industry

John C. Harris, California horse-racing mogul, had a particular love for the thoroughbred breeding and racing sector of his company, Harris Farms.

Multiple horses that were raised and trained at Coalinga-based Harris Farms went on to become national champions, including Tiznow, the 2000 Horse of the Year, and California Chrome, a national Hall of Fame racehorse. A close friend recounted Harris’ reaction to the latter thoroughbred winning the 2014 Kentucky Derby.

The moment California Chrome sprinted over the finish line, tears streamed down Harris’ face.

“It was just knowing that his farm had such a major role,” said his good friend Doug Burge. “It was probably the most fun we ever had.”

Harris, who owned the multimillion-dollar agribusiness Harris Farms, has died. He was 81.

Those who knew Harris described him as an acclaimed rancher, farmer and horse-racing enthusiast who devoted himself to his passions to the end. Harris Farms confirmed his death in a statement shared on July 3. No details, including cause of death, were provided.

Harris was born on July 14, 1943, and resided in Fresno County all of his life. He earned a degree in agricultural production at UC Davis before serving in the U.S. Army for two years.

Harris took ownership of Harris Farms following his father’s death in 1981. He oversaw all operations of the ranch, which encompasses a thriving farm that produces more than 30 types of crops including garlic, pistachios and wine grapes, as well as the horse-breeding operation, according to its website. Harris Farms was known for the beef it produced, but the cattle-raising portion of the business was sold in 2019.

Harris nurtured a steadfast passion for horse racing and the thoroughbred breeding industry in Northern California, according to friends and family. He was a former president and board member of the California Thoroughbred Breeders Assn. and served on the board of the Thoroughbred Owners of California and the National Jockey Club. According to those who worked with him, he shaped the horse-racing industry into what it is today.

“He had a love for the land, everything from farming to raising horses,” said Burge, the current president of the CTBA, who knew Harris as a mentor and friend for more than 30 years.

Harris was a longtime, dedicated advocate for the agricultural industry, according to Oscar Gonzalez, the vice chairman of the California Horse Racing Board who previously served as assistant secretary of Agriculture during the Biden administration.

“Mr. Harris was just a phone call away,” he said. “When I was in Washington, D.C. … and I needed a point of reference or background information on an issue involving agriculture, or water or immigration, he was always somebody that had context in that background.”

One of Harris’ last advocacy efforts was just a couple of weeks ago, when he fought to reinstate live horse racing at the Big Fresno Fair, a proposal that was ultimately unsuccessful.

“We will never give up continuing this storied tradition of Fresno racing. Today’s story is not the end — we will come back again next year,” Harris said, according to the Business Journal.

Justin Oldfield, a thoroughbred breeder and a chairman of the CTBA, said that Harris wanted everyone in the industry to be successful, always offering mentorship and help to those who needed it.

“For as successful as a businessman as he was, you would have never have known it from the way he treated you,” Oldfield said. “John was an extremely humble, down-to-earth individual that treated everyone with respect, treated everyone like they had value.”

He said that he once went to a horse racing industry event honoring Harris with more than 3,000 attendees.

“I can’t even imagine how many people are gonna be at his funeral,” Oldfield said.

Harris is survived by his wife, Cookie, and others “whose lives were enriched by his strength of character and enduring compassion,” the statement from Harris Farms said.

The House Oversight Subcommittee on Health Care and Financial Services held a hearing recently about diversity, equity and inclusion. Fewer than five of the 90 minutes were spent talking about healthcare or anything related to money. Instead, conservative lawmakers wasted time and taxpayers’ dollars advancing an anti-DEI agenda with which they have become obsessed. Anecdotes were more interesting to them than were evidence-based truths about the Americans whom discrimination most harms.

Because the GOP comprises the majority in the House, all but one of the four expert witnesses in the hearing were theirs. Like the three other times I had testified on Capitol Hill, I was the lone Democrat. The Republicans’ strategy was familiar: ask a series of yes/no questions that would require contextualization to answer adequately, then interrupt as the witness attempts to provide a nuanced response.

One question for me from Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas): “Should people be treated differently based on their race?” As I had done in my written testimony, I tried to explain to him that Black, Indigenous, Asian American and Latino American people have long been mistreated because of their race, which has led to persistent and pervasive racial inequities that disadvantage them relative to white people. But he apparently did not want to hear any of those facts, because he kept cutting me off, repeatedly declaring that this was a yes or no question.

Gill posed another question to which he did not allow an informative answer: “Do you believe that race should be considered in employer hiring practices?” For centuries, racism and white supremacy have been powerful determinants of who works where, what they are paid, and their opportunities for advancement to leadership in workplaces across industries. Race should not influence employment outcomes, but it too often has and still does.

Because of both implicit and explicit biases, race influences hiring processes across industries. Research makes painstakingly clear, though, that it is white applicants who most often and most lucratively benefit from preferential treatment. People of color and job seekers with ethnic-sounding last names have long been and continue to be routinely discriminated against, a highly cited University of Chicago study shows.

I do not believe that the remedy for discrimination is more discrimination. Instead, strategy and intentionality are both necessary and required to right past and present wrongs in hiring processes. Because the inequities are racialized and gendered, programs and practices ought to deliberately address the mindsets, structures and systems that have routinely locked irrefutably qualified people of color and women out of well-deserved opportunities. Perhaps had I been allowed to answer fully, Gill and I would have found common ground in our opposition to unlawful workplace discrimination.

Corporations, universities and other organizations need high-quality professional learning experiences that help employees who are involved in hiring processes understand how and why white job applicants are typically presumed to be smarter and more qualified than applicants of color. Gill and other opponents of diversity programs need to learn about these particular manifestations of white supremacy too. They also could benefit from exposure to research that shows how workplace racial stratification systems cyclically route the majority of employees of color into the lowest-paid, lowest-authority jobs and lock them out of leadership positions.

Federal statistics show that 77% of managers across all industries are white. Furthermore, 84% of executive-level leaders at Fortune 100 companies are white, according to a Heidrick & Struggles report. If our positions had been reversed and I were the one posing questions, I would have asked Gill about those statistics: Is it that most white people are just that much more talented and deserving than people of color, or could it be something else? In the midst of our chaotic crosstalk, I was able to make the point that I do not believe that white candidates are the only qualified people for jobs.

“I didn’t say that, nobody said that,” Gill replied. “And you’re not going to intimidate me by slandering me as a racist.” I did not say or imply that he was. However, his mistaken presumption is revealing and unsurprising. It sometimes happens — especially among white people — when simplistic or otherwise problematic positions on race are challenged. I was able to make this clear: “And you’re not going to intimidate me by insisting that I called you a racist.” I reminded him that a hearing transcript confirming what I actually said would be made publicly available.

Gill was in search of yes/no responses to his questions. Racism and racial inequities in employment, university admissions and other processes are far more complicated than that. But if he was indeed only interested in simple truths, there are at least two. First, professionals of color and women are systematically passed over for job opportunities and promotions because of their race and gender considerably more often than are their white male counterparts. Second, diversity policies and programs aim to redress such inequities accrued to employees because of their skin color, nationality, ethnicity, sex, gender, disability, weight, accent, sexual orientation and other traits.

Shaun Harper is a professor of education, business and public policy at the University of Southern California and the author of “Let’s Talk About DEI: Productive Disagreements About America’s Most Polarizing Topics.”

New Delhi, India — When models sashayed down the ramp at Milan Fashion Week last week, Harish Kurade looked at them on his smartphone in awe, sitting in his village in southern Maharashtra state, more than 7,000km (4,350 miles) away.

Models were showcasing a new line of open-toe leather sandals, designed by Prada, the iconic luxury fashion house. However, in India, the visuals raised a furore among artisans and politicians after the Italian giant failed to credit the ancient Maharashtra roots of its latest design.

“They [Prada] stole and replicated our crafty work, but we are really happy,” said Kurade in a chirpy tone. “Today, the world’s eyes are on our Kolhapuri ‘chappals’ [Hindi for sandals].” Kolhapur is a city in Maharashtra after which the sandals are named.

After facing backlash, Prada acknowledged that its new sandal designs “are inspired by traditional Indian handcrafted footwear, with a centuries-old heritage”, in a letter to the Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce.

While Kurade is chuffed about the centuries-old sandal-making craft from his village potentially gaining global exposure, other artisans, politicians and activists are wary of cultural appropriation and financial exploitation by Prada.

So, what is the controversy about? And what are artisans in Kolhapur saying about Prada? Can it change anything for the workers behind the original sandals?

What did Prada step into?

Prada showcased the classic T-strapped leather flats at the Spring/Summer 2026 menswear collection at Milan Fashion Week.

In its show notes, the Italian brand described the new range of footwear only as “leather sandals”. The notes made no mention of any Indian connection, despite its uncanny resemblance to Kolhapuri sandals, which are wildly popular across India and often worn on special occasions, such as weddings and festivals, along with traditional Indian clothing.

Outraged, a delegation of Kolhapuri sandals manufacturers met Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis on Thursday last week to register their protest.

Showing his support for the delegation is Dhananjay Mahadik, a member of parliament from the state’s Kolhapur district, belonging to the governing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Mahadik told reporters that the sandal makers and their supporters are in the process of filing a lawsuit in the Bombay High Court against Prada.

Mahadik also wrote to Fadnavis, drawing “urgent attention to a serious infringement on Maharashtra’s cultural identity and artisan rights”, and called on him to “protect the cultural heritage of Maharashtra”.

In his letter, he noted that the sandals are reportedly priced at approximately $1,400  a pair. By contrast, the authentic Kolhapuri sandals can be found in local markets for about $12.

How has Prada responded?

The Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture (MACCIA) also wrote to Patrizio Bertelli, the chairperson of Prada’s Board of Directors, about the concerns of sandal makers.

Two days later, the company responded, acknowledging that the design was inspired by the centuries-old Indian sandals. “We deeply recognise the cultural significance of such Indian craftsmanship. Please note that, for now, the entire collection is currently at an early stage of design development, and none of the pieces are confirmed to be produced or commercialised,” Prada said.

The company added that it remains “committed to responsible design practices, fostering cultural engagement, and opening a dialogue for a meaningful exchange with local Indian artisan communities, as we have done in the past in other collections to ensure the rightful recognition of their craft.

“Prada strives to pay homage and recognise the value of such specialised craftspeople that represent an unrivalled standard of excellence and heritage.”

Srihita Vanguri, a fashion entrepreneur from the city of Hyderabad, said that Prada’s actions were “disappointing but not surprising”.

“Luxury brands have a long history of borrowing design elements from traditional crafts without giving due credit – until there’s a backlash,” she told Al Jazeera. “This is cultural appropriation if it stops at inspiration without attribution or benefit-sharing.”

