Global Pulse

博客

  • China is moving corporate credit out of the supply chain

    China is moving corporate credit out of the supply chain

    This month, Beijing rolled out a landmark set of new regulations targeting delayed payments to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), with a little-noticed but transformative financing framework that is reshaping how credit flows through China’s industrial ecosystem. The policy pushes large corporate buyers to replace extended accounts payable with upfront cash payments to their SME suppliers, by enabling these large firms to access formal bank loans and bond financing to cover the costs – a structural shift that moves the working-capital burden away from smaller, more vulnerable suppliers and back to purpose-built credit institutions.

    For years, extended payment terms have quietly functioned as an informal form of supplier financing across global supply chains, and China’s industrial sector is no exception. When a large buyer stretches out waiting periods for payment, the supplier is forced to front the full cost of production and delivery, carrying the entire cash flow strain for weeks or even months before revenue hits their accounts. Complicated financial instruments like commercial bills and electronic receivables have only amplified this pressure, turning a routine operational payment issue into hidden informal credit embedded deep within supply chain networks.

    China’s new policy directly targets this uneven dynamic. The regulations mandate that all large firms must settle outstanding payments to SME suppliers within a maximum 60-day window. Central state-owned enterprises face particularly strict requirements to pay in cash, while large firms that maintain massive accounts payable balances despite holding substantial cash reserves have been flagged for enhanced regulatory oversight.

    The most consequential piece of the reform lies in its underlying financing mechanism: Chinese regulators are actively encouraging domestic banks to extend new credit to large firms specifically to let them replace informal supplier credit with formal financial credit. In practice, this policy re-routes working-capital financing away from the small manufacturers that form the backbone of China’s industrial base, returning that function to the financial system designed to bear credit risk.

    Fresh industry data underscores just how urgent this correction has become. By the end of July, China’s designated large industrial enterprises reported an average receivables collection period of 71.9 days. Private firms, which account for the vast majority of SME suppliers, faced an average wait of 75.6 days – nearly 20 days longer than the 56.2-day average for state-controlled enterprises. That gap makes a profound difference for manufacturing suppliers, where available cash flow directly determines a firm’s ability to invest in new equipment, expand production lines, and upgrade capacity to meet evolving industry demands. While stretching payment terms may improve a large buyer’s own balance sheet, the ripple effect across the entire industrial ecosystem leaves suppliers with weaker financial positions and less capital for growth investment.

    This dynamic carries particular strategic weight for high-priority sectors including semiconductors, electric vehicles, industrial automation, industrial machinery, and advanced manufacturing. China’s long-term industrial ambitions rely on dense, interconnected networks of specialized SME suppliers, many of which require constant capital injection just to keep up with technological upgrades demanded by their large customers. As more working capital becomes trapped in unpaid receivables, the pressure eventually erodes the entire sector’s capacity to invest and grow.

    The new payment rules come as Beijing moves to bolster the capacity of its formal financial system. Major state-owned banks and insurance providers are currently raising roughly 360 billion yuan in new capital, 300 billion yuan of which is backed by special central government bonds. The Agricultural Bank of China and Industrial and Commercial Bank of China alone account for 260 billion yuan of this new capital injection. This expanded capital base gives the financial system extra lending capacity exactly as regulators push large firms to swap supplier credit for bank loans and bonds. Taken together, the two policy moves form part of a broader effort to pull corporate financing out of supply chain interconnections and back onto the balance sheets of regulated banks and capital markets.

    This shift matters because while accounts payable do not show up in official bank lending statistics, they still function as de facto credit. When a large company delays payment to a smaller supplier, it is effectively borrowing from that supplier. When this practice becomes widespread across the economy, the entire financing burden shifts toward smaller firms that typically have weaker bargaining power and far more expensive access to external capital.

    Beijing’s policy addresses both sides of this imbalance: it strengthens the formal financial institutions that can provide affordable credit, while cutting down on the amount of working capital that small suppliers are forced to finance for large buyers. This represents a meaningful structural change to how credit circulates through China’s industrial economy.

    If the policy succeeds, the first visible impacts will be shorter average collection periods, reduced receivables pressure, and stronger cash positions for private manufacturing SMEs. For global and domestic investors, this makes metrics including accounts receivable balances, average payment periods, commercial bill utilization, and supplier cash flow increasingly important indicators to track whether the reform is delivering capital to the small firms that need it to invest in growth. For analysts tracking B2B technology supply chains, key signals to watch include shorter payment cycles reported by large customers in quarterly disclosures, and improved cash conversion rates for suppliers even before revenue growth picks up.

    The implications of this reform stretch far beyond financial markets, reaching into the core of China’s long-term industrial strategy. For years, Beijing has directed massive amounts of capital toward its priority industrial sectors, but the long-term strength of these sectors ultimately depends on whether the underlying supplier base has enough cash to expand capacity, absorb market volatility, and sustain continuous investment. When smaller suppliers are forced to finance their large corporate customers, capital ends up flowing in the wrong direction, undermining the goals of China’s industrial policy. The new rules represent a deliberate effort by Beijing to reverse that misallocation, moving working-capital financing back to banks and capital markets – the institutions built to carry that funding burden.

    This analysis was written by Ron Honig, Co-CEO of From-Honig Family Office, who has more than two decades of experience in senior finance and operations roles in the global technology sector, including time at Intel. Honig writes regularly on semiconductors, macroeconomics, and capital allocation. The views expressed are his alone and do not represent the official position of From-Honig Family Office, and the article does not constitute investment advice or any recommendation for individual securities or investments.

  • Trump has no path to victory against Iran

    Trump has no path to victory against Iran

    Six months after the United States and Israel launched their second open military conflict against Iran, the Trump administration has stuck to a carefully crafted public narrative: the Islamic Republic is on the brink of collapse, Washington is on course for a clear win, and the economic and human costs of the war will be short-lived. But as the conflict stretches on far longer than the White House initially predicted, that storyline is becoming increasingly unsustainable. Rising global fuel prices, dwindling US military stockpiles, and broad public opposition among American voters — who are set to voice their discontent in upcoming November midterm elections — have exposed the gap between the administration’s claims and on-the-ground reality.

