USA

For Trump followers, his offer of a 20 to 40 billion economic assistance to Argentina came as a shock. For a government that emphasizes not spending American tax payers’ money abroad the record high foreign debt defaulter and agrobusiness competitor Argentina is a puzzling choice.

However, there are profound reasons for this outcome. In what follows, I will try to explain them. The first two motives are the most obvious ones, but I promise that the following two are the ones that are not that apparent though interesting to read.

The first reason, and more obvious one, is the ideological congruence between the executives. The Argentine president Milei shares Trump’s anti woke ideology, it has always been a Trump supporter and shares with him a deep-seated rejection for leftist governments and ideologies. However, whereas Trump is an economic nationalist, Milei brands himself as an “anarcho-capitalist” that profoundly believes that the powers of free market should reign without interference in order for economies and societies to succeed.

Secondly, next Sunday Milei will face a crucial midterm election. In a last September legislative vote in the crucial Buenos Aires province (that accounts for 40% of Argentina’s population) he lost against his arch rivals, the Peronist Party. The Peronist coalition, that governed Argentina for the most part of the last 25 years, held a leftist ideology that privileged bilateral relations with China over the US and that is a staunch critic of Trump’s policies. The following Monday, the Argentine peso faced very strong devaluation pressures that ended up drying up the Central Bank’s reserves.

Third, the US grand strategy has been under a deep transformation, at least since Obama`s presidency. It has been progressively withdrawing from the Middle East while focusing more on China. It has also demanded the Europeans (and also its allies in East Asians) to up their defence spending. This relative withdrawal is somewhat compensated by an increase of attention in its own neighbourhood, the Americas. It is under this lens that we can understand the recent US military actions against the Maduro regime in Venezuela, the suspension of economic aid to leftist governed Colombia and the huge tariffs applied to also leftist governed Brazil. Being Mexico also governed by a (somewhat pragmatic) leftist party and having in Chilean President Boric a staunch critic of Trump`s policies, the US is left with very few friends in the region. Right now, the only welcoming ally from a large country in the Americas is Argentina`s Milei.

Fourth, from the Argentine side, a change in the strategic outlook in part of its elites is also paving the way for an alliance with the US. The current Argentine executive, in its quest to achieve macroeconomic stability has as its most coveted goal the dollarization of the economy. This is the endpoint of the pro market economic reforms under way. At the same time, the Milei government supports the US and Israel in a fashion unseen in Argentine history. Worldwide, there are not many countries supporting the Trump agenda as thoroughly as Argentina.

There are strong indications that the deepening of the alliance between the US and Argentina is under way. However, near future events might change this course. Next month there will be presidential elections in Chile, while Colombia and Brazil will have theirs in May and October respectively. A win by the opposition in any of these countries will devalued the strategic relevance that Argentina holds right now. Secondly, will Trump successors double in an alliance with a country that has never been considered strategic for US interests? Finally, there is the question of Milei`s political future in Argentina. Good part of his ambitions and of Argentina’s grand strategy will be risked in next elections.

Russia, the second largest oil exporter globally, is considering its response to U. S. sanctions targeting major oil companies Rosneft and Lukoil, amid the possibility of reduced sales to India, its largest buyer. President Vladimir Putin has been in talks with U. S. President Donald Trump for months about finding a resolution to the ongoing war in Ukraine, but no progress has been made yet.

On October 22, the U. S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control imposed sanctions on Rosneft, Lukoil, and their subsidiaries, urging Russia to agree to a ceasefire. Together, these two companies represent about half of Russia’s oil production and over 5% of the global oil supply. Earlier in January, sanctions were enacted against other Russian energy firms, but these did not severely disrupt Russian oil exports. The U. S. has also targeted the vessels and companies involved in transporting Russian oil, with some lawmakers calling for stricter measures.

Indian refiners, such as Reliance Industries, are reportedly looking to reduce or stop importing Russian oil due to increasing U. S. pressure. India purchased 1.9 million barrels per day in the first nine months of 2025, making up 40% of Russia’s total oil exports. Stricter sanctions may force Russia to offer larger discounts to maintain export levels, as oil and gas revenues are crucial for its budget and military efforts in Ukraine.

While halting crude exports is an option for Russia, it could also harm its allies, including China. Other choices include cutting exports of enriched uranium or rare metals, although these would also negatively impact Russia’s economy. Strengthening ties with China for rare-earth cooperation could counter U. S. pressures, given Russia’s substantial reserves.

Russia is a key member of OPEC+, which manages about half of global oil production, and any disruption to its exports could affect the organization’s market strategies. China, another significant buyer of Russian crude, reaffirmed its opposition to unilateral sanctions following the recent U. S. restrictions against Rosneft and Lukoil.

with information from Reuters

China and the United States are set to resume high-level trade talks in Malaysia from Friday as both sides work to contain a sudden surge in tensions ahead of a crucial leaders’ summit in South Korea. Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng will meet U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer during his visit to attend an ASEAN summit from October 24 to 27.

The renewed strain in ties comes after Beijing expanded curbs on rare earth exports critical materials used in electronics and defense in retaliation for Washington’s decision to blacklist more Chinese companies from purchasing U.S. technology. The move has reignited fears of another trade war just as the two powers had shown tentative signs of improvement in recent months.

Why It Matters

These talks carry significant global implications. The world’s two largest economies are deeply interlinked, and renewed hostilities threaten to disrupt global supply chains, technological cooperation, and regional stability. Both Washington and Beijing are under pressure to prevent economic confrontation from spilling into diplomatic isolation ahead of the scheduled Trump-Xi summit.

