Economy

Elon Musk has claimed a turnaround in Tesla sales after a slump even as Starlink, the internet service provider that he owns, is growing.

Elon Musk has said he is committed to staying on as Tesla’s CEO for at least another five years, weeks after the electric vehicle maker’s chair dismissed reports that the board had approached executive search firms about finding his successor.

Having reasonable control of Tesla was the most important factor in staying on as head of the company, Musk said on Tuesday at an economic forum in Qatar.

“Yes, no doubt about that at all,” Musk said in response to a question on whether he planned to stick around as Tesla CEO.

Earlier this month, Tesla chair Robyn Denholm denied a Wall Street Journal report that said board members had reached out to several executive search firms to find a replacement for Musk.

Musk, who spoke by video at the event in Qatar, said that Tesla had already turned around sales and demand was strong in regions apart from Europe, where the company has faced protests over his political views.

Tesla sales have also slumped in the United States, where there was a nine percent drop in the first three months of 2025, according to the research firm Cox Automotive. That was largely driven by Musk’s political involvement, including leading the US Department of Government Efficiency, which made significant cuts across the federal workforce. As a result, protests ensued and boycotts of Musk-connected businesses unfolded.

Tesla reported a 13 percent drop in first-quarter deliveries. The Tesla chief has said there has been a turnaround.

“We’re now back over a trillion dollars in market cap, so clearly, the market is aware of the situation, so it’s already turned around,” Musk said.

Tesla currently has a market capitalization of $1.08 trillion.

Musk also referred to Chancellor Kathaleen St Jude McCormick, a Delaware judge who stopped a $56bn pay package for Musk, as an “activist who is cosplaying a judge in a Halloween costume”.

Yet he acknowledged his Tesla pay was a part of his consideration about staying with the carmaker, though he also wanted “sufficient voting control” so he “cannot be ousted by activist investors”.

“It’s not a money thing, it’s a reasonable control thing over the future of the company, especially if we’re building millions, potentially billions of humanoid robots,” he added.

This comes as the billionaire said he will spend “a lot less” in political contributions, after pumping $270m into Donald Trump’s successful 2024 US presidential bid.

“In terms of political spending, I’m going to do a lot less in the future,” Musk said, adding that he does not “currently see a reason” to do more.

As of 11am Eastern time (15:00 GMT) Tesla’s stock was up 1.13 percent higher than when the market opened. The stock is down 15 percent for the year.

Starlink grows

Musk also weighed in on the future of the internet service provider Starlink, which he operates. He said that the company might go public at some point in the future, but that there was no rush.

Starlink has expanded rapidly worldwide to operate in more than 70 countries, with a strong focus on further growth in emerging markets such as India.

South Africa’s government plans to offer a workaround of local Black ownership laws to allow Starlink to operate in the country, according to the news agency Bloomberg, which cited three people familiar with the discussions.

The offer would come at a “last-minute” meeting planned for Tuesday night between South African officials and Musk or his representatives, Bloomberg said. South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa and a delegation of government officials arrived in Washington on Monday in a bid to reset strained ties with the US.

Public spending cuts across six African countries have resulted in the incomes of health and education workers falling by up to 50 percent in five years, leaving them struggling to make ends meet, according to international NGO ActionAid.

The Human Cost of Public Sector Cuts in Africa report published on Tuesday found that 97 percent of the healthcare workers it surveyed in Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi and Nigeria could not cover their basic needs like food and rent with their wages.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is to blame for these countries’ failing public systems, the report said, as the agency advises governments to significantly cut public spending to pay back foreign debt. As the debt crisis rapidly worsens across the Global South, more than three-quarters of all low-income countries in the world are spending more on debt servicing than healthcare.

“The debt crisis and the IMF’s insistence on cuts to public services in favour of foreign debt repayments have severely hindered investments in healthcare and education across Africa. For example, in 2024, Nigeria allocated only 4% of its national revenue to health, while a staggering 20.1% went toward repaying foreign debt,” said ActionAid Nigeria’s Country Director Andrew Mamedu.

The report highlighted how insufficient budgets in the healthcare system had resulted in chronic shortages and a decline in the quality of service.

Women also appear to be disproportionally affected.

“In the past month, I have witnessed four women giving birth at home due to unaffordable hospital fees. The community is forced to seek vaccines and immunisation in private hospitals since they are not available in public hospitals. Our [local] health services are limited in terms of catering for pregnant and lactating women,” said a healthcare worker from Kenya, who  ActionAid identified only as Maria.

Medicines for malaria – which remains a leading cause of death across the African continent, especially in young children and pregnant women – are now 10 times more expensive at private facilities, the NGO said. Millions don’t have access to lifesaving healthcare due to long travel distances, rising fees and a medical workforce shortage.

“Malaria is an epidemic in our area [because medication is now beyond the reach of many]. Five years ago, we could buy [antimalarial medication] for 50 birrs ($0.4), but now it costs more than 500 birr ($4) in private health centres,” a community member from Muyakela Kebele in Ethiopia, identified only as Marym, told ActionAid.

‘Delivering quality education is nearly impossible’

The situation is equally dire in education, as budget cuts have led to failing public education systems crippled by rising costs, a shortage of learning materials and overcrowded classrooms.

Teachers report being overwhelmed by overcrowded classrooms, with some having to manage more than 200 students. In addition, about 87 percent of teachers said they lacked basic classroom materials, with 73 percent saying they paid for the materials themselves.

Meanwhile, teachers’ wages have been gradually falling, with 84 percent reporting a 10-15 percent drop in their income over the past five years.

“I often struggle to put enough food on the table,” said a teacher from Liberia, identified as Kasor.

Four of the six countries included in the report are spending less than the recommended one-fifth of their national budget on education, according to the UNESCO Institute for Statistics.

“I now believe teaching is the least valued profession. With over 200 students in my class and inadequate teaching and learning materials, delivering quality education is nearly impossible,” said a primary school teacher in Malawi’s Rumphi District, identified as Maluwa.

Action Aid said its report shows that the consequences of IMF-endorsed policies are far-reaching. Healthcare workers and educators are severely limited in the work they can do, which has direct consequences on the quality of services they can provide, it said.

“The debt crisis and drive for austerity is amplified for countries in the Global South and low-income countries, especially due to an unfair global economic system held in place by outdated institutions, such as the IMF,” said Roos Saalbrink, the global economic justice lead at ActionAid International. “This means the burden of debt falls on those most marginalised – once again. This must end.”

On Sunday, a key congressional committee in the United States approved President Donald Trump’s new tax cut bill, which could pass in the House of Representatives later this week.

The bill extends Trump’s 2017 tax cuts and may add up to $5 trillion to the national debt, deepening worries after a recent US credit ratings downgrade by Moody’s on Friday, which cited concerns about the nation’s growing $36 trillion debt.

The US has the highest amount of national debt in the world and is facing growing concerns about its long-term fiscal stability.

What is US debt?

Debt is simply the total amount of money the US government owes to its lenders, currently amounting to $36.2 trillion. This represents 122 percent of the country’s annual economic output or gross domestic product (GDP), and it is growing by about $1 trillion every three months.

The highest debt-to-GDP ratio was during the pandemic in 2020, when the ratio hit 133 percent. The US is among the top 10 countries in the world with the highest debt-to-GDP ratio.

What is the debt ceiling, and why does it keep increasing?

When the government spends more money than it collects, it creates a deficit.

To cover this deficit, the government borrows more money. To ensure that borrowing is subject to legislative approval, the US Congress sets a limit to how much the government can borrow to fund existing obligations like Social Security, healthcare and defence. This limit is known as the debt ceiling.

Once the ceiling is reached, the government cannot borrow more unless Congress raises or suspends the limit. Since 1960, Congress has raised, suspended or changed the terms of the debt ceiling 78 times, allowing the US to borrow more money.

The federal deficit under different presidents

The federal deficit is how much more money the government spends than it brings in during a single year. A federal surplus would mean the US is bringing in more money than it is spending.

The deficit grew sharply during Trump’s first term, especially in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the government spent heavily while tax revenues dropped due to job losses. That year, the deficit reached nearly 15 percent of the entire economy (GDP).

Under former President Bill Clinton, there was a federal surplus – the result of favourable economic conditions such as the dot-com boom, as well as tax increases which raised more revenues.

What are Treasury bills, notes and bonds?

When the US wants to borrow money, it turns to the Treasury – the finance department of the federal government.

To borrow money, the Treasury sells various types of debt securities, such as Treasury bills, Treasury notes and Treasury bonds to investors.

