Corporations, labor unions, tech titans, Native American tribes and other special interests have donated a record-shattering $79.6 million to independent committees focused on swaying the volatile California governor’s race ahead of the June 2 primary.
Many of the largest backers to these committees will have significant business interests in front of the state’s next governor and state agencies, with hopes of either strengthening a candidate aligned with their political priorities or undercutting those who oppose them.
“This is the first time I’ve ever seen IEs [or independent expenditures] have this kind of an impact on a governor’s race,” said veteran GOP strategist Martin Wilson, who has worked on every California gubernatorial contest since 1978 and worked on an outside effort backing San José Mayor Matt Mahan’s 2026 bid for governor. “It’s totally unprecedented.”
Election laws bar independent expenditure committees from communicating or coordinating with campaigns, allowing candidates to emphasize that they have no control over the money that pours into these outside groups. The wall between the two has long been viewed as performative and penetrable.
The greatest amount of outside spending has been directed at attacking billionaire hedge fund founder turned environmental warrior Tom Steyer, a leading Democrat in the race.
Nearly $32.3 million had been donated to opposing his candidacy as of Monday, according to the California Target Book, a nonpartisan political almanac, which tracks independent expenditure committees. Among the major donors are utility giant PG&E, a political action committee sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Assn. of Realtors’ independent expenditure committee, which combined have utility, business, property tax and building issues affected by lawmakers and regulators in the state capital.
Independent expenditures supporting Steyer’s bid for governor have been minimal compared with the record-breaking $212 million Steyer has donated to his own campaign as of Monday, according to the California secretary of state’s office. Still, more than $1.4 million of outside money has been spent supporting his bid, largely by the California Nurses Assn., which shares his goal of creating single-payer healthcare.
Expenditure committees linked to Uber, the California Medical Assn., the kidney dialysis company DaVita and the California Dental Assn. contributed nearly $7.3 million to independent efforts backing former Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) before he dropped out of the gubernatorial race in April because of sexual assault and misconduct allegations.
Several of those donors then coalesced behind former Biden Cabinet member Xavier Becerra, who was struggling to connect with California voters before he surged to become a front-runner, recent opininon polls show. More than $13 million has been contributed to outside groups backing the former U.S. Health and Human Services secretary.
The outside money has led to flashpoints in the race. Steyer points to corporations backing Becerra, such as a $500,000 Chevron donation to a group supporting him that was reported to state election officials on Thursday.
“The Becerra campaign was running out of gas until the latest half-million dollar influx from Chevron,” said Steyer spokesman Anthony York.
The message echoes a Steyer theme on the campaign trail — that candidates ought to be judged by who is supporting them and who is opposing them.
Becerra accused Steyer of misleading voters because the $500,000 from Chevron went to an independent expenditure committee supporting him that he has no control over. However, Becerra did receive a direct $39,200 contribution from the oil company to his campaign committee in June 2025.
“For him to say that I took the [$500,000] … that’s just an outright lie,” he said in a television interview this weekend. “It pains me to see that candidates for office believe that they have to descend to telling lies in order to gain favor with voters. If that’s what you do as a candidate, what will you do when you’re in the office?”
Steyer’s campaign, which used the Memorial Day weekend to attack Becerra with billboards highlighting high gas prices in Los Angeles and Fresno, said it was disingenuous for Becerra to feign ignorance of how the political system works.
“Chevron is charging Californians record gas prices on one hand and turning right around to spend $500,000 to elect Xavier Becerra with the other,” said Steyer spokesperson Danni Wang. “Now Becerra is playing semantic gymnastics trying to pretend voters are too stupid to understand how dark money in politics works. Californians aren’t buying it.”
Becerra’s campaign argued that such comments are the height of hypocrisy coming from a billionaire whose campaign is funded by his profits from a hedge fund that made investments that are opposed by many voters. Becerra said he continually took on oil companies when he served as California’s attorney general.
“Tom Steyer made his billions off fossil fuels and private prisons, then decided that qualified him to run California,” said Becerra spokesman Jonathan Underland. “He’s now attacking the only candidate in this race who actually held Big Oil’s feet to the fire and beat [President] Trump 100 times as [state attorney general]. The irony would be funny if Tom’s checkbook weren’t so thick.”
Mahan, a moderate Democrat, has benefited from $21.7 million in spending by outside groups backing him, while $570,000 has been spent by independent committees opposing him, according to the Target Book. The donors who supported his bid are a who’s who of Silicon Valley, including venture capitalists Michael Moritz and L. John Doerr, Stripe Chief Executive Patrick Collinson and Sun Microsystems co-founder Vinod Khosla. Other notable donors include billionaire real estate developer Rick Caruso, who unsuccessfully ran for Los Angeles mayor in 2022, as well as Griff Harsh V, the son of billionaire Meg Whitman, the unsuccessful 2010 GOP gubernatorial nominee turned Democrat who once led EBay.
Despite that generous support, Mahan remains mired in the single digits in the polls. On Wednesday, billionaire Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings received a refund of $1 million he had donated to one of the independent expenditure committees supporting Mahan’s bid.
Hastings said he had not requested the money to be returned to him.
“I’m voting for Matt Mahan. I didn’t ask for any refund and they shouldn’t have done it,” he posted on X on Saturday. “Go Matt.”
Matt Rodriguez, a spokesman for the Back to Basics committee backing Mahan, said that he believes Mahan’s standing in the race is a reflection of a number of factors — an underwhelming contest as well as Mahan’s January entry into it and the fact that he was not well known statewide.
“He got in a little bit late and it was a big climb … with an apathetic electorate,” Rodriguez said. “Politics is all about money and timing — both the amount of time and being there at the right time.”
Mahan’s priorities, such as housing and homelessness improvements he oversaw in San José, had an impact on the campaign, the Democratic strategist said.
“Democrats have to perform, and if we are going to perform, we have to have results,” he said.
The only other candidate who saw seven figures in independent expenditure spending was Republican Steve Hilton, a former Fox News commentator who has been endorsed by Trump and is the leading GOP candidate in the race. More than $1.8 million has been spent opposing Hilton and $13,750 was spent supporting him.
SEIU California donated $250,000 to opposing gubernatorial candidates. Oscar Lopez, the union’s political director, said it has opposed Hilton, Mahan and Republican Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco.
“Each of these candidates represents a serious threat to the wages, rights and dignity of California’s working people,” Lopez said.
Hilton said the spending against him represents Democratic recognition of him as a threat.
