作者: admin

  • No purchase, no seats: Starbucks China rolls out new policy

    No purchase, no seats: Starbucks China rolls out new policy

    Starting Thursday, a landmark policy shift is now in effect across more than 8,000 Starbucks locations throughout China: anyone hoping to grab a seat in one of the chain’s cafes must first make a purchase. The new ‘purchase to sit’ rule, which has already seen photographic and video evidence of in-store signs circulate widely across Chinese social media this week, marks a deliberate effort by the coffee giant to upgrade the in-store experience for paying guests at a time when it faces mounting pressure from aggressive domestic competitors.

    The domestic rival that has reshaped China’s coffee market most dramatically is Luckin Coffee, a homegrown chain that surpassed Starbucks to become the country’s largest coffee chain by store count in 2023. Unlike Starbucks’ long-standing business model, which positions its cafes as welcoming third places for customers to linger, Luckin has built its success around a low-price, app-driven grab-and-go model that has eroded Starbucks’ market share in recent years. This growing competition has pushed Starbucks to reevaluate long-held in-store norms that once allowed non-paying visitors to occupy seats for hours on end.

    Reaction to the new policy among Chinese social media users has been largely supportive. Many commentators have shared frustration with chronic seat hogging, a common issue during peak cafe hours that has left paying customers unable to find available seating. One top-voted comment on Weibo noted that the rule will finally put an end to scenarios where visitors occupy tables for hours without ordering, sometimes even bringing outside coffee from competing brands while playing games or taking loud phone calls. Another user echoed this sentiment, saying they felt uncomfortable occupying a seat without a purchase and preferred leaving space open for paying customers who need it.

    This policy change is far from an isolated solution unique to Starbucks’ Chinese market. Coffee chain locations across the globe have grappled with the same problem of non-paying visitors lingering and hogging valuable seating space for extended periods. Just last month, a Starbucks location in southwestern China’s Sichuan province sparked widespread online debate after footage circulated showing outdoor seats chained shut, an apparent early attempt to block non-paying visitors from sitting. In South Korea, Starbucks implemented a ban on bulky personal items after customers began bringing full desktop computers and printers to set up long-term work stations in-store, occupying seats for entire days without increasing their spending. In North America, the chain already reversed its decades-long open-door policy that allowed non-paying guests to use seating and restrooms, announcing the change would allow the company to prioritize the needs of paying customers.

    Beyond the new seating rule, Starbucks China has outlined a broader set of upgrades aimed at improving customer experience. In a statement released Wednesday, the company announced plans to increase frontline staffing at its locations, upgrade in-store digital systems, and make other targeted investments to ensure customers receive timely, attentive service even during the busiest peak hours. The policy shift comes as Starbucks has already restructured its Chinese business operations: last year, the company sold a 60% majority stake in its China business to investment firm Boyu Capital in a $4 billion deal, a move that has given local leadership greater flexibility to adapt to the fast-changing Chinese coffee market. As China remains Starbucks’ second-largest global market, the new ‘purchase to sit’ policy signals the chain’s clear push to refocus on its paying customer base and retain its position against growing domestic competition.

  • US embassy accuses Canada of election meddling ahead of midterms

    US embassy accuses Canada of election meddling ahead of midterms

    A sharp diplomatic dispute has erupted between North American neighbors the United States and Canada, after the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa formally accused Canadian federal and provincial officials of orchestrating interference in the upcoming November 2026 U.S. midterm elections. In an official fact sheet published Wednesday, the embassy alleged that senior Canadian leaders have deliberately dismissed warnings about potential election meddling, even as cabinet ministers and provincial premiers openly lay out plans to shape American political outcomes in both government documents and public statements. The accusation comes amid already strained bilateral relations that have deteriorated further during the second term of the Donald Trump administration, rooted in months of escalating trade friction. The U.S. embassy specifically highlighted multiple high-profile actions to back its claims. It pointed to remarks from Canadian Industry Minister Mélanie Joly, who when asked about her expectations for trade tariffs if Democrats emerged victorious in the midterm contests, responded: “That’s exactly why I’m meeting so many governors and potential presidential candidates.” The embassy also called out Ontario Premier Doug Ford, claiming Ford had pressured the federal government in Ottawa to implement additional retaliatory tariffs targeting imports from key U.S. states that form the core of the current Trump administration’s political support base. The 2026 U.S. midterm elections will decide which party holds a majority in both chambers of Congress, an outcome that will shape the legislative agenda and political trajectory for the remainder of Trump’s current presidential term. When confronted with the allegations during a public appearance Wednesday, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney forcefully rejected the interference claims, framing Canada’s actions as a measured, defensive response to unilateral U.S. trade policy. Carney pointed out that the U.S. was the first party to initiate restrictive trade measures against Canada, noting that all Canadian countermeasures have been designed solely to protect domestic employment, support Canadian businesses, and safeguard the national economy. “We’ve responded to those to protect Canadian jobs, to protect Canadian companies and develop our economy,” Carney stated during the event, where he alongside Joly and Ford unveiled a nearly C$9 billion ($6.2 billion) aid package to offset economic damage from U.S. tariffs. “Our response has been in the interests of Canadian workers, Canadian families and the future of this economy.” Ontario’s Doug Ford also flatly denied the accusation of election meddling, stating he has no intention of influencing U.S. domestic political outcomes. “I have no interest at all in interfering in US elections,” Ford said. “I’ll tell you what the American people want. They want certainty, they want stability. The people of the United States will make that determination in the midterms, and my focus remains entirely on delivering for the people of Ontario and all Canadians.” This is not the first time Joly has pushed back on these claims; according to Canadian public broadcaster CBC, she denied any interference last week, noting that Canadians would never accept foreign meddling in their own domestic politics, and that her recent trips across the U.S. border have solely focused on attracting new business investment to Canada – a mission she plans to continue. Tensions over trade and political interference have been building for months, ever since the Trump administration implemented new tariffs on Canadian goods, prompting Ottawa to roll out proportional retaliatory measures. Earlier this month, U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra publicly warned that American officials were closely monitoring Canadian politicians for any signs of election interference. In a tit-for-tat development this week, Trump administration officials have been accused of making inappropriate comments regarding the ongoing separatist referendum movement in the Canadian province of Alberta. That incident has sparked a public petition calling for Hoekstra to be removed from his post for undermining long-standing bilateral diplomatic relations, which has already gathered more than 280,000 signatures from Canadian citizens, amplifying the already fraught diplomatic standoff between the two allies.

