Global

Aug. 26 (UPI) — The U.S. Treasury issued sanctions Wednesday against British-based direct action group Palestine Action and two other organizations it called “violent far-left terrorist networks.”

The treasury declared Palestine Action a “specially designated global terrorist,” meaning that it can freeze the group’s assets, including bank accounts and property. The sanctions also prohibit people from giving funds, goods or services to the organization.

“Far-left extremists, their fronts and their enablers should be on notice: We will bring the full weight of our economic tools to bear,” said Scott Bessent, secretary of the treasury. “Political terrorism has no place in our society, and we will continue to cut the financial lifelines of these groups until they are eliminated.”

In response, Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action, said the group’s activities in the United States and other countries “have always been about saving lives by disrupting the Israeli war machine, which is committing a genocide in Gaza with the support of the U.S. government,” The Guardian reported.

“Trump has been at the center of the mass murder of Palestinians, enabling the Zionist regime at every turn,” Ammori said.

Palestine Action was also the first direct action group named under Britain’s Terrorism Act in July 2025. The group is fighting the ban in a legal challenge before the country’s supreme court in November.

“The fact that Trump is now taking inspiration from Britain’s repression of the movement for Palestinian freedom exposes just how dangerous this ban is and should be a wake-up call to anyone who cares about free speech and civil liberties,” Ammori said.

The U.S. Treasury said Palestine Action “has supported numerous acts of terrorism since July 2020, including acts that have physically injured U.K. law enforcement personnel, as well as acts intended to intimidate lawful commercial enterprises and coerce the U.K. government.

“The group’s action include multiple high-profile instances of breaking into defense infrastructure and British military installations and causing millions of dollars’ worth of damage to military equipment,” it said.

In March 2025, Trump’s golf course in Scotland was targeted by Palestine Action supporters who painted graffiti on the clubhouse and damaged the course, spraying “Gaza is not 4 sale.” Trump at the time called those responsible “terrorists.”

Other groups named global terrorist organizations by the United States include Hamas, al-Qaida and the Islamic State.

The groups sanctioned Wednesday also include Autistici Inventati, an Italy-based group “that supplies specialized digital architecture, tools and services for Antifa cells and other violent far-left extremists,” and Masar Badil, “which operates as a front for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine,” the treasury said.

TWG Global — the holding company of Dodgers owner Mark Walter — rejected allegations of financial impropriety in the purchase and operation of the Dodgers and reiterated the team is not for sale.

At a time insurance regulators and federal investigators are looking into allegations that insurance companies under Walter’s umbrella did not properly disclose and conduct transactions between other companies he controls, and after Walter sold his controlling interest in the Lakers at a record $12.5 billion valuation, potential bidders have monitored whether the Dodgers might be sold as well.

In a statement Tuesday, TWG Global decried “multipronged attacks against TWG … by unnamed sources with self-serving interests” and said no insurance policyholder has been hurt as a result of the company’s financial transactions.

“There is no victim here,” the statement said. “No one has been harmed, and no one has claimed they were harmed.”

In 2012, when Walter and his partners bought the Dodgers for $2 billion, The Times reported the use of $1.2 million from Guggenheim Partners insurance funds into the deal. At the time, rival bidders expressed concern over the unusual financing, but state insurance regulators cleared the deal and Major League Baseball approved it.

“The transaction was subject to a full investigation conducted by an outside law firm on behalf of insurance regulators from multiple states,” the statement said, “which identified no irregularities and resulted in no further action.”

Even with the Dodgers issuing over a billion dollars in deferred contracts and amid whatever transactions might have been conducted between TWG-related insurance companies and the Dodgers’ affiliates — including ones that hold the team’s television rights and ticket revenues — the Dodgers’ ability to fund player contracts is not at risk, according to the statement.

“The Dodgers have the highest revenue in baseball, and it significantly exceeds the team’s obligations to its players,” the statement said.

The statement reiterated that, as Dodgers president Stan Kasten has said, “the team is not being sold and no sale process has been initiated.”

The Dodgers, if sold, could likely command a price in the range of $10 million to $13 million, industry analysts have told The Times.

The Lakers sold at a record price for a North American sports franchise, although industry analysts have said a competitive bidding process likely would have resulted in an even higher sale price.

Said the statement: “Mr. Walter was approached by Josh Kushner and his team about this transaction and the agreement represents a 25% premium to the price paid by Mr. Walter less than a year ago (and an even higher premium to the $5.0 billion valuation Mr. Walter paid in 2021) — hardly a ‘fire sale.’”

The statement added: “TWG is not looking to sell its sports assets at ‘fire sale’ prices to raise capital for its insurance operations.”

TWG said it is “working cooperatively and in partnership with the Delaware Department of Insurance” to resolve the regulatory issues and “is committed to working with the U.S. Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission to resolve their inquiries.”

“TWG stands firmly behind the integrity of its business,” the statement read. “Despite what has been reported, there has been no fraud.”

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has announced new economic sanctions on Tehran, describing the measures as an “economic D-Day” as the US war on Iran approaches the six-month mark.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced the sanctions on Monday, alongside a naval blockade of Iranian ports.

Bessent said the sanctions target key sources of Iran’s revenue, including its oil and gas industry, and called on countries around the world to cut economic ties with Tehran.

What are the sanctions?

The Treasury Department said the sanctions will target Iran’s aviation, digital assets, gold, technology and shipping sectors, as well as impose sanctions on 60 specific individuals and vessels.

“The main point is that Iran seems to have much less room than it did in previous years to simply work around sanctions,” Peiman Salehi, a Tehran-based geopolitical analyst, told Al Jazeera.

Bessent also said on Monday that the new sanctions expose Tehran’s trade partners to secondary penalties. According to a Treasury Department release on Monday, the targets include ships based in or associated with countries including Singapore, China, and Hong Kong.

“Today’s sanctions are mostly incremental, but are part of trying to intimidate remaining trading partners into cutting ties [with Iran],” said Rachel Ziemba, an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security think tank.

“There’s a lot of signalling and bluster aimed at getting other countries to crack down on entities involved in grey-zone trade, but new measures are mostly incremental for now,” she said. Grey-zone trade refers to both illegal, underground trade and trade that is unsanctioned but difficult.

The Treasury Department said Iran has used cryptocurrency to circumvent its longtime sanctions and facilitate transactions involving the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and members of the Iranian regime. The department also said Iran has used gold to help prop up the value of its currency amid economic instability.

The new shipping sanctions target Iran’s state-linked shipping fleet, which the Treasury Department alleges is being used to transport oil as well as “sensitive weapons components”.

The technology sanctions are intended to restrict Iran’s acquisition of materials that could be used in its weapons programmes. The aviation sanctions target Iranian airlines that the Treasury Department alleges are being used to transport weapons and military personnel, as well as financial resources to Iran’s proxies.

Washington also indefinitely suspended several broad exceptions to its ongoing sanctions on Iran, including those covering academic exchanges, personal money transfers and certain sporting activities. Organisations currently engaged in those activities have until September 8 to wind down their operations.

Ziemba says these measures “will have more effect on Iranians, not just the regime”.

What sanctions were already in place?

Washington’s sanctions on Iran have been in place since 1979, after students took hostages at the US Embassy in Tehran, and increased over the next 45 years. Sanctions were briefly paused, however, after the administration of President Barack Obama and world powers signed a nuclear deal with Tehran in 2015. But the Trump administration withdrew from the deal during its first term, in 2018, bringing back old penalties while adding new ones.

Washington imposed new sanctions during Trump’s second term, many of them before the US and Israel first struck the country on February 28.

