Global

Indonesia’s telecommunications sector is at a historic crossroads.  After a decade of consolidation, three groups — TelkomGroup (with Telkomsel), Indosat Ooredoo Hutchison (IOH) and XL Axiata/Smartfren (XL Smart) — now control about 95% of the market’s revenue .  This “healthy oligopoly” promises economies of scale and opens the door for infrastructure sharing, yet it also raises a sobering question: will these carriers become mere commodity providers squeezed by over‑the‑top (OTT) platforms, or will they emerge as strategic national enablers for Indonesia’s digital economy?

The Stagnation Trap: Core Problems and Risks

Low ARPU and Prepaid Dominance – Nearly 97% of Indonesian mobile subscribers are prepaid .  Customers churn easily, forcing operators into price wars.  As a result, the blended average revenue per user (ARPU) sits at only ~IDR 35,700 (US$2.38) and has been almost flat.

population was covered by 5G, mainly using refarmed 4G spectrum .  The for years.  Such thin margins, coupled with commoditization of connectivity, echo a global pattern where telco revenues grow slowly while capital expenditures continue to rise .

Limited 5G Spectrum and Slow Deployment – Indonesia’s 5G rollout remains selective and urban.  In 2024 only 26.3% of the country currently has 360 MHz of mid‑band spectrum assigned for mobile services, far below the ~2 GHz average required to capture 5G’s full economic impact.  Analysts note that refarming the 2.6 GHz and 700 MHz bands and releasing more mid‑band frequencies are urgent to prevent Indonesia from falling behind .

Spectrum Reform and Regulatory Bottlenecks – Twimbit’s 2023 update observes that spectrum scarcity has delayed 5G launches and forced operators to invest cautiously.  Government digital roadmaps push for 5G, but licensing remains fragmented and expensive.  Without transparent auction policies and neutral‑host models for shared infrastructure, the industry risks duplication and inefficiency.

Cybersecurity and Trust Deficit – High‑profile data breaches — including leaks affecting more than a billion SIM‑card activation records — spurred Indonesia’s Personal Data Protection law.  Implementing this law will require significant investment in cybersecurity.  EY research warns that two‑thirds of consumers want better explanations of how AI is used and 40% of telco employees feel unprepared to use AI responsibly.  Moreover, 57% of telecom executives worry about security attacks on physical assets, and Southeast Asian operators must balance innovation with strong compliance and trusted AI to counter rising cyber risks .

Talent and Skills Shortage – Telcos struggle to attract and retain digital talent.  EY’s Telco of Tomorrow survey shows that industry executives rank talent and culture as their top transformation inhibitors; poor collaboration and missing skills hinder innovation.  Competing with hyperscalers for AI and cloud expertise is an uphill battle, especially as Indonesia’s young engineers often migrate to global tech firms.

Financial Pressures and Capital Intensity – Globally, telco revenues are projected to grow at a compound annual rate of only 2.9% to 2028, while ARPU continues to decline.  Indonesia’s carriers therefore face a scenario where most cash is absorbed by capital expenditures, dividends and debt servicing , leaving little room for innovation.  Without new revenue streams, their role may stagnate.

Hidden Opportunities: Why Indonesia Still Holds Promise

Despite these headwinds, the country’s 280 million citizens and rapidly growing digital economy offer unique opportunities.  Indonesia’s GDP grew 5.3% in 2022 and its telecom revenue is expected to grow at 6.1% CAGR between 2023–27, outpacing global averages.  Operators and policymakers can tap several levers:

Infrastructure Sharing and Neutral Hosts – With three large players and tens of thousands of towers, sharing becomes logical.  Twimbit notes that Telkomsel, XL and Smartfren operate more than 165 000, 91 000 and 43 000 4G sites respectively.  Active sharing, fibre co‑build and neutral‑host models reduce duplication and free capital for new services.

Accelerated Spectrum Release – Refarming of the 2.6 GHz and 700 MHz bands and auctioning the 3.5 GHz mid‑band could enable Indonesia to meet the 2 GHz requirement.  Transparent, cost‑effective auctions will encourage investment and prevent a repeat of 5G’s initial delays.

Diversifying Beyond Connectivity – Telcos are shifting to non‑connectivity revenue streams.  Telkomsel created INDICO, focusing on education, health and gaming verticals, and saw its digital business revenue grow 17.4% year‑on‑year .  Enterprise services are a priority: carriers now offer IoT, cloud computing and managed services to businesses.  This pivot from consumer to B2B mirrors global advice that AI, fixed connectivity and vertical solutions are the ingredients for growth.

Trusted AI and Data Sovereignty – Indonesia can leverage its telcos as sovereign enablers rather than mere “techco”  By investing in secure sovereign clouds, digital identity and data‑classification systems, carriers can provide AI‑powered services while ensuring national data stays onshore.  EY’s insights stress that as AI becomes pervasive, building trust and clear privacy policies is essential.  Indonesia’s new data protection law compels operators to bolster cyber defenses, turning compliance into a competitive advantage.

Bridging the Digital Divide – Indonesia’s archipelagic geography means connectivity gaps persist.  The government’s Palapa Ring fibre backbone connects remote islands, but 5G coverage remains low.  Satellite‑enabled non‑terrestrial networks, community internet for rural areas, and targeted subsidies can help ensure that digital inclusion accompanies growth.

A Path Forward: Policy and Industry Recommendations

For Indonesia to avoid stagnation and instead become a digital powerhouse of the Global South, stakeholders must act in concert:

Enact Pro‑Growth Regulation – Regulators should adopt an orchestrator role, promoting shared infrastructure and neutral‑host models, streamlining spectrum auctions and fostering healthy collaboration.  Transparent policies can align private investment with national goals.

Prioritize Mid‑Band Spectrum – Release at least 200–300 MHz of the 3.5 GHz band and integrate it with the 700 MHz auction .  Reserve prices should be conservative to encourage robust 5G rollout.

Invest in Talent and Innovation – Government, academia and industry must co‑create programs to develop AI, cybersecurity and cloud skills.  Public‑private partnerships can sponsor scholarships and nurture a local digital workforce.

Leverage AI Responsibly – Telcos should harness generative AI to reduce costs, personalize services and improve network efficiency, while adhering to strict privacy standards .  Clear communication about AI use can rebuild customer trust.

Expand Non‑Connectivity Services – Operators need to emulate digital leaders by offering integrated fintech, healthtech, education and entertainment services.  Building “digital ecosystems” will differentiate them from commoditized connectivity and create new revenue streams.

Conclusion

Indonesia’s telco sector stands between two futures.  One path leads to commoditization and slow decline, as global OTT giants capture the value created by local networks.  The other path requires bold policies, shared infrastructure, spectrum reform and investment in AI and talent.  By choosing the latter, Indonesia’s operators can become sovereign digital enablers — powering not just connectivity but the nation’s broader ambitions for health, education, industry and sovereignty.  The moment for decisive action is now.

In the last year, a narrative has formed around stablecoins disrupting cross-border payment fees. With the initial public offering (IPO) of Circle Internet Group and growing adoption of these fiat-backed cryptocurrencies, many investors have claimed that the traditional days of cross-border payments are behind us. This has sent shares of mobile remittance player Remitly Global (RELY 2.31%) down 30% from highs set earlier this year.

As a business that makes money on cross-border payment fees, Remitly could be threatened by stablecoins. But is it truly at risk? A new announcement from Remitly around stablecoins could be huge news regarding this narrative, and may turn stablecoins into a beneficiary for the business. Time to take a closer look at Remitly stock and see whether investors should buy the dip on this hated remittance player today.

Disrupting the stablecoin narrative

Along with its Q2 earnings report (which will be covered below), Remitly announced new products that its 8.5 million active customers can use earlier this month. First is the Remitly Wallet, a digital wallet through Remitly where customers can hold currencies instead of just sending them from a bank account. Importantly, stablecoins are included in the currencies customers can hold.

Second, Remitly is using payment provider Stripe to help fund remittance transactions on the platform with stablecoins. This expansion in the number of ways people can send and receive money through Remitly will make the platform more valuable for users, which should drive more customer adoption. Lastly, Remitly is utilizing stablecoins on its balance sheet to help move money across border in real time when funding transactions for users, which should reduce its operating costs while again improving the customer value proposition of the platform.

More growth and reduced costs should mean more profits for Remitly going forward.

Image source: Getty Images.

Strong growth and market share gains

The last quarter was stellar for Remitly. Revenue grew 34% year-over-year to $412 million on the back of 40% send volume growth, with positive net income of $6.5 million. If people are utilizing stablecoins to bypass Remitly’s remittance platform, it is not showing up in the numbers yet. The company is barely generating a profit, but that is because of all the new products its team is building, along with heavy marketing spend to acquire new users. Both are worthwhile buckets to pour money into as long as new customers keep joining Remitly and revenue is growing at this blistering rate.

