Inflation

For more than a decade, Donald Trump seemed to defy all the known laws of political physics.

He was impeached, repeatedly indicted and convicted of multiple felony counts. He ranted and raged and acted more like a colicky infant than any president that anyone living today has ever seen.

He enriched himself lavishly, pursued his self-interests relentlessly and indulged his whimsies — from war, to tariffs to tacky decor — without regard to cost, crudeness or any flicker of conscience.

And yet Trump bestrode the country like no figure since Franklin D. Roosevelt. He was not just a political titan, but an irresistible social and cultural force.

On Tuesday, however, time, impatience and gravity finally caught up with Trump.

He took an electoral thrashing that will stand alongside the worst political beat-downs of modern times. His party not only lost control of the House and Senate, but drowned in a blue wave that swept away Republicans in election contests big and small, from sea to shining sea.

No lies, no bluster, no flimsily drafted lawsuits challenging the result can change or overturn that fact.

Presidents almost invariably lose congressional seats at the midpoint of their term, especially during their second stretch in office. But Tuesday’s results weren’t predestiny. They were a Republican disaster wholly of Trump’s making.

Keeping control of the House, which the GOP held by a historically small margin, was always going to be exceedingly difficult, even after Trump and his allies ruthlessly gerrymandered congressional lines to improve their chances. Democrats needed a gain of merely three seats. They scooped those up before the polls even closed in California, Nevada and other Western states.

The only question, with many races still to be decided, is how big a majority Democrats will enjoy when the next Congress convenes in January.

The Senate, where Republicans enjoyed a 53-47 advantage, should have been the GOP’s bulwark.

The political map could scarcely have been more favorable. Roughly two-thirds of the contested Senate seats were in states that Trump carried in 2024. Five of the seven toss-up races were in states Trump won, several by double digits.

Democrats were happily biding their time Tuesday night, awaiting results from Michigan and Alaska to see how many seats they would ultimately gain.

At the start of this election cycle, the notion that Democrats would seriously compete in such deep-red bastions as Kansas, South Carolina and Texas would have seemed absurd. On Tuesday, voters elected Democrats James Talarico in Texas and Annie Andrews in South Carolina, the first time the party has won a statewide office in either state in decades.

In Kansas, Adam Hamilton beat Roger Marshall to become Kansas’ first Democratic U.S. senator since before “The Wizard of Oz” was released in movie theaters in 1939.

Trump could not have done more in the last two years to undermine his party and its political standing if he’d purposely set out on a mission of self-sabotage.

His meddling in primaries left Republicans with several flawed candidates, including in Texas and South Carolina. His cruel and roughshod anti-immigrant policies alienated Latinos, who just two years ago voted for Trump in record numbers.

His tariffs and, in particular, go-it-alone war with Iran stoked inflation and sent the cost of gas, diesel, groceries and fertilizer soaring. Those elevated prices taxed consumers everywhere but hit particularly hard in rural, small town and exurban America, which is home to much of the Republican base.

Trump’s focus on building a White House ballroom, raising a triumphal arch and resurfacing Washington’s Reflecting Pool — which he visited on election eve for a closing message, that, inexplicably, drew attention to its botched renovation — showed exactly where his skewed priorities lie during these economically anxious times.

Empathetic it was not.

As inflation worsened and his seeming obtuseness grew — “I don’t give a damn,” Trump said of higher gas prices, “we’re making a freaking fortune” — the president’s approval ratings sank to levels not seen since a Trump-inspired mob laid siege to the Capitol in a failed bid to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Even that defeat wasn’t as bad as Tuesday’s political massacre.

Voters were not happy.

Roughly three-quarters of those sampled by the Associated Press said they were angry or dissatisfied with the overall direction of the country as well as the state of the economy. Nearly 7 in 10 said they wanted Congress, supine under Republican control, to provide more checks and balances on the capricious president.

We live in an age of remarkable political volatility.

From 1960 to 1978, there were three elections in which control of the White House, Senate or House switched parties. From 1980 to 1998, there were four. Since 2000, there have been 12 elections in which power shifted, with Tuesday’s midterm referendum being the latest.

Voters have punished presidents for an unpopular war (in Iraq), for policies they didn’t like (Obamacare, threatened cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) and for that particular scourge of presidents and their parties, inflation.

But no other midterm election this century delivered the kind of personal repudiation that Trump faced, because no other president placed himself so very front and center in the campaign.

Riding the thermals of his over-inflated ego, marching stridently beneath his banner of self-regard, Trump incessantly urged voters “to pretend I’m on the ballot.” They did and their verdict was thunderous and clear.

Trump lost. Epically.

Let the healing — and the reckoning — begin.

Americans will vote in the US midterm elections on Tuesday, with the economy, the cost of living, and immigration among the top issues. While Democrats and Republicans share concerns about the rising cost of living, recent surveys suggest differences in how they view the economy, President Donald Trump, and other key issues.

In an NBC poll released on Sunday, 75 percent of respondents said they were dissatisfied with the state of the US economy, and 51 percent said they were dissatisfied with their personal financial situation.

Other surveys conducted in October also offer a look into how voters from both parties felt about their finances and which issues mattered most.

Here is what we know:

What issues matter most to Democrats and Republicans?

The economy is the main concern for US voters, but Democrats and Republicans vary on the importance of issues like healthcare, immigration, and crime.

A Pew Research Centre survey, conducted between September 28 and October 4, suggested that 84 percent of registered voters considered the economy very important to their midterm vote. It was the top issue for 82 percent of respondents who prefer Republican candidates, and 88 percent for those who back Democrats.

However, the two groups differed on other issues.

About 85 percent of Democratic Party supporters considered the future of democracy very important, compared with 69 percent of Republicans. Healthcare was a priority for 82 percent of Democrats, compared with 53 percent of Republicans.

Republican supporters were more concerned about immigration, with 72 percent saying it was very important, compared with 53 percent of Democrats.

Violent crime was also more important to Republican supporters, at 64 percent, compared with 37 percent Democrats.

A KFF survey, conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation, an independent nonprofit, from September 16 to 21, suggested 42 percent of registered voter respondents trusted Democrats more to handle healthcare costs, compared with 22 percent who trusted Republicans.

On the cost of living, 39 percent trusted Democrats more, while 25 percent preferred Republicans.

What grade do Democrats and Republicans give Trump’s second term?

Views of President Trump and his economic policies remain divided along party lines.

In the Pew Research Centre survey, 91 percent of Democratic respondents and those who leaned Democratic believed Trump’s economic policies had made things worse.

Among Republican supporters, 39 percent said his policies had improved the economy, 35 percent said they made conditions worse, and 25 percent said they had little effect.

In the November 1 NBC News poll, 40 percent of registered-voter respondents approved of Trump’s overall job performance, compared with 60 percent who disapproved.

How do Democrats and Republicans feel about the economy?

Americans are concerned about rising costs, but Democrats are more likely than Republicans to express negative feelings about economic conditions.

In an October Pew Research survey, 36 percent of Republicans rated the US economy as excellent or good, compared with just 9 percent of Democrats or Democrat-leaning voters.

However, the majority in both groups expressed concern about the cost of essential goods and services.

According to PEW, 82 percent of Democrats and Democratic leaners were concerned about food and consumer prices, compared with 62 percent of Republicans and Republican leaners.

Healthcare costs concerned 80 percent of Democrats and 57 percent of Republicans, while petrol and energy prices worried 81 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of Republicans.

A Fox News poll released on October 14 also had 74 percent of registered voter respondents rating the economy negatively, and 60 percent identified the cost of living as their biggest economic concern.

The November 1 NBC News poll found that 53 percent of Republican respondents were dissatisfied with the state of the economy.

The Pew Research Center also found that abortion and gun policy were less central to Democratic respondents in comparison with 2022. Among Republican voters, education policy and energy policy were less important than they were four years ago.

Are Americans satisfied with their financial situation?

In the NBC poll, 51 percent of registered voters were dissatisfied with their personal financial situation, compared with 49 percent who were satisfied.

It was the first time in 30 years of NBC polling that dissatisfaction with personal finances outweighed satisfaction.

In an NPR/PBS News/Marist poll on October 19-20, 38 percent of likely voters said their finances had gotten worse over the past year, 44 percent said they had remained about the same, and 15 percent said they had improved.

A total of 51 percent of Democratic likely voters said their finances had deteriorated, compared with 21 percent of Republicans.

In a Reuters/Ipsos survey conducted from September 30 to October 5, 71 percent of Democrats and 57 percent of Republicans said their incomes had not kept pace with rising prices.

