The central bank poured cold water on the claim that stablecoin can make cross-border remittances cheaper.
A new study from Italy’s central bank challenges one of the crypto industry’s biggest selling points: that stablecoins can make cross-border remittances cheaper and faster than traditional payment networks.
Banca d’Italia’s research examined remittance corridors involving Italy, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, the United Arab Emirates, and Japan, comparing USDC transfers against established money transfer services. Its conclusion was sobering.
Stablecoin transfers showed no systematic cost advantage, with total costs ranging between 0.3% and nearly 9%, meaning digital-dollar transfers were sometimes more expensive than conventional remittance providers.
Payment industry veterans addressed the findings, highlighting a critical distinction often overlooked in discussions about digital money: the difference between low-cost blockchain settlement and the expensive legacy networks surrounding it.
Size Matters in Remittance Costs
“The [central bank’s] test was fundamentally flawed,” said Daniela Sozzi, founder of London-based fintech strategy firm DNYC.
Why? Because of the relatively small transaction size used by the study’s authors ($200). In an email to Global Finance, Sozzi explained that the use of stablecoins is economically advantageous only for sums of at least $100,000. These are still relatively small compared to “traditional” wholesale transactions using traditional correspondent banking services, such as $1 million and above, she pointed out.
“So, stablecoins are cheaper for certain types of transactions, not universally cheaper,” said Sozzi.
But that $200 threshold isn’t arbitrary — it’s the standard transaction size the World Bank uses to benchmark its Remittance Prices Worldwide index, which put the global average cost of sending money through traditional channels at 6.36% in the third quarter of 2025.
The index of major international money-transfer operators, such as Western Union, came in at 5.52% — squarely inside the 0.3% to 9% range the Italian central bank found for stablecoins, underscoring Sozzi’s point that at this size, the two systems are comparable.
Still, Banca d’Italia’s findings track with a broader body of research on stablecoin remittances. A BIS paper published in March scrutinized how cross-border payments, “particularly remittances and retail transactions, remain more costly, slower, less accessible, and less transparent than domestic payments.”
Where Are Costs Coming From?
Rather than viewing the report as a rejection of digital money, payment industry experts say the findings point to a broader structural issue: while settlement on the blockchain is fast and cheap, moving money into and out of legacy networks remains costly.
These expensive friction points stem from legacy bank networks, explained Alexander Taskey, CEO of global settlements platform Frame.
“Much of the cost around stablecoins comes from on- and off-ramping, since that requires moving in and out of legacy payments infrastructure,” Taskey wrote in an email to Global Finance.
London-based Frame operates as a programmable settlement layer, enabling financial institutions to orchestrate and route funds across both legacy banking rails and on-chain networks.
“Once funds are on blockchain rails, the cost of transacting collapses to near zero,” Taskey added.
‘Blockchain Cost Isn’t the Issue’
Pankaj Bengani, founder and CEO of payments infrastructure company Meld, said that the friction lies at the edges. “The cost on the blockchain is not the issue. Once the fiat — whether it’s euro or U.S. dollar — is on the blockchain, the costs are very, very low. All the cost is baked into the on- and off-ramps.”
Because of this, both executives agree that judging stablecoins solely on current consumer remittance pricing misses the broader trajectory of payment rails.
Bengani likens today’s stablecoin ecosystem to the early days of global container shipping, where efficiency gains only materialized after shipping ports and logistics networks matured. Similarly, Frame’s Taskey said that end-user priorities will ultimately drive how these backend systems evolve.
“Ultimately, customers don’t care which rails are being used,” Taskey added. “They simply want payments that are cheaper, faster, and more secure.”
While consumer remittances in developed corridors like Europe and the U.S. remain highly optimized via traditional rails, stablecoins are finding immediate traction where traditional systems fall short — such as high-fee corridors or markets with volatile local currencies where businesses and consumers prefer holding USD balances.
The Future Is Hybrid
Looking five years ahead, industry leaders see stablecoins operating not as a total replacement for traditional banking, but as one part of a larger, hybrid settlement architecture.
“Five years from now, I expect stablecoins to coexist alongside legacy fiat rails as one option among many,” said Taskey. “The challenge for banks will be tying it all together and consolidating fragmentation into a single, interoperable platform.”
For now, the Banca d’Italia’s findings serve as a reminder that while blockchain technology offers near-frictionless settlement, the global financial infrastructure built around it still has significant ground to cover.
Anthony Noto covers corporate finance and private credit. Contact him at anoto@gfmag.com.
Russell falls in the Mount Field National Park southern Tasmania, Australia
Brits are ditching holiday destinations they’ve returned to for years in search of ‘more meaningful’ trips, a study has found. Research from Tourism Tasmania found nearly two-thirds would no longer consider visiting a destination they once visited regularly.
More than a third say they want to discover new places, while one in five believe their old favourite has become too touristy, overly commercialised or overcrowded. Tourism Tasmania says the findings point to a broader shift in British travellers seeking more meaningful holidays, with a growing desire for deeper connections to people and places.
Almost all of the respondents say it’s important that their next holiday offers a ‘genuine connection to a destination, rather than an overly touristy experience’. Immersing in local culture, trying regional food and drink, discovering history and seeking new adventures now rank among travellers’ highest priorities.
Three-quarters hope to visit a bucket-list destination and more than two-thirds are actively searching for somewhere lesser known and off the beaten track.. Tourism Tasmania says interest in Tasmania continues to grow among Brits, with two-thirds of respondents to their research saying they would consider visiting in future.