As a disruptor in remittance payments, Remitly is gaining a ton of market share by stealing customer spending from the likes of Western Union. Legacy players are seeing declining send volumes as more customers adopt mobile native solutions like Remitly. The story is not over yet, though, with Remitly having an estimated market share of below 5% in total remittance payments around the world. Its revenue from outside North America has grown at close to 100% year-over-year and hit $350 million over the last 12 months.

RELY Gross Profit Margin data by YCharts

Why Remitly stock is a buy today

Despite this massive growth tailwind, investors are still discounting Remitly stock, likely due to the stablecoin disruption narrative and recent immigration changes in the United States. Immigration has been a headwind to the overall remittance market in recent quarters but has not impacted Remitly’s growth whatsoever, which is a good sign for the market share gainer.

At today’s price of $19 a share, the stock has a market cap of $3.9 billion. It is generating revenue of $1.46 billion and growing quickly, with room to double overall sales within a few years time to $3 billion. With gross profit margins of 58%, Remitly has plenty of room to expand its bottom-line net income margin. A figure of 20% is entirely reasonable over the long haul. $3 billion in revenue and a 20% net income margin is $600 million in net income, which would be a forward price-to-earnings ratio (P/E) of just 6.5 based on the current share price.

A future P/E below 10 in just a few years makes Remitly significantly undervalued at today’s share price, which is why the stock is a buy after its recent drawdown.

Ukrainian leader calls for wider international support to get Russia to negotiating table amid faltering peace efforts.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has called on countries in the Global South to support diplomatic efforts to push Russia to agree to end its war with Ukraine.

In a social media post following talks with his South African counterpart Cyril Ramaphosa on Saturday, Zelenskyy stressed that the conflict “must be brought to an end” and that “the killings and destruction must be stopped”.

“I reaffirmed my readiness for any format of meeting with the head of Russia,” the Ukrainian leader said, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“However, we see that Moscow is once again trying to drag everything out even further. It is important that the Global South sends relevant signals and pushes Russia toward peace.”

The comments come as a renewed diplomatic effort, spearheaded by United States President Donald Trump with support from European countries, to push Moscow to end its war in Ukraine has appeared to stall.

On Friday, Trump expressed frustration with Moscow over the lack of progress in efforts to negotiate a peaceful settlement to end the war, despite his recent meeting with Putin in Alaska.

The US president renewed a threat that he would consider imposing sanctions on Russia if there was no momentum within the next two weeks.

Trump has been trying to arrange a summit between Putin and Zelenskyy, which has long been sought by the Ukrainian leader, to discuss an end to the war.

But on Friday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said there were no plans for such a meeting.

Lavrov said in an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” programme that Putin had made clear he was ready to meet Zelenskyy, provided there was a proper agenda for such a session, something the Russian foreign minister said was lacking for now.

“Putin is ready to meet with Zelenskyy when the agenda would be ready for a summit. And this agenda is not ready at all,” Lavrov said.

Amid the push for a diplomatic resolution, fighting has continued to grind on the battlefield.

Russia’s Ministry of Defence said in a statement on Telegram on Saturday that its forces in eastern Ukraine had taken two villages in the Donetsk region, Sredneye and Kleban-Byk.

That followed the capture of three other villages in the region a day earlier.

The capture of Kleban-Byk would represent further progress towards Kostiantynivka – a key town on the road to Kramatorsk, where a major Ukrainian logistics base is located.

United States President Donald Trump has threatened to impose tariffs of up to 300 percent on semiconductor imports, with exemptions for foreign companies that commit to manufacturing in the US.

Trump has cast the proposed tariff as a way to drive investment to the US, but experts say it could also disrupt global supply chains and even penalise companies already making chips in the US.

What are the details of Trump’s plan?

Few details have been released since Trump announced plans for a 100 percent tariff at a White House event on August 7.

The US president said exemptions would be given to companies that build research or manufacturing facilities in the US, but tariffs could be applied retroactively if they failed to follow through on their planned investments.

“If, for some reason, you say you’re building, and you don’t build, then we go back, and we add it up, it accumulates, and we charge you at a later date, you have to pay, and that’s a guarantee,” Trump told reporters.

On Friday, Trump told reporters on board Air Force One that more details would be announced soon and that the tariff could be much higher than previously suggested.

“I’ll be setting tariffs next week and the week after, on steel and on, I would say chips – chips and semiconductors, we’ll be setting sometime next week, week after,” Trump said en route to Alaska to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“I’m going to have a rate that is going to be 200 percent, 300 percent,” he added.

Why does Trump want to impose tariffs on chip imports?

Trump wants to impose a tariff on chips for several reasons, but the main one is to re-shore investment and manufacturing to the US, said G Dan Hutcheson, the vice chair of Canada’s TechInsights.

“The primary goal is to reverse the cost disadvantage of manufacturing in the US and turn it into an advantage. It’s mainly focused on companies that are not investing in the US,” Hutcheson told Al Jazeera.

“Exclusions are negotiable for entities that align with his goal of bringing manufacturing back to the US.”

More broadly, the tariff is also intended to address the US dependence on imported semiconductors and buttress Washington’s position in its ongoing rivalry with China, another chip-making powerhouse.

Both issues are bipartisan concerns in the US.

The Trump administration earlier this year launched a Section 301 investigation into alleged unfair trade practices in China’s semiconductor industry, and a Section 232 investigation into the national security implications of US reliance on chip imports and finished products that use foreign chips.

Who will be impacted by the tariff?

Foreign tech giants that have already invested in the US, including the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) and South Korea’s Samsung, would likely not be affected by the tariff.

It is less clear how the measure could affect other companies, including chip makers in China, where companies face barriers to US investment from both US and Chinese regulators.

Yongwook Ryu, an assistant professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy in Singapore, said the tariff could be used as leverage by the US as it negotiates the rate of its so-called “reciprocal tariffs” on China.

The US has imposed blanket tariffs of 10-40 percent on most trade partners since August 7, but negotiators are still hammering out a comprehensive trade deal with Beijing.

“My view is that while the reciprocal tariffs are generally aimed more at addressing the US trade deficit problem and re-shoring manufacturing back to the US, product-specific or sectoral tariffs [like semiconductors] are aimed at serving the strategic goal of strengthening US technological hegemony and containing China,” Ryu told Al Jazeera.

What is the value of US chip imports each year?

The US imported about $40bn in chips in 2024, according to a report by the American Enterprise Institute, citing United Nations trade data.

Imports mainly came from Taiwan, Malaysia, Israel, South Korea, Ireland, Vietnam, Costa Rica, Mexico and China, but experts say this data does not capture the full picture of chip flows in and out of the US.

Chips can cross borders multiple times as they are manufactured, packaged, or added to finished goods.

Chris Miller, the author of Chip War: The Fight for the World’s Most Critical Technology, estimates that another $50bn worth of chips entered the US in 2024 via products like smartphones, auto parts and home appliances from countries like China and Vietnam.

Miller also estimates that a “substantial portion” of US chip imports are manufactured in the US before being sent overseas for packaging – a labour-intensive process – and then re-imported.

“Many of the chips imported from key trading partners like Mexico, Malaysia and Costa Rica are likely actually manufactured by US firms like Texas Instruments and Intel, which have manufacturing in the US but often have their test and assembly facilities abroad,” Miller told Al Jazeera.

Why is the tariff a concern for the global chip industry?

Trump’s tariff plans have injected further uncertainty into an industry already grappling with his administration’s sweeping efforts to reorder global trade.

“It’s unclear whether the US government has the capacity to effectively enforce this and… there’s not really any guidance in terms of what these tariffs are actually going to look like,” Nick Marro, the lead analyst for global trade at the Economist Intelligence Unit, told Al Jazeera.

The White House has yet to provide details on whether the tariff will apply to chips originally made in the US and chips contained in finished products.

If the latter were included in the tariff plans, the fallout would extend to industries like electronics, home appliances, automobiles and auto parts. 

Miller said that it would be consumers in the US and elsewhere who would be among those most affected by the tariff. 

“Initially, it appears that most costs would be paid by companies via lower profit margins, though in the long run, consumers will pay the majority of the cost,” he said.

Aug. 15 (UPI) — A sixth round of United Nations negotiations on ending plastic pollution broke up in Switzerland early Friday without a deal after disagreements with oil-producing nations pushing for recycling solutions over reducing plastic use.

Delegates from 184 countries worked into the early hours in Geneva to bridge division between more than 100 nations pressing for production limits and oil-rich states, led by Saudi Arabia and Russia, arguing that plastic was critical to their future economic health.

The final text did not place restrictions on plastic production but did address other issues like dangerous plastic chemicals, including forever chemicals, and making plastics easier to recycle — but left countries to implement changes as they saw best.