    Despite facing crippling combined military and economic pressure, and the high-profile loss of a senior state leader, Iran has refused to capitulate. The regime retains its full fighting capacity, maintains the ability to escalate retaliatory attacks across the region, and has rejected all attempts to force Tehran into accepting Washington’s sweeping political demands. While US and Israeli strikes have inflicted massive widespread destruction across the country, they have failed to compel Iran’s leadership to bend to US terms. The core question that lingered before the first strike, and has become unavoidable after six months of conflict, is not whether the US can inflict more damage on Iran — it is whether that additional damage will ever translate into a meaningful, achievable political victory for Washington.

    Last week, President Donald Trump downplayed the entire conflict as “small potatoes,” continuing a pattern of minimizing the human and financial toll that has already far outstripped his administration’s initial projections. As of this report, the war has claimed the lives of 18 American service members and left more than 750 others wounded, with the total cost to US taxpayers clocking in at no less than $37.5 billion. For Iran, the human and infrastructure toll has been exponentially higher.

    According to data from Iran’s Ministry of Health, at least 3,468 Iranians had been killed and more than 26,500 injured in US and Israeli strikes by June 10. Civilian casualties have been a consistent feature of the conflict: documented incidents include a February airstrike on an elementary school in Minab and a September attack on a wedding gathering in southern Iran that left dozens dead. By April, the Iranian Red Crescent recorded that more than 125,000 civilian properties had sustained damage, including roughly 100,000 private homes damaged or destroyed. Iran has also submitted a formal list of 134 damaged cultural heritage sites to UNESCO, and independent reporting from Reuters has verified widespread damage to historic structures and protected heritage locations across the country.

    Crucially, Iran has proven it can inflict meaningful, sustained costs on US forces in the region. One independent analysis found that Iranian retaliatory strikes have damaged 15 US military sites across the Middle East, damaging critical infrastructure including troop barracks, aircraft hangars, fuel storage depots, fixed-wing aircraft, radar systems, communications equipment, and air defense networks. While US Central Command has publicly disputed the scale of the reported damage, the strikes have laid bare the vulnerability of stationary US facilities in the region and the heavy cost required to defend them against constant Iranian missile and drone attacks.

    Harrison Mann, associate director for campaigns at the anti-war advocacy group Win Without War and a former US Army officer and intelligence official, told the International Policy Journal that the Trump administration — and likely the Pentagon itself — seriously overestimated the ability of US and Israeli forces to quickly subdue Iran’s military establishment. “They were never able to locate or destroy the majority of Iran’s drones and missiles, nor destroy enough of its air defenses that US aircraft could fly freely over the entire country,” Mann explained. He added that Trump has learned a hard lesson: “It’s not possible to fight a prepared, 21st-century military — even one objectively weaker than America’s — and still conceal the costs from the public like previous US military interventions in the region.”

    This asymmetric dynamic defines the entire conflict. Iran has no need to defeat the United States using conventional military means to achieve its core goal. To deny Washington a decisive political victory, Iran only needs to preserve its governing institutions, maintain sufficient retaliatory capacity, and make continued warfare costly enough that the US cannot impose its preferred outcome at an acceptable price for American taxpayers and voters.

    The Trump administration claims it has severely degraded Iran’s missile, naval, and nuclear capabilities, but tactical military gains do not equate to a final political victory. Iran continues to launch retaliatory strikes, disrupt commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, and reject Washington’s main negotiating demands. Further escalation by the US would only expand this stalemate, driving up costs for both sides without delivering a decisive end to the conflict.

    A growing anti-war movement within the United States has cast increasing doubt on the war’s stated objectives, questioned its constitutional legitimacy, and grown weary of mounting costs. Dylan Williams, vice president of government affairs at the Center for International Policy, told the International Policy Journal that Trump is facing unprecedented public and congressional pushback over his war on Iran. “The possibility that he may not get an annual National Defense Authorization Act from Congress for the first time in the 65-year history of such legislation is a major governing failure reflecting his massive strategic failure in the Persian Gulf,” Williams said.

    While Trump initiated the conflict, US constitutional structure gives Congress the power to cut off funding for military operations. Article I of the US Constitution grants Congress the sole authority to declare war and control federal appropriations. The House of Representatives has already passed its version of the fiscal year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act, which would authorize roughly $1.15 trillion in spending, nearly all of it earmarked for military and nuclear defense activities. The bill has not yet completed the full legislative process.

    This NDPA legislation is separate from the administration’s broader $1.5 trillion defense budget proposal, which includes $1.15 trillion in discretionary defense funding plus an additional $350 billion in proposed mandatory defense spending. “Trump is clearly refusing to take the loss, but that doesn’t make it any less real or costly,” Williams said. “Lawmakers opposed to this reckless military adventurism need to stand strong and continue to deny Trump’s record $1.5 trillion military budget request and other attempts to fund and deepen this disastrous war of choice.”

    Williams noted that Congress has multiple tools to push back: it could tie further war funding to explicit congressional authorization, require the Trump administration to publicly disclose the war’s full human and financial costs and clear objectives, or set a legal deadline after which military operations cannot continue without renewed congressional approval.

    Iran cannot match the combined military might of the United States and Israel, but it holds key strategic advantages: favorable geography, a defensive strategy tailored to counter a far stronger adversary, the benefit of fighting on its home territory, and a leadership that views the conflict as an existential fight and has already proven willing to absorb massive costs rather than surrender. After six months of relentless pressure, Washington is no closer to achieving its core policy demands than it was on day one. The US can continue to strike targets and degrade Iranian capabilities, but unless that pressure shifts Iran’s core political calculations, further escalation will only lead to more destruction without a negotiated settlement.

    That does not mean Iran has closed the door on diplomacy. Iranian officials have repeatedly stated they are prepared to return to the previously negotiated June memorandum of understanding if Washington recommits to its terms, leaving a diplomatic off-ramp open to end the conflict. If the US refuses to return to the agreement, however, Iran appears prepared to continue escalating attacks until Washington grows weary of the conflict or concludes that diplomacy carries a lower cost than continued war. For Tehran, escalation is not an alternative to negotiations — it is a tool to force the US back to the bargaining table.

    Six months into the war, the Trump administration has yet to outline a clear path to a lasting political victory. Trump retains the military capacity to escalate the conflict further, but without an achievable end state, further escalation will only deepen the mounting costs of a war that Washington still cannot bring to a conclusive end.

  • Oil hits $109/bbl as photos show major damage to Saudi pipeline

    Oil hits $109/bbl as photos show major damage to Saudi pipeline

    Growing anxiety over a potential global energy crisis has intensified following new details about severe damage inflicted by a drone attack on a critical Saudi Arabian oil pipeline last week. As first reported by The Associated Press on Monday, the kingdom’s East-West Pipeline – a key artery that moves crude oil from production centers to Red Sea export terminals – will remain out of operation for multiple weeks after the strike that occurred last Thursday.