Eric Ham, a former Democratic congressional staffer and Senate national security adviser, said that Trump’s global tariffs and the US-Israel war on Iran had added to the financial pressure on American households.

“Americans are paying more not just in terms of self-inflicted wounds that President Donald Trump implemented through tariffs, but also if you look at this war of choice,” Ham told Al Jazeera.

Are Democrats or Republicans more enthusiastic about voting?

Democratic voters reported higher enthusiasm about participating in the elections.

In the Marist poll, 91 percent of likely Democratic voters were enthusiastic or very enthusiastic, compared with 86 percent of Republicans and 76 percent of Independents.

John Fury, a former Republican congressional staffer, said the final days of campaigning were focused on turnout.

“This is not a persuasion election. This is a get-out-the base election,” Fury said.

In a KFF survey, Democratic candidate supporters were 25 percentage points more likely than Republican supporters to describe themselves as “more motivated” than usual to vote (63 percent versus 38 percent).

The November 1 NBC News poll also reported high interest in the elections, with 70 percent of registered voters rating their interest at nine or 10 on a 10-point scale.

Who are Americans planning to vote for?

Surveys conducted in the final weeks before the election suggested voters preferred Democratic candidates or Democratic control of Congress over Republicans.

An NBC poll conducted on October 28-30 and published on November 1 suggested that 52 percent of registered voters preferred Democratic control of Congress compared with 45 percent who preferred Republican control.

Similarly, the Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted from October 22 to October 26 suggested that 53 percent of likely voters would vote for or lean towards the Democratic candidates in their district, compared with 44 percent who supported Republicans.

These surveys measure voting sentiment, but they do not reflect the results of the individual races.

When Paul McKinney, a farmer in northeast Arkansas, thinks of his son’s childhood, he remembers a small boy playing in vast fields.

To a child, a flooded rice field is “like a giant, 40-acre swimming pool”, he said.

Rice has been a staple on McKinney’s farm for four generations. Next year, however, the family plans to plant much less. Instead, they will focus on soya, a crop that is cheaper to produce.

Like farmers across the United States, McKinney is making tough decisions this year in response to higher fuel and fertiliser costs, which have skyrocketed since the start of the war on Iran.

This week, farmers also face tough choices at the polls. Democrats are expected to make gains in the midterm elections, as voters react to high prices economy-wide by switching parties or staying home.

Observers are watching farm country closely. Texas and Kansas could send Democrats to the Senate for the first time in decades. In the House of Representatives, two majority-rural districts, Wisconsin’s Third and North Carolina First, could become tipping points for Democratic control.

Still, many of the country’s most rural areas, like Arkansas, are also its most safely Republican.

That leaves an uphill battle for Democrat Hallie Shoffner, who quit farming last year to challenge Republican Senator Tom Cotton in a campaign squarely focused on rising costs.

How high costs hurt farmers

Even before the US-Israel war on Iran, high input costs were straining farmers, said Ryan Loy, an extension economist for the University of Arkansas’ Division of Agriculture.

Loy pointed to a trade war with China that began in 2018, the ongoing war in Ukraine and disruptions related to the 2025 tariffs as factors driving up input costs and disrupting markets. A drought across the US heartland, made worse by climate change, has added to the strain.

Farmers across the country are working to adapt. In Arkansas, many farmers skipped rice in favour of soya. Soya is “the least input-intensive crop, and perhaps can break even or have the shallowest loss”, Loy said.

Now Arkansas, usually the country’s top rice producer, has its lowest rice acreage since the 1970s. Many farmers hoped 2026 would bring economic recovery so they could return to rice.

Then, the war on Iran hit. With the Strait of Hormuz blocked, fertiliser costs jumped just as farmers were fertilising during the spring planting season.

Loy tracked the increase in a sample budget that he maintains for Arkansas row crop farmers. “Urea fertiliser specifically peaked about 39 percent over our budgeted amount,” Loy said. Diesel costs came in about 72 percent more than budget averaged across the planting, growing and harvesting seasons, Loy found.

Those changes represent a significant economic hit. “For our state alone, it’s an additional cost of about $343m,” Loy said.

Last week, US President Donald Trump announced an $8bn fuel relief programme for farmers, following $12bn in tariff-related aid in 2025. If the fuel relief payment were divided equally between the 50 states, it would cover less than half of the extra costs that Loy estimates Arkansas’ farmers paid this year.

McKinney, a member of the Arkansas Farm Bureau, said the announcement was welcome. Still, he hoped for longer-term solutions that would prevent “this constant battle for survival”.

For many farms, survival is indeed getting harder. Farm bankruptcies for the first three quarters of 2026 were up 19 percent compared to this time last year, according to a recent analysis by the University of Arkansas’ National Agricultural Law Center. They were up 73 percent compared to 2024.

‘We can’t keep doing this’

McKinney’s son, who grew up playing in muddy rice fields, now helps his dad farm their 24,000 acres. So does McKinney’s nephew, who this year is driving a combine.

“As has been done for us, we would love to be able to hand that down to the next generation,” said McKinney. “But you also have to think about what is going to be best for them.”

McKinney questions how long farming will provide a sustainable living. “It’s some heavy things to think about,” McKinney said.

For Shoffner, a sixth-generation Arkansas farmer, that reckoning came last year.

Higher costs, lower crop prices and the uncertainty of trade wars and tariffs “made the numbers stop working” for their 2,000-acre farm operation, Shoffner told Al Jazeera.

“I know what it feels like to work hard, make every adjustment you can, and still have to sit down with your family and say, ‘We can’t keep doing this,’” Shoffner said.

To protect her parents’ land and retirement, Shoffner closed the family’s farm. That “heartbreaking” decision helped spur her Senate run.

“I decided that if I can’t farm, I will fight,” Shoffner said.

If elected, Shoffner wants to end the war on Iran, build trade policies farmers “can actually plan around”, invest in local processing and distribution, and pass a robust Farm Bill — strategies she hopes will help farmers and rural economies more broadly.

“If we want rural communities to have a future, the people producing our food have to be able to make a living doing it.”

Cotton did not respond to a request for comment.

How will farmers vote?

Economic pain may not change farmers’ votes, however, in Arkansas or nationwide. Michael Shepherd, a political scientist at the University of Michigan, said many farmers, like many rural voters, are committed Republicans.

Committed voters tend to view the economy through a partisan lens, according to Shepherd. “Their political behaviours, their voting choices, things like that, are not particularly responsive to changes in the agricultural economy,” he said.

Some polling this year, however, did suggest the potential for movement. A poll by the Farm Journal in April found that 35 percent of farmers who “usually” vote Republican and 15 percent who “always” vote Republican were still considering how they would vote.

And September polling from Purdue showed that, for the first time this term, a majority of farmers surveyed think the country is “on the wrong track”.

Even if farmers are swayable, of course, Shoffner still may not be the one to sway them: her campaign has been far outspent by Cotton’s, an established lawmaker who has received funding from interest groups like AIPAC and leaders at companies like Anthropic and Palantir.

“If one side has a massive war chest, and the other side has very limited resources, then that game of tug of war can be won much easier than it should be,” Shepherd said.

And even if farmers do change their votes, they may not decide elections.

McKinney, who is now farming one of the Shoffner family’s former fields, said farmers represent a shrinking percentage of rural voters — their strength now is in organising, not numbers.

Still, even where candidates like Shoffner don’t win, their campaigns might signal to funders that similar races may be competitive in the future or help Democrats win down-ballot seats.

In Arkansas’ second congressional district, for example, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is betting on Democrat Chris Jones. It’s a long-shot campaign, but across the country, at least some long-shot candidates are expected to win.

“All indications are that this is gonna be one of the biggest shifts away from the president’s party that we’ve observed,” Shepherd said.

Rates will remain 3.75-4 percent even as inflation continues to rise.

The United States Federal Reserve is set to hold interest rates steady in its final monetary policy decision before the US midterm elections.

The central bank will maintain rates at 3.75-4 percent, following a 10-2 vote, in line with expectations.

CME FedWatch, which tracks the likelihood of monetary policy decisions, indicated that there was more than a 90 percent chance rates would remain unchanged.

“Economic activity is expanding at a strong pace,” the Fed said in its press release announcing the decision on Wednesday. “While uncertainty remains elevated owing, in part, to geopolitical developments, domestic spending has been resilient. Productivity growth is strong, and capital investment is robust. Job gains have kept pace with the workforce, and the unemployment rate has changed little.”

The Fed noted how inflation continues to rise.

It also added, “The accumulation of more information will help the Committee determine the policy stance appropriate to ensure a timely return of inflation to the Committee’s 2 percent goal.”