“We have missed a historic opportunity, but we have to keep going and act urgently. The planet and present and future generations need this treaty,” said the Cuban delegation.

Colombia blamed the collapse of what was supposed to be the final treaty negotiations, eight months after countries failed to conclude a deal in Busan, South Korea, on a small group of countries, which it said “simply don’t want an agreement.”

That claim was echoed by Greenpeace’s delegation, saying in a news release that the call was clear for a strong, legally binding treaty that ended plastic pollution from extraction to disposal, protected human health and provided financial help for the clean up

“The plastics crisis is accelerating, and the petrochemical industry is determined to bury us for short-term profits. Now is not the time to blink. Now is the time for courage, resolve and perseverance. And world leaders must listen. The future of our health and planet depends on it,” said the group’s delegation lead Graham Forbes.

The European Union, which along with Britain, had been pushing to cut plastic production and for global plastics standards to boost recycling, was less pessimistic about the outcome, saying it formed a strong basis for further negotiations.

“Plastic pollution is one of the defining crises of our age, and our responsibility to act is clear. While the latest text on the table does not yet meet all our ambitions, it is a step forward — and the perfect must not be the enemy of the good,” said EU Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall.

“The European Union will continue to push for a stronger, binding agreement that safeguards public health, protects our environment, and builds a clean, competitive, and circular economy. We do this not only for ourselves, but for the generations yet to come,” Roswall said.

The effort looked set to drag into a fifth year, long beyond the 2024 deadline for a comprehensive agreement dealing with the “full life cycle of plastic” mandated in a resolution adopted by the U.N. Environment Assembly in March 2022.

China’s Xi and Brazil’s Lula discuss cooperation amid fallout of US President Donald Trump’s trade war.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has suggested that China and Brazil set an example of “unity and self-reliance” in the Global South, Chinese state media has reported.

In a phone call on Monday, Xi told Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva that China was ready to work with Brazil to be a model for other countries and build a “more just world and a more sustainable planet”, the state-run Xinhua news agency said.

Xi told Lula that China-Brazil ties were “at their best in history” and the “alignment” of the two countries’ development strategies was making “smooth progress”, Xinhua reported.

“Xi also said that China backs the Brazilian people in defending their national sovereignty and supports Brazil in safeguarding its legitimate rights and interests, urging all countries to unite in resolutely fighting against unilateralism and protectionism,” Xinhua said.

Lula’s office said the two leaders agreed on the role of the Group of 20 and BRICS in “defending multilateralism”, discussed efforts to negotiate peace between Russia and Ukraine, and committed to expanding cooperation to sectors such as health, oil and gas, the digital economy and satellites.

“Both presidents also emphasised their willingness to continue identifying new business opportunities between the two economies,” Lula’s office said.

Lula also reiterated the importance of China for the success of the COP30 world climate conference in November in Belem, Brazil, his office said.

The two leaders held the discussion as United States President Donald Trump’s trade salvoes are spurring calls for greater cooperation among emerging economies, including China and Brazil.

In an interview with the Reuters news agency last week, Lula said he planned to contact the leaders of the 10-member BRICS group, which includes India and China, to discuss the possibility of a coordinated response to US tariffs.

Trump last month announced a 50 percent tariff on Brazilian goods, and on Monday he signed an executive order extending a pause on a 145 percent tariff on Chinese goods until November.

China surpassed the US as Brazil’s largest trading partner in 2009, with two-way trade last year reaching $188.17bn.

Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators have held rallies and marches in cities around the world in solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza, demanding an end to Israeli attacks on the besieged and bombarded enclave as Israel-imposed starvation engulfs the entire population.

In London, the Metropolitan Police said it arrested more than 466 people at a protest on Saturday against the British government’s decision to ban the group Palestine Action.

British lawmakers proscribed Palestine Action under anti-terrorism legislation in July after some of its members broke into a Royal Air Force base and damaged planes as part of a series of protests. The group accuses the UK government of complicity in what it calls Israeli war crimes in Gaza.

Protesters, some wearing black-and-white Palestinian scarves and waving Palestinian flags, chanted, “Hands off Gaza” and held placards with the message “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.”

In Turkiye’s Istanbul, thousands of protesters demanded more aid be allowed into the Strip, with organisers calling on the international community to take urgent action to end the humanitarian crisis.

Many also took to the streets in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, to protest against the blockade and Western support for Israel, demanding the immediate and unrestricted delivery of aid into Gaza.

Several pro-Palestine rallies were also held across Spain, including in the capital, Madrid, to protest Israeli attacks and the starvation in the enclave. Carrying Palestinian flags, protesters shouted, “End to genocide”.

In Switzerland’s Geneva, thousands gathered at the Jardin Anglais to protest against famine and malnutrition-related deaths in Gaza resulting from the Israeli blockade. The crowd staged a sit-in, shouting in English, French and Arabic to demand an end to international support for Israel’s oppression of Palestinians.

Large rallies showing support for those suffering in Gaza have also been held in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur.

Despite spending more on psychiatric services and prescribing psychiatric medications at a higher rate than almost any other nation, mental health in the United States over the last two decades has only been getting worse.

Rates of depression, anxiety, suicide, overdose, chronic disability due to mental health conditions, and loneliness have all been rapidly increasing. No quantity of psychiatric drugs or hospitalisations appears adequate to reverse these trends.

Despite this, the US medical and psychiatric establishment has persistently refused to use its substantial political power to demand the transformation of care by expanding non-medical support systems to address the root social causes of mental illness, such as poverty, childhood trauma and incarceration, rather than focusing on reactive treatment via lucrative medication-centric norms. This failing status quo has created an opening for President Donald Trump and Secretary of Health Robert F Kennedy Jr’s emerging plans to remake the nation’s approach to mental health, with disastrous consequences now coming into focus.

Trump and Kennedy have hijacked legitimate anger at a broken system to justify destroying public care infrastructure, including Medicaid, food and housing assistance, harm-reduction and overdose prevention programmes, and suicide-prevention hotlines for LGBTQ youth, while promoting wellness scams and expanding the police state. They focus on the “threat” supposedly posed by psychiatric medications and call to reopen the asylums that once confined approximately 560,000 people, or one in 295 US residents, in horrific conditions, until protests against their cruelty led to their closure beginning in the 1950s.

Trump invokes false claims about mental illness to demonise immigrants, whom he is now hunting via a mass arrest and incarceration campaign. Last month, he signed an executive order that allows police to arrest and forcibly institutionalise poor Americans who are unhoused, deemed mentally ill, or struggling with addiction, effectively incarcerating them for indefinite periods.

Trump’s order, which also defunds housing-first programmes and harm-reduction services, while criminalising homelessness and encampments, contains no provisions to protect people from abuse or from the political misuse of psychiatric labels and institutionalisation to target his opponents. This raises concerns about risks to LGBTQ youth and other vulnerable groups. It also threatens groups upon which the administration has shown a eugenicist fixation: transgender people, people with autism, and others with disabilities that RFK Jr and Trump have characterised as a threat or burden on society.

The order appears to grant the government the power to deem anyone mentally ill or abusing substances, and to confine them indefinitely in any designated treatment facility, without due process. In a context where there is already a profound shortage of psychiatric beds even for short-term treatment, there are no provisions for new funding or regulatory systems to ensure that facilities are therapeutic or humane, rather than violent, coercive warehouses like American asylums of decades past.

Trump’s allies, including some medical professionals aligned with ideologies of social control and state coercion, may dismiss this as overly pessimistic. But that requires ignoring the fact that Trump’s executive order follows Kennedy’s proposal for federally funded “wellness farms”, where people, particularly Black youth taking SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors primarily used to treat anxiety and depression) and stimulants, would be subjected to forced labour and “re‑parenting” to overcome supposed drug dependence.

These proposals revive the legacy of coercive institutions built on forced labour and racialised interventions. Kennedy has also promoted the conspiracy theory that anti-depressants like SSRIs cause school shootings, comparing their risks with heroin, despite a total lack of scientific support for such claims. In his early tenure as health and human services secretary, he has already gutted key federal mental health research and services, including at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Given this, it is unclear what kind of “treatment”, other than confinement and cruelty, Trump and RFK Jr plan to deliver in their new asylums.

Trump and Kennedy’s lies about mental health, cuts to public care and vision for expanding the incarceration of immigrants, homeless people, and anyone they label as mentally ill, worsen mental health while creating more opportunities to profit from preventable suffering, disability and death. These tactics are not new, and their harmful consequences and political motivations are well established.