“They know that they’re vulnerable. The Democratic machine understands they’ve got weak candidates and a terrible record,” he said in an interview. “They see me as outsider and change agent. The only argument they have — if you can call it an argument — is to endlessly repeat the words Trump and MAGA.”
Outside spending has grown exponentially after a voter-approved 2000 California ballot measure limited how much donors can contribute directly to candidates. For the current election, it’s $78,400 for the primary and the general election in the governor’s race.
But donors can contribute unlimited amounts to outside groups, which are formally called independent expenditure committees. Though such donations were already legal in California, they greatly increased in the state and across the nation after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision that said limits on independent political spending by corporations, unions and other entities violated 1st Amendment free speech protections.
“It has been a steady increase in the amount of money going to outside groups,” said Rick Hasen, a professor of law and political science at UCLA.
In California, independent expenditure groups set a record in 2010 when they spent about $25 million supporting then-gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown. Largely union money, it was spent in the summer after the primary and was viewed as critical to stalling self-funding Republican billionaire Meg Whitman’s campaign. Brown ultimately won the race by 13 percentage points.
In the 2018 gubernatorial primary, records were once again broken by more than $26 million of outside spending, with former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa being the biggest beneficiary. Charter school backers spent nearly $16 million on unsuccessful efforts to boost his campaign.
In addition to an enormous financial advantage over campaign committees, outside groups have the ability to trumpet highly provocative adversarial attacks without the candidate they support being blamed for the often controversial messaging.
“IEs are as free to go as negative as they want without that negativity boomeranging back to hurt the candidate,” said Thad Kousser, a political science professor at UC San Diego.
While communication between candidate campaigns and independent committees is forbidden, these rules are commonly circumvented using legal but obvious methods. One called “red boxing,” which Becerra employed earlier this year, literally puts messages inside red-lined boxes on candidate websites that their campaign strategists would like to see outside groups highlight.
“There are technical rules that prevent certain types of communication, but it’s easy enough to communicate in public and be on the same page on messaging,” Hasen said.
Among the major donors in the 2026 campaign are the California Chamber of Commerce, PG&E, the California Assn. of Realtors, the Laborers Pacific Southwest Regional Organizing Coalition PAC, the Pechanga Band of Indians, the California Nurses Assn., and corporations and leaders or founders of companies such as Meta, Google and Uber.
Californians for the People, an outside committee that has spent nearly $32.3 million opposing Steyer, is the most well-funded independent expenditure committee this year. Among it’s largest donors is JOBSPAC, a group sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce, that has donated nearly $11.8 million to the effort.
“CalChamber is participating in an independent expenditure campaign because voters deserve to know more about Mr. Steyer,” said John Myers, a spokesman for the chamber. “His policy promises will cost billions, driving investment out of California and worsening the state’s affordability crisis.”
The Pechanga Band of Indians has spent $1.5 million on pro-Becerra efforts.
“Secretary Becerra has stood with Indian Country for decades and understands Tribal sovereignty,” said Pechanga Chairman Mark Macarro. “When tribal healthcare was on the line, he was there. This experience comes from a lifetime of public service, not a checkbook.”
Published on
The Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM), Italy’s antitrust authority, announced on Tuesday that it opened a formal probe into easyJet Airline Company Limited over alleged unfair commercial practices.
The case centres on how the carrier structures and presents baggage fees on its website and mobile app, with the regulator alleging that passengers were routinely given a distorted picture of what they were actually paying.
According to the AGCM, easyJet’s platform set bundled checked baggage and sports equipment for round trips as the automatic default, presenting only an overall average price for the service, even when customers had no intention of purchasing it for both legs of their journey.
The regulator contends that anyone wishing to add luggage for one leg only was forced to interrupt the booking process to override this setting, a step most consumers would be unlikely to notice or navigate.
The investigation will assess whether easyJet’s booking system created unclear pricing conditions and limited consumers’ ability to make fully informed choices.
At the time of writing, easyJet has not publicly commented on the case.
This is not the first time easyJet has appeared before Italian authorities.
In May 2021, the AGCM imposed a €2.8 million fine on the airline alongside Ryanair and Volotea, after all three failed to offer cash reimbursements for flights cancelled when Italy lifted its COVID-19 travel restrictions, issuing vouchers instead.
EasyJet appealed, but the Lazio Regional Administrative Court in Rome rejected the challenge in February 2025.
The AGCM has shown no hesitation in pursuing the sector more broadly.
In December 2025, it fined Ryanair €255 million for abusing its dominant position in air travel to and from Italy.
The Italian authority concluded the carrier had deployed an “elaborate strategy” to obstruct travel agencies from purchasing its flights, including through facial-recognition checks, payment blocks and mass account deletions, a ruling Ryanair immediately vowed to appeal.
filo
FinVolution Group (FINV) has announced a new share repurchase program, effective from May 30, 2026, that allows the company to buy back up to $150 million in shares, including American Depositary Shares (ADSs), from May 30, 2026, to May 29, 2028.
The U.S. dollar edged lower, as investors tracked shifting developments around a potential Iran deal and the resulting moves in oil prices, which influenced inflation expectations and safe-haven demand.
The dollar index (DXY), which measures the greenback against a
An acquisition is the easiest way for the titan to get a leg up with digital nomads and international customers.
At first glance, it seems an absurd idea: JPMorgan Chase & Co., with its roughly $850 billion market cap, acquiring European unicorn Revolut, a private neobank valued at $75 billion.
Seemingly absurd, yes, but also worth considering, because it underscores the challenge that upstart fintechs pose to traditional banks. JPMorgan has already tested the practicality of building a digital-first banking experience internally. It launched Finn in 2017 as a standalone mobile banking brand aimed at younger users, then shut it down in 2019 after it failed to gain traction.
But the Finn experiment was not a clean rebuttal; it looked more like a legacy institution’s attempt to market around a shifting banking relationship than a fundamental rethink. A Revolut acquisition would give JPMorgan an established entry point into a dynamic new field.
I’m old enough to remember when BlackBerry’s CEO scoffed at Steve Jobs, saying, “You don’t need an app for the web.” We know how that played out. It’s easy to dismiss what doesn’t seem to fit your current moment, and just as easy to miss the next shift when you have the means to act.
JPMorgan doesn’t need Revolut. But the point isn’t survival; it’s trajectory. If banking is moving toward super apps as primary accounts, the question is whether JPMorgan can realistically build that future internally, or whether buying it may be the faster path.
