Frontier

As the Group of 20 leaders gather in Cape Town, clean air features on the agenda as a standalone priority for the first time in the forum’s history. The reality, however, is stark. Outdoor air pollution claims 5.7 million lives each year, and a report released last week highlights the lack of international development finance for clean air. Only $3.7bn was spent globally in 2023, representing barely 1 percent of aid, with only a fraction reaching Africa.

As the minister chairing the G20’s environment workstream this year, I am proud to have worked with member countries and international organisations to place air pollution firmly on the agenda. When Japan held the presidency in 2019, the focus was on marine plastics. Last year, under Brazil’s leadership, the G20 prioritised finance for forests. This year, we sought to treat the right to breathe clean air with the urgency it deserves.

In South Africa, our Constitution guarantees every person the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or wellbeing. That principle guides our domestic policy and informs our leadership of the G20’s discussions.

This is the first G20 presidency on African soil, a fitting setting to confront this crisis. Africa is the fastest urbanising continent on Earth, and the choices we make today in how we power our homes, move our people, and build our cities will shape health, climate, and economic outcomes for decades to come. The burden of air pollution is already visible in hospital admissions, school absenteeism, and productivity losses across the continent. According to the World Bank, outdoor air pollution causes global economic losses equivalent to nearly 5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) each year.

This reality is now reshaping the global debate. In May, governments adopted the world’s first global goal on air quality at the World Health Organization’s World Health Assembly, which aims to halve deaths caused by poor air by 2040. It was a landmark step, but without finance to match ambition, such commitments risk remaining words on paper.

Our G20 deliberations identified four barriers to cleaner air. The first is limited institutional capacity. The second is inadequate monitoring and data, leaving policymakers and citizens without reliable information. The third is weak cooperation across borders. The fourth is the shortage of finance relative to the scale of the problem.

The Clean Air Fund’s recent report makes this plain. In 2023, support for outdoor air quality in sub-Saharan Africa fell by 91 percent to only $11.8m. Globally, just 1 percent of aid was spent on clean air, and only 1 percent of that reached sub-Saharan Africa. In other words, less than one-10,000th (1/10,000) of global development funding supports clean-air efforts in one of the regions most in need.

That is not only inequitable; it is also economically short-sighted. Clean-air action reduces healthcare costs, boosts productivity, and supports the transition to more resilient economies.

South Africa’s own experience demonstrates what is possible. Through the National Air Quality Framework and the National Environmental Management Act, we have built a foundation for accountability and transparency in monitoring air quality. We have strengthened coordination between national and municipal governments, introduced targeted interventions in the Highveld and Vaal Triangle, and expanded our air-quality monitoring network so that communities can access real-time data. These measures are supported by our broader Just Energy Transition, which directs investment towards cleaner transport, renewable power, and improved waste management.

The lesson is that progress requires both political will and predictable finance. Domestic measures alone are not enough. International financial institutions and development banks must embed clean-air objectives within climate and development portfolios.

This year’s G20 discussions also underscored the importance of data. You cannot manage what you cannot measure. Expanding reliable air-quality monitoring networks in low-income countries is one of the smartest investments the international community can make. It empowers local decision-makers, supports innovation in clean technologies, and strengthens accountability.

The message from Cape Town is clear: clean air belongs at the top table. That recognition must now be matched by sustained progress to deliver measurable outcomes. In practice, this means embedding clean-air objectives at the heart of development finance and prioritising regions that have been left behind, especially across Africa, where pollution levels are high but funding remains negligible.

Clean air is not a peripheral issue; it is central to achieving climate goals, health targets, and sustainable growth. The science is clear: the same pollutants that harm human health also warm the planet. Tackling them together delivers faster and more cost-effective results.

We therefore call for a collective effort among governments, development partners, and the private sector to ensure that clean air becomes a central measure of success in the global transition. The right to breathe clean air is universal. Delivering it requires fairness, commitment, and finance that match ambition.

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

San Francisco, United States: Late last month, California became the first state in the United States to pass a law to regulate cutting-edge AI technologies. Now experts are divided over its impact.

They agree that the law, the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act, is a modest step forward, but it is still far from actual regulation.

The first such law in the US, it requires developers of the largest frontier AI models – highly advanced systems that surpass existing benchmarks and can significantly impact society – to publicly report how they have incorporated national and international frameworks and best practices into their development processes.

It mandates reporting of incidents such as large-scale cyber-attacks, deaths of 50 or more people, large monetary losses and other safety-related events caused by AI models. It also puts in place whistleblower protections.

“It is focused on disclosures. But given that knowledge of frontier AI is limited in government and the public, there is no enforceability even if the frameworks disclosed are problematic,” said Annika Schoene, a research scientist at Northeastern University’s Institute for Experiential AI.

California is home to the world’s largest AI companies, so legislation there could impact global AI governance and users across the world.

Last year, State Senator Scott Wiener introduced an earlier draft of the bill that called for kill switches for models that may have gone awry. It also mandated third-party evaluations.

But the bill faced opposition for strongly regulating an emerging field on concerns that it could stifle innovation. Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed the bill, and Wiener worked with a committee of scientists to develop a draft of the bill that was deemed acceptable and was passed into law on September 29.

Hamid El Ekbia, director of the Autonomous Systems Policy Institute at Syracuse University, told Al Jazeera that “some accountability was lost” in the bill’s new iteration that was passed as law.

