As scholars of global economic governance, we are sceptical of this claim. Here are our main reasons.
The G20 is insufficiently representative of the 193 member states of the United Nations plus the small number of non-member states.
It is a self-selected group of 19 countries and the European and African Unions.
It has no mandate to act or speak on behalf of the international community.
It has no transparent or formal mechanisms through which it can communicate with actors who do not participate in the G20 but have a stake in its deliberations and their outcomes.
The growing tensions in the world make it more urgent to improve the efficacy of the G20. Firstly, because there is growing evidence of the loss of interest in global cooperation. Secondly, because rich states are cutting their official development assistance and are failing to meet their commitments to help countries deal with loss and damage from climate impacts and make their economies more resilient to shocks.
And thirdly, because rich countries are also reluctant to discuss financing sustainable and inclusive development in forums like the upcoming Fourth Financing for Development Conference or the UN, where all states can participate. They prefer exclusive forums like the G20.
Here, after briefly describing the structure of the G20, we argue that its lack of representation is a major problem. We offer a solution and argue that, as chair of the G20 this year, South Africa is well placed to promote this solution.
What is the G20 and how does it function?
The G20 was established in the late 1990s in the wake of the East Asian financial crisis. Its members were invited by the US and Germany based on a proposal from the Canadian government. Initially only finance ministers and central bank governors of major advanced and emerging economies were involved. After the financial crisis of 2008-2009 it was upgraded to summit level with the same membership.
A summit is held annually, under the leadership of a rotating presidency.
The group accounts for 67% of the world’s population, 85% of global GDP, and 75% of global trade. The membership comprises 19 of the “weightiest” national economies plus the European Union and the African Union. The 19 national economies are the G7 (US, Japan, Germany, UK, France, Italy, Canada), plus Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina. These countries are permanently “in”. The remaining 90% of countries in the world are excluded unless invited as “special guests” on an ad hoc basis.
Representatives of a select group of international organisations including the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the World Trade Organization also participate, together with those from some UN entities.
The G20’s work is managed by a troika consisting of the current president with the assistance of the past president and the incoming president. In 2025 this troika consists of South Africa as the current chair, Brazil as the past chair and the US, which will become the G20 president in 2026. The G20 has no permanent secretariat.
The consistency in G20 membership has proven to be an advantage because it helps foster a sense of familiarity, understanding and trust at the technical level among the permanent members. This is helpful in times of crisis and in dealing with complex problems.
But its exclusivity and informal status have limited its ability to address major challenges such as the global response to the economic and health consequences of the COVID pandemic. This is because an effective response required agreement and coordinated action by all states and not just those in the G20.
The Financial Stability Board was established under the umbrella of the G20 in 2009. Its job is to coordinate international financial regulatory standard-setting, monitor the global financial system for signs of stress, and to make recommendations that can help avert potential financial crises.
It is also an exclusive club. Its membership consists of the financial regulatory authorities in the G20 countries plus those in a few other countries that are considered financially systemically important.
However, unlike the G20, the Financial Stability Board has made a systematic effort to learn the views of non-members. It has established six Regional Consultative Groups, one each for the Americas, Asia, Commonwealth of Independent States, Europe, Middle East and North Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa.
The objective is to expand and formalise the Financial Stability Board’s outreach activities beyond its membership and to better reflect the global character of the financial system.
The regional consultative groups operate in a framework which promotes compliance within each region with the Financial Stability Board’s policy initiatives. The framework enables the group members to share among themselves and with the board their views on common problems and solutions and on the issues on the board’s agenda.
Importantly, each regional group is co-chaired by an official from a Financial Stability Board member and an official from a non-member institution.
Applying this model to the G20 would allow the current G20 membership to continue, while obliging the members to establish a consultation process with regional neighbours. This would create a limited form of representation for all the world’s states.
It would also empower the smaller and weaker members of the G20 because it would enable them to speak with more confidence and credibility about the challenges facing their region.
This arrangement would also establish a limited form of G20 accountability towards the international community.