Here are four reasons it could actually make sense:
Ask a senior engineer at Revolut whether JPMorgan could replicate its platform quickly, and you’re likely to get a laugh. Ask JPMorgan’s technology leadership, and you’re likely to hear the opposite.
Both can be true.
By the time JPMorgan was experimenting with the future, Revolut was writing it. The fintech hit 100,000 customers within a year of its funding and scaled to 50 million by the end of 2024. It’s redefining what consumers expect from banking in Europe, and its sights are now set on the U.S. as well. In March, it applied to the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for a U.S. national bank charter.
JPMorgan has the resources to succeed in the era of super-apps. But building a globally integrated, mobile-first platform is as much about organizational culture as it is about technology. Revolut was built for speed, iteration, and cross-border functionality from day one. JPMorgan was built for scale, stability, and regulatory complexity.
As Finn illustrates, those traits are not easily interchangeable.
JPMorgan could buy smaller firms in payments, investing, foreign exchange, or onboarding to assemble its own version of a super app. But stitching together components is not the same as acquiring a scaled, integrated platform with tens of millions of users, unified technology, and talent that lives and breathes a culture built around speed and innovation.
Realistically, an acquisition would require a significant premium over Revolut’s most recent private valuation. But that cuts both ways; JPMorgan would be paying for a scaled operating system, not a collection of disconnected parts.
The difference between the two banks shows up in their approach to competing in Europe. JPMorgan is already expanding its digital retail presence and building out its footprint beyond the U.S. But the approach is incremental.
Revolut is anything but incremental. The company has grown to more than 70 million customers, adding roughly 1 million every 17 days. It provides immediate scale in markets where JPMorgan is still building.
Banks like Banco Santander have spent decades building global retail networks, market by market. For JPMorgan, acquiring Revolut would dramatically shorten that timeline, turning a multi-year expansion into near-instant relevance.
Traditional banking still assumes a static customer: one address, one jurisdiction, one primary market. While that remains true for many customers, it doesn’t justify treating digital nomads and international customers as undeserving, which is exactly what many U.S. banks do.
A growing segment — freelancers, remote workers, and globally mobile professionals — lives across borders. They earn in one currency, spend in another, and expect their financial lives to follow them. Revolut was built specifically for this customer.
JPMorgan, for all its scale, still largely adheres to a domestic model. Acquiring Revolut would instantly position it at the center of a shift already underway: one that legacy banking structures are not designed to support.
Of course, a deal this large would face serious scrutiny in the U.S. and the U.K. Regulators would question systemic risk, governance, the impact on competition, and whether one of the world’s largest banks should absorb one of fintech’s fastest-growing global challengers.
But “difficult” and “impossible” are not synonyms, especially in modern finance, where every few years brings a deal that once seemed unthinkable. If JPMorgan believed the strategic gap was large enough, regulatory friction would become part of the negotiation, not the automatic death of the deal.
It would also send a signal to regulators and policymakers — intentionally or not — that U.S. banking structures may need to loosen if domestic institutions are to compete more effectively on the global stage. Even floating a deal like a JPMorgan/Revolut tie-up would force a conversation the industry needs to have.
No, JPMorgan doesn’t need Revolut. But at some point, it may have to decide whether to write the future of banking or keep refining the version it already dominates.
Cathie Wood’s ARK Investment Management executed a highly active rebalancing strategy for the week ending May 22, 2026. The latest trading data reveals a distinct shift away from certain legacy chipmakers and streaming tech, rotating capital heavily into digital asset infrastructure, next-gen aviation, AI hardware, and
Inna Dodor/iStock via Getty Images
Ahead of Memorial Day, we want to express appreciation to the brave men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom. Seeking Alpha wishes all our subscribers a beautiful holiday weekend and let us remember those who courageously gave
Published on
Oura, the Finnish company that created the ring-shaped health tracker worn by millions worldwide, has confidentially submitted draft paperwork to the US Securities and Exchange Commission for a proposed IPO, according to several reports.
While the number of shares and the expected price range remain undisclosed, the company had a recent funding round in the fall of 2025 that valued the business at around $11 billion (€9.5bn), more than double the $5 billion (€4.3bn) valuation it earned in a previous round in 2024.
According to CEO Tom Hale, more than 5.5 million Oura rings had been sold up to the end of last year’s third quarter.
At the time, Hale also projected that the company would reach $2 billion (€1.7bn) in annual revenue in 2026 compared with $500 million (€430mn) just two years ago.
The move towards an IPO puts a European wearable brand on Wall Street’s radar at a time when investor appetite for consumer health technology appears to be returning.
Oura has become a standout name in the fast-growing smart ring category, competing against smartwatch giants such as Apple, Garmin and Samsung, while carving out a niche with a distinct piece of hardware that some consumers find less obtrusive.
Over the past two years, the company has expanded aggressively into software, subscriptions and AI-powered health analysis. Its wearable platform now focuses on long-term health signals including sleep, readiness, heart rate, stress and recovery.
More recently, Oura has pushed further into women’s health and AI-based personal coaching, including tools designed to interpret physiological data and provide tailored wellness recommendations.
Analysts see that transition from device maker to subscripton-based health platform as central to its IPO pitch as the firm is currently on pace to surpass 5 million paid members.
The IPO filing marks a significant moment for one of Europe’s most prominent health tech success stories.
Founded in Finland and developed around research into sleep, recovery and biometric monitoring, Oura has grown from a Nordic hardware start-up into a global player in the wearable market.
However, for Europe’s start-up ecosystem, Oura’s planned listing carries broader significance.
While its roots and design philosophy are deeply tied to Finland, the company recently transitioned to a US-based parent company, named Oura Inc. and headquartered in San Francisco, to access American venture capital while keeping its European operations.
Its decision to prepare for a US listing rather than a European one reflects a wider pattern among high-growth European tech firms seeking deeper capital markets and greater visibility among global investors.
The planned flotation arrives during renewed debate over whether Europe is losing some of its most successful technology companies to US exchanges.
Oura joins a growing list of European-founded businesses choosing Wall Street as their route to public markets, drawn by scale, liquidity and stronger investor familiarity with consumer technology.
The company’s IPO will also be seen as a test of investor sentiment towards wearable technology after a mixed few years for the sector.
Unlike smartwatches, smart rings remain a relatively young category, though interest has accelerated rapidly.
Oura is widely viewed as the segment’s category leader and its public debut could offer a clearer benchmark for how markets value next-generation health hardware combined with software subscriptions and AI services.
remotevfx
Digital asset ETFs experienced heavy selling pressure last week as Bitcoin (BTC-USD) briefly dipped near $75K amid rising macro uncertainty and bond market stress.