From Hungary to the Philippines, right-wing politicians have deployed similar rhetoric for comparable purposes. In a precedent that likely informs Trump’s plan, Brazil’s former president, Jair Bolsonaro, attacked psychiatric reformsas leftist indoctrination and defunded successful community mental health services, replacing them with coercive asylum and profit-based models, while advocating pseudoscience linked to evangelical movements. Bolsonaro claimed to defend family values and national identity against globalist medical ideologies, while sacrificing countless Brazilian lives via policies later characterised by the Senate as crimes against humanity.

Bolsonaro’s record is instructive for anticipating Trump’s plans. Trump has made no secret of his admiration for Brazil’s disgraced former president and their shared political ideologies. Bolsonaro’s reversal of Brazil’s internationally recognised psychiatric reform movement, which emphasised deinstitutionalisation, community-based psychosocial care and autonomy, inflicted profound harm. Under his rule, institutionalisation in coercive “therapeutic communities”, often operated by evangelical organisations, with little oversight, and similar to RFK Jr’s proposed “wellness farms”, skyrocketed.

Investigations revealed widespread abuses in these communities, including forced confinement, unpaid labour, religious indoctrination, denial of medication, and physical and psychological violence. Bolsonaro’s government poured large sums into expanding these dystopian asylums while defunding community mental health centres, leaving people with severe mental illness and substance use disorders abandoned to punitive care or the streets.

This needless suffering pushed more people into Brazil’s overcrowded prisons, where psychiatric care is absent, abuse rampant and systemic racism overwhelming, with Black people accounting for more than 68 percent of the incarcerated population. Bolsonaro’s psychiatric agenda enhanced carceral control under the guise of care, reproducing racist and eugenicist hierarchies of social worth under an anti-psychiatry banner of neo-fascist nationalism.

Trump and Bolsonaro’s reactionary approaches underline a crucial truth: Both psychiatry and critiques of it can serve very different ends, depending on the politics to which they are attached. Far-right politicians often use anti-psychiatry to justify privatisation, eugenics and incarceration. They draw on ideas from the libertarian psychiatrist Thomas Szasz, who argued in the 1960s that mental illness was a “myth”, and called for the abolition of psychiatric institutions.

In the US today, these political actors distort Szasz’s ideas, ignoring his opposition to coercion, by gutting public mental health services under the guise of “healthcare freedom”. This leaves vulnerable populations to suffer in isolation, at the hands of police or fellow citizens who feel increasingly empowered to publicly abuse, or even, as seen in the killing of Jordan Neely in New York City, execute them on subways, in prisons, or on the streets.

By contrast, critics of psychiatry on the left demand rights to non-medical care, economic security and democratic participation. Thinkers such as Michel Foucault, Frantz Fanon, RD Laing and Ivan Illich advocated for deinstitutionalisation not to abandon people, but to replace coercion with community-led social care that supports rights to individual difference. Their critiques targeted not psychiatry itself, but its use by exploitative, homogenising political systems.

To oppose reactionary anti-psychiatry, mental health professionals and politicians cannot simply defend the status quo of over-medicalisation, profit-driven care and the pathologisation of poverty. Millions justifiably feel betrayed by current psychiatric norms that offer little more than labels and pills while ignoring the political causes of their suffering. If the left does not harness this anger towards constructive change, the right will continue to exploit it.

The solution is not to shield America’s mental health systems from critique, but to insist on an expansive political vision of care that affirms the need for psychiatric support while refusing to treat it as a substitute for the political struggle for social services. This means investing in public housing, guaranteed income, peer-led community care worker programmes, non-police crisis teams and strong social safety nets that address the root causes of distress, addiction and disease.

Mental health is fundamentally a political issue. It cannot be resolved with medications alone, nor, as Trump and RFK Jr are doing, by dismantling psychiatric services and replacing them with psychiatric coercion.

The fight over mental health policy is a fight over the meaning of society and the survival of democratic ideals in an era where oligarchic power and fascist regimes are attempting to strangle them. Will we respond to suffering with solidarity, or with abandonment and punishment? Will we recognise the collective causes of distress and invest in systems of care, or allow political opportunists to exploit public disillusionment for authoritarian ends?

These are the questions at stake, not just in the United States, but globally. If the psychiatric establishment refuses to support progressive transformation of mental health systems, we may soon lose them altogether as thinly disguised prisons rise in their place.

If you or someone you know is at risk of suicide, these organisations may be able to help.

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

Each year, the world produces about 400 million tonnes of plastic waste – more than the combined weight of all the people on Earth.

Just 9 percent of it is recycled, and one study predicts that global emissions from plastic production could triple by 2050.

Since 2022, the United Nations has been trying to broker a global treaty to deal with plastic waste. But talks keep collapsing, particularly on the issue of introducing a cap on plastic production.

Campaigners blame petrostates whose economies depend on oil – the raw ingredient for plastics – for blocking the treaty negotiations.

This week, the UN is meeting in Switzerland in the latest attempt to reach an agreement. But, even if the delegates find a way to cut the amount of plastic the world makes, it could take years to have a meaningful effect.

In the meantime, institutions like the World Bank are turning to the markets for alternative solutions. One of these is plastic offsetting.

So what is plastic offsetting? Does it work? And what do programmes like this mean for vulnerable communities who depend on plastic waste to make a living?

What is plastic offsetting, and how do credits work?

Plastic credits are based on a similar idea to carbon credits.

With carbon credits, companies that emit greenhouse gases can pay a carbon credit company to have their emissions “cancelled out” by funding reforestation programmes or other projects to help “sink” their carbon output.

For each tonne of CO2 they cancel out, the company gets a carbon credit. This is how an airline can tell customers that their flight is “carbon neutral”.

Plastic credits work on a similar model. The world’s biggest plastic polluters can pay a plastic credit company to collect and re-purpose plastic.

If a polluter pays for one tonne of plastic to be collected, it gets one plastic credit.

If the polluter buys the number of plastic credits equivalent to its annual plastic output, it might be awarded “plastic neutral” or “plastic net zero” status.

Does plastic offsetting work?

Like carbon credits, plastic credits are controversial.

Carbon markets are already worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually, with their value set to grow to billions.

But in 2023, SourceMaterial, a nonprofit newsroom, revealed that only a fraction of nearly 100 million carbon credits result in real emissions reductions.

“Companies are making false claims and then they’re convincing customers that they can fly guilt-free or buy carbon-neutral products when they aren’t in any way carbon-neutral,” Barbara Haya, a US carbon trading expert, said at the time.

The same thing could happen with plastics. Analysis by SourceMaterial of the world’s first plastic credit registry, Plastic Credit Exchange (PCX) in the Philippines, found that only 14 percent of PCX credits went towards recycling.

While companies that had bought credits with PCX were getting “plastic neutral” status, most of the plastic was burned as fuel in cement factories, in a method known as “co-processing” that releases thousands of tonnes of CO2 and toxins linked to cancer.

A spokesperson for PCX said at the time that co-processing “reduces reliance on fossil fuels, and is conducted under controlled conditions to minimise emissions”.

Now, the World Bank is also pointing to plastic credits as a solution.

In January last year, the World Bank launched a $100m bond that “provides investors with a financial return” linked to the plastic credits projects backed by the Alliance to End Plastic Waste, an industry initiative that supports plastic credit projects, in Ghana and Indonesia.

At the UN talks in December last year, a senior environmental specialist from the World Bank said plastic credits were an “emerging result-based financing tool” which can fund projects that “reduce plastic pollution”.

What do companies think of plastic credits?

Manufacturers, petrostates and the operators of credit projects have all lobbied for market solutions, including plastic credits, at the UN.

Oil giant ExxonMobil and petrochemicals companies LyondellBasell and Dow Chemical are all members of the Alliance to End Plastic Waste in Ghana and Indonesia – both epicentres of plastic pollution that produce plastic domestically and import waste from overseas.

But those companies are also members of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, a lobby group that has warned the UN it does “not support production caps or bans”, given the “benefits of plastics”.

What do critics and affected local communities say?

Critics like Anil Verma, a professor of human resource management at the University of Toronto who has studied waste pickers in Brazil, call plastic offsetting a “game of greenwashing”.

Verma argues that offsetting lets polluters claim they are tackling the waste problem without having to cut production – or profit.

Patrick O’Hare, an academic at St Andrews University in Scotland, who has attended all rounds of the UN plastic treaty negotiations, said he has “noticed with concern the increasing prominence given to plastics credits”.

Plastic credits are being promoted in some quarters “despite the lack of proven success stories to date” and “the evident problems with the carbon credit model on which it is based”, he added.

Even some of the world’s biggest companies have distanced themselves from plastic credits.

Nestle, which had previously bought plastic credits, said last year that it does not believe in their effectiveness in their current form.

Coca-Cola and Unilever are also “not convinced”, according to reports, and like Nestle, they back government-mandated “extended producer responsibility” schemes.

Yet the World Bank has plans to expand its support for plastic offsetting, calling it a “win-win with the local communities and ecosystems that benefit from less pollution”.

