powers

In the world’s most fragile states, war is no longer merely a political tragedy, it is an economic opportunity for those positioned to profit. From the mountains of northern Myanmar to the gold fields of Sudan, a common pattern has emerged: when governance collapses, external powers rush in to secure the minerals, metals, and strategic commodities that the global economy demands. These regions become places where human suffering and environmental destruction become collateral for uninterrupted flows of resources. Two cases stand out in late 2025, Myanmar’s rare earth boom, fueled by Chinese demand, and Sudan’s gold boom, powered by the United Arab Emirates, together reveal a disturbing truth about the global marketplace; world’s green and gold transitions are being built atop the ruins of countries trapped in conflict.

Myanmar: The Human Cost of a Resource Rush

In early 2025, a young man named Sian traveled deep into the mountains of Shan State, Myanmar, desperate for work in a country where the formal economy has collapsed and nearly half the population lives on less than two dollars a day. He was lured by rumors of wages unheard of in today’s Myanmar, $1,400 a month at new rare-earth mining sites run by Chinese companies in territory controlled by the United Wa State Army (UWSA), the most powerful of Myanmar’s ethnic armed groups. After hours riding a motorbike through dense forest, he arrived at a mine and was hired for a daily pay of about $21. His job was brutal: drilling boreholes and installing pipes for in-situ leaching, a method that involves pumping acidic solutions directly into mountainsides to dissolve and extract elements like dysprosium and terbium, metals that are vital for electric vehicles, wind turbines, advanced radar systems, and nearly every technology central to the green-energy revolution.

The process leaves behind poisoned rivers, contaminated soil, landslides, respiratory diseases, and entire villages unlivable. Researchers and civil society organizations have documented extensive damage: deforestation, chemically burned waterways, collapsed hillsides, and workers buried in mud after heavy rainfall liquefies the weakened terrain. “The toxic effects of rare-earth mining are devastating,” says political geographer Jasnea Sarma. “These communities endure the harm so that others may benefit.”

Yet the industry is thriving. China has cracked down on domestic rare-earth extraction due to environmental damage, but it has not reduced its demand. As a result, the extraction simply shifted across the border into Myanmar, where environmental regulations are weak, labor is cheap, and local armed groups, desperate for revenue, grant Chinese firms access in exchange for payments or profit-sharing.

Satellite imagery analyzed by Myanmar Witness and the Stimson Center shows hundreds of rare-earth mining sites exploding across Shan State, particularly in areas controlled by the UWSA and other China-aligned ethnic armies. Chinese customs data confirms the trend: between 2017 and 2024, roughly two-thirds of China’s rare-earth imports came from Myanmar. In effect, Myanmar has become the hidden engine of the world’s tech economy and its most toxic dumping ground.

For villagers, this boom is a slow-moving catastrophe. People report respiratory ailments, skin rashes from chemical exposure, and contaminated water sources. The deadliest risks are landslides triggered by aggressive deforestation and chemical injection into the hillsides. A 2024 study of rare-earth mining areas in Kachin State found extreme levels of ammonia, radioactive elements, and dissolved heavy metals in local waterways, conditions researchers describe as “entirely unsuitable for human consumption or agriculture.”

What makes Myanmar particularly vulnerable is not just poverty or geography, but political breakdown. Since the 2021 military coup shattered national governance, armed groups have expanded their autonomy, Chinese companies have expanded their presence, and Myanmar’s natural resources have been strip-mined with almost no oversight. In this vacuum, the global economy finds a steady supply of strategic minerals at the lowest possible cost, while local communities absorb the full environmental and human toll

How the UAE is Cashing In on Sudan’s War

If Myanmar reveals how civil wars feed the green-energy transition, Sudan reveals how they feed the financial one. Since April 2023, Sudan has been engulfed in a brutal war between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Amid mass displacement, ethnic cleansing in Darfur, widespread starvation, and one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises, another story has quietly unfolded: the UAE’s deepening role as the central hub for Sudan’s conflict gold.

Sudan is Africa’s third-largest gold producer, and gold has become the lifeblood of the RSF’s war machine. Investigations by the UN, Global Witness, and multiple governments show that the UAE has been the primary destination for Sudanese gold for years, even as the war intensified. Much of this gold is smuggled out of conflict zones in Darfur, Kordofan, and Blue Nile, which are areas where the RSF maintains control through massacres and forced displacement. Once the gold reaches Dubai, it is refined, laundered through opaque supply chains, and sold into global markets.