From May 18 to May 22, spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded $1.26B in net outflows, according to
Political turmoil rattles emerging markets as election risks mount
Source link
Notable healthcare headlines for the week: UnitedHealth, Boston Scientific, and Eli Lilly in focus
Source link
Los Angeles voters will cast ballots in eight City Council district elections next week, including for two open seats where incumbents are leaving because of term limits.
The contests for the seats being vacated by Councilmembers Bob Blumenfield and Curren Price have drawn large fields of candidates, but the biggest spending has been in the Westside’s District 11, where incumbent Traci Park is facing challenger Faizah Malik, a public interest attorney and one of four council candidates backed by the local chapter of Democratic Socialists of America.
Park has raised $1.3 million, according to the latest campaign finance reports filed Friday, while challenger Faizah Malik reported about $520,000 in contributions. In addition, more than $3 million has been spent in the race by so-called independent expenditure committees that spend money to elect or defeat candidates but which are barred from coordinating their activities with the campaigns.
The district includes Venice, Mar Vista, Brentwood and Pacific Palisades, which was devastated by wildfire in January 2025.
Malik said Friday she is confident heading into the primary election, saying most of her donations are under $100 each, and that she hasn’t taken money from corporations.
Los Angeles City Council candidate Faizah Malik attends a canvassing event March 15 in Westchester.
(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)
“This is what it means to be a grassroots candidate, and it is just more evidence that the people of CD11 believe in our vision for a Westside that is affordable for everyday people,” Malik said.
A Park campaign aide said Park’s haul is indicative of the councilmember’s record of getting results.
“But no one is taking anything for granted,” the aide said in a statement. “We’re working until the final vote is cast because this election will determine whether the Westside keeps moving forward or gets pulled backward into the same failed ideological politics Angelenos are exhausted by.”
Los Angeles City Councilmember Traci Park, center, with members of United Firefighters of Los Angeles City on May 12.
(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)
Park has emphasized her advocacy for fire recovery efforts, including pushing for permit fee waivers for residents wanting to rebuild. Malik has said Park has been too focused on single-family homeowners and said she would focus more energy on renters.
They have contrasting views on policing: Malik said she opposes expanding the size of the Los Angeles Police Department and instead supports shifting more resources to the city’s unarmed crisis response program. Park said the Police Department should have about 10,000 sworn officers, up from about 8,700 currently. She voted in favor of a 2023 LAPD contract that gave raises to officers and increased salaries to new hires.
They stand in contrast of each other on the Venice Dell housing development project, which would turn a city lot into 120 housing units for low-income and homeless people. Park opposed the completion and instead wants to turn it into a “mobility hub” and move the housing project to an adjacent lot. Malik, who represented the developer that filed a suit against the city claiming Park and others sought to kill the project, said the project was a motivating factor for her campaign.
Six candidates are vying to replace Councilman Curren Price, who hit the 12-year limit, in District 9. The district includes the Convention Center, USC and communities along the Harbor Freeway.
The candidates vary on key issues, including policing and housing. Estuardo Mazariegos, co-director of the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment Los Angeles, is backed by the Democratic Socialists of America. He has called for reducing the LAPD budget and redirecting funds to other city departments.
Two other candidates — Jorge Hernandez Rosas, an educator, and Jose Ugarte, who previously worked for Price — said they support hiring more police officers. Another hopeful, Elmer Roldan, executive director of Communities in Schools of Los Angeles, said he believes in keeping the LAPD at its current size.
Ugarte, Roldan, Rosas and Martha Sánchez, a therapist, all support enforcing Municipal Code 41.18, which bars homeless encampments near schools and daycare centers. Mazariegos and Jorge Nuño, an entrepreneur, say the code doesn’t solve homelessness and instead just moves people around.
Ugarte has raised the most in contributions of any candidate and has been endorsed by the Los Angeles County Democratic Party in the nonpartisan race.
District 3
Three candidates are competing for an open seat in District 3, where Councilmember Bob Blumenfield has termed out of office. The district encompasses Woodland Hills, Canoga Park, Reseda, Winnetka and Tarzana.
The candidates are Tim Gaspar, who founded an insurance company, Barri Worth Girvan, district director for Los Angeles County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, and Christopher Robert “C.R.” Celona, a tech entrepreneur.
The three candidates are similarly positioned on public safety, backing Mayor Karen Bass’ long-term goal to increase the LAPD ranks to at least 9,500 officers. All three also support enforcing Municipal Code section 41.18.
Gaspar and Worth Girvan have both scored key endorsements. Gaspar is backed by Blumenfield, billionaire developer Rick Caruso and Councilmembers Monica Rodriguez, Tim McOsker and John Lee and billionaire developer Rick Caruso. Worth Girvan has endorsements from a long list of state Democratic lawmakers, the county Democratic Party, the Sierra Club and labor unions.
Gaspar leads in campaign contributions, followed by Worth Girvan. Celona, who has promised to resuscitate the city’s entertainment industry by fast-tracking film permits and cutting red tape, trails far behind.
Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez faces four challengers in District 1, which stretches from Highland Park on the northeast to University Park on the southwest. She is backed by the local Democratic Socialists of America, and her challengers claim the district has suffered under under her leadership, pointing to MacArthur Park as emblematic of the homelessness and drug addiction crisis plaguing the city.
Hernandez counters with a list of accomplishments, including helping secure a $6.3-million state grant to house homeless individuals near the Arroyo Seco riverbed and advocating for a citywide network of unarmed crisis response teams.
She faces challenges from Maria Lou Calanche, a former Los Angeles police commissioner and founder of the nonprofit Legacy LA; Nelson Grande, an executive consultant and former president of Avenida Entertainment Group; Raul Claros, founder of California Rising; and Sylvia Robledo, a small-business owner and former council aide.
Hernandez’s campaign has also faced an onslaught of accusations of “dark money” spending. A group called Neighbors First has sent mail pieces critical of Hernandez and other leftist City Council candidates.
Incumbent Katy Yaroslavsky faces two challengers for her District 5 seat, both of whom oppose her stance on housing and public safety spending. The district includes some of the city’s wealthiest neighborhoods, including Bel-Air, Westwood, Cheviot Hills and Hancock Park.
Challengers Henry Mantel, a tenants’ rights lawyer, and Morgan Oyler, an accountant, say Yaroslavsky hasn’t done enough to increase the district’s housing supply. Yaroslavsky, who holds a wide lead in fundraising, has said she supports increasing housing density near transit centers but cautioned against building more than the city can sustain.
Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez, who is also backed by the Democratic Socialists of America’s L.A. chapter, faces three challengers in District 13, which includes Atwater Village, Glassell Park, Elysian Valley, Echo Park, Silver Lake and East Hollywood.
The list of challengers includes Colter Carlisle, vice president of the East Hollywood Neighborhood Council, Dylan Kendall, who runs Grow Hollywood, and Rich Sarian, vice president of strategic initiatives for downtown’s South Park Social District.
While Soto-Martínez supports expanding the city’s unarmed personnel program, Carlisle and Kendall would like to expand the police force. Sarian has said he supports the unarmed personnel program and wants to examine the LAPD’s current size and resources.
Incumbent Tim McOsker is facing off against community organizer Jordan River in District 15, which covers Harbor City, Harbor Gateway, San Pedro, Watts and Wilmington. McOsker has decades of experience in the political world, having worked in the mayor’s office, and the city attorney’s office before joining the City Council in 2022. Rivers, who is unemployed, is a member of the Green Party.
Monica Rodriguez is running unopposed for the District 7 seat in the northeast San Fernando Valley.
Times staff writers David Zahniser, Noah Goldberg and Sandra McDonald contributed to this report.
Joe Hendrickson/iStock Editorial via Getty Images
Pabst Brewing Company confirmed this week that it is placing Schlitz Premium “on hiatus,” citing unsustainable economics. The brand’s volume had fallen so far that even the minimum production quantities required by the Anheuser-Busch (BUD) plant in Texas, which had
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa signed on Friday a revamped trade deal with Mexico as part of the EU’s efforts to expand its influence in Latin America, shortly after the Mercosur pact entered into force.
The deal was signed at an EU–Mexico summit in Mexico, with von der Leyen and Costa joined by the country’s President Claudia Sheinbaum, amid rising geopolitical tensions and shifting global alliances following the return of US president to the White House.
The economic partnership between the two medium-sized powers reflects efforts on both sides to reduce their dependence on the US — the EU’s and Mexico’s largest trading partner—and on China, for which Mexico has become a hub for electric vehicle production.
“The EU and Mexico are committed to a close strategic partnership,” von der Leyen said, adding: “Today’s modernised Agreements set out our shared vision of the future and will deliver many benefits for both sides.”
The EU–Mexico trade deal strengthens the EU’s diversification strategy by updating a 20-year-old agreement that had already eliminated tariff barriers on bilateral trade.
Under the new deal, the EU will access new markets for products, such as agri-food (pork, dairy, cereals, fruit and pasta), pharmaceuticals and machinery.
Mexico is the EU’s second-largest trading partner in Latin America and the EU is Mexico’s second-largest export market. Trade between both sides reached €86.8 billion in goods in 2025, alongside €29.7 billion in services in 2024.
The figures remain far smaller than Mexico’s trade with its neighbour, the US, which exceeded $900 billion in goods and services in 2024. But the deal comes as Mexico faces mounting pressure from a more protectionist White House.
For its part, the EU has been grappling with repeated tariff threats from Trump despite a trade deal clinched in 2025.
“At a time of growing global uncertainty, the EU and Mexico are choosing openness, partnership and ambition,” EU trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič, who was also in Mexico City, said. He pointed out that more than 43,000 European companies export to Mexico, while over 11,000 EU companies operate in the country.
On agriculture, the pact will open up new markets for Mexican products such as coffee, fruit, chocolate and agave syrup.
A total of 568 European and 26 Mexican geographical indications will also be protected, alongside the opening of public procurement markets, according to the Commission.
With this new deal, the EU also wants to signal its strengthened presence in Latin America, where China has expanded its influence.
“97% of the GDP of Latin America and the Caribbean will be covered by sophisticated preferential agreements with the European Union,” a senior EU official said, adding: “There is no other region in the world that has such a dense and connected network of agreements.”
The EU has already built new trade ties with Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay through the Mercosur trade agreement, which provisionally entered into force on 1 May and liberalises trade flows between the EU and those countries.
However, its signing has faced strong opposition from EU farmers, who fear unfair competition from Latin American imports, and ratification was suspended after MEPs challenged the agreement before the EU Court of Justice.
Brussels argues the Mexico agreement should avoid the backlash faced by Mercosur because sensitive agricultural imports remain capped through tariff quotas.
Published on
EU Industry Commissioner Stéphane Séjourné called for EU businesses to diversify their suppliers on Friday as trade tensions with China ramp up.
The comments come as Beijing has made repeated threats towards the EU in recent weeks, while Brussels seeks to strengthen its legislation against its Asian rival.
Last year, China restricted exports of rare earths and chips, strategic for the EU’s green technologies, defence and automotive industries.
“Do not make 100% of your supplies in one country,” Séjourné told EU businesses after a meeting with the EU’s 27 trade ministers in Brussels. He added: “The global geopolitical situation shows that your ability to provide yourself abroad must also depend on other types of countries and also on European production.”
The European Commission has so far issued guidance to EU companies and Séjourné signalled that if they did not move, the EU executive would “perhaps have to move to the next step.”
Internally, the Commission is already working on a proposal to force car producers to source chips from multiple suppliers, Euronews has revealed.
Last year, a spat between the Dutch government and the Chinese chip company Nexperia, based in the Netherlands, caused shortages of chips for EU industries after Beijing blocked exports in retaliation.
EU Trade Chief Maroš Šefčovič told Euronews at the time that China was “weaponising” critical supplies for EU industry.
Brussels and Beijing have been at loggerheads since the EU presented several proposals restricting China’s access to the EU single market.
The so-called “Industrial Accelerator Act” aims to favour EU companies in public procurement and impose strict conditions on Chinese investments in the bloc. Meanwhile, a Cybersecurity Act could exclude Chinese telecoms companies from the EU market.
Beijing has directly threatened the EU with retaliation if it moves forward with those proposals. China repeated the threats after media reports about potential EU measures against cheap Chinese imports flooding the EU market.
An orientation debate is set to take place in Brussels between EU commissioners on 29 May to decide on the EU’s strategy as its trade deficit with China becomes more critical month after month.
From Spain to Cabo Verde, the EIB is building a blueprint for global maritime decarbonization.
When the European Investment Bank (EIB) signed off on an €80 million loan to Bilbao’s Port Authority in late 2024, most observers logged it as routine. It was anything but.