The flare-up also underscores the fragility of U.S.-China relations. Despite earlier progress including a successful TikTok-related deal at a Madrid summit and a constructive Trump-Xi call in September the latest export and sanctions measures have quickly derailed the momentum toward reconciliation.

The main negotiators, He Lifeng, Scott Bessent, and Jamieson Greer, are expected to focus on two issues: China’s rare earth export restrictions and U.S. curbs on technology access. These topics strike at the heart of both countries’ strategic priorities industrial self-sufficiency for China and tech security for the U.S.

Southeast Asian nations, particularly Malaysia as the host, are watching closely. They stand to benefit economically if tensions ease but risk becoming collateral in any escalation, as both superpowers compete for influence in the region. Meanwhile, global markets are bracing for volatility, with tech and manufacturing sectors especially vulnerable to disruptions.

What’s Next

The Malaysia talks are being seen as a last attempt to restore calm before the Trump-Xi summit next week in South Korea. Both sides are expected to seek at least a symbolic agreement to keep communication channels open, though a comprehensive deal is unlikely given the current mistrust.

If the talks fail, trade and diplomatic friction could deepen, potentially leading to expanded sanctions or retaliatory measures that reverberate across Asia. For now, the focus is on whether Washington and Beijing can manage their rivalry without derailing global economic stability.

With information from Reuters.

After the U.S.–Russia summit between President Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in Budapest this October, diplomatic attention swiftly shifted eastward to a region where Trump once scripted some of his most dramatic foreign policy moments. In Washington, Seoul, and even Pyongyang, speculation is mounting about the possible revival of a U.S.–North Korea summit.

According to Reuters, some American officials have begun preliminary discussions on the feasibility of such a meeting, while South Korea’s Unification Minister Chung Dong-young noted that “there is no reason to rule out that possibility.” Though no official confirmation has been made, the very reemergence of this idea signals a subtle but notable shift in Trump’s diplomatic playbook.

Although there has been no official confirmation, the idea of ​​a US-North Korea summit being brought back to the table reflects a notable shift in the diplomatic direction of the Trump 2.0 administration. After making initial strides in Gaza and Ukraine, Washington appears to be shifting its pivot to Northeast Asia, a region that was a symbol of Trump’s diplomatic breakthrough in his first term in 2018.

Trump’s diplomatic instinct

Diplomacy under Trump has always been intensely personal. His style relies less on institutions or multilateral mechanisms and more on leader-to-leader engagement, what some in Washington describe as “summit diplomacy.”

For Trump, a renewed meeting with Kim Jong Un could serve two political purposes. First, it would remind the world that it is Trump, not Xi Jinping or Vladimir Putin, who remains at the center of managing the world’s flashpoints. Second, it would demonstrate his unique ability to “talk to the untouchables,” those seen as beyond the reach of traditional diplomacy.

Trump doesn’t necessarily need an agreement to declare victory. What he needs is a story, one that projects confidence, leadership, and America’s capacity to command global attention. The Korean Peninsula remains the perfect stage for that story to unfold.

America’s strategic calculus

Beyond the spectacle, Washington’s calculus is deeply strategic. Trump’s contemplation of reopening dialogue with Kim is less about denuclearization per se and more about repositioning U.S. influence within two intersecting triangles of power: U.S.–China–Russia and U.S.–Japan–South Korea.

By reaching out directly to Kim, Trump could dilute the dual leverage that Moscow and Beijing currently exert over Pyongyang. Both powers have increasingly treated North Korea as a tactical card in their broader geopolitical standoff with the United States. A Trump–Kim channel could, at least temporarily, limit that dependency, allowing Washington to reassert itself as an independent broker on the Peninsula.

At the same time, reviving engagement with Pyongyang could help reboot the stalled trilateral coordination between Washington, Tokyo, and Seoul. For the U.S., this is not only about deterring the North but also about reaffirming its leadership at a time when East Asia’s security architecture is under strain from renewed great-power rivalry.

Pyongyang’s position: bargaining from strength

From Pyongyang’s perspective, the motivation to reopen a “high-level dialogue” is equally clear. Negotiating with Washington offers a path, however narrow, toward easing economic isolation or securing limited political concessions.

A statement from North Korea’s Foreign Ministry in October 2025 captured this tone of calibrated openness. “There is no reason to avoid dialogue with the United States, as long as it proceeds with mutual respect.” Behind this carefully crafted language lies a familiar tactic: engage only when leverage is high.

Unlike in 2019, Pyongyang is no longer fully isolated. Its deepening military cooperation with Russia, particularly since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, has yielded tangible benefits, from battlefield experience to access to advanced military technology. Meanwhile, China continues to view North Korea as an indispensable strategic buffer in its rivalry with the United States.

Most importantly, North Korea’s nuclear deterrence capability has grown substantially. The October 11 military parade unveiled the new Hwasong-20 intercontinental ballistic missile, symbolizing both technological progress and political confidence. The reactivation of the Yongbyon nuclear complex further signals that Pyongyang now approaches negotiations not from weakness, but from perceived strength.

As Pyongyang frames these moves as “necessary deterrence measures,” they also function as a form of crisis manufacturing, a deliberate escalation designed to increase bargaining value. For Trump, whose instincts favor transactional, hard-nosed diplomacy, this is a game he believes he can play and win.

Yet, the road to a new U.S.–North Korea summit remains fraught with risks. Washington harbors no illusion about the prospects of full denuclearization, while Pyongyang remains unwilling to trade its strategic assets for what it sees as reversible or symbolic commitments.

The question for Trump 2.0 is no longer whether to meet or not to meet Kim Jong Un, but rather, why meet, and what follows afterward?

