The consortium, named 1892 Holdings, is led by former QPR chairman Amit Bhatia and also includes the Mittal Family Trusts, EE Capital and the K5 Sports fund, where Bezos is the lead investor.
Published On 14 Aug 202614 Aug 2026
A consortium which includes Amazon founder Jeff Bezos has reached a definitive agreement to buy a minority stake in Liverpool FC, the Premier League club’s owners, Fenway Sports Group has announced.
The consortium, named 1892 Holdings, is led by former Queens Park Rangers chairman Amit Bhatia and also includes the Mittal Family Trusts, EE Capital and the K5 Sports fund, where Bezos is the lead investor.
list of 4 itemsend of list
“As we considered this opportunity, it became clear that Amit and the consortium shared our long-term philosophy and appreciation for what makes Liverpool special,” FSG president Mike Gordon said in a statement on Friday.
“Their experience and perspective will complement the strong foundation already in place and we look forward to working together.”
A source familiar with the matter told the Reuters news agency that the stake is about one-third. FSG, the US multinational sports company which bought Liverpool in 2010, will maintain the majority share and operational control of the club.
Bhatia will become the club’s new vice chairman and join the expanded board, along with Elaine Saverin from EE Capital and Bryan Baum from K5 Sports. Bezos will not have a seat on the board, according to Reuters.
“To be welcomed as a partner in a club of this stature is a huge privilege,” Bhatia said.
“We are making this investment because we believe deeply in Liverpool and its leadership and we look forward to supporting the club’s continued success for years to come.”
Liverpool, who have been English champions a joint-record 20 times, finished fifth in the Premier League last season.
They will start the new campaign at Newcastle United on August 23 with new manager Andoni Iraola.
The Lakers are being sold … again?
The Lakers are being sold … by the Dodgers owner who was supposed to save them?
The Lakers are being sold … to one guy who owns an underachieving women’s professional soccer team and another guy who owns a piece of the hated San Francisco Giants?
What in the name of Luka is going on here?
Los Angeles sports fans awoke Wednesday to the news that one of their two crown jewels was being sold for the second time in a year, a transaction valued at $12.5 billion and accompanied by at least that many worries.
This doesn’t feel good. This doesn’t feel right. Something stinks here, and it might just be the future of a franchise that once seemed in such good hands.
On Wednesday it was stunningly and ingloriously fumbled, and for what?
There are two main unknowns here, and both should send shivers through a Laker fan base that could be watching their team become the Portland Trail Blazers.
First, why did Mark Walter sell just 10 months after buying? Yes, he made a $2.5 billion profit, but 10 months? Who owns a major sports franchise for just 10 months?
Second, what sort of owners will Bob Iger and Josh Kushner be? Iger is known for running Disney, and Kushner is known for running with President Trump’s son-in-law, who happens to be Kushner’s brother, Jared.
So crazy. So scary.
Does all this mean the Dodgers are also for sale? Will courtside seats be converted to spinning teacups? Is President Trump going to show up for a ceremonial opening tip?
Mark Walter, chairman and controlling owner of the Dodgers, acknowledges a fan before a game in Chicago on Aug. 4.
(Melissa Tamez / Associated Press)
Lots to dig in here, starting with Walter, who brought much hope to the struggling franchise after buying it from the Buss family last summer.
In his short tenure the Lakers racked up a bunch of off-court wins. They revamped their scouting department, increased a focus on analytics and rid themselves of LeBron James without the usual noise of an ugly breakup.
Under Walters, the Lakers didn’t fire Rob Pelinka, didn’t fire JJ Redick, brought back Austin Reaves, and actually set the team up for a pretty exciting playoff run next season.
Walter was clearly building the Lakers into the image of the Dodgers, which makes it so shocking that he would so easily cast them aside.
Could this be the result of outside forces? Walter is under federal investigation for tax fraud by companies controlled by the billionaire, and perhaps he sold the Lakers as a peace offering to the feds. The fact that he sold to somebody so close to President Trump could also help his federal case.
Remember last month when Walter embarrassingly groveled at Trump’s feet during the Dodgers visit to the White House, even giving the president a championship ring? It feels like the Lakers sale to a group co-led by Kushner is an outgrowth of that pandering.
Sources told The Times’ Bill Shaikin that the Dodgers are not for sale, but if Walter was troubled enough to sell arguably America’s most glamorous sports franchise after owning it for less time than it takes for Edwin Díaz to walk to the mound, who knows if the Dodgers are really safe?
In Walter, the Lakers had a proven champion who forged a partnership with the fans and rewarded them with sustained success.
In Iger and Kushner, the Lakers have two rich guys who have never been the majority owners of a team, never run a team and never done much more than cheer for a team.
Iger, 75, an entertainment genius who ran Disney for much of the last 20 years, has failed in his previous attempts to buy a sports team. A decade ago, he was in the finals to bring an NFL team to Los Angeles, but lacked the gravitas to pull it off.
In 2024, Iger and his wife, USC journalism dean Willow Bay, bought a controlling stake in the Angel City Football Club in the National Women’s Soccer League. But the team has yet to make any sort of local splash, missing the playoffs in each of the last two seasons.