The facility bundled three priorities that now define the bank’s maritime strategy: capacity expansion, grid electrification, and renewable energy generation on port land. Over the past 18 months, operating through its core European window and EIB Global, the bank has deployed or committed well over €400 million in maritime financing, for the most active period of EIB maritime engagement in a generation.
The Bilbao loan and a subsequent package for Málaga form the European spine of the push. Bilbao’s €80 million facility finances breakwater expansion, the landside electricity grid, and renewable generation, positioning the port on the Atlantic Corridor of the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) as a lower-carbon alternative to road freight. Málaga’s €50 million loan, signed in spring 2025, follows the same template on the Mediterranean Corridor: a new multi-purpose terminal, full shore-power electrification for docked vessels, and upgraded border and passenger facilities.
Both foreground onshore power supply (OPS)—enabling ships to cut auxiliary engines at berth—in anticipation of FuelEU Maritime, the EU regulation that mandates OPS at designated EU ports as of 2030.
The Cabo Verde Blue Economy Sustainable Ports Facility remains the EIB’s most ambitious external maritime bet in recent memory, however.
Assembled in layers over the past two years, the program combines €114 million in EIB loans with a €34 million EU investment grant for a total €148 million concessional package under the Global Gateway, the EU’s strategy to invest in sustainable infrastructure. The undertaking spans three of the four maritime hubs across the Cape Verde archipelago: Mindelo’s Porto Grande (new breakwater, expanded container and fisheries infrastructure), Palmeira on Sal (larger-vessel reception, improved fish-landing facilities), and Santo Antão’s Porto Novo (inter-island connectivity upgrades).
Solar energy systems across multiple ports aim to cut diesel dependency. The centerpiece of the project is the rehabilitation of CABNAVE, Cape Verde’s sole naval repair yard. The EIB intends to develop it into a regional maritime center of excellence: a goal with geopolitical resonance, given China’s longstanding interest in the facility.SUBHED
The series of deals comes fully into focus as an accompaniment to the regulatory revolution unfolding in parallel in the EU. FuelEU Maritime, in force since the beginning of last year, mandates progressive greenhouse-gas intensity cuts for ships above 5,000 gross tonnes calling at EU ports: 2% against a 2020 baseline now, rising to 6% by 2030 and 80% by 2050. Simultaneously, the EU Emissions Trading System covers shipping; companies must surrender allowances for 40% of verified emissions from 2024, 70% from 2025, and 100% from 2026.
This double pressure—a fuel-intensity standard alongside a carbon price—is the commercial incentive structure the EIB’s port electrification investments are designed to capitalize on. The bank is de-risking regulatory transitions for port authorities that might otherwise be delayed while awaiting final implementing rules. Additionally, bundling electrification, renewables, and capacity expansion into single loan instruments is more sophisticated than the EIB’s earlier methods of generating port loans, which were piecemeal and perceived as non-strategic.
But the EIB is not the only major backer of the energy transition, nor could it be.
Last year, the European Investment Fund approved infrastructure fund investments explicitly targeting shipping-sector decarbonization, signaling a move beyond pure debt into equity and quasi-equity instruments that aim to crowd in pension funds and insurers at a scale individual EIB loans cannot reach. The European Commission has estimated that the full maritime energy transition will require around €100 billion by 2035; the EIF’s fund route is considered the most plausible mechanism for mobilizing capital at that magnitude.
Yet gaps remain. The portfolio is still weighted heavily toward port-side infrastructure rather than the fleet itself; direct EIB financing for vessel retrofits and alternative-fuel newbuilds has yet to materialize at scale. OPS deployment across all TEN-T ports by 2030 is a larger task than two Spanish loans can address. And the geopolitical role the bank has assumed in Cape Verde raises questions about mandate and institutional capacity that extend beyond the mid-Atlantic.
The EIB’s maritime schemes of the past 18 months are not isolated transactions; they are the outline of a strategy. Whether the bank receives the resources and political backing to match the scale of the transition it’s trying to finance is an open question.
EASYJET will launch a loyalty program in 2027, to reward repeat bookers of both its flights and holidays.
Customers will be able to accrue points based on how much they’ve spent, which they’ll then be able to use for discounts on future bookings.
Follow The Sun’s award-winning travel team on Instagram and Tiktok for top holiday tips and inspiration @thesuntravel.
The airline said that it benefits from a “local customer base” with lots of “returning” flyers and essentially wants to reward them for it.
Not many details about the scheme have been announced, but talking to the Financial Times, easyJet CEO Kenton Jarvis said that it would have “broad appeal”.
He added: “Not only do we have commuters… but also people who book holidays accumulate value that they can redeem either on a flight or on holiday.”
Reading between the lines, it doesn’t seem that easyJet will be replacing its easyJet Plus scheme, which is already in place and designed for frequent flyers.
easyJet Plus is available for an annual fee of £249, where passengers benefit from ‘Plus’ bag drop, speedy boarding, inclusive allocated seating and fast track security – and other ‘exclusive benefits’.
Many other airlines operate loyalty schemes, and recently British Airways made a change to the way its tier points count towards silver or gold membership.
As of April 2026, members of the British Airways Club started earning points based on the money they spend with the airline, rather than based on distance they have flown.
For every £1 they spend, they will earn one tier point, which makes it tougher for flyers to earn the top status.
According to the Financial Times, Virgin Atlantic said more than 10,000 BA members had switched to its programme after offering to match the status of any customers booking a flight.
Earlier this year, easyJet announced it would be launching new routes from the UK – some of which are from Newcastle International Airport, its newest base which it opened in March.
In October, the airline will begin flights from Newcastle to Fuerteventura providing a winter sun escape to the Canary Island.
Anyone wanting to visit Reykjavik, Iceland, can travel from Newcastle from October 27 twice a week, on Tuesdays and Saturdays.
Deepfake fraud is becoming a persistent, multiyear corporate risk as synthetic voices circulate undetected.
Deepfake-enabled fraud, which began as novel technical exploits, is now a persistent operational risk with a multi-year shelf life within the corporate ecosystem. According to deepfake-detection provider Resemble.AI, deepfakes typically remain in circulation for three-and-a-half years.
Resemble.AI’s 2025 Deepfake Threat Report, published in March, references an incident in which a voice clone of a German energy company CEO remained in circulation for nearly six years, although it resulted in only a €243,000 loss in 2019.
Determining losses from such attacks is difficult; for the 41 documented incidents last year cited by the research, only $74.9 million in verified losses were reported, with a median per-incident loss of $243,000. However, the authors noted that 71% of victims did not report financial losses, suggesting a higher volume of hidden liabilities.