Next steps
As chair of the G20 chair for 2025, South Africa is well placed to promote this solution to the group’s representation problem. It should work with the African Union to establish an African G20 regional consultative group. South Africa and the African Union could invite each African regional organisation to select one representative to serve on the initial consultative group.
South Africa could also commit to convey the outcomes of G20 regional consultative group meetings to the G20.
South Africa can then use this example to demonstrate to the G20 the value of having a G20 regional consultative group and advocate that other regions should adopt the same approach.
– G20 is too elite. There’s a way to fix that though – economists – https://theconversation.com/g20-is-too-elite-theres-a-way-to-fix-that-though-economists-255783
Jacinta Nampijinpa Price’s confirmation she will run for Liberal deputy has put the members of an already shell-shocked party into a new spin.
Tuesday’s leadership contest, where the numbers are said to be tight, is a battle for the direction of the party as much as one between the two personalities.
It’s essentially a contest between the moderates and the conservatives. Sussan Ley, deputy for the past three years, carries the flag for the moderates (although she is aligned to the old Scott Morrison faction, which is led by Alex Hawke, one-time Morrison numbers man).
Her opponent, Angus Taylor, who’s been shadow treasurer, leads the conservatives.
Neither Ley nor Taylor has impressed during the last term, but that’s become beside the point.
Taylor has embraced the ambitious Price, who has defected (amid great bitterness) from the Nationals, to boost his support as part of a joint ticket.
Whether the combination will work for or against Taylor’s chances remains to be seen. There are fears in the Ley camp it may attract some undecideds, but it possibly could frighten off others.
Price was elevated spectacularly to national prominence as the most effective “no” campaigner against the Voice. She is forceful and articulate, and the conservative base of the Coalition loves her.
But, leaving aside the complication that she’s a senator, her performance in the Voice campaign doesn’t automatically translate into qualifications for deputy which, if done properly, is a demanding, multi-faceted job.
The Liberal deputy needs deep roots in the party, not having just arrived in controversial circumstances. They have to do a lot of work with the party organisation, not just the parliamentary party.
In the latter, the deputy is there in part to protect the leader’s back and to keep track of the mood of colleagues, which requires having long-standing relationships of familiarity and trust with them.
Some would argue the ideal deputy is a person who does not have their eyes on the leadership, which Price clearly has.
The deputy needs a broad grasp of policy areas, because they will be a high profile public spokesperson for the party, and will be hit with questions on every issue that’s running.
The deputy also has to be comfortable with media across the spectrum, because that’s part of the job. Price’s natural home has been on Sky News. On Sunday, she appeared on Sky’s highly opinionated program Outsiders.
If the Liberals are to get themselves back into shape, they must seek to regain their appeal in the urban areas that went teal in 2022, and to women. Indeed, they have to tap into professional women in those places. It is unlikely Price, unless she undergoes a major political makeover, would be attractive to that constituency.
In their bid for the support of women, the Liberals need a root-and-branch debate about how to get more women candidates, but Price is already totally against quotas.
If Price becomes deputy it will be a wild ride for the party – and for its leader.
Other names mooted as possible deputies are Dan Tehan, from Victoria, who’s been immigration spokesman, and Queenslander Ted O’Brien, the energy spokesman. Either would be less fraught for the party than Price. O’Brien would have the problem of being welded on to the nuclear policy, which will be at least overhauled and perhaps ditched by the Liberals.
Ley is set to have a running mate, but the name has not yet been disclosed.
Another option would be for the loser out of Ley and Taylor to become deputy. Awkward, but perhaps the cleanest way forward. Ley is used to the role; Taylor would be entitled to stay shadow treasurer and would be at the centre of things (what things are left).
Nationals’ identity battle
In the Nationals, the leadership contest – to be decided Monday – is also a battle over identity.
The Nationals under David Litteproud held almost all their seats at the election but one-time resources minister Matt Canavan – a Barnaby Joyce supporter back in the day – says they need a new direction.
Critical to his pitch are energy and climate issues. The Nationals signed up reluctantly to net zero emissions by 2050 in the Morrison prime ministership, when Joyce was leader (although he indicated he personally didn’t favour doing so). They were dragged to the deal with great reluctance.