Some of the poorest people in Ghana eke out a living by collecting plastic waste for recycling.

Johnson Doe, head of a refuse collectors’ group in the capital, Accra, says funds for offsetting would be better spent supporting local waste pickers.

Doe wants his association to be officially recognised and funded, instead of watching investment flow into plastic credits. They’re a “false solution”, he says.

This story was produced in partnership with SourceMaterial 

READ MORE: Ghana’s waste pickers brave mountains of plastic – and big industry

Already the home of Shohei Ohtani, Los Angeles is now also the home of South Korea’s Shohei Ohtani.

Like Ohtani, Son Heung-min has been the most popular athlete in his home country by a wide margin for close to a decade. Like Ohtani, Son has a pleasant disposition that has endeared him to people from a wide range of backgrounds.

Son was introduced as the latest addition to LAFC at a news conference on Wednesday at BMO Stadium, and he was everything he was made out to be.

He came across as sincere.

He was warm.

He was funny.

“I’m here to win,” Son said. “I will perform and definitely show you some exciting …

“Are we calling it football or soccer?”

None of this means Son will turn LAFC into the Dodgers overnight, of course. By this point, Major League Soccer and its teams understand that profile players aren’t transformative figures as much as they are building blocks. Son will be the newest, and perhaps most solid, block that will be stacked on the foundation established by the club’s first designated player, the now-retired Carlos Vela.

Outside of Lionel Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo, there might not be a player in the world who could be of a greater value than Son to LAFC, which continues to fight for relevance on multiple fronts. There was a reason the transfer fee paid by LAFC to Tottenham Hotspur of England was the highest in MLS history, a reported $26 million.

“Son’s arrival marks a new chapter, not just for LAFC but for the league and for football in the United States,” general manager John Thorrington said. “He brings not only incredible quality on the field but a magnetic presence off it, someone who inspires millions around the world and now will do so here in Los Angeles.”

The most talented Mexican player of his generation, Vela forged an immediate connection with the community, carving out a place for LAFC in the congested Los Angeles sports market. Son will do the same, as this city is home to a large Korean community.

Supporters of Mexico’s national soccer team also share a fondness of Son because of a late goal he scored against Germany in the group stage of the 2018 World Cup, which enabled El Tri to advance to the round of 16.

More than ethnic background, Vela’s success with LAFC was driven by performance. Son is expected to deliver on that front as well. Son might be 33, but he remains a world-class attacker. He should be one of MLS’ best players from the moment he steps on the field, if not the best after Messi of Inter Miami.

“We can say I’m old, but I still have good physicality, good legs and still I have good quality,” Son said.

South Korean national team Son Heung-min poses for a photo with his new LAFC jersey.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

LAFC has become a model franchise in MLS not just because of how it markets itself. The club makes smart soccer decisions and Son is the latest.

What will distinguish Son from Vela is the opportunity he will present LAFC to build its global brand.

“From the early days of building this club, we’ve dreamt of building a club that would win trophies and make a major positive impact in our community and Los Angeles, but also make a mark on the world stage of global football,” lead managing owner Bennett Rosenthal said.

As much success as it has enjoyed domestically, as much attention as it received for participating in the recent Club World Cup, LAFC doesn’t have as much international name recognition as Inter Miami, which employs Messi; or the Galaxy, for which David Beckham played; or even the New York Cosmos, which made its name by signing Pele in the 1970s.

Son played 10 seasons with Tottenham, and by one estimate, the club had 12 million supporters in South Korea — or about one in four people in the country. Koreans traveled to London to watch Son play for Tottenham, just as many Japanese people travel to watch Ohtani at Dodger Stadium. Korean companies sponsored the Spurs.

The eyes of South Korea have shifted to LAFC. The team scheduled Son’s introductory news conference for 2 p.m. local time — or 6 a.m. in South Korea. An estimated 40 Korean journalists were issued credentials to cover the event.

Son acknowledged that as he prepared for life after Tottenham, LAFC was “not my first choice.” A conversation with Thorrington after the season changed his mind.

“He showed me the destination where I should be,” Son said.

Son attended LAFC’s Leagues Cup victory over Tigres of Mexico on Tuesday night and received a loud ovation when he was shown on the video scoreboard.

“It was just insane,” he said. “I just wanted to run into the pitch.”

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass presents new LAFC star Son Heung-min with a certificate of recognition during an introductory news conference on Wednesday.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

Son will be reunited with goalkeeper Hugo Lloris, his former teammate at Tottenham.

“He’s back to [being] my captain,” Son said. “So I have to say something good about him because otherwise in the locker room, he’s just going to kill me.”

Son laughed.

His personality will play in Los Angeles, just as it did in London. He will make LAFC a known commodity in South Korea, perhaps beyond. He will further enhance a structure that was built by Vela, ensuring the team’s next star will have an even greater platform on which to perform. He won’t be as prominent locally as Ohtani or Luka Doncic, but he doesn’t have to be.

SEOUL, July 31 (UPI) — Organizations that represent global corporations in South Korea have raised concerns about the so-called “Yellow Envelope Law,” a pro-labor bill that the ruling Democratic Party is seeking to pass with its parliamentary majority.

The bill is intended to protect subcontracted workers, limit corporate lawsuits seeking damages from strikes and expand legal responsibility for company executives who avoid collective bargaining.

“A flexible labor environment is essential to strengthening Korea’s competitiveness as a business hub in the Asia-Pacific region,” American Chamber of Commerce in Korea Chairman and CEO James Kim said in a statement Wednesday.

“If enacted in its current form, this legislation could influence future investment decisions by American companies considering Korea,” he said..

Regulatory unpredictability remains one of the top challenges for foreign-invested companies in Korea. This legislation may add to that uncertainty and, in turn, undermine Korea’s global competitiveness.”

The warning came after the National Assembly’s Environment and Labor Committee passed the Yellow Envelope Law on Monday, which is waiting for a decision in the Democratic Party-dominated plenary session.

The bill, which was twice vetoed by former President Yoon Suk-yeol, is highly likely to move forward under incumbent President Lee Jae-myung, who has overtly supported its introduction.

Should the law be enacted, the European Chamber of Commerce in Korea indicated that it could prompt foreign companies to leave the country.

“Given the numerous criminal sanctions imposed on employers under the Trade Union Act, this vague and expanded definition may treat business operators as potential criminals and significantly discourage business activity,” the chamber commented in a statement.

“The impact is particularly severe for foreign-invested companies, which are highly sensitive to legal risks stemming from labor regulations,” it added.

The two chambers represent hundreds of corporate members from the United States and Europe, respectively.

WASHINGTON — When President Trump rocked the economy with an unprecedented attack on global trade in April, the plan was dismissed as swaggering, capricious and unsustainable. Market meltdowns and price increases would teach the White House the true cost of its mistakes, economists warned.

Yet, four months later, Trump is largely getting his way, refashioning the global economic order around his long-standing worldview that the United States has been ripped off for decades — all before the economy can fully absorb the shock.

Prices are ticking up, but markets have rebounded, and consumer confidence is resurgent after Trump backed down from his most draconian threats. Projections of a looming recession are being tempered. And a handful of deals have been struck that, on their surface, give Trump much of what he wanted.

A long road ahead

A staff member inspects clothing material for defects at the apparel manufacturing unit at Bhiwandi in the Thane district of India’s Maharashtra state on July 30, 2025. President Trump said July 30 that imports from India will face a 25% tariff, while also announcing an unspecified “penalty” for New Delhi’s purchases of Russian weapons and energy.

(Indranil Mukherjee / AFP via Getty Images)

Experts still warn that the net effect of Trump’s trade war will hurt the U.S. economy, slowing growth and raising prices in the short term while depressing living standards in the long term.

A handful of preliminary agreements with important trading partners have been announced in recent days. But the president said Wednesday that he was committed to raising tariffs on others by Friday.

“THE AUGUST FIRST DEADLINE IS THE AUGUST FIRST DEADLINE — IT STANDS STRONG, AND WILL NOT BE EXTENDED,” Trump wrote on social media. “A BIG DAY FOR AMERICA!!!”

That leaves the most valuable U.S. trading relationships — with China, Mexico, Canada and India — vulnerable to devastating rate hikes that could severely roil the U.S. economy by the holiday season, when U.S. retailers makeas much as a quarter of their annual sales, experts said. Trump said Wednesday that he would raise the tariff on India to 25%.

The most dramatic provisions in the biggest deals struck thus far — with the European Union, Japan, the United Kingdom and Vietnam, among others — lack enforcement mechanisms and are, in some cases, downright fanciful, such as an EU pledge to purchase $750 billion in American energy over the next three years.

