industry

Aug. 8 (UPI) — The Defense Department is pressuring U.S. military contractors to produce weapons and munitions “significantly faster” as the country’s stockpile dwindles due to the Iran war, it was reported Saturday.

In a memo obtained by The Washington Post, the Pentagon told industry leaders to “drive significantly faster, more aggressive delivery schedules and/or increased production for critical capabilities.”

Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg said contractors have 21 days to submit plans on how they plan to achieve that.

“Years-long development cycles are not acceptable,” Feinberg wrote in the Wednesday memo obtained by The Post. “We must dramatically accelerate our program schedules and expand our production capacity now.”

Multiple news outlets reported this week that the United States had depleted much of its stockpile of long-range precision missiles in Iran.

In just the first month of the conflict, the military launched more than 850 Tomahawk cruise missiles, alarming some Pentagon officials, The Post reported.

Officials have said the U.S. military has been launching the missiles faster than manufacturers can replace them.

President Donald Trump on Thursday dismissed the reports, saying the United States has “massive amounts” of munitions.

“Additionally, large amounts are being manufactured and shipped to the U.S. as needed,” he wrote on Truth Social. Defense companies are building the largest number of plants and factories in our country’s history.”

“The ‘leakers’ of these treasonous statements are being hunted down,” Trump added. “Long-term jail sentences will be sought!”

Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said the military “has everything it needs to execute at the time and place of the president’s choosing.”

“We have executed multiple successful operations across combatant commands while ensuring the U.S. military possesses a deep arsenal of capabilities to protect our people and our interests,” he added in a statement to CBS News.

It’s hard to hate on Canada. It’s like cursing a cotton ball, or raging about tapioca.

The friendliest of neighbors, the country has fought alongside the U.S. in conflicts going back to World War I, purchased many trillions of dollars worth of American goods and blessed this country with, among other gifts, ice hockey, Drake, Joni Mitchell and Alex Trebek.

While you can question the nation’s culinary sensibility — the unofficial dish, poutine, is an abomination consisting of French fries, cheese curds and hot gravy — Canada is basically a very large, very pretty country filled with a lot of very nice, extremely polite people.

But for reasons only he can fathom, President Trump has declared economic war on our amiable northern neighbor.

After more than a year of trading tit-for-tat tariffs, Trump recently escalated the conflict by slapping a new 50% tax on a variety of Canadian exports, including cement, furniture, dairy products and, most iconically, hockey sticks. The added levy, which will further burden inflation-weary U.S. consumers, is set to take effect in mid-August.

The move makes little sense from an economic or foreign policy standpoint. It’s best to regard Trump’s trade moves as a wind gauge charts a blustery storm; his on-again, off-again tariffs are not the result of some carefully thought-out policy but, rather, a measure of the president’s shifting moods and pique toward certain foreign leaders.

And they carry a not-inconsiderable price tag — California’s struggling wine industry being just one example.

For decades, the industry has been a vital and growing part of California’s agricultural economy. Recent years, however, have seen a number of setbacks.

Costs are rising. Sales are falling, as younger generations favor hard seltzers, canned cocktails or premium beers over crushed grapes. At the same time, climate change and the growing incidence of wildfire threaten the viability of some of California’s premier wine-growing regions.

A Canadian ban on alcohol imports

Then there’s the trade war with Canada, the industry’s largest export market and formerly a major customer of California wines. Until recently, the Canadian market accounted for more than a third of the state’s exports.

But last year, several provinces stopped purchasing U.S. alcohol in response to Trump’s tariffs and his threats — more slapstick than real — to annex the country and make Canada the 51st American state. While two provinces, Saskatchewan and Alberta, soon lifted their bans, the two most populous, Ontario and Quebec, have not.

As a result of this “geopolitical friction,” to use the words of University of California researchers, California wine exports to Canada fell by nearly 80% in 2025 compared with the year before. Unsurprisingly, Canadian sales of homegrown wines have soared.

Stick that in your terroir!

In response to the dramatic drop in exports, more than a dozen California members of Congress wrote last month to Quebec’s premier, Christine Fréchette, urging her to lift the retaliatory ban on U.S. wine and spirits.

“Reopening the market to American wine would restore consumer choice and signal a commitment to restoring fair and balanced trade for Québecois consumers and American wineries who have no connection to the underlying trade disputes,” the letter read.

Sen. Adam Schiff also wrote Fréchette asking her to resume the sale of California wine and U.S. spirits.

“The restriction on American wine has had damaging consequences for regional consumers, businesses, and producers who have no influence over national policies,” the California Democrat stated. “In fact, I have repeatedly voiced my opposition to and voted against the President’s harmful trade policies, including as they pertain to Canada.”

Fréchette’s response was, in a word: “Non!”

“In the context of the ongoing trade war, the premier continues to defend Quebec’s economic interests,” a spokesperson for Fréchette told CBC Radio. “This measure will remain in place as long as the United States maintains these unjustified tariffs. Our government will re-evaluate its position when the American administration reverses these measures.”

And that statement came before Trump upped the ante, along with the tariffs on Canada, which, presumably, doesn’t help matters.

Red or white?

Mike Thompson has seen the damage of Trump’s economic warfare firsthand. The St. Helena Democrat represents the heart of Wine Country and spearheaded, along with Democratic Rep. Jimmy Panetta of Carmel and Republican Rep. David Valadao of Hanford, the bipartisan overture to Quebec’s premier.

“I talked to a vintner today,” Thompson said during a drive this week through his sprawling Northern California district. “They went from an $11-million annual wine export to a $2-million annual wine export to Canada because of this.”

Thompson has introduced legislation, including a measure to reimburse wine producers for the money they’ve lost due to Trump’s tariffs, but the proposals have stalled in the House despite bipartisan support. His effort, Thompson dryly noted, “has not been warmly embraced by the administration.”

Meanwhile, the cross-border hostilities continue. Neither Trump nor Fréchette seems ready to budge, with California vintners still stuck in the middle.

So the question in Montreal and Toronto remains: What pairs best with poutine? Canadian white or red?

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Trump administration targeted California and other blue states for clean energy cuts
The deep dive: Justice Kennedy reflects on his time deciding the Constitution’s promise of liberty and equality
The L.A. Times Special: His nickname was ‘Satan.’ His political influence was immense
Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Reporting from Sacramento — A war between a healthcare union and the dialysis industry it wants to organize has morphed into one of the most expensive ballot measure campaigns in California history.

Proposition 8, sponsored by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers, would shrink the profits of hundreds of dialysis clinics across California. If enacted by voters, the measure would require clinics to provide rebates to insurers and pay a penalty to the state on business revenues that exceed 115% of certain costs to deliver care.

A coalition led by DaVita and Fresenius Medical Care, the two companies that control a combined 72% of the dialysis market in California, has given $110 million to a campaign to beat the measure — contributing to the most money raised for such a campaign in state history.

Opponents view Proposition 8 as an existential threat to the dialysis industry and its patients, and say the 95,000-member SEIU-UHW is using the ballot measure to deliver an ultimatum to its foes: Acquiesce to the union’s demands or pay for an expensive campaign.

“Proposition 8 puts California patients at risk in an effort to force unionization of employees,” DaVita Chief Executive Kent Thiry said in a statement. “There is an established and accepted process for employees to vote a union up or down. Instead of following that process, SEIU-UHW is pursuing a dangerous initiative that puts patients at grave risk.”

Thiry’s group warns that dialysis clinics may open for fewer hours, or would shutter altogether if the measure becomes law.

Dave Regan, head of SEIU-UHW, says his union wants to rein in a dialysis industry he says is “predatory.” The union has raised $18.8 million for the Proposition 8 campaign.

DaVita and Fresenius reported billions in operating income last year and have been accused by critics of various tactics to increase profitability, such as steering patients to private insurance or not giving employees enough time to adequately clean stations.

DaVita has been ordered to pay damages and settled lawsuits for more than $1 billion in the last five years, including $253.5 million in damages awarded in June to the families of two patients who died of cardiac arrest after receiving care at its California clinics. The company has said it would appeal that decision.

“The reason Prop. 8 is on the ballot is because they have a terrible business model and they’re gouging patients and insurers,” Regan said.

After years of expensive squabbles in the Capitol, Regan traveled to Denver, home to DaVita headquarters, to meet with Thiry for the first time on the eve of the June deadline to withdraw ballot initiatives this year.

Assemblyman Adam Gray (D-Merced), the leader of a moderate bloc of Democrats in the Legislature, acted as intermediary. Gray said he spent weeks trying to bring the two sides together in hopes of breaking a stalemate and finding common ground.

But the eleventh-hour conversation over dinner came too late to negotiate a cease-fire and call off the proposal.

Regan initially described the visit as a “social meeting” he attended at Gray’s request. He later said the timing was coincidental and he never intended to strike a deal with Thiry to pull Proposition 8 from the ballot.

“Nothing consequential even came up,” Regan said. “Nothing was proposed. There was no kind of an agreement of any sort and it was a social discussion.”

Thiry said it “was definitely not a social meeting,” but declined to elaborate.

Now voters are left to decide the fate of the 80,000 patients who receive dialysis treatment at nearly 600 licensed clinics each month in California, according to figures from the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

SEIU-UHW argues its measure will provide an incentive to dialysis companies so they invest more money into patient care. Under the measure, clinics could keep more of their profits if they increase costs for care.

Kathy Fairbanks, a spokeswoman for the opposition campaign, said the industry believes that voter approval of Proposition 8 would force most clinics in California to operate in the red.

“You can’t keep doing that week after week, month after month, year after year,” she said. “This is going to devastate the clinics in California and, by extension, all the patients.”

An analysis by the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the Legislature’s nonpartisan fiscal advisor, said reducing revenues would make for-profit clinics “less profitable or could even be unprofitable.”

Proposition 8 excludes the salaries of managerial staff and some overhead charges from the cost calculation for patient care, which would further reduce profits.

“This to me is classic labor trying to, not just regulate a business, but affect how they operate,” said Rob Stutzman, a Republican political consultant who is not involved in the Proposition 8 campaign.

Scrutiny of dialysis clinics sparked a legislative proposal to establish staff-to-patient ratios in the industry for the first time. The bill, sponsored by SEIU-UHW, stalled in the state Legislature last year.

Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed another bill this year aimed to halt an alleged dialysis industry practice of encouraging patients to sign up for private insurance and funneling money to nonprofits to help patients pay off premiums. Dialysis corporations make most of their profits off group or individual insurance plans, which are billed much more than Medi-Cal or Medicare for the same services.

