raise

Social Security will soon be making a big announcement. On Oct. 24, 2025, the Social Security Administration will finally let seniors know what their 2026 Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) is going to look like.

COLAs happen in most years to help retirees maintain their buying power. Because COLAs increase the retirement benefits seniors collect, the news about how big the raise will be is always much-anticipated.

Unfortunately, although retirees are most likely going to get a bigger benefits increase than last year, many seniors are inevitably going to end up disappointed with the increase to their checks in 2026.

Here’s the surprising reason why that’s the case.

The COLA is going to be bigger– but there’s a problem

Although the official announcement on the Social Security COLA has not been made yet, the Senior Citizens League is projecting that benefits are going to increase by 2.7% next year. This estimate is based on year-to-date changes to the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W).

CPI-W is used to determine how much Social Security benefits should increase because it helps to measure inflation, and the purpose of the COLAs is to make sure that Social Security benefits do not lose buying power. While the formula isn’t a perfect one since the spending habits of urban wage earners and clerical workers aren’t exactly aligned with senior spending, the formula does give an idea of how much prices are rising — and retirees get a benefits increase equal to the average year-over-year change to CPI-W in the third quarter of the year.

Since we have a lot of this data available, the Senior Citizens League estimate is probably fairly close to accurate, and barring any major surprises when the September inflation data is released in October, the raise should come in at around that projected 2.7%. And, if it does, that will be a little bit bigger than the benefits increase retirees received in 2025.

A bigger raise should make seniors pretty happy since they’ll get more money to help maintain buying power — but there’s a surprising reason why that’s not necessarily going to be the case. The problem is that a good portion of the additional funds coming to retirees will disappear to cover rising Medicare premiums.

COLAs will take a huge hit due to rising Medicare premiums

For any retiree who is on Medicare, the COLA is probably going to be a huge disappointment because of how little of it will be left after Medicare premiums are accounted for.

See, Medicare premiums come out of most people’s Social Security checks. And Medicare Part B premiums are going up by a huge amount next year. The Medicare Trustees’ report projects that premiums are going to increase by $21.50 per month, jumping all the way up from $185 in 2025 to $206.50 in 2026. This is one of the biggest year-over-year increases in the history of the Medicare program.

If a typical retiree is collecting the average benefit of $2,008.31 in 2025, a 2.7% COLA would result in their benefits increasing by around $54. If $21.50 of that disappears, then the typical retired Social Security recipient will end up seeing their monthly payments go up by only $32.50.

By contrast, if someone had started with that same $2,008.31 check in 2025 and received a 2.5% COLA, they’d have seen their benefit go up by around $50.00 — but, since Medicare premiums only rose by $10.30 per month between 2024 and 2025, retirees would have seen benefits go up by around $40.

Retirees need to be aware that so much of their benefit increase is going to disappear to rising Medicare premiums this year, and take that into account during their retirement planning process for the upcoming year. Seniors need to maintain a safe withdrawal rate from their 401(k) and other retirement accounts, and with a Social Security raise that ends up pretty small after Medicare costs take a bite out of it, this may require some careful budgeting.

THE chancellor could raise tens of billions from tax reforms that don’t hit “working people”, leading economists have said.

Rachel Reeves is under pressure to fill an estimated £50billion black hole in the public finances ahead of November’s autumn statement. 

1

Westminster is awash with rumours that Labour could extend the freeze on income tax thresholds.

However, critics say this would mean breaking Labour’s manifesto pledge not to increase taxes on “working people”.

But in a new report, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) urged the Chancellor to resist “half-baked” solutions like “simply hiking rates”. 

The IFS Green Budget Chapter report instead urges the chancellor to reform the “unfair” and “inefficient” tax system.

End capital gains tax relief on death

Reeves could scrap capital gains tax relief on death, the report said.

When you sell certain assets – like houses, land or other valuable items – you have to pay a tax on the profit you made on it.

However, there are some important exceptions.

For example, if someone dies and you inherit their asset, you don’t have to pay capital gains tax they would have paid.

But the IFS said Reeves should consider scrapping the relief, raising £2.3billion in 2029-30.

However, families could oppose the measure given Labour is already skimming more revenue off inherited wealth.

The inheritance tax threshold has been frozen at £325,000 since 2009.

And last year, Reeves announced she would extend the freeze until 2030.

Hit taxpayers with a ‘one-off’ wealth tax

Economists and politicians are often divided over whether a wealth tax would work.

Supporters argue that the UK’s richest 1% are wealthier than the bottom 70% – and that a wealth tax would reduce this inequality.

But critics say it would be an administrative nightmare and lead millionaires to leave the country, taking their businesses and tax revenues with them.

But if Labour does reach for wealth in the budget – it should opt for a “one-off” wealth tax, the IFS said.

The think tank argues this is a better option than a recurring wealth tax.

It would work by the government calculating how much people’s total assets are worth and taxing them over a certain threshold.

“An unexpected and credibly one-off assessment of existing wealth could in principle be an economically efficient way to raise revenue,” the IFS wrote.

However, a wealth tax that happened on a regular basis would have “serious drawbacks,” the think tank warned.

Valuing everyone’s wealth every year would be “extremely difficult,” it said.

Moreover, a regular tax could deter the highest tax payers from residing in the UK long-term, potentially hitting overall tax revenues.

But the IFS said that even a “one-off” levy could spell trouble if people don’t trust the government not to come back for more.

The report said: “The potential efficiency of such a tax could be
undermined, however, if announcing a one-off tax created expectations of, or uncertainty about, other future taxes.”

Double the council tax rates paid by highest value homes

A new council tax surcharge could raise up to £4.4billion.

Council tax is a local tax on residential properties in the UK, with homes assigned to Bands A to H based on their value.

Bands G and H generally include the highest value homes.

The IFS said doubling the council tax paid by these households could mean a £4.4billion boost.

However, critics already say the council tax system is “unfair and arbitrary”.

As reported by The Sun, families living in modest homes sometimes pay more than those in multi-million-pound mansions.

The root of the problem is simple – council tax bills are not based on what your home is worth today.

Instead, it’s based on its value way back in 1991, when homes were categorised into bands ranging from A to H. 

Decades of uneven house price growth mean this once-simple system is now riddled with inequalities.

Moreover, councils set their own tax rates – leading to a “postcode lottery”.

The average Band D council tax in England is £2,280, but councils set their own rates.

For example, in Wandsworth, people pay just £990, while in Nottingham, they pay £2,656.

This means that millions of homeowners pay much less compared to their property’s value than those in poorer areas, according to PropertyData.

Another potential problem is that the extra cash would go to local authorities rather than central government.

Local authorities use council tax to pay for local services like schools, bin collections and libraries.

So to make sure it reaps the benefits of the change, Downing Street could reduce the grants being paid to councils, the IFS said.

The UK government gives councils more than £69billion in funding – a 6.8% increase in cash terms compared to 2024-25.

But councils would likely still fight back against any funding downgrade – with sticky 3.8% inflation already eating into their grants.

Rejig inheritance tax

The IFS admits that changes to inheritance tax could ‘provoke’ strong reactions.

But its report said that the £9billion said annually is ‘modest’ – although high by historical standards.

Reforming death duties to abolish the additional £175,000 tax-free allowance could raise around £6billion, the economists wrote.

“One obvious option would be to increase the rate of inheritance tax from its current 40%,” the economists wrote.

They said an increase of just 1% would raise £0.3billion in 2029–30.

The government could also reduce the threshold at which the tax begins to be paid.

Currently, people can pass on up to £325,000 of wealth tax-free.

Then there’s an additional £175,000 tax-free allowance that can be used only when passing on a primary residence to a direct descendant.

Abolishing the second of these allowances, for example, could raise around £6billion in 2029–30, the IFS said.

Crack down on businesses underpaying their taxes

The think tank has urged Labour to tackle tax non-compliance.

Corporation tax, a tax on company profits, has become increasingly important to the Treasury’s coffers in recent years.

Over the course of the 2010s, revenue averaged 2.4% of national income, rising to 3.3% in 2025–26.

But corporation tax dodging meant 15.8% of liabilities went unpaid in 2023-24, up from just 8.8% in 2017-18.

Small businesses are mainly to blame, the IFS said, admitting that claiming the prize of missing corporation tax “would not be straightforward in practice”.

The think tank added: “More work is needed to understand why so many small companies are submitting incorrect tax returns.

“It is likely that tackling the gap would require targeted
compliance activities from HMRC, such as auditing small businesses.”

The IFS also said “more revenue could be raised from corporation tax”.

However, it did warn that, while a 1% increase would raise £4.1billion, there could be adverse consequences.

The authors wrote that investment in the UK could become “less attractive” and reduce future tax yields.

However, critics may argue that any tax hike hitting members of the public – even if targeting inheritance or council tax – will still feel like a broken promise.

What must the chancellor avoid doing?

The personal tax allowance has been frozen at £12,570 since April 2021.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced the freeze would remain until April 2026 and Labour extended it until April 2028.

Extending the freeze on personal tax thresholds including national insurance contributions would raise around £10.4billion a year from 2029-30.

