Major central banks are confronting an increasingly difficult inflation landscape as multiple price pressures converge, raising questions over whether policymakers can continue treating inflation shocks as temporary.
The U.S. Federal Reserve, the Bank of Japan and the Bank of England all meet this week against a backdrop of elevated inflation driven by rising energy costs, geopolitical tensions, supply chain disruptions, fiscal stimulus, labor market tightness and climate related risks.
While central banks have traditionally argued that isolated price shocks eventually fade without requiring aggressive monetary tightening, economists warn that today’s inflation environment is no longer defined by a single disruption but by several overlapping forces reinforcing one another.
The Federal Reserve’s preferred inflation measure, the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) Price Index, is expected to remain significantly above the central bank’s 2 percent target.
Stay ahead of the geopolitical week.
MD Briefing delivers expert analysis across five global fronts — the Indo-Pacific, energy, geoeconomics, European security, and the Middle East — every Monday morning. Free.
Economists expect headline PCE inflation to stand at 3.7 percent and core inflation, which excludes food and energy, at 3.3 percent.
Inflation has remained above the Fed’s target for more than five consecutive years, complicating expectations that price growth will naturally return to normal levels.
Renewed military tensions in the Middle East have pushed crude oil prices sharply higher, adding fresh uncertainty to the global inflation outlook.
Brent crude briefly climbed above $100 per barrel before easing, while volatility in oil markets has increased as conflict around the Gulf and Red Sea threatens global energy supplies.
Higher crude prices have translated into rising fuel costs, with average U.S. gasoline prices now more than 30 percent above levels recorded a year earlier.
For central banks, energy inflation remains particularly difficult because monetary policy cannot directly resolve geopolitical conflicts or supply disruptions.
Food prices are emerging as another source of concern.
Annual U.S. food inflation already stands near 3 percent, while forecasts suggest stronger El Niño weather conditions could reduce agricultural production and lift global food prices over the coming months.
Some projections indicate food inflation could approach 5 percent next year, adding further upward pressure to overall consumer prices worldwide.
Unlike financial market volatility, rising food and fuel costs directly affect households and often shape public perceptions of inflation more than broader economic indicators.
Although policymakers often focus on core inflation because it removes volatile food and energy prices, underlying price pressures remain stubbornly elevated.
Persistent wage growth, continued strength in consumer spending and resilient labor markets have prevented meaningful progress toward the Fed’s inflation target.
Economists also warn that prolonged increases in food and energy prices eventually feed into broader consumer prices, making it increasingly difficult to separate temporary inflation from structural trends.
Additional inflationary risks are emerging from trade policy and technological investment.
President Donald Trump’s renewed tariffs on imported goods could increase costs across multiple industries, while continued demand for artificial intelligence infrastructure has intensified shortages in advanced semiconductor markets.
Higher chip prices are expected to affect consumer electronics and industrial production, creating another potential source of inflation in manufactured goods.
Meanwhile, expansionary fiscal policies and strong financial conditions continue to support consumer demand, limiting the slowdown in prices that central banks have been seeking.
Employment conditions remain exceptionally resilient across advanced economies.
In the United States, unemployment has remained near historically low levels, while wage growth above 3 percent continues to support household spending.
Although robust labor markets are generally viewed as positive for economic growth, they also contribute to persistent service sector inflation by increasing business labor costs.
This has made it harder for central banks to achieve price stability without risking slower economic growth.
The challenge facing central banks is no longer whether one inflation shock will fade but whether multiple overlapping shocks are creating a new inflation environment.
Energy markets remain vulnerable to geopolitical conflict. Climate related disruptions continue to threaten food production. Trade barriers are increasing production costs, while the rapid expansion of artificial intelligence is reshaping industrial demand and supply chains. At the same time, strong labor markets and expansionary fiscal policies continue to support consumer spending.
Individually, policymakers can argue that each of these factors is temporary or outside the influence of interest rates. Collectively, however, they reinforce one another and increase the likelihood that inflation remains above target for longer than anticipated.
For the Federal Reserve and other major central banks, the risk is no longer simply misjudging one temporary shock. The greater challenge is determining whether today’s inflation reflects a lasting structural shift in the global economy. If these pressures persist simultaneously, policymakers may be forced to maintain higher interest rates for longer, even at the cost of slower growth, making the path back to price stability significantly more difficult than markets currently expect.
With information from Reuters.
WASHINGTON — With Whitewater investigations likely to continue well into next year’s presidential campaign, the White House has decided on a hard-line legal and public relations counterattack that carries serious political risks for President Clinton.
On the legal front, the White House is relying on executive privilege as well as lawyer-client confidentiality to justify withholding notes on a November 1993 meeting at which the president’s lawyers and aides discussed Whitewater.
The notes have been subpoenaed by the Senate Whitewater investigative committee, and White House aides fear that they will be demanded by special counsel Kenneth W. Starr as well. Today the committee will vote to enforce the panel’s subpoena for the notes. Panel Chairman Alfonse M. D’Amato (R-N.Y.) said that the full Senate would vote on the matter before adjourning later this month and that he plans to seek an expedited court review.
Republicans have suggested that the 1993 meeting, which occurred when several federal agencies were investigating the activities of Clinton associates in Arkansas, may have dealt with ways to cover up damaging facts and obstruct justice.
And such charges, whatever their substantive merits, create a politically dangerous problem for an already embattled president going into an election year.
Some sources who have seen the documents insist that they contain no incriminating revelations. They say that the president is invoking executive privilege because waiving it would open the administration to a massive fishing expedition by partisan investigators. Executive privilege is the constitutional principle that a chief executive can maintain the confidentiality of internal communication involving the legal pursuit of his duties.
Yet even if the meeting notes are innocuous and the White House is holding them back only to protect a larger principle, the failure to make full disclosure can raise voters’ suspicions. Already, political opponents and some newspaper editorial writers are using such Watergate-isms as “stonewalling” to describe Clinton’s reaction.
Said a former Clinton White House official knowledgeable about Whitewater: “The problem here is that the courts might ultimately sustain the president but politically it’s a loser.
“In cases like these, the political dimension quickly overwhelms the legal dimension,” said this source. He predicted that Clinton eventually would find a way to release the documents in some form while continuing to assert that they are protected by either attorney-client privilege or executive privilege.
The Senate panel revealed Wednesday that in addition to the notes of the Nov. 5, 1993, meeting, the White House has not turned over four other Whitewater-related documents:
* A draft chronology of the Whitewater saga prepared by the Clintons’ personal lawyer, David E. Kendall. It was drafted five days after the Nov. 5 meeting.
* A letter written Jan. 4, 1994, to the president from Washington attorney James Hamilton, who has represented the family of the late Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster and who worked for the 1992 campaign.
* A New York Times article from Dec. 20, 1993, with notations Clinton wrote in the margin.
* Undated notes of White House aide Joel Klein.
Democrats said that the Clintons have every right to invoke privilege in this matter, and they suggested that the Republicans should try to negotiate a compromise rather than move toward a court battle. D’Amato described the Clintons’ position as “extraordinary and troublesome.” Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes of Maryland, the committee’s ranking Democrat, accused D’Amato of trying to provoke a confrontation for political reasons.
The White House is more concerned that waiving confidentiality would open the door for Starr to seek notes and testimony from Clinton’s attorneys.
Lawyers, including White House Counsel Jack Quinn, have advised Clinton that he cannot waive the privilege for only one meeting. If he waives it once, he cannot reassert it on another Whitewater issue.
While the White House public relations campaign is aimed at explaining Clinton’s case and marshaling support for it, it also is designed to discredit D’Amato as a political enemy with ethical problems of his own–a ploy guaranteed to stir more controversy and criticism of the president.
Times staff writers John M. Broder and Sara Fritz contributed to this story.
Douglas Rissing/iStock via Getty Images
Escalating Middle East tensions are driving crude (USO) (BNO) prices sharply higher and triggering what Nomura’s Charlie McElligott calls a “vicious rate vol impulse”—creating treacherous conditions heading into next week’s Federal Reserve meeting.
McElligott is dismissing the buyside’s interpretation that
Toltek/iStock via Getty Images
U.S. wheat futures closed above $7 per bushel Wednesday for the first time since late 2023, driven by surging tensions in the Black Sea and hot weather in crop-growing areas around the world, including the U.S. Plains and Western Europe.
Global hunger declined for the third consecutive year in 2025, offering a rare piece of positive news for food security after years of setbacks caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, conflict and economic instability. Yet the United Nations warns that the gains remain fragile, with climate change, geopolitical tensions and disruptions to global trade threatening to reverse recent progress.
According to the latest State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World report, jointly produced by five U.N. agencies, approximately 645 million people or 7.8% of the global population experienced hunger last year. That marks an improvement from 8.1% in 2024 and 8.6% in 2022, continuing a gradual downward trend.
While the figures suggest the world is moving in the right direction, U.N. experts caution that achieving the goal of ending hunger by 2030 remains far from guaranteed.
For the first time in several years, every continent recorded improvements in hunger levels, including Africa, where progress has historically been the slowest.
Stay ahead of the geopolitical week.
MD Briefing delivers expert analysis across five global fronts — the Indo-Pacific, energy, geoeconomics, European security, and the Middle East — every Monday morning. Free.
Asia accounted for much of the global improvement, led by significant gains in India, while Latin America and the Caribbean continued building on earlier successes. Several African nations—including Ethiopia, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Senegal—also reported improvements after years of deteriorating food security.
Despite these advances, Africa remains the world’s most food-insecure region. Around 309 million people, or roughly one in every five Africans, continue to suffer from chronic undernourishment.
U.N. officials described the continent’s improvement as encouraging but modest, emphasizing that much more investment will be needed to sustain progress.
India played a central role in reducing global hunger statistics.
