Fire and Emergency New Zealand has handed back the Victoria Park New World to the building’s owners, following yesterday’s fire.
Incident Controller Phil Larcombe says fire crews have left the site, more than 24 hours after the fire started.
“This was a challenging fire, because it was initially too dangerous to fight the fire from inside the building,” he says.
“I want to acknowledge all the firefighters, commanders, and operational support who worked so hard to battle the fire for many hours.
“At the height of the fire there were 23 trucks and 80 firefighters, as well as support personnel.
“We also appreciate the excellent support from New Zealand Police, Hato Hone St John, and Auckland Emergency Management, as well as the building’s owners.
“We were very relieved that all people in the supermarket were able to get out quickly and safely yesterday.
“This is a very good time for all businesses to check that their own fire evacuation schemes are in place and meet requirements.”
The cause of the fire has not yet been determined.
Covering period of Wednesday 18th – Monday 23rd June – After a week of crisp, cold days, MetService is forecasting a shift in the weather as rain moves over the country on Thursday, and showers lingering into Friday morning. While some spots start the day under cloud with a few showers about, the eastern South Island is shaping up as the best spot for viewing Matariki or Puanga— and others may get lucky with clearer skies too.
Rain moves onto the western South Island late Wednesday continuing into Thursday with some places possibly seeing heavier rain and even thunderstorms. Meanwhile, eastern areas will notice increasing cloud, with patchy rain expected for Southland, inland Otago, and inland Canterbury.
On Thursday, rain and wind spread across the North Island, with wetter weather expected out west. Eastern areas like Wairarapa, Tairāwhiti Gisborne, and Hawke’s Bay will also see some rain, though it should be brief as the weather system moves through.
So, what does this mean for Friday morning’s Matariki and Puanga viewing?
MetService meteorologist Mmathapelo Makgabutlane says, “Showers will still be hanging around, especially in western parts of both islands and the upper North Island, and with showers comes cloud. But there may be gaps – and some spots might be lucky enough to catch a glimpse. Check out MetService’s Cloud Forecast for the outlook for your spot.”
“Eastern parts of the South Island look most promising – Canterbury near the coast, Marlborough, and maybe even Nelson,” Makgabutlane says.
The rest of Friday will bring a similar mix of passing showers and dry spells.
“But rain or shine, this year’s theme Matariki mā Puanga – Celebrating Together will still ring true, giving us a chance to gather indoors or out,” Makgabutlane says.
The weekend looks to bring a classic Kiwi winter pattern: a few showers here and there, but also plenty of fine breaks.
“The rain radar will be your friend this long weekend! There will be chances to enjoy some time outdoors,” Makgabutlane adds.
Inland Otago and the Mackenzie Basin have been sitting under low cloud and cold conditions. While Saturday might bring a brief improvement, the cloud could return before the weekend’s out. Overnight temperatures will reflect that too – after a short-lived increase, Sunday morning looks to dip below zero again.
The New Zealand Super Fund has again been awarded a perfect score in the annual GSR (governance, sustainability, resilience) scoreboard published by international sovereign wealth fund experts GlobalSWF.
Introduced in 2020, GlobalSWF’s GSR scoreboard ranks sovereign wealth funds and public pension funds against 25 criteria including transparency and accountability, governance structure and processes, ethical standards and policies, and alignment with sustainable development goals.
The Guardians is one of nine sovereign investors to sit at the top of this year’s scoreboard. In preparing these rankings, GlobalSWF analyses 200 Sovereign Wealth Funds and Public Pension Funds, which manage US$ 29.4 trillion on behalf of 80 countries. It is the fifth successive year the Super Fund has received full marks.
Jo Townsend, CEO of Super Fund manager the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation, said the GSR scoreboard is based on a comprehensive evaluation of factors that are important to the Fund’s long-term success.
“I am very pleased to see our team’s hard work recognised by GlobalSWF,” said Ms Townsend.
On Tuesday 17 June, The Royal Children’s Hospital (RCH) and the Good Friday Appeal hosted a special event to thank community groups and fundraisers for their incredible efforts in raising a record-breaking $23,822,792 for the 2025 Appeal.
The evening was hosted by Vascular Access Specialist Nurse Consultant Eloise Borello and Novalie Morris, a current RCH patient and rising star who captivated the audience with her warmth and charm.
Chief Executive Officer of The Royal Children’s Hospital Dr Peter Steer addressed attendees to express his heartfelt gratitude to the community and supporters of the Appeal. He outlined how the funds will support life-changing advancements at the hospital, including a $3 million contribution towards regional health services.
Representing CFA was Deputy Chief Officer Alen Slijepcevic and members from Bulla, Craigieburn, Pomonal, Werribee, and Epping brigades.
CFA has proudly supported the Good Friday Appeal for 74 years, and in 2025, our volunteers — with the support of their generous local communities — raised an impressive $1,888,912. This brings CFA’s total contribution over the years to a remarkable $41 million.
Across the state, CFA volunteers could be seen at traffic lights and in fire trucks collecting donations in their local communities, continuing a long-standing tradition of support for the RCH.
Funds raised through the Good Friday Appeal help ensure the hospital remains at the forefront of paediatric care, offering world-class treatment, the latest medical equipment, and vital research to give sick children the best possible start in life.
To learn more about the extraordinary impact of this support, we encourage you to read the latest Community Report, which highlights the many initiatives made possible through the funds raised and showcases the large number of volunteers, partners and donors who come from across Victoria to support the RCH.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently limited a nationwide injunction to only Texas, giving the Administration the greenlight to resume processing initial DACA applications for all other states
WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senators Alex Padilla, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, and Adam Schiff (both D-Calif.) joined U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and lead author of the Dream Act, and Senate Democrats in urging U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to resume processing initial applications for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, following a ruling in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that narrowed an earlier injunction to just Texas and allowed USCIS to start processing initial DACA applications from all other states.
The Senators began by highlighting thepopularsupportfor providing Dreamers a pathway to citizenship, writing: “Noncitizens brought to the United States as children, often known as Dreamers, are American in every way but their immigration status. Many only know this country as their home, and they contribute every day to this great nation by paying taxes and serving in critical roles, such as police officers, teachers, and nurses. Americans overwhelmingly support providing Dreamers a path to citizenship, and in December 2024, President Trump stated that he supported protections for Dreamers to remain in the United States.”
“Consistent with this statement, we implore you to use your authority at United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to resume processing initial applications for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and provide such protections for Dreamers immediately,” continuedthe Senators.
Sunday, June 15, marked the thirteenth anniversary of the DACA program via policy memorandum in 2012. Since then, more than 825,000 people have received deferred action pursuant to DACA, empowering recipients to bolster their careers and contribute an estimated $140 billion to the U.S. economy in spending power and $40 billion in combined federal, payroll, state, and local taxes.
In 2021, U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen halted the DACA program and enjoined USCIS from approving any new DACA applications nationwide. While the program was enjoined, USCIS has continued to accept and hold initial applications, and in 2022, the Department of Homeland Security published the DACA Final Rule, codifying the 2012 memorandum establishing DACA into regulation. More than 100,000 initial DACA applications are pending with USCIS.
On January 17, 2025, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision limiting Judge Hanen’s injunction to just Texas.
“Pursuant to the order, in Texas, DACA must resume as a limited program providing protection from deportation for current DACA recipients, but without access to work authorization or driver’s licenses as part of those renewals. This order went into effect on March 11, giving USCIS the authority to start processing initial DACA applications from states other than Texas. However, nearly three months later, USCIS has not made any public announcement on whether new DACA applications will be processed; nor has the agency begun processing initial applications that have been pending with the agency for years,” added the Senators.
“We urge you to begin processing these DACA applications immediately, consistent with the Fifth Circuit decision and existing regulations, and to ensure Dreamers eligible to file initial DACA applications can do so as soon as possible,” concluded the Senators.
In addition to Padilla, Schiff, and Durbin, the letter is signed by U.S. Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawai’i), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Angus King (I-Maine), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawai’i), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).
Full text of the letter to USCIS is available here.
Source: United States Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.)
WATCH: Padilla Delivers Floor Speech Following His Forcible Removal From DHS Press Conference
WATCH: Padilla: “If this Administration is this afraid of just one Senator with a question, colleagues, imagine what the voices of tens of millions of Americans peacefully protesting can do.”
“If that is what the Administration is willing to do to a United States Senator for having the [audacity] to simply ask a question, imagine what they’ll do to any American who dares to speak up. If what you saw happen can happen when the cameras are on, imagine not only what can happen — but what is happening — in so many places where there are no cameras.”
Video of Senator Padilla’s full speech can be viewed here and downloaded here.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, spoke on the Senate floor following his forcible removal from Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem’s press conference, where he was thrown to the ground and handcuffed after attempting to ask a question. Padilla delivered a strong rebuke to the Trump Administration’s unprecedented militarization of Los Angeles and called for his colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as well as the American people, to speak up against Trump’s abuse of power.
Last week, Trump deployed approximately 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 active-duty Marines to Los Angeles amid unrest caused by his indiscriminate immigration raids across the region. Padilla flew to Los Angeles to conduct oversight over the Trump Administration’s unprecedented military deployment to California — without Governor Newsom’s consent — and was in the high-security Los Angeles Federal Building for a scheduled oversight meeting with the commanding general in charge of the military presence in the region before law enforcement escorted him into Secretary Noem’s briefing room.
“The Trump Administration has done everything in their power but to provide transparency to the American people about their mission in Los Angeles. And so last week, I chose to go home to try to get answers from the Administration as they are literally militarizing our city.”
“I want to share what I learned. I want to share what I heard because it should shock the conscience of our country.”
In the hopes of learning new information after having his requests ignored for months, Padilla tried to ask a question in response to Noem’s demonizing rhetoric toward immigrants and Los Angeles’ democratically elected leadership.
“At one point, the United States Secretary of Homeland Security said that the purpose of federal law enforcement and the purpose of the United States military was to ‘liberate’ Los Angeles from our governor and our mayor. To somehow liberate us from the very people that we democratically elected to lead our city and our state.”
“Colleagues, let that fundamentally un-American mission statement sink in. That is not a mission focused on public safety. And that simply is not, and cannot be, the mission of federal law enforcement and the United States military.”
“To my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, are we truly prepared to live in a country where the President can deploy the Armed Forces to decide which duly elected governors and mayors should be allowed to lead their constituents? Is that really the precedent that we’re okay with setting?”
“Throughout the country’s history, we’ve had conflict, we’ve had tumult, but we’ve never had a tyrant as a commander-in-chief.”
Padilla detailed his own background as the proud son of immigrants from Mexico who left behind his MIT engineering degree to protest against the vile anti-immigrant rhetoric in the 1990s that a Republican governor up for reelection spread across California. He said he felt he had to speak out against the Trump Administration’s “un-American” scapegoating of immigrants and California, and detailed the violent reaction to his question.
“So last week, when I heard something so blatantly un-American from the Secretary of Homeland Security, a cabinet official — of course I was compelled, both as a Senator and as an American, to speak up.”
“But before I could even get out my question, I was physically and aggressively forced out of the room — even as I repeatedly announced I was a United States Senator, and I had a question for the Secretary. And even as the National Guardsman and the FBI agent who served as my escorts and brought me into that press briefing room stood by, silently, knowing full well who I was.”
“You’ve seen the video. I was pushed and pulled, struggled to maintain my balance. I was forced to the ground — first on my knees and then flat on my chest. And as I was handcuffed and marched down a hallway, repeatedly asking why am I being detained, not once did they tell me why.”
Padilla expressed his gratitude for the immense support for him and his family that poured in since his forcible removal. However, he emphasized that this fight was not about him but about the fundamental democratic rights of all Americans across the country.
“If you watched what unfolded last week and thought what happened is just about one politician and one press conference, you’re missing the point.”
“If that is what the Administration is willing to do to a United States Senator for having the [audacity] to simply ask a question, imagine what they’ll do to any American who dares to speak up. If what you saw happen can happen when the cameras are on, imagine not only what can happen — but what is happening — in so many places where there are no cameras.”
“Colleagues, this isn’t about me. In fact, it’s not just about immigrant communities or even just the State of California. It’s about every single American who values their Constitutional rights. It’s about anyone who’s ever exercised their First Amendment rights, or anyone who’s ever disagreed with a president, or anyone who simply values our democracy and wants to keep it.”
Padilla set the record straight on Republican misinformation on undocumented immigrants as Trump has used the same playbook when the headlines turn against him: scapegoat immigrants and manufacture a crisis. Public reporting shows that the majority of immigrants currently in ICE custody have no prior criminal conviction, and under 10 percent of immigrants taken into ICE custody since October have serious criminal convictions. Yet, President Trump has blamed immigrants to distract from his failed policies, including Republicans’ billionaire-first budget reconciliation bill that would cut critical services like health care and nutrition for millions of working families across the country.
As President Trump takes unprecedented action to militarize Los Angeles without justification or the Governor’s request, Padilla warned of the stakes for cities across the United States and American democracy.
