economic

Borge Brende has resigned from his roles as the president and CEO of the World Economic Forum (WEF), following revelations of his links with the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Brende, a former Norwegian foreign minister who became president of the WEF in 2017, announced his departure on Thursday, joining the ranks of prominent figures to have left their jobs or faced criminal investigations after their contacts with Epstein were revealed in files released by the US Department of Justice last month.

“After careful consideration, I have decided to step down as President and CEO of the World Economic Forum. My time here, spanning 8-1/2 years, has been profoundly rewarding,” Brende said in a statement, which made no mention of Epstein.

“I am grateful for the incredible collaboration with my colleagues, partners, and constituents, and I believe now is the right moment for the Forum to continue its important work without distractions.”

Brende’s departure came several weeks after the WEF, organiser of the annual Davos summit,⁠ launched an independent investigation into his relationship with Epstein, following revelations in the files that the Norwegian had three business dinners with the financier and had also communicated with him via email and text message.

Epstein was convicted of procuring a minor for prostitution in 2008, spending about a year in prison before his release.

His contacts with a network of wealthy and influential figures continued in the wake of his conviction until an investigation into the wealthy financier was reopened in 2019. Epstein died by suicide in prison that year while facing charges of sex trafficking underage girls.

Dinners, emails

Brende said in a statement earlier this month that during a visit to New York in 2018, he received an invitation from former Norwegian politician Terje Rod-Larsen to join him for dinner with several other leaders, plus “someone who was presented to me as an American investor, Jeffrey Epstein”.

“The following year, I attended two similar dinners with Epstein, alongside other diplomats and business leaders. These dinners, and a few emails and SMS messages, were the extent of my interactions with him,” he said.

“I was completely unaware of Epstein’s past and criminal activities.”

He said that had he known about Epstein’s background, he would have declined any contact with the convicted sex offender, adding that he regretted not having conducted a more thorough investigation into his past.

Investigation concluded

In a separate statement, Andre Hoffmann and Larry Fink, co-chairs of the WEF, said the independent review ⁠conducted by outside counsel into Brende’s ties with Epstein had concluded.

The findings stated there were no additional concerns beyond what had been previously disclosed, it ⁠added.

The co-chairs said the WEF’s Alois Zwinggi will serve ⁠as interim president and CEO, and that the forum’s board of trustees would oversee the leadership transition, including a plan to identify a permanent replacement.

Arrests and resignations

Epstein had ties to a long list of business and political leaders, whose links to the disgraced figure have now come under close scrutiny, resulting in arrests and resignations.

In Norway, Thorbjorn Jagland, former prime minister and former secretary-general of the Council of Europe, has been charged with “aggravated corruption” amid an investigation into his connections to Epstein, while Rod-Larsen and his wife Mona Juul, both diplomats, have also been charged.

Crown Princess Mette-Marit, the wife of Crown Prince Haakon, heir to Norway’s throne,  has also come under heavy scrutiny following the revelation of her close friendship with Epstein, issuing a public apology for her long association with him.

In the UK, prominent figures including Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor – formerly Prince Andrew – and Peter Mandelson, the former diplomat, minister, and adviser to multiple Labour Party prime ministers, have been arrested over alleged crimes linked to their relationships with Epstein.

In France, financial crimes prosecutors have opened an investigation into former Culture Minister Jack Lang, while in Slovakia, Miroslav Lajcak, former president of the UN General Assembly, resigned as security adviser to the country’s prime minister amid growing criticism over his correspondence with Epstein, uncovered in the files.

A growing number of prominent business and academic figures have also left their posts after their ties to Epstein were revealed.

The White House is set to impose a 15 percent tariff through Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 after the US Supreme Court ruled against Donald Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.

United States President Donald Trump has ramped up tariff threats following last week’s US Supreme Court decision that ruled that Trump’s sweeping global tariffs, imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, were unlawful.

On Monday, Trump said that any countries that wanted to “play games” after the high court’s ruling would be hit “with a much higher tariff ” in a post on his social media platform Truth Social.