  • ‘Null and void:’ Egypt condemns Turkey-Libya maritime deal, reaffirms pact with Greece

    ‘Null and void:’ Egypt condemns Turkey-Libya maritime deal, reaffirms pact with Greece

    Fresh geopolitical fault lines have re-emerged across the Eastern Mediterranean after Egypt issued a formal, categorical rejection of the recently ratified maritime boundary agreement between Turkey and eastern Libya, labeling the pact entirely null and void while reaffirming its own 2020 demarcation deal with neighboring Greece.

    In an official statement released Wednesday, Egypt’s foreign ministry doubled down on its position, stating that the memorandum of understanding between Turkey and eastern Libya carries no legal weight, and that its recent ratification by the Libyan House of Representatives holds no legal ramifications for Cairo whatsoever.

    The sharp rebuke comes just one day after the Libyan House of Representatives — based in the Haftar-controlled eastern region of the divided North African country — delivered a surprising unanimous vote to approve the agreement, a deal that the body had publicly opposed for nearly five years. The accord was first signed in 2019 with Libya’s UN-backed Tripoli-based Government of National Accord, and its ratification marks a significant shift in eastern Libya’s foreign policy amid shifting power dynamics within the region.

    Libya has remained politically split since 2014, with eastern authorities led by veteran general Khalifa Haftar opposing the Tripoli-based central government. Back in 2019, Haftar launched a major military offensive to seize Tripoli, a campaign that ultimately failed after Turkey deployed military advisors, weapons, and mercenary support to prop up the Tripoli government. At the time, Egypt, alongside the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, threw its backing behind Haftar. But in recent years, Haftar’s son and designated political heir Saddam Haftar has actively cultivated closer bilateral ties with Ankara, as the general’s family pursues new alliances to solidify their hold on power in any future Libyan power-sharing arrangement. Saddam Haftar personally welcomed the deal’s ratification in a social media post Tuesday, and regional diplomatic sources indicate he is actively seeking Turkish backing for a broader national power-sharing agreement with Tripoli’s current leaders.

    The 2019 Turkish-Libyan agreement sparked immediate alarm across Athens and Cairo from its inception, as the deal enshrines sweeping Turkish territorial claims to large swathes of the Eastern Mediterranean, a region rich in untapped offshore energy reserves. To counter the Turkish-Libyan pact, Greece and Egypt moved quickly to sign their own mutually agreed maritime boundary demarcation agreement in 2020, a deal that directly contradicts the territorial terms laid out by Ankara and Tripoli in 2019.

    Cairo’s latest rejection of the eastern Libya-Turkey deal holds particular significance because Egypt has long been aligned with eastern Libya’s leadership. While Egypt and Turkey have pursued a gradual rapprochement in recent years, coordinating policy on regional flashpoints including the Horn of Africa, the maritime dispute remains a core sticking point between the two former rivals. Last year, Athens formally requested Cairo’s support to prevent eastern Libyan lawmakers from moving forward with ratification of the agreement, and just days before Egypt’s latest statement, an Egyptian diplomatic delegation traveled to Athens to hold in-depth consultations with Greek officials on the Libyan situation.

    Though Cairo was ultimately unable to block the ratification, diplomatic observers note that Wednesday’s statement will be well received by Athens, which has long counted Egypt as a key partner in its decades-long maritime dispute with Ankara.

    The broader confrontation between Greece and Turkey over Eastern Mediterranean maritime rights stretches back decades, rooted in conflicting interpretations of international maritime law. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) — the global framework governing ocean sovereignty — coastal states are permitted to claim up to 12 nautical miles of territorial sea, and up to 200 nautical miles of an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), where they hold exclusive rights to exploit offshore resources including fishing stocks and fossil fuel deposits.

    Greece, which controls hundreds of islands across the Aegean Sea, has long avoided extending its territorial waters to the full 12 nautical limit permitted under UNCLOS after Turkey’s parliament issued a formal declaration in 1995 that any such move would be considered a casus belli, or a formal justification for war. On the issue of EEZs, Greece holds that all of its islands — regardless of size — are legally entitled to their own exclusive economic zones, a position Ankara has repeatedly rejected. Turkey is one of the only United Nations member states that has not ratified UNCLOS.

    The 2020 agreement between Greece and Egypt recognizes Greek EEZ claims around large Greek islands including Rhodes and Crete, but intentionally excluded smaller islands like the 12-square-kilometer Kastellorizo, in a compromise designed to leave space for future negotiations between Cairo and Ankara. Greece has repeatedly offered to resolve the full EEZ and continental shelf dispute through arbitration at the International Court of Justice, but has stated it will not negotiate over the sovereign territory of its islands, including their territorial waters and airspace — an offer Turkey has repeatedly refused.

    Egypt is far from the only regional power to condemn the newly ratified deal. Israel’s foreign ministry issued its own statement Wednesday accusing Turkey of actively working to destabilize the Eastern Mediterranean region. The ratification also comes just weeks after a high-profile, controversial meeting between Saddam Haftar and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the United Arab Emirates, a meeting that sent shockwaves across the region. The European Union also issued a formal condemnation, stating that the Turkish-Libya deal violates the terms of UNCLOS.