The UAE denies wrongdoing, but the pattern is unmistakable. Gold shipments spike when fighting escalates. The RSF’s ability to sustain operations depends heavily on gold revenues. And the UAE’s own global gold-trading infrastructure, built on lax regulations, low taxes, and discreet financial systems, makes it the ideal partner for armed groups seeking to convert looted resources into weapons and cash.

Sudan mirrors Myanmar in a darker way: where Myanmar supplies the materials for the world’s green future, Sudan supplies the materials for its financial present, stabilizing gold markets, supporting global luxury demand, and solidifying the UAE’s status as an international trading powerhouse. In both cases, the profits flow outward, while the devastation remains local.

Foreign Wars as a Business Model

The parallels between Myanmar and Sudan reveal a broader pattern of 21st-century extraction economics. War and political collapse weaken regulation, eliminate oversight, and create desperate labor pools. Armed groups become local gatekeepers, selling access to mines or smuggling routes. Foreign corporations and governments capitalize on the chaos to secure strategic resources cheaply.

In Myanmar, ethnic armed groups benefit from mining revenues while China secures rare earths vital for its technology sector. In Sudan, the RSF funds its military operations through gold smuggling while the UAE strengthens its global commodities market.

This model is not new. But the urgency of the green transition and the volatility of global commodity markets have made it more aggressive than ever. The world wants cheap inputs for clean energy, financial reserves, and technological superiority. Conflict zones deliver them, evidently at enormous human cost.

The Moral Cost of The Green and Gold Transitions

The stories of Sian in Shan State and the civilians trapped in Sudan’s war zones expose a deeper contradiction at the heart of global development. The world says it wants sustainable energy and ethical supply chains. Yet the materials needed for these transitions are often sourced from places where sustainability and ethics are impossible.

Myanmar, Sudan, Congo, Bolivia, and other resource-rich conflict states are the hidden foundation of modern life in first world countries. Their suffering directly creates the conveniences and technologies that wealthier countries take for granted.

Until the international community demands transparency, enforces sanctions on conflict-linked commodities, and insists that the green future not be contradictorily built on burned earth, Myanmar and Sudan will remain cautionary tales and examples of what happens when the world’s hunger for resources meets its willingness to ignore suffering.

LAHAINA, Hawaii — Rodney Rice scored a season-high 27 points and Chad Baker-Mazara had 11 points and eight rebounds as USC beat Boise State 70-67 on Monday in the Southwest Maui Invitational.

USC (5-0) will play on Tuesday against Seton Hall, which beat North Carolina State earlier.

Rice split two defenders at the top of the key to get into the paint for a runner while being fouled with 14.8 seconds left in the game. He made the basket and free throw to give USC the lead at 68-65.

After the teams traded free throws, Boise State inbounded it with 4.2 seconds left and quickly got down the court for Javan Buchanan’s good look from three-point range that came up just short at the buzzer.

Rice made four of USC’s 11 three-pointers, while Boise State went five for 25.

Buchanan led Boise State (4-2) with 18 points. Pearson Carmichael added 14 points and Aginaldo Neto 10.

Boise State trailed for 25-plus minutes, with its last lead at 59-58 at 2:57.

Russia is framing artificial intelligence as a geopolitical technology on par with nuclear weapons, with Sberbank First Deputy CEO Alexander Vedyakhin warning that only nations capable of building their own large language models will hold real influence in the 21st century. Speaking at Moscow’s flagship AI Journey event, Vedyakhin said Russia considers it a strategic achievement to be among the few countries with home-grown AI and insists the state must rely exclusively on domestic models for sensitive sectors like public services, healthcare, and education. His comments echo President Vladimir Putin’s recent remarks that indigenous AI is essential for Russian sovereignty. While Sberbank and Yandex lead Russia’s push to compete with U.S. and Chinese AI giants, sanctions and limited computing power continue to restrain Moscow’s capability.

Why It Matters

Russia’s framing of AI as a sovereignty-defining technology signals a hardening global divide in the race for digital power. By likening AI to nuclear capability, Moscow is underscoring the strategic leverage it believes advanced models can confer over national security, economic competitiveness, and societal infrastructure. For Western policymakers, the statement highlights how AI is increasingly entwined with geopolitical rivalry, sanctions regimes, and technological self-reliance. For markets, the message is more nuanced: despite the rhetoric, Russia admits it cannot match global leaders in compute or scale, and it warns investors that AI infrastructure spending may not repay itself quickly, raising questions about the economic viability of high-intensity AI development.