    Anonymous regional officials confirmed to the AP that full repairs, which include work on a major pumping facility impacted in the attack, will take between three and five weeks to complete. Saudi authorities have pinned responsibility for the assault on Iran-aligned militias operating from Iraqi territory. Satellite imagery published over the weekend confirmed extensive fire damage to the targeted pumping station, undercutting early attempts to downplay the severity of the incident.

    The pipeline had taken on outsized strategic importance in recent months. Saudi Arabia began rerouting most of its oil exports through the East-West Pipeline to the Red Sea after the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s busiest traditional chokepoint for Middle Eastern oil shipments, was effectively closed to most commercial traffic following the outbreak of war between the United States and Iran in February, launched under former U.S. President Donald Trump. This shift made the pipeline the sole viable route for most of Saudi Arabia’s export volumes.

    According to a Monday report from The Guardian, if repairs are not completed within a matter of days, Saudi Arabia will deplete its available stored crude oil allocated for export, a disruption that could remove up to 4% of total global oil supply from international markets.

    Energy analysts warn this disruption could not come at a worse moment for already strained global energy systems. In a Monday market analysis for Bloomberg, senior energy correspondent Alex Longley noted that global markets have already faced persistent volatility for months, driven by the ongoing U.S.-Iran conflict and the continuing Russia-Ukraine war that has scrambled European and global energy flows. “Whatever happens, the oil market will need a quick fix,” Longley wrote. “It’s currently screaming for barrels.”

    Even a rapid repair of the pipeline would not immediately ease sky-high energy prices, analysts caution. Multiple overlapping disruptions continue to block alternative supply routes: the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, Houthi forces in Yemen have significantly escalated attacks on commercial oil shipping moving through the Red Sea, and the U.S. has shown no willingness to pursue a diplomatic resolution with Iran that could reopen Hormuz to traffic.

    The Houthi movement gained additional leverage over Red Sea shipping last Thursday, when it seized the key Yemeni port city of Mocha from Saudi-backed government forces. The capture of the port strengthens the group’s ability to launch attacks on vessels transiting the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, another critical chokepoint for Red Sea energy trade.

    News of the pipeline’s prolonged shutdown immediately roiled global energy markets on Monday. During intraday trading, international benchmark Brent crude spiked above $109 per barrel in response to the revelations. The price surge has already translated to heavier cost burdens for consumers, particularly in the United States. New data released Monday by the American Automobile Association (AAA) shows the average U.S. retail gasoline price now stands at $4.32 per gallon, while diesel prices – a key driver of broader logistics and food costs – hit a new record high of $6.23 per gallon.

  • Memorable moments from the Emmys and everything you couldn’t see on TV

    Memorable moments from the Emmys and everything you couldn’t see on TV

    Hollywood’s biggest night for television, the 2026 Emmy Awards, delivered a star-studded, history-making event filled with viral moments, emotional wins, and unexpected backstage charm, drawing A-listers from television, film, sports and music to downtown Los Angeles’ Peacock Theater.

    This year’s ceremony marked a landmark for female representation: Law & Order: SVU star Mariska Hargitay took on hosting duties, becoming the first woman to emcee the event in 15 years. Hargitay kicked off the night with a playful, star-studded opening, reworking Joan Jett’s iconic *I Love Rock & Roll* into a love letter to television that name-checked dozens of the evening’s nominees. The host wove in surprise cameos throughout the show, leaning into her own pop culture connections: NBA star Jalen Brunson, a nod to Hargitay’s well-known support for the New York Knicks, made an on-stage appearance, while a viral pre-recorded comedy skit followed Hargitay and her SVU castmates as they “investigated” whether pop superstar Taylor Swift would make an appearance. The sketch ended with a surprise cameo from Swift herself, joined by her cat Olivia Benson — named for Hargitay’s long-running SVU character — bringing the audience to its feet.

    Beyond the main stage, the Emmys’ sprawling behind-the-scenes footprint stretched across the downtown LA district surrounding the Peacock Theater, which sits directly across from the Crypto.com Arena. Nearby streets were closed to traffic and onlookers as black car convoys ferried celebrities to the venue, with dozens of security staff and publicists posted throughout the secured zone. Adjacent to the theater, the JW Marriott’s grand ballrooms were converted into a multi-zone press and after-event space, where castmates reunited for the first time since wrapping production long before the ceremony began. Contrary to the traditional idea of a backstage, winners walk a winding, covered pedestrian path from the Peacock Theater stage to this adjacent space, where they pose for official photos, speak to press across print, digital and broadcast outlets, and stop to have their newly won golden Emmy statuettes engraved. Dozens of unengraved golden statues lined display tables in the engraving zone, where onlooking press could snap photos and admire the iconic trophies up close.

    The night’s biggest breakout success was Apple TV+’s underdog supernatural comedy *Widow’s Bay*, which dominated the award tally: the sleeper hit earned six primary Emmy wins on ceremony night, adding to eight additional wins at the earlier Creative Arts Emmys. The cast and crew credited their surprise success to organic word-of-mouth from fans, rather than big-budget marketing. “All the people online talking about it, or viewers, or people just tweeting about it, truly like it. That really got the word to spread, and we’re so grateful,” said series creator Katie Dippold, with lead star Matthew Rhys joking that the earliest fans were “predominantly our parents.”

    Rhys, a Welsh actor, made Emmy history himself on Monday: he became the first performer ever to win two Outstanding Lead Actor awards in the same year, taking home prizes for his work on both *Widow’s Bay* and the psychological thriller *The Beast In Me*. Rhys declined to speak to reporters backstage until he learned that *Widow’s Bay* director Hiro Murai had won his own directing award — which Murai ultimately did. When he finally took the mic, he called on the BBC for the first question, still stunned by his historic win. “At the moment, I genuinely can’t quite believe what’s just happened,” he said, teasing his friendly rivalry with partner Keri Russell, who was nominated for an Emmy for her leading role in *The Diplomat*. “I bet a lot of money on myself. The kids ran a book. It’s going to be a rough week for her. I’m sorry. I don’t know if I am,” he joked, before adding that Russell is “always the class act” and “always really the winner.”

