Economy

Nearly three weeks of striking bus drivers and roadblocks by angry farmers have put Ecuador President Daniel Noboa in one of the tensest moments of his presidency.

The outcry comes in response to the government’s increase in diesel fuel costs, after a subsidy was cut last month.

With no signs of dialogue after 18 days, one protester has been killed, numerous protesters and authorities injured, and more than 100 people arrested.

The army announced a large deployment to the capital on Thursday, saying it would prevent vandalism and destruction of property. As many as 5,000 troops were being deployed after dozens of protesters had marched at various sites in the city earlier in the day.

Though the demonstrations called for by Ecuador’s largest Indigenous organisation, CONAIE, are supposed to be nationwide, the most acute impact has been in the northern part of the country, especially Imbabura province, where Noboa won in April’s election with 52 percent of the vote.

On one side is “a president who assumes that after winning the elections he has all of the power at his disposal, who has authoritarian tendencies and no disposition for dialogue”, said Farith Simon, a law professor at the Universidad San Francisco in Quito.

On the other side, he said, is “an Indigenous sector that has shown itself to be uncompromising and is looking to co-govern through force”.

Protesters attacked Noboa’s motorcade with rocks on Tuesday, adding to the tension. The administration denounced it as an assassination attempt.

The Indigenous organisation CONAIE, however, rejected that assertion. It insists its protests are peaceful and that it is the government that is responding with force.

What led to the demonstrations?

The protests were organised by CONAIE, an acronym that translates to the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador.

The group mobilised its supporters after Noboa decreed the elimination of a subsidy on diesel on September 12.

Diesel is critical to the agricultural, fishing and transport sectors in Ecuador, where many Indigenous people work. The move raised the cost of a gallon (3.8 litres) of diesel to $2.80 from $1.80, which CONAIE said hit the poor the hardest.

The government tried to calm the backlash by offering some handouts, and unions did not join the demonstrations. The confederation rejected the government’s “gifts” and called for a general strike.

What are the protests like?

The Indigenous confederation is a structured movement that played a central role in violent uprisings in 2019 and 2022 that nearly ousted then-Presidents Lenin Moreno and Guillermo Lasso.

Its methods are not always seen as productive, particularly when protests turn violent.

Daniel Crespo, an international relations professor at the Universidad de los Hemisferios in Quito, said the confederation’s demands to return the fuel subsidy, cut a tax and stop mining are efforts to “impose their political agenda”.

The confederation says it’s just trying to fight for a “decent life” for all Ecuadorians, even if that means opposing Noboa’s economic and social policies.

What are Noboa’s policies?

Noboa is a 37-year-old, politically conservative millionaire heir to a banana fortune. He started his second term in May amid high levels of violence.

One of the steps he has taken is raising the value-added tax rate to 15 percent from 12 percent, arguing that the additional funds are needed to fight crime. He has also fired thousands of government workers and restructured the executive branch.

The president has opted for a heavy-handed approach to making these changes and rejected calls for dialogue. He said, “The law awaits those who choose violence. Those who act like criminals will be treated like criminals.”

What has been the fallout?

A protester died last week, and soldiers were caught on video attacking a man who tried to help him.

The images, along with generally aggressive actions by security forces confronting protesters, have fuelled anger and drawn criticism about excessive use of force from organisations within Ecuador and abroad.

The Attorney General’s Office said it was investigating the protester’s death.

Experts warn that the situation could grow more violent if the protests that have largely been in rural areas arrive in the cities, especially the capital, where frustrated civilians could take to the streets to confront protesters.

Some party needs to intervene and lead the different sides to dialogue, perhaps the Catholic Church or civil society organisations, Crespo and Simon agreed.

Alibaba Cloud named cloud computing and AI partner of NBA China as the basketball league returns after six years.

The National Basketball Association (NBA) and Chinese e-commerce company Alibaba have announced a multiyear partnership, as the league stages two games in Macau to mark its return to the Chinese market for the first time since 2019.

The announcement by Alibaba Group on Thursday said it would provide artificial intelligence and cloud computing services with the NBA and enhance fan experiences on the NBA app in China.

Alibaba Cloud will be the official cloud computing and AI partner of NBA China, it said.

The NBA is due to play two preseason games in the Chinese special administrative region on Friday and Sunday, part of a five-year contract with Las Vegas Sands’ Macau unit Sands China.

The games mark the first time the NBA is playing in Macau, the world’s largest gambling hub, and follow a years-long absence amid controversy over the 2019 Hong Kong protests.

The Macau games aim to bolster the NBA’s profile in China, where the league estimates say about 300 million people play basketball, at a time of rising political tensions between the United States and China.

The NBA’s absence followed a firestorm of controversy about comments made six years ago by the Houston Rockets’ then general manager Daryl Morey, who posted a message on social media in support of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy protests.

In the aftermath, Beijing suspended the broadcast of NBA games, prompting corporate sponsors to flee and the league to suffer what it described at the time as dramatic financial consequences. Preseason NBA games in China were also scrapped.

The NBA games are being held at the Sands Venetian property, and Shaquille O’Neal is among NBA celebrities attending the event, the league said.

Sands owner, the US billionaire Adelson family, also owns the Texas-based NBA team, the Dallas Mavericks.

The Brooklyn Nets, owned by Alibaba chairman Joseph Tsai, will play the Phoenix Suns at sold-out games in the arena.

This NBA season comes with high hopes for a Chinese rookie: Yang Hansen, a 7-foot-1 (216cm) draft pick who is expected to play a role for the Portland Trail Blazers this season.

He’s thrilled that the NBA is headed back there, finally.

“I want to say firstly, playing for the Blazers is a wonderful thing for me, and I wish that I can take all the players and management and coaches to China for sure in the future,” Yang said with the support of an interpreter.

“For sure, I wish [for] more games in China. … That works for me perfectly.”

The largest US city is among more than 2,000 other municipalities pursuing similar lawsuits.

New York City has filed a lawsuit accusing Facebook, Google, Snapchat, TikTok and other online platforms of fuelling a mental health crisis among children by addicting them to social media.

The 327-page complaint filed on Wednesday in federal court in Manhattan seeks damages from Facebook and Instagram owner Meta Platforms, Google and YouTube owner Alphabet, Snapchat owner Snap and TikTok owner ByteDance. It accused the defendants of gross negligence and causing a public nuisance.

The city joined other governments, school districts and individuals pursuing about 2,050 similar lawsuits in nationwide litigation in the Oakland, California, federal court.

New York City is among the largest plaintiffs with a population of 8.48 million, including about 1.8 million under age 18. Its school and healthcare systems are also plaintiffs.

Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said allegations concerning YouTube are “simply not true”, in part because it is a streaming service and not a social network where people catch up with friends.

The other defendants did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

A spokesperson for New York City’s law department said the city withdrew from litigation announced by Mayor Eric Adams in February 2024 and pending in California state courts so it could join the federal litigation.

According to Wednesday’s complaint, the defendants designed their platforms to “exploit the psychology and neurophysiology of youth” and drive compulsive use in pursuit of profit.

The complaint said 77.3 percent of New York City high school students admitted to spending three or more hours a day on “screen time” including TV, computers and smartphones, contributing to lost sleep and chronic school absences.

New York City’s health commissioner declared social media a public health hazard in January 2024, and the city, including its schools, has had to spend more taxpayer dollars to address the resulting youth mental health crisis, the complaint said.

The city also blamed social media for an increase in “subway surfing”, or riding atop or off the sides of moving trains. At least 16 subway surfers have died since 2023, including two girls aged 12 and 13 this month, police data show.

“Defendants should be held to account for the harms their conduct has inflicted,” the city said. “As it stands now, [the] plaintiffs are left to abate the nuisance and foot the bill.”

Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney is on his second visit to the White House in five months as he deals with increasing pressure to address US tariffs on steel, autos and other goods that are hurting Canada’s economy.

Carney and United States President Donald Trump met at the White House on Tuesday.