In a separate post on the platform, Trump claimed that he does not need the approval of the US Congress for tariffs.

“As President, I do not have to go back to Congress to get approval of Tariffs . It has already been gotten, in many forms, a long time ago! They were also just reaffirmed by the ridiculous and poorly crafted supreme court decision!” Trump said in the post.

Trump does have some authority to impose other tariffs, but they are much more limited.

Following the court’s 6–3 decision on Friday, the president said he would introduce a 10 percent tariff, raising it to 15 percent by Saturday under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, the maximum limit under the statute that enables the White House to impose tariffs for 150 days.

The statute only requires a presidential declaration and does not require further investigation. Section 122 is only temporary; the tariffs would then expire unless Congress extends them.

Trump’s tariffs are overwhelmingly unpopular. A new Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll found that 64 percent of Americans disapprove of the president’s handling of tariffs.

Looming uncertainty

Experts warn that Trump’s newly imposed tariffs will fuel further economic uncertainty.

“What we do know is that it would continue to require all those parties affected to continue to live in uncertainty and, as many have already pointed out, such uncertainty is not good for our economy and has negative impacts on American consumers,” Max Kulyk, partner and CEO of Chicory Wealth, a private wealth advisory firm, told Al Jazeera.

“It’s impossible to plan. You hear that tariffs are off, and you are considering how to get refunds. Then a few hours later, it’s 10 percent. Then it’s 15 percent the next day…. Not having that stable framework is hurtful for activity, hiring, investment,” Gregory Daco, chief economist at EY-Parthenon, told the Reuters news agency.

Gold, which is considered a safe investment in times of economic uncertainty, surged by 2 percent on Monday, hitting a three-week high as tariff pressures remain unclear.

US markets are also taking a hit. The tech-heavy Nasdaq is down 1.1 percent in midday trading. The S&P 500 is also down by 1 percent, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average slumped by 1.5 percent since the market opened on Monday.

Stalling trade deals

Trump’s erratic approach has also deterred movement on looming trade deals.

On Monday, the European Parliament opted to postpone voting on a trade deal with the US. It is the second time the bloc has pushed back the vote. The first was in protest against Trump’s unsolicited attempts to acquire Greenland.

The assembly had been considering removing several European Union import duties on US goods. Committee chair Bernd Lange said the new temporary US tariff could mean increased levies for some EU exports, and no one knew what would happen after they expire in 150 days. EU lawmakers will reconvene on March 4 to assess if the US has clarified the situation and confirmed its commitment to last year’s deal.

At its peak, the BRICS coalition of economies – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – was seen as a serious attempt to move away from the United States dollar and the domination of Western economic institutions like the World Bank, Group of Seven (G7), and International Monetary Fund (IMF).

But BRICS members have different political agendas, and new forces are at play, argues economist Jim O’Neill, a member of Britain’s House of Lords.

O’Neill, who coined the term “BRIC” 25 years ago, tells host Steve Clemons that the US’s economic policies may be the driver of its own decline, coupled with the economic rise of China and India.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom told world leaders Friday that President Trump’s retreat from efforts to combat climate change would decimate the U.S. automobile industry and surrender the future economic viability to China and other nations embracing the transition to renewable energy.

Newsom, appearing at the Munich Security Conference in Germany, urged diplomats, business leaders and policy advocates to forcefully stand up to Trump’s global bullying and loyalty to the oil and coal industry. The California governor said the Trump administration’s massive rollbacks on environmental protection will be short-lived.

“Donald Trump is temporary. He’ll be gone in three years,” Newsom said during a Friday morning panel discussion on climate action. “California is a stable and reliable partner in this space.”

Newsom’s comments came in the wake of the Trump administration’s repeal of the endangerment finding and all federal vehicle emissions regulations. The endangerment finding is the U.S. government’s 2009 affirmation that planet-heating pollution poses a threat to human health and the environment.

Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lee Zeldin said the finding has been regulatory overreach, placing heavy burdens on auto manufacturers, restricting consumer choice and resulting in higher costs for Americans. Its repeal marked the “single largest act of deregulation in the history of the United States of America,” he said.

Scientists and experts were quick to condemn the action, saying it contradicts established science and will put more people in harm’s way. Independent researchers around the world have long concluded that greenhouse gases released by the burning of gasoline, diesel and other fossil fuels are warming the planet and worsening weather disasters.

The move will also threaten the U.S.’s position as a leader in the global clean energy transition, with nations such as China pulling ahead on electric vehicle production and investments in renewables such as solar, batteries and wind, experts said.

Newsom’s trip to Germany is just his latest international jaunt in recent months as he positions himself to lead the Democratic Party’s opposition to Trump and the Republican-led Congress, and to seed a possible run for the White House in 2028. Last month Newsom traveled to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and in November to the U.N. climate summit in Belém, Brazil — mocking and condemning Trump’s policies on Greenland, international trade and the environment.

When asked how he would restore the world’s confidence in the United States if he were to become president, Newsom sidestepped. Instead he offered a campaign-like soliloquy on California’s success on fostering Tesla and the nation’s other top electric vehicle manufactures as well as being a magnet for industries spending billions of dollars on research and development for the global transition away from carbon-based economies.

The purpose of the Munich conference was to open a dialogue among world leaders on global security, military, economic and environmental. Along with Friday’s discussion on climate action, Newsom is scheduled to appear at a livestreamed forum on transatlantic cooperation Saturday.

Andrew Forrest, executive chairman of the Australia-based mining company giant Fortescue, said during a panel Friday his company is proof that even the largest energy-consuming companies in the world can thrive without relying on the carbon-based fuels that have driven industries for more than a century. Fortescue, which buys diesel fuel from countries across the world, will transition to a “green grid” this decade, saving the company a billion dollars a year, he said.

“The science is absolutely clear, but so is the economics. I am, and my company Fortescue is, the industrial-grade proof that going renewable is great economics, great business, and if you desert it, then in the end, you’ll be sorted out by your shareholders or by your voters at the ballot box,” Forrest said.

Newsom said California has also shown the world what can be done with innovative government policies that embrace electric vehicles and the transition to a non-carbon-based economy, and continues to do so despite the attacks and regressive mandates being imposed by the Trump administration.

“This is about economic prosperity and competitiveness, and that’s why I’m so infuriated with what Donald Trump has done,” Newsom said. “Remember, Tesla exists for one reason — California’s regulatory market, which created the incentives and the structure and the certainty that allowed Elon Musk and others to invest and build that capacity. We are not walking away from that.”

California has led the nation in the push toward EVs. For more than 50 years, the state enjoyed unique authority from the EPA to set stricter tailpipe emission standards than the federal government, considered critical to the state’s efforts to address its notorious smog and air-quality issues. The authority, which the Trump administration has moved to rescind, was also the basis for California’s plan to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035.

The administration again targeted electric vehicles in its announcement on Thursday.

“The forced transition to electric vehicles is eliminated,” Zeldin said. “No longer will automakers be pressured to shift their fleets toward electric vehicles, vehicles that are still sitting unsold on dealer lots all across America.”

But the efforts to shut down the energy transition may be too little, too late, said Hannah Safford, former director of transportation and resilience at the White House Climate Policy Office under the Biden administration.

“Electric cars make more economic sense for people, more models are becoming available, and the administration can’t necessarily stop that from happening,” said Safford, who is now associate director for climate and environment at the Federation of American Scientists.

Still, some automakers and trade groups supported the EPA’s decision, as did fossil fuel industry groups and those geared toward free markets and regulatory reform. Among them were the Independent Petroleum Assn. of America, which praised the administration for its “efforts to reform and streamline regulations governing greenhouse gas emissions.”

Ford, which has invested in electric vehicles and recently completed a prototype of a $30,000 electric truck, said in a statement to The Times that it appreciated EPA’s move “to address the imbalance between current emissions standards and consumer choice.”