Nearly halfare drawn to the island’s natural landscapes, while half say unique nature and wildlife experiences help them feel more connected to a destination.
Gordon Ramsay and Nigella Lawson were even recently announced as the international headliners for Tasmania’s Tamar Valley Writers Festival, held in Launceston – a UNESCO City of Gastronomy.
CEO of Tourism Tasmania, Sarah Kingston Clark, said: “While British travellers still want holidays that give them a chance to rest and recharge, this research suggests they’re increasingly looking for experiences that leave a lasting and more meaningful impression.
“We’re seeing a real shift in the UK and globally in what people want from travel. Holidays are becoming less about ticking another destination off a list and more about slowing down, connecting with a place and coming home feeling like you’ve genuinely experienced it.
“People are looking for holidays that feel authentic and meaningful, whether that’s spending time with the locals, immersing themselves in culture, discovering distinctive food and drink and experiencing the real character of a destination beyond its best-known attractions and bucket-list sights.
Breast cancer is a leading cause of death in women under 50 in the UK.
About one in seven women develop breast cancer in their lifetime, yet only 5-10% of cases are linked to inherited genes.
Most cases – 96% – are in women over 40, while 25% are in women over 75.
Men can get breast cancer too, with about 420 new cases every year in the UK.
In England, guidance from Nice recommends GPs ask about family history if a woman is worried that she might have a higher risk of breast cancer, and sometimes if they are over 35 and using an oral contraceptive pill or considering taking hormone replacement therapy (HRT).
Hormones have been linked to a slightly increased risk of breast cancer, although larger risk factors include alcohol intake and obesity.
The study, by a team from Cambridge University and the Institute of Cancer Research, looks at how to predict breast cancer risk in younger women.
They used a risk calculator called Boadicea that combines factors such as family history, lifestyle, reproductive history and genetic information to give a risk score.
If all women under 50 were to have this done, they estimate about a quarter (26.5%) would be categorised as at above-average risk and referred for further assessment.
This would include a third of women under 50 (34.8%) who develop breast cancer within 10 years.
By comparison, the current Nice criteria would result in 1.4% of women under 50 being referred for further assessment, which would include just 4.4% of those women who develop breast cancer.
A main reason for the disparity, the researchers say, is because three-quarters of women (73%) under 50 who develop breast cancer within a decade have no family history of breast cancer – the key criterion in the Nice guidelines.
A new study by Australia’s internet regulator has revealed that more than eight in 10 young Australian teens and preteens are continuing to use social media platforms despite the government’s prohibition for children under 16.
The ban came into effect in December last year.
Here is what we know about how it’s going.
What did the latest report find?
Australia’s internet regulator, eSafety, said it had found that more than eight in 10 Australian under-16s are continuing to use social media despite being banned from doing so.
The report also found that most of those children aged 10 to 15 were using social media just as frequently in March as they had been before the ban came into force on December 10 last year.
“Most under-16s who had social media accounts before commencement were able to either retain them or create new ones at the three-month mark, with social media platforms’ failure to implement effective age assurance measures cited as the main reason,” eSafety said in a statement.
About half the children who retained their accounts said platforms had not checked their age, the most common reason they were able to stay on the services. Others said that their accounts listed them as aged 16 or older or that age-checking systems had incorrectly determined they were older.
Prior to the ban, nearly 86 percent of children surveyed reported using at least one age-restricted platform. Three months later, that figure remained above 81 percent, the eSafety report said.
Around 58 percent of teenagers reported using social media daily, the report found. Before the ban, the number was roughly 60 percent.
The report showed minimal change in “sports and physical activity, arts and music, spending time with friends and family, and attendance at community events”.
At the time the new rule was introduced, experts warned that enforcing it would be extremely difficult.
Joanna Orlando, a researcher in digital wellbeing and the author of Generation Connected: How to Parent in a Digital World, told Al Jazeera in December last year: “Tech-savvy teens simply use VPNs, fake birth photos for face scans, or migrate to less regulated platforms like Lemon8, or to platforms not part of the ban like video games. Enforcement is proving to be difficult in the days leading up to the ban.”
In December 2025, Australia prohibited children under 16 from using social media platforms, becoming the world’s first country to do so. Video game platforms are not included in the ban.
The government said this was prompted by increasing concerns about the effects of cyberbullying, sexual exploitation and self-harm content on the mental and physical health of children and young people.
Research commissioned by the Australian government in 2023 found four out of five children aged eight to 16 use social media, often beginning between the ages of 10 and 12. That report was led by former National Australia Bank CEO Andrew Thorburn, who recommended age restrictions.
Under the law, 10 of the biggest social media platforms face $33m in fines if they fail to take “reasonable steps” to block Australian-based users younger than 16. Such steps include using age-verification tools to determine how old users are.
As of January 16, social media companies had revoked access to about 4.7 million accounts identified as belonging to children in Australia, according to officials.
“We stared down everybody who said it couldn’t be done, some of the most powerful and rich companies in the world and their supporters,” Australian Communications Minister Anika Wells told reporters in January.
However, several months later, it now appears that youngsters have been able to open new accounts with relative ease.
Days after Australia’s ban took effect, Reddit, one of the 10 platforms required to block minors, lodged a challenge to the ban in the High Court, while still complying with it. The case is still ongoing.