The most recent Consumer Price Index (CPI) report showed the annual inflation rate increasing to 3.7 percent in September, up from 3.4 percent in August, with energy prices largely accounting for the monthly surge.

There were signs earlier this month that the central bank would maintain benchmark interest rates, with the Fed’s chair for supervision, Michelle Bowman, advocating a “wait and see” approach.

“I don’t feel any urgency for taking further action at this point,” she said at this month’s International Monetary Fund-World Bank meetings in Bangkok, Thailand. “We really need to take some time and understand how things will evolve.”

The decision comes before Thursday’s release of the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) Price Index report, which is used by the central bank to assess inflation and inform its decisions.

Today’s Fed announcement follows an interest-rate hike rise last month, amid surging inflation – the first increase by the central bank since July 2023. The move drew criticism from US President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly pressed the Fed to cut rates since taking office. At the time, he wrote on Truth Social that “interest rates in the United States should be 1% or less.”

The Fed’s next monetary policy meeting is scheduled for December 8-9, when it will give its final rate decision of the year.

Current forecasts point to a quarter-point interest rate increase.

Khartoum, Sudan – Rasha Abdelaziz Musa works every day for seven hours selling tea. But by the time she finishes for the day at 10pm, she’s still unsure if she has enough to feed her four children.

Musa, 39, is doing her best, but her earnings are increasingly no longer enough to cover soaring food prices in the Sudanese capital.

Her husband, a member of the Sudanese military, has spent more than eight months on the front lines of the country’s war, in which the military has been fighting the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces since 2023. Musa has not heard from him for months, and he has sent no money.

In his absence, Musa has been left to provide for their children, who attend kindergarten, primary and secondary school.

Musa told Al Jazeera that feeding her family costs about 40,000 Sudanese pounds per day ($4 at the parallel-market exchange rate) before accounting for rent, household essentials and other expenses.

Some of the family staples are ful medames, a dish of stewed fava beans, or lentils. When lentils are too expensive, Musa serves taamiya, or falafel, sandwiches.

Prices regularly change, and Musa often ends the day in debt to the traders she gets her food from.

Large families struggle

Musa is not alone in struggling to cover her family’s daily expenses.

Ahmed Youssef, 61, supports a family of 12 through his work in a butcher’s shop and as an occasional intermediary in livestock sales. He can earn 90,000 to 140,000 pounds ($9 to $14) when a deal succeeds, but that income is irregular.

He told Al Jazeera that his household spends more than 100,000 Sudanese pounds ($10) daily and his income is no longer enough to support the family.

“One income is no longer enough to cover the family’s needs, and sometimes my older children have to work to help meet expenses,” Youssef told Al Jazeera.

Ali Fadil supports a family of 10. Without a permanent job, he goes to the market each morning to look for work. Some days, the 57-year-old earns enough to buy food, but on other days, he finds no work at all. And yet his daily expenses still reach about 70,000 pounds ($7), with rising prices adding to the financial pressure he faces.

“Sometimes I skip meals so I can pay for school fees or medical costs,” he said. “I also borrow money to meet other obligations.”

Food prices rise as Sudanese pound weakens

A survey of four local markets in the Khartoum State area by Al Jazeera last week found that prices for several essential foods had risen sharply within days, making it increasingly difficult for families to plan their spending.

A kilogramme (2.2.lb) of sugar cost about 10,000 pounds ($1), up from 9,000 pounds ($0.90) two days earlier. A litre (1 quart) of cooking oil rose to 25,000 pounds ($2.50) from 20,000 pounds ($2) while a loaf of bread costs 500 pounds ($0.05), compared with 300 pounds ($0.03) a week earlier.

Lentils cost about 10,000 pounds ($1) per kilogramme, up from 8,000 pounds ($0.80), and rice was priced at 13,000 pounds ($1.30) per kilogramme, up from 10,000 pounds ($1). Powdered milk reached 70,000 pounds ($7) per kilogramme, up from 60,000 ($6) two days earlier.

The Sudanese pound has also continued to weaken. According to exchange rates monitored by Al Jazeera, $1 was trading at 10,050 Sudanese pounds on the parallel market on Friday, compared with 9,500 the previous day.

Food inflation adds to pressure on households

Official figures offer further evidence of the rising cost of living, particularly in Khartoum and other urban areas.

According to Sudan’s Central Bureau of Statistics, prices across the country were 28 percent higher in September than a year earlier, up from 26 percent in August. Prices rose by 7.5 percent in September alone, more than double the increase recorded the previous month.

Food prices have risen even faster. Across Sudan, food and beverages cost nearly 37 percent more in September than a year earlier, up from an annual increase of about 21 percent in August. In September alone, food prices jumped by more than 17 percent.

The situation was particularly severe in Khartoum State, where prices were nearly 60 percent higher than a year earlier. Prices rose by more than 15 percent in September alone, following an increase of nearly 9 percent in August.

That sharp increase comes as the capital region struggles to recover from widespread destruction caused by the war. Although displaced residents have begun returning and businesses are gradually reopening since the military recaptured the state from the RSF last year, damaged infrastructure and rising transport costs continue to constrain the availability of goods.

The return of residents has also increased demand for essential supplies, further driving up prices. In September, fuel shortages hit the capital as consumption rose faster than supplies could be replenished.

Urban areas have generally been hit harder than rural communities. Food prices in towns and cities were 55 percent higher than a year earlier, up from about 40 percent in August. Overall, prices in urban areas rose by 40 percent over the past year, compared with about 21 percent in rural areas.

The war is the main driver of these increases, disrupting livelihoods and supply chains. According to the World Bank, Sudan’s economy shrank by an estimated 29 percent in 2023 and a further 14 percent in 2024 as the war devastated businesses, disrupted agricultural production and eliminated jobs.

The conflict has also forced millions of people from their homes with nearly 8.9 million people still internally displaced as of April, according to the International Organization for Migration.

War destroys livelihoods

Journalist and economic affairs specialist Khalid Teks said Sudan’s economic deterioration began long before the war. Falling oil production after South Sudan’s secession in 2011 worsened conditions as did the depreciation of the pound, cash shortages, international isolation, political conflict and corruption in the years preceding the removal of President Omar al-Bashir in 2019.

Teks said political instability during the power transition undermined Sudan’s economic performance, and deep reforms were not implemented before war broke out in 2023. The conflict devastated infrastructure and productive sectors, depleted savings and disrupted economic activity. The climate has also been a factor. Strong agricultural production in 2024 was followed by concern over limited rainfall this year and possible food shortages after the harvest begins in November.

Teks told Al Jazeera that families increasingly deplete their savings and sell their possessions to cover everyday expenses.

He also pointed to disruptions to remittance channels, which many Sudanese households rely on for financial support.

Teks called for easier humanitarian access, an end to the war, direct support for vulnerable households and low-interest loans for small businesses and craft enterprises.

“The government needs to provide direct support through dedicated funds and the Zakat Chamber, facilitate humanitarian organisations and offer affordable loans for small businesses and vocational activities,” Teks said. “This could help reopen markets and workshops and expand microfinance.

British Chancellor John Healey will set out the country’s autumn budget, the government’s tax and spending plans, the first under Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s premiership amid high inflation and government spending levels.

While the budget will be announced in parliament on Wednesday at 12.30 GMT, speculation about what it will lay out has ranged from a series of tax announcements to commitments to defence spending.

But the country continues to deal with a rising cost-of-living crisis and energy bills are expected to see their biggest rise in four years in January due to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

As total United Kingdom borrowing broke through the 3 trillion pounds ($3.99 trillion) barrier for the first time in September, the country is already spending 100 billion pounds ($133bn) each year just on servicing that debt.

Despite that challenge, the chancellor has said the budget will move “money and power out of Westminster and into every postcode around Britain”.

In a speech last month, Healey said that he and Burnham were in “lockstep” in meeting fiscal rules, “to balancing the books, with a buffer to protect against uncertainty, to control borrowing to bear down on inflation, and reducing long-term pressures on our public finances”.

Following the two budgets from former Chancellor Rachel Reeves, which included big tax and spending increases, Healey’s budget is expected to take a more “steady as she goes” line, which some say is the wrong approach.

Here’s how he will be expected to achieve that.

Defence spending

On Monday, Burnham said Healey would set out a plan to fully fund the government’s defence plans and commitments, telling ITV’s Good Morning Britain that his government’s first challenge was financing the already announced defence investment plan.

Announced in June, the plan is backed by 298 billion pounds ($396bn) of investment and will transform the armed forces as the country moves to “warfighting readiness” and stepping up “European security”, according to a government policy paper.

But Burnham said it was “crucial that we have a funded plan that we can then implement, and we will set out more details on Wednesday as to how we’ve done that”.