    *Widow’s Bay* breakout Kate O’Flynn, who won her first Emmy for her role as the awkward, charming Patricia, said she was “completely gobsmacked” by her win, noting that audiences connected with her character’s relatable mix of awkwardness, bravery and humor. O’Flynn shared that she was shocked to see “an army” of fans dress as Patricia at this year’s DragonCon, and joked she was excited to see more cosplays for Halloween. U.S. actress Jean Smart also made history with her own win, joining Rhys in cementing the 2026 ceremony as a record-breaking night for the awards.

    Another upset win came for Allison Janney, who took home Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama Series for her role as U.S. President Grace Penn in *The Diplomat*. The category was heavily favored to go to a star from the hit medical drama *The Pitt*, and Janney told reporters she was “genuinely shocked” by her victory. “We really didn’t think it was going to go my way. So I felt just excited and relaxed, because I was 100% sure I wasn’t gonna win,” she said, describing her shock when her name was called, captured on camera with her hands flying to her face in disbelief.

    One of the most talked-about red carpet moments of the night came from *Hacks* star Megan Stalter, nominated for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Comedy, who turned heads with a bold costume: she covered her body in gold body paint, added angel wings, and carried an oversized replica of the atom held by the official Emmy statuette, dressing as an actual Emmy award. Stalter joked to reporters that the look was a last-minute project with her stylist, and that her co-star Paul W. Downs airbrushed the gold paint on himself.

    Backstage moments also brought plenty of lighthearted banter from other nominees. Arlan Ruf, star of HBO’s dark true crime comedy *DTF St Louis*, joked that the show’s biggest fanbase is made up of his friends’ mothers, noting that the series’ dating-app murder premise resonates with the large female audience for true crime content. “I don’t know a lot of my friends are watching it,” he said cheekily, “their mums are.”

    From historic firsts to surprise viral moments, the 2026 Emmy Awards delivered a memorable night that celebrated both underdog breakout hits and long-beloved Hollywood talent, reminding audiences why television remains a beloved cultural touchstone.

  • Superstars and broken records: 2026 Emmy highlights

    Superstars and broken records: 2026 Emmy highlights

    As the entertainment industry gears up for one of its most prestigious annual events, new details have emerged about the 78th Primetime Emmy Awards, scheduled to take place in 2026. Set to unfold at Los Angeles’ iconic Peacock Theatre, the ceremony will have a familiar and beloved face at the helm: Mariska Hargitay, the long-time lead of the hit procedural drama *Law & Order: Special Victims Unit*.

    Hargitay’s casting as host marks a full-circle moment for the star, who has been a fixture of television for nearly three decades, earning multiple Emmy nominations and a win in 2006 for her portrayal of Lieutenant Olivia Benson. Industry insiders note that her selection reflects the awards’ focus on honoring long-standing contributions to television, alongside recognizing the breakthrough work of newer creators and performers.

    Ahead of the 2026 ceremony, industry analysts are already predicting a night of record-breaking milestones and surprise wins, with buzz building around new hit series and veteran artists vying for top honors. Unlike many recent awards shows that have shifted to smaller venues or hybrid formats due to industry disruptions, the 78th Emmys are planned as a full-capacity in-person event, designed to reunite the global television community in celebration of outstanding storytelling. More details about nomination categories, presenters, and performance lineups are expected to be released in the coming months as event organizers finalize plans.

  • Why Asian gold is within reach for India’s women hockey team

    Why Asian gold is within reach for India’s women hockey team

    As the 2026 Asian Games in Japan prepare to kick off this Saturday, India’s women’s national hockey team carries the weight of high national expectations, with fans and analysts alike predicting the side could compete for a podium finish – and even take home the gold medal.

    This wave of optimism can be traced directly back to the team’s stunning performance at the FIH Hockey World Cup held this past August. Under the leadership of captain Salima Tete and head coach Sjoerd Marijne, the side secured a fifth-place finish, their best result at the global tournament since they claimed fourth place all the way back in 1974. The standout moment of the campaign came in a tightly contested match against England, where goalkeeper Bichu Devi Kharibam made a dramatic full-stretch dive to block what looked certain to be a match-winning goal for the opposition, setting the stage for India’s eventual positive result.

    This fifth-place finish marks a dramatic turnaround for a program that struggled through two years of inconsistent results and upheaval. So what has driven this sudden resurgence? Analysts and former players point to multiple interconnected changes that have reshaped the team.

    Former India captain Pritam Siwach credits the shift first to the team’s vastly improved defensive discipline and elite goalkeeping. During the World Cup, India held strong sides including China, England and Australia to draws, with a strategy that prioritized limiting opposition scoring opportunities – an approach Siwach summed up as, “We may not set your house on fire, but we won’t let you set ours on fire either.”

    Much of the credit for the team’s transformation has gone to head coach Marijne, a former Dutch international with deep ties to Indian hockey. Marijne previously led the team to a historic fourth-place finish at the 2021 Tokyo Olympics, but results declined sharply after his departure. He was brought back to take the top coaching role in January 2026, and has since overseen a remarkable shift in team culture.

    Marijne has built a diverse, intergenerational squad that blends veteran experience with exciting young talent, and he has prioritized giving opportunities to underrated players who spent years on the fringes of the national program. The current roster draws players from across varied socioeconomic backgrounds: captain Tete, 24, grew up in a small tribal village in Jharkhand, learning the game with bamboo hockey sticks handcrafted by her father, and her versatile ability to shift between defense and attack makes her the team’s on-field backbone. Midfielder Neha Goyal first took up hockey in Haryana just to earn a decent pair of shoes and playing clothes; after her alcoholic father passed away in 2017, her mother worked in factories for years to support the family as Goyal built her professional career. The squad spans 18 years of age, from 18-year-old rookie Sakshi Rana to 36-year-old veteran midfielder Savita, creating a dynamic mix of energy and experience.

    Beyond roster building, the team has also invested in specialized fitness support, adding performance scientists and other specialist staff to improve player conditioning while keeping training engaging. Former Hockey India assistant physiotherapist Bodhisattva Dass notes that the players have fully committed to the new program, putting in maximum effort to improve their physical readiness.

    Marijne’s biggest focus has been building team cohesion and mutual trust off the field, through intentional team-building exercises. During the World Cup, all players wore matching red and yellow unity wristbands to reinforce their shared team identity. In training sessions, senior players took part in blindfolded drills where they were guided around the pitch by junior teammates, an activity designed to break down generational barriers and build interdependence. His approach has broken down the communication gaps that once plagued the squad; as captain Tete told Hockey India, younger players never hesitate to approach senior teammates for guidance, and veterans are always ready to offer support.

