Global

Feb. 22 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s industrial sector said there is no immediate change in tariff rates but warned that uncertainty has grown after U.S. President Donald Trump signaled plans to impose new global tariffs.

Trump said Friday he would raise the proposed “global tariff” rate from 10% to 15% following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down his earlier reciprocal tariffs. The 15% duties previously applied to South Korea are expected to reappear under the new global tariff framework.

Industry officials said item-specific tariffs on automobiles, steel and semiconductors have not been directly addressed in the latest announcement, leaving companies cautious about possible next steps.

Major exporters are closely monitoring developments as Washington has yet to finalize detailed tariff guidelines.

Semiconductors, one of South Korea’s top export items, are currently subject to product-specific tariff discussions but remain duty-free for now. However, companies have not ruled out the possibility that Washington could soon put semiconductor tariffs on the negotiating table or raise rates to offset revenue lost from the invalidated reciprocal tariffs.

SK Group Chairman Chey Tae-won said after attending the U.S. Trans-Pacific Dialogue that he would review the court ruling before commenting further, reflecting the cautious stance of corporate leaders.

Automobile and steel tariffs are expected to remain in place regardless of the court decision. Automobiles and auto parts currently face a 15% tariff, while steel and aluminum were hit with a 50% tariff last year. Analysts said additional increases in those sectors appear unlikely in the near term.

For food, cosmetics, home appliances and chemical products, a 15% global tariff would largely mirror the current reciprocal tariff level. If the rate were set at 10% instead, exporters could see a modest reduction compared with the existing 15% rate.

While companies say there is no immediate operational impact, executives are concerned that Trump could invoke other trade authorities to introduce new measures, further complicating trade planning.

Industry officials said businesses are preparing contingency strategies as they await clearer guidance from Washington.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260222010006449

United States President Donald Trump has doubled down on his new global tariffs, raising them from 10 to 15 percent, days after the Supreme Court struck down his sweeping levies on imports.

The move on Saturday came as businesses and governments around the world sought repayment for the estimated $133bn that Washington has already collected.

In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump announced the raise “effective immediately” and said the move was based on a review of the “ridiculous, poorly written and extraordinarily anti-American decision” issued by the Supreme Court on Friday.

By a six-to-three vote, the court had ruled that it was unconstitutional for Trump to unilaterally set and change tariffs, because the power to tax lies with the US Congress.

The court’s decision struck down tariffs that Trump had imposed on nearly every country using an emergency powers law, known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

Trump railed against the majority justices as “fools and lapdogs” in a news conference after the ruling, calling them an “embarrassment to their families”. He quickly signed an executive order – resting on a different statute, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 – to impose the blanket 10 percent tariff, starting on Tuesday.

The 15 percent hike announced on Saturday is the highest rate allowed under that law.

However, those tariffs are limited to 150 days unless they are extended by Congress. No president has previously invoked Section 122, and its use could lead to further legal challenges.

It was not immediately clear whether an updated executive order was forthcoming.

The White House said the Section 122 tariffs include exemptions for certain products, including critical minerals, metals and energy products, according to the Reuters news agency.

Lawsuits

Trump wrote on Saturday that his administration will continue to work on issuing other permissible tariffs.

“During the next short number of months, the Trump Administration will determine and issue the new and legally permissible Tariffs, which will continue our extraordinarily successful process of Making America Great Again,” he said.

The president has already said his administration intends to rely on two other statutes that permit import taxes on specific products or countries based on investigations into national ‌security or unfair trade practices.

Tariffs have been central to Trump’s economic agenda, which he has used as a tool to address a range of goals – from reviving domestic manufacturing to pressuring other nations to crack down on drug trafficking, and pushing warring countries toward peace.

He has also wielded tariffs, or the threat of them, as leverage to extract trade concessions from foreign governments.

Federal data shows the US Treasury had collected more than $133bn from the import taxes the president has imposed under the emergency powers law as of December.

Since the Supreme Court’s ruling, more than a thousand lawsuits have been filed by importers in the US to seek refunds, and more cases are on the way.

While legally sound, the path forward for such claims is not straightforward, especially for smaller firms, said John Diamond, director of the Center for Tax and Budget Policy at Rice University.

“It’s pretty clear that they will win in court, but it’ll take some time,” Diamond said. “Once we get the court orders in effect, I don’t think those refunds will be all that messy for larger firms. Smaller firms are going to have a much more difficult time getting through the process.”

But foreign governments are managing “the real mess”, Diamond said.

“What do you do if you’re Taiwan, or Great Britain, and you have this existing trade deal, but now it’s kind of been turned upside down?”

The US-Taiwan trade deal lowers the general tariff on Taiwanese goods from 20 percent to 15 percent, the same level as Asian trade partners South Korea and Japan, in exchange for Taipei agreeing to buy about $85bn of US energy, aircraft and equipment.

The US-United Kingdom deal imposes a 10 percent tariff on imports of most UK goods, and reduces higher tariffs on imports of UK cars, steel and aluminium.

‘Pickpocketing the American people’

After ⁠the Supreme Court’s decision, Trump’s trade representative, Jamieson Greer, told Fox News on Friday that those countries must honour their agreements ⁠even if they call for higher rates than the Section 122 tariffs.

Exports to the US from countries such as Malaysia and Cambodia would continue to be taxed at their negotiated rates of 19 percent, even though the universal rate is lower, Greer said.

Indonesia’s chief negotiator for US tariffs, Airlangga Hartarto, said the trade deal between the countries that set US tariffs at 19 percent, which was signed on Friday, remains in force despite the court decision.

The ‌ruling could spell good news for countries like Brazil, which has not negotiated a deal with Washington to lower its 40 percent tariff rate but could now see its tariff rate drop to 15 percent, at least temporarily.

Governments around the world have reacted to the Supreme Court decision – as well as Trump’s subsequent tariff announcement – with a mix of cautious optimism, trepidation and frustration.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said he would coordinate a joint European stance before talks with Trump in early March, while Hong Kong’s secretary for financial services and the Treasury, Christopher Hiu, described the situation surrounding Trump’s new tariff moves as a “fiasco”.

With the November midterm elections in the US looming, Trump’s approval rating on his handling of the economy has steadily declined during his year in office.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed on Monday showed 34 percent of ‌respondents ‌saying they approved of Trump’s handling of the economy, while 57 percent said they did not approve.

Democrats, who need to flip only three Republican-held seats in the US House of Representatives in November to win a majority, have blamed Trump’s tariffs for exacerbating the rising cost of living.

They were quick to condemn Trump’s new tariff threat on Saturday.

Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee accused Trump of “pickpocketing the American people” with his newly announced higher tariff.

“A little over 24 hours after his tariffs were ruled illegal, he’s doing anything he can to make sure he can still jack up your costs,” they wrote on social media.

California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom, a Trump nemesis, added that “he [Trump] does not care about you”.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Friday lashed out at Supreme Court justices who struck down his tariffs agenda, calling them “fools” who made a “terrible, defective decision” that he plans to circumvent by imposing new levies in a different way.