In February 2025, the Treasury Department sanctioned 30 individuals and vessels involved in the “brokering [of] the sale and transportation of Iranian petroleum-related products”, according to a department release. The targets were based in several countries, including India and China.

In December 2025, Washington sanctioned 29 vessels it accused of being part of a so-called shadow fleet used to transport Iranian petroleum. It also sanctioned Egyptian businessman Hatem Elsaid Farid Ibrahim Sakr over his businesses’ alleged ties to seven of those 29 vessels. The measures continued the 1979 sanctions campaign against Iran’s oil industry.

The Treasury Department stepped up the sanctions again in April 2026, targeting another two dozen individuals, companies and vessels operating within the network of Iranian oil shipping magnate Mohammad Hossein Shamkhani, the son of now-deceased senior Iranian security official Ali Shamkhani.

Later that same month, the Treasury also targeted what it described as “regime-linked cryptocurrency” and said it had seized nearly half a billion dollars from so-called “shadow banking networks”.

How have sanctions affected US consumers?

Pressure on the Iranian oil market, both through existing sanctions as well as the current war, has tightened the rest of the globe’s oil supply and affected countries that buy Iranian oil.

China, for example, is the primary destination for Iranian oil, buying roughly 90 percent of Iran’s crude oil exports. Beijing bought 1.4 million barrels per day in 2025.

At the same time, Asian markets, China included, also heavily rely on oil travelling through the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, where roughly one-fifth of the globe’s oil transited before Iran choked off the route.

This has put pressure on the global oil supply, meaning the benchmark for crude oil has ticked up, translating to higher prices on fuel and food.

For US consumers, that has been most apparent at the petrol pump. The average price for a gallon of petrol (3.78 litres) is $4.09, up from $2.98 on February 28 when the US and Israel first struck Iran, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA), which tracks daily petrol prices.

Experts warn that if Iran retaliation accelerates, it could hit Americans hard.

“If sanctions provoke Iranian retaliation against Gulf shipping, materially reduce oil exports, or cause insurers and shipping companies to avoid the region, then Americans could feel it very quickly through gasoline, diesel, airfares, freight costs and ultimately inflation,” John Deal, managing director of capital markets at Post Oak Group investment bank, told Al Jazeera.

The economy and Iran are emerging as key issues heading into the US midterm elections, with voters expressing dissatisfaction on both fronts. That could put pressure on Republicans in competitive races, including in traditionally red states such as Texas.

A late-July Reuters/Ipsos poll suggested that only about a third of Americans supported the war, while just 28 percent of respondents in a CNN poll approved of Trump’s handling of Iran.

On the economy, an AP/NORC poll suggested that 32 percent of Americans approved of Trump’s performance. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll, meanwhile, suggested that Democrats were narrowly ahead of Republicans on which party voters trust more to handle the economy—the first Democratic advantage in roughly a decade.

How are the sanctions affecting markets?

The latest sanctions announcement is weighing on Wall Street as well as the oil and gold markets.

On the heels of the announcement, the price of gold, largely considered a safe investment during times of economic uncertainty, jumped by 0.8 percent to $4,639.49 per ounce (28 grams) in midday trading, ticking up to its highest level since mid-May.

As for oil, prices pulled back on Monday after two weeks of gains. The price of the global benchmark Brent crude tumbled by more than 2 percent on Monday to $85.22 a barrel.

On Wall Street, the major indices are mixed amid the latest sanctions news as well as Trump’s announcement of new tariffs on Canada. The Nasdaq is down 0.5 percent, and the S&P 500 is down 0.2 percent. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, however, is trending in positive territory, 0.2 percent higher than the market open on Monday.

The oil sector is taking a hit. Chevron is down 0.8 percent, ExxonMobil tumbled 0.9 percent, BP fell more than 2 percent, and Shell is down 0.2 percent.

Case fatality rate climbs to nearly 48 percent in the DRC, meaning almost one in two people infected with Ebola are dying.

The Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has reached  5,515 confirmed cases of infection and killed 2,642 people, with 51 new cases detected in Ituri and North Kivu provinces, according to the latest government figures.

The update on Sunday came as Pope Leo called for ⁠international action to help contain the epidemic, which is now the deadliest Ebola outbreak in the DRC’s history.

Declared in mid-May, it is the DRC’s 17th Ebola epidemic and was designated a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization (WHO), its highest alert level, also covering neighbouring Uganda.

The outbreak is now on track to surpass the deadliest Ebola epidemic on record, which was the 2014–2016 outbreak in West Africa that killed more than 11,000 people.

According to government figures, the case fatality rate in the DRC has climbed from about 20 percent in early June to nearly 48 percent now, meaning almost one in two people infected are dying.

Contact tracing, however, has improved sharply, from 30 percent in June to more than 85 percent.

The disease has also proved deadly for those fighting it. About 160 health workers have been infected, and about 45 have died, according to the WHO.

Efforts to contain the outbreak, however, have been hampered by armed conflict in the affected provinces, displacement, attacks on medical personnel and facilities, a mobile working population and a lack of critical infrastructure.

Vaccines arrive in DRC

There is no approved vaccine or treatment for this particular strain of Ebola, known as Bundibugyo, which is rarer than the virus type behind most past outbreaks.

The WHO has pledged 70,000 doses of the Ervebo vaccine, which is licensed for Ebola and has been effective in past outbreaks. According to the global body, early data from animal trials suggest it may offer some protection against Bundibugyo.

Some 16,250 doses of the vaccine arrived in the DRC on Friday.

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and other officials said the response in the DRC needs to be scaled up two to threefold to contain the outbreak and reach every affected area.

They also called for more support and protection for front-line health workers, including protective equipment, timely payment, and access to rapid diagnosis and high-quality supportive care if they fall ill.

Abdulsalami Nasidi, a public health consultant who helped establish the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, told Al Jazeera that the outbreak was “getting out of hand”.

He blamed weak infection control measures and a lack of trust between authorities and affected communities for the continued transmission.

“This is no longer just a national or regional issue; it is a global issue. If it spreads to neighbouring places with lower immunity, it will be a disaster,” Nasidi added.

The WHO currently rates the risk to the global public as low, but warns that the danger inside the DRC remains very high.

Despite the surging cases, Uganda and several health zones in DRC’s Ituri and South Kivu have interrupted transmission, which the WHO said is evidence that rapid detection, decisive leadership, and community cooperation can break the chain of transmission.

At the Vatican on Sunday, Pope Leo offered prayers for the DRC, “in light of the spread of the Ebola epidemic, which is sadly ⁠claiming many lives”.

The pontiff also called for global action to help save lives.

“I urge the international community to ⁠respond in a way that also involves local communities ⁠in prevention efforts to save ⁠as many lives as possible,” he said.

The Iran war has pushed the global energy system into a deeper crisis, with the disruption increasingly shifting from crude oil supplies to the refined fuels that power transportation, industry and economies worldwide.

While global oil markets have adapted relatively well to the loss of a significant share of Middle Eastern crude production, the refining industry has had far fewer options to compensate.

That imbalance is already visible in fuel prices.

Brent crude is around $90 a barrel, roughly 25% above its level when the conflict began on February 28 but well below its wartime peak of $118.

Refined fuel prices, however, have remained much higher. European diesel prices have risen more than 70% since the start of the war, while U.S. gasoline prices have increased around 60%.

The growing divergence suggests that the biggest energy shock may no longer be coming from crude oil itself, but from the world’s ability to turn crude into usable fuel.

Why Are Fuel Prices Rising Faster Than Oil?

The key problem is declining refinery capacity.

The International Energy Agency estimates that more than 20% of the Middle East’s 9.6 million barrels per day of refining capacity was knocked out during the conflict.