Canavan, who is a senator, said in his leadership pitch, “We should scrap the futile and unachievable goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. Net zero makes everything more expensive and it is not helping the environment given that the US, China and India are no longer even paying lip service to it.”
Littleproud, describing the challenge as “healthy for our democracy”, is favoured to see off the Canavan bid. Regardless, it is a reminder the Nationals remain a divided party, as they have been for years.
Michelle Grattan 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: United States Senator for Massachusetts Ed Markey
Senator Markey and Representative Pressley with Rümeysa Öztürk
Boston (May 10, 2025) – Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Representative Ayanna Pressley (MA-07) today joined Rümeysa Öztürk and members of her legal team at a press conference after Ms. Öztürk arrived home from ICE detention in Louisiana. Yesterday, the United States District Court for the District of Vermont granted bail to Ms. Öztürk and directed the Trump administration to release her from detention.
On March 25, 2025, Ms. Öztürk, a PhD student at Tufts University, was abducted by six plainclothes ICE agents off the streets of Somerville, Massachusetts. She was quickly moved across state lines and taken more than 1,500 miles away from her community to a detention facility in Louisiana, where she spent more than six weeks in retaliation for on op-ed she co-wrote in the Tufts Daily.
“Today is a day of joy: We welcome Rümeysa Öztürk back to Massachusetts and back to her community in Somerville,” said Senator Markey. “Rümeysa should have never been abducted off the streets of Somerville. She should have never been taken out of Massachusetts and sent to a detention site in Louisiana more than 1,500 miles away from her community. And she should have never had to suffer intolerable living conditions and multiple and worsening asthma attacks while unlawfully detained for more than six weeks. Rümeysa’s case affects every one of us. We cannot allow this administration to trample individuals’ constitutional rights to free speech and due process. Her homecoming is only the beginning of the fight for justice – not only for Rümeysa, but for every family, for every neighbor, and for everyone who wishes to ensure they can live free.”
“Today we’re welcoming with open arms a beloved member of our Massachusetts 7th community, a brilliant scholar, a courageous advocate, and a survivor of a shameful injustice – Rümeysa Öztürk. And we’re sending a message to this hostile White House that their efforts to silence Rümeysa, crush dissent, and undermine our constitutional rights are being rejected,” said Representative Pressley. “While we take stock of this important progress, we know this fight isn’t over. We will not rest until Rümeysa is fully exonerated, her visa is restored, and she is free to continue her studies and her service to our community.”
On April 22, Senator Markey and Representatives Pressley and Jim McGovern (MA-02), along with Representative Bennie Thompson (MS-02), Ranking Member of House Committee on Homeland Security, and Representative Troy Carter (LA-02), visited the Louisiana ICE facility where Ms. Öztürk was being held. Also on April 22, Senator Markey, Representative Pressley, and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) sent a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Todd Lyons to demand answers about the Trump administration’s concerning practice of detaining individuals, such as Ms. Öztürk, far from their attorneys and communities and in legal environments where their rights are more difficult to defend. The Trump administration is forum shopping to obtain a legal outcome favorable to its deportation agenda.
This year, Mother’s Day comes a day before the 2025 national midterm elections. Before Filipinos vote for future legislators and local officials, Virginia Benosa-Llorin reflects on the intersection of motherhood, climate anxiety, and the hope of having a say in what the future holds.
My son married a wonderful woman last year and they are now expecting their first child. Like many other young parents, they gathered family and friends to celebrate with them as they reveal the gender of their upcoming baby.
The excitement grew as the couple asked us to answer trivia questions and for each correct answer, my son or daughter-in-law’s picture appeared on something like a crossword puzzle displayed on the screen.
After all the questions were answered, the photos of my son formed a straight horizontal line, which means we are going to have a baby boy!
The crowd cheered, and congratulations echoed throughout the room. I had hoped for a girl, only for a selfish reason that I could doll her up. But of course, any gender will be most welcome. I am already super excited to have a baby in the family. This early, I have already mapped out the pampering he will get from me.
It was a joyous moment, a celebration.