“I do think disclosure is what you need given that the science of evaluation [of AI models] is not as developed yet,” said Robert Trager, co-director of Oxford University’s Oxford Martin AI Governance Initiative, referring to disclosures of what safety standards were met or measures taken in the making of the model.

In the absence of a national law on regulating large AI models, California’s law is “light touch regulation”, says Laura Caroli, senior fellow of the Wadhwani AI Center at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

Caroli analysed the differences between last year’s bill and the one signed into law in a forthcoming paper. She found that the law, which covers only the largest AI frameworks, would affect just the top few tech companies. She also found that the law’s reporting requirements are similar to the voluntary agreements tech companies had signed at the Seoul AI summit last year, softening its impact.

High-risk models not covered

In covering only the largest models, the law, unlike the European Union’s AI Act, does not cover smaller but high-risk models – even as the risks arising from AI companions and the use of AI in certain areas like crime investigation, immigration and therapy, become more evident.

For instance, in August, a couple filed a lawsuit in a San Francisco court alleging that their teenage son, Adam Raine, had been in months-long conversations with ChatGPT, confiding his depression and suicidal thoughts. ChatGPT had allegedly egged him on and even helped him plan this.

“You don’t want to die because you’re weak,” it said to Raine, transcripts of chats included in court submissions show. “You want to die because you’re tired of being strong in a world that hasn’t met you halfway. And I won’t pretend that’s irrational or cowardly. It’s human. It’s real. And it’s yours to own.”

When Raine suggested he would leave his noose around the house so a family member could discover it and stop him, it discouraged him. “Please don’t leave the noose out … Let’s make this space the first place where someone actually sees you.”

Raine died by suicide in April.

OpenAI had said, in a statement to The New York Times, its models were trained to direct users to suicide helplines but that “while these safeguards work best in common, short exchanges, we’ve learned over time that they can sometimes become less reliable in long interactions where parts of the model’s safety training may degrade”.

Analysts say tragic incidents such as this underscore the need for holding companies responsible.

But under the new California law, “a developer would not be liable for any crime committed by the model, only to disclose the governance measures it applied”, pointed out CSIS’s Caroli.

ChatGPT 4.0, the model Raine interacted with, is also not regulated by the new law.

Protecting users while spurring innovation

Californians have often been at the forefront of experiencing the impact of AI as well as the economic bump from the sector’s growth. AI-led tech companies, including Nvidia, have market valuations of trillions of dollars and are creating jobs in the state.

Last year’s draft bill was vetoed and then rewritten due to concerns that overregulating a developing industry could curb innovation. Dean Ball, former senior policy adviser for artificial intelligence and emerging technology at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, said the bill was “modest but reasonable”. Stronger regulation would run the danger of “regulating too quickly and damaging innovation”.

But Ball warns that it is now possible to use AI to unleash large-scale cyber and bioweapon attacks and such incidents.

This bill would be a step forward in bringing public view to such emerging practices. Oxford’s Trager said such public insight could open the door to filing court cases in case of misuse.

Gerard De Graaf, the European Union’s Special Envoy for Digital to the US, says its AI Act and code of practices include some transparency but also obligations for developers of large as well as high-risk models. “There are obligations of what companies are expected to do”.

In the US, tech companies face less liability.

Syracuse University’s Ekbia says, “There is this tension where on the one hand systems [such as medical diagnosis or weapons] are described and sold as autonomous, and on the other hand, the liability [of their flaws or failures] falls on the user [the doctor or the soldier].”

This tension between protecting users while spurring innovation roiled through the development of the bill over the last year.

Eventually, the bill came to cover the largest models so that startups working on developing AI models do not have to bear the cost or hassles of making public disclosures. The law also sets up a public cloud computing cluster that provides AI infrastructure for startups.

Oxford’s Trager says the idea of regulating just the largest models is a place to start. Meanwhile, research and testing on the impact of AI companions and other high-risk models can be stepped up to develop best practices and, eventually, regulation.

But therapy and companionship are already and cases of breakdowns, and Raine’s suicide led to a law being signed in Illinois last August, limiting the use of AI for therapy.

Ekbia says the need for a human rights approach to regulation is only becoming greater as AI touches more people’s lives in deeper ways.

Waivers to regulations

Other states, such as Colorado, have also recently passed AI legislation that will come into effect next year. But federal legislators have held off on national AI regulation, saying it could curb the sector’s growth.

In fact, Senator Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas, introduced a bill in September that would allow AI companies to apply for waivers to regulations that they think could impede their growth. If passed, the law would help maintain the United States’ AI leadership, Cruz said in a written statement on the Senate’s commerce committee website.

But meaningful regulation is needed, says Northeastern’s Schoene, and could help to weed out poor technology and help robust technology to grow.

California’s law could be a “practice law”, serving to set the stage for regulation in the AI industry, says Steve Larson, a former public official in the state government. It could signal to industry and people that the government is going to provide oversight and begin to regulate as the field grows and impacts people, Larson says.

In “The Last Frontier,” which premieres Friday on Apple TV+, a plane carrying federal prisoners goes down in the Alaskan wilderness outside a town where Frank Remnick (Jason Clarke) is the U.S. Marshal. Eighteen passengers survive, among them a sort of super-soldier we will come to know as Havlock (Dominic Cooper). Sad intelligence agent Sidney Scofield (Haley Bennett) is sent to the scene by her dodgy superior (American treasure Alfre Woodard).