    Responding to widespread international criticism on Wednesday, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan defended the agreement as entirely legitimate under both international and domestic law. “There are countries reacting to this. We know why they are reacting. Some are doing so because they need to; some really do have strategic problems with this issue. However, this is an entirely legitimate deal, both from a legal and a statutory perspective. There is no need to argue this,” Fidan told reporters.

  • What it’s like to be Palestine’s 17-year-old chess grand master

    What it’s like to be Palestine’s 17-year-old chess grand master

    Raised in the occupied West Bank city of Hebron, Mohammed Seder first discovered his love for chess at just 5 years old, spending his after-school hours working through chess puzzles at home. His early aptitude for the game caught the eye of his father Naji Sider, a former Palestinian national chess champion, who quickly recognized the family’s inherited chess talent and began formal training for his son. By age 10, Seder was competing in official chess tournaments, and today at 17, he stands as Palestine’s highest-ranked chess player, holding a FIDE (International Chess Federation) rating of 2235 that earns him the grand master title. His 12-year-old sister Randa Seder has also made a name for herself in the sport, recently claiming the 2026 Palestine Women’s Classical Chess Championship title, and previously making history as the youngest ever participant at the 2022 FIDE Chess Olympiad in Mamallapuram, India.

    Seder has already secured two Palestinian National Chess Championship titles, and has claimed Arab chess championship wins in the under-8, under-10 and under-14 age categories, representing Palestine at dozens of international events and chess olympiads across more than 20 countries. Speaking to Middle East Eye, the teen champion shared that his local fame precedes him even at school, where teachers often know his reputation before their first class with him, and his tournament wins for the school are celebrated as major community achievements. For Seder, every international appearance carries dual weight: immense pride in flying the Palestinian flag, and a deep sense of responsibility to showcase the world the depth of talent and intelligence among Palestinian people.

    A meticulous competitor, Seder prepares for every match by researching his opponent’s full profile, including their signature playing styles, preferred opening moves, and common problem-solving patterns, before working with his coaches to craft targeted game plans. He also swears by non-strategic preparation steps: prioritizing sufficient sleep, and eating carb-heavy but light meals before matches, a lesson he learned the hard way after overeating at a Turkish restaurant in Dusseldorf, Germany, and losing a key match when heavy food made him drowsy. When he cannot travel for in-person tournaments, he keeps his skills sharp by playing daily on open online chess platforms including Lichess and Chess.com.

    Currently in his final year of secondary school, Seder is preparing to sit for the Palestinian Tawjihi general secondary exam, a high-stakes assessment in a society that values academic excellence deeply, with a 99 percent youth literacy rate across Palestine. He is aiming for top marks to secure a full scholarship to study computer science or engineering at a U.S. or European university, with his top pick being Saint Louis University in Missouri, renowned for its world-class collegiate chess program. Even as he seeks educational and competitive opportunities abroad, Seder emphasizes that his connection to his homeland outweighs all his chess ambitions: “My land is much more important to me than chess. If I leave Palestine for some years, I will come back for sure.”

    Despite his extraordinary talent, Seder’s path to advancing his chess career is blocked by systemic barriers facing Palestinians in the occupied West Bank. The network of Israeli military checkpoints across the territory turns short 60-kilometer trips between Hebron and cities like Ramallah, Nablus or Jenin into grueling, dangerous journeys that can stretch 5 to 12 hours. In recent years, settler violence and Israeli military raids in Hebron have escalated sharply; just days before the interview, the Israeli military demolished an entire Hebron neighborhood and forcibly displaced more than 2,670 Palestinian residents as collective punishment following an attack on a nearby military checkpoint. Seder has faced repeated arbitrary detentions during travel, including being held at a border crossing en route to a Kuwait tournament, and once being forced out of his car by Israeli soldiers and made to wait by the roadside for two hours with no stated reason. Two months prior to the interview, Israeli soldiers raided the Seder family home at night and arrested his father, who was released only after several hours in custody.

    Palestine’s domestic chess scene also suffers from a near-total lack of corporate sponsorship and public funding, severely limiting access to high-level competitive events. Seder’s next career milestone is reaching a FIDE rating of 2400 to earn the International Master title, a goal that requires competing in 3 to 4 high-level tournaments per month against existing International Master ranked players. In 2026 alone, he has only been able to participate in one official tournament, leading him to warn that if he remains in Palestine long-term, his promising chess career will stagnate and end prematurely.

  • Gulf exports more oil than it did before Iran war despite surge in Hormuz attacks

    Gulf exports more oil than it did before Iran war despite surge in Hormuz attacks

    Against a backdrop of escalating geopolitical friction following the outbreak of the U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran in late February, Middle Eastern Gulf states have managed to push total oil exports above pre-conflict levels, using creative workarounds to blunt Iranian efforts to assert control over the strategically critical Strait of Hormuz, even as new threats of expanded military action loom from Washington and Tel Aviv.

    New data from leading energy analytics firm Kpler shows that for the week ending October 18, Gulf crude and product exports hit 24.6 million barrels per day (bpd), topping the pre-war baseline of 23.3 million bpd. This export growth comes amid a sharp spike in Iranian targeting of commercial shipping transiting the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow chokepoint through which roughly a fifth of global oil supplies normally pass.

    According to updates from United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO), at least 12 separate vessel attacks were recorded in the waterway last week alone. One of the most high-profile incidents saw a fully loaded UAE-owned container ship sink after sustaining damage from what is believed to be a projectile strike.

    To avoid the rising risks of direct passage through the Strait, Gulf exporters have widely adopted ship-to-ship transfer operations. Under this model, smaller shuttle vessels load crude from Gulf ports, then carry the cargo out to giant very large crude carriers (VLCCs) waiting in international waters outside the Strait. Amid growing safety concerns and soaring insurance premiums that have pushed most private shipping owners away from the high-risk zone, many Gulf states are now deploying their own national tanker fleets to handle these transfers.