    Currently ranked eighth in the global FIH rankings following their World Cup result, the team has made clear progress, but notable challenges remain. Before their June 2026 Women’s Nations Cup title win, the side endured a brutal stretch: they failed to qualify for the 2024 Paris Olympics, were relegated from the FIH Pro League in the 2025-26 season, and faced added uncertainty when former coach Harendra Singh unexpectedly resigned in December 2025.

    Attacking play also remains a key area to improve. At the World Cup, India netted just 11 goals total, six of which came against South Africa; they failed to score against top sides England, the Netherlands and Australia. Journalist Norris Pritam points to poor penalty corner conversion rates as a particular issue, noting that a more aggressive attacking approach would also ease pressure on the team’s strong defensive unit.

    Heading into the Asian Games, the Indian side will face tough competition from regional powerhouses China, Japan and South Korea. Multiple key players return with prior Asian Games experience from the team’s 2023 bronze medal finish, and the stakes could not be higher: a gold medal in Japan would earn India automatic direct qualification for the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics. For forward Lalremsiami, the tournament carries extra personal weight: in 2019, she was playing in Hiroshima when she learned her farmer father had passed away, and she chose to stay with the team to help secure Olympic qualifying spot, sacrificing the chance to return home for the funeral.

    Analysts remain optimistic about India’s chances. Pritam notes that Marijne has instilled new confidence and camaraderie, turning the side into a tightly knit unit. “China will be the biggest rival, but if India stays focused, they can overcome the challenge,” he said.

  • Ukraine’s postal workers deliver lifeline under Russian fire

    Ukraine’s postal workers deliver lifeline under Russian fire

    Deep in the heart of Kyiv, inside a Soviet-era office building overlooking the iconic Maidan square, Igor Smelyansky makes an impossible choice every single morning. Spread across the wall before him is a large-scale map of Ukraine, dotted with active conflict zones where Russian drone strikes and artillery barrages are a daily threat. Unlike military commanders who plan troop movements against enemy forces, Smelyansky plans the daily routes of his postal workers, weighing the urgent needs of vulnerable civilians against the very real risk of death or injury for his staff.

    Smelyansky does not lead a military unit—he heads Ukrposhta, Ukraine’s national state postal service. In a country fractured by more than two years of full-scale war, the organization has evolved far beyond its traditional role of delivering letters and parcels to become a critical lifeline for millions of Ukrainians trapped in isolated frontline villages.

    Today, Ukrposhta fulfills duties that no other institution can sustain in high-risk areas: it disburses hard-cash pensions to elderly residents who have no access to digital banking, processes utility bill payments for households cut off from online services, and transports desperately needed food and prescription medication to communities where local shops have been destroyed and travel to regional cities is prohibitively dangerous. For a vast rural nation grappling with the chaos of ongoing invasion, this postal network acts as invisible glue, holding communities together and sustaining the connection between isolated citizens and the Ukrainian state.

    But that critical role has made Ukrposhta and its staff a deliberate target for Russian forces. In recent months, Russia has drastically increased strikes on postal facilities, including sorting offices, logistics hubs, and moving postal vehicles, with the Kremlin claiming the attacks are retaliation for Ukrainian strikes on Russian online retail platforms. Russia has repeatedly denied targeting civilian personnel and infrastructure, but official data from Ukrposhta tells a stark story: since the full-scale invasion began in 2022, more than 50 postal workers have been killed while on duty, hundreds of branches have been destroyed or damaged, and dozens of delivery vehicles have been reduced to rubble.

    Smelyansky openly acknowledges the impossible dilemmas he faces with each day’s route planning. If he pulls his teams out of a high-risk village, residents face criticism from stranded locals who accuse the service of abandoning them. Many of these residents are poor, elderly, or unable to travel, and without Ukrposhta’s deliveries, they face hunger, lack of medication, and no access to their only source of income. But if he sends teams in, he puts their lives directly at risk. Even the logistics of delivery carry danger: an unannounced arrival can draw a crowd of residents waiting for pensions and supplies, creating an easy target for Russian drone operators. Pre-notifying residents carries its own risk, too—pro-Russian sympathizers in some border communities could leak the van’s route and schedule to enemy forces.

    “Is it a danger? Absolutely,” Smelyansky said in an interview. “By attacking Ukrposhta, you put pressure on people… who are depending on the truck coming in. It’s not an accident, it’s deliberate.” He added that the service relies on agility to minimize risk: “If it’s too dangerous to go today, we won’t go. We’ll go tomorrow, or we’ll go somewhere else. The key is to be as agile as you can.”

    On the ground near Zaporizhzhia, just a short distance from the southern frontline, the human cost and unwavering commitment of Ukrposhta’s staff comes to life. Thirty-eight-year-old postmistress Kateryna Marynych has already lost everything to the war: her home was destroyed in the early days of the full-scale invasion, and her husband was killed in combat. She moved to the frontline region to rebuild her life, and spent two years running the local post office in the village of Lukasheve—until that too was destroyed by a Russian drone strike in March that targeted nearby Ukrainian military positions.

    Now, Kateryna operates out of the back of a repurposed delivery van, traveling from village to village to serve residents. On a recent reporting trip, as soon as her van pulled off the dirt road into a small settlement, a steady line of elderly residents formed at the open window, where Kateryna sat handing out cash pensions and accepting utility bill payments, while her partner Slava handled parcel and food deliveries from the rear of the vehicle. For safety, Slava drives, carries a sidearm to protect the large amount of cash they carry, and both wear body armor when operating within range of frontline fighting. The van is also fitted with a special antenna that detects the small first-person-view attack drones that have become one of the biggest threats to civilians and personnel along the front. So far, they have spotted drones but avoided being targeted.

    For the residents who depend on her, Kateryna’s weekly visits are more than just a practical necessity. “It’s a long way for us to travel to Zaporizhzhia. Especially now, at a time when there are attacks all around us. The fact that they come here is really nice,” said local resident Nadiia. Seventy-seven-year-old Oleksandrivna, who recently returned home after recovering from a stroke, put it more bluntly: “We would be stuffed! I am just out of hospital after a stroke. Where could I go for my medicine?” For 64-year-old Mykola, the visits also provide a rare social outlet: “It is very important. It’s one of the few joys of the month: you come out, have a chat with people, collect your pension, and go home.”