Former Disney CEO Bob Iger, in white shirt, has been a longtime basketball fan. In 2025 he sat courtside for a Clippers game at Intuit Dome.
(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)
Kushner, meanwhile, is a 41-year-old billionaire venture capitalist who is best known for his brother’s father-in-law and his super-model wife Karlie Kloss. He owns a minority stake in not only the Giants, but the Miami Heat, which he must sell.
There is no indication whether they will be good owners, and they will clearly have to hire a seasoned NBA executive to serve as president to run the show. The identity of this person will be the first sign of their seriousness in restoring a championship culture, but there will be other signs as well, and not all could be positive.
There should be fear that these new wonders will follow the path of the most recently minted NBA owner, Portland’s Tom Dundon, who unapologetically cheapened the organization by doing everything from firing 70 business employees to bucking NBA tradition by refusing to pass out free T-shirts to the fans during playoff games. He even showed the door to both the club’s radio and TV play-by-play announcers in a dramatic cost-cutting move that could be a blueprint for other struggling teams.
Which is to say, nobody has any idea how Kushner and Iger will run things. They have no history here. They have no experience. They have no credibility. This isn’t Disney. This isn’t some hedge fund.
These are the 17-time NBA champion Lakers. This is a national monument forged on the sweat of everyone from Jerry West to Magic Johnson to Kobe Bryant.
This is a community’s heartbeat. This is a region’s touchstone.
Handle with care.
A city will be watching.
Bob Iger’s purchase of the Lakers isn’t the former Disney boss’s first foray into ownership of a professional sports franchise in Southern California: Twenty-five months ago Iger and his wife, Willow Bay, dean of the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, acquired a controlling interest in soccer club Angel City for $50 million.
And while the NWSL is a long way from the NBA — and $50 million is a long way from the $12.5 billion the basketball team sold for Wednesday — the Iger family’s management of the women’s soccer team may hint at what’s in store for the Lakers.
Spoiler alert: it’s not all good.
Iger’s investment pushed Angel City’s valuation to $250 million, making it the world’s most valuable women’s professional sports franchise. And six months after taking over the team, Bay cut the ribbon on a multi-million-dollar training complex at Cal Lutheran University in Thousand Oaks, which added to the team’s worth.
“Bob and I were very clear about investing the resources in this team and the people who lead and manage it. And most certainly the women who play for it,” Bay said at the time. “We know how important it is to do our best to bring a championship to this city.”
Yet also under Iger and Bay’s leadership, Angel City’s average attendance has fallen more than 20% and the team has yet to make the playoffs or post a winning record. The roster does not have a superstar player or even a regular starter on the women’s national team — with the salary of defender Gisele Thompson, the team’s highest-paid player, ranked 19th in the 16-team league. And the club is on its fourth manager, including interim coaches, and its second president of business operations in two years as Bay maneuvers to put her own stamp on the team.
However Mark Parsons, Iger and Bay’s hand-picked sporting director, lauds the team’s new owners, saying his staff has doubled in his 20 months at Angel City and the club is finally headed in the right direction.
“They gave us the resources,” said Parsons, who previously built struggling teams into NWSL finalists in Washington and Portland. “They’ve delivered upon that. We are investing in sporting staff and resources and facilities and consultants and experts around the world to support our athletes.
“Probably as good as anyone right now.”
Parsons said he speaks frequently with Bay, who has been hands-on in running Angel City. Iger will likely be the more active partner in managing the Lakers.
“Willow is one of the best leaders I’ve ever been around in my life, never mind my career,” Parsons said. “Spending time with Willow and Bob is an education in leadership and life. They are really special leaders.
“The best compliment I could give them is when I was in my final interview, who they were in that moment was the same people I’ve met when we’ve had good moments or stressful moments to navigate together.”
Joshua Kushner’s sudden rise to co-ownership of the most storied team in professional basketball might seem like it came out of the blue — but it’s been a long time coming.
A scion of the wealthy Kushner family whose older brother, Jared, is married to President Trump’s daughter, and whose father, Charles, is the U.S. ambassador to France, has successfully staked out his own lucrative business career.
He is worth an estimated $5.2 billion by Forbes.
And along the way, the New York-based entrepreneur and venture capitalist has exhibited a deep interest in sports investments.
Just this summer, there were reports that Joshua Kushner and new Laker’s co-owner Bob Iger, the former Walt Disney Co. chief executive, had hired investment bankers to consider a bid for the National Basketball Association’s expansion team in Las Vegas — before setting their sights on the Lakers.
Kushner already holds a stake that in the Miami Heat that he will divest, according to The Athletic, and previously sold a stake in the Memphis Grizzlies. His wife, model Karlie Kloss, has a stake in the WNBA’s New York Liberty.
Kushner’s Thrive Capital also was named the lead investor in FIFA President Gianni Infantino’s ill-fated plan this year to spin off a $20 billion commercial subsidiary to handle the soccer federation’s broadcast, sponsorship, ticketing and event operations.
Infantino withdrew the proposal last month after withering criticism that he was overly commercializing the sport, as well as of Kushner’s ties to Trump and his controversial presidency.