If Trump manages to sustain dialogue with both Putin and Kim, he could reposition the United States as a balancer in an international order increasingly defined by overlapping rivalries rather than clear blocs. But if his efforts falter, Washington risks ceding ground to Moscow and Beijing, both of which are expanding their influence through direct engagement with Pyongyang.

A new kind of summit

If another Trump–Kim summit materializes in the coming months, it will not be a replay of Singapore 2018 or Hanoi 2019. This time, the performance will likely be more pragmatic, less idealistic, and perhaps even more calculated. Both leaders now understand the limits of what diplomacy can achieve and also the power of what a meeting alone can symbolize.

In a region where every gesture carries strategic weight, even the act of “showing up” becomes a message in itself. For Trump, that message would be simple but powerful: that the U.S. still holds the initiative, not through coercion, but through presence.

And for Kim Jong Un, it would reaffirm that Pyongyang, once again, cannot be ignored.

Whether or not the summit happens, Trump’s renewed focus on the Korean Peninsula reveals something deeper about his worldview. In an era where global power is contested on multiple fronts, symbolic diplomacy—the art of turning visibility into leverage—has become a strategic tool in its own right.

The question is not whether Trump and Kim can achieve a breakthrough. It is whether both can once again use each other to tell the stories they need: one of restored American dominance and one of North Korean resilience.

Either way, the stage is set. The spotlight, once more, is on the Peninsula.

The recent agreement between the United States and Australia to invest $3 billion in critical minerals and rare earths projects represents a significant step in the Western effort to reduce dependency on China for strategically vital resources.
While the deal has been heralded by Washington as a turning point in global supply diversification, a closer examination suggests that China’s entrenched dominance in rare earth mining, refining, and magnet manufacturing will remain largely unchallenged in the foreseeable future.

This analysis situates the agreement within the broader geopolitical and economic context of resource security, outlines its potential and limitations, and assesses its implications for the evolving balance of power in the Indo-Pacific region.

Rare Earths and Strategic Dependence

Rare earth elements (REEs) are indispensable for modern technology spanning clean energy, defence systems, electric vehicles, and semiconductors. Despite their name, REEs are relatively abundant in the Earth’s crust; their scarcity lies in the technically complex, costly, and environmentally damaging refining process.

Over the past three decades, China has systematically consolidated control over this value chain, developing low-cost refining and magnet production capabilities that now underpin 90% of global processing capacity, 69% of mining, and 98% of magnet manufacturing (Goldman Sachs, 2024).

This dominance has translated into a form of strategic leverage. Beijing has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to weaponize resource supply chains, most recently through export curbs on gallium, graphite, and rare earth magnets, heightening Western concerns about supply security and industrial resilience.

The United States and its allies, including Japan, Australia, and the European Union, have consequently prioritized critical mineral diversification as a matter of both economic sovereignty and national security.

Key Issues:

Technological Dependence:
Western economies lack refining and magnet manufacturing infrastructure comparable to China’s mature ecosystem, which benefits from decades of state investment and technological standardization.

Environmental and Regulatory Constraints:
High environmental standards, community opposition, and lengthy approval timelines in the U.S. and Australia increase project costs and delay production, deterring private investment.

Market Distortion by State Subsidies:
Chinese producers benefit from state-backed financing, subsidized energy, and vertically integrated industrial networks that suppress global prices, making it difficult for Western firms to compete without government intervention.

Investor and Consumer Behavior:
Global manufacturers continue to prioritize low-cost Chinese supply, perpetuating dependency despite policy rhetoric about diversification.

Geopolitical Fragmentation:
Efforts to “de-risk” supply chains are hindered by divergent national strategies among Western allies, with varying levels of commitment to resource security versus environmental and economic priorities.

The U.S.-Australia Critical Minerals Pact

On October 20, 2025, President Donald Trump announced a joint U.S.-Australia agreement committing $3 billion to the exploration, mining, and processing of critical minerals.
The pact includes provisions for a price floor a mechanism designed to ensure profitability for Western miners operating in markets distorted by Chinese state subsidies and environmental cost advantages.

According to the White House, U.S. investments will “unlock deposits worth over $53 billion” in Australian reserves. The U.S. Export-Import Bank (EXIM) has issued seven Letters of Interest totaling $2.2 billion to Australian mining firms, including Arafura Rare Earths, developer of the Nolans project in Western Australia.

While these measures indicate a serious financial commitment, they also highlight the industrial asymmetry between emerging Western projects and China’s mature, vertically integrated supply chains.

Economic Feasibility and Industry Timelines

Industry experts have expressed caution regarding the feasibility of rapid supply diversification.
Barrenjoey analyst Dan Morgan noted that the “time frame for various projects to be ready even by 2027 would be heroic,” reflecting the inherent capital intensity and regulatory delays in rare earth development.

Similarly, Dylan Kelly of Terra Capital observed that the current pricing of NdPr oxide the most traded rare earth compound “does not reflect a market dynamic that can sustain a significant fall in prices,” implying that a price floor mechanism may be essential for commercial viability.

Such perspectives underline the structural constraint that industrial policy cannot compress geological and technological timelines. New rare earth projects require multi-year investments in exploration, environmental clearance, and processing technology transfer.

Strategic and Geopolitical Dimensions

The U.S.-Australia pact is emblematic of a broader strategic realignment in the Indo-Pacific, wherein critical minerals are increasingly framed not merely as commodities but as strategic enablers of power projection.
For Washington, the deal aligns with its economic security agenda to “de-risk” supply chains and reduce China’s capacity to use resource dependencies as geopolitical tools.