But then, it dawned on me: My first grandchild will be born this year during a time when the heat index is already considered dangerous.
Graph from 2019 Lancet Report showing extent to which current and future generations will experience a hotter and different world.
In my day, class suspensions were only due to flooding, but now it is different. Hot temperature prompts class suspensions as a precautionary health measure.
As I looked at my son and daughter-in-law’s proud and happy, hopeful smiles, I couldn’t help but think about their future and how they will raise Amari. His name is going to be Amari, which means Promised by God.
I felt a lump in my chest—the kind that mothers feel when they are worried.
And I have my reasons. According to a 2019 Lancet Report, a child born today will encounter a world that is more than four degrees warmer than the pre-industrial average, with climate change impacting human health from infancy and adolescence to adulthood and old age.
A warmer planet will have serious consequences for people, especially those living in poor conditions—health-wise, economically, and educationally. It is frightening to think about these consequences.
I recently attended a forum on climate change and health, organized by the Institute of Child Health and Development, University of the Philippines Manila. The presentation by Dr. Ronald Law caught my attention the most. Dr. Law clearly and interestingly discussed the intergenerational inequity of climate change, noting that children are considered a particularly disadvantaged population due to their physiological and developmental vulnerabilities, as well as their higher likelihood of experiencing severe effects of climate change in the future.
Dr. Ronald Law, Head of the Climate Change Unit of the Department of Health with Greenpeace Campaigners Virginia Benosa-Llorin and Khevin Yu
Dr. Law, head of the newly established Climate Change Unit at the Department of Health, encourages advocacy and awareness-raising on the intersectionality of climate change and health. He emphasized that the medical and public health communities need to recognize, acknowledge, and speak out about the health burdens of climate change and their disproportionate effects on children.
Sadly, despite the recognized impacts of climate change, many people—including those running for political office—fail to grasp the importance of addressing environmental issues. I’ve attended several electoral forums organized by civil society groups. Candidates for the midterm elections were invited to share their environmental platforms.
Not surprisingly, only a handful, if none, of the candidates that top the surveys attended. Is this a reflection of their commitment to environmental protection? What gives? You decide.
This brings me back to my grandson and to my final point.
Is there still hope? Of course! If we act together, our collective actions can rebuild our society. We can engage in impactful acts that drive meaningful change in the system.
And this change can start on May 12. When you cast your votes, please think about Amari, his generation, and the next ones.
Virginia Benosa-Llorin is a senior climate campaigner at Greenpeace Southeast Asia – Philippines.
You might want to check out Greenpeace Philippines’ petition called Courage for Climate, a drive in support of real policy and legal solutions in the pursuit of climate justice.
Industry Minister Ed Husic, dumped from the frontbench ahead of Anthony Albanese’s announcement of his new ministry, has made an excoriating attack on Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles, describing him as a “factional assassin”.
Marles, chief of the Victorian right, in large part drove factional changes which saw Husic, from the New South Wales right, and Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, from the Victorian right, pushed out of the lineup for the revamped ministry.
In the shakeout, Marles’ numbers man, Sam Rae, will be elevated from the backbench to the ministry, despite having only been in parliament for a single term.
Husic said on Sunday, “I think when people look at a deputy prime minister, they expect to see a statesman, not a factional assassin”.
Asked on the ABC whether that meant he was saying Marles had put his own ambition to boost his numbers ahead of the good of the party, Husic said, “I think a lot of people would draw that conclusion”.
“I think he needed to exercise leadership, he’s part of the leadership group. We’ve got to be able to manage these things in an orderly way.”
“There will be a lot of questions put to Richard about his role, and that’s something that he will have to answer and account for.”
Husic said Prime Minister Anthony Albanese had called him on Saturday – it had been only a brief call – and they will meet on Monday. He looked forward to that being a constructive discussion about the role he could keep playing.
Husic, the only Muslim in cabinet, in part blamed his outspokenness on Gaza for his demotion.
“You can’t celebrate diversity and then expect it to sit in a corner, silent.
“You need to speak up when you bring those different views to either a cabinet table or to a caucus.