Kushner announced on X in April that he also was in the process of taking a stake in the San Francisco Giants. It was not his first interest in baseball. In 2017, he reached a preliminary agreement to buy the Miami Marlins for $1.6 billion, but the deal fell through.
Kushner’s father made his fortune in commercial and residential real estate, and early on his youngest son decided to go into business but forge his own career, even as he maintained his ties to Kushner Cos., the family firm.
After graduating from Harvard University, Kushner got his MBA from the school. But before he had even graduated in 2011, he founded his venture capital firm Thrive Capital. He also worked at top investment bank Goldman Sachs.
The venture capital firm reportedly scored with investments in Instagram, online eyewear retailer Warby Parker, music streaming service Spotify, payments processor Stripe and Elon Musk’s SpaceX long before it went public this year.
In 2012, Kushner displayed an entrepreneurial streak, co-founding Oscar, a health tech and insurer that is now publicly traded with a market capitalization of about $9 billion.
This year, Thrive raised $10 billion, it’s largest fundraising round yet, drawing investment’s from global billionaires such as India’s Mukesh Ambani, the world’s twelfth richest person, according to Bloomberg. Iger reportedly invested $175 million to purchase a 3.3% stake in Thrive.
Interest in the firm came after it scored a huge win with an investment in artificial intelligence pioneer OpenAI in January 2023, just months after the debut of ChatGPT. At the time, the startup was valued at $29 billion, and now its valuation is approaching $1 trillion.
A lifelong Democrat, Kushner attended the 2017 Women’s March in Washington, a day after Trump’s first inauguration. Kushner has funded Democratic politicians and causes almost exclusively, including $250,000 in donations to the Growth Democrats PAC during the 2024 election cycle.
“It is no secret that liberal values have guided my life and that I have supported political leaders that share similar values,” Kushner told Forbes in 2017.
In 2024, Kushner and Kloss purchased the iconic Midcentury Modern home in Malibu known as the “Wave House,” designed by famed architect Harry Gesner. According to The Wall Street Journal, the couple paid $29.5 million for the six-bedroom, 6,200-square-foot house that abuts the Pacific Ocean—$20 million less than the asking price when it was listed for sale in 2023.
Kushner, however, has not been able to shed his controversial association with his family or the family real estate firm.
A property management company owned by the family in 2022 agreed to pay $3.25 million in civil penalties and restitution to settle a lawsuit brought by the state of Maryland. The suit alleged that tenants in thousands of rental units were charged illegal fees while failing to maintain the properties. In reaching the settlement, the company did not admit wrongdoing.
Kushner’s effort to fashion his own identity also has been tarnished by his controversial father.
Charles Kushner was made ambassador to France last year by Trump, but only after the president pardoned the New Jersey developer in 2020. The elder Kushner spent nearly two years in custody following a federal tax fraud investigation.
Not long after assuming his post, Kushner sparked a diplomatic clash with France, accusing the country of not doing enough to stem antisemitism in the country following the start of the Hamas-Israeli conflict.
Correspondent A.J. Perez, the Associated Press and Bloomberg News contributed to this report.
Rampur, India – More than 100 people sit cross-legged on mats, braving the brutal July heat, as they raise slogans and wave the national flag in a north Indian town.
Barely 200km (132 miles) from the capital, New Delhi, where thousands of youths demanding education reforms just forced a minister to resign, a group of students, alumni and residents are holding an indefinite sit-in to oppose the planned demolition of 38 of Mohammad Ali Jauhar University’s 40 buildings.
list of 4 itemsend of list
Named after a freedom fighter who fought against British rule, the university was founded by prominent Muslim politician Azam Khan in Rampur district of Uttar Pradesh state. Khan established the Mohammad Ali Jauhar Trust in 2003, which oversaw the university’s establishment three years later.
On July 15, when protests led by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) – a youth movement born out of a joke – were at their peak, the Rampur district administration issued an order to demolish most of the university’s buildings, alleging they flouted regulatory guidelines.
Only two structures, including a proposed medical college block, were built with valid approvals, the authorities claimed, as they ordered the university to take down the “illegal” buildings by August 5. If they failed to do so, the authorities said they will move in with bulldozers and recover the cost of the demolition from the university.
On Monday, the state administration issued an interim stay on its order, but did not explicitly state whether the demolition was halted.
Jauhar University’s vice chancellor, Zaheeruddin, told Al Jazeera the stay order does not mean the demolition has been called off.
“It means that the demolition will not take place by the August 5 deadline set by the RDA. The university is now seeking a verdict that quashes the demolition order outright,” he said, using the acronym for Rampur Development Authority.
For nearly 3,000 students pursuing dozens of courses at the 250-acre campus, the government move is a bolt from the blue.
Since July 15, a group of university students and alumni has been sitting outside its main gate, demanding the withdrawal of the demolition order.
“If a [federal] minister can be forced to resign following the CJP protest, why can’t the Uttar Pradesh government be forced to stop the demolition of the university when so many students are agitating here,” asked Usama Tayyab, who graduated from Jauhar University in 2019.
Uttar Pradesh – home to about 240 million people – has been governed by the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) since 2017. The state’s chief minister, Yogi Adityanath, is a saffron-clad hardline Hindu monk, known for his anti-Muslim hate speech and policies.
