United States

The United States Department of Justice has reportedly placed two federal prosecutors, Samuel White and Carlos Valdivia, on administrative leave after they referred to the participants in the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, as “a mob of rioters”.

Documents the two prosecutors had filed in advance of a Thursday sentencing hearing were also amended to remove references to the January 6 attack.

The new filings were made on Wednesday, the same day that the prosecutors received their notices and were locked out of their government devices.

Both were members of the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, according to sources who spoke to Reuters and The Associated Press, on condition of anonymity.

The punishment they faced was the latest instance of the administration of President Donald Trump taking action against federal prosecutors who participated in cases the Republican leader perceives as unfavourable.

Trump has long defended the participants in the January 6 attack, going so far as to pardon more than 1,500 rioters who had pending criminal charges or convictions during the first day of his second term.

Another 14 rioters had their sentences commuted. In a presidential statement, Trump called the prosecutions a “grave national injustice”.

The attack on the Capitol was prompted by Trump’s false claims that his defeat in the 2020 presidential election had been “rigged”. Spurred by the misinformation, thousands of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol on the day that lawmakers inside were certifying the Electoral College votes.

More than 100 police officers were hurt, and multiple deaths were attributed to the attack, including a protester who was shot while trying to enter the Speaker’s Lobby and a police officer who collapsed and suffered multiple strokes, potentially due to the stress of being assaulted.

Some officers were beaten with flag poles, fire extinguishers and hockey sticks.

The Justice Department has yet to comment on Wednesday’s suspensions of the two prosecutors.

The lawyers were previously scheduled to appear on Thursday in federal court for the sentencing of Taylor Taranto, a Navy veteran who was among those pardoned by Trump for participating in the January 6 attack.

During that clash, he was observed attempting to breach the Speaker’s Chamber, a restricted area. Taranto had been charged with four misdemeanours for those actions before Trump pardoned his charges.

In May, Taranto was convicted on unrelated charges, including illegally carrying two firearms, the unlawful possession of ammunition, and spreading false information and hoaxes.

Taranto had been arrested on June 29, 2023, near an address in Washington, DC, supposedly linked to former President Barack Obama, one of Trump’s political rivals.

Trump had posted the address on social media, and Taranto proceeded to drive to the area, livestreaming his progress, in an attempt to seek out “tunnels” to enter the residence.

Upon exiting his vehicle and entering a restricted area, he was confronted by Secret Service agents. He allegedly told them, “Gotta get the shot, stop at nothing to get the shot.”

There were reportedly more than 500 rounds of ammunition in his van.

A day earlier, Taranto had also recorded a “hoax” video claiming that a car bomb was headed to the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Taranto’s defence lawyers have described him as a “journalist” and “comedian”. But prosecutors have sought a sentence of more than two years in prison for Taranto.

That sentencing recommendation was kept in the revised documents submitted on Wednesday.

At Thursday’s hearing, US District Judge Carl Nichols praised the suspended prosecutors, White and Valdivia, saying they did a “commendable and excellent job” and displayed the “highest standards of professionalism” in the case.

Nichols ultimately sentenced Taranto to 21 months in prison. Since Taranto has already been in custody for 22 months, he will not serve any additional time.

Career prosecutors are assigned to criminal cases regardless of the presidential administration in power.

But the Trump White House has repeatedly sought to sideline, if not fire, those who prosecuted cases that run contrary to the Republican president’s interests.

In January, for instance, nearly two dozen employees of the US Attorney’s Office in Washington, DC, were fired, many with links to the January 6 prosecutions carried out under former President Joe Biden.

And in June, another three prosecutors involved in the January 6 cases were reportedly fired.

Advocates say new rules let Education Department to politically punish groups working on immigration, transgender care.

The United States Department of Education has finalised new rules that could bar nonprofits deemed to have undertaken work with a “substantial illegal purpose” from a special student loan forgiveness programme.

Those rules, finalised on Thursday, appear to single out certain organisations that do work in areas that President Donald Trump politically opposes, including immigration advocacy and transgender rights.

Under the new rules, set to take effect in July 2026, the education secretary has the power to exclude groups if they engage in activities like the “chemical castration” of children, using a politically charged term for gender-affirming healthcare, including puberty-delaying medication.

It also allows the education secretary to bar groups accused of supporting undocumented immigration or “terrorist” organisations.

The Trump administration has said its decisions “will not be made based on the political views or policy preferences of the organization”.

But advocates fear the move is the administration’s latest effort to target left-leaning and liberal organisations.

Trump has already threatened to crack down on several liberal nonprofits, which the White House has broadly accused of being part of “domestic terror networks”.

Thursday’s rules concern the Public Service Loan Forgiveness programme, created by an act of Congress in 2007.

In an effort to direct more graduates into public service jobs, the programme promises to cancel federal student loans for government employees and many nonprofit workers after they have made 10 years of payments.

Workers in the public sector, including teachers, medical professionals, firefighters, social service professionals and lawyers, are among those who can benefit.

In a statement, the Trump administration defended the updated rules, calling them a necessary bulwark to protect taxpayer funds.

The programme “was meant to support Americans who dedicate their careers to public service – not to subsidize organizations that violate the law, whether by harboring illegal immigrants or performing prohibited medical procedures that attempt to transition children away from their biological sex”, said Education Undersecretary Nicholas Kent.

Critics, however, have denounced the administration for using false claims of “terrorism” or criminal behaviour to silence opposing views and restrict civil liberties.

Michael Lukens, executive director of the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, said the new rules weaponised loan forgiveness.

Lukens explained that many of the lawyers, social workers and paralegals who work at his organisation handle cases to stop deportations and other immigration litigation.

They count on public service loan forgiveness to take jobs that pay significantly less than the private sector, he said.

“All of a sudden, that’s going away,” Lukens told The Associated Press news agency. “The younger generation, I hope, will be able to wait this out for the next couple of years to see if it gets better, but if it doesn’t, we’re going to see a lot of people leave the field to go and work in a for-profit space.”

Organisations have raised concerns over the education secretary’s broad power to determine if a group should be barred. Short of a legal finding, the secretary can decide based on a “preponderance of the evidence” whether an employer is in violation.

The National Council of Nonprofits was among the associations criticising the change.

It said the rules would allow future administrations from any political party to change eligibility rules “based on their own priorities or ideology”.

US states have relied on vaccine mandates since the 1800s, when a smallpox vaccine offered the first successful protection against a disease that had killed millions.

More than a century later, Florida’s top public health official said vaccine requirements are unethical and unnecessary for high vaccination rates.

“You can still have high vaccination numbers, just like the other countries who don’t do any mandates like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the [United Kingdom], most of Canada,” Florida Surgeon General Dr Joseph Ladapo said on October 16. “No mandates, really comparable vaccine uptake.”

It’s true that some countries without vaccine requirements have high vaccination rates, on a par with the United States. But experts say that fact alone does not make it a given that the US would follow the same pattern if it eliminates school vaccination requirements.

Florida state law currently requires students in public and private schools from daycare through 12th grade to have specific immunisations. Families can opt out for religious or medical reasons. About 11 percent of Florida kindergarteners are not immunised, recent data shows. With Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s backing, Ladapo is pushing to end the state’s school vaccine requirements.

The countries Ladapo cited – Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the UK and parts of Canada – don’t have broad vaccine requirements, research shows. Their governments recommend such protections, though, and their healthcare systems offer conveniently accessible vaccines, for example.

UNICEF, a United Nations agency which calls itself the “global go-to for data on children”, measures how well countries provide routine childhood immunisations by looking at infant access to the third dose in a DTaP vaccine series that protects against diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (whooping cough).

In 2024, UNICEF and the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that 94 percent of one-year-olds in the United States had received three doses of the DTaP vaccine. That’s compared with Canada at 92 percent, Denmark at 96 percent, Norway at 97 percent, Sweden at 96 percent and the UK at 92 percent.

Universal, government-provided healthcare and high trust in government likely influence those countries’ vaccine uptake, experts have said. In the US, many people can’t afford time off work or the cost of a doctor’s visit. There’s also less trust in the government. These factors could prevent the US from having similar participation rates should the government eliminate school vaccine mandates.

Universal healthcare, stronger government trust increase vaccination

Multiple studies have linked vaccine mandates and increased vaccination rates. Although these studies found associations between the two, the research does not prove that mandates alone cause increased vaccination rates. Association is not the same as causation.

Other factors that can affect vaccination rates often accompany mandates, including local efforts to improve vaccination access, increase documentation and combat vaccine hesitancy and refusal.

The countries Ladapo highlighted are high-income countries with policies that encourage vaccination and make vaccines accessible.

In Sweden, for example, where all vaccinations are voluntary, the vaccines included in national programmes are offered for free, according to the Public Health Agency of Sweden.

Preventive care is more accessible and routine for everyone in countries such as Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK with universal healthcare systems, said Dr Megan Berman of the University of Texas Medical Branch’s Sealy Institute for Vaccine Sciences.

“In the US, our healthcare system is more fragmented, and access to care can depend on insurance or cost,” she said.

More limited healthcare access, decreased institutional trust and anti-vaccine activists’ influence set the US apart from those other countries, experts said.

Some of these other countries’ cultural norms favour the collective welfare of others, which means people are more likely to get vaccinated to support the community, Berman said.

Anders Hviid, an epidemiologist at Statens Serum Institut in Copenhagen, told The Atlantic that it’s misguided to compare Denmark’s health situation with the US – in part because Danish citizens strongly trust the government to enact policies in the public interest.

By contrast, as of 2024, fewer than one in three people in the US over age 15 reported having confidence in the national government, according to data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, a group of advanced, industrialised nations. That’s the lowest percentage of any of the countries Ladapo mentioned.

“The effectiveness of recommendations depends on faith in the government and scientific body that is making the recommendations,” said Dr Richard Rupp, of the University of Texas Medical Branch’s Sealy Institute for Vaccine Sciences.

Without mandates, vaccine education would be even more important, experts say

Experts said they believe US vaccination rates would fall if states ended school vaccine mandates.