    Top regional exporter Saudi Arabia has also diversified its export routes to reduce reliance on the Strait, ramping up shipments through the Red Sea. After Houthi forces in Yemen imposed an embargo on Saudi-flagged vessels using the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, the kingdom shifted to an alternative pipeline corridor that runs through Egyptian territory to the Mediterranean coast, allowing it to continue accessing Asian markets without passing through the Strait of Hormuz.

    Kpler data confirms that direct shipments through the Strait of Hormuz still remain more than 30 percent lower than pre-war levels, a clear sign that Iranian actions continue to deter regular transits. But the success of alternative logistics routes has drastically reduced Tehran’s leverage over global oil supplies: as of September, 40 percent of all non-Iranian crude exported from Gulf states bypassed the Strait entirely, up from just 17 percent before the outbreak of conflict.

    Regional governments are now moving to lock in these gains with permanent bypass infrastructure. In July, Iraq, OPEC’s second-largest producer, signed a deal with Syria to rehabilitate an existing pipeline connecting Iraq’s northern oil fields directly to Syria’s Mediterranean export terminals. Middle East Eye first broke news of the project, which has received backing from the United States.

    Even with overall exports now above pre-war levels, global energy markets have not seen a corresponding drop in prices. International benchmark Brent crude has remained stable around $109 per barrel, and prices for refined products – most notably diesel – have jumped sharply in recent weeks. Much of this upward pressure stems from skyrocketing shipping costs: the workaround logistics required to bypass Hormuz have increased demand for tanker tonnage and extended voyage lengths, tightening available vessel supply and pushing up freight rates.

    The unexpected rebound in Gulf oil exports comes at a sensitive moment, as U.S. and Israeli officials openly discuss plans for a new round of military strikes against Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reaffirmed this week his commitment to removing the Islamic Republic’s government, repeating claims that Tehran is moving forward with restarting its nuclear weapons program. Earlier this month, U.S. President Donald Trump, in a public endorsement of Netanyahu ahead of Israel’s upcoming general election, said he looked to Netanyahu to help “finish the job” against Iran.

  • Trump’s attacks on Ilhan Omar highlight concerns about normalisation of racism in US politics

    Trump’s attacks on Ilhan Omar highlight concerns about normalisation of racism in US politics

    In a recent appearance at the White House on Tuesday, former President turned incumbent Donald Trump escalated his years-long verbal assault on Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, openly floating the possibility that the naturalized citizen could face both deportation and imprisonment over unproven questions about her immigration records.

    Trump, who has targeted Omar since she took office in 2019, repeated his inflammatory attacks, calling Omar “a very dishonest person” who “hates our country.” He went on to denigrate Omar’s country of birth, Somalia, describing it as “a real shithouse” and repeating long-debunked tropes about Somali immigrants damaging the state Omar represents. The comments represent a new high water mark in Trump’s sustained campaign against Omar, and they have amplified broader national concerns about the normalization of racist and xenophobic rhetoric in mainstream American political discourse.

    Omar’s biography frames the entire controversy: she fled civil war in Somalia as a child refugee, arrived in the U.S. in 1995, and gained American citizenship in 2000. As one of the first Muslim women elected to Congress, Omar has been a consistent critic of Trump’s restrictive immigration policies and hawkish foreign policy positions, making her a top target for Trump and his conservative allies. This pattern of attack is not new: during his first term in office, Trump repeatedly insisted that Omar and three other progressive minority congresswomen—collectively known as “the Squad”—should “go back” to the countries they came from, even though all four are U.S. citizens. At a 2019 campaign rally, Trump’s supporters even chanted “send her back” directly targeting Omar, sparking national outrage and widespread accusations of racism.

    This is not the first time Trump has used derogatory language to describe majority-non-white nations. Back in 2018, he faced widespread international condemnation after reports emerged that he referred to Haiti and multiple African countries as “shithole countries.” At that time, Trump’s White House staff tried to downplay and deny the remarks. Now, Trump openly repeats the same language on camera—a shift that has not gone unnoticed by political commentators. “During [Trump’s] first term his whole White House denied that he used this language to describe foreign countries, now he just says it on camera,” journalist Zaid Jilani noted on social media, echoing fellow commentator Mehdi Hasan’s observation that open bigotry that once sparked national controversy has now become normalized in American politics.

    The current controversy comes amid an active federal investigation into Omar’s immigration and naturalization records. Federal authorities searched Omar’s Washington, D.C. home on October 12 as part of an inquiry into whether Omar or her family provided false information when entering the U.S. as refugees and applying for citizenship. The investigation has also revived longstanding, unsubstantiated conservative allegations that Omar married her brother to commit immigration fraud, a claim Omar has repeatedly denied. Just this month, the New York Post reported that federal prosecutors are examining DNA evidence tied to the allegations, but no public proof of wrongdoing has been released, and no court has upheld the claims. Notably, the Washington Post confirmed that officials in Trump’s first administration reviewed Omar’s immigration history back in 2019 but declined to open a full investigation due to a lack of evidence. The decision to revive the inquiry has led to widespread accusations that the Trump administration is weaponizing federal law enforcement to target a political opponent. Omar’s legal team has publicly denounced the probe as politically motivated, while the Department of Justice has defended its actions, stating all investigative steps complied with federal legal requirements.

    The escalating attacks on Omar have also put the Democratic Party under increased scrutiny over its response. Critics of top Democratic leaders have argued that the party has not done enough to push back against attacks that target Omar’s identity as a Black, Muslim, refugee-born American lawmaker. One progressive commentator went as far as accusing the Democratic National Committee of cowardice for its perceived lack of public support for Omar. Still, Democratic leadership has not been entirely silent: after the FBI raid on Omar’s home, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and other senior House Democrats released a joint statement condemning the search and accusing the Trump administration of abusing federal power to target political opponents. Even former President Barack Obama weighed in, criticizing the administration’s push to potentially revoke Omar’s citizenship and warning about the dangerous long-term precedent this sets for all elected officials.