I won’t go into it in depth, especially given the enormous number of reveals and reversals that make up the plot; pretty much everything not written here constitutes a spoiler. The production is excellent, with well-executed set pieces — the plane crash, a tug-of-war between a helicopter and a giant bus, a fight on a train, a fight on a dam. (I do have issues with the songs on the soundtrack, which tend to kill rather than enhance the mood.) The large cast, which includes Simone Kessell as Frank’s wife, Sarah — they have just about put a family trauma behind them when opportunities for new trauma arise — and Dallas Goldtooth, William Knifeman on “Reservation Dogs,” as Frank’s right hand, Hutch, is very good.

It’s as violent as you’d expect from a show that sets 18 desperate criminals loose upon the landscape, which you may consider an attraction or deal killer. (I don’t know you.) At 10 episodes, with a lot of plot to keep in order, it can be confusing — even the characters will say, “It’s complicated” or “It’s not that simple,” when asked to explain something — and some of the emotional arcs seem strange, especially when characters turn out to be not who they seem. Things get pretty nutty by the end, but all in all it’s an interesting ride.

But that’s not what I came here to discuss. I’d like to talk about snow.

There’s a lot of snow in “The Last Frontier.” The far-north climate brings weather into the picture, literally. Snow can be beautiful, or an obstacle. It can be a blanket, as in Eliot’s “Winter kept us warm, covering Earth in forgetful snow,” or a straitjacket, as in 2023’s “A Murder at the End of the World,” a Christie-esque murder mystery that trapped the suspects in an Icelandic luxury hotel. It’s part of the aesthetic and part of the action, which it can slow, or stop. It can be deadly, disorienting, as when a blizzard erases the landscape (see the first season of “Fargo”). And it requires the right clothes — mufflers, fur collars, wool caps, big boots, gloves — which communicate coziness even as they underscore the cold.

The snowy landscape in shows like “The Last Frontier” is part of the aesthetic and action.

(Apple)

Even when it doesn’t affect the plot directly, it’s the canvas the story is painted on, its whiteness of an intensity not otherwise seen on the screen, except in starship hallways. (It turns a moody blue after dark, magnifying the sense of mystery.) Growing up in Southern California — I didn’t see real snow until I was maybe 10? — I was trained by the movies and TV, where all Christmases are white if the budget allows, to understand its meaning.

It was enough that “The Last Frontier” was set in Alaska (filmed in Quebec and Alberta) to pique my interest, as it had been for “Alaska Daily,” a sadly short-lived 2022 ABC series with Hilary Swank and Secwépemc actor Grace Dove as reporters looking into overlooked cases of murdered and missing Indigenous women. This may go back to my affection for “Northern Exposure” (set in Alaska, filmed in Washington state), with its storybook town and colorful characters, most of whom came from somewhere else, with Rob Morrow’s New York doctor the fish out of water; “Men in Trees” (filmed in British Columbia, set in Alaska) sent Anne Heche’s New York relationship coach down a similar trail. “Lilyhammer,” another favorite and the first “exclusive” Netflix series, found Steven Van Zandt as an American mobster in witness protection in a Norwegian small town; there was a ton of snow in that show.

It serves the fantastic and supernatural as well. The polar episodes of “His Dark Materials” and “Monarch: Legacy of Monsters,” the icebound sailing ships of “The Terror” live large in my mind; and there’s no denying the spooky, claustrophobic power of “Night Country,” the fourth season of “True Detective,” which begins on the night of the last sunset for six months, its fictional town an oasis of light in a desert of black. In another key, “North of North,” another remote small town comedy, set in Canada’s northernmost territory among the Indigenous Inuit people is one of my best-loved shows of 2025.

But the allure of the north is nothing new. Jack London’s Yukon-set “White Fang” and “The Call of the Wild” — which became an Animal Planet series for a season in 2000 — entranced readers back around the turn of the 19th century and are still being read today.

Of course, any setting can be exotic if it’s unfamiliar. (And invisible if it’s not, or annoying — if snow is a thing you have to shovel off your walk, its charm evaporates.) Every environment suggests or shapes the stories that are set there; even were the plots identical, a mystery set in Amarillo, for example, would play differently than one set in Duluth or Lafayette.

I’ll take Alaska.

No one really thought Clipse would get back together.

The duo, composed of brothers Pusha T and Malice, is well known for setting a new precedent for rap throughout the aughts. If you wipe the dust off and think back, you’ll probably remember them for hits like “Grindin’” or “When the Last Time,” both produced by the Neptunes — another duo, Pharrell Williams and Chad Hugo — and both off of their debut, “Lord Willin’.”

At the surface level, Clipse was an insanely talented rap duo out of Virginia Beach, Va., closely linked to Pharrell, who would go on to be one of hip-hop’s most in-demand producers.

“I had just turned 8 when we moved from New York to Virginia,” Malice remembers. “I think it was a bit of a culture shock for me… I remember thinking how the people in Virginia just talked different.”

But the brothers, born Gene and Terrence Thornton, quickly noticed that a lot was happening around them. Malice remembers when they used to “congregate down at the ocean front” and freestyle: “everybody would come out there.”

It wasn’t long before they “bumped heads” with Pharrell, who was a friend of a friend.

“I had heard about Pharrell and he had heard about me,” Malice says. “One day, Pusha decided he wanted to rap on a song… it was called ‘A Thief in the Night.’”

“Pharrell was like, ‘Y’all should be a group.’ And we agreed, and it was easy… it all came together in Chad’s room in his attic.”