“Donald Trump is continuing to test the boundaries of his power. And he’s surrounded himself with yes-men and underqualified attack dogs — from the DHS Secretary to the FBI Director to the Secretary of Defense — who will rubberstamp every anti-democratic step he takes.”
“This Administration’s officials and maybe not all, but many Republicans in Congress may choose not to do their job, but they cannot stop me from doing mine.”
“Again, if you really think this is just about immigrants and immigration, it’s time to wake up. What’s happening is not just a threat to California; it’s a threat to everyone in every state. If Donald Trump can bypass the Governor and activate the National Guard to put down protests on immigrant rights, he can do it to suppress your rights, too. If he can deploy the Marines to Los Angeles without justification, he can deploy them to your state, too. And if he can ignore due process, strip away First Amendment rights, and disappear people to foreign prisons without their day in court, he can do it to you too.”
“California is just the test case for the rest of the country. Last week for many was a warning shot. But I pray that it also serves as a wakeup call.”
Padilla concluded his speech with a call to action for Angelenos and millions of Americans to stand up and keep peacefully protesting against the Trump Administration’s attack on fundamental rights.
“It doesn’t matter if you’re a Republican, or a Democrat, or an Independent — we all have a responsibility to speak up and to push back, before it’s too late. So I do encourage people to keep peacefully protesting. There’s nothing more patriotic than to peacefully protest for your rights.”
“Because no one will liberate Los Angeles but Angelenos. No one will redeem America but Americans. No one is coming to save us but us.”
“And we know that the cameras are not on in every corner of the country. But if this Administration is this afraid of just one Senator with a question, colleagues, imagine what the voices of tens of millions of Americans peacefully protesting can do.”
Senator Padilla has been outspoken in calling out the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in Los Angeles and Trump’s misguided deployment of the National Guard and U.S. Marine Corps. This weekend, Padilla led the entire Senate Democratic Caucus in demanding that President Trump immediately withdraw all military forces from Los Angeles and cease all threats to deploy the National Guard or active-duty servicemembers to American cities. Last week, Padilla and Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) demanded answers regarding the Trump Administration’s decision to deploy approximately 700 Marines to Los Angeles. Padilla has spoken at a spotlight hearing and on the Senate floor multiple times to blast President Trump for manufacturing a crisis by launching indiscriminate ICE raids across Los Angeles and deploying the National Guard and active-duty servicemembers to the region. He also joined all Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats today in calling on Chairman Grassley to schedule Department of Homeland Security Secretary Noem for a broad oversight hearing for testimony before the committee.
Padilla’s full remarks as prepared for delivery are available below:
[Mr./Madam] President,
Over the last two weeks in Los Angeles – my hometown – we’ve seen masked federal agents in tactical gear ordered into our communities . . .
We’ve seen a disturbing pattern of extreme and cruel immigration enforcement operations, targeting non-violent people at places of worship, schools, and courthouses.
All to meet an arbitrary quota.
Now, we’re seeing President Trump federalize and deploy the National Guard without the Governor’s consent . . .
Active-duty Marines have been deployed, escalating tensions in our city . . .
All without coordination with the state and local law enforcement.
Despite repeated requests for justification for these extreme actions…and after months of little to no response from the Administration on their aggressive and theatrical immigration raids…
The Trump administration has done everything in their power BUT provide transparency to the American people about their mission in Los Angeles.
So last week, I went home to try to get answers from the administration as they militarize our city.
What I heard should shock the conscience of our country.
One of the first items on my schedule last Thursday was a meeting with General Guillot, the four-star general in charge of U.S. Northern Command at the Federal Building in west Los Angeles, where they are overseeing these military operations.
When the United States military is deployed domestically…
When our own troops are deployed against the wishes of the Governor for the first time since 1965, against the wishes of the mayor, against even the wishes of local law enforcement — then we’re in uncharted territory.
So in an effort to do my duty to conduct congressional oversight — and to try to get answers from the Department of Defense that state and local officials were not receiving— I went to the federal building in West LA.
I was met at the entrance by a National Guardsman and an FBI agent, who escorted me through the security screening and up to a conference room for my scheduled briefing.
While waiting for my scheduled briefing with General Guillot, I learned that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was holding a press conference just down the hall and that the press conference was causing my briefing to be delayed.
The thought occurred to me that maybe I could attend and listen in, in the hopes of hearing Secretary Noem provide some new information that could help us make sense of what was happening.
I asked and was escorted by my National Guard and FBI escorts into the press conference. They opened the door for me. They accompanied me into the press briefing room.
It was there that I listened as the United States Secretary of Homeland Security said that the purpose of federal law enforcement and the United States military was to “liberate” Los Angeles from our governor and our mayor . . .
. . . To somehow liberate us from the very people we democratically elected to lead our city and our state.
Colleagues, let that fundamentally un-American mission statement sink in.
That’s not a mission focused on public safety.
That simply is not, and cannot be, the mission of federal law enforcement and the United States military.
To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, are you truly prepared to live in a country where the President can deploy the armed forces to decide which duly elected governors and mayors should be allowed to lead their constituents?
Is that really the precedent you’re okay with setting?
As Secretary Noem herself said last year when serving as Governor of South Dakota, “If Joe Biden federalizes the National Guard, that would be a direct attack on states’ rights.”
Throughout the country’s history, we’ve had conflict, and we’ve had tumult. But we have never had a tyrant as a commander-in-chief.
That’s not by coincidence!
It’s because the American people have always been willing to speak up and exercise their First Amendment right to protest – especially when our fundamental rights have been threatened.
As the proud son of immigrants from Mexico, it’s that same right I came to revere when marching through the streets of Los Angeles in 1994 alongside friends and family protesting against the vile anti-immigrant rhetoric that was growing in California.
It was that year that a Republican Governor up for reelection and down in the polls, turned to scapegoating immigrants to try to improve his political standing.
That fight is what got me to leave an engineering career behind and dedicate myself to influencing government and politics. So, I’ve seen this before. Californians have seen this before.
So last week, when I heard something so blatantly un-American from the Secretary of Homeland Security — I was compelled, both as a Senator AND as an American, to speak up.
But before I could even get out my question, I was physically and aggressively forced out of the room — even as I announced I was a United States Senator, and I had a question for the Secretary.
And even as the National Guardsman and FBI agent who escorted me into the press conference stood by, silently, knowing full well who I was.
You’ve seen the video.
I was pushed and pulled, struggling to maintain my balance.
I was forced to the ground — first to my knees and then flat on my chest.
As I was handcuffed and marched down a hallway, I repeatedly asked why I was being detained. Not once did they tell me why.
In that moment, a lot of questions run through your head.
Where are they taking me?
Am I being arrested?
What will a city already on edge from being militarized think when they see their Senator has been handcuffed just for trying to ask a question? Or . . .
What will my wife and our three boys think?
I also remember asking myself: if this aggressive escalation is the result of speaking up against the abuses and overreach of the Trump administration, was it really worth it?
But colleagues, how many Americans in our nation’s history have marched, have protested, have shed blood and lost their lives to protect our rights?
How many Americans have served in wars overseas to protect our freedoms here at home?
And how many Americans in the year 2025 see a vindictive president on a tour of retribution, unrestrained by the majority of this separate but co-equal branch of government in this building, and wonder if it’s worth it to stand up or to speak out?
If a United States Senator is too afraid to speak up, how can we expect any other American to do the same?
Colleagues, you know me.
I’m not aware of anyone who would describe me as a flamethrower. I try to be respectful and considerate to every member of this body— regardless of your politics.
So I want to thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who reached out to share messages of support — whether it was public or in private.
In means a great deal to me and my family.
But if you watched what unfolded last week and thought this was about one politician or one press conference, you’re missing the point.
If that’s what this Administration will do to a United States Senator for having the audacity to simply ask a question, imagine what they’ll do to any American who dares to speak up.
If that’s what can happen when the cameras are on, imagine not only what can happen — but what is happening — when the cameras are off.
This isn’t about me. In fact, it’s not even just about immigrant communities or about Californians.
It’s about every single American who values their constitutional rights. It’s about anyone who’s ever exercised their First Amendment rights, or ever disagreed with a president, or who simply values living in a democracy and wants to keep it.
The President will tell you this is about undocumented immigrants, and about law and order and about targeting dangerous, violent criminals.
But we know differently.
Public data released by the administration shows that the majority of immigrants currently in ICE custody do not have a prior criminal conviction.
And new reporting shows that less than 10 percent of immigrants taken into ICE custody since October have serious criminal convictions.
Less than 10 percent!
Two weeks ago, Donald Trump was at the lowest point in his presidency so far.
He was drowning in a week of terrible headlines.
The American people were finally waking up to the realities of the budget reconciliation bill that will cut health care, nutrition assistance, and good paying clean energy jobs in order to cut taxes for billionaires.
He was losing his tariff wars as the costs of everyday goods were continuing to rise.
His promises to end Russia’s invasion of Ukraine were falling flat.
He’d been handed loss after loss in federal court.
And maybe the most embarrassing part was his public breakup with Elon Musk.
But we know what happens when the headlines turn on Donald Trump. Donald Trump turns to the same tired playbook he always has: when in doubt, scapegoat immigrants. And manufacture a crisis to distract the media from your failures.
That’s the reason he ramped up ICE raids in California.
And when Californians took to the streets to peacefully protest, that’s the reason he bypassed the Governor and federalized the National Guard. And as things began to settle in Los Angeles, he escalated even further by sending in the Marines.
He wants the spectacle — not just to distract, but to justify his undemocratic crackdowns and his authoritarian power grabs.
That’s the reason why even while the vast majority of protests have remained peaceful, the President, the Vice President, and their allies have called protestors insurrectionists!
Yes, this is the same man who provoked an actual insurrection on our Capitol on January 6th.
The same man who incited a violent mob, carrying confederate flags, against Congress.
The same man who then pardoned the convicted felons who assaulted our brave Capitol Police officers.
Trump is testing the boundaries of his power. And he’s surrounded himself with yes-men and underqualified attack dogs — from the DHS Secretary to the FBI Director to the Secretary of Defense — who will rubberstamp every anti-democratic step he takes.
This Administration’s officials and Congressional Republicans may choose not to do their job, but they cannot stop me from doing mine.
And I refuse to let immigrants be pawns on the path to fascism.
Again, if you really think this is just about immigrants, it’s time to wake up.
What’s happening isn’t just a threat to California, it’s a threat to everyone in every state.
If Donald Trump can bypass the Governor and activate the National Guard to put down protests for immigrant rights, he can do it to suppress your rights, too.
If he can deploy Marines to Los Angeles without justification, he can deploy them to your city, too.
If he can ignore due process, strip away First Amendment rights, and disappear people to foreign prisons without their day in court, he can do it to you too.
California is just Trump’s test case for the rest of the country.
Last week was a warning shot.
But I pray that it can be our wakeup call, too.
We’ve now seen Trump threaten to do the same in other cities run by elected Democrats.
It doesn’t matter if you’re a Republican, a Democrat, or an independent — we all have a responsibility to speak up and to push back, before it’s too late.
So I encourage people to keep peacefully protesting. There’s nothing more patriotic than peacefully protesting for your rights.
No one will liberate Los Angeles but Angelenos.
No one will redeem America but Americans.
No one is coming to save us but us.
The cameras won’t always be on.
But if this Administration is this scared of just one Senator with a question, imagine what the voices of tens of millions of Americans in the streets can do.
Thank you, [Mr./Madam] President, I yield the floor.
Source: United States Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.)
Padilla, Schiff Condemn Trump Administration Decision to Terminate $3.7 Billion in Clean Energy Grants, Urge DOE to Reinstate Them
SenatorsPadilla and Schiff: “These unlawful terminations represent a significant setback for American energy independence, and they undermine California and America’s leadership in the globally competitive clean energy industry.”
“These grants were provided through legally binding contract agreements between recipients and the federal government and, therefore, cannot be canceled on a political whim.”
WASHINGTON, D.C — Today, U.S. Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff (both D-Calif.) condemned the Trump Administration’s decision to terminate $3.7 billion in federal funding for clean energy projects across the country, including $845 million in California, and called on the Administration to reinstate them. In the letter to U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Chris Wright, the Senators note that these grants were previously awarded through legally binding contract agreements between recipients and the federal government and cannot be canceled on a political whim.
The projects targeted include the National Cement Company of California which lost $500 million for their Lebec Net-Zero Project to focus on carbon capture and the development of carbon-neutral cement, a manufacturing process that is notoriously emissions-intensive, $270 million for implementing carbon capture at a natural gas power plant in Yuba City, and $75 million for a project focused on testing new technology at Gallo Glass Company furnaces in Modesto.
“These grants were provided through legally binding contract agreements between recipients and the federal government and, therefore, cannot be canceled on a political whim. DOE claims that the agency evaluated the investments “on a case-by-case basis to identify waste of taxpayer dollars,” and yet your agency has not provided any information to Congress detailing waste of any kind,” wrote the Senators.