Khan, the 77-year-old founder and lifelong chancellor of the university, had been one of the most stringent critics of the BJP in Uttar Pradesh. He is one of the founders of the Samajwadi Party (“samajwadi” means socialist in Hindi), a political group popular among the state’s 38 million Muslims, as well as a large majority of its underprivileged caste Hindu voters.
Khan studied law in the 1970s at the Aligarh Muslim University, India’s largest minority institution, about 160km (100 miles) from Rampur. At Aligarh, he made a mark as a fiery student leader, and later as a politician who took on a former royal family, which for decades had dominated the politics in Rampur, a district with nearly 50 percent Muslims, according to the last census conducted in 2011.
He joined electoral politics in 1980 and represented Rampur in the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly for 10 terms, also serving as a minister in several state governments and as leader of the opposition. He was also elected to the lower house of Indian Parliament from Rampur and sent to the upper house later by his party. In 2003, he established a Mohammad Ali Jauhar Trust, which oversaw the establishment of the university three years later, and cemented his position as one of the most prominent Muslim leaders in northern India.
And that brought him into the crosshairs of the BJP.
Shortly after coming to power in 2017, Adityanath’s government filed nearly 100 cases against Khan, charging him with landgrab, forgery and hate speech. Dozens of those cases against him relate to Jauhar University.
Khan spent more than two years in jail before the Supreme Court granted him bail in 2022. The next year, a court in Rampur convicted him, his wife Tazeen Fatima and their son Abdullah Azam Khan, also a former legislator, of using forged birth certificates.
He is currently serving a two-year sentence handed down in May this year for making “provocative remarks” during the 2019 general elections, alongside his conviction in a separate case related to a fake income tax document.
Supporters say the cases against Khan and his family are politically motivated. The state government denies the allegation.
Samajwadi Party MP Javed Ali Khan, unrelated to Azam Khan, told Al Jazeera the Jauhar University demolition order was “vendetta politics by a ruling dispensation opposed to education and intent on keeping people illiterate”.
“There are many reasons why this university is being targeted. First, it was founded by Azam Khan. Second, its foundation stone was laid by Mulayam Singh, the Samajwadi Party patriarch. Third, it was inaugurated by Akhilesh Yadav, the former chief minister of the state. And fourth, it is a minority university,” he said.
Mulayam Singh Yadav, the main founder of the Samajwadi Party, died in 2022. His son Akhilesh now heads the party and is a member of the anti-BJP coalition that includes the Indian National Congress, India’s main opposition party.
BJP spokesman Rakesh Tripathi said the demolition order is “in line with legal procedures against illegal construction”, and accused the Samajwadi Party of playing “appeasement politics”.
“Can anyone deny that Azam Khan built this university on illegal land? He used his position and power during the Samajwadi Party government to construct this university on illegal land and erect illegal buildings. What we are doing is simply following the law on illegal construction, and that means the university should be demolished,” Tripathi told Al Jazeera.
But anger over the imminent demolition of Rampur’s only full-fledged university is growing. The district is ahead of only four among Uttar Pradesh’s 75 districts in terms of literacy rate, according to the 2011 census.
Also, nearly half of the students at Jauhar University are females, according to chief proctor, Gulrez Nizami.
Iqra, a fifth-year law student who goes by only one name, told Al Jazeera she had chosen the university for a reason.
“Our parents were satisfied with the atmosphere here, and with the safety it offers to women students over other universities,” she said.
“If this university is demolished, girls like us will never get another chance to study anywhere else. Our parents will not be convinced to send us elsewhere. They chose this place because they believed Muslim girls were safe here,” Iqra said.
Iqra said the government is running a counselling camp to advise the students on joining another college or university to continue their education. “But we don’t want to go there. We chose this institution for a reason,” she said.
And it is not just Muslims who are protesting against the university’s planned demolition – more than a third of its students are Hindus.
“They may call it a Muslim university, and yes, it is indeed a minority university by legal status, but that does not mean others do not study here,” Chandni Diwakar, a first-year paramedical student, told Al Jazeera.
“I have been a part of the university for the past year and have never once felt like a non-Muslim in a minority university. Everyone here is friendly, teachers and students alike,” she said at the sit-in site.
The RDA says its action follows a report by a regional officer who flagged the alleged violations. A meeting with lawyers representing both the university and the RDA was held on July 15.
“They were given notice, and they have since given a written response. Out of the 40 buildings constructed at Jauhar University, only two were considered acceptable. The other 38 were proven invalid,” Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, district magistrate and RDA vice chairperson, told reporters on July 15.
But Vice Chancellor Zaheeruddin dismissed the charge, claiming the institution located in Rampur’s Singankhera village came under RDA jurisdiction only in September 2024, years after the buildings were constructed.
Approval, added Zaheeruddin, was therefore not required at the time of construction and cannot be demanded now.
“There was no RDA jurisdiction in Singankhera at the time the university was formed. We are running courses approved by different government bodies, which grant approval only once we meet all their criteria,” he told Al Jazeera, calling the RDA’s move a violation of the constitutional right to education.
“They are simply using this as a tool against the visionary Azam Khan, who created this university for the upliftment of the minorities, the poor, and the underprivileged,” he said.