Maintaining high vaccination rates without mandates would require health officials to focus on other policies, interventions and messaging, said Samantha Vanderslott, the leader of the Oxford Vaccine Group’s Vaccines and Society Unit, which researches attitudes and behaviour towards vaccines.

That could be especially difficult given that the United States’s top health official, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, has a long history of anti-vaccine activism and scepticism about vaccines.

That makes the US an outlier, Vanderslott said.

“Governments tend to promote/support vaccination as a public health good,” she said. It is unusual for someone with Kennedy’s background to hold a position where he has the power to spread misinformation, encourage vaccine hesitancy and reduce mainstream vaccine research funding and access, Vanderslott said.

Most people decide to follow recommendations based on their beliefs about a vaccine’s benefits and their child’s vulnerability to disease, Rupp said. That means countries that educate the public about vaccines and illnesses will have better success with recommendations, he said.

Ultimately, experts said that just because something worked elsewhere doesn’t mean it will work in the United States.

Matt Hitchings, a biostatistics professor at the University of Florida’s College of Public Health and Health Professions, said a vaccine policy’s viability could differ from country to country. Vaccination rates are influenced by a host of factors.

“If I said that people in the UK drink more tea than in the US and have lower rates of certain cancers, would that be convincing evidence that drinking tea reduces cancer risk?” Hitchings said.

Google Translate was used throughout the research of this story to translate websites and statements into English.

Ben Rhodes, a former United States deputy national security adviser under President Barack Obama, famously called Washington’s foreign policy establishment “the Blob” to describe its entrenched ecosystem of think tanks, former officials, journalists and funders that perpetuate a narrow vision of power, global order and legitimate actors. This apparatus not only sustains conservative inertia but also defines the limits of what is considered possible in policy. In Sudan’s two-and-a-half-year conflict, these self-imposed boundaries are proving fatal.

A particularly insidious practice within the Blob is the invocation of moral and rhetorical equivalence, portraying the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the Sudanese armed forces (SAF) as comparable adversaries. This ostensibly balanced US stance, evident in establishment analyses and diplomatic statements, represents not an impartial default but a deliberate political construct. By equating a criminalised, externally backed militia with a national army tasked with state duties, it sanitises RSF atrocities, recasting them as mere wartime exigencies rather than orchestrated campaigns of ethnic cleansing, urban sieges and terror.

Reports from Human Rights Watch on ethnic cleansing in West Darfur, civilian killings, rape and unlawful detentions in Gezira and Khartoum and United Nations fact-finding missions confirm the RSF’s deliberate targeting of civilians. Furthermore, a report by the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED) monitor from late 2024 attributed roughly 77 percent of violent incidents against civilians to the RSF, underscoring this asymmetry, yet the Blob’s discourse frequently obscures it.

This notion has dominated US and international discourse on Sudan’s war since its outbreak when the then-US ambassador to Khartoum, John Godfrey, tweeted in the first month of the war a condemnation of RSF sexual violence but vaguely attributed it to unspecified “armed actors”. By refraining from explicitly identifying the perpetrators despite extensive documentation of the RSF’s responsibility for systematic rapes, gang rapes and sexual slavery, his wording essentially dispersed accountability across the warring parties and contributed to a climate of institutional impunity. RSF militiamen carry out their atrocities with confidence, knowing that responsibility will be blurred and its burden scattered across the parties.

What drives this equivalence? The Blob’s institutions often prioritise access over veracity. Framing the conflict symmetrically safeguards diplomatic ties with regional allies, particularly the RSF’s patrons in the United Arab Emirates while projecting an aura of neutrality. However, neutrality amid asymmetric criminality is not objectivity; it is tacit complicity. Elevating an internationally enabled militia to parity with a sovereign military confers undue legitimacy on the RSF, whose methods – including the besieging and starving of cities such as el-Fasher, the systematic use of rape and sexual violence as a weapon of war, the deployment of drones against mosques and markets, and acts of genocide – are demonstrably systematic, as corroborated by investigative journalism and human rights documentation. To subsume these under “actions by both parties” distorts empirical reality and erodes mechanisms for accountability.

Compounding this is the Blob’s uncritical assimilation of RSF propaganda into its interpretive frameworks. The RSF has strategically positioned itself as a vanguard against “Islamists”, a veneer that conceals its historical criminal nature, patronage networks, illicit resource extraction and foreign sponsorship.

In a similar vein, the RSF has publicly expressed sympathy and strong support for Israel, even offering to resettle displaced Palestinians from Gaza in a bid to align with US interests. This discourse serves as an overture to the Blob, leveraging shared geopolitical priorities to portray the RSF as a pragmatic partner in regional stability.

Certain establishment pundits and diplomats have echoed this narrative, casting the RSF as a viable bulwark against an “Islamist resurgence”, thereby endowing a force implicated in war crimes with strategic and ethical credibility. When the Blob internalises this “anti-Islamist” trope as analytical shorthand, it legitimises an insurgent militia’s rationalisations as geopolitical truths, marginalising the reality of the war and the Sudanese who repudiate militarised binaries and sectarian lenses.

Contrast this with the recurrent accusations of external backing for the SAF from an ideologically disparate coalition, including Egypt, Turkiye, Saudi Arabia and Iran. These claims, often amplified in mainstream media narratives and aligning with RSF discourse, expose profound inconsistencies: Egypt’s secular anti-Islamist state, Turkiye’s Islamist-leaning government, Saudi Arabia’s Sunni Wahhabi monarchy and Iran’s Shia theocracy embody clashing regional rivalries, evident in proxy wars from Yemen to Libya, rendering their purported unified support for the SAF implausible unless opportunistic pragmatism overrides ideology.

Moreover, the evidentiary threshold falls short of the robust, independent documentation implicating the UAE in RSF operations, relying instead on partisan assertions and circumstantial reports that appear designed to muddy asymmetries. Critically, any verified SAF assistance typically involves conventional arms transactions with Sudan’s internationally recognised government in Port Sudan, a sovereign authority, as opposed to the unchecked provisioning extended to the RSF, a nonstate actor formally designated by the US as genocidal. This fundamental distinction highlights the Blob’s contrived equivalence, conflating legitimate state-to-state engagements with the illicit empowerment of atrocity perpetrators.

Even more corrosive is the Blob’s propensity to credential “pseudo-civilian” entities aligned with the RSF and its external sponsors, particularly those bolstered by UAE influence, such as Somoud, led by former Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, who also chairs the Emirati business-promotion organisation, the Centre for Africa’s Development and Investment (CADI). These networks are often presented in Blob forums as “civilian stakeholders” or “pragmatic moderates”, sidelining authentic grassroots entities inside Sudan.

This curation of externally amenable proxies transforms mediation into theatre, channelling international validation towards RSF-aligned gains and ignoring Sudanese agency rather than supporting any real civic architects of Sudan’s democratic aspirations. Documented UAE-RSF logistical and political linkages alongside Gulf-orchestrated narrative amplification should serve as a warning against endorsing such fabricated authority.

These lapses are not merely intellectual; they yield tangible harms. Legitimising the RSF through equivalence or narrative cooption dilutes legal and political tools for redress, confining policy options to performative ceasefires and superficial stability blueprints that preserve war economies and armament flows. It defers genuine deterrence, such as targeted interdictions, robust arms embargoes and the exposure of enablers until atrocities become irreversible.

The repercussions do not end there. They deepen, fuelling the militia’s authoritarian ambitions in alliance with its civilian partners. Drawing on this contrived equivalence, they have recently declared Ta’asis, parallel governing structures in western Sudan, claiming a layer of legitimacy while, at least rhetorically, brandishing the threat of partition despite the clear international consensus against recognising such authority.

To counter the Blob’s pathologies, a paradigm shift is imperative. Analysts and policymakers must abjure false symmetry, distinguishing symmetric warfare from asymmetric atrocity campaigns. Where evidence is found of systematic rights abuses, international rhetoric and actions should reflect this imbalance through targeted sanctions and disruptions while avoiding generic “both-sides” statements.

They must also repudiate RSF narratives. The “anti-Islamist” rhetoric is partisan sloganeering, not objective analysis. US engagement should centre on civilian protection, privileging authentic civil society testimonies over manufactured proxies. The question of who governs Sudan is, first and foremost, the prerogative of the Sudanese people themselves, who in April 2019 demonstrated their sovereign agency by toppling Omar al-Bashir’s Islamist regime without soliciting or relying on external assistance.

Equally important is to withhold recognition from contrived civilians. Mediation roles should hinge on verifiable grassroots mandates. Entities tethered to foreign patrons or militias merit no elevation as Sudan’s representatives.

Finally, policymakers must dismantle enablers. Rhetorical and legal measures must be matched by enforcement through transparent embargo oversight, flight interdictions and sanctions on supply chains. Justice without implementation offers only solace to victims.

Should the Blob prove intransigent, alternative forces must intervene. Sudanese civic coalitions, diaspora advocates, independent media and ethical policy networks can amass evidence and exert pressure to compel a recalibration of global approaches. A diplomacy that cloaks complicity in neutrality perpetuates atrocity machinery. Only one anchored in Sudanese agency, empirical truth and unyielding accountability can forge a viable peace.

Sudanese seek no sympathy, only a recalibration among the influential: Cease equating aggressors with guardians, amplifying perpetrator propaganda and supplanting vibrant civic realities with orchestrated facades. Until Washington’s elite perceives Sudanese not as geopolitical subjects but as rights-bearing citizens demanding justice, its epistemic maze will continue to license carnage over conciliation.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

The Los Angeles Lakers guard continues his hot start to the NBA season with a 12ft game-winner against Minnesota Timberwolves.

Austin Reaves has made a driving jump shot at the buzzer to lift the Los Angeles Lakers to a 116-115 win over the Minnesota Timberwolves in Minneapolis.

Reaves finished Wednesday night with 28 points and 16 assists to lead Los Angeles, which won despite playing without injured stars LeBron James and Luka Doncic. Jake LaRavia finished with 27 points on 10-for-11 shooting, including 5-for-6 success from beyond the three-point arc.