Toyota, meanwhile, deferred to a statement from Alliance for Automotive Innovation president John Bozzella, who said similarly that “automotive emissions regulations finalized in the previous administration are extremely challenging for automakers to achieve given the current marketplace demand for EVs.”

Two competing visions for the EU’s economic future are set to collide on Thursday, when the bloc’s leaders gather for an informal retreat to discuss reviving the bloc’s competitiveness.

On one side stands France; on the other, a newly aligned Germany and Italy.

Paris made a last-minute move to join an informal pre-summit scheduled by Berlin and Rome ahead of the retreat on Thursday morning in an unusual bid to coordinate their positions before leaders convene.

The French intervention followed remarks on Tuesday from President Emmanuel Macron to several European media outlets, and amounts to an effort to assert Paris’ agenda in response to a document circulated in recent days by Germany and Italy that lays out a sharply different vision for the EU economy.

In doing so, the French president has flipped the script and introduced firmly on the table one of the most divisive matters for EU leaders: pooling debt to prop up the bloc.

The timing is no coincidence either.

Earlier this month, Mario Draghi, called on the EU to work as a true union and urged leaders to implement a “pragmatic” federalist approach to survive in a new, more brutal world.

The retreat in Alden Biesen, Belgium comes a year and a half after a landmark report by Draghi warned of a bleak outlook for Europe’s economy unless decisive steps were taken to boost competitiveness.

Since the report’s publication in 2024, the global geo-economic landscape has shifted dramatically, with the US and China’s aggressive agendas adding pressure on the EU’s 27 countries.

Macron is the most loyal to Draghi’s ambitions but also the weakest leader at home compared to Meloni and Merz.

Divisions expected on eurobonds

During the retreat, leaders will focus “on strengthening the Single Market, reducing barriers to growth and enhancing Europe’s strategic autonomy,” according to the agenda presented by the Cypriot EU presidency.

Draghi, along with another former Italian prime minister, Enrico Letta – who published his own landmark report on the Single Market the same year – will attend parts of the discussions.

Still, a senior EU official said the time for diagnosis was over, and that leaders now need to take “concrete measures” to move the EU’s economic agenda forward.

Reaching consensus, however, will be difficult. The EU’s Franco-German engine appears to be sputtering, with Paris now facing a fresh Berlin-Rome alliance. On 23 January, Germany and Italy agreed to coordinate their push to deregulate industry.

The first flashpoint is expected to be Macron’s call, made Tuesday, for issuing common EU debt – eurobonds – to finance the massive investments needed to lift competitiveness. Draghi’s report in 2024 put those needs at between €750 billion and €800 billion a year.

“We have three battles to fight: in security and defence, in green transition technologies, and in artificial intelligence and quantum technologies. In all of these areas, we invest far less than China and the United States,” Macron said, adding: “If the EU does nothing in the next three to five years, it will be swept out of these sectors.”

Berlin, however, has long resisted repeating the joint borrowing used to fund the €750 billion post-Covid recovery plan.

Instead, Germany and Italy are expected on Thursday to call for expanded venture-capital financing and stronger exit options for investors. The document circulated by Rome and Berlin suggests “the creation of a pan-European stock exchange, a pan European secondary market, and a review of capital requirements for lending without impeding financial stability”.

On eurobonds, Nordic countries have traditionally sided with Germany.

Still, the same senior EU official noted that “when the European Union needs to take those decisions, it has taken so,” adding that joint borrowing remains an option after the bloc again turned to it at the end of 2025 to support Ukraine. “There is no dream of European debt. There is European debt out in the markets and we’ve just increased by 90 billion last December.”

In a letter sent to leaders on Monday, Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen did not mention joint borrowing, doubling down on cutting excessive regulation and integrating the 27-nation single market.

In the run-up to a meeting with European industry leaders, she also appealed to establish the so-called 28th regime to harmonise rules for companies operating across Europe.

Germany’s strict conditions

France is also pressing for a long-standing priority: a European preference, or “Made in Europe,” policy that would favour EU-content products in public procurement.