These securities are essentially loans made by investors to the US government, with a promise to repay them with interest.

US Treasuries have long been considered a safe asset because the risk of the US failing to repay its investors has been very low.

Different debt securities mature over different times – this is when the debt is repaid to the investor.

• Treasury bills (T-bills) are short-term and mature within one year
• Treasury notes (T-notes) are medium-term and mature between 2 and 10 years
• Treasury bonds (T-bonds) are long-term and mature in 20 to 30 years.

Who holds US debt?

Three-quarters of the $36.2 trillion US debt, approximately $27.2 trillion, is held domestically, of which:

• $15.16 trillion (42 percent) is held by US private investors and entities, mostly in the form of savings bonds, mutual funds and pension funds.
• $7.36 trillion (20 percent) is held by intra-governmental US agencies and trusts.
• $4.63 trillion (13 percent) is held by the Federal Reserve.

Among individuals, Warren Buffett, through his company Berkshire Hathaway, is the single largest non-government holder of US Treasury bills, valued at $314bn.

Foreign investors hold the remaining quarter, valued at $9.05 trillion (25 percent).

Over the past 50 years, the share of US debt held by foreign entities has increased fivefold. In 1970, only 5 percent was owned by overseas investors; today, that figure has risen to 25 percent.

Which countries hold the most foreign debt?

Countries buy US debt because it offers a safe, stable investment for their foreign currency reserves, helps manage exchange rates and provides reliable interest income.

Foreign investors hold $9.05 trillion of debt, of which:

• Japan holds $1.13 trillion
• The United Kingdom holds $779.3bn, overtaking China in March as the second-largest non-US holder of treasuries
• China holds $765.4bn
• The Cayman Islands ($455.3bn) holds a large amount of US debt because it is a tax haven
• Canada ($426.2bn)

In response to Trump’s tariffs, both Japan and China have indicated they will use their substantial holdings of US treasuries as leverage in trade negotiations with the Trump administration.

Earlier this month, Japanese Finance Minister Katsunobu Kato said Japan’s massive holding of US treasuries could be a “card on the table” in trade negotiations.

Similarly, China has been gradually selling US treasuries for years. In February, China’s US treasury holdings dropped to their lowest level since 2009, reflecting efforts to diversify reserves and ongoing trade tensions.

What does high US debt mean for the average American?

If the US government is spending more on debt interest repayments, it can affect budgets and public spending as it becomes more costly for the government to sustain itself.

The government may raise taxes to generate more revenue to pay down its national debt, increasing costs for average people. Increasing debt could also lead to higher interest rates, making mortgages, car loans and credit card debt more expensive.

Sale of genetic testing company raises concerns about privacy of 23andMe’s 15 million customers.

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals has bought the genetic testing company 23andMe, a company once valued at $6bn, for $256m through a bankruptcy auction.

Regeneron said in a statement on Monday that it aims to bolster its capabilities in genomics-driven drug discovery by using customer DNA profiles, collected via its popular direct-to-consumer saliva testing kits.

It added it would prioritise the ethical use of customers’ DNA data.

However, the transaction has put the spotlight back on data privacy issues, especially in light of 23andMe’s recent challenges. Founded in 2006, 23andMe has collected the genetic information of roughly 15 million people.

The genomics firm, once a trailblazer in ancestry DNA testing, has faced dwindling demand for its core services and reputational damage from a 2023 data breach that exposed sensitive genetic and personal information of millions of users.

The hack and subsequent bankruptcy filing have drawn scrutiny from lawmakers who warned that millions of customers’ genetic data could be sold to unscrupulous buyers.

After the company’s bankruptcy filing in March, several congressional committees and federal agencies, including the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and  the Federal Trade Commission, penned letters voicing concerns  that the company’s data could end up in the hands of malicious parties.

The Subcommittee on Oversight and Accountability in the House of Representatives launched an investigation into the matter.

Acknowledging the heightened scrutiny, Regeneron said it will uphold 23andMe’s existing privacy policies and comply with all applicable data protection laws.

The drugmaker also committed to working transparently with a court-appointed independent overseer who will assess the implications of the deal for consumer privacy and is expected to deliver a report to the court by June 10.

The court is scheduled to consider approval of the transaction on June 17.

Investments in genomics “make good strategic sense” for Regeneron but might take a decade or more to see a return, Bernstein analyst William Pickering told the news agency Reuters.

“Given Regeneron’s track record, we also believe 23andMe customers are in good hands from a privacy perspective,” Pickering added.

As part of the agreement, Regeneron will acquire all units of 23andMe except the company’s on-demand telehealth service Lemonaid Health, which is being shuttered.

After the transaction, expected to be completed in the third quarter, 23andMe will operate as a wholly owned unit of Regeneron.

Despite the news of the purchase, Regeneron’s stock was down 0.6 percent from the market open on Wall Street as of 12pm in New York (16:00 GMT) although it had gone up 2.86 percent over the previous five days.

Despite slowdown, data points to reliance of Chinese economy in the face of Donald Trump’s tariffs.

China’s industrial output and retail sales growth have slowed amid trade tensions with the United States.

Factory output grew 6.1 percent year-on-year in April, down from a 7.7 percent rise in March, data released by China’s National Bureau of Statistics showed on Monday.

While down compared with the previous month, the figure beat analysts’ expectations.

Analysts polled by the Reuters and Bloomberg news agencies had respectively forecast growth of 5.5 percent and 5.7 percent.

Retail sales grew 5.1 percent year-on-year, slower than the 5.9 percent growth recorded in March and below analysts’ forecasts.

Fixed-asset investment, which includes property and infrastructure investment, rose 4 percent.

Unemployment fell slightly, from 5.2 percent to 5.1 percent.

The latest data is likely to bolster hopes of China’s economy remaining resilient in the face of US President Donald Trump’s tariffs, after gross domestic product expanded a better-than-expected 5.4 percent in the January-March period.

The National Bureau of Statistics said the economy maintained “new and positive development momentum” due to Beijing’s economic policies, despite the “increasing impact of external shocks”.

“However, we should be aware that there are still many unstable and uncertain factors in external environment, and the foundation for sustained economic recovery needs to be further consolidated,” the statistics agency said in a statement.

The economic figures are the first to be released since Washington and Beijing last week agreed to dramatically reduce tariffs on each other’s goods for 90 days.

Under the deal reached in Geneva, the US lowered its tariff on Chinese goods from 145 percent to 30 percent, while China slashed its rate from 125 percent to 10 percent.

“The risk is that tariffs remain in place for a long time, and eventually, we see production offshored,” Lynn Song, chief economist for Greater China at ING, said in a note on Monday.

“But amid tariff unpredictability, not just for China but across the world, few companies will be rushing to commit resources to set up offshore manufacturing facilities. This could mean that a decent portion of China’s manufacturing and exports will be less impacted than originally feared.”

Nonpartisan analysts say bill would add $3-5tn to the nation’s $36.2tn debt over the next decade.

United States President Donald Trump’s sweeping tax-cut bill has won approval from a key congressional committee to advance towards possible passage in the House of Representatives later this week.

The rare Sunday night vote marks a big win for Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson, after hardline Republican conservatives on Friday blocked the bill from clearing the House Budget Committee over a dispute involving spending cuts to the Medicaid healthcare programme for lower-income Americans and the repeal of green energy tax credits.

Four hardline members of the committee’s 21 Republicans allowed the legislation to advance by voting “present”. The bill passed in a 17-16 vote, with all Democrats voting against it.

The hardliners had spent much of the day in closed-door negotiations with House Republican leaders and White House officials.

Johnson met with Republican lawmakers shortly before the meeting, telling reporters that the changes agreed to were “just some minor modifications. Not a huge thing.”

Republican House Budget Chairman Jodey Arrington said he expects deliberations to continue on into the week, “right up until the time we put this big, beautiful bill before the House”.

Nonpartisan analysts say the bill, which would extend the 2017 tax cuts that were Trump’s signature first-term legislative win, would add $3 trillion to $5 trillion to the $36.2 trillion national debt over the next decade.

Credit ratings agency Moody’s cited the rising debt, which it said was on track to reach 134 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2035, for its decision on Friday to downgrade the US’s credit rating.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in an interview with CNN on Sunday that the bill would spur economic growth sufficient to offset any growth in the debt, adding that he did not put much credence in Moody’s downgrade.

Economic experts have warned that the downgrade – following previous downgrades by Fitch Ratings and S&P – is a clear sign that the US has too much debt and lawmakers need to either increase revenues or spend less.