“DOE’s attacks on cutting-edge clean energy projects run counter to our shared interest in boosting energy production, innovation, and economic vitality. The United States cannot afford to halt our progress and hinder American companies’ efforts to move beyond outdated technologies if we hope to remain competitive and truly energy dominant around the globe. These irrational cancellations will increase energy prices, hamper innovation, and set us backwards as we strive toward a clean energy future. We ask that you reinstate the $3.7 billion in canceled OCED funding so that we may bolster American energy production and maintain our competitive edge,” concluded the Senators.
A list of DOE awards terminated is available here.
Full text of the letter is available here and below:
Dear Secretary Wright:
We write with deep concern regarding the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) terminations of energy projects in California that were supported by the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED). These unlawful terminations represent a significant setback for American energy independence, and they undermine California and America’s leadership in the globally competitive clean energy industry. We urge you to work with recipients to reinstate their grant awards.
On May 30, DOE canceled $3.7 billion in funding for 24 clean energy projects around the country, including in Alabama, Arizona, California, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming. In California alone, DOE terminated $845 million in project funding. These terminations are unnecessarily harmful to California’s industries, who often push the cutting edge of innovation forward.
One of the largest cancellations targeted the National Cement Company of California Inc., which lost $500 million for their Lebec Net-Zero Project to focus on carbon capture and the development of carbon-neutral cement, a manufacturing process that is notoriously emissions-intensive. Not only would this project have accelerated decarbonization efforts, but it would have also created hundreds of local jobs in construction and plant operations. Another canceled project in California was $270 million for implementing carbon capture at a natural gas power plant in Yuba City. This project, which supported the same traditional sources of energy that the Trump DOE claims to support, would have helped reduce 95 percent of CO2 emissions from the plant and provided Northern California with more low-carbon electricity. DOE canceled another $75 million for a project focused on testing new technology at Gallo Glass Company furnaces in Modesto. This project would have reduced natural gas use by 70 percent and would have used union labor to produce glass for California’s wine industry.
These grants were provided through legally binding contract agreements between recipients and the federal government and, therefore, cannot be canceled on a political whim. DOE claims that the agency evaluated the investments “on a case-by-case basis to identify waste of taxpayer dollars,” and yet your agency has not provided any information to Congress detailing waste of any kind. These terminations follow your agency’s May 15 announcement that DOE would review 179 awards totaling over $15 billion for projects dedicated to updating power grids and supporting the domestic manufacture of batteries, which has created significant chaos and uncertainty in America’s energy and manufacturing sectors.
Additionally, it has been reported that DOE may be planning to close OCED, which has contributed to more than 70 percent of staff in that office departing the agency. In 2021, Congress directed the establishment of OCED in the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. OCED’s mission is to advance large-scale demonstration projects to accelerate the deployment and market adoption of energy technologies like clean hydrogen, carbon management, advanced nuclear reactors, and long-duration energy storage. Until recently, these were bipartisan initiatives.
DOE’s attacks on cutting-edge clean energy projects run counter to our shared interest in boosting energy production, innovation, and economic vitality. The United States cannot afford to halt our progress and hinder American companies’ efforts to move beyond outdated technologies if we hope to remain competitive and truly energy dominant around the globe. These irrational cancellations will increase energy prices, hamper innovation, and set us backwards as we strive toward a clean energy future. We ask that you reinstate the $3.7 billion in canceled OCED funding so that we may bolster American energy production and maintain our competitive edge.
Increases in primary care funding must be passed onto nurses to fix chronic staff shortages so New Zealanders can get in to see their doctors, the Nurses Organisation Tōputanga Tapuhi Kaitiaki o Aotearoa (NZNO) says.
The Government funds GP clinics based on the number of enrolled patients they have, regardless of the services they receive, through what’s called the capitation system.
NZNO College of Primary Care Nurses chair Tracey Morgan says a capitation increase of 4% last year was widely condemned as forcing general practices to hike their fees.
Capitation funding for this year is set to increase to 9.13% conditional on general practices agreeing to limit any fee rises to 3%, according to documentsleaked to NZ Doctor. The cost-pressure uplift for those who don’t limit their fee rises will be an increase of 6.43%.
Nurses are urging primary care employers to pass this funding increase onto them via their wages, Tracey Morgan says.
“This will help stem the flow of nurses out of primary care and into hospitals.
“A skilled nursing workforce is desperately needed to keep care in the community, ease pressure on hospital emergency departments and prevent long term conditions worsening.
“During collective agreement bargaining last year, primary care nurses were 16-18% behind their hospital-based colleagues in pay. The employers told the union that if the money was available, they would willingly pass it on to nurses.”
Primary care nurses will receive a 3% increase in July through their collective agreement which also gave them a further 5% on ratification earlier this year, Tracey Morgan says.
“However, this will still have them 10% behind hospital nurses with the same qualifications.
“The Government claims it is focused on shorter wait times for New Zealanders to get in to see their doctor. The ability to recruit and retain primary health nurses is vital to achieving this,” Tracey Morgan says.
This year marks the 75th anniversary of the outbreak of the Korean War, a pivotal moment in global history and a significant chapter in New Zealand’s military heritage. A national commemorative service will be held at Pukeahu National War Memorial Park in Wellington on Wednesday 25 June 2025 from 11am.
“The 25th of June is a day where people can take the opportunity to honour and reflect on the courage and sacrifice of New Zealanders who served in the Korean War,” said Stacey Richardson, Director Office of the Secretary at Manatū Taonga Ministry for Culture and Heritage.
The commemoration is held on the anniversary of the beginning of the Korean War on 25 June 1950 when communist North Korean forces crossed the 38th Parallel into South Korea.
“New Zealand was one of the first nations to respond to the United Nations Security Council’s call for military assistance following the invasion of South Korea in June 1950.
“Over 6,000 New Zealanders served during the Korean War. Around 4,700 New Zealand Army personnel served in Kayforce, with about 1300 others on Royal New Zealand Navy frigates.
“The ramifications of this war were felt across the world and in Aotearoa. Forty-five New Zealanders lost their lives, and many more were wounded or affected by the conflict”.
“Our national commemorations provide a space for individual and collective reflection. They bring together veterans, service personnel, communities and members of the public to honour together and reflect on the enduring legacy of war.
“As we reflect, we can also look forward. We acknowledge the enduring bonds forged between Aotearoa and the Republic of Korea, which have shaped the strong partnership our nations enjoy today,” said Richardson.
Veterans, their whānau, and members of the public are warmly invited to attend the national commemoration. Anyone who would like to attend should arrive at the Hall of Memories at Pukeahu National War Memorial Park at 10.45am for an 11.00am start.
The Palestine Forum of New Zealand notes with deep appreciation the public statement issued today by ninety‑five New Zealand lawyers urging the Government to adopt a stronger stance on Israel amid escalating tensions in the Middle East.
We stand in solidarity with these respected members of the legal profession who, in highlighting international law, human rights, and the principles underpinning New Zealand’s foreign policy, are calling for moral and political leadership from our nation.
Their call comes at a critical juncture: New Zealand’s vote at the UN in support of the resolution recommending Israel’s withdrawal from occupied territories was a step in the right direction. However, it must now be followed by coherent action—politically, diplomatically, and legally—consistent with our international obligationsscoop.co.nz+12scoop.co.nz+12scoop.co.nz+12.
We concur with the lawyers’ analysis:
ThatIsrael’s occupation of Palestinian landviolates international law.
Thatincreasing violence and civilian suffering, particularly in Gaza and the West Bank, demand concrete responses.
That New Zealand’s standing as a principled actor in world affairs calls for bothclear condemnationof abuses andactive supportfor measures that uphold international law, including:
Support for ICC proceedings and arrest warrants for war crimes suspects;
The use oftargeted sanctions;
Suspension of government contracts and investment ties with entities complicit in occupation;
Advocacy for animmediate ceasefire, unimpeded humanitarian access, and humanitarian visas for Palestinians fleeing conflict.
As legal voices within our own legal fraternity have acknowledged, our Government holdsnot only a right but a dutyto lead—ahead of electoral cycles—by placing human rights and international justice at the heart of its foreign policy.
We call on the Government to honour these principles by engaging thoughtfully with the lawyers’ briefing, committing publicly to concrete measures, and joining the global community in holding violators of international law to account.
Today’s call by our country’s legal community is both timely and courageous. We affirm their voices. And we renew our call for New Zealand to do the same.
From hand-sized lantern sharks that glow in the deep sea to bus-sized whale sharks gliding through tropical waters, sharks come in all shapes and sizes.
Despite these differences, they all face the same fundamental challenge: how to get oxygen, heat and nutrients to every part of their bodies efficiently.
Our new study, published today in Royal Society Open Science, shows that sharks follow a centuries-old mathematical rule – the two-thirds scaling law – that predicts how body shape changes with size. This tells us something profound about how evolution works – and why size really does matter.
What is the two-thirds scaling law?
The basic idea is mathematical: surface area increases with the square of body length, while volume increases with the cube. That means surface area increases more slowly than volume, and the ratio between the two – crucial for many biological functions – decreases with size.
This matters because many essential life processes happen at the surface: gas exchange in the lungs or gills, such as to take in oxygen or release carbon dioxide, but also heat loss through skin and nutrient uptake in the gut.
These processes depend on surface area, while the demands they must meet – such as the crucial task of keeping the body supplied with oxygen – depend on volume. So, the surface area-to-volume ratio shapes how animals function.
Whale sharks are as big as buses, while dwarf lanternsharks (pictured here) are as small as a human hand. Chip Clark/Smithsonian Institution
Despite its central role in biology, this rule has only ever been rigorously tested in cells, tissues and small organisms such as insects.
Until now.
Why sharks?
Sharks might seem like an unlikely group for testing an old mathematical theory, but they’re actually ideal.
For starters, they span a huge range of sizes, from the tiny dwarf lantern shark (about 20 centimetres long) to the whale shark (which can exceed 20 metres). They also have diverse shapes and lifestyles – hammerheads, reef-dwellers, deep-sea hunters – each posing different challenges for physiology and movement.
Plus, sharks are charismatic, ecologically important and increasingly under threat. Understanding their biology is both scientifically valuable and important for conservation.
Sharks are ecologically important but are increasingly under threat. Rachel Moore
How did we test the rule?
We used high-resolution 3D models to digitally measure surface area and volume in 54 species of sharks. These models were created using open-source CT scans and photogrammetry, which involves using photographs to approximate a 3D structure. Until recently, these techniques were the domain of video game designers and special effects artists, not biologists.
We refined the models in Blender, a powerful 3D software tool, and extracted surface and volume data for each species.
Then we applied phylogenetic regression – a statistical method that accounts for shared evolutionary history – to see how closely shark shapes follow the predictions of the two-thirds rule.
Sharks follow the two-thirds scaling rule almost perfectly, as seen in this 3D representation. Joel Gayford et al
What did we find?
The results were striking: sharks follow the two-thirds scaling rule almost perfectly, with surface area scaling to body volume raised to the power of 0.64 – just a 3% difference from the theoretical 0.67.
This suggests something deeper is going on. Despite their wide range of forms and habitats, sharks seem to converge on the same basic body plan when it comes to surface area and volume. Why?
One explanation is that what are known as “developmental constraints” – limits imposed by how animals grow and form in early life – make it difficult, or too costly, for sharks to deviate from this fundamental pattern.
Changing surface area-to-volume ratios might require rewiring how tissues are allocated during embryonic development, something that evolution appears to avoid unless absolutely necessary.
But why does it matter?
This isn’t just academic. Many equations in biology, physiology and climate science rely on assumptions about surface area-to-volume ratios.
These equations are used to model how animals regulate temperature, use oxygen, and respond to environmental stress. Until now, we haven’t had accurate data from large animals to test those assumptions. Our findings give researchers more confidence in using these models – not just for sharks, but potentially for other groups too.
As we face accelerating climate change and biodiversity loss, understanding how animals of all sizes interact with their environments has never been more urgent.
This study, powered by modern imaging tech and some old-school curiosity, brings us one step closer to that goal.
Jodie L. Rummer receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is affiliated with the Australian Coral Reef Society, as President.
Joel Gayford receives funding from the Northcote Trust.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
Top two seeds Carlos Alcaraz and Jack Draper both advanced to the second round of the men’s singles at the Queen’s Club Championships on Tuesday.
Spain’s Alcaraz arrived in London fresh off his second consecutive French Open title. The world No. 2 overcame a late challenge from lucky loser Alex Walton to win his first grass-court match of the season 6-4, 7-6(7).
Alcaraz had initially been scheduled to face fellow Spaniard Alejandro Davidovich Fokina in the opening round, but the world No. 28 withdrew just hours before the match due to illness following his recent wedding.
“I didn’t know his game, which shot is his best,” Alcaraz talked about his opponent Walton from Australia. “What I tried is not to think about him but myself. I tried to play as good as I can and that’s all.”