But the officials say the alleged violations cannot be regularised under the existing laws, leaving demolition as the only legal remedy.
Al Jazeera made repeated attempts to contact Dwivedi for his comments and even visited his office in Rampur. But he declined to meet or respond to requests for an interview.
The university has challenged the RDA order as protests grow on campus.
“If others can achieve results through a peaceful protest, why can’t we, as Muslim students, achieve our legitimate goal of stopping the demolition of our university? If this requires sacrifice, we are willing to give it. But we will not accept this injustice against us any longer,” Usman Ali, a law graduate from the university, told Al Jazeera.
He alleged that police are visiting the homes of students on strike to pressure their families into calling off their protest. “Police are coming to our houses and threatening our parents with consequences, but we will not back down.”
On Sunday, the protesters were joined by a delegation of Samajwadi Party parliamentarians, including Javed Ali Khan, Ziaur Rahman Barq of Sambhal and Iqra Choudhary of Kairana.
“There are multiple dimensions to it [demolition]. One, it was meant to create a spectacle out of confronting powerful Muslims in front of its Hindu voters. Second, there has been a sustained campaign throughout this government’s tenure against minority institutions. And third, it does not want mingling between Hindus and Muslims, of which universities are a stronghold,” Apoorvanand, a teacher of Hindi literature at the University of Delhi who goes by a single name, told Al Jazeera.
Since 2014, when BJP’s Narendra Modi became prime minister, India has seen a spike in demolitions of homes, mosques, shops and other properties in a pattern that rights groups say disproportionately affects Muslims. Authorities claim they are targeting “illegal encroachments”.
Back in Rampur, Abdul Kaleem Ansari, another Jauhar University graduate, draws a parallel between their protest and the CJP movement that forced India’s Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan to resign over a series of examination paper leaks.
Ansari, who attended both, said he was surprised that calls for education reforms, which drove the “Cockroach” protesters to the streets, do not include the imminent demolition of a full-fledged university as part of their agenda.
“It is astonishing that they are talking about education reforms, but saying nothing about the demolition notice served to Jauhar University, a minority university situated just a few hundred kilometres from Delhi,” he said.
“The futures of all its students and alumni are at stake, and we do not know where to go from here.”
The consortium is led by British-Indian investor Amit Bhatia, the son-in-law of Indian steel billionaire Lakshmi Mittal.
Published On 21 Jul 202621 Jul 2026
Liverpool are in talks with British-Indian investor Amit Bhatia over a potential deal for a minority stake in the Premier League football club.
Fenway Sports Group (FSG), Liverpool’s United States-based owner, confirmed the approach from Bhatia’s group on Tuesday.
“An investment consortium led, managed, and represented by Amit Bhatia has expressed interest in making a strategic minority investment in Liverpool Football Club,” an FSG spokesperson told the AFP news agency.
Bhatia, the son-in-law of Indian steel billionaire Lakshmi Mittal, is heading a consortium interested in buying into the 20-time English champions.
The Financial Times reported that Bhatia has hired advisers to work on the offer, which the newspaper said could value Liverpool at more than $6bn.
Just hours after Bhatia’s interest in Liverpool emerged, the London-born 46-year-old stepped down from his role as a director and co-owner of English Championship side Queens Park Rangers (QPR).
Bhatia, who spent 18 seasons with the west Londoners, will transfer his ownership of the club to majority owner Ruben Gnanalingam.
“I step back from my formal responsibilities with pride, gratitude and affection. I want to thank the players, managers, staff, the community trust, my fellow board members and, above all, the fans, who have made me and my family feel part of the QPR family for so many years,” Bhatia said.
Bhatia’s discussions with FSG – who bought Liverpool for 300 million British pounds ($400m) in 2010 – are believed to be at an early stage, with no deal struck yet.
Any investment from Bhatia would be made to further position Liverpool for success, following FSG’s move in 2023 to sell a minority stake in the club to global sports investment firm Dynasty.
Reports at the time valued that transaction between $100m and $200m.
NATO leaders are meeting in Ankara, Turkiye on Tuesday and Wednesday.
The summit gets underway as US President Donald Trump renews pressure on member states over defence spending. European nations are expected to respond with billions of dollars in new military contracts.
At the NATO summit last year, members agreed to increase their target to 5 percent of GDP: 3.5 percent on military spending by 2035 and 1.5 percent on security-related needs.
Leaders from all 32 NATO member states are at the summit in Turkiye this week.
Two non-alliance heads of state will also be there: Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy and South Korea’s Lee Jae-myung.
Australia, Japan and New Zealand are sending defence or foreign ministers, as are Gulf countries affected by the US-Israel war on Iran: Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa is not expected to attend the summit but is holding a bilateral meeting with Trump in Ankara.
Trump has questioned NATO’s value since his first presidential campaign. He argued that the US carried an unfair share of the costs. At the time, only five countries spent the agreed two percent GDP on defence.
His questions about shared defence responsibility have produced some results in recent years within the alliance as member states pledged an increased defence budget.