    As the November midterm elections approach, the controversy over Omar has crystallized growing national anxiety about three overlapping issues: the use of political intimidation against minority elected officials, the erosion of independence for U.S. law enforcement, and the normalization of virulent bigotry in mainstream presidential discourse. Trump’s latest comments do not merely question a political opponent’s policy stances; they call into question the legitimacy of Omar’s citizenship, her patriotism, and her fundamental right to serve in the U.S. Congress. As one democracy activist asked on social media, “Are we all seriously just letting him talk about imprisoning a sitting duly elected member of Congress because he doesn’t like her?”

  • The real reasons there are so few young politicians in the US

    The real reasons there are so few young politicians in the US

    At 88 years old, Republican Hal Rogers is set to run in November’s midterm elections, seeking a historic 24th term representing Kentucky’s 5th Congressional District, a seat he has held continuously since 1981. Rogers, who first won office the same night Ronald Reagan secured his first presidential term, is far from an outlier. A growing number of top U.S. politicians are serving well into their 80s and beyond: former President Donald Trump is 80, ex-President Joe Biden left office at 82, former House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi stepped down at 82, and 93-year-old Chuck Grassley remains an active senator, having entered politics back in 1958 — before Alaska and Hawaii were admitted as U.S. states.

    This concentration of political power among senior leaders has pushed the question of age in U.S. politics back into the national spotlight, sparking widespread debate across both major political parties over whether mandatory age limits or regular health screenings should be required for elected officials. The U.S. political system is increasingly defined as a gerontocracy: rule by older leaders, who are significantly older than the majority of the adult population. Compounding this trend is data from the Inter-Parliamentary Union that shows the U.S. has one of the lowest shares of lawmakers under 45 among all developed democracies.

    Against this backdrop, 27-year-old Republican Riley Owen stands as one of the few Gen Z candidates running for a congressional seat in the November 3 midterm elections. Owen is campaigning in a newly drawn Utah district that analysts favor Democrats, and he has built his platform on issues that typically resonate with younger and independent voters, including paid parental leave, restrictions on stock trading by members of Congress, and urgent action on climate change. After securing the Republican nomination, Owen took the stage to Billy Joel’s *We Didn’t Start the Fire*, arguing that his generation must step up to renew the American Dream.

    For Owen, the dominance of senior leaders is a bipartisan problem. “We’ve got people who have become career politicians, and they spend their lives in Congress,” he explains, arguing this entrenched dynamic has created a system that fails to deliver results for ordinary Americans. One of the biggest structural barriers Owen faces is the outsized role of money in U.S. elections. Campaign donors overwhelmingly favor incumbent candidates, and his Democratic rival, 51-year-old former congressman Ben McAdams, had raised more than $2.6 million by mid-October, compared to just $150,000 for Owen, according to Federal Election Commission records.

    Owen pushes back against the common critique that younger candidates lack sufficient experience, pointing to his own background as a military officer and former White House policy analyst. He argues that Gen Z candidates bring a unique, necessary perspective on modern policy challenges — particularly those tied to technology — and that U.S. politics needs the “disruptive innovation” that younger candidates can bring.

    Age has long been a conversational centerpiece in U.S. politics. Back in 1984, then-73-year-old President Ronald Reagan, at the time the oldest person to hold the office, famously defused concerns about his age by joking about the “youth and inexperience” of his 56-year-old opponent Walter Mondale. Today, the upward trend in congressional age is clear: according to Congressional archives, the lowest median ages for the House and Senate were recorded in the early 1980s, at 48 and 52 respectively. By the start of the current congressional session, Pew Research Center analysis puts the median age at 58 for House members and 65 for senators — far above the 39-year median age of the overall U.S. population.

    Recent high-profile health events have amplified public and political scrutiny of older leaders. 84-year-old Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell faced new questions after a lengthy absence from Congress for medical treatment. On the Democratic side, 88-year-old Maxine Waters is facing a leadership challenge for her role as top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, with many observers noting her age as a contributing factor.

    Critics of the current gerontocratic dynamic often come from the left of the political spectrum, particularly among democratic socialist candidates, whose policy platforms focused on cost-of-living issues tend to resonate strongly with Millennial and Gen Z voters. A key demographic factor reinforcing the status quo is that voter turnout also skews heavily older. Pew Research data shows the share of non-voters who are young adults (18 to 29 years old) has risen from 25% in 2020 to 30% in 2024. While voters under 30 make up 20% of the eligible voting population, they only cast 15% of all votes in recent elections, meaning their policy priorities are often underrepresented on the legislative agenda.

    Grace Mausser, co-chair of the New York City branch of the Democratic Socialists of America, explains that when older voters make up the majority of the electorate, it not only leads to more older candidates winning, it also shifts which issues politicians prioritize. “Yes, that might result in older people being elected, but I think it really skews, too, what issues are important; what issues politicians are incentivised to talk about and to take care of,” she says. Mausser worked on the successful 2024 campaign of 34-year-old Zohran Mamdani, who became New York City’s youngest mayor since 1892, but she argues that age alone is not the determining factor of good governance. She points to 85-year-old progressive Senator Bernie Sanders as an example of a long-tenured older leader who has consistently pushed for new ideas and resonates across all age groups. She explains that the real problem is not how long someone has served, but whether they remain stuck in the outdated norms of the political establishment and closed to new perspectives.

    A 2025 Pew survey underscores just how deep young adult distrust in politicians runs. In the U.S., 62% of 18-34-year-olds believe few or no elected officials are honest, compared to just 45% of adults over 50. Among all 25 countries surveyed, only young adults in Greece held a more pessimistic view of political honesty.

    James Sloam, a political scientist from Royal Holloway, University of London who studies political engagement across the U.S. and Europe, argues that this widespread youth disengagement is a core reason for the lack of young representation. Compounding this issue are the minimum age requirements for federal office: candidates must be 25 to serve in the House and 30 to serve in the Senate. Sloam notes that many young people today also see opportunities to wield influence outside of formal elected politics, which reduces their incentive to pursue careers as lawmakers.