Earlier, Draper thrilled the home crowd at Andy Murray Arena with a commanding 6-3, 6-1 victory over American Jenson Brooksby.
“I feel good. I feel confident. I feel relaxed. Like I said on court, I’m happy to be home. I’m happy to be playing in front of home crowd,” said the 23-year-old British No. 1.
Draper will next face Australian Alexei Popyrin, while Alcaraz is set to play compatriot Jaume Munar.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
Fluminense and Borussia Dortmund drew their opening Group F match in the FIFA Club World Cup 0-0 in the MetLife Stadium in New Jersey.
Brazilian side Fluminense had the better of the game, but a good performance from Borussia goalkeeper Gregor Kobel and some solid defending limited the clear chances they were able to create.
The game was just two minutes old when Borussia defender Ramy Bensebaini saw the first yellow card and a minute later Fluminense striker Jhon Arias fired over after a swift exchange of passes.
Fluminense had the best of the opening exchanges with Rene firing well over from a decent position as the Brazilian side looked sharper than a Borussia side that had not played a competitive game for a month.
Karim Adeyemi created a decent chance for the Germans as he found space on the left and drilled a pass across the face of goal, with Serhou Guirassy colliding with Fluminense goalkeeper Fabio, as he stretched for the ball.
Nonato and Arias (again) fired just wide from outside of the penalty area as Fluminense continued to threaten and yet another Arias shot needed to be pushed wide by Kobel.
Borussia tried to keep hold of the ball at the start of the second half, but continued to struggle against the energy of a rival that was able to frustrate attempts to play out from defense, with Hercules going close before Kobel stayed down after a collision.
The goalkeeper was able to continue after several minutes of treatment, with his side looking to interrupt Fluminense’s rhythm with a series of niggling fouls.
Agustin Canobbio was guilty of a weak finish when he should have scored, before Everaldo and Nonato produced a double save from Kobel.
Meanwhile, Jobe Bellingham made his Borussia debut as the German side continued striving to get some control, although the German side’s best players continued to be central defenders Niklas Sule and Waldemar Anton, with Sule almost winning the game at the end for Borussia with a shot from distance following a corner.
Our cultural touchstones series looks at influential works.
Gilles Deleuze was one of the most original and imaginative thinkers of postwar France. A lifelong teacher, he spent most of his career at the University of Paris VIII, influencing generations of students but largely shunning the mantle of public intellectual.
His complex, creative books mix philosophy, literature, film and politics – not to give clear answers, but to spark new ways of thinking.
Written at a time when the Cold War was ending, computers were becoming more common, and the internet was beginning to connect institutions, the essay describes the emergence of a new kind of society – one not ruled by a single stern voice but by the soft hum of networks.
How societies work
Postscript was written as an update to the work of Deleuze’s contemporary Michel Foucault, who had died in 1984. Deleuze called it a “postscript” not just because of its brevity (it’s only around 2,300 words in English translation) but to highlight he wasn’t refuting Foucault, just building on his work.
From the 18th to early 20th centuries, Foucault had argued, Western societies were “disciplinary societies”. Schools, factories, prisons and hospitals – institutions with walls, schedules, routines and clear expectations – moulded behaviour. People were trained, observed, tested and corrected as they passed from one institution to the next.
But in the late 20th century, Deleuze saw something shifting. He thought the stodgy old disciplinary institutions were “in a generalized crisis” due to technological advances and a new form of capitalism that demanded more flexibility in workers and consumers.
New systems of management and technology were starting to reshape people without sending them through traditional institutions. Deleuze wrote presciently, for example, that “perpetual training tends to replace the school, and continuous control to replace the examination”.
In business, he saw a growing idea of “salary according to merit”, transforming work into “challenges, contests, and highly comic group sessions” – something much at odds with the old model of the standard wage and the assembly line. Traditional government institutions like hospitals and the classic factory were embracing the model of the corporation, driven always by a profit motive and the need for better human tools.
To Deleuze, all this meant people were becoming more “free-floating” – they could be still playing socially useful roles but were being gently steered into them. This greater freedom, however, required a new system to keep everyone in line. He called this “modulation” to underline its dynamic, enveloping nature.
Like nudging, but everywhere
Deleuze described modulation as “a self-deforming cast that will continuously change from one moment to the other”. He meant that people were beginning to live in an environment where everything shape-shifts to encourage or discourage us in the right direction without explicitly putting up walls.
A prime example of how modulation has since become commonplace is nudging – the use of psychological techniques, often subtle and data-driven, to shape people’s behaviour.
Nudging didn’t really exist in 1990, but governments and tech companies use nudges all the time now. We’re nudged to eat healthier, buy, save, recycle, donate. Web sites use “dark patterns” – tricky designs that steer (or nudge) us toward certain choices. Social media feeds use algorithms to exclude us if we say the wrong thing. In fact, entire teams of behavioural scientists operate behind the scenes to manipulate many aspects of our lives.
Nudges can be good and can save us from poor choices, but their newfound moral acceptability (sometimes called libertarian paternalism) is very much a clue that Deleuze’s control society has arrived.
Control in your pocket
Deleuze, who died in 1995, wrote Postscript before the advent of the smartphone, but he foresaw that an “electronic collar” would assume a central role in society. He envisaged a “computer that tracks each person’s position – licit or illicit – and effects a universal modulation.”
Smartphones more than fit the bill. In the old disciplinary ways, they track where we go, what we search for, what we buy, how many steps we take, even how well we sleep. But if we apply Deleuze’s ideas to these phones, detailed surveillance is no longer their most important function. Our phones present and curate options.
In effect, they shape how we see the world. When you scroll through news or social media, for instance, you’re reading about a version of the world built just for you, designed to keep you looking, clicking and reacting – and keep you very finely attuned to what is acceptable or dangerous behaviour.
In Deleuze’s terms, this is pure modulation: not a forceful “No” but a softly spoken, “How about this?” Your phone doesn’t lock you in – it draws you in. It shapes what you see, rewards your cooperation, ignores your silence, and always keeps score. And it does this 24/7. You might unlock it hundreds of times a day. And each time it’s updated to guide your next move more precisely.
At the same time our phones quietly turn us into a set of credentials useful for regulating physical access to workplaces, bank accounts, information: In the societies of control, writes Deleuze, “what is important is no longer either a signature or a number, but a code: the code is a password.”
Data points not people?
Deleuze warned that, in a control society: “Individuals have become ‘dividuals,’ and masses have become samples, data, markets, or ‘banks.’” A dividual to Deleuze is a person transformed into a set of data points and metrics.
You are your credit rating, your search history, your likes and clicks – a different dataset to every institution. Such fragments are used to make decisions about you until they effectively replace you. In fact, for Deleuze a dividual has internalised this treatment and thinks of themselves as a net worth, a mortgage size, a car value – psychological anchors for control.
He illustrates this point with healthcare, predicting a
new medicine ‘without doctor or patient’ that singles out potential sick people and subjects at risk, which in no way attests to individuation.
How many health decisions are now made for us collectively before we ever see a doctor? We should be grateful for advances in public health and epidemiology, but this has certainly impacted our individuality and how we are treated.
Hard to detect
An unsettling part of Deleuze’s perspective is that control doesn’t usually feel like control. It’s often dressed up as convenience, efficiency or progress. You set up internet-linked video cameras because then you can work from home. You agree to long terms and conditions because your banking app won’t work otherwise.
One problem is there are no longer clear barriers we can rail against. As Deleuze said:
In disciplinary societies one was always starting again (from school to the barracks, from the barracks to the factory), while in control societies one is never finished with anything.
Control doesn’t always crush – it can enable. Digital networks bring real freedom, economic possibility, even joy. We move more easily – both mentally and geographically – than ever before. But while we move, it always inside a kind of invisible map shaped by capitalism.
It’s no conspiracy because nobody has the whole map. So it’s difficult to work out exactly what action, if any, to take. As Deleuze concludes: “The coils of a serpent are even more complex than the burrows of a molehill.”
So what can we do?
Postscript doesn’t offer a political program beyond the sardonic comment that:
Many young people strangely boast of being ‘motivated’ […] It’s up to them to discover what they’re being made to serve.
There are ways to resist control. Some people demand more privacy or digital rights. Others opt out selectively – logging off, turning off, refusing to be nudged. Some look to art as a way of resisting its smooth grip. These acts – however small – may offer what Deleuze and his collaborator, the French psychiatrist and philosopher Félix Guattari, called lines of flight: creative ways to move not just against control, but beyond it.
The real message of Postscript, however, is its invitation to consider a timeless perspective. Any society must have a way to make people useful. So, what kind of society do we want? What kinds of restrictions are we willing to live under? And, crucial to this current age, how explicit should control be?
Cameron Shackell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Today, the Prime Minister, Mark Carney, met with the President of the Republic of Korea, Lee Jae Myung, at the 2025 G7 Leaders’ Summit in Kananaskis, Alberta.
Canada and Korea hold a dynamic trade and investment relationship. As Canada diversifies its trade and defence relationships, and rearms its armed forces, the relationship between Canada and Korea has immense potential to prosper further. To that end, Prime Minister Carney and President Lee agreed to deepen co-operation between the two nations.
The Prime Minister underscored Canada’s role as a stable and reliable Pacific nation and its support for a free and open Indo-Pacific region.
Prime Minister Carney and President Lee agreed to remain in close contact.
From June 19 to 22, 2025, Samsung Electronics will collaborate with globally renowned artists to celebrate global diversity, artistic innovation and the power of display technology at Art Basel in Basel 2025, the world’s largest art fair held in Basel, Switzerland.
▲ As Art Basel’s official display partner, Samsung Electronics offers exclusive access to curated exhibition artworks via the Samsung Art Store, also on display onsite at Art Basel in Basel 2025.
With participation from approximately 280 galleries across 42 countries, Art Basel in Basel 2025 offers a comprehensive view of the latest ideas shaping contemporary art today. As the official display partner, Samsung Electronics presents a new digital art experience that brings together art and technology through its premium screens including The Frame, Micro LED and Neo QLED 8K.
Immersive Digital Art Experience: ‘ArtCube’ Draws Visitors Into the World of Art
At Art Basel in Basel 2025, Samsung Electronics unveiled ‘ArtCube,’ a lounge dedicated to digital art experiences on Samsung devices. Created under the theme “Borderless, Dive Into the Art,” ArtCube offers a progressively immersive journey as visitors navigate the space.
Passing through a large LED entrance where the Art Basel in Basel Collection from Samsung Art Store is reinterpreted as digital artworks, visitors discover a space showcasing the full lineup of Samsung Art TVs in the ArtCube. Artworks from the Samsung Art Store, displayed across ‘The Frame,’ ‘Micro LED’ and ‘Neo QLED 8K’ screens, envelope the front and side walls to create a deeply immersive experience — one that makes visitors feel as though they have stepped directly into the art itself.
▲ Samsung Art TVs — including The Frame Pro, MICRO LED and Neo QLED 8K — line the interior walls of ArtCube.
▲ A visitor views Basim Magdy’s artwork on display at ArtCube, part of the Samsung Art Store collection at Art Basel in Basel 2025.
An interactive experience zone, powered by Samsung Art Store, is also featured. Visitors can select an artist showcased in the exhibition, take a photo and generate a personalized selfie in the chosen artist’s style, using generative AI — offering a distinctive and engaging experience.
Bringing Art Into Everyday Life Through the Samsung Art Store
Earlier this week, Samsung Electronics has unveiled a new collection featuring 38 highlighted pieces from Art Basel in Basel 2025, now available on the Samsung Art Store. With this launch, Samsung Art Store subscribers around the world can enjoy a diverse selection of Art Basel artworks from the comfort of their homes — without needing to travel to Basel, Switzerland.
As the official display partner of Art Basel for 2025, Samsung Electronics will continue its participation in the annual exhibitions held in Basel, Hong Kong, Paris and Miami. Through Samsung Art Store, the company aims to make art more accessible and seamlessly integrated into everyday life.
The Samsung Art Store* is a subscription-based art service available on Samsung’s The Frame and QLED TVs. Now accessible in 117 countries, the Samsung Art Store offers more than 3,500 artworks in stunning 4K resolution through collaboration with over 70 leading partners.
▲ Basim Magdy, featured in the Samsung Art Store collection at Art Basel in Basel 2025, views his own work on display at ArtCube.
▲ Visitors take in the vibrant, dreamlike works of Basim Magdy on display at ArtCube, part of Samsung’s digital art showcase at Art Basel in Basel 2025.
▲ A visitor captures Lee Kun-yong’s artwork on display at Samsung ArtCube.
▲ A visitor views Marc Dennis’ artwork on display at Samsung ArtCube.
▲ A vivid portrait in the style of Marc Dennis captures visitors’ attention at ArtCube, part of Samsung’s digital art showcase at Art Basel in Basel 2025.