    Kateryna says the bond between her and her customers is like family. After major Russian strikes on Zaporizhzhia, residents often call to check if she is safe, just as she checks on them after periods of heavy fighting. “They love me, they need me. They are waiting for me,” she said. “They are like a grandmother or grandfather to me. I hope they are proud of what I do.” When asked if she would consider leaving the dangerous role for a safer life further from the front, she shrugged off the question: “It is my work. If I can’t, who will do my job?”

    Analysts point out that the deliberate targeting of Ukrposhta fits into a wider Russian strategy of escalating attacks on civilian infrastructure across Ukraine. As battlefield progress for Russian forces has stalled in eastern Ukraine, the Kremlin has turned to intensifying long-range drone and missile strikes on energy facilities, transport networks, border posts, and commercial sites, aiming to break civilian morale and pressure the Ukrainian government into concessions. For many Ukrainians, however, the work of Ukrposhta’s frontline postal workers demonstrates that Ukraine’s defense extends far beyond the military: the resilience of the nation is also sustained by ordinary civilians who keep showing up, every day, to support their most vulnerable neighbors.

  • Houthi attacks expose gaps in Pakistan’s defence pact with Saudi Arabia

    Houthi attacks expose gaps in Pakistan’s defence pact with Saudi Arabia

    Over the past several months, Pakistan has steadily expanded its diplomatic footprint, positioning itself as a regional mediator to de-escalate tensions between Washington and Tehran. This diplomatic push reached a landmark milestone last month, when Islamabad joined Saudi Arabia and Turkey to sign a historic trilateral Joint Defence Agreement in Mecca, Islam’s holiest city.

    Signed on August 7, the pact’s core mutual defense clause mirrors NATO’s Article 5, stipulating that an armed attack against any one signatory will be considered an attack against all three. While the clause has drawn immediate comparisons to the NATO collective security framework, regional analysts have long warned against interpreting the text too literally.

    That warning became relevant just one month after the signing, when Iran-aligned Houthi forces launched a large-scale barrage of drones and missiles into Saudi Arabia on September 8. The attack targeted critical military and energy infrastructure, turning the pact’s abstract security commitment into an urgent, high-stakes operational test for Pakistan and Turkey.

    In the days following the strike, neither Islamabad nor Ankara launched direct military counter-operations alongside Riyadh. Instead, both countries opted for firm diplomatic statements of solidarity, highlighting a growing tension between political alliance commitments and direct military involvement that has left Pakistan walking a geopolitical tightrope between its Saudi alliance and fragile neighborly ties with Iran.

    Shortly after the Houthi attack, Pakistani Defence Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif publicly reaffirmed that Pakistan remained bound by the terms of the pact and would honor its commitments if needed. But just days later, foreign ministry spokesperson Sajjad Haider Khan clarified that direct military action against the Houthi movement was not under active consideration. “Pakistan has signed a joint defence agreement, which is a fact… But as of now, there is no discussion of this kind,” Khan stated during his September 10 weekly media briefing in Islamabad.

    This carefully calibrated response exposes the delicate balancing act Pakistan must maintain. Pakistan has maintained a longstanding military presence in Saudi Arabia and has significantly deepened bilateral defense cooperation in recent years. Under a separate 2025 bilateral Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement, Saudi Arabia confirmed in April that Pakistani troops, including Pakistan Air Force fighter jets and support aircraft, had deployed to King Abdulaziz Air Base to bolster regional security amid rising tensions.

    But Pakistani officials and independent experts alike draw a clear distinction between providing defensive support to protect Saudi territory and infrastructure, and joining offensive military operations against Houthi forces inside Yemen. One senior Pakistani official with expertise in Gulf affairs notes that this current dilemma echoes a similar crisis Islamabad faced back in 2015, when parliament voted to stay neutral rather than join the Saudi-led coalition against the Houthis in Yemen, a decision that severely strained bilateral ties with Riyadh at the time.

    Today, both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia appear united in their determination to avoid being dragged into a wider regional conflict that could draw in Iran, the United States and Israel, according to regional security experts. Qamar Cheema, head of the Islamabad-based Sanober Institute think tank, explains that neither country wants to see the existing conflict spill over onto Saudi territory. “This alliance will fight with state actors and work as a deterrent and a clear case of strategic depth, which Saudi Arabia is searching for,” Cheema told Middle East Eye, adding that Riyadh is keen to avoid a repeat of past crises that disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

    Maintaining this careful balance between defensive support and active offensive participation could grow increasingly difficult if Houthi missile strikes against Saudi Arabia escalate. The geopolitical flashpoint has already shifted to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, where the Houthis announced a naval blockade against Saudi Arabia back in July, a strategy they describe as “blockade for blockade” launched in response to Saudi restrictions on Houthi-controlled infrastructure in Yemen. The move followed a cycle of escalation that included strikes on Sanaa Airport and repeated Houthi drone and missile attacks on Saudi energy facilities.

    According to Pakistani officials, Riyadh has now concluded that political negotiations with the Houthis are no longer viable, forcing the kingdom to prepare for a protracted military engagement. Pakistan has already joined the Saudi-led Multinational Maritime Defence Alliance, which launched in Riyadh at the end of July with military representatives from more than 40 countries in attendance. Fourteen nations including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Jordan have backed the initiative to protect commercial shipping lanes through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. Beyond that, Pakistan also participates in ongoing regional maritime security operations through the U.S.-led Combined Task Force 150, a multinational naval coalition that patrols the Red Sea and Bab el-Mandeb Strait.

    For Pakistan, the immediate top priority remains avoiding escalation. But a senior Pakistani official warned that if Houthi strikes intensify and cause mass casualties among Pakistani troops deployed at strategic sites inside Saudi Arabia, growing public and political pressure in Islamabad could force the government to abandon its current neutral stance. That scenario would turn the current ambiguity surrounding Pakistan’s commitments into a direct, high-stakes test of the trilateral pact.

    Cheema notes that attacking the Houthis is not a viable option for Pakistan at this stage. Having positioned itself as a regional peacemaker, Islamabad is currently prioritizing diplomatic dialogue to contain the broader crisis, particularly because closure of the Strait of Hormuz or disruption of Gulf of Aden shipping would put critical global supply chains and energy routes at severe risk.

    For Pakistan, the most complicated factor in this entire strategic equation is its long border with Iran. The two countries share a 900-kilometer porous border, and both governments have worked for years to contain cross-border friction that flared into open exchange of missile strikes back in January 2024. If Pakistan were to launch offensive operations against the Iran-aligned Houthis, it would risk reigniting open conflict with Tehran, and experts warn that direct engagement with an Iranian proxy force would severely damage bilateral ties and create new security threats along Pakistan’s already volatile western frontier.