Trump’s Republicans hold a 220-213 majority in the House, and are divided over how deeply to slash spending to offset the cost of the tax cuts.

Hardliners want cuts to Medicaid, which some Republican senators have pushed back against, saying it would hurt the very voters who elected Trump in November, and whose support they will need in 2026 when control of Congress is again up for grabs.

The bill’s cuts would kick 8.6 million people off Medicaid.

It also aims to eliminate taxes on tips and some overtime income – both Trump campaign promises – while boosting defence spending and providing more funds for Trump’s border crackdown.

Democratic US Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut said the credit rating cut spelled trouble for Americans.

“That is a big deal. That means that we are likely headed for a recession,” Murphy told NBC’s Meet the Press.

“These guys are running the economy recklessly.”

On May 12, the United States and China announced that they are putting reciprocal tariffs on pause for 90 days. Some tariffs will be retained while trade negotiations continue, a joint statement said.

This is yet another reversal of the sweeping tariffs US President Donald Trump imposed in early April that destabilised the global economy and sent stock markets into freefall.

Although he claimed that his measures would make the US economy “boom”, it was clear from the start that they would not work. A trade war cannot improve the lot of American workers, nor bring back manufacturing into the country.

Now spooked by corporations slashing profit targets and reports of the US gross domestic product (GDP) shrinking, the Trump administration appears to be walking back on its strategy. But going back to economic liberalism under the guise of “stability” is not the right course of action.

The current global economic system, distorted by policies favouring the rich sustained over decades, has proven itself to be unsustainable. That is why we need a new world economic order that promotes inclusive and sustainable development across both the Global North and South and addresses global socioeconomic challenges.

The crisis of liberal globalisation

The troubles that economies around the world currently face are the result of policies the elites of the Global North imposed over the past 80 years.

In its original Keynesian vision, the economic order put forward by the Allied Powers after World War II aimed to combine trade, labour, and development best practices to foster inclusive growth. However, over the following few decades, corporate opposition in the US and Britain derailed this order, replacing it with a skewed system centred around the Global North’s chief economic instruments, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, both created in 1944.

In the 1970s, economic elites blamed rising inflation and stagnation not on temporary shocks like the oil crisis but on what they saw as excessive concessions to organised labour: government overspending, strong unions, and heavy regulation. Subsequently, they launched an institutional counter-revolution against the Keynesian model of power sharing and social compromise.

This counter-revolution took shape in the 1980s under US President Ronald Reagan and UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who aggressively pursued policies to restore corporate profitability. They slashed taxes on the wealthy, liberalised international capital flows that made it easier to relocate production to low-cost economies, deregulated the financial sector, weakened labour unions, and privatised public services. As a result, outsourcing of labour, tax evasion, real estate speculation, financialisation, and credit-fuelled bubbles became US corporations’ dominant ways of making profit.

In developing countries, the IMF, the World Bank and regional development banks pushed governments to cut public spending, privatise state-owned enterprises, remove trade barriers, and deregulate markets rapidly and with little regard for social consequences.

As a result, the 1980s and 90s became lost decades for many countries embracing globalisation through radical liberalisation. These policies triggered massive employment shocks, rising inequalities, skyrocketing debt and persistent financial turbulence from Mexico to Russia.

East Asian economies were the exceptions, as they learned to circumvent the straitjacket of liberal globalisation and joined the global economy on their own terms.

The biggest beneficiaries of this system were Western economic elites, as corporations profited from low-cost production abroad and domestic deregulation at home. The same cannot be said for Western workers, who faced stagnating real wages, eroded labour protections, and increasing economic insecurity under the pressure of competitiveness, relocation, and automation.

Illiberal economic policy is doomed to fail

For those of us who studied the post-war economic order, it was apparent that without correcting the pitfalls of liberal globalism, a nationalist, illiberal counter-revolution was coming. We saw its signs early on in Europe, where illiberal populists rose to prominence, gaining a foothold first in the periphery and then gradually scaling up to become Europe’s most disruptive force.

In the countries where they gained power, they pursued policies superficially resembling developmentalism. Yet, instead of achieving genuine structural transformation, they fostered oligarchies dominated by politically connected elites. Instead of development, they delivered rent-seeking and resource extraction without boosting productivity or innovation.

Trump’s economic policies follow a similar path of economic populism and nationalistic rhetoric. Just like illiberal economic policies failed in Europe, his tariffs were never going to magically reindustrialise the US or end working-class suffering.

If anything, tariffs – or now the threat of imposing them – will accelerate China’s competitive edge by pushing it to deepen domestic supply chains, foster regional cooperation, and reduce reliance on Western markets. In the US, the illiberal response will drag labour standards down, eroding real wages through inflation and propping up elites with artificial protections.

Furthermore, Trump has no real industrial policy, which renders his reactive trade measures completely ineffective. A genuine industrial policy would coordinate public investment, support targeted sectors, enforce labour standards, and channel technological change towards good jobs.

His predecessor, President Joe Biden, laid the foundations of such an industrial policy agenda in the Inflation Reduction and CHIPS acts. However, these programmes are now under attack from the Trump administration, and their remaining vestiges will not have a meaningful effect.

Without these pillars, workers are left exposed to economic shocks and excluded from the gains of growth, while the rhetoric of reindustrialisation becomes little more than a political performance.

The way forward

While Trump’s economic policies are unlikely to work, returning to economic liberalism will not resolve socioeconomic grievances either. Let us remember that past efforts to maintain this deeply flawed system at any cost backfired.

Following the 2008 global financial crisis, Western governments rescued big banks and allowed financial markets to return to business as usual. Meaningful reforms of the global economic architecture never materialised. Meanwhile, the living standards of working- and middle-class families from Germany to the US stagnated or declined as wages flatlined, housing prices soared, and economic insecurity deepened.

We cannot return to this dysfunction again. We need a new global economic order focused on multilateral governance, ecological sustainability, and human-centric development. Such progressive global multilateralism would mean governments coordinating not only on taxing multinational corporations and curbing tax havens but also on regulating capital flows, setting minimum labour and environmental standards, sharing green technologies, and jointly financing global public goods.

In this new economic order, the institutions of global economic governance would make space for developing and emerging countries to implement industrial policies and build stronger ties with public finance bodies to mobilise patient, sustainable capital. This cooperative approach would offer a practical alternative to liberal globalism by promoting accountable public investment and development-focused financial collaboration.

Parallel to the eco-social developmentalism in emerging economies, wealthy nations need to embrace a post-growth model gradually. This strategy prioritises wellbeing, ecological stability, and social equity over endless GDP expansion.

This means investing in care work, green infrastructure, and public services rather than chasing short-term profits or extractive growth. For mature economies, the goal should be shifting from growing more to distributing better and living within planetary limits. This would also allow more space for low- and middle-income countries to improve their living standards without overexploiting our limited shared natural resources.

With stronger cooperation between national and multilateral public finance institutions and better tools to tax and regulate corporations, governments could regain the capacity to create stable, well-paying jobs, strengthen organised labour, and tackle inequalities. This is the only way for American workers to regain the quality of life they aspire to.

Such progressive multilateralism would be a powerful long-term antidote against illiberal populism. Achieving this shift, however, requires building robust global and regional political coalitions to challenge entrenched corporate interests and counterbalance the existing liberal, capital-driven global framework.

The challenge is clear: not only to critique Trump’s destructive policies but to present a bold, coherent vision of industrial renewal, ecological sustainability, and global justice. The coming months will show whether anyone is prepared to lead that transformation.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

The proposed merger, which would create the largest cable provider in the US, could face antitrust hurdles.

Charter Communications has agreed to buy its rival Cox Communications for $21.9bn in a deal that would unite the two of the largest cable and broadband operators in the United States as they battle streaming giants and mobile carriers for customers.

The deal, announced on Friday, comes more than a decade after the companies reportedly abandoned an earlier merger attempt. Since then, pressure has intensified on cable companies, with wireless carriers attracting broadband customers with aggressive plans, while millions ditch traditional pay-TV for streaming.

The companies said they expect to realise $500m in cost savings within three years of the deal’s expected close in mid-2026.

Under the cash-and-stock deal, Charter will take on about $12.6bn of Cox’s net debt and other obligations, giving the transaction an enterprise value of $34.5bn.

Cox Enterprises, the family-owned parent of Cox Communications, will own about 23 percent of the merged entity, with its CEO Alex Taylor serving as chairman.