▲ A vivid portrait in the style of Saya Woolfalk captures visitors’ attention at ArtCube, part of Samsung’s digital art showcase at Art Basel in Basel 2025.
▲ The experience zone highlights the Samsung Art Store and lets visitors create immersive, AI-powered photos with animated elements from featured artworks.
▲ One of the most striking pieces at ArtCube, Basim Magdy’s “The Dictator and His Cockroach Count Their Blessings” merges satire and dreamlike visuals in Samsung’s digital art showcase.
▲ Visitors explore the immersive artworks by Marc Dennis at ArtCube, where his vivid, hyperreal art pieces are brought to life with digital projections.
* All artworks in Samsung Art Store are available with a membership subscription. Artwork availability is subject to change without prior notice and may vary by region.
Israeli defence systems intercept Iranian missiles over the city of HaifaAhmad Gharabli / AFP via Getty Images
Late last week, Israel began a wave of attacks on Iran under the banner of Operation Rising Lion, with the stated goal of crippling the Islamic republic’s nuclear program and long-range strike capabilities. At the outset, Israel claimed Iran would soon be able to build nine nuclear weapons, a situation Israel regarded as completely unacceptable.
Following Israeli strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, and targeted assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists and key members of the Iranian armed forces, Iran retaliated with a large barrage of ballistic missiles and drones against Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. The first wave consisted of some 200 ballistic missiles and 200 drones.
The conflict continues to escalate, with population centres increasingly being targeted. Israel’s missile defence systems (including the vaunted Iron Dome) have so far staved off most of Iran’s attacks, but the future is uncertain.
Ballistic missiles and how to stop them
Iran possesses a large arsenal of ballistic missiles and long-range drones, alongside other long-range weapons such as cruise missiles. Ballistic missiles travel on a largely fixed path steered by gravity, while cruise missiles can adjust their course as they fly.
Iran is approximately 1,000km from Israel, so the current strikes mostly involve what are classified as medium-range ballistic missiles, alongside long-range drones. It is not clear exactly what type of missile Iran has used in its latest strikes, but the country has several including the Fattah-1 and Emad.
It is very difficult to defend against ballistic missiles. There is not much time between launch and impact, and they come down at very high speed. The longer the missile’s range, the faster and higher it flies.
An incoming missile presents a small, fast-moving target – and defenders may have little time to react.
Israel’s missile defence and the Iron Dome
Israel possesses arguably one of the most effective, battle-tested air defence systems in service today. The system is often described in the media as the “Iron Dome”, but this is not quite correct.
Israel’s defences have several layers, each designed to address threats coming from different ranges.
In essence, Iron Dome consists of a network of radar emitters, command and control facilities, and the interceptors (special surface-to-air missiles). The radar quickly detects incoming threats, the command and control elements decide which are most pressing, and the interceptors are sent to destroy the incoming shells or rockets.
Ballistic defence systems
The other layers of Israel’s defence system include David’s Sling, and the Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 interceptors. These are specifically designed to engage longer-range ballistic missiles, both within the atmosphere and at very high altitudes above it (known as exoatmospheric interception).
Spectacular footage has been captured of what are likely exoatmospheric interceptions taking place during this latest conflict, demonstrating Israel’s capacity to engage longer-range missiles.
The US military has comparable missile defence systems. The US Army has the Patriot PAC-3 (comparable to David’s Sling) and THAAD (comparable to Arrow 2), while the US Navy has the Aegis and the SM-3 (comparable to Arrow 3) and the SM-6 (comparable again to Arrow 2).
Iran possesses some air defence systems such as the Russian S300 which has some (very limited) ballistic missile defence capabilities, but only against shorter range (and thus slower) ballistic missiles. Further, Israel has been focusing on degrading Iran’s air defences, so it is not clear how many are still operational.
Iran has been focusing on developing technology such as maneuverable warheads, which are harder to defend against. However, it is not clear whether these are yet operational and in Iranian service.
Missile defences are finite. The defender is always limited by the number of interceptors it possesses.
The attacker is also limited by the number of missiles it possesses. However, the defender must often assign multiple interceptors to each attacking missile, in case the first misses or otherwise fails.
The attacker will plan for some losses to interceptors (or mechanical failures) and send what it determines to be enough missiles for at least some to penetrate the defences.
When it comes to ballistic missiles, the advantage lies with the attacker. Ballistic missiles can carry large explosive payloads (or even nuclear warheads), so even a handful of missiles “leaking” past defensive systems can still wreak significant damage.
What now?
Israel’s missile defences are unlikely to stop working completely. However, as attacks deplete its stocks of interceptors, the system may become less effective.
As the conflict continues, it may become a race to see who runs out of weapons first. Will it be Iran’s stocks of ballistic missiles and drones, or the interceptors and anti-air munitions of Israel, the US and any other supporters?
It is impossible to say who would prevail in such a race of stockpile attrition. Some reports suggest Iran has fired approximately 1,000 ballistic missiles of an estimated 3,000. However, this still leaves it with an enormous stockpile to use, and it is unclear how fast Iran can make new missiles to replenish its resources.
But we should hope it doesn’t come to that. Beyond the tit-for-tat exchange of missiles, the latest conflict between Israel and Iran risks escalating. If it is not resolved soon, and if the US is drawn into the conflict more directly, we may see broader conflict in the Middle East.
James Dwyer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Israeli defence systems intercept Iranian missiles over the city of HaifaAhmad Gharabli / AFP via Getty Images
Late last week, Israel began a wave of attacks on Iran under the banner of Operation Rising Lion, with the stated goal of crippling the Islamic republic’s nuclear program and long-range strike capabilities. At the outset, Israel claimed Iran would soon be able to build nine nuclear weapons, a situation Israel regarded as completely unacceptable.
Following Israeli strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, and targeted assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists and key members of the Iranian armed forces, Iran retaliated with a large barrage of ballistic missiles and drones against Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. The first wave consisted of some 200 ballistic missiles and 200 drones.
The conflict continues to escalate, with population centres increasingly being targeted. Israel’s missile defence systems (including the vaunted Iron Dome) have so far staved off most of Iran’s attacks, but the future is uncertain.
Ballistic missiles and how to stop them
Iran possesses a large arsenal of ballistic missiles and long-range drones, alongside other long-range weapons such as cruise missiles. Ballistic missiles travel on a largely fixed path steered by gravity, while cruise missiles can adjust their course as they fly.
Iran is approximately 1,000km from Israel, so the current strikes mostly involve what are classified as medium-range ballistic missiles, alongside long-range drones. It is not clear exactly what type of missile Iran has used in its latest strikes, but the country has several including the Fattah-1 and Emad.
It is very difficult to defend against ballistic missiles. There is not much time between launch and impact, and they come down at very high speed. The longer the missile’s range, the faster and higher it flies.
An incoming missile presents a small, fast-moving target – and defenders may have little time to react.
Israel’s missile defence and the Iron Dome
Israel possesses arguably one of the most effective, battle-tested air defence systems in service today. The system is often described in the media as the “Iron Dome”, but this is not quite correct.
Israel’s defences have several layers, each designed to address threats coming from different ranges.
In essence, Iron Dome consists of a network of radar emitters, command and control facilities, and the interceptors (special surface-to-air missiles). The radar quickly detects incoming threats, the command and control elements decide which are most pressing, and the interceptors are sent to destroy the incoming shells or rockets.
Ballistic defence systems
The other layers of Israel’s defence system include David’s Sling, and the Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 interceptors. These are specifically designed to engage longer-range ballistic missiles, both within the atmosphere and at very high altitudes above it (known as exoatmospheric interception).
Spectacular footage has been captured of what are likely exoatmospheric interceptions taking place during this latest conflict, demonstrating Israel’s capacity to engage longer-range missiles.
The US military has comparable missile defence systems. The US Army has the Patriot PAC-3 (comparable to David’s Sling) and THAAD (comparable to Arrow 2), while the US Navy has the Aegis and the SM-3 (comparable to Arrow 3) and the SM-6 (comparable again to Arrow 2).
Iran possesses some air defence systems such as the Russian S300 which has some (very limited) ballistic missile defence capabilities, but only against shorter range (and thus slower) ballistic missiles. Further, Israel has been focusing on degrading Iran’s air defences, so it is not clear how many are still operational.
Iran has been focusing on developing technology such as maneuverable warheads, which are harder to defend against. However, it is not clear whether these are yet operational and in Iranian service.
Missile defences are finite. The defender is always limited by the number of interceptors it possesses.
The attacker is also limited by the number of missiles it possesses. However, the defender must often assign multiple interceptors to each attacking missile, in case the first misses or otherwise fails.
The attacker will plan for some losses to interceptors (or mechanical failures) and send what it determines to be enough missiles for at least some to penetrate the defences.
When it comes to ballistic missiles, the advantage lies with the attacker. Ballistic missiles can carry large explosive payloads (or even nuclear warheads), so even a handful of missiles “leaking” past defensive systems can still wreak significant damage.
What now?
Israel’s missile defences are unlikely to stop working completely. However, as attacks deplete its stocks of interceptors, the system may become less effective.
As the conflict continues, it may become a race to see who runs out of weapons first. Will it be Iran’s stocks of ballistic missiles and drones, or the interceptors and anti-air munitions of Israel, the US and any other supporters?
It is impossible to say who would prevail in such a race of stockpile attrition. Some reports suggest Iran has fired approximately 1,000 ballistic missiles of an estimated 3,000. However, this still leaves it with an enormous stockpile to use, and it is unclear how fast Iran can make new missiles to replenish its resources.
But we should hope it doesn’t come to that. Beyond the tit-for-tat exchange of missiles, the latest conflict between Israel and Iran risks escalating. If it is not resolved soon, and if the US is drawn into the conflict more directly, we may see broader conflict in the Middle East.
James Dwyer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Natanz and Fordow are Iran’s uranium enrichment sites, and Isfahan provides the raw materials, so any damage to these sites would limit Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons.
But what exactly is uranium enrichment and why does it raise concerns?
To understand what it means to “enrich” uranium, you need to know a little about uranium isotopes and about splitting the atom in a nuclear fission reaction.
What is an isotope?
All matter is made of atoms, which in turn are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons. The number of protons is what gives atoms their chemical properties, setting apart the various chemical elements.
Atoms have equal numbers of protons and electrons. Uranium has 92 protons, for example, while carbon has six. However, the same element can have different numbers of neutrons, forming versions of the element called isotopes.
This hardly matters for chemical reactions, but their nuclear reactions can be wildly different.
The difference between uranium-238 and uranium-235
When we dig uranium out of the ground, 99.27% of it is uranium-238, which has 92 protons and 146 neutrons. Only 0.72% of it is uranium-235 with 92 protons and 143 neutrons (the remaining 0.01% are other isotopes).
For nuclear power reactors or weapons, we need to change the isotope proportions. That’s because of the two main uranium isotopes, only uranium-235 can support a fission chain reaction: one neutron causes an atom to fission, which produces energy and some more neutrons, causing more fission, and so on.
This chain reaction releases a tremendous amount of energy. In a nuclear weapon, the goal is to have this chain reaction occur in a fraction of a second, producing a nuclear explosion.
In a civilian nuclear power plant, the chain reaction is controlled. Nuclear power plants currently produce 9% of the world’s power. Another vital civilian use of nuclear reactions is for producing isotopes used in nuclear medicine for the diagnosis and treatment of various diseases.
What is uranium enrichment, then?
To “enrich” uranium means taking the naturally found element and increasing the proportion of uranium-235 while removing uranium-238.
There are a few ways to do this (including new inventions from Australia), but commercially, enrichment is currently done with a centrifuge. This is also the case in Iran’s facilities.
Centrifuges exploit the fact that uranium-238 is about 1% heavier than uranium-235. They take uranium (in gas form) and use rotors to spin it at 50,000 to 70,000 rotations per minute, with the outer walls of the centrifuges moving at 400 to 500 metres per second.
This works much like a salad spinner that throws water to the sides while the salad leaves stay in the centre. The heavier uranium-238 moves to the edges of the centrifuge, leaving the uranium-235 in the middle.
This is only so effective, so the spinning process is done over and over again, building up the percentage of the uranium-235.
Most civilian nuclear reactors use “low enriched uranium” that’s been enriched to between 3% and 5%. This means that 3–5% of the total uranium in the sample is now uranium-235. That’s enough to sustain a chain reaction and make electricity.
What level of enrichment do nuclear weapons need?
To get an explosive chain reaction, uranium-235 needs to be concentrated significantly more than the levels we use in nuclear reactors for making power or medicines.
Technically, a nuclear weapon can be made with as little as 20% uranium-235 (known as “highly enriched uranium”), but the more the uranium is enriched, the smaller and lighter the weapon can be. Countries with nuclear weapons tend to use about 90% enriched, “weapons-grade” uranium.
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran has enriched large quantities of uranium to 60%. It’s actually easier to go from an enrichment of 60% to 90% than it is to get to that initial 60%. That’s because there’s less and less uranium-238 to get rid of.