At the same time, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has restricted fuel exports and disrupted the movement of Gulf crude.

The result has been a chain reaction.

Refineries, particularly in Asia, have had to reduce operations because of difficulties obtaining crude, while damaged Middle Eastern facilities have struggled to return to normal production.

This has created a shortage of diesel, gasoline and other refined products even as crude oil prices have retreated from their wartime highs.

How Has Russia Made the Fuel Crisis Worse?

The Middle East is not the only source of disruption.

Months of Ukrainian attacks on Russian energy infrastructure have also reduced global refining capacity.

Russian refinery throughput has fallen by nearly 30% in recent months to below 4 million barrels per day.

The decline has forced Moscow to restrict diesel exports, removing another major source of refined fuel from international markets.

The combination of Middle Eastern refinery damage and reduced Russian output has left the global market with fewer alternatives.

That is particularly important for diesel, which is essential for freight transportation, agriculture, construction and industrial activity.

Why Are Diesel Refining Margins Surging?

The shortage is reflected in refining margins.

European diesel refining margins have more than tripled since February, rising above $75 a barrel.

U.S. diesel margins have increased more than 140%, reaching a record $100 earlier this week.

These figures demonstrate how severe the shortage has become.

Refineries capable of producing diesel and other fuels are commanding exceptionally high margins because demand remains strong while available capacity is shrinking.

The problem is that simply increasing refining margins does not immediately create new refining capacity.

Building or repairing refineries can take months or years, particularly when specialised equipment is required.

Have Global Fuel Inventories Been Depleted?

Yes, and that could become one of the biggest problems in the months ahead.

Fuel stockpiles provided an important buffer when the conflict began.

That buffer is now largely gone.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, global oil inventories fell at a rate of around 3.5 million barrels per day between March and July.

Stocks are expected to continue declining through the end of the year.

U.S. diesel inventories are already at their lowest seasonal level in three decades, while gasoline stocks are at their weakest seasonal level since 2012.

This leaves the market increasingly exposed to any additional disruption.

Is There a Global Fuel Production Shortfall?

The data suggests there is.

Global refinery runs during the second quarter were 5.1 million barrels per day lower than a year earlier, according to the IEA.

High fuel prices have reduced consumption, with demand for refined products falling by around 4 million barrels per day.

But that reduction has not been sufficient.

The result was still a shortfall of more than 1 million barrels per day.

The imbalance could become even worse during the third quarter.

Refinery runs are expected to remain 4.1 million barrels per day below last year’s level, while demand is projected to fall by only 2.4 million barrels per day.

In other words, fuel supply is declining faster than demand.

Would Reopening the Strait of Hormuz Solve the Crisis?

Not necessarily.

A diplomatic breakthrough between Washington and Tehran that permanently reopened the Strait of Hormuz could send crude prices sharply lower.

But cheaper crude would not automatically translate into cheaper gasoline and diesel.

The reason is that the refining infrastructure itself has been damaged.

More than 20 Gulf refineries suffered damage during the war, and many require extensive repairs.

Crucial equipment such as compressors, heat exchangers and specialised catalysts can take significant time to obtain.

Lead times for some of these components were already stretched before the conflict.

Consequently, even if crude shipments resume quickly, refinery capacity could remain constrained for much longer.

Why Is China Important to the Energy Crisis?

China’s response could have a major impact on global fuel markets.

China is the world’s second-largest refining centre and sharply reduced refinery processing rates and fuel exports during the conflict.

If Beijing keeps exports limited, the international market will lose another potential source of refined products.

Conversely, an increase in Chinese refinery utilisation and exports could provide some relief.

But China must also balance domestic fuel demand, inventory requirements and its own energy security.

That makes its decisions particularly important for Asia and the wider global market.

Could the Energy Crisis Fuel Global Inflation?

The answer could be yes.

The immediate impact of higher fuel prices is already appearing in inflation data.

U.S. consumer prices rose 3.4% year-on-year in July, with energy costs increasing 14.7% and gasoline prices rising 24.6%.

Euro zone inflation accelerated to 2.9%, driven partly by a 10% increase in energy costs.

Japan’s producer price index rose 7.2% in July.

These figures raise concerns that the energy shock could spread beyond fuel markets.

Higher transportation costs increase the cost of moving goods, while expensive diesel raises costs for agriculture, manufacturing and logistics.

If those increases persist, businesses may eventually pass them on to consumers.

Why Could the Energy Crisis Last for Years?

The central problem is that refining capacity cannot be restored as quickly as crude production.

Oil wells can continue producing once transportation routes reopen.

Refineries, however, require complex infrastructure, specialised machinery, skilled workers and maintenance.

If damaged facilities need major reconstruction, restoring capacity could take years.

At the same time, depleted fuel inventories will eventually need to be rebuilt.

That means refiners could face sustained pressure to process more crude even after the immediate crisis ends.

The result could be a prolonged period of elevated refining margins and fuel prices.

What Does This Mean for Europe and Asia?

Europe and Asia could face particularly severe pressure.

Both regions rely heavily on imported energy and have already experienced increases in refined fuel and liquefied natural gas prices.

For European economies, expensive diesel could increase transportation and industrial costs.

For Asian economies, disruptions to Gulf crude supplies and reduced Chinese fuel exports could create additional pressure.

The combination of higher fuel and LNG prices could therefore create a broader energy inflation shock rather than an isolated oil-market disruption.

Could Consumers Eventually Reduce Demand?

Demand destruction remains one of the few mechanisms capable of restoring balance.

If fuel prices remain extremely high, consumers may drive less and businesses may reduce transportation and energy consumption.

Companies may also delay investment and cut production.

That could eventually reduce demand enough to ease pressure on the refining system.

But demand destruction carries an economic cost.

A reduction in fuel consumption caused by efficiency improvements is very different from a decline caused by households and businesses being unable to afford energy.

The latter can slow economic growth while inflation remains elevated.

Analysis: Why the Refining Crisis May Matter More Than the Oil Shock

The most important lesson from the Iran war energy crisis is that the global energy system is not simply dependent on how much oil exists, but on whether the world can refine and transport that oil into usable fuel.

The crude market has shown considerable resilience.

Refined fuel markets have not.

That distinction could determine how long the current energy shock lasts.

Even if diplomacy reopens the Strait of Hormuz and crude prices fall, damaged refineries, depleted inventories and reduced Russian exports will continue to constrain fuel supplies.

This creates a particularly difficult situation for central banks.

If energy prices rise temporarily, policymakers can theoretically look through the shock. But if fuel shortages persist for months or years, higher transportation and production costs can become embedded across the economy.

That would make the assumption of a short-lived inflation shock increasingly difficult to defend.

The depletion of global inventories is perhaps the biggest warning sign.

Stockpiles normally provide a cushion against geopolitical disruptions. That cushion has now been significantly weakened.

As a result, another major refinery outage, shipping disruption or escalation in the Middle East could produce a much larger price response than it would have before the war.

The world therefore faces a dangerous mismatch: crude supplies may recover faster than the infrastructure needed to turn them into fuel.

That is why the energy crisis could outlast the war itself.

The Iran conflict may have started as a crude oil shock, but its most consequential economic legacy could be a prolonged global shortage of refined fuels, keeping inflation and energy costs elevated long after the fighting ends.

With information from Reuters.

Aug. 18 (UPI) — The United States on Tuesday sanctioned two senior officials of the International Criminal Court, as the Trump administration cracks down on the global tribunal it calls a threat to U.S. sovereignty.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the rest of the Trump administration has aggressively targeted the court over arrest warrants it issued in November 2024 for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, on allegations of war crimes committed during the war in Gaza.