“From the beginning, I liked him, and we’ve had a good relationship,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office, sitting next to Carney.

“We have natural conflict. We also have mutual love … you know we have great love for each other,” he added, saying the two men would discuss tariffs including potentially lowering tariffs on key Canadian sectors as part of efforts to ease trade tensions between Washington and Ottawa.

More than 77 percent of Canada’s exports go to the US.

A Canadian government official and several analysts played down the chances of an imminent trade deal with Trump and said the mere fact that discussions are continuing should be considered a success for Carney.

Among the topics up for discussion are trade and the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which is critical to Canada’s economy and is up for a review next year.

Trump said he was willing to revisit the free trade agreement, which was enacted during his first term, or seek “different deals.”

“We could renegotiate it, and that would be good, or we can just do different deals,” he said. “We’re allowed to do different deals.”

Trump exhibited a fondness for Carney, something he didn’t display toward Carney’s predecessor, Justin Trudeau. He described Carney as a “world-class leader” and said he’s a tough negotiator.

The prime minister last visited the Oval Office in May, when he bluntly told Trump that Canada would never be for sale in response to Trump’s repeated threat to purchase or annex Canada.

Since then, the prime minister has made numerous concessions to Canada’s biggest trading partner, including dropping some counter tariffs and scrapping a digital services tax aimed at US tech companies.

Carney’s office has said the working visit will focus on forging a new economic and security relationship with the US.

“In areas where we compete, we have to come to an agreement that works, ” Carney said.

White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said on Monday: “I’m sure trade will be a topic of discussion … and all of the other issues that are facing both Canada and the United States.”

While the majority of Canada’s exports are entering the US tariff-free under the USMCA, tariffs have pummeled Canada’s steel, aluminium and auto sectors and a number of small businesses.

“The reality is that right now, Canadian products have among the lowest tariff rate,” said Jonathan Kalles, a former adviser to Carney’s predecessor, Trudeau. “You don’t want to poke the bear when things could be much worse,” he said, adding that any meeting with Trump is a calculated risk.

“Carney will probably get a better deal through private negotiations, not the pomp and ceremony of going to the White House,” he said.

Growing pressure

Carney won an election in April promising to be tough with Trump and secure a new economic relationship with the US.

Shachi Kurl, president of the Angus Reid Institute, said polls show Canadians have largely been willing to give Carney time to deal with Trump.

“But that amount of time is finite,” Kurl said, noting pressure may build with job losses mounting and economic growth hobbled by US tariffs.

Canada’s opposition leader, Pierre Poilievre, has criticised Carney’s approach to Trump, noting the prime minister’s earlier pledge to “negotiate a win” by July 21. He said on Monday that it did not look like Carney would accomplish much in the trip.

Dominic LeBlanc, the minister responsible for Canada-US trade, said in response that Canada has work to do on sectoral tariffs.

“Was the leader of the opposition suggesting that if the president of the United States invites us to go to Washington for a meeting and a working lunch, we should have just said ‘no’ and hung the phone up?” LeBlanc said in Parliament.

Asa McKercher, a specialist in Canada-US relations at St Francis Xavier University, said Carney’s meeting with Trump would be a success if there is any recognition that Canada has moved to address some of Trump’s persistent grievances.

“Carney has just set up this new defence agency and boosted military spending, so it would be great if Trump could reduce some of those sectoral tariffs on autos,” McKercher said, citing Trump’s past complaint that Canada is a “military free rider”.

A Los Angeles court orders the pharma giant to pay damages to the family of Mae Moore, who died of mesothelioma in 2021.

Johnson & Johnson has been ordered to pay $966m to the family of a woman who died from mesothelioma, finding the company liable in the latest lawsuit alleging its baby powder products cause cancer.

The court in Los Angeles handed down the ruling late on Monday.

The pharmaceutical giant has to pay the family of Mae Moore, who died in 2021. The family sued the company the same year, claiming Johnson & Johnson’s talc baby powder products contained asbestos fibres that caused her rare cancer. The jury ordered the company to pay $16m in compensatory damages and $950m in punitive damages, according to court filings.

The verdict could be reduced on appeal as the United States Supreme Court has found that punitive damages should generally be no more than nine times compensatory damages.

Erik Haas, J&J’s worldwide vice president of litigation, said in a statement that the company plans to immediately appeal, calling the verdict “egregious and unconstitutional”.

“The plaintiff lawyers in this Moore case based their arguments on ‘junk science’ that never should have been presented to the jury,” Haas charged.

The company has said its products are safe, do not contain asbestos and do not cause cancer. This isn’t the first time Johnson & Johnson was ordered to pay damages to a family after a lawsuit that alleged a link between cancer and its baby powder products.

In 2016, a Missouri court ordered the company to pay $72m to the family of Jacqueline Fox, who died of ovarian cancer.

In 2024, Johnson & Johnson was also ordered to pay $700m to settle lawsuits alleging it misled consumers about safety after an investigation brought by 43 state attorneys general.

J&J stopped selling talc-based baby powder in the US in 2020, switching to a cornstarch product. By 2023, it had ended talc-based baby powder sales as well.

Trey Branham, one of the attorneys representing Moore’s family, said after the verdict that his team is “hopeful that Johnson & Johnson will finally accept responsibility for these senseless deaths”.

Thousands of lawsuits

J&J is facing lawsuits from more than 67,000 plaintiffs who say they were diagnosed with cancer after using its baby powder and other talc products, according to court filings. The number of lawsuits alleging talc caused mesothelioma is a small subset of these cases with the vast majority involving ovarian cancer claims.

J&J has sought to resolve the litigation through bankruptcy, a proposal that has been rejected three times by federal courts.

Lawsuits alleging talc caused mesothelioma were not part of the last bankruptcy proposal. The company has previously settled some of those claims but has not struck a nationwide settlement, so many lawsuits over mesothelioma have proceeded to trial in state courts in recent months.

In the past year, J&J has been hit with several substantial verdicts in mesothelioma cases, but Monday’s is among the largest. The company has won some of the mesothelioma trials, including last week in South Carolina, where a jury found J&J not liable.

The White House has dialled back US President Donald Trump’s claim that federal workers were already being fired amid the ongoing United States government shutdown.

The backtrack on Monday came as the government shutdown stretched into its sixth day, with Republicans and Democrats failing to reach a breakthrough to pass a budget that would fund an array of government agencies and services.

Democrats have taken a hard line in the negotiations, seeking to undo healthcare cuts in tax legislation recently passed by Republicans.

Both parties have blamed the other for the impasse, while the Trump administration has taken the atypical step of threatening to fire, not just furlough, some of the estimated 750,000 federal workers affected by the shutdown.

On Sunday, Trump appeared to suggest that those layoffs were “taking place right now”. He blamed Democrats for the firings.

But on Monday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that Trump was referring to the “hundreds of thousands of federal workers who have been furloughed”, not yet fired, amid the shutdown.

Still, she added, “the Office of Management and Budget is continuing to work with agencies on who, unfortunately, is going to have to be laid off if this shutdown continues”.

House Speaker blames Democrats, halts negotiations on funding

As salaries for hundreds of thousands of public sector employees were set to be withheld starting Friday, lawmakers indicated there had been little progress.

In the US Senate, another set of long-shot votes to fund the government were scheduled for late Monday.

Meanwhile, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson told members of his party not to come to Congress unless the Democrats give way. He told reporters on Monday they should stop asking him about negotiations, saying it was up to the opposing party to “stop the madness”.

“There’s nothing for us to negotiate. The House has done its job,” Johnson said, referring to a funding bill passed by the chamber that has proved a non-starter in the Senate.

Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, meanwhile, continued to portray Republicans as derelict.

“House Republicans think protecting the healthcare of everyday Americans is less important than their vacation,” he said. “We strongly disagree.”

With Republicans controlling the White House and holding slight majorities in both the House and the Senate, the funding bill is one of Democrats’ few points of leverage. In the Senate, Republicans hold 53 seats, but need 60 votes to pass the legislation.