For Canberra, it represents both an economic opportunity and a strategic burden. Australia possesses abundant mineral reserves but faces pressure to align its export policies with U.S. strategic interests, potentially straining its trade relations with China still its largest trading partner.

At a deeper level, the agreement signals the emergence of a critical minerals bloc, mirroring patterns seen in energy geopolitics. Yet, the absence of comparable refining infrastructure, skilled labor pools, and environmental cost advantages continues to limit Western competitiveness.

Market Reactions and Corporate Beneficiaries

The deal has already produced identifiable commercial winners.
Arafura Rare Earths and Syrah Resources have reported increased investor interest following the announcement, reflecting market confidence in Western government-backed financing.
Arafura’s CFO, Peter Sherrington, emphasized that the U.S.-Australia initiative “de-risks raising money from an equity perspective,” while its CEO projected full project funding by early 2026.

However, as Syrah CEO Shaun Verner noted, unless global consumers “cure their addiction to lowest-cost supply from China,” even well-financed Western projects will struggle to secure stable demand. This underscores a behavioral dimension of market dependency, wherein private-sector procurement patterns perpetuate Chinese dominance despite political rhetoric of diversification.

Implications for Global Resource Governance

In the short term, the U.S.-Australia agreement is unlikely to materially alter the global rare earth landscape.
China’s entrenched advantages in scale, technology, and regulatory flexibility will ensure continued dominance through the decade.
Nevertheless, the pact marks an important symbolic and structural step toward building alternative supply chains, particularly if accompanied by coordinated policies on processing technology, environmental standards, and market access.

In the medium to long term, such agreements could catalyze a Western-led industrial ecosystem, reducing strategic vulnerability and fostering innovation in cleaner extraction methods. However, success will depend on sustained political will, technological breakthroughs, and a willingness to absorb short-term economic inefficiencies for long-term security gains.

Analysis: Strategic Patience Over Political Rhetoric

The U.S.-Australia rare earths pact represents a strategically coherent but operationally constrained response to China’s resource hegemony. It reflects the increasing securitization of economic policy in an era of great-power competition.

Yet, as this analysis indicates, the pathway to rare earth independence will be long, capital-intensive, and geopolitically fraught.
While the agreement sends a strong signal of Western resolve, the transformation of intent into industrial capability will take years, not electoral cycles.

Until then, China’s dominance will persist not simply because of its mineral reserves, but due to its unparalleled integration of industrial policy, technological expertise, and geopolitical strategy.

With information from Reuters.

In a realist world, power is rarely exercised alone. It takes coordination, sustained support, and mutual loyalty to project strength. That is the foundation of any enduring alliance. Since the Cold War, Western powers have built a sophisticated web of strategic alliances, sometimes tested but still intact. Even amid nationalist disruptions under figures like Donald Trump or Viktor Orbán, the Western alliance remains functional and coherent. But what about the non-Western bloc, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and others?

The truth is that non-Western alliances remain weak, fragmented, and often symbolic. Lacking geographic proximity, institutional architecture, or political cohesion, these alliances fail to act in unison, especially in moments of crisis. Military cooperation, defense technology sharing, and strategic communication remain alarmingly underdeveloped.

The recent Israeli attack on Iran exposed this blatantly. Reportedly Isreal forces used the Jordanian and Iraqi airspace, struck Iranian nuclear and military facilities, killing multiple top officials. While rumors circulated about an imminent war, Iran’s response was surprisingly feeble. It’s defense systems failed to intercept the attacks, and its military preparedness appeared outdated from the start. But recent retaliation followed a little bit of promise.

The United States denied direct involvement. Yet Washington, alongside the European allies, refrained from condemning the strike. Germany, France, and the United Kingdom stood silent, indirectly backing Israel through intelligence sharing, military cooperation, and diplomatic support. Their strategic coordination remains strong, despite tensions over Iran’s nuclear program.

What about Iran’s Non-Western allies?

Russia, arguably Iran’s closest partner, is deeply engaged in its own war in Ukraine. Yet strategic alliances are tested precisely in such moments. Iran and Russia have long shared regional interests in Syria and other part of the Middle East. Now, that cooperation seems one-sided. While Russia uses Iranian drones in Ukraine, Tehran receives little in return. No warning, no defense coordination, and certainly no technological assistance ahead of Israel’s strike.

Why hasn’t Russia helped accelerate Iran’s nuclear program as Western powers once did for Israel? Where was the intelligence sharing, the strategic dialogue? These absences raise serious questions about Russia’s role in the non-Western alliance framework: Is it simply a transactional partner or something more?

China is a different story. With an advanced defense industry and growing geopolitical clout, Beijing has demonstrated capability. The recent deployment of Chinese J-10C jets to Pakistan, for example, during tensions with India, signaled a serious technological and symbolic counterweight to Western influence. China even provided real-time intelligence to Pakistan. But where was this level of support for Iran? Through recent rumor said, there are couple of military assistance provided to Iran but still not like ally.

A newly inaugurated Iran-China railroad project suggests growing economic ties, but modern alliances require more than trade. Strategic defense coordination is fundamental. Despite Iran’s geopolitical relevance, Beijing remains largely absent in Iran’s security calculus.

Then there is Iran’s own regional network, its so-called “axis of resistance.” Historically, Iran projected strength through proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. But this too is unraveling. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Hamas political chief Ismail Haniyeh were both reportedly killed by Israeli operations, Haniyeh during an official visit in Tehran itself. These assassinations not only reflect Tehran’s inability to protect its partners but also signal a crisis of credibility. No meaningful retaliation followed. This absence of action weakens Iran’s reputation as a guarantor of its proxies’ survival.