Though not a member of the court, the United States has rejected the warrants, even under the former Biden administration, and has been critical of its jurisdiction over U.S. citizens and potential for politicization. Under the administration of President Donald Trump, Washington has used its powers to target the court with punitive measures.

On Tuesday, Rubio unveiled sanctions against ICC President Tomoko Akane and ICC Senior Trial Lawyer Abdoulaye Seye on accusations that they were “directly engaged in efforts by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain or prosecute officials whose government has not consented to ICC jurisdiction.”

“The ICC has repeatedly attempted to assert authority over nationals of the United States and other countries that have not consented to its jurisdiction or ratified the Rome Statute,” he said in a statement, referring to the international treaty that established the court in 2002 to try individuals accused of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression.

“This sets a dangerous precedent.”

UPI has contacted the Hague-based court for comment.

The sanctions, which freeze all property of those designated, come under an authority given to the secretary of state by an executive order Trump signed in the presence of Netanyahu at the White House in February 2025, during his third week back in office.

Last month, Rubio announced the launch of a whole-of-government campaign to dismantle the threat the Trump administration alleges it poises to the United States. Along with increased sanctions and visa revocations of ICC personnel, the campaign includes encouraging other countries to exit the court and increased scrutiny of countries that receive U.S. assistance but do not criticize the ICC, as well as nations under the so-called U.S. security umbrella are also being urged to reject the ICC’s authority to prosecute U.S. officials and service members.

“The ICC has become a kangaroo court that cloaks its abuse of power in language of international law while undermining the very principles of justice,” said Netanyahu, whom the ICC has accused of using starvation as a weapon of war and crimes against humanity, including murder and persecution.

“I commend Secretary of State Marco Rubio for leading the Trump administration’s determined efforts against the ICC’s illegitimate overreach, and for making clear that the corrupt officials who lead the ICC will face consequences,” he added in the statement.

The court described Trump’s executive order in February as an unprecedented attack that undermines its ability to administer justice and a threat to international law that protects millions of victims.

Following the announcement Tuesday, the Netherlands came to the court’s defense while international human rights organizations chastised the United States.

“International courts and tribunals must be able to freely carry out their mandates,” Foreign Affairs Minister Tom Berendsen of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, said in a statement, saying he has invited Akane to discuss the country’s support.

“We fully support the court and its staff,” he said.

Margaret Satterthwaite, the United Nations special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, said she was “alarmed” by the sanctions being imposed on judicial operators for doing their jobs.

“Sanctioning independent judges and lawyers for their work to end impunity and ensure justice for the most grave crimes is a shocking betrayal of the Nuremberg promise and a violation of the human rights guarantee of fair trial and access to justice,” she said in a statement.

Erika Guevara Rosas, senior director for research, advocacy, policy and campaigns at Amnesty International, rebuked the punitive action as a “reprehensible assault” on the international justice system that was part of an intimidation campaign meant to obstruct its work.

“These sanctions are not about sovereignty. They are about shielding powerful actors from accountability and punishing those tasked with investigating and prosecuting the gravest crimes under international law,” she said.

Kenneth Roth, senior fellow at Yale University and former executive director of Human Rights Watch, said in a statement that Trump was sanctioning the court “so that American and Israeli officials can commit war crimes (and worse) with impunity.”

“No one should accept this utter lawlessness,” he said.

Last week, HRW and three other human rights groups sued the Trump administration over sanctioning judges and prosecutors of the ICC.

What Five Years of Directives Add Up To

On August 10, 2026, Reporters Without Borders marked five years of Taliban rule with an assessment that Afghanistan has become, in the organization’s words, a prison for information. The report catalogs more than twenty national directives and a long list of provincial decrees, most delivered verbally rather than published, that have progressively stripped Afghan journalism of independence. The starkest new detail is legal rather than administrative. A Code of Criminal Procedure quietly enacted in January 2026 now punishes insulting the country’s supreme leader with thirty nine lashes and a year in prison, and insulting the wider leadership with twenty lashes and six months. Afghanistan sits at one hundred seventy fifth of one hundred eighty countries in RSF’s 2026 World Press Freedom Index, alongside North Korea, Eritrea and China, as global press freedom overall falls to its lowest point in twenty five years.

From Verbal Orders to Written Law

The Taliban’s approach to media control has moved through recognizable phases since retaking Kabul in August 2021. Eleven rules issued that September gave authorities broad power over what could be published. Restrictions escalated from there: a November 2021 ban on interviewing regime critics, a March 2022 prohibition on rebroadcasting Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, and a July 2022 declaration by supreme leader Haibatullah Akhundzada that criticizing officials contradicts Islamic law, which recast basic accountability as religious transgression. Afghanistan’s 2015 Press Law, the last formal legal protection for journalists, was repealed in April 2024. What followed was an acceleration rather than a pause. September 2024 rules banned live political programming and limited on air guests to Taliban approved voices. A July 2024 law prohibiting broadcast images of living beings has since spread to more than twenty provinces. Women have been pushed out of the profession in stages, from mandatory face covering for television presenters in 2021 to a March 2025 Kandahar order banning women’s voices from radio entirely.

The Shift From Deniable Pressure to Permanent Law

What separates the January 2026 Code of Criminal Procedure from everything that preceded it is durability. Verbal orders and provincial decrees can be denied, reversed or applied unevenly, and much of what RSF documents over the past five years was communicated exactly that way, through unpublished instructions passed down from de facto ministries rather than through any formal legislative process. A criminal code cannot be waved away the same way. The document only became public because it was leaked; the Taliban never announced it. RSF notes the code does not mention journalists specifically, but it offers them no exemption either, meaning ordinary reporting on Taliban governance now falls under the same provisions that criminalize insulting the leadership. A separate article requires citizens to report any contact with government opponents, extending the incentive to inform beyond state security services into the population at large. Legal researchers reviewing the code have also flagged provisions dividing defendants into social categories, with punishment calibrated to status rather than offense, a structure that undercuts equal treatment under law well beyond the press freedom question alone.

The scale of the resulting collapse is difficult to overstate. RSF’s country data shows forty three percent of Afghan outlets disappeared within three months of the takeover, more than two thirds of the roughly twelve thousand journalists working in the country in 2021 have left the profession, and eight in ten women journalists have stopped working entirely. Behind each of those figures sits a newsroom that no longer exists or a byline that no longer appears, the practical result of a five year campaign that RSF’s South Asia desk head has described as turning criticism itself into a legal offense.

None of this makes Afghanistan an isolated case, which is what gives the story weight beyond South Asia. RSF’s own 2026 index places Afghanistan’s collapse inside a broader global pattern: more than half the world’s countries now rate as difficult or very serious environments for journalism, the worst showing the index has recorded in a quarter century. The organization has also pointed to a specific mechanism spreading well beyond authoritarian states, in which national security and counterterrorism justifications, first normalized after the September 11 attacks, are increasingly invoked to restrict reporting on matters of public interest, a pattern RSF says now appears in established democracies as well as in regimes like Afghanistan’s. Afghanistan represents the extreme endpoint of that continuum rather than an exception to it, which is precisely why treating it as a uniquely Afghan problem understates the lesson.

The crackdown has also produced a measurable outflow with consequences well beyond Afghanistan’s borders. RSF data shows the number of countries journalists have been forced to flee from worldwide has doubled over five years, from nineteen to forty, with Afghanistan topping the list. Those journalists do not disappear once they cross a border. Pakistan and Iran, the two most common host states, have each carried out mass deportations of Afghan refugees through 2026, and independent reporting from RSF and Human Rights Watch has documented Afghan journalists, including some holding valid visas, among those detained and forcibly returned toward the same authorities they fled. Resettlement pipelines to Europe and North America have slowed at the same time, leaving exiled journalists in prolonged legal limbo in third countries with limited protection. For policymakers well outside the region, that combination turns a domestic censorship story into a live test of asylum and non return commitments.