He added that NATO commitments of spending 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on defence spending by 2030 and 3.5 percent by 2035 are included in the pathway, explaining that national security issues were “at the top of the priority list”.

As it stands, Britain spends about 2.6 percent of its GDP on defence.

The Guardian reported that on defence spending, Healey aims to close a 4.7-billion-pound ($6.2bn) funding gap in the government’s plan inherited from the previous Labour Party leader, with cuts to other departmental budgets likely to fund it.

Inflation

Government borrowing and inflation continue to rise, which is a potential spanner in the works for proposed spending.

Last week, UK inflation and government borrowing both hit their highest levels in a year.

According to the Office for National Statistics, borrowing was nearly 25 billion pounds ($33bn) last month alone, “a little higher than a year earlier, as spending, including higher debt interest costs, increased more than government income, partly reflecting the impacts of inflation”.

ONS added that in the financial year to September 2026, borrowing remained below the same period last year, but it was higher than the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast.

However, debt at the end of last month exceeded 3 trillion pounds ($3.99 trillion), much of it due to the Iran war and the fallout from the closure of the Strait of Hormuz as the government borrowed more than expected.

According to Jasper Kanter, a professorial research fellow in ecological economics at Aberystwyth Business School, for the government to grow the economy without raising inflation levels, there needs to be an understanding of what kind of economy is created.

“The strongest policies improve prosperity, resilience and sustainability at the same time,” Kanter said.

“Growth is less likely to be inflationary when it comes from increasing the economy’s productive capacity rather than simply boosting spending. Measures that improve skills, reduce energy dependence, strengthen local economies and regenerate ecosystems are likely to deliver more lasting benefits than short-term stimulus,” he added.

Moreover, Helen Miller, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said in a media release ahead of the budget that Healey “faces a forecast in which borrowing is still expected to fall in coming years, and the fiscal rules are still being met”.

“Despite that, a ‘steady-as-she-goes’ budget is not an option available to the chancellor. Choosing to stay the course with the inherited tax and spending plans would mean allowing inflation to blow departments’ spending plans off course,” Miller said.

Tax on banks, online sellers

The budget is also expected to reveal new taxes on banks and online marketplaces such as Amazon, Temu and eBay, as well as a funding boost for mayoralties and local authorities.

The biggest four banks collectively made about profits of 15 billion pounds ($19.9bn) in the first six months of this year. Trade unions are calling for higher taxes on those earnings, the BBC has reported.

According to the BBC, the Treasury is leaning towards changing a 2023 surcharge rate on banks, which would raise about 2 billion pounds ($2.6bn).

On marketplaces such as Amazon, Healey is reportedly looking to crack down on foreign sellers who avoid paying VAT – a UK sales tax – which is expected to raise as much as 1 billion pounds ($1.3bn) and help fund business rate cuts for high street shops, The Times reported.

Paying for social care and benefits

According to The Guardian newspaper, Healey is expected to allocate about 1.42 trillion pounds ($1.8 trillion) this year for day-to-day spending and public investment, with about 100 billion pounds ($132.8bn) going on debt interest.

Kanter, of Aberystwyth Business School, told Al Jazeera that he expects “targeted support rather than large-scale tax cuts or rises” in the budget announcement.

“The government appears keen to signal empathy with the pressures many people are facing. Addressing the harsh cliff edge in carer’s allowance and expanding parental pay are good examples of this,” he said.

Some of the budget’s contents have already been announced, including ending the carers’ allowance limit and removing tariffs on a range of food items, including chocolate and beans, to make them cheaper for shoppers.

Pensioners are also expected to be shielded from income tax through the introduction of a new personal allowance, while Healey is expected to add another 1 billion pounds ($1.3bn) to the 39 billion pounds ($51.8bn) planned for social and affordable housing in England over the next decade.

“Pensioners will benefit from another substantial increase in the state pension, while low-paid workers will benefit from increases in the minimum wage. For most households, the bigger determinants of living standards will remain wages, inflation and energy costs rather than any new tax measures announced in the budget,” Kanter explained.

Last month, Burnham announced a new national care service to provide free personal care for elderly people. As costs of care for the elderly have soared in the UK, this was a major issue from the outset of Burnham’s premiership.

He said the plan would be introduced in phases and would be fully funded from public spending and savings from scrapping the state pension triple lock – an annual increase in state pension that goes up with inflation, wages or a fixed rate of 2.5 percent, whichever is highest.

A report on how this will be implemented is due in summer 2027.

Energy bills

Amid high gas and oil prices as a result of the US-Israeli war with Iran and the subsequent closure of the Strait of Hormuz, energy prices worldwide have increased, with Brent crude futures at $115.90 a barrel on Wednesday.

In the UK, energy prices are predicted to reach nearly 2,000 pounds ($2,655) a year for households in January after energy consultancy Cornwall Insight projected in its latest forecast last month that the government’s cap on energy prices is expected to increase by 16 percent.

On energy bills, reports suggest the chancellor is expected to announce help for households in the budget by scrapping standing charges for energy supply, among other things.

With six days to go before the November 3 midterm elections in the United States, Democrats are leading Republicans in national polls, but several key Senate races seem too close to call.

President Donald Trump has stepped up his campaigning, holding two Republican rallies in Texas on Tuesday before heading to Ohio on Wednesday. Ex-President Barack Obama and former Vice President Kamala Harris are also hitting the campaign trail in Georgia for the Democratic Party.

Here is what the latest polls say, what happened on the campaign trail and what to expect on Wednesday.

What do the latest polls suggest?

With less than a week to go before the midterms, a Reuters/Ipsos poll suggests the Democrats are ahead of the Republicans by nine points.

According to the October 22-26 survey, 47 percent of voters support the Democrats, compared with 36 percent who support the Republicans. When undecided voters’ leanings were taken into account, Democrats lead with 50 percent compared with Republicans’ 41 percent.

Trump’s approval rating improved by a percentage point to 32 percent, with 73 percent of US adults saying the cost of living was going in the wrong direction.

In Texas, where Democrats have not won a Senate election since 1988, James Talarico and Republican Ken Paxton are virtually tied in the polls.

Trump has made several trips to the state ahead of the midterms, but the polls indicate a much tighter race than the president has suggested.

“The good people of Texas have probably never seen so much of President Trump. Four visits in seven weeks, which, to put that into context, is twice as many as we saw at the comparable period leading up to the 2024 election, which perhaps shows just how concerned Republicans are,” Al Jazeera’s Phil Lavelle said, reporting from the Texas coastal city of Corpus Christi.

Lavelle said local analysis suggested more Republicans have voted early than Democrats, but Talarico has also been courting Republicans dissatisfied with Trump.

“That doesn’t mean Republicans are voting for Republican candidates,” Lavelle said.

In Michigan, Democrat Abdul El-Sayed and Republican Mike Rogers are also competing in a closely contested Senate race.

“I was a Republican forever, but I became an independent in the last two elections,” Michael Alexander, a Native American backing El-Sayed, told Al Jazeera.

“I don’t really vote for a party any more. I vote for who I think will do the best job.”

Kansas has not elected a Democrat to the Senate since 1932, but Republican incumbent Roger Marshall now faces a close contest against Democrat Adam Hamilton.

The race has brought Trump and his deputy, JD Vance, to the state.

“There’s a reason why we’re seeing not only US President Donald Trump but also Vice President JD Vance heading to Kansas because it’s actually in play,” Al Jazeera’s Patty Culhane said.

According to The Associated Press news agency, both parties and their allied groups have committed about $71m to campaign advertising in the Kansas race, making it the most expensive Senate contest in the state’s history.

What happened in the US midterm campaigns over the past 24 hours?

Trump addressed two campaign rallies in Texas on Tuesday in support of Paxton.

In Corpus Christi, Trump pointed to a tanker that he said was carrying one million barrels of Venezuelan oil and called it a win for his administration. He also suggested the idea of making Venezuela the 51st US state. The Trump administration has signed an oil deal with Venezuela’s interim leader, Delcy Rodriguez, after abducting socialist President Nicolas Maduro in a military operation in January.

Trump also announced plans to roll back the Biden-era restrictions on methane emissions from oil and gas production, stating that it would help bring down energy prices.

Fuel prices have become a huge election issue as the US-Israel war on Iran continues. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has also joined Trump for a rare campaign-trail appearance in Texas.

In Alaska, Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski has backed Democrat Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins for governor rather than Bernadette Wilson, the Trump-endorsed candidate.

What’s next for Democrats and Republicans on Wednesday?