“I certainly took the view that you need to speak up to the communities that you care about. I certainly tried to help us navigate wretchedly difficult issues such as what we’re seeing has unfolded in Gaza post the horrors of October 7.
“I don’t think I could ever stay silent in the face of innocent civilians being slaughtered in their tens of thousands and being starved out of Gaza.
“So I tried to find the way to be able to speak at the cabinet table and speak elsewhere, to be able to make sure that communities we represent know that their voices are heard.
“You should have the ability to speak up on the issues that you believe in. You should have the ability to question.
“I would hate to think we get to a situation like Trump Republicans who know something’s wrong and and don’t speak. I’m not saying that’s the case here, but there’s a role, a value in questioning,” he said.
Husic is reported to have clashed with Foreign Minister Penny Wong in cabinet over the Middle East issues. He also had differences with Treasurer Jim Chalmers on some economic issues.
Husic said he would have liked Albanese to have intervened over his demotion but the PM had declined to get involved.
He blamed Marles for putting Albanese into such a position. It was “especially disrespectful of the deputy prime minister to put the prime minister in a terrible place where he was being asked to intervene”. But if Albanese had exercised the great authority he had coming out of the election, “no one would have quibbled”.
“We’ve obviously got to be able to avoid these type of episodes […] the factional grubbiness,” Husic said.
Because of the factional numbers after the election, the NSW right was due to drop a minister. Husic said he chose not to push it to a factional vote to decide who went. “I did not want to put my colleagues through a national ballot.”
Michelle Grattan 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: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
The ongoing 2025 World Brand Moganshan Conference in Deqing County, east China’s Zhejiang Province, is emphasizing innovation as a major driving force in expanding the global reach of Chinese brands.
Themed “Brands Bring Better Future for the World,” the event offers Chinese brands a global stage to share their brand stories and fosters shared opportunities, common development and mutually beneficial cooperation.
Conference attendees have emphasized the importance of brand building in nurturing new quality productive forces. They further noted that recent initiatives have shown positive outcomes — with innovation being a key driver.
Take Wensli Group, a well-known Chinese silk producer established in 1975, as an example. Admired for its industry-leading silk double-sided printing process, Wensli has not only maintained long-term partnerships with many luxury brands but also created new growth opportunities.
Notably, Wensli’s mini-program enables customers to instantly create a unique, self-designed scarf pattern. Leveraging AI-generated content, the scarf can be produced in just two hours, with minimal release of carbon emissions or wastewater.
“With the help of technology, we can customize 100,000 unique silk scarves for each of the 8 billion people in the world,” said Tu Hongyan, chairperson of Wensli. She added that innovation has transformed Wensli from importing technologies and services to exporting its own independent, new technologies.
Wensli’s journey mirrors the development trajectory of many Chinese brands.
“Chinese brands have transitioned from followers to creators and leaders in new models and standards. Consequently, the image of Chinese brands has acquired new significance on the global stage,” said Shan Fan, president of the Brand University of Applied Sciences in Hamburg, Germany.
The Chinese fashion industry has also seen Bosideng Group, a leading down jacket manufacturer, take its brand global.
Its first overseas store opened in London ahead of the 2012 Olympics. Since then, its products have graced the runways of New York, Milan and London, shining a spotlight on Chinese down jackets in the global arena.
“The robust growth of the Chinese economy, its rising cultural confidence, swift progress in technological innovation, and growing international influence have all paved the way for Chinese brands to thrive,” said Gao Dekang, chairman and chief executive officer of Bosideng Group.
Despite mounting obstacles in international trade, Chinese brands have remained resolute in their pursuit of global presence.
“To venture overseas, we have to tackle numerous challenges, such as obtaining the necessary certifications, arranging logistics and building our brand reputation. The overseas markets are highly diverse, and we stick to one unbreakable rule — we must adapt to local conditions and respect the differences,” said Wang Pu, co-founder of Chinese beverage company Chi Forest.
In 2020, Chi Forest officially entered mainstream distribution channels in Singapore. Now, the company’s products have entered more than 40 countries and regions, including the United States and Australia, Wang added.