Yet, despite raising tariff rates in those deals up to an average of between 15% to 20% — higher than the 10% baseline that Trump unveiled in April, itself a marked increase from historic standards — Trump’s reversals on his most dramatic levies, such as a 125% import duty on Chinese products, have helped calm markets and buoy business confidence.

The gap between reality and public perception is evident in recent economic data, which show slowing U.S. growth but rising U.S. consumer confidence.

U.S. economic growth last year was at 2.8%. This year, economists warn that the country is still on track for less than 2% growth overall, a slowing rate not seen since the height of the COVID-19 pandemic that began in 2020.

“The president’s recent push on trade has produced a flurry of agreements that, while stopping short of the sweeping free‑trade deals of past administrations, have headed off the threat of a full‑blown tariff war,” said Sung Won Sohn, an economist and a former commissioner at the Port of Los Angeles.

“The administration has managed to calm immediate fears of a trade shock while locking in a costlier trading environment,” he added. “The deals represent progress, but the toughest negotiations — with some of America’s most important partners — still remain.”

‘Fragile’ deals

An employee works at the Canadian Copper Refinery in Montreal on July 17, 2025. President Trump on July 9 announced that a 50% tariff would be placed on U.S. imports of copper, a key metal for green energy and other technologies, and will take effect Aug. 1.

(Andrej Ivanov / AFP via Getty Images)

The deals Trump has cut so far amount to loose conceptual frameworks that have not been formalized through U.S. or foreign governing systems — and will ultimately survive at the whims of a president who has thrown out his own trade deals before.

The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, was a genuine trade deal negotiated by Trump himself during his first term in 2020 that overhauled trade across the continent. Yet that has not stopped him from entering a retaliatory spiral over trade with Canada and putting extraordinary pressure on Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum, to bend to painful U.S. demands.

“It is fair to say no comprehensive trade agreements have been reached really with any of our trading partners,” said Stan Veuger, a senior fellow in economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute and a frequent visiting lecturer at Harvard, referring to the settlements reached thus far as “side deals.”

Those deals, he said, “have been limited in scope, and can only be read as an effort to get the U.S. government to calm down and focus on something else.”

“They are also very fragile, as they are ill-defined, barely formalized or not at all, and especially on the U.S. side a mere product of executive action,” Veuger said.

“Neither the tariffs nor the side deals,” Veuger added, “seem to reflect any kind of broader strategy other than trade is bad and tariff revenue is good.”

Recession fears remain

A television on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange shows President Trump on July 28, 2025. U.S. equity futures climbed along with the dollar after the European Union reached a trade deal with Trump.

(Michael Nagle / Bloomberg via Getty Images)

After Trump’s “Liberation Day” announcement of global tariffs April 2, nearly every U.S. financial institution issued forecasts warning that a U.S. recession this year was more likely than not.

Those forecasts have been downgraded — but the risk is still significant, analysts say. According to J.P. Morgan, the probability of a recession has fallen to 40%. Apollo Global Management warned that the fate of U.S. economic growth probably would fall on the administration’s ongoing trade negotiations with China.

“In this first round of the trade war, Trump has triumphed, at least on the terms he set out for himself. The way the EU caved, in particular, is stunning,” said Kenneth Rogoff, a prominent economist and professor at Harvard. “That said, so far the tariffs seem to have been mostly paid by U.S. importers, not foreign countries that export to the U.S. Eventually, now that the war has settled down, the cost will be passed on to consumers.”

Rogoff still put the odds of an “outright recession over the next 18 months” at greater than 50%.

“It is very likely that there will be some modest inflation over the next year and weaker growth,” he said, adding, “it is already becoming harder to find jobs in many sectors.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: How ICE is using the LAPD to track down immigrants for deportation
The deep dive: Who is Kim Yo Jong, sister and ‘right hand’ of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un?
The L.A. Times Special: Inside the fringe movement teaching Americans to punish officials with fake debt claims

More to come,
Michael Wilner
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Warner Bros. Discovery on Monday unveiled the names of the proposed separate entities, post-breakup: Warner Bros. and Discovery Global.

When the corporate spin-off is complete some time next year, the venerable Burbank film and television studio properties, HBO, HBO Max streaming service and gaming properties will be part of a slimmed-down iteration called Warner Bros.

The cable networks, including TNT, CNN, HGTV and Animal Planet, and sports app Bleacher Report, will make up Discovery Global.

“We will proudly continue the more than century-long legacy of Warner Bros. through our commitment to bringing culture-defining stories, characters and entertainment to audiences around the world,” Warner Bros. Discovery Chief Executive David Zaslav said in a statement.

Zaslav, the longtime Discovery executive, is jumping to the Warner Bros. side, while his lieutenant, Chief Financial Officer Gunnar Wiedenfels, will lead Discovery Global.

The proposed corporate split is a recognition that the merger that created Warner Bros. Discovery three years ago was a misfire that eroded the value of some of the industry’s most premium brands. Zaslav championed the merger as a way to roll up several companies into one.

At the time, WarnerMedia — with its studios, HBO and Turner networks — was owned by AT&T, which was desperate to exit Hollywood after losing billions of dollars on acquisitions.

But Wall Street quickly soured on the consolidation that married nearly two dozen basic cable channels, including HGTV and Food Network, with the prestige properties of HBO and the Warner Bros. studios in Burbank.

AT&T’s sale to Discovery left Zaslav’s company struggling to tame more than $40 billion in debt. Investors also have a dim view of cable channels as the shift to streaming prompted a huge migration of viewers.

Senior executives joining Zaslav at Warner Bros. include: HBO Chairman Casey Bloys; Warner Bros. TV Group Chairman Channing Dungey; the film co-chairs Pam Abdy and Mike De Luca; DC Studios leaders James Gunn and Peter Safran, Streaming and Gaming Chief Executive JB Perrette; Chief Operating Officer Bruce Campbell and Chief Communications Officer Robert Gibbs.

Discovery Global will include CNN Chairman Mark Thompson; TNT Sports Chairman Luis Silberwasser; international operations head Gerhard Zeiler; U.S. Ad Sales President Ryan Gould; and Chief Development Officer Anil Jhingan.

“As we prepare for the launch of Discovery Global, our enthusiasm for the opportunities ahead only grows thanks to our leading portfolio of beloved brands and programming, our worldwide footprint for adults, kids, and families, and now the experienced and talented leadership team,” Wiedenfels said.

Warner Bros. has started a search for a CFO as well as a chief people officer. Wiedenfels plans to hire a top communications and public affairs officer.

Global hunger fell in 2024 for a third straight year, but conflict and climate shocks deepened crises in Africa and the Middle East.

Global hunger levels declined for a third consecutive year in 2024, according to a new United Nations report, as better access to food in South America and India offset deepening malnutrition and climate shocks in parts of Africa and the Middle East.

Around 673 million people, or 8.2 percent of the world’s population, experienced hunger in 2024, down from 8.5 percent in 2023, according to the State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World report, jointly prepared by five UN agencies.

The agencies include the World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Food Programme (WFP).

The agencies said the report focused on chronic, long-term problems and did not fully reflect the impact of acute crises brought on by specific events and wars, including Israel’s war on Gaza.

“Conflict continues to drive hunger from Gaza to Sudan and beyond,” UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said in remarks delivered by video link from a UN food summit in Ethiopia on Monday, adding that “hunger further feeds future instability and undermines peace”.

The WHO has warned that malnutrition in the besieged Palestinian enclave has reached “alarming levels” since Israel imposed a total blockade on March 2.

The blockade was partially lifted in May, but only a trickle of aid has been allowed to enter since then, despite warnings about mass starvation from the UN and aid organisations.

Hunger rate falls in South America, southern Asia

In 2024, the most significant progress was reported in South America and southern Asia, according to the UN report.

In South America, the hunger rate fell to 3.8 percent in 2024 from 4.2 percent in 2023. In southern Asia, it fell to 11 percent from 12.2 percent.

Progress in South America was underpinned by improved agricultural productivity and social programmes, such as school meals, Maximo Torero, the chief economist at the FAO, told news agency Reuters.

In southern Asia, it was mostly due to new data from India showing more people with access to healthy diets.

The overall 2024 hunger numbers were still higher than the 7.5 percent recorded in 2019 before the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hunger more prevalent in Africa

The picture was very different in Africa, where productivity gains were not keeping up with high population growth and the impacts of conflict, extreme weather and inflation.

In 2024, more than one in five people on the continent, or 307 million people, were chronically undernourished, meaning hunger is more prevalent than it was 20 years ago.

According to the current projection, 512 million people in the world may be chronically undernourished in 2030, with nearly 60 percent of them to be found in Africa, the report said.

“We must urgently reverse this trajectory,” said the FAO’s Torero.