In a defiant appearance at the White House, Trump told reporters that his administration will impose new tariffs by using alternative legal means. He cast the ruling as a technical, not permanent setback, for his trade policy, insisting that the “end result is going to get us more money.”

The president said he would instead impose an across-the-board 10% tariff on imports on global trade partners through an executive order.

The sharp response underscores how central tariffs have been to Trump’s economic and political identity. He portrayed the ruling as another example of institutional resistance to his “America First” agenda and pledged to continue fighting to hold on to his trade authority despite the ruling from the nation’s highest court.

Trump, however, said the ruling was “deeply disappointing” and called the justices who voted against his policy — including Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, whom he nominated to the court — “fools” and “lap dogs.”

“I am ashamed of certain members of the court,” Trump told reporters. “Absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country.”

For years, Trump has insisted his tariffs policy is making the United States wealthier and giving his administration leverage to force better trade deals, even though the economic burden has often fallen on U.S. companies and consumers. On the campaign trail, he has turned to them again and again, casting sweeping levies as the economic engine for his administration’s second-term agenda.

Now, in the heat of an election year, the court’s decision scrambles that message.

The ruling from the nation’s highest court is a rude awakening for Trump at a time when his trade policies have already caused fractures among some Republicans and public polling shows a majority of Americans are increasingly concerned with the state of the economy.

Ahead of the November elections, Republicans have urged Trump to stay focused on an economic message to help them keep control of Congress. The president tried to do that on Thursday, telling a crowd in northwest Georgia that “without tariffs, this country would be in so much trouble.”

As Trump attacked the court, Democrats across the country celebrated the ruling — with some arguing there should be a mechanism in place to allow Americans to recoup money lost by the president’s trade policy.

“No Supreme Court decision can undo the massive damage that Trump’s chaotic tariffs have caused,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote in a post on X. “The American people paid for these tariffs and the American people should get their money back.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom called Trump’s tariffs an “illegal cash grab that drove up prices, hurt working families and wrecked longstanding global alliances.”

“Every dollar your administration unlawfully took needs to be immediately refunded — with interest,” Newsom, who is eyeing a 2028 presidential bid, wrote in a post on X addressed to Trump.

The president’s signature economic policy has long languished in the polls, and by a wide margin. Six in 10 Americans surveyed in a Pew Research poll this month said they do not support the tariff increases. Of that group, about 40% strongly disapproved. Just 37% surveyed said they supported the measures — 13% of whom expressed strong approval.

A majority of voters have opposed the policy since April, when Trump unveiled the far-reaching trade agenda, according to Pew.

The court decision lands as more than a policy setback to Trump’ s economic agenda.

It is also a rebuke of the governing style embraced by the president that has often treated Congress less as a partner and more as a body that can be bypassed by executive authority.

Trump has long tested the bounds of his executive authority, particularly on foreign policies, where he has heavily leaned on emergency and national security powers to impose tariffs and acts of war without congressional approval. In the court ruling, even some of his allies drew a bright line through that approach.

Gorsuch sided with the court’s liberals in striking down the tariffs policy. He wrote that while “it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problems arise,” the legislative branch should be taken into account with major policies, particularly those involving taxes and tariffs.

“In all, the legislative process helps ensure each of us has a stake in the laws that govern us and in the Nation’s future,” Gorsuch wrote. “For some today, the weight of those virtues is apparent. For others, it may not seem so obvious.”

He added: “But if history is any guide, the tables will turn and the day will come when those disappointed by today’s result will appreciate the legislative process for the bulwark of liberty it is.”

Trump said the court ruling prompted him to use his trade powers in different ways.

In December, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent asserted has the administration can replicate the tariff structure, or a similar structure, through alternative legal methods in the 1974 Trade Act and 1962 Trade Expansion Act.

“Now the court has given me the unquestioned right to ban all sort of things from coming into our country, to destroy foreign countries,” Trump said, as he lamented the court constraining his ability to “charge a fee.”

“How crazy is that?” Trump said.

“The United States, after all, is not at war with every nation in the world.” The US Supreme Court has struck down Donald Trump’s use of a national emergency declaration to impose sweeping global tariffs. Al Jazeera’s Mike Hanna explains the court’s reasoning.

South Korean stocks topped the 5,800-point mark for the first time Friday to end at a fresh record high amid expectations that upcoming investor-friendly measures will help lift market valuations. The local currency fell against the U.S. dollar.

The benchmark Korea Composite Stock Price Index (KOSPI) added 131.28 points, or 2.31 percent, to close at an all-time high of 5,803.53.

Trade volume was heavy at 1.73 billion shares worth 32.74 trillion won (US$22.64 billion), with winners outnumbering losers 543 to 340.

Institutions scooped up a net 1.61 trillion won worth of shares, while foreign and retail investors sold a net 745.06 billion won and 986.12 billion won worth of shares, respectively, for profit-taking.

After a three-day Lunar New Year holiday break, the index surged Thursday to top the 5,600 level, with experts saying pent-up demand accumulated during the holiday continued to flow into the stock market.

The KOSPI has been on a bull run recently, surpassing the 5,000 mark for the first time ever on Jan. 27 and the 5,500 level on Feb. 12.

“Geopolitical tensions have heightened after U.S. President Donald Trump signaled the possibility of military action against Iran following a 10-day negotiation deadline, and some analysts suggest the risk of a full-scale conflict is not negligible,” Kim Seok-hwan, an analyst at Mirae Asset Securities, said.

“But investors have maintained expectations for a series of measures by the government and companies to boost shareholder returns and overall market valuations,” he added.

U.S. shares lost ground Thursday (U.S. time) amid concerns about the U.S.-Iran situation and risks linked to massive investments in artificial intelligence (AI), as the U.S. private market and alternative assets manager Blue Owl Capital announced it is going to tighten investor liquidity.

Most large-cap shares finished higher, with chip and defense shares leading the market advance.

Market bellwether Samsung Electronics edged up 0.05 percent to 190,100 won, and chip giant SK hynix surged 6.15 percent to 949,000 won.

Carmakers traded mixed. Top automaker Hyundai Motor went down 0.78 percent to 509,000 won, while its sister affiliate Kia soared 1.06 percent to 171,800 won.

Leading battery maker LG Energy Solution fell 0.5 percent to 401,500 won, but AI investment firm SK Square advanced 2.47 percent to 580,000 won.

Nuclear power plant builder Doosan Enerbility surged 5.18 percent to 103,500 won, and defense giant Hanwha Aerospace spiked 8.09 percent to 1,242,000 won.

Leading shipbuilder HD Hyundai Heavy jumped 4.88 percent to 602,000 won, and its rival Hanwha Ocean shot up 6.61 percent to 149,900 won.

Pharmaceutical giant Samsung Biologics went up 0.93 percent to 1,736,000 won, while Celltrion dipped 1.02 percent to 242,000 won.