Held for three consecutive years, the World Brand Moganshan Conference has developed into a vital platform for Chinese brands to enhance their visibility and explore new cooperation opportunities.
Over 50 parallel activities also form part of the 2025 conference, including a main forum, a launch event for brand value evaluation, and several themed high-end dialogues.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
This photo taken on March 15, 2024 shows the construction site of a residential complex under an urban renewal project in Jing’an District of east China’s Shanghai. [Photo/Xinhua]
China’s property market is showing renewed signs of recovery, with both new home sales and second-hand transactions increasing, fueled in part by a rising demand for high-quality housing spurred by newly introduced national standards for “quality homes.”
Released by China’s Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, the upgraded national standards for residential projects, which came into effect on May 1, cover seven aspects that include living environment, building space, structure, indoor environment and building equipment.
Among the most notable provisions are a minimum ceiling height of three meters for new residential buildings, mandatory elevators in structures with four or more floors, and enhanced sound insulation for walls and floors.
Many industry insiders believe that meeting these new standards for a “quality home” is becoming a key selling point for properties that are up to standard, drawing increased interest from prospective buyers.
Market revival
During the recent five-day May Day holiday, which marked the first public holiday after the new standards were implemented, China’s real estate market in many regions maintained the recovery momentum seen in the first quarter of 2025, with several first- and second-tier cities posting robust transaction figures.
In Shanghai, one of China’s most important regional real estate markets, total home sales during the holiday, including new and second-hand properties, rose 36 percent year on year. New home transactions were up 12 percent, while second-hand home sales surged by 44 percent.
Similarly, south China metropolis Shenzhen recorded 826 new commercial housing subscriptions from May 1 to 5, with 317 units completing online contracts, up 23.89 percent year on year.
According to the data released by the China Index Academy, during the May Day holiday, Beijing saw a total of 302 new residential properties signed online, covering 34,200 square meters, marking year-on-year increases of 114 percent and 107 percent, respectively.
In Yantai, a coastal city in east China’s Shandong Province, demand for high-quality homes was on full display during the May Day holiday. All 100 units of the first phase of a residential project named Boshiyayuan were sold on May 1, its launch day.
“This project impressed us with its planning, layout and amenities,” said a homebuyer surnamed Zheng. “Each unit has a private elevator, and the community features a basketball court, gym, swimming pool, yoga studio and communal dining hall. Even the aluminum front door with high-level insulation met our expectations.”
More and more homebuyers like Zheng are increasingly shifting their focus from simply “having a place to live” to seeking “livable quality,” according to Ding Zuyu, president of the property research institution CRIC.
Expectations for intelligent home systems, eco-friendly designs, thoughtful architecture and well-rounded facilities are driving a new wave of residential consumption.
Guan Chong, general manager of the Shanghai branch of Jinmao, a Hong Kong-listed developer, said quality homes and well-designed communities offer homeowners a low-carbon, healthy and eco-friendly lifestyle, and such products have already been launched in major cities including Shanghai, Beijing and Nanjing — and have received positive feedback from homebuyers.
“Many of our homeowners have experienced technology-driven living and chose to purchase or upgrade to another similar property,” the executive said. “This clearly demonstrates that quality homes will always have a place in the market and can effectively unleash demand for better housing.”
Quality-driven transformation
On the supply side, changes are also underway. So far this year, industry insiders have observed a trend of “downsizing and upgrading” on the land supply side, which signals a significant increase in the availability of high-quality homes in the near future.
Many cities have proactively adjusted their land supply structures by reducing overall volume and focusing on premium plots. A growing number of “small but refined” parcels are being released to better support high-quality residential development.
In Hangzhou, capital city of east China’s Zhejiang Province and a major regional property market, for example, about 90 percent of residential land parcels sold this year have a planned construction area of less than 90,000 square meters. These plots typically feature complete supporting infrastructure and moderate floor area ratios, making them well-suited for building quality housing.
According to industry insiders, the new standards have the potential to drive further transformation in the real estate sector.