“What makes them so effective is that they enable both real-time impersonation and the creation of synthetic identities stitched together from real and fake data,” said Dominic Forrest, CTO of biometric security vendor Iproov. “These are extremely difficult to detect, and once trusted, they can be used to bypass controls and commit fraud.”
Detecting deepfakes is a growing concern; the authors of the Resemble.AI report estimate that deepfake-based fraud attacks on corporations reached 8.5 billion potential incidents, ranging from audio impersonations of executives to doctored or fake images. The most common targets, Forrest noted, are on account openings, payment authorization, credential reset, and high-value transactions.
Telling a deepfake from the genuine article has become an AI-on-AI battle, experts warn.
The generative AI models producing deepfakes improve continuously via scaling and data, while deepfake detectors rely on signals like artifacts and inconsistencies, which disappear as models improve, said Siwei Lyu, professor of Computer Science and Engineering and director of the Institute for AI and Data Science at the State University of New York at Buffalo.
“In practice, detectors lag by about six to 18 months on specific modalities,” he said. “But more importantly, they are chasing a moving target whose failure modes are actively being optimized away.”
Forrest suggests that firms move their identity verification from single checks to a multi-layered approach: “You need to confirm that a real person is physically present, not a deepfake, while also analyzing the digital environment for signs of compromise. No signal should be trusted in isolation.”
This article first appeared in the May edition of Global Finance Magazine.
WASHINGTON — President Trump’s grip on his party slipped on Thursday as anger boiled over among Senate Republicans about a growing list of issues.
In a striking display of defiance, GOP senators abruptly derailed plans to vote on legislation to fund Trump’s immigration crackdown amid deep disagreements over security funding for a White House ballroom and a $1.8-billion fund to pay people who claim to have been politically persecuted.
The discontent had been building for weeks. Many senators had grown frustrated over Trump’s decision to endorse candidates running against longtime Republican incumbents.
Others, worried about rising costs as a result from the war in Iran, had aired concerns ahead of the midterm elections. But the breaking point came when the Justice Department, with little warning, pushed to create what it termed the “anti-weaponization fund.”
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) acknowledged the concerns over the fund Thursday after a reportedly contentious private meeting about it between Senate Republicans and acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche. He also conceded midterm politics had added to the tension.
“It’s hard to divorce anything that happens here from what’s happening in the political atmosphere around us,” Thune told reporters. “You can’t disconnect those things.”
A day earlier, Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican who lost his primary race on Saturday to a Trump-backed challenger, expressed strong disagreement with the creation of the fund, which would be controlled by appointees without congressional oversight.
“People are concerned about paying their mortgage or rent, affording groceries and paying for gas, not putting together a $1.8 billion fund for the president and his allies to pay whomever they wish with no legal precedent or accountability,” Cassidy wrote on X. “If there needs to be a settlement, the administration should bring it to Congress to decide.”
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) also had harsh criticism for the fund.
“So the nation’s top law enforcement official is asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops? Utterly stupid, morally wrong — take your pick,” he said in a statement.
The discord was striking, partly because Republicans have largely steered clear of checking the president’s power, and Congress has been largely sidelined under the second Trump administration on the war in Iran and other issues.
“I don’t think the Republicans had any choice but to pull the plug until we come back in June, because they’re facing a bit of a mutiny within their conference,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) told The Times, saying he had heard that the meeting between Blanche and Republicans “didn’t go well.”
As tension simmered on the background, Trump seemed unbothered by the group of Republicans’ public rebellion against his agenda. When asked whether he was losing control of the Senate, he said he didn’t know.
“I only do what is right,” he told reporters in the Oval Office.
However, he expressed annoyance at lawmakers who would not support $1 billion in federal funding for security costs related to the ballroom project. He said the structure is being privately funded by him and other “great patriots.”
“We are making a gift to the United States,” Trump said. “This is being made as a gift from me and other people that are great patriots and spent a lot of money. We are building what will be the finest ballroom anywhere in the world.”
The $1 billion for security funding would be “very much a good expenditure,” he said. If Congress does not sign off on the money, Trump said the “White House won’t be a very secure place.”
Trump did not immediately comment on Thursday about the Senate’s delaying of the funding bill. The White House declined to comment on the matter.
Trump’s second-term actions have frequently tested the loyalty of Republican lawmakers, who have largely stayed in line. The settlement fund, with its ethical questions, appears to have crossed a line for some senators in a party that has traditionally opposed wasting taxpayer funds.
The money comes from the judgment fund, which is a Congress-approved ongoing appropriation that allows the Justice Department to settle cases and make payments.
Stephen Miller, a top aide to Trump, told reporters at the White House that the $1.8-billion settlement was “just a small measure of the justice” that many people are owed after being targeted by the federal government. Miller declined to say whether the White House was reaching out to senators to ease concerns about the fund.
Republicans in Congress decried the use of similar third-party settlements during the Obama administration, with House lawmakers repeatedly passing a bill aimed at stopping settlement slush funds, noted Molly Nixon, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.
Though the Trump administration’s plan is novel because the settlement money isn’t going to a third party, the general concept has been offensive to Republicans in the past; the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee termed it an abuse in 2017.
“If you’re taking a consistent view, you’d be at least equally as opposed to this settlement,” Nixon said of Republican lawmakers.
That could be driving some of the opposition now, along with concerns about who is going to get the money and whether it could be distributed to people who wouldn’t have been able to make a successful case before a court of law, Nixon said.
“The fund is going to plaintiffs who were victims of lawfare or weaponization. … Those are pretty ambiguous terms. They’re sort of in the eye of the beholder,” Nixon said. “It’s pretty easy to see how this could very easily become a quiet political claims process.”
Police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021, riot have already filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block the creation of the fund, arguing in part that it would compensate extremist convicted of committing violent crimes.
“The fund’s mere existence sends a clear and chilling message: those who enact violence in President Trump’s name will not just avoid punishment, they will be rewarded with riches,” the lawsuit says.
When Trump returned to office in January 2025, one of his first acts was pardoning or commuting the prison sentences of the 1,500 people who were charged in connection with the attack. Vice President JD Vance on Wednesday did not rule out that settlement money could go to those rioters, saying the money would be given out on a “case-by-case basis.”
Thune told reporters on Thursday that the Justice Department would have to come up with some guardrails to ease concerns among senators.
“We need to get some clarity,” he said.