“Right now they have every financial incentive to keep staffing and other direct patient services at a bare minimum because then they reap every dollar in profit margin,” Regan said.

SEIU-UHW has a history of turning to the ballot amid labor disputes.

Regan called off a pair of ballot initiatives in 2012 to limit charges for care at private hospitals and require nonprofits to spend at least 5% of revenues on charity care after the California Hospital Assn. agreed to a partnership that could help the union’s organizing efforts.

The partnership soured and the union filed two measures the next year to limit prices for care at private hospitals and executive salaries at nonprofit hospitals.

The union pulled the initiatives back in 2014 as part of a new agreement with the hospitals to campaign together to raise Medi-Cal reimbursement rates in exchange for an easier path to organizing thousands of potential union members, among other provisions.

A Sacramento judge shot down another SEIU-UHW ballot initiative to cap hospital executive pay in 2016. That same year, the union pushed a ballot initiative to increase pay for workers, which helped spark a legislative deal to raise California’s minimum wage.

This year alone, the union filed 11 ballot initiatives in California — seven at the local level and four statewide initiatives. Most of the initiatives failed to qualify or the union abandoned its effort.

One of the local measures would have placed revenue caps on the Watsonville Community Hospital. The union withdrew the initiative after it reached a collective bargaining agreement with the hospital, said Duane Dauner, the former chief executive of the California Hospital Assn. and a leader of the campaigns against the local initiatives. The hospital also agreed to form a committee to monitor and control pricing, said Sean Wherley, a spokesman for SEIU-UHW.

SEIU-UHW also sponsored five local initiatives in cities with Stanford Health Care community clinics. Measure F in Palo Alto and Measure U in Livermore, the only two to appear on the Nov. 6 ballot, would limit the amount of money hospitals can charge for patient care. Stanford claims the union pushed the measures to pressure its hospitals to make it easier to unionize.

Wherley said the union is not organizing at Stanford’s healthcare facilities.

“He thinks initiatives are the solutions to bypass ordinary labor relations activity and tries to literally force the hospitals, doctors, dentists and others into unionization or he will proceed,” Dauner said of Regan.

Gray, the state legislator, pointed to several state policy battles this year, including a ban on soda taxes and a deal on consumer privacy protections, as examples of other special interests using the ballot as leverage.

“I support direct democracy, but I certainly think the initiative process, by everybody, has been used in ways that certainly weren’t intended,” Gray said.

Regan said SEIU-UHW didn’t qualify Proposition 8 to pressure the dialysis industry to strike a deal. He said the union wants to improve healthcare, and ballot initiatives are an effective way to make important policy changes.

He pointed to 17 minimum wage and Medicaid expansion initiatives the union supported in other states since 2016 that he said were not linked to organizing efforts.

“Most of the stuff that we do is in pursuit of the common good, whether it’s the minimum wage or Medicaid expansion,” Regan said. “The dialysis industry should be required to do more than criticize the union because they don’t want to talk about their business models or profits.”

Get the latest California politics news »

taryn.luna@latimes.com

Follow @tarynluna on Twitter and sign up for our daily Essential Politics newsletter.

President Trump’s $1.4-billion crypto windfall has become the biggest obstacle to passing his sweeping digital-asset legislation as Democrats demand tougher language to prevent the president from profiting off an industry his administration regulates.

Senate Republicans released a proposal this week intended to break a months-long impasse over the bill, known as the Clarity Act. But Democrats and consumer watchdog groups dismissed the terms almost immediately, complaining the bill would not stop Trump or his family from continuing to profit from his meme coin and other crypto ventures.

Trump needs the support of at least seven Senate Democrats to pass the legislation, which would set rules for digital assets. Ethics has emerged as the biggest, though not the only, sticking point.

“It’s the linchpin,” said Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, a Maryland Democrat and key negotiator who has been supportive of the crypto industry.

A spokesperson for the White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. The White House has consistently asserted Trump is not involved in managing the family’s crypto ventures and has denied conflicts of interest.

Democrats have specifically taken issue with a provision that would leave Trump’s Justice Department as the primary enforcer of the new ethics regulations, preventing state attorneys general from acting as an independent check.

Another Democratic negotiator, Sen. Ruben Gallego of Arizona, and Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina said they’re working on a compromise ethics proposal to send to the White House but didn’t provide details.

Senators in both parties said they see the negotiations in the coming week as key to whether a bill reaches Trump’s desk this year. But after the chilly initial reception to the latest White House offer, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.C.) said he didn’t think the Clarity Act would pass the chamber before the month-long August recess.

“We’ll see where the votes are,” Thune said.

Alsobrooks, Gallego and other crypto-friendly Democrats are demanding changes to other pieces of the massive bill, including consumer protection and illicit finance measures.

The bill has other issues, including opposition from banks intent on tightening restrictions on stablecoin rewards. Tillis and several other Republicans said they are considering backing changes to reflect banks’ concerns that their deposits could shift to stablecoin accounts, crimping their profits and customers’ access to credit.

Tillis has floated adding “circuit-breaker” language empowering the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. or other regulators to step in if bank deposits drop — an idea opposed by GOP Sen. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, the crypto industry’s biggest backer in the chamber.

Porous provisions

Critics said the draft’s ethics protections are porous. It would let Trump divest a large stake in his crypto venture or move it into a blind trust for the rest of his term, but stops short of requiring him to sell.

“It’s going to allow him to keep making money the way he has in the past,” said Scott Greytak, deputy executive director of Transparency International US, an anti-corruption advocacy group.

The restrictions also hinge on whether an official has a “direct interest” in a crypto asset — a threshold that may not apply to Trump.

The president is a significant owner of World Liberty Financial, the Trump family’s crypto venture, through an entity called DT Marks DEFI LLC, which holds about a 38% stake. Whether that counts as a direct interest “isn’t clear,” said Zach Everson, research director for Public Citizen’s Trump Accountability Project. “Does direct interest describe how he holds the crypto?”

Because the bill wouldn’t apply to the children of government officials, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump could continue their own crypto business interests. And much of the family’s fortune has already been made: Trump and his affiliates have earned a huge windfall from meme coin and token ventures, income the legislation would not claw back.

Critics also decried a provision that would sunset the ethics requirements on Jan. 20, 2029, the day Trump’s successor would be inaugurated. That could prevent the next administration from holding Trump accountable.

The White House and Republicans argued that Trump had gone further in backing ethics restrictions in law than any previous president.

“History will remember this as the moment a president chose a higher standard of ethics than the law required of him,” Lummis, a key architect of the bill, said on X.

Democrats were skeptical even before the language was released. “Any meaningful ethics provision would be shot down by the White House,” Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut said.

The politics of crypto have long divided Democrats, and a bipartisan deal on the legislation risks provoking a backlash from progressives. Failure to reach a deal, however, could make the party the target of a torrent of crypto campaign cash.

Crypto group Fairshake and its two affiliated super PACs have raised $164 million for the midterm elections, Federal Election Commission filings show, and have spent $66.6 million so far.

It’s the kind of political arsenal that Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York can ill afford to have aimed at his candidates as the party seeks to regain Senate control.

But others, like Murphy, have warned that blessing Trump’s big crypto bill would undermine Democrats’ midterm message.

A potential presidential candidate, Murphy said Wednesday while addressing the left-leaning Center for American Progress that the bill is before the Senate “because the industry paid for it” and urged Democrats to instead turn fighting crypto corruption into a potent campaign issue this fall.

Markets have grown less convinced a deal gets done. On Polymarket, the odds of the Clarity Act passing this year fell to about 1 chance in 3 earlier this week after Republicans released the new draft.

That’s about half the odds the prediction market gave passage after the Senate Banking Committee backed an earlier version of the bill on May 14.

Dennis and Patterson write for Bloomberg. Bloomberg writers Yash Roy, Lydia Beyoud, Aidan Williams, Bill Allison and Olga Kharif contributed to this report.

Across Africa, the ability to defend borders, monitor territory and protect critical infrastructure remains heavily dependent on foreign suppliers. Turkish drones patrol borders, Chinese surveillance systems monitor cities and Russian fighter jets form the backbone of several air forces.

For decades, African militaries have turned abroad for critical defence technologies, leaving the continent largely positioned as a buyer rather than a producer.

An Abuja-based start-up is attempting to change that equation.

Terra Industries, founded in 2024 by Nathan Nwachuku and Maxwell Maduka, both in their early twenties, designs and manufactures drones, autonomous surveillance towers and unmanned ground vehicles from facilities in Abuja and Accra.

Unlike companies that primarily assemble imported components, Terra says it develops its own software, airframes, propellers and lithium-ion battery packs, with more than 70 percent of its inputs sourced locally.

The company says its systems are currently used to protect infrastructure valued at approximately $11bn, including power plants, lithium and gold mines, oil refineries and other strategic assets across eight African countries and Canada.

Building capability

The shift from importing security technology to producing it locally has become an increasingly important debate across Africa. Governments facing armed groups, porous borders, maritime insecurity and attacks on critical infrastructure are searching for faster and more adaptable solutions.

Terra’s move from private infrastructure security into engagements with Nigeria’s defence institutions reflects that changing environment. The company says its systems are designed to address challenges ranging from maritime surveillance and border monitoring to the protection of energy and mining assets.

“Coastal states in West Africa are focused on maritime surveillance because of piracy and illegal fishing in the Gulf of Guinea,” chief executive Nathan Nwachuku told Al Jazeera. “States dealing with insurgency and porous borders want persistent aerial surveillance and a rapid-response capability. Others are looking at protection for pipelines, power and energy infrastructure, and mining assets, the same problems we started solving in Nigeria.”

The company is now preparing for a larger regional footprint. Nwachuku confirmed that Terra’s second production facility in Ghana will become Africa’s largest drone manufacturing hub, with an annual production capacity of 50,000 units by 2028.

“Our long-term ambition goes beyond the continent because the threats our systems are designed to address exist across the Global South,” he said. “Governments in South Asia and South America face them too, and they face the same dependency on foreign suppliers. We intend to serve them as we grow.”

Investor confidence

The scale of investment behind Terra reflects growing interest in Africa’s emerging defence technology sector. The company has raised $34m in seed funding, which it describes as one of the largest early-stage funding rounds in African technology.

The investment was led by 8VC, the venture capital firm founded by Palantir Technologies co-founder Joe Lonsdale, alongside Lux Capital and Valor Equity Partners, investors behind companies such as Anduril and SpaceX.