“It’s defensive, but it’s essential, because we are facing unfair competitors who no longer respect the rules of the World Trade Organization,” Macron said on Tuesday.

While the idea has gained traction in EU capitals and at the European Commission, Nordic and Baltic countries as well as the Netherlands warned in a non-paper circulated ahead of the summit that the European preference “risks wiping out our simplification efforts, hindering companies’ access to world-leading technology, hampering exchange with other markets and pushing investments away from the EU.”

Germany, meanwhile circulated a document seen by Euronews in December as part of discussions among the 27 laying out strict conditions. Berlin wants the European preference to be time-limited, broadly defined, and applied only to a narrow list of products. It also favours a “Made with Europe” approach, open to countries with EU free-trade agreements and other “like-minded” partners.

Italy, the EU’s third-largest economy, has sided with Germany. Both countries say their priority is not only to support European businesses but also “to attract new business from outside the EU,” according to their document to other capitals.

Macron appeared to partially align with that view on Tuesday, saying the European preference should focus on limited sectors such as clean tech, chemicals, steel, automotive or defence. “Otherwise Europeans will be swept away,” he said.

Berlin and Rome want more deregulation

At the retreat, Berlin and Rome are also set to push a deregulatory agenda. As the European Commission rolled out several simplification packages in 2025, the two countries are calling “for further withdrawals and simplifications of EU initiatives across the board”.

They also propose an “emergency brake” allowing intervention if legislation raises “serious concerns regarding additional administrative burden both on enterprises and on national authorities”.

Last but not least, the Mercosur trade agreement looms large. During the retreat, the Commission plans to consult EU countries on its provisional implementation after a judicial review triggered by the European Parliament suspended ratification of the deal, signed with Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay.

France remains firmly opposed to the Mercosur agreement, citing farmers’ fears of unfair competition from Latin American imports. But the deal nonetheless won backing from a majority of member states in January after Italy gave its support.

Berlin and Rome leave little room for doubt in their document: “We call for an ambitious EU trade policy taking full account of the potentials and needs of all economic sectors, including agriculture. The finalisation of the EU-Mercosur Agreement was an important step in that direction.”

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom is heading to a conference of world leaders in Germany later this week as part of his ongoing effort to use the global stage to urge investment in California’s climate-related initiatives and challenge President Trump’s isolationist policies.

Newsom will appear at the Munich Security Conference to talk about trade and jobs and tell foreign leaders that “California is a stable and reliable partner,” he said Tuesday during an unrelated event.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is leading the official U.S. delegation to the conference, while Democratic leaders Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York are also expected, according to news reports.

The three-day event focuses on the intersections of trade, economics, security and foreign policy, and is expected to draw business leaders and heads of state.

Vice President JD Vance’s appearance at last year’s gathering caused a stir after he argued that European’s immigration policies are too relaxed and European nations are too reliant on the United States.

Ahead of the gathering, conference organizers released a report Monday that found that the “world has entered a period of wrecking-ball politics. Sweeping destruction — rather than careful reforms and policy corrections — is the order of the day.”

Newsom told reporters that he will appear on several panels, and suggested he will focus in part on staying competitive with China when it comes to new technologies and job growth.

“China is cleaning our clock as it relates to low-carbon green growth. They are cleaning our clock in terms of not just electric vehicles, because it’s not about electric power, it’s about economic power,” he said.

“It’s about exports, manufacturing, jobs — and this country is walking away,” he continued. “We are walking away from science and we are walking away from common sense.”

“Gavin Newscum is traveling to another international conference to whine about climate policies instead of doing his job as the governor of California?” said White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers, using President Trump’s derogatory nickname for the governor. “Nothing new to see here.”

Newsom is in his last year as California governor and is considering running for president in 2028. He last month traveled to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where he criticized world leaders for not challenging Trump’s aggressive posture when it comes to his threats to acquire Greenland, as well as his tariffs.

Newsom also attended the U.N. climate policy summit in Belém, Brazil, in November.