Financials gathered ground. KB Financial added 1.38 percent to 168,800 won, and Shinhan Financial grew 1.69 percent to 102,000 won.

Samsung Life Insurance climbed 4.78 percent to 219,000 won, and Mirae Asset Securities rose 0.57 percent to 70,900 won.

The Korean won was quoted at 1,446.65 won against the U.S. dollar at 3:30 p.m., down 1.15 won from the previous session.

Bond prices, which move inversely to yields, closed higher. The yield on three-year Treasurys lost 3.5 basis points to 3.143 percent, and the return on the benchmark five-year government bonds also shed 3.5 basis points to 3.391 percent.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

Global Finance has named the 27th annual World’s Best Investment Banks in an exclusive report to be published in the April 2026 print and digital editions, as well as online at GFMag.com. 

Goldman Sachs has been chosen as the Best Investment Bank in the World for 2026.

This year, for the first time, Global Finance has chosen Sector Award Winners by Region where outstanding organizations deserved recognition

“The investment banking sector remains resilient with selective deal-making strength and advisory growth, even as it grapples with persistent macroeconomic headwinds, regulatory scrutiny, and evolving market conditions that are reshaping how firms compete and innovate,” said Joseph D. Giarraputo, founder and editorial director of Global Finance. “The 2026 World’s Best Investment Bank honorees are the organizations that best serve their clients by pairing trusted advice and global reach with innovation and disciplined execution, while setting the standard for excellence, resilience, and leadership across the global investment banking landscape.” 

Winners will be honored at Global Finance’s 2026 Investment Bank and Sustainable Finance Awards Ceremony on April 21st in London at Landing 42.

Global Finance editors, with input from industry experts, used a series of criteria to score and select winners, based on a proprietary algorithm. These criteria include: entries from banks, market share, number and size of deals, service and advice, structuring capabilities, distribution network, efforts to address market conditions, innovation, pricing, after-market performance of underwritings, and market reputation. Deals announced or completed in 2025 were considered.

For editorial information please contact: Andrea Fiano, editor, email: afiano@gfmag.com
###

About Global Finance

Global Finance, founded in 1987, has a circulation of 50,000 readers in 185 countries, territories and districts. Global Finance’s audience includes senior corporate and financial officers responsible for making investment and strategic decisions at multinational companies and financial institutions. Its website — GFMag.com — offers analysis and articles that are the legacy of 38 years of experience in international financial markets. Global Finance is headquartered in New York, with offices around the world. Global Finance regularly selects the top performers among banks and other providers of financial services. These awards have become a trusted standard of excellence for the global financial community.

Logo Use Rights 

To obtain rights to use the Global Finance Investment Bank Awards 2026 logo or any other Global Finance logos, please contact Chris Giarraputo at: chris@gfmag.com. The unauthorized use of Global Finance logos is strictly prohibited.

Feb. 18 (UPI) — An analysis by Climate Central found that the world’s five largest coffee-producing countries, which account for 75% of global supply, are experiencing an average of 57 additional days of extreme heat per year due to climate change.

Its researchers found that heat threatens coffee harvests and coincides with recent record highs in prices.

Climate Central, based in Princeton, N.J., is an independent group of scientists and communicators who research and report the facts about climate change and how it affects people’s lives.

The analysis, released Wednesday, examined daily temperatures between 2021 and 2025 in 25 countries that represent 97% of global production. The report concluded that all of them recorded more days of harmful heat as a result of environmental warming attributed to greenhouse gas emissions.

The two main varieties that supply the global market are arabica and robusta.

Arabica accounts for between 60% and 70% of global supply and is grown mainly in mountainous regions of Latin America and Africa, where moderate temperatures have historically prevailed.

Robusta, which is more heat-tolerant but has a stronger flavor, is produced largely in Southeast Asian countriesm such as Vietnam and Indonesia.

Coffee is cultivated in a tropical belt stretching across Latin America, Africa and Southeast Asia, where it requires specific temperature ranges and consistent rainfall.

Temperatures above 86 degrees F are considered extremely harmful for arabica and suboptimal for robusta, as they reduce yields and can affect bean quality.

The analysis was published after a period in which the planet recorded the warmest years since modern measurements began, with episodes of extreme heat in Latin America.

According to Climate Central, this warming increased the frequency of days exceeding the critical 86-degree threshold in coffee-growing regions.

Brazil, the world’s largest producer and responsible for nearly 37% of global supply, experienced an average of 70 additional days per year with temperatures above 86 degrees. In Minas Gerais, its main coffee-producing state, 67 of these extra days were recorded.

Colombia, the world’s third-largest producer and one of the leading exporters of arabica coffee, recorded 48 additional days per year above the critical threshold. The increase threatens productivity and bean quality, the foundation of its international competitiveness.

Some of the sharpest increases were observed in Central America. El Salvador recorded 99 additional days of extreme heat per year and Nicaragua 77, according to the report.

“Nearly all major producing countries are now experiencing more days of extreme heat that can damage plants, reduce yields and affect quality,” said Kristina Dahl, vice president for science at Climate Central.

“Over time, these impacts can extend from farms to consumers, directly affecting the quality and cost of their daily coffee.”

According to the World Bank, its beverage price index rose 58% in 2024 and in December remained approximately 91% higher than a year earlier, driven by increases in coffee and cocoa amid supply concerns.

In December, the price of arabica coffee rose 13% compared with the previous month and more than 60% year over year, while robusta more than doubled compared with the same period the previous year.

Guatemala announced last week that it will begin phasing out its three-decade-old programme, under which Cuban doctors work in its country to fill the gap in the country’s healthcare system.

Communist-ruled Cuba, under heavy United States sanctions, has been earning billions of dollars each year by leasing thousands of members of its “white coat army” to countries around the world, especially in Latin America. Havana has used its medical missions worldwide as a tool for international diplomacy.

So why are some countries withdrawing from the programme that helps the host countries?

Why is Guatemala phasing out Cuban doctors?

Guatemala’s health ministry said in a statement that it would begin a “gradual termination” over this year.

“The phased withdrawal of the Cuban Medical Brigade stems from an analysis of the mission’s completion of its cycles,” the statement, originally in Spanish, said on February 13.

The statement added that the Cuban medical mission was meant to support Guatemala through the 1998 Hurricane Mitch, which devastated parts of Central America, overwhelmed local hospitals and left rural communities with almost no access to medical care.

“The Ministry of Health is developing a phased strategic replacement plan that includes hiring national personnel, strengthening incentives for hard-to-reach positions, strategic redistribution of human resources, and specialized technical support,” the statement said.

The Cuban mission in Guatemala comprises 412 medical workers, including 333 doctors.

The Central American country’s decision comes amid growing pressure from the United States, which wants to stop Cuban doctors from serving abroad.

The move aims to starve Cuba of much-needed revenue as a major share of the incomes earned by doctors goes to government coffers. Cuba has been facing severe power, food and medical shortages amid an oil blockade imposed by the Trump administration since January.