Home to nearly one-fifth of the world’s population, the country has lowered hunger levels to below 10%, driven by expanded welfare programs, increased agricultural productivity and improvements in food distribution.
The country’s progress demonstrates how targeted government policies combined with economic growth can substantially improve food security even in densely populated developing economies.
Elsewhere, the Dominican Republic also achieved sufficient progress to be removed from the global hunger map.
Despite encouraging trends, the U.N. warns that several emerging risks could quickly undermine global food security.
One of the most immediate concerns is the disruption to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, where escalating tensions in the Middle East have increased transportation costs and driven up prices for fuel and fertilizers—critical inputs for agricultural production worldwide.
Higher energy costs inevitably translate into more expensive food production and distribution, placing additional pressure on consumers already facing elevated food prices.
Meanwhile, forecasters are monitoring the possible emergence of a strong El Niño weather pattern, which could reduce crop yields across many vulnerable regions through droughts, floods and extreme temperatures.
Together, geopolitical instability and climate shocks threaten both food availability and affordability.
The report also highlights an important distinction between reducing hunger and improving nutrition.
Although fewer people are experiencing chronic hunger, 2.69 billion people still cannot afford a healthy diet.
The U.N. estimates that a nutritious daily diet costs an average of $4.28 per person when adjusted for purchasing power—well beyond the reach of many households in low-income countries.
The affordability gap is especially severe in Africa, where 66.1% of the population cannot afford healthy food, more than double the levels recorded across much of Asia and Latin America.
Poor transport infrastructure, inadequate cold-storage facilities and fragmented regional trade continue to make nutritious foods such as fruits, vegetables, dairy and meat significantly more expensive across the continent.
The report also warns that improving calorie intake alone is not enough.
Child malnutrition remains widespread in many developing countries, while anemia among women continues to worsen. At the same time, adult obesity is increasing globally, illustrating the growing “double burden” of malnutrition in which undernutrition and unhealthy diets coexist.
This reflects broader structural problems within global food systems, where inexpensive calories are often more accessible than balanced nutrition.
U.N. experts remain cautiously optimistic that global hunger can continue declining through 2030, provided governments maintain investments in agriculture, strengthen international trade and improve resilience against climate shocks.
However, the outlook depends heavily on geopolitical stability. Continued conflict in the Middle East, disruptions to major shipping routes, worsening climate events or prolonged trade barriers could rapidly increase food prices and slow or reverse recent gains.
The latest U.N. report demonstrates that coordinated public policies, agricultural investment and social protection programs can reduce hunger on a global scale. India’s progress, alongside improvements across Latin America and parts of Africa, shows that meaningful change is possible even amid economic uncertainty.
Yet the report also highlights a growing challenge: food security is increasingly shaped by forces beyond agriculture itself. Climate change, global shipping disruptions, energy prices and geopolitical conflicts now influence what people eat as much as farming does. While hunger is declining, access to affordable, nutritious food remains out of reach for billions. Sustaining progress will therefore require not only producing more food, but building more resilient supply chains, improving regional trade and adapting agricultural systems to an increasingly volatile global environment.
With information from Reuters.
The conflict between the United States and Iran intensified on Monday, with both sides launching fresh military strikes that raised fears of a broader regional crisis threatening global energy supplies, maritime security and critical civilian infrastructure. While oil prices briefly climbed above $90 a barrel amid renewed disruption in the Strait of Hormuz, attacks on desalination facilities also highlighted a dangerous expansion of the conflict beyond military targets.
Despite the escalating violence, both Washington and Tehran signalled they remain open to diplomacy, suggesting that negotiations have not been completely abandoned even as the war enters a more volatile phase.
Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) said they had launched missile attacks against U.S. military assets across the Middle East after another night of American bombardment targeting several Iranian cities.
According to Iran, ballistic missiles targeted U.S. military facilities at Jordan’s Aqaba Airport, Kuwait’s Al Adiri Camp and Ali Al Salem Air Base, as well as American positions in Syria. Bahrain also activated air raid sirens, while Kuwait reported intercepting hostile drones during the attacks.
Stay ahead of the geopolitical week.
MD Briefing delivers expert analysis across five global fronts — the Indo-Pacific, energy, geoeconomics, European security, and the Middle East — every Monday morning. Free.
Meanwhile, U.S. Central Command confirmed it had carried out a ninth consecutive night of strikes against Iran, saying the operations were intended to degrade Tehran’s capability to threaten commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
Iranian media reported explosions in several cities, including Tabriz, Chabahar, Konarak, Bandar Mahshahr and Bandar Imam Khomeini, with at least one person killed and several others wounded.
President Donald Trump defended the latest strikes, describing them as retaliation for the deaths of U.S. service members in recent Iranian attacks.
The Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one fifth of global oil supplies normally pass, remains at the centre of the confrontation.
The IRGC claimed two oil tankers had exploded after attempting to navigate what it described as an unsafe route through the strategic waterway. Tehran did not provide details about the vessels or casualties, and the reports could not be independently verified.
Separately, the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) agency reported that a commercial vessel off the coast of Oman had been struck by an unidentified projectile, leaving the ship adrift though its crew remained safe.
Shipping disruptions pushed Brent crude briefly above $90 per barrel as traders worried that prolonged instability in Hormuz could significantly reduce global oil exports.
The renewed uncertainty comes after vessel traffic through the strait had already fallen sharply in recent days, with many shipping companies delaying voyages or rerouting vessels due to security concerns.
Beyond energy markets, the conflict is increasingly threatening essential civilian infrastructure.
Kuwait confirmed that one of its desalination plants was attacked for a second consecutive day, causing a fire. Desalination facilities provide the majority of drinking water across Gulf countries, making them among the region’s most critical infrastructure assets.
Iran has accused the United States of previously striking one of its own desalination facilities and warned that any attacks on Iranian civilian infrastructure would trigger reciprocal action against similar installations across the Gulf.
The targeting of water infrastructure represents a significant escalation, raising humanitarian concerns alongside military and economic risks.
Despite intensifying military operations, officials from both countries suggested diplomacy has not been completely abandoned.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Washington would continue targeting Iranian capabilities as long as Tehran threatened international shipping but stressed that the United States remained open to a diplomatic solution.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry echoed that position, stating diplomacy remains one of the country’s instruments for pursuing national interests despite ongoing hostilities.
Tehran also confirmed that Iran’s interior minister would travel to Pakistan, which has served as an important intermediary between the two sides since the conflict began, although Iranian officials described the visit as focused primarily on bilateral relations.
The conflict is also creating growing domestic challenges for the White House.
U.S. gasoline prices climbed above $4 per gallon on Monday, reversing declines seen after the temporary ceasefire reached earlier this year. Rising fuel costs have historically carried significant political consequences for American administrations and could become a major issue ahead of November’s congressional midterm elections.
Trump defended the military campaign by arguing that Iran had suffered severe damage and insisted the United States had effectively secured control over the Strait of Hormuz, despite continued Iranian attacks across the region.
The latest escalation illustrates how the conflict is evolving beyond conventional military strikes into a broader campaign targeting global trade routes and critical infrastructure. While the Strait of Hormuz remains the world’s most important energy chokepoint, attacks on desalination plants introduce a new humanitarian dimension that could directly affect millions of civilians across the Gulf.
At the same time, continued disruptions to commercial shipping threaten global oil markets, supply chains and inflation at a time when many economies are already grappling with elevated energy costs.
The coming days will determine whether the conflict enters an even more dangerous phase. Iran appears determined to maintain pressure on U.S. forces and commercial shipping while signalling it could expand attacks against civilian infrastructure if American strikes continue.
Washington is likely to sustain military operations aimed at securing freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz while attempting to deter further Iranian retaliation. However, any successful attack on major oil facilities, shipping lanes or water infrastructure could trigger a broader regional crisis involving additional Gulf states.
Although both sides continue to leave the door open for negotiations, the cycle of retaliation has significantly reduced the prospects for an immediate diplomatic breakthrough. Until meaningful talks resume, the Gulf is likely to remain one of the world’s most volatile flashpoints, with global energy markets and regional stability hanging in the balance.
With information from Reuters.
Less than 48 hours after the earthquakes of June 24, X (formerly Twitter) users mentioned that a Japanese team did a study on seismic risk in Caracas in the early 21st century. That’s true. In March 2005, the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), the primary government agency responsible for managing Japan’s Official Development Assistance (ODA), released the report Basic Plan for Disaster Prevention in the Metropolitan District of Caracas in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
The technical report presented a Disaster Prevention Plan as requested by the Venezuelan government. The plan’s goal was to save lives during an earthquake by minimizing asset damage and improving the State’s response capacity.
The study covered only three of the five municipalities that form Metropolitan Caracas: Libertador, Chacao, and Sucre, because the government committed to apply its conclusions to Baruta and El Hatillo. It did not consider what is currently called La Guaira state (Vargas back then).
The Japanese team was headed by Mitsuo Miura (Pacific Consultants International, PCI) and composed of staff members of PCI and OYO International Corporation. They visited Venezuela seven times, from December 2002 to March 2005, when they discussed the results with the Venezuelan officials and conducted field surveys. Upon returning to Japan, the team finished additional studies and prepared this final report.
The study defined several scenarios to estimate risks, soil displacement, and potential damage. It projected that, in the worst case, a considerable number of buildings in Caracas, depending on their age and type, would collapse, with a high human cost. Only the ones built after 2002 showed high seismic capacity. Twenty years ago, those buildings made up no more than 0.1% of the studied area.
On the other side, 98,237 buildings were vulnerable. Those built before 1967 (the year of the previous great earthquake in Venezuela) had low seismic capacity, while those built from 1968 to 2001 had a moderate capacity. Of the 1968-1982 buildings, 82% were made of brick and mortar.
“The project will reduce the number of heavily damaged buildings from around 10,000 to around 1,300, and the number of casualties from around 4,900 to around 400 in the case of a 1967 earthquake.”