This is why Iran is considered to be at extreme risk of producing nuclear weapons, and why centrifuge technology for enrichment is kept secret.
Ultimately, the exact same centrifuge technology that produces fuel for civilian reactors can be used to produce nuclear weapons.
In the late 1960s, the prevailing opinion among Israeli Shin Bet intelligence officers was that the key to defeating the Palestinian Liberation Organisation was to assassinate its then-leader Yasser Arafat.
The elimination of Arafat, the Shin Bet commander Yehuda Arbel wrote in his diary, was “a precondition to finding a solution to the Palestinian problem.”
For other, even more radical Israelis – such as the ultra-nationalist assassin Yigal Amir – the answer lay elsewhere. They sought the assassination of Israeli leaders such as Yitzak Rabin who wanted peace with the Palestinians.
Despite Rabin’s long personal history as a famed and often ruthless military commander in the 1948 and 1967 Arab-Israeli Wars, Amir stalked and shot Rabin dead in 1995. He believed Rabin had betrayed Israel by signing the Oslo Accords peace deal with Arafat.
It’s been 20 years since Arafat died as possibly the victim of polonium poisoning, and 30 years after the shooting of Rabin. Peace between Israelis and the Palestinians has never been further away.
Since its attacks on Iran began on Friday, Israel has killed numerous military and intelligence leaders, including Iran’s intelligence chief, Mohammad Kazemi; the chief of the armed forces, Mohammad Bagheri; and the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Hossein Salami. At least nine Iranian nuclear scientists have also been killed.
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly said:
We got their chief intelligence officer and his deputy in Tehran.
Iran, predictably, has responded with deadly missile attacks on Israel.
Far from having solved the issue of Middle East peace, assassinations continue to pour oil on the flames.
A long history of extra-judicial killings
Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman’s book Rise and Kill First argues assassinations have long sat at the heart of Israeli politics.
In the past 75 years, there have been more than 2,700 assassination operations undertaken by Israel. These have, in Bergman’s words, attempted to “stop history” and bypass “statesmanship and political discourse”.
This normalisation of assassinations has been codified in the Israeli expression of “mowing the grass”. This is, as historian Nadim Rouhana has shown, a metaphor for a politics of constant assassination. Enemy “leadership and military facilities must regularly be hit in order to keep them weak.”
The point is not to solve the underlying political questions at issue. Instead, this approach aims to sow fear, dissent and confusion among enemies.
Thousands of assassination operations have not, however, proved sufficient to resolve the long-running conflict between Israel, its neighbours and the Palestinians. The tactic itself is surely overdue for retirement.
Targeted assassinations elsewhere
Israel has been far from alone in this strategy of assassination and killing.
Former US President Barack Obama oversaw the extra-judicial killing of Osama Bin Laden, for instance.
After what Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch denounced as a flawed trial, former US President George W. Bush welcomed the hanging of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein as “an important milestone on Iraq’s course to becoming a democracy”.
Current US President Donald Trump oversaw the assassination of Iran’s leader of clandestine military operations, Qassem Soleimani, in 2020.
More recently, however, Trump appears to have baulked at granting Netanyahu permission to kill Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
And it’s worth noting the US Department of Justice last year brought charges against an Iranian man who said he’d been tasked with killing Trump.
Elsewhere, in Vladimir Putin’s Russia, it’s common for senior political and media opponents to be shot in the streets. Frequently they also “fall” out of high windows, are killed in plane crashes or succumb to mystery “illnesses”.
A poor record
Extra-judicial killings, however, have a poor record as a mechanism for solving political problems.
Cutting off the hydra’s head has generally led to its often immediate replacement by another equally or more ideologically committed person, as has already happened in Iran. Perhaps they too await the next round of “mowing the grass”.
But as the latest Israeli strikes in Iran and elsewhere show, solving the underlying issue is rarely the point.
In situations where finding a lasting negotiated settlement would mean painful concessions or strategic risks, assassinations prove simply too tempting. They circumvent the difficulties and complexities of diplomacy while avoiding the need to concede power or territory.
As many have concluded, however, assassinations have never killed resistance. They have never killed the ideas and experiences that give birth to resistance in the first place.
Nor have they offered lasting security to those who have ordered the lethal strike.
Enduring security requires that, at some point, someone grasp the nettle and look to the underlying issues.
The alternative is the continuation of the brutal pattern of strike and counter-strike for generations to come.
Matt Fitzpatrick receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
The Middle East is a region of intense beauty and ancient kingdoms. It has also repeatedly endured periods of geopolitical instability over many centuries.
Today, geopolitical, socio-political and religious tensions persist. The world is currently watching as longstanding regional tensions come to a head in the shocking and escalating conflict between Israel and Iran.
The global airline industry takes a special interest in how such tensions play out. This airspace is a crucial corridor linking Europe, Asia and Africa.
The Middle East is now home to several of the world’s largest international airlines: Emirates, Qatar Airways and Etihad Airways. These airlines’ home bases – Dubai, Doha and Abu Dhabi, respectively – have become pivotal hubs in international aviation.
Keeping passengers safe will be all airlines’ highest priority. What could an escalating conflict mean for both the airlines and the travelling public?
Safety first
History shows that the civil airline industry and military conflict do not mix. On July 3 1988, the USS Vincennes, a US navy warship, fired two surface-to-air missiles and shot down Iran Air Flight 655, an international passenger service over the Persian Gulf.
More recently, on July 17 2014, Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 was shot down over eastern Ukraine as the battle between Ukrainian forces and pro-Russian separatists continued.
Understandably, global airlines are very risk-averse when it comes to military conflict. The International Civil Aviation Organization requires airlines to implement and maintain a Safety Management System (SMS).
One of the main concerns – known as “pillars” – of the SMS is “safety risk management”. This includes the processes to identify hazards, assess risks and implement risk mitigation strategies.
The risk-management departments of airlines transiting the Middle East region will have been working hard on these strategies.
Headquartered in Montreal, Canada, the International Civil Aviation Organization has strict requirements and protocols to keep passengers safe. meunierd/Shutterstock
Route recalculation
The most immediate and obvious evidence of such strategies being put in place are changes to aircraft routing, either by cancelling or suspending flights or making changes to the flight plans. This is to ensure aircraft avoid the airspace where military conflicts are flaring.
At the time of writing, a quick look at flight tracking website Flightradar24 shows global aircraft traffic avoiding the airspace of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Israel, Jordan, Palestine and Lebanon. The airspace over Ukraine is also devoid of air traffic.
Rerouting, however, creates its own challenges. Condensing the path of the traffic into smaller, more congested areas can push aircraft into and over areas that are not necessarily equipped to deal with such a large increase in traffic.
Having more aircraft in a smaller amount of available safe airspace creates challenges for air traffic control services and the pilots operating the aircraft.
More time and fuel
Avoiding areas of conflict is one of the most visible forms of airline risk management. This may add time to the length of a planned flight, leading to higher fuel consumption and other logistical challenges. This will add to the airlines’ operating costs.
There will be no impact on the cost of tickets already purchased. But if the instability in the region continues, we may see airline ticket prices increase.
It is not just the avoidance of airspace in the region that could place upward pressure on the cost of flying. Airliners run on Jet-A1 fuel, produced from oil.
If Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz, the “world’s most important oil transit chokepoint”, this could see the cost of oil, and in turn Jet-A1, significantly increase. Increasing fuel costs will be passed on the paying passenger. However, some experts believe such a move is unlikely.
A major hub
The major aviation hubs in the Middle East provide increased global connectivity, enabling passengers to travel seamlessly between continents.
Increased regional instability has the potential to disrupt this global connectivity. In the event of a prolonged conflict, airlines operating in and around the region may find they have increased insurance costs. Such costs would eventually find their way passed on to consumers through higher ticket prices.
Across the globe, airlines and governments are issuing travel advisories and warnings. The onus is on the travelling public to stay informed about changes to flight status, and potential delays.
Such warnings and advisories can lead to a drop in passenger confidence, which may then lead to a drop in bookings both into and onwards from the region.
Until the increase in instability in the Middle East, global airline passenger traffic numbers were larger than pre-pandemic figures. Strong growth had been predicted in the coming decades.
Anything that results in falling passenger confidence could negatively impact these figures, leading to slowed growth and affecting airline profitability.
Despite high-profile disasters, aviation remains the safest form of transport. As airlines deal with these challenges they will constantly work to keep flights safe and to win back passenger confidence in this unpredictable situation.
Natasha Heap does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Ever find yourself unable to stop scrolling through your phone, chasing that next funny video or interesting post?
Or maybe you’ve felt a rush of excitement when you achieve a goal, eat a delicious meal, or fill your online shopping cart.
Why do some experiences feel so rewarding, while others leave us feeling flat? Well, dopamine might be responsible for that. Here’s what it does in our brains and bodies.
It’s a chemical messenger
Dopamine is a neurotransmitter – a chemical messenger that facilitates communication between the brain and the central nervous system. It sends messages between different parts of your nervous system, helping your body and brain coordinate everything from your movement to your mood.
Dopamine is most known for its role in short-term pleasure, and the boost we get from things such as eating tasty foods, drinking alcohol, scrolling social media or falling in love.
It even plays a role in kidney function by regulating the levels of salt and water we excrete.
Conversely, low levels of dopamine have been linked to neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinson’s disease.
How dopamine motivates us to pursue pleasure
Dopamine is not just active when we do pleasurable things. It’s active beforehand and it drives us to pursue pleasure.
Say I go to a cafe and decide to buy a doughnut. When I bite into the doughnut, it tastes fantastic. Dopamine surges and I experience pleasure.
The next time I walk past the cafe, dopamine is already active. It remembers the doughnut I had last time and how delicious it was. Dopamine drives me to walk back into the cafe, purchase another doughnut and eat it.
From an evolutionary perspective, dopamine was incredibly important and it ensured survival of the species. It motivated behaviours such as hunting and foraging for food. It reinforced the pursuit of finding shelter and safety and keeping away from predators. And it motivated people to seek out mates and to reproduce.
However, modern technology has amplified the effects of dopamine, leading to negative consequences. Activities such as excessive social media use, gambling, consuming alcohol, drug use, sex, pornography and gaming can stimulate dopamine release, creating cycles of addiction and compulsive behaviours.
Our dopamine levels can vary
Our brain is constantly releasing small amounts of dopamine at a “baseline” rate. This is because dopamine is crucial to the functioning of our brain and body, irrespective of pleasure.
Everyone has a different baseline, influenced by genetic factors such as our DRD2 dopamine receptor genes. Some people produce and metabolise dopamine faster than other people. Our baseline levels can also be influenced by sleep, nutrition and stress in our lives.
If I play games on my phone all morning and get a dopamine release from that, then I eat something tasty for morning tea, I may not experience the same level of fulfilment or enjoyment that I would have had I not played those games.
The brain works hard to regulate itself and it won’t allow us to be in a constant state of dopamine “highs”. This means we can build a tolerance to certain exciting activities if we seek them out too much, as the brain wants to avoid being in a state of constant dopamine “highs”.
Healthy ways to get a dopamine boost
Thankfully, there are healthy, non-addictive ways to boost your dopamine levels.
Exercise is one of the most effective methods for boosting dopamine naturally. Physical activities such as walking, running, cycling, or even dancing can trigger the release of dopamine, leading to improved mood and greater motivation.
Research has shown listening to music you enjoy makes your brain release more dopamine, giving you a pleasurable experience.
And of course, spending time with people whose company we enjoy is another great way to activate dopamine.
Incorporating these habits into daily life can support your brain’s natural dopamine production and help you enjoy lasting improvements in motivation, mood and overall health.
Anastasia Hronis is the author of The Dopamine Brain: Your Science-Backed Guide to Balancing Pleasure and Purpose, published by Penguin Books Aus & NZ.
Our experience of the world often involves hearing our environment before seeing it. Whether it’s the sound of something moving through nearby water, or the rustling of vegetation, our fear of the unseen is rooted in our survival instincts as a species.
Cinematic sound and music taps into these somewhat unsettling instincts – and this is exactly what director Steven Spielberg and composer John Williams achieved in the iconic 1975 thriller Jaws. The sound design and musical score work in tandem to confront the audience with a mysterious killer animal.
In what is arguably the film’s most iconic scene, featuring beach swimmers’ legs flailing underwater, the shark remains largely unseen – yet the sound perfectly conveys the threat at large.
Creating tension in a soundtrack
Film composers aim to create soundscapes that will profoundly move and influence their audience. And they express these intentions through the use of musical elements such as rhythm, harmony, tempo, form, dynamics, melody and texture.
In Jaws, the initial encounter with the shark opens innocently with the sound of an offshore buoy and its clanging bell. The scene is established both musically and atmospherically to evoke a sense of isolation for the two characters enjoying a late-night swim on an empty beach.
But once we hear the the low strings, followed by the central two-note motif played on a tuba, we know something sinister is afoot.