The broader picture is troubling. Non-Western powers often operate like solo actors in a system that punishes isolation. The world is a dark forest; walk alone, and sooner or later, the wolves will find you. This is the lesson non-Western allies must internalize. Shared struggle requires shared commitment. Each country will always have its own domestic priorities, but alliances demand sacrifice, coordination, and strategic depth.

It seems like their trust-building process is yet to work. Or are they afraid to confront Western allies’ wrath over sanctions? China and Russia have been conducting business and various forms of economic cooperation with most of the Western blocs, despite sanctions threats and targeted regulations. These two nations need to step up and anchor the non-Western bloc. A multipolar world needs a table where bipolar allies can collaborate and pave the path for a democratic alliance for the world. Trump’s approach to Europe and other Western countries is not seen as a sign of alliance. So at this moment, non-Western countries can show unity. This not only gives the world new hope for cooperative living ideas but also threatens Trump’s leadership position on global order.

China has the defense capacity to empower allies but remains hesitant. Russia, once a superpower, is now locked in a war that undermines its influence and exposes its limits. In today’s geopolitical landscape, superpowers act more like coaches than players. Mediation, defense sharing, and regional stabilization efforts, rather than confrontation, are what build strategic resilience.

For the non-Western bloc, the Israel-Iran crisis must serve as a wake-up call. Without solidarity, without trust, and without strategy, they risk becoming a coalition of convenience. This also reflects unity in rhetoric but division and defeat in reality.

If you TikTok on any particular night and you can watch America arguing with itself. Most teenagers scroll through protest videos, culture-war debates, and endless outrage while rival nations quietly observe something far more consequential – the erosion of the attention of the American youth.

Think of two children, one spends an entire day watching protest clips and debating identity issues online. The other spends that same time learning robotics or coding. A decade later, only one of them is shaping the technologies that define the future. Multiply this very difference by millions and the picture becomes clear. This is how foreign countries can gain a subtle but powerful advantage by encouraging distraction.

While American youth is drawn into ideological skirmishes, China is building artificial intelligence laboratories, investing heavily in space technology, and cultivating discipline among its students. Russia, though economically weaker, still benefits by showcasing American confusion to its own citizens. By pointing to social division and cultural chaos, it strengthens the illusion that its own model offers stability. The battlefield today is not military; it is psychological.

The New Frontline of Power

I believe that the most contested territory of the 21^st century is not land or trade routes but attention. Data may have been the ‘New Oil’ but Attention and the ability to capture and control it is the ‘New Data’. If you control the minds, you control the country. Young Americans live in a constant world of images, arguments, and notifications that shape how they see their nation and their ideological beliefs. They are politically aware but emotionally exhausted.

Several Surveys by the Pew Research Centre show that nearly half of American teenagers believe social media has a mostly negative effect on their generation, and about 1 in 5 say it has harmed their mental health in one way or another. What began as a tool for connection, has become an arena for reactivity, chaos and following social media trends. News is consumed not to understand but to respond.

America’s openness which has been its defining strength, has become a point of vulnerability. During the 2016 election, Russian operatives deliberately amplified such issues online, pushing both liberal and conservative extremes to deepen mistrust and cause diversity. The aim was not persuasion but polarization. It was a targeted attack on the people of America.

TikTok on the other hand, which is China’s most successful global export is designed to capture attention through endless entertainment, while its domestic version, Douyin, restricts usage for minors and promotes educational and patriotic content. The Chinese youth are trained to create and compete, while American youth are taught, unconsciously, to scroll. Why is Douyin used in China and not TikTok? Why isn’t conventional social media banned in China? What does China know about these social debates that it wants to control the flow of media and western ideologies into their country? One should question what Is really happening

The Economics of Distraction

Attention is now a form of economic power. Nations that focus their youth on innovation and competence will dominate the coming century. Those that reward distraction will decline.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies reports that China graduates more than one million engineers each year, nearly four times the number produced in the United States. When a country’s young population spends more time debating cultural issues than mastering scientific ones, it weakens its long-term competitiveness.

Political consequences follow. Polarization has become both symptom and strategy. Congress spends increasing time performing ideological battles instead of solving practical problems. Rivals interpret this as evidence that democracy can be paralyzed by its own openness, and citizens begin to lose confidence in their institutions.

The Algorithmic Advantage

Algorithms have become invisible editors of public life. They decide what people see, what they feel, and eventually what they believe. A Wall Street Journal investigation found that TikTok’s recommendation system can guide users toward extreme or divisive content within minutes of signing up. Douyin, in contrast, enforces time limits for minors and promotes academic material.

The difference in design reveals a difference in philosophy. American platforms optimize for engagement. Chinese platforms optimize priamrily for control. Both shape human behaviour, but only one leaves its users fragmented and fatigued.

Every moment of outrage online generates data, engagement, and profit. The more polarized the conversation, the stronger the business model. That is the genius of this weapon, it destabilizes societies while appearing voluntary. It is a quiet killer of growth, it is the quiet killer of a bright future. Why? Because it changes the nature of the populus to focus on ideological differences, to argue and debate on that rather than focusing on innovation, growth and developing. The American Citizen has become vulnerable to these power plays.

The Psychological Toll

This constant exposure to ideological battles leaves deep psychological marks. A few studies link sustained online conflict to higher anxiety, moral fatigue, and declining trust in authority. People become more skeptical yet also more suggestible, believing less but reacting more quickly.

The youth, despite being more digitally focused, remain more adaptable in belief than older generations. The real danger here, is not what they believe but that they begin to doubt whether anyone can be trusted to tell the truth. When the trust has evaporated, societies become easier to manipulate and it gets much harder for the country to unite and focus on growth and development.