But IFS economists say Reeves must not do this – and instead lift the threshold amid rising inflation.

Extending the freeze would be a breach of Labour’s manifesto pledge not to increase taxes for “working people” which includes income tax, national insurance and VAT, the IFS said.

The report’s authors also said restricting income tax relief on pension contributions would raise large sums but should be avoided.

Currently, when you put money into a pension, the income tax you’ve already paid on that money is essentially returned via a government top-up.

The IFS said restricting relief would be “unfair” to penalise pensions again when pension income is already taxed.

The Chancellor should also resist the temptation to up stamp duties, the IFS said.

The think tank fears it would cause people to avoid selling their homes when they want to – hitting the jobs market and holding back growth.

“Changing rates and thresholds is all very well, but unless the Chancellor is willing to pursue genuine reform it will be taxpayers that shoulder the cost of her neglect,” the report, which forms a chapter in the IFS’s wider budget assessment for 2025, said.

Isaac Delestre, a senior research economist at the think tank and an author of the chapter, said Ms Reeves would have “fallen short” if she reaches for quick revenue without wider reform.

“Almost any package of tax rises is likely to weigh on growth, but by tackling some of the inefficiency and unfairness in our existing tax system, the Chancellor could limit the economic damage,” he said.

In just a few days, the Social Security Administration (SSA) will be making a huge announcement about changes to the program in 2026. A new earnings-test limit will be shared, as well as the maximum monthly benefit.

Perhaps the most anticipated update the SSA will share, however, is an official cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA, for 2026.

Image source: Getty Images.

Each year, Social Security benefits are eligible for a raise, based on inflation. Without COLAs, beneficiaries would be pretty much guaranteed to lose buying power over time.

Initial projections are calling for a 2.7% COLA for 2026, but that number doesn’t take inflation data from September into account. If inflation rose substantially last month, seniors could be looking at an even larger boost to their Social Security checks in 2026.

While a 2.7% or higher COLA might seem like something to celebrate, you may want to temper your excitement if you count on Social Security for income. That’s because that COLA may not be yours to keep in full.

Will a Medicare increase eat into your COLA?

Seniors who are enrolled in Medicare and Social Security at the same time pay their premiums for Part B, which covers outpatient care, directly out of their monthly benefits. This means that if the cost of Medicare increases in 2026, it will eat into whatever COLA retirees receive.

In 2025, the standard monthly Part B premium rose from $174.70 to $185. But based on projections from the Medicare Trustees released earlier this year, the standard Part B premium for 2026 could be a whopping $206.50 — an increase of $21.50. It also could cause many seniors to lose out on a good chunk of their Social Security raises.

As of August, the average monthly Social Security benefit for retired workers was about $2,008. A 2.7% COLA would result in a boost of about $54 per month. However, if Medicare Part B goes up by $21.50 per month, the typical Social Security benefit might only rise by around $32.50, in practice.

It’s best to have income outside of Social Security

Until the SSA makes an official COLA announcement on Oct. 15, we won’t know for sure what next year’s COLA will amount to. However, even if it’s fairly generous, a large uptick in Part B costs could wipe out much of it.

That’s why it’s important not to be too reliant on Social Security COLAs to keep up with inflation. A better bet? Save well for retirement, and set yourself up with a portfolio of assets that continues to generate income for you.

Those assets could include a mix of stocks and bonds. The stocks should ideally provide growth and income in the form of dividend payments. The bond portion, meanwhile, may be more stable, providing you with steady income you can use to supplement your monthly Social Security checks.

There are other options for generating retirement income, too, like working part-time. And that part-time work doesn’t have to come in the form of a boring job with a strict, preset schedule.

Thanks to the gig economy, you can explore different options for earning some money. You may find that, on top of the extra income being helpful, it’s nice to have a reason to get out of the house on a regular basis and socialize with other people.

No matter what strategy you choose, the key is to have some income outside of Social Security — because while the program’s COLAs do help seniors keep up with inflation to some degree, they also have their fair share of shortcomings.

MILLIONS of Brits who pop pills for heartburn could be at greater risk of a deadly tummy bug, experts warn.

The drugs, called proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and handed out by GPs and bought over the counter to tackle heartburn and indigestion.

2

2

The latest NHS figures show more than 73 million prescriptions were dished out in England in 2022/23 alone, making them some of the most prescribed drugs in England.

The pills work by reducing the amount of acid in the stomach, easing the burning pain that comes with acid reflux.

And although generally considered safe PPIs, which include omeprazole, lansoprazole and pantoprazole, are not without risks.

Experts have long warned the drugs can increase the chances of Clostridioides difficile, otherwise known as C. diff, a nasty bug that causes severe diarrhoea and can sometimes be fatal.

Last year, the UK saw a spike in cases of the nasty bacteria.

From February 2024 to January 2025, the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) received 19,239 reports of C. diff sufferers. The higest number of cases since 2011/12.

A new study, published in The Journal of Infection in May of this year, checked for the first time if taking higher doses of the pills makes the risk even worse.

Pharmacist Deborah Grayson, dubbed the “godmother of pharmacology” on TikTok, also sounded the alarm in a viral video.

She said: “It can be helpful to have omeprazole if you’ve got gastritis or erosion in your oesophagus, but if you’ve only got simple heartburn-related problems, longer term it can have greater impacts on the body.”

While reflux is uncomfortable, stomach acid is essential for digestion.

It activates pepsin, an enzyme that breaks down proteins in the gut, and helps soften food. 

It also protects against harmful microbes in food. 

“Reduced stomach acid can also compromise the gut’s natural defense barrier, increased susceptibility to infections such as C. diff, campylobacter and small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO),” Deborah added. 

“These can cause further gastrointestinal symptoms and, in some cases, serious complications.”

But researchers behind the new review said that while PPIs are linked to a higher risk of C. diff overall, there was no strong evidence that taking bigger doses raised the danger further.

The team from Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden, carried out what’s called a “dose-response meta-analysis”, pooling results from previous trials and studies to see if higher amounts of the drug meant higher risk.

The study confirmed the pills are linked to a higher risk of C. diff, but found no clear proof that bigger doses make things worse.

The experts say it’s still a wake-up call to stop overprescribing and keep patients under review.

Patients should never suddenly stop taking PPIs without medical advice, as this can make acid reflux worse.

Anyone worried about their prescription should speak to their GP.

Supporters of the November ballot measure to reconfigure California’s congressional districts — an effort led by Gov. Gavin Newsom to help Democrats win control of the U.S. House of Representatives next year — have far out-raised the opposition campaigns, according to fundraising disclosures filed with the state.

The primary group backing Proposition 50 raked in $77.5 million and spent $28.1 million through Sept. 20, according to a campaign finance report that was filed with the secretary of state’s office on Thursday.

The committee has $54.4 million in the bank for the final weeks of the campaign, so Californian should expect a blizzard of television ads, mailers, phone calls and other efforts to sway voters before the Nov. 4 special election.

The two main groups opposing the ballot measure have raised $35.3 million, spent $27.4 million and have roughly $8.8 million in the bank combined, campaign finance reports show.

Despite having an overwhelming financial advantage, the campaign supporting Proposition 50 has tried to portray itself as the underdog in a fight to raise money against opposition campaigns with ties to President Trump and his supporters.

“MAGA donors keep pouring millions into the campaign to stop Prop. 50 in the hopes of pleasing their ‘Dear Leader,’” said Hannah Milgrom, a spokesperson for the Yes on 50, the Election Rigging Response Act campaign. “We will not take our foot off the gas — Prop. 50 is America’s best chance to stop this reckless and dangerous president, and we will keep doing everything we can to ensure every Californian knows the stakes and is ready to vote yes on 50 this Nov. 4th.”

A spokesperson for one of the anti-Proposition 50 campaigns, which was sending mailers to voters even before the Democratic-led California Legislature placed Proposition 50 on the November ballot, said their priority was to help Californians understand the inappropriateness of redrawing congressional boundaries that had been created by a voter-approved, state independent commission.

“We started communicating with voters early about the consequences of having politicians draw their own lines,” said Amy Thoma, a spokesperson for a coalition that opposes the ballot measure. “We are confident we’ll have the resources necessary to continue through election day.”

A spokesperson for the other main anti-Proposition 50 group agreed.

“When you’re selling a lemon, no amount of cash can change the taste. We’re confident in raising more than sufficient resources to expose Prop. 50 for the blatant political power grab that it is,” said Ellie Hockenbury, an advisor to the No on 50 – Stop Sacramento’s Power Grab campaign. Newsom “can’t change the fact that Prop. 50 is nothing more than a ploy for politicians to take the power of redistricting away from the voters and charge them for the privilege at a massive cost to taxpayers.”

The special election is expected to cost the state and the counties $282 million, according to the secretary of state’s office and the state department of finance.

If approved, Proposition 50 would have a major impact on California’s 2026 congressional elections, which will play a major role in determining whether Trump is able to continue enacting his agenda in the final two years of his tenure. The party that wins the White House frequently loses congressional seats two years later, and Republicans hold a razor-thin majority in the House.