This compositional technique of alternating between two notes at an increasing speed has long been employed by composers, including by Antonín Dvořák in his 1893 work New World Symphony.
John Williams reportedly used six basses, eight cellos, four trombones and a tuba to create the blend of low frequencies that would go on to define his entire Jaws score.
The bass instruments emphasise the lower end of the musical frequency spectrum, evoking a dark timbre that conveys depth, power and intensity. String players can use various bowing techniques, such as staccato and marcato, to deliver dark and even menacing tones, especially in the lower registers.
Meanwhile, there is a marked absence of tonality in the repeating E–F notes, played with increasing speed on the tuba. Coupled with the intensifying dynamics in the instrumental blend, this accelerating two-note motif signals the looming danger before we even see it – tapping into our instinctive fear of the unknown.
The use of the two-note motif and lower-end orchestration characterises a composition style that aims to unsettle and disorientate the audience. Another example of this style can be heard in Bernard Herrmann’s car crash scene audio in North by Northwest (1959).
Similarly, in Sergei Prokofiev’s Scythian Suite, the opening of the second movement (Dance of the Pagan Gods) uses an alternating D#–E motif.
The elasticity of Williams’ motif allows the two notes to be played on different instruments throughout the soundtrack, exploring various timbral possibilities to induce a kaleidoscope of fear, panic and dread.
The psychology behind our response
What is it that makes the Jaws soundtrack so psychologically confronting, even without the visuals? Music scholars have various theories. Some suggest the two notes imitate the sound of human respiration, while others have proposed the theme evokes the heartbeat of a shark.
Williams explained his approach in an interview with the Los Angeles Times:
I fiddled around with the idea of creating something that was very … brainless […] Meaning something could be very repetitious, very visceral, and grab you in your gut, not in your brain. […] It could be something you could play very softly, which would indicate that the shark is far away when all you see is water. Brainless music that gets louder and gets closer to you, something is gonna swallow you up.
Williams plays with the audience’s emotions throughout the film’s score, culminating in the scene Man Against Beast – a celebration of thematic development and heightened orchestration.
The film’s iconic soundtrack has created a legacy that extends beyond the visual. And this suggests the score isn’t just a soundtrack – but a character in its own right.
By using music to reveal what is hidden, Williams creates an intense emotional experience rife with anticipation and tension. The score’s two-note motif showcases his genius – and serves as a sonic shorthand that has kept a generation behind the breakers of every beach.
Alison Cole does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Our cultural touchstones series looks at influential works.
Gilles Deleuze was one of the most original and imaginative thinkers of postwar France. A lifelong teacher, he spent most of his career at the University of Paris VIII, influencing generations of students but largely shunning the mantle of public intellectual.
His complex, creative books mix philosophy, literature, film and politics – not to give clear answers, but to spark new ways of thinking.
Written at a time when the Cold War was ending, computers were becoming more common, and the internet was beginning to connect institutions, the essay describes the emergence of a new kind of society – one not ruled by a single stern voice but by the soft hum of networks.
How societies work
Postscript was written as an update to the work of Deleuze’s contemporary Michel Foucault, who had died in 1984. Deleuze called it a “postscript” not just because of its brevity (it’s only around 2,300 words in English translation) but to highlight he wasn’t refuting Foucault, just building on his work.
From the 18th to early 20th centuries, Foucault had argued, Western societies were “disciplinary societies”. Schools, factories, prisons and hospitals – institutions with walls, schedules, routines and clear expectations – moulded behaviour. People were trained, observed, tested and corrected as they passed from one institution to the next.
But in the late 20th century, Deleuze saw something shifting. He thought the stodgy old disciplinary institutions were “in a generalized crisis” due to technological advances and a new form of capitalism that demanded more flexibility in workers and consumers.
New systems of management and technology were starting to reshape people without sending them through traditional institutions. Deleuze wrote presciently, for example, that “perpetual training tends to replace the school, and continuous control to replace the examination”.
In business, he saw a growing idea of “salary according to merit”, transforming work into “challenges, contests, and highly comic group sessions” – something much at odds with the old model of the standard wage and the assembly line. Traditional government institutions like hospitals and the classic factory were embracing the model of the corporation, driven always by a profit motive and the need for better human tools.
To Deleuze, all this meant people were becoming more “free-floating” – they could be still playing socially useful roles but were being gently steered into them. This greater freedom, however, required a new system to keep everyone in line. He called this “modulation” to underline its dynamic, enveloping nature.
Like nudging, but everywhere
Deleuze described modulation as “a self-deforming cast that will continuously change from one moment to the other”. He meant that people were beginning to live in an environment where everything shape-shifts to encourage or discourage us in the right direction without explicitly putting up walls.
A prime example of how modulation has since become commonplace is nudging – the use of psychological techniques, often subtle and data-driven, to shape people’s behaviour.
Nudging didn’t really exist in 1990, but governments and tech companies use nudges all the time now. We’re nudged to eat healthier, buy, save, recycle, donate. Web sites use “dark patterns” – tricky designs that steer (or nudge) us toward certain choices. Social media feeds use algorithms to exclude us if we say the wrong thing. In fact, entire teams of behavioural scientists operate behind the scenes to manipulate many aspects of our lives.
Nudges can be good and can save us from poor choices, but their newfound moral acceptability (sometimes called libertarian paternalism) is very much a clue that Deleuze’s control society has arrived.
Control in your pocket
Deleuze, who died in 1995, wrote Postscript before the advent of the smartphone, but he foresaw that an “electronic collar” would assume a central role in society. He envisaged a “computer that tracks each person’s position – licit or illicit – and effects a universal modulation.”
Smartphones more than fit the bill. In the old disciplinary ways, they track where we go, what we search for, what we buy, how many steps we take, even how well we sleep. But if we apply Deleuze’s ideas to these phones, detailed surveillance is no longer their most important function. Our phones present and curate options.
In effect, they shape how we see the world. When you scroll through news or social media, for instance, you’re reading about a version of the world built just for you, designed to keep you looking, clicking and reacting – and keep you very finely attuned to what is acceptable or dangerous behaviour.
In Deleuze’s terms, this is pure modulation: not a forceful “No” but a softly spoken, “How about this?” Your phone doesn’t lock you in – it draws you in. It shapes what you see, rewards your cooperation, ignores your silence, and always keeps score. And it does this 24/7. You might unlock it hundreds of times a day. And each time it’s updated to guide your next move more precisely.
At the same time our phones quietly turn us into a set of credentials useful for regulating physical access to workplaces, bank accounts, information: In the societies of control, writes Deleuze, “what is important is no longer either a signature or a number, but a code: the code is a password.”
Data points not people?
Deleuze warned that, in a control society: “Individuals have become ‘dividuals,’ and masses have become samples, data, markets, or ‘banks.’” A dividual to Deleuze is a person transformed into a set of data points and metrics.
You are your credit rating, your search history, your likes and clicks – a different dataset to every institution. Such fragments are used to make decisions about you until they effectively replace you. In fact, for Deleuze a dividual has internalised this treatment and thinks of themselves as a net worth, a mortgage size, a car value – psychological anchors for control.
He illustrates this point with healthcare, predicting a
new medicine ‘without doctor or patient’ that singles out potential sick people and subjects at risk, which in no way attests to individuation.
How many health decisions are now made for us collectively before we ever see a doctor? We should be grateful for advances in public health and epidemiology, but this has certainly impacted our individuality and how we are treated.
Hard to detect
An unsettling part of Deleuze’s perspective is that control doesn’t usually feel like control. It’s often dressed up as convenience, efficiency or progress. You set up internet-linked video cameras because then you can work from home. You agree to long terms and conditions because your banking app won’t work otherwise.
One problem is there are no longer clear barriers we can rail against. As Deleuze said:
In disciplinary societies one was always starting again (from school to the barracks, from the barracks to the factory), while in control societies one is never finished with anything.
Control doesn’t always crush – it can enable. Digital networks bring real freedom, economic possibility, even joy. We move more easily – both mentally and geographically – than ever before. But while we move, it always inside a kind of invisible map shaped by capitalism.
It’s no conspiracy because nobody has the whole map. So it’s difficult to work out exactly what action, if any, to take. As Deleuze concludes: “The coils of a serpent are even more complex than the burrows of a molehill.”
So what can we do?
Postscript doesn’t offer a political program beyond the sardonic comment that:
Many young people strangely boast of being ‘motivated’ […] It’s up to them to discover what they’re being made to serve.
There are ways to resist control. Some people demand more privacy or digital rights. Others opt out selectively – logging off, turning off, refusing to be nudged. Some look to art as a way of resisting its smooth grip. These acts – however small – may offer what Deleuze and his collaborator, the French psychiatrist and philosopher Félix Guattari, called lines of flight: creative ways to move not just against control, but beyond it.
The real message of Postscript, however, is its invitation to consider a timeless perspective. Any society must have a way to make people useful. So, what kind of society do we want? What kinds of restrictions are we willing to live under? And, crucial to this current age, how explicit should control be?
Cameron Shackell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Frank Jotzo, Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy and Director, Centre for Climate and Energy Policy, Australian National University
Photo by Jie Zhao/Corbis via Getty Images
Australia is among the world’s top three exporters of LNG and second-largest exporter of coal. When burned overseas, these exports result in 1.1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions a year – almost three times Australia’s domestic emissions.
Emissions embedded in Australia’s exports do not count towards our national emissions targets. But they contribute to climate change – and they’re the reason for Australia’s international reputation as a fossil-fuel economy.
On the bright side, Australia boasts huge potential for low-cost renewable energy and a knack for resource industries.
We can, and should, become a “renewable energy superpower”. This term refers to the potential for Australia to use its bountiful renewable energy resources to make commodities such as iron, ammonia and other products and fuels in “green” or low-emissions ways.
So how does Australia give salience to this idea on the global stage, while our fossil fuel exports continue? The solution could be a new net-zero target for Australia, in which emissions from green exports are tallied up against those from fossil fuel exports.
Australia can become a renewable energy superpower. Brook Mitchell/Getty Images
Reinvigorating Australia’s climate policy
If the clean energy transition eventuates, green exports from Australia will rise over time. This will help reduce the use of coal, gas and oil elsewhere in the world.
Meanwhile, coal exports – and later, gas exports – will fall. This will happen irrespective of Australia’s policies, as the world economy decarbonises and demand for fossil fuels slows.
At some point, we can expect emissions avoided by our green commodity exports to surpass those from remaining coal and gas exports. Australia would then reach what could be termed “net-zero export emissions”.
Adopting this net-zero target as a national policy would give a concrete yardstick to Australia’s green-export ambitions. It could also invigorate Australia’s climate policy and boost investor confidence.
A different approach would be to set targets only for green exports, and this could be how we get started. Ultimately, a net-zero target wrapping up both green and fossil-fuel exports would speak most directly to the goal of tackling climate change, and is likely to have more impact on the international stage.
A net-zero export target would give a concrete yardstick to Australia’s ambition to develop green export industries. Brook Mitchell/Getty Images
Getting to net-zero exports
The below chart shows an illustrative decline in emissions embedded in Australia’s coal and LNG (liquified natural gas) exports, out to 2050.*
Authors’ calculations based on Australian Energy Update 2024, Australian National Greenhouse Accounts Factors 2024, IEA World Energy Outlook 2024
It’s hard to pin down when Australia might reach net-zero exports. It depends on several factors. How quickly will the cost of clean energy and green-commodity technologies fall? How competitively can Australia produce green goods compared to other nations? What policies will be adopted in Australia and overseas – and will they work?
The magnitudes are sobering. Take iron, for example. Australia currently exports 900 million tonnes of iron ore a year. This is processed overseas to about 560 million tonnes of iron.
To fully compensate for emissions currently embedded in Australia’s coal and gas exports, Australia would need to process about the same amount of green iron – around 550 million tonnes – on home soil every year.
Achieving this would require keeping iron ore production at current levels and processing it all in Australia, which is unlikely to be realistic.
Thankfully, the task of reaching net-zero export emissions will be smaller in future, as global coal and gas demand falls. But exactly how this will translate to Australian exports is highly uncertain.
In this case, embedded emissions from Australia’s coal and gas exports would be about 360 million tonnes in 2050. This includes about 120 million tonnes from LNG exports – much of it locked in by the extension to Woodside’s North West Shelf project off Western Australia.
Hypothetically, the 360 million tonnes of emissions could be negated by a mix of green exports. They include 102 million tonnes of green iron (saving 204 million tonnes of CO₂), and 11 million tonnes of greenammonia (saving about 23 million tonnes of CO₂), and the remainder covered by a combination of green aluminium, silicon, methanol and transport fuels.
Judgement calls would be needed about which commodities to include in the target. The composition of green exports suggested above is akin to assumptions about Australia’s potential global market share outlined by The Superpower Institute.
Importantly, it’s hard to predict with certainty the greenhouse gas emissions displaced elsewhere in the world by Australia’s green exports. So, the estimates should be understood as broad illustrations, and not as exact as the accounting used to calculate countries’ domestic emissions.