Kolhapuris, which the sandals are also known as, are not just a design, she insisted. They carry the legacy of centuries of craft communities in Maharashtra and the neighbouring state of Karnataka. “Ignoring that context erases real people and livelihoods,” she added.

What about artisans of Kolhapur?

Kolhapur, nestled in southwestern Maharashtra, is a city steeped in royal heritage, spiritual significance and artisanal pride. Beyond its crafts, Kolhapur is also home to several revered Hindu temples and a rich culinary legacy – its food is spicy.

Its famed sandals date back to the 12th century, with more than 20,000 local families still involved in this craft.

The family of Kurade, who was happy about Prada showcasing the sandals, lives on the outskirts of Kolhapur, and has been in this business for more than 100 years.

But he said the business has taken a beating in recent years. “In India, people don’t really understand this craft or want to put money in this any more. If an international brand comes, steals it and showcases it on global platforms, maybe that is good for us,” he told Al Jazeera.

He said that craftsmen like those in his family “still stand where they were years ago”.

“We have the craft and the capacity to move ahead, but the government has not supported us,” the 40-year-old said.

Rather, Kurade said, politics has made things worse.

Since 2014, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu majoritarian government came to power in New Delhi, cows have transformed from just symbols of reverence into a flashpoint for religious identity and social conflict. Cow protection, once largely cultural, has become violent, with vigilantes hunting down Dalits and Muslims, the communities that mostly transport cows and buffaloes to trading markets where they are bought for slaughter.

That has disrupted a reliable supply of cow and buffalo hides, which are then tanned with vegetables to make Kolhapuri chappals.

“The original hide we use for quality is restricted in several states because of politics around cows,” said Kurade. “The supply has touched new lows due to politics on cows – and we have been suffering because it has become really expensive for us to keep doing it with the same quality.”

Craftsmen like Kurade believe that if they can make the sandals cheaper and more accessible, “people will wear this because it is what people have loved for centuries”.

Still, Kurade said, while Prada can try and imitate Kolhapuri aesthetics, it cannot replicate the intricate hand-woven design patterns, mastered by the Dalit community in southern Maharashtra and some parts of bordering Karnataka. Dalits are traditionally the most marginalised segment of India’s complex caste hierarchy.

“The authentic design is something which is rare and unique,” he said. “Even shops in Kolhapur city may not have them.”

The real designs, Kurade said, are still made in villages by using centuries-old craft.

But because of the challenge of sourcing quality hides, and faced with an increasingly digital marketplace that artisans are unfamiliar with, Dalit sandal makers need help, he said.

“People who know markets, who can sell it ahead, are the ones cashing in on this. Poor villagers like us cannot run a website; we do not have the marketing knowledge,” he said.

“The government should look into this, to bridge this gap – it is their duty to look into this. The benefits never reached the real makers from the Dalit groups.”

Has it happened before?

Since 2019, after sustained advocacy by artisan groups, India has protected Kolhapuri sandals under its Geographical Indications of Goods Act (1999), preventing commercial use of the term “Kolhapuri Chappal” by unauthorised producers. But this protection is limited within national borders.

Prada has previously faced significant criticism over alleged cultural appropriation, most notably in 2018 when it released the “Pradamalia” collection – keychains and figurines that resembled racist caricatures with exaggerated red lips, drawing immediate comparisons with blackface imagery. After the backlash, Prada pulled the products from stores and issued a public apology.

Prada has also been criticised for store displays that have evoked racial stereotypes, as well as for its use of animal-based luxury materials like ostrich and exotic leathers, which have drawn criticism from environmental and labour rights groups.

But Prada is not alone.

In 2019, Christian Dior drew criticism for incorporating elements inspired by the traditional attire of Mexican horsewomen in its Cruise collection, without formal acknowledgement or collaboration.

In 2015, French designer Isabel Marant came under fire in Mexico for marketing a blouse that closely mirrored the traditional embroidery patterns of the Mixe community in Oaxaca, sparking accusations of cultural appropriation.

Rather than apologise, Vanguri, the fashion entrepreneur, said that the “real respect would be Prada co-creating a capsule collection with Kolhapuri artisan clusters – giving them fair design credit, profit share, and global visibility”.

“Structurally, they could commit to long-term partnerships with craft cooperatives or even fund capacity-building and design innovation for these communities,” she said.

The order to restrict cannabis use for medical purposes only must pass another hurdle before becoming law.

The Thai government is moving to tighten rules around the sale of cannabis, just three years after the kingdom decriminalised recreational use of the popular substance.

Thailand’s Ministry of Public Health on Tuesday night ordered that cannabis use be restricted to medical use only, throwing the estimated $1bn industry into a state of uncertainty.

Government spokesperson Jirayu Houngsub said cannabis had created serious social problems for young people, and the industry, which has boomed in recent years, needed to be scaled back.

“The policy must return to its original goal of controlling cannabis for medical use only,” Jirayu said in a statement.

The order, however, is not law yet.

It will need to be published in the official Royal Gazette to come into force, and the government has not indicated when that will happen.

Thailand became the first country in Asia to fully decriminalise cannabis in 2022, in a move that has been wildly popular with tourists but less so among more conservative Thais.

Thousands of cannabis stores have opened across Thailand in the past three years, although it has remained relatively unregulated despite multiple attempts by the government.

The latest move to restrict cannabis use comes amid wider political turmoil in Thailand.

Last week the Bhumjaithai Party, previously a champion of decriminalising cannabis, withdrew from the government’s ruling coalition due to its mishandling of a border conflict with Cambodia.

The Thai Chamber of Commerce previously estimated that the cannabis trade could be worth $1.2bn by 2025, although experts say it has not reached its full potential due to the uncertainty that has plagued regulation around the industry since it was decriminalised.

Sports offer an escape, an oasis, a relief from the anxiety and troubles of day-to-day living. There’s the competition, of course. There’s also a reassuring certainty.

Clear-cut winners and losers. Scores meticulously kept. Rules and boundaries that are officiated and maintained as firmly and precisely as a chalked third base line.

In short, none of the compromise or messy ambiguities of daily life, which is part of the appeal and also part of the fantasy.

And it is fantasy to try to divorce sports from the times we live in and the events that unfold, sometimes frightfully, beyond the comfortable confines of the stadium and arena.

Take the Los Angeles Dodgers and the team’s fitful response to the immigration raids terrorizing large swaths of its fan base.

The team, one of Southern California’s most revered (and lucrative) institutions, caved last week amid a growing public outcry and committed $1 million to help families affected by the Trump administration’s heavy-handed immigration policies. Further initiatives, the organization promised, are on the way.

Escapism only goes so far.

“Sports are political through and through,” said Jules Boykoff, a former pro soccer player-turned-political scientist. “and to deny it is to deny reality.”

Amy Bass, a professor of sport studies at Manhattanville University and the author of numerous works on the subject, agreed.

“Sport is part of our cultural, political, social and economic landscape,” Bass said. “It is an industry that pays people. It is an industry that entertains people. It is an industry that expresses some of our greatest moments and our most tragic moments.

“There is nothing,” she said, “that you can’t talk about through the lens of sport.”

Or shout about and argue over, as the case may be.

The Dodgers’ gesture struck many as too little, too late; an unforced error, if you will.

“That’s the best way to describe how the Boys in Blue have acted,” my columnizing colleague Gustavo Arellano wrote, “as the city emblazoned on their hats and road jerseys battles Donald Trump’s toxic alphabet soup of federal agencies that have conducted immigration sweeps across Los Angeles over the past two weeks.”

The Dodgers were studiously vague in last week’s capitulation, er, announcement of $1 million in good will payments. No mention, much less condemnation, of the brutality that ICE has employed in some of its enforcement actions. No reference to the parents separated from their children. No acknowledgment of the innocents — including U.S. citizens — swept up in some of the Trump administration’s indiscriminate raids.

“What’s happening in Los Angeles has reverberated among thousands upon thousands of people,” said Stan Kasten, the team president, in a masterwork of opacity and euphemism. “We believe that by committing resources and taking action, we will continue to support and uplift the communities of Greater Los Angeles.”

But, really, is it any surprise the team would first duck, then seek cover in such platitudes?

Lest we forget, the Dodgers are first and foremost a business, just like every other professional sports franchise. Michael Jordan may or may not have uttered the quote famously attributed to him — “Republicans buy sneakers, too” — as a reason for pro athletes and their teams to steer clear of politics. But it speaks resoundingly to a bottom-line truism of the sporting world.

Put another way, yes, the Dodgers have a substantial and remunerative following in the Latino community, which is very much under siege. But Trump devotees also fill a lot of seats and buy a lot of Dodger Dogs.

If we’re being honest, how many of those who root for the Dodgers — or any sports franchise, for that matter — would be more than willing to yield the moral high ground if it means a winning season and championship? Righteousness, after all, isn’t reflected in the standings.

So what’s a cross-pressured, community-grounded, profit-seeking sports organization to do?

Events, spiraling downward by the day, may have left the Dodgers little choice.

“The more people are affected, maybe I shouldn’t say affected but traumatized, by what’s happening on the streets of L.A. and the neighborhoods of L.A. … this left the Dodgers with much less room in which to try to shimmy through without saying anything,” said Boykoff, who teaches political science at Oregon’s Pacific University. “The circumstances in a lot of ways forced their hand.”

So the organization weighed in — belatedly, tepidly — leaving very few people happy or satisfied.

Little surprise there.

If we’re looking for a bright side, perhaps it’s this: Maybe instead of pretending sports exist in a pristine, politics-free vacuum, we can acknowledge their centrality to our daily lives and find, if not commonality, at least a common ground for discussion and debate.

“We can talk about history, we can talk about economics, we can talk about social change,” Bass said. “We can talk about how sport actually move political needles.”

Not, of course, on the playing field. But in the stands, in sports bars, at tailgate parties, on talk radio, wherever fans of various cloth gather.

“The more we recognize it,” Bass said, “the more that we can see that sport can actually provide this landscape for having very difficult conversations through a place that brings a lot of different kinds of people into the same space.”

It may seem far-fetched at a time of such deep and abiding divisions. But what are sports about if not hope and aspiration?

WASHINGTON — Fallout from President Trump’s historic gamble to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities reverberated across the Middle East Sunday, as Washington braced for an unpredictable response from a cornered but determined Islamic Republic.

While the Iranian government downplayed the impact of the U.S. attack, noting the depths of its nuclear know-how built over decades of study, U.S. military officials said its precision strikes against Iran’s three main nuclear facilities caused “extremely severe damage and destruction.”

A senior Israeli official told The Times that Jerusalem was so satisfied with the operation that it was prepared to suspend hostilities if Iran ends its missile salvos against Israeli territory.