The Super Bowl, the biggest event in American football, is set for Sunday with the Seattle Seahawks facing the New England Patriots at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, California.

The massive sporting event is set to energise fans in both cities and will send thousands this year to the San Francisco Bay Area. Those unable to make the trip are still expected to spend heavily on food, drinks and watch parties across the United States.

Historically, the Super Bowl has been a major economic boon for host cities. For the Bay Area, the event is part of a stretch of three major sporting spectacles lifting the regional economy.

A local boost?

In 2024, the Bay Area Host Committee commissioned a report forecasting the economic impact of the 2025 NBA All-Star Game, the 2026 Super Bowl, and the FIFA World Cup, all taking place in the region. The report estimated that Sunday’s game alone would generate between $370m and $630m in economic output for the Bay Area.

Last year’s Super Bowl was hosted in New Orleans, Louisiana. State officials reported the event brought in 115,000 visitors who spent $658m in the city.

For consumers, Bank of America estimates a 77 percent jump in spending near the stadium. A study analysing spending patterns from Super Bowl games between 2017 and 2025 found that, on game day, spending surged in the postal code closest to the stadium, with the biggest surge in food and parking costs.

Hosting the game does come with its own expenses for cities.

In the case of Santa Clara, it is small compared with the forecasted output. Last year, it was projected the city would cost them $6.3m, which includes training personnel for the influx of visitors and other logistical needs. However, other games have cost municipalities much more. When Atlanta hosted the Super Bowl in 2019, it cost the city an estimated $46m.

In 2023, the day after the game, which was played in Glendale, Arizona, outside of Phoenix, was the single busiest at Phoenix Sky Harbor international airport in its history, with more than 200,000 passengers passing through the airport, which is a hub for American Airlines and where budget carriers Southwest Airlines and Frontier maintain a large presence.

Other cities have used major sporting events to kick off large-scale infrastructure projects. In 2004 – ahead of the Super Bowl in Houston, Texas – METRO, the city’s transit authority, launched its first light rail line just a month before the game. The line, now one of three in the system, runs from downtown Houston to the city’s football stadium.

Prior to its launch, Houston was the only major metropolitan city in the US without a rail system.

But not all infrastructure projects paid off. Las Vegas built Allegiant Stadium in the neighbouring suburb of Paradise when the city acquired the Raiders football team from Oakland during the 2020 season. A year later, in 2021, Las Vegas won the bid to host the 2024 Super Bowl. The stadium cost $1.9bn. Nearly $750m came from hotel taxes, but the rest was shouldered by local taxpayers.

“The economic benefits are relatively short-term, not just in duration, but also in scope. They’re limited to certain industries and specific locations,” Michael Edwards, a professor of sport management at North Carolina State University, told Al Jazeera.

“The NFL [National Football League] often uses the Super Bowl as a carrot to encourage cities to invest taxpayer money in new stadiums. You’re seeing that dynamic play out in places like Chicago and Cleveland, where officials are considering domed stadiums. Part of that push is almost certainly driven by the possibility of hosting a Super Bowl, which the league dangles as an incentive,” Edwards said.

Food spending

For those who can’t make it to the game itself, there is still a surge in Americans heading to bars and restaurants to watch the game or spending money throwing a watch party.

The National Retail Federation, which has been tracking Super Bowl spending for the last decade, expects that Americans will spend a record $20.2bn, or $94.77 per person, on the big game with 79 percent of that on food.

Spending has skyrocketed since 2021 when consumers spent $13.9bn, or $74.55 per person. However, that dropped from $17.2bn in 2020 when the Super Bowl happened about a month before the COVID-19 lockdowns in the US began.

For those hosting a Super Bowl watch party at home, it will cost more than last year to stock up on the quintessential game-day foods. Wells Fargo estimates that hosting 10 people will cost about $140 per person, up from $138 last year.

Chicken wings, a staple for football fans, are a bright spot for wallets; prices are down 2.8 percent compared with this time last year. Potato chip prices are flat, but dips like salsa have jumped 1.7 percent.