Trump heads to Ohio on Wednesday for his third rally in the state this month, as Republicans try to defend a Senate seat being challenged by former Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown.

The US president is scheduled to speak in Chillicothe at 23:00 GMT. Republican Senator Jon Husted, who took over Vance’s seat when he became vice president, is facing Brown, who is seeking a return to the Senate after losing his seat in 2024.

The two are in a closely contested race, with more than $400m spent or reserved for campaign advertising as of October 8, according to an Axios report.

Republicans are particularly concerned in Texas, Ohio, Kansas and Iowa, where even a few percentage points for a third party could swing the outcome.

Trump is scheduled to hold rallies in Ohio on Wednesday and Iowa on Sunday.

Vance will be in Kinston, North Carolina, campaigning for Republican Senate candidate Michael Whatley, who is running against former Democratic Governor Roy Cooper. The vice president is expected to speak at 16:30 GMT.

In Georgia, former President Obama will campaign in Atlanta alongside Democratic Senator Jon Ossoff and gubernatorial candidate Keisha Lance Bottoms at 20:00 GMT.

Ossoff is running against Republican Mike Collins, while Bottoms faces Republican Rick Jackson in the governor’s race. Trump won Georgia in the 2024 presidential election.

Former Vice President Harris also begins a three-day visit to Georgia on Wednesday, with early in-person voting due to end on Friday, October 30.

In Wisconsin, Marquette Law School will publish its latest statewide poll at 18:15 GMT.

Wednesday’s poll will also examine voters’ views on inflation, tariffs, the US-Israel war on Iran and Trump’s presidency.

In late August, United States President Donald Trump announced a 90-day pause on certain beef tariffs, making beef cheaper to import, particularly from Brazil.

That decision was framed as a way to bring down prices for consumers, but it landed as a betrayal for many US ranchers, who were getting ready to take their cattle to market.

It is too soon to tell how the decision will ultimately affect grocery prices, but the impact on ranchers was immediate: prices at cattle auctions plummeted, temporarily lowering ranchers’ profits. The United States Cattlemen’s Association, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Farm Bureau, all member organisations that represent ranchers, opposed the decision.

Rural Republican members of Congress also distanced themselves, but it is not yet clear how ranchers will vote in the midterms — or whether those votes will decide races.

Chad Basinger, a rancher in Pretty Prairie, Kansas, is sceptical that the imports will have a significant impact.

“I know there’s people that have said, ‘Well I’m just gonna vote for the other party’ or ‘I’m not gonna vote’ or ‘This administration’s really let me down’. So yes, there will be people that swing the other way in the midterms. But overall I don’t think it’ll be that much,” Basinger said.

Ranchers will also be weighing the administration’s other actions, Basinger said, such as the $8bn in farm relief announced in Kansas on October 19.

Basinger’s House of Representatives district in Kansas is expected to remain safely Republican in the midterms. But Kansas faces an unexpectedly tight Senate race and ranchers in House districts elsewhere may find themselves closer to the political fray: potential swing districts in Montana, Iowa, Texas and Colorado are all in cattle country.

Still, it is unlikely that ranchers alone will decide elections: ranchers — along with farmers more broadly — represent a shrinking percentage of rural voters and a smaller voting bloc in practice than in the public imagination.

America’s cattle herd is near its smallest size since 1951 and the number of ranchers has declined alongside the number of livestock. Observers worry that ongoing uncertainty fuelled by tariffs, fuel prices and drought may cause the ranching population to shrink further.

David Anderson, an agricultural economist at Texas A&M University who advises ranchers, said that high prices this year should have given ranchers the confidence to invest in the future and expand their herds. Making imports cheaper, however, may have helped nudge ranchers in the opposite direction.

“It really works against the market signal to expand and produce more domestically,” Anderson said. “That got a lot of people pretty angry.”

Tariff changes add volatility

This is not the first time that Trump’s tariffs have impacted cattle supplies. Last year, the president added a 50 percent tariff on Brazil, a key trade partner for beef, raising the cost of importing Brazilian lean beef, which is often mixed with fatty US beef to make hamburger patties, a staple in most homes.

In February, Trump allowed more tariff-free beef imports from Argentina. In August, he did the same for Brazil and Paraguay.

Both tariff changes led to swift price swings in cattle futures markets, which are often volatile in response to the news cycle.

Cattle prices also moved this year in response to more fundamental drivers of supply and demand: plant closures by meatpackers, labour shortages late last month related to ICE actions at Kansas packing plants, the second-largest in the country, and the reopening of the southern border after a closure due to New World screwworm disease.

Big picture, the shrinking US cattle herd has less to do with short-term price changes and more to do with drought cycles, which are growing more intense as warming temperatures increase evaporation.

Still, tariff changes add uncertainty. “This has been a hot topic for the last six weeks,” said Anderson. “It just adds a little more uncertainty or volatility — or worries or stress.”

This year, extra price volatility as many ranchers prepared to sell meant ranchers faced lower profits and more risk.

Basinger says that for many established ranchers, the tariff announcement was frustrating, but not existential.

“People are upset. They have a right to be upset. But they’re not going to change their strategy,” he said. For most ranchers, Basinger said, the imports would not be the biggest factor shaping decisions about their herds this year.

Where price volatility may matter more, Basinger said, is for the next generation. Most of today’s ranchers are eyeing retirement. Their heirs must decide whether to make a go of ranching or sell their family’s land. Other aspiring ranchers are also watching the industry.

“If you’re seeing your dad not make money, or somebody else not make money…it’s not easy work!” Basinger said. “It has to be very enticing for somebody to want to jump in and be like, ‘I’m gonna be a rancher and go break ice in the middle of winter when it’s cold and I could be inside’.”

Record revenue and record costs

This year, low US cattle supplies meant that ranchers commanded record-high cattle prices, despite added imports and other market shifts.

But high revenue doesn’t always mean huge profits: Many ranchers operate at a loss for years in a row. Then, they rely on a few good years to pay down debts or expand their herds.

This year, profits were lower than hoped, because ranchers also faced high costs.

Interest rates on loans are high and the war with Iran meant ranchers paid extra for fuel and fertiliser. A drought across much of America’s ranchland meant they paid more for feed.

In states such as Kansas and Nebraska, ranchers also faced destructive wildfires and aid groups like Farm Rescue coordinated hay donations.

Still, Basinger said, ranchers who raise cows and calves generally did well this year. In Kansas, he is seeing ranchers use profits to make repairs and upgrades. He said this year’s high cattle prices have been helping. “But it needs to help for a little longer to give them more of an edge,” he said.

More of an edge might mean, for example, enough money for bigger purchases, like buying land from a neighbouring ranch to make room for a growing herd.

Rangeland, however, is increasingly expensive. When it is up for sale, outside investors can often pay more than ranchers, which can mean less land for cattle. That’s just one more pressure shrinking the US herd decade after decade.

Ranchers had hoped that 2026 would be a turnaround year. So far, however, “we really don’t have much evidence of herd expansion,” Anderson said.

Halloween candy sales are declining as financially strained Americans cut back on discretionary purchases, with higher chocolate prices and rising household expenses weighing on demand ahead of the holiday.

U.S. candy sales fell 6.7% in the four weeks ended Oct. 17 from a

More than 300 protesters and police were injured in the Albanian capital Tirana’s fiercest clashes in days.

Protesters have clashed with police in rallies in the Albanian capital of Tirana, with police firing tear gas and water cannon to disperse crowds.

Several government buildings were attacked, dozens of demonstrators arrested, and more than 300 protesters and police injured, authorities said Saturday.

Protesters and police have routinely clashed since a significant wave of protests started in mid-October over poor conditions in schools and the cost of living in the small Balkan country.

While the protests in Tirana had calmed in recent days, Saturday’s demonstration escalated the situation again, with police deploying water cannon, tear gas and rubber bullets against crowds.

Thousands of people had heeded calls from organisers for students and others around Albania to attend the rally. Various groups, including university professors, artists and opposition parties, announced their support or attendance.

The country’s Ministry of Education has become a focal point of rallies, and Saturday’s gathering saw some in the crowd throwing stones and rolling burning bins at the building.

Police had introduced heightened security around the capital on Saturday, with checks being carried out on cars heading to the city, local media reported.

Albania has seen intermittent antigovernment protests since May, when news emerged of a luxury hotel project linked to United States President Donald Trump’s family.

Protesters take aim at PM

Since then, public anger has turned into a broader push against corruption and the high cost of living, with protesters calling for the resignation of Socialist Prime Minister Edi Rama.

Rama has blamed “foreign actors” for the violence and accused both Russia and Iran of driving online misinformation.