“We are ready to be done,” the Israeli official said, granted anonymity to speak candidly.

As the dust settled, the sun rose and satellite imagery emerged of the wreckage, the main question among Trump administration officials became how Tehran would respond — both militarily, against U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf and around the world, as well as with the remnants of its nuclear program, with so much of it destroyed.

Tehran’s nuclear-armed allies, in Russia and North Korea, have been critical of the military campaign, with former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev raising the prospect of Moscow giving Iran a nuclear warhead in response to the attacks.

The Israeli official dismissed that idea, alluding to direct talks with Moscow over the Iranian program. “We are not concerned,” the official said.

President Trump addresses the nation Saturday night about the U.S. military strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites. He is accomapnied by Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

(Carlos Barria / Pool via Associated Press)

Trump’s military action, dubbed “Operation Midnight Hammer,” was a contingency years in the making, prepared and much feared by Trump’s predecessors over two decades as a desperate last resort to a nuclear Iran.

Ever since Tehran resumed its fissile enrichment program in 2005, Republican and Democratic presidents alike have warned that the Islamic Republic could never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. But a constellation of diplomatic talks and complex agreements have failed to dissuade Tehran from a fundamental principle of a “right to enrich” uranium — near to weapons grade — on its own soil.

Despite the dramatic nature of the U.S. air raid, few in Washington expressed an appetite for a prolonged U.S. war with Iran and echoed Israel’s interest in a truce after assessing its initial operations a success. Vice President JD Vance denied that the United States was “at war” with Iran on Sunday, telling CBS that the nation is, instead, “at war with Iran’s nuclear program.”

But the prospect of another full-scale U.S. war in the Middle East, made palpable by the weekend strikes, shook Capitol Hill on Sunday, compelling Democrats who have long advocated a tough approach to Iran to push for a vote to restrict Trump under the War Powers Act.

More than 60 members of Congress, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, both of New York, called on the Trump administration to seek congressional authorization for any further action. At least one Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, joined in the call.

The Pentagon said that seven B-2 Spirit stealth bombers deployed a total of 14 Massive Ordnance Penetrators — 30,000-pound bombs known as “bunker busters,” for their ability to destroy facilities buried deep underground — against Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.

The U.S. operation followed an Israeli campaign that began last week with strikes against Iranian air defenses and nuclear facilities, scientists and research facilities, as well as against military generals, ballistic missile launch pads and storage depots.

While the United States and Israel believe that Saturday’s strikes were a strategic victory, some concern remains that Iran may have removed critical equipment and materiel from its site in Fordow — an enrichment facility that had been burrowed into the side of a mountain — to an undisclosed location before the U.S. operation began, the Israeli official said.

“That remains a question mark,” the official added, while expressing confidence that Israeli intelligence would be aware of any other significant nuclear facilities.

Addressing the nation on the attacks on Saturday night, Trump warned Iran that U.S. attacks could continue if it refuses to give up on its nuclear program.

“There will be either peace, or there will be tragedy for Iran, far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days,” Trump said, flanked by his vice president, national security advisor and secretary of defense. “Remember, there are many targets left. Tonight’s was the most difficult of them all, by far, and perhaps the most lethal. But if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill. Most of them can be taken out in a matter of minutes.”

Satellite image shows the Natanz enrichment facility in Iran after U.S. strikes.

(Maxar Technologies via Associated Press)

Across the region Sunday, the question paramount on observers’ minds was what shape Iran’s response would take.

Iranian officials downplayed the strikes’ impact, acknowledging damage to nuclear facilities but that the know-how remained intact.

“They [the United States and Israel] should know this industry has roots in our country, and the roots of this national industry cannot be destroyed,” said Behrouz Kamalvandi, spokesman of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, according to a Sunday interview with the semi-official Tasnim News Agency.

“Of course, we have suffered some losses, but this is not the first time that the industry has suffered damage. … Naturally, this industry must continue and its growth will not stop.”

Hassan Abedini, the deputy political director of Iran’s state broadcaster IRIB, said the three targeted nuclear sites had already been emptied some time before the attacks and that they “didn’t suffer a major blow because the materials had already been taken out.”

Other officials, including leaders in the targeted areas in Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow, reassured residents there was no nuclear contamination as a result of the strikes and that they could “go on with their lives,” according to a statement Sunday from government spokesperson Fatemah Mohajerani.

The U.S. attacks drew swift pleas for restraint from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, both of which issued statements calling on all parties to de-escalate. Iraq, meanwhile, said the U.S. escalation “constitutes a grave threat to peace and security in the Middle East,” according to an interview with its government spokesman on Qatari broadcaster Al-Jazeera.

Oman, a key mediator in the negotiations between Tehran and Washington, was more scathing, expressing what it said was its “denunciation and condemnation” of the U.S.’s attacks.

In Europe, as well, governments urged caution and affirmed support for Israel.

“We have consistently been clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon and can no longer pose a threat to regional security,” France, Germany, and Italy, known as the E3, said in a statement. “Our aim continues to be to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.”

The last significant face-off between Iran and the United States happened during Trump’s first term, when he ordered the assassination of top Iranian commander Gen. Qassem Suleimani in 2020.

Satellite image shows a close view of the Isfahan nuclear technology facility in Iran after U.S. strikes.

(Maxar Technologies via Associated Press)

That attack spurred predictions of a furious retaliation, with fears of Tehran deploying its missile arsenal or activating its network of regional militias to attack U.S. forces and interests across Washington’s footprint in the region. Instead, Tehran reacted with little more than an openly telegraphed ballistic missile barrage on a U.S. base in Iraq.

Iran’s options are even more limited this time. Much of that network — known as the “Axis of Resistance” and which included militias and pro-Tehran governments in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Gaza, Afghanistan and Yemen — lies incapacitated after more than 20 months of Israeli attacks.

Allies such as Russia and China, though issuing condemnations of the U.S. attack, appear to have little appetite for involvement beyond statements and offers of mediation. And how much remains of Tehran’s missile capacity is unclear, with the Israeli official estimating roughly 1,000 ballistic missiles – half of their capacity before the most recent conflict started – remaining available to them.

Nevertheless, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps warned that the United States should expect “regrettable responses.”

“Instead of learning from repeated failures, Washington effectively placed itself on the front lines of aggression by directly attacking peaceful installations,” said a statement from the Guard Corps on Sunday. It hinted that its targets would include U.S. military presence in the region.

“The number, dispersion, and size of U.S. military bases in the region are not a strength, but have doubled their vulnerability,” the statement said.

The United States has more than 40,000 stationed in the region, according to Pentagon figures, and has bases in at least 10 countries in the region, not to mention a significant presence at sea.

Yet experts say the likeliest scenario would involve disruptions to shipping lanes, with Iran leveraging its control of the Strait of Hormuz, an oil transit chokepoint handling a fifth of the world’s energy flows, that is 30 miles wide at its narrowest point; or calling on Yemen’s Houthis to intensify their harassment campaign of merchant vessels on the Red Sea.

It a situation in which Iran has experience: During its conflict with Iraq in the eighties, Tehran engaged in the the so-called “Tanker War,” attacked hundreds of Iraqi ships near Hormuz and entering into direct confrontations with the U.S. Navy.

Shippers are already girding themselves for disruptions. But Danish shipping giant Maersk said it was continuing to use the Strait of Hormuz for the time being.

“We will continuously monitor the security risk to our specific vessels in the region and are ready to take operational actions as needed,” Maersk said in a statement.

Wilner reported from Washington, Bulos from Beirut.

Published on
20/06/2025 – 8:00 GMT+2

ADVERTISEMENT

The German Aerospace Industries Association (BDLI) wants only completed products aircraft and helicopters to be targeted by the EU for retaliatory tariffs – leaving the market for the supply of parts unscathed – if trade negotiations between the EU and the US founder, the group has told Euronews. It’s position aligns it with the French sector’s stance.

“If the EU must respond, counter-tariffs should focus strictly on fully finished aerospace end products – such as complete aircraft and helicopters – and explicitly exclude spare parts or critical products,” BDLI said in an email to Euronews. “This is essential to avoid unintended harm to European and global production networks.”

US aircraft are included in the European Commission’s draft listof €95 billion worth of US products that could face duties if ongoing negotiations fail. The list was open for industry consultation until 10 June and now awaits approval by EU member states.

Trade tensions between the EU and the US risk reignitingthe long-standing rivalry between aerospace giants Boeing and Airbus. However, the two economies’ production systems are tightly intertwined. For instance, the LEAP engine, used in both Airbus and Boeing jets, is co-produced by US-based General Electric and France’s Safran.

For decades, Pixar could hardly miss with its original animated films.

Whether the subject was toys, fish or a cantankerous old man, the Emeryville-based computer animation studio churned out hit after hit.

But since the COVID-19 pandemic, Pixar and other animation studios have struggled to break through at the box office with the same kinds of original movies that defined the industry. Instead, sequels such as “Inside Out 2” have ruled the genre.

This weekend, Walt Disney Co.-owned Pixar will face its latest test with the release of “Elio,” an original film about a young boy who seeks connection with aliens to make up for his loneliness on Earth.

The movie is tracking to bring in $18 million to $25 million in ticket sales from the U.S. and Canada during its opening weekend, according to box office analysis. (The film’s reported budget is in the range of $150 million to $200 million.)

That would be considered a soft debut by Pixar standards, indicating the dilemma the animation business — and the movie industry writ large — faces with original content. While audiences often say they want to see new stories, box office ticket sales show they gravitate toward sequels, reboots and other familiar fare.

“You need to be launching new franchises to keep the pipeline fresh,” said Doug Creutz, senior media and entertainment analyst at TD Cowen. “Since the pandemic ended, original animated films have just been getting killed at the box office … no matter how good they are.”

Pixar executives, nonetheless, say they’re committed to telling original stories, which are key to the future health of the industry.

“You wouldn’t have Pixar without ‘Toy Story,’ our first original film 30 years ago!” Pixar Chief Creative Officer Pete Docter wrote in an emailed statement. “And while we also love digging into new layers of familiar worlds and characters through our sequels, I’d say there’s a unique thrill in unearthing a new story.”

Disney and Pixar’s previous original movie “Elemental” made just $29.6 million in its opening weekend in 2023, causing many in the industry to write it off as a flop, before strong word-of-mouth reviews propelled the film to a solid worldwide gross of $496 million.

Sister studio Walt Disney Animation Studios has also recently struggled with originals, including 2022’s “Strange World” and 2023’s “Wish.”

The pandemic had a major effect on theatrical attendance for animated films. At the onset, studios including Pixar put their new animated movies on streaming services to give families something to watch during the COVID-19 stay-at-home orders and keep people from spreading the disease.