They are using the position to push for the reversal of a tax law passed earlier this year that strips 11 million Americans of healthcare coverage, mainly through cuts to the Medicaid programme for low-income families, according to estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Democrats have said another four million US citizens will lose healthcare next year if Affordable Care Act health insurance subsidies are not extended, with another 24 million Americans seeing their premiums double.

Since the shutdown began on October 1, several services have been suspended as agency funding has run out. Others face a funding cliff. That includes the $8bn Special Supplemental Nutrition Programme for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), which could run out of funding to provide vouchers to buy infant formula and other essentials to low-income families within two weeks.

Federal workers deemed “essential” have remained on the job, but face working without pay until a resolution is reached. Military personnel could begin missing their paycheques after mid-October, advocacy groups have warned.

The agencies hit hardest by furloughs include the Environmental Protection Agency, the space agency NASA , and the Education, Commerce and Labor departments.

On Monday, US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said the government has seen “a slight tick up in sick calls” from air traffic controllers in certain areas since the shutdown began. That could lead to disruptions in air travel, he said.

“Then you’ll see delays that come from that,” he said. “If we have additional sick calls, we will reduce the flow consistent with a rate that’s safe for the American people.”

The US Transportation Department has also said that funds from a US government programme that subsidises commercial air service to rural airports were also set to expire as soon as Sunday.

The deal also gives the ChatGPT creator the option to buy upto 10 percent of AMD.

United States chipmaker AMD will supply artificial intelligence chips to OpenAI in a multi-year deal that would bring in tens of billions of dollars in annual revenue and give the ChatGPT creator the option to buy up to roughly 10 percent of the company.

Shares of the chipmaker surged more than 34 percent on Monday when the deal was announced, putting them on track for their biggest one-day gain in more than nine years and adding roughly $80bn to the company’s market value.

The deal, latest in a string of investment commitments, underscores OpenAI and the broader AI industry’s voracious appetite for computing power as companies race towards developing AI technology that meets or exceeds human intelligence.

“We view this deal as certainly transformative, not just for AMD, but for the dynamics of the industry,” AMD executive vice president Forrest Norrod told the Reuters news agency.

Deal helps ‘validate technology’

The agreement closely ties the startup at the centre of the AI boom to AMD, one of the strongest rivals of Nvidia, which recently agreed to make substantial investments in OpenAI.

Analysts said it was a significant vote of confidence in AMD’s AI chips and software but is unlikely to dent Nvidia’s dominance, as the market leader continues to sell every AI chip it can make.

AMD executives expect the deal to net tens of billions of dollars in annual revenue. Because of the ripple affect of the agreement, AMD expects to receive more than $100bn in new revenue over four years from OpenAI and other customers, they said.

The chipmaker is expected to report revenue of $32.78bn this year, according to LSEG data. In contrast, analysts are expecting Nvidia to report revenue of $206.26bn for the current fiscal year.

“AMD has really trailed Nvidia for quite some time. So I think it helps validate their technology,” said Leah Bennett, chief investment strategist at Concurrent Asset Management.

Shares of Nvidia dipped more than 1 percent.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said the AMD deal will help his startup build enough AI infrastructure to meet its needs.

It was not immediately clear how OpenAI would fund the enormous deal.

OpenAI, which is valued at $500bn, generated approximately $4.3bn in revenue in the first half of 2025 and burned through $2.5bn in cash, according to media reports.

In September, Nvidia announced a deal to supply OpenAI with at least 10 gigawatts worth of its systems.

In contrast with the startup’s deal with AMD where it will take a stake in the chipmaker, Nvidia will invest $100bn in the ChatGPT parent under the terms of the agreement announced in September.

Taking a stake in AMD could give OpenAI “the power to potentially influence corporate strategy. With Nvidia, OpenAI is simply the client and not a part-owner,” said Dan Coatsworth, head of markets at A J Bell.

OpenAI has worked with AMD for years, providing inputs on the design of older generations of AI chips.

The startup and its main backer, Microsoft, announced last month that they had signed a non-binding agreement to restructure OpenAI in to a for-profit entity.

A person familiar with the matter said the deal with AMD does not change any of OpenAI’s ongoing compute plans, including that effort or its partnership with Microsoft.

Last month, US President Donald Trump had said he would introduce new tariffs to protect the manufacture of medium- and heavy-duty trucks from outside competition.

United States President Donald Trump has said that all medium- and heavy-duty trucks imported into the country will face a 25 percent tariff rate starting November 1, a significant escalation of his effort to protect US companies from foreign competition.

Trump made the announcement on Monday.

Last month, Trump had said heavy truck imports would face new duties on October 1 on national security grounds, saying the new tariffs were to protect manufacturers from “unfair outside competition” and that the move would benefit companies such as Paccar-owned Peterbilt and Kenworth and Daimler Truck-owned Freightliner.

Under trade deals reached with Japan and the European Union, the US has agreed to 15 percent tariffs on light-duty vehicles, but it is not clear if that rate will be set for larger vehicles.

The Trump administration has also allowed producers to deduct the value of US components from tariffs paid on light-duty vehicles assembled in Canada and Mexico.

Larger vehicles include trucks for delivery, garbage pickup, and public utilities; buses for transit, shuttles, and schools; tractor-trailer trucks; semitrucks; and heavy-duty vocational vehicles.

Impact on allies

The US Chamber of Commerce earlier urged the US Commerce Department not to impose new truck tariffs, noting the top five import sources are Mexico, Canada, Japan, Germany, and Finland, “all of which are allies or close partners of the United States posing no threat to US national security”.

Mexico is the largest exporter of medium- and heavy-duty trucks to the US. A study released in January said imports of those larger vehicles from Mexico have tripled since 2019 to around 340,000 today, according to government statistics.

Under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) trade deal, medium- and heavy-duty trucks move free of tariffs if at least 64 percent of a heavy truck’s value originates in North America, via parts like engines and axles, raw materials such as steel, or assembly labour.

Tariffs could also affect Chrysler’s parent company Stellantis, which produces heavy-duty Ram trucks and commercial vans in Mexico. Stellantis had been lobbying the White House not to impose steep tariffs on its Mexican-made trucks.

Sweden’s Volvo Group is building a $700m heavy-truck factory in Monterrey, Mexico, due to start operations in 2026.

Mexico is home to 14 manufacturers and assemblers of buses, trucks, and tractor trucks, and two manufacturers of engines, according to the US International Trade Administration.

Mexico opposed new tariffs, telling the US Commerce Department in May that all Mexican trucks exported to the US have on average 50 percent US content, including diesel engines.

Last year, the US imported almost $128bn in heavy vehicle parts from Mexico, accounting for approximately 28 percent of total US imports, Mexico said.

Trump had imposed a 40 percent US tariff on Brazilian goods in July on top of a 10 percent one earlier even though the United States has a trade surplus with Brazil.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has asked United States President Donald Trump to lift the 40 percent tariff imposed by the US government on Brazilian imports.

The leaders spoke for 30 minutes by phone on Monday. During the call, they exchanged phone numbers in order to maintain a direct line of contact, and President Lula reiterated his invitation for Trump to attend the upcoming climate summit in Belem, according to a statement from Lula’s office.

Shortly after, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform that he had had a good conversation with Lula.

“We discussed many things, but it was mostly focused on the Economy, and Trade, between our two Countries,” Trump said.

He added that the leaders “will be having further discussions, and will get together in the not too distant future, both in Brazil and the United States”.

The Trump administration had imposed a 40 percent tariff on Brazilian products in July on top of a 10 percent tariff imposed earlier. Lula reminded Trump that Brazil was one of three Group of 20 (G20) countries with which the US maintains a trade surplus, according to the Brazilian leader’s office.

The Trump administration has justified the tariffs by saying that Brazil’s policies and criminal prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro constitute an economic emergency.