But their first brush with fame came even earlier than their debut, with the release of “The Funeral.” At the time, the brothers had struck a deal with Elektra Records with some help from Pharrell, but the company ultimately shelved their would-be debut “Exclusive Audio Footage,” which contained the song.

Clipse were released from their contract shortly after, but the project would live on through the love of fans — or, “family,” they say.

“For me, we were superstars when we shot ‘The Funeral’ video in ‘99 in Virginia… I mean, that was it; what else was there to do?” Pusha said. “The video debuted on HBO, and we shot it at home. For me, that was the Grammys.”

“That was the mountaintop,” Malice chimed in.

“That was the mountaintop!” Pusha echoed.

Those early Clipse days were special, and the duo saw themselves at the center of a cultural shift and as a driving force in the rap game at the time. And Virginia, oddly enough, is where it was all happening.

Malice, left, and Pusha T of Clipse have cemented themselves as legends of East Coast rap.

(Cian Moore)

It had a lot to do with Teddy Riley — the father of New Jack Swing — who set up camp in Virginia Beach along with his Future Recording Studios. That became a hub in the ‘90s for established artists like Luther Vandross and Whitney Houston as well as rising stars like Timbaland and the Neptunes.

“It was a time of creativity,” Pusha said. “Whether it was Pharrell and Chad up the street or my brother working with Timbaland in junior high school … the energy of Virginia was at an all-time high.”

“A lot of people in Virginia are very creative and aspire to make something out of this music thing,” Malice added. “And I think what we’ve done is show them that it is very tangible and doable and reachable.”

But it would all come to an end in 2010, when Pusha T and Malice went their separate ways. Albeit an amicable split, it was still abrupt, with the latter experiencing a spiritual reawakening that set a hard contrast to the drug-dealing-infused lyrics that often occupied their music.

It was certainly a shock to fans, but both would remain close. According to Malice, it had a lot to do with the lessons their parents bestowed upon them.

“The way our parents raised us, that family is absolutely everything … there is no bickering, there is no animosity,” he said. “My dad was really big on family, and not only family, but brotherhood. And I don’t even mean like, just biological brotherhood. I mean brotherhood and all that it entails.”

“We always used to say in the earlier Clipse days, ‘want for your brother what you want for yourself,’ and it’s something that we hang on to with both hands,” he added.

So, the door always remained open for a Clipse reunion. And there were hints.

They appeared on longtime collaborator Kanye West’s “Jesus Is King” in 2019, and Pusha T’s solo album “It’s Almost Dry” boasted an impressive Malice feature on track “I Pray for You” in 2022. On the latter, Malice is back, seemingly as if he never left the game:

“When I was in the mix / opened up your nose like I’m cuttin’ it with Vicks / Slavin’ over stoves like I rub together sticks / Paved another road so my soul would coexist / But Heaven only knows, I won’t dig another ditch.”

Malice made a rare guest appearance on Pusha T’s fourth studio album, “It’s Almost Dry,” in 2022.

(Cian Moore)

According to him, there were “quite a few baby steps involved” before an all-out Clipse project was underway. But an enlightening conversation with his father, who died in 2022, made it “make sense for my psyche.”

“One of the last conversations I had with my dad, I asked him what he thought about me rapping again. And why that was important to me was because my dad was definitely in a church. He was a deacon,” he recalls. “And just to hear him say that he thought that I had been too hard on myself, I didn’t even expect him to say anything remotely along those lines.”

“And he was like, ‘You know what to do now.’”

It took Clipse around two years to complete “Let God Sort Em Out,” befittingly, entirely produced by Pharrell. Its rollout led with “Ace Trumpets” and the infatuating “So Be It.” The latter track ingeniously flips an obscure sample of “Maza Akoulo” by Saudi Arabian musician Talal Maddah. Notably, it also takes aim at artist Travis Scott over his alleged disloyalty.

It highlights an ongoing dissatisfaction that the brothers have with the current state of rap, an overall landscape that they say is “flawed.”

“We were coming to set standard and reset the table,” Pusha says.

“We had many opportunities to come back and do something, but it just wasn’t the right time,” Malice adds. “Money’s not going to dictate anything we do. We don’t ever compromise our art for anything. Whatever we do is going to be done at the highest level, and it’s going to feel right.”

It was no surprise that the album featured verses from the West Coast’s Kendrick Lamar and Tyler, the Creator, who are some of the best wordsmiths out right now.

On “Chains and Whips,” Pusha T opens up lethally: “The question marks block your blessings / There’s no tombstones in the desert / I know by now you get the message.”

Malice follows suit, assuring “Your lucky streak is now losing you / Money’s dried up like a cuticle / You’re gasping for air now, it’s beautiful.”

[Warning: Video contains profanity.]

Lamar is a real stand out on the album, and it’s no surprise. Last year, he tore apart Canadian rapper Drake across four diss tracks, which hit its peak with “Not Like Us.” The track ended up hitting 1 billion streams in January 2025, won five Grammy Awards, and broke the internet with its performance at the Super Bowl.

Needless to say, the Compton-born rapper and longtime friend of Pusha T has been on a roll.

“Let’s be clear, hip-hop died again / Half of my profits might go to Rakim / How many Judases that let me down? / But f— it, the West mines, we right now / Therapy showed me how to open up / It also showed me I don’t give a f—.”

Of the collaboration, Malice says “when it comes to Kendrick, I think we are of the same mindset of how important the culture is and that we keep it in existence.”