Movies such as 2020’s “Soul,” 2021’s “Luca” and 2022’s “Turning Red” were all sent straight to the Disney+ streaming service. Despite critical acclaim — winning an Academy Award for animated feature — “Soul” grossed just $121.9 million in worldwide theatrical revenue.

Even when movie theaters started reopening, families were slow to return due to health concerns and familiarity with watching movies at home, which dented animated films’ box office potential. Pixar’s 2022 “Toy Story” spinoff “Lightyear” did poorly at the box office partially due to this timing, as well as quality issues, marketing challenges and right-wing backlash to an on-screen kiss between a same-sex couple.

Other studios, too, face challenges with originals.

Universal Pictures’ 2023 original animated movie “Migration” also saw a soft box office total. The same year, Universal grossed more than $1 billion from “The Super Mario Bros. Movie,” based on the Nintendo game franchise.

Last year, Universal’s “The Wild Robot,” which is adapted from a 2016 children’s book, debuted to strong reviews, but grossed $333 million in box office revenue, compared with the $492 million reaped by Paramount Pictures’ “Sonic the Hedgehog 3.”

Now family films are ruling the box office.

So far this summer, many of the films that have propelled the box office are family-friendly — Warner Bros. Pictures’ “A Minecraft Movie,” and live-action remakes “Lilo & Stitch” from Disney and “How to Train Your Dragon” from Universal.

Last year, Pixar’s “Inside Out 2” hauled in nearly $1.7 billion in global box office revenue last year, while Universal and Illumination Entertainment’s “Despicable Me 4” grossed $969.6 million worldwide and Disney’s “Moana 2” made $1 billion.

The common denominator among these films? They’re all sequels, reboots or rely on known intellectual property.

But industry insiders and analysts say that simply focusing on new chapters of existing stories risks making the animation space stale.

“If you’re trying to grow the business, you need new content, you need new franchises, you need new things for people to be excited about,” said Creutz of TD Cowen.

But beyond the box office, Pixar original films can get exposure — and drive business — through other parts of the Disney empire. Movies eventually debut on Disney+ and characters will show up on merchandise or in the theme parks, which can expand a film’s reach.

“Pixar is in the long-term business,” said David A. Gross, who writes a movie industry newsletter. “They want to create stories that last, and if that works in bringing back a sequel, great, but there is enormous value for streaming for these pictures, whatever they do in theatrical. There are a lot of revenue streams.”

Pixar intends to release three movies every two years, and the company’s strategy is to make one original for every sequel, company sources said. For instance, “Elio” was intended for release in 2024, but was delayed by the dual writers’ and actors’ strikes of 2023. Instead, it swapped with “Inside Out 2” since sequels can be easier to move through the production process due to existing assets.

“Pixar was really instrumental in defining the look and the feel and the tone of computer-animated films,” said Christopher Holliday, a senior lecturer in liberal arts and visual cultures education at King’s College London, who wrote a book about computer-animated films.

The company “is now at one of those crossroads where they are trying to balance films that have an audience built into them,” Holliday said. “And then they’re also balancing their identity as a studio of innovation that is pushing the boundaries and the limits of computer animation.”

Next year, Pixar plans to release “Toy Story 5” as well as an original film called “Hoppers” about a new technology that allows humans and animals to communicate. In 2027, Pixar said it will debut “Gatto,” an original movie about a cat with multiple lives.

“We think audiences love originals too,” Docter said. “Sure, it might be a bit harder nowadays to break through all the noise out there, but if we do our jobs, and create something that people will love, we trust that audiences will show up.”

James Gunn has his own theory about why the movie industry is “dying.”

The filmmaker, screenwriter and co-head of DC Studios contends that the reason for bad movies is Hollywood’s tendency to begin productions before screenplays are complete, he told Rolling Stone in a new interview.

“I do believe that the reason why the movie industry is dying is not because of people not wanting to see movies. It’s not because of home screens getting so good,” Gunn said. “The number one reason is because people are making movies without a finished screenplay.”

That’s why one of his main rules at DC Studios is that movies must have finished scripts before they go into production. In fact, Gunn just scrapped a project because the screenplay wasn’t ready, he said. On the other hand, he described the scripts for the upcoming DC films “Supergirl,” “Lanterns” and “Clayface” as “so f—-ing good.”

Before taking the reins of DC Studios in 2022, Gunn co-wrote and directed three “Guardians of the Galaxy” movies for now-competitor Marvel Studios, which he said has been “killed” by Disney’s directive to increase output.

“We don’t have the mandate to have a certain amount of movies and TV shows every year,” Gunn said of DC Studios. “So we’re going to put out everything that we think is of the highest quality.”

During the interview, Gunn also addressed rumors that Matt Reeves’ sequel to “The Batman,” starring Robert Pattinson, has been axed. The film, which Gunn confirmed is still titled “The Brave and the Bold,” has been delayed a year and is now expected in October 2027.

“That’s the other thing I hear all the time — that ‘Batman Part II’ is canceled. It’s not canceled,” Gunn said. “We don’t have a script. Matt’s slow. Let him take his time. Let him do what he’s doing. God, people are mean. Let him do his thing, man.”

Finishing the scripts for the “The Batman” sequel and “Wonder Woman” are among DC Studios’ top priorities, Gunn noted.

Additionally, Gunn reflected on the 2018 scandal that saw him briefly fired from “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” when tweets resurfaced of him joking about pedophilia and rape. He said without that experience, his script for “Superman” — hitting theaters July 11 — would have been much different.

“That opened the door for me to stop creating so that people would like me. That’s downplaying it — so people would love me,” Gunn said. “I think on some level, everything I had done came from a pleasing place.”

When asked whether he’s worried about ever running out of ideas, Gunn didn’t seem too concerned.

“If I do, then I’ll go raise goats,” he said. “I really am fine. There’s a lot of directors who get worse as they get older, and I don’t wanna do that. Or maybe I do — I don’t know. It’s like, if it runs out — it hasn’t so far. But who knows?”

Hollywood’s workforce just needed to “survive ’til ’25.” That was last year’s hopeful mantra for entertainment industry pros battered by layoffs and limited film and TV production.

But now as the year approaches its halfway point, a bleaker saying seems apt: “Exist ’til ’26.”

Rosy projections of a robust recovery this year have not materialized. If anything, the downturn, at least in terms of employment at the studios, has continued.

In recent weeks, three media and entertainment giants — Walt Disney Co., Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount Global — have said they will lay off staffers. Disney cut several hundred employees in the U.S. and abroad, while Paramount shed hundreds of its domestic workforce and Warner Bros. eliminated several dozen positions.

It is yet another sign that the industry is still recovering from the effects of the pandemic and the dual writers’ and actors’ strikes of 2023, while also trying to navigate the changing media landscape.

As people continue to cut the cord and viewership of traditional broadcast television declines — taking with it valuable ad dollars — companies are reallocating resources to their streaming platforms. They’re cutting back on spending after massive investments during the so-called streaming wars. And now, economic uncertainty from President Trump’s tariffs has rattled the markets, creating a difficult overall business environment.

“We’re going through this squeezing of our ecosystem in Hollywood,” said J. Christopher Hamilton, a practicing entertainment attorney and a professor at Syracuse University who focuses on the business of media. Companies are “trying to find a new normal, adjust to the financial pressures that the global economy is under and also figure out what is the smartest business model and path forward.”

It’s a far cry from the hints of optimism some in the industry had toward the end of last year. With the strikes finally in the rearview mirror, and delayed films debuting in theaters and production slowly coming back, the thought was “we’re out of the strikes, we’ll be able to go back to the market, sell and buy,” Hamilton said.

Instead, many of the recent conversations he’s had with clients and media executives have been centered on fear and uncertainty. People will tell him that it’s hard to sell a TV show, or that they don’t know if their job will be around in two weeks. The international market has also become more favorable to local content, meaning U.S.-made shows are now heavily competing with homegrown series.

“It’s a horrible time in the business from the content creation, content production standpoint,” Hamilton said. “People don’t want to take risks. They’re fearful of losing their jobs.”

The idea of “survive ’til ’25” was always a myth, said Stephen Galloway, dean of Chapman University’s Dodge College of Film and Media Arts. The issues the industry is facing are long term and disruptive.

“The industry is retrenching,” he said. “And there’s going to be a shake-up that lasts for quite a while.”

The continued decline of linear TV is one issue nearly all studios are grappling with. Though viewership is down and can drag on a company’s stock price, traditional broadcast TV still makes money, making it important to manage costs and generate profit for as long as possible.

That also means job cuts in those areas.

Disney’s layoffs hit its film and television marketing teams, television publicity, casting and development as well as corporate financial operations. Warner Bros. cut employees from its cable TV channels. While Paramount did not disclose the departments affected by the layoffs, its co-chief executives acknowledged in a note to staff that the decision came as the company navigates “continued industry-wide linear declines.”

Linear TV’s struggles have led media companies to spin off their traditional television assets, including cable networks, into separate entities. Santa Monica-based Lionsgate got the ball rolling in 2023 when it said it would sever its film and TV studio business from its pay cable unit Starz, a transaction that was completed this year.

Late last year, Comcast Corp. said it would make a new company consisting of its cable channels, including CNBC, MSNBC and USA Network. Then on Monday, Warner Bros. said it too would split into two publicly traded companies — one entity called Streaming & Studios and a second called Global Networks, that would consist of its cable channels such as CNN, TNT and Discovery.

The Warner Bros. split is “an acknowledgment that the idea of building something big enough to compete in the streaming war didn’t work,” said Peter Murrieta, a writer and deputy director of the Sidney Poitier New American Film School at Arizona State University. Moreover, Netflix’s dominance in the streaming space has made many companies reevaluate their plans.

“There were already signs pointing to the unsustainability of the number of shows and the number of streamers,” he said. “It’s the aftereffects of trying to compete at the streaming level and thinking that’s the future. Resources were put there, and now they have to retrench.”

Disney Chief Executive Bob Iger has said as much in comments to Wall Street, acknowledging that the House of Mouse pumped out too many shows and movies to compete against Netflix.

The company has since pulled back amid Iger’s call to focus on quality over quantity and to reach profitability in its streaming services, which it achieved last year. The company’s latest job postings now include a number of openings for software engineers.

The larger economic environment, too, is of concern to those in Hollywood. In addition to industry-specific concerns about artificial intelligence and the decline of traditional TV and cable, the entertainment business is also grappling with domestic and global financial uncertainty. Paramount’s executives cited the “dynamic macro-economic environment” in its note to employees.