Russia’s state institutions, security apparatus, and public-service sectors are central consumers of domestic AI models as Moscow seeks digital autonomy. Sberbank and Yandex are the primary corporate developers, tasked with building national-scale models under sanctions constraints. Western governments and AI firms remain part of the geopolitical backdrop, as Russia’s push for self-sufficiency follows restricted access to advanced chips and cloud hardware. Russian businesses, from healthcare to education providers, will increasingly rely on domestic AI systems while international partners watch how far Russia can expand its capabilities without global supply chains.

What’s Next

Russia aims to expand from one or two national AI systems to several independent models, but its development will remain limited by restricted access to high-performance computing. Moscow will continue steering AI regulation toward data sovereignty, banning foreign models from handling state or sensitive information. As Russia ramps its rhetoric around AI power, expect greater global pressure for technological blocs, digital “non-alignment,” and AI export controls. Meanwhile, the Kremlin’s caution about an “AI bubble” hints that its investments will be narrower and more state-directed than those in the U.S. or China, potentially slowing innovation but avoiding the risk of overextension.

With information from Reuters.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s skeptical questioning of former President Donald Trump’s global tariffs has fueled speculation that his trade measures may be struck down, potentially upending the already fragile trade landscape.

The case centers on Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs on imports. The law grants presidents broad authority to regulate trade during national emergencies but makes no mention of tariffs, raising constitutional questions about the limits of executive power.

During oral arguments on Wednesday, justices across the ideological spectrum except Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas appeared doubtful that Trump had legal authority to levy such blanket global tariffs.

Trade experts now warn that if the court invalidates Trump’s tariff policy, it could trigger a new wave of economic uncertainty, as the administration is expected to pivot quickly to other trade laws to reimpose duties.

Why It Matters

The outcome of this case could reshape U.S. trade policy for years. Businesses have paid over $100 billion in IEEPA-related tariffs since 2025, and a ruling against Trump could open a complex refund battle or force the White House to seek alternative legal pathways for its protectionist agenda.

Corporate leaders, already weary of erratic trade shifts, say a ruling either way offers little stability. “Even if it goes against IEEPA, the uncertainty still continues,” said David Young of the Conference Board, who briefed dozens of CEOs after the hearing.

Trump Administration: Faces potential legal defeat but can pivot to Section 232 (Trade Expansion Act of 1962) or Section 122 (Trade Act of 1974), both of which allow temporary or national security-based tariffs.

U.S. Supreme Court: Balancing presidential powers with statutory limits on trade actions.

Businesses & Importers: Risk being caught in regulatory limbo over refunds and future duties.

Federal Reserve: Monitoring potential economic fallout from prolonged trade instability.

Refunds Could Get “Messy”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised concerns about how refund claims would be handled if the tariffs are ruled illegal, calling it “a mess” for courts to manage.
Lawyer Neal Katyal, representing five small businesses challenging the tariffs, said only those firms would automatically receive refunds, while others must file administrative protests a process that could take up to a year.

Customs lawyer Joseph Spraragen added that if the court orders refunds, the Customs and Border Protection’s automated system could process them, but he warned, “The administration is not going to be eager to just roll over and give refunds.”

Economic and Policy Repercussions

Analysts expect the administration to rely on alternative statutes if IEEPA tariffs are overturned. However, implementing new duties under those laws could be slow and bureaucratic, potentially delaying trade certainty until 2026.

Natixis economist Christopher Hodge said such a ruling would be only a “temporary setback” for Trump’s trade agenda, predicting renewed tariff rounds or trade negotiations in the coming year.

Meanwhile, Federal Reserve Governor Stephen Miran warned the uncertainty could act as a drag on economic growth, though it might also prompt looser monetary policy if trade instability dampens business confidence.

What’s Next

A Supreme Court ruling is expected in early 2026, leaving companies in limbo over the future of U.S. tariff policy.
If Trump’s powers under IEEPA are curtailed, analysts expect a new wave of trade maneuvers potentially invoking national security provisions to maintain his “America First” economic approach, prolonging the climate of global trade unpredictability.

With information from Reuters.

WASHINGTON — Dick Cheney was the public face of the George W. Bush administration’s boundary-pushing approach to surveillance and intelligence collection in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

An unabashed proponent of broad executive power in the name of national security, Cheney placed himself at the center of a polarizing public debate over detention, interrogation and spying that endures two decades later.

“I do think the security state that we have today is very much a product of our reactions to Sept. 11, and obviously Vice President Cheney was right smack-dab in the middle of how that reaction was operationalized from the White House,” said Stephen Vladeck, a Georgetown University law professor.

Prominent booster of the Patriot Act

Cheney was arguably the administration’s most prominent booster of the Patriot Act, the law enacted nearly unanimously after 9/11 that granted the U.S. government sweeping surveillance powers.