After Trump urged GOP-led states, notably Texas, to redraw their congressional districts to increase the number of Republicans elected to Congress in next year’s midterm election, Newsom and other California Democrats responded by proposing a counter-effort to boost the ranks of their party in the legislative body.

California’s congressional districts are drawn once every decade after the U.S. Census by a voter-approved independent redistricting commission. So Democrats’ proposal to replace the districts with new boundaries proposed by state lawmakers must be approved by voters. The state Legislature voted in August to put the measure before voters in a special election on Nov. 4.

Polling about the proposition is not definitive. It’s an off-year election, which means turnout is likely to be low and the electorate is unpredictable. And relatively few Californians pay attention to redistricting, the esoteric process of redrawing congressional districts.

There are more than 30 campaign committees associated with Proposition 50 registered with the secretary of state’s office, but only three have raised large amounts of money.

Newsom’s pro-Proposition 50 effort has received several large donations since its launch, including $10 million from billionaire financier George Soros, $7.6 million from House Majority PAC (the Democrats’ congressional political arm) and $4.5 million from various Service Employees International Union groups. Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and his wife have contributed $1 million to a separate committee supporting the proposition.

The opposition groups had few small-dollar donors and were largely funded by two sources — $30 million in loans from Charles Munger Jr., who for years has been a major Republican donor in California, and a $5-million donation from the Congressional Leadership Fund, the GOP political arm of House Republicans.

Last year on the campaign trail, President Trump repeatedly promised to “slash energy and electricity prices by half within 12 months.” But actions speak louder than words. Since returning to office in January, the Trump administration has instead done everything it possibly can to drive up the cost of electricity. What is going on?

The damage starts with Trump’s attempts to prevent any new clean energy generation at a time when electricity demand is growing rapidly, caused by an explosion of new data centers and new housing, the expanding fleet of electric vehicles and a resurgence in American manufacturing. The U.S. needs more energy than ever, and 96% of electricity capacity added to the U.S. grid in 2024 came from clean energy. Why? Because clean energy is both the cheapest source of electricity and the fastest to produce. If we don’t rethink our energy future quickly enough to keep up with a growth in demand, then electricity prices will only continue to rise.

Then again, maybe the recent price spikes are part of Trump’s goals, because he’s done everything he can do to block new clean energy, including:

• Raising taxes on clean energy projects by at least 30% when Trump had all the renewable energy tax credits removed from his “One Big Beautiful Bill.”
• Blocking clean energy projects on federal lands, effectively creating a bureaucratic veto by requiring Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum to personally sign off on permitting for every proposed clean energy project.
• Issuing “stop work” orders (with no significant justification) for two offshore wind projects that were fully approved and permitted — and, in one case, where construction was already 80% complete. This not only drives up the cost of constructing new electricity resources; it also creates a business climate in which no sane company would risk investing in new projects that may be torpedoed by an arbitrary and capricious federal government simply because the President thinks wind turbines mar his view.
• Canceling a Department of Energy loan commitment for the Grain Belt Express, a major transmission project designed to carry low-cost wind and solar energy from the Great Plains to Illinois and other eastern U.S. states where electricity prices have risen rapidly. This deprives those states of new energy and undermines the ability of Great Plains states to harness natural resources and grow their economies as energy exporters.
• Gutting federal agencies, such as the Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office, which helps finance big energy projects, especially for innovative new technologies such as geothermal and new nuclear. Without government support for first-of-their-kind projects, these initiatives simply won’t happen and promising new energy technology will be delayed for years.

It’s not just the cost of building clean energy development that Trump has sabotaged. His high and ever-changing tariffs have also scrambled supply chains and raised prices for all types of energy. New tariffs, for example, have raised the cost of steel by up to 50%, which affects the cost of pipes needed for natural gas plants as well as towers for wind turbines and racks for solar panels. Every single kind of new electricity generation is now more expensive, and those higher material costs create higher prices for electricity on our utility bills.

Trump has also raised costs of existing energy resources, including supporting the oil industry’s efforts to dramatically increase U.S. exports of natural gas. This will reduce the supply available for heating homes and running power plants in America, raising prices on electricity bills and gas bills at once. Trump has also used emergency powers to force less-than-profitable coal plants to stay open, saddling customers with the extra costs to subsidize these old plants. In one instance, it cost locals $29 million to keep the J.H. Campbell plant in West Olive, Mich., open for just five weeks of extended operations. Analysts now estimate that Trump’s push to keep coal plants open could add between $3 billion and $6 billion per year to our electricity bills.

Is this sheer economic incompetence — not difficult to fathom given the rate at which Trump has driven businesses into bankruptcy — or part of his strategy to deliberately make electricity more expensive so people won’t switch to EVs and the oil industry won’t lose its customers?

Either way, electricity prices are already rising and Trump’s actions are clearly making it worse. Doubtless, Republicans will try to point the finger at renewable energy when electricity prices spike over coming years, but the real causes should be clear: Trump’s reckless decisions to block new clean energy production, raise tariffs on the energy supply chain, export our natural gas and force customers to subsidize struggling coal plants.

Americans need abundant, affordable energy to power our homes and grow our economy, and we need leaders who know how to support the clean energy revolution, not try to stand in its way.

Josh Becker is a Democratic state senator from Menlo Park and chair of the California Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications.

Sept. 16 (UPI) — Mexico’s government will shift its trade policy next year by raising tariffs on countries without free trade agreements, including China, India and South Korea. The move is aimed at reducing competitive disadvantages in key sectors and strengthening domestic production.

The plan covers 1,463 categories of goods, from vehicles and auto parts to steel, textiles, toys and furniture. Those products currently face import duties of 0% to 35%, but under the proposal they would be subject to rates of 10% to 50%, depending on the category.

In particular, imported light vehicles — many from China — would see duties rise from the current 15% to 20% to the maximum rate of 50%.

The initiative, part of the government’s Plan Mexico 2026 economic package, drew immediate international reaction, particularly from Beijing, the most affected trading partner.

China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian said his country “firmly opposes any form of economic pressure disguised as trade regulation.”

He said the measure “undermines its legitimate rights” and urged Mexico to act “as a responsible partner in promoting fair and open global trade.”

President Claudia Sheinbaum denied the initiative was aimed specifically at China or prompted by foreign pressure. Seeking to ease tensions, she said she will meet with officials from Beijing and Seoul to explain that the tariff increase is meant “to strengthen domestic production” and is part of the government’s Plan Mexico 2026.

“We do not want any conflict with any country,” Sheinbaum said, emphasizing that the measure is domestic economic policy, not a hostile act.

Mexico’s Economy Ministry said the tariffs would cover about 8.6% of the country’s total imports, valued at roughly $52 billion.

“This is not against any country; it’s per product. In this case, we are applying a package aimed at protecting about 19 sectors of the economy, mainly automobiles and auto parts. These increases are not discriminatory or coercive,” Economy Secretary Marcelo Ebrard told the Mexican outlet Grupo Fórmula.

“They apply to all countries with which we do not have a trade agreement, and the goal is to strengthen domestic production.”

He added that Mexico’s trade deficit with several Asian countries — particularly China and South Korea — has grown sharply.

“The pace of growth in that deficit worries us. For example, we send one dollar in exports to China and import 11. So when you see prices below cost, any Mexican manufacturer would ask why we are allowing that,” Ebrard said, defending the tariff hike as the maximum permitted under World Trade Organization rules.

The proposal was sent to Congress this week as part of the 2026 budget, and approval is considered certain since the ruling party holds majorities in both chambers. Once approved, it would take effect 30 days after publication in Mexico’s Official Gazette.

The United States and Canada, Mexico’s partners in the USMCA trade agreement, will not be affected by the tariffs because of their existing agreements.

Mexican officials said the measure has multiple goals. The government wants at least 50% of inputs classified as “strategic” to be manufactured in Mexico by 2026, reducing reliance on foreign supply. At the same time, the plan seeks to protect jobs and narrow the trade deficit.

Economy Secretary Marcelo Ebrard said the priority is to protect domestic jobs, estimating that about 320,000 positions depend directly on the sectors covered by the measure.

The measure would also help reduce Mexico’s large trade deficit with China, which exceeded $57 billion in the first half of 2025.

On the geopolitical front, the initiative comes amid pressure from the United States. Analysts say Mexico is also seeking to “appease” its main USMCA partner over concerns about China’s influence, with the move coming ahead of the next review of the regional trade agreement in 2026.

SACRAMENTO — In howling winds and choking smoke during the January fires that devastated Altadena and Pacific Palisades, more than 1,100 incarcerated firefighters cleared brush and dug fire lines, some for wages of less than $30 per day.

Those firefighters could soon see a major raise. On Thursday, California lawmakers unanimously approved a plan to pay incarcerated firefighters the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour while assigned to an active fire, a raise of more than 700%.

“Nobody who puts their life on the line for other people should earn any less than the federal minimum wage,” said the bill’s author, Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Los Angeles), before the Thursday vote.

Bryan’s legislation, Assembly Bill 247, would take effect immediately if signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom. Newsom’s office said he typically does not comment on pending legislation. But in July, he signed a budget that set aside $10 million for incarcerated firefighter wages.