“Right now, there is an absolute sense of terror among people in the business that they’ll be out of a job, that the old models aren’t working, that they won’t earn what they once did,” said Galloway of Chapman. “They’re not wrong to be afraid. I think they’re wrong to be as afraid as they are because it’s a retrenchment, and it’s a retrenchment following a gigantic expansion.”

White-collar jobs in other industries are also being threatened by technological change, greater investment in AI and retrenchments after pandemic-era hiring sprees. Earlier this year, tech companies such as payment firm Square, Meta, Google and Workday said they would lay off employees.

But Hollywood has always been a boom-and-bust industry, Galloway said, noting that in times of change, new opportunities always arise. Jobs in virtual production or AI are becoming more numerous. As studios cut back on their staff, they will still need producers to shepherd shows and films, said Susan Sprung, chief executive of the Producers Guild of America trade group.

“These companies aren’t getting out of the business of producing great programming, movies and television,” she said. “If you don’t have as large of an executive team that can help supplement that, it makes it even more important that you have good producers working on every one of your projects.”

While the current environment is tough, the industry has always been difficult, and people in this business are resourceful and intentional about their work, said Murrieta of Arizona State.

Though it is a trying time, he said, “there’s got to be hope.”

A new report accuses fashion giants of not considering the welfare of workers affected by climate change in garment factories in Southeast Asia.

Fashion brands including luxury label Hermes, sportswear giant Nike, and fast fashion chain H&M are in the hot seat amid new allegations of climate greenwashing after making commitments to slash carbon emissions in Asia, which is home to more than 50 percent of global garment production.

A report released this morning by the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC), titled, The Missing Thread, analysed 65 global fashion brands. It found that while 44 of them had made public commitments to reduce carbon emissions, none had adopted what is known as a “Just Transition” policy, a concept first introduced during COP27 in Egypt in 2022.

A Just Transition ensures that workers are not left behind as industries shift towards a low-carbon economy.

Only 11 companies in the study acknowledged the climate-related impact on workers in their social and human rights policies. Just four provided any guidance on managing heat-related stress.

Only two companies among those deemed the most ambitious by the report mentioned the welfare of workers. These included Inditex, the Spanish retail giant that owns the fast fashion company Zara, and Kering, the parent company of Gucci.

“Decarbonisation done without workers as critical and creative partners is not a just transition, it’s a dangerous shortcut,” said Natalie Swan, labour rights programme manager at BHRRC, in a news release.

Currently, the global textile industry relies on 98 million tonnes of non-renewable resources per year, such as oil and fertiliser. At current trends, the fashion industry is on track to be responsible for more than 25 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

“The fashion industry’s climate targets mean little if the people who make its products are not taken into consideration,” Swan said. “It’s not enough to go green. It has to be clean and fair.”

“Brands must stop hiding behind greenwashing slogans and start seriously engaging workers and their trade unions, whose rights, livelihoods and safety are under threat from both climate change and the industry’s response to it. A just transition is not just a responsibility, it’s a critical opportunity to build a fairer, more resilient fashion industry that works for people and the planet.”

Al Jazeera reached out to Nike, Hermes, H&M, Inditex and Kering. None of them responded to a request for comment.

Extreme weather

The effects of climate change have already hit much of Southeast Asia hard. Garment workers in countries including Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, and Vietnam have experienced extreme weather events such as surging temperatures and severe flooding.

In Bangladesh, workers reported fainting from heat-related illnesses. According to the report, factories allegedly failed to provide fans or drinking water. Similar challenges were noted in Cambodia, where temperatures regularly exceeded 39 degrees Celsius (102 degrees Fahrenheit) during a 2022 heatwave.

A third of workers said they had already lost work due to automation. In Bangladesh’s garment sector, 30 percent reported job losses stemming from technological changes. These shifts have disproportionately affected female workers, who are less likely to receive training on new technologies and are often excluded from on-the-job learning opportunities that could help them adapt to evolving industry demands.

Bangkok, Thailand – A brief text message informed Chonlada Siangkong that she had lost her job at a solar cell factory in Rayong, eastern Thailand.

The factory operated by Standard Energy Co, a subsidiary of Singaporean solar cell giant GSTAR, shut its doors last month in anticipation of United States President Donald Trump’s tariffs on solar panel exports from Southeast Asia.

From Monday, US Customs and Border Protection will begin imposing tariffs ranging from 375 percent to more than 3,500 percent on imports from Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam and Malaysia.

The punishing duties, introduced in response to alleged unfair trade practices by Chinese-owned factories in the region, have raised questions about the continuing viability of Southeast Asia’s solar export trade, the source of about 80 percent of solar products sold in the US.

Like thousands of other workers in Thailand and across the region, Chonlada, a 33-year-old mother of one, is suddenly facing a more precarious future amid the trade crackdown.

“We were all shocked. The next day, they told us not to come to work and would not pay for compensation,” Chonlada told Al Jazeera.

US officials say Chinese producers have used Southeast Asian countries to skirt tariffs on China and “dump” cheap solar panels in the US market, harming their businesses.

US trade officials have named Jinko Solar, Trina Solar, Taihua New Energy Hounen, Sunshine Electrical Energy, Runergy and Boviet – all of which have major operations in Thailand, Malaysia, Cambodia or Vietnam – as the worst offenders.

Thai solar exports to the US were worth more than $3.7bn in 2023, just behind Vietnam at $3.9bn, according to the latest US trade data.

Standard Energy Co’s $300m facility in Rayong had been in operation for less than a year, producing its first solar cell to great fanfare in August.

“I’m baffled by what’s just happened,” Kanyawee, a production line manager at Standard Energy who asked to be referred to by his first name only, told Al Jazeera.

“New machines have just landed and we barely used them, they’re very costly too – a few million baht for each machine. They’ve also ordered tonnes of raw materials waiting to be produced.”

Ben McCarron, managing director of the risk consultancy Asia Research & Engagement, said Southeast Asian manufacturers are facing a serious hit from the US turn towards protectionism.

“There are suggestions that manufacturing might exit Southeast Asia entirely if tariffs are introduced either in a blanket way, or that specifically address Chinese-owned manufacturing capacity in the region,” McCarron told Al Jazeera.

“The implications are significant for these countries; Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Malaysia accounted for about 80 percent of the US’s solar imports in 2024,” McCarron said, adding that “some manufacturers have already begun shutting down and moving out of the region”.

Unfair advantage

US officials and businesses have accused China of giving its solar firms an unfair market advantage with subsidies.

China was the largest funder of clean energy in Southeast Asia between 2013 and 2023, pouring $2.7bn into projects in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam, according to Zero Carbon Analytics.

The American Alliance for Solar Manufacturing Trade Committee, a coalition of seven industry players, was among the loudest voices to lobby for a sharp rise in levies on Chinese imports.

Without a reprieve from the notoriously unpredictable Trump, companies affected by the tariffs have little recourse apart from the ability to file an appeal once a year, or after five years, once a “sunset review” clause takes effect.

Some observers believe the sector may never recover.

“It’s not just the low-skilled labour that was affected by the trade war; many workers in the solar cell supply chain are technicians, skilled labourers,” Tara Buakamsri, an adviser to environmental organisation Greenpeace, told Al Jazeera.

“Even if you make a lot of savings, solar cell exporters would still need to cut down on these skilled workers.”

Others take a more bullish view, arguing that, once the dust has settled, Chinese solar firms will drive the supply of products needed to meet regional emissions targets.

While Thailand, Cambodia, Malaysia and Vietnam welcomed Chinese solar companies in part due to the large sums of up-front investment on offer, they are all also seeking to meet more of their energy needs with cleaner sources.

Before Trump entered office with his tariff agenda, Thailand had announced plans to become carbon neutral by 2050 and produce net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2065.

“A slowdown [or halt] in solar exports as a result of US tariffs may supercharge efforts in Southeast Asian markets by Chinese solar companies, which see the region as a critical and well-aligned destination for green technologies,” McCarron said.

“Leftover supply from slowing exports could be absorbed by domestic markets in Thailand, Malaysia, Cambodia, Vietnam, particularly if governments use the situation as a cost-effective opportunity to rapidly accelerate policy initiatives that stimulate domestic solar.”

For Southeast Asia’s solar companies, survival is also likely to depend on governments cutting red tape and loosening the control of oil and gas monopolies over the energy mix.

At the same time, the US’s exclusion of Southeast Asian solar imports could hamper the shift towards greener energy in the world’s top economy.

“Thailand’s solar cell production is heavily export-driven and the US has historically been a major export destination,” Pavida Pananond, a professor of international business at Thammasat Business School in Bangkok, told Al Jazeera.

But solar tariffs will “also hurt American consumers and the green transition in the US as prices become higher”.

June 7 (UPI) — President Donald Trump is taking aim at drone technology from two directions — boost the U.S. industry and crack down on malicious activity.

Trump on Friday signed executive orders on efforts to spur U.S. production relevant to drone technology, increase U.S. drone security and regulation efforts, and an unleated one to promote design and eventual use of commercial supersonic aircraft.

“Unmanned aircraft systems, otherwise known as drones, offer the potential to enhance public safety as well as cement America’s leadership in global innovation,” an executive order titled Restoring American Airspace Sovereignty read. “But criminals, terrorists, and hostile foreign actors have intensified their weaponization of these technologies, creating new and serious threats to our homeland.

Another order, titled Unleashing American Drone Dominance, declares that “building a strong and secure domestic drone sector is vital to reducing reliance on foreign sources, strengthening critical supply chains and ensuring that the benefits of this technology are delivered to the American people.”

There are more than a million registered drones in the United States, according to the FAA with more than 400,000 commercial drones and more than 350,000 for recreational use.

In a press release, the Commercial Drone Alliance said it has “believed that innovation and security are two sides of the same coin. Outdated regulations have long impeded technological innovation and hindered transparency in our airspace.”

Lisa Ellman, chief executive of the Commercial Drone Alliance, also lauded the executive orders for aiming at both innovation and security simultaneously.

“We fully support the long-overdue steps taken by the Trump administration in these Executive Orders — establishing a framework to scale safe and secure drone operations while enhancing drone security and airspace transparency — to modernize our domestic drone policy and assure American aviation leadership into the next century of flight,” she said in the release.

Drone dangers

Trump has warned that drones have been used to smuggle drugs across borders, and could threaten large public gatherings, such as the 2026 World Cup and the 2028 Summer Olympics, both in the United States.

“It is the policy of the United States to ensure control over our national airspace and to protect the public, critical infrastructure, mass gathering events, and military and sensitive government installations and operations from threats posed by the careless or unlawful use of UAS,” the security related order reads.

Chinese-made drones from companies like DJI or Autel are not outright banned, but the Federal Acquisition Security Council has been called on to “publish a Covered Foreign Entity List … identifying companies that pose supply chain risks.”