The prime minister has called for dialogue, and on Saturday red cushions were laid outside the government headquarters in a symbolic gesture for talk and dialogue. Protesters later set the cushions on fire.

Protesters have blamed the entire political class for the crisis, with some also seen holding signs decrying Rama’s opposition, centre-right leader Sali Berisha.

Demonstrators want pensions to remain indexed to inflation and the gender pension gap to be eliminated.

Approximately 25,000 people have gathered in the Spanish capital in support of the state pension scheme, as protests continue across Europe, prompted by a range of issues, including the cost of living, school conditions and alleged corruption.

Protesters from across the country marched through Madrid on Saturday before next month’s general election.

The pressure on Spain’s state pension scheme is being driven by several factors, including an ageing population, a low birth rate and wage stagnation, as well as a declining ratio of workers to pensioners.

Demonstrators are concerned that the state pension scheme could be significantly weakened depending on who wins next month’s election. The country’s monthly pension bill hit a record high this year of almost 14.5 billion euros ($16.2bn).

Protesters marched from Atocha train station to the Gran Via, Madrid’s busiest and most famous street.

Several of the demonstrators carried banners reading “protect and guarantee our pensions”.

Emilio Delgado serves as the deputy spokesperson of the left-wing party Mas Madrid in the Assembly of Madrid. Posting on X, he said that “no pension should be below the minimum wage. A lifetime of work deserves a dignified retirement.”

Protesters want pensions to remain indexed to inflation and are calling for the gender pension gap to be eliminated.

Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has accused the right-wing Popular Party (PP) of planning to weaken inflation-linked pension increases if it wins next month’s election.

However, leader Alberto Nunez Feijoo said on Monday that he would continue to raise pensions in line with inflation if his party wins the vote.

Sanchez has pledged to protect pensions if he remains in office and says the current pension system is affordable.

The system has gradually become more reliant on state funding because of a growing number of pensioners and increases in monthly payments.

Across Europe, an autumn of anger is taking hold.

In France, student protests over overcrowded classrooms and teacher shortages have grown into a broader public outcry.

In recent weeks, separate protests have also erupted in Belgium, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Albania.

The grievances differ, from unaffordable housing and low wages to rising fuel costs, education and political accountability.

But the frustration is increasingly shared: paying more, getting less, and struggling to afford a decent life, even with a job.

Governments face demands for relief while wrestling with high debt, rising borrowing costs and, in several countries, looming elections.

WASHINGTON — President Trump is hoping that $5,000 checks can juice Republican turnout in November’s midterm elections — but even some of his devoted fans are doubting that government payouts would arrive.

“I mean, I guess it’s good for some people. I really don’t care,” said Jamie Alvarez, who attended Trump’s recent Alaska rally in a red, white and blue outfit. “I don’t feel like your vote should be bought. I feel like you should vote for who you feel is going to do the best job.”

Joseph Eatherton was attending that same rally and said he was “not sure if it’s necessary.” When asked whether Trump could deliver on the promised money, he said, “I don’t know, and I hate being an armchair quarterback.”

The offering of government checks has become a go-to tactic for Trump when he faces a political jam. He’s previously endorsed $2,000 in dividends from tariff revenues and large refunds from spending cuts achieved by the Department of Government Efficiency, neither of which materialized. The latest example could reveal how much voters still trust Trump as they decide control of Congress in the midterm elections on Nov. 3.

Staunch supporters such as Lucy Martinez, the president of a Republican women’s club who attended a recent Trump rally in Texas, said there’s no doubt in their minds.

“I think that I will get the $5,000,” she said. Out of all the presidents, Trump is someone “who kept his promises to his people and all the United States.”

Trump has dished out payments as elections approach

However, many voters are already embittered by his economic leadership. His critics see a president who failed to tame inflation and keep America out of overseas conflicts, and whose agenda has fueled higher prices as the war with Iran appears to be at a stalemate.

“The trust on this is already gone for most people,” said Amy Frederiksen, a former Republican Minnesota Senate majority leader who now runs a public affairs firm.

“I just don’t see the energy around that line,” she added. “Most people know that’s a blatant over-the-top promise like several he’s made in the last couple of years, and they’re not buying it.”

As the midterms approach, Trump has also pledged a $90 payment to 20 million Medicare enrollees and $500 “rebates” for people the administration says were overcharged for their Obamacare plans. He has automatically enrolled every U.S. child in “Trump accounts” to invest in stocks.

The $5,000 payouts would only occur, Trump says, if Republicans keep their majorities in the House and Senate. Trump acknowledges that the cost would exceed $1 trillion, but it’s not clear that the White House is seriously engaging with the proposal’s ramifications, from the increased deficit to the likely boost to inflation.

The White House said the payments are possible because of Trump’s trade deals, investment commitments by foreign countries, government stakes in private companies and deals for oil and minerals.

The administration’s position is that the payments will help people recover from the inflation that began in 2021 under then-President Joe Biden, though Republicans, at the time, attributed that inflation to excessive government checks tied to pandemic relief.

When The Associated Press asked several weeks ago if the administration was modeling the economic impact from the checks, Christopher Phelan, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said he would “refrain” from answering.

Roughly half of registered voters say Donald Trump does not keep his promises to Americans, according to an AP-NORC poll from September. About 3 in 10 say Trump tries to keep his promises but is unable to, while only about 2 in 10 say he keeps his promises.

Republican voters are more accommodating. About half say Trump tries to keep his promises but is unable to, and about 4 in 10 say he keeps his promises.

Republican candidates aren’t echoing Trump’s promise

Trump is talking about the payments as a sure thing.

“If the Republicans win, you’ll each have $5,000 in your pocket and economic success for our country like we have never seen before,” he said at a Saturday rally in Kentucky. “And remember, ’cause they like to say, ‘Oh, well, maybe he won’t do that.’ Uh, I always do it.”

Campaign spending tracked by AdImpact suggests that Republicans are not running advertisements either on television or online about the promise. The few advertisements that do exist are from pro-Democratic groups such as Rolling Sea Action Fund that conclude with the voiceover, “Come on, do you really think he’s sending you a check? Yeah, right, we won’t get fooled again.”

At a Friday rally in Georgia, Trump noted that he had previously delivered a $1,776 “Trump dividend” to troops in the military. But those payments came from a congressionally approved housing supplement.

Trump claims the nation could not afford the payments if Democrats hold a chamber in Congress because the nation would be “flat broke.” But he said that one caveat is that the money could only be spent in the U.S., rather than in China, Japan or France. He joked that people should spend the check at his luxury club in Palm Beach, Florida.

“Let’s have lunch at Mar-a-Lago, where for $5,000, you’ll get one hamburger and a small dessert,” he told the crowd in Georgia.

Some in the crowd took Trump at his word that he would fight to get them the money. But they added the caveat that if he didn’t come through, it would not be his fault.

“I could use $5,000,” said Mike Boatman, a 58-year-old from Evansville, Indiana, who travels the country attending the president’s rallies. “I mean, he’s done everything he’s said he’s going to do.”

Boak, Bohrer and Barrow write for the Associated Press. Bohrer reported from Wasilla, Alaska, and Barrow reported from Dalton, Georgia. AP reporters Aaron Kessler and Linley Sanders in Washington and Lekan Oyekanmi in San Antonio, Texas, contributed to this report.

Paris, France – After nationwide protests turned violent, French President Emmanuel Macron on Sunday night tried to strike a balance between acknowledging the concerns of students demanding changes to the education system and criticising rioters.

“Those who have destroyed property must pay. Those who have looted must reimburse their victims. Those who sought to bring down the republic will be held accountable,” Macron said.

But the president’s speech was not what Yanis, a 20-year-old from Ivry-sur-Seine, a suburb just southeast of Paris, wanted to hear.

“He gave his usual ‘bla bla bla speech’ without putting forward anything concrete,” he said. “We’ll be back on the streets anyway. There will be one demonstration after another until something changes – every weekend, without a break”.

As France grapples with widespread anger that bubbled over in the form of violent protests last weekend, appetite – at least among the country’s youth – for centrist politics of the kind that Macron represents appears to be rapidly shrinking.

The unrest in France comes months before the country’s 2027 presidential election and has further sharpened political divisions, with parties seeking to present themselves as the answer to the frustration visible on the streets.

The populist-left leader Jean-Luc Melenchon has embraced the student movement with enthusiasm, while far-right firebrand Marine Le Pen has focused on the disorder that came with the demonstrations, framing it as a crisis of security and authority. The centrist Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu has accused the extreme left of instigating violence as a “warm-up round” for the presidential election.