Earlier this month, Bolsonaro was convicted of attempting a coup after losing his bid for re-election in 2022, and a panel of the Supreme Court sentenced him to 27 years and three months in prison.

In September, Trump and Lula had a brief encounter at the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York, with Trump hailing their “excellent chemistry”.

During Monday’s call, Lula also offered to travel to Washington to meet with Trump, his office said.

US President Donald Trump blames Democrats for looming federal layoffs as shutdown enters fifth day.

The White House has warned that mass layoffs of federal workers could begin if US President Donald Trump concludes that negotiations with congressional Democrats to end a partial government shutdown have reached a dead end.

As the shutdown entered its fifth day on Sunday, White House National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett told CNN’s programme State of the Union that he believed there was still a chance Democrats would yield and avoid what could become a costly political and economic crisis.

“President Trump and Russ Vought are lining things up and getting ready to act if they have to, but hoping that they don’t,” Hassett said, referring to the White House budget director. “If the president decides that the negotiations are absolutely going nowhere, then there will start to be layoffs.”

Trump, speaking to reporters on Sunday, described the potential job cuts as “Democrat layoffs”, saying, “Anybody laid off, that’s because of the Democrats.”

Talks remain frozen

There have been no meaningful negotiations since Trump last met congressional leaders, with the impasse beginning on October 1 — the start of the federal fiscal year — after Senate Democrats rejected a short-term funding bill to keep government agencies open through November 21.

“They’ve refused to talk with us,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer told the CBS programme Face the Nation, insisting that only renewed talks between Trump and congressional leaders could end the standoff.

Democrats are demanding a permanent extension of enhanced premium tax credits under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and assurances that the White House will not unilaterally cut spending agreed to in any deal.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he was open to addressing the Democrats’ concerns, but urged them to first back reopening the government. “It’s open up the government or else,” Thune told Fox News. “That’s really the choice that’s in front of them right now.”

Trump said Republicans were also willing to discuss healthcare reform. “We want to fix it so it works. Obamacare has been a disaster for the people, so we want to have it fixed so it works,” Trump said.

No deal in sight

Rank-and-file senators from both parties have held informal talks on healthcare and spending to break the deadlock, but progress has been minimal. “At this point, no,” Democratic Senator Ruben Gallego told CNN when asked if lawmakers were closer to a deal.

The Senate is set to vote again on Monday on competing funding bills — one backed by the Republican-controlled House and one proposed by Democrats — though neither is expected to win the 60 votes required to advance.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, nearly 750,000 federal employees face being furloughed as long as the shutdown continues, with total lost compensation estimated at $400m per day. While federal workers are guaranteed back pay under the 2019 Government Employee Fair Treatment Act, payments will only resume once the shutdown ends.

Varanasi, India – Mohammed Ahmad Ansari has spent his entire life in the narrow and congested lanes of Varanasi, a city often described as the spiritual capital of India, and the constituency of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The 55-year-old has spent decades weaving Banarasi saris and thoroughly enjoys the clacking noises of handlooms at work against the backdrop of temple bells and evening calls of azan in the holy city that is widely believed to be the oldest settlement in India, dating back as early as 1800 BCE and known for the blend of Hindu-Muslim culture.

But of late, sales have taken a hit for a range of reasons, the latest being ongoing tensions between India and its neighbour, Bangladesh.

Diplomatic relations between the once-close allies have been sharply tested since August last year, when former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina fled to New Delhi from Dhaka after an uprising against her rule.

Bangladesh blames India for some of its troubles, including Modi’s support for Hasina when she was in power.

There have been a few attacks on religious minorities, including Hindus, since her overthrow, as those communities were viewed as Hasina supporters, and Indian businesses, too, have been boycotted or attacked in Bangladesh as the country demands that New Delhi hand over Hasina to face charges in her home country.

In April, Bangladesh restricted the imports of certain items from India, including yarn and rice. On May 17, India retaliated by banning the imports of readymade garments and processed food items from Bangladesh across land borders. While Bangladesh can still send its saris to India, it will have to use the more expensive and time-consuming sea route.

Banarasi saris are globally known for their exquisite craftsmanship, luxurious silk, meticulous zari work of fine gold and silver wire embroidery, and it can often take up to six months to weave a single sari. These can sell for as much as 100,000 rupees ($1,130) each, or more, depending upon the design and the material used.

“These saris are in high demand in Bangladesh during festivals and weddings, but the ban has led to a more than 50 percent drop in business,” Ansari told Al Jazeera.

This is the latest blow to the industry that has already been hit with earlier government policies – including the so-called demonetisation when India overnight invalidated high-value notes and a hike in power tariffs – as well as the COVID-19 pandemic and cheaper competition from saris made on advanced power looms in other parts of the country, particularly Surat in Gujarat in western India.

This onslaught of the past few years has added up, forcing weavers out of the business and halving their numbers to about 200,000 now, as the rest either left the city in search of other jobs or took up new jobs, like driving rickshaws to earn a living.

Pawan Yadav, 61, a wholesale sari trader in Varanasi, told Al Jazeera that the business has come to a standstill since the change of regime in Dhaka.

“We used to supply around 10,000 saris annually to Bangladesh, but everything has come to a halt,” Yadav said, adding that he is still owed 1.5 million rupees ($17,140) by clients in the neighbouring country, “but the recovery seems impossible due to the political turmoil.”

India has 108 documented ways of draping sarees that hold a special position globally for their intricate designs, vibrant colours symbolising timeless elegance and beauty.

Despite the current turmoil, the textile sector employs the second-highest number of people after agriculture in India, with more than 3.5 million people working in it, per government data. Within that, the sari industry is valued at approximately 80,000 crore rupees ($9.01bn), including some $300m in exports.

Varanasi’s weavers and traders, who voted Modi into parliament for the third consecutive time, are waiting for the prime minister to find an amicable solution to the trade issue with Bangladesh.

In 2015, the Modi government designated August 7 as the National Handloom Day and promised to bring a change in the lives of handloom weavers by promoting domestic products. But nothing meaningful has come of that so far, traders and weavers who spoke to Al Jazeera said.

“India has a unique handloom craft which no country can compete with,” but without sufficient businesses or reliable income, many artisans have been forced to abandon the trade, and now “it is difficult to even find a young weaver”, Ramesh Menon, founder of Save the Loom, a social enterprise working for the revival of handloom, said. “The need of the hour is to re-position handloom as a product of luxury, and not poverty.”

West Bengal traders welcome ban

The situation, however, is completely different in West Bengal, around 610km (380 miles) from Varanasi and along the border with Bangladesh.

The ban on the sari trade between the two countries has offered a new lease of life to the traders of cotton saris in Bengal, who had been losing market share to Dhaka’s saris.

Tarak Nath Das, a cotton sari trader for the past four decades in Shantipur in West Bengal, supplies saris woven by local artisans to various showrooms across the country.

After years of losses, the 65-year-old finally saw business boom in the last few weeks in the lead-up to the main festival of Durga Puja, and was all smiles.

“The saris from Bangladesh had devoured at least 30 percent of our market, and the local industry was bleeding. We have slowly started to recapture our old markets as orders have started pouring in. The sale of the saris during the just concluded festival was better by at least 25 percent as compared to last year,” Das told Al Jazeera.

Shantipur is home to more than 100,000 weavers and traders and is regarded as the hub of the sari business in eastern India. The town and surrounding areas in Nadia district are famous for their handloom weaving industry, which produces a fine variety of saris, including the highly popular Shantipur cotton sari.

Nearby areas of Hooghly and Murshidabad district are also famous for their cotton saris, and these are sold both locally and across the country as well as exported to Greece, Turkiye and other countries.

Sanjay Karmakar, 40, a wholesale trader of cotton saris in Nadia district, is also happy with the ban.

“The local women prefer to buy Bangladeshi saris as they come in attractive packaging and the fabric used there is slightly superior to ours,” he said.