The Japanese team evaluated, using Japanese standards, office buildings, homes, bridges and viaducts, and established a range of risks in several seismic scenarios. After surveying the Metro tunnels and stations, they suggested reinforcing columns and structures, as well as adding resistant materials in the gas and water networks, and improving the structure of gas stations to avoid dangerous combustible spills.
By 2005, shantytowns covered approximately 20% of Caracas’ urban area, and hosted 51.2% of the capital’s population. This study conducted, for the first time, seismic reinforcement tests on four full-scale models of the typical rancho. It demonstrated that the unengineered constructions have low seismic resistance and require reinforcement, as they could not withstand minor loads and showed failures in columns and connections. The bricks did not contribute significant resistance. If those homes were reinforced with beams, their resistance increased by 40% at an additional cost of 5% to 7%.
Their plan recommended seven big tasks. To improve safety, reinforce buildings and bridges, control the flux of sediments, and relocate the population living in high-risk areas. To improve response, implement early alert systems and emergency command centers. And to improve coordination, educate the population and stimulate citizen participation. By that time, local technologies made all these projects possible.
“The project”, they assured in the report, “will reduce the number of heavily damaged buildings from around 10,000 to around 1,300, and the number of casualties from around 4,900 to around 400 in the case of a 1967 earthquake.”
There was no plan, no authorities, no clear responsibilities to allow Venezuela’s capital and most populated city to coordinate the response in case of a disaster, the Japanese warned.
When they did the calculations back in 2005, they estimated the plan would cost around 2,800 million dollars (most of them to reinforce all the buildings that could be damaged in an earthquake) and would take 16 years to fully implement. So, if the Chávez and Maduro governments had done their part of the deal, Venezuela would have finished five years ago a seismic prevention and safety strategy in Caracas designed by the experts from a country that knows earthquakes as much as Japan, paying a quarter of the costs estimated for the 2026 earthquakes.
The Japanese team also recommended an early alert system for landslides, to be developed from 2005 to 2007, with a cost of one million dollars. This was meant to protect 19,000 Venezuelans.
The Venezuelan entities involved in the plan would be the ministries of Public Works and Housing, Transportation, and Planning and Development; the Caracas Metropolitan Mayor’s office; the capital’s five municipalities; and the National Civil Protection and Disaster Management Organization (Protección Civil).
But by 2005, only a civil protection law from 2001 defined some of the corresponding responsibilities. The capital’s Disaster Prevention Administration was being developed. As the Japanese experts warned in their report, there was no plan, no authorities, no clear responsibilities to allow Venezuela’s capital and most populated city to coordinate the response in case of a disaster.
When Japan’s JICA delivered the report to Hugo Chávez, the area under assessment had 17 firefighter stations, 15 municipal police stations, 17 civil protection stations and two emergency control centers. Since then, the only visible change for the inhabitants is the increase of National Police (PMB) command centers.
On June 24, 2026, three buildings went down in Chacao municipality, and inspections are being made to assess the structural damage of several more. In Libertador municipality, at least two residential towers collapsed in San Bernardino, and there’s important damage across the city. In parts of Petare, in Sucre municipality, where many buildings are ranchos, an undetermined number of lodgings collapsed totally or partially, and basic services are not available in some places.
Many foreign crews came to help, especially in La Guaira. One of them is a new research team with seven JICA specialists that arrived in Caracas four days after the earthquakes to design the support measures Japan would contribute to. On June 30, after a request from the interim government, Japan sent tents, water tanks and purification equipment, and erected two campaign hospitales, one in Caraballeda, in the middle of the disaster zone in La Guaira, and another by the Dr. Domingo Luciani Hospital in Caracas.
Besides this, Miyamoto International, a Japanese organization of disaster prevention engineering, came to assess earthquakes’ impact. The team is headed by the famous engineer Hideki “Kit” Miyamoto, the organization’s founder and director. He said they are talking with the Japanese government and reviewing the previous reports. Maybe they will issue a new body of knowledge like the 2005 investigation by JICA. Let’s hope that, this time, the Japanese expertise will be used.
Military and defence analyst Alex Alfirraz Scheers says the US risks falling into an ‘escalation trap’ if it launches a ground assault in Iran because Tehran still retains a large number of ballistic missiles.
Published On 14 Jul 202614 Jul 2026
Share
Mothers and daughters are often caught in a double bind: biologically kindred yet divided by competing claims on identity and selfhood. In Cay Kim’s debut novel “The Future Perfect”, that bond is tangled by cultural discontinuity.
The novel’s mother has been reared in a South Korean household that places a high value on academic rigor and head-down discipline. She devotes all of her energy to grinding that work ethic into her daughter (Kim’s characters are unnamed), who is shuttled between her native Seoul and Minnesota, and grapples with finding the one true way for her to navigate the world.
I spoke with Kay, a native of Seoul who relocated to the States, about mothers, daughters and the unstoppable power of language.
An exclusive look at what we’re reading, book club events and our latest author interviews.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.
Author Cay Kim
(Margaryta Bushkin)
This is your first novel. Did you start writing it in college?
This actually originated from a long poem that I wrote. I didn’t know I was going to turn it into a novel at the time. I just had the idea, the summer before my MFA, to expand each stanza into a chapter. That made the writing process relatively easier for me because it was such a straightforward process. I already had the frame of it.
Even though the novel is grounded in a very specific milieu — that of a child who is ensnared between Korean and American cultures — it’s very much a universal story, of a mother who feels the burden of raising a perfect daughter and is resentful when the daughter rebels against her ministrations.
It’s something that occupies so much of my head space. I wanted the mother to be portrayed as a victim of her society. The way that people choose to parent isn’t something that they learn in a vacuum. She has deep-seated beliefs about suffering and self-abnegation. But there’s a point at which an act of service risks inverting into a selfish act.
A big concept for the mother is endurance.
Exactly. It’s a generational trauma the mother is dealing with. She has had such ingrained beliefs passed down to her, and she’s unable to recognize when her methods result in her own mental and physical splintering, as well as her daughter’s.
Is it a function of the mother’s ego, or some kind of twisted narcissism?
She is putting herself through so much suffering because she believes she is doing the right thing. And there’s an extent to how much you can excuse that self-unawareness.
Yet despite this, the daughter feels tied to her mother, even when they are at loggerheads and she is living thousands of miles away.
The mother is such an integral part of the daughter’s consciousness that severance is impossible. They have a shared history and the daughter wants to share things with her mother, even when they are fighting. When she feels lonely at Stanford, the daughter verbalizes the fact that she has learned loneliness from her mother.
There are a lot of scenes in the novel tied to meals prepared by either the mother or the grandmother.
I do a lot of thinking about how cooking plays a role in our everyday lives. It’s something that people can spend hours preparing, only to have it disappear. It’s her mother’s domain. It is so opposed to the way the father thinks, which is very much tied to capital, to amassing and saving money.
The daughter really comes into herself when she is exposed to American culture.
Minnesota is where she acquires language for the first time. Language is so important to this character. Then she is shuffled back to Korea, and this disjunction is the thing that propels her narrative development. But as the story goes on, the daughter reaches a point where she has such mastery of expression and that is a power she acquires.
“The Future Perfect” is written in a very precise and concise way. What fiction writers do you admire, or who may have served as models?
I love writers whose use of language jolts the mind. My favorite writer of all time is Marguerite Duras. “The Lover” reads so easy but when you pay attention to the language, it’s very precisely engineered. I also love Clarice Lispector, for the way she expresses human spirituality.
Is this book drawn from your life? I ask that only because your protagonist winds up attending Stanford, as you did.
When I first started learning how to write, my teacher always used to say that writing shouldn’t necessarily contain the factual truth, but it should have emotional truth. And I feel like that has been the core of my writing practice throughout my life, and that even for those that don’t think consciously about it, that’s often the case.
This Q&A was edited for length and clarity.
Country music performer Kenny Chesney sat down with Holly Gleason, the co-author of his new memoir, to talk about writing the book.
(Jill Trunnell)
The state of Ohio is celebrating America’ssemiquincentennial by offering a statewide reading project that features Toni Morrison’s fictional oeuvre, thus providing a vivid alternative history of the country. “Not only does her work re-center African Americans in the story of our country, it also tackles major events from our founding, through slavery, to the impact of Jim Crow, to the great migration and beyond,” Literary Cleveland Executive Director Matt Weinkam tells Leigh Haber.
Chef-Podcaster-Author etc. Eddie Huang has written his first novel, a lightly autobiographical twirl through the foodie-verse called “Come Undone.“ “This book was very much about breaking up with your family to start your own,” he tells Mariella Rudi.
At a time when teen literacy is declining, Rudi polled five high school teachers to find out what books students should be reading now.
Gabrielle Korn’s novel “Long Island Girls” is a Millennial coming-of-age story that drips with Y2K nostalgia and the ways in which youthful optimism and hope can drift into middle-aged cynicism. “One thing I wanted to capture about early adulthood is the constant humiliation,” Korn tells Emily St. Martin. “The thing about being young is that people are so resentful of your youth, but you don’t understand that it’s resentment, you just think everybody hates you.”
The Loved Ones bookshop
(James Alan Duran)
J.C. Gabel, the owner of local book imprint Hat and Beard, has opened a new bookshop called The Loved One, and it already feels like an essential anchor for Historic Filipinotown’s burgeoning cultural scene. The store, which is also a gallery and events space, is expansive (5,000 square feet) and inviting, with patinated hardwood floors and a wall of picture windows that bathes the interior in natural light. I spoke with Gabel about his future plans for his new space.
What is the mission statement of The Loved One?
The Loved One reflects our ongoing commitment to independent publishing, original exhibitions, and the belief that books (and ideas within them) are best experienced in conversation with one another, in-person, whenever possible. In our post-post digital age, the serendipitous nature of organically curating physical objects is, in a sense, the point of the entire operation. We envision The Loved One as a space where everyone can exchange ideas, free from data-mining tech overlords, AI slop and click-bait tomfoolery.