Working at one of the state’s 35 minimum-security fire camps is a voluntary and coveted job, giving inmates a chance to spend time outside prison walls, help their communities and get paroled more quickly.

Incarcerated firefighters don’t wield hoses, but clear brush and dig containment lines while working on front-line hand crews and do work such as cooking and laundry to keep fire camps running.

Prison fire crews at times make up more than 1 in 4 of the firefighters battling California’s wildfires, and have drawn international praise during major wildfire seasons. After the January fires in Los Angeles, celebrity Kim Kardashian called them “heroes” who deserved a raise.

The state’s 2,000 or so incarcerated firefighters earn $5.80 to $10.24 per day at fire camps, and an extra $1 an hour during active wildfires, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. That means the lowest-paid firefighters earn $29.80 per 24-hour shift and the highest-paid, $34.24.

Higher wages are not only a key way to recognize the life-risking contributions made by incarcerated firefighters, backers said, but could also help inmates build up some savings before they are paroled, or more quickly pay restitution to their victims.

Republican lawmakers who backed the plan emphasized the life-changing nature of finding work with meaning.

“When we talk about anti-recidivism, when we talk about programs that work, this is one of the absolute best,” said Assemblymember Heath Flora (R-Ripon).

Flora said he worked alongside incarcerated and formerly incarcerated firefighters during 15 years as a volunteer firefighter, and said they were “some of the hardest working individuals I’ve ever had the pleasure of working with.”

Bryan originally had proposed a $19 hourly wage, similar to the wage earned by entry-level firefighters with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. During the summer’s budget negotiations, that wage was trimmed to $7.25.

A lobbyist for the California State Sheriffs’ Assn., which opposed the bill, told lawmakers in July that incarcerated firefighters already are “receiving compensation in different ways.” Prison workers assigned to hand crews have their sentences reduced by two days for each day they serve on an active fire.

State Sen. Kelly Seyarto (R-Murrieta), who co-sponsored the bill, cautioned in July that paying higher wages could lead to hiring fewer incarcerated firefighters overall.

The cost to the state will depend on the number of inmate crews staffed and the severity of the fire season.

From 2020 to 2024, inmate firefighters spent 1,382,117 hours fighting fires for $1 per hour, according to a bill analysis by legislative staff. The state would have paid about $10 million in wages — or about $8.6 million more — had the federal minimum wage been in place over those five fire seasons, analysts said.

Years with more fire activity would be more expensive for the state. In 2020, the largest wildfire season in modern history, the state spent about $2.1 million on inmate firefighter wages at $1 per hour, which would have cost $15 million under the new bill language.

The bill follows years of effort to help improve the working conditions of inmate firefighters.

The number of inmates working on fire crews has shrunk by more than half since 2005, from a peak of about 4,250 that year to slightly less than 2,000 this year, according to the corrections department.

The number fell off sharply after the California policy known as realignment in 2011, which shifted many people who were convicted of nonserious, nonviolent and nonsexual offenses from California state prisons to county jails.

California bars people with a felony conviction from receiving an emergency medical technician, or EMT, certification for a decade after their release from prison. There is a lifetime ban for those convicted of two or more felonies.

In 2020, Newsom signed a bill allowing formerly incarcerated firefighters who were convicted of nonviolent, nonsexual offenses to appeal a court to expunge their criminal records and waive their parole time.

The Legislature this week also passed AB 218, by Assemblymembers Josh Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) and Sade Elhawary (D-Los Angeles), which would require prison officials to draft rules by 2027 to recommend incarcerated firefighters for resentencing.

A number of other bills dealing with fire issues are still pending in the Legislature in its final week of the year. Those include:

• AB 226, which would allow the California FAIR Plan, the state’s home insurer of last resort, to increase its capacity to pay out claims by issuing bonds or seeking a line of credit.
• AB 1032, which would require healthcare insurers to cover 12 visits a year with a licensed behavioral health provider, including mental health and substance abuse counselors, to residents affected by wildfires.

New US tariffs covering 407 products will take effect immediately.

The United States Commerce Department is set to hike steel and aluminium tariffs on more than 400 products including wind turbines, mobile cranes, bulldozers and other heavy equipment, along with railcars, furniture and hundreds of other products.

The government agency announced the new development on Tuesday.

The department said 407 product categories are being added to the list of “derivative” steel and aluminium products covered by sectoral tariffs, with a 50 percent tariff on any steel and aluminium content of these products.

The department is also adding imported parts for automotive exhaust systems and electrical steel needed for electric vehicles to the new tariffs.

A group of foreign automakers had urged the department not to add the parts, saying the US does not have the domestic capacity to handle current demand.

The new tariffs take effect immediately and also cover compressors and pumps.

“Today’s action expands the reach of the steel and aluminum tariffs and shuts down avenues for circumvention – supporting the continued revitalisation of the American steel and aluminum industries,” said Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security Jeffrey Kessler.

Steelmakers including Cleveland-Cliffs had petitioned the administration to expand the tariffs to include additional steel and aluminium auto parts.

Since returning to the presidency, Trump has imposed a 10 percent tariff on almost all US trading partners, alongside varying steeper levels on dozens of economies such as the European Union and Japan.

Certain sectors have been spared from these countrywide tariff levels, but instead were targeted under different authorities by even higher duties.

Some businesses have already had to raise prices because of increased tariffs. On Tuesday, on the heels of its earnings report, Home Depot said it would need to raise prices on imported goods that it sells.

“There will be modest price movement in some categories,” Home Depot Chief Financial Officer Richard McPhail said on a Tuesday conference call.

Other brands that have recently announced price increases include the world’s largest consumer goods company, Procter and Gamble, which last month said it would need to raise prices on a quarter of the goods it produces.

Medan, Indonesia – Indonesia is celebrating 80 years of independence from Dutch colonial rule, but not everyone is in a celebratory mood, and an unusual protest movement has rallied around a cartoon pirate flag.

The flag, which features a skull and crossbones wearing a straw hat, has been spotted adorning homes, cars, trucks, motorcycles and boats across Indonesia.

Popularised by the hit Japanese anime One Piece, the flag has even been flown beneath the Indonesian flag – known as the merah-putih (red and white) – which is widely raised throughout the month of August in the lead-up to Independence Day on Sunday.

In the anime series, which was adapted by Netflix in 2023, the hatted skull and crossbones flag is used by adventurer Monkey D Luffy – who one day hopes to become a pirate king – and is seen as a sign of hope, freedom and a pushback against authoritarianism.

In Indonesia, the flag has been raised as a sign of protest amid increasing public frustration with the government.

“Rising prices, difficulties in getting a job and the incompetencies of the government have prompted the people to use satire and sarcasm,” Radityo Dharmaputra, a lecturer in international relations at Airlangga University in Surabaya, told Al Jazeera.

Raising the pirate flag is a sign of “growing dissatisfaction in society, even with all the so-called progress that the government has claimed”, Dharmaputra said.

Prabowo Subianto was sworn in as the new president of Indonesia in October, promising fast economic growth and social change in this country of almost 286 million people.

But Southeast Asia’s largest economy and most populous democracy is faltering.

‘A symbol of my disappointment and resistance’

Indonesia has one of the highest youth unemployment rates in Southeast Asia, with an estimated 16 percent of the 44 million Indonesians aged 15-24 unemployed, while foreign investors are pulling capital out of the country and the government is cutting the budget.

In a survey published by the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore in January, about 58 percent of young Indonesians said they were optimistic about the government’s economic plans, compared with an average of 75 percent across five other countries in the region – Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines and Vietnam.

Before the flag protest, in February, the “Indonesia Gelap” or “Dark Indonesia” movement gained momentum, with citizens using the #IndonesiaGelap hashtag on social media to vent their frustrations about the future of the country following widespread budget cuts and proposed changes in legislation allowing the military to have a greater role in the government.

The online protest was followed by student demonstrations, which erupted across a number of cities.

President Prabowo accused the Dark Indonesia movement of being backed by “corruptors” bent on creating pessimism in the country.

“This is fabricated, paid for, by whom?” Prabowo said, according to Indonesian news outlet Tempo.

“By those who want Indonesia to always be chaotic, Indonesia to always be poor. Yes, those corruptors are the ones financing the demonstrations. Indonesia is dark, Indonesia is dark. Sorry, Indonesia is bright, Indonesia’s future is bright,” the president said.

Adi*, a truck driver in the city of Malang in East Java, told Al Jazeera that he has been flying the anime pirate flag on the side of his truck for the past three weeks.

“Many, many people have been flying it in East Java. To me, it is a symbol of my disappointment and resistance against the government,” he said.

Adi said that he had long been frustrated, but that the flag had provided him with a new way of displaying this frustration.

Members of his family had died, Adi said, when police fired tear gas into the Kanjuruhan Stadium in East Java’s Malang city on October 1, 2022, following what police claimed was a pitch invasion by fans at the end of a football match.

This tear gas led to panic and a crowd crush at locked exit gates that killed 135 people.

Three police officers and two match officials were prosecuted for their roles in the tragedy, one of the worst in international footballing history.