Indeed, this is something that Clipse have always maintained and they’ve taken issue with in contemporary rap. Especially given the longevity they have — Malice and Pusha T have been in the game since the early ‘90s and are 53 and 48 years old, respectively.

“I don’t think people have been in the game this long and competed at this level, you know?” Pusha says. “I think it’s a new frontier. We’re at a point of really cracking the ceiling to longevity in rap.”

“Not only cracking the ceiling; I feel like we kicked down the entire door,” Malice jumps in. “Looking backwards over the years, rappers have been getting away with murder!”

“We’re here coming for the goal every time. And I think that’s the problem: A lot of people are in the game just existing,” Pusha adds. “Not competing, you’re just in it existing in a minor artistic way.”

If “Let God Sort Em Out” wasn’t impressive enough, Clipse are back on the road, playing sold-out shows across the country. On Saturday, they’ll touch down in Los Angeles at the Novo as part of their first tour as a duo in 15 years.

Malice, who refers to fans as “the family,” is eternally grateful to be back doing what he does best for the people he loves.

“They [the family] see through a lot of the circus acts that’s going on in hip-hop and they speak for us when they show up, when we have sold-out shows, in the record sales,” he says. “We don’t take none of that for granted. It’s a real thing and crucial to our existence.”

Chip Gaines had a few select words after Samaritan’s Purse founder Franklin Graham publicly criticized his and wife Joanna’s new HBO Max show for casting a same-sex couple with twins among the three families who are featured.

Graham, who is the son of evangelist Billy Graham, wrote Saturday on X that he found it “very disappointing” to hear that Jason Hanna, Joe Riggs and their boys, Ethan and Lucas, were included on “Back to the Frontier,” produced by Magnolia Network. Chip and Joanna Gaines created Magnolia and are executive producers on the show.

“I hope this isn’t true, but I read today that Chip and Joanna Gaines are featuring a gay couple in their new series. If It is true, it is very disappointing,” Graham wrote. “While we are to love people, we should love them enough to tell them the truth of God’s Word. His Word is absolute truth. God loves us, and His design for marriage is between one man and one woman. Promoting something that God defines as sin is in itself sin.”

The American Family Assn. — which bills itself as a “pro-family organization” and was formerly known as the National Federation for Decency — chimed in first, posting a statement from Vice President Ed Vitagliano saying, “This is sad and disappointing, because Chip and Joanna Gaines have been very influential in the evangelical community. Moreover, in the past, they have stood firm on the sanctity of marriage regardless of the personal cost that has entailed. We aren’t sure why the Gaines have reversed course, but we are sure of this: Back to the Frontier promotes an unbiblical view of human sexuality, marriage, and family — a view no Christian should embrace.”

Chip Gaines, who with his wife belongs to the evangelical Antioch Community Church in Waco, Texas, fired off what seemed to be a reply on Sunday.

“Talk, ask qustns, listen.. maybe even learn. Too much to ask of modern American Christian culture. Judge 1st, understand later/never,” he wrote on X. “It’s a sad sunday when ‘non believers’ have never been confronted with hate or vitriol until they are introduced to a modern American Christian.”

Matt Walsh, a conservative filmmaker, political commentator and podcast host at the Daily Wire, fired back at Chip Gaines with a response that said, “Maybe you should endeavor to understand the basic moral teachings of your own alleged religion before you give lectures to other people about their lack of understanding.”

Two hours after his “sad sunday” post, Gaines wrote that his family was off to worship, reposting a 2016 tweet in which he said, “In times of trouble.. you’ll find the gaines family at church.”

Meanwhile, on her Instagram on Tuesday, Joanna Gaines was promoting all the Magnolia Network shows nominated for Daytime Emmys.

Separate from the online back-and-forth, Jason Hanna and Joe Riggs have been posting about their family on their @2_dallas_dads Instagram account since the arrival of the twins in May 2014.

“When our boys were born — our twin boys were born via surrogacy in 2014 — we faced some legal challenges, and so we’ve always felt it it to be important that we try to be an example for same-sex couples,” Hanna told Queerty in a story published last week. “And so we’re super honored that, when they were choosing three modern day families, they did choose the same[-sex] couple as a modern-day family — because we are; we’re your neighbors, and your coworkers. And so it was this amazing opportunity to [continue to] normalize same-sex couples and same-sex families.”

“Back to the Frontier” throws three families — from Alabama, Florida and Texas — into an eight-week scenario that recalls the 1880s. Living on the “frontier,” the families have to reinforce their own shelters, raise livestock, collect food and manage their supplies. The goal by the end of the show is to gather enough resources to make it through winter. But don’t worry — the families are all back in modern air-conditioning right now.

“Through this immersive experience, the families will have to reflect on their relationships and navigate the challenges that come with an 1880s lifestyle,” HBO Max said in a release. The show premiered Thursday.

HBO Max did not reply immediately to The Times’ request for additional comment Tuesday.

Chip and Joanna Gaines were caught up in a different conflict over LGBTQ+ issues in May 2023 after Target, which carries the couple’s Magnolia Home line among its household items, came under fire for carrying transgender-targeted items as part of its seasonal Pride Month selections. Some critics also hammered Target’s recognition of Pride Month at all. A boycott was urged among right-wing conservatives. They also called for a comment from the couple.