How has the Australian government responded to the latest findings?
On Saturday, Andrew Leigh, Australia’s assistant minister for productivity, competition, charities and treasury, defended the new law, arguing that the social media ban has already reshaped the “national debate” about the use of social media by children.
The ban has been “an important game changer in the conversation among parents”, Leigh said in televised remarks.
“We’ve had millions of accounts shut down,” he said.
“We never expected that this would have 100 percent compliance. We don’t get 100 percent compliance out of minimum drinking age laws, but it’s still appropriate that we have that law on the books.”
While social media has long provided easy access to unregulated and often harmful content, misinformation and hate speech, the recent explosion of AI‑generated material poses new risks to the wellbeing of children and young people, experts say.
The American Psychological Association published an advisory last year warning that generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems can amplify harmful content such as violent or sexual videos.
It also added that adolescents are less likely than adults to question the accuracy of AI-generated content. “They may also be unaware of the persuasive intent underlying an AI system’s advice or bias,” the advisory stated.
AI can also amplify pre-existing societal prejudices, according to Ayo Tometi, co-creator of the US-based antiracist movement Black Lives Matter.
Children worldwide are also worried about the misuse of AI for online child sexual exploitation and “deepfakes”, according to research by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) on children’s perspectives and AI, which it published in October 2025.
Following the introduction of Australia’s landmark law, some other countries are contemplating similar bans.
In the United Kingdom, the government has announced that it also plans to introduce a ban on social media platforms such as TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram from spring 2027 onward.
Messaging platforms such as WhatsApp and Signal, educational tools, and e-commerce and music streaming will be excluded.
The government will announce the new regulations by the end of this year.
In November 2025, Denmark’s government said it also plans to prohibit social media platforms for children under 15, saying it had secured majority support in parliament. The ban is due to come into effect later this year.
Around the same time, Malaysia said it would ban social media accounts for people under 16 from this year.
In April, Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis formally announced plans to prohibit social media access for children under 15 from January 1, 2027, subject to parliamentary approval.
SACRAMENTO — California lawmakers rejected legislation that would have banned pesticides with so-called “forever” chemicals from use on California’s farms, a restriction strongly opposed by the state’s billion-dollar agriculture community.
Assembly Bill 1603 by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank) would have phased out the use of pesticides that contain perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS chemicals, a family of compounds that can be lasting and harmful to humans.
Representatives for agricultural groups argued at committee hearings last month that banning the chemicals was an overreach that would result in higher numbers of imports of food from other states and stifle innovation in developing new pesticides.
The latest version of the bill, which will be considered when the state legislature resumes its session next month, requires the state to list pesticides with PFAS in its public database.
“I’m disappointed,” Schultz said in an interview with the Times, adding that he intends to still push to phase out PFAS chemicals.
The bill marks the latest back-and-forth over PFAS, chemicals that are found in many different consumer, commercial and industrial products and are known as forever chemicals because some of their components don’t easily break down.
State regulators and environmental groups disagree on the definition of the chemicals, making it difficult to find a consensus on regulations or health risks.
Gov. Gavin Newsom last year vetoed a bill that would have prohibited the sale and distribution of popular consumer products, including cookware, dental floss and cleaning products, that contain PFAS chemicals.
The governor, in his veto message, cited affordability concerns. At the same time, the state has passed various laws intended to protect people from PFAS, including banning them in food packaging and firefighting foam.
Studies show that exposure to certain levels of PFAS may lead to decreased fertility and developmental delays in children and increase the risk of cancers, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, and the vast majority of PFAS chemicals have not been tested for human health effects.
The Environmental Working Group, or EWG, an advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., released a study in March that found that nearly 40% of California’s conventionally grown fruits and vegetables tested contained PFAS residues, including 90% of peaches and nectarines.
The EWG, one of the bill’s supporters, uses a broader criteria to define PFAS than the state and federal authorities.
A spokesperson for California’s Dept. of Pesticide Regulation, which oversees pesticide use, said the EWG report looked at detections of the PFAS, but the state “looks at how the detections compare to federal tolerance levels.”
At a June Senate committee hearing on Schultz’s bill, EWG’s chief science officer, David Andrews, said that PFAS pesticides “fall into a regulatory blind spot.” He also said regulators, including the state, have “been inadequate with respect to evaluating immune system harm or the cumulative impacts of these very small PFAS.”
A spokesperson for the Dept. of Pesticide Regulation declined to comment on Schultz’s bill.
Taylor Triffo, a representative for a coalition of California agricultural associations, said at a different Senate hearing in June that the bill’s original language to ban new PFAS chemicals “would deny California farmers access to [the] next generation of crop protection tools that are safer, more targeted, require lower use rates and help address emerging pests and diseases.”
Representatives for agriculture groups said at hearings last month that they don’t object to the state flagging PFAS chemicals in the state database.
Nearly half of the country’s vegetables and more than three-quarters of its fruits and nuts come from California, according to the state.
Sen. Anna Caballero (D-Merced), chair of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, called pesticide use a “balance” at the June hearing before voting for the amended version.
“Part of the challenge agriculture is facing right now is pest invasion from other countries where the critters have moved on plants and in soil and have come into the state,” she said. “We’ve got to do everything, I think, we can to maintain our agricultural production, because we produce products that are produced almost nowhere else in the country.”