That, coupled with younger women choosing leggings, tunics and other modern clothes over traditional saris, had been pinching sales.

Santanu Guha Thakurta, 62, a fashion creator, told Al Jazeera that Indian weavers and traders would benefit immensely from the import restrictions on Bangladesh. That also shut down cheap knockoffs of the more expensive designs.

“The restrictions came at the right time, just before the onset of the festival season and that immensely benefited the industry.”

“ Well, the shutdown melodrama continues.”

That’s how, with the verbal equivalent of a sigh, Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana summed up the third day of the United States government shutdown.

On Friday, the US Senate reconvened before a weekend recess to vote yet again on a continuing resolution that would keep the government funded through November 21.

Republicans have touted the resolution as a “clean” budget bill, maintaining the status quo. But Democrats have said they will refuse to consider any bill that does not consider healthcare spending.

By the end of the year, subsidies under the Affordable Care Act are slated to expire, a fact expected to cause insurance premiums to spike for many Americans. And Democrats have called on Republicans to reconsider cuts to Medicaid, the government insurance programme for low-income households, following the passage of a bill earlier this year that narrows its requirements.

But the result has been an impasse on Capitol Hill, with both parties exchanging blame and no resolution in sight. Frustration was visible on both sides.

“This shutdown is bone-deep, down-to-the-marrow stupid,” Kennedy said from the Senate floor.

For a fourth time on Friday, Democrats rejected the Republicans’ proposal, which previously passed the House of Representatives along party lines.

Only three senators splintered from the party caucus: Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, Democrat John Fetterman of Pennsylvania and Independent Angus King of Maine.

On the Republican side, Senator Rand Paul also refused to vote alongside members of his party. His concern, he said, was how the spending would contribute to federal debt.

The result was a vote of 54 to 44 in the 100-seat Senate chamber, far short of the 60 votes Republicans need to overcome a Democratic filibuster to scuttle the bill.

As a counterproposal, Democrats put forward a bill that would see more than $1 trillion dedicated to healthcare spending. But that too floundered in a Senate vote.

Finger-pointing on Capitol Hill

In a news conference afterwards, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said the deadlock could only be broken if the Republicans changed their tactic and negotiated on the question of healthcare.

“Today, we saw the Republicans run the same play, and they got the same result. The question is: Will they change course?” he told reporters.

Schumer accused Republicans of having “wasted a week” with four votes that ended in the same result.

“ My caucus and Democrats are adamant that we must protect the healthcare of the American people,” he said. “ Instead of trying to come to the table and negotiate with Democrats and reopen the government, the White House and fellow Republicans have vowed to make this a ‘maximum pain’ shutdown.”

Republican leaders, meanwhile, accused the Democrats of attempting to bog down the process instead of proceeding with the status quo.

House Speaker Mike Johnson also argued that programmes like Medicaid were in desperate need of reform.

“Medicaid has been rife with fraud and abuse, and so we reformed it. Why? To help provide more and better health services for the American people,” he said at a news conference. “ We had so many people on Medicaid that never were intended to be there.”

Johnson accused Schumer of attempting to appeal to the progressive branch of the Democratic Party, in anticipation of a 2028 primary for his Senate seat: “ He’s got to show that he’s fighting Republicans.”

Both sides of the aisle, however, expressed sympathy for the federal workers caught in the middle of the shutdown.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that nearly 750,000 people are facing furloughs each day the shutdown continues. Others are required to keep working without pay.

The total compensation for the furloughed employees amounts to roughly $400m per day, according to the budget office’s statistics. Thanks to a 2019 law, the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act, federal employees will eventually receive backpay – but only after the shutdown concludes.

Pressure tactics

In an effort to force the Democrats to pass the continuing resolution, Johnson issued a notice on Friday afternoon that the House of Representatives would not return to session until October 14 at the earliest.

Instead, his memo called on representatives to engage in a “district work period”, away from the US capital.

That announcement was designed to place pressure on the Senate to act on the continuing resolution the House had already passed. Prior to Johnson’s announcement, the House had been expected to resume its work in the Capitol on October 7.

Meanwhile, John Thune, the Senate majority leader, indicated he would be willing to weigh the Democrats’ concerns about healthcare, but only once the government was reopened.

Still, he made no guarantee that the expiring healthcare subsidies would be re-upped if the Democrats did relent.

“ We can’t make commitments or promises on the COVID subsidies because that’s not something that we can guarantee that there are the votes there to do. But what I’ve said is I’m open to having conversations with our Democrat colleagues about how to address that issue,” Thune said.

“ But that can’t happen while the government is shut down.”

Republican President Donald Trump, meanwhile, has threatened to use the shutdown as an opportunity to slash the federal workforce and cut programmes that benefit Democratic strongholds.

Already this week, his administration has said it is suspending $18bn in New York City infrastructure projects, including for tunnels under the Hudson River, as well as about $8bn in clean energy initiatives.

But on Friday, Russ Vought, Trump’s director for the US Office of Management and Budget, announced another major city would be targeted for cuts: Chicago, Illinois.

Vought posted on social media that two Chicago infrastructure projects, worth $2.1bn, “have been put on hold to ensure funding is not flowing via race-based contracting”.

At a news briefing afterwards, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said a reduction in the federal workforce was also in the works, with Vought meeting with agency leaders to discuss layoffs.

“Maybe if Democrats do the right thing, this government shutdown can be over. Our troops can get paid again. We can go back to doing the business of the American people,” Leavitt said.

“But if this shutdown continues, as we’ve said, layoffs are an unfortunate consequence of that.”

But Democratic leaders dismissed those threats as pressure tactics meant to distract from the key question of healthcare.

In his remarks, Schumer argued that healthcare was a top priority for Republican districts too, and that Republican leaders should respond accordingly.

“It’s simple,” Schumer said. “ They can reopen the government and make people’s healthcare more affordable at the same time.”

The lawsuit claims Trump does not have the authority to override the law that created the H-1B visa programme.

A coalition of unions, employers and religious groups has filed a lawsuit seeking to block United States President Donald Trump’s bid to impose a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visas for high-skilled foreign workers.

The lawsuit filed in federal court in San Francisco on Friday is the first to challenge Trump’s proclamation issued last month announcing the fee.

The United Auto Workers union, American Association of University Professors and other plaintiffs say Trump’s power to restrict the entry of certain foreign nationals does not allow him to override the law that created the H-1B visa programme.

The programme allows US employers to hire foreign workers in speciality fields, and technology companies in particular rely heavily on workers who receive H-1B visas.

Critics of H-1Bs and other work visa programmes say they are often used to replace American workers with cheaper foreign labour. But business groups and major companies have said H-1Bs are a critical means to address a shortage of qualified American workers.

Employers who sponsor H-1B workers currently typically pay between $2,000 and $5,000 in fees, depending on the size of the company and other factors.

Trump’s order bars new H-1B recipients from entering the US unless the employer sponsoring their visa has made an additional $100,000 payment. The administration has said the order does not apply to people who already hold H-1B visas or those who submitted applications before September 21.

Trump in his unprecedented order invoked his power under federal immigration law to restrict the entry of certain foreign nationals that would be detrimental to the interests of the US.

He said that high numbers of lower-wage workers in the H-1B programme have undercut its integrity and that the programme threatens national security, including by discouraging Americans from pursuing careers in science and technology. He said the “large-scale replacement of American workers” through the H-1B programme threatens the country’s economic and national security.

‘Pay to play’

The plaintiffs argue that Trump has no authority to alter a comprehensive statutory scheme governing the visa programme and cannot, under the US Constitution, unilaterally impose fees, taxes or other mechanisms to generate revenue for the US, saying that power is reserved for Congress.

“The Proclamation transforms the H-1B program into one where employers must either ‘pay to play’ or seek a ‘national interest’ exemption, which will be doled out at the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security, a system that opens the door to selective enforcement and corruption,” the lawsuit said.