Ozgur Unluhisarcikli, the German Marshall Fund’s regional director for Turkiye, believes NATO this year will focus on implementing its promises from last year. “NATO allies just decided to increase their defence spending to five percent last year at The Hague and European allies took action to upgrade their defence industries,” he said. “This year in Ankara the discussion will be on how to translate spending to capabilities. It is therefore stronger than it was last year.”
But Paolo von Schirach, president of the Global Policy Institute, noted that any capability gains from increased spending are years away, saying that more orders mean more military hardware but only eventually. “You can spend a lot and obtain not too much,” he said.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is meeting Trump for a bilateral meeting on Wednesday. Ukraine is not a NATO member.
Zelenskyy will be using his face-to-face with the US president to request additional Patriot air defence systems as Russian attacks are intensifying on Ukrainian cities. A drone attack on the Ukrainian capital Kyiv killed at least 11 people on Monday morning.
Jack Watling, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute said that Ukraine is looking for ongoing political and military technical support from alliance members, to signal to Russia “that this support will be sustained”.
The idea, he said, was “to show Russia that there will be no diminution in its defensive capacity over the next 12-24 months”.
“There is a direct correlation between the number of interceptors supplied to Ukraine and the damage that Russia can inflict with ballistic missiles,” says Watling.
The billions in contracts expected to be announced by European nations at this summit are seen by some analysts as trying to appease the Trump administration.
When European nations didn’t join the war on Iran, Trump stated he didn’t want their money, just their “loyalty”. He added he might not have attended the summit if it wasn’t hosted by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Turkey has in recent years not only increased its defence spending, it also has grown into one of NATO’s largest military exporters.
For now, the tone around defence spending remains sharp. On the eve of the summit, Trump called Germany’s defence spending “ridiculous”. Chancellor Friedrich Merz defended his country’s budget, saying that “this is the greatest effort we have ever made to strengthen our defence capabilities”.
Meanwhile, the US has gone a step beyond rhetoric and announced a phased withdrawal of warplanes, destroyers and submarines from NATO countries. “Less US infantry or armour in Europe has an impact on messaging but little else,” Watling said. But, he added, “the withdrawal of US air power has a more tangible impact”.
Whether the alliance can project unity amid the rhetoric and withdrawals is a key question, said analysts.
“The main value of this summit is political, it shows that the allies are still talking, still meeting, still trying to project unity, even if the underlying disagreements and doubts haven’t disappeared,” von Schirach of the Global Policy Institute said. “Ankara is more about reassurance and signalling than about concrete, immediate changes on the ground.”
England famously found itself on the wrong side of World Cup history at Azteca Stadium, surrendering Diego Maradona’s iconic “Hand of God” goal and another strike known as the tournament’s “most beautiful goal.”
Maradona and eventual champion Argentina eliminated England 2-1 in the quarterfinals of the 1986 World Cup, leaving the Brits to stew over their link to a soccer legend.
England will return to Azteca Stadium on Sunday to take on World Cup co-host Mexico in a round-of-16 match kicking off at 5 p.m. PDT and airing on Fox and Telemundo.
England coach Thomas Tuchel said during interviews before their departure for Mexico that this will be a way to “make amends” with the stadium that hosted a goal Maradona punched in with his fist, and “karma will come back for us.”
Argentina’s Diego Maradona punches the ball past England goalkeeper Peter Shilton to score his “Hand of God” goal during a 1986 World Cup match at Azteca Stadium.
(Getty Images / Getty Images)
“It’s one of the most beautiful, most exciting matchups you can have — playing Mexico at the Azteca,” Tuchel said during a news conference after defeating the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the round of 32.
But the road to Azteca Stadium hasn’t been easy for England.
England enters this matchup after a hard-fought victory over Congo. The African team took the lead and had chances to extend it, but ultimately paid dearly for squandering those opportunities. Top England scorer Harry Kane stepped up with two decisive goals that helped his team advance. It was England’s first World Cup victory after trailing 1-0 since the 1966 final, which the English team won as a tournament host.
The English have to contend with not only the ghost of Maradona’s two goals, but also the altitude in Mexico City, which is about 7,350 feet above sea level.
Mexico has lost only two of 89 matches at Azteca Stadium, winning 70 and tying 17. The last time it lost an official match there was a 2-1 defeat to Honduras in a 2013 World Cup qualifier.
“There will be many obstacles — the altitude will be a major disadvantage because we can’t acclimate to it,” Tuchel said. “Let’s hope that when we face difficulties along the way, we’ll find the answers.”
Mexico players celebrate after the team’s World Cup win over Ecuador at Azteca Stadium on Tuesday.
(Luke Hales/Getty Images)
Tuchel noted his team got accustomed to heat and humidity while training in the United States.
“At the end of the day, it’s a soccer game,” said England’s Marcus Rashford, who also plays for Manchester United. “We’ve all been playing soccer since we were kids, and we’ve played in different environments and under different conditions — some more difficult than others, some in terrible places. But it’s up to us to find a way to win and to work as a team.”
England expects to face an intense atmosphere, with the majority of more than 80,000 fans backing Mexico.
“It’s one of the great stadiums in soccer. Playing there is a blessing. Mexico is probably the favorite. They’re at home, playing on their home turf; it will be a big challenge for us, but we’ll be ready,” England’s Marc Guehi told the BBC.