Isabella Quinonez, assistant director of Public Affairs at the California Farm Bureau, said her group objected to the original bill because it would have restricted products based on their chemical class rather than on a pesticide’s scientific evaluation of risk.
“We’re confident in the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s rigorous, science-based regulatory process, which includes residue studies, groundwater monitoring, and ongoing reevaluations,” Quinonez said.
Schultz told The Times he hopes to work with the Dept. of Pesticide Regulation on oversight in the coming years. He rejected any premise that there is “absolutely nothing to worry about, nothing off [with PFAS], because that’s just inconsistent with the science.”
Times staff writer Susanne Rust contributed to this report.
Former players have backed ground-breaking new research into the impact of concussion in women’s rugby.
Repeated blows to the head have been found to affect women differently to men, with female athletes more susceptible to concussion and reporting longer recovery times.
Symptoms can also vary, with men more likely to experience amnesia, while a proportionately greater number of women report prolonged headaches, mental fatigue and difficulty concentrating.
But despite the findings, rugby’s concussion guidelines are still largely based solely on the men’s game – something ex-internationals say needs to change.
Cardiff University’s medical engineering team is now aiming to create the first head impact assessment protocol designed specifically for female athletes.
The study followed 30 players from the university’s women’s rugby team, using specialised mouthguards, cognitive tests and MRI imaging.
Researchers hope to gather enough data by the end of the year to determine whether new guidelines can be set.
“The female brain is different from the male brain and women’s rugby is different from male rugby, so if we were only to use the same safety threshold as we do for men, that would seem inconsistent with the evidence that we understand so far,” said lead researcher Peter Theobald.
A group claiming to represent California fire survivors began sending mailers and paying for social media ads this spring, calling on lawmakers to take action to reduce the rising cost of wildfires.
“Contact your legislator and tell them we need to fix our wildfire problem to make California more affordable,” said a mailer sent this month by the group called Wildfire Victims First.
“Stand with wildfire victims,” the group’s website states, urging people to join its cause.
The group was created with money from California’s three biggest for-profit electric utilities — Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric — which government investigators found ignited at least six of the state’s 20 most destructive wildfires.
The corporate campaign has angered wildfire survivors, including some of the thousands of families in Altadena who lost their homes in last year’s Eaton fire. The blaze, which killed 19 people, remains under investigation. Edison has said its century-old transmission line is the likely cause.
The utility-funded group is lobbying in Sacramento for proposals in a study that Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered to guide lawmakers in writing wildfire-related bills. The study largely ignored utilities’ responsibility for igniting fires.
Among its dozens of proposals is limiting amounts victims can get for pain and suffering, capping fees for attorneys representing survivors and requiring property insurers to bear more of the cost of utility-sparked fires.
”Each proposal would shift more of the cost of catastrophic fires away from the corporations responsible and onto survivors, policyholders, taxpayers, and the public,” wrote Joy Chen of Every Fire Survivor’s Network in a letter to Newsom this week.
Chen wrote that the industry-funded Wildfire Victims First campaign “created the appearance that wildfire survivors supported” the findings of the study. “We do not.”
The 15-page letter was signed by other organizations including Public Citizen, Consumer Watchdog and the National Day Laborer Organizing Network.
The coalition is urging Newsom and lawmakers to do more to hold utilities accountable for the fires they ignite, so they don’t happen again.
“The Eaton fire devastated Altadena, home to one of California’s most historic Black communities,” said Brandon Lamar, president of NAACP Pasadena, who signed the letter. “Now as survivors fight to rebuild, they should not be asked to bear the cost of protecting the corporations whose failures devastated their community.”
Edison told its shareholders in its annual report that it believes it acted as a “reasonable” utility operator before the fire. If state regulators agree it acted reasonably, Edison will be reimbursed for payments it makes to victims by a $21-billion wildfire fund, which Newsom created through legislation in 2019.
And if Eaton fire damages exceed the $21-billion fund, Edison’s customers will pay the rest through their electric rates under fine print embedded in last year’s Senate Bill 254 — amendments that Newsom and lawmakers added so late that the legislative session had to be extended.
State Sen. Sasha Renee Perez, a Democrat who represents Altadena, said she opposed any bill that would limit payments to victims for pain and suffering.
“I can’t think of a more offensive thing to propose when I have friends who lost family members in the fire,” she said.
Anthony Martinez, a spokesperson for Newsom, said the governor and lawmakers were talking about new legislation because the study “concluded that the current system is unsustainable and not working for fire survivors, utility customers or insurance policyholders.”
“It’s essential that we work to address the complex and interconnected challenges Californians face from the increasing risk of catastrophic wildfire,” Martinez said.
He didn’t disclose what specific measures the governor supports.
Nathan Click, who directs the corporate Wildfire Victims First campaign, said that the group launched after the study found that “payouts to financial middlemen — like trial attorneys, hedge funds and insurance companies — are often paid out before wildfire victims receive a single dollar.”
“Shockingly, trial attorneys can take up to 40% of wildfire victims’ settlement awards,” he said.
Click said the group was advocating for legislation that reduces wildfire risk, expands access to affordable property insurance and ensures quick compensation to victims.
The utility-paid campaign has been joined by electrical worker unions, a powerful force in Sacramento, as well as the California Building Industry Assn. and dozens of other groups.
The Eaton fire was the second most destructive wildfire in state history.