“I am disappointed by the lack of justice for the victims of Kanjuruhan. Until now, we have received none of the restitution we were promised. I am also disappointed by other problems in Indonesia, including rising prices,” he said.

‘An attempt to divide unity’

The One Piece pirate flag has caught the attention of the government, with Budi Gunawan, the coordinating minister for political and security affairs, warning that authorities would take “firm action” if the flag was flown on Sunday’s Independence Day.

“There will be criminal consequences for actions that violate the honour of the red and white flag,” he said.

Indonesia’s Deputy House Speaker Sufmi Dasco Ahmad branded the hoisting of the pirate flag an attempt to deliberately sow dissent.

“We have detected and received input from security agencies that there is indeed an attempt to divide unity. My appeal to all the nation’s children is to unite and fight against such things,” he said.

Yohanes Sulaiman, a lecturer in international relations at Jenderal Achmad Yani University, told Al Jazeera that the government’s warnings were likely an attempt to clamp down on the show of symbolic dissent.

“I suspect they didn’t know how Prabowo would react and thus thought it better to show their loyalty and take the extreme position than be sorry later,” Sulaiman said.

The government threats had “backfired spectacularly”, he said, adding that it was left looking like a “laughing stock”.

“Saying that the flag has the potential of breaking apart the nation is too much. It is hyperbolic and nobody takes it seriously,” he said.

Sulaiman said the origins of the flag’s use in Indonesia could be traced back to truck drivers.

“Truckers were the ones first flying it to protest a recent regulation that forbade overweight trucks from hitting the road. If the government had just ignored it, the flag would have ended up on the back of trucks and nobody would have taken it seriously,” Sulaiman said.

“But, they had to make it about a national threat, a threat to national unity and disrespect of the national flag,” he said.

He added that the increased visibility of the pirate flag comes at a sensitive time in Indonesia – ahead of Independence Day – which is traditionally a moment for the government and the public to celebrate.

Ian Wilson, a lecturer in politics and security studies at Murdoch University in Perth, Australia, said the flag furore demonstrated “sensitivity around perceptions of popularity” in the current government.

The flag as a symbol of protest appeared to be a more fragmented movement than recent and historical protests in Indonesia, Wilson said, which have traditionally been largely driven by students.

“Students are a more singular group, but this is a more dispersed phenomenon across different groups and parts of the country, which is indicative of widespread dissatisfaction. It touches a nerve due to the diffused representation,” he said.

“We are seeing this phenomenon in places like villages and by regular people in semi-rural areas, which are not conventional sites of dissent in Indonesia,” he added.

‘An expression of creativity’

According to reports by local Indonesian media, anime pirate flags have been seized in raids by authorities in East Java, while citizens found displaying them have been questioned in the Riau Islands.

So far, no one has been criminally charged, as flying the pirate flag is not technically illegal.

Usman Hamid, Amnesty International Indonesia’s executive director, said the raids were “a flagrant violation of the right to freedom of expression”.

“Raising an anime flag is not ‘treason’ or ‘propaganda to disunite the country’, as suggested by government officials,” Hamid said in a statement.

“Authorities, including lawmakers, must stop harassing people by threatening them with jail terms for ‘disrespecting the national flag’ and ‘treason’ if they raise One Piece flags,” he added.

Truck driver Adi told Al Jazeera that he had seen no indications that the government’s threats had had any impact on those flying the flag and that they could still be seen prominently on display across East Java – both on trucks and buildings.

“Why would I be scared of any sanctions?” Adi asked.

The president’s office has denied any involvement in the police confiscating flags or questioning civilians.

For his part, Prabowo – a retired army general who oversaw crackdowns on the 1998 student protests that precipitated the fall of the country’s longtime dictator President Soeharto – said that the flag was “an expression of creativity”.

Murdoch University’s Wilson said that the government had perhaps been rattled by the Dark Indonesia protests, which came early on in Prabowo’s presidency.

“No one wants that at the start [of a presidency], as they are trying to generate optimism,” Wilson said.

“But now, further down the track, people have some serious issues with government performance,” he said.

*Adi is a pseudonym as the interviewee did not want his name revealed for personal safety reasons when criticising the government.

Reporting from Sacramento — The job of state treasurer today involves managing billions of dollars, overseeing complex borrowing and investment decisions and working to restore California’s reputation on Wall Street.

It follows that candidates face particular scrutiny over their own finances, and the two leading candidates have each provided plenty of fodder for the opposition.

Incumbent Treasurer Bill Lockyer, a Democrat, has spent campaign funds on a variety of items related loosely if at all to his reelection bid. His expenditures include $1.2 million to help his wife win election as a county supervisor in the Bay Area, $16,000 in babysitting bills and a weekend trip with his family to the resort at Disneyland.

His GOP challenger, state Sen. Mimi Walters of Laguna Niguel, has voted on numerous bills that could affect her husband’s business interests. David Walters is the president and largest shareholder of a medical services firm whose subsidiary was paid more than $34 million in the last four fiscal years by the state’s prison system.

The subsidiary, Drug Consultants Inc., provides nurses, pharmacists and other healthcare workers for California’s overcrowded prisons. Federal courts seized control of prison healthcare several years ago because judges said unwarranted inmate deaths were civil rights violations. Outside firms such as Walters’ have been hired to provide medical staff until the corrections department can ramp up its own operations.

Mimi Walters declined to speak with The Times but said in a radio appearance this month that “whenever there has been any sort of slightest conflict, I’ve always recused myself.” Her campaign strategist, Dave Gilliard, said Walters has consulted with legislative lawyers about what bills she should abstain from voting on and has followed their advice.

Gilliard could not identify any bills on which Walters abstained because of a conflict.

This year, she voted against an $811-million cut in the prison healthcare budget, the largest cutback in a package of spending reductions that lawmakers approved through AB2 x8. Gilliard said Walters’ vote reflected her concern that reducing prison spending would result in a court-ordered early release of criminals.

As an assemblywoman and then as a state senator, Walters has also voted against legislation requiring more disclosure of state contracts (AB 2603 in 2008 and AB 983 in 2007) and against giving contract bid preferences to small businesses and those that hire California workers (SB 1108 and SB 967 in 2010). None of the bills became law.

“She’s a pro-business, conservative Republican,” Gilliard said, adding that the legislation would have imposed more costly regulations on state businesses. “You’re going to see very consistently: Anything that increases the cost of doing business in the state, she votes against.”

The chairman of the Senate Public Safety Committee, Democrat Mark Leno of San Francisco, said that even if legislative attorneys said Walters did not violate state ethics laws, “it’s just hypocritical for someone who is so outspokenly opposed to government to have her family at the public trough.”

Her tough-on-crime stances, he said, “would only benefit her husband’s business: more prisoners, more potential contracts.”

If elected treasurer, Walters, who chairs the Senate Ethics Committee, would face other financial entanglements. Her husband also owns a boutique investment bank, Monarch Bay Associates, and financial disclosure forms show that her holdings include between $100,000 and $1 million in Goldman Sachs, the powerful and controversial Wall Street firm that has business with the state treasurer’s office.

Gilliard said Walters would consult with attorneys in the treasurer’s office to avoid conflicts.

The treasurer is California’s chief banker, serving on the board of the state’s two giant pension funds and managing billions in taxpayer assets. The treasurer also oversees the state’s debt and finances public works projects.

Lockyer cites among his accomplishments a campaign to get Wall Street rating agencies to abandon practices that cost state taxpayers millions in extra interest payments, opening California’s bond market to small investors and maximizing public works spending to create jobs.

He has shown little fear that Walters or any other candidate will muster enough support to overcome Democrats’ double-digit voter registration advantage in California. As of mid-October, Walters’ campaign treasury was more than $14,000 in debt; Lockyer was sitting atop nearly $5 million.

That cushion has allowed him to spend on other things, such as the effort to elect his wife, Nadia Lockyer, to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors. “I think Nadia Lockyer is particularly qualified to be a county supervisor and will do an excellent job,” he said.

With both parents on the campaign trail, Lockyer has also used his campaign funds to pay for at least $16,000 in babysitting services, according to the campaign’s filings with the state. Although campaign funds can be used only for governmental or political purposes, the state’s ethics watchdog agency has advised candidates in the past that babysitting can qualify under limited circumstances.

In 2009, Lockyer spent the weekend after Thanksgiving at the Disneyland Resort in Anaheim with his wife and son. He billed the campaign $884.28, citing a meeting with Frank Barbaro, the chairman of the Orange County Democratic Party.

Lockyer said he wanted to stay in a hotel “in the heart of Orange County” and did not recall if he and his family went to Disneyland that weekend. The campaign was billed only for the hotel stay, he said. The following winter, Lockyer used campaign money to buy wedding and holiday gifts for his staff and spent more than $17,000 on two holiday parties.

Lockyer defended the spending: “I am not personally benefiting from my campaign expenditures.”

Gillard, the Walters strategist, said such spending “shows an attitude of entitlement” common among veteran politicians. “It only gets worse the longer they are there,” he said.

Walters has vowed to bring a limited-government approach to the job if elected: pulling back on borrowing she says the state cannot afford, curbing government spending and using the position to argue for lower taxes.