The match also will pose a significant challenge for the Mexican team, which has not conceded a goal during the World Cup but will face an English side that excels in aerial play, with lethal scorers like Kane and Jude Bellingham. Mexico’s defensive performance has been credited to the direction of Rafa Márquez, a former Barcelona player who is one of Mexico’s assistant coaches.
“They’re high-caliber players who can make a difference at any moment, and we have to take advantage of playing at home and maintain our current level of play because no one has given us anything for free,” said veteran backup goalkeeper Guillermo Ochoa, another key voice supporting Mexico’s defensive effort.
Less than 72 hours before the game, FIFA explored moving the evening kickoff to noon local time — a change that would have completely disrupted the sporting, logistical and emotional planning of both teams.
FIFA first weighed the unprecedented change reportedly because of the threat of thunderstorms. The Athletic and media outlets covering both teams later reported security concerns after the death of four Mexico fans during round-of-32 postgame celebrations triggered the potential change, but both team pushed back, and Mexico’s security officials assured FIFA they could keep fans safe. FIFA relented and did not change the start time.
Mexico’s Álvaro Fidalgo celebrates after scoring against Czechia during a World Cup match at Azteca Stadium on June 24.
(Silvia Izquierdo / Ap Photo/silvia Izquierdo)
“No one wants a celebration — such an important moment, a once-in-a-lifetime moment — to turn into a sad occasion because of certain things. We don’t want anyone to lose a loved one,” Mexico midfielder Álvaro Fidalgo said.
Contrary to what many experts expected, Mexico has breezed through the group stage and the second round at home. Coach Javier Aguirre has eased some of the pressure on himself by leading the team to its fifth World Cup match — a feat Mexico had not achieved in eight consecutive World Cups. Two of those failed attempts came under Aguirre’s leadership: in 2002, when Mexico lost to the United States, and in 2010, when it lost to Argentina — both in the round of 16.
“We’ll try to keep this momentum going at home,” Aguirre said. “We’ll try to play a complete game.”
With the support of its fans and a sense of hope that grows with every game, the Mexican team will seek to match its best performances from 1986 and 1970 — World Cups it hosted, though with fewer participating teams.
Mexico’s Raúl Jiménez celebrates after scoring against South Africa during a World Cup match at Azteca Stadium on June 11.
(Carl Recine / Getty Images)
“We have to let them know that we’re just as good,” said Raúl Jiménez, Mexico’s leading scorer. “That we can compete on equal terms, we can play a good game, and we have the support of the fans. It doesn’t matter which goalkeeper is in front of us — if we put it in the corner, no goalkeeper can stop it.”
Advancing past England would mark the first time Mexico defeated a past champion in a knockout round, and it also would be the first time the team strung together two knockout-round victories in a World Cup, after beating Ecuador in the round of 32.
Mexico defeated past champions France and Germany in 2010 and 2018, respectively, but those wins came in the group stage.
“It’s a match everyone always dreams of. Being in the round of 16 at the Azteca — not just saying it, but even thinking about it — is incredible,” Fidalgo said. “We have to rise to the occasion.”
U.S. President Donald Trump has said he is exploring ways to ensure Americans benefit directly from the rapid growth of artificial intelligence, raising the possibility of the government acquiring stakes in leading AI companies. The idea comes as firms such as OpenAI and Anthropic pursue valuations that could make them among the most valuable companies in the world, fueling debate over whether the public should share in the wealth generated by AI technologies.
The AI boom is expected to create enormous wealth for technology companies, investors and founders. Policymakers and advocates argue that because AI development relies heavily on public infrastructure, government research and vast amounts of publicly generated data, ordinary citizens should receive some of the financial benefits.
The debate has intensified as major AI developers seek billions of dollars to build data centers, chip infrastructure and advanced computing systems.
One proposal would require AI companies to pay part of their taxes in shares rather than cash.
Under this approach, the government would gradually accumulate ownership stakes in AI firms without directly investing taxpayer money. Supporters argue that it would allow the public to benefit from future growth while avoiding large government expenditures.
Some advocates have gone further, proposing substantial government ownership stakes and board representation to give the public a direct voice in how AI companies operate.
Another model would involve the government receiving equity stakes in return for financial assistance or incentives.
This approach mirrors previous arrangements in strategic industries where federal funding was provided in exchange for ownership interests. Given the enormous capital requirements of AI infrastructure, government funding could potentially become a source of financing for companies building advanced computing facilities, semiconductor plants and other critical projects.
Supporters argue this would allow taxpayers to benefit if publicly supported companies become highly profitable.
Critics contend that such arrangements could blur the line between regulation and investment, potentially creating conflicts between public policy goals and financial interests.
A third proposal focuses less on government ownership and more on distributing AI-generated wealth directly to citizens.
Under this model, revenue generated through AI-related taxes or investments would flow into a public wealth fund, which would then distribute dividends to Americans.
The concept resembles Alaska’s Permanent Fund, which uses energy revenues to provide annual payments to residents. Advocates argue a similar system could ensure that AI-driven economic gains are shared more broadly across society rather than concentrated among a small number of technology firms and investors.