Building Cognitive Resilience

Safeguarding democracy today requires much more than merely armies and technology, rather it requires citizens who can think clearly in an environment designed to distract them. The solution lies in resilience, not censorship or media control. Lets discuss some points that can be adopted to fight this battle

Teach Media Literacy: Schools should help students understand how algorithms shape their perceptions and emotions. Research shows that even brief digital literacy training reduces belief in false information.

Make algorithms transparent: Tech platforms should disclose what content they prioritize and why. Independent audits can reveal manipulation before it spreads.

Rebuild Offline Living: Communities that meet face-to-face build empathy that online arguments cannot. Dialogue, Community building and local participation restore the sense of shared purpose that social media erodes.

Expose Interference very Quickly: Governments should publicly reveal foreign manipulation as soon as it is detected. Transparency disarms propaganda faster than denial.

The Human Cost and the National Risk

Beneath this jargon is a human story. It is the that teenager that watches TikTok before bed and wakes up anxious without knowing the reason for that very anxiety. It is the citizen who cannot trust any sources of news. It is the slow disintegration of focus and faith in the conventional media and the American government.

Many foreign powers have learned that it is cheaper to just divide America than try to defeat it using any Economic or Military power because they sure are too strong on that front controlling the one of the most globally traded currency and one of the strongest Military powers in the world. Their weapon is distraction, which is engineered with precision and amplified through emotion.

The remedy is not to close society but to strengthen it. Attention in itself needs to be treated as a civic skill, something to be trained and protected. The ability to pause, reflect and filter out unimportant and hate-causing content is America’s last line of defence.

The next great contest between open and closed societies will not be fought on a battlefield but in the minds of the populus deciding whether to react or to think. If America’s strength once came from its freedom to speak, its survival now depends on its willingness to listen and act be aware of what is really happening.

The shooting of Charlie Kirk, a right-wing activist and founder of Turning Point USA, has attracted global attention. It didn’t take long for the media to rush to write narratives related to the shooting of Charlie Kirk. This tragedy is not only a sad news, it has transformed into a political stage that reveals the reality of how the world of news works. This, of course, raises a big question: how can a violent tragedy turn into a political conversation?

The Political Dimension of the Charlie Kirk Shooting

In a society often polarized by politics, an event is often responded to not by its substance but by who was involved in it. In this tragedy, the most widely reported information was related to Charlie Kirk’s political identity, his affiliation with Donald Trump and his close ties to conservative groups.

Violence against political figures in the United States is nothing new. However, Kirk’s case has become a turning point, demonstrating how vulnerable the public can be when political identities take precedence over human values. In its official statement on S. Res. 391, Congress honored Kirk’s commitment to the constitutional principles of civil discussion and debate among all Americans, regardless of political affiliation.

Facts about the Charlie Kirk shooting tragedy

On September 10, 2025, Charlie Kirk was shot and killed on the campus of Utah Valley University. At the time of the incident, Kirk was answering questions about transgender shooters and mass shooters at a public debate themed “Prove Me Wrong” and hosted by Turning Point USA. Panic ensued, and security officers immediately carried him out on a stretcher, but unfortunately, Kirk’s life could not be saved because the bullet hit his neck.

The FBI and Utah State Police are working together to gather evidence, release video of the alleged shooter, and even offer a $100,000 reward for information leading to the identity of the Kirk shooter. Campus CCTV footage shows a man jumping from the Losee Center building. Prior to the arrest of Tyler Robinson (the shooter), two other men were detained on the day of the shooting, but were soon released after their innocence was proven.

An affidavit of probable cause from the Utah prosecutor’s office outlines the charges and elements of the charges, one of which is the enhancement of victim-targeting related to the victim’s political views. Tyler Robinson was charged with Aggravated Murder under Section 76-5-202 (F1 Felony), Felony Discharge of Firearms under Section 76-11-210(2)(3C) and Obstruction of Justice-Capital/First Degree Felony Conduct under Section 76-8-306(2)+(3A).

The Shift from Tragedy to Narrative in Public Space

The threat of domestic violence and terrorism in the United States is driven by social, political, and global factors. A divided political environment and the proliferation of digital disinformation have fueled the radicalization of individuals, often targeting political activists, government officials, and ethnic and religious minorities.

In this context, Kirk’s shooting demonstrates how a real tragedy has become a platform for shaping public opinion. Framing Kirk’s position and the perpetrator’s position creates a polarization, with conservatives viewing the shooting as a form of silencing of the values ​​of free speech in the United States. While others view this event as a form of ideological hostility that has led to political violence, they believe it reflects extreme rhetoric. What ultimately creates two conflicting versions of the truth, so that society no longer sympathizes with the event but shifts to its ideological position.

Public Polarization and the Construction of Global Media Reality

Several media narratives also highlighted the affiliation of Tyler Robinson, a 22-year-old college student who was confirmed by the FBI as the perpetrator of Kirk’s shooting. However, public attention was no longer focused on the perpetrator’s motives, but rather on his ideological positions, social background, and political views. This further widened the gap in public polarization. Recurring narratives in the media reinforced certain images, one of which placed Tyler as affiliated with a political party. Most media outlets did not write narratives that showed the motives of the crime and the human aspects that could build public empathy. As a result, many people speculated that this was a political incident, not an ordinary shooting tragedy.

In an increasingly connected world, the line between local events and global issues is becoming increasingly blurred. The news of the Charlie Kirk tragedy has crossed borders and shaped broader debates about freedom of speech and democracy in the United States. This event has then become no longer seen as a domestic US issue but has evolved into a global reflection of narratives that are more often traded than conveying reality.