“The round closed in under two weeks, which is rare even by global standards,” Tage Kene-Okafor, Terra Industries’ director of communications, told Al Jazeera. “But what has been more exciting is our cap table, where we have the likes of 8VC, Lux Capital and Valor Equity Partners, investors that have backed companies shaping the future of defence and advanced manufacturing globally.”

Security imperative

The interest in companies like Terra comes as drones become increasingly central to conflicts across Africa. In the Sahel, inexpensive commercial drones have moved from surveillance tools to weapons used on the battlefield, creating new challenges for militaries that often lack effective counter-drone capabilities.

According to the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED), Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM), the al-Qaeda-linked coalition operating in Mali and Burkina Faso, has carried out more than 100 drone attacks since 2023, with 2025 recording the highest number to date.

Terra says its Kama interceptor drone was developed in response to this changing threat environment. The company says the system can reach speeds of up to 300kph and is designed to counter hostile drones in environments where traditional air defence systems may be unavailable or too expensive.

Building defence technology, however, is not the same as achieving defence sovereignty.

Sovereignty question

While a country can build manufacturing capacity through investment, engineering talent and industrial policy, defence sovereignty requires institutions capable of managing procurement, ensuring accountability and sustaining strategic industries over the long term.

Janice Greaver, director at the Pan African Sustainable, Innovation and Development Associates (PASIDA), argues that local production alone cannot answer those questions.

“Seventy percent local sourcing means little until we know who controls the intellectual property, who is employed and who is left out,” she told Al Jazeera. “And when private capital arms the state with no visible civil society oversight, we are simply trading one dependency (on foreign suppliers) for another (on unaccountable domestic capital).”

Terra Industries has demonstrated that sophisticated defence technologies can be designed and manufactured in Africa. Its rapid rise reflects both growing technical capability on the continent and the pressure created by worsening security challenges.

Whether that becomes genuine defence sovereignty will depend on what happens beyond the factory floor: how governments buy, regulate and oversee the technologies they increasingly seek to build themselves.

As Greaver cautions: “Its manufacturing capacity is being built, sovereignty requires the accountability structures that do not yet exist”.

Tokyo, Japan – While walking his toy poodle in the park near his home in Ikeda, Gifu Prefecture, Shin Ohta had an idea.

“My dog often stops walking during our strolls. I would carry him every time, but his weight of nearly 5kg [11lbs] started to become a real burden,” Ohta told Al Jazeera.

“I knew there had to be a better way.

Ohta works in sales for Japan’s oldest baby carrier manufacturer, Lucky Industries, which has produced more than 40 million baby carriers since its founding in 1934.

He has spent his career making baby carriers, but after that walk, he wondered if the same expertise could be applied to pets.

After consulting a veterinarian to ensure the design was viable for dogs, Ohta helped Lucky Industries launch its first line of dog hip carriers in 2022: Nu-i.

Earlier this year, the company joined dozens of other brands at Tokyo’s annual Interpets conference, a showcase of Japan’s rapidly growing pet care market.

During the first weekend of April, stalls lined the walls of the Big Sight convention centre, selling everything from walk-in pet dryers to the latest organic cat treats.

Few of the pet owners attending the event had their four-legged friend on a leash, instead ferrying them to and fro in well-decorated pet strollers, or the doggy equivalent of baby slings.

Many pets were decked out in colourful outfits, fur clips, and diapers.

Pets in Japan now outnumber children under 15 by more than 2 million.

According to market intelligence company Euromonitor, the country’s pet care market was worth 880 billion yen ($5.4bn) in 2025, up from 689.6 billion yen ($4.2bn) in 2020.

As Japan’s birthrate continues to fall and the population of children shrinks, companies that once built their businesses on babies, selling nappies, slings, and strollers, are increasingly turning their attention to pets.

Betting on pets at the Interpets conference, Unicharm’s expansive stall was lined with dog and cat nappies from its latest “Mannerware’” line.

The Tokyo-based company has been one of the great cross-market successes of the pet care boom.

After making its name selling feminine hygiene products and disposable diapers, Unicharm expanded into pet diapers in 2001.

Since then, pet care products have become one of the company’s main growth engines.

While the personal care market for people is larger, the pet care sector has higher profit margins.

According to Unicharm’s financial results for 2025, the company’s pet care division had a profit margin of 15.4 percent that year, compared with personal care’s margin of 10.7 percent.

Isshu Uehara, a Unicharm spokesperson, said that as of 2025, the pet care business accounted for 17 percent of the company’s total sales, with plans to increase that share to 20 percent by 2030.

“Japan’s birthrate is declining,” Uehara told Al Jazeera.

“Lifestyle changes, such as remaining single, marrying late, and the growth of childless, dual-income households, have led to a greater number of people seeking emotional connections through pets.

“As a result, we’re seeing the growth of ‘pet humanisation’, or treating pets like family members or children rather than just animals.

“Customers want to buy premium products to extend pets’ lifetimes, and share experiences with them, like dining together or going out to cafes and friends’ houses,” Uehara added.

Unicharm is not alone.

Across Japan, stroller brands like AirBuggy and clothing companies like Sweet Mommy have made similar leaps, applying expertise built around infants to a growing market of pet owners.

Lucky Industries CEO Hiroyuki Higuchi pointed to the company’s origins to explain the shift towards pets.

“When the company started, Japanese families had many children, and mothers needed carriers to be able to work around the house,” Higuchi told Al Jazeera.

But now, Japanese families are shrinking. While there has been a rise in single-person households and childless dual-income households, families with only one child have become more common as well.

A national survey of fertility trends found that between 2002 and 2021, the proportion of households with only one child increased from 10 percent to nearly 20 percent.

“With fewer babies around, it has been harder to come up with new ideas for baby products,” Ohta said.

“Now, my life is centred around my dogs, as are the lives of many of my friends. When we meet up, we talk about our pets.”

“Compared to the baby goods market, the pet sector is doing better,” said Higuchi.

“Companies see it as a reliable sector… In Japan, dogs are seen as babies, as part of the family. Just like many Japanese carry their babies in slings or carriers, so can dog owners,” Higuchi added.

Barbara Holthus, a sociologist and director of the German Institute of Japan Studies, said pet humanisation has been a growing trend in recent years.

“Before, a dog or cat might have just been an additional family member, but with fewer other family members and fewer children in the house, the focus becomes very concentrated on this animal,” Holthus told Al Jazeera.

“But it’s more diverse than just replacing children. Animals take on many different roles,” Holthus added. “A pet can also replace a partner. After a divorce, people sometimes get pets.

After someone gets widowed, they get a pet. Sometimes, a pet is seen as a play partner for an only child.”

Holthus sees Japan as a prime example of changing family structures, including the emergence of the “multi-species family”.

Holthus said decreasing birth rates, as well as factors such as loneliness and rising urbanisation, help explain why the trend of humanising pets has been particularly pronounced in Japan.

As for why infant brands are turning to pets, Holthus offered a simple explanation.

“It’s understandable,” she said.

“Of course, companies want to make money, and due to demographic change, their market is getting lost.”

At least 27 people were killed and 63 injured, many critically, after a fire ripped through a popular pub in Bangkok. Authorities are investigating whether the pub, located near the iconic Chatuchak Weekend Market, had adequate escape routes.

Turkey renewed its push for greater defence cooperation within NATO on Wednesday as President Tayyip Erdogan urged alliance members to remove restrictions that limit defence-industrial collaboration among allies. Ankara has long argued that political disagreements should not prevent NATO members from working together on defence projects, particularly as Europe seeks to strengthen its military capabilities in response to growing security threats.

The appeal comes as NATO leaders gather in Ankara for a summit focused on increasing defence spending, expanding military production and reinforcing the alliance amid continued tensions with Russia and instability in the Middle East.

Erdogan calls for equal defence cooperation

Addressing NATO leaders at the opening of the summit, Erdogan said restrictions on defence cooperation between allies should be removed.

“Restrictions among allies on defence cooperation, especially in the defence industry, must be lifted,” he said.

He warned that excluding NATO members that are outside the European Union from European defence initiatives could create unnecessary divisions.

“At a time when a model of cooperation based on common sense and reason is possible, excluding allies that are not members of the (European) Union would lead to artificial divisions in Europe,” Erdogan said.

Turkey seeks greater role in European defence

Turkey has repeatedly sought participation in European defence initiatives, including the Security Action for Europe (SAFE) funding programme, which aims to strengthen the continent’s defence industry.

Despite possessing NATO’s second-largest military and becoming a major producer and exporter of defence equipment, Ankara has largely remained outside several Europe-led security projects because of political disputes with some EU member states.

Turkish officials argue that NATO allies should cooperate more closely regardless of EU membership.

Trump signals possible policy shift

Erdogan’s appeal came a day after U.S. President Donald Trump indicated Washington could ease some longstanding tensions with Ankara.

During a meeting with Erdogan on Tuesday, Trump said he intended to lift U.S. sanctions imposed on Turkey and would decide whether to allow Ankara back into the F-35 fighter jet programme.

Turkey was removed from the programme after purchasing Russia’s S-400 air defence system in 2019, a move that triggered U.S. sanctions and strained relations between the two NATO allies.

Any decision to reverse those measures is expected to face opposition in the U.S. Congress.

Turkey pledges higher defence spending

Erdogan said Turkey remains on track to meet NATO’s target of spending 5% of gross domestic product on defence by 2030.

He announced that Ankara had allocated an additional $24 billion to its Steel Dome integrated air defence project, which is intended to strengthen both Turkey’s national security and NATO’s collective air and missile defence capabilities.

The Turkish president also called on alliance members to assume greater responsibility for Europe’s security while preserving NATO unity.

Future outlook

Turkey is expected to continue pressing for full participation in European defence initiatives as NATO members expand military spending and industrial cooperation. Whether European governments are prepared to ease political objections remains uncertain, while any U.S. decision on sanctions relief or Turkey’s return to the F-35 programme is likely to face congressional scrutiny. The outcome could shape Ankara’s role in NATO’s evolving defence architecture in the coming years.

With information from Reuters.

Decades of Hollywood empire-building ended with a quake in 2017 when Australian media mogul Rupert Murdoch decided to sell much of his Fox entertainment holdings amid the rise of Netflix and other tech giants.

This week, another titan who has been instrumental in shaping American media and telecommunications began to unwind his Hollywood holdings.

Brian L. Roberts — who with his father built Comcast into a cable TV and internet colossus — announced his company would spin off its prestigious NBCUniversal unit into a separate publicly traded company sometime next year.

The move reverses Roberts’ purchase of NBCUniversal in 2011 — a bold bet that created a behemoth with popular programming and cable pipes to pump that content into consumer homes.