Guatemala is just one country which benefits from Cuban medical missions.

Over the past decades, Cuba has sent medical missions around the world, from Latin America to Africa and beyond. It began sending these missions shortly after the 1959 Cuban revolution brought Fidel Castro to power.

Castro’s communist government reversed many of the pro-business policies of Fulgencio Batista, the dictator backed by the US. The revolution ruptured ties between the two countries, with the US spy agency CIA trying several times unsuccessfully to topple Castro’s government.

Guatemala has moved closer to the US since the election of Bernardo Arevalo as the president in January 2024. He has cooperated with US President Donald Trump’s administration. Last year, Guatemala agreed to ramp up the number of deportation flights it receives from the US. The US has deported thousands of immigrants without following due process to third countries such as Guatemala and El Salvador, which are headed by pro-Trump leaders.

In November 2018, shortly after Brazil elected Jair Bolsonaro as president, Cuba announced its withdrawal from the country’s Cuba “Mais Medicos” (More Doctors) programme. Bolsonaro, who is known as Brazil’s Trump, had criticised the medical mission, deeming it “slave labour”. Bolsonaro is serving a 27-year prison sentence after he was convicted in September 2025 of plotting to stage a coup in order to retain power after his defeat in the 2022 presidential election.

Why is the US targeting Cuba’s global medical missions?

The US has deemed Cuba’s foreign medical missions a form of “forced labour” and human trafficking, without any evidence, and has a goal of restricting the Cuban government’s access to its largest source of foreign income.

US efforts to curb Cuba’s medical missions are not new. Just last year, Washington imposed visa restrictions aimed at discouraging foreign governments from entering into medical cooperation agreements with Cuba.

In February last year, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the US would restrict visas targeting “forced labor linked to the Cuban labor export program”.

“This expanded policy applies to current or former Cuban government officials, and other individuals, including foreign government officials, who are believed to be responsible for, or involved in, the Cuban labor export program, particularly Cuba’s overseas medical missions,” a statement on the US State Department’s website said.

Rubio, who is of Cuban origin, has been a vocal critic of Havana, and has pushed US policies in Latin America, including the military operation to abduct Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on January 3. Under Trump, Washington has pushed its focus on Latin America as part of its Western Hemisphere pivot, which seeks to restore Washington’s preeminence in the region.

Since Maduro’s abduction, the US focus has turned towards Cuba. Senior US officials, particularly Rubio, hinted that Havana could be the next target of Washington’s pressure campaign.

The US, in effect, cut off Venezuelan oil shipments to Cuba as part of a new oil blockade. Havana has faced sweeping US sanctions for decades, and Cuba has since 2000 increasingly relied on Venezuelan oil provided as part of a deal struck with Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chavez.

The blockade has caused a fuel shortage and, in turn, a severe energy crisis in Cuba. President Miguel Diaz-Canel has imposed harsh emergency restrictions as a response.

This has renewed US pressure on countries to phase out Cuban medical missions.

How many Cuban doctors are on missions abroad?

More than 24,000 Cuban doctors are working in 56 countries worldwide. This includes Latin American countries such as Venezuela, Nicaragua and Mexico; Africa, including Angola, Mozambique, Algeria; and the Middle East, including Qatar.

There have been occasional deployments in other countries. For instance, Italy received Cuban doctors during the COVID-19 pandemic to help overwhelmed hospitals in some of its hardest-hit regions.

Cuban doctors are crucial for Caribbean countries. They fill a significant gap in medical care amid a lack of trained medical professionals.

Have countries resisted US pressure in the past?

Caribbean countries hit back in March 2025 against the US threats to restrict visas. “We could not get through the pandemic without the Cuban nurses and the Cuban doctors,” Barbados’s Prime Minister Mia Mottley said in a speech to the parliament.

“Out of the blue now, we have been called human traffickers because we hire technical people who we pay top dollar,” Trinidad and Tobago’s Prime Minister Keith Rowley said back then, adding that he was prepared to lose his US visa.

“If the Cubans are not there, we may not be able to run the service,” Saint Vincent and the Grenadines then-Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves said. “I will prefer to lose my visa than to have 60 poor and working people die.”

In August 2025, the US announced that it was revoking the visas of Brazilian, African and Caribbean officials over their ties to Cuba’s programme that sends doctors abroad.

It named Brazilian Ministry of Health officials, Mozart Julio Tabosa Sales and Alberto Kleiman, who had their visas revoked for working on Brazil’s Mais Medicos, or “More Doctors” programme, which was created in 2013.

Some countries are now finding ways around the pressure from Washington. For instance, this month Guyana announced that it would start paying doctors directly, rather than through the Cuban government.

The Super Bowl is over. Going to Disneyland? Do you have a spare $1,000 to spend?

I’m Glenn Whipp, columnist for the Los Angeles Times, host of The Envelope newsletter and the guy wondering about the profit margin on a $6 churro.

In the meantime, welcome back to the newsletter as we push through to the Oscars on March 15. Have you been catching up on the nominated movies? “Sentimental Value” is a delight … though just how delightful has been the subject of some debate.

Are the Actor Awards global enough?

Joachim Trier’s richly rewarding family drama “Sentimental Value” hauled in nine Oscar nominations last month, setting a record for most acting nods for a non-English-language movie.

Its primary quartet of actors — Stellan Skarsgård as a legendary director angling for a comeback, Renate Reinsve and Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas as his daughters and Elle Fanning as an A-list actor who becomes entangled in the family drama — all received nods. Fanning’s name was the first called when nominations were announced, signaling that Scandinavian melancholy would be notably absent that morning. Never mind the hour: Champagne glasses were raised.

The celebratory scene stood in stark contrast to the vibe just two weeks earlier when “Sentimental Value” was blanked at the Actor Awards (formerly known as the Screen Actors Guild Awards). And it wasn’t the only international film ignored. The 2,500 SAG-AFTRA nomination committee voters also shunned Wagner Moura, the lead of celebrated Brazilian drama “The Secret Agent.” Moura went on to nab an Oscar nomination, one of four noms, including best picture, that Kleber Mendonça Filho’s drama earned.

The disparity between the choices of the motion picture academy and SAG-AFTRA could be an anomaly. Or it might be the latest evidence of an Oscar trend this decade. As the academy’s membership has become more global — 24% of Oscar voters live outside the United States — the Academy Awards have become increasingly an international affair, leading to a widening divide with the Hollywood guilds.

Is this a bad thing? It depends who you ask. If you queried the actors that SAG-AFTRA nominated who ended up being Oscar also-rans, the answer would be no. Those who believe that cinema is global, particularly now that American studios have largely abandoned making movies geared toward grown-ups, would have a different response.

“The fact that not one international film got in says a lot,” says a veteran awards consultant, who, like others interviewed, requested anonymity in order to speak freely about the industry. Indeed, one journalist tabbed SAG’s Actor Awards nominations the “‘America First’ List,” which, while technically accurate, might have taken the perceived xenophobia a bit far.