    For the young people who do break into national politics, structural barriers remain, particularly when it comes to balancing public office with family life. This summer, two high-profile young female politicians sparked new debate about the compatibility of congressional service with parenthood. 37-year-old Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who first took office at 29, announced she had begun the process of freezing her eggs. Just days later, 29-year-old Karoline Leavitt, who became the youngest White House Press Secretary in history two years prior, announced she would leave the Trump administration to focus on raising her young children, explaining that the role demands constant time and energy that would take away from being the parent she wants to be. Very few women have given birth while serving in Congress, and the U.S. federal government does not mandate paid parental leave for lawmakers, leaving many young working parents in politics at a disadvantage. Even 42-year-old Vice President JD Vance, one of the youngest people to hold the office, has acknowledged that raising four young children may impact his decision to run for president in 2028.

    The structure of the U.S. two-party system is another widely cited barrier to youth political participation. Sloam explains that the two major parties tend to represent a narrow range of policy views, and young people are often more engaged in issue-based campaigns and social movements than traditional party politics. While there have been exceptions — such as Zohran Mamdani’s progressive challenge outside the Democratic mainstream, and Donald Trump’s MAGA movement energizing young conservative men over the last decade — these breakthroughs remain sporadic. By contrast, Sloam points to multi-party Scandinavian democracies, where political systems are more pluralistic and parties regularly integrate social movements and youth voices into formal politics, creating a cycle of higher youth turnout, greater trust, and more young people running for and winning office.

    While many experts agree that incumbent leaders should know when to step aside, they also warn against writing off older politicians purely based on their age. Tracey Gendron, a gerontology professor at Virginia Commonwealth University, argues that age alone is a poor predictor of political competency. “You can have a 45-year-old who is experiencing depression or substance abuse who may not have the cognition necessary for the job,” she says. “And equally: You can have an 85-year-old with incredible integrity and political judgement and wisdom who is fully capable of doing the job.” Gendron acknowledges that Congress does not reflect the age diversity of the U.S. population, but notes that a lack of demographic diversity is not unique to age — Congress also underrepresents women, LGBTQ+ people, religious minorities, and people of color across the board.

    Back in Utah, despite his opponent’s far larger campaign budget, Riley Owen remains optimistic about his chances in the midterm. He says he is energized by the issues that matter most to Gen Z, including the role of technology in public life, immigration reform, and the ongoing cost-of-living crisis. Like Mausser, Owen agrees that what matters most is a candidate’s ideas, not their age. Echoing a growing cross-partisan sentiment among younger voters, he argues that the broken “us versus them” partisan framework in Washington is not working for most Americans, regardless of their age or political affiliation.

  • Property sales of illegal Israeli settlement lands challenged in complaint in Canada

    Property sales of illegal Israeli settlement lands challenged in complaint in Canada

    A coalition of human rights organizations and six anonymous complainants has submitted an official complaint to Canada’s Competition Bureau, calling for a full investigation into deceptive marketing practices by four Israeli real estate developers and one Canadian marketing agency that sells properties in illegally occupied Palestinian territory to Canadian homebuyers. The filing, submitted in Ottawa Wednesday, comes amid growing international scrutiny of unregulated settlement expansion that undermines global efforts to establish a sovereign Palestinian state. The complaint was brought jointly by the Global Echo Litigation Center, an organization founded in 2018 to pursue strategic legal action against entities complicit in violations of Palestinian human rights, and Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights. The six complainants, who include both Palestinian and Jewish individuals, have chosen to keep their identities private for personal safety concerns. The 127-page filing centers on a series of real estate promotional events held between March 2024 and May 2025 in two major Canadian cities: Montreal and Toronto. According to the document, the marketing materials used at these events deliberately create a misleading impression for average, first-time international property buyers that all showcased projects are located within Israel’s internationally recognized borders. In reality, the complaint alleges, each of the four named Israeli firms – Tivuch Shelly, Noam Homes, Meny Group, and Effi Capital – actively promotes developments built in illegal Israeli settlements across the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem. This is territory that Canada itself formally recognized as part of a future Palestinian state just over one year ago. Effi Capital, one of the developers named, partners on Canadian marketing outreach with a domestic firm called the Cohen Group. The complaint argues that these deliberate misrepresentation to the Canadian public qualify as reviewable deceptive conduct under Section 74.01(1)(a) of Canada’s Competition Act, which prohibits false or misleading marketing for commercial gain. Emily Schaeffer Omer-Man, executive director of Global Echo, emphasized that while the complaint follows formal consumer protection processes, the stakes go far beyond routine cases of misleading product labeling. Comparing the issue to everyday consumer fraud such as false sugar-free labeling, she drew a clear line between routine consumer protection violations and this case. “This is not just a mislabeled consumer product. Buying property in occupied territory that is the site of an illegal occupation and ongoing armed conflict puts Canadians at risk of being complicit in war crimes,” she explained. The filing also highlights a stark contradiction between Canada’s stated foreign policy and its lack of domestic regulatory action. Just last month, the Canadian government publicly stated that unregulated Israeli settlement expansion and rising settler violence are actively destroying any chance of a two-state solution. Yet to date, Ottawa has not implemented any rules or enforcement actions to block the marketing and sale of occupied Palestinian land to Canadian citizens. One high-profile example cited in the complaint is Adumim Towers, a luxury residential development located in the illegal settlement of Ma’ale Adumim, roughly seven kilometers east of Jerusalem. The settlement sits directly along the route of the proposed E1 settlement project, a plan that would cut off contiguous Palestinian access between the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem – effectively eliminating any possibility of a geographically connected sovereign Palestinian state, mirroring the separation of the besieged Gaza Strip from the West Bank. In August, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney publicly condemned Israeli plans to advance construction tenders for the E1 project, saying “the decision to publish these tenders is unacceptable.” He warned businesses that “they should not consider bidding, and they should be aware of legal and reputational consequences, including the risk of involvement in serious breaches of international law.” Following widespread international outcry, Israel postponed the tender to avoid it becoming an election issue ahead of its October 27 national vote. Even as Adumim Towers is marketed to Canadian buyers as an eco-friendly development with panoramic views of Jerusalem, the complaint reveals discriminatory screening practices for event attendees. Schaeffer Omer-Man told Middle East Eye that most of these promotional events require attendees to answer intrusive questions before entry, such as which synagogue they attend and who their rabbi is. While organizers frame this as a security measure, investigations found the practice is overwhelmingly used to exclude non-Jews, and specifically bar Palestinian attendees from entering. Basel Adra, a prominent Palestinian lawyer, Academy Award-winning filmmaker and head of community engagement at Global Echo, argues that enforcement of international law by Western nations can reverse the accelerating erasure of Palestinian territorial sovereignty. “Many say the two-state solution is dead, and it’s true that the Israeli government has worked tirelessly to change facts on the ground to make it impossible,” Adra told Middle East Eye. “But Western nations hold enormous power to enforce international law. The problem is not that no solution exists – it’s that global decision-makers have not been willing to act. International law is clear, and countries like Canada, the U.S. and Europe have the power to enforce it through targeted measures.” The complaint comes amid a dramatic escalation of violence against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank in the wake of the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks and Israel’s subsequent military campaign in Gaza. Data from international charity Oxfam shows more than 1,200 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli military crackdowns in the West Bank – a death toll higher than the total number of Palestinian fatalities in the territory over the previous 17 years combined. An additional 4,600 Palestinians have been displaced by Israeli raids and home demolition orders, and violent attacks on Palestinian civilians, farmers, activists, and journalists by Israeli settlers have grown exponentially. Just last month, Awdah Hathleen, Adra’s collaborator on his Oscar-winning documentary No Other Land, was killed by an Israeli settler. Just last week, veteran Washington Post photojournalist Heidi Levine suffered broken bones after being repeatedly kicked by settlers during a reporting trip. Adra argues that settlement expansion depends on international financing and consumer demand, so cutting off access to Western buyers is a critical point of leverage. “Settlers keep stealing more land, building hundreds of illegal outposts and never stopping construction. They claim the land was given to them by God, but without money, they cannot continue this project,” he said. One unnamed Palestinian-Canadian complainant, who withheld their name to avoid being barred from entering the occupied West Bank to visit family, said grassroots legal action is needed to force change even after Canada’s formal recognition of a Palestinian state. “I don’t trust Canadian institutions to follow through on their own stated commitments now that they recognize Palestinian statehood. This is just opportunistic, following shifting global public opinion against Israeli occupation, and without grassroots pressure, it will go nowhere. Small, targeted actions like this complaint are what turn policy statements into real change,” the complainant said.