Polling before the election points to a contest in which both the far left and the far right could play a central role. But while the country is demanding change, there is little consensus on what that change should look like. Macron, who has been in power for two terms, will need to step aside after the election, as the constitution bars him from running again.

“Candidates have no choice but to take a stand and address young people,” said political analyst Beligh Nabli, a professor of public law at UPEC-Paris XII. “They have a political obligation to have a message aimed at young people. That message must not be empty, but it will have to answer their demands.”

Since launching their protest in mid-September, students have demanded better schools, more teachers and a more equal system. But the movement quickly spilled out of the schoolyards and into the streets, tapping into broader social and economic anxieties.

The protests have brought these issues to the centre of the political debate in a way that might not otherwise have happened, given young people’s comparatively low electoral participation and the tendency of political campaigns to focus on older voters and issues such as pensions, say analysts.

“If it wasn’t for this mobilisation, it would have been business as usual,” Nabli said. “We would have seen a kind of relative indifference from the candidates towards young people because they are not the social group that mobilises the most in elections, in contrast with those over 60.”

France Unbowed – La France Insoumise (LFI) in French – the left party led by Melenchon, has strongly supported the student movement to the point that critics have accused the party of spurring youth resentment and exploiting the unrest for political gain. Yet the party’s appeal among young voters predates the protests. Its programme addresses several of the movement’s central grievances, including investment in education, teachers’ pay and the abolition of Parcoursup, an online platform students must use for higher education applications that many say lacks transparency.

According to an OpinionWay poll for Les Echos, published on Thursday, Melenchon leads among voters aged 18 to 24, with 49 percent backing him – a 10-percentage-point increase compared with 2022.

For some young protesters, support for Melenchon reflects both opposition to the far right and frustration with the political centre.

“I’m going to vote for La France Insoumise to counter the far right, the National Rally, and the centre, which is basically going to give us a repeat of Macron’s policies,” said Lydia, 21, a student at the Ecole du Louvre who took part in a protest at the museum on Monday.

But she said she was under no illusion that the party would necessarily solve France’s problems. She also criticised what she sees as the demonisation of LFI by critics, arguing that even moderately left-wing positions are increasingly labelled extreme. “It’s becoming rather exceptional to have empathy; it’s becoming something extreme left-wing,” she said.

On the other side of the political spectrum, Le Pen and her National Rally party have sought to make the unrest a question of law and order, accusing the government of failing to be able to control the country, and its main competitor, Melenchon, of stoking violence. Le Pen remains the leading contender in the presidential race with 32 percent of the vote, while the National Rally ranked second among voters aged 18 to 24, behind France Unbowed.

“Yesterday, you saw our cities, our streets, and our country mistreated, battered, and looted,” Le Pen said in a video message on Sunday night. “We are experiencing a profound crisis of trust and authority – one that poses a threat to our democracy.” She added that France was “caught in a vice – effectively held hostage – between violence and powerlessness”.

Caught between these competing narratives is the centrist bloc of Macron, whose presidency began amid the Yellow Vest protests and is now approaching its end against the backdrop of another major wave of social unrest. That earlier movement, initially triggered by a rise in fuel taxes, grew into a broader revolt against the cost of living and what demonstrators saw as Macron’s favouring of the elite.

One of the differences between now and then is that any government coming next will not have the fiscal room to quell the unrest by handing a cheque. Last year, the government recorded a deficit of 5.1 percent of France’s gross domestic product, one of the highest among European countries. By contrast, the European Union average is 3.1 percent. Any future president will have to deal with Macron’s headache: How to save money without deepening public anger.

The current mobilisation has exposed a wider sense of disillusionment with the political establishment. The president’s popularity stands at 15 percent, the lowest ever.

In his speech on Sunday night, Macron blamed “insurrectionists from fringe far-left groups, joined by numerous criminals” for the violence. But he only briefly spoke about the students’ demands and offered no specific new policy measures to address them. Instead, he tasked Lecornu with bringing together students, teachers, unions and elected officials to develop proposals in the coming days, while promising a tougher response to violence.

The unrest presents an opportunity for his opponents to argue that his presidency has failed to address deep-rooted inequalities. At stake is the support of a generation of young people who feel let down by the state and increasingly disconnected from the political establishment – and who all sides of the political spectrum are poised to woo in the coming months before the election.

Hasanat al-Rashid, 48, has lived with diabetes for 15 years, and the three-and-a-half-year civil war between Sudan’s military and the Rapid Support Forces paramilitary group has worsened her situation. Finding the treatment she needs has become a daily struggle.

When the war broke out in April 2023, she was forced to flee south from her home in Haj Yousif in Khartoum North to Umm Daw Ban in Khartoum State.

During her displacement, she went for days without medication and was forced to eat foods unsuitable for her condition, such as asida, a traditional Sudanese porridge.

She underwent operations on her foot twice when she developed complications of diabetes, including a severe infection.

She moved between hospitals in Gezira State south of Khartoum, seeking treatment in Rufaa, Wad Madani and Al-Hasahisa. When fighting spread to these areas in December 2023, she fled again, arriving in Port Sudan, a city on the Red Sea that was less affected by the war.

Her condition has worsened to the point that she now has to use insulin every day and with this comes added costs, something that forces diabetes sufferers in Sudan to choose between medicine and other essentials, such as food.

“The doses vary depending on whether my blood sugar is high or low,” she told Al Jazeera.

The war has pushed income levels in Sudan back to those last seen in the 1990s, according to the United Nations Development Programme. This means Hasanat and other diabetes sufferers are struggling to afford the medicine they need to treat the condition.

Hasanat’s doctor recommended she use an insulin pen, a device used to inject insulin under the skin. She would need one or two of the devices a month, but the cost at 70,000 Sudanese pounds ($8) is more than she can afford up front, so she opts for a vial of insulin.

This is cheaper at 17,000 Sudanese pounds ($1.80), but there is the additional cost of buying ice every day to keep the insulin cool. She spends 180,000 pounds ($20) a month on ice to preserve the medicine. But she is able to spread these costs out through the month, making the vials her only viable option even if the overall costs are higher than an insulin pen.

“It may last a month or less, but the challenge is that I don’t have a refrigerator, so I struggle to store the insulin properly,” she said.

She also needs painkillers and vitamins on a regular basis to manage complications caused by the diabetes.

The rising cost of treatment

Fatima Adam, 75, is among the patients at Port Sudan Hospital struggling to afford the medicines she needs to manage her hypertension and a thyroid condition.

She was admitted to the hospital with complications caused by high blood pressure, which has started to impact her heart. Too unwell to speak to Al Jazeera herself, her daughter, Aisha, described how the rising cost of treatment has affected her whole family.

Before the war, Fatima received medicine through the National Health Insurance Fund. She paid a quarter of the cost while the fund covered the rest. But when the war started and the economy collapsed, the medicines she needed were no longer covered by the scheme.

“My mother takes six different medicines because hypertension has affected her heart in addition to her thyroid medication. The war has made things harder because the prices of these medicines have gone up,” Aisha told Al Jazeera.

The responsibility for paying for Fatima’s treatment and supporting her and her daughter falls on her son, who works as a casual worker. With no fixed income, he goes to the market every day in search of work but sometimes returns home empty without any luck.

“Sometimes, when my brother finds work, we buy enough medicine to last a month. Other times, we have to buy smaller quantities and take the medicines intermittently,” Aisha said.

She bought a month’s supply of her mother’s medication a few days ago for 160,000 Sudanese pounds ($17.80), a substantial expense for a family whose income depends on day labour but essential to treating Fatima’s condition.

War damage

The war has caused an estimated $500m in losses to medicine stocks, infrastructure and transport fleets, dealing a major blow to Sudan’s pharmaceutical supply system, the National Medical Supplies Fund told Al Jazeera.

The National Medicines and Poisons Board estimated that only eight of the 30 pharmaceutical factories in Khartoum that shut down during the conflict have resumed operations despite the security situation in the capital recently improving.

This has increased Sudan’s reliance on imported medicines, but the subsequent depreciation of the Sudanese pound has driven up the costs of pharmaceutical procurement and production.

Hossam al-Naeem, who works as a pharmacist in Port Sudan, said customers with diabetes and hypertension require regular painkillers and vitamins to help their overall condition.

“I feel deeply saddened when I see the expressions on some patients’ faces as they ask about the prices of medicines and discover how much they have increased because of the depreciation of the Sudanese pound,” Hossam told Al Jazeera.

The currency’s collapse has created added challenges for pharmacists. Before the war, a dollar traded for roughly 600 Sudanese pounds. Now black-market currency traders are quoting rates of 9,300 pounds to the dollar, meaning higher costs for most goods in Sudan.