“The SAG Awards or Actor Awards — whatever they’re called now — are in danger of looking like a middlebrow affair,” another awards campaigner notes. “I know this is going to sound elitist, but it’s true. There’s a big difference between an organization where you have to be invited or apply to join versus one where, if you’re a disc jockey in Kansas City, you have voting rights.”

To be fair, DJs, Kansas City-based or otherwise, probably don’t vote for the Actor Awards’ nominations — just for the final awards. In the nominations round, 2,500 randomly selected active SAG-AFTRA members make the choices. To serve on the committee, members must be categorized as an actor/performer, dancer, singer or stuntperson in the SAG-AFTRA database. Could a DJ be classified as a performer? Probably not. In the guild’s view, actor and performer are synonymous, encompassing both principal and background players.

And sure, since only 7% of SAG-AFTRA actors and performers earn $80,000 or more a year, that means there are going to be a few full-time waiters on those nomination committees. But as the speeches at the Actor Awards remind us annually, it’s a profession where you’re just one job away from making it. Think of Connor Storrie, who worked at restaurants for eight years before getting his break on “Heated Rivalry.”

There’s still the question of why, say, SAG-AFTRA dancers and singers are voting on the merits of an acting performance, however. In contrast to the Actor Awards, nominations for the Oscars are decided by the academy’s various branches. Actors vote for actors, writers for screenplays and so on, with the general membership voting for best picture.

“Peer groups are deciding what’s worthy, and that’s the way it should be,” says an academy member from the public relations branch. “I’m not voting for visual effects.”

Not initially, at least. Academy members vote for all 24 categories in the final round, provided, per a rule change that went into effect this year, they attest to watching all the nominated work in the category.

SAG-AFTRA voters have rewarded non-English-language work over the years, but usually when a particular film or TV show — Bong Joon Ho’s 2019 masterpiece “Parasite” or Netflix’s “Squid Game” — is undeniable. Voters ignored recent lead turns from Fernanda Torres (“I’m Still Here”), Yalitza Aparicio (“Roma”) and Sandra Hüller (“Anatomy of a Fall”). All three went on to earn lead actress Oscar nominations.

This year’s snubbing of “Sentimental Value” is particularly puzzling as the movie featured well-known actors like Fanning and Skarsgård, an institution from roles in blockbuster franchises like “Pirates of the Caribbean” and most recently the TV series “Andor.” It’s also a film about, among other things, the blurring of art and reality and the challenges of acting. And, in the scenes featuring Fanning, it’s in English.

What gives? Like every other contender, “Sentimental Value” screened four times for voters and was available for streaming.

“I just think people are less inclined to watch a movie with subtitles at home,” says one awards consultant, alluding to the ways that passive, multiscreen viewing has encroached upon our multitasking lives. Maybe that’s why Skarsgård, when he accepted the Golden Globe award for his work in the movie, preached that “cinema should be seen in cinemas” in his speech.

Does that sound elitist? It shouldn’t. But it does seem to be a belief from a time that’s slipping away. One certainty: With the academy nominating two international features for best picture for the third straight year, global cinema is now entrenched at the Oscars. Whether SAG-AFTRA voters decide to join the party is now a question for next year.

The head of U.S. Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC) has downplayed the current significance of Chinese efforts to develop new long-range strike aircraft with more global reach. He said that China remains, at best, a regional bomber force, though it continues to “aggressively” pursue new capabilities in this regard, like the long-awaited H-20 stealth bomber.

AFGSC commander Gen. Stephen Davis talked about Chinese bombers and other aviation developments with TWZ‘s Howard Altman last month. In that same interview, he also discussed his command’s role in any future conflict in the Pacific region, as well as new U.S. strategic capabilities that are in the works now, such as the B-21 Raider stealth bomber and the LGM-35A Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), among other topics. This was Davis’ first interview since taking command of AFGSC in November 2025.

The Chinese People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) recruitment video below from 2021 includes a teaser for the H-20 at the very end.

中国空军2021年度招飞宣传片完整版震撼发布！易烊千玺 吴京倾情加盟演绎强军路上精彩人生！「逐梦青春」| 军迷天下

“I can certainly understand their [the Chinese] desire to have a long-range strike capability like the United States, and I know that they’re pursuing it aggressively,” Davis said when asked for his thoughts on the H-20, as well as two very large stealthy flying wing-type drones that emerged in China last year. TWZ was first to report on the emegence of both of these designs, which appear to be at least in the initial flight test phase of development.

The H-20 is understood to be a stealthy flying wing-type bomber, very roughly analogous to the U.S. B-2 Spirit, and its development is said to trace back to the early 2000s. The U.S. military has previously estimated that it could have a maximum unrefueled range of close to 6,214 miles (10,000 kilometers), and noted that its reach could be further extended through aerial refueling. Past reports have also said that it might be able to carry up to 10 tons of ordnance, including land-attack and anti-ship cruise missiles.

“What I can tell you is they’re just not there yet,” Davis continued. “I think our adversaries look at our long-range strike capabilities, and … want to mimic them, but they can’t.”

“There’s no other country in the world [besides the United States] that can take and deliver a long-range strike platform pretty much on any day, in any time and place that they’re choosing, right?” he added. “Really, China is a regional bomber force at best. I think they’re trying to continue to develop that.”

China’s bomber force currently consists of variants of the H-6, the core design of which was originally derived from the Soviet Tu-16 Badger. The H-6N version, which made its official debut in 2019, has enabled the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to re-establish a strategic nuclear triad. The N model is primarily designed to carry a single very large air-launched ballistic missile (ALBM) under its fuselage and is one of the H-6 types that is capable of being refueled in flight. How many different types of missiles have been integrated onto the H-6N to date is unclear, but its arsenal does include the nuclear-capable Jinglei-1 (JL-1), as you can read more about here.

Gen. Davis’ comments are in line with past statements from U.S. officials on the H-20, specifically.

In 2024, an unnamed U.S. intelligence official said the H-20 Stealth Bomber was “not really” a concern, according to a report at the time from Breaking Defense.

“The thing with the H-20 is when you actually look at the system design, it’s probably nowhere near as good as U.S. LO [low-observable] platforms, particularly more advanced ones that we have coming down,” the same official said. “They’ve run into a lot of engineering design challenges, in terms of how do you actually make that system capability function in a similar way to, like, a B-2 or a B-21.”

“The H-20 … may debut sometime in the next decade,” the Pentagon subsequently wrote in its annual report to Congress on Chinese military developments later in 2024. That report also highlighted ongoing efforts in China to develop a stealthy medium-range bomber, which has been referred to in the past as the JH-XX.

The Pentagon’s most recent annual China report, published in December 2025, notably makes no mention at all, directly or indirectly, of the H-20 or JH-XX. That report did note that “of China’s currently fielded systems, the DF-26 IRBM [intermediate range ballistic missile and the H-6N’s ALBM are both highly precise theater weapons that would be well suited for delivering a low-yield nuclear weapon.” This underscores Gen. Davis’ comments about the continuing regional limitations of the Chinese bomber force.