Three Paths From Here

The most likely trajectory is continued institutionalization rather than reversal. The Taliban leadership has shown no interest in press freedom as a bargaining chip for international recognition, and the shift from verbal directive to codified criminal law suggests an intent to make current restrictions permanent rather than negotiable. This path is highly likely through the remainder of 2026 and into 2027, with enforcement of the new code expanding province by province and further directives layered on top of an already dense regulatory web.

A second, less likely path involves narrow, tactical loosening tied to international engagement. If the Taliban pursues formal recognition or unlocked aid financing, cosmetic concessions on foreign broadcasters or select outlets are possible, mirroring past patterns of selective accommodation when the leadership has wanted to project moderation to specific foreign audiences. This outcome is possible but not likely to alter the underlying legal architecture, since Akhundzada’s own framing of criticism as a religious offense forecloses any structural reform led from within the leadership itself.

A third path, already underway, is a deepening exile crisis that draws in host and resettlement states more directly than the domestic censorship story alone ever could. Continued deportations from Pakistan and Iran, combined with stalled resettlement processing in Europe and North America, raise the probability of a high profile forced return case drawing sustained international attention, potentially forcing governments to clarify protection commitments to Afghan media workers in ways they have so far avoided through case by case handling. This path is likely to intensify over the next twelve months regardless of what happens inside Afghanistan itself, since it depends as much on Pakistani and Iranian deportation policy as on any Taliban decision.

Why a Domestic Censorship Story Is Not a Domestic Story

Afghanistan’s press freedom collapse will keep being read as an isolated horror story unless it is placed against the trend line RSF itself is now drawing, in which national security framing, once confined to the world’s most repressive states, is migrating into ordinary governance practice elsewhere. The clearest near term indicator to track is enforcement, not legislation. The Code of Criminal Procedure has existed on paper since January 2026 without a confirmed public prosecution under its press relevant articles. The first documented case brought under Article 19 or Article 23 against a journalist or commentator will mark the moment Taliban media law moves from threat to precedent, and from precedent to template.

Published on
12/08/2026 – 16:50 GMT+2

Two of the most influential voices in energy markets set out opposing readings of the year on Wednesday.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The IEA now expects the world to burn less oil in 2026 than it did in 2025, its first such call since Covid-19 ground the global economy to a near-halt, while OPEC still pencils in growth, leaving them more than two million barrels a day apart.

The Paris-based IEA now expects global oil demand to fall by 1.6 million barrels per day (mb/d) in 2026, a downgrade of 510,000 b/d from July.

“The ongoing closure of the Strait of Hormuz and elevated fuel prices continue to weigh on oil consumption,” it said, cutting its second-half forecast by roughly 550,000 b/d.

OPEC still expects demand to grow, though its estimate has been trimmed for a fourth consecutive month, to 580,000 b/d from 780,000 b/d.

The producer group has consistently argued the war has done less damage to consumption than Western forecasters believe, and the two sets of numbers imply a difference of about 2.2 mb/d in what the world will burn this year.

Supply still 6.3 million barrels short

The supply picture explains the pessimism.

Global production rose by 2.4 mb/d to 101.5 mb/d in July but remained 6.3 mb/d below year-earlier levels, with 8.3 mb/d of Gulf output still shut in.

Gulf production climbed to 23.9 mb/d, yet regional exports fell 2.1 mb/d to 15 mb/d after the Strait of Hormuz was effectively closed again in early July and tankers and infrastructure came under attack, with loadings sliding from 20 mb/d to around 12 mb/d.

With no deal to reopen the waterway or secure passage through Bab el-Mandeb, the IEA cut its supply forecasts again and now expects output to fall by 4.3 mb/d this year.

Observed global stocks also dropped by 69 million barrels in July to just under 7.9 billion, down 410 million since the war began.

Both bet on 2027

Where the two agree is next year.

OPEC now expects demand to grow by 2.2 mb/d in 2027, an upgrade from the 1.94 mb/d it forecast last month, while the IEA goes further still at 2.4 mb/d.

That is an inversion worth highlighting, as the gloomier forecaster for this year delivers a more bullish read for the next.

The IEA reads the damage as a blockage rather than a collapse, oil that cannot reach buyers rather than demand that has vanished, so the deeper this year’s hole, the steeper the climb out of it once Hormuz reopens.

OPEC, which never accepted that consumption fell much, has less ground to make up for.

The agency’s outlook rests explicitly on de-escalation, assuming flows gradually recover and turning this year’s supply contraction into growth of 8.3 mb/d, flipping a 1.3 mb/d deficit into a 4.6 mb/d surplus.

Aug. 12 (UPI) — The International Energy Agency warned Wednesday of a sharp drop in global stocks oil amid renewed disruption to exports via the Hormuz Strait and Caspian Sea resulting in “lower volumes of oil” transiting the seas to markets around the world.

In its August Oil Market Report, the agency said measurable global oil inventories — strategic reserves, on tankers at sea — plunged by 69 million barrels in July to just under 7.9 million barrels, down from 410 million barrels per day at the start of the war at the end of February.

Onshore stocks declined by just 6 million barrels per day as the pace of IEA releases of its emergency stocks eased, even as China continued to draw down on its crude oil reserves.

“Although the market is projected to return to surplus towards the end of this year, risks remain substantial and the urgency of reopening the Strait has increased, as previously available inventory buffers are rapidly depleting,” the IEA said.

The IEA data comes two days after the U.S. Department of Energy said the country’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve had fallen to less than 300 million barrels in the previous week, its lowest level in 43 years — but still well above the 70 million barrel minimum for it to run as intended.

President Donald Trump ordered 172 million barrels to be released in March after exports from Gulf producers including Saudi Arabia Kuwait, Bahrain, and the UAE were severely curtailed by Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz.

Use of other routes to move oil and the drawing down of inventories, including China’s massive 1.4 billion barrel reserve which has seen a sharp drop in its oil imports, have so far helped ward off the damaging global oil shortage it was feared the closure of the Hormuz Strait would trigger.

The IEA also warned that the destruction of global demand for oil was escalating, driven by the continuing closure of the Strait of Hormuz and high fuel prices suppressing consumption, forecasting a 1.6 million barrels per day drop in demand in 2026, up from its previous estimate of 1 million barrels per day.

However, it said said the pace of market contraction would slow, down from a 4.9 million barrels per day decline in the second quarter to 2.8 million barrels per day drop in the third quarter, and return to growth in the final quarter, with expansion of global demand of 2.4 million barrels per day expected in 2027.

On the supply side, the IEA said overall production for 2026 would fall more sharply than demand, but would bounce back to outpace demand in 2027.

Production rose by 2.4 million barrels per day to 101.5 barrels per day in July, but remained well short of the 6.3 million barrels per day supply growth pace seen in July 2025, with 8.3 million barrels per day of Persian Gulf output “still shut in.”

“Renewed hostilities and maritime disruptions in July and early August undermined the recovery efforts, reducing projected third quarter 2026 oil supply by 1.7 million barrels per day compared with last month’s report.

“Global oil supply is now projected to decline by 4.3 million barrels per day on average in 2026 and rebound by 8.3 million barrels per day next year to 110.3 million barrels per day,” the IEA said.

Stronger Food System Offers Cushion Against El Niño

Near-record food inventories, advances in agricultural technology and the emergence of major exporters such as Brazil and Russia have made the global food system more resilient to this year’s potentially powerful El Niño than during previous severe episodes.