A major mark of distress is the number of Africans unable to afford a healthy diet. While the global figure fell from 2.76 billion in 2019 to 2.6 billion in 2024, the number increased in Africa from 864 million to just over one billion during the same period.

That means the vast majority of Africans are unable to eat well on the continent of 1.5 billion people.

Inequalities

The UN report also highlighted “persistent inequalities” with women and rural communities most affected, which widened last year over 2023.

“Despite adequate global food production, millions of people go hungry or are malnourished because safe and nutritious food is not available, not accessible or, more often, not affordable,” it said.

The gap between global food price inflation and overall inflation peaked in January 2023, driving up the cost of diets and hitting low-income nations hardest, the report said.

The report also said that overall adult obesity rose to nearly 16 percent in 2022, from 12 percent in 2012.

After finally getting approval from the Federal Communications Commission, Skydance Media is just weeks away from completing its $8-billion merger with Paramount Global, leading to sweeping changes for some of the most iconic media brands.

CBS, MTV Networks and Paramount Pictures are all bracing for upheaval when Larry Ellison and his son, David, take the keys from Paramount Global controlling shareholder Shari Redstone. The long-running ownership saga has played out while the rules of the media industry have been upended by streaming and, more recently, a White House unafraid to use its muscle to silence critics.

Skydance and its backer, RedBird Capital Partners, have promised investors that it will find $2 billion in cost savings, which means further belt-tightening and layoffs.

“This will be the most dramatic change to the organization since its inception,” said one longtime CBS insider who was not authorized to comment publicly.

Here is what Wall Street and the media industry will be watching for once the deal closes on Aug. 7:

Will Skydance spend enough to supercharge streaming?

Last year, Paramount+ added 10 million new subscribers to reach 77.5 million. Its subscriber count is now 79 million, thanks also to NFL programming, CBS shows such as “NCIS” and original hits including “1923,” “Landman,” “Lioness” and “Tulsa King.” Paramount has projected full-year U.S. profitability for Paramount+ this year, making it one of the fastest subscription services to get there.

But its relatively scant resources and thinner slate has made it difficult to truly compete with Netflix and the other biggest players. One potential solution: partnering with a rival streamer to increase its reach.

“Questions around the long-term scalability of Parmamount+ continue to loom large,” analyst firm MoffettNathanson noted in a report Friday. “Will the new management team pursue external partnerships as a viable path forward?”

Ellison and his team have suggested that they will bring a tech-focused sensibility to Paramount. Technological prowess would help Paramount+ improve its user interface and recommendation process, which insiders acknowledge is currently underwhelming. As expected, the architect of Paramount+ original series strategy, Paramount Global co-CEO Chris McCarthy, will leave when the deal closes.

Can traditional TV be saved?

Analysts also want to see Skydance will increase investment in film and TV franchises to revive assets that have been constrained by Paramount’s debt.

While Skydance will get a robust library of films and TV shows, it will also be faced with the slow-melting iceberg that is broadcast and cable TV, which continues to lose viewers. Streaming has surpassed broadcast and cable as the leading source of video consumption just as Skydance takes over CBS and Paramount Global’s array of channels that include MTV, BET and Comedy Central.

Doug Creutz, an analyst for TD Cowen, believes the merged company should consider spinning off traditional TV businesses, similar to what Warner Bros. Discovery and Comcast are doing with their cable channels. Whether that will happen remains to be seen.

“There is a clear opportunity to improve Paramount’s growth profile by letting those assets go,” Creutz wrote Friday. “On the other hand, we suspect the Ellisons did not purchase Paramount in order to break it up for parts.”

A test of Skydance’s commitment to broadcast may come if the FCC relaxes TV station ownership rules, which would likely lead to consolidation.

“60 Minutes” correspondent Lesley Stahl with Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene.

(CBS Photo Archive / CBS via Getty Images)

How will ’60 Minutes’ reset?

CBS News’ “60 Minutes” received a vote of confidence with the naming of Tanya Simon, a respected veteran insider to take over as executive producer. She was the choice of the program’s strong-willed correspondents.

Simon’s appointment is expected to provide stability following the departure of longtime showrunner Bill Owens, who was forced out amid the push for a $16-million settlement over President Trump’s lawsuit claiming the program deceptively edited an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris to make her look better to voters.

“60 Minutes” remained tough in its White House coverage as negotiations went on. The question is whether that approach will continue with new owners. Larry Ellison has a friendly relationship with the president, and the new owners agreed to appoint an ombudsman to oversee news coverage.

Getting it right matters from a business perspective too, as “60 Minutes” remains the most profitable program on CBS.

With Simon in place, new management is expected to address other areas of the news division that can use improvement. The network’s revamp of the “CBS Evening News” has been a disappointment in the ratings and will likely see some changes.

In the longer term, there has been chatter that Skydance may set its sights on acquiring CNN from Warner Bros. Discovery and combining it with the broadcast news operation, an idea that has been considered numerous times over the last few decades.

“South Park” characters Eric Cartman, left, Stan Marsh, Kyle Broflovski.

(Comedy Central)

Will creative freedom be tested?

CBS canceled “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert,” upsetting his fans, progressive Democratic legislators and other late-night hosts who make their living lampooning President Trump.

The network said it was strictly a business decision, as the younger viewers who made late-night TV monstrously lucrative for decades are no longer showing up. The timing of the move made the company look as if it were capitulating to Trump, who long had the host on his enemies list.

But Colbert will remain on the air through May. The show has already been sold to advertisers for next season. The host has remained unrelenting in his mockery of Trump.

The season premiere of “South Park” only upped the ante. The animated series made references to the “60 Minutes” deal, showed Trump in bed with the devil and aired its own version of a Trump-mandated PSA, showing a naked president with talking genitalia.

There is no question both shows will test the patience of the new owners.

Pulling Colbert off or censoring the “South Park” creators, who just received a $1.5-billion deal to continue their show and move its library to Paramount+, would lead to a far greater backlash than what has been seen so far. Any attempt to curtail their voices will send a negative message to creative types who consider working with the company’s movie and TV operations going forward.

Tom Cruise in “Mission: Impossible: Dead Reckoning Part One” from Paramount Pictures and Skydance.

(Paramount Pictures and Skydance)

Can the movie business be revived?

Over the last few years, Paramount Pictures — home of franchises such as “Transformers” and “Mission: Impossible” — has ranked either fifth or fourth at the domestic box office. So far this year, the lone major movie studio still located in Hollywood proper has accounted for about 7% of ticket sales in the U.S. and Canada, according to box office website the Numbers.

Since the pandemic, the company has enjoyed a number of major hits, including “Top Gun: Maverick” and “Sonic the Hedgehog 3.” It has also had some solid singles and doubles, including “Bob Marley: One Love.” But overall, the more-than-century-old studio has struggled from underinvestment in its intellectual property and movie brands.

The latest “Mission: Impossible” starring Tom Cruise — the eighth and purportedly last in the series — grossed $589 million globally but cost $300 million to $400 million to make, not including marketing costs. Paramount’s latest effort, an animated “Smurfs” reboot, sputtered at the box office. Next up: a reboot of “The Naked Gun.”

The unit’s leader, Brian Robbins (also head of Nickelodeon at Paramount Global), is expected to leave the studio, though he has not officially announced his plans. David Ellison is a movie fan and is expected to take a particular interest in the operation, with plans to put Skydance’s chief creative officer, Dana Goldberg, in charge of film at Paramount. Skydance has worked with Paramount on movies before, producing “Maverick” and the “Missions: Impossible” films

HOUSTON, TEXAS – JANUARY 11: Denico Autry #96 of the Houston Texans sacks Justin Herbert #10 of the Los Angeles Chargers during the second half of the AFC Wild Card Playoff game at NRG Stadium on January 11, 2025 in Houston, Texas. (Photo by Brandon Sloter/Getty Images)

(Brandon Sloter / Getty Images)

Will the NFL take its ball elsewhere?

A transfer of ownership means the NFL can reopen its long-term deal with CBS, which has a Sunday package of games, the AFC Championship Game and two Super Bowls. The NFL is the lifeblood of broadcast television, providing a vast majority of the year’s most-watched programs.

Without the NFL, CBS would face tremendous challenges in getting fees from pay TV operators who carry its stations. Revenue from affiliates who pay the network for its programming would also dramatically decline.

Although the NFL is known for taking a pound of flesh at every opportunity, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has signaled he will give careful consideration before making any changes.

“We’ve had a long relationship with CBS for decades and we also have a relationship outside of that with Skydance,” Goodell told CNBC earlier this month. “We have a two-year period to make that decision. I don’t see that happening, but we have the option and it’s something we’re going to look at.”

The NFL could wait until 2029 when it has the option to open up the contract with all of its media partners. The new media deal for the NBA — $76 billion over 11 years — has the NFL believing its pact is underpriced.