The combined firm will rebrand as Cox Communications within a year of the deal’s close, with Charter’s Spectrum being the consumer-facing brand. It will keep its headquarters in Stamford, Connecticut, while maintaining a big presence at Cox’s campus in Atlanta, Georgia.

The merger with Cox – one of the biggest deals globally this year – will aid Charter’s push to bundle broadband and mobile services, helping it fend off competition from carriers.

Analysts have said Charter’s strategy of combining internet, TV and mobile services into a single, customizable package has shown merit, but it needs scale as cable firms rely on leasing network access from major carriers to offer mobile plans.

“This combination will augment our ability to innovate and provide high-quality, competitively priced products,” said Charter CEO Chris Winfrey, who will head the combined company.

The Spectrum-owner has a market value of nearly $60bn.

On Wall Street, Charter’s stock rose on the news of the potential merger. As of 12:00pm ET (16:00 GMT) the stock is up 1.66 percent since the market opened.

Antitrust concerns 

The merger will be among the first major tests of M&A regulation under the administration of US President Donald Trump, as it would create the largest US cable TV and broadband provider with about 38 million subscribers, surpassing current market leader Comcast.

It will likely be reviewed by the US Department of Justice’s antitrust division. Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater, who leads the division, has made it clear she intends to focus on mergers that decrease competition in ways that harm consumers or workers.

EMarketer analyst Ross Benes said the merged entity would be the largest US pay-TV operator, but the “ISP (internet service provider) side of the business is more consequential” for consumers, potentially positioning it as a regional monopoly.

Winfrey echoed Trump’s “America First” employment priorities and said the deal would bring Cox’s customer service jobs back from overseas, but he did not specify how many. Charter’s customer service teams are already based entirely in the US.

“This is the first big corporate move (in the same sector) to happen under the new Trump administration so … will set the tone for other potential moves or not,” said PP Foresight analyst Paolo Pescatore.

Charter and Cox had also discussed a merger in 2013 before shelving the plan, according to media reports. But speculation had risen again in recent months after cable billionaire John Malone said in November Charter should be allowed to merge with rivals such as Cox, shortly after Charter agreed to buy his Liberty Broadband.

Liberty Broadband shareholders will receive direct interest in Charter under the terms of the deal with Cox.

United States House Republicans’ “big, beautiful bill”, a wide-ranging tax and spending legislation, is at a crucial moment.

The nearly 400-page legislation proposes sweeping changes which include extending the 2017 tax cuts, slashing taxes for businesses and individuals, and enacting deep cuts to social programmes like Medicaid and SNAP.

While Republicans tout the bill as a boon for economic growth and middle-class relief, nonpartisan analysts warn it could add trillions to the national debt and strip millions of Americans of medical and food assistance.

The bill will be voted on by the House Budget Committee today and, if passed, will be voted on the floor next week.

The most substantive part of the bill is an extension of the 2017 tax cuts. The tax bill would add at least an additional $2.5 trillion to the national deficit over the next 10 years and decrease federal tax revenue by roughly $4 trillion by 2034.

Passing the legislation will also raise the debt ceiling, which sets the amount of money the government can borrow to pay for existing expenditures, by $4 trillion, a sticking point for hardline Republicans who want deeper cuts.

Here are some of the key measures in the proposed bill in its current form.

Changes for households

The bill increases standard deductions for all Americans. Individual deductions will increase by $1,000, $1,500 for heads of households, and $2,000 for married couples.

The bill extends the child tax credit of $2,000, which would otherwise have ended with the expiration of the 2017 tax cuts at year’s end.

It bumps up the child tax credit by $500 per child for this tax year and runs through the end of 2028. It also includes a $1,000 savings account for children born between December 31, 2024 and January 1, 2029. The legislation would also allow families to annually contribute $5,000 tax-free.

There is a new tax deduction for Americans 65 and older. The new bill would give a $4,000 annual deduction starting this year for people making a gross income of $75,000 for a single person and $150,000 for a married couple. If passed, the rule would take effect for the current tax year and run until the end of 2028.

“It will just make tax paying more complicated and more uncertain when a lot of these things ultimately expire,” Adam Michel, director of tax policy studies at the right-leaning Cato Institute, told Al Jazeera.

Another provision in the bill modifies state and local tax (SALT) deductions. It allows filers to be able to write off some of what they paid in local and state taxes from their federal filings.

Under the 2017 tax act, that was capped at $10,000, but the new legislation would raise that to $30,000. Some Republicans, particularly those in states with higher taxes like New York and California, have been pushing to raise the cap or abolish it altogether. However, they have faced fiscal hawks and those who see the increases as relief for those already wealthy.

The bill includes an increased benefit for small businesses that allows them to deduct 23 percent of their qualified business income from their taxes, up from the current 20 percent.

There is also a call for no taxes on overtime pay for select individuals. It would not apply to people who are non-citizens, those who are considered “highly compensated employees,” and those who earn a tipped wage.

The bill, however, also eliminates taxes on tips, a critical campaign promise by both Donald Trump and his Democratic rival Kamala Harris. The bill would allow people who work in sectors like food service, as well as hair care, nail care, aesthetics, and body and spa treatments, to specifically deduct the amount of tipped income they receive.

At the federal level, employers will still not be required to pay tipped workers more than the subminimum wage of $2.13 hourly. The intention is that workers will be able to make up the difference in tipping the receipt from customers.

Cuts to the social safety net

The legislation calls to make $880bn in cuts to key government programmes with a focus mostly on Medicaid and food stamps.

The CBO found that more than 10 million people could lose Medicaid access and 7.6 million could lose access to health insurance completely by 2034 under the current plan.

Even far-right Republicans have called out the Medicaid cuts. In an op-ed in The New York Times this week, Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri said the cuts are “morally wrong and politically suicidal”.

According to a new report from One Fair Wage shared with Al Jazeera, tipped workers could be hit especially hard, as 1.2 million restaurant and tipped workers could lose access to Medicaid.

“A no tax on tips proposal, which is like a minuscule percentage of their income and doesn’t affect two-thirds of tips workers because they don’t earn enough to pay federal income tax, is just nowhere near enough to compensate for the fact that we’re going to have millions of these workers lose the ability to take care of themselves, in some cases go into medical debt, in many cases just not take care of themselves,” Saru Jayaraman, president of One Fair Wage, an advocacy group for restaurant workers, told Al Jazeera.

The bill also introduces work requirements to receive benefits, saying that recipients must prove they work, volunteer or are enrolled in school for at least 80 hours each month.

At the same time, the bill also shortens the open enrolment period by a month for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), otherwise known as Obamacare. This means people who have employer-funded healthcare and lose their job might lose eligibility to buy a private plan on the healthcare exchange.

“It’s taking folks like 11 to 12 weeks to find a new job. The worse the labour market gets, that number will tick up. If you’re unemployed for three months, you get kicked off Medicaid,” Liz Pancotti, managing director of policy and advocacy at the Groundwork Collective, told Al Jazeera.

“Then, if you try to go buy a plan on the ACA marketplace, you are no longer eligible for subsidies … which I think is really cruel.”

Other major proposed cuts will hit programmes like Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programme or SNAP, which helps 42 million low-income individuals afford groceries and comes at a time when food costs are still 2 percent higher than a year ago. The CBO found that 3 million people could lose SNAP access under the new plan.

The bill would also force states to take up more responsibility in funding the programmes. States would be required to cover 75 percent of the administrative costs, and all states would have to pay at least 5 percent of the benefits — 28 states would need to pay 25 percent.

“States are now going to be on the hook for billions of dollars in funding for these two vital programmes. They have a tough choice. One is, do they cut funding from others like K-12 education, roads, veteran services, etc, to cover this gap, or do they raise taxes so that they can raise more revenue to cover this gap,” Pancotti added.

Under the current law, the federal government is solely responsible for shouldering the cost of benefits. The proposed cuts would save $300bn for the federal government but hit state budgets hard.

Bill fuels Trump administration priorities

The bill would also cut the $7,500 tax credit for new electric vehicle purchases and $4,000 for a used EV, a move which could hurt several major US automakers that are already reeling from the administration’s tariffs on automobiles.

General Motors pumped billions into domestic EV production in the last year, which has included a $900m investment to retrofit an existing plant to build electric vehicles in Michigan and alongside Samsung, the carmaker invested $3.5bn in EV battery manufacturing in the US.

In February, Ford CEO Jim Farley said that revoking the EV tax credit could put factory jobs on the chopping block. The carmaker invested in three EV battery plants in Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee. The federal government under the administration of former President Joe Biden paid out more than $2bn in EV tax credits in 2024.