Global agricultural production has generally outpaced consumption and population growth since the 1980s, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and analysts.

Higher-yielding crop varieties, increased fertiliser use, improved irrigation and better crop protection have significantly raised production of major staples including rice, wheat, corn and soybeans.

“Even during drought conditions, better irrigation management and crop science mean we can still produce marketable yields,” said Andrew Whitelaw of Australian agricultural consultancy Episode 3.

While El Niño can still disrupt global supplies and push prices higher, improved agricultural preparedness means the consequences could be less severe than during previous major events.

El Niño Gathers Strength

The effects are already being felt across major agricultural regions.

Drier conditions linked to El Niño have disrupted planting across parts of Asia, including India, Southeast Asia and Australia. At the same time, shortages of fertiliser and diesel caused by the Iran war have created additional risks for global agricultural production.

India is experiencing a deficient monsoon season, while Australia’s major wheat-producing regions face the prospect of drier conditions. Crops in Indonesia, Thailand and other parts of Southeast Asia are also suffering from insufficient moisture.

The situation could deteriorate further as El Niño is expected to intensify during the fourth quarter and early next year.

U.S.-based meteorologist Chris Hyde said the event could become one of the strongest on record, meaning the biggest impact from drought may still be ahead.

El Niño is associated with warmer ocean surface temperatures across the eastern and central Pacific. The weather pattern typically produces drier conditions across large parts of Asia while increasing rainfall across the Americas.

Previous major El Niño events in 1997-98 and 2015-16 caused substantial damage to crop production, contributing to food shortages, inflation and weaker economic growth.

Drought pushed up sugar and palm oil prices after damaging production in countries including Brazil, India, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. Tight rice supplies also prompted some Southeast Asian producers to restrict exports.

Australia suffered lower wheat production and exports, while countries in southern Africa were forced to increase corn imports.

Record Inventories Provide a Buffer

One of the biggest differences between previous El Niño events and the current environment is the level of global food reserves.

Near-record grain inventories, drought-tolerant seeds, improved weather forecasting, precision agriculture and better irrigation could help absorb some of the production losses.

India’s crop sowing has broadly recovered from an initial delay, although rainfall during August and September will remain important for crop maturity and grain formation.

India also holds a particularly important position in the global rice market. The country accounts for around 40% of global rice exports and has accumulated such large reserves that storage capacity is being stretched.

China, meanwhile, holds nearly half of global wheat stocks. As the world’s largest wheat producer and consumer, its large reserves could reduce the need for imports if drought damages production in major suppliers such as Australia.

Global palm oil inventories are also near historic highs, although Indonesia’s expanding biodiesel programme is expected to reduce stocks in coming months.

Brazil and Russia Strengthen Global Supply

The emergence of major agricultural exporters that were far less important several decades ago has also increased the resilience of global food markets.

Brazil has become the world’s largest soybean exporter, with shipments increasing more than 13-fold since the 1997-98 El Niño period.

Russia has also emerged as a major wheat supplier, with exports reaching 48 million tons last year compared with roughly 1 million tons in 1997-98.

These additional sources of supply give global markets more alternatives if weather damages production in individual countries.

Agricultural science has also improved. Drought-tolerant corn hybrids have become widely used across Africa and the Americas, while heat- and drought-resistant wheat varieties have gained ground in India and Australia.

Short-duration rice varieties are increasingly being used across South and Southeast Asia, allowing farmers to reduce exposure to increasingly unpredictable monsoon conditions.

Technology Changes the Equation

Farmers today also have access to technologies that were largely unavailable during the 1997-98 El Niño.

Satellite crop monitoring, seasonal climate forecasts, detailed soil-moisture maps and GPS-guided fertiliser application allow farmers to make more precise decisions about planting, irrigation and inputs.

AI-powered agricultural platforms are also increasingly combining weather forecasts, soil information and crop data to advise farmers on planting schedules, irrigation, fertiliser use and pest management.

The result is a food system that can identify and respond to weather risks earlier.

FAO Chief Economist Maximo Torero said governments now have significantly better information and can prepare earlier because forecasting and market transparency have improved.

Wars Could Undermine the Resilience

Despite these improvements, the global food system remains exposed to risks beyond weather.

The wars in the Middle East and Black Sea region could undermine some of the protection provided by stronger inventories and agricultural technology.

The Iran war has disrupted fuel and fertiliser supplies, while higher fertiliser costs could reduce farmers’ ability to maintain production.

Torero warned that much will depend on how conditions develop during the second half of 2026, particularly because agricultural input use has been affected by the Strait of Hormuz crisis.

Before its blockade during the Iran war, the Strait carried around one-fifth of global crude oil and liquefied natural gas supplies. Disruptions to the waterway have therefore created additional pressure on fuel and fertiliser markets.

Analysis: Is the Global Food System Ready?

The biggest takeaway is that El Niño is no longer operating against the same fragile agricultural system that existed during previous major events.

Higher productivity, larger inventories, diversified exporters and better technology provide several layers of protection. If one major producing region suffers a drought, supplies from countries such as Brazil and Russia, combined with existing reserves, can help prevent a sudden global shortage.

However, resilience does not mean immunity.

The greatest risk comes from the interaction between climate shocks and geopolitical disruptions. A powerful El Niño could reduce production at the same time that wars restrict fuel, fertiliser and transport. That combination could rapidly turn a manageable agricultural disruption into a broader food-price problem.

For now, large inventories provide an important buffer. But if the El Niño intensifies as expected while geopolitical disruptions continue to constrain agricultural inputs, the real test will be whether those reserves and technological gains are sufficient to prevent another surge in global food inflation.

With information from Reuters.

US Japan Currency Intervention Signals Shift Away From G7 Coordination

Last week’s joint intervention by the United States and Japan to support the Japanese yen has raised fresh questions about the future of international currency coordination, as the operation proceeded without broader participation from other Group of Seven (G7) economies.

Although the intervention temporarily strengthened the yen, analysts argue that the absence of coordinated action from Europe and other major economies reflects a broader decline in multilateral economic cooperation and a growing preference for bilateral deals under the Trump administration.

The intervention was jointly carried out by Washington and Tokyo after the yen weakened to multi decade lows against the U.S. dollar. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Japanese Finance Minister Satsuki Katayama later confirmed the operation and defended its objectives.

The yen has largely maintained its gains since the intervention, although investors remain uncertain whether further support will follow or whether the Bank of Japan will reinforce the move through additional interest rate increases.

Treasury Market Concerns Shaped Washington’s Decision

One key factor behind U.S. involvement appears to have been concerns over the U.S. Treasury market.

Japan remains the largest foreign holder of U.S. government bonds. A large unilateral intervention by Tokyo would likely have required selling significant amounts of U.S. Treasuries to obtain dollars for prolonged currency operations, potentially disrupting already volatile bond markets.

By participating directly, the United States reportedly helped provide dollar liquidity while selling euros rather than dollars, reducing pressure on Treasury markets and limiting broader financial instability.

G7’s Absence Raises Questions

Despite the shared interest among G7 economies in preventing excessive currency volatility, other members of the group did not participate.

Historically, major currency interventions have often involved coordinated action across the G7. Following Japan’s 2011 earthquake and tsunami, G7 nations jointly intervened to weaken an excessively strong yen. Earlier coordinated efforts also included interventions supporting the euro in 2000 and global liquidity operations after the September 11 attacks.

In contrast, the latest operation remained strictly bilateral, even though the United States reportedly sold euros during the intervention without direct European participation.

The European Central Bank declined to comment publicly, while the International Monetary Fund has also remained largely silent.