Julius Randle amassed 33 points, five rebounds and six assists to lead Minnesota. Jaden McDaniels added 30 points on 11-for-19 shooting, going 3-for-4 from deep.

The Timberwolves led by one point as the Lakers lined up for an inbounds pass from just inside half-court with 6.6 seconds to go.

LaRavia fed the pass to Reaves, who dribbled for a moment as McDaniels defended him. Reaves weaved between McDaniels and Timberwolves big man Rudy Gobert to drive towards the paint and lifted for a jump shot from inside the free-throw line.

The shot fell as time expired, and Reaves’s teammates rushed to celebrate with him.

“To have that opportunity for a big road win, especially with a lot of people out, is special,” Reaves said, reflecting on his missed shot from the corner at the buzzer on the same court in the first-round NBA playoff series last spring that would have tied it only to watch the Wolves hold on and eliminate the Lakers in Game 5. “We kept hooping, and they kept encouraging me to go do what I do.”

Injury-hit Lakers hold on

The Timberwolves nearly staged an incredible comeback before Reaves rescued the Lakers. Minnesota trailed 114-106 with 2:30 remaining but went on a 9-0 run to seize a one-point lead.

Randle punctuated the run by making a go-ahead basket with 10.2 seconds left. McDaniels had a three-pointer and a dunk during the Timberwolves’ rally.

The Lakers led 62-58 at the half.

In addition to playing without James (sciatica) and Doncic (left finger sprain, lower left leg contusion), the Lakers also were missing Marcus Smart (right quad contusion), Gabe Vincent (left ankle sprain) and Maxi Kleber (abdominal muscle strain).

Los Angeles’s Jaxson Hayes returned after missing his previous three games because of a knee injury. Hayes finished with two points, two rebounds, three assists, one block and one steal in 13 minutes.

The Timberwolves remained without top scorer Anthony Edwards, who missed his second consecutive game because of tightness in his right hamstring. Edwards is expected to miss about two weeks because of the injury.

Timberwolves forward Jaylen Clark also remained out for his second game in a row because of a left calf strain. Clark was listed as questionable on the injury report before he was ruled out.

United States President Donald Trump expects “a lot of problems” will be solved between Washington and Beijing when he meets China’s President Xi Jinping in South Korea for a high-stakes meeting on Thursday, amid growing trade tensions between the two.

Relations between the two world powers have been strained in recent years, with Washington and Beijing imposing tit-for-tat trade tariffs topping 100 percent against each other this year, the US restricting its exports of semiconductors vital for artificial intelligence (AI) development and Beijing restricting exports of critical rare-earth metals which are vital for the defence industry and also the development of AI, among other issues.

Officials from Washington and Beijing have been locked in trade talks since August to de-escalate trade tensions, and they also came up with a framework for a trade deal during meetings in Malaysia over the weekend.

On the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Gyeongju, South Korea, on Wednesday, Trump said an expected trade deal between China and the US would be good for both countries and “something very exciting for everybody”.

But only a meeting between Trump and Xi can confirm if a trade deal is really in the making.

Expectations for the agreement are modest, with analysts expecting the two world powers to continue to clash over their myriad differences long-term.

When are the two leaders meeting?

Trump is scheduled to meet Xi on Thursday in the port city of Busan in southeastern South Korea. The meeting is expected to start at 11am local time (01:00 GMT).

It will be the first time the leaders have met in person since Trump returned to the White House in January.

The US president last met Xi in 2019, during Trump’s first term, on the sidelines of the Group of 20 (G20) summit in Osaka, Japan.

“I think we’re going to have a great meeting with President Xi of China, and a lot of problems are going to be solved,” Trump told journalists on Wednesday on Air Force One while en route to South Korea.

On Wednesday, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed the meeting between Xi and Trump in a statement and said the leaders “will exchange views on bilateral relations and issues of mutual interest”.

What will Trump and Xi talk about?

Discussions are likely to cover:

• Trade tariffs
• Trafficking of fentanyl, a drug responsible for tens of thousands of deaths in the US each year
• China’s export controls on critical rare-earth metals and its purchase of US soya beans
• US export controls on semiconductors
• Geopolitical and security issues, particularly Russia’s war in Ukraine and Washington’s position on Taiwan
• Port fees on Chinese ships docking in US ports
• Finalising a deal to buy TikTok, the social media platform, from its Chinese owners

Alejandro Reyes, adjunct professor at the Department of Politics and Public Administration at the University of Hong Kong, told Al Jazeera that at this meeting, both sides will want to steady an uneasy rivalry – but for different reasons.

“For Washington, the goal is to show that its tough line on China has delivered results. The Trump team is walking into this summit after signing trade pacts with Malaysia, Cambodia and Japan that link market access directly to national security cooperation. These deals require America’s partners to align with US export controls and supply-chain rules – essentially making ‘economic security’ a shared obligation,” he said.

“For Beijing, the priority is to project calm and endurance. The meeting comes just after the fourth plenum, which reaffirmed Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s authority and set the direction for the next five-year plan. China’s message is that it has weathered Western pressure and is back to focusing on growth and domestic stability,” he added.

But discussions on disputes over trade tariffs, critical rare-earth metals, AI technology and geopolitical strategies, the issues that most define the current relationship between the US and China, according to Reyes, are not going to be easy to resolve.

“The mistrust is structural now – it’s built into how both countries think about power and security,” he said.

What are the sticking points?

Fentanyl

A key issue for the Trump administration is stopping the illegal flow of drugs, particularly fentanyl – a powerful synthetic opiate which is 50 times more potent than heroin – from China to the US. In February, Trump slapped a 20 percent trade tariff on all imports from China, citing Beijing’s lack of effort in curbing the flow of the drug into the US.

In a media briefing note sent to Al Jazeera by the German Marshall Fund of the United States, Bonnie Glaser, managing director of GMF’s Indo-Pacific programme, said the fentanyl trade has been “a really contentious issue between the US and China”.

“From what I have heard, a criminal money-laundering cooperation supports the fentanyl trade, and this is where China is willing to cooperate, in a way where it will have minimum negative impact on their domestic situation,” she said at a briefing held in Washington, DC, on Tuesday.

Late on Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal reported that during Thursday’s meeting, “China is expected to commit to more controls on the export of so-called precursor chemicals used to make fentanyl.” The newspaper added that if this agreement is reached, Trump would reduce the tariffs imposed because of fentanyl by as much as 10 percent.

Trade tariffs

Following the fentanyl-related tariffs, in March, China imposed a 15 percent tariff on a range of US farm exports in retaliation, triggering a tit-for-tat tariff war.

In April, Trump raised tariffs on Chinese imports to 145 percent, prompting China to hit back with 125 percent tariffs of its own.

Washington and Beijing later cut tariffs to 30 percent and 10 percent, respectively, in May, and agreed to a 90-day truce in August for trade talks. The truce has been extended twice, but despite repeated talks, a trade agreement has not been reached.

Rare-earth metals and soya beans

China has restricted exports of 12 critical rare-earth metals this year, as well as of the machinery needed to refine these metals, citing security reasons. Beijing also said its restrictions were in response to US restrictions on the Chinese maritime, logistics and shipbuilding industries.

The first seven metals to be restricted were announced in April, while the remaining five were announced on October 10. These metals are crucial for the defence industry and for developing AI technology.

In October, Trump responded by threatening to impose 100 percent tariffs on China from November 1, citing Beijing’s strict export controls on critical rare earths as the reason for the tariffs.

Trump added that the US would also impose export controls on “any and all critical software”.

Reyes noted that while the US wants guaranteed access to rare earths and battery materials, it signed a new agreement with Japan and trade clauses with Malaysia this week, which aim to reduce the US dependence on China for these. “Beijing sees this as an effort to contain its influence,” he said.

Meanwhile, US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent told many US media outlets this week that he expected China to defer its restrictions on rare earths and that Trump’s 100 percent tariff threat was “effectively off the table”.

Bessent added that the Chinese side would agree to increase purchases of US-grown soya beans.

Dylan Loh, associate professor in public policy and global affairs at Nanyang Technological University, said he anticipates some positive movement on solving these trade disputes but does not believe the fundamental economic tension between the US and China will be resolved at the meeting.

“The competition and mistrust go beyond simply economics,” he told Al Jazeera. “But the problems can be managed and must be managed well. It requires political capital and the ability to move beyond zero-sum thinking.”

Technology and TikTok

In September, Trump signed an executive order to transfer TikTok’s US assets to US investors, citing national security reasons. On Sunday, Bessent told US broadcaster CBS that the US and China had “reached a final deal on TikTok”, which will be finalised at the Trump-Xi meeting.

But, Reyes said, “the deal cools one dispute but doesn’t end the fight over chips, AI and digital control”.

In October, Washington blacklisted hundreds of Chinese tech firms, claiming they posed a risk to national security. The US has also restricted companies such as Nvidia from exporting advanced chips, important to manufacture key equipment used for the development of AI, to China, claiming that Beijing would use it to advance its global power.

Beijing has been irked by Washington’s restrictions and has launched antitrust investigations into Nvidia and Qualcomm, and has also increased its export controls on rare-earth elements.

Speaking to reporters on board Air Force One en route to South Korea on Wednesday, Trump said he might speak to Xi about Nvidia chips.

“I think we may be talking about that with President Xi,” Trump said.

Geopolitical Issues

According to analysts, Trump is eager to use this meeting with Xi to discuss ways to end Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Beijing, a close ally of Moscow, has said a prolonged war in Ukraine “serves no one’s interest”. But, in July, according to a report by The South China Morning Post, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told the European Union that it can’t afford to have Russia lose the war in Ukraine since the US would then turn its attention to China.

Trump has threatened to slap sanctions and tariffs on countries that buy Moscow’s crude oil in efforts to end the war. It has already imposed an additional 25 percent tariff – bringing the total to 50 percent – on India as a punishment for purchasing Russian oil.

But the US has not yet taken this step with China, which imports about 1.4 million barrels of Russian oil per day by sea.