In 2022, the U.S. Treasury added DJI and seven other companies to its Chinese Military-Industrial Complex list, which indicates some level of national security concern. The includes a ban on U.S.-based companies exporting technology to them.

The majority of drones are estimated to be built in China, The New York Times reported.

The Justice Department and FAA were told to enforce civil and criminal penalties for drone operators who violate laws or airspace restrictions. There will be grants for state and local law enforcement to access drone-detection and tracking equipment.

The Federal Aviation Administration requires all drones weighing more than 0.55 of a pound to be registered, in addition to restricting how high they can be flown without authorization.

The Justice Department and FAA were told to more robustly enforce civil and criminal penalties for drone operators who violate laws or airspace restrictions. Grant programs are planned for state and local law enforcement to access drone-detection and tracking equipment., the order also indicates

Drone industry growth

In his first term, Trump sought to increase the use of drones and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has been directed to promote exports of U.S.-made drones, in addition to federal agencies being ordered to prioritize purchases of them.

“The United States must accelerate the safe commercialization of drone technologies and fully integrate UAS into the National Airspace System,” the order reads. “The time has come to accelerate testing and to enable routine drone operations, scale up domestic production, and expand the export of trusted, American-manufactured drone technologies to global markets.”

The order directs the FAA to allow commercial users and public safety officials not to fly drones beyond their range of sight, meaning that a user must be able to see the drone they are operating.

“Building a strong and secure domestic drone sector is vital to reducing reliance on foreign sources, strengthening critical supply chains, and ensuring that the benefits of this technology are delivered to the American people,” the order says.

Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy was directed to initiate artificial intelligence tools to assist in and expedite the review of a UAS waiver application, and the Transportation Department was told to develop an Electric Vertical Takeoff and Landing Pilot Program to accelerate the deployment of safe and lawful eVTOL operations in the United States.

Supersonic flight

An additional executive order titled “Leading the World in Supersonic Flight” seeks to promise planes that travel at supersonic speeds, which are greater than the speed of sound at approximately 768 mph at sea level, or Mach 1.

“The United States stands at the threshold of a bold new chapter in aerospace innovation,” the order reads. “For more than 50 years, outdated and overly restrictive regulations have grounded the promise of supersonic flight over land, stifling American ingenuity, weakening our global competitiveness, and ceding leadership to foreign adversaries.”

The order noted that “advances in aerospace engineering, materials science, and noise reduction now make supersonic flight not just possible, but safe, sustainable, and commercially viable.”

The order repeals regulations prohibiting cross-country supersonic flights, which for decades have precluded nonmilitary air travel over land at faster-than-sound speeds.

The Concorde was manufactured from 1965 to 1979, but are no longer flown by airlines, however, Boom Supersonic and NASA are currently developing new supersonic passenger jets.

LEOPOLD, Ind. — On the ceiling of Abbie Brockman’s middle school English classroom in Perry County, the fluorescent lights are covered with images of a bright blue sky, a few clouds floating by.

Outside, the real sky isn’t always blue. Sometimes it’s hazy, with pollution drifting from coal-fired power plants in this part of southwest Indiana. Knowing exactly how much, and what it may be doing to the people who live there, is why Brockman got involved with a local environmental organization that’s installing air and water quality monitors in her community.

“Industry and government is very, very, very powerful. It’s more powerful than me. I’m just an English teacher,” Brockman said. But she wants to feel she can make a difference.

In a way, Brockman’s monitoring echoes the reporting that the Environmental Protection Agency began requiring from large polluters more than a decade ago. Emissions from four coal-fired plants in southwest Indiana have dropped 60% since 2010, when the rule took effect.

That rule is now on the chopping block, one of many that President Trump’s EPA argues is costly and burdensome for industry.

But experts say dropping the requirement risks a big increase in emissions if companies are no longer publicly accountable for what they put in the air. And they say losing the data — at the same time the EPA is cutting air quality monitoring elsewhere — would make it tougher to fight climate change.

Rule required big polluters to say how much they are emitting

At stake is the Greenhouse Gas Reporting program, a 2009 rule from President Obama’s administration that affects large carbon polluters like refineries, power plants, wells and landfills. In the years since, they’ve collectively reported a 20% drop in emissions, mostly driven by the closure of coal plants.

And what happens at these big emitters makes a difference. Their declining emissions account for more than three-quarters of the overall, if modest, decline in all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions since 2010.

The registry includes places not usually thought of as big polluters but that have notable greenhouse gas emissions, such as college campuses, breweries and cereal factories. Even Walt Disney World in Florida, where pollution dropped 62% since 2010, has to report along with nearly 10,600 other places.

“We can’t solve climate change without knowing how much pollution major facilities are emitting and how that’s changing over time,” said Jeremy Symons, a former EPA senior climate advisor now at Environmental Protection Network, an organization of ex-EPA officials that monitors environmental policies. The group provided calculations as a part of the Associated Press’ analysis of impacts from proposed rule rollbacks.

Symons said some companies would welcome the end of the registry because it would make it easier to pollute.

Experts see a role for registry in cutting emissions

It’s not clear how much the registry itself has contributed to declining emissions. More targeted regulations on smokestack emissions, as well as coal being crowded out by cheaper and less polluting natural gas, are bigger factors.

But the registry “does put pressure on companies to … document what they’ve done or at least to provide a baseline for what they’ve done,” said Stanford University climate scientist Rob Jackson, who heads Global Carbon Project, a group of scientists that tally national carbon emissions yearly.

Gina McCarthy, a former EPA administrator under Obama, said the registry makes clear how power plants are doing against each other, and that’s an inducement to lower emissions.

“It is money for those companies. It’s costs. It’s reputation. It’s been, I think, a wonderful success story and I hope it continues.”

The potential end of the reporting requirement comes as experts say much of the country’s air goes unmonitored. Nelson Arley Roque, a Penn State professor who co-authored a study in April on these “monitoring deserts,” said about 40% of U.S. lands are unmonitored. That often includes poor and rural neighborhoods.

“The air matters to all of us, but apparently 50 million people can’t know or will never know’’ how bad the air is, Roque said.

EPA seeks to cancel money to fund some air monitoring

The EPA is also trying to claw back money that had been earmarked for air monitoring, part of the termination of grants that it has labeled as targeting diversity, equity and inclusion. That includes $500,000 that would have funded 40 air monitors in a low-income and minority community in the Charlotte, N.C., area.

CleaneAIRE NC, a nonprofit that works to improve air quality across the state that was awarded the grant, is suing.

“It’s not diversity, equity and inclusion. It’s human rights,” said Daisha Wall, the group’s community science program manager. “We all deserve a right to clean air.”

Research strongly links poor air quality to diseases like asthma and heart disease, with a slightly less established link to cancer. Near polluting industries, experts say what’s often lacking is either enough data in specific locations or the will to investigate the health toll.

Indiana says it “maintains a robust statewide monitoring and assessment program for air, land and water,” but Brockman and others in this part of the state, including members of Southwestern Indiana Citizens for Quality of Life, aren’t satisfied. They’re installing their own air and water quality monitors. It’s a full-time job to keep the network of monitors up and running, fighting spotty Wi-Fi and connectivity issues.

Fighting industry is a sensitive subject, Brockman added. Many families depend on jobs at coal-fired power plants, and poverty is real. She keeps snacks in her desk for the kids who haven’t eaten breakfast.

“But you also don’t want to hear of another student that has a rare cancer,” she said.

Walling, Borenstein, Bickel and Wildeman write for the Associated Press. AP writer Matthew Daly contributed to this report from Washington.

The mandate that the DoT challenged was a key part of former US President Joe Biden’s plan to address climate change.

The United States Department of Transportation (DoT) has declared that former President Joe Biden’s administration exceeded its authority by assuming a high uptake of electric vehicles in calculating fuel economy rules.

With that declaration on Friday, the DoT paved the way for looser fuel standards and published the “Resetting the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Program” (CAFE) rule. A future separate rule from the administration of President Donald Trump will revise the fuel economy requirements.

“We are making vehicles more affordable and easier to manufacture in the United States. The previous administration illegally used CAFE standards as an electric vehicle mandate,” Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said in a statement.

The department’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in writing its rule last year under Biden, had “assumed significant numbers of EVs would continue to be produced regardless of the standards set by the agency, in turn increasing the level of standards that could be considered maximum feasible,” it said Friday.

A shift away from Biden policies 

In January, Duffy signed an order directing NHTSA to rescind fuel economy standards issued under Biden for the 2022-2031 model years that had aimed to drastically reduce fuel use for cars and trucks.

In a release last year, the DoT, then led by Pete Buttigieg, put in place a required fuel economy to increase by 2 percent for cars made between 2027 and 2031.

At the time, the DoT said it would help save consumers upwards of $600 on gas every year. It was also part of the Biden administration’s plan to address climate change.

“These new fuel economy standards will save our nation billions of dollars, help reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and make our air cleaner for everyone. Americans will enjoy the benefits of this rule for decades to come,” then NHTSA Deputy Administrator Sophie Shulman said at the time.

In June 2024, the NHTSA said it would hike CAFE requirements to about 50.4 miles per gallon (4.67 litres per 100km) by 2031 from 39.1mpg currently for light-duty vehicles.

The agency last year said the rule for passenger cars and trucks would reduce gasoline consumption by 64 billion gallons and cut emissions by 659 million metric tons, cutting fuel costs with net benefits estimated at $35.2bn.

Late on Thursday, Senate Republicans proposed eliminating fines for failures to meet CAFE rules as part of a wide-ranging tax bill, the latest move aimed at making it easier for automakers to build gas-powered vehicles.

Last year, Chrysler-parent Stellantis paid $190.7m in civil penalties for failing to meet US fuel economy requirements for 2019 and 2020 after paying nearly $400m for penalties from 2016 through 2019. GM previously paid $128.2m in penalties for 2016 and 2017.

Stellantis said it supported the Senate Republican proposal “to provide relief while DoT develops its proposal to reset the CAFE standards … The standards are out of sync with the current market reality, and immediate relief is necessary to preserve affordability and freedom of choice.”

GM declined to comment.

Israel’s war on Gaza has turbocharged its already booming military-tech industry, with weapons and surveillance systems tested on Palestinians continuing to be sold around the world. Israel’s role as a global arms innovator has only deepened since October 7, 2023, and some governments and corporations are profiting.

Things got heated between Elizabeth Banks and Jessica Biel last summer. Sweat was poured. Scores were settled. Justin Timberlake even got involved.

The intense showdowns occurred on a New York City padel court when the women had days off from filming their new Prime Video limited series, “The Better Sister,” now streaming. Squaring off in the increasingly popular racquet sport, the actors, along with Biel’s husband, Timberlake, and Banks’ husband, Max Handelman, “had a blast kicking each other’s asses,” Biel said.