Shift From Multilateralism to Bilateral Deals

The intervention reflects a broader shift in U.S. foreign economic policy under President Donald Trump, whose administration has increasingly favored bilateral negotiations over multilateral coordination.

Rather than pursuing comprehensive international agreements similar to the Plaza Accord or Louvre Accord, Washington has increasingly relied on country specific arrangements.

Japan has also deepened bilateral economic cooperation with the United States, including major investment commitments linked to previous tariff negotiations, reinforcing this new framework.

Regional Currency Pressures

U.S. officials also pointed to wider regional concerns.

Treasury Secretary Bessent argued that continued yen weakness risked placing downward pressure on other Asian currencies, particularly South Korea’s won, as exporters sought to remain competitive with Japanese manufacturers.

China’s yuan remains another major regional factor, although Beijing falls outside the G7 framework. Broader discussions involving China are expected only at future G20 meetings.

Historical Role of the G7

For decades, the G7 served as the primary forum for coordinated responses to major currency instability.

From stabilizing the euro during its early years to responding collectively after major financial crises, coordinated interventions carried significant market credibility because they demonstrated unified political and monetary commitment.

The latest U.S. Japan intervention marks a departure from that tradition, suggesting that future currency management may increasingly rely on bilateral arrangements rather than collective action.

Analysis

The U.S. Japan intervention highlights more than an attempt to stabilize the yen. It reflects a structural shift in global economic governance. The declining role of coordinated G7 action suggests that multilateral mechanisms are gradually giving way to transactional bilateral partnerships, particularly under the Trump administration.

While bilateral interventions may offer quicker and more flexible responses, they lack the collective market impact that historically made G7 operations highly effective. The absence of Europe and other major economies also raises questions about the future cohesion of the G7 as a forum for managing global financial stability.

For investors, this evolving landscape increases uncertainty. Without unified international coordination, currency markets may become more volatile as governments pursue national interests independently rather than through collective action. Whether future administrations restore broader multilateral cooperation or continue this bilateral approach will shape the next phase of global foreign exchange policy.

With information from Reuters.

After just six days in theaters, Sony Pictures’ “Spider-Man: Brand New Day” has now raked in more than $1 billion in global box office revenue.

The movie is the second-fastest film ever to reach the 10-figure milestone, bested only by Walt Disney Co. and Marvel Studios’ 2019 hit “Avengers: Endgame.”

“Brand New Day” has now earned $407 million in the U.S. and Canada, with an additional $645.8 million in international box office receipts for a global total of $1.05 billion, according to studio estimates. Its $360 million domestic opening last weekend now ranks as the highest ever.

The movie was produced by Sony-owned Columbia Pictures, as well as Marvel Studios and Pascal Pictures. The film’s production budget was about $225 million.

The filmmakers, as well as box office analysts, have credited the movie’s emotional storyline and focus on the web slinger’s internal conflict for connecting with audiences and giving a fresh take on a familiar franchise and genre. It also doesn’t hurt that its stars, Tom Holland and Zendaya, are two of the most popular actors in the business, both of whom are also fresh off appearances in Christopher Nolan’s “The Odyssey.”

Together, “Brand New Day” and Universal Pictures’ “The Odyssey” powered last weekend’s three-day domestic box office total to a new best with $436.5 million, according to data from Rentrak. The summer so far stands at $3.6 billion, up 16.7% compared to last year’s middling season and running just 0.7% behind the pre-pandemic summer of 2019, according to Rentrak.

The so far has given analysts hope that the domestic box office could finally reach $10 billion by the end of the year for the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Spider-Man: Brand New Day” swung into the top spot at the box office and scored one of the highest-grossing opening weekends with an estimated haul of $355 million in the U.S. and Canada, far surpassing studio and analyst expectations.

The Sony Pictures film also brought in $572 million internationally for a worldwide total of $927 million, according to studio estimates.

The movie’s haul now ranks as the second-biggest domestic and global opening ever, surpassed only by Walt Disney Co. and Marvel Studios’ “Avengers: Endgame” in 2019.

The film, which stars Tom Holland and Zendaya, is produced by Sony-owned Columbia Pictures, Marvel Studios and Pascal Pictures. Its production budget was about $225 million.

Marvel Studios President and “Spider-Man” producer Kevin Feige called the debut “truly phenomenal.”

“We are grateful to audiences everywhere for coming out and experiencing our film the way it was meant to be seen,” he said in a statement Sunday. “This debut reflects the enduring power of Marvel’s characters, and the connection they continue to have with fans around the world — and, as audiences saw, it sets up exciting things to come.”

Anticipation for the movie was building for months, as robust pre-sales indicated high interest in Spidey’s return to the big screen.

The previous film in the franchise, 2021’s “Spider-Man: No Way Home,” had one of the biggest domestic debuts on record with $260 million.

But it came during the depths of a COVID-19 surge and against very little competition at the box office. That film also reunited all three Spider-Men — Holland, Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield — in one time-bending, multiverse storyline, a move “Spider-Man” producer Amy Pascal described as 20 years in the making.

This time around, “Spider-Man” was up against the juggernaut holdover Universal Pictures’ Christopher Nolan film, “The Odyssey,” which came in second at the domestic box office with $51 million on its way to a global total of $911.4 million.

The strong performance of “The Odyssey,” as well as the billion-dollar-grossing “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie” and “Michael” earlier this year, helped push Universal over the $4-billion global box office mark this weekend, the first studio to do so this year.

Walt Disney Co. and Pixar’s “Toy Story 5” came in third with $6.3 million to add to its worldwide total of more than $1.06 billion. Universal and Illumination’s “Minions & Monsters” ($5.8 million) and Disney’s live-action “Moana” ($5.3 million) rounded out the top five this weekend, according to data from Rentrak.

“‘Spider-Man: Brand New Day’ is fundamentally a movie about friendship, about the balm of connection in all our lives,” Sony Pictures Motion Picture Group Chairman Tom Rothman said in a statement Sunday. He added that this theme resonates with “audiences of all ages and all around the world.”

Saltburn’s amateur cricketer at centre of cheating allegations that grabbed global headlines is suspended by club.

An English ‌amateur cricketer at the centre of allegations ⁠of finger-clicking ⁠trickery has been suspended and will not play “for the foreseeable future”, his club has said.

The fielder, dubbed “Clicky Ponting” on social media in a punning nod to former Australia captain ⁠Ricky Ponting, allegedly tricked umpires by clicking his fingers to make the sound of a ball nicking the bat as deliveries were missed and caught by ‌the wicketkeeper.

The video footage went viral on social media and made international headlines.

Saltburn Cricket Club, run by volunteers, said on Wednesday in a statement it was treating the allegations “with the utmost seriousness”.

“The player at the centre of the complaint has been suspended ⁠and will not play again ⁠for the club this season or in the foreseeable future, pending the outcome of this investigation.”

It said initial discussions between club ⁠officials and the North Yorkshire and South Durham league had already taken ⁠place.

The league said on Tuesday ⁠it had received a formal complaint “regarding alleged incidents in a Division Two game on Saturday 25th July 2026”.

Saltburn said it had ‌been a distressing and stressful experience for all concerned and asked for “personal boundaries” to be respected.

The club ‌are ‌top of the Division Two table with 10 wins from 15 matches.

Historically, cricketers – even at the highest level of the game – have been accused of trying to trick umpires with noises, including chomping on a biscuit, to fool umpires into believing the ball hit the bat.

Cricket cheating allegations have even extended to dirt being applied to the ball, for which former England captain Michael Atherton was once fined, and the use of bottle tops to scuff the ball.

Both were attempts to create extra swing for the quick bowlers.