Times staff writer Meg James contributed to this report.

Company says 2.5-hour disruption of high-speed internet service was due to ‘failure’ of internal software services.

SpaceX’s Starlink satellite internet has suffered one of its biggest international outages, knocking tens of thousands of users offline, a rare disruption that prompted an apology from senior executives, including founder Elon Musk.

Starlink, which has more than six million users across roughly 140 countries and territories, suffered the disruption on Thursday that lasted for about two hours and 30 minutes, according to Michael Nicolls, Starlink’s vice president of Starlink Engineering, in a post on X.

The outage was a rare hiccup for SpaceX’s most commercially sensitive business that had experts speculating whether the service, known for its resilience and rapid growth, was beset by a glitch, a botched software update or even a cyberattack.

Users began experiencing the outage at about 3pm on the United States’ East Coast (19:00 GMT) on Thursday, according to Downdetector, a crowdsourced outage tracker that said as many as 61,000 user reports to the site were made.

“The outage was due to failure of key internal software services that operate the core network,” Nicolls explained in his post.

“We apologise for the temporary disruption in our service; we are deeply committed to providing a highly reliable network, and will fully root cause this issue and ensure it does not occur again,” he said.

Musk also apologised: “Sorry for the outage. SpaceX will remedy root cause to ensure it doesn’t happen again,” the SpaceX CEO and founder wrote on X, which he also owns.

SpaceX has launched more than 8,000 Starlink satellites since 2020, building a uniquely distributed network in low-Earth orbit that has attracted intense demand from militaries, transportation industries and consumers in rural areas with poor access to traditional, fibre-optic-based internet.

Starlink has focused heavily in recent months on updating its network to accommodate demands for higher speed and bandwidth.

WASHINGTON — As the United Nations and global aid groups sound the alarm of widening starvation resulting from U.S.-backed Israeli food distribution policies in the Gaza Strip, the Trump administration said Thursday it is cutting short Gaza ceasefire talks and bringing its negotiating team home from Qatar to discuss next steps.

The apparent derailing of the talks comes as Israel’s blockade and military offensive have driven Gaza to the brink of famine, according to aid groups. The U.N. food agency says nearly 100,000 women and children are suffering from severe, acute malnutrition, and the Gaza Health Ministry has reported a rise in hunger-related deaths.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he would hold an emergency call Friday with officials from Germany and France to discuss how to urgently get food to people in need and pursue a plan to build a lasting peace.

“The suffering and starvation unfolding in Gaza is unspeakable and indefensible,” he said in a statement. The three European countries “all agree on the pressing need for Israel to change course and allow the aid that is desperately needed to enter Gaza without delay.”

French President Emmanuel Macron announced Thursday that France would recognize Palestine as a state, saying, “The urgent thing today is that the war in Gaza stops and the civilian population is saved.

“Given its historic commitment to a just and sustainable peace in the Middle East, I have decided that France will recognize the state of Palestine,” Macron posted. “Peace is possible.”

The Israeli Foreign Ministry had no immediate comment.

Israel has come under mounting pressure, with 28 Western-aligned countries calling for an end to the war and harshly criticizing Israel’s blockade and a new aid delivery model it has rolled out. More than 100 charity and human rights groups released a similar letter, saying even their own staff are struggling to get enough food.

In an open letter, 115 organizations, including major international aid groups such as Doctors Without Borders, Mercy Corps and Save the Children, said they were watching their own colleagues, as well as the Palestinians they serve, “waste away.”

The letter blamed Israeli restrictions and “massacres” at aid-distribution points. Witnesses, health officials and the U.N. human rights office say Israeli forces have repeatedly fired on crowds seeking aid, killing more than 1,000 people. Israel says its forces have only fired warning shots and that the death toll is exaggerated.

The Israeli government’s “restrictions, delays, and fragmentation under its total siege have created chaos, starvation, and death,” the letter said.

The U.S. and Israel rejected the allegations and blamed Hamas for prolonging the war by not accepting their terms for a ceasefire.

Hamas’ latest response “shows a lack of desire” to reach a truce, President Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff said Thursday.

“While the mediators have made a great effort, Hamas does not appear to be coordinated or acting in good faith,” Witkoff said in a statement. “We will now consider alternative options to bring the hostages home and try to create a more stable environment for the people of Gaza.”

State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott would not offer details on what “alternative options” the U.S. is considering to free hostages held by the militant group.

A breakthrough on a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas following 21 months of war has eluded the Trump administration as humanitarian conditions worsen in Gaza. Thursday’s move is the latest setback as Trump has tried to position himself as peacemaker and vowed to broker agreements in conflicts from Ukraine to Gaza.

Israeli troops Wednesday at the border with the Gaza Strip.

(Jack Guez / AFP / Getty Images)

Israel says it is allowing in enough aid and blames U.N. agencies for not distributing it. But those agencies say it is nearly impossible to safely deliver it because of Israeli restrictions and a breakdown of law and order, with crowds of thousands unloading food trucks as soon as they move into Gaza.

A separate Israeli- and U.S.-backed system run by an American contractor has also been marred by chaos.

“Of course, we want to see the end of devastation that is taking place in Gaza,” Pigott said. “That is why we have supported the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. That is why we’ve seen those 90 million meals being distributed.”

When pressed on whether and how the U.S. would proceed on seeking a truce in Gaza, Pigott did not offer clarity and told reporters that “this is a very dynamic situation.”

He said there’s never been a question of the U.S. commitment to reaching a ceasefire and faulted Hamas.

The sides have held weeks of talks in Qatar, reporting small signs of progress but no major breakthroughs. Officials have said a main sticking point is the redeployment of Israeli troops after any ceasefire takes place.

Witkoff said the U.S. is “resolute” in seeking an end to the conflict in Gaza and it was “a shame that Hamas has acted in this selfish way.”

The White House and representatives for Hamas had no immediate comment.

Macron, in making his announcement Thursday recognizing Palestinian statehood, posted a letter he sent to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas about his decision.

The French president offered support for Israel after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks and frequently speaks out against antisemitism. But he has grown increasingly frustrated about Israel’s war in Gaza, especially in recent months.

France is the biggest and most powerful European country to recognize Palestine. More than 140 countries recognize a Palestinian state, including more than a dozen in Europe.

France has Europe’s largest Jewish population and the largest Muslim population in Western Europe, and fighting in the Middle East often spills over into protests or other tensions in France.

Israel also calls back its negotiators

Earlier Thursday, Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu’s office recalled his negotiating team in light of Hamas’ response. In a brief statement, Netanyahu’s office expressed appreciation for the efforts of Witkoff and other mediators Qatar and Egypt but gave no further details.

The deal under discussion was expected to include an initial 60-day ceasefire in which Hamas would release 10 living hostages and the remains of 18 others in phases in exchange for Palestinians imprisoned by Israel. Aid supplies would be ramped up, and the two sides would hold negotiations on a lasting ceasefire.

The talks have been bogged down over competing demands for ending the war. Hamas says it will only release all hostages in exchange for a full Israeli withdrawal and end to the war. Israel says it will not agree to end the conflict until Hamas gives up power and disarms. The militant group says it is prepared to leave power but not surrender its weapons.

Hamas is believed to be holding the hostages in different locations, including tunnels, and says it has ordered its guards to kill them if Israeli forces approach.

Trump has been pushing for peace

Trump has made little secret of the fact he wants to receive a Nobel Peace Prize. For instance, he has promised to quickly negotiate an end to Russia’s war in Ukraine, but little progress has been made.

On the war in Gaza, Trump met with Netanyahu at the White House this month, putting his weight behind a push to reach a deal.

But despite a partnership further solidified by their countries’ joint strikes on Iran, the Israeli leader left Washington without any breakthrough.

The State Department had said earlier in the week that Witkoff would be traveling to the Middle East for talks, but U.S. officials later said that Witkoff would instead travel to Europe. It was unclear if he held meetings there Thursday.

Price and Krauss write for the Associated Press. Krauss reported from Ottawa, Canada. AP writers Josef Federman and Julia Frankel in Jerusalem and Farnoush Amiri in New York contributed to this report.

Born from the ashes of World War II, UNESCO was founded with a bold mission: to build peace through culture, education and science.

Now, one of its founding members, the United States, is once again withdrawing from the UN agency because of what it calls an “anti-Israel bias”.

Critics say the move reflects a deeper shift: a retreat from multilateral diplomacy and a rejection of international norms.

They also say it raises questions about US commitment to global leadership and cooperation.

So, what are the real motives behind Washington’s decision?

What impact will it have on UNESCO and the broader UN system?

And is this part of a wider pattern of US disengagement under President Donald Trump?

Presenter: James Bays

Guests:

Amy Koch – Republican political strategist

Ei Sun Oh – political analyst

Mark Seddon – journalist and former UN official