  • Trump’s green card curbs test Indian tech workers’ American dream

    Trump’s green card curbs test Indian tech workers’ American dream

    For generations of ambitious Indian technology professionals, the path to career success and long-term prosperity in the United States followed a well-worn blueprint: earn an engineering degree, secure a role at an Indian tech services firm, earn a transfer to the US on a temporary work visa, renew visas year after year, and eventually secure a green card granting permanent residency. Today, that established script is at risk of being permanently rewritten.

    Earlier this month, the US administration issued an unprecedented order suspending eight major technology firms — including US giant Microsoft and India’s four largest IT services providers, Infosys, Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), Wipro, and HCL Technologies — from permanently hiring skilled foreign workers through the Permanent Labor Certification Program (PERM), the most common pathway to green cards for temporary visa holders. All new and pending PERM applications from the listed companies are now frozen, a change that hits Indian workers particularly hard: Indians currently hold the vast majority of H-1B temporary skilled worker visas, the primary vehicle that allows them to work in the US while pursuing permanent residency via the PERM process.

    Industry analysts and trade groups note that the direct financial impact on major tech firms will likely be muted, as the new restriction aligns with a years-long shift away from dependence on H-1B visas for US-based roles. India’s $300 billion technology sector trade association Nasscom says domestic Indian firms have steadily increased local hiring in the US over the past decade, bringing down the number of workers seeking PERM-based green card transitions dramatically.

    Wipro has publicly reported that over 80% of its US workforce is hired locally, while TCS says its PERM application volume dropped to single digits over the past two years, falling from 1,804 filings in 2023-24 to 513 in 2024-25, and just two filings for 2025-26, per a Business Standard report citing PERM Tracker. Infosys and Wipro recorded zero PERM filings in the 2025-26 period, the report added. Microsoft noted that most of its H-1B petitions are filed to retain existing skilled employees, not to bring in new foreign workers. Brokerage HDFC Securities echoed the assessment that the business impact will be minimal, as PERM-linked roles account for only a tiny share of overall revenue for the affected firms.

    But while the hit to corporate bottom lines may be small, the human toll and broader uncertainty for thousands of Indian tech professionals already in the US is significant. A senior US-based executive at one of the eight suspended firms, speaking to the BBC on condition of anonymity, explained that the restriction will not sink the business, but it has created acute distress for workers stuck in limbo. “A good number of people we know are stuck in a space where they have spent some years in the US but their green card application hasn’t moved,” he said. “Even if they are ready to move back to India, their children don’t want to because they grew up here.”

    The PERM suspension is just the latest in a growing slate of restrictive immigration policies that have amplified anxiety and hostility toward Indian immigrants. Since the 2024 US election, US non-profit Stop AAPI Hate, which tracks anti-Asian discrimination, has recorded a sharp spike in anti-South Asian hate speech online, with Indian H-1B visa holders as frequent targets. US Vice President JD Vance drew fierce backlash when he described H-1B holders as “foreign indentured servants” in comments accompanying the PERM ban. While Vance later called the phrasing “imperfect,” India’s foreign ministry condemned the remark as “unwarranted” and “deeply offensive” for its harmful colonial-era connotations.