Healthier options are getting more expensive as well for those opting for a veggie platter. Cherry tomatoes are up 2 percent, celery has risen 2.6 percent, and both broccoli and cauliflower are up 4 percent. Beer prices are also climbing, up 1.3 percent from a year ago.

Advertising hits records

The Super Bowl is airing on NBC with the network getting a boost in advertising spending for the big game. NBC sold out of advertising spots for the Super Bowl in September for a record $10m on average for a 30-second spot – up from $8m on average last year when the games aired on Fox.

NBC also benefits from a collection of sporting events all taking part in February that drive up advertising revenue, including from the Winter Olympics. The opening ceremony is on Friday and will run until February 22. NBC has exclusive broadcasting rights for the Olympics in the US.

“With the resurgence of the Olympic movement, our strongest Sports Upfront in history, the early sell-out of Super Bowl LX, and the remarkable return of the NBA, NBCUniversal has solidified itself as a sports powerhouse, and brands have taken notice,” Mark Marshall, chairman of NBCUniversal’s global advertising and partnerships, said in a release.

The last time the games were in the same year, back in 2024, the two events were the most-watched events on linear television.

On Wall Street, the looming sporting events set to air on NBC have sent parent company Comcast’s stock surging up more than 4 percent over the past five days.

Until January 3, Maduro & Co. managed to construct a form of “normalcy” that was business-friendly enough to attract foreign capital, drawn in by the Special Economic Zones and by the marriage between the bolibourgeoisie and national capital that survived economic collapse in the 2010s. Chevron and other major international companies accepted doing business in Venezuela because Maduro’s illegitimacy did not prevent them from projecting returns in the short, medium, and long term. Maduro could offer this normalcy at the cost of violence and a “gentleman’s agreement”. Still, only the companies that feel sufficiently secure in what remains a high-risk bet under these conditions ultimately enter the country.

Part of this arrangement involved negotiating a degree of sanctions relief with the United States, expressed most clearly through the license granted to Chevron. Now, with Maduro effectively sidelined and Delcy Rodríguez—architect of Maduro’s economic reform—holding power, the US seeks to open and deepen its investments. On January 9, Trump met with executives from major oil companies and urged them to make large-scale investments in Venezuelan projects. Several executives replied that, under current conditions, Venezuela could not be considered a safe destination for their firms. They see no real guarantees of stability or long-term predictability in the existing economic rules of the game, because this normalcy continues to rest on the arbitrariness of the National Executive, the use of violence, and political whims. Today, power may align itself with Washington. Tomorrow, it could attempt an anti-imperialist rupture.

The supposedly “moderate” Delcy is still far from consolidated vis-à-vis anti-imperialist power brokers, such as those embodied by Diosdado Cabello or senior FANB officers. The US openly acknowledges this, signaling that it continues to keep an eye on these actors—hinting at the possibility of a second attack or leaking to the press its intention to have the CIA permanently stationed in Venezuela. Delcy, for her part, appears to be trying to neutralize the most hardline anti-imperialist sectors. She strives to maintain a hostile rhetoric—that Trump and Rubio don’t seem to care about—that does not match her actions.

However, no new law can erase the reality that, at the core of all policy, lies the arbitrary decision-making power of whoever holds authority.

Trump understands the reasons behind the reluctance of large-scale capital, which is indispensable to consolidating Washington’s new role as the steward of Venezuela’s future. He seeks to reassure investors that they are not negotiating with the Venezuelan State, but with the US government itself, and that it is his word (not Delcy’s) that underwrites these agreements. Yet Trump’s own arbitrariness, his erratic and unpredictable governing style, also adds another layer of risk to the level of investment he is demanding from these companies.

The reform of the Organic Hydrocarbons Law signals that the new regime is willing to accept whatever demands are necessary to make investments feel safe and profitable, stabilizing a legal framework meant to introduce a degree of predictability into the new normalcy Delcy is attempting to rebuild. However, no new law can erase the reality that, at the core of all policy, lies the arbitrary decision-making power of whoever holds authority. As a result, the risk never truly disappears: what is law today may cease to be so tomorrow.