Walters’ lone TV ad pillories Lockyer’s decades-long tenure in office; he is a former state attorney general, assemblyman and leader of the state Senate. “After 37 years in Sacramento … Bill Lockyer is the problem,” the ad says.

Lockyer accused Walters of masking her own role as a legislator in the state’s recent fiscal meltdown. On the June primary ballot, she identified herself as a “businesswoman/senator.” This fall, she has dropped “senator” from her ballot designation.

Lockyer called it “hypocrisy” that she “hides that she’s an elected official.”

Also running for the post are Charles Crittenden of the Green Party, Robert Lauten of the American Independent Party, Debra Reiger of the Peace and Freedom Party and Edward Teyssier of the Libertarian Party.

[email protected]

MANCHESTER UNITED are so desperate for a new midfielder that one fan has launched a GoFundMe to raise money to sign Carlos Baleba.

United have reportedly made contact with Brighton to explore a potential deal for Baleba though it will prove difficult.

3

Brighton could potentially ask for as much as £100m for Baleba, who still has three years remaining on his contract.

Other Cameroonian reports have suggested Amex chiefs want £87m on the table to even consider opening talks over Baleba.

The 21-year-old enjoyed an impressive season for the Seagulls, featuring 34 times in the Premier League and scoring three goals for Fabian Hurzeler‘s side.

According to The Athletic, the Red Devils have expressed their interest in the central midfielder.

And, while United may be struggling for money as they flirt with PSR amid the arrivals of Matheus Cunha and Bryan Mbeumo for £133m combined, one fan has taken things into his own hands to try and raise some cash.

Supporter Ian M organised the fundraiser on Wednesday night, titled Baleba to ‘Man Utd fund’.

Alongside a picture of Baleba in a Brighton shirt, the description reads: “We need this to happen we need this to happen we need this to happen we need this to happen.”

The post set an ambitious target of raising 120million.

3

BEST ONLINE CASINOS – TOP SITES IN THE UK

At the time of writing, there has been one £5 donation from an anonymous user.

United will need all the help they can get ahead of the pending £74million arrival RB Leipzig striker Benjamin Sesko.

Although a No9 is a clear must, many fans think new midfielder is an even bigger priority.

United are on the hunt for a dynamic midfielder to go in Ruben Amorim’s 3-4-3 pivot after unconvincing displays by Manuel Ugarte in pre-season, with his display against Everton facing scrutiny.

Baleba was one of the Premier League’s top ranked midfielders last season for tackles, blocks, interceptions and recoveries, while his progressive carries and forward passing numbers were also impressive.

3

His stock is rising fast, and he’s already been linked with Liverpool and Manchester City.

The Brighton star’s journey is nothing short of remarkable so far. Just three years ago, he was still in Cameroon, uncertain about his future. 

When he finally got his breakthrough move to Lille, tragedy struck, he lost his mother, he says it was sudden and quick. It’s a pain that still drives him.

Baleba previously told SunSport: “It was very difficult for me because I didn’t see my mum. I wanted her next to me, but when I signed for Brighton, she wasn’t here.

“That’s why the first season was really hard. I thought about her a lot. But I vowed that I would be the best version of myself and go as far as I can in my career.”

Brighton have made an incredible profit off the traditional ‘Big Six’ in recent years.

A switch to United would see Baleba follow in the footsteps of midfield stars like Alexis Mac Allister, Yves Bissouma, and Moises Caicedo – who all left the Amex for Prem giants.

Taxes must rise in the autumn if Chancellor Rachel Reeves is to meet her self-imposed borrowing rules, according to an economic think tank.

The National Institute of Economic and Social Research (Niesr) said the government was on track to miss the target it has set itself by £41.2bn.

It recommended “a moderate but sustained increase in taxes” including reform of the council tax system to make up the shortfall.

The government said “the best way to strengthen public finances is by growing the economy”, but the Conservatives said Labour “always reaches for the tax rise lever”.

When she became chancellor, Reeves set out two rules for government borrowing, which is the difference between public spending and tax income.

The first rule was that day-to-day spending would be paid for with government revenue, which is mainly taxes. Borrowing can only be for investment.

The second rule was that debt must be falling as a share of national income by the end of a five-year period.

Reeves has repeatedly said these rules are “non-negotiable”.

The chancellor originally promised not to raise taxes further, but recently refused to rule it out after disappointing data on economic growth.

Stephen Millard, deputy director for macroeconomics at Niesr, said Reeves “will need to either raise taxes or reduce spending or both in the October Budget if she is to meet her fiscal rules”.

Niesr argues that raising taxes would help build a “buffer” that would reassure investors about the stability of the UK’s public finances.

That in turn “may reduce borrowing costs” for the government, it said.

Niesr said the £41bn shortfall in the government’s budget was in part due to weakening growth over the past few months, resulting in a lower tax take and higher government borrowing.

But the reversal of welfare cuts, which were originally designed to save £5.5bn a year by 2030, had also had an impact, it said.

The welfare cuts were watered down, following opposition from within the Labour Party, and are now expected to save less than half the original amount.

As a result the chancellor now faced a “trilemma”, the thinktank said, over which of her pledges to fulfill: meeting her spending commitments, her manifesto promises to avoid tax rises on working people, or meeting the limits she has set on borrowing.

One of these commitments will need to be dropped, Niesr concluded, but it said the government should prioritise protecting public expenditure that supports the most vulnerable, while also safeguarding public investment which supports future growth.

Niesr said the government’s other priority should be policies to promote growth and productivity, to boost living standards across the UK.

It said that the living standards of the poorest 10% of the population were now 10% lower than pre-Covid levels.

When Labour came to power a year ago, it said it wanted to make the UK the fastest growing country in the G7 group of nations.

However, the UK had faced trade policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk, as well as domestic challenges, the thinktank said.

Niesr said its analysis suggested the economy would grow “modestly” at 1.3% in 2025 and 1.2% in 2026, placing the UK in the middle of the G7 economies.

The IMF recently said it thought the UK was set to be the third fastest growing economy out the world’s so-called most advanced economies this year and the next, after US and Canada.

Niesr said inflation, the rate at which prices are rising, remained “stubborn” and would be 3.5% this year and 3% next year.

The think tank, which is not affiliated to any political party or movement, did not suggest which taxes should rise or by how much.

However, it added that the government should also consider reducing welfare spending by speeding up plans to help people relying on benefits get into work.

The chancellor should also consider reforming council tax or even replacing it altogether with a land value tax, Niesr suggested.

A Treasury spokesperson said: “As set out in the plan for change, the best way to strengthen public finances is by growing the economy – which is our focus.”

However, shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride accused Labour of not understanding the economy.

“Experts are warning Labour’s economic mismanagement has blown a black hole in the nation’s finances which will have to be filled with more tax rises – despite Rachel Reeves saying she wouldn’t be back for more taxes,” he added.

India rejects criticism of its business dealings with Russia as ‘unreasonable’, vowing to safeguard its own interests.

Washington, DC – United States President Donald Trump says he will “substantially” raise tariffs on India, intensifying the row between the two countries after years of rapprochement.

Trump accused India in a social media post on Monday of buying and reselling “massive amounts” of Russian oil “for big profits”.

“They don’t care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine,” the US president wrote. “Because of this, I will be substantially raising the Tariff paid by India to the USA. Thank you for your attention to this matter!!!”

He did not specify the rate of the tariffs or when they would take effect. The US imported $87.4bn in Indian goods in 2024, according to US government data.

Last week, Trump announced 25 percent tariffs on Indian goods, citing New Delhi’s levies on US products and purchases of Russian oil and military equipment.

Later on Monday, India rejected Western criticism of its business dealings with Russia, noting that the US and European countries have continued to import Russian goods and energy products after the war.

India’s Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said New Delhi’s imports “are meant to ensure predictable and affordable energy costs to the Indian consumer”.

“In this background, the targeting of India is unjustified and unreasonable,” Jaiswal said in a statement. “Like any major economy, India will take all necessary measures to safeguard its national interests and economic security.”

India and Russia’s ‘steady’ partnership

According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), India has been buying Russian oil at a discount since the start of the war in Ukraine in 2022, which unleashed heavy Western sanctions on Russia, including its energy sector.

India increased its purchases of Russian oil more than sixfold after the conflict broke out, an EIA report said.

On Saturday, India’s Jaiswal suggested that his country would maintain its relations with Russia despite Trump’s criticisms.

“Our bilateral relationships with various countries stand on their own merit and should not be seen from the prism of a third country,” Jaiswal told reporters. “India and Russia have a steady and time-tested partnership.”

While campaigning last year, Trump promised to bring a swift end to the war in Ukraine, but the conflict continues to rage on more than six months into his presidency.

Trump initially took a neutral approach to try to mediate an end to the war, but in recent weeks, he has been increasingly critical of Russia and has threatened further sanctions against Moscow.

On Sunday, White House envoy Steve Witkoff confirmed that he will visit Russia in the coming days for talks to end the war.

Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, but its initial assault to capture the capital, Kyiv, was fended off. Since then, the fighting has turned into a protracted conflict for control of the eastern part of the country.

On Sunday, top White House aide Stephen Miller accused India of “financing” Russia’s war in Ukraine.

“People will be shocked to learn that India is basically tied with China in purchasing Russian oil. That’s an astonishing fact,” Miller told Fox News.

Gov. Gavin Newsom is preparing draft legislation that would add an additional $18 billion to a state fund for wildfire victims that officials have warned could be exhausted by January’s deadly Eaton wildfire.

Under Newsom’s plan, customers of the state’s three biggest for-profit utilities would pay another $9 billion to supplement a state fund created in 2019 that holds $21 billion.

The other $9 billion would come from shareholders of Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric, according to a draft of the proposal.

“We continue to work with the Legislature on policy that will stabilize California’s Wildfire Fund to support the recovery of wildfire survivors and to protect California utility consumers — even as wildfires become bigger and more destructive due to climate change,” Newsom’s office said in a statement Thursday.

Customers of the three utilities are already on the hook for contributing half of the original $21 billion fund through a surcharge of about $3 on their monthly bill. The proposal would have customers pay $9 billion more by extending that surcharge by 10 years beyond 2035, when it was set to expire.

“We’re very disappointed to be at a point where there is even talk of more ratepayer money going to the wildfire fund,” said Mark Toney, executive director of the the Utility Reform Network, a consumer advocacy group.

Utility executives also criticized the plan, which was reported earlier by Bloomberg, for proposing that their shareholders pay additional amounts into the fund.

Pedro Pizarro, chief executive of Edison International, told Wall Street analysts on a conference call that the company has told Newsom and lawmakers that any legislation to shore up the fund “would not have a shareholder contribution.”

“We will need to see the balance of an ultimate package,” Pizarro said.

Newsom’s plan has been circulating with legislative leaders and others and would require approval of the state Senate and Assembly. Under the draft proposal, the $18 billion would go into a new “Continuation Wildfire Fund.” The new fund would not be created until the administrator of the state’s original wildfire fund determines additional funds are needed.

Newsom and lawmakers created the $21 billion fund in 2019 to protect utilities from bankruptcy in the event their equipment sparks a devastating fire.

Toney said said state officials told him then that there was a 99% chance the fund would last 20 years. Now it could be wiped out by a single fire.

He said he believes there needs to be limits on the liabilities that the fund will pay for. “We can’t go back every three or four years and put more money in,” he said.

Since the fund was created, electric customers have also paid $27 billion for tree trimming and other work aimed to prevent wildfires, which is fast driving up electric bills, Toney said.

Despite that spending, fires sparked by Edison’s equipment leaped from 90 in 2023 to 178 in 2024.

The investigation into the Eaton fire, which killed 19 people and destroyed thousands of homes and businesses in Altadena, is continuing. Video captured the fire igniting on Jan. 7 under an Edison transmission tower.

Pizarro has said a leading theory is that a dormant Edison transmission line, not used since 1971, somehow became electrified and sparked the blaze.

The insured property losses alone could be as much as $15.2 billion, according to an estimate released by state officials last week. That amount does not include uninsured losses or damages beyond those to property, such as wrongful death claims. A study by UCLA estimated losses at $24 billion to $45 billion.

The world’s largest consumer goods maker said it will have to raise prices on a quarter of its products starting in August.

Procter & Gamble has said it will need to raise prices on a quarter of the goods it sells in the United States starting this month in order to mitigate costs it has faced because of the tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump.

On Tuesday, in conjunction with its earnings report, the world’s largest consumer goods maker named Shailesh Jejurikar as its new chief executive officer as the company navigates tariff-driven uncertainty weighing on the sector.

The price hikes have been communicated to retailers such as Walmart and Target and are in the mid-single digits across categories, a spokesperson said, and will be seen on shelves starting in August.

In May, Walmart also announced that it would need to raise prices on goods sold at the big box retailer because of the economic impact of tariffs.

P&G topped fourth-quarter estimates for its earnings report. The Cincinnati, Ohio-based firm reported revenue of $20.89bn for the quarter. Organic sales grew about 2 percent in fiscal 2025, driven by P&G’s portfolio of branded pantry staples, as well as higher pricing, particularly for fresher products. But that comes as growth is expected to slow.

Growth stalls

P&G expects fiscal 2026 annual net sales growth of between 1 percent and 5 percent, largely below estimates of a 3.09 percent growth.

Market growth slowed from where it was at the start of the year in both the US and Europe, and volatile macroeconomic, geopolitical and consumer dynamics were resulting in headwinds that were not anticipated at the start of the year, CFO Andre Schulten said during a call with journalists.

“The consumer clearly is more selective in terms of shopping behaviour in our categories, and we see a desire to find value either by going into larger pack sizes in club channel or online or big box retailers or by lowering the cash outlay,” Schulten said.

The comments from the company reinforce how consumers, particularly in the lower-income category, are seeking value as they look to stretch their household budgets. Packaged food maker Nestle said last week that consumer spending in North America remained weak.

“Given the immense pressure put on US consumers in particular, the organic growth is a very good sign that long-term earnings projections should hold up,” said Brian Mulberry, portfolio manager at Zacks Investment Management.

P&G, which makes household basics spanning from Bounty paper towels to Metamucil fibre supplements, estimated tariffs will increase its costs by about $1bn before tax for fiscal 2026. That compares with projections of between $1bn and $1.5bn made in April.

The company rolled out a restructuring effort in June to exit some brands and cut about 7,000 jobs over the next two years to increase productivity. Prices rose about 1 percent in the fourth quarter, while volumes were flat.

P&G expects fiscal 2026 core net earnings per share growth in the range of $6.83 and $7.09, compared with estimates of $6.99, according to estimates compiled by LSEG.

On Wall Street, the company’s stock over the last five days is down 0.5 percent, down 1.1 percent for the month and since the beginning of the year, it has tumbled 5.15 percent.

United States President Donald Trump’s newly announced tariffs of 50 percent on Brazilian imports could drive up beef prices for US consumers.

Unless the White House delays or reverses course, the tariffs are set to take effect on August 1.

After China, the US is the second-largest importer of Brazilian beef. Brazil is currently the fifth-largest source of foreign beef for the US, and its share has grown in the past year, accounting for 21 percent of all US beef imports.

That surge has been driven by domestic supply challenges, including widespread droughts and rising grain costs. In fact, imports doubled in the first half of this year compared to the same period in 2024 including because of the threat of upcoming tariffs.

Analysts say should the tariff go into place, it will hit importers of ground beef, commonly used in hamburgers, particularly hard.

“They [US beef importers] will either have to pay the higher cost of Brazilian beef or obtain it from other higher-cost sources. That could lead to higher prices for certain beef products, particularly ground beef and hamburger meat. This comes at a time when the US cattle herd is at the lowest level in many decades, demand for beef is strong, and as a result beef prices are up,” David Ortega, a food economist and professor at Michigan State University, told Al Jazeera.

The 50 percent tariff would bring the rate on Brazilian beef to about 76 percent for the rest of the year, Reuters news agency reported, citing livestock analysts.

Some domestic trade groups, including the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), have praised the White House for the looming tariffs.

“NCBA strongly supports President Trump holding Brazil accountable with a 50 percent tariff,” NCBA Executive Director of Government Affairs Kent Bacus said in a statement provided to Al Jazeera. “For many years, NCBA has called for full suspension of imported Brazilian beef due to their abysmal lack of accountability on cattle health and food safety. Brazil’s failure to report cases of atypical BSE [a neurological disease affecting cattle] and their history of [foot and mouth disease] is a major concern for America’s cattle producer.

“A 50 percent tariff is a good start, but we need to suspend beef imports from Brazil so we can conduct a thorough audit and verify Brazil’s claims [of safety and health practices].”

In the 2024 election cycle, almost 95 percent of the political action committee representing the NCBA’s donations went to Republican candidates, according to OpenSecrets.

Rising costs

The tariffs come as the US is already facing a decline in domestic beef production and increased reliance on imported beef. There are already other strains on the US beef market because livestock imports from Mexico are at a standstill following new health concerns — the spread of a flesh-eating parasite called a screwworm. At the same time, imports from Brazil were down in June on the back of the 10 percent tariffs the White House imposed in April across all countries while they each negotiated their trade deal with the US.

“Domestic beef producers may benefit in the short term from reduced competition. However, producers are facing high input costs and weather-related challenges that limit their ability to expand quickly,” Ortega added.

Farmers in the US also have the smallest cattle herds in more than 70 years, and production is expected to decrease further by two percent by the end of the year.

Because of pains in domestic supply, imports doubled in the first five months of the year compared to the same period last year. That began to decline last month as a result of the 10 percent blanket tariffs.

Robert Perosa, president of Brazilian Beef Exporters Associations (ABIEC), an industry trade group, told reporters that the new tariffs would make it  “economically unfeasible” to continue to export to the US market.

The move will raise costs for restaurants across the US.