Comcast’s breakup marks the close of a Hollywood era, one dominated for 40 years by a class of maverick moguls: Murdoch, CNN founder Ted Turner, Viacom’s Sumner Redstone, cable titan John Malone and the Philadelphia-based Roberts family.

Now, a new crop of leaders has emerged, reflecting Silicon Valley’s vast influence over the film and and TV business, which has been upended by streaming and, now, artificial intelligence.

“There was a time that Murdoch, Malone and Brian were really industry leaders who could affect change,” said Bank of America managing director Jessica Reif Ehrlich in an interview. “That’s not true any longer.”

Analysts widely believe Monday’s announcement is a prelude to eventual sales of both Comcast and NBCUniversal, a theory that Comcast rejects.

Roberts, 67, told analysts he will remain involved in both NBCUniversal and Comcast after the separation. Still, he plans to relinquish his chief executive role after 25 years and a half century at Comcast. Roberts has picked trusted associates to run each firm, and his family will continue to hold controlling shares of both companies.

But the shift underscores a dramatic loss of clout by Comcast and other traditional media enterprises. Netflix, Apple, Amazon and Google’s YouTube have diminished the industry’s financial pillars — box office receipts and cable programming fees — and given consumers control over when and how they watch programming.

Murdoch was the first to flee. In 2014, he was rebuffed in his $80-billion bid to beef up his 21st Century Fox by buying HBO, CNN and other Time Warner assets. Murdoch’s defeat led to the Fox asset sale to Walt Disney Co.

Last fall, Comcast made a run for the same properties with a plan to unite NBCUniversal with Warner Bros.

Instead, 43-year-old tech scion David Ellison — with help from his billionaire father, Oracle software co-founder Larry Ellison — scooped up the prize for a staggering $111 billion.

The pending blockbuster merger of Ellison’s Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery is expected to reshape the industry and leave NBCUniversal increasingly vulnerable to a takeover.

“It looks like Comcast’s NBCUniversal was left standing on the dance floor without a partner,” MoffettNathanson media analyst Robert Fishman wrote in a Tuesday note to investors.

Paramount’s play for Warner Bros. came a month after Ellison finalized his family’s purchase of cash-strapped Paramount from Shari Redstone. The one-two acquisition punch would propel the Ellison family to top-tier moguls with influence over CNN, CBS News, HBO, Turner Classic Movies and two historic Hollywood studios.

“It’s a flagging industry. … The industry will have to consolidate to survive,” said C. Kerry Fields, a USC Marshall School of Business economics professor. “Those who have content plus [streaming] distribution are going to be the winners.”

Roberts knows distribution. His father in 1963 bought his first cable TV system in Tupelo, Miss. It was a quirky bet for Ralph Roberts, who figured his belts and suspenders business would soon be toast as beltless polyester pants became the rage.

Brian Roberts joined Comcast as a high school intern, setting up supermarket promotions. In 1975, he became a trainee cable installer, climbing poles and stringing cables. He joined Comcast full time in 1981 after graduating the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.

For more than 30 years, he worked in tandem with his dad. With key associates, they built the nation’s foremost cable TV service — then the entertainment gateway — and grew stronger by offering internet, phone and then wireless service.

Analysts credit the 2011 purchase of NBCUniversal as a huge success; Comcast rescued a company that was on the ropes due to General Electric’s under-investment.

Over the years, Comcast rebuilt NBC and Spanish-language Telemundo, writing big checks for the best sports rights, including the FIFA World Cup, NFL, NBA and Major League Baseball.

Comcast also recognized value in theme parks and invested heavily, building Universal Studios as a formidable rival to Disney. NBC finished the season in first-place among traditional TV broadcasters and its L.A. film studio is an industry leader.

But the world has changed.

“One of the defining characteristics of this company has always been our willingness to look ahead, embrace change, and position ourselves for the future,” Roberts told analysts during a Monday call.

Reif Ehrlich, the Bank of America analyst, said Comcast needed to do something — or watch its stagnant stock sink farther.

Wall Street has punished the company amid steep losses in its cable TV and broadband internet units, and because NBCUniversal has historically generated its biggest profits from its cable channels.

In January, Comcast spun off those networks, including CNBC, MS NOW, USA Network and Golf Channel, to create a new entity called Versant.

But the move failed to boost Comcast’s battered stock, which dropped 3.3% on Wednesday to $23.73.

Five years ago, Comcast stock topped $50 a share.

“It was just a very challenged market on both sides, and it’s getting worse, not better,” Reif Ehrlich said.

Comcast faces competitors beyond traditional telecommunications firms, including AT&T and T-Mobile. SpaceX’s Starlink provides satellite internet service.

NBCUniversal must jockey alongside other well-capitalized players, including Amazon, Netflix and Disney. NBC’s streaming service, Peacock, has struggled to get traction. It counted 46 million paying subscribers as of the first quarter, a fraction of Netflix’s 325 million and the nearly 132 million subscribers of Disney+.

“It’s kind of a subscale player,” Reif Ehrlich said. “It’s just a real battle, and NBC has expensive sports rights.”

Roberts conceded the difficult landscape on the analyst call.

“The world is changing faster than ever,” Roberts said. “Technology, consumer behavior, competition, capital requirements are all evolving at an unprecedented pace … When we acquired NBCUniversal, more than 15 years ago, the industry looked very different.”

He will retain control for at least three years. The NBCUniversal spin-off is envisioned as a tax-free transaction for shareholders, providing a short-term buffer from deal-making to preserve that structure.

NBCUniversal could be up for grabs by 2029 — a pivotal year when the NFL is expected to open negotiations for a new round of broadcast rights. That auction is expected to draw heavy interest from Amazon and other streamers — not just veterans Fox, NBC, Disney’s ESPN and Paramount’s CBS.

“Brian Roberts has already proven his willingness to play the long game and with continued control should be the end decision maker,” Fishman said.

Much like Murdoch, who is now 95 and partially retired.

“Rupert was the smartest guy in Hollywood — he got out at the top,” Reif Ehrlich said.

He entrusted power to his 54-year-old son, Lachlan, who has been busy remaking Fox after the 2019 sale to Disney, which included Fox’s film and TV studios, streaming service Hulu and the FX and National Geographic channels. Fox also unloaded its regional cable sports networks — a savvy move before that business cratered.

The Murdochs kept Fox Sports, the Fox broadcast network, TV stations, Fox News Channel and the studio lot.

The company has been expanding. Lachlan Murdoch led Fox’s purchase of Tubi, which provides free TV channels and movies for smart televisions, keeping Fox in the streaming game. The company launched Fox News and weather products, and subscription service Fox One, which streams the company’s sports and news.

Earlier this month, Lachlan Murdoch stunned the industry by agreeing to pay $22 billion for Roku, a leading streaming platform that reaches 100 million viewers worldwide. Murdoch called the proposed purchase “a defining moment for Fox.”

Published on
02/07/2026 – 15:24 GMT+2

European car suppliers and manufacturers are divided over Brussels’ “Made in Europe” strategy, an effort to shield the EU market from Chinese competition.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The EU car industry is facing fierce competition from China, threatening hundreds of thousands of jobs across the bloc. To address the issue, the EU is preparing the so-called Industrial Accelerator Act, which is designed to favour electric vehicles constructed mostly with European components in public procurement and public support schemes.

However, EU car suppliers and manufacturers disagree over the proposed law, currently under discussion by EU countries and the European Parliament, which sets a 70 percent local content threshold for electric vehicles.

According to the European Association of Automotive Suppliers (CLEPA), the Commission’s proposal is a step in the right direction. Based on a study commissioned from management consultancy Roland Berger that Euronews has seen, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and battery-electric vehicles manufactured in Europe already contain between 80 percent and 90 percent made-in-Europe components.

Consequently, it considers the Commission’s 70 percent threshold to be achievable.

But the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA) is pushing for a different methodology, under which regulators would assess finished vehicles instead of the local content in vehicle components.

“A vehicle is far more than the sum of its parts. Its value also lies in the R&D, advanced engineering and highly skilled workforce behind it,” ACEA said in a position paper published on 1 July.

CLEPA responded that under this methodology, a finished vehicle would require only 50 percent EU-made parts and components, with the remaining 20 percent coming from R&D, design and other activities.

This 20 percentage-point dilution of the requirement for EU-made parts “could result in the loss of 350,000 jobs”, CLEPA warned, saying the Commission’s component-level approach would “safeguard the existing manufacturing base”.

“What we are looking at right now is significant competition from best-cost countries, and the dragon in the room is China,” CLEPA Secretary General Benjamin Krieger told Euronews.

“A ‘Made in Europe’ threshold that ignores where the actual parts are built is a label that ignores the European worker,” he said.

European airlines and airports call for flexibility to suspend digital border system amid severe delays.

The European Union’s new digital border check system is causing severe disruption to travel, with passengers facing five-hour queues and departure gates closing with planes only half-full, industry representatives have warned.

In an open letter published online on Wednesday, the top representative bodies for Europe’s airports and airlines said that delays caused by the bloc’s recently-implemented Entry/Exit System (EES) had reached a “critical point”.

“The current implementation of the EES is creating severe operational consequences, disrupting passengers and putting border authorities, airports and airlines under unsustainable pressure,” Airports Council International Europe, Airlines for Europe, and the International Air Transport Association said in a joint letter addressed to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

“We therefore urge your immediate intervention before the situation deteriorates further during the peak summer travel season.”

With European airports expected to handle 40 million more passengers in July and August than the previous two months, EU leaders “must take stock of the reality of the current situation and of what our air transport system will face over the coming weeks”, the lobby groups said.

“Without additional flexibility, existing challenges will inevitably intensify,” they said.

“As representatives of Europe’s aviation sector, we have a responsibility to warn that this would result in a significant worsening of an already very difficult situation for passengers.”

Warning that the travel disruption was undermining the reputation of the EU and European tourism, the industry groups said it was crucial that the continent continued to be an “efficient, welcoming and competitive” destination.

“Reports already suggest that some international travellers are reconsidering trips to Europe because of the prospect of excessive border delays,” they said.

Until the stability of the EES is ensured and adequate staffing levels are in place, EU member states should be immediately granted the flexibility to “completely suspend” the new system whenever passenger numbers exceed the “operational capacity” of border facilities, the lobby groups said.

The World Travel and Tourism Council, the world’s largest representative body for tourism-related businesses, said on Wednesday that it endorsed the letter’s calls, warning that the delays could put up to 41 million arrivals and $45.4bn in visitor spending at risk.