According to a Reuters report, however, after the US sanctioned two of Moscow’s largest oil companies, Rosneft and Lukoil, in October, Chinese national oil companies like PetroChina and Sinopec have said they will refrain from importing seaborne Russian oil for the short term.

“Trump wants a ceasefire and a peace deal in Ukraine. Putin has been unwilling to play ball, and Trump, I think, intends to raise this with Xi Jinping, possibly ask him if he can reach out to Putin and encourage him to come to the negotiating table,” Glaser said.

“We know so far, Xi Jinping has been very, very cautious about getting involved. I think he will be reluctant to pressure Putin to do,” she added.

Besides Ukraine, Beijing will be eager to discuss the US position on Taiwan, according to Glaser.

“Xi Jinping will raise concerns about what Beijing views as the pro-independence policies of Taiwan’s President Lai Ching-te, and I think he will want clarification of the US stance and may well press Trump to say that the US opposes Taiwan independence and supports China’s unification,” she said.

“The bottom line is that Trump is not likely to abandon Taiwan because doing so could lead to a PRC [People’s Republic of China] decision to use force, and Trump wants to take credit for ending wars, not starting them,” Glaser added.

Trump, however, told journalists on board Air Force One on Wednesday that he was “not sure” he would discuss Taiwan.

How strong are their negotiating positions?

The balance of power in the respective negotiating positions of China and the US has shifted in the recent past.

Former US President Joe Biden restricted exports of US semiconductors, which are crucial for the development of AI, much to China’s annoyance. Then, early this year, Trump compounded this with 145 percent tariffs on Chinese goods.

China retaliated with 125 percent tariffs on US goods, escalating a trade war, until the two sides agreed in May to pause tariffs to allow for trade talks.

But that was not before China placed export restrictions on seven rare-earth metals in April. In October, China restricted exports of five more rare-earth metals, and Trump threatened 100 percent tariffs again in retaliation.

This week, seeking to diversify trade and its supply chains, China strengthened a trade deal with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). But the US also drew up new trade agreements with Japan, Malaysia and Cambodia. On Wednesday, South Korea announced that it too had reached a trade agreement with the US, and was lowering tariffs on imported US goods.

According to Loh, it is unclear who has the upper hand right now between the US and China.

“While the signing of the FTA [with ASEAN] has certainly enhanced China’s position and influence and is indeed quite significant for ASEAN and China, it does not necessarily have a direct bearing on US-China itself,” Loh said.

“US retains considerable political and economic influence in this part of the world still, as evinced by Trump’s trip here,” he added.

According to Reyes, each side has different kinds of leverage.

“The United States has built a new network of allies who have literally signed on to Washington’s playbook,” he said, referring to the deal Washington signed with Malaysia, which obliges Kuala Lumpur to match US trade restrictions. Malaysia has clarified that this deal would only apply to matters of shared concern.

But Reyes said such a deal “gives Trump’s team political and legal momentum going into the China meeting”.

“China, though, has the economic stamina. It still anchors global manufacturing, dominates critical-mineral processing, and has proven that tariffs couldn’t break its model. China used the trade war to build muscles, resistance and resilience – it learned to do everything faster, cheaper and at scale,” he said.

“So the US has the ‘louder’ hand; China has the steadier one. Washington can escalate, but Beijing can outlast,” Reyes added.

So what is likely to come out of these talks?

The stakes are high with Trump announcing that he anticipates a “great” meeting. But expectations of any “great” outcome are low.

Reyes said he expects a truce in their strained ties with photo opportunities rather than any grand bargain.

“Expect both sides to announce small wins: a delay on tariffs, a joint statement on trade stability, maybe a working group on critical minerals cooperation,” he said.

“This summit won’t end the rivalry – it simply marks a new phase: the US building alliances through treaties, and China doing much the same, while consolidating power through endurance building. This meeting isn’t about ending the rivalry – it’s about learning to live with it,” he said.

The White House claimed, without providing evidence, the vessel was operated by a ‘designated terrorist organisation’.

The White House has said United States forces have bombed another alleged drug smuggling vessel in the eastern Pacific Ocean, killing four men, just days after confirming it killed 14 people in three separate strikes on vessels in the area.

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said in a post on X late on Wednesday that the “Department of War”, the new name for the recently rebranded Department of Defense, had “carried out a lethal kinetic strike on yet another narco-trafficking vessel”.

Hegseth said “four male narco-terrorists” were killed aboard the vessel, which was “operated by a Designated Terrorist Organization”. He did not provide an exact location for the attack, but said it was conducted in international waters in the eastern Pacific Ocean.

“This vessel, like all the others, was known by our intelligence to be involved in illicit narcotics smuggling, was transiting along a known narco-trafficking route, and carrying narcotics,” Hegseth said, posting aerial footage of the strike.

None of the victims of Wednesday’s attack have been identified.

Earlier today, at the direction of President Trump, the Department of War carried out a lethal kinetic strike on yet another narco-trafficking vessel operated by a Designated Terrorist Organization (DTO) in the Eastern Pacific.

This vessel, like all the others, was known by our… pic.twitter.com/mBOLA5RYQe

— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) October 29, 2025

The strike occurred at a time when US President Donald Trump was on the last leg of a three-nation trip in Asia. On Thursday, Trump met Chinese President Xi Jinping in South Korea, their first summit since 2019. Trump also visited Malaysia and Japan before South Korea.

Earlier this week, Hegseth said US forces carried out three lethal strikes against boats accused of trafficking illegal narcotics on Monday. The attacks, which also took place in the eastern Pacific Ocean, reportedly killed 14 people and left one survivor.

Following the strikes, Hegseth said that “the Department has spent over TWO DECADES defending other homelands. Now, we’re defending our own”.

Since September 2, the US military has carried out at least 14 strikes targeting some 15 maritime vessels in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific Ocean.

At least 61 people have now been confirmed killed by the two-month-long campaign, which has also seen the US bolster its military presence in the Caribbean to unusually high levels.

The White House has yet to provide any evidence to the public for any of the strikes to substantiate its allegations of drug trafficking.

The Trump administration has framed the strikes as a national security measure, claiming the alleged drug traffickers are “unlawful combatants” in a “non-international armed conflict”.

Critics have called the unilateral strikes a form of extrajudicial killing and a violation of international law, which largely prohibits countries from using lethal military force against non-combatants outside a conflict zone.

“We continue to emphasise the need for all efforts to counter transnational organised crime to be conducted in accordance with international law,” Miroslav Jenca, the United Nations’ assistant secretary-general for the Americas, told the UN Security Council this month.

New York City, United States – Sitting in a room of hundreds of Jewish New Yorkers, Zohran Mamdani received cheers and applause at the Erev Rosh Hashanah service of progressive Brooklyn synagogue Kolot Chayeinu on a Monday evening last month.

This was one of the Democratic mayoral nominee’s recent appearances at synagogues and events over the Jewish High Holy Days, and a visible step towards navigating a politically charged line: increasingly engaging the largest concentration of Jewish people in any metropolitan area in the United States, and holding firmly anti-Zionist views before the general election on November 4.

Historically, Mamdani has held a strong stance on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, even founding a chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine during his undergraduate days at Bowdoin College. A little more than a decade later, as Mamdani’s name began to gain recognition, his longstanding unapologetically pro-Palestinian stance became a rallying force behind his platform as well as a point of criticism from opponents.

Mamdani received endorsements and canvassing support from progressive Jewish organisations like Bend the Arc, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action and Jews for Racial and Economic Justice (JFREJ), organisations that have each confronted Israel’s role in the war in Gaza through statements on their websites.

Simultaneously, he has sustained attacks from far-right activists, Jewish Democrats on Capitol Hill and Zionist activist groups for his firm support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and refusal to call Israel a Jewish state.

But despite mixed responses, the polls are clear: Mamdani is leading among Jewish voters overall in a multiway race.

‘No group is a monolith’

In July, a publicly released research poll by Zenith Research found that Mamdani led with a 17-point lead among Jews and by Jewish subgroups. In the scenario of Mayor Eric Adams dropping from the race, Mamdani still dominated, 43-33.

“Me being Jewish, I understand that there are many cleavages within the Jewish community,” said Adam Carlson, founding partner of Zenith Research. “As a pollster, one of my big things is that no group is a monolith, and if you have a large enough sample size, you can break it out and glean some nuances … what we found was a better-than-expected result for Mamdani among Jewish voters in New York City.”

Beth Miller, political director of the political advocacy organisation Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action and a member of Kolot Chayeinu, shared what it was like to witness a fraction of this support at the Erev Rosh Hashanah that Mamdani attended last month.

“He was basically swarmed at the end because people were so excited that he was there,” said Miller. “And that’s not because he’s a celebrity, it’s because people are excited about what we can all build together if he becomes mayor.”

JVP Action, a day-one endorser of Mamdani, represents one organisation among a growing group of Jewish supporters for Mamdani, like JFREJ, a group that has played a part in spearheading canvassing efforts among the diverse Jewish communities of NYC.

JFREJ’s electoral arm, The Jewish Vote, has supported Mamdani since he was first running for state assembly in 2020. Since then, JFREJ members and Mamdani have worked, canvassed and protested together.

Alicia Singham Goodwin, political director of JFREJ, has personally been arrested at protests alongside Mamdani.

“That’s the kind of thing that gives me faith in his commitments,” Goodwin told Al Jazeera regarding the arrests. “He’s willing to take on big risks for the things that matter.”

JFREJ has played a large role in spreading Mamdani’s message by knocking on doors and phone banking Jewish voters.

“We care about what our neighbours are worried about, excited and hopeful for — what they need for their families, and we’re ready to meet them there with our analysis of how the city needs to move to get to affordable housing, universal childcare, or to combat the real rise in anti-Semitism and hate violence,” said Goodwin. “We believe that Zohran is the strongest candidate for that, as well as for all the other issues we talk about.”

Courting the Jewish vote

While there is no doubt that the canvassing army of 50,000 volunteers has served Mamdani well, the mayoral hopeful has also been strategic in his pursuit of the Jewish vote.