Kirk’s death should elicit empathy regardless of political affiliation or ideological views. Politics has taken over the media’s sense of humanity. Media plays a crucial role in distributing information, so it should be free from political elements that shape public opinion. When differing views are used as a source of conflict, the public sphere loses its function as a forum for discussion. Ultimately, the public can only be urged to think critically so that a tragedy is no longer used as a political commodity.

Oct. 9 (UPI) — The Charlie Kirk-co-founded Turning Point USA is planning to host an alternative musical performance called “The All-American Halftime Show” for Super Bowl LX.

Officials for the conservative non-profit announced the planned alternative halftime show on social media but did not say which musical acts and others would perform.

“It’s true, Turning Point USA is thrilled to announce The All-American Halftime Show,” it said in a post on X on Thursday, as reported by Fox News.

The post says the event will celebrate faith, family and freedom.

Turning Point USA has created a website to present the halftime show and asked online visitors to choose which musical genres they would like to see perform.

Survey results so far show support for country, rock, hip hop and “anything in English,” The Hill reported.

The event would air while rapper Benito Antonio Martiniz Ocasio, aka Bad Bunny, performs during the Super Bowl’s halftime show headliner.

The musical artist from Puerto Rico has won three Grammy Awards since his career took off in 2016.

He also is slated to be named Billboard’s Latin Artist of the 21st Century during the 2025 Billboard Latin Music Awards on Oct.23.

Bad Bunny is undertaking a world tour but has refused to perform in the United States, other than during the Super Bowl.

He has cited concerns that Immigration and Customs Enforcement might target his U.S. shows and detain audience members, according to Axios.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt recently dismissed such concerns and said there are no plans in place to raid Bad Bunny concerts.

Despite Leavitt’s denial, DHS adviser Corey Lewandowski recently suggested ICE agents would attend Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl performance.

Lewandowski made the claim while appearing on “The Benny Show” podcast on Oct. 1.

“There is nowhere that you can provide a safe haven to the people in this country illegally,” he told podcast host Benny Johnson.

The Super Bowl is scheduled for Feb. 8 at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, Calif.

USA Rare Earth (USAR 14.99%) posted huge gains in Thursday’s trading session. The deep-sea mining specialist’s share price gained 15%, even though the Dow Jones Industrial Average index declined 0.6% in the day’s trading. Meanwhile, the S&P 500 declined 0.3%, and the Nasdaq Composite declined 0.1%.

The key factors that pushed the broader market lower today were the same ones that powered big gains for USA Rare Earth stock. China plans to cut down on its export of rare-earth minerals to the U.S., but that could present a big opportunity for USA Rare Earth.

Image source: Getty Images.

Is USA Rare Earth stock a buy right now?

China is the world’s leading supplier of rare-earth minerals. According to some estimates, the country accounts for approximately 70% of global rare-earth mineral sourcing. If relations between the U.S. and China continue to worsen, the U.S. will likely have to increase its domestic sourcing of rare-earth minerals and trade in the category with aligned countries.

USA Rare Earth’s business is still in a pre-revenue state, and that makes the company a risky investment almost by definition. This characteristic makes it riskier than more well-established mining stocks. Conversely, the company expects to begin production at its Stillwater, Oklahoma, magnet facility next year and has other projects that could shift into production mode within the next two years.

USA Rare Earth continues to be a high-risk investment, and the stock is too growth-dependent to be a good fit for risk-averse investors. On the other hand, the company’s potential to play a leading role in supplying rare-earth minerals to the U.S. makes it a potentially explosive play.

Oct. 9 (UPI) — The Charlie Kirk-co-founded Turning Point USA is planning to host an alternative musical performance called “The All-American Halftime Show” for Super Bowl LX.

Officials for the conservative non-profit announced the planned alternative halftime show on social media but did not say which musical acts and others would perform.

“It’s true, Turning Point USA is thrilled to announce The All-American Halftime Show,” it said in a post on X on Thursday, as reported by Fox News.

The post says the event will celebrate faith, family and freedom.

Turning Point USA has created a website to present the halftime show and asked online visitors to choose which musical genres they would like to see perform.

Survey results so far show support for country, rock, hip hop and “anything in English,” The Hill reported.

The event would air while rapper Benito Antonio Martiniz Ocasio, aka Bad Bunny, performs during the Super Bowl’s halftime show headliner.

The musical artist from Puerto Rico has won three Grammy Awards since his career took off in 2016.

He also is slated to be named Billboard’s Latin Artist of the 21st Century during the 2025 Billboard Latin Music Awards on Oct.23.

Bad Bunny is undertaking a world tour but has refused to perform in the United States, other than during the Super Bowl.

He has cited concerns that Immigration and Customs Enforcement might target his U.S. shows and detain audience members, according to Axios.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt recently dismissed such concerns and said there are no plans in place to raid Bad Bunny concerts.

Despite Leavitt’s denial, DHS adviser Corey Lewandowski recently suggested ICE agents would attend Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl performance.

Lewandowski made the claim while appearing on “The Benny Show” podcast on Oct. 1.

“There is nowhere that you can provide a safe haven to the people in this country illegally,” he told podcast host Benny Johnson.

The Super Bowl is scheduled for Feb. 8 at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, Calif.

USA Rare Earth (USAR 17.77%) stock, one of a handful of start-up companies attempting to jump-start rare earth oxide mining and rare earth magnet manufacturing in the United States, soared 15.6% through 10:45 a.m. ET Thursday. And why?

China just announced new curbs on rare earth exports.

Image source: Getty Images.

What’s China up to now?