“If lengthy delays become accepted practice, travellers will look elsewhere,” WTTC President and CEO Gloria Guevara said in a statement.

“Europe cannot afford to compromise its competitiveness or the experience it offers millions of visitors.”

The European Commission did not immediately respond to a request for comment sent by Al Jazeera outside of regular business hours.

The EU began rolling out the EES in October as a replacement for passport stamping.

The system records each traveller’s name, passport information, fingerprints and facial images, and his or her date and place of entry and exit.

The European Commission announced that the ESS was “fully operational” across the Schengen Area in April, but the system has been blamed for lengthy delays since its introduction, including cases of flights leaving before many of their passengers were able to board.

June 30 (Asia Today) — South Korea is seeking to connect the growth of its commercial space industry with stronger national security capabilities as emerging technologies blur the boundaries between the private and public sectors.

The expansion of security concerns into space, drones and artificial intelligence has increased the importance of the Korea AeroSpace Administration, which is responsible for developing the country’s aerospace industry.

The agency is working with the National Intelligence Service and other government organizations on satellite cybersecurity and broader aerospace security policies.

Hyunjoon Kwon, director general for aerospace policy at the agency, told Asia Today in an interview Friday that space is no longer solely a scientific field.

“Space has moved beyond science to become a domain that can affect both security and industry,” Kwon said. “We need a mutually reinforcing relationship between the market and the public sector.”

Asked how the global space security environment is changing, Kwon said competition is no longer limited to the number of satellites a country possesses.

“The key question is how reliably a country can use and protect satellite communications and satellite imagery,” he said.

Space-based services have been used directly in military operations and critical national infrastructure since the start of the Russia-Ukraine war, Kwon said.

Countries also face increasingly complex threats, including GPS jamming and spoofing, disruptions to satellite communications, cyberattacks and the collision or uncontrolled reentry of objects in space.

Kwon said the agency is developing a national space situational awareness system to strengthen South Korea’s ability to monitor and predict space-related risks.

It is also preparing a cybersecurity response framework to protect space-based services used by the private sector, government and military.

South Korea has rapidly accumulated capabilities in launch vehicles, satellite development and satellite data applications, Kwon said. Its military space capabilities have also expanded.

However, the country still needs to strengthen its domestic production of critical materials, components and software, he said.

Other areas requiring improvement include space situational awareness, satellite cybersecurity and the creation of a sustainable commercial market for space services.

“That is why the growth of private space companies and greater independence in core technologies are becoming even more important,” Kwon said.

Cooperation among the private sector, government and military has entered a stage of institutional development since the establishment of the Korea AeroSpace Administration, he said.

The cooperative channels include a future defense science and technology policy council with the Defense Ministry, an aerospace project memorandum with the Defense Acquisition Program Administration and a satellite cybersecurity consultative body with the National Intelligence Service.

Kwon said the cooperation now extends beyond individual projects to include policy, technology and security.

The agency is seeking to create a structure in which private-sector technology is connected to government and national security requirements, while public and defense demand supports the growth of commercial companies.

Kwon also discussed the government’s recently announced strategy to foster innovative companies in emerging security industries.

“Aerospace is a strategic field that influences both security and industry, extending beyond the boundaries of science and technology,” he said.

Satellite communications, satellite data, unmanned aircraft and space materials and components have significant commercial growth potential while also meeting direct security needs, Kwon said.

The agency plans to focus on establishing a cycle in which the creation of new industries strengthens national security capabilities and security demand encourages further technological innovation.

The plans include developing core technologies for a space data center under the K-Moonshot initiative and building a national platform that will make satellite information available for broader use.

The agency also plans to develop artificial intelligence-powered unmanned aircraft and electric or hybrid vertical takeoff and landing aircraft.

— 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=20260629010010198

We made it. With just days left in Phase I voting, this week marks the last issue of The Envelope, and the last edition of this letter from the editor, until we return with a crop of newly minted Emmy nominees in August.

Until then, may you have a summer as magical as a German soccer fan’s road trip through the American South — and enjoy reading the below highlights from our coverage.

Cover story: ‘Industry’

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

How do “Industry” stars Myha’la and Marisa Abela want the series to end? Let’s just say they are as unsentimental about their characters as series creators Mickey Down and Konrad Kay.

“I want there to be a huge statue of Harper Stern in front of J.P. Morgan,” Myha’la says of her hard-charging trader. “And a bird s— on her arm.”

“In her mouth,” interjects Abela, who plays Harper’s No. 1 frenemy Yasmin Kara-Hanani.

After the laughter ringing through the room subsides, though, Abela does allow for a moment of reverence — for the HBO drama if not for the disreputable people who populate it. “I don’t know if I need Yasmin to be happy at the end of it,” the actor says, reflecting on her character’s emergence as a Ghislaine Maxwell type in the Season 4 finale. “I know I want it to feel worthy of everything that has come before… What I love about the show is that [the writers] don’t often backtrack. You commit to something and then you have to live with the f— fallout. Which is savage.”

Read more of our conversation in this week’s cover story.

Writers Roundtable

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

Though he joined The Envelope’s 2026 Emmy Writers Roundtable to discuss the return of another beloved comedy, “The Comeback,” we couldn’t resist asking Michael Patrick King about the intense fan reactions to his “Sex and the City” revival “And Just Like That…”

“What happened was, it was really well made, but it wasn’t their Carrie,” he said. “Even though you stand behind it, you go, ‘Wow, that’s a surprise. I thought that they would be interested in 57-year-old women who still hadn’t figured everything out. And instead they wanted them to be 35 and still allowed to be lost.’”

For more juicy tidbits from the minds of of TV’s top writers, be sure to check out the full conversation, which also included Megan Gallagher (“All Her Fault”), Jonathan Glatzer (“The Audacity”), Andrew Guest (“Wonder Man”), Bruce Miller (“The Testaments”) and Sonja Warfield (“The Gilded Age”).

How Connor Hines won over Ryan Murphy

Writer Connor Hines, who translated the real-life relationship between JFK Jr. and Carolyn Bessette into FX’s major hit “Love Story.”

(Evan Mulling / For The Times)

While our On Writing series of screenwriter essays are always revealing — about the inspiration behind a series, the process of adaptation or the making of a major plot turn, to name just a few — I don’t remember one as candid about the art of the pitch as Connor Hines’. In this week’s issue, the writer behind “Love Story: John F. Kennedy Jr. and Carolyn Bessette” explains how he prepared to present his vision for the new anthology’s first season to one of TV’s most powerful producers, Ryan Murphy. As it turns out, landing the meeting is not the (only) hard part.

“I spent roughly three months in the trenches with [producers] Brad [Simpson] and Nina [Jacobson], deepening and refining my presentation [to Murphy] — one that I’d recite in the shower, on runs, at Trader Joe’s, while I drove,” Hines writes. “It was a crash course in storytelling, producing, and understanding the alchemy that propelled so many of Ryan’s shows into the zeitgeist.”

More stories from our June 16 issue

The Directors Guild of America on Thursday night said it approved a four-year contract with the major studios.

The new contract will boost studio contributions to DGA’s healthcare plan, increase minimum salaries and offer AI protections. The DGA declined to say how many voted in favor of the contract, but in a memo to members, union President Christopher Nolan and National Executive Director Russell Hollander said members “voted overwhelmingly” to ratify it.

“Throughout this process, our focus was clear: protect our members, strengthen the Guild, and address the challenges facing our industry during a period of profound change,” Nolan and Hollander wrote in a memo to members sent on Thursday. “… We have achieved critical wins that put the Guild in a position to further protect our members economic and creative rights now and into the future.”

The newly ratified contract provides some stability in Hollywood, about three years after a summer of strikes led by the Writers Guild of America and performers guild SAG-AFTRA. WGA approved a contract with major studios under the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers in April and SAG-AFTRA members ratified their contract in June. All the contracts extend the terms to four years instead of three years, which studios had sought out.

The AMPTP in a statement thanked DGA, WGA and SAG-AFTRA “for their thoughtful and collaborative approach to negotiations.”

“Together, we reached agreements that deliver substantial gains for guild members while supporting greater stability across the entertainment business,” the AMPTP said. “We are encouraged by the trust built throughout this cycle and look forward to building on that momentum to advance opportunity and shared success across our industry.”

The new DGA contract starts on July 1 and runs through June 30, 2030. Key aspects of the agreement include requiring the studios to increase their contribution to DGA’s health plan by 24.4% over four years. In return, the DGA would support “modest” increases to the eligibility threshold and annual premiums.

The contract also increases minimum salaries on many jobs by 2.5% in the first year and up 3% for each of the following years in the agreement.

It also adds more rules around the use of AI technology, including requiring that directors oversee any footage created by artificial intelligence.

When David Jacks published a biography of Peter Asher in 2022, the veteran record producer and manager expressed surprise that anyone would have deemed his life worthy of the treatment. Four years later, he’s no less baffled to have become the subject of a new documentary, “Peter Asher: Everywhere Man,” directed by the filmmakers Dan Geller and Dayna Goldfine.

“It just seemed to me,” he says, “that I wouldn’t be that fascinating.”

The movie, in theaters now, argues otherwise: A child actor alongside his two younger sisters, the bespectacled Asher became an unlikely pop star during the British invasion as half of the duo Peter & Gordon, whose debut single, “A World Without Love” — written by Paul McCartney — hit No. 1 on Billboard’s Hot 100 in 1964. (McCartney offered the song to Asher while the Beatle was dating Asher’s sister Jane.) In 1968, the Beatles made Asher head of A&R at Apple Records, where he signed James Taylor; the two soon moved to Los Angeles and turned Taylor into music’s biggest heartthrob folkie.

Asher went on to shepherd Linda Ronstadt to stardom and to produce records by Diana Ross, Cher, Bonnie Raitt, Randy Newman, Neil Diamond and 10,000 Maniacs, among many others. And at 82 he’s still at it: Last year he produced Barbra Streisand’s latest duets album — they’re due to start work on a new Streisand solo LP, he says — and he’ll perform a show of his own July 19 at the Grammy Museum. Asher, who broke his leg in a recent fall, spoke about it all the other morning at his home in Malibu, where he walked into the kitchen using a cane before sitting down at a table set with pastries and several of the day’s newspapers.

What unites the jobs of musician, producer, executive, manager? What’s the through line?
Love of music and admiration for the people who do it. They’re very different jobs, and I came at them from very different perspectives. Record production was something I set out to do once I understood what a record producer did. Hire musicians much better than yourself and tell them what to do? That’s a cool job — how do I get in on that racket? Whereas I never had any ambitions to be a manager. It’s just that when James and I decided to go out on our own and try to put a career together, we didn’t know who we trusted to do it, so I kind of went, I’ll do it.