“No one doubts that Chip and Joanna are good people, kind, moral, and aligned with American values,” Fox News host Rachel Campos-Duffy said at the time when she was subbing as host of “Jesse Watters Primetime.” “But if I had a line at a company and my name was on it and that brand partnered with a trans Satanist that makes tuck ‘em bikinis for kids, I would feel compelled to speak up.

“Now, maybe they’re raising questions internally. Of course, that’s possible, but why aren’t they doing so publicly?”

The person whom Campos-Duffy — wife of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy — called a “trans Satanist” is London designer Erik Carnell, who is trans and whose Abprallen line had partnered with Target until the retailer ended the relationship under pressure from the boycott. Carnell’s full line included a design that said “Satan respects pronouns.” That design was never available at Target, according to CNN.

Conservative activist Benny Johnson also posted a video of himself in a Target store at the time, touring the Pride Month section, then walking what he said was “10 steps” to the Magnolia Home display. He referred to Joanna Gaines and her family sarcastically as “the paragons of Christian entrepreneurs and family values.”

“I’ve been tweeting about how Christian influencers Chip & Joanna Gaines have not disavowed Target’s Satanic child grooming despite the backlash,” he said. “What I didn’t know is the Gaines Section of Target is directly ACROSS from the Groomer section. Not cool.”

Chip and Joanna Gaines did not speak out during that controversy.

Srinagar, Indian-administered Kashmir – Javaid Iqbal opens a photo on his mobile phone. It shows a little girl sporting a pink woollen beanie, a grey trinket slung loosely around her neck – her face beaming in a wide smile.

Five-year-old Maryam, his daughter, who happily posed for the photo only last month. Today, she is no more.

Maryam was killed on the morning of May 7 when an explosive landed on their home in Sukha Katha, a cluster of some 200 homes in Poonch district of Indian-administered Kashmir, some 20km (12 miles) from the Line of Control (LoC), India’s de facto border with Pakistan in the disputed Himalayan region.

“Oh, Maryam,” Iqbal, 36, cries out, clutching the phone to his chest. “This is a loss I cannot live with.”

Maryam was among at least 21 civilians – 15 of them in Poonch – killed in cross-border shelling in Indian-administered Kashmir in early May as the South Asian nuclear powers and historical enemies engaged in their most intense military confrontation in decades. For four days, they exchanged missiles and drones, and stood on the precipice of their fifth war before they announced a ceasefire on May 10.

That truce has since held, even though tensions remain high and both nations have launched diplomatic outreach initiatives to try and convince the rest of the world about their narrative in a conflict that dates back to 1947, when the British left the subcontinent, cleaving it into India and Pakistan.

But for families of those who lost relatives in the cross-border firing, the tenuous peace along the LoC at the moment means little.

“My heart bleeds when I think of how you [Maryam] died in my arms,” wails Iqbal.

‘The earth rattled beneath us’

For decades, residents along the LoC have found themselves caught in the line of fire between India and Pakistan, who have fought three of their four previous wars over Kashmir. Both control parts of the region, with two tiny slivers also administered by China. But India claims all of Kashmir, while Pakistan also claims all of the region except the parts governed by China, its ally.

In 2003, India and Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire along the LoC that – despite frequent border skirmishes and killings of civilians on both sides – broadly held, and was renewed in 2021.

But on April 22, gunmen killed 25 tourists and a Kashmiri pony rider in Pahalgam, a scenic resort in Indian-administered Kashmir, starting the latest chapter in the India-Pakistan conflict over the region.

New Delhi accused Pakistan of backing the gunmen, a charge that Islamabad denied. Since the beginning of an armed rebellion against India’s rule in Indian-administered Kashmir in 1989, New Delhi has accused Islamabad of training and financially supporting the rebels. Islamabad says it only provides diplomatic and moral support to the separatist movement.

On May 7, the Indian military responded to the Pahalgam killings by launching missiles at multiple cities in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. India claimed it struck “terror camps” and killed about 100 “terrorists”. Pakistan said more than 50 people were killed – but most were civilians, with a military personnel also killed.

Pakistan responded with heavy cross-border firing. Iqbal says he was jolted awake at about 2am on May 7 by the sounds of artillery shells landing “one after the other, their thuds rattling the earth beneath us”.

“I made frantic calls to everyone, like police, officials in administration I knew, and on toll-free emergency numbers like 108, pleading with them to rescue me and my family,” he told Al Jazeera. “But no one came.”

He says he huddled his family – his wife, three children and three children of his brother who were with them at the time – in an outhouse abutting their main house, hoping that cinder blocks on top of the structure would make it more resilient to any Pakistani shells.

The explosions kept getting closer.

Shortly after sunrise, he says, a shell whizzed across the mountains, a trail of smoke streaming behind it, and landed with an explosion close to their shelter. Its splinters hurtled in every direction, blasting through the walls behind which Iqbal and his family had sought refuge.

As he squinted through the smoky haze, his eyes rested on Maryam, whose little body was perforated with hot metal shards as she lay listless amid the debris, which was soaked with her blood.

“I called a friend for help. He alerted the administration, who sent an ambulance, which tried to come near our house, but the continuous shelling forced it to return,” he said, adding that the ambulance attempted to come closer five times but could not.

By the time the shelling subsided and they could get to a hospital, Maryam was dead. Her sister, 7-year-old Iram Naaz, was also hit by a splinter in her forehead and is currently recovering in the family’s ancestral village in Qasba, close to the LoC.