Though the number of Republicans angry with Trump is significant enough to make or break legislation, the caucus appeared far from falling apart.
Senate Republicans blocked an attempt by Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) on Thursday to pass a bill to prohibit federal funds from reaching Jan. 6 rioters, an attempt to prevent the fund from being used to compensate them.
“I’m encouraged hearing some of my Republican colleagues agreeing with me,” Padilla said on the Senate floor. “Let’s stand up for congressional oversight as a unified Senate.”
Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) objected to Padilla’s bill, later writing on X: “PROUD to object today to Senator Padilla’s RIDICULOUS bill and stand up for ALL FREEDOM-LOVING AMERICANS.”
Schiff, who is working on an amendment that would target the fund, said other Republican colleagues he spoke to Wednesday evening were unhappy with the position Trump has put them in. He said Trump’s actions have helped underscore Democrats’ arguments against his party.
“All [it’s] doing is helping us make the case that the Republicans couldn’t care less about people’s cost of living … that there’s plenty of money for golden ballrooms for the president, there’s plenty of money for the president’s cronies, but there’s no money for the average family,” Schiff said.
Chemours falls as EPA's rollback of refrigerant rule raises oversupply concerns
Source link
In a Venezuela whose infrastructure has been abandoned to the past, it is easy to forget that even here the famous phrase “the future is already here, it’s just not evenly distributed” still applies. In many ways it perfectly encapsulates the contradictions of Venezuelan society, a country where running water and electricity is far from a certainty and yet adoption of payment technologies and cryptocurrencies far outpaces that of developed countries. Whatever one thinks of the usefulness and value of these technologies, we can expect even more contradictions in the coming age of AI.
The future and AI will arrive in Venezuela, but to whose benefit? And for which purposes?
Before answering these questions I think it’s helpful to understand the technology which is AI through Jensen Huang’s analogy of a five layer cake, where Layer One is the top and Layer Five the bottom.
One – AI Applications (Claude Code, Copilot, ChatGPT, etc)
Two – AI Models (Claude-Opus, GPT5, Llama, etc)
Three – Cloud Data Center Infrastructure
Four – Chips and Computing Infrastructure
Five – Energy
Each layer of the cake requires the one below to stand. These are complicated supply chains that allow for the incredible technology that is modern generative AI.
In the case of Venezuela we can forget about having much to do with Layers Two and Four. These simply require too much know-how that the engineers and manufacturers in Venezuela do not have. We cannot compete with factories in Taiwan or China nor can we compete with computer and electrical engineers making millions of dollars a year in Silicon Valley. For a few decades at least.
Let’s look at how we can expect the other three to apply to Venezuela.
The first layer of the cake, even if these applications are not made in Venezuela (and most won’t be), they will not be difficult to deploy as these companies will offer (as they do now) software-as-a-service (SaaS) products whose infrastructure can run anywhere else in the world. The use of these tools requires little more than an internet connection and we can expect some level of widespread adoption, but likely not much in terms of cutting-edge innovation.
Because of the insatiable demand from AI companies for energy and places to put their datacenters where it’ll be the most profitable, Venezuela is attractive with its much lower-cost energy in relative terms.
Before discussing more of possible AI applications in Venezuela, let’s consider layers three (cloud datacenter infrastructure) and five (energy). These are where Venezuela is more relevant than may first meet the eye.
As you can see the entire cake relies on one base: energy. Energy and its cost is the main constraint for the entire supply chain of AI and the main reason why companies like Anthropic and OpenAI remain unprofitable despite tens of billions of dollars in revenue.
Venezuela is a potential powerhouse for energy production. Not only does it have incredibly high oil reserves but also impressive hydropower, and an extremely underdeveloped solar and wind industry.
In her bid to ask for international support, opposition leader María Corina Machado has framed Venezuela’s future as an energy hub for the Americas. Because of the insatiable demand from AI companies for energy and places to put their datacenters where it’ll be the most profitable, Venezuela is attractive with its much lower-cost energy in relative terms.
If only it had a functioning grid.
The focus on fixing this enormous issue during this stabilization phase of the American plan is no accident. The world, as has been the case since it first found oil, looks to Venezuela for the energy it can provide. One could see this negatively in that Venezuelans will have to compete with large multinational AI companies for energy, but the “stability” in the political environment that these companies require could incidentally be good for Venezuelans.
Stability of governance and respect of property rights is crucial for any company looking to make hypothetical data center or energy investments since this infrastructure takes multiple years to develop, if not decades. A return to true law and order and unassailable property rights would be an undeniable boon to the economy.
Local corporations will probably use AI-powered enterprise software as many others in the world. Though the Venezuelan entrepreneurial spirit keeps surprising, it seems likely that Venezuelan businesses will be not quite at the cutting edge but still positioned to take advantage of AI.
The area of most interest, or rather most concern, is how the government might use these tools. The Venezuelan government has laid out their first risk-based ethical code for AI, largely modeled after the EU’s AI Act. Whether or not this translates to law, remains to be seen, but they have spoken about their commitment to “humanist” AI which disavows use cases such as manipulation, mass surveillance and disinformation. These are great values to strive for, but the government’s respect for its own laws, let alone ethical codes, has been more than lacking.
AI gives tyrants around the world exactly what they want: an army of intelligent capable agents who can’t say no and don’t need to be fed or housed.
In its ability to perform thinking tasks with lightning speed in a parallelizable manner, AI is a technology which tyrants in years past must have wished they had access to. A virtual army of bureaucrats (which the Venezuelan State already has in human form) observing citizens and making small decisions, putting names on lists, logging personal connections, building political profiles as well as modeling how likely a person would be to vote a certain way or become an annoying political activist, thus saving intelligence agencies hundreds of thousands of man-hours a year. Relying less on actual humans to want to do the work of spying on their own people or even themselves.
AI agents can screen social media and the internet for any sign of online political coordination and connect that to their already centralized data systems, which could be used to target or deny access to benefits for anyone who the AI has decided is toxic to your agenda.
When you are unpopular and attempting to maintain control over a population, technology is your friend because you can leverage your human capital much further, to do what you need done without the need to grow your network of trusted people. AI gives tyrants around the world exactly what they want: an army of intelligent capable agents who can’t say no and don’t need to be fed or housed.
At the moment, Venezuela’s future hangs in the balance, leadership going forward is unclear but one thing is clear. It will not be more of the same. The only permanent thing in the world is change, and the future will arrive in Venezuela. The question is: how will it be distributed? Who will get the benefits?
As always, it will benefit those with power. The question is: who will have power?