What’d you discover about the job of management?
The ingredients are common sense, not being a crook and having a great client.

Which is the hardest of those three?
The last one. I got to induct the first managers inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame: Brian Epstein and Andrew Loog Oldham — the Beatles and the Stones. That’s the hard part. The only thing that would tempt me back into management would be lightning striking for a third time — to see James, to see Linda, then to see somebody comparably brilliant, which I occasionally do. But usually they have a manager already.

What’s the last new act that knocked you out?
Ed Sheeran.

Was that just because he looks like he could be your grandson?
That certainly crossed my mind.

As a producer, your records helped define the sound of rock in the ’70s.
The so-called California sound.

Then the zeitgeist shifted.
One became aware of that. Pop music got very electronic, which I loved.

Was there a place for you in that style?
I didn’t consciously try to make records in that style because I don’t think I could have — not as well as they were being made anyway.

What’s a record from the early ’80s that made you think that?
“Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This).” I couldn’t do that.

Back to the ’70s: The doc is filled with pictures of James looking —
Like a movie star. With the cover of “JT,” I finally went all the way and said, “We’re doing the the glamour shot.” Then we did “Flag,” which everyone hated.

With the maritime flag. A truly perverse album cover.
I loved it. James loved it. Everyone thought we were crazy.

How crucial do you think James’ good looks were to his whole proposition?
I don’t know.

Oh, come on.
I really don’t. I mean, how would you gauge that? There’s probably girls who fell in love with him without listening to the record.

I think you just gauged it.
If he was ugly, would he be as big a star? Probably not.

(Evan Mulling / For The Times)

Same applies to Linda, right?
When I first saw Linda, it was stages of realization. Someone said to me, “You’ve got to go down and see this girl at the Bitter End.” I walk in and she’s singing so well — unspeakably good. Then she looks incredibly great — barefoot, short-shorts. Oh, my God, my heart. Then you meet her, and it turns out she’s a remarkably brilliant woman — extremely well read. You just kind of go, “All these things together — how can it be?” It’s the same thing talking about the Beatles: If you cast it like the Spice Girls, you still couldn’t have gotten four to fit together so perfectly.

Did you like the Spice Girls?
Terrific. “Tell me what you want / What you really, really want” — it’s a smash. And yet none of them are particularly good singers, which is kind of the point.

I went to an event not long ago where Paul McCartney played his new album for a small group of fans. It was fascinating to see the spell McCartney casts over people.
He’s had to get used to it — to admit to himself that he can’t meet people who aren’t amazed that they’re meeting him. Even as someone who’s known him off and on for a long time, you still get the wave of: Holy s—.

You’re still amazed to be around him?
Of course. I get it less — I’m ready for it. But you can’t pretend he’s not Paul McCartney. And he’s gotta live with that his whole life.

You grew up a member of the upper crust, I think it’s fair to say.
I don’t think we were that crusty. But upper, probably, yes.

I wondered how that situated you to live and work among artistic types.
If anything, the upper crust have more time to be artistic — less preoccupied with getting a job and making a living. But my parents worked incredibly hard — we weren’t upper crust in the sense of inherited wealth. My father was a doctor, my mother was a professor of music. But I never struggled, to be honest. I had a comfortable allowance, and then I went to school and worked hard. Everyone talks about sharing a flat with a million people, living on borrowed sandwiches — I skipped that phase.

Did that shape you in any meaningful way?
I don’t know. But I think when people do struggle, it becomes a meaningful part of their lives to get away from it. With someone like James, the struggle was a struggle with drugs. Now he says the worst thing about drugs is they’re a complete waste of time — you waste time doing nothing except looking for drugs. And I think that made him anxious to succeed and to be taken seriously.

I’m sure you saw the New York Times’ list of the 30 greatest living American songwriters.
You knew it was gonna be silly. Randy Newman, for God’s sake — you just cannot not include him.

No Neil Diamond either.
Insane.

And no Billy Joel.
[Shrugs].

How’s your health?
High blood pressure, high cholesterol, need to work out more — old man stuff. Other than that and a broken leg, great.

You’re OK with the cane?
It’s a considerable upgrade from the wheelchair. I like the cane — it’s kind of elegant.

What seems scarier: the body going or the mind going?
The mind going. And it is, slightly. I had a stroke, and bits of my brain aren’t quite working right. But compared to other people I know, I’m fine.

We’re at a moment when a lot of foundational rock ’n’ roll figures —
Are dying. It’s all the rage.

What’s it feel like to see your friends and colleagues go?
Better them than me.

Couple more for you: You managed Courtney Love for a spell.
I met her here in Malibu. I also managed Pamela Anderson for a while because she was a neighbor and asked me to help.

What, you put a shingle out?
“Manager for hire.” I’m trying to remember how I first met Courtney — I think Merck Mercuriadis was talking to her about publishing and Kurt stuff. I liked her. Very smart. I like smart women.

She’s easy to work with? Hard to work with?
Impossible to work with.

What’s James Taylor’s best album?
“JT,” maybe.

What’s Linda Ronstadt’s best album?
“Heart Like a Wheel.” With Linda, it’s unfair because they’re so radically different. How do you compare that to a mariachi record and then to Nelson Riddle?

Working with Riddle on those albums must have been a thrill.
He told us all these incredible stories about Frank Sinatra, who he didn’t like although he admired him enormously. It was John David Souther who originally suggested Nelson. Linda had tried doing the album a different way — did some versions with Jerry Wexler and it didn’t work out. So we had a meeting with Nelson: Would he consider doing a couple of arrangements for us? He went, “No.” We said, “What?” He said, “I’ll do an album, though.”

“A World Without Love” was one of eight songs to top the chart in 1964 with “love” in the title. What’s that say about pop music in the mid-’60s?
Same thing it says about pop music of all time: It’s either “I love you” or “She loves you” or “Why don’t you love me?” Weird Al pointed out to me that when you’re looking for a parody of a song, any song that has “love” in the title, substitute “lunch” and it’s funny. “A World Without Lunch” — I mean, who would want to live in such a place?

A coalition of advocacy groups for artists, songwriters and managers is warning musicians about the growing risks of artificial intelligence music.

Recently, many major record labels have inked deals with AI music startups such as Suno, Udio and Klay. But the coalition, which includes organizations such as the Music Artists Coalition and the Songwriters of North America, argues in a new letter that “artists and songwriters whose works, voices, performances, likenesses and creative identities make those deals valuable are not being meaningfully consulted.”

The letter, released Monday, stated that many artists and songwriters in existing recording and publishing agreements are currently receiving letters from their labels and publishers claiming that they “will be opted in to AI-related uses by default, with little actual choice offered.” Even new artists are receiving agreements that include “AI rights clauses as a standard condition of signing.”

“We support innovation and recognise that AI can create new opportunities for music,” the coalition wrote in the letter. “However artists are not simply catalogue assets, and innovation cannot be used to override artists’ rights.”

The National Independent Talent Organization, a live entertainment advocacy group that signed the letter, said many of its members are coming to the organization with label contracts that include “non-negotiable AI usage clauses.”

“We can’t allow for contract language signed decades before this technology existed to be the standard bearer. These rights belong to the creators and they get the final say on usage,” said Nathaniel Marro, NITO’s executive director, in a statement to The Times.

“Music companies are leading the fight to protect artists’ and songwriters’ rights in the age of AI,” said a spokesperson for IFPI, the recording industry’s global trade body.

“While our members have taken different approaches, they share the same fundamental objectives: combating the unauthorized use of music and establishing licensing models that return revenue to artists and songwriters,” the IFPI spokesperson added.

The coalition is asking the industry to move forward on AI deals only under four conditions: that musicians directly consent to any agreement; that artists receive fair compensation; that there be transparency between the companies and the talent; and that companies make a public commitment to end contracts built on default AI opt-ins and forced AI clauses.

“Artists need a real seat in these conversations, clear terms on revenue share, and the ability to say no without losing their deal,” said Ron Gubitz, the Music Artists Coalition’s executive director, in a statement.

This letter comes at a time when policymakers are reviewing copyright rules in response to AI and when streaming platforms and social media platforms are overflowing with AI-generated music.

A little over two weeks ago, the American Federation of Musicians sued Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group. The complaint claims the major labels “received significant compensation” from the AI companies for past copyright violations and licensed “substantial” portions of their music catalogs to them, but haven’t shared that with the musicians.

Despite the confrontational tone of the letter, some signatories struck a more conciliatory note. Overall, the industry seems to be receptive to these AI changes, said Willie “Prophet” Stiggers of the Black Music Action Coalition, another signatory advocacy group. At this point in AI’s development, he added, everyone in the industry — from artists and labels to AI start-ups and policymakers — has a responsibility to establish effective guardrails.

“The companies building these technologies understand that trust is essential to long-term success, and trust begins with respecting creators’ rights,” Stiggers said in a statement to The Times. “There’s still important work ahead, but we’re encouraged that the conversation has shifted from whether protections are needed to how we build them together.”

“The structures being created now will shape the music ecosystem for years to come,” the coalition’s letter said. “The future of music must be built with artists, songwriters and their representatives, not imposed on them.”

Times staff writer Wendy Lee contributed to this report.

One day, when people say “they don’t make ’em like they used to,” they will be saying it about “Industry.”

First filmed before the pandemic and launched in its throes, a survivor of the era of streaming wars, corporate consolidation and Hollywood strikes, HBO’s addictively dissolute workplace drama remains as ambitious and authoritative as ever. Indeed, despite being divided from predecessors like “Mad Men,” “Succession” and “The Leftovers” by a series of epochal crises, it more closely resembles a vestigial tail of the medium’s past than most of its current counterparts: Out of place and out of time, “Industry” can best be understood as the last great drama of TV’s golden age.

Cast member and “Game of Thrones” alum Kit Harington, resident expert on series that reshaped the medium, agrees that “Industry” is a bit of a throwback in this respect.

“If you scroll back to ‘Game of Thrones’ in the first two seasons, it wasn’t a massive Goliath success, and it exploded after Season 3 with the Red Wedding. I think there’s a similar story going on here,” he says. “So often in TV at the moment, you’re given one season and everyone needs to pack in f— everything to get people hooked. But they’re burning through too much story. Season 2 is then done; the characters haven’t got anywhere to go. I think this is where this show has been successful, is that it was given that time to breathe.”