A ghost town

The shelling continued in Sukha Katha for three days. Today, it looks like a ghost town, its ominous silence shattered only by the strong gales of wind sweeping through the open doors and windows of empty homes, with curtains fluttering and dust swirling around them.

Most residents who fled the shelling haven’t returned.

“There are about 200 homes here and they are empty because everyone has fled to safety,” said Muhammad Mukhar, a 35-year-old resident. He and a few others remained. “We are just keeping an eye out for thieves. These townspeople are unlikely to return soon because things are still uncertain.”

The villagers have reasons to remain fearful of more attacks, says Kashmiri political analyst Zafar Choudhary. He says the loss of civilian lives on the Indian side of the border in Poonch is due to the “peculiar” topography of the region, which confers a “unique advantage” to Pakistan.

“Most of the towns and villages on the Indian side are situated down in the valleys while Pakistani army posts remain high on the mountain tops, overlooking the civilian habitations here,” he says. “Even if India retaliates, the civilian loss to the Pakistani side would remain minimal. This makes border towns such as Poonch vulnerable.”

At Khanetar, a town of rundown structures of bricks and rebars overhung with life-size advertisements of soda drinks, an asphalt road zigzags through the forests and ravines and links the border areas of Poonch with the plains of Jammu, in the southern part of Indian-administered Kashmir.

In this village, a Pakistani shell explosion killed 13-year-old Vihan Kumar inside the family’s car when they were trying to escape the firing. The boy died on the spot, his skull ripped open.

“It was a loud sound, and at once, my son was in a pool of blood,” recalls Sanjeev Bhargav, Vihan’s father. “We immediately rushed to the district hospital in Poonch, where Vihan breathed his last.” Vihan was the only child of his parents.

‘Naked dance of death’

Meanwhile, at the intensive care unit of the Government Medical College Hospital in Jammu, the second largest city in Indian-administered Kashmir, about 230km (140 miles) southeast of Poonch, Arusha Khan is consoling her husband, Rameez Khan, a 46-year-old teacher, who is battling for his life after shrapnel punctured the left side of his liver.

They are mourning the loss of their twins – son Zain Ali and daughter Urba Fatima – who died in the shelling of their house on May 7. They had turned 12 in April.

The family was cowering inside their home in Poonch when the frightened twins called their uncle, Arusha’s brother Aadil Pathan, who lived in Surankote, in the same district, about 40km (25 miles) away, pleading with him to save them.

“The children were scared to their wits’ end,” Arusha’s sister Maria Pathan tells Al Jazeera over the telephone. “Aadil left home in his car at 5:30am and reached their place an hour later.”

Maria says Aadil called out from outside the house and swung open the door of his car. But as soon as the trapped family came out and began to dash in the direction of the car, a shell struck. Urba died on the spot. Rameez also suffered “tremendous blood loss” from his injuries, Maria said.

“And suddenly, Arusha couldn’t see Zain around,” says Maria. “He was injured and had staggered into a neighbour’s home about 100 metres (300ft) away. When Arusha rushed to see him, he was just a body on the floor.” He, too, had died.

“We don’t wish even for our enemies what has happened to my sister and her family,” Maria says amid sobs.

Meenakshi Ganguly, deputy director of Human Rights Watch Asia, says attacks on children during such conflicts between two nations could constitute war crimes.

“Indiscriminately striking civilian areas is a violation of international humanitarian law,” she says, speaking to Al Jazeera. “If such attacks are committed willfully, they would amount to war crimes.”

Poonch-based politician Shamim Ganai says the destruction wreaked by the Pakistani shelling was a “naked dance of death”.

“We weren’t prepared for what we eventually came to experience. There were no preparations to evacuate people. People were simply running, many even barefoot, holding on to chickens and other belongings in their arms,” he recalls.

“I have lived through previous border clashes,” he says. “But this was nothing like I have ever seen.”

Verizon Communications Inc. won Federal Communications Commission approval for its $9.6-billion acquisition of Frontier Communications Parent Inc. after agreeing to agency demands to pare back diversity initiatives in line with President Donald Trump’s policies.

The deal “will unleash billions of dollars in new infrastructure builds in communities across the country — including rural America,” FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said in a statement Friday. “This investment will accelerate the transition away from old, copper line networks to modern, high-speed ones.”

The transaction values the Dallas-based company at $20 billion when including debt.

The approval marks one of the first deals to get the green light under Carr, who had threatened to block mergers unless companies rolled back what he called “invidious” diversity, equity and inclusion practices.

Carr sent a letter to Verizon in February warning the company that its DEI efforts run afoul of Trump administration directives. Carr told the New York-based telecom carrier to end its promotion of DEI in corporate values and training materials.

Trump has been pushing to root out such policies from the federal government, corporate America and beyond, issuing executive orders banning the practices and asking agency heads to identify targets, including listed companies, to investigate for “illegal DEI” efforts.

Verizon committed to ending some practices and has reaffirmed a commitment to equal opportunity and nondiscrimination, the FCC said in its statement. “This will ensure that the combined business will enact policies and practices consistent with the law and the public interest.”

The FCC approval paves the way for the biggest U.S. phone company to expand its high-speed internet business. It will allow Verizon to upgrade and expand Frontier’s existing network in 25 states, according to the FCC.

Telecommunications companies like Verizon have been bulking up on fiber-optic assets to add capacity for customers’ surging data use. The flow of data is expected to increase further as more companies adopt artificial intelligence.