Despite past PLA pronouncements that the program is on track, the current status of the H-20 is unclear. The present state of work related to the JH-XX, and whether it may have carried over into other programs, like the J-36 advanced tailless tactical combat aircraft, is also unknown. Starting in the late 2010s, there had been a surge in official and semi-official statements about how the H-20 was ‘coming soon,’ but this looks to have largely subsided in the past year or so.

This is despite a flurry in other very high-profile Chinese military aviation developments, including the aforementioned large flying wing-type drones, as well as the J-36 and J-XDS sixth-generation stealth fighters, the GJ-11 uncrewed combat air vehicle (UCAV), the KJ-3000 airborne early warning and control aircraft, and more. The PLA Navy (PLAN) has also made major strides in advancing its carrier-based aviation capabilities in the past year or so.

As TWZ has noted in the past, a platform like the H-20 would give the PLA the ability to hold entirely new swaths of the Indo-Pacific region, including in parts of the continental United States, at risk. An expanded long-range strike aviation force would also expand China’s ability to target highly strategic outlying areas, including the U.S. island territory of Guam and Hawaii, as well as threaten regional competitors like Japan and India. If fielded, the aforementioned JH-XX could also have an important role in future regional operations.

The PLA has already been working to expand its routine bomber operations in the Western ends of the Pacific, especially around Taiwan and in the hotly contested South China Sea. Chinese bombers also now regularly integrate with their Russian counterparts and have made use of bases in that country for joint patrols. H-6K missile carrier aircraft flew in international airspace near Alaska for the first time ever during one of these joint operations back in 2024.

China and Russia conduct joint air strategic patrol over Bering Sea on July 25. This marks the eighth air strategic patrol organized by the two militaries since 2019.

Photos from China PLA Air Force Weibo accounthttps://t.co/g9w27FRnnM pic.twitter.com/oeZA4cUQR9

— Ryan Chan 陳家翹 (@ryankakiuchan) July 25, 2024

In his recent interview with TWZ, AFGSC commander Gen. Davis similarly highlighted the continued importance of American bombers in the Pacific.

“We have a requirement to be able to do that, day-to-day, for the President. We have to be able to penetrate adversary air defenses and deliver capabilities as directed,” Davis said when asked about the ever-growing threats posed by Chinese anti-access and area-denial capabilities. “We’ll continue to do that, as I said, by essentially, you know, taking all the information we can get, and integrating the B-21. Obviously, one of the great things about the B-21 is it’s going to be much more capable, it will have more sensors, it will have more inputs to it that will make it even stronger and more capable as a penetrating bomber.”

“Long-range strike, I think, contributes to every important mission set that we have in the Department of War,” the AFGSC commander also said when asked about how bombers could be employed against Chinese naval forces, specifically. “Obviously, one of the attributes of the modern force is the weapons they can carry, the variety of weapons they can carry, and the number and types of targets they can attack.”

“I think in any major confrontation that the U.S. would find itself in, you’re going to find your bomber forces are participating in bringing those skill sets to bear,” he added.

With this in mind, China is also still pursuing new long-range strike aviation capabilities, though it remains to be seen when the H-20 might finally emerge.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Interest in gold has skyrocketed in recent weeks, with the price of one ounce hitting an all time high of $5,600 on January 29 before settling back to just under $5,000 on Sunday.

As economic conditions fluctuate and geopolitical tensions rise, more individuals are seeking gold as a secure investment.

In this visual explainer, Al Jazeera breaks down how gold value is determined, the prices of gold coins in different markets, and the countries holding the largest reserves.

How is the value of gold measured?

Understanding the value of a gold item requires knowing its weight in troy ounces alongside its purity in karats.

Weight (in troy ounces)

The weight of gold and other precious metals like silver and platinum is commonly measured in troy ounces (oz t). One troy ounce is equal to 31.1035 grammes.

At $5,000 per troy ounce, 1 gramme of gold is worth about $160, and a standard 400-troy-ounce (12.44kg) gold bar costs $2m.

Troy ounces are different from regular ounces, which weigh 28.35 grammes and are used to measure everyday items including foods.

Purity (in karats)

Karat or carat (abbreviated as “K” or “ct”) measures the purity of a gold item. Pure gold is 24 karats, while lower karats such as 22, 18, and 9 indicate that the gold is mixed with less expensive metals like silver, copper, or zinc.

To determine the purity of gold, jewellers are required to stamp a number onto the item, such as 24K or a numeric value like 999, which indicates it is 99.9 percent pure. For example, 18K gold will typically have a stamp of 750, signifying that it is 75 percent pure.

Some typical values include:

• 24 karat – 99.9% purity – A deep orange colour, is very soft, never tarnishes and is most commonly used for investment coins or bars
• 22 karat  – 91.6% purity – A rich orange colour, moderate durability, resists tarnishing and most often used for luxury jewellery
• 18 karat – 75% purity – A warm yellow colour, high durability, will have some dulling over time and most often used in fine jewellery
• 9 karat – 37.5% purity – A pale yellow colour, has the highest durability, dulls over time, used in affordable jewellery

Other karat amounts such as 14k (58.3% purity) and 10k (41.7% purity) are often sold in different markets around the world.

When you buy jewellery, the price usually depends on the day’s gold spot price, how much it costs to make, and any taxes.

If you know the item’s exact weight in grammes and the gold’s purity in karats, you can calculate the craftsmanship cost on top of that.

You typically cannot negotiate the spot gold price, but you can often haggle over the craftsmanship costs.

The price of gold has quadrupled over the past 10 years

Gold has been valued for thousands of years, serving various functions, from currency to jewellery. The precious metal is widely regarded as a safe haven asset, particularly in times of economic uncertainty or market volatility.

Up until 1971, the United States dollar was physically defined by a specific weight of gold. Under the classical gold standard, for nearly a century, from 1834 until 1933, you could walk into a bank and exchange $20 for an ounce of gold.

In 1933, amid the Great Depression, the price was raised to $35 per ounce to stimulate the economy.

In 1971, under President Richard Nixon, gold was decoupled from the dollar, and its price began to be determined by market forces.

Over the past 10 years, the price of gold has quadrupled from $1,250 in 2016 to around $5,000 today.

How is the price of gold determined in different countries?

Gold is priced globally based on the spot market, where one troy ounce is traded in US dollars on exchanges such as London and New York. Local prices vary as the dollar rate is converted into domestic currencies, and dealers add premiums for minting, distribution and demand.

Taxes and import duties further influence the final cost: India adds 3 percent GST, while the United Kingdom and United Arab Emirates impose none on gold investments.

Different countries produce unique gold bullion coins and bars, each with its own distinct features and cultural significance. Notable examples include the Gold Eagle from the US, the Gold Panda from China, and the Krugerrand from South Africa.

Which countries have the most gold reserves?