The proposed legislation would also give the Trump administration authority to revoke the tax exempt status of nonprofit organisations that it deems as a “terrorist supporting organisation”. It would give the secretary of the treasury the ability to accuse any nonprofit of supporting “terrorism”, revoke their tax exempt status without allowing them due process to prove otherwise, which has raised serious concerns amongst critics.

“This measure’s real intent lurks behind its hyperbolic and unsubstantiated anti-terrorist rhetoric: It would allow the Treasury Department to explicitly target, harass and investigate thousands of U.S. organizations that make up civil society, including nonprofit newsrooms,” Jenna Ruddock, advocacy director of Free Press Action, said in a statement.

“The bill’s language lacks any meaningful safeguards against abuse. Instead it puts the burden of proof on organizations rather than on the government. It’s not hard to imagine how the Trump administration would use it to exact revenge on groups that have raised questions about or simply angered the president and other officials in his orbit.”

The bill would introduce new taxes on colleges, including a varying tax rate based on the size of a university’s endowment per student with the highest at 14 percent for universities with a per student endowment of more than $1.25m but less than $2m and 21 percent for those of $2m or more.

This comes amid the Trump administration’s increased tensions with higher education. In the last week, the Trump administration pulled $450m in grants to Harvard on top of the $2.2bn it pulled in April — a move which will hinder research into cancer and heart disease, among other areas. Harvard has an endowment of $53.2bn, making it one of the richest schools in the country.

The legislation would also increase funding for a border wall between the US and Mexico, which the administration has argued will help curb undocumented immigration. However, there is no evidence that such a wall has deterred border crossings.

A 2018 analysis from Stanford University found that a border wall would only curb migration by 0.6 percent, yet the bill would give more than $50bn to finish the border wall and maritime crossings. The bill would also provide $45bn for building and maintaining detention facilities and another $14bn for transport.

Saudi and Qatari payments settle Syria’s arrears, allowing World Bank and IMF to re-engage.

The World Bank says it will restart operations in Syria following a 14-year pause after the country cleared more than $15m of debt with financial backing from Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

The United States-based institution announced on Friday that Syria no longer has outstanding obligations to the International Development Association (IDA), its fund dedicated to low-income countries.

Earlier this week, Saudi Arabia and Qatar paid off Syria’s outstanding debts of approximately $15.5m, paving the way for renewed engagement with international financial bodies.

“We are pleased that the clearance of Syria’s arrears will allow the World Bank Group to reengage with the country and address the development needs of the Syrian people,” the bank said. “After years of conflict, Syria is on a path to recovery and development.”

The bank is now preparing its first project in Syria, which will focus on improving electricity access — a key pillar for revitalising essential services like healthcare, education, and water supply.

Officials said it marks the beginning of expanded support aimed at stabilising Syria and boosting long-term growth.

US to lift sanctions on Syria

The bank’s announcement coincides with a dramatic shift in US policy towards Damascus.

US President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that Washington would begin lifting sanctions imposed on Syria, including measures under the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act.

On Wednesday, Trump met Syria’s President Ahmed al-Sharaa on the sidelines of the GCC summit in Riyadh, marking a historic breakthrough in relations between the countries and the first such meeting between the two nations’ leaders in 25 years.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed that waivers would be issued, easing restrictions on entities previously penalised for dealings with the now former administration of Bashar al-Assad, which was toppled in December.

“Lifting sanctions on Syria represents a fundamental turning point,” Ibrahim Nafi Qushji, an economist and banking expert, told Al Jazeera. “The Syrian economy will transition from interacting with developing economies to integrating with more developed ones, potentially significantly reshaping trade and investment relations.”

The moves represent a significant moment in Syria’s reintegration into the global financial system after 13 years of civil war and isolation.

In April, a rare meeting was held in Washington involving officials from Syria, the IMF, the World Bank, and Saudi Arabia. A joint statement issued afterwards acknowledged the dire state of Syria’s economy and promised coordinated efforts to support its recovery.

The International Monetary Fund has since named its first mission chief to Syria in more than a decade. Ron van Rooden, previously involved with IMF operations in Ukraine, will lead the Fund’s renewed engagement.

Martin Muehleisen, a former IMF strategy chief, noted the urgency of providing technical assistance to rebuild Syria’s financial institutions. “Those efforts could be funded by donors and grants in-kind,” he told the news agency Reuters, adding that some support could begin within months.

Al-Assad was toppled after a lightning offensive by opposition fighters led by the Hay’et Tahrir al-Sham armed group last December.

Syria’s new government has sought to rebuild the country’s diplomatic ties, including with international financial institutions. It also counts on wealthy Gulf Arab states to play a pivotal role in financing the reconstruction of Syria’s war-ravaged infrastructure and reviving its economy.

The government, led by interim President al-Sharaa, also wants to transition away from the system that gave al-Assad loyalists privileged access to government contracts and kept key industries in the hands of the al-Assad family.

Moody’s cited rising debt, saying US had repeatedly failed to end the trend of large annual fiscal deficits and interest.

Moody’s Ratings has stripped the United States government of its top credit rating, citing successive governments’ failure to stop a rising tide of debt.

On Friday, Moody’s lowered the rating from a gold-standard Aaa to Aa1. “Successive US administrations and Congress have failed to agree on measures to reverse the trend of large annual fiscal deficits and growing interest costs,” it said as it changed its outlook on the US to “stable” from “negative”.

But, it added, the US “retains exceptional credit strengths such as the size, resilience and dynamism of its economy and the role of the US dollar as global reserve currency.”

Moody’s is the last of the three major rating agencies to lower the federal government’s credit rating. Standard & Poor’s downgraded federal debt in 2011, and Fitch Ratings followed in 2023.

In a statement, Moody’s said: “We expect federal deficits to widen, reaching nearly 9 percent of [the US economy] by 2035, up from 6.4 percent in 2024, driven mainly by increased interest payments on debt, rising entitlement spending, and relatively low revenue generation.’’

Extending President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, a priority of the Republican-controlled Congress, Moody’s said, would add $4 trillion over the next decade to the federal primary deficit, which does not include interest payments.

The White House adopted an aggressive tone towards Moody’s after the ratings agency downgraded the US credit rating.

White House communications director Steven Cheung reacted to the downgrade via a social media post, singling out Moody’s economist, Mark Zandi, for criticism. He called Zandi a political opponent of Trump.

“Nobody takes his ‘analysis’ seriously. He has been proven wrong time and time again,” Cheung said.

A gridlocked political system has been unable to tackle the huge deficits accumulated by the US. Republicans reject tax increases, and Democrats are reluctant to cut spending.

On Friday, House Republicans failed to push a big package of tax breaks and spending cuts through the Budget Committee. A small group of hard-right Republican lawmakers, insisting on steeper cuts to Medicaid and President Joe Biden’s green energy tax breaks, joined all Democrats in opposing it, a rare political setback for the Republican president.

Washington, DC – Three days, three countries, hundreds of billions of dollars in investments and a geopolitical shift in the United States’s approach to the region: Donald Trump’s trip to the Middle East has been eventful.

This week, the United States president visited Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates in the first planned trip of his second presidency, after attending Pope Francis’s funeral last month.

Trump was visibly gleeful throughout the trip as he secured investments, criticised domestic political rivals and heaped praise on Gulf leaders. The word “historic” was used more than a few times by US officials to describe the visits.

With Trump returning to the White House, here are five key takeaways from his trip:

A rebuke of interventionism

Addressing an investment summit in Riyadh, Trump promoted a realist approach to the Middle East — one in which the US does not intervene in the affairs of other countries.

He took a swipe at neoconservatives who oversaw the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as he lauded Gulf leaders for developing the region.

“This great transformation has not come from Western intervention or flying people in beautiful planes, giving you lectures on how to live and how to govern your own affairs,” he said.

“The gleaming marbles of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi were not created by the so-called nation-builders, neo-cons or liberal nonprofits like those who spent trillions and trillions of dollars failing to develop Kabul, Baghdad, so many other cities.”

Trump built his political brand with his “America First” slogan, calling for the US to focus on its own issues instead of helping — or bombing — foreign countries.

But his words at the investment summit marked a stern rebuke of the neo-cons who dominated Trump’s Republican Party a decade ago.

“In the end, the so-called nation-builders wrecked far more nations than they built, and the interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves,” Trump said.