“He has definitely modulated his rhetoric and has made a concerted effort to reach out to liberal congregations,” said Val Vinokur, professor of literary studies and director of the minor in Jewish culture at The New School. “This has made him more palatable to some progressive Zionists, much to the outrage of his anti-Zionist supporters.”

One example of Mamdani’s subdued rhetoric includes his response to continued backlash over the phrase “globalise the intifada”.

The phrase, used by pro-Palestinian activists, sparked tension between Mamdani and parts of the Jewish community. To some, it represents a call for solidarity with Palestinian resistance, while others view it as anti-Semitic and violent.

Mamdani resisted rejecting the phrase before the June election, but The New York Times reported that since then, he said he would “discourage” its use.

On the second anniversary of the Gaza war, Mamdani posted a four-paragraph statement on X where he acknowledged the atrocities of Hamas’s attack, and then called Israel’s response genocide and ended on a note of commitment to human rights.

“It got s*** on from all sides,” said Carlson. “He made nobody happy, which in my mind, is kinda the correct way to go about it … Sometimes, pleasing nobody is the job of the mayor, and I think he’s learning that now. It’s like a microcosm of what he’s about to face as mayor, assuming he wins. Sometimes, you have to piss off everybody a little bit for compromises.”

Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism

As Carlson’s Zenith Research poll reflected, the NYC Jewish community has a wide diversity of opinion about politics and positions on Israel and Palestine. The community most clearly differentiates along lines of age, and secular versus conservative practice, but as Jewish support for Mamdani increases, it is evident that these divides are not always so distinct.

“While it’s true that there are major trends that younger American Jews are more progressive and sympathetic to Palestinians, it’s also true that for as long as Zionism has existed, there have been anti-Zionist Jews,” said Miller. “I learned a lot from elders who were in their 70s, 80s and 90s who have been anti-Zionist since Israel was created because they never felt that what they wanted or needed was an ethnostate to represent them.”

Alternatively, Zionist groups like Betar worldwide are troubled by these trends within the Jewish community of New York.

“It’s heartbreaking to see members of the Jewish community support Zohran Mamdani, who openly opposes Zionism — the national liberation movement of the Jewish people,” said Oren Magnezy, spokesperson of Betar worldwide.

Jonathan Boyarin, American anthropologist and Mann professor of modern Jewish studies at Cornell University, wondered whether anti-Zionism has done much to help Palestinians, but distinguished the line that Mamdani is walking.

“It’s been said that there are two kinds of people who confuse anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism: Zionists and anti-Semites. I don’t think Zohran Mamdani belongs in either of those categories,” said Boyarin.

‘New political moment’

Ultimately, experts like Vinokur predict Mamdani will win, barring a scenario in which Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa drops out. Regardless, Vinokur expects Mamdani to secure the Jewish vote.

“He will win the Jewish vote despite and not because of his anti-Zionist background,” said Vinokur. “Younger Jewish voters are overwhelmingly liberal, have been galvanised by the dynamism of his campaign, and ultimately want to make the city a more livable, affordable, and equitable place.”

Mamdani’s message and campaign were celebrated at the JFREJ annual gala fundraiser, the Mazals. NYC Comptroller Brad Lander and Mamdani were honoured together during a night filled with music, ritual and tradition with more than 1,000 attendees.

“I would say it was probably the largest single gathering of Jews for Zohran,” said Goodwin. “They cement this new political moment that we’re in, where people like JFREJ members, movements like ours, are not fringe or aspirational, but we are popular among a majority of New Yorkers.”

Tensions between China and the US have escalated amid Donald Trump’s tariff threats and new restrictions on exports.

GYEONGJU, South Korea — The United States and South Korea advanced trade talks on Wednesday, addressing details of $350 billion that would be invested in the American economy, after negotiations and ceremonies that included the presentation of a gold medal and crown to President Trump.

Both were gifts from the country’s president, Lee Jae Myung, who dialed up the flattery while Washington and Seoul worked to nail down financial promises during the last stop of Trump’s Asia trip.

Although both sides said progress has been made — Trump said things were “pretty much finalized” — no agreement has been signed yet. The framework includes gradual investments, cooperation on shipbuilding and the lowering of Trump’s tariffs on South Korea’s automobile exports, according to Kim Yong-beom, Lee’s chief of staff for policy. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The announcement came after a day of adulation for the visiting American president from his hosts. There was a special lunch menu featuring U.S.-raised beef and a gold-adorned brownie. A band played Trump’s campaign anthem of “Y.M.C.A.” when he stepped off Air Force One. Lee told him that “you are indeed making America great again.”

Trump can be mercurial and demanding, but he has a soft spot for pomp and circumstance. He was particularly impressed by a choreographed display of colorful flags as he walked along the red carpet.

“That was some spectacle, and some beautiful scene,” Trump told Lee during their meeting. “It was so perfect, so flawlessly done.”

Earlier in the day, Trump even softened his rhetoric on international trade, which he normally describes in predatory terms where someone is always trying to rip off the United States.

“The best deals are deals that work for everybody,” he said during a business forum.

Trade deal with Seoul in process

Trump was visiting while South Korea is hosting the annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in the historical city of Gyeongju. He previously stopped in Japan, where he bonded with the new prime minister, and Malaysia, where he attended a summit of the Assn. of Southeast Asian Nations.

The Republican president has been trying to tie up trade deals along the way, eager to show that his confrontational approach of tariffs is paying dividends for Americans who are uneasy about the job market and watching a federal government shutdown extend into its fifth week.

South Korea has been particularly tough to crack, with the sticking point being Trump’s demand for $350 billion of direct investment in the U.S.

Korean officials say putting up cash could destabilize their own economy, and they’d rather offer loans and loan guarantees instead. The country would also need a swap line to manage the flow of its currency into the U.S.

Trump, after meeting with Lee, said “we made our deal pretty much finalized.” He did not provide any details.

Oh Hyunjoo, a deputy national security director for South Korea, told reporters earlier in the week that the negotiations have been proceeding “a little bit more slowly” than expected.

“We haven’t yet been able to reach an agreement on matters such as the structure of investments, their formats and how the profits will be distributed,” she said Monday.

It’s a contrast from Trump’s experience in Japan, where the government has worked to deliver the $550 billion in investments it promised as part of an earlier trade agreement. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick announced up to $490 billion in specific commitments during a dinner with business leaders in Tokyo.

For now, South Korea is stuck with a 25% tariff on automobiles, putting automakers such as Hyundai and Kia at a disadvantage against Japanese and European competitors, which face 15%.

Lee, speaking at the business forum before Trump arrived, warned against trade barriers.

“At a time when protectionism and nationalism are on the rise and nations focus on their immediate survival, words like ‘cooperation,’ ‘coexistence’ and ‘inclusive growth’ may sound hollow,” he said. “Yet, paradoxically, it is in times of crisis like this that APEC’s role as a platform for solidarity shines brighter.”

Trump and Lee swap praise

Lee took office in June and had a warm meeting with Trump at the White House in August, when he praised Oval Office renovations and suggested building a Trump Tower in North Korea.

He took a similar approach when Trump visited on Wednesday. The gold medal presented to Trump represents the Grand Order of Mugunghwa, the country’s highest honor, and Trump is the first U.S. president to receive it.

Trump said, “It’s as beautiful as it can possibly be” and “I’d like to wear it right now.”

Next was a replica of a royal crown from the Silla Kingdom, which existed from 57 B.C. to 935 A.D. The original crown was found in a tomb in Gyeongju, the kingdom’s capital.

Besides trade disagreements, there have been other points of tension between Washington and Seoul this year. More than 300 South Koreans were detained during a U.S. immigration raid on a Hyundai plant in Georgia in September, sparking outrage and betrayal.

Lee said at the time companies would likely hesitate to make future investments unless the visa system was improved.

“If that’s not possible, then establishing a local factory in the United States will either come with severe disadvantages or become very difficult for our companies,” he said.

Asked Monday about the immigration raid, Trump said, “I was opposed to getting them out,” and he said an improved visa system would make it easier for companies to bring in skilled workers.

Trump-Xi meeting is expected Thursday

While in South Korea, Trump is also expected to hold a closely watched meeting on Thursday with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. Washington and Beijing have clashed over trade, but both sides have indicated that they’re willing to dial down tensions.

Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Wednesday that he expects to lower tariffs targeting China over the flow of fentanyl ingredients.

“They’ll be doing what they can do,” he said. Trump added that “China is going to be working with me.”

Trump sounded resigned to the idea that he wouldn’t get to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on this trip. The president previously floated the possibility of extending his stay in South Korea, but on Wednesday said “the schedule was very tight.”

North Korea has so far dismissed overtures from Washington and Seoul, saying it won’t resume diplomacy with the United States unless Washington drops its demand for the North’s denuclearization. North Korea said Wednesday it fired sea-to-surface cruise missiles into its western waters, in the latest display of its growing military capabilities as Trump visits South Korea.

Trump brushed off the weapons test, saying, “He’s been launching missiles for decades, right?”

The two leaders met during Trump’s first term, although their conversations did not produce any agreements about North Korea’s nuclear program.

Megerian writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Kim Tong-hyung and Hyung-jin Kim contributed to this report from Seoul and Josh Boak contributed from Tokyo.

Kennedy, a top health official, urges ‘cautious approach’ after Trump baselessly claimed taking Tylenol is linked autism in children.

United States Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr has partially walked back his warning that taking Tylenol during pregnancy is directly linked to autism in children.

In a news conference on Wednesday, Kennedy struck a more moderate tone than he generally has in his past public appearances.

“The causative association between Tylenol given in pregnancy and the perinatal periods is not sufficient to say it definitely causes autism,” Kennedy told reporters. “But it’s very suggestive.”

“There should be a cautious approach to it,” he added. “ That’s why our message to patients, to mothers, to people who are pregnant and to the mothers of young children is: Consult your physician.”

Wednesday’s statement is closer in line with the guidance of reputable health agencies.