The precise year chosen for reaching a net-zero target for export emissions may well be less important than the commitment that, at some point, Australia’s green energy exports will exceed fossil fuel exports. This would establish the notion that Australia has the capacity and willingness to help the world decarbonise.
At some point, Australia’s green energy exports will exceed fossil fuel exports. David Gray/Getty Images
A positive agenda for change
The export target could be part of Australia’s updated emissions pledge due to be submitted to the United Nations by September this year. The pledge, known as a Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), is required by signatories to the Paris Agreement.
Each nation is expected to detail its national emissions target for 2035. But nations can make additional pledges towards the world’s climate change effort. You could call it an “NDC+”.
So Australia could outline an indicative goal for net-zero exports – perhaps alongside other pledges such as leveraging climate change finance for developing countries, or helping our Pacific neighbours adapt to climate change impacts.
As a large fossil fuels exporter, Australia would earn kudos for showing it has a positive agenda for change.
And if Australia wins the bid to host the COP31 climate conference next year, a plan to reduce export emissions could be a major rallying point.
* Underlying data for the chart showing an expected decline in future emissions embedded in Australia’s coal and LNG exports:
Exports for 2035 and 2050: this assumes a trend aligned with the IEA’s Announced Pledges Scenario, as outlined in the World Energy Outlook 2024. Note the percentage changes from 2023 to 2035 and 2050 for coal (-45% and -73% respectively) and for LNG (+9% and -47% respectively.) These figures do not distinguish between steam coal for power and metallurgical coal.
Frank Jotzo leads research projects on climate, energy and industry policy. He is a commissioner with the NSW Net Zero Commission and chairs the Queensland Clean Economy Expert Panel.
Annette Zou works on research projects on climate policy and decarbonisation and has previously worked with The Superpower Institute
The tax cuts bill currently being debated by the US Senate will add another US$3 trillion (A$4.6 trillion) to US debt. President Donald Trump calls it the “big, beautiful bill”; his erstwhile policy adviser Elon Musk called it a “disgusting abomination”.
Foreign investors have already been rattled by Trump’s upending of the global trade system. The eruption of war in the Middle East would usually lead to “flight to safety” buying of the US dollar, but the dollar has barely budged. That suggests US assets are not seen as the safe haven they used to be.
Greg Combet, chair of Australia’s own sovereign wealth fund, the Future Fund, outlined many of the new risks arising from US policies in a speech on Tuesday.
As investors turn cautious on the US, at some point the surging US debt pile will become unsustainable. That could risk a financial crisis. But at what point does that happen?
The public sector holds a range of debt
When talking about the sustainability of US government debt, we have to distinguish between total debt and public debt.
Public debt is owed to individuals, companies, foreign governments and investors. This accounts for about 80% of total US debt. The remainder is intra-governmental debt held by government agencies and the Federal Reserve.
Public debt is a more correct measure of US government debt. And it is much less than the headline total government debt amount that is frequently quoted, which is running at US$36 trillion or 121% of GDP.
Are there limits to government debt?
Governments are not like households. They can feasibly roll over debt indefinitely and don’t technically need to repay it, unlike a personal credit card. And countries such as the US that issue debt in their own currency can’t technically default unless they choose to.
Debt also serves a useful role. It is the main way a government funds infrastructure projects. It is an important channel for monetary policy, because the US Federal Reserve sets the benchmark interest rate that affects borrowing costs across the economy. And because the US government issues bonds, known as Treasuries, to finance the debt, this is an important asset for investors.
There is probably some limit to the amount of debt the US government can issue. But we don’t really know what this amount is, and we won’t know until we get there. Additionally, the US’s reserve currency status, due to the US dollar’s dominant role in international finance, gives the US government more leeway than other governments.
Interest costs are surging
What is important is the government’s ability to service its debt – that is, to pay the interest cost. This depends on two components: growth in economic activity, and the interest rate on government debt.
If economic growth on average is higher than the interest rate, then the government’s effective interest cost is negative and it could sustainably carry its existing debt burden.
The interest cost of US government debt has surged recently following a series of Federal Reserve interest rate hikes in 2022 and 2023 to quell inflation.
The US government is now spending more on interest payments than on defence – about US$882 billion annually. This will soon start crowding out spending in other areas, unless taxes are raised or further spending cuts made.
Recent policy decisions not helping
The turmoil caused by Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs and heightened uncertainty about future government policy are expected to weaken US economic growth and raise inflation. This, coupled with the recent credit downgrade of US government debt by ratings agency Moody’s, is likely to put upward pressure on US interest rates, further increasing the servicing cost of US government debt.
Moody’s cited concerns about the growth of US federal debt. This comes as the US House of Representatives passed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”, which seeks to extend the 2017 tax cuts indefinitely while slashing social spending. This has caused some to question the sustainability of the US government’s fiscal position.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill will add a further US$3 trillion to government debt over the ten years to 2034, increasing debt to 124% of GDP. And this would increase to US$4.5 trillion over ten years and take debt to 128% of GDP if some tax initiatives were made permanent.
Also troubling is Section 899 of the bill, known as the “revenge tax”. This controversial provision raises the tax payable by foreign investors and could further deter foreign investment, potentially making US government debt even less attractive.
A compromised Federal Reserve is the next risk
The passing of the tax and spending bill is unlikely to cause a financial crisis in the US. But the US could be entering into a period of “fiscal dominance”, which is just as concerning.
In this situation, the independence of the Federal Reserve might be compromised if it is pressured to support the US government’s fiscal position. It would do this by keeping interest rates lower than otherwise, or buying government debt to support the government instead of targeting inflation. Trump has already been putting pressure on Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell, demanding he cut rates immediately.
This could lead to much higher inflation in the US, as occurred in Germany in the 1920s, and more recently in Argentina and Turkey.
Luke Hartigan receives funding from the Australian Research Council (DP230100959)
Source: United States Senator for New York Kirsten Gillibrand
Today, U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand lauded Senate passage of the GENIUS Act, landmark legislation that will establish a regulatory framework for stablecoins. Senator Gillibrand was the lead Democratic senator on the bill and shepherded the legislation through to final passage.
“Senate passage of the GENIUS Act is a landmark moment in the bipartisan effort to regulate stablecoins. This bill will enable U.S. businesses and consumers to take advantage of the next generation of financial innovation,” said Gillibrand. “A product of months of bipartisan negotiations, the GENIUS Act will protect consumers, enable responsible innovation, and safeguard the dominance of the U.S. dollar. The bill targets illicit finance, places limitations on Big Tech, puts in place ethical guardrails, and strengthens national security. I want to extend my sincere gratitude to Senators Hagerty, Scott, Alsobrooks and Lummis, who worked tirelessly to find common ground and produce this excellent legislation. The GENIUS Act will position our country for the 21st century, and I will continue working to ensure it is signed into law.”
Senator Gillibrand, alongside Senators Hagerty (R-TN), Scott (R-SC), Lummis (R-WY), and Alsobrooks (D-MD), introduced the GENIUS Act earlier this year. The bill passed out of the Senate Banking Committee with bipartisan support in March 2025.
Senator Gillibrand has been working on cryptocurrency legislation since 2022, when she and Senator Lummis introduced the Lummis-Gillibrand Responsible Financial Innovation Act, a comprehensive bipartisan framework for cryptocurrency regulation. The framework was re-introduced in 2023. In 2024, Gillibrand and Lummis also introduced a stablecoin bill that included many of the provisions that passed in the GENIUS Act.
Source: United States Senator for North Carolina Thom Tillis
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-DE) announced that Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI) have joined the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) as cosponsors. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation will restore patent eligibility to important inventions across many fields while also resolving legitimate concerns over the patenting of mere ideas, the mere discovery of what already exists in nature, and social and cultural content that everyone agrees is beyond the scope of the patent system. It also affirms the basic principle that the patent system is central to promoting technology-based innovation.
“In recent years the Supreme Court has expanded judicial exceptions to such a degree that patent eligibility has gone from being a coarse filter to a fine one – resulting in U.S. inventors being unable to obtain patents in areas where our economic peers offer protections, such as for diagnostic medicine and for artificial intelligence,” said Senator Tillis. “Patent eligibility is but one of four criteria that determines whether a patent application can be issued as a patent. PERA will expand the aperture of patent eligibility – it does not automatically render something patentable – and will ensure that the U.S. does not shut the door to innovations that is welcomed by the patent systems of our economic peers. We cannot allow the U.S. to fall behind on the global stage and I’m glad to see more of my Senate colleagues recognize this pressing need.”
“When American innovators know their ideas are eligible for patent protection, they take the risks that push us into the future – whether that’s the next groundbreaking medical test or the latest AI technology,” said Senator Coons. “PERA restores clarity to the law on what can be patented and what cannot – guidance that federal courts have been requesting for years and that the Supreme Court has refused to provide. I’m excited to welcome my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to this bill. This is another step toward providing America’s inventors with the stable legal foundation they need to produce the cutting-edge technologies that power our economy.”
“Our patent system must fuel innovation and secure America’s competitive edge over adversaries like Communist China,” said Senator Blackburn. “The bipartisan Patent Eligibility Restoration Act would restore patent eligibility for important inventions across many critical fields to ensure America remains ahead of the curve when it comes to technological innovation.”
“A series of Supreme Court decisions restricting patent eligibility have constricted American innovation,” said Senator Hirono. “The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act will help clarify patent eligibility law, encouraging technological innovation to help ensure that our country does not fall behind on innovation. Importantly, this legislation only affects patent eligibility, it does nothing to affect the many other requirements for patentability.”
Background:
Unfortunately, due to a series of Supreme Court decisions, patent eligibility law in the United States has become confused, constricted, and unclear in recent years. This has resulted in a wide range of well-documented negative impacts – inconsistent case decisions, uncertainty in innovation and investment communities, and unpredictable business outcomes.
As of 2021, all 12 then-sitting judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit lamented the state of the law. Witnesses and stakeholders from a wide array of industries, fields, interest groups, and academia have testified and submitted comments confirming the uncertainty and detailing the detrimental effects of patent eligibility confusion in the United States. There is now widespread bipartisan agreement in Congress and across all recent Administrations that reforms are necessary to restore the United States to a position of global strength and leadership in key areas of technology and innovation, such as medical diagnostics, biotechnology, personalized medicine, artificial intelligence, 5G, and blockchain.
The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act achieves this critical goal by restoring patent eligibility to important inventions across many fields, while also resolving legitimate concerns over patenting of mere ideas, the mere discovery of what already exists in nature, and social and cultural content that everyone agrees is beyond the scope of the patent system, which is a system aimed at promoting technology-based innovation. As a general approach, the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act maintains the existing statutory categories of eligible subject matter, which have worked well for over two centuries, but eliminates the overly malleable set of current judicial exceptions – replacing them with five specific, defined statutory exclusions. By eliminating and replacing the current judicial exceptions, the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act provides predictable patent eligibility for important computer-implemented technological developments and medical advances, creating a solid bedrock for America’s innovation future.
Full text of the bill is available HERE.
Three major French financial institutions, including two of the country’s largest banks and the state’s public investment arm, have announced their rejection of deep sea mining during the United Nations Ocean Conference (UNOC) last week in Nice.
The three institutions are:
BNP Paribas– France’s largest and Europe’s second largest bank.BNP Paribasconfirms itdoes not invest in deep sea mining projectsdue to the intrinsic environmental and social risks involved.
Crédit Agricole– The second largest bank in France and the world’s largest cooperative financial institution.Crédit Agricolestatedit will not finance deep sea mining projectsuntil it has been proven that such operationspose no significant harm to marine ecosystems.
Groupe Caisse des Dépôts– The public investment arm of the French Government, which also holds a majority stake in La Banque Postale.The Grouphas pledgedto exclude all financing and investmentin companies whose main activity is deep sea mining, as well as in deep sea mining projects.
Amundi Asset Managementalso made a statement that it seeks to avoid investment in companies “involved in deep sea mining and/or exploration”.
Deep Sea Mining Campaign Finance Advocacy Officer Andy Whitmore says: “This is a truly significant outcome from UNOC. Until recently no French financiers had matched their Government’s position calling for a ban. This UN Ocean Conference, co-hosted by France, was the perfect opportunity for the most important national players to step up and be counted”
These financial announcements are a sign of global concern pushing itself on to the agenda. World leadersrenewed calls for a global moratoriumon the dangerous industry, with French President Emmanuel Macron denouncing it as “madness”, with UN Secretary-General António Guterres responding to recent announcements from President Trump by warning that the deep sea “cannot become the Wild West.” Slovenia, Latvia, Cyprus and the Marshall Islands also announced their support for a moratorium or precautionary pause, bringing thenumber of like-minded countries to 37.
Andy Whitmore concluded “the events at UNOC have added further momentum to the financial establishment rejecting deep sea mining. The recent unseemly rush to mine is creating push-back from the financial world, as much as from governments and civil society.”