What kind of books are you selling?
We’re going to focus mostly on new books about the visual arts, but we’ll also have several curated tables of fiction and nonfiction organized by subject and publisher, to highlight and promote the work of publishers we admire. Moreover, our genre-based book clubs and live author events — which will run weekly by August — will also influence the titles carried in the shop, too. Lastly, we’re bringing back Big Table, our books and conversation podcast — which we started with Dub Lab during COVID — now that we have a physical space to host and record these conversations.
It’s a very large space. What are your plans for it?
We are really keeping the space as modular as possible so we can change the interior of both storefronts to exhibit art and photography, as well as host author events, artist talks, live music, comedy, book clubs, etc.
You’re also a publisher, with Hat and Beard. How will that tie into The Loved One?
At least half of the arts programming I bring to the table will tie back to Hat and Beard’s original publications; the other half will be curated by Aubrie Wienholt and her team, working in tandem with myself and the H&B family. H&B will, of course, continue to program events all over the city regularly, but it will be nice to have a storefront again for the publishing house. We also intend to sell our rare and limited edition bundles of our books at TLO. There will finally be a physical space where one can come see this work in person before purchasing.
What about Historic Filipinotown? The Loved One is such a cool addition to what is becoming a vital cultural hub for L.A.
We are honored and thrilled to be working out of Historic Filipinotown. So much has opened in and around this neighborhood since COVID. It is a really vibrant community. There is a great camaraderie among all the small businesses in and around our cluster off Temple Street and Glendale Boulevard. Our immediate neighbors, Couplet Coffee and the bar 1642, are both actively involved in our programming monthly: Couplet has sent over a pop-up barista to serve coffee and tea at our literary events, and most of our after-parties are now held at 1642, two doors down.
The second half of the year rests on a delicate chain of dominoes, according to a new briefing from Oxford Economics, and whether the US-Iran peace agreement holds is the factor that determines how the rest fall.
“Its durability will determine whether the global economy gets an energy-driven disinflation tailwind or absorbs a second oil shock,” stated chief global economist Ryan Sweet in the report, calling the deal “the key domino that will determine whether other risks are amplified or dampened”.
The consultancy expects the global economy to accelerate, forecasting annualised growth of 3.1% in the second half against an estimated 1.6% in the first, powered chiefly by cheaper oil feeding through to household incomes, although Sweet puts the odds of reaching a durable deal at “a coin flip”.
If the truce holds, Oxford Economics sees Brent crude averaging in the low $70s per barrel, easing inflation and financial conditions across emerging markets and tech valuations.
If it breaks, the consequences would not stay contained to the oil market.
Early on Wednesday, the US military attacked Iran after it said Tehran struck three ships in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran retaliated with strikes targeting Bahrain and Kuwait. The regional crossfire raised the risk that the interim agreement to halt fighting in the war could break down. However, the exchange of fire followed a pattern of similar attacks during the deal’s shaky ceasefire, and neither country immediately signalled it would step away from the negotiating table.
Oil prices reacted to the attacks by increasing more than 3% by Wednesday morning, with international benchmark Brent trading above $76 a barrel.
“A peace deal breakdown won’t just raise oil prices, it would also increase pressure on AI supply chains in Asia, force central banks to be hawkish, tighten financial conditions, and could shift the outcome of the US midterms and Israeli elections […] the cascade runs fast,” Sweet stated.
Not everyone shares Oxford Economics’ outlook for oil prices.
Morgan Stanley’s mid-year outlook, published in May, forecast crude climbing back to roughly $90 a barrel by the end of the year, a gap of some $20 compared with Oxford Economics’ forecast that amounts to two different bets on the same peace process.
The World Bank is also more cautious, forecasting Brent crude to average about $94 a barrel this year while warning that global GDP growth will slow to 2.5% in 2026.
Reflecting on how the recent exchange of attacks is testing the fragile truce, Sweet said, “Traffic through the Strait of Hormuz is a good bellwether. The deal committed to fully restoring traffic through the chokepoint within 30 days, making mid-July the first hard deadline,” he explained.
“A sustained return to 75% or more of pre-war traffic by mid-July would increase the odds that the agreement is holding and vice versa,” Sweet concluded.
The other indicator, he says, is whether Iran formally invokes the accord’s Lebanon clause over Israeli strikes, and whether its response comes in military or rhetorical form.
Trade is another risk that could reshape the outlook.
US Section 122 tariffs are due to expire on 24 July, but Washington has already lined up replacement levies under Section 301. Oxford Economics expects the changes to push effective tariff rates higher from late July as the US seeks to maintain monthly tariff revenues of between $25 billion (€21.8bn) and $30 billion (€26.2bn).
Europe is also taking a tougher stance. The European Commission has more than 50 trade-defence investigations open against China, up from 17 a year ago, and plans to unveil a broader economic security strategy by September.
These trade tensions also feed into the AI boom that has powered financial markets this year.
Oxford Economics notes the US AI industry depends heavily on semiconductors and other hardware shipped from Northeast and Southeast Asia, the regions with the most to lose from any further disruption to commodities passing through the Strait of Hormuz.
Meanwhile, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the umbrella body for central banks, warned that the AI boom increasingly rests on opaque “circular financing” between chipmakers, cloud giants and artificial intelligence labs, as well as lightly regulated private credit, where lending to the sector has quadrupled in five years.
The BIS’s Asia-Pacific chief, Zhang Tao, cautioned that the sector’s reliance on non-bank funding means an AI downturn could trigger a sharper and faster correction than a traditional banking crisis.
Sweet modelled what such a reversal could look like.
“We have created a so-called tech bust scenario where US technology stocks fall by 25% over the course of a year,” he told Euronews.
According to Sweet, such a shock would cause the US economy to “grind to a halt”, spilling over to technology exporters and investor sentiment worldwide, leaving global growth 1.1 percentage points below Oxford Economics’ baseline next year.
The final dominoes are policy and politics.
Oxford Economics expects the major central banks to prove more dovish than financial markets currently anticipate, though they could pivot quickly if traffic through the Strait of Hormuz falters or AI-input prices signal supply stress.
The nearest test is the Federal Reserve’s rate decision under chair Kevin Warsh later this month, coming on the heels of June’s soft jobs report.
Beyond that lie November’s US midterms and Israel’s general election, due by late October, both of which could influence the Middle East peace process. In September, German state elections could also test the coalition behind Germany’s fiscal policy, a key driver of the eurozone economy.
Oxford Economics also flags genuine upside, from stronger AI-driven productivity to an EU economy that weathered the second quarter surprisingly well.
Whether the resilience in Europe is real will show up first in Germany and in credit data, Sweet argues.
“If corporates were absorbing margin compression from the jump in energy prices without cutting investment and drawing down credit lines, that would strengthen the case that underlying momentum in the economy is better than we expected,” he told Euronews, adding that a contraction in eurozone bank lending would push the other way.
It is important to highlight that the typical Oxford Economics forecast miss is nearly a full percentage point, and the range around this assessment in particular is wider than usual.
SpaceX is set for the largest stock market debut ever.
Elon Musk’s rocket company begins trading on the Nasdaq on Friday under the ticker SPCX. The company priced its shares at $135 each, raising $75 billion (€64.5bn) and valuing the business at $1.75 trillion (€1.5trn) in the biggest stock market flotation on record.
The deal would comfortably eclipse Saudi Aramco’s previous record of $29.4bn, set in 2019 and later increased through an overallotment option.
SpaceX made an unusually strong push to attract retail investors, including those in Europe. According to Bloomberg, individual investors placed roughly $100bn (€86.6bn) in orders through trading platforms including Robinhood, Fidelity and SoFi during the IPO process.
That demand alone exceeded the company’s $75bn (€64.5bn) fundraising target, underscoring the level of interest from smaller investors ahead of the stock market debut.
Yet beneath the hype, several warning lights are flashing. Here are five risks investors should weigh before the SpaceX IPO goes live.
At a valuation of $1.75tn (€1.5trn), investors would be valuing SpaceX at roughly 94 times its annual revenue, which was $18.7bn (€16.1bn) in 2025. By comparison, Nvidia — one of the market’s most highly valued technology companies — trades at less than a quarter of that level.
The investment research firm Morningstar, which values the company at $780bn (€675bn), called it “significantly overvalued” while Goldman Sachs data suggests sustaining the share price would require revenues above $100bn (€86.6bn) by 2030, implying a compound annual growth of more than 40%.
History offers a note of caution. Research by University of Florida professor Jay Ritter, often referred to as “Mr IPO”, found that while IPOs between 2012 and 2021 rose an average of 23.6% on their first day of trading, they returned just 10.6% over the following three years.
SpaceX’s expected inclusion in major stock indexes has become a point of controversy. Investment officials from four large US states have urged Nasdaq and FTSE Russell to explain recent rule changes that could accelerate the company’s entry into widely tracked benchmarks.
Critics argue the move could expose passive investors to a highly valued stock sooner than expected, while the index providers say the changes reflect broader market developments.
The debate matters because relatively few SpaceX shares will initially be available for trading. Although SpaceX is valued at $1.75tr (€1.5trn), only around 3% to 4% of its shares will initially be available for public trading.
That means the company’s market value will be determined by trading in a relatively small portion of its equity. Reports suggest more than 75% of the $75bn (€64.5bn) offering has already been allocated to existing investors and insiders, leaving fewer shares available on the open market.
According to Morningstar, the limited float and strong demand for artificial intelligence-related stocks could help support the share price in the early stages of trading, even if the company is valued above what the research firm considers fair value. The firm argues that a clearer picture of investor demand may emerge once lock-up restrictions expire and more shares become available for trading.