The US leads global gold reserves with 8,133 tonnes, nearly equal to the combined total of the next three countries. Germany is in second place with 3,350 tonnes, and Italy comes in third with 2,451 tonnes.

The graphic below shows the top 10 countries with the largest gold reserves.

After Pakistan announced their boycott of the forthcoming T20I World Cup match against India, the International Cricket Council (ICC) was quick to lament the position the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) had put fans in. “[Pakistan’s] decision is not in the interest of the global game or the welfare of fans worldwide,” the ICC said in a release, before going on to make special mention of “millions in Pakistan”, who will now have no India fixture to anticipate.

Through the course of this statement, and the one the previous week, justifying the ICC’s ultimatum to the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) – which eventually led to Bangladesh’s exit from the tournament – the ICC leaned on ideals of fairness and equality. The “integrity and sanctity” of the World Cup was invoked, as well as the “neutrality and fairness” of such an event.

Pakistan’s fans may clock, of course, that they had not attracted such concern before the Champions Trophy in 2025, when India had refused to play in Pakistan for what were, in truth, purely political reasons. As it happened, a semifinal and the final of that tournament were eventually moved away from Pakistan, India’s cricketing magnetism pulling the knockouts to Dubai, after the ICC had adopted a “hybrid” model wherein India played all its matches outside the “host” country.

This was a key moment setting cricket on its current trajectory. In return for India’s refusal to play in its home country, Pakistan insisted they would not travel to India for this year’s T20 World Cup – two of the most storied cricketing nations on the planet descending to reciprocal petulance. In the lead-up to this World Cup, Bangladesh was also drawn into the fray, the Indian Premier League (IPL) franchise’s jettisoning of Bangladesh bowler Mustafizur Rahman prompting Bangladesh to demand all its matches be played in Sri Lanka (India’s co-host for this tournament), and that demand, in turn, leading to it being thrown out entirely.

All claims that any of these boycotts are founded on security concerns are, in fact, bogus; security assessments ordered by the ICC had found India sufficiently equipped to handle Bangladesh’s visit, while Pakistan had hosted ICC-sanctioned international cricket involving multiple touring teams, and Pakistan had played an entire One Day International (ODI) World Cup in India as recently as 2023.

What is also clear, however, is that the ICC has now allowed its sport to become the medium through which South Asian states, currently as riven as they have been for decades, exchange geopolitical blows. What’s more, the ICC has begun to favour one set of geopolitical ambitions over others, India never so much as copping a censure for its refusal to play in Pakistan, while India’s men’s team’s refusal to shake hands with the Pakistan players in last year’s Asia Cup has now been adopted across the Board of Cricket in Control’s (BCCI’s) teams – the women’s and Under-19 (U19) sides following suit. To take the ICC at face value would also require believing that ICC Chair Jay Shah is conducting his business in complete separation from Amit Shah, who is India’s home minister.

It is India’s stupendous cricket economy that has chiefly brought about this imbalance. Since 2014, when a Big Three (India, Australia, England) takeover at the ICC diverted cricket to a hypercapitalist path, the game’s top administrators have been adamant that it is profits that must define cricket’s contours. Because India is the wellspring of much of the game’s finances, the ICC has organised for the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to receive close to 40 percent of the ICC’s net earnings, while international men’s cricket largely surrenders a fifth of the calendar to the IPL. The sport’s high-octane driver of financial growth demands protection, or so the official line goes. If member boards fail to align with the BCCI agenda at the ICC, it has long been taken as read that the BCCI may threaten to cancel India’s next tour of that country, which in turn may shatter the smaller board’s revenues. The vote to issue that ultimatum to the BCB had run 14-2 against Bangladesh. A board must never forget at whose table it eats.

A cricket world that has spent 12 years lionising economic might cannot now be surprised that politics has now begun to overrun even the game’s financial imperatives. That monopolies tend to lead to appalling contractions in consumer choice has been a fundamental tenet of economics for generations. Hundreds of millions of Bangladesh fans are about to discover this over the next few weeks, as will the remainder of the cricketing world on February 15, when India and Pakistan were due to play. That profit-driven systems, which equate wealth with power, frequently lose the means to check the most powerful, is another longstanding principle in political economics.

The tournament’s competitive standards will also undoubtedly slip for Bangladesh’s absence. Bangladesh have a body of work in cricket that, respectfully, utterly dwarfs that of Scotland, who have replaced them. There are warnings here, too, for other cricketing economies. Although broadcast revenues from Bangladesh are a mere sliver of the mountains India presently generates, macroeconomic indicators from Bangladesh (a growing population, an improving gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI) ranking) suggest that market is set to grow in future decades. If the ICC is willing to freeze a Full Member with Bangladesh’s potential, what will it do to more vulnerable boards – Sri Lanka, New Zealand, and the West Indies, for example?

The irony for many boards is that they have largely served the BCCI’s agenda at the ICC for a dozen years, helping extend its financial dominance. Since the Big Three first carved up governance and finances at the ICC in 2014, most smaller boards have been enthusiastic supporters of the BCCI’s programme, believing that only by appeasing India can they survive, which in itself is a tacit admission of a galling lack of ambition. And still, a dozen years of carrying this water has delivered them to no less bleak a position. In fact, several of the smaller Full Members have regressed..

Sri Lanka Cricket, for instance, has in recent years been among the BCCI’s most loyal allies. But it has now been a dozen years since any of their senior teams made the semifinal of a global tournament. Their Test cricket survives, but barely – the schedule is increasingly thin. Sri Lanka men only have six Tests on their slate in 2026, having had as few as four Tests to play last year. Cricket West Indies, meanwhile, has not seen a major resurgence on the field either, their men’s T20 fortunes having subsided since 2016, while both their men’s and women’s ODI teams have failed to qualify for the most recent World Cups. Zimbabwe Cricket is in no less challenging a footing now than it was two decades ago.

New Zealand and South Africa have held their own on the field, especially in women’s cricket and in the Test format. But to get here, Cricket South Africa (CSA), in particular, has had to be publicly chastened by the BCCI – in 2013, when India shortened a tour there because the BCCI resented the appointment of a CEO it didn’t like. More recently, South Africa’s top T20 league has also failed to feature Pakistan players, because each of the SA20’s franchise owners has a base in India. Excluding sportspeople based on the circumstances of their birth cuts hard against the ethos of post-Apartheid sport in South Africa. And yet even this national ambition has been subjugated by Indian political interests. Smaller boards have become so reliant on funds flowing from India that India increasingly chooses the terms of their cricketing survival.

Now, a World Cup is about to begin with Bangladesh having learned the harshest lesson of all. The BCB had been among the first of the smaller boards to sign away power to the Big Three during the first takeover in 2014. In 2026, the BCB now finds itself deeply out of favour for non-cricketing reasons.