Pedro Pizarro, Edison International’s chief executive, said last year that a leading theory of the fire’s cause was that an idle transmission line in Eaton Canyon was briefly reenergized through a process called induction, sparking the fire. Induction happens when the magnetic field of a nearby live wire causes power to jump to inactive equipment.
Edison kept the idle transmission line in place despite not using it for 50 years. The state’s utilities had known about the risks of leaving unused equipment in place. In 2019, the Kincade fire in Sonoma County, which destroyed hundreds of homes, was ignited by an idle transmission line owned by PG&E.
Despite the billions of dollars in damages caused by the Eaton fire, Edison’s profits soared last year by more than 200% — from $1.3 billion in 2024 to $4.5 billion.
The company also paid its top executives more. Pizarro received $16.6 million in cash, stock and other compensation, up 20% from 2024.
“If the financial rewards for repeated catastrophic failure are record profits, record executive compensation, and record shareholder dividends,” Chen wrote in the letter to Newsom, “then catastrophic failure is exactly what this system will keep producing.”
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 Caracasin 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 diagnosis
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%.
The solution
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 responsibilities
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.
Diversity in last year’s streaming films followed the same downward trend as theatrical releases, a new study found, with the percentage of people of color directing, writing and leading films diminishing.
In past years, streaming was considered a more accessible outlet for early-career female or BIPOC filmmakers, which was reflected in data about gender and racial representation. According to Part 2 of UCLA’s 2026 Hollywood Diversity Report, which was released Wednesday and analyzed all of the original English-language films distributed on major streaming platforms in 2025, that trend reversed across every category studied.
The share of streaming films directed by women declined to just over 23%, the lowest it’s been since 2022, when the annual study began analyzing streaming and theatrical films separately. Among those female directors, an overwhelming majority (81%) were allotted budgets below $20 million, while more than a quarter of the films directed by white men exceeded $50 million.
Only about 31% of streaming films last year had BIPOC directors, down 10% since 2024, when the proportion more closely reflected U.S. demographics.
“This is an industry in flux — and in reverse, especially when it comes to diversification,” Darnell Hunt, UCLA’s executive vice chancellor and provost and the report’s co-founder, said in a statement.
“Unfortunately, as we’ve seen with theatrical films, we’re now seeing the impact of this current political climate in very meaningful and concrete ways,” he continued. “As budgets tighten, opportunities for filmmakers of underrepresented backgrounds are always the first to be squeezed out.”
Despite losing ground behind the scenes and in front of the camera, women and people of color continued to drive streaming viewership in 2025, the report found.
The year’s biggest streaming hit, “KPop Demon Hunters,” was also the most-watched original Netflix film of all time, and according to Neilsen ratings, it was most streamed by women in Latinx households, followed by women in Asian and Black households. The report acknowledged the film as a “bright spot” in a disappointing year for diversity.
Michael Tran, a sociologist who co-authored the report, noted that the film’s impact and earnings potential could have been even greater with a theatrical release.
“It was a missed opportunity for theaters,” Tran said. “We’ve tracked how diverse films tend to succeed at the box office, here and abroad. For ‘KPop Demon Hunters,’ we could have been talking about record-breaking box office receipts in addition to topping the ratings.”
When “KPop Demon Hunters” did briefly screen in theaters — for two days last August, with over 1,750 locations domestically and more than 1,150 sold-out screenings — it was the No. 1 movie that weekend, earning about $18 million in ticket sales (though Netflix does not report exact box office figures).
Data from the report also indicated that streaming films with at least somewhat diverse casts tended to outperform in terms of audience and social media engagement.
However, overall cast diversity in streaming films declined in 2025. For the first time since 2022, films with a majority-BIPOC cast did not represent the plurality of streaming titles. Most notably, the percentage of lead actors of color dropped from a high of 51% in 2024 to 36% in 2025.
Report authors called it an “industry-wide chilling effect” reminiscent of a similar decline in diversity among theatrical films in 2024. That said, streaming films continued to star BIPOC leads more often than their theatrical counterparts, the study found.
The overall number of streaming films also declined. While the annual UCLA report typically examines the top 100 original, English-language movies across streaming platforms, this time, there were only 89 for researchers to analyze.
In addition to studying race and gender demographics in the film industry, the report also examined on-camera representations of disability. According to the study, while adults with a disability make up at least 26% of the U.S. population, actors with a known disability represented 6.5% of total streaming movie actors, which is in line with the previous year.
According to the study’s authors, streamers hoping to compete in a fast-paced, globalized market should increase their diversity efforts in light of these results.
“Kids under 18 are already majority BIPOC. There’s no going back if a studio wants to be profitable and relevant to Gen Z and Gen Alpha,” said report co-founder and co-author Ana-Christina Ramón. “Severing all brand loyalty now will only make it more difficult to regain long-term subscribers in the future.”
Sokoto, Nigeria – Each time her curious seven-year-old child returned home from school with homework, 28-year-old Habiba Abubakar knew it was time to take him to her neighbour, whom the child called “aunt”, even though they were not related by blood, who had been his saviour every time he wanted to stand in front of his class and receive a standing ovation.
But that changed in 2021, when Abubakar enrolled herself in the Women Centre for Continuing Education (WCCE) in Sokoto State, northwest Nigeria.
“I’ve always felt ashamed when Muhammad told me that they’ve been given another assignment,” she told Al Jazeera.