Some analysts, however, believe the limited float could continue to support the stock. Estimates suggest between $22 billion (€19bn) and $27 billion (€23.4bn) of passive investment could flow into SpaceX once it joins the Nasdaq 100, creating additional demand from index-tracking funds.
SpaceX’s financial results may also give investors pause.
The prospectus shows that the company is growing rapidly but still losing money.
The company owns the Starlink satellite internet service, which generates most of its revenue and is its only profitable business. It also owns the artificial intelligence company xAI, which merged with SpaceX in February.
According to the filing, SpaceX carried an accumulated deficit of $41.3bn (€35.76bn) as of 31 March and reported a net loss of $4.27bn (€3.7bn) in the first quarter of 2026.
This compares with $528mn (€457mn) in the same period a year earlier.
Much of the recent loss stems from xAI. According to SpaceX’s IPO filing, the AI business recorded an operating loss of about $6.4 billion (€5.5bn) in 2025. The filing also showed xAI spent heavily in the opening months of 2026 as it expanded its AI infrastructure.
Morningstar argues the AI unit “poses a material threat of value destruction”, noting that Grok has yet to win meaningful market share against rival chatbots.
Supporters counter that the losses are a choice, not a structural flaw.
Revenue climbed 33% to $18.7bn (€16.2bn) in 2025, up from $14.1 billion (€12.2bn) a year earlier. The underlying launch and satellite business was profitable as recently as 2024. The deficits largely reflect heavy investment in AI infrastructure, spending that supporters say is already beginning to be offset by new compute contracts.
Supporters argue investors are paying for future growth rather than current profits.
Starlink remains the company’s main source of revenue, while its artificial intelligence business is expected to play a larger role in the years ahead.
Bulls also point to SpaceX’s dominant position in rocket launches and satellite communications, arguing the company is uniquely placed to benefit from growing demand for connectivity, computing power and AI infrastructure.
SpaceX conducts more rocket launches annually than the rest of the world combined and counts over nine million Starlink subscribers, but its newest growth driver is the AI data-centre business acquired through the xAI merger.
Last Friday, Google agreed to pay SpaceX $920 million (€796.6mn) per month for compute capacity at xAI data centres, in a 32-month deal running from October 2026 through June 2029, and covering access to roughly 110,000 Nvidia GPUs.
That followed a May agreement under which Anthropic pays $1.25 billion (€1.08bn) a month to rent the entire output of the Colossus 1 data centre until May 2029, putting combined annualised compute revenue at around $26 billion (€22.5bn).
Bulls argue this contracted income, won in under four months, shows how quickly the company can monetise its infrastructure. Sceptics note that both contracts carry 90-day termination clauses after December 2026, and that Google itself has framed the arrangement as “bridge capacity” rather than a permanent commitment.
SpaceX’s success is closely tied to Elon Musk, whose profile and track record have helped attract investors, customers and business partners. That creates what investors call “key-person risk” — concerns about how the company would fare if he were no longer leading it.
The company’s governance structure reinforces that dependence. Musk’s super-voting Class B shares give him around 85% of voting power, leaving outside shareholders with little influence over major corporate decisions. In practice, that means no one but Musk himself can determine whether he remains chief executive.
Critics also point to SpaceX’s incorporation in Texas, where only investors holding at least 3% of shares can bring derivative lawsuits. The Danish academic pension fund AkademikerPension has blacklisted the stock, describing the governance structure as “catastrophic”.
Supporters argue that dual-class share structures are common among US technology firms, including Meta and Alphabet. They say concentrated voting control allows founders to pursue long-term goals without pressure from short-term investors.
Musk’s prominence also brings political risk. US Senator Elizabeth Warren has urged the Securities and Exchange Commission to scrutinise the listing, warning that future index inclusion could expose millions of passive investors to the stock without them actively choosing it.
Others note that the SEC completed its review faster than expected, allowing the IPO process to move ahead without delay and suggesting regulators see no immediate obstacle to the listing.
Disclaimer: This information does not constitute financial advice, always do your own research on top to ensure it’s right for your specific circumstances. Also remember, we are a journalistic website and aim to provide the best guides, tips and advice from experts. If you rely on the information here, then you do so entirely at your own risk.
The 100 Chinese yuan or Renminbi (RMB) notes in Beijing, China. Photo by MARK R. CRISTINO / EPA
June 11 (Asia Today) — China’s renminbi, also known as the yuan, has strengthened sharply in recent months as Beijing seeks to elevate the currency’s global standing, but its rapid gains may create new risks for the Chinese economy.
The yuan recently reached its strongest level in three years and three months, prompting some Chinese media to describe the move as an advance by the currency. The trend is expected to continue for the time being.
According to recent reports by Chinese media, including National Business Daily, the yuan was poorly regarded until the end of the last century. Although the official exchange rate hovered around 8.2 yuan per dollar, the currency often traded at about 9 yuan per dollar on black markets in Beijing and other cities.
The yuan’s status began to change after China’s economy expanded rapidly in the early 2000s. After the 2008 global financial crisis weakened confidence in the U.S. economy, the yuan strengthened past 8 per dollar, then 7 per dollar, at times trading in the 6-yuan range.
The currency weakened again early last year and stayed around the 7-yuan level for about a year. Some analysts warned it could fall as low as 7.5 yuan per dollar.
Those concerns proved temporary. The yuan rebounded early this year and returned to the 6-yuan range. It strengthened further and traded around 6.77 yuan per dollar Wednesday, its highest level since Feb. 15, 2023, when it was at 6.8183 yuan per dollar.
Markets widely expect the yuan could strengthen further to around 6.5 per dollar. The currency was worth about 90 won at the end of the last century, but it now trades at about 225 won.
Several factors are driving the yuan’s gains. The prolonged war in the Middle East has increased demand for the yuan alongside the dollar, while China’s large trade surplus, supported by strong exports, has also lifted the currency.
A stronger yuan, however, is not necessarily good for China. It could become a burden for export-dependent companies by making Chinese goods more expensive overseas. Cheaper import prices could also deepen China’s chronic deflationary pressure, which remains a major concern for the economy.
Even so, Chinese economic authorities are not expected to intervene aggressively to slow the yuan’s rise.
Pan Gongsheng, governor of the People’s Bank of China, said during an economic news conference at the National People’s Congress in Beijing on March 6 that the yuan’s recent movement against the dollar reflected China’s stable economic recovery, weakness in the dollar index and a seasonal increase in corporate foreign exchange settlement.
Pan also said China did not need a yuan depreciation, signaling that authorities were comfortable with the currency’s strength.
The yuan’s transformation from a weak and undervalued currency into one with rising global influence has become increasingly difficult to ignore. But its continued ascent could create new pressure on China’s exporters and complicate Beijing’s fight against deflation.
— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI
© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.
Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260611010003994
Kazakhstan’s Energy Minister Yerlan Akkenzhenov said international partners are urging the country to increase oil exports as concerns grow over disruptions to energy supplies linked to tensions around the Strait of Hormuz.
According to Akkenzhenov, buyers are seeking the maximum possible increase in Kazakh oil shipments due to uncertainty surrounding one of the world’s most important energy transit routes. However, he noted that Kazakhstan faces infrastructure and production constraints that limit how quickly exports can be expanded.
To support higher output, Kazakhstan has postponed planned maintenance work at the Kashagan Oil Field until 2027. The country is also considering increasing crude shipments through the Baku Tbilisi Ceyhan Pipeline, potentially raising volumes from 1.5 million tons to 2.2 million tons annually and beyond.
The development comes as global energy markets remain sensitive to geopolitical tensions involving Iran and the Strait of Hormuz, a key route for international oil and gas exports.
Kazakhstan’s growing importance highlights how global energy markets are seeking alternative supply sources amid rising geopolitical risks in the Middle East.
Any disruption in the Strait of Hormuz could affect a significant share of global oil shipments, prompting importers to diversify supply chains and reduce dependence on vulnerable routes. Kazakhstan, one of the world’s major oil producers, is increasingly viewed as a reliable alternative supplier.
The decision to delay maintenance at Kashagan signals that Kazakhstan is prioritizing production stability and export capacity at a time when energy security has become a major concern for consuming nations.
The move could also strengthen Kazakhstan’s strategic position in global energy markets, giving it greater influence as countries seek dependable suppliers outside conflict affected regions.
Kazakhstan is likely to face increasing pressure from international buyers if instability around the Strait of Hormuz persists. While production constraints may limit immediate gains, the postponement of Kashagan maintenance suggests authorities are positioning the country to maximize output over the coming years.
The expansion of exports through the Baku Tbilisi Ceyhan pipeline could become increasingly important as energy consumers seek routes that bypass geopolitical hotspots. This would further enhance Kazakhstan’s role in global energy diversification efforts.
However, Kazakhstan must also balance market demand with its commitments under the OPEC+ framework. Any significant increase in production could attract scrutiny from fellow producers seeking to maintain supply discipline and price stability.
If Middle East tensions remain elevated, Kazakhstan is likely to emerge as one of the key beneficiaries of the global search for secure and reliable oil supplies.
With information from Reuters.
WASHINGTON — A Treasury inspector general report raises concerns about Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s ability to safeguard taxpayer information after ICE and the Internal Revenue Service agreed in 2025 to share taxpayer data for the purpose of immigration investigations.
The recently released report provides the first official accounting of the scale of the IRS-ICE information transfer and documents security concerns surrounding an arrangement that has been the subject of multiple lawsuits and significant controversy inside both agencies.
The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration found that the 2025 data-sharing agreement between ICE and the Treasury Department — which allowed ICE to submit names and addresses of immigrants in the U.S. illegally to the IRS for cross-verification against tax records — resulted in inconsistent formatting in ICE’s data and the IRS’ matching criteria, which led to errors.
The deal led the then-acting commissioner of the IRS to resign.