    Immigration legal experts point out that many Indian professionals who built their careers in the US invested heavily to get there, often taking on significant debt for education and professional development, and now have far fewer options as rules tighten. “Many came to the US for better prospects, borrowing heavily to study and build careers. But as rules tighten now, they have fewer options and less ability to absorb the costs,” explained Poorvi Chothani, founder and managing partner of global immigration law firm LawQuest.

    With pathways to permanent residency now severely limited for workers at the affected firms, immigration experts say many will be forced to reconsider their long-term plans to stay in the US, and younger professionals may choose not to relocate at all. While some workers could theoretically move to a tech firm not affected by the suspension, Stanford Immigration Policy Lab postdoctoral fellow Ahmet Gulek notes that many employers are wary of hiring foreign workers amid the shifting policy landscape, for fear of future government retaliation. The current tech industry climate, marked by widespread layoffs, cost-cutting, and rapid AI-driven restructuring, also makes job transitions far more difficult than in years past.

    India-born professionals already account for a staggering share of the US employment-based green card backlog. As of December 2025, nearly one million Indian nationals were waiting for employment-based green cards, making up 79% of all pending applications, according to data from the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP). The group’s 2026 analysis projects wait times ranging from 5 years to 179 years for highly skilled Indian workers filing new petitions, depending on their visa category.

    Alternative pathways to green cards do exist: workers with extraordinary professional achievements or work that advances US national interests can apply for categories that skip the PERM requirement, and wealthy applicants can pursue the EB-5 investor visa, which requires a minimum $800,000 investment in a US business. But experts warn that these alternative routes may be targeted for future restrictions, and most ordinary workers do not have the capital to qualify for the EB-5 program.

    Like prior restrictive immigration measures implemented by the current Trump administration, the PERM suspension is expected to face legal challenges in federal courts. Previous actions, including a $100,000 fee imposed on certain new H-1B petitions, were ultimately struck down by courts, and the administration has recently proposed a new $70,000 fee for universities sponsoring international students for post-graduation work visas. Even if the current ban is overturned, the cumulative effect of these policy shifts has created a far more restrictive climate for anyone hoping to study, work, or settle permanently in the US.

    One Indian professional who recently secured an H-1B visa after a years-long wait, speaking anonymously to the BBC, noted that immigration reform enjoys bipartisan support in the US, even as the two major parties disagree on the details, and this trend toward tighter restrictions is unlikely to reverse in the near term.

    Some industry analysts point to an unexpected long-term consequence of the curbs: rather than shifting jobs to American workers, the restrictions may simply push more tech work offshore to India. The anonymous senior executive noted that many companies are already accelerating this shift, boosted by widespread post-pandemic acceptance of remote work among global clients and the persistent benefit of cost arbitrage.

    While experts agree that US companies’ demand for skilled Indian tech talent will not disappear, the way the US accesses that talent is fundamentally shifting. For millions of Indian professionals who once dreamed of building a life in the US, the old, predictable path to permanent residency is no longer a given, requiring a complete rewrite of their long-held career and life plans.

  • Airbnb hosts can no longer make guests strip beds and wash dishes under new rules

    Airbnb hosts can no longer make guests strip beds and wash dishes under new rules

    For years, short-term travelers booking stays through Airbnb have vented frustration about a pervasive industry grievance: being forced to complete time-consuming cleaning tasks before checking out, even after paying a separate cleaning fee. Now, the global accommodation marketplace has answered those complaints with sweeping changes to its host policy framework, aimed at bringing clarity and fairness to both sides of the sharing economy.

    Starting November 20, all new bookings made through the platform will fall under the updated guidelines. The new rule structure limits hosts to seven core standard house rules, with permission to add extra requests only if those demands qualify as reasonable. A key addition to the policy is a ban on requiring guests to carry out jobs that would typically fall to a professional cleaner. That means hosts can no longer mandate that guests wash and put away dirty dishes, strip used bed linens, or haul trash off the property before departure.

    Airbnb representatives told the BBC that the policy overhaul came in direct response to feedback from the platform’s global community of hosts and guests. “House rules help guests understand what hosts expect, but we’ve heard from our community that they can be confusing, onerous and hard to manage,” the company said. “So, we’ve redesigned them to make them easier to discover and clearer to set, alongside a new policy that keeps requests reasonable, with no surprises.”

    The company did carve out narrow exceptions for requests that align with local regulations or extraordinary community needs. For example, hosts located in regions facing severe drought can require guests to limit their daily shower time to comply with local water use restrictions. Written contracts will also only be permitted in limited scenarios, such as when they are required by local law or a property’s homeowners association guidelines. While hosts will not be allowed to issue direct fines to guests who break house rules, the company confirmed that hosts will still retain full authority to set legitimate expectations for stays.

    Moving forward, all house rules will be displayed far more prominently to potential guests during the booking process, and will also be included in automated reservation reminders ahead of check-in. If a host submits a request that violates the new platform policies, the system will automatically flag the issue, and hosts will have the right to appeal flagged rules if they disagree with the platform’s assessment.

    The policy change comes amid growing public conversation about overly stringent host rules, sparked by viral content on social media platform TikTok. Recently, two Georgia-based Airbnb hosts, Cassie and Jon, saw their post-stay inspection videos go viral after viewers called out their extremely strict standards. In one widely shared clip, the pair accused guests of disrespecting house rules for leaving a television controller out of its designated spot. Though the couple defended their content, claiming it had been misinterpreted by the public, the viral clip sparked widespread criticism of excessive host demands. It also inspired a wave of parodies from other content creators mocking rigid, unreasonable standards set by some hosts across the platform.

    Industry observers note the update marks a major shift for Airbnb, as the company works to address longstanding friction between guests and hosts while maintaining its position as a leading player in the global short-term rental market.