Israel sidelined, but no Gaza solution

It is rare for US presidents to travel to the Middle East and not visit Israel, but Trump omitted the US ally from his itinerary as he toured the region.

Skipping Israel was seen as a reflection of the deteriorating ties between the US administration and the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

This week’s trip also came in the context of several moves perceived as evidence of the US marginalising Israel. The US has continued to hold talks with Israel’s rival Iran, announced a ceasefire with the Houthis in Yemen, and conducted unilateral negotiations to release Israeli soldier Edan Alexander, a US citizen, from Hamas captivity.

Moreover, while touring the Gulf, Trump did not use his remarks to prioritise the establishment of formal diplomatic ties between Saudi Arabia and Israel, which had been a top goal during his first term.

It remains unclear how Trump’s decisions will affect the “special relationship” between the two allies, but experts say it is becoming increasingly apparent that the US no longer views the Middle East solely through the lens of Israel.

“Is it a tactical problem for Netanyahu and the entire pro-Israel lobby? I think it is,” Khaled Elgindy, a visiting scholar at Georgetown University, said of Trump’s shift.

“It does throw a wrench in the machinery because it is a president who is showing openly daylight with Israeli decision-making, and not just in rhetoric, but acting on it — leaving Israel out of the process.”

With that chasm emerging, some Palestinian rights advocates had hoped that the US president’s trip to the region would see Washington pursue a deal to end Israel’s war on Gaza.

But as Trump marvelled at the luxurious buildings in the Gulf, Israel intensified its bombardment to destroy what’s left of the Palestinian territory.

No ceasefire was announced, despite reports of continuing talks in Doha. And Israel appears to be pushing forward with its plan to expand its assault on Gaza as it continues to block aid for the nearly two million people in the enclave, leading to fears of famine.

United Nations experts and rights groups have described the situation as a genocide.

But despite preaching “peace and prosperity” for both Israelis and Palestinians, Trump made no strong push to end the war during this week’s trip.

On Thursday, Trump suggested that he has not given up on the idea of depopulating Gaza and turning it over to the US — a proposal that legal experts say amounts to ethnic cleansing.

“I have concepts for Gaza that I think are very good. Make it a freedom zone,” he said. “Let the United States get involved, and make it just a freedom zone.”

Lifting Syria sanctions

In a move that surprised many observers, Trump announced from Riyadh that he will offer sanction relief to Syria, as the country emerges from a decade-plus civil war.

Trump also met with interim Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa and described him as a “young, attractive guy”.

A wholesale lifting of sanctions was not expected, in part because of Israel’s hostility to the new authorities in Syria. Israeli officials often describe al-Sharaa, who led al-Qaeda’s branch in Syria before severing ties with the group, as a “terrorist”.

But Trump said he made the decision to lift the economic penalties against Syria at the request of Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Turkiye’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

“I will be ordering the cessation of sanctions against Syria in order to give them a chance at greatness,” the US president said.

The White House said on Wednesday that Trump had a list of requests for al-Sharaa, including establishing diplomatic relations with Israel and deporting “Palestinian terrorists”.

Removing US sanctions, which had been imposed on the government of former President Bashar al-Assad, is likely to be a boost for the new Syrian authorities, who are grappling with an ailing economy after years of conflict.

“Lifting sanctions on Syria represents a fundamental turning point,” Ibrahim Nafi Qushji, an economist, told Al Jazeera.

“The Syrian economy will transition from interacting with developing economies to integrating with more developed ones, potentially significantly reshaping trade and investment relations.”

A carrot and a stick for Iran

In Saudi Arabia, Trump declared that he wants a deal with Iran — and he wants it done quickly.

“We really want them to be a successful country,” the US president said of Iran.

“We want them to be a wonderful, safe, great country, but they cannot have a nuclear weapon. This is an offer that will not last forever. The time is right now for them to choose.”

Trump warned Iran that, if it rejects his “olive branch”, he would impose a “massive maximum pressure” against Tehran and choke off its oil exports.

Notably, Trump did not threaten explicit military action against Iran, a departure from his previous rhetoric. In late March, for instance, he told NBC News, “If they don’t make a deal, there will be bombing.”

Iran says it is not seeking nuclear weapons and would welcome a stringent monitoring programme of its nuclear facilities.

But Israel and some hawks want the Iranian nuclear programme completely dismantled, not just scaled back.

US and Iranian officials have held multiple rounds of talks this year, but Tehran says it has not received an official offer from Washington. And Trump officials have not explicitly indicated what the endgame of the talks is.

US envoy Steve Witkoff said last month that Iran “must stop and eliminate” uranium enrichment, but days earlier, he had suggested that enrichment should be brought down to civilian energy levels.

Several Gulf countries, including the three that Trump visited this week, have welcomed the nuclear negotiations, as relations between Iran and its Arab neighbours have grown more stable in recent years.

Investments, investments and more investments

Before entering politics, Trump was a real estate mogul who played up his celebrity persona as a mega-rich dealmaker. He appears to have brought that business mindset to the White House.

While in the wealthy Gulf region, Trump was in his element. He announced deals that would see Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE buy US arms and invest in American firms. According to the White House, Trump secured a total of $2 trillion in investments from the Middle East during the trip.

And his administration is framing the deals as a major political and economic victory for Trump.

“While it took President Biden nearly four years to secure $1 trillion in investments, President Trump achieved this in his first month, with additional investment commitments continuing to roll in,” the White House said.

“President Trump is accelerating investment in America and securing fair trade deals around the world, paving the way for a new Golden Age of lasting prosperity for generations to come.”

The strike leaves hundreds of thousands of commuters in New Jersey and New York without rail access.

New Jersey’s commuter rail engineers are on strike after negotiations for higher wages failed to materialise, leaving trains idle for commuters in the third-largest transit system in the United States for the first time in more than 40 years.

The strike began on Friday after The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, which represents 450 NJ Transit engineers who drive the agency’s commuter trains and agency management, broke off talks late Thursday after an unsuccessful 15-hour bargaining session.

The labour clash came weeks after negotiators had agreed on a potential deal in March, but the union’s members voted overwhelmingly to reject it.

NJ Transit has said it cannot afford the pay rises that the engineers are seeking because 14 other unions that negotiate separate labour contracts with the agency would demand the same, higher wage rates for their members.

The union pushed back on the gripe and has said that “NJT claims it doesn’t have the money to pay engineers a salary in line with industry standards, but somehow found a half-billion dollars for a new and unnecessary headquarters.”

New Jersey Transit opened a new headquarters earlier this year.

The union has said it is simply aiming to raise the engineers’ salaries to match those at other commuter railroads in the region.

“They [rail engineers]  have gone without a raise for six years and have been seeking a new contract since October 2019,” the union said in a statement.

NJ Transit says the engineers currently make $135,000 on average and that management had offered a deal that would yield an average salary of $172,000. But the union has disputed those figures, saying the current average salary is actually $113,000.

The parties have exchanged accusations of bad-faith bargaining.

The strike means that hundreds of thousands of daily passengers in New Jersey and New York are without service. NJ Transit said its rail system began its shutdown at 12:01am local time Friday.

In a news conference, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy and NJ Transit’s Chief Executive Officer Kris Kolluri told reporters talks had paused but that management remained willing to resume negotiations at any time.

“We must reach a final deal that is both fair to employees and affordable,” Murphy, a Democrat, told reporters. “Let’s get back to the table and seal a deal.”

Murphy and Kolluri said the US National Mediation Board had reached out to both sides to propose reopening talks on Sunday morning, or sooner if the parties wished.

The union statement made no mention of when talks might be restarted. Protests began at several locations across the rail system, including NJ Transit’s headquarters in Newark, Penn Station in New York City, and the Atlantic City rail terminal.

The governor and the NJ Transit CEO also outlined contingency plans for dealing with the work stoppage, the first transit strike to hit New Jersey since a three-week walkout in 1983.

Workers urged to stay home

The looming strike had already prompted the agency to cancel trains and buses to MetLife Stadium for pop star Shakira’s concert last night and again for this evening.

In an advisory, NJ Transit encouraged commuters to work from home starting on Friday if possible.

The agency said it would increase bus services on existing lines and charter private buses to operate from several satellite lots in the event of a rail strike but warned buses would only be able to handle about 20 percent of rail customers.

Kolluri said last week that the union was “playing a game of chicken with the lives of 350,000 riders”.

“We have sought nothing more than equal pay for equal work, only to be continually rebuffed by New Jersey Transit,” Tom Haas, the union’s general chairman, said earlier this week.