    Domestic stability adds another layer of complexity. Pakistan is home to one of the world’s largest Shia populations outside of Iran, many of whom follow religious guidance from Tehran under the Wilayat-e Faqih doctrine. While Pakistan’s military was able to contain internal unrest following the reported killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in U.S.-Israeli airstrikes in February, sectarian sensitivities remain a persistent constraint whenever relations with Iran deteriorate.

    Economic risks also compound Pakistan’s strategic dilemma. Pakistan relies heavily on Middle Eastern energy imports and unimpeded access to critical shipping corridors such as the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea. Regional instability can quickly translate into economic disruption at home: recent Middle East hostilities already triggered a sharp spike in Pakistani domestic fuel prices within the span of a single week.

    Beyond geopolitical and domestic challenges, the trilateral alliance also faces structural hurdles rooted in differing threat perceptions across the three member states. Pakistan’s primary security focus remains its long-running border tensions with India, with additional concerns over cross-border militancy from Afghanistan’s Taliban regime adding a second layer of security priorities. Saudi Arabia’s core priorities are focused on protecting its own territory, energy infrastructure and maritime shipping lanes, while managing threats from Iran and non-state armed groups such as the Houthis along its southern border. Turkey’s security perimeter extends even further, across Syria, Iraq, the Eastern Mediterranean and the Caucasus.

    These divergent priorities raise a fundamental question: would each member state be willing to accept major economic and geopolitical costs to defend another member in a conflict that it does not view as a core threat to its own national security? This operational friction is further compounded by the fact that the three countries use disparate military hardware platforms. Saudi Arabia relies heavily on sophisticated U.S. and Western-supplied defense systems. Pakistan operates a mix of Chinese-origin and Western equipment, while Turkey has invested heavily in developing its own indigenous defense industry.

    The trilateral agreement itself remains a work in progress. Senior defense ministers and military officials from the three countries met in Istanbul on August 31 to agree to establish a permanent secretariat based in Saudi Arabia and pledged to deepen cooperation on defense technology development. But experts note that the pact currently exists as a general policy framework rather than a fully integrated military command structure. Specific details on how the alliance will operate, including provisions for air defense assistance, intelligence sharing, protection of Saudi military installations and rules for participation in offensive operations against the Houthis, have yet to be finalized.

    “A lot of institutional development is required at the moment, particularly in inter-military planning and interoperability among the armed forces of the three countries,” Cheema said, adding that the three nations also need to establish clear, agreed procedures for responding to threats from both state and non-state actors. Pakistan’s foreign ministry spokesperson Khan acknowledged these limitations last week, describing the agreement as an “umbrella agreement” whose institutional mechanisms will take time to fully develop. “At this stage, I don’t think we should be discussing this topic in the context of its operationalisation,” he told journalists.

  • A history of Bob Mackie’s designs: in pictures

    A history of Bob Mackie’s designs: in pictures

    The world of high fashion is mourning the loss of one of its most iconic and influential creators, Bob Mackie, who passed away at the age of 87. Over a decades-long career that spanned the evolution of Hollywood from the golden age to the modern era, Mackie built his legacy crafting bold, glamorous couture defined by his signature combination of sparkling embellishments, plush feathers, and intricate hand beading, dressing every generation of A-list stars along the way.

    Mackie’s talent caught the eye of the entertainment industry almost immediately. At just 21 years old, he earned an early career credit for sketching the form-fitting nude illusion dress that Marilyn Monroe wore when she delivered her legendary, sultry performance of “Happy Birthday Mr. President” to President John F. Kennedy in 1962 — a design that remains one of the most famous garments in pop culture history more than 60 years later.

    Throughout the second half of the 20th century, Mackie collaborated with some of the biggest names in music and film, creating custom pieces that amplified their public personas and made history at red carpets and on stage. In 1975, he worked with Elton John to design a showstopping sequinned baseball uniform that the superstar wore for his landmark performance at Los Angeles’ Dodger Stadium, a look that remains synonymous with John’s over-the-top 1970s era. His decades-long creative partnership with Cher, one of his most famous muses, began in the 1970s: in 1978, she posed for portraits in a sleek bugle-beaded Mackie gown, kicking off a collaboration that would produce countless iconic looks. By 1985, the pair walked the Met Gala red carpet together, with Cher turning heads in a long-sleeved gilded bodysuit designed to look like sparkling leaves wrapping around her frame. Three years later, she commanded attention at the 1986 Oscars in one of Mackie’s most daring designs: a black diamond-cut lattice ensemble paired with a dramatic feather headdress.

    Other 20th century stars flocked to Mackie for his ability to blend drama, glamour, and personality into every garment. Spanish entertainer Charo stepped out in a full glittering sequin Mackie gown in 1980 Los Angeles, while Tina Turner brought a disco-inspired sequined Mackie design to her 1982 London performance. At the 1991 Academy Awards, Madonna made a splash in a jewel-encrusted strapless Mackie gown offset by a luxurious fur stole that wrapped across her arms. By the turn of the century, Mackie remained a go-to for industry royalty: Diana Ross walked the 2001 American Fashion Awards red carpet arm-in-arm with the designer, wearing a sapphire-toned sparkly Mackie gown under a statement fur coat, and Beyoncé wowed audiences at the 2005 Kennedy Center Honors in Mackie’s fiery iconic flame-themed performance gown.

    Far from being a relic of 20th century Hollywood, Mackie’s vision continued to resonate with 21st century stars, proving the timelessness of his bold, glittering aesthetic. Miley Cyrus brought vintage Mackie back into the spotlight when she wore a retro minidress by the designer for her 2023 New Year’s Eve television special, and later paid explicit tribute to him at the 2024 Grammy Awards in a shimmering silver Mackie creation. Zendaya graced the 2024 Rock & Roll Hall of Fame red carpet in a showstopping Mackie gown criss-crossed with rhinestones, gold, and white bugle beads, while Sabrina Carpenter leaned into nostalgic Mackie glamour at the 2024 MTV Awards in a pearl and crystal-embellished gown that nodded to Madonna’s famous 1990 Oscar look.