Sometimes Hossam incurs losses himself when he finds that the prices of drugs have risen sharply, and keeping essential medicines stocked is becoming difficult.

“I used to sell a strip of cold and flu tablets for 6,000 Sudanese pounds [70 cents]. But when I went to buy new stock, I found that the supplier’s price was also 6,000 pounds per strip. That means I made no profit, not even enough to cover the pharmacy’s operating costs,” he said.

The struggle to afford heart medication

Huda Mahmoud, 58, lives in el-Obeid, the capital of North Kordofan state in south-central Sudan, where drone attacks and other violence remain a problem while the military is making advances towards the city.

Huda has lived with heart problems for more than 12 years and described the impacts of the war as being physical, financial and emotional.

“I take five different medicines. There was a time when they weren’t available, and I suffered a lot. Sometimes, I had to ask people in Wad Madani, Sennar or Port Sudan to send them to me,” she told Al Jazeera. “The medicines were extremely expensive, costing me 300,000 Sudanese pounds [$33.30] a month.”

Taking medication has become a carefully managed routine with each pill tied to a specific time of day.

“I’ve become tied to my pills: this one before eating, that one afterwards. If I forget one, my heart starts beating very fast,” she added.

In March, Huda was forced to travel from el-Obeid to Omdurman. Following her strict treatment regimen has become increasingly difficult during repeated periods of upheaval.

She has now returned home to el-Obeid, where her regular medicine is priced at 151,000 Sudanese pounds ($16.80) a month, something she can barely afford.

Her greatest fear is running out of medicine or being unable to afford her next supply, which would put her at risk of a blood clot.

“I’m afraid of becoming incapacitated. I used to be responsible for the whole household, but now I need help. I feel like I’ve become a burden on my family,” she said.

Tehran municipality has launched a series of welfare initiatives to help residents cope with soaring living costs, but the measures have raised questions about their financing and effectiveness, as well as whether the local authority is taking on responsibilities better handled by Iran’s national government.

The local authority has launched four projects it says are aimed at protecting citizens, including a housing project, freezes on the prices of 12 basic goods, and a maternity package.

Questions have been raised about how they will be funded and whether the municipality is overstepping its traditional functions.

In Iran, municipalities are responsible for local services and urban management, while the national government oversees broader economic policy, including efforts to control inflation.

Iranian law does give municipalities some responsibilites beyond conventional urban services, but Article 55 of Iran’s Municipal Law does call for municipalities to provide for public food markets, make certain essential goods more affordable, and provide social welfare facilities and low-cost housing.

The dispute is therefore less about whether Tehran municipality can provide the services, and more about their scale and financing.

The municipality’s price-freezing initiative, dubbed the “Zero Inflation” project, has been the most controversial. It comes as year-on-year inflation reached nearly 90 percent last month, while annual food inflation hit 108.8 percent.

Doubts have been raised about how the project will be funded and its effectiveness. Others believe that the measures could fuel inequality between the capital and other cities.

They are viewed as steps to address the huge economic challenges faced by Tehran residents, worsened since the United States and Israel launched a war on Iran on February 28.

Tehran Mayor Alireza Zakani said the municipality had recently guaranteed prices ranging between 5 percent and 50 percent below market rates for the next six months.

Yousef Akandeh, a political activist, told Al Jazeera that freezing the prices of some goods or providing free services will not reduce inflation to zero alone.

“Even if we assume that the Tehran municipality succeeded in stabilising the prices of 12 basic goods, what about the rise in rents, medicines, transportation prices, and the rest of living expenses,” Akandeh asked.

Real steps to tackle inflation, Akandeh said, would have to begin with controlling liquidity growth and monetary discipline, which he said are nearly impossible amid the ongoing war.

The municipality has also introduced a maternity support programme offering mothers of children born this year monthly credits worth up to 40 million rials ($15) for two years for each newborn.

Akandeh raised the issue of institutional overlap, noting that a similar national scheme already exists.

“The government implements a similar package and provides monthly financial amounts for all newborns across the country and not just in Tehran, and if the municipality’s package is independent of it, the Tehrani family may benefit from the national and municipal programme simultaneously,” Akandeh said.

Receiving support from both programmes would not, in itself, indicate wrongdoing. But critics are instead raising the question of whether it is an appropriate use of Tehran’s municipal resources, particularly when the city faces competing spending demands.

Amir Dabiri Mehr, a former adviser in the Tehran municipality, told Al Jazeera that although supporting the homeless falls under the municipality’s social responsibilities, the problem lies in a lack of transparency. The municipality is funded by taxes and building density licences.

“The people have the right to know what the municipality spends within the framework of its original tasks, and in tasks it has chosen for itself, and where it gets its resources from?” Dabiri Mehr said.

The municipality-affiliated Hamshahri newspaper said that the “Zero Inflation” project is not funded by municipal budget subsidies, but through direct purchases from producers and reducing commercial profit margins in council-run stores.

The biggest crisis facing Tehran’s residents is housing, which is the national government’s responsibility, Mehr said. Food and living expenses are the national government’s responsibility.

“If the goal is to solve the people’s problems, it seems that the biggest problem facing the residents of Tehran today is the housing crisis, and this dilemma cannot be solved by building an apartment building consisting of a few residential units,” he said.

Al Jazeera attempted to contact the Tehran municipality for comment but received no response.

Tehran Mayor Zakani has, however, defended the financing arrangements, telling a local newspaper, Hamshahri, that the Zero Inflation initiative would not rely on direct subsidies from the municipal budget, but instead on purchasing goods directly from producers and reducing commercial profit margins in city-run stores.

Zakani also said that the programme would draw on municipal resources, bank financing, and partnerships.

Economists divided on Fed rate hike as inflation creates uncertainty in run-up to US midterm elections in a tense market.

United States consumer prices jumped in September in the final inflation report before the midterm elections, increasing chances of an interest rate hike later this month.

Annual inflation accelerated to 3.7 percent, up from 3.4 percent in August. On a monthly basis, prices rose by 0.6 percent, according to the Consumer Price Index report released by the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on Wednesday.

Petrol prices led the surge as tensions between the US and Iran, as well as Russia and Ukraine, weighed on global energy prices. Petrol prices rose 9.1 percent in September, accounting for more than half of the CPI monthly increase, according to the BLS. They were up 34.2 percent from the same time a year ago.

“The directionless war in Iran continues to disrupt global supply chains, driving up the prices of food and fuel,” Kyle Moore, chief economist at The Century Foundation, an economic think tank, said in a statement provided to Al Jazeera.

Petrol prices have continued to climb. The average price for a gallon of petrol is $4.33 ($1.14 per litre), compared with $4.31 a month ago, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA), which tracks daily petrol prices. Diesel prices are higher, at $6.29 per gallon (1.66 per litre), compared with $6.23 a month ago.

In a post on X, Patrick DeHaan, head of petroleum analysis for GasBuddy, said, “2026 has now seen more days with average gas prices over $4/gal than any year before: 158 days.”

Shelter costs also jumped 0.4 percent from the previous month, following a 0.3 percent increase in August. Food costs were a bright spot in the report, remaining unchanged overall.

Food away from home, including restaurant meals, rose 0.2 percent, but that increase was offset by a 0.1 percent decline in food-at-home prices, which track grocery costs.

At the grocery store, poultry prices jumped 0.7 percent, fruit and vegetable prices rose 0.5 percent, and juice prices increased 1.1 percent. However, milk prices dropped 2.1 percent and beef prices fell 0.9 percent.

Amid heavy investment in AI infrastructure, prices for computer software and accessories have jumped 28 percent from the same time last year.

“The AI boom is playing a huge part, and we have all read about the hundreds of billions being poured into data centers, AI firms, and models,” Rami Cassis, principal of Parabellum Investment, said in comments provided to Al Jazeera.

Fed pressures

The inflation data comes days before the US Federal Reserve’s interest rate decision later this month. Last month, the US central bank raised rates by 25 basis points, bringing the target range to 3.75–4.00 percent, the first hike in three years.

Economists are divided over whether the Fed will raise rates again or hold them steady. According to CME FedWatch, which tracks the likelihood of monetary policy decisions, there is a 52.9 percent chance that rates will remain in the 3.75–4.00 percent range, while a 47.1 percent chance of a quarter of a percentage point hike that would bring them to 4.00–4.25 percent.

The inflation data puts pressure on Republicans before the midterm elections on November 3. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll showed that about 78 percent of Americans blamed US President Donald Trump’s policies for price increases.

US markets trended downward following the inflation report. The Nasdaq fell 0.8 percent and the S&P 500 dropped 0.6 percent, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average was roughly flat in midday trading.