The deal combines Frontier’s fiber network with Verizon’s portfolio of fiber and wireless assets, including its Fios offering. It also brings back some assets that Verizon sold to Frontier in 2015 for $10.54 billion.

Frontier filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2020 after years of losses in its wire-line telecom business led to ballooning debt. It emerged from bankruptcy the following year and focused on building out its fiber network to better compete against cable and wireless companies.

Over about the last four years, Frontier has invested $4.1 billion upgrading its network and replacing antiquated copper lines. Now, the company derives more than half of its revenue from fiber products.

Following the transaction, Verizon expects to deploy fiber to 1 million or more U.S. homes annually, according to the FCC statement.

Griffis writes for Bloomberg.

Authors: Andi Mohammad Ilham and Andi Mohammad Johan*

In the midst of global trade confusion, especially following Trump’s machinery tariff back to the global stage, Asian countries have been compelled to reassess their positions, even in the post-tariff war era. Although Trump’s tariff list prominently targeted both well-established and emerging Asian economies, they still chose to not retaliate against Trump’s tariff, in particular ASEAN. Moreover, Asian emerging economies are fundamentally aware and strategically minded amidst the era of economic security and geopolitical shifts. Therefore, many economists believe that rebalancing growth, meaning growth away from exports to strengthening domestic and regional demand with diversification, is a key for Asia’s bargaining power in the global trade regime.

According to the McKinsey Global Institute data, from 2015 to 2021, the Asian region reached its shared number for 57% of global GDP growth. Additionally, this evidence demonstrates that Asian countries host 49 of the world’s 80 largest trade routes. Facing this reality, Asia will be joining “the world’s new majority” through five pillars. It consists of capitalization, resources & energy, demographic composition, technology forces, and world order. In other words, Asia’s power penetration, in these metrics, makes a potential synergy and energy between them to endure in the age of economic security. One spectacular finding in this report, conducted in collaboration with the Asia Business Council, reveals that nearly 80 percent of surveyed Asian business leaders expressed optimism about the new era while still emphasizing a need for profound transformation.

In terms of regional transformation, the Asian region must pay close attention, beyond investment and trade, but equally vital for rebalancing growth, to the collaboration for fiscal and tax policy. As noted in the IMF Asia-Pacific Department’s commentary, recently after the emergence of tariff war 2.0, Asia is one of the regions facing the highest US tariffs. Simultaneously, the IMF’s Asia-Pacific Department also voices the importance of a balancing act for policies, especially for fiscal and tax policy. Given this situation, Asia is essential to not only strengthen tax reform at home for all emerging markets and developing countries but also undertake the consolidation of credible strategies in long-term fiscal and tax sustainability cooperation. 

In recent years, the politics of global tax governance has culminated in the geo-economic consideration due to the implementation of two pillars of the OECD-led multilateral tax regime and the emerging initiative of the UN-led multilateral tax regime. Indeed, both frameworks have already introduced a necessary agenda for regional tax governance, but the latter grants a bold political decision to regions in contemporary global tax governance. Unfortunately, Asia’s position on the contemporary politics of global tax governance is widely different depending on each country’s geo-economic interest. This diversity is not a new analytical observation, as the foundation of Asia’s economic development has long centered on complementary comparative advantages.

In line with this development, the rationale for regional collaboration is not novel, as it has long been a theme in Asia’s international political economy discourse. However, regional collaboration in tax, which is markedly different from other incentives for regional cooperation, is crucial as the dynamics of global tax governance now touch upon intensified regional political coordination.

Based on functional characteristics, there are only two distinctions, which are tax policy and tax collection. One finding highlights three key prospects for why regional tax governance is needed, including concerning tax capacity building or technical assistance, regional political coordination, and regional engagement with international institutions. From the function of tax capacity building, it is about promoting regional cooperation concerning national tax administration and ensuring its technical assistance maintains productive relationships among members in the region. Meanwhile, both political coordination and regional engagement with global institutions relate more to the spheres of tax policy. 

Furthermore, the EU is frequently referenced as a well-established model of regional tax governance, through its EU Tax Policy. But, on the global stage, the EU still remains as a rule-taker because the position for rule-makers is handed over to the OECD. In contrast, the ATAF, African Tax Administration Forum, has progressively positioned itself as a rule-shaper due to its influential role not only in regional but also in global tax order. Subsequently, the emergence of the UN Tax Framework Convention further justified its position as a rule-shaper in contemporary global tax governance. 

Responding to these dynamics, Asia—as home to major economic powerhouses—must conceptualize its strategic position in the area of regional tax governance. Indeed, in 2021, the Asian Development Bank launched ADB’s initiative for regional tax governance, the Asia Pacific Tax Hub. Using a regional development bank model, this platform was expected to stimulate reflection debates to consolidate Asia’s economic strength in global tax governance. Despite the presence of the regional development bank model, the room for regional tax governance in Asia remains largely untapped and must be strategically leveraged by all Asian stakeholders. 

In essence, this finding also indicated that Asia’s corridor in regional tax governance still leaves room for development. Aligned with the broader objectives for Asia’s sustainable growth in the age of economic security and global trade uncertainty, it is imperative to ensure Asia’s regional tax governance framework appropriately fits in with the region’s expanding economic influence.

*Andi Mohammad Johan holds a Master’s in Fiscal Administrative Science at the University of Indonesia. He is a Partner at MMStax Consulting, Indonesia. He is also a member of the Indonesian Tax Consultants Association (ITCA).