“The new standards raise the ceiling height by 20 centimeters, an adjustment that takes into account the increasing average height of Chinese residents and significantly improves the space,” said Zeng Yu, senior architect at the China Academy of Building Research.
Zeng explained that the added height not only enhances the vertical dimension of indoor space, but also improves natural lighting and ventilation. This change, Zeng noted, boosts convenience and functional flexibility, while providing greater capacity for diverse interior design, technological upgrades and evolving lifestyle needs.
Yu Tian, marketing general manager of Poly Developments and Holdings Group’s Shanghai branch, believes the new national standards will have a significant impact on the development of the real estate sector.
“These new standards encourage property developers to focus on product standards, research and development, and iteration, continuously increasing the use of new products, materials, technologies, next-generation information technologies and smart construction methods. This more segmented and diverse market will unlock the potential of demand for upgraded housing,” Yu added.
He Xinyu, general manager of Chengdu Ruihetai research institute of industrial and urban development, echoed this view. “In the long term, the new standards will guide the real estate sector to shift from its previous focus on high turnover to a focus on high quality, pointing the way forward for both real estate companies and their upstream and downstream partners,” said He.
The introduction of these new standards also opens a pathway for the renovation of older properties. By aligning with the new norms, outdated residential buildings can be transformed through improvements such as the installation of elevators, noise reduction measures, senior-friendly renovations and better amenities. This could lead to significant value increases for older communities.
Chen Jie, a professor at Shanghai Jiao Tong University, said that, as a result, these initiatives are expected to boost the market value of second-hand homes, benefiting both homeowners and prospective buyers by improving the overall quality of the housing stock.
For the first time, the phrase “quality homes” featured in the government work report unveiled during this year’s “two sessions,” the annual meetings of China’s top legislature and top political advisory body.
Guided by this trend, nearly 10 provincial-level regions, including Beijing, Shandong, Shanxi, Jiangsu, Guizhou and Sichuan, have focused on building high-quality housing systems by leveraging their regional characteristics. These efforts span the entire value chain, from standard-setting and land supply to construction techniques.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (MA-07)
Lawmakers Joined Öztürk, Her Legal Team, and ACLU of Massachusetts at Logan Airport in Her First Public Appearance Since March Abduction
Pressley, Markey, McGovern Met with Öztürk at Louisiana ICE Facility in April
BOSTON – Today, Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (MA-07) and Senator Edward J. Markey (D-MA) welcomed Tufts PhD student Rümeysa Öztürk at Logan Airport in Boston at her request following her arrival home from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention in Louisiana. Ms. Öztürk, a Somerville resident and constituent of the Congresswoman’s, was released on bail yesterday by a federal judge from Vermont after being unlawfully detained for over six weeks.
Congresswoman Pressley and Senator Markey joined Ms. Öztürk, her legal team, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts at a press conference. Last month, Rep. Pressley, Sen. Markey, and Rep. James P. McGovern traveled to ICE facilities in Basile and Jena, where Rümeysa Öztürk and Mahmoud Khalil were being unlawfully detained and subjected to inhumane conditions in retaliation for their protected speech.
“Today we’re welcoming with open arms a beloved member of our Massachusetts 7th community, a brilliant scholar, a courageous advocate, and a survivor of a shameful injustice – Rümeysa Öztürk. And we’re sending a message to this hostile White House that their efforts to silence Rümeysa, crush dissent, and undermine our constitutional rights are being rejected,” said Congresswoman Pressley. “While we take stock of this important progress, we know this fight isn’t over. We will not rest until Rümeysa is fully exonerated, her visa is restored, and she is free to continue her studies and her service to our community.”
“Today is a day of joy: We welcome Rümeysa Öztürk back to Massachusetts and back to her community in Somerville,” said Senator Markey. “Rümeysa should have never been abducted off the streets of Somerville. She should have never been taken out of Massachusetts and sent to a detention site in Louisiana more than 1,500 miles away from her community. And she should have never had to suffer intolerable living conditions and multiple and worsening asthma attacks while unlawfully detained for more than six weeks. Rümeysa’s case affects every one of us. We cannot allow this administration to trample individuals’ constitutional rights to free speech and due process. Her homecoming is only the beginning of the fight for justice – not only for Rümeysa, but for every family, for every neighbor, and for everyone who wishes to ensure they can live free.”