The groups argue that agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security’s US Citizenship and Immigration Services and US Department of State, likewise adopted new policies to implement Trump’s proclamation without following necessary rulemaking processes, and without considering how “extorting exorbitant fees will stifle innovation”.

The H-1B programme offers 65,000 visas annually to employers bringing in temporary foreign workers in specialised fields, with another 20,000 visas for workers with advanced degrees. The visas are approved for a period of three to six years.

India was by far the largest beneficiary of H-1B visas last year, accounting for 71 percent of approved visas, while China was a distant second at 11.7 percent, according to government data.

Air Canada has announced it has begun serving complimentary beer, wine and snacks to economy passengers on every flight across its network, in a major win for those who love free stuff

“Two pints of lager and a packet of crisps please.”

No longer will this request be met with an eye-watering bill when made at 30,000 feet, at least on one airline.

Air Canada has announced it has begun serving free beer, wine and snacks to economy passengers on every flight across its network.

That is a significant change, as previously the airline only served free alcohol and food to economy passengers on long-haul flights.

As generous as it may sound, the policy is designed to be a cost-effective way to keep passengers flying with Air Canada. Scott O’Leary, vice president of loyalty and product, explained the rationale in a statement.

READ MORE: Definitive guide to which passengers get the middle armrests on a planeREAD MORE: ‘I’m an airline worker and passengers should only ever use one type of suitcase’

“Food and beverage tend to have a disproportionate impact on customer satisfaction. As part of our commitment to elevating the onboard experience, we’re delighted to introduce even more exciting new options to our menus,” he said.

“These upgrades offer something for everyone and proudly showcase Canadian brands so that our customers can sit back, relax and kick-start their travels no matter where they’re going.”

What customers can expect to get for free on economy flights varies significantly.

Unsurprisingly, budget carriers such as Wizz Air, Ryanair and easyJet provide nothing for free.

Airlines offering free drinks on short-haul flights include KLM, which offers a free snack and drink on all European flights, and LOT Polish Airlines, providing free beer, wine, or juice on their short-haul routes.

Free water and snacks are also typically available with British Airways, though the extent of the service can vary by division and route. For other airlines like Lufthansa and Swiss, only a complimentary bottle of water and perhaps a small snack are provided.

For short and medium-haul flights within Europe, Lufthansa offers a paid “Onboard Delights” service where passengers can purchase food and drinks.

Air France offers free food on many of its flights. While a “buy on board” system is being tested on some routes, most flights still provide complimentary meals, snacks, and beverages, depending on the flight duration and class. Passengers on short and medium-haul flights can expect a free sandwich, pastry, or snack, along with a drink.

On short and mid-haul TUI flights (less than seven hours), a variety of hot and cold snacks and drinks are available for purchase from the onboard café.

Most full-service airlines do still include meals and drinks on long-haul routes. Think flights to the US, Asia, or the Caribbean.

• British Airways: Even on the cheapest economy fare, you can get complimentary meals, snacks, and drinks.
• Virgin Atlantic: Offers free meals and drinks, and they’re known for a decent veggie option.
• Emirates, Qatar Airways, Singapore Airlines: All offer full meal service in economy, and it’s usually good quality. You’ll get at least two meals plus snacks and unlimited drinks.
• Turkish Airlines: Generally provides free meals on their international flights, including both economy and business class. On longer flights, passengers are typically offered a choice of main courses, side dishes, bread, and dessert. Drinks are also complimentary on all flights.
• Air France: On long-haul flights, an extensive selection of meals is offered, including hot dishes, and passengers can also purchase a la carte meals in advance.
• American Airlines: Meals and drinks are typically included on international flights, including wine and beer
• United: United Airlines offers complimentary food on most flights, especially on longer distances and for higher class tickets.
• Air Canada: Generally offers complimentary meals and snacks on international flights. On flights longer than 2 hours, you’ll typically receive a complimentary meal and beverage service, including salad, warm bread, a hot entrée, and dessert.
• Tui: On long-haul flights (seven hours or more), a complimentary meal is included. Additional drinks and snacks can still be purchased on these flights as well
• Lufthansa: Lufthansa generally provides complimentary meals and drinks on long-haul flights
• KLM: Provides complimentary meals and drinks on most of its flights. The specific offerings vary depending on the flight duration and class of travel, but generally include snacks and drinks on shorter flights and more substantial meals on longer routes.

Latest move underscores efforts to normalise ties and draw closer in wake of Trump’s policies, stiff tariffs.

India and China plan to resume direct flights this month between some of their cities after a five-year suspension as relations between the two countries begin to thaw, Indian authorities have announced.

The closer ties come in the face of the United States President Donald Trump administration’s aggressive trade policies.

Direct flights between the two countries were suspended during the COVID pandemic in 2020 and did not resume as Beijing and New Delhi engaged in prolonged border tensions.

On Thursday, India’s embassy to China said in a post on social media platform WeChat that flights between designated cities will resume by late October, subject to commercial carriers’ decisions.

The resumption is part of the Indian government’s “approach towards gradual normalization of relations between India and China,” the embassy added.

India’s largest carrier IndiGo announced on Thursday that it would resume flights from Kolkata, India, to Guangzhou, China, from October 26.

The resumption comes after Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited China for the first time in seven years to attend last month’s meeting of regional security bloc, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

There, Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed that India and China were development partners, not rivals, and discussed ways to strengthen trade ties amid global tariff uncertainty fuelled by Trump.

The US president raised the tariff rate on Indian imports to a stiff 50 percent last month, citing the nation’s continuing purchases of Russian oil. He also urged the European Union to slap 100 percent tariffs on China and India as part of his efforts to pressure Moscow to end its war in Ukraine.

Relations between China and India plummeted in 2020 after security forces clashed along a disputed border in the Himalayan mountains. Four Chinese soldiers and 20 Indian soldiers were killed in the worst violence in decades, freezing high-level political engagements.

The congressional setback arrives as Milei’s political party faces slumping popularity headed into a midterm election.

Argentina’s struggling President Javier Milei has suffered a new setback as Congress overturned his vetoes of laws increasing funding for public universities and for paediatric care.

On Thursday, senators invalidated both vetoes, which had already been rejected by the Chamber of Deputies, bringing to three the number of laws upheld by Congress despite vehement opposition from the budget-slashing Milei.

Milei, who has implemented deep austerity policies to reduce the size of government, had said the new spending would jeopardise Argentina’s fiscal balance.

The Senate’s vote comes as the United States-backed Milei struggles to end a run on the national currency, the Argentinian peso, in the run-up to the crucial October 26 midterm elections.

The 54-year-old right-winger, in power since December 2023, has been on the ropes since his party’s trouncing by the centre-left in Buenos Aires provincial polls last month.

Those elections, seen as a bellwether ahead of the midterms, shredded his aura of political invincibility and sent markets into a tailspin.

“There’s a sensation of disenchantment and anger with the impact of the cutbacks,” said Sebastian Halperin, a political consultant in Buenos Aires.

He added that Milei had failed to build alliances with governors who influence how their province’s legislators vote in Congress.

Last week, the US government announced it was in talks with Argentina on a $20bn swap line aimed at shoring up the peso.

US President Donald Trump sought to buoy his close ally at talks in New York last week, saying: “He’s doing a fantastic job.”

The two are expected to meet in October as Milei seeks to secure a credit swap line from the US.

Analysts say, however, the president still needs a strong result in the midterms to avoid compromising the progress he has made in steadying Argentina’s economy.

After rallying briefly, the peso slumped again this week over market uncertainty about the amount and extent of the US financial help on offer.

European Union leaders are considering a “reparations plan” that would use frozen Russian state assets to provide Ukraine with a $164bn loan to help fund its reconstruction after the war with Russia ends.

Leaders expressed a mixture of support and caution for the plan on Wednesday as they met in the Danish capital, Copenhagen, days after drones were spotted in Denmark’s airspace, prompting airport closures. While the drones in Denmark were not formally identified as Russian, other European countries, including Poland, Romania and Estonia, have accused Russia of drone incursions into their airspace in September.