While some studies have raised the possibility of a link between Tylenol and autism, there have been no conclusive findings. Pregnant women are advised to consult a doctor before taking the medication.

The World Health Organization reiterated the point in September, noting that “no consistent association has been established” between the medication and autism, despite “extensive research”.

But claims to the contrary have already prompted efforts to limit the availability of Tylenol, a popular brand of acetaminophen, a fever- and pain-reducing medication.

On Tuesday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton launched a lawsuit accusing Johnson & Johnson and Kenvue, the companies behind the over-the-counter pain reliever, of deceptive practices.

In doing so, he reiterated misinformation shared by President Donald Trump and government officials like Kennedy.

“By holding Big Pharma accountable for poisoning our people, we will help Make America Healthy Again,” Paxton said in a statement, giving a nod to Kennedy’s MAHA slogan.

The suit alleges that Johnson & Johnson and Kenvue violated Texas consumer protection laws by having “deceptively marketed Tylenol as the only safe painkiller for pregnant women”.

It was the latest instance of scientific misinformation being perpetuated by top officials. Both Trump and Kennedy have repeatedly spread scientific misinformation throughout their political careers.

Trump linked autism and the painkiller during a news conference in September, without providing reputable scientific findings to back the claim.

“[Using] acetaminophen – is that OK? – which is basically, commonly known as Tylenol, during pregnancy can be associated with a very increased risk of autism,” Trump said on September 22. “So taking Tylenol is not good. I’ll say it. It’s not good.”

Kennedy has offered his own sweeping statements about Tylenol and its alleged risks, despite having no professional medical background.

“Anyone who takes this stuff during pregnancy, unless they have to, is irresponsible,” he said in a cabinet meeting on October 9.

Kennedy also mischaracterised studies on male circumcision earlier this month. He falsely said the studies showed an increase in autism among children who were “circumcised early”.

“It’s highly likely because they’re given Tylenol,” he added.

Kenvue stressed in a statement on Tuesday that acetaminophen is the safest pain reliever option for pregnant women, noting that high fevers and pain are potential risks to pregnancies if left untreated.

“We stand firmly with the global medical community that acknowledges the safety of acetaminophen and believe we will continue to be successful in litigation as these claims lack legal merit and scientific support,” Kenvue said.

Candidate Kat Abughazaleh decried the charges as ‘political prosecution’ amid a Trump standoff with Democratic cities.

A Democratic candidate for the United States House of Representatives has been indicted by the Department of Justice in connection with a protest in front of a federal immigration facility in Illinois.

On Wednesday, in a post on social media, Kat Abughazaleh, 26, announced that she had been charged alongside five other protesters.

“This political prosecution is an attack on all of our First Amendment rights,” Abughazaleh, a progressive influencer and journalist, said in the post. “I’m not backing down, and we’re going to win.”

Currently, Abughazelah is running for an open seat representing Illinois’s ninth congressional district, to the north of Chicago. She is slated to appear on the Democratic primary ballot in March.

Federal prosecutors, however, have accused her and her co-defendants of having “physically hindered and impeded” Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers at a detention facility in Broadview, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago.

The indictment said they surrounded a government vehicle, “banged aggressively”, stopped the agent from driving forward, and etched “PIG” on the body of the vehicle. It further alleged that the group broke the vehicle’s side mirrors and a windshield wiper.

Abughazaleh was charged with “conspiracy to impede or injure an officer” and “assaulting, resisting or impeding” a federal agent for the September 23 incident.

I have been charged in a federal indictment sought by the Department of Justice.This political prosecution is an attack on all of our First Amendment rights. I’m not backing down, and we’re going to win.

— Kat Abughazaleh (@katmabu.bsky.social) 2025-10-29T16:55:30.610Z

Those charged alongside Abughazelah include Michael Rabbitt, a Democratic politician in Chicago’s 45th Ward, and Catherine Sharp, a Democrat running for a seat on the Cook County Board of Commissioners.

The charges come as the administration of President Donald Trump surges federal agents to Democrat-run cities as part of a large-scale deportation drive.

Several Democratic lawmakers have been charged after participating in counterprotests, including Ras Baraka, the mayor of Newark, New Jersey, and US Representative LaMonica McIver. Baraka has since seen the charges against him dropped.

Trump has also sought to deploy the National Guard to several cities, including Chicago, but has been repeatedly blocked by the courts. The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in the Chicago case, which could have wide-ranging implications for the future of such deployments.

A federal appeals court was also set to hear a Trump administration challenge on Wednesday to a lower court’s ruling barring the National Guard deployment to Portland, Oregon.

As part of those cases, the Trump administration has faced scrutiny over its treatment of immigrants and protesters alike.

The administration has also been criticised for comparing protesters to “terrorists” and pursuing disproportionate charges in court.

Even Abughazelah’s opponent in the 2026 Democratic primary, Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss, was among those condemning Wednesday’s indictment.

“The only people engaged in violent and dangerous behavior at Broadview have been ICE,” Biss said in a statement carried by the local news site Evanston Now.

Biss noted he had also protested the “kidnapping of our neighbours” at the facility multiple times.

“Now, the Trump Administration is targeting protestors, including political candidates, in an effort to silence dissent and scare residents into submission,” Biss said. “It won’t work.”

Since coming back to the White House earlier this year, President Donald Trump has made rare earth minerals one of his top priorities.

He’s focused on securing enough supply for the United States economy.

In March, Trump went as far as signing an executive order, where he invoked wartime powers to increase the production of rare earths.

And this week, he signed several agreements with a number of Asian countries, in the hopes of gaining access to the minerals.

This is all to counter China’s global dominance in this sector and Beijing’s recent restrictions on rare earth exports.

So, why are these minerals so crucial for the US economy? And can Trump break China’s monopoly?

Presenter: Bernard Smith

Guests:

Brian Wong – Assistant Professor in Philosophy at the University of Hong Kong.

Gracelin Baskaran – Mining Economist and Director of the Critical Minerals Security program at Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Huiyao Wang – President and Founder of Center for China and Globalization.

The United States Federal Reserve has cut its benchmark interest rate by 25 basis points to 3.75 – 4.00 percent, amid signs of a slowing labour market and continued pressure on consumer prices.

The cut, announced on Wednesday, marks the US central bank’s second rate cut this year.

“Job gains have slowed this year, and the unemployment rate has edged up but remained low through August; more recent indicators are consistent with these developments. Inflation has moved up since earlier in the year and remains somewhat elevated,” the Fed said in a statement.

“Uncertainty about the economic outlook remains elevated.”

The cuts were largely in line with expectations. Earlier on Wednesday, CME Fed Watch — which tracks the likelihood of rate cuts — said there was a 97.8 percent probability of rate cuts.

After the September cut, economists had largely been expecting two additional rate cuts for the rest of this year. Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, HSBC, and Morgan Stanley, among others, forecast one more 25-basis-point reduction by year’s end following Wednesday’s cut. Bank of America Global Research is the only major firm that is not anticipating another 25-basis-point cut in 2025.

“The Fed has a challenging line to walk; lower interest rates to support labour markets and growth, or raise them to tamp down inflation. For now, they are taking a cautious approach tilted a bit towards the growth concerns,” Michael Klein, professor of international economic affairs at The Fletcher School at Tufts University in Massachusetts, told Al Jazeera.

Despite forecasts, Federal reserve chairman Jerome Powell isn’t necessarily inevitable.

“We haven’t made a decision about December,” Powell told reporters in a press conference.

“We remain well-positioned to respond in a timely way to potential economic developments.”

Government shutdown implications

The cuts come as economic data becomes increasingly scarce amid the ongoing government shutdown, now in its 29th day as of Wednesday, making it the second-longest in US history, behind the 35-day shutdown during the first presidency of Donald Trump in late 2018 and early 2019.

Because of the shutdown, the Department of Labor did not release the September jobs report, which was scheduled for October 3. The only major government economic data released this month was the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which tracks the cost of goods and services and is a key measure of inflation. The CPI rose 0.3 percent in September on a month-over-month basis to an inflation rate of 3 percent.

That data was released because the Social Security Administration required it to calculate cost-of-living adjustments for 2026. As a result, Social Security beneficiaries will receive a 2.8 percent increase in payments compared to 2025.

The shutdown, however, could have a bigger impact on next month’s central bank decision as the Labor Department is currently unable to compile the data needed for its November reports.

However, amid the limited government data, private trackers are showing a slowdown.

“We are not going to be able to have the detailed feel of things, but I think if there were a significant or material change in the economy one way or another, I think we would pick that up,” Powell said.

Consumer confidence lags

Consumer confidence fell to a six-month low, according to The Conference Board’s report that was released on Tuesday.

The data showed that lower-income earners – those making less than $75,000 a year – are less confident about the economy as fears of job scarcity loom. This comes only days after several large corporations announced waves of layoffs.

On Wednesday, Paramount cut 2,000 people from its workforce. On Tuesday, Amazon cut 14,000 corporate jobs. Last week, big box retailer Target cut 1,800 jobs. This, as furloughs and layoffs weigh on government workers. The US government is the nation’s largest employer.

Those making more than $200,000 annually remain fairly confident and are leading consumer spending that is keeping the economy afloat, according to The Conference Board.

Pressures both on consumer spending and the labour market are largely driven by tariffs weighing on consumers and businesses.

US markets are ticking up on the rate cut. The Nasdaq is up 0.5, the S&P 500 is up 0.1, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average is up by 0.26 as of 2pm in New York (18:00 GMT).

DAKAR, Senegal — Nobel Prize-winning author Wole Soyinka said his non-resident visa to enter the United States had been rejected, adding that he believes it may be because he recently criticized President Trump.

The Nigerian author, 91, won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1986, becoming the first African to do so.

Speaking to the press on Tuesday, Soyinka said he believed it had little to do with him and was instead a product of the United States’ immigration policies. He said he was told to reapply if he wished to enter again.

“It’s not about me, I’m not really interested in going back to the United States,” he said. “But a principle is involved. Human beings deserve to be treated decently wherever they are.”