    Nicknamed the Sultan of Sequins, the Rajah of Rhinestones, and the Guru of Glitter by fans and peers alike, Bob Mackie leaves behind a legacy of designs that balance timeless appeal with bold, unapologetic daring. His ability to create pieces that felt fresh and exciting, even when they drew inspiration from bygone eras of glamour, cemented his status as one of the most influential fashion designers in entertainment history.

  • AI regulation faces political deadlock as calls grow for Congress to act

    AI regulation faces political deadlock as calls grow for Congress to act

    The debate over artificial intelligence safety and federal regulation has erupted into open conflict across the U.S. political landscape this week, with deep divisions between the White House, congressional leaders, and even within industry and policy circles over whether new guardrails are needed to rein in rapidly advancing AI technology.

    On Monday, President Donald Trump delivered a blunt rejection of growing calls to slow AI development and impose government oversight. Taking to social media, he dismissed warnings that AI could pose existential threats to humanity as a “HOAX”, arguing that the only guardrails the sector requires is a “strong and smart” sitting president.

    Trump’s uncompromising stance has predictably split Capitol Hill along partisan lines, and all but dashed hopes of moving forward with new AI safety legislation before the November 2026 midterm elections. Senior congressional Democrats and top AI industry leaders have directly pushed back against the president’s position, issuing urgent warnings about unregulated AI growth and demanding immediate congressional action.

    With Republicans holding majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, the party remains largely aligned with Trump’s opposition to new federal controls, making passage of any regulatory bill virtually impossible in the current legislative session. Even if a bill were to advanced through both chambers, Trump’s public rejection of regulation means he would almost certainly veto any measure, eliminating any path for executive approval this year.

    Beyond partisan opposition, a rapidly approaching congressional recess has created an additional, immediate barrier to action. The House is scheduled to adjourn at the end of this week, remaining out of session until after the midterm elections in early November. Top Democrats, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, are demanding that the recess be delayed to allow time to vote on AI safety safeguards.

    “Congress should not leave town until something is done decisively to protect the safety and the wellbeing of the American people,” Jeffries told reporters Monday. A coalition of House Democrats has sent a formal letter to Republican Speaker Mike Johnson, who holds sole authority to decide whether to delay the recess, urging extra time for debate on AI regulation. “Reasonable minds may disagree about precisely how Congress should regulate this rapidly evolving technology. We cannot disagree about the imperative for Congress to act,” the letter reads. Even some Republican lawmakers, including Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna, have publicly called for a special session to address AI risks.

    Still, congressional observers see almost no chance the recess will be delayed or a special session called. When pressed by reporters Monday, Johnson gave no indication he would move forward with a vote this week, calling AI regulation a “very complex issue”. He noted that Trump would soon host AI industry executives at the White House to discuss corporate responsibility for safety, emphasizing that the priority is pushing AI companies to self-regulate rather than enacting new federal laws. “We want to emphasise the necessity of [AI companies] providing safe products and self-regulating,” Johnson said, adding only that Congress may potentially play a role at some future, unspecified date.

    Compounding the legislative gridlock is a lack of consensus even among lawmakers who agree regulation is needed. Congressional Democrats are divided on what form AI oversight should take, and even if the party flipped control of both chambers in November’s midterms, there is no guarantee that a unified bill could move forward quickly. Lawmakers have already put forward a wide range of competing proposals on Capitol Hill, from mandatory independent safety reviews and a federal “kill switch” for high-risk AI models, to a complete moratorium on new AI data center construction put forward by Senator Bernie Sanders.

    Bipartisan talks are ongoing on two separate leading proposals. In the Senate, Republican Majority Leader John Thune and Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar are drafting a bill that would require major AI companies to submit to federal oversight. “You don’t want to stifle innovation,” Thune explained Monday, “but I think you also want to make sure that the more advanced threats can be mitigated.” In the House, Democratic Congresswoman Lori Trahan has worked for months with Republican Congressman Jay Obernolte on the bipartisan Frontier Act, which would grant the federal government authority to halt deployment of an AI model if officials confirm it poses an “imminent catastrophic risk”, and require independent third-party audits of leading AI research labs. Trahan told the BBC that time is running out for congressional action, warning that AI will eventually reshape every corner of American life. “The federal government needs to put guardrails in place. I don’t think we have any more time to wait. This is all hands on deck,” she said, while acknowledging that no movement is likely this week.

    Most Republican policymakers have coalesced around the position that AI companies should bear primary responsibility for managing safety through self-regulation, a view echoed by many conservative allies of the president. David Sacks, one of Trump’s top AI advisors, told CBS News Monday that warnings of existential AI risk from industry insiders have been wildly overblown. “I think this is becoming a panic,” Sacks said. He argued that the onus falls entirely on AI developers to ensure their products are safe, pushing back against Anthropic co-founder Dario Amodei — who has publicly called for a slowdown in advanced AI development, warning the technology grows “more powerful by the day”. “If you can’t control it, then don’t do it,” Sacks said of Amodei’s position.

    Industry and policy experts are also split on the path forward. Some analysts agree that in the absence of congressional action, AI companies must take the lead on responsible self-governance. “You might want an act of Congress, and I would love a congressionally mandated regime that requires safety and testing and bias testing,” said Asad Ramzanali, director of AI & Technology Policy at Vanderbilt University. “But absent that action, the companies have autonomy.” Other observers have expressed skepticism that the recent wave of warnings from AI leaders is rooted in genuine public safety concern, rather than strategic positioning. Trevor Traina, a tech executive who served as a diplomat during Trump’s first term, argued that most ordinary Americans have yet to encounter harmful uses of AI, and suggested leading AI developers are using safety warnings to gain competitive advantage. “We’re relying on the tweets of a half-dozen people who are all vying for perceived supremacy. The cynic in me thinks, ‘Are they really concerned, or are they trying to prove which model is the most awesome?’” Traina said.

    Many policy analysts agree that meaningful federal AI regulation is not on the horizon in the near future. Alexandra Reeve Givens, CEO of the non-profit Center for Democracy and Technology, noted that the Trump administration has already implemented a fully voluntary framework for AI companies to submit their models for government assessment — but the details of the framework remain classified, with no public transparency or clear legal standards governing the process. Appeals to release the framework publicly have been ignored by the administration, Givens said.

    Combined with a lack of partisan consensus and political will on Capitol Hill, the administration’s approach has made passing binding AI legislation extremely difficult. “There is no question that federal legislation is challenging in this climate, but Congress also has to grapple with which of the many types of AI risk need to be addressed,” Givens said. “It’s not that AI is ungovernable, it’s that each risk needs a tailored approach.”