The report says that after the agreement was signed, ICE requested address information on more than 1.2 million people, and that the IRS ultimately provided last-known addresses for about 47,000 people.
The inspector general concluded that the IRS’ automated matching process was flawed. Inconsistent formatting in ICE’s data led to questionable matches, including in cases in which incomplete or inaccurate addresses were labeled as valid, the report says.
Representatives from the Treasury Department and the IRS did not respond to a request for comment.
The plan to cross-verify tax and immigration data is part of President Trump’s agenda to secure U.S. borders and his nationwide immigration crackdown, which has resulted in deportations, workplace raids and the use of an 18th century wartime law to deport Venezuelan migrants.
However, this is not the first time it’s been revealed that tens of thousands of taxpayers’ information was revealed to ICE.
In February, a federal judge said the IRS broke the law by disclosing confidential taxpayer information to ICE, referring to the same 47,000 disclosures that the inspector general points out.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly found that the IRS had erroneously shared the taxpayer information of thousands of people with the Department of Homeland Security as part of the 2025 agreement.
No recommendations were made in the new inspector general report, according to a letter by Nancy A. LaManna, deputy inspector general for inspections and evaluations.
“However, we plan to share some concerns we identified during our review with the DHS Office of Inspector General,” her letter says.
Hussein writes for the Associated Press.
President Trump signed an executive order on artificial intelligence Tuesday, less than two weeks after postponing a White House ceremony over his concerns that a similar policy could dull America’s edge on AI technology.
The order establishes a framework for the federal government to vet the national security risks of the most advanced AI systems for up to a month before their public release. The government will be able to work with trusted partners “that will have early access to covered frontier models to promote secure innovation and strengthen the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure,” the order says.
It was not immediately clear to what extent the order differed from the one he declined to sign on May 21.
Trump canceled an Oval Office event with tech industry executives last month because he did not like what he saw in the earlier version of the order’s text. “We’re leading China, we’re leading everybody, and I don’t want to do anything that’s going to get in the way of that lead,” Trump told reporters at the time.
That directive was characterized as a voluntary collaboration with participating U.S.-based tech companies, including Anthropic, OpenAI and Google.
O’Brien writes for the Associated Press.
Technology stocks led a broad market rally across China and Hong Kong on Tuesday as investors poured into artificial intelligence related companies despite continuing uncertainty surrounding developments in the Middle East.
The strongest gains came from major technology firms including Tencent and Meituan, helping push Hong Kong’s technology index to one of its biggest daily advances in months. The rally reflected growing investor confidence in China’s technology sector, particularly in artificial intelligence, even as markets monitored fragile diplomatic efforts and ceasefire discussions involving regional conflicts.
The performance highlights an increasingly important theme in global markets: investors are weighing geopolitical risks against the powerful growth narrative surrounding artificial intelligence and technology innovation.
Chinese technology stocks have experienced a volatile few years marked by regulatory scrutiny, slowing economic growth, property market challenges, and shifting investor sentiment.
However, the global artificial intelligence boom has provided a fresh catalyst for the sector.
As major technology companies race to develop AI models, digital assistants, and enterprise applications, investors have increasingly focused on firms capable of benefiting from the next phase of technological transformation.
At the same time, geopolitical developments continue to influence market sentiment. Escalating tensions in the Middle East, concerns about energy prices, and broader uncertainty in global financial markets have periodically weighed on risk assets.
Against this backdrop, Tuesday’s rally suggests that technology driven growth expectations remain a dominant force in investor decision making.
Major Chinese and Hong Kong equity indices posted strong gains:
Technology stocks were the primary drivers of the rally.
Tencent shares jumped more than 10 percent following reports that the company is moving closer to launching an artificial intelligence agent integrated into WeChat, China’s largest social media and messaging platform.
Meituan also gained strongly after investors reacted positively to signs that intense competition in China’s food delivery industry may be beginning to ease.
The rally extended beyond technology, with artificial intelligence related shares and non ferrous metal companies also recording significant gains.
The strongest market reaction centered on Tencent.
Reports suggesting that the company is nearing the launch of an AI agent for WeChat generated excitement because of the platform’s enormous user base of approximately 1.4 billion people.
If successfully deployed, such an AI assistant could become one of the largest consumer facing artificial intelligence applications in the world.
The development is significant because AI competition is increasingly shifting from standalone chatbots toward integration within existing digital ecosystems.
Companies that already possess massive user networks may have advantages in scaling AI services rapidly.
WeChat occupies a unique position within China’s digital economy.
The platform combines messaging, payments, shopping, business services, entertainment, and social networking into a single ecosystem.
Integrating AI directly into this environment could significantly enhance user engagement while creating new revenue opportunities through advertising, commerce, and premium services.
Investors appear to be viewing Tencent’s AI ambitions as a potentially transformative growth driver.
Meituan’s rise may appear surprising given its latest quarterly loss.
However, investors focused less on earnings and more on indications that subsidy driven competition in China’s rapid delivery sector is beginning to moderate.
For much of the past year, food delivery companies have engaged in aggressive pricing battles designed to capture market share.
While beneficial for consumers, these strategies have pressured corporate profitability.
Evidence that the competitive environment is stabilizing could improve future earnings prospects across the sector.
Investors often reward companies when they believe industry conditions are becoming more rational.
For Meituan, expectations of reduced subsidy spending may be viewed as a pathway toward stronger margins and improved financial performance.
One of the most important lessons from Tuesday’s rally is that artificial intelligence continues to dominate market thinking.
Despite geopolitical uncertainty, investors remain eager to identify companies positioned to benefit from AI adoption.
This trend is not limited to the United States.
Chinese technology firms are increasingly being evaluated based on their ability to develop competitive AI products, infrastructure, and services.
Another development attracting attention was the announcement that Zhipu AI intends to pursue a domestic stock market listing in Shanghai.
The move highlights growing confidence among Chinese AI firms and demonstrates the sector’s increasing importance within China’s capital markets.
A successful listing could further strengthen investor interest in domestic AI development.
Although technology optimism drove markets higher, geopolitical developments remain a significant source of uncertainty.
Investors continue monitoring negotiations involving the United States, Iran, Israel, and regional actors.
Potential disruptions to energy markets remain a key concern because rising oil prices can increase inflation pressures and slow economic growth globally.
Current market behavior reflects a balancing act.
On one side are geopolitical risks, including conflict, energy market volatility, and diplomatic uncertainty.
On the other side is enthusiasm surrounding technological innovation and artificial intelligence.
Tuesday’s rally suggests that, at least for now, investors believe technology driven growth opportunities outweigh immediate geopolitical concerns.
The significance of Tuesday’s rally extends beyond a single trading session.
It reflects a broader reassessment of China’s technology sector.
For several years, investors viewed Chinese technology companies primarily through the lens of regulatory risk, slowing growth, and geopolitical tensions.
Today, artificial intelligence is changing that narrative.
Investors increasingly see Chinese firms as participants in a global technological transformation rather than merely domestic internet companies.
Tencent’s gains illustrate this shift particularly well.
The market reaction was not driven by short term earnings or cost cutting measures. Instead, it was driven by expectations regarding future technological capabilities and growth potential.
Another important factor is capital flows.
China remains one of the few major emerging markets attracting investment across equities, bonds, and currencies simultaneously. This provides a supportive backdrop for asset prices even when external risks remain elevated.
At the same time, investors should not ignore underlying challenges.
China’s economy continues to face pressures from weak consumer demand, property sector difficulties, and slower growth compared with previous decades.
Artificial intelligence enthusiasm may boost valuations, but sustained market strength will ultimately require broader economic improvement.
Nevertheless, Tuesday’s performance suggests that global investors increasingly view China’s technology sector as a key participant in the AI revolution rather than merely a recovery story.
Technology companies successfully launch new AI products and attract additional investment.
This could drive further gains across China’s technology sector and strengthen market sentiment.
Artificial intelligence enthusiasm remains strong, but broader economic challenges constrain corporate earnings and consumer spending.
Technology stocks continue rising, though at a slower pace.
Escalating tensions in the Middle East or worsening global economic conditions trigger risk aversion.
Investors shift away from growth assets, leading to increased market volatility.
Investors will closely watch Tencent’s progress in launching AI features for WeChat and monitor adoption rates if the product is introduced.
Attention will also focus on upcoming earnings reports, AI related announcements, and developments surrounding Zhipu AI’s planned listing.
Beyond technology, markets will continue evaluating geopolitical developments in the Middle East and their potential impact on energy prices and global investor sentiment.
The interaction between technological optimism and geopolitical uncertainty is likely to remain one of the defining themes for financial markets throughout the coming months.
Tuesday’s rally demonstrates that artificial intelligence remains one of the most powerful forces shaping global investment decisions. Strong gains in Tencent, Meituan, and other technology companies highlight growing confidence in China’s ability to participate in the next phase of AI driven innovation.
While geopolitical risks continue to create uncertainty, investors appear increasingly willing to look beyond short term tensions and focus on long term technological opportunities. Whether this momentum can be sustained will depend not only on AI breakthroughs but also on the broader health of China’s economy and the stability of the global geopolitical environment.
With information from Reuters.
Surging bank lending could rekindle inflation risks, SocGen's Albert Edwards warns
Source link
The Middle East has been a difficult region to deal with in oil markets. When it comes to energy geographies, the region has proven to be a disproportionately significant part of the world’s energy resources, with export facilities traversing a handful of maritime routes and political situations that have been tense, if not outright volatile, at times. The change in 2025 and into 2026 isn’t the nature of the forces but rather the confluence of overlapping pressures: ongoing sanctions enforcement, multiple theaters of conflict, OPEC+ tensions that are more public than ever in previous years, and disruptions to shipping in the Red Sea, which now seem to have become a semi-permanent part of the shipping route landscape.