Soyinka, who has taught in the U.S. and previously held a green card, joked on Tuesday that his green card “had an accident” eight years ago and “fell between a pair of scissors.” In 2017, he destroyed his green card in protest over Trump’s first inauguration.

The letter he received informing him of his visa revocation cites “additional information became available after the visa was issued,” as the reason for its revocation, but does not describe what that information was.

Soyinka believes it may be because he recently referred to Trump as a “white version of Idi Amin,” a reference to the dictator who ruled Uganda from 1971 until 1979.

He jokingly referred to his rejection as a “love letter” and said that while he did not blame the officials, he would not be applying for another visa.

“I have no visa. I am banned, obviously, from the United States, and if you want to see me, you know where to find me.”

The U.S. Consulate in Nigeria’s commercial hub, Lagos, directed all questions to the State Department in Washington, D.C., which did not respond to immediate requests for comment.

Mcmakin writes for the Associated Press.

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Donald Trump Jr. on Wednesday mocked protesters who took part in “No Kings” demonstrations across the United States while praising his father’s business-first approach to the Middle East during a visit to Saudi Arabia.

Trump spoke before business leaders and Saudi officials at the Future Investment Initiative, the brainchild of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who feted President Trump during his Mideast tour in May to the kingdom, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.

Trump backed the prince during his first presidential term even after the killing of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi officials at he kingdom’s consulate in Turkey. Prince Mohammed plans a trip to Washington next month as well.

Speaking alongside Omeed Malik of 1789 Capital, Donald Trump Jr. criticized Democratic Party policies and protesters targeting his father. Trump invests in 1789 and continues to work in the real estate arm of the family, the Trump Organization, which has expanded its Mideast offerings even as his father serves his second term in the White House.

In particular, Trump mocked the “No Kings” protests which drew millions of people to demonstrations across the U.S., claiming it was “not an organic movement, it’s entirely manufactured and paid for by the usual puppets around the world and their” groups.

“If my father was a king, he probably wouldn’t have allowed those protests to happen,” he said. “You saw the people that were actually protesting — it’s the same crazy liberals from the ‘60s and ’70s, they’re just a lot older and fatter.”

Trump made the comments while visiting a nation ruled by an absolute monarchy where dissent is criminalized.

The “No Kings” demonstrations, the third mass mobilization since his father’s return to the White House, came against the backdrop of a government shutdown that is testing the core balance of power in the United States in a way protest organizers warn is a slide toward authoritarianism.

Trump separately acknowledged it was his first trip to Saudi Arabia and praised the changes he saw in the kingdom.

“When my father came here, unlike the last presidents who visited here, it wasn’t an apology tour,” Trump said. “It was, ‘How do we work together? How do we grow our respective economies? How do we create peace and stability in the region?’”

“There can be ‘America-First’ component to that, but there also can be a ‘Saudi-First’ component to that and everyone can actually benefit,” he added.

Gambrell writes for the Associated Press.

Kyiv, Ukraine – Both Russia and Ukraine depend on Chinese-made components for drones, jamming systems and the fibre optic cable attached to the drones to make them immune to jamming.

If Beijing wanted to end the Russia-Ukraine war, it could do so promptly and singlehandedly by banning the imports, according to one of the pioneers of drone warfare in Ukraine.

“Almost each component is made in China,” Andrey Pronin, who runs a drone school in Kyiv, told Al Jazeera. “China could cut off their side – or ours.”

Beijing supplies Moscow with four-fifths of drones, electronic chips and other dual-purpose goods that end up on the front line, keeping the Russian war machine rolling, according to Ukrainian intelligence.

Ukraine is trying to wean off its reliance on Chinese drones amid Beijing’s restriction of exports, but they still account for a staggering 97 percent of components, according to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a think tank in Washington, DC.

United States President Donald Trump hopes that Thursday’s summit with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping can change that.

“I’d like China to help us out with Russia,” Trump said on October 24, two days after cancelling his talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin and slapping sanctions on two Russian oil companies.

Trump is scheduled to meet with Xi in South Korea’s Seoul on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit. Their last meeting was held in 2019, in Japan’s Osaka.

Zelenskyy hopes meeting will ‘help us all’

Beijing, which has claimed it is officially neutral regarding the war, denies direct involvement in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. But it plays a role as Moscow’s main political and economic backer.

As Beijing seeks to “return” Taiwan to its fold, Moscow is understood by observers to be sharing with the Chinese military information on the use of drones, the vulnerabilities of Western-supplied weaponry and the management of airborne troops.

Meanwhile, amid mounting Western sanctions, Beijing is buying discounted oil, gas and raw materials, paying Moscow tens of billions of dollars a year.

That is the weak spot Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy wants Trump to target in talks with Xi.

If Trump manages to “find an understanding with China about the reduction of Russian energy exports”, he said on Monday, “I think it’ll help us all.”

But Trump’s latest Russia sanctions slapped on state-owned oil giant Rosneft and the private Lukoil company could inadvertently strengthen Beijing.

Both companies will be forced to sell their foreign subsidiaries and diminish their role in international projects – namely, in ex-Soviet Central Asia and several African nations, where their place may be taken by Chinese companies.

According to Volodymyr Fesenko, head of the Kyiv-based Penta think tank, Xi’s role in ending the war is pivotal.

“Without the financial support, without the economic cooperation with China, Russia can’t continue the war,” he said. “China is Russia’s main economic resource.

“Had [Beijing] wanted to end this war, it would have achieved it very fast,” he added. “China’s harsh position in closed-door, non-public talks with Putin would be enough.”

However, Beijing has “no inclination or interest in making a gift to Trump”, said Fesenko.

During his first presidency, ties with Beijing spiralled as the White House sought to curb China’s growing global clout and its access to Western technologies.

China and the US have introduced tariffs on mutual exports as Beijing threatened to cut off the trade in critical minerals, and Washington promised to curb the transfer of technologies. The Russia-Ukraine war is unlikely to dominate the summit, as Trump and Xi have bigger fish to fry as their nations now face a trade war.

‘Freezing the war’

At the same time, Beijing has been boosting its economic clout in Eastern Europe, Moscow’s former stomping ground, investing heavily in new infrastructure.

“The escalation of the war, its spread to Europe, is something that contradicts China’s interests,” Fesenko said.

However, Washington and Beijing may want to keep the war simmering or frozen without letting Moscow or Kyiv win a decisive victory, argued Kyiv-based analyst Igar Tyshkevych.

Washington is not going to benefit from Russia’s “overwhelming victory” as the Kremlin will undoubtedly seek the role of a “third global leader”, he said.

But neither Beijing or Washington could benefit from Russia’s full defeat, as China is concerned by destabilisation near its northern and northwestern borders.

“Washington is active about freezing the war,” Tyshkevych said. “I won’t be surprised if Beijing will be active in the same direction.”

If frozen, there are fears that the war could reignite when Russia recovers economically and accumulates enough resources.

To avoid that, Kyiv would look to building new or strengthening existing partnerships, especially with the European Union and its individual members, as well as countries such as Turkiye and Pakistan that both have cordial ties with Beijing.

And Putin still has plenty of incentives to offer to Trump.

There is a reported proposal to create infrastructure for the Arctic sea route that will shorten the delivery of goods from Asia to Europe by weeks.

Moscow also considered a joint project to sell Russian natural gas to Europe, develop oil and gas fields in Russia’s Far East, and supply rare earths that are crucial for US tech giants.

In a post-war environment, Putin may also propose Russia’s expertise in processing spent nuclear fuel from US power stations – and come up with nuclear security deals, including non-proliferation.

Non-proliferation “is the only field where Russia is ‘equal’ to the United States,” Tyshkevych said.

Palestinians in Gaza have experienced the deadliest 24 hours since the start of the United States-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas went into effect almost three weeks ago.

Israel killed more than 100 people, including 46 children, in attacks late on Tuesday and on Wednesday. Medical sources told Al Jazeera the strikes hit all over Gaza.

This adds to dozens of previous ceasefire violations with a rocky outlook ahead. Let’s take a look at where things stand:

What’s the latest?

The Israeli military said by noon on Wednesday that it was returning to the ceasefire in line with instructions from the political leadership but remained ready to attack again if necessary.

It said it hit more than 30 targets in the besieged enclave, claiming that the targets were “terrorists in command positions within terror organisations”.

But as more residential buildings were flattened by the Israeli bombs, at least 18 members of the same family in central Gaza, including children, parents and grandparents, were among the victims.

Civil Defence teams once again had to use small tools and their hands to dig in the rubble of bombed areas to search for survivors and the dead. Several tents belonging to displaced Palestinian families were also targeted.

According to Gaza’s Ministry of Health, at least 68,643 people have been killed and 170,655 wounded since the start of Israel’s genocidal war in October 2023.

What was Israel’s justification?

On Tuesday, Israel announced that the body of a captive transferred from Gaza by Hamas through the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) did not match one of the 13 to be handed over as part of the ceasefire.

Israeli forensic analysts determined that the remains belonged to Ofir Tzarfati, who was taken to Gaza during the Hamas-led attacks on southern Israel on October 7, 2023, and whose partial remains were recovered in November of the same year.

Israeli officials reacted furiously, especially far-right ministers in the coalition government who are against stopping the war on Gaza and want Hamas “destroyed”. An organisation run by the families of the captives also expressed outrage and demanded action.

A short time later, the Qassam Brigades, Hamas’s armed wing, said it would hand over the remains of an Israeli captive at 8pm (18:00 GMT), but it held off after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered “powerful strikes” on Gaza.

Heavy gunfire and explosions were also heard in the southern city of Rafah. Israel alleged this was an attack by Hamas fighters, something Hamas rejected.

Israel also accused the Palestinian group of “staging” the recovery of a captive’s remains after showing footage purportedly of Hamas fighters burying a body before calling in the ICRC.

The ICRC said its personnel “were not aware that a deceased person had been placed there prior to their arrival”.

What’s in the ceasefire?