Back on “The Better Sister” set, Banks and Biel were happy to play on the same team. There, they both served as stars and executive producers, and they praised the collaborative, ego-free environment overseen by showrunners Olivia Milch and Regina Corrado. (Though their competitive streak did continue with between-takes Bananagrams.)

“This was a group of, frankly, a lot of moms, who were like, ‘We don’t have time for nonsense. We want our crew home to have dinner with their families,’ ” Banks said. “There was a lot of mutual respect going on, but then we all demanded the best from each other.”

The eight-episode whodunit, adapted from the 2019 novel by Alafair Burke, is a twisty, Shakespearean tale: Two estranged sisters, the glamorous, successful Chloe (Biel) and the recovering addict Nicky (Banks), are thrust back together when Chloe’s husband, Adam (Corey Stoll) — who used to be Nicky’s husband — is murdered. When Nicky and Adam’s son, Ethan (Maxwell Acee Donovan) — who was raised by Chloe and Adam — is arrested for the crime, the sisters must untangle a web of family secrets and betrayal. Yeah, it’s complicated.

Elizabeth Banks, top, and Jessica Biel in a scene from “The Better Sister.”

(Jojo Whilden / Prime Video)

“So many shows I’ve written on are about muscular, macho men doing violent things to each other,” said Corrado, whose past work includes “Sons of Anarchy” and “Deadwood.” “But I think the scariest thing is women in this space and the intimate damage we can do to each other, particularly as sisters.”

While Biel, 43, and Banks, 51, both rose to prominence as actors, they’ve been increasingly expanding their resumes behind the camera. Over the past decade, Banks has directed films, including “Cocaine Bear,” “Pitch Perfect 2” and the 2019 “Charlie’s Angels” reboot, and produced numerous projects under her and Handelman’s Brownstone Productions banner.

Biel has likewise segued into producing with her company, Iron Ocean, which backed the psychological thriller series “Cruel Summer,” “The Sinner” and “Candy,” the latter two in which she also starred. (Biel is also in early development on a reboot of “7th Heaven,” the ‘90s series on which she got her start as the rebellious Mary Camden, though she won’t reprise her role.)

For Biel, those recent thriller projects, along with “The Better Sister,” speak to what she finds “endlessly interesting.” “Why do humans do the things that they do?” she said. “When you’re pressed up against the wall and you’re fighting for your life or to keep your kids safe, what would you do? How far would you go?”

In a joint video interview, Banks and Biel discussed making “The Better Sister” and their decades of experience that led them here. These are edited excerpts from the conversation, which includes a few spoilers.

What initially attracted you to “The Better Sister” and your specific roles?

Biel: I first read for the Nicky part, and I was definitely interested in it. Then, a couple days later, I got the call saying, “They want you for Chloe.” When I heard that Elizabeth was talking to them about Nicky, I was like, oh, yes. This makes more sense to me now. I’ve also heard for a million years that we look like sisters.

Banks: I had never heard a bad word about Jessica Biel in the industry. She was known as kind, generous, talented, a great collaborator, easy to be around. And I thought, well, that sounds easy and fun. Craig Gillespie, who directed our pilot, got on with me and said, “I want you to be a mess, Banks. It needs more humor, and you’ll be funny.” He sold me on this messy Nicky, in contrast to Jessica, and I thought that sounded like a great idea all across the board.

“I love that I got to reset my career, and I’ve been able to do it multiple times,” said Elizabeth Banks, who has starred in comedies and dramas onscreen.

(Annie Noelker / For The Times)

Elizabeth, as an actor, you’ve received the most recognition for your comedic roles, but you’ve been focused lately on quieter, dramatic parts. Is that a direction you’d always hoped to go in?

Banks: It’s interesting. I started my career in a lot of dramas. Man, I remember making “Seabiscuit.” It was nominated for seven Academy Awards. It was very serious fare, and I was put in that [dramatic] box early on. It honestly took making “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” to even clue people in that I was funny. Like, I knew I was. I thought I was going to come in and do rom-coms, but when I started making films, it wasn’t a skill that was asked of me. I love that I got to reset my career, and I’ve been able to do it multiple times.

The very title of this series, “The Better Sister,” pits these two women against each other. How have you seen that comparison game play out in your own experiences in this industry?

Biel: You’re constantly compared. At least back in the day, it felt like people were trying to keep women away from each other. You’d sit in an audition room, and there would be this energy because your agents and managers would have made you feel like these women are your competition. There really was a feeling of ”you are against everybody, and everybody is against you.” I feel like that’s changed so much, but this industry is cutthroat. I have a lot of real experience in feeling less than, feeling judged, feeling like the industry has been putting their thumb on top of you, and you have to fight, fight, fight for every opportunity.

Banks: I had a similar experience coming up as an ingénue. There’s a scarcity mentality, like there’s only so many roles. Now we have all of this incredible data, like what the Geena Davis Institute has collected, about women’s roles in Hollywood. At some point, I just looked around and thought, the numbers are against me. The very first film I ever made [“Wet Hot American Summer”] was with Paul Rudd and Bradley Cooper, and they went on to play superheroes. I’m never going to get that, especially once I got over a certain age. You start to understand that it’s systemic, and it is a numbers game. You can keep playing that game, or you can do what so many incredible women have done before me, which is create your own opportunities.

I know that we are encouraging the next generation because I made a movie with them called “Bottoms.” Emma Seligman, Rachel Sennott and Ayo Edebiri, they’re doing it now. They’re going to make their own stuff, and it’s incredible. I think the industry has changed because women changed it. I just want to make sure that we have actually learned the lessons, and we are creating the opportunities.

Biel: I really do hope it is different and better and more fair and more loving because, man, it was hard.

One of the big themes in this show is trust. This idea of, can we trust our family? Can we trust our partners? Can we trust the police? Can we trust our memories? Did working on this show make you question anything about your own realities?

Banks: My father served in Vietnam, and we never talked about it when I was a kid. Vietnam vets suffered when they came back. America was not interested in them. What does that do to people’s psyches that had served their country and now they’re being spit at? This brought up a lot of those notions for me about how little you actually know your parents when you’re a child and how the layers come out the older you get.

I was the older sister, and I was able to protect my younger sister from the version of my father that I knew. He didn’t give that version to her because he and my mom had learned a lesson about what was going on with him. I’m 11 years older than my brother. He did not get the same version of my parents that I did.

“Where I parallel a little bit in Chloe’s world is this weird, naive trust of police,” Jessica Biel said about her character. “It’s interesting watching Elizabeth in the scenes where she’s expressing Nicky’s feelings about, ‘Don’t trust these people. Don’t give them anything.’ ”

(Annie Noelker / For The Times)

Biel: Where I parallel a little bit in Chloe’s world is this weird, naive trust of police. It’s interesting watching Elizabeth in the scenes where she’s expressing Nicky’s feelings about, “Don’t trust these people. Don’t give them anything.” I was wondering if I have those same thoughts that Chloe does, where I would just offer up information that I shouldn’t because I trust that they’re here to protect me. Would I be in a situation where I would not be taking care of myself or my family members because I felt obligated to almost please this police department who is supposed to help me?

So, [I was] trying to understand that system a little bit better, alongside all the questions you have about your parents and what version you got as a child. My brother and I are three years apart, but I was working when I was really young, and he wasn’t. He was at home. I basically abandoned him. But I was so self-absorbed, I didn’t think about it in that way. I just was doing what was my passion. I know he had a very different experience in our family than I did. I feel nervous to talk to him about it sometimes because I have guilt around that. He was in my shadow, and I left him.

Spoilers for the final episodes — we ultimately learn that Nicky killed Adam, and that reveal puts everything we’ve seen her do thus far in a different light. Elizabeth, what went into playing a character who’s keeping a huge secret from everyone, including the audience, for so long?

Banks: Look, I literally say right after he gets arrested, “Tell them it was me. I’ll say I did it.” But nobody’s going to believe her. I was actually always thinking about “Presumed Innocent,” the original [film], where she knows all along that she can make him free. Ethan’s not going to jail. Nicky was willing and ready every minute of this entire series to offer herself up and say, “I’m going to jail for this. I did it.” I think she almost expects that it’s where her life is supposed to go — but she also can’t let Adam win. So, there is a lot of strategy going on for Nicky. She’s playing chess, and she’s playing the long game, and poor Chloe is not in on any of it.

Chloe then ends up framing Adam’s boss for the murder in the finale. Jessica, how did you feel about that decision and the motivations around it?

Biel: It felt to me that it was what had to happen. Because once it’s revealed that Adam set Nicky up and pushed those drugs on her, and she’s not this horrific mom, her son was not in danger — that realization for Chloe is just like — oh, my God — everything that she has done has been in vain. She ruined her sister’s life. She’s taken over being the mother of this child. For what? It’s all a lie. So, when all of that comes out, that is the moment where she is 100% loyal to Nicky. They are officially in it together. Now she has to protect Nicky in order to protect Ethan, and to do that, we need somebody to take the blame for this because we are all culpable. Everybody is playing their part, and nobody is innocent.

Elizabeth Banks and Maxwell Acee Donovan, who plays her son Ethan in the series.

(Jojo Whilden / Prime Video)

There’s a line in the show to the effect of, “Nothing ever really disappears,” whether that’s because of the stories that people tell about us or the permanence of the internet. Is there a story or project that’s followed you around that you wish would go away?

Biel: I’m sure you could dig up some stuff about me, and I would probably be like, “Oh, yeah, that wasn’t the best choice.” But you have to fall on your face, look like an idiot, sound like an idiot and get back up and go, “All right, won’t do that again.” I don’t know where I would be if I didn’t stumble around a little bit. I don’t want to be stumbling around too much anymore at this age.

On the flip side, what past chapter of your life are you the most proud of?

Banks: I really am proud that I was able to use the opportunity that came during “The Hunger Games,” where I had this guaranteed work with these big movies. I started my family then, and I started my directing career then, and it was because I wasn’t out there shaking it trying to make a living. It was a real gift to have some security for a hot minute because it allowed me to look around and go, is this what I really want? What are my priorities? What opportunities can I pursue while I have this security? I’m proud that I took advantage of it.

Biel: I think back in my early 20s, taking the opportunity to start my little [production] company [with co-founder Michelle Purple], which was dumb and small and lame for like 10 years. We didn’t make anything, and it was a disaster. But we hustled, I took control and said I’m going to start making headway to make things for me. I’m not going to just sit and wait for a phone call from my agents, which is what I had been told to do. I started procuring material and working with writers and learning how to develop them. Now, my little company is making some stuff, which is cool.

Neither of you come from industry families. Did you feel like outsiders stepping into that world?