He also championed a National Security Agency warrantless wiretapping program aimed at intercepting international communications of suspected terrorists in the U.S., despite concerns over its legality from some administration figures.

If such an authority had been in place before Sept. 11, Cheney once asserted, it could have led the U.S. “to pick up on two of the hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon.”

Law enforcement and intelligence agencies still retain key tools to confront potential terrorists and spies that came into prominence after the attacks, including national security letters that permit the FBI to order companies to turn over information about customers.

But courts also have questioned the legal justification of the government’s surveillance apparatus, and a Republican Party that once solidly stood behind Cheney’s national security worldview has grown significantly more fractured.

The bipartisan consensus on expanded surveillance powers after Sept. 11 has given way to increased skepticism, especially among some Republicans who believe spy agencies used those powers to undermine President Trump while investigating ties between Russia and his 2016 campaign.

Congress in 2020 let expire three provisions of the Patriot Act that the FBI and Justice Department had said were essential for national security, including one that permits investigators to surveil subjects without establishing that they’re acting on behalf of an international terror organization.

A program known as Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which permits the U.S. government to collect without a warrant the communications of non-Americans located outside the country for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence, was reauthorized last year — but only after significant negotiations.

“I think for someone like Vice President Cheney, expanding those authorities wasn’t an incidental objective — it was a core objective,” Vladeck said. “And I think the Republican Party today does not view those kinds of issues — counterterrorism policy, government surveillance authorities — as anywhere near the kind of political issues that the Bush administration did.”

As an architect of the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, Cheney pushed spy agencies to find evidence to justify military action.

Along with others in the administration, Cheney claimed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction and had ties to al-Qaida. They used that to sell the war to members of Congress and the American people, though it was later debunked.

The faulty intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq is held up as a significant failure by America’s spy services and a demonstration of what can happen when leaders use intelligence for political ends.

The government’s arguments for war fueled a distrust among many Americans that still resonates with some in Trump’s administration.

“For decades, our foreign policy has been trapped in a counterproductive and endless cycle of regime change or nation building,” Tulsi Gabbard, the director of the Office of National Intelligence, said in the Middle East last week.

Many lawmakers who voted to support using force in 2003 say they have come to regret it.

“It was a mistake to rely upon the Bush administration for telling the truth,” Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., said on the invasion’s 20th anniversary.

Expanded war powers

Trump has long criticized Cheney, but he’s relying on a legal doctrine popularized during Cheney’s time in office to justify deadly strikes on alleged drug-running boats in Latin America.

The Trump administration says the U.S. is engaged in “armed conflict” with drug cartels and has declared them unlawful combatants.

“These narco-terrorists have killed more Americans than Al-Qaeda, and they will be treated the same,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Oct. 28 on social media. ”We will track them, we will network them, and then, we will hunt and kill them.”

After 9/11, the Bush-Cheney administration authorized the U.S. military to attack enemy combatants acting on behalf of terror organizations. That prompted questions about the legality of killing or detaining people without prosecution.

Cheney’s involvement in boosting executive power and surveillance and “cooking the books of the raw intelligence” has echoes in today’s strikes, said Jim Ludes, a former national security analyst who directs the Pell Center for International Relations and Public Policy at Salve Regina University.

“You think about his legacy and some of it is very troubling. Some of it is maybe what the moment demanded,” Ludes said. “But it’s a complicated legacy.“

Vladeck noted an enduring legacy of the Bush-Cheney administration was “to blur if not entirely collapse lines between civilian reactions to threats and military ones.”

He pointed to designating foreign terrorist organizations, a tool that predated the Sept. 11 attacks but became more prevalent in the years that followed. Trump has used the label for several drug cartels.

Contemporary conflicts inside the government

Protecting the homeland from espionage, terrorism and other threats is a complicated endeavor spread across the government. When Cheney was vice president, for instance, agencies like the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, or ODNI, were established.

As was the case then, the division of labor can still be disputed, with a recent crack surfacing between Director Kash Patel’s FBI and the intelligence community led by Gabbard.

The FBI said in a letter to lawmakers that it “vigorously disagrees” with a legislative proposal that it said would remove the bureau as the government’s lead counterintelligence agency and replace it with a counterintelligence center under ODNI.

“The cumulative effect,” the FBI warned in the letter obtained by The Associated Press, “would be putting decision-making with employees who aren’t actively involved in CI operations, knowledgeable of the intricacies of CI threats, or positioned to develop coherent and tailored mitigation strategies.”

That would be to the detriment of national security, the FBI said.

Spokespeople for the agencies later issued a statement saying they are working together with Congress to strengthen counterintelligence efforts.

Tucker and Klepper write for the Associated Press.