica.

Evan Ellis, a U.S. research professor of Latin American studies at the U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, said China’s presence has created a form of functional but highly fragmented integration.

“China connects the dots that matter to its interests, not the ones our countries need to develop or integrate with one another,” he said.

Projects like transoceanic corridors, logistics routes and large-scale port construction are often framed as efforts to boost regional connectivity. In practice, however, many are designed to move raw materials to Asia rather than build a cohesive Latin American market.

“It’s integration with a Chinese purpose, not a Latin American one,” Ellis said.

While China has retrenched from mega-infrastructure projects of the last decade, it has surged in backing diversified, tech-related investments, such as electric vehicles, lithium mining and cloud infrastructure.

Beijing’s strategy has been clear: engage through low-institutional forums such as CELAC, where countries do not act as a unified bloc. That weakens efforts to negotiate common standards and gives China a stronger hand in bilateral agreements.

“It’s not just about infrastructure. It’s about how Latin America’s ability to think strategically as a region is being undermined,” Ellis said.

Former Costa Rican President Laura Chinchilla echoed that concern. She said China’s expanding footprint, rather than fostering cohesion, has exacerbated historic divisions between the region’s subgroups.

“The north tends to align with the United States, the south with China. And in the middle, we’ve failed to build a shared vision for development,” Chinchilla said.

One of the most sensitive issues in this realignment is the geopolitical pressure China exerts to isolate Taiwan. Only 12 countries in the world currently maintain diplomatic ties with the island — seven of them in Latin America and the Caribbean, including Paraguay.

Former Paraguayan Vice President Luis Alberto Castiglioni firmly defended his country’s decision to maintain relations with Taipei.

“Our alliance with Taiwan is not based on conditions, but on transparent cooperation and shared democratic values. China demands that we break that relationship as a condition to access its market, and that is unacceptable.”

Ellis reinforced that view, noting that Beijing’s diplomatic and commercial pressure also has consequences for national sovereignty.

“The region should ask whether opening up to Chinese investment justifies giving up decision-making authority, regulatory standards or strategic alliances that have historically been beneficial,” he said.

Costa Rica, which cut diplomatic ties with Taiwan in 2007, has been cited as an example of institutional resistance to conditions imposed by Chinese companies. Several infrastructure projects were halted due to local legal and technical oversight.

Still, the trade balance is revealing: Costa Rica’s exports to China are now nearly 10 times smaller than those to the United States.

In light of that, former presidents at the forum agreed on the urgent need for Latin America to regain control over its own integration agenda. “This isn’t about saying no to China,” Chinchilla said, “but about setting our own rules of the game, as a region, with vision and leadership.”

Booking tumbled in the summer months as consumers pulled back on travel expenses

American Airlines has restored its full-year outlook as broader economic uncertainty continues to weigh on domestic consumer demand across the travel industry.

The Fort Worth, Texas-based carrier on Thursday offered a wide range for its full-year forecast on the heels of its earnings report, saying the broader economic uncertainty is hobbling consumer spending. The airline had suspended financial guidance in April.

The airline says it expects an adjusted loss per share of 20 cents a share to a profit of 80 cents a share in 2025. The midpoint of the forecast is 30 cents per share, compared with analysts’ average estimate of 61 cents a share, according to LSEG data.

American, which generates more than two-thirds of its passenger revenue from the US domestic market, said that if domestic travel demand continues to strengthen, it expects to hit the top end of its outlook. But if the economy weakens, it only expects to be at the bottom end of the forecast.

“The domestic network has been under stress because of the uncertainty in the economy and the reluctance of domestic passengers to get in the game,” CEO Robert Isom told analysts on an earnings call.

American said tepid domestic travel demand affected its bookings in July. Isom, however, said the performance is expected to improve sequentially in August and September.

“We expect that July will be the low point,” he said.

The company expects its domestic unit revenue, or revenue generated from each seat, to remain lower year-over-year in the third quarter. Its non-fuel operating costs are estimated to be up as much as 4.5 percent in the September quarter.

American expects an adjusted loss per share in the range of 10 cents to 60 cents in the third quarter, compared with analysts’ estimates of a loss of 7 cents, according to data compiled by LSEG.

The company’s outlook contrasts with upbeat forecasts of rival Delta and United Airlines. Alaska Air Group has also reported improvements in passenger traffic and pricing power.

Most US airlines withdrew their financial forecasts in April as President Donald Trump’s trade war created the biggest uncertainty for the industry since the COVID-19 pandemic. While some have reinstated their expectations, there is lingering uncertainty as to how the economy will fare in an ever-evolving tariff landscape.

Demand in the domestic travel market has remained subdued, with budget travellers approaching their plans with caution, hurting carriers that primarily service the US domestic market and price-sensitive customers.

Even summer, typically the peak money-making season for airlines, is falling short this year, with unsold standard economy seats forcing carriers to cut fares.

It dented the second-quarter earnings of Southwest Airlines, the largest US domestic airline.

At American, the domestic market was the weakest in the second quarter, with its unit revenue declining 6.4 percent from a year ago. The company’s unit revenue in international markets was up, led by a 5 percent annual jump in the transatlantic market.

On Wall Street, the stock is taking a hit and was down 7.2 percent from the market open as of 11:30am in New York (15:30 GMT).