The Chinese Commerce Ministry announced Thursday that government approval will be required for exporting products containing certain rare earth metals. China dominates global mining of rare earths (69% of global production), refining of rare earth oxides (85%), and manufacture of rare earth magnets (90%) — the end goal of all this work.

For more than a decade, China has used its near-monopolies in rare earths as a lever in trade negotiations, especially with the United States. In the context of President Trump’s hefty tariffs imposed on other Chinese exports, China’s once again limiting rare earth exports to punish the U.S.

Perversely, that’s good news for a company like USA Rare Earth, which aims to produce more of this stuff domestically to fill gaps in the supply line that the lack of Chinese exports creates.

Is USA Rare Earth stock a buy?

It’s good news long term, that is. In the short term, even a full-scale Chinese embargo on rare earth exports won’t change the fact that USA Rare Earth has no revenue and is losing about $100 million a year.

Analysts do believe the company will earn a profit eventually, but no sooner than 2028. By that time, however, the Trump administration will be heading for the exits, the trade war could be over, and rare earth exports from China could be flowing freely again.

Buying USA Rare Earth stock years before it turns profitable remains highly speculative. Caveat investor, and limit your risks.

Markets are hovering in positive territory today, and while they may end up down by the end of Tuesday’s trading session, there’s a strong likelihood that USA Rare Earth (USAR 9.92%) stock will end the day higher than where the rare earths stock began. And it doesn’t even relate to any company news. Instead, the stock’s spike stems from a development regarding a metals peer.

As of 12:14 a.m. ET, shares of USA Rare Earth are up 10%.

Image source: Getty Images.

Speculation of a notable partnership isn’t just running rampant — it’s full-on sprinting

Trilogy Metals (TMQ 241.63%) is the latest beneficiary of the U.S. government’s growing enthusiasm for investing in companies focused on critical mineral production. The company, focused on copper and cobalt production, announced today that the U.S. government intends to make a $17.8 million investment in the company, which would result in an approximate 10% equity stake.

While investor interest in rare earths has soared since President Trump issued executive orders in May to shore up the nation’s supply of these critical minerals, the administration’s interest in acquiring equity stakes in these mining companies to expedite their growth has also represented a powerful catalyst — one that has led investors to gobble up USA Rare Earth stock on the belief that it too will receive an equity investment from the U.S. government.

With shares rising, what are investors to do now?

Although it certainly seems with the realm of reason that the U.S. government would pursue an equity investment in USA Rare Earth, it’s speculative at this point to predicate an investment in the company solely on this notion. Instead, potential investors should monitor the company’s progress in developing its rare earth magnet production facility — something a lot more material to a sound investment.

ADVERTISEMENT

It’s not only European tourists traveling in the United States and finding themselves in front of closed museum doors or national park gates.

Because the US is so central to the global economy, European businesses could feel negative effects of a US government shutdown too.

In fact, they should get ready for a rough ride that will only become more painful the longer the gridlock in Washington lasts.

So, why should corporate Europe be worried about public employees on the other side of the Atlantic not being able to work?

Well, the shutdown halts or scales back many federal operations like providing loans or permits and disrupts the work of government agencies that provide oversight, slowing down economic activity.

What makes this more significant is its timing. This year, the US economy is already navigating slower growth, persistent inflation pressures and increasing financial insecurity.

The shutdown is adding to this insecurity and has the potential to trigger a chain reaction of economic consequences.

Take European trade businesses. Already rattled by the tariff chaos, they rely on consistent and predictable market conditions to plan their production, allocate resources and meet their customers’ needs.

Even a slight slowdown in economic activity would lead to lower US imports, which would reduce demand for European companies, whose growth, revenue and profitability would in turn be affected.

European imports arriving in America will meet less government staff in ports and customs who handle administrative and regulatory tasks associated with importing and exporting goods.

As a result, there will be delays which can extend the time it takes for goods to reach their destinations, disrupting delivery schedules.

The delays can have cascading effects on supply chains that rely on precise timing to function efficiently. This may lead to unexpected costs for expedited shipping and penalties for missed delivery deadlines.

In addition, there is the danger from a potential halt in export license approvals.

European companies need these approvals – or their renewals – to conduct their business operations in the US altogether.

“Companies will be frozen, they can’t get anything approved, no permits or licenses, can’t sell corporate debt in the US,” a lawyer in the business of negotiating transatlantic deals for multinational corporate clients told Euronews.

“A government shutdown sends home the people who execute regulations, but the regulations themselves remain – and remain to be complied with.”

This regulatory uncertainty can leave European exporters in a state of limbo, unsure of their ability to continue their activities with the US market in the short-term.

Look especially for sectors that rely on US demand such as machinery, automotive components or chemicals.

Those companies might see downward stock market swings as investors react to uncertainty in the US.

Speaking of financial markets. Prolonged uncertainty in the US could lead to rising interest rates on US government bonds, as investors would consider them to be higher risk.

That would lead to higher rates elsewhere in the world.

In Europe, for example, this could depress stock markets, increase the cost of financing public deficits, and reduce overall demand due to the higher cost of credit.

The rise in rates would increase the risk of default by over-indebted borrowers, and therefore of a financial crisis.

As the lack of a budget agreement in Washington would compromise the financing of US support for certain countries, the risks of geopolitical instability would increase, which would depress business investment and intensify the decline in demand already affected by inflation.

Economists estimate that a two-week US government shutdown would have a negative impact on EU GDP of €4 billion. If the shutdown lasted for 8 weeks, the impact would increase to €16 billion.

Whether it will really come to this is in the hands of politicians in Washington.

What is at stake is nothing less than America’s reputation as a global economic anchor of stability.