India is inarguably the greatest cricketing superpower there ever has been. Even in the days of the Imperial Cricket Conference (the ICC’s predecessor), Australia and England could perhaps be relied on to check each other’s most predatory instincts. Such checks do not hold when one board is the sun, and the remainder are merely planets in its orbit. Perhaps the lesson for CA and the ECB – the BCCI’s most eager collaborators – is that the time may be coming when India has decided they are past their use-by date too. Why shouldn’t the BCCI freeze them out eventually? Would India not merely be doing what all superpowers tend to do, which is to leverage its stupendous power until all others either conform or are cast off? And why should the BCCI’s ambitions fall short of gobbling up even those established markets?

Cricket is now making clear its allegiances, and despite the ICC’s rhetoric, its commitments are no longer to neutrality and competitive equilibrium which are such vital rudiments of any sport. Other boards have allowed India’s will to prevail to such an extent that its motives now need not be merely economic; they can be nakedly political. And cricket is being eaten alive in this dark intersection between money and politics.

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

The United States has hosted its first critical minerals summit aimed at challenging China’s dominance of the global supply chain for rare earth elements. But political economist Stefan Zylinski warns that Global South countries are likely to bear the greatest cost from any plan conceived by the Global North.

Modi’s government presents annual budget, focusing on sustaining growth despite volatile financial markets and trade uncertainty.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has unveiled its annual budget, aiming for steady growth in an uncertain global economy rocked by recent tariff wars.

Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman presented the budget for the 2026-2027 financial year in Parliament on Sunday, prioritising infrastructure and domestic manufacturing, with a total expenditure estimated at $583bn.

India’s economy has so far weathered punitive tariffs of 50 percent imposed by United States President Donald Trump over New Delhi’s imports of Russian oil. The government has sought to offset the impact of those duties by striking deals, such as its trade agreement with the European Union.

Despite the past year’s challenges, the Indian economy has remained one of the world’s fastest growing.

The budget for the new financial year, which starts on April 1, projects gross domestic product (GDP) growth in the range of 6.8 to 7.2 percent, according to the government’s annual Economic Survey presented in Parliament. It is a shade softer than this year’s projected 7.4 percent but still outpaces estimates by global institutions such as the World Bank.

To keep growth strong, the government said it will spend 12.2 trillion rupees ($133bn) on infrastructure in the new fiscal year, compared with 11.2 trillion rupees ($122bn) last year. It will also aim to boost manufacturing in seven strategic sectors, including pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, rare-earth magnets, chemicals, capital goods, textiles and sports goods while stepping up investments in niche industries like artificial intelligence.

Despite plans to prop up growth with state spending, the government is aiming to bring down the federal government debt-to-GDP ratio from 56.1 percent to 55.6 percent in the next financial year and the fiscal deficit from its current projected level of 4.4 percent of GDP to 4.3 percent.

Sitharaman offered no populist giveaways, saying New Delhi would focus on building resilience at home while strengthening its position in global supply chains, marking a departure from last year’s budget, which wooed the salaried middle class with steep tax cuts.

Before the budget presentation, Modi on Thursday said the nation was “moving away from long-term problems to tread the path of long-term solutions”.

“Long term solutions provide predictability that fosters trust in the world,” he said.

Modi’s government has struggled to raise manufacturing from its current level of contributing under 20 percent of India’s GDP to 25 percent to generate jobs for the millions of people entering the nation’s workforce each year.

It has also seen a sharp decline in the value of the rupee, which has recently weakened to all-time lows after foreign investors sold a record amount of Indian equities. Those sales have added up to $22bn since January last year.

“Overall, this is a budget without fireworks – not a big positive, not a big negative,” Aishvarya Dadheech, founder and chief investment officer at Mumbai-based Fident Asset Management, told the Reuters news agency.

“We want to take Swansea to the Premier League, and to do that we are going to need money – that’s the reality of the game these days.

“I want to introduce sponsorship deals and publicity that will make them a global name.”

The West Coast rapper has sold more than 30 million albums worldwide but is yet to attend a Swansea game, though his son Cordell Broadus was in the directors’ box for the Welsh side’s draw with Watford last August.

American billionaire businesswoman Martha Stewart, who joined Snoop Dogg and Real Madrid legend Luka Modric as a Swansea co-owner in December, was in Wales for the game against Wrexham just before Christmas.

Swansea have said Snoop Dogg is likely to attend a game at some point this season, though there is still no confirmation of when he may appear at the Swansea.com Stadium.

“For real I want to meet with the fans,” Snoop Dogg said.

“These fans are passionate, they are real, and I want to hear what they got to say when I am in Swansea.

“I knew I always wanted to invest in a soccer team – it’s been a dream of mine for years, it was all about waiting for the right opportunity.”

Modric was the first celebrity name to get involved at Swansea, with the former Ballon d’Or winner named as a co-owner last April.

Swansea’s American owners, led by Brett Cravatt and Jason Cohen, believe bringing in high-profile names at boardroom level will help increase the profile the club which will in turn boost income.

United Nations chief Antonio Guterres appears to point at Trump as critics say his ‘Board of Peace’ aims to replace UN.

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has warned that international “cooperation is eroding” in the world, during a media briefing where he took aim at one – maybe two – powerful countries undermining efforts to solve global problems collectively.

In his annual address as secretary-general, where he outlined priorities for the UN, Guterres said on Thursday that the world body stood ready to help members do more to address their most pressing issues, including the climate catastrophe, inequality, conflict and the rising influence of technology companies.

But he warned that “global problems will not be solved by one power calling the shots,” in apparent reference to United States President Donald Trump’s administration and his moves to abandon much of the UN system, while also impelling countries to join his newly-created “Board of Peace”.

Guterres went on to say that “two powers” would also not solve key problems by “carving the world into rival spheres of influence”, in what appeared to be a reference to China and its growing role in global affairs.

Guterres, who will step down from his position at the end of the year, underscored the UN’s ongoing commitment to international law amid concerns that treaties, which countries have abided by for decades, are coming undone.

Amid Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza and the brazen abduction of Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro by US forces, the UN chief warned that international law is being “trampled” and “multilateral institutions are under assault on many fronts.”

But, he added, the UN was still “pushing for peace – just and sustainable peace rooted in international law”.

Beginning in his first term as US President, Trump sought to end his country’s formal participation in many aspects of the UN system, while also eager to wield influence over key decision-making bodies, including through the use of the US veto in the UN’s powerful Security Council.

Trump’s current administration has also imposed sanctions on UN Special Rapporteur for Palestine Francesca Albanese and threatened to sanction negotiators involved in UN talks on shipping pollution at the International Maritime Organization.

The US leader’s actions have drawn criticism.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio “Lula” da Silva earlier this month accused Trump of wanting to create “a new UN”.

Lula made his comment just days after Trump launched his “Board of Peace” initiative at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

While more than two dozen countries in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Latin America and Europe have signed up as founding members of the peace board, several major nations, including France, have turned down invitations to join, and Canada has been excluded.

France said the Trump-led peace board “goes beyond the framework of Gaza and raises serious questions, in particular with respect to the principles and structure of the United Nations, which cannot be called into question”.