“Dramatic tariff increases could affect menu planning and food costs for restaurants as they attempt to find new suppliers,” Sean Kennedy, executive vice president of public affairs at the National Restaurant Association, said in a statement provided to Al Jazeera. “As we have said from the outset, our industry relies on a steady supply of imported goods that cannot be produced here in the US, and we urge the Trump administration to pursue policies that will secure fair trade agreements.”

Al Jazeera reached out to the largest fast food restaurant chains in the US, including McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s, Sonic Drive-In and Jack in the Box, but none responded.

JBS and Marfrig, two of Brazil’s largest beef producers, also did not reply to a request for comment.

Markets respond

Stock markets have been relatively muted in their response to Trump’s tariff announcements this week. At the market close, the Dow Jones Industrial Average tumbled 0.6 percent, and the S&P 500 is down 0.33 percent for the day. The Nasdaq Composite Index is down 0.2 percent.

JBS, which also has substantial beef production operations in the US, made a $200m  investment earlier this year to expand two facilities in the US. The company’s stock is up 0.4 percent for the day despite the challenges the tariffs will pose to its Brazilian beef business. Marfrig is down 3.98 percent for the day, although this comes as the company postponed a shareholder meeting for the second time for an unrelated pending acquisition of a poultry and pork processor.

Nike has said it will cut its reliance on production in China for the United States market to mitigate the impact from US tariffs on imports, and forecast a smaller-than-expected drop in first-quarter revenue.

The sportswear giant’s shares zoomed 15 percent at the opening bell on Friday morning after it announced the change in conjunction with its earnings report released on Thursday.

US President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs on imports from key trading partners could add about $1bn to Nike’s costs, company executives said on a post-earnings call after the sportswear giant topped estimates for fourth-quarter results.

China, subject to the biggest tariff increases imposed by Trump, accounts for about 16 percent of the shoes Nike imports into the US, Chief Financial Officer Matthew Friend said. However, the company aims to cut the figure to a “high single-digit percentage range” by the end of May 2026 as it reallocates Chinese production to other countries.

“We will optimise our sourcing mix and allocate production differently across countries to mitigate the new cost headwind into the United States,” he said on a call with investors.

Consumer goods are one of the most affected areas by the tariff dispute between the world’s two largest economies, but Nike’s executives said they were focused on cutting the financial pain. Nike will “evaluate” corporate cost reductions to deal with the tariff impact, Friend said. The company has already announced price increases for some products in the US.

“The tariff impact is significant. However, I expect others in the sportswear industry will also raise prices, so Nike may not lose much share in the US,” David Swartz, analyst at Morningstar Research, told the Reuters news agency.

CEO Elliott Hill’s strategy to focus product innovation and marketing around sports is beginning to show some fruit, with the running category returning to growth in the fourth quarter after several quarters of weakness.

Having lost share in the fast-growing running market, Nike has invested heavily in running shoes such as Pegasus and Vomero, while scaling back production of sneakers such as the Air Force 1.

“Running has performed especially strongly for Nike,” said Citi analyst Monique Pollard, adding that new running shoes and sportswear products are expected to offset the declines in Nike’s classic sneaker franchises at wholesale partner stores.

Marketing spending was up 15 percent year on year in the quarter.

On Thursday, Nike hosted an event in which its sponsored athlete Faith Kipyegon attempted to run a mile in under four minutes. Paced by other star athletes in the glitzy event that was livestreamed from a Paris stadium, Kipyegon fell short of the goal but set a new unofficial record.

Nike forecast first-quarter revenue to fall in the mid-single digits, slightly better than analysts’ expectations of a 7.3 percent drop, according to data compiled by LSEG. Its fourth-quarter sales fell 12 percent  to $11.10bn, but still beat estimates of a 14.9 percent drop to $10.72bn.

China continued to be a pain point, with executives saying a turnaround in the country will take time as Nike contends with tougher economic conditions and competition.

Looming trade deal as prices rise

Nike’s woes come as a trade deal with China could be on the horizon. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessett said on Friday that the administration could have a deal with Beijing by Labor Day, which is on September 1.

Under the deal, the US will likely impose 55 percent tariffs across the board on Chinese goods, down from 145 percent, still a significant burden on businesses.

According to a survey from Allianz Global Trade last month, 38 percent of businesses say they will need to raise prices for consumers, with Nike being the latest.

In April, competitor Adidas said it would need to eventually raise prices for US consumers.

“Cost increases due to higher tariffs will eventually cause price increases,” CEO Bjorn Gulden said at the time.

Walmart said last month that its customers will see higher price tags in its stores as the nation’s biggest big box retailer prepares for back to school shopping season.

Target, which had a bad first quarter driven by boycotts and the looming threat of tariffs, also has been hit as the big box retailer gets 30 percent of its goods from China.

A Football Association report into the circumstances surrounding the death of former Sheffield United player Maddy Cusack found several players “did not feel supported and felt unable to raise concerns” at the club.

The FA commissioned the report in early 2024, following the midfielder’s death, aged 27, in September 2023, and it has not yet been published.

A hearing on Tuesday at Chesterfield Coroners’ Court was told the copy of the report that had been shared with the family and others was “provisional”, and would only be finalised at the conclusion of the inquest.

However, Dean Armstrong KC – representing the Cusack family – quoted excerpts from it, including that “most [players] particularly did not feel supported and felt unable to raise complaints against their manager and others”.

He also read another part of the report that stated “the investigation has shed light on the resourcing issues particularly acute in the women’s game and the related welfare and safeguarding issues that might arise”.

Nottingham-born Cusack was the first player to reach 100 appearances for Sheffield United, having started her career at Aston Villa and had spells at Birmingham and Leicester City.

Ex-Blades manager Jonathan Morgan, who was appearing via video link, accused Cusack’s family of “manipulating information” and fuelling a “narrative” in the 18 months since she died.

He said witnesses put forward by the family were “very one-sided” and there was “no-one to challenge the credibility of those individuals”.

Morgan added people who did not “echo” the views of the family had been “cast aside”, and requested that he be permitted to put forward witnesses.

A MAJOR car brand is reportedly looking to raise £5billion including a loan guaranteed by the UK government after axing 20,000 jobs.

Cash-strapped Nissan, Japan’s third-largest carmaker, is already facing £4billion in losses – its worst annual loss in a quarter century.

4

4

But now, the company are said to be considering raising more than 1 trillion yen – just over £5 billion – from debt and asset sales in a bid to prop up Nissan.

The struggling Japanese automaker plans to issue as much as 630 billion yen in convertible securities and bonds, including high-yielding US dollar and euro notes, according to Bloomberg News.

The move would also include a £1billion syndicated loan guaranteed by the British government, the documents show.

Sale-and-lease-back plans for its Yokohama headquarters, plus properties it owns in the United States, are also reportedly on the cards.

The aggressive fundraising plans underscore Nissan’s rapidly deteriorating financial and operational position, despite efforts by newly appointed chief executive Ivan Espinosa to turn the company around.

In addition, Nissan is reportedly seeking to sell part of the stakes it owns in Renault and battery maker AESC Group, as well as plants in South Africa and Mexico.

Bloomberg News cited sources as saying Nissan’s board did not appear to have approved the funding proposal yet, leaving it unclear whether it would happen.

The proposal was also slated to include the rollover of some debt, the report said.

A Nissan representative said the company does not comment on speculation.

It comes after Nissan said they could part ways with its global headquarters in Yokohama, Japan, to fund the company’s urgent restructuring plan.

After having moved to the 22-story high-rise in 2009, the car manufacturer is now facing mountains of debt and is on track to cut 20,000 jobs, shut several of its plants and slash billions in costs.

With a glitzy gallery, the flashy headquarters can showcase more than thirty motors and stands in stark contrast to their previous offices.

The company have said that part of their plan has called for reviewing assets that can be sold in a desperate bid to pay for the restructuring.

With its own headquarters in sight, thought to be worth approximately £500 million, Nissan would structure a deal so it could continue to use the site through a lease so its offices and operations remain in place.

A company spokesperson said: “Nissan is considering all possibilities to recover its business performance, but there are no specifics to share at this point of time.”

The move is not unprecedented, however, with McLaren doing something similar with its HQ in Woking in recent years.

Nissan confirmed in April that it was anticipating losses of up to £4 billion, its worst annual loss in a quarter century.

Nissan is also planning to close seven factories by 2027, including two domestic sites which are thought to be the Oppama and Shonan plants, saving £2.6 billion in the process.

There have also been reports of downsizing or a partial sale of its Tochigi assembly plan and test centre facility north of Tokyo which was recently equipped with manufacturing technologies to assemble electric vehicles.

To underline the dire financial situation, the motor company is even halting the development of certain models to cut its expenses.

While the car company has been hit hard by the effects of Donald Trump’s tariff war, Nissan’s new CEO, Ivan Espinosa, has admitted the company’s financial trouble started a decade ago.

He said: “This is not something that happened in the last couple of years.

“It’s more of a fundamental problem that probably started back in 2015, when management thought this company could reach [annual global vehicle sales] of around eight million.

“There were heavy investments both in terms of planned capacity as well as in human resources, but the reality today is we are running at around half that volume. And nobody did anything to fix that until now.”

4

4