There is no background information for commodity traders, market analysts, and energy investors. It’s a real-time, constantly evolving dynamic that can make all the difference in the day-to-day performance of prices, and it’s particularly important when prices are sliding around rapidly, and the stories behind them are changing just as fast.
The area is responsible for about one-third of the world’s crude production. That should make it significant in and of itself. What makes matters worse is that export infrastructure is concentrated in a handful of terminals, pipelines, and maritime corridors where a disproportionately large share of oil is exported. The disruption of any of them (even for a moment) reduces a large supply signal to an extremely short time frame.
Traders who follow crude oil price live data are the first ones to witness this. Real-time feeds are a reflection of more than just the fundamental supply-demand elements, but the market’s real-time assessment of the value of geopolitical risk and how much it “should” be worth at any given moment. A news event, which is a minor detail in a more stable environment, can cause future prices to move $5 or more in less than an hour. The consistent and tough question – and it is a tough one – is, which events actually have physical supply implications and which ones are sentiment-driven moves that die in a session or two?
About 20-21 million barrels per day of crude oil and petroleum products go through the Strait of Hormuz, which is about 20% of the world’s oil consumption. No readily available bypasses can be found that can absorb that flow at a similar cost. There are partial alternatives, including the IPSA pipeline and Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline, but they would not even come close to filling the deficit should the Hormuz be closed en masse.
It is a strait between Oman and Iran. Geography makes it so that any serious disruption in U.S.-Iran relations or of security conditions in the Gulf in general puts Hormuz back on the market’s agenda. Traders are all familiar with this: when there is a lot of Iranian tension, the futures positioning will always reflect the chokepoint risk, even if there is no incident per se.
The issue of the supply is something that generally doesn’t get the same kind of attention it should get, but the clearest example of this recurring issue is Libya. In recent years, internal political squabbles about how to divide up oil revenues have led to several production shutdowns that have temporarily increased the tightness of the light sweet crude grades refined by European and Asian plants. The disruptions are likely to persist when there is no political agreement, and the pattern is robust. In recent years, Iraq’s export pipeline to the North through Turkey has also been down for extended periods of time. These relatively inconspicuous disruptions can add up and impact medium-term supply dynamics, though not necessarily have the same impact as a more conspicuous incident.
The Middle East is a geopolitical risk that has many variables. It’s a combination of interwoven pressures that work in various ways and to varying effects on the length of the price impact. The issues that currently have the greatest attention of serious analysts are generally of three types:
Everything is unique, and sometimes they are not in the same direction at the same time. That’s part of what makes the current situation more complicated than any one risk headline implies.
The latest example of large-scale infrastructure targeting is the 2019 attack on Saudi Aramco’s Abqaiq and Khurais facilities in the country, which was carried out using drones and missiles. The loss in output occurred temporarily, amounting to about 5.7 million bpd, the largest sudden supply shock in modern oil market history. The recovery was quicker than many expected, partly because of the operational robustness of Aramco and partly because the situation was swiftly contained diplomatically. But the event has permanently changed the way markets view the vulnerability of infrastructure in the Gulf, and that repricing has not been complete.
Iran’s petroleum sales have also been sustained in the face of sanctions, largely via Asian markets out of reach to Western sanctions. A full-fledged deal between Tehran and Western governments has yet to be hammered out, as of early 2026. That has left volumes of Iranian supply in a limbo of sorts: they could be rapidly reduced by stepped-up enforcement, and they could be dramatically increased by a change in diplomatic circumstances. Both of these results can have significant price consequences, and even the uncertainty can be a factor in the market without a clear decision.
The concentration levels in Saudi Arabia’s export system warrant a more significant focus than is generally found outside of export specialist circles. Abqaiq processes and stabilizes a huge percentage of Saudi crude before it is shipped to export terminals, removing the sulfur from it. That kind of ‘single point of failure’ is not typical in most industrial supply chains. In the case of oil, it’s a structural aspect of the market and one that has been proven, not just thought.
However, OPEC+ compliance has been quite lackluster at times, notably from Iraq and Kazakhstan, which have had a history of overproduction. This gives rise to an everlasting discrepancy between OPEC+ declarations and the actual supply data. For analysts, the bottom line is that it is important not to take production decisions at face value but to also consider the track record of implementation once a deal has been agreed on to see what the real supply impact was.
Since late 2023, the Houthis have started to attack commercial shipping vessels in the Red Sea more frequently, and these attacks have persisted through 2025. What those disruptions drove home is that it’s not necessary to blow a wellhead to impact oil market economics. A round-the-Cape voyage will increase the time in transit by about ten to fourteen days, as well as the fuel costs. During periods of increased Houthi activity, insurance costs for tankers traveling in the Gulf area skyrocketed. Both impacts are not a direct factor in the crude benchmarks, but both impact the effective landed cost of Middle East barrels in destination markets.
Knowing the difference is important, as geopolitical events do not affect oil prices in a single manner. Some effects are immediate and visible: a surge in the price of Brent futures within minutes of an incident report. Others come more slowly, via changes in freight rates, changes in the repricing of insurance, and changes in buyer behavior, which may take days or weeks to be reflected in trade flow data. The rate of these impacts varies, and so do their effects.
Then there is the issue of what the market “already” had in place whether there was an event or not. When there is a constant regional tension, there is usually some risk premium in prices. The incremental market move may therefore be less than anticipated when an event then reinforces concerns, the surprise element of the event, which is typically the one that produces the biggest market moves, is already discounted.
Geopolitical risk premiums in times of heightened Middle East tension have varied from around $4 to $10 per barrel, depending on the market participants’ views on the probability of actual physical supply disruptions in the case of Brent crude, according to S&P Global Commodity Insights. That’s a fairly broad window for economic trading, and it has a tendency to close up very fast when the tension subsides and without a supply event, which is the more common scenario.
The geopolitical risk premium factors analysts may consider are:
It is not easy to give exact weights to these inputs. Part of the reason for the price action to seemingly be different with comparable geopolitical events can be due to different analysts forming different conclusions from the same events.
The following table shows some of the more significant supply events that took place in the Middle East and the approximate market impact. The trend of most entries was that the first price movement has been greater than the actual physical supply effect, at times much greater, and then it has partially retraced to a more stable situation.
| Event | Year | Estimated Supply Impact | Approximate Brent Price Reaction |
| Abqaiq/Khurais Attacks (Saudi Arabia) | 2019 | ~5.7 mb/d temporary loss | ~15% intraday spike |
| Libyan Civil War Output Collapse | 2011 | ~1.4 mb/d reduction | ~$20/bbl over several weeks |
| U.S. Re-imposition of Iran Sanctions | 2018 | ~1-1.5 mb/d reduction | ~15% sustained over several months |
| Iraq-Northern Field Disruptions | 2014 | Partial northern output loss | ~$10/bbl elevated premium |
| Houthi Red Sea Disruptions | 2023-24 | Rerouting; limited direct supply loss | Moderate – primarily freight cost impact |
| Iran Sanctions + Red Sea Friction | 2025-26 | ~0.8-1.2 mb/d constrained Iranian output | Persistent $4-8/bbl risk premium in Brent |
The 2025-2026 entry is a more diffuse form of market pressure than those acute events listed above. It is not one particular incident, but rather sanctions enforcement and Iranian volumes kept low and shipping activity in the Red Sea continuing to cause friction in the transport system, which has kept transport costs elevated. The World Economic Outlook from the IMF pointed out that this type of persistent supply constraint is likely to have a longer-lasting impact on medium-term price expectations than acute supply shocks, which markets have historically been able to absorb and turn around in relatively short periods of time. Thus, a slow-burning risk premium can be more ‘sticky’ than a dramatic risk premium.
Crude oil benchmarks are not the only place where supply risk from the Middle East exists. It extends out to related markets in ways that are not always apparent when the world’s focus is on the Brent or WTI headline price.
The second-order victim is likely to be refined product markets. In times of crude supply shortages or increased uncertainty, refinery margins and regional product availability may be affected to a greater extent, and the effects on end consumers may be magnified, especially in regions where there is little local refining or a high concentration of import logistics. The energy crisis of 2022 in Europe was a prime example of how the upstream pressure to supply energy flows through the downstream more quickly than most market players would have thought.
Other segments of the market that are impacted by increased supply risks in the Middle East are:
During the IEA’s coordinated strategic reserve release in 2022, it was seen that policy tools are in place to mitigate short-term supply shocks and that they can be implemented on a material scale when political conditions are right. However, there are drawbacks to those processes. During that time, reservoir levels were lowered significantly, and a rebuild takes time. There are also doubts about the effectiveness as a deterrent because, over time, markets will factor in the possibility of a release during the next big disruption event, effectively canceling the effect of a release in advance.
It’s easy to fall into the temptation, because of the amounts of money potentially involved, of viewing geopolitical risk analysis as a predictive tool. It generally lacks it there. It’s actually helpful for comprehending markets and its actions, as well as for charting structural weaknesses that are price-relevant. What it doesn’t do well is tell you when an event will happen, or how big the market’s reaction will be when it does.
Instead of getting lost in qualifications, the specific limitations should be called out:
All this does not negate the analysis. It’s about calibration and about honesty when the power of explanation runs out, and speculation sets in.
Middle East supply risk is not a succession of shocks that will come and go and be completely addressed but rather a structural state in global oil markets. The combination of production weight, geographic concentration of export infrastructure, and political complexity of the region always comes with a certain level of supply uncertainty as a base case. The level of that uncertainty and the extent to which that uncertainty is priced into securities on a given day are what change.
The hard part for traders, analysts, and energy investors is not recognizing that there is risk – that’s obvious. It’s gaining a good enough sense of what matters most at a given moment, what the big picture supply-demand dynamics are, and at what point a careful study of the facts begins to look like well-informed guesswork. The clear understanding of that boundary is, in fact, probably more valuable than any single analytical framework that can be applied to the boundary.