As part of the agreement, which entered into force on October 10, Hamas handed over all remaining 20 living captives held in Gaza within several days.

The group has also handed over the remains of 15 deceased Israeli captives as part of the deal with 13 others remaining unrecovered or undelivered.

Israel has allowed some humanitarian aid into Gaza, but supplies have been well below the 600 trucks a day specified in the ceasefire, a level that is required to help the famine-stricken population.

Israel has also prevented tents and mobile homes from entering the enclave but has let some heavy machinery enter to search for the remains of its captives.

After all the remains are handed over, a second phase of the ceasefire could potentially enter into force, allowing the deployment of an international stabilisation force and the reconstruction of Gaza.

Israeli officials have repeatedly stressed that they will not allow the formation of a sovereign Palestinian state and have been advancing with a plan to illegally annex the occupied West Bank despite international criticism.

What is Hamas saying?

Hamas has accused Israel of fabricating “false pretexts” to renew aggression in Gaza.

Before the attacks over the past day, Hamas  said Israel had carried out at least 125 violations.

Since October 10, the Health Ministry in Gaza said, at least 211 Palestinians have been killed and 597 wounded in Israeli attacks while 482 bodies have been recovered.

Hamas has also accused Israel of obstructing efforts to recover the bodies of the captives while using the same bodies as an excuse to claim noncompliance.

It pointed out that Israel has prevented enough heavy machinery from entering Gaza to recover the remains and has prevented search teams from accessing key areas.

The Qassam Brigades said its fighters have recovered the bodies of two more deceased captives, Amiram Cooper and Sahar Baruch, during search operations conducted on Tuesday.

Hamas and other Palestinian factions have said they are prepared to hand over administration of Gaza to a technocratic Palestinian body while maintaining that armed resistance is a result of decades-long occupation and apartheid by Israel.

What does this mean for Gaza’s civilians?

Since the start of the war, civilians have been the main casualties of Israel’s war on Gaza.

They have been disproportionately targeted, as they were in the latest overnight attacks, and have also seen Gaza’s infrastructure and means of living destroyed by bombs and invading Israeli forces.

Because nowhere in Gaza is fully safe, Palestinians underwent another day of panic that the Israeli attacks could be extended.

Israeli warplanes and reconnaissance aircraft continued to hover over the enclave.

What happens now?

The US has repeatedly expressed support for Israel despite its ceasefire violations, emphasising Israel’s right to defend itself.

President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that the ceasefire “is not in jeopardy” despite the strikes.

Mediator Qatar has previously condemned violations of the agreement and accused Israel of undermining its implementation. But along with Egypt, it has worked to ensure the deal stays alive.

Published on 29/10/2025 – 11:09 GMT+1
•Updated
11:11

Nvidia shares continued their dramatic rise this week as investors banked on an easing of semiconductor trade restrictions between the US and China.

Ahead of a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping on Thursday, US President Donald Trump said he planned to discuss Nvidia’s advanced Blackwell artificial intelligence chip with Xi.

“We’ll be speaking about Blackwell, it’s the super duper chip,” he told reporters on Wednesday.

The president didn’t elaborate on specific policy aims, although he said he was “very optimistic” about the meeting with his Chinese counterpart.

By around 11:00 CET, Nvidia shares had jumped over 3% in pre-market trading, bringing the firm closer to a $5 trillion market capitalisation.

Semiconductors have been a key point of contention between the US and China as both nations seek to lead on advanced technologies such as AI.

The tiny chips, used to power a range of electronic devices from smartphones to medical equipment, are essential to this ambition. Since 2022, the US has therefore restricted Nvidia’s sales of advanced chips to China for national security reasons.

Trump has flip-flopped on export controls since his arrival in the White House, first restricting and then approving sales of Nvidia’s H20 AI chip to China. Nvidia designed the H20 specifically for the Chinese market to comply with Biden-era export curbs, although the Trump administration previously said it was concerned the tech could be used for military purposes.

With regard to the Blackwell processor, Trump suggested months ago that he would consider allowing Nvidia to export a downgraded version of the chip to China.

Progress on such a proposal would come as a relief to Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, who has long criticised US restrictions. Huang has notably argued that such curbs are boosting China’s AI capabilities as the Chinese market is forced to become less reliant on US products.

It seems that such logic is already understood in Beijing, even as the US softens its stance. After Washington gave the green light to H20 exports, China’s regulator banned the country’s biggest tech companies from buying Nvidia’s artificial intelligence chips.

“The president has licensed us to ship to China, but China has blocked us from being able to ship to China,” Huang said at a Nvidia event this week in Washington. “They’ve made it very clear that they don’t want Nvidia to be there right now.”

In a document released by Beijing on Tuesday, the Communist party reiterated the importance of self-sufficiency, calling for “extraordinary measures” to achieve “decisive breakthroughs” in technologies such as semiconductors.

“The most important factor in promoting high-quality development is to accelerate high-level scientific and technological self-reliance,” Xi said in a speech released by state news agency Xinhua.

While it’s possible that Chinese restrictions on Nvidia chips could be a long-lasting policy, experts have suggested that the move may be a bargaining chip in trade negotiations with Washington.

Such policy U-turns are creating uncertainty for investors despite the fact that Nvidia shares have risen roughly 50% this year, driven higher by AI ambitions.

With millions of people in the United States at risk of losing access to the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) – also known as food stamps – from November 1, a viral chart has claimed to show the majority of the nation’s food stamp recipients are non-white and noncitizens.

The chart, titled Food Stamps by Ethnicity, listed 36 groups of people and said it showed the “percentage of US households receiving SNAP benefits”.

The groups were labelled by nationality, such as “Afghan”, “Somali”, “Iraqi”, along with the racial groups “white”, “Black” and “native”. The chart appeared to show that Afghan people were the largest group receiving SNAP benefits, at 45.6 percent, followed by Somali (42.4 percent) and Iraqi (34.8 percent). White people, represented on the chart with the US flag, were third to last at 8.6 percent.

The federal government shutdown, which started on October 1, is the cause of the looming SNAP funding lapse. SNAP provides food purchasing benefits to low-income households. Conservatives have peddled the misleading narrative that Democrats are pushing for healthcare for undocumented migrants, and people commenting on the chart rehashed a similar talking point.

“Who is getting their EBT cut?” read the caption of an October 25 X post sharing the chart, which had 3.1 million views as of October 27. EBT stands for Electronic Benefits Transfer, which is a SNAP payment system.

“Only 18.7% of EBT or food stamp recipients are American. Let that sink in …” read another post sharing the chart, seemingly mistakenly referring to the figure next to the word “Armenian”; there was no “American” category in the chart. “We are subsidizing foreigners on the taxpayers dime.”

Who is getting their EBT cut pic.twitter.com/el8x9X5iVX

— The General (@1776General_) October 25, 2025

The chart doesn’t show the full picture of SNAP recipients by race or ethnicity. The most reliable source for the breakdown of SNAP recipients by demographics comes from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), which administers the programme.

According to the most recent USDA data available, from 2023, white people are the largest racial group receiving SNAP benefits, at 35.4 percent. African Americans are next, making up 25.7 percent of recipients, then Hispanic people at 15.6 percent, Asian people at 3.9 percent, Native Americans at 1.3 percent and multiracial people at 1 percent. The race of 17 percent of participants is unknown.

The same report found that 89.4 percent of SNAP recipients were US-born citizens, meaning less than 11 percent of SNAP participants were foreign-born. Of the latter figure, 6.2 percent were naturalised citizens, 1.1 percent were refugees and 3.3 percent were other noncitizens, including lawful permanent residents and other eligible noncitizens.

While large shares of the groups listed in the chart may receive food stamps, “they are certainly a tiny share of the households and spending on SNAP”, said Tracy Roof, University of Richmond associate professor of political science.

Survey data shows an incomplete picture on SNAP recipients

The chart shared on social media originated from a June blog post from The Personal Finance Wizards, which cited “US Census Table S0201” as its source. The site offers financial advice, but published a disclaimer saying it cannot guarantee the “completeness, accuracy, or reliability” of its information.

The site’s authors appeared to cherry-pick groups to include in the chart, noting, “It’s important to note that the graph highlights a selection of ethnicities we felt would be most relevant and engaging for our audience.” It did not name an author.

In a comment on an Instagram post sharing the chart, Personal Finance Wizards shared a link to the US Census table it used. It shows data from the 2024 American Community Survey, filtered by 49 racial and ethnic groups. The filtered groups don’t completely overlap with the groups in the chart, but the dataset has a column for “households with food stamp/SNAP benefits”, which shows percentages similar to the ones in the chart.

The data does not show what percentage of all SNAP beneficiaries belong to an ethnic or nationality group.

Joseph Llobrera, senior director of research for the food assistance team at the liberal think tank Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said the chart appeared to show the shares of households receiving SNAP based on the household respondents’ reported ancestry, which is different from citizenship status.

“Without context, this graphic is misleading and may lead some to conclude that many non-citizens are participating in SNAP, which is not true,” he said.

The American Community Survey allows respondents to self-identify their race. It also defines ancestry as a “person’s ethnic origin or descent, roots or heritage, place of birth, or place of parents’ ancestors before their arrival in the United States”.

Colleen Heflin, Syracuse University expert on food insecurity, nutrition and welfare policy, said the American Community Survey data on SNAP receipts is self-reported, and that question “is known to have a great deal of measurement error” when compared with SNAP administrative data.

Chart reflects higher levels of need in groups with higher shares of SNAP participation

Groups such as Afghans and Iraqis, who are first and third on the chart, would have been more likely to have immediately qualified for the SNAP programme before the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s passage because of their special immigration status.

Before the law’s passage, refugees and people who had been granted asylum were also eligible for SNAP without a waiting period. Somalis, who were second on the chart, are “more likely” to qualify based on those criteria, Roof said.

Other noncitizens, such as lawful permanent residents, could be eligible for SNAP only after a five-year waiting period.

But the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act changed the eligibility, making refugees and asylum seekers ineligible. Immigrants in the country illegally are not and have never been eligible for SNAP.