What the new economy could look like

Most likely, securing terms acceptable to US capital is requiring Delcy to offer increased profit margins accompanied by special legal guarantees. It will also require a shift in how the subordination of workers to this new national economic agreement is managed. If Delcy’s trend toward rehabilitating the image of the National State includes releasing political prisoners, it may also reflect an acknowledgment that sustaining normalcy through the exploitation and repression of Venezuelan workers is no longer viable.

This possibility surfaced in her January 15 address to the National Assembly, when she proposed creating two sovereign funds financed by the foreign currency generated by the new oil arrangement. One fund would be devoted to “social protection,” aimed at improving workers’ incomes through unspecified mechanisms (salary increases or bonuses?) and strengthening health, education, food provision, and housing. The other would focus on rebuilding infrastructure and public services. This latter proposal aligns closely with Trump’s vision, which presented US capital with an arrangement centered on restoring national infrastructure to support oil operations.

Major international oil companies can extract profits without living in the country, but Venezuelan companies cannot. For them, the transition to democracy must also become a necessity.

If these plans materialize under US supervision, we could anticipate an increase in economic activity. More consumption and a greater supply of US imports, particularly since Trump (and hinted by Rubio on Wednesday) has already conditioned payment for Venezuelan oil on the exclusive purchase of American products in equivalent amounts.

It is difficult to predict how the population would react. After the Guaidó interim presidency failed to oust Maduro, Venezuelans increasingly abandoned aspirations for political change, retreating instead into private life or into their economic activities as workers or small entrepreneurs, seeking some form of long-term personal and family stability, along with sufficient margins of consumption to make life in Venezuela bearable. If the economic scenario were to change radically, would the population accept the continuation of chavismo without demanding guarantees of democratic processes in the medium or long term, so long as a new era of prosperity and consumption is secured?

Challenges for democratic politics

María Corina Machado and the opposition face a stark problem: the transition could unfold without them. A transition negotiated exclusively between the US and the ruling Rodríguez faction risks sidelining essential demands for building a healthy democracy—such as the unconditional release of all political prisoners, transitional justice processes, the dismantling of repressive forces, environmental protection in southern Venezuela, the reconstruction of democratic participation mechanisms, and the achievement of genuinely free and effective elections.

Democratic forces risk seeing citizens accept the abandonment of these demands in exchange for renewed economic prosperity, without recognizing that, in the medium and long term, these very demands are the only ones capable of guaranteeing that economic recovery and social liberalization can endure beyond the whims of the National Executive.

Rather than immediately confronting the National State, democratic demands for freedom, memory, truth, and justice should be brought into the very circuits of consumption that the PSUV has built.

Democratic actors could prevent a transition from moving forward without them by restoring, through the comanditos, a strategy of regular and sustained mobilization around an initial demand that doesn’t represent an existential threat for PSUV. The demand for the release of political prisoners is crucial here. As seen in the exchange between student leaders from the Universidad Central (UCV) and Delcy Rodríguez, this demand unexpectedly opened space for a form of dialogue, however imperfect it was.

For Delcy’s new normalcy to function, it requires forgetting and a citizenry able to consume freely without the guilt that comes from acknowledging that this new enjoyment is built upon the acceptance of impunity. A democratic political strategy must therefore aim to generate discomfort and prevent oblivion.

Following this logic, protests should innovate. Rather than immediately confronting the National State, democratic demands for freedom, memory, truth, and justice should be brought into the very circuits of consumption that the PSUV has built to benefit national capital, the bolibourgeoisie, small business owners, and resigned or apathetic workers. This means unsettling not only the political actors at the helm of this transition process, but also their economic counterparts. Major international oil companies can extract profits without living in the country, but Venezuelan companies cannot. For them, the transition to democracy must also become a necessity.

If not out of fear of the costs of authoritarianism, then their necessity should be driven by the high social price of failing to promote the national democratic reconstruction.