This frustration, coupled with her enthusiasm for learning English, pushed her to return to the classroom 13 years after she left.
Now, the mother of four said she helps all the children with their assignments.
The interruption in Abibaker’s studies is not uncommon across northern Nigeria, especially in rural communities, where girls are more likely to drop out of school due to cultural practices, such as early marriage, or poverty, which forces parents to make gender-biased decisions by enrolling male children over females.
UNICEF reported that more than half of the girls in the region are not attending school.
Jennifer Agbaji, a social accountability professional and the executive director at Basileia Vulnerable Persons Rights Initiative (BVPRI), a Nigerian nonprofit dedicated to advancing the rights of women, girls, and other vulnerable populations through education and leadership development, viewed the initiative as a positive and necessary intervention.
Nonetheless, she said second-chance education should not be limited to classroom-based learning alone.
“If access to education depends solely on physical attendance, many women who face mobility, childcare, economic, health, or security challenges may still be excluded.”
How the system works
WCCE, commissioned by the then-military governor of Sokoto State, Navy Captain Abdul Rasheed Adisa Raji, was founded in 1997 to provide adult education and vocational skills to women in the state.
Since then, Nuraddeen Ladan Dogon Daji, a physics teacher, told Al Jazeera that the centre has trained many students, some of whom now practise professions, such as teaching and nursing, helping to address the country’s shortage of skilled professionals.
Unlike other public schools, where pupils spend six years, the centre designed a three-year curriculum for its primary section, from adult one to three.
In the secondary sections, students spend three years each in the junior and senior levels.
In their final years, they also sit for the mandatory Junior Leaving School Certificate of Education (JLSCE) and Senior School Certificate of Education (SSCE) examinations.
To help these students realise their dreams, the centre also offers free education, benefitting from the state government’s effort to reduce the number of out-of-school children.
This has helped students like Abubakar, who, following her divorce, relied heavily on her father’s support to stay in school.
“We used to pay 5,000 naira ($3.5) per term, but were later told to stop because the state government has given us a chance to study for free,” Abubakar told Al Jazeera from her home in the Kofar Atiku neighbourhood.
But free tuition does not eliminate all costs. Students still have to pay for transport, books, and other daily expenses.
The challenges
According to Agbaji, beyond poverty and early marriage, there are several structural barriers, including restrictive gender norms that prioritise domestic responsibilities over education.
She said many women lose confidence after years away from formal education, and in some communities, education is still viewed as an investment for boys rather than a lifelong right for women.
In her opinion, these norms often combine to make re-entry into education difficult, even when opportunities exist. In her journey to becoming a nurse, Fatima Attahir, who left school after primary school 12 years ago, found it necessary to go back to the classroom and start afresh.
To support herself while studying, she helps with her family’s trading activities when she is not in class.
She said that although some of her friends already saw the decision as time-consuming, she is not satisfied with the system’s duration.
“I wish the primary section was also up to six years,” she said.
“Because to become a nurse, I need to have a solid background in the core subjects.” Some of the students Al Jazeera spoke to said their greatest challenge is juggling academic activities with household responsibilities.
Before her divorce, Abubakar said she would wake up earlier than usual to prepare breakfast, clean the house, and get herself and her children ready for school.
“When I finally set my foot in class, I was already tired, and as the lectures went on, I would start slumbering because I hadn’t had enough sleep.” She said the pressure became worse when her youngest child frequently fell ill, sometimes forcing her to leave class before lectures ended.
After her divorce, transport costs became another obstacle. “Since I was no longer married, my parents were the ones paying for the transport fares, but when they couldn’t, I would not go to school because I couldn’t afford it myself,” she said.
Later, her father gave her 10,000 naira to start making and selling local snacks and small chops.
The small business now helps her cover transport costs and other school-related expenses. Abubakar still credits the neighbour who used to help her son with homework before she returned to school.
When transport costs became difficult to afford after her divorce, her parents stepped in when they could, while her father later provided the capital that helped her start a small business and continue her studies.
Her experience is not unique.
A classroom session at the Women’s Centre for Continuing Education in northern Nigeria [Abdulaziz Bagwai /Al Jazeera]
Another student, Hafsat Aliyu, said she leaves her two-year-old child with her in-laws whenever she attends classes to avoid disrupting lessons.
Her husband pays for books and other occasional school needs, while she sells local pastries during break time at the centre to earn money for daily transport and personal expenses.
During examination periods, she studies late into the night after completing household chores and putting her children to bed.
“My husband does his best, but I thought it was time for me to get a source of income, too,” she said.
“Now, I pay for my transport and a few other daily needs.”
However, the physics teacher, Dogon Daji, said that in his seven years of teaching at the centre, a recurring challenge among students is the pace of learning.
“I’ve taught young people, and the level of their understanding is quite different,” he said.
But he added that there are still outstanding students among them; one recently won this year’s Usmanu Danfodio Week, an annual quiz competition organised for secondary school students in the state.
On the other hand, the vocational section of the centre, which was designed to equip students with practical skills such as tailoring and soap-making, now offers only tailoring.
Students are required to provide tools, such as scissors, including those whose interests may lie in other trades.
The way forward
Agbaji acknowledged that for Nigeria to bridge the gender disparity in education, the country must adopt a lifelong learning framework that recognises education as a continuous right and opportunity.