Earlier this spring, I convened “Industry’s” creators and cast in a conference room at The Times to walk me through its evolution into one of the best shows on television, and what to expect from its impending end.

Marisa Abela, left, Kit Harington and Myha’la.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

‘What the f— are you thinking, guys?’

A trading-floor knife fight of hot, young strivers, or “grads,” competing for a permanent place at the fictional Pierpoint investment bank, the first season of “Industry,” filmed in 2019, premiered in the waning months of 2020 as a warped love letter to office culture. But for Konrad Kay and Mickey Down, the emerging writers at the helm, the voice of the series didn’t fully take shape until they’d found their main cast, including Myha’la, as hard-charging American Harper Stern, and Marisa Abela, as privileged publishing heiress Yasmin Kara-Hanani.

Kay: Season 1, me and Mickey were really green.

Down: We actually pitched HBO on the idea that it was going to be eight episodes, it was going to be in different months, and the big-bang dramatics were going to happen between the episodes. A bit like “Boyhood.” Huge things would happen in between episodes, and the episode would be about the reaction to those huge things. And they were like, “What the f— are you thinking, guys?” It was so antidramatic.

Abela: I had a lot of rounds of auditioning for Yasmin. They weren’t sure about me at all. I think part of it was because they were quite hellbent on her being vulnerable, on her being soft, and that was what I was playing in those first two, three episodes. … And what happens in any functional collaboration is you start to see what they really want from you — what it is that they need from your character. And in those moments of conflict, the moments of change, Yasmin has to stand up for herself at some point, otherwise it’s too wet.

Mickey Down.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Down: Yasmin was all vulnerability masked by Prada in script, and then you came in and you were very hard. [Laughs.]

Abela: There is one scene with [Yasmin’s abusive supervisor] Kenny [played by Conor MacNeill] in Season 2 where … Yasmin turns around to him and tells him to f— off, basically: “You don’t have a disease, you’re a narcissist, with a new excuse to lord it over people. You’re weak.” I think that’s the first time that Yasmin became a gangster. I was watching “Real Housewives of New Jersey” at the time, being completely honest. She can go really mob wife really quick.

Myha’la: I had almost the exact opposite experience in terms of finding or deciding who Harper was. When I read the scripts initially, I just thought, “There’s no way in hell that Harper can’t be steely and [on offense], because she’s clearly feeling out of her depth, and as a young woman of color going into a new space like this, you can’t show up like you’re vulnerable. You’re already expected to do poorly.” … On the page, Harper was an anxious person when I first met her in the pilot episode. She was sweaty and clammy and stammering. And I just thought, “Hell no!”

Down: Sometimes when we write the character, we focus on one thing, and then the actor comes in and then that one thing we thought the character was becomes the artifice that they have to play.

Harington: Great TV writers genuinely learn their actors as well as their characters, and they tie those things in as it goes through.

Abela: As much as they know how we speak now, we know how they speak. If Yasmin has a “F— off,” I know what they want with that. If she says “F— off,” it’s very different to “F— you.”

Down: It’s like playing the piano with the foot pedal, blindfolded.

Kay: When you get super-talented actors doing your writing, you sort of fall in love with them doing everything. There’s no story we can’t tell with them.

‘Am I being fired?’

The series’ second season, which opens with Pierpoint’s post-COVID return to office, found the grads established enough to become “active characters,” and the creators confident enough to begin breaking the mold they’d set for themselves in Season 1. From the nail-biting trade sequence with which Harper wins over hedge fund manager Jesse Bloom (Jay Duplass) to her firing from Pierpoint in the Season 2 finale, it marked the arrival of “Industry’s” distinctive, go-for-broke aesthetic.

Kay: [In] Season 2 we were still figuring out what the show was, and we had Jami O’Brien as our co-showrunner, who really professionalized me and Mickey towards the American system, towards how to be producers, curbed some of our more bombastic instincts, made us more professional in terms of some of the style of the writing we were doing, found a cleaner version of the show and a cleaner version of the story.

Konrad Kay.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Down: [The Bloom trade] was one of the first times in the show where we were like, “Wow, we’ve actually created something kind of singular,” in that we were able to create scenes of people trading, [using] financial jargon that no one understands, and make it feel like a car chase. The contrast between the Harper that’s on the trading floor being able to be in command of that with all the people looking at her, and then the Harper that’s in the loo afterwards in floods of tears, that for me was kind of the moment where we thought that we had a completely 3D, rounded character.

Myha’la: If you asked me to do the Jesse Bloom trade scene again, I’d piss myself. Because at least when I did it two seasons ago, I could have anxiety and fear percolating inside me. If I had to do it today, I’d have to do it confidently, and I would have to try really hard because so much of the language is truly blind memorization and being able to juggle particularly the f— phones. … You have to get the choreo[graphy] so good and you have to know the words so well so that you can do the important part, and that’s the subtext — communicating the feelings of the thing, which are not in the words. Which I love. It is so hard.

Harington: When you first read the scripts, you can’t understand a lot of what’s on the page. … You look at it, you go, “This is f— impossible.”

Myha’la.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Myha’la: This is not spoon-feeding the audience. “I’m sorry that you’re hurting because I know last summer your mom died in a car crash.” They don’t do that.

Kay: Do you know who hates that about us? Network executives. [Laughs.]

Down: We had a kind of mantra the first season especially, and then going into the second, that we would never have a scene that didn’t have one of our four main leads in it. And then, just for the necessity of the storytelling, we said, “We have to pop out of that perspective.” I don’t think HBO realized what a big decision that was, because I don’t think they’d actually realized we’d kept this mantra that we were never going to go away from the perspective of the grads.

Kay: It’s also where we broke the rule of, “We’re not going to just tell the bottom-up story; we’re going to go to the top.” When we sold the show, we were like, “This is a bottom-up story,” and then by that point we were like, “Actually, we have these older characters who might have these really rich inner lives that we should also explore.”

Myha’la: We blew the s— up. [Harper’s firing] forced us all outside the bank, which was dangerous and scary for me and really exciting and was how we got to see all the other things that Mickey and Konrad are capable of doing. I think they didn’t tell me before, so I was like, “Am I being fired?” [Laughs.]

Down: We thought we were all being fired. The reason the show evolves so much is because we basically never know whether we’re coming back, so we just blow up everything. We try to leave the audience with a satisfying conclusion. And then we get renewed, and then we have to basically write ourselves out of a corner. So Harper getting fired could have ended the whole show.

‘Oh, poor Henry’

Given time to develop its characters, refine its style and grow its audience, “Industry” returned for Season 3 with all the trappings of a series that had finally arrived: effusive critical acclaim, proliferating fan accounts and buzzy arcs by Sarah Goldberg and Harington, as playboy and erstwhile green–energy executive Henry Muck. Had it premiered just a few years later, “Industry” may have ended up on the chopping block before finding its footing; instead, it was allowed to achieve “terminal velocity.”

Kay: What happened between Seasons 2 and 3 was, we got renewed. We didn’t think we were going to get renewed. We operated from the principle of, “We might never get to do this again.” And that was incredibly freeing for me and Mickey because it was just like, “We’re gonna get eight hours, let’s just do everything we possibly can within that eight hours. Let’s indulge every creative impulse we’ve ever had. Let’s take the stabilizers off the story. Let’s not necessarily keep it within Pierpoint.” What we felt like was a perfect marriage of creative latitude, trust in ourselves and the right point in our arc of writing the show and directing and producing. We reached terminal velocity, where we could actually do all of the stuff that we were pretending we could do in the first two seasons.

Kit Harington.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Harington: When I joined up in Season 3, I had a good handful of friends who watched the show. It may be bigger than you think it was from the inside. It’s been fascinating for me, joining when I did and seeing it grow again … We all want to do stuff that people actually watch. We’d be lying if we said we didn’t. We’ve all done jobs that we really love and no one’s f— seen. When there’s a focus in on something that you know is good and you love, that’s more rare than you think. I started in this job in “Game of Thrones” and just assumed, “That’s, like, how jobs go. You get invited to the Emmys every year and everyone frigging watches it.”

Kay: The softness in Henry was a function of Kit playing the character and us writing to that vulnerability. There’s a totally different version of that character which never unlocks that kind of thinking in me and [Mickey].

Harington: You know that moment where it’s all going to s— with Lumi and he just gets up and he’s like, “None of this is real” and he f— off? For me, that was it. Because it was like, “Wait a minute, he can’t just leave the f— room” — and he does. I think that kind of sums him up. I got a handle of him properly then, and that was quite an early one we shot.

Down: He has a sense of entitlement most of the other characters don’t have.

Myha’la: But you still manage to make me feel bad for you. I’m like, “Oh, poor Henry.” Do you know what I mean? Isn’t that psychotic?

Down: I said it to him in an email recently. Somehow he managed to make an ex-Tory minister who bankrupted his company twice and needed bailouts from the British public — [a] junkie, adulterer — the most vulnerable and probably most empathetic character on the show, in some respects.

Harington: He’s one of the few characters who is actually trying to do good. Even if it’s about him being perceived as doing good. … It’s also very smartly done in how you demarcate addiction and drug-taking. You’ve got most of the characters, who can kind of put it down, but then you’ve got Rishi [a Pierpoint trader played by Sagar Radia] and Henry, who are a different kettle of fish. And also how it creeps up.

Kay: As a sober person playing that stuff, is there a psychic trigger in your brain that sort of feels like it’s happening?

Harington: I was very worried about coming in and doing some of this stuff, but quite quickly realized I was A) sober enough for long enough to go back there safely; and B) it was a sort of muscle memory, a lot of it. I get to exorcise this stuff in my job. How many ex-addicts get to do that? It was a kind of cathartic thing.

Marisa Abela.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Abela: There’s a real freedom that comes with drugs, alcohol, whatever it is, for the character. Those are the moments when you can really open the lid on something.

Myha’la: When you’re f— up, you’re uninhibited, so you can do your own thing, but I think you’re also taking the other person at face value. I feel like it sort of takes the judgment away. It creates a kind of childlike innocence.

Down: If you’re in a situation like that, you can skip like five stages of relationship if there’s a big bag of drugs in front of you. That’s something we try to capture.

‘Where we leave the characters feels so perfect’

Earlier this year, HBO announced that “Industry” had been renewed for a fifth and final season. But it was Season 4 — which finds Harper and Yasmin’s friendship in tatters, Yasmin and Henry’s marriage at an end, and the structure of the show evolving yet again to draw on new characters and genre influences — that led Down and Kay to determine that the series’ time had come.