“I strongly support the idea,” Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said. Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson also said he was “very much in favour” of the plan. Others said there could be legal complications, however.

Here is what we know about Europe’s “reparations plan”, how it may work and what the response from Russia is likely to be.

What is Europe’s ‘reparations plan’?

The reparations plan was first outlined by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in mid-September, and backing for it has grown as United States financial support for Ukraine wanes.

During his 2024 presidential campaign, US President Donald Trump promised voters he would pull the US back from providing high levels of financial and military aid to Ukraine.

Since the beginning of his term in January, Trump has made it clear the US will take a back seat in terms of providing financial support and security guarantees to Ukraine, indicating Europe should fill the gap instead.

Europe’s plan would use Russian assets frozen in European banks as collateral for a 140-billion-euro ($164.4bn) loan to Ukraine. Repayments for the loan would be recouped via war reparations from Russia, but the loan would also be guaranteed either in the EU’s next long-term budget or by individual EU member states.

“We need a more structural solution for military support,” von der Leyen said on Tuesday. “This is why I have put forward the idea of a reparations loan that is based on the immobilised Russian assets.”

How much in frozen Russian assets does Europe hold?

About $300bn in Russian Central Bank assets have been frozen by the US and European countries since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Most of this – $246.9bn – is held in Europe, of which $217.5bn – the vast majority in cash – is held by Euroclear, a Belgium-based capital markets company.

On June 30, Euroclear reported the Russian sanctioned assets on its balance sheet generated $3.2bn in interest during the first half of 2025, a drop from the $4bn in interest earned over the same period last year.

What are the challenges to this plan?

Under international law, a sovereign country’s assets cannot simply be confiscated. Hence, loaning this money to Ukraine would be an infringement of Moscow’s sovereign claim over its central bank assets.

Since most of the assets are held in Belgium, the country has asked for the plan to be fleshed out in case it is required to return the assets to Russia.

“I explained to my colleagues yesterday that I want their signature saying, ‘If we take Putin’s money, we use it, we’re all going to be responsible if it goes wrong,’” Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever told reporters in Copenhagen on Thursday.

On Wednesday, von der Leyen said: “It’s absolutely clear that Belgium cannot be the one who is the only member state that is carrying the risk. The risk has to be put on broader shoulders.”

Are any European leaders hesitant about this plan?

Yes. Besides De Wever, other European leaders have expressed hesitation or have asked their fellow leaders to work out more details of the plan before they agree to it.

Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof said the proposal should be considered very carefully, given the legal and financial risks that could arise.

Others also signalled caution. “I think that’s a difficult legal question,” Luxembourg Prime Minister Luc Frieden told reporters. “You can’t just take over assets that belong to another state so easily.”

Frieden added: “There are now other proposals on the table, but these also raise a whole host of questions. I would like to have answers to these questions first. Among other things, how would such a loan be repaid? What would happen if Russia did not repay these reparations in a peace treaty?”

Is the plan likely to go ahead?

Experts said European leaders would likely have to find a way to make the plan viable as the prospects of further US aid for Ukraine dry up.

“It is going to happen because with the US walking away, Europe is left with $100bn-plus annual funding needs for Ukraine,” Timothy Ash, an associate fellow in the Russia and Eurasia programme at Chatham House, told Al Jazeera.

Ash explained that the bigger challenge for Europe would be to not go ahead with the plan if it means leaving Ukraine underfunded generally and placing it at higher risk of losing the war with Russia. “Risks to Europe would then be catastrophic,” he said, including the prospect of tens of millions of Ukrainians migrating west into Europe.

If a Ukrainian loss in the war becomes more likely, European nations would be forced to ramp up defence spending to 5 percent of their gross domestic products (GDPs) much faster than expected.

In June, members of NATO pledged to increase their defence spending to 5 percent of their GDPs by 2035.

Such an acceleration “would mean higher budget deficits, higher borrowing costs, more debt, less growth and a weaker Europe and euro”, Ash said.

How has Russia responded?

Moscow has rebuked the EU plan, calling it a “theft” of Russian money.

“We are talking about plans for the illegal seizure of Russian property. In Russia, we call that simply theft,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Wednesday.

Peskov said anyone involved in seizing Russian assets “will be prosecuted in one way or another. They will all be called to account.”

He added: “The boomerang will very seriously hit those who are the main depositories, countries that are interested in investment attractiveness.”

Ash said Russia could take legal action against European countries if the plan goes ahead. However, “it would have to lift its own sovereign immunity to be able to launch any such legal action. And a legal action by Russia would take years – decades to conclude.”

Russia is protected by sovereign immunity, which is a legal principle shielding foreign governments from being sued in courts outside their own country. If Russia wants to legally pursue this, it would need to waive this immunity, which, in turn, would mean Russia could also be sued or tried in a foreign country.

Ash added that another course of action Russia could take would be to seize Western assets under its jurisdiction, but this also does not come without challenges. “Russia has 10 times more assets in the West than vice versa,” Ash said. “It’s just more vulnerable through this channel.”

How much in Western assets does Russia hold?

Moscow said the value of all foreign assets it holds is comparable to the frozen Russian reserves held in the West. Citing data from January 2022, Russia’s state-run RIA news agency reported there were about $288bn of assets in Russia that could potentially be seized by Moscow.

However, Russian Central Bank records from 2022 show there were $289bn in “derivative and other foreign investments” in Russia. By the end of 2023, these foreign assets had dropped in value to $215bn.

Ash explained: “Those assets are all foreign assets – not just Western. [They include] Chinese, Indian, Middle East assets. And most of those assets are private – not state.”

The U.S. economy will be hampered by the Trump administration’s tariffs in the coming months, which along with interest rate cuts could lead to a “stagflation-lite” scenario of modestly elevated inflation and unemployment, according to the UCLA Anderson Forecast released Wednesday.

The fourth-quarter estimate also predicts that rising layoffs could lead to a recession, and if President Trump is successful in exerting more control over the Federal Reserve, a “full blown stagflation scenario becomes a more significant risk.”

“This forecast is being produced at a time when more extreme scenarios have become increasingly plausible, even though they do not yet represent our baseline outlook,” states the report by Clement Bohr, senior economist at the forecast.

UCLA’s report notes that the labor market “deteriorated notably” in June while inflation pivoted away from a path of “gradual normalization” onto a rising trajectory.

The quarterly forecast does not take into account the government shutdown that began Wednesday that could results in thousands of layoffs, but predicts third-quarter GDP growth will come in at just 1% on a seasonably adjusted basis, and it will weaken further as the full cost of the tariffs takes hold.

It expects growth to recover in the middle of next year and reach 2% by the fourth quarter, remaining there throughout 2027.

Driving the stagflation prediction is an effective tariff rate of about 11%, with the risk of future levies on pharmaceuticals and the potential lack of a resolution of the China trade dispute. The report notes the political pressure on Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell and the decision by the bank to cut the federal funds rate by a quarter point in September. UCLA predicts a similar rate cut this month.

Trump’s “big beautiful” budget reconciliation bill passed in July, which included $703 billion in temporary tax cuts over the next four years starting in 2026, also will provide substantial stimulus. The Consumer Price Index is expected to peak at 3.6% in the first quarter of next year before easing.

However, the economy will be held back by a tightening labor supply caused by retiring baby boomers and restrictive immigration policies. The unemployment rate has crept up to 4.3% and is expected to peak at 4.6% early next year.

Also Wednesday, closely watched ADP Research released figures showed private-sector payrolls decreased by 32,000 in September with job growth slowing across many industries.

The billions of dollars being invested in artificial intelligence by large technology firms has helped prop up the economy, the forecast noted, which should result in productivity gains — but the capital expenditures should tail off as a “trough of disillusionment” sets in when revenue gains don’t meet expectations.