UNICEF reports that more than half of girls in northern Nigeria are out of school, among the highest rates in the country [Abdulaziz Bagwai/Al Jazeera]
This requires increased investment in adult education, digital and remote learning platforms, community-based education, and flexible pathways for women who missed formal schooling, because the long-term consequences are significant.
She added that many women pursuing second-chance education continue to balance childcare, household responsibilities, and income-generating activities, often relying on family and community support networks to remain in school.
“Educational exclusion perpetuates poverty, limits economic opportunities, increases vulnerability to abuse and exploitation, and restricts women’s participation in governance and public service. It also affects future generations because children of educated mothers are generally more likely to enrol in and complete school,” Agbaji clarified.
In recent years, the security strategy and foreign policy of the United States have witnessed a fundamental transformation in their main principles, as demonstrated by the second US-Israeli war against Iran, which this author refers to as the “Second Iran War” to distinguish it from the first military confrontation between these three parties in the summer of 2025, known as the “Twelve-Day War.”
The leadership factor, represented by President Donald Trump, has become an unprecedentedly broad influence on the decision-making process related to US foreign policy and national security, whether concerning the declaration and conclusion of war, or even in peacetime, particularly regarding Washington’s relations with its traditional allies in Europe and the Middle East.
This analysis focuses on the case of the “Second Iran War” as a clear example of the increasing role of the US president’s personal characteristics in shaping strategic decisions related to this war and managing Washington’s relations with its partners in the Arabian Gulf region.
This analysis is divided into two main sections, as follows:
First, the traditional determinants of US security strategy and foreign policy.
Second, the Trump administration and the growing role of the president in foreign policy and national security.
Third, the Second Iran War as a model for the increasing influence of the leadership factor in the US decision-making process.
First, the traditional determinants of US security strategy and foreign policy:
There is a set of traditional constraints governing decision-making in the United States, both in domestic and foreign policy. These constraints stem intrinsically from the nature of the American political system, the constitutional and societal environment within which it operates, and the historical development of the nation some 250 years ago.
In summary, these constraints can be divided into the following:
1. Constitutional and historical constraints, including the federal constitution and the practical actions of foreign and security policy-making institutions over the past decades.
2. Institutional determinants, which consist of the roles exercised by the legislative, executive, and judicial branches as defined by the Constitution, including: Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate), and the federal departments and agencies concerned with U.S. foreign policy and national security (the Departments of State and Defense, the National Security Council, and the various intelligence agencies, most notably the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)).
3. Political determinants, foremost among them the role played by the President of the United States in decision-making—what political literature calls the “leadership factor”—which is determined, broadly or narrowly, by a range of considerations, including: the President’s political experience, personal characteristics and interests, and ideological orientations, convictions, and personal preferences.
Traditionally, American historical experience indicates that constitutional and institutional constraints have a dominant influence on foreign policy and national security decision-making, compared to the limited influence of the president’s personal characteristics and psychological environment.
This has resulted in a near-consistency in the general direction of US foreign policy and security strategy across successive administrations, regardless of the president’s party affiliation (Democrat or Republican) or personality traits.
Second, the Trump administration and the growing role of the president in foreign policy and national security:
Unlike previous administrations, Republican President Donald Trump, since his first presidential term (2016-2020), has expanded his role in the decision-making process related to US foreign policy and its security strategy abroad, to the point of bypassing the federal institutions responsible for making this policy and strategy, or at the very least marginalizing the role of these institutions and failing to coordinate with them in advance in an unprecedented manner.
Trump’s interference in this regard, and his violation of institutional limits during his second presidential term, which began in January 2025, has increased to the point of causing great embarrassment to those in charge of American foreign and security policy-making institutions on the one hand, and on the other hand, it has led to pushing towards taking decisions – or at best adopting a declared political discourse – that has caused great damage to the foreign relations of the United States and posed a threat to its strategic interests as a superpower, whether with its immediate geographical neighborhood in the Americas (Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, and Cuba), or with its traditional transatlantic allies (Europe and NATO), and finally with important partners in the Middle East region.
Without going into detail about the reasons for this excessive interference by President Trump in American foreign policy and security strategy, in our estimation, this is largely due to the psychological and personal characteristics of the Republican president, whose political discourse and vocabulary indicate that he considers himself the “savior” of the United States and personally qualified to restore it to its glory, which he expresses in his election slogan “Make America Great Again.”
Third, the Second Iran War as a model for the increasing influence of the leadership factor in the US decision-making process:
The events of the second Iran-Iraq War, which began on February 28, 2016, provide a clear example of the growing influence of leadership dynamics, at the expense of constitutional and institutional constraints, in shaping and implementing American foreign policy and security strategy decisions under the Trump administration.
This assertion is supported by two key indicators, as follows:
1. Washington’s Decisions to Launch the War and the Negotiations Related to Ending It:
A close examination of Washington’s decision to launch the war against Iran on the morning of Saturday, February 28, 2026, reveals that President Trump based this decision on his personal convictions regarding the reliability of the reports and information provided to him by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – with whom he has a friendly and politically harmonious relationship – concerning the threat posed by Tehran’s nuclear program and its ballistic missile capabilities to Israel, America, and the region. He believed that the opportunity was ripe to quickly eliminate the religious regime in Iran by launching a powerful and swift military strike that would lead to its downfall after instigating an internal uprising.
In contrast, Trump ignored warnings from US foreign policy, national security, and defense institutions about the risks and feasibility of a war against Iran from the perspective of vital US interests in the Middle East. The Republican president also disregarded the reservations of senior administration officials regarding this military strike, including Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Special Envoy for Middle East Peace Steve Wittkopf.