Banks: I still feel like an outsider.

Biel: I was going to say the same thing!

Banks: I know my worth, and I know what I’ve earned, so I don’t have impostor syndrome anymore. But I do feel like there’s a party in Hollywood that I’m not necessarily on the inside of. It keeps me scrappy, to be honest.

Biel: It also keeps you from getting lost in the sauce. You’re not paying so much attention to everybody else or what you’re not getting. It’s a good mindset to be in because you just focus on what you’re doing. When I’m outputting creatively, that’s what fuels me. The joy is in doing it.

In the spring of 1990, the chief executive’s office at British Rail received an urgent telephone call from the area manager at Newcastle upon Tyne saying there was a one-armed Scotsman wandering around the main signal box claiming to be BR’s new chairman and wanting to know how everything worked. Was it all right to tell him?

The man was Bob Reid, who had recently moved from Shell, where he was the UK chairman, and was now on the brink of a difficult five-year stint at BR that would end in a privatisation about which he had serious misgivings. His foray into the signal box, matched by an excursion into the drivers’ restroom at Waterloo, was typical of the man. Determined, impulsive and impatient to get things moving, he had a liking for human contact and an easy manner, regardless of rank.

The offer to take over BR had come in 1990. Reid, who has died aged 91, was not the first choice; rumour had it that 20 people had already turned it down. But he saw it as an opportunity to apply his skills to an inward-looking public sector organisation that had long been a concern to government and which faced major challenges with the forthcoming Channel tunnel rail link. Reid could not wait to get started, but he dismayed some of his new colleagues with a bullish joke that he was used to much bigger projects than those he faced at BR.

When he took over, the railways were improving, although the level of government subsidy remained controversial. Under his predecessor, a veteran railwayman confusingly also called Sir Robert Reid, steady improvements had been made, helped by a benign economic environment. The business had been reorganised into sectors, which proved a success, but the recession of the early 1990s now hit railway finances and Bob Reid failed to get government backing for BR’s proposed investments.

He left the running of the railway largely to his chief executive, John Welsby, and concentrated on projects such as the Channel tunnel, which the government had made a priority. BR favoured a route through south London that provided alternative options and would be linked to expensive new facilities. But the government, with Michael Heseltine promoting the regeneration of the Docklands area, opted for an east London route. Reid took the rebuff badly and some felt he might resign, but he remarked in an outburst that he immediately regretted: “When you are in the middle of a pantomime, you want to stay with it.”

When BR famously blamed “leaves on the line” and “the wrong kind of snow” for various delays, and when he failed to get his investment plans through, his lack of success began to invite questions about his competence in dealing with government. It was not helped when the transport minister, Malcolm Rifkind, described him as being “on a learning curve”.

Within the railways, Reid’s lack of appetite for detailed knowledge grated, and managers were reluctant to discuss problems for fear of receiving a diktat. But they respected his strong emphasis on safety, including his insistence that track maintenance supervisors must brief their gangs on safety every morning.

Reid’s difficulties multiplied when John Major’s new government decided to privatise the railways. That scenario had not been part of Reid’s original brief, and he was publicly critical of the detail. He forecast accurately that the complex division of the system would multiply bureaucracy, that profits would not be sufficiently reinvested, and that safety could be compromised. Some in BR hoped he would challenge the plan by resigning. But he argued that “managing large undertakings through the medium of government is a recipe for all sorts of problems. Even though I would have done it differently, getting BR into the private sector is the main thing.”

By 1995, at the end of his term, Reid could point to better financial performance (with expectations of a £400m-a-year profit for BR), an improvement in industrial relations that had seen just two days lost to strikes over his whole period in office, and improved productivity. But he had lost the strategic battles.

The son of Elizabeth (nee Paul), and William Reid, he was born in Cupar, Fife, where his life was transformed by a terrible accident when he was nine. Working in his father’s butcher’s shop one evening, he attempted to unstick a mincing machine and lost his right hand. He described the incident as “catastrophic” but insisted it only sharpened his desire to be part of the action. He learned to write with his left hand within a fortnight and became a formidable golfer with a handicap of four. “Making things happen is a state of mind,” he would say later. “The joy of leadership lies as much in overcoming setbacks as enjoying the rewards of success.”

Reid demonstrated his leadership during a career with Shell that he started in 1956 as a management trainee after studying politics, economics and history at St Andrews. He represented the university at golf and met his future wife, Joan Oram, there – they married in 1958. He also forged significant friendships with two aspiring politicians, Bob Horton, later chairman of BP and National Rail, and John MacGregor, who was appointed transport secretary while Reid was running BR.

His Shell career, largely focused on the “downstream” processing and marketing of oil, took him to Malaysia, Nigeria, Kenya and then back to Nigeria as managing director from 1970-74, before a similar job in Thailand and a posting in Australia as director of downstream oil. In 1983 he was brought back to London as coordinator for supply and marketing, becoming chairman and chief executive of Shell UK in 1985.

Reid, nicknamed “the one-armed bandit”, was admired for his energy and enthusiasm but never reached the committee of managing directors, as board level was known at Shell. His skills in dealing with people were deployed in what was largely a representational role, although it included responsibility for UK refining and the important North Sea operations. His experience of determinedly camping in the outer offices of Nigerian ministers when they refused to see him was judged to have helped him with the UK government.

Reid’s five years as chairman reinforced his reputation for energy, unstuffiness and charisma. He crusaded for proper management training (in the absence then of business schools), establishing the Foundation for Management Education and chairing the British Institute of Management (1988-90). With his sympathy for the arts (particularly music and opera) and a keen eye for public relations, he took Shell’s sponsorship in a new direction with backing for Bafta. At a time when Shell’s continuing activity in South Africa was under attack, Reid argued that the company could be part of change, and provided liberally managed employment that helped it to be seen in a different light.

He was knighted in 1990. On leaving BR he became chairman of the retail giant Sears Holdings, and later deputy governor of the Bank of Scotland. He was the first chancellor of Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen. Other chairmanships included London Electricity, Avis Europe and the International Petroleum Exchange.

Joan died in 2017. Reid is survived by their sons, Douglas, Paul and Michael.

Labour prosecutors allege that workers were brought to Brazil illegally and toiled in ‘slavery-like conditions’.

Brazilian labour prosecutors have filed a lawsuit against the Chinese auto manufacturer BYD and two contractors over allegations of illegally trafficking labourers to live and work under conditions “analogous to slavery”.

On Tuesday, the prosecutors, charged with enforcing labour laws, said in a statement that they would seek 257 million reais ($45m) in damages from BYD as well as contractors China JinJiang Construction Brazil and Tecmonta Equipamentos Inteligentes.

They accused the three companies of trafficking Chinese workers to build a BYD plant in Camacari, in the northeastern state of Bahia. There, the prosecutors allege that the companies subjected the workers to “extremely degrading” conditions.

“In December last year, 220 Chinese workers were found to be in conditions analogous to slavery and victims of international human trafficking,” the statement said.

The damages the prosecutors are seeking amount to a penalty of 50,000 reais ($8,867) per violation, multiplied by the number of workers affected, in addition to moral damages.

The lawsuit is the result of a police raid in December 2024, during which authorities say they “rescued” 163 Chinese workers from Jinjiang and 57 from Tecmonta.

The prosecutors say the workers were victims of international human trafficking and were brought to Brazil with visas that did not fit their jobs.

They also allege that conditions at the construction site left the labourers almost totally dependent on their employers, by withholding up to 70 percent of their wages and imposing high contract termination costs. Some of the workers even had their passports taken away, limiting their ability to leave, according to the prosecutors.

The lawsuit also describes meagre living conditions, including some beds without mattresses.

“In one dormitory, only one toilet was identified for use by 31 people, forcing workers to wake up around 4am to wash themselves before starting their workday,” the prosecutors’ statement notes.

Brazil is the largest market for BYD outside China. The Chinese auto giant has said that it is committed to human rights, is cooperating with authorities and will respond to the lawsuit in court.

A spokesman for the company said in December that allegations of poor working conditions were part of an effort to “smear” China and Chinese companies.

But the Brazilian labour prosecutors rejected the notion that their lawsuit was based on anti-Chinese sentiment.

“Our lawsuit is very well-founded, with a substantial amount of evidence provided during the investigation process,” deputy labour prosecutor Fabio Leal said in an interview.

He stated that the workers, who have all returned to China, would receive any payments related to the lawsuit there, with the companies in Brazil responsible for providing proof of payment.

Kyiv’s intelligence chief ‘confirms’ that China is directly aiding Russia’s arms industry.

Ukraine has data that confirms China is supplying Russia’s arms industry, according to the head of Kyiv’s foreign intelligence service.

Oleh Ivashchenko said in an interview published by the Ukrinform news agency on Monday that Ukraine can “confirm” that China is providing important materials and equipment to 20 Russian military factories.

Beijing has regularly denied accusations from Kyiv that it is aiding Moscow’s war against its neighbour.

Last month, Ukraine accused China of direct military assistance to Russia’s arms industry. Ivashchenko said that the country’s intelligence agency can now confirm those reports.

“There is information that China supplies tooling machines, special chemical products, gunpowder, and components specifically to defence manufacturing industries,” he said. “We have confirmed data on 20 Russian factories.”

‘Groundless’

Although China has sought to project an image of neutrality and denies any involvement in the war, it has increased trade and economic cooperation with Russia since its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Meanwhile, Western countries have imposed sweeping sanctions on Moscow.

Ukraine has regularly suggested China is supporting the war, and has said that Beijing has sent soldiers to fight alongside Russian forces.

Last month, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky made his first public accusation that China is supplying gunpowder and materials to Russia’s arms manufacturers, while also accusing Chinese citizens of helping in the production of drones.

China rejected the claim as “groundless,” but Kyiv has since imposed sanctions on three Chinese entities.

Ivashchenko said that Ukrainian intelligence had information on at least five cases of Russian-Chinese cooperation in the aviation sector between 2024 and 2025, including the transfer of equipment, spare parts and technical documentation.

He added that there were six cases involving “large shipments” of specialty chemicals, but did not provide further details.

“As of early 2025, 80 percent of critical electronic components found in Russian drones originated in China,” Ivashchenko added.

“At the same time, there are facts of product substitutions, deceptive product names; there are shell companies through which everything necessary for the production of microelectronics is supplied.”

The comments came as Ukraine’s Air Force said Russia had launched a record number of drones against Ukraine overnight on Sunday.

Russian forces deployed 298 drones and 69 missiles, according to the report, but the Air Force said it was able to down 266 drones and 45 missiles.

Al Jazeera was not able to independently verify the figures. Ukraine said that the attack was the largest of the war in terms of weapons fired.