Days earlier, Novo Nordisk cut its sales and profit forecast for first time since the launch of Wegovy four years ago.

Wegovy-maker Novo Nordisk has pushed out CEO Lars Fruergaard Jorgensen over concerns the company is losing its first-mover advantage in the highly competitive obesity drug market.

Novo Nordisk announced the decision on Friday.

Days earlier, Novo Nordisk cut its sales and profit forecast for the first time since the launch of Wegovy four years ago, though Jorgensen had predicted a return to growth in its biggest market in the second half of this year.

Novo’s chairman, Helge Lund, tried to reassure analysts and investors on a call that the company’s strategy was intact and the plan for executing it had not changed.

He told the Reuters news agency that discussions to replace Jorgensen had occurred over the past few weeks. Novo said earlier that Jorgensen will remain in his role until a successor is found.

Under Jorgensen’s leadership, Novo Nordisk became a world leader in the weight-loss drug market, with skyrocketing sales of its Wegovy and Ozempic treatments.

Analysts and investors were unconvinced of the need to replace him.

“He was leading the company for eight years and was, in my opinion, extremely successful,” Lukas Leu, a portfolio manager at Bellevue Asset Management, told Reuters.

Danske Bank analyst Carsten Lonborg Madsen was similarly caught off guard.

“The way we know Novo Nordisk is that normally you have patience when you’re on the right track, and then you let things move in the right direction once you have the strategy right,” he said.

“It just feels like there’s something that has gone pretty wrong here,” he said on the call.

Novo’s shares have plunged since hitting a record high in June last year as competition, particularly from US rival Eli Lilly, makes inroads into its market share and as its pipeline of new drugs has failed to impress investors.

“The changes are made in light of the recent market challenges Novo Nordisk has been facing, and the development of the company’s share price since mid-2024,” Novo said in its statement.

Shares down

Jorgensen, at 58, has been CEO since 2017. He said in an interview with Danish broadcaster TV2 that he did not see the decision coming, and was only informed very recently.

Booming sales of Wegovy helped make Novo the most valuable listed company in Europe, worth $615bn at its peak in June last year, but its market value has halved to about $310bn.

Novo Nordisk’s share price fell on the news, trading 0.8 percent lower by 14:01 GMT after being 4 percent higher earlier in the day.

The shares are down 32 percent year-to-date and 59 percent from their all-time high.

Eli Lilly has seen US prescriptions for its Zepbound obesity shot surpass Wegovy since mid-March in its biggest market. Eli Lilly shares were up 2.6 percent after the news.

Camilla Sylvest, Novo’s head of commercial strategy and corporate affairs and a consistent presence alongside CEO Jorgensen, stepped down last month without citing a reason.

Former CEO of Novo Nordisk for 16 years and current chair of the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Lars Rebien Sorensen, will join the board as an observer with immediate effect with the aim of taking a seat at the next annual general meeting, Novo said.

The company is controlled by the Novo Nordisk Foundation through its investment arm, which owns 77 percent of the voting shares.

United States President Donald Trump has signed several economic deals on his visit to the Gulf region.

One of the biggest deals was signed in Qatar, where Boeing secured its largest-ever order of wide-body jets from Qatar Airways.

Doha also promised to invest more than $10bn in the Al Udeid Air Base, one of the US’s biggest military facilities in the world.

Trump says he’s forging a future with the Middle East defined by commerce, not chaos. But could that mean regional stability and security are now taking a back seat?

And how likely is it that the US president would throw US weight behind ending the devastating war in Gaza?

Presenter: Dareen Abughaida

Guests:

Faisal al-Mudahka – Editor-in-chief, Gulf Times

Andreas Krieg – Senior lecturer, King’s College London’s School of Security Studies

Paul Musgrave – Associate professor of government, Georgetown University in Qatar

Avelo Airlines, a Texas-based budget carrier, is facing backlash from both customers and employees over its decision to operate deportation flights under a new contract with the Trump administration.

Avelo, which has been struggling financially, signed a contract with the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) last month to transport migrants to detention centres inside and outside the US, according to an internal company memo reviewed by the Reuters news agency.

On Monday, the airline flew its first flight under the deal from Arizona to Louisiana, data from flight-tracking services FlightAware and Flightradar24 showed.

Avelo plans to dedicate three aircraft to deportation operations and has established a charter-only base in Mesa, Arizona, specifically for these flights, according to the company memo.

The union representing Avelo’s flight attendants called the contract “bad for the airline”, and one customer has helped organise a petition urging travellers to boycott the airline.

US President Donald Trump has launched a hardline crackdown on undocumented immigration, including the deportation of Venezuelan migrants he accuses of being gang members to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador. Immigration authorities also detained and moved to deport some legal permanent US residents. Trump’s policies have triggered a rash of lawsuits and protests.

Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary for public affairs at DHS, said Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was deporting illegal aliens who broke the country’s laws. She called the protests “nothing more than a tired tactic to abolish ICE by proxy”.

“Avelo Airlines is a sub-carrier on a government contract to assist with deportation flights,” McLaughlin said in a statement. “Attacks and demonization of ICE and our partners is wrong.”

On defence

The airline on Wednesday confirmed its long-term agreement with ICE and said it was vital to Avelo’s financial stability. It also shared a statement from CEO Andrew Levy acknowledging that it is a “sensitive and complicated topic”, but saying that the decision on the contract came “after significant deliberations”.

The statement added that the deal would keep the airline’s “more than 1,100 crewmembers employed for years to come”.

Avelo said it will use three Boeing 737-800 planes in Mesa, Arizona.

“Flights will be both domestic and international,” the company said, declining to share more details of the agreement.

Avelo, which launched in 2021, was forced to suspend its most recent fundraising round after reporting its worst quarterly performance in two years.

In a message to employees last month, Levy said the airline was spending more than it earned from its customers, forcing it to seek repeated infusions of capital from investors.

“I realize some may view the decision to fly for DHS as controversial,” Levy wrote in the staff memo, which was reviewed by Reuters, but said the opportunity was “too valuable not to pursue”.

Widespread backlash

The Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, which represents Avelo’s crew, has urged the company to reconsider its decision, which it said would be “bad for the airline”.

“Having an entire flight of people handcuffed and shackled would hinder any evacuation and risk injury or death,” the union said. “We cannot do our jobs in these conditions.”

The Trump administration has deported hundreds of migrants labelled as Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador. Photos and videos have shown deportees in handcuffs and shackles.

Customers have also expressed outrage. Anne Watkins, a New Haven, Connecticut, resident, said she has stopped flying with Avelo. She and her co-members at the New Haven Immigrants Coalition have launched an online petition urging travellers to boycott the airline until it ends its ICE flight operations. The petition has garnered more than 38,000 signatures.

Watkins, 55, said the coalition also organised a vigil on Monday to mark the launch of Avelo’s deportation flights.

“Companies can decide to operate in wholly ethical and transparent ways,” she said. “Avelo is not choosing to do that right now.”

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, a Democrat, has threatened to review the state’s incentives for Avelo, which has received more than $2m in subsidies and tax breaks.

In California, Los Angeles resident Nancy K has co-founded a campaign called “Mothers Against Avelo”. She plans to lead weekly protests every Sunday in May at Hollywood Burbank airport, one of Avelo’s six operating bases.

Republicans have proposed the remittance tax as part of a broader push to crack down on undocumented immigration.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has denounced a provision in a tax bill being considered in the United States Congress that would impose duties on remittances — a term used to describe the money people send abroad for non-commercial reasons, often as gifts to family and loved ones.

On Thursday, during her morning news conference, Sheinbaum addressed the tax bill directly, calling the remittances proposal “a measure that is unacceptable”.

“It would result in double taxation, since Mexicans living in the United States already pay taxes,” she said.

She added that her government was reaching out to other countries with large immigrant populations to voice concern about the US proposition.

“This will not just affect Mexico,” she said. “It will also affect many other countries and many other Latin American countries.”

According to World Bank data from 2024, India is the top recipient of international remittances, with $129bn coming from abroad, followed by Mexico with more than $68bn.

In Mexico, in particular, experts estimate that remittances make up close to 4 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

But a far-reaching tax bill championed by US President Donald Trump includes language that would impose a 5-percent excise tax on remittances sent specifically by non-citizens, including visa holders and permanent residents.

That bill would affect nearly 40 million people living in the country. US citizens, however, would be exempt from the remittance tax.

Trump has led a campaign to discourage immigration to the US and promote “mass deportation” during his second term in office, as part of his “America First” agenda.