Further bolstering this claim are Trump’s attempts to deny that Israel pushed him into this war. He has asserted on more than one occasion that he made the decision himself, and even that he was the one who pushed Tel Aviv to engage in it. He has also emphasized on other occasions that the matter of negotiating and ending the war is solely his responsibility, and that Netanyahu is simply doing what he asks of him regarding the war with Iran.
According to the literature of political psychology and the principles of political communication, when politicians exaggerate their denial of something, or deny it without directly accusing them, it often confirms the accusation, not the other way around.
This claim is is further supported by reports in the US indicating that Trump sent the Israeli Prime Minister a draft memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran to end the war, as part of the US president’s consultations to reach a final decision on ending the conflict.
This means that Trump made his decision to wage war on Iran—and will most likely make his final decision regarding negotiations to end it—based on elements of his psychological environment and personality traits, and not on the factual data contained in the reports and recommendations of the foreign policy and national security agencies, which are based primarily on the strategic interests of the United States and its international and regional orientations.
2. The Harshness and Crudeness of US Presidential Rhetoric Towards Strategic Partners in the Arabian Gulf:
President Trump’s public political discourse since the start of the war has included statements characterized by an unprecedented level of harshness in American policy towards Washington’s strategic partners in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries.
For decades, the United States has maintained a balanced and rational approach to its relations with the Gulf states, a relationship cemented by strategic alliances and defense agreements since the 1991 Gulf War. This was true even during periods of open tension or simmering resentment between the US and some Gulf capitals.
In our estimation, this is explained by the fact that successive administrations and presidents in the White House have based their decisions, policies, and political discourse in general, and towards their allies and strategic partners in particular, on the constitutional and institutional parameters for drawing up and making Washington’s foreign policy and security strategy, especially in the vital geographical areas for national security and American strategic interests, as is the case with the Middle East region and at its heart the Arabian Gulf region.
However, in a departure from this approach and in an unprecedented move, the second Iran-Iraq War witnessed Trump’s political rhetoric, which included insults to some Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states and belittling of others. He even went so far as to issue explicit and public threats against one of the Gulf Arab states, the Sultanate of Oman, in a surprising, shocking, and unprecedented act.
On May 28, 2016, Trump threatened Oman, saying he would “blow it up” if it cooperated with Iran on joint management of the Strait of Hormuz. The US Treasury Department also threatened to impose sanctions on Muscat if it proceeded with an agreement with Tehran to manage the strait, which Iran had used as a weapon of economic pressure during the war.
Conclusion:
The leadership factor, represented by the president’s personal characteristics, psychological environment, and political beliefs, has become the pivotal and most important factor in shaping US foreign policy and national security decisions during the administration of President Donald Trump, including the decision to go to war. This has come at the expense of the diminishing influence of other objective determinants, most notably constitutional and institutional ones.
This was clearly evident in Trump’s behavior and political rhetoric during the Second Iran War. This unprecedented development is likely to continue during the remaining two years of the Republican president’s term, until 2028.
The second Iran war demonstrated that such actions would negatively impact Washington’s future relations with its allies and strategic partners, or at the very least, erode trust in it as a reliable and credible international partner.
Furthermore, it would severely damage the prevailing image of the United States, both in the eyes of American and international public opinion, as an international superpower governed by institutions rather than individuals.
WASHINGTON — President Trump on Friday gave his endorsement to a January study by the Department of Health and Human Services that calls for cutting the number of vaccines recommended for every American child.
An executive order from Trump directs federal agencies to align their policies behind the study, which recommended an overhaul long called for by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The study found that the United States recommends more childhood vaccines than many peer nations.
The Trump administration previously moved to narrow the number of recommended childhood vaccines in response to the report, but the move was blocked by a federal judge in Massachusetts. The administration is appealing the decision.
The study recommends vaccinating all children against 11 diseases. Several others would be recommended only for high-risk groups or when doctors recommend them in what’s called “shared decision-making.” That includes vaccines for flu, rotavirus, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, some forms of meningitis and RSV.
Trump’s order adds weight behind the study at a time when the administration had appeared to be trying to shift focus away from Kennedy’s more contentious vaccine policies and toward topics with more widespread support among medical professionals, such as healthful eating.
The order directs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to review the study and “take any appropriate steps” to update its vaccine recommendations. It says the CDC should “provide maximum flexibility to parents and doctors” and directs agencies to make sure all actions, regulations and funding are aligned with the study.
The order adds that any changes should ensure that Americans retain their current access to vaccines.
States, not the federal government, have the authority to require vaccinations for schoolchildren. While CDC requirements often influence those state regulations, some states have begun creating their own alliances to counter the Trump administration’s guidance on vaccines.
Trump directed the Department of Health and Human Services to carry out the study in December.
Kennedy is a longtime activist against vaccines and has sought ways to inject his skepticism about the shots into national guidance, running counter to the overwhelming consensus of medical experts. Last year, he announced the CDC would no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children and pregnant women, though public health experts said they saw no new data to justify the change.
Last June, he fired a 17-member CDC vaccine advisory committee and later installed several of his own replacements, including vaccine skeptics.
The January report found that vaccine recommendations for American children had increased in recent decades. It also highlighted countries where no vaccines are required to attend school.