The report also expects consumer consumption to weaken following a surge in electric-vehicle purchases in the third quarter due to the expiration of federal tax credits last month.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, said if the government shutdown lasts a week or two it won’t have a “meaningful economic impact.” However, if it lasts for a month or more and is accompanied by mass federal layoffs, it would have a profound effect on the economy, Zandi said.

“It would wreak havoc on the financial markets as global markets and investors begin to wonder if we can govern ourselves,” he said. “That would mean higher interest rates and lower stock prices.”

The United States Supreme Court says it will hear arguments over President Donald Trump’s efforts to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook from her post. The court’s announcement means Cook will stay in the job for now.

The high court announced the decision on Wednesday.

The White House has been trying to remove Cook in the first-ever bid by a president to fire a Fed official, an unprecedented challenge to central bank independence.

The justices declined to immediately decide a Department of Justice request to put on hold a judge’s order temporarily blocking the Republican president from removing Cook, an appointee of Democratic former President Joe Biden, while litigation over the termination continues in a lower court.

The justices said they would hear the case in January.

In creating the Fed in 1913, Congress passed a law called the Federal Reserve Act, which included provisions to shield the central bank from political interference, such as allowing governors to be removed by a president only “for cause”, although the law does not define the term or establish procedures for removal. The law has never been tested in court.

Washington, DC-based US District Judge Jia Cobb on September 9 ruled that Trump’s claims that Cook committed mortgage fraud before taking office, which Cook denies, likely were not sufficient grounds for removal under the Federal Reserve Act.

Trump on August 25 said he was removing Cook from the Fed’s Board of Governors, citing allegations that before joining the central bank in 2022, she falsified records to obtain favourable terms on a mortgage. Her term is set to expire in 2038.

Cook, the first Black woman to serve as a Fed governor, sued Trump soon after. Cook has said the claims made by Trump against her did not give the president the legal authority to remove her and were a pretext to fire her for her monetary policy stance.

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a 2-1 ruling on September 15 denied the administration’s request to put Cobb’s order on hold.

Expansive view of presidential powers

In a series of decisions in recent months, the Supreme Court has allowed Trump to remove members of various federal agencies that Congress had established as independent from direct presidential control despite similar job protections for those posts. The decisions suggest that the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, may be ready to jettison a key 1935 precedent that preserved these protections in a case that involved the US Federal Trade Commission.

But the court has signalled that it could treat the Fed as distinct from other executive branch agencies, noting in May in a case involving Trump’s dismissal of two Democratic members of federal labour boards that the Fed “is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity” with a singular historical tradition.

Trump’s bid to fire Cook reflects the expansive view of presidential power he has asserted since returning to office in January. As long as the president identifies a cause for removal, Cook’s sacking is within his “unreviewable discretion”, the Department of Justice said in a September 18 filing to the Supreme Court.

“Put simply, the President may reasonably determine that interest rates paid by the American people should not be set by a Governor who appears to have lied about facts material to the interest rates she secured for herself – and refuses to explain the apparent misrepresentations,” the filing stated.

Cook’s lawyers told the Supreme Court on September 25 that granting Trump’s request, “would eviscerate the Federal Reserve’s longstanding independence, upend financial markets and create a blueprint for future presidents to direct monetary policy based on their political agendas and election calendars”.

A group of 18 former US Federal Reserve officials, Treasury secretaries and other top economic officials who served under presidents from both parties also urged the Supreme Court not to let Trump fire Cook.

The group included the past three Fed chairs, Janet Yellen, Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan. In a brief to the court, they wrote that allowing this dismissal would threaten the Fed’s independence and erode public confidence in it.

Cook took part in the Fed’s highly anticipated two-day meeting in Washington, DC, in September, at which the central bank decided to cut interest rates by a quarter of a percentage point as policymakers responded to concerns about weakness in the job market. Cook was among those voting in favour of the cut.

Pressure on Fed

Concerns about the Fed’s independence from the White House in setting monetary policy could have a ripple effect throughout the global economy.

The case has ramifications for the Fed’s ability to set interest rates without regard to the wishes of politicians, widely seen as critical to any central bank’s ability to function independently and carry out tasks such as keeping inflation under control.

Trump this year has demanded that the Fed cut rates aggressively, berating Fed Chair Jerome Powell for his stewardship over monetary policy as the central bank focused on fighting inflation. Trump has called Powell a “numbskull,” “incompetent” and a “stubborn moron”.

The United States federal government shut down at 12:01am East Coast time (04:01 GMT) on Wednesday after Congress failed to pass a new spending bill, forcing operations considered inessential to close.

President Donald Trump has threatened to use the budget deadlock to push through mass layoffs of federal employees.

Democrats and Republicans remain divided over spending priorities as Democrats push to protect healthcare, social programmes and foreign aid while Republicans demand cuts.

This is not the first time Washington has faced such a standoff. The graphic below shows every US funding gap and government shutdown since 1976, including how long each lasted and under which administration it occurred.

What is a government shutdown?

A government shutdown happens when Congress does not agree on a budget, so parts of the federal government have to close until a spending plan is approved.

Shutdowns tend to happen in October because the government’s fiscal year runs from October 1 to September 30.

How many times has the government shut down?

The current budget process was established in 1976. Since then, the government has had 20 funding gaps, resulting in 10 shutdowns.

A funding gap occurs whenever Congress misses the deadline to pass a budget or a stopgap spending bill (also called a continuing resolution), leaving the government without legal authority to spend money.

• A single shutdown can involve multiple funding gaps if temporary funding measures expire before a long-term agreement is reached.
• A shutdown happens only if government operations actually stop because of that funding gap.

Before the 1980s, funding gaps did not usually lead to shutdowns, and agencies kept operating, assuming funding would be restored soon.

After 1980, Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued legal opinions stating that, under federal law, agencies may not spend money without congressional approval. Only essential services – such as national security, air traffic control and law enforcement – could continue.

Since 1982, with this new legal basis in place, funding gaps have more often resulted in full or partial government shutdowns until Congress resolves the standoff.

When was the last government shutdown?

The last government shutdown occurred in December 2018 and January 2019 after President Donald Trump, then in his first term, and Democratic politicians hit an impasse over the president’s request for $5bn in funding for a wall on the US-Mexico border, a demand the Democrats opposed.

When was the longest shutdown?

The last shutdown was also the longest in US history, lasting 35 days from December 22, 2018, to January 25, 2019, when Trump announced he had reached a tentative deal with congressional leaders to reopen the government for three weeks while negotiations on the border wall continued.

What happens during a shutdown?

During a government shutdown, nonessential federal services are halted or reduced, and many government employees are furloughed, or placed on unpaid leave.

Meanwhile, essential personnel – such as military service members, law enforcement officers and air traffic controllers – are required to keep working, often without pay until funding is restored.

How are government shutdowns resolved?

Shutdowns are typically resolved when Congress passes a continuing resolution, which provides short-term funding while negotiations for a longer-term budget continue.

Since 1990, every shutdown has ended through the passage of a continuing resolution.

Which services are halted?

A shutdown primarily affects nonessential federal employees as well as people and businesses that rely on government services.

The federal government is the nation’s largest employer. As of November, it had a little more than 3 million workers – about 1.9 percent of the civilian workforce – according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data reported by the Pew Research Centre.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that if funding lapses in fiscal year 2026, about 750,000 federal employees could be furloughed each day, and their lost pay would add up to about $400m daily. The exact number of furloughed workers could change over time because some agencies might increase layoffs the longer a shutdown continues while others could bring some employees back.

Past shutdowns have affected numerous services and agencies, including:

• National parks and monuments
• Federal museums
• Federal research projects
• Processing of certain government benefits
• IRS taxpayer services

Which services are still in operation?

Even during a shutdown, many core government functions remain in operation. Some continue because they are classified as essential for public safety and welfare while others are funded separately from the annual budget process through mandatory or self-sustaining programmes. Examples include:

• Social Security and Medicare benefits
• The military and federal law enforcement
• US Postal Service
• Air traffic control
• US Passport Agency