Proponents of that platform say taxing remittances would serve as clear deterrence to immigrants who come to the US looking for better economic opportunities for themselves and any loved ones they hope to support back home.

Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, an anti-immigration think tank, told The Associated Press news agency that he believes barriers to remittances can help curb undocumented immigration to the US.

“One of the main reasons people come here is to work and send money home,” Krikorian said. “If that’s much more difficult to do, it becomes less appealing to come here.”

Under the bill being weighed in the House of Representatives, the 5-percent tax would be paid by the sender and collected by “remittance transfer providers”, who would then send that money to the US Treasury.

But President Sheinbaum and other leaders have called on Republicans in Congress to reconsider that provision, given the unintended consequences it could create. Sheinbaum even suggested that the tax could be seen as unconstitutional in the US.

“This is an injustice, apart from being unconstitutional,” she said on Thursday. “But in addition, it is the tax on those who have the least. They should charge taxes to those at the top, not those at the bottom.”

Critics of the measure point out that remittances can help stabilise impoverished areas abroad, thereby limiting the likelihood of undocumented migration from those areas.

Additional barriers to sending remittances could create economic setbacks for those communities, not to mention make the process more difficult for US citizens who are exempted from the proposed tax.

Still, even if the tax bill is defeated or the provision on remittances removed, the Trump administration has signalled it plans to move forward with other measures designed to discourage migrants from sending funds abroad.

On April 25, Trump posted on his media platform, Truth Social, a list of “weekly policy achievements”.

On the final page, the top bullet point under “international relations” was “finalizing a Presidential Memorandum to shut down remittances sent by illegal aliens outside the United States”. Trump called the document a “MUST READ”.

Walmart, the world’s largest retailer, will have to start raising prices later this month due to the high cost of tariffs, executives have warned in a clear signal that United States President Donald Trump’s trade war is filtering through to the US economy.

As a bellwether of US consumer health, Walmart’s explicit statement on Thursday is also a signpost for how the trade war is affecting companies as Walmart is noted for its ability to manage costs more aggressively than other companies to keep prices low.

Walmart’s shares fell 2.3 percent in morning trading after it also declined to provide a profit forecast for the second quarter, even as the company’s US comparable sales surpassed expectations in the first quarter.

Net sales rose 2.5 percent to $165.6bn, a hair shy of estimates, while same-store sales were up 4.5 percent. Walmart’s quarterly adjusted profit was 61 cents per share, ahead of the analyst consensus for 58 cents per share.

Many US companies have either slashed or pulled their full-year expectations in the wake of the trade war, as consumers stretch their budgets to buy everything from groceries to essentials at cheaper prices. But Walmart’s statement will resonate nationwide, as roughly 255 million people shop in its stores and online weekly around the world, and 90 percent of the US population lives within 10 miles of a Walmart.

US shoppers will start to see prices rise at the end of May and certainly in June, Walmart’s Chief Financial Officer John David Rainey said in a CNBC interview. On a post-earnings call with analysts, he said the retailer would also have to cut back on orders as it considers price elasticity.

As the largest importer of container goods in the US, Walmart is heavily exposed to tariffs, and even though the US and China reached a truce that lowered levies for imports on Chinese goods to 30 percent, that’s still a high cost to bear, executives said.

“We’re very pleased and appreciative of the progress that has been made by the administration to bring tariffs down … but let me emphasise we still think that’s too high,” Rainey said on the call, referring to the tariff cuts negotiated over the weekend.

“There are certain items, certain categories of merchandise that we’re dependent upon to import from other countries and the prices of those things are likely going to go up, and that’s not good for consumers,” he added.

Other retailers also said they would be boosting prices. German sandal maker Birkenstock on Thursday said it plans to raise prices globally to fully offset the impact of the US tariff of 10 percent on European Union-made goods.

US consumer sentiment ebbed for a fourth straight month in April, signaling watchful purchasing, while the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) contracted for the first time in three years during the first quarter, fanning worries of a recession.

Narrow margins

Walmart’s CEO Doug McMillon said the retailer would not be able to absorb all the tariffs’ costs because of narrow retail margins, but was committed to ensuring that tariff-related costs on general merchandise – which primarily come from China – do not drive food prices higher.

To mitigate the impact, Walmart is working with suppliers to substitute tariff-affected components, such as replacing aluminium with fibreglass, which is not subject to tariffs.

Despite these efforts, McMillon noted that adjusting costs is more challenging in cases where Walmart imports food items like bananas, avocados, coffee, and roses from countries such as Costa Rica, Peru, and Colombia.

Analysts said Walmart was better positioned than rivals, as its scale enables it to lean on its suppliers and squeeze out efficiencies to shield customers from tariffs, but only so much.

“There will likely be some demand destruction from tariffs; a complete wreck is unlikely,” said Brian Jacobsen, chief economist at Annex Wealth Management.

Walmart on Thursday kept its annual sales and profit forecast intact for fiscal 2026, but withheld second-quarter operating income growth and earnings per share forecasts, citing a “fluid operating environment … [which] makes the very near term exceedingly difficult to forecast at the level and speed at which tariffs could go up”.

The United States and China have surprisingly agreed to a dramatic de-escalation in their trade war.

Under the agreement, the world’s two largest economies have paused their respective tariffs for 90 days.

That breaks an impasse which has brought much of the commerce between the two nations to a halt.

Critics say the talks in Geneva did not appear to yield any meaningful concessions. The two sides aim to reach a broader deal, but this takes too long to negotiate.

Also in this episode, we examine whether the US-UK trade pact will deliver real benefits, or is it symbolism over substance?

Also, Senegal is capitalising on its energy wealth to change its fortunes.

The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) is carrying out a criminal investigation into UnitedHealth Group for possible Medicare fraud.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) first broke the story on Wednesday.

UnitedHealth said it had not been notified by the DOJ about the “supposed criminal investigation reported”, and the company stood by “the integrity of our Medicare Advantage program”.

The DOJ’s healthcare-fraud unit is overseeing the criminal investigation, which focuses on the company’s Medicare Advantage business practices, WSJ reported, citing people familiar with the matter.

While the exact nature of the potential criminal allegations against UnitedHealth is unclear, it has been an active probe since at least last summer, the newspaper said.

A DOJ spokesperson declined to comment to the WSJ about the fresh criminal probe. The department did not immediately respond to requests for comments from the Reuters news agency.

Last week, UnitedHealth said in a regular filing that it had been “involved or is currently involved in various governmental investigations, audits and reviews”, without disclosing further details.

The new investigation follows broader scrutiny into the Medicare Advantage programme, in which Medicare-approved plans from a private company supplement regular Medicare for Americans age 65 and older by covering more services that the government-only plans do not, such as dental and vision services.

In February, the WSJ reported a civil fraud investigation into UnitedHealth’s Medicare practices. The company had then said that it was unaware of any new probe.

In the same month, US Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa launched an inquiry into UnitedHealth’s Medicare billing practices, requesting detailed records of the company’s compliance programme and other related documents.

The DOJ earlier this month filed a lawsuit accusing three of the largest US health insurers of paying hundreds of millions of dollars in kickbacks to brokers in exchange for steering patients into the insurers’ Medicare Advantage plans.

Nearly half of the 65 million people covered by Medicare, the US programme for people aged 65 and older or with disabilities, are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans run by private insurers.

The insurers are paid a set rate for each patient, but can be paid more if patients have multiple health conditions. Standard Medicare coverage is managed by the government.

Brewing turmoil

The health insurer has been under pressure for months. On Tuesday, UnitedHealth Group’s CEO, Andrew Witty, stepped down unexpectedly, and the company simultaneously suspended its 2025 financial forecast due to rising medical costs, triggering an 18 percent drop in shares to a four-year low.

Stephen Hemsley, who led the company for more than a decade until 2017, is taking back the reins following setbacks including the December murder of Brian Thompson, the CEO of its insurance unit, which catapulted UnitedHealth into the public consciousness.

On Thursday, after the news of the probe broke, UnitedHealth Group shares plunged 18 percent to hit a five-year low.

“The stock is already in the doghouse with investors, and additional uncertainty will only pile on,” James Harlow, senior vice president at Novare Capital Management, which owns shares in UnitedHealth, told the news agency Reuters.

If losses hold, UnitedHealth will be the worst-performing stock on the S&P 500 index in two of the last three days.

The past month’s selloff has wiped out nearly $300bn from UnitedHealth’s market capitalization, or more than half of its value since its shares hit a record high in November.