July 28 (Asia Today) — China’s successful stock market debut of its largest DRAM manufacturer has fueled expectations that the company could challenge the three global leaders in memory chips, though Chinese media acknowledged that a significant technological gap remains.

ChangXin Memory Technologies, commonly known as CXMT, became the most valuable company in China’s domestic A-share market after its shares surged 465.82% during their first day of trading on Shanghai’s technology-focused STAR Market on Monday.

The shares closed at 49 yuan ($7.24), compared with an initial public offering price of 8.66 yuan ($1.28).

The closing price gave CXMT a market capitalization of about 3.28 trillion yuan ($484.5 billion), surpassing the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, previously the country’s most valuable domestically listed company.

The shares lost some momentum Tuesday, closing at 47 yuan ($6.94). CXMT’s market value declined to about 3.14 trillion yuan ($463.8 billion), but it remained the largest company in the A-share market.

The listing followed Asia’s largest initial public offering of 2026. CXMT raised about $8.6 billion, nearly twice the amount initially sought, reflecting strong investor demand for Chinese semiconductor companies.

State media celebrates semiconductor advance

Chinese state-affiliated media described the listing as a milestone in Beijing’s drive for technological self-sufficiency.

The Global Times said the market response demonstrated growing investor confidence in China’s semiconductor industry as the country accelerates efforts to reduce its dependence on foreign technology.

The Chinese-language Global Times described memory chips as the “rice of the digital age” and said CXMT had broken the longstanding foreign dominance of large-scale DRAM production.

It said the company had built its design and manufacturing capabilities from virtually nothing over approximately a decade.

CXMT was founded in 2016 and produces DRAM chips used in smartphones, personal computers, tablets and servers. It is widely regarded as the world’s fourth-largest DRAM manufacturer after Samsung Electronics, SK hynix and Micron Technology.

China’s state media said the funds raised through the listing would be used to upgrade memory wafer production lines, expand DRAM research and development and pursue next-generation memory technologies.

Chinese analysts expressed hope that the investment could eventually weaken the dominance of Samsung Electronics, SK hynix and Micron in the global DRAM market.

CXMT’s progress has already heightened investor concern over increasing Chinese competition. Its market debut contributed to declines in several global semiconductor stocks, including shares of South Korean memory manufacturers.

Technology gap remains

Despite the celebratory tone, Chinese media cautioned that CXMT continues to trail South Korean and U.S. memory manufacturers in advanced production processes.

The company is estimated to remain two to three years behind leading foreign manufacturers in some advanced technologies and faces restrictions on access to sophisticated overseas chipmaking equipment.

CXMT’s roughly 8% share of the global DRAM market also remains well below the combined position of Samsung Electronics, SK hynix and Micron.

The memory chip industry is highly cyclical, meaning the current surge in prices and demand associated with artificial intelligence may not continue indefinitely.

Rapid capacity expansion by CXMT and other manufacturers could also increase supplies and place downward pressure on global memory prices.

Chinese state media urged investors and the semiconductor industry not to allow the listing’s success to create excessive confidence.

The debut nevertheless represents a major symbolic and financial achievement for Beijing’s semiconductor strategy. CXMT now has access to substantial capital that could accelerate research, manufacturing expansion and efforts to compete in higher-end memory products.

— 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=20260728010010446

Major central banks are confronting an increasingly difficult inflation landscape as multiple price pressures converge, raising questions over whether policymakers can continue treating inflation shocks as temporary.

The U.S. Federal Reserve, the Bank of Japan and the Bank of England all meet this week against a backdrop of elevated inflation driven by rising energy costs, geopolitical tensions, supply chain disruptions, fiscal stimulus, labor market tightness and climate related risks.

While central banks have traditionally argued that isolated price shocks eventually fade without requiring aggressive monetary tightening, economists warn that today’s inflation environment is no longer defined by a single disruption but by several overlapping forces reinforcing one another.

Inflation remains well above target

The Federal Reserve’s preferred inflation measure, the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) Price Index, is expected to remain significantly above the central bank’s 2 percent target.

Economists expect headline PCE inflation to stand at 3.7 percent and core inflation, which excludes food and energy, at 3.3 percent.

Inflation has remained above the Fed’s target for more than five consecutive years, complicating expectations that price growth will naturally return to normal levels.

Energy prices return as a major concern

Renewed military tensions in the Middle East have pushed crude oil prices sharply higher, adding fresh uncertainty to the global inflation outlook.

Brent crude briefly climbed above $100 per barrel before easing, while volatility in oil markets has increased as conflict around the Gulf and Red Sea threatens global energy supplies.

Higher crude prices have translated into rising fuel costs, with average U.S. gasoline prices now more than 30 percent above levels recorded a year earlier.

For central banks, energy inflation remains particularly difficult because monetary policy cannot directly resolve geopolitical conflicts or supply disruptions.

Food inflation adds further pressure

Food prices are emerging as another source of concern.

Annual U.S. food inflation already stands near 3 percent, while forecasts suggest stronger El Niño weather conditions could reduce agricultural production and lift global food prices over the coming months.

Some projections indicate food inflation could approach 5 percent next year, adding further upward pressure to overall consumer prices worldwide.

Unlike financial market volatility, rising food and fuel costs directly affect households and often shape public perceptions of inflation more than broader economic indicators.

Core inflation refuses to ease

Although policymakers often focus on core inflation because it removes volatile food and energy prices, underlying price pressures remain stubbornly elevated.

Persistent wage growth, continued strength in consumer spending and resilient labor markets have prevented meaningful progress toward the Fed’s inflation target.

Economists also warn that prolonged increases in food and energy prices eventually feed into broader consumer prices, making it increasingly difficult to separate temporary inflation from structural trends.

Tariffs and artificial intelligence create new price risks

Additional inflationary risks are emerging from trade policy and technological investment.

President Donald Trump’s renewed tariffs on imported goods could increase costs across multiple industries, while continued demand for artificial intelligence infrastructure has intensified shortages in advanced semiconductor markets.

Higher chip prices are expected to affect consumer electronics and industrial production, creating another potential source of inflation in manufactured goods.

Meanwhile, expansionary fiscal policies and strong financial conditions continue to support consumer demand, limiting the slowdown in prices that central banks have been seeking.

Strong labor markets complicate policy

Employment conditions remain exceptionally resilient across advanced economies.

In the United States, unemployment has remained near historically low levels, while wage growth above 3 percent continues to support household spending.

Although robust labor markets are generally viewed as positive for economic growth, they also contribute to persistent service sector inflation by increasing business labor costs.

This has made it harder for central banks to achieve price stability without risking slower economic growth.

Analysis: Inflation risks are becoming structural

The challenge facing central banks is no longer whether one inflation shock will fade but whether multiple overlapping shocks are creating a new inflation environment.

Energy markets remain vulnerable to geopolitical conflict. Climate related disruptions continue to threaten food production. Trade barriers are increasing production costs, while the rapid expansion of artificial intelligence is reshaping industrial demand and supply chains. At the same time, strong labor markets and expansionary fiscal policies continue to support consumer spending.

Individually, policymakers can argue that each of these factors is temporary or outside the influence of interest rates. Collectively, however, they reinforce one another and increase the likelihood that inflation remains above target for longer than anticipated.

For the Federal Reserve and other major central banks, the risk is no longer simply misjudging one temporary shock. The greater challenge is determining whether today’s inflation reflects a lasting structural shift in the global economy. If these pressures persist simultaneously, policymakers may be forced to maintain higher interest rates for longer, even at the cost of slower growth, making the path back to price stability significantly more difficult than markets currently expect.

With information from Reuters.