Kay: We did think to ourselves, “OK, so we’re going to do a Season 4, which means the show is a kind of success in and of itself, which means we can start to think about ending. If you get four seasons, you’re probably going to get five. So we felt that it created latitude there. What we thought to ourselves was, “We meet these two women in the pilot. If you’re going to spend five seasons of TV with them, what is the starkest contrast you can do between how you meet them and where they end up?” … When we started, the show was about not having power. Five seasons in, they have it. Then what do you do with it? The phrase me and Mickey have been talking about is this idea of “arrival fallacy.” You climb and climb, you’re at the top of the mountain. Is there another peak? Do I sit here and enjoy the view?

Down: We’re writing Season 5 right now, and without giving too much away, we’re approaching that season very differently in terms of how information’s parceled out.

Kay: It’s very dense, though, isn’t it? Honestly, it might be the densest season. There’s a lot of theology in it, actually.

Down: We talked about doing a sixth [season], and then quite honestly we thought that was going to be diminishing returns. … We would have been pulling our punches constantly. This has been one of the most creatively fulfilling versions of the show, because we are writing towards a conclusion that we know is the conclusion. We’re thinking of images for the last 10 minutes that we know are going to be what the audience is left with, and that’s really, really thrilling for us as writers. I’ve never once thought, “God, I wish we were doing a sixth one,” as much as I love writing and making the show. Where we leave the characters feels so perfect.

Western governments are pouring tens of billions of dollars into critical minerals projects as they attempt to reduce dependence on China for materials essential to clean energy, defence technology and advanced manufacturing.

But industry executives, analysts and investors are increasingly warning that poorly coordinated state-backed investment could create severe oversupply problems similar to past commodity booms that ended in market crashes.

The concerns come as countries including the United States, Australia, European Union and Japan accelerate efforts to build strategic reserves and expand production of rare earths and other critical minerals.

Governments Ramp Up Critical Minerals Spending

The United States has committed more than $20 billion toward critical minerals development through multiple financing programmes, including Project Vault, a strategic stockpiling initiative worth around $10 billion.

Australia has also allocated at least A$13 billion to support critical minerals projects and reserves through several government-backed programmes.

These investments are designed to secure supplies of metals used in electric vehicles, semiconductors, renewable energy systems, aerospace equipment and military technologies.

Particular attention has focused on rare earth elements, a group of 17 metals essential for producing powerful magnets used in advanced defence systems and high-tech manufacturing.

Although the global rare earths market was valued at only about $6.4 billion in 2024, combined Western financial commitments to rare earth projects have already exceeded that figure.

Fears Grow Over Potential Oversupply

Mining executives and analysts warn that aggressive subsidies and overlapping national strategies could eventually flood global markets with excess supply.

Brett Beatty of Resource Capital Funds said the biggest danger lies in governments pursuing independent strategies without coordination.

According to Beatty, simultaneous efforts to rapidly increase production could create volumes far beyond global demand, ultimately crushing prices and undermining the very industries governments are trying to build.

Analysts drew comparisons to historical commodity gluts, including Europe’s “butter mountains” of the 1980s, Russian aluminium oversupply and Australia’s wool crisis, where subsidies and state support distorted markets and triggered sharp price collapses.

Rare Earth Market Could Face Surplus Pressures

Consultancy Project Blue warned that several rare earth markets are already on track to move into surplus over the coming years due to expanding state-backed production.

However, analyst David Merriman said governments may still be able to avoid major imbalances if they carefully adjust subsidies, stockpiling programmes and guaranteed purchasing arrangements.

Industry leaders say current stockpiles remain relatively small, limiting immediate risks of market disruption.

Lynas Rare Earths CEO Amanda Lacaze recently said rare earth stockpiles around the world remain modest and are not yet large enough to destabilise markets.

Australian Resources Minister Madeleine King also argued that today’s critical minerals policies differ significantly from past commodity intervention failures because they are more targeted and linked to long-term industrial supply chains.

Global Coordination Emerging Among Western Allies

Concerns about duplication and oversupply are pushing Western governments toward greater policy coordination.

The Group of Seven is reportedly discussing the creation of a permanent secretariat focused on coordinating critical mineral strategies and ensuring continuity between rotating national presidencies.

Industry experts say such coordination could help prevent destructive competition between allied nations while supporting more stable investment planning.

Lessons From Congo and Indonesia

Governments outside the West have already experimented with aggressive intervention in mineral markets.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo boosted cobalt prices by introducing export quotas and stockpiling measures designed to increase mining revenues.

While the policy initially lifted prices, analysts warn prolonged restrictions could encourage manufacturers to seek alternative materials or suppliers.

Similarly, Indonesia dramatically expanded its dominance in nickel production after banning exports of raw nickel ore in 2020 to force domestic processing investment.

Indonesia’s production surged within just a few years, but authorities have since struggled with falling prices and oversupply, forcing Jakarta to tighten mining quotas and centralise export controls.

These examples highlight the difficulty governments face in balancing national industrial ambitions with long-term market stability.

Analysis

The global race for critical minerals is increasingly becoming a strategic contest shaped as much by geopolitics as by economics.

Western governments view supply chain independence as essential after years of relying heavily on China for processing capacity and rare earth production. The push is not simply about commercial competition — it is tied directly to national security, technological leadership and energy transition goals.

However, the very scale of state intervention now unfolding raises the risk of creating distorted markets. If multiple governments simultaneously subsidise production, guarantee prices and build stockpiles without coordination, supply could rapidly outpace actual industrial demand.

That scenario would likely trigger sharp price declines, weaken private investment and potentially create another boom-and-bust cycle in the mining sector.

At the same time, the market dynamics of critical minerals differ from traditional commodities. Many of these materials are essential for emerging technologies, and demand is expected to rise significantly over the next two decades as countries expand renewable energy infrastructure, battery production and semiconductor manufacturing.

This means governments are not only competing to secure supply today but also positioning themselves for future industrial dominance.

Another key challenge is that refining and processing capabilities remain heavily concentrated in China. Even if Western countries succeed in expanding mining output, they may still depend on Chinese infrastructure unless domestic processing networks are developed alongside extraction projects.

The growing emphasis on “friend-shoring” and allied supply chains reflects an attempt to address this vulnerability.

Industry experts also point to a more sustainable model emerging through byproduct extraction. Instead of building entirely new mines based purely on high prices, companies are increasingly looking to recover critical minerals from existing industrial operations, reducing the risk of uncontrolled supply growth.

Projects involving Alcoa, Sojitz and Trafigura illustrate how governments and corporations are experimenting with lower-risk approaches to expanding supply.

Ultimately, the success of Western critical minerals strategies may depend less on how much money governments spend and more on whether they can coordinate policies, manage supply carefully and build integrated processing ecosystems capable of competing with China over the long term.

With information from Reuters.

The travel industry is on edge after Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin reiterated his threat to withdraw U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers from airports in so-called sanctuary cities in a move that could jeopardize international flights.

The U.S. Travel Assn. said that Mullin confirmed he is considering withdrawing the officers in a meeting where the trade group was pressing its concerns about other proposals the Trump administration is considering that could hamper travel. The travel association and major airlines quickly condemned the idea, and even Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said it doesn’t make sense to him.

“U.S. Travel believes such a move would have devastating consequences for the travel industry and communities that depend on international visitation,” the industry group said Friday in a statement.

Details of the meeting were first reported by the Atlantic.

Duffy said at a congressional hearing this week that he wasn’t familiar with Mullin’s remarks, and he’d like to learn more about the context and maybe ask Mullin a question about what he meant. But Duffy said it would be a bad idea to start restricting travel based on political views. After all, he acknowledged, at some point Democrats will be in charge and “you will all switch spots at one point — hopefully not too soon, Mr. Chairman.”

“We have people from around the world and around the country that need to be able to fly into all different kinds of places. We shouldn’t shut down air travel in a state that doesn’t agree with our politics,” Duffy said.

So it’s not clear how much support this idea has within the administration, though President Trump has previously threatened to withhold funding from sanctuary cities.

There is no strict definition for sanctuary policies or sanctuary cities, but the terms generally refer to jurisdictions that limit cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. And courts have rejected the idea of pulling funding from them in the past.

In Trump’s first term in office, in 2017, courts struck down his effort to cut funding to the cities.

It’s not clear exactly which cities and airports Mullin might target, but the Justice Department last year published a list of three dozen states, cities and counties that it considers to be sanctuary jurisdictions. They include California, Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego County.

The Airlines for America trade group was quick to say the idea would hurt the economy and disrupt travel.

“Reducing CBP staffing at major airports would have a devastating effect on the airline and tourism industries, causing a significant operational disruption to carriers, travelers and the flow of international cargo.”

Funk and Yamat write for the Associated Press.

Published on
22/05/2026 – 18:31 GMT+2

EU Industry Commissioner Stéphane Séjourné called for EU businesses to diversify their suppliers on Friday as trade tensions with China ramp up.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The comments come as Beijing has made repeated threats towards the EU in recent weeks, while Brussels seeks to strengthen its legislation against its Asian rival.

Last year, China restricted exports of rare earths and chips, strategic for the EU’s green technologies, defence and automotive industries.

“Do not make 100% of your supplies in one country,” Séjourné told EU businesses after a meeting with the EU’s 27 trade ministers in Brussels. He added: “The global geopolitical situation shows that your ability to provide yourself abroad must also depend on other types of countries and also on European production.”

The European Commission has so far issued guidance to EU companies and Séjourné signalled that if they did not move, the EU executive would “perhaps have to move to the next step.”

Measures force car producers to diversify

Internally, the Commission is already working on a proposal to force car producers to source chips from multiple suppliers, Euronews has revealed.

Last year, a spat between the Dutch government and the Chinese chip company Nexperia, based in the Netherlands, caused shortages of chips for EU industries after Beijing blocked exports in retaliation.

EU Trade Chief Maroš Šefčovič told Euronews at the time that China was “weaponising” critical supplies for EU industry.

Brussels and Beijing have been at loggerheads since the EU presented several proposals restricting China’s access to the EU single market.

The so-called “Industrial Accelerator Act” aims to favour EU companies in public procurement and impose strict conditions on Chinese investments in the bloc. Meanwhile, a Cybersecurity Act could exclude Chinese telecoms companies from the EU market.

Beijing has directly threatened the EU with retaliation if it moves forward with those proposals. China repeated the threats after media reports about potential EU measures against cheap Chinese imports flooding the EU market.

An orientation debate is set to take place in Brussels between EU commissioners on 29 May to decide on the EU’s strategy as its trade deficit with China becomes more critical month after month.