This article is provided for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute financial advice, investment advice, or a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any financial instrument, commodity, or derivative product. Trading in energy markets, including crude oil futures, CFDs, and related instruments, involves substantial risk of loss, including the possible loss of capital invested. Past market behavior and historical price patterns referenced in this article are not reliable indicators of future performance. Geopolitical developments described may not materialize as anticipated or may evolve in ways that differ materially from historical precedent. Readers should conduct their own independent research and consult a qualified financial professional before making any investment or trading decisions. Nothing in this article should be interpreted as a trading signal, directional market recommendation, or endorsement of any specific trading approach.
Western governments are pouring tens of billions of dollars into critical minerals projects as they attempt to reduce dependence on China for materials essential to clean energy, defence technology and advanced manufacturing.
But industry executives, analysts and investors are increasingly warning that poorly coordinated state-backed investment could create severe oversupply problems similar to past commodity booms that ended in market crashes.
The concerns come as countries including the United States, Australia, European Union and Japan accelerate efforts to build strategic reserves and expand production of rare earths and other critical minerals.
The United States has committed more than $20 billion toward critical minerals development through multiple financing programmes, including Project Vault, a strategic stockpiling initiative worth around $10 billion.
Australia has also allocated at least A$13 billion to support critical minerals projects and reserves through several government-backed programmes.
These investments are designed to secure supplies of metals used in electric vehicles, semiconductors, renewable energy systems, aerospace equipment and military technologies.
Particular attention has focused on rare earth elements, a group of 17 metals essential for producing powerful magnets used in advanced defence systems and high-tech manufacturing.
Although the global rare earths market was valued at only about $6.4 billion in 2024, combined Western financial commitments to rare earth projects have already exceeded that figure.
Mining executives and analysts warn that aggressive subsidies and overlapping national strategies could eventually flood global markets with excess supply.
Brett Beatty of Resource Capital Funds said the biggest danger lies in governments pursuing independent strategies without coordination.
According to Beatty, simultaneous efforts to rapidly increase production could create volumes far beyond global demand, ultimately crushing prices and undermining the very industries governments are trying to build.
Analysts drew comparisons to historical commodity gluts, including Europe’s “butter mountains” of the 1980s, Russian aluminium oversupply and Australia’s wool crisis, where subsidies and state support distorted markets and triggered sharp price collapses.
Consultancy Project Blue warned that several rare earth markets are already on track to move into surplus over the coming years due to expanding state-backed production.
However, analyst David Merriman said governments may still be able to avoid major imbalances if they carefully adjust subsidies, stockpiling programmes and guaranteed purchasing arrangements.
Industry leaders say current stockpiles remain relatively small, limiting immediate risks of market disruption.
Lynas Rare Earths CEO Amanda Lacaze recently said rare earth stockpiles around the world remain modest and are not yet large enough to destabilise markets.
Australian Resources Minister Madeleine King also argued that today’s critical minerals policies differ significantly from past commodity intervention failures because they are more targeted and linked to long-term industrial supply chains.
Concerns about duplication and oversupply are pushing Western governments toward greater policy coordination.
The Group of Seven is reportedly discussing the creation of a permanent secretariat focused on coordinating critical mineral strategies and ensuring continuity between rotating national presidencies.
Industry experts say such coordination could help prevent destructive competition between allied nations while supporting more stable investment planning.
Governments outside the West have already experimented with aggressive intervention in mineral markets.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo boosted cobalt prices by introducing export quotas and stockpiling measures designed to increase mining revenues.
While the policy initially lifted prices, analysts warn prolonged restrictions could encourage manufacturers to seek alternative materials or suppliers.
Similarly, Indonesia dramatically expanded its dominance in nickel production after banning exports of raw nickel ore in 2020 to force domestic processing investment.
Indonesia’s production surged within just a few years, but authorities have since struggled with falling prices and oversupply, forcing Jakarta to tighten mining quotas and centralise export controls.
These examples highlight the difficulty governments face in balancing national industrial ambitions with long-term market stability.
The global race for critical minerals is increasingly becoming a strategic contest shaped as much by geopolitics as by economics.
Western governments view supply chain independence as essential after years of relying heavily on China for processing capacity and rare earth production. The push is not simply about commercial competition — it is tied directly to national security, technological leadership and energy transition goals.
However, the very scale of state intervention now unfolding raises the risk of creating distorted markets. If multiple governments simultaneously subsidise production, guarantee prices and build stockpiles without coordination, supply could rapidly outpace actual industrial demand.
That scenario would likely trigger sharp price declines, weaken private investment and potentially create another boom-and-bust cycle in the mining sector.
At the same time, the market dynamics of critical minerals differ from traditional commodities. Many of these materials are essential for emerging technologies, and demand is expected to rise significantly over the next two decades as countries expand renewable energy infrastructure, battery production and semiconductor manufacturing.
This means governments are not only competing to secure supply today but also positioning themselves for future industrial dominance.
Another key challenge is that refining and processing capabilities remain heavily concentrated in China. Even if Western countries succeed in expanding mining output, they may still depend on Chinese infrastructure unless domestic processing networks are developed alongside extraction projects.
The growing emphasis on “friend-shoring” and allied supply chains reflects an attempt to address this vulnerability.
Industry experts also point to a more sustainable model emerging through byproduct extraction. Instead of building entirely new mines based purely on high prices, companies are increasingly looking to recover critical minerals from existing industrial operations, reducing the risk of uncontrolled supply growth.
Projects involving Alcoa, Sojitz and Trafigura illustrate how governments and corporations are experimenting with lower-risk approaches to expanding supply.
Ultimately, the success of Western critical minerals strategies may depend less on how much money governments spend and more on whether they can coordinate policies, manage supply carefully and build integrated processing ecosystems capable of competing with China over the long term.
With information from Reuters.
01:15, 25 May 2026
Anyone planning to go to Turkey is being urged to brush up on passport rules(Image: Ferdi Uzun/Anadolu via Getty Images)
Turkey remains a firm favourite amongst British holidaymakers, with thousands of people flying out to the country each year. Anyone planning a trip there this year is strongly advised to familiarise themselves with all current travel guidance and any warnings in place.
The UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) provides a wealth of information on its website, covering countries across the globe. It’s an invaluable resource for anyone with holidays booked or considering travelling abroad, reports Chronicle Live..
If you’re heading to Turkey, there are several important things to be aware of. We’ve outlined the key travel warnings and advice below.
The Foreign Office states: “If you choose to travel, research your destinations and get appropriate travel insurance. Insurance should cover your itinerary, planned activities and expenses in an emergency.” It also cautions: “Your travel insurance could be invalidated if you travel against advice from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO).”
The FCDO advises against all travel to within 10km of the border with Syria due to ongoing fighting and an increased risk of terrorism. The FCDO states: “Fighting in Syria continues in areas close to the Turkish border and there is a heightened risk of terrorism in the region. Due to the ongoing conflict in Syria, roads in Hatay Province leading towards the border may be closed at short notice.”
To enter Turkey, your passport must have an ‘expiry date’ at least 150 days beyond the date you arrive and at least one blank page. If you’re entering at a land border, ensure officials stamp and date your passport at the border crossing.
The FCDO says: “Check with your travel provider that your passport and other travel documents meet requirements. Renew your passport if you need to. You will be denied entry if you do not have a valid travel document or try to use a passport that has been reported lost or stolen.” You can visit Turkey without a visa for up to 90 days within any 180-day period, for business or tourism purposes.
The Foreign Office states: “Regular demonstrations and protests are currently taking place in Istanbul and other cities across Turkey. Demonstrations may become violent. The police response has included use of tear gas and water cannons.
“Events in Israel and Palestine have led to heightened tensions in the region and in locations across Turkey. Demonstrations continue to occur outside diplomatic missions connected to the conflict in major cities, particularly Israeli diplomatic missions in Ankara and Istanbul. Avoid all demonstrations and leave the area if one develops. Local transport routes may be disrupted.”
The FCDO warns: “Be wary of strangers approaching you to change money, or to take you to a restaurant or nightclub. If strangers offer you food and drink these could be spiked. Buy your own drinks and always keep sight of them.”
Holidaymakers are being cautioned that there have previously been instances of severe illness caused by alcoholic beverages containing methanol in popular tourist destinations across the globe. The FCDO says: “In Turkey, including Ankara and Istanbul, people have died or suffered serious illness after drinking illegally produced local spirits and counterfeit bottles of branded alcohol.
“Even small amounts of methanol can kill. It is not possible to identify methanol in alcoholic drinks by taste or smell. See Travel Aware Drink Spiking and methanol poisoning for information about how to reduce the risks. Seek urgent medical attention if you or someone you are travelling with show the signs of methanol poisoning after drinking.”
Taxis The website says: “Accepting lifts from drivers of unofficial taxis is highly risky. Find a registered taxi, note the registration number before entering and ensure the fare is metered. App-based taxis and pre-booked taxis are also widely available.”
It is illegal not to carry some form of photographic ID in Turkey. Always carry your passport or residence permit. In some busy areas, especially Istanbul, the authorities may stop people for ID checks. There are also several police checkpoints on main roads across Turkey. Cooperate with officials conducting checks.
Holidaymakers are also given guidance on appropriate attire. The FCDO advises people to “dress modestly if you’re visiting a mosque or a religious shrine to avoid causing offence”.
The Foreign Office says: “Most towns and cities have stray dogs. Packs congregate in parks and wastelands and can be aggressive. Take care and do not approach stray dogs. If you’re bitten, get medical advice immediately. Rabies and other animal borne diseases are present in Turkey.”
Purchasing or exporting antiquities is prohibited. You could face a fine and a prison sentence of 5 to 12 years. Certain historical items found at local markets and in antique shops may be sold within Turkey but are forbidden from being exported. Always verify the status of antique items before making a purchase.