Some AI companies have expressed interest in versions of this idea, including proposals for digital dividends funded by taxes on the sector.
The debate carries major financial implications because leading AI developers are becoming increasingly valuable.
OpenAI and Anthropic have both reportedly taken steps toward potential public listings, while companies across the sector are raising unprecedented sums to fund AI expansion. Some analysts believe the industry could generate trillions of dollars in economic value over the coming decade.
As a result, even relatively small government stakes could potentially produce significant long-term returns.
Any effort to give the government ownership in AI companies would face significant legal, political and economic hurdles.
Questions remain over:
There is also likely to be strong opposition from free-market advocates who argue that government ownership could discourage innovation and distort competition.
Trump has not outlined a specific mechanism for acquiring stakes in AI companies, and no formal proposal has been introduced.
However, the discussion highlights a growing debate over who should benefit from the AI revolution and whether existing economic structures are sufficient to distribute the gains from one of the most transformative technologies in modern history.
The significance of Trump’s proposal lies less in whether the government ultimately acquires stakes in AI firms and more in what it signals about the future political debate surrounding artificial intelligence. As AI companies approach trillion-dollar valuations, pressure is likely to grow for policymakers to ensure that the economic gains extend beyond investors and technology executives.
The discussion mirrors earlier debates over natural resources, where governments sought ways to ensure that public assets generated public benefits. In this case, supporters argue that AI is built on public research, public infrastructure and publicly generated data, creating a rationale for broader wealth sharing.
At the same time, the proposal raises fundamental questions about the relationship between government and the private sector. Direct ownership stakes could provide taxpayers with financial upside, but they could also create tensions between the government’s role as regulator and its role as investor.
The debate is likely to become more prominent as AI companies grow larger, seek additional funding and exert greater influence over economic growth, employment and national competitiveness. Whether through equity ownership, taxation or public wealth funds, the central political question is increasingly becoming not whether AI will generate enormous wealth, but who will ultimately receive it.
With information from Reuters.
Published on
The German government announced on Monday that it intends to acquire 40% of the defence contractor KNDS, a move designed to bolster European arms production in partnership with its NATO and EU ally France.
The decision deepens state involvement in a company whose hardware has become central to Europe’s rearmament efforts.
KNDS was created in 2015 through the merger of Germany’s Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and France’s Nexter. The French state holds a 50% stake, while the other half belongs to the German family behind Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, whose planned exit has opened the door for Berlin to step in.
Based in Amsterdam, the group reported revenue of €4.4 billion last year and employs more than 11,000 people.
The timing reflects a broader scramble across Europe to expand military spending and manufacturing capacity, as governments weigh the continued threat from Russia’s war in Ukraine against growing doubts about the reliability of the US as a security guarantor.
Berlin framed the investment in explicitly strategic terms, saying it would secure lasting influence over a business it considers vital to European security and defence.
The German government added that the stake would reinforce domestic industrial output, technological independence and the safeguarding of key national security interests and technologies.
In a joint statement, Germany and France said they had agreed on the future strategy and governance of KNDS, which they intend to co-own through arrangements aimed at giving both countries equal shareholdings.
Neither government specified a timeline or the final level at which their holdings would settle, but they stated the agreement opens the way for a possible flotation of KNDS in the near future.
According to people familiar with the matter cited by the Associated Press, the two states plan to trim their stakes to around 30% within two to three years of any listing, while retaining equal voting rights regardless of the size of each holding.
The two governments cast the deal as a joint commitment to building up Europe’s defence industry and armed forces, and to securing the continent’s strategic independence well into the future.
State participation in the firm was first floated by German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius in 2025 as a way to protect strategic expertise and jobs.
Beyond its tanks, KNDS also manufactures the Puma infantry fighting vehicle and the Boxer and Dingo armoured personnel carriers, equipment which is in growing demand as European armies replenish stocks depleted by years of underinvestment and donations to Ukraine’s defence.
Additional sources • AP
grandriver/E+ via Getty Images
Comstock Resources (CRK) said Monday it sold a 27% equity interest in its Pinnacle Gas Services midstream subsidiary to investment firm Sixth Street for $600M, valuing Pinnacle at a $2.2B enterprise value.
Comstock (CRK) said it retained a 73% controlling
Ethiopia’s governing party is seeking to cement its grip on power amid a fragmented electorate.
Millions of Ethiopians are heading to the polls for general elections on June 1.
The governing party of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, who has consolidated power since he took office in 2018, says it is confident of victory.
list of 3 itemsend of list
Abiy’s government has faced years of turmoil and conflict. Despite that, it is portraying the vote as the next step on the path towards what it calls genuine democracy.
Critics and the opposition, however, argue that is unlikely because of Ethiopia’s ethnic and regional divisions. Some opposition parties have been excluded and violence is preventing voting in dozens of constituencies.
So, will the vote hold any significance?
Presenter: Mohammed Jamjoom
Guests:
Samuel Getachew – Journalist and commentator specialising in Ethiopian politics and security
Martin Plaut – Senior research fellow at King’s College London
Bizuneh Yimenu – Lecturer in comparative politics at Queen’s University Belfast who specialises in federalism.
Published On 31 May 202631 May 2026
Share