A full transcript of Congresswoman Pressley’s remarks at the press conference today is available below, and full video is available here.
Transcript: Rep. Pressley Welcomes Rümeysa Öztürk Home Following Her Release from ICE Detention
Boston Logan Airport
May 10, 2025
Thank you, Ed. Thank you for your friendship. Thank you for your ongoing partnership on so many issues of consequence. In particular, we’ve been shoulder to shoulder in the work of oversight of our carceral settings, our prisons, our jails, our detention facilities.
But before I get started, I do just, again, want to reiterate that if you care about mass incarceration, you should care about mass deportation. If you care about mass deportation, you should care about mass incarceration.
This is not only the grave injustice that Rümeysa, Mahmoud, Mohsen and many more have experienced is not only inhumane and cruel, but incredibly profitable. These are facilities owned by corporations, and the same way that those private prisons benefit from mass incarceration, these private detention centers, facilities benefit from mass deportation and incarceration. So I did just want to name that.
You know, y’all, I don’t know if I can stick to my remarks here, because I’m just overwhelmed. One, Rümeysa is home, and two, the Celtics won. But you know, seriously, just bringing a little levity, because we’re long overdue for some joy.
The second I saw Rümeysa, I just exclaimed loudly “My sister.” I felt an immediate kinship with her.
And as we approach Mother’s Day, it is important that – and I think the public outcry and the rallying has been a testament to the fact that we see Rümeysa as our sister, we see Rümeysa as our daughter.
And that is, in fact, how a community should rally and see one another when a harm is done to anyone, because we are one human family and our destinies are truly tied.
I was also excited to be able to gift Rümeysa with a polished stone with the word “Hope” engraved that I had been carrying for weeks.
I had two stones with me when we went to rural Louisiana. And again, I thank Senator Markey for steadfast leadership and partnership, my brother colleague, Jim McGovern, for journeying together to rural Louisiana, and I had a polished stone with the word “Courage” engraved for Mahmoud, and a polished stone with the word “Hope” engraved for Rümeysa.
But ultimately, having visited Jena and the Basile facilities, I decided not to gift it to them, because I was pretty sure it would be confiscated. So I was so excited to be able to place that in the palm of her hand today, because I just wanted her to not lose hope and to know that we had come to see about her, and we were going to continue to do that until she was free.
So today we come together to welcome home a beloved member of the Massachusetts 7th community, a brilliant scholar, a courageous advocate, and a survivor of a shameful injustice: Rümeysa Öztürk.
Today marks a significant step forward and a victory, a victory for Rümeysa, a victory for due process, and a victory for our democracy.
But it is also a somber day, and I know it is bittersweet for Rümeysa, because Rümeysa should never have been abducted and ripped away from her community in Somerville in the first place.
She should never have had her visa revoked. She should never have been transported almost 2,000 miles away to an ICE facility in rural Louisiana and subjected to squalid, inhumane conditions.
She should never have suffered multiple asthma attacks and feared for her life so far away from home.
Last year, Rümeysa authored an op-ed that centered the dignity and humanity of every person and was critical of her university’s response to the crisis in Gaza. She exercised her fundamental First Amendment right. In citing nothing more than an op-ed, she was met with the full force of Donald Trump’s authoritarian project, silenced, detained and punished.
Rümeysa, we work each morning — since then, we’ve worked with you on our mind.
Massachusetts did not forget about you for a minute. Your classmates and your neighbors peacefully gathered in the street, lawyers, elected officials and people of good conscience from every walk of life spoke your name daily.
Carol, Mahsa, Jesse ensured that this was the case.
I also have the incredible good fortune to spend time with people who’ve been privileged enough to know Rümeysa, some for five years, some for seven years, some for 10 years. And I was remarking that I’m jealous they’ve known her that long, because true enough, she is courageous and a bright light, and all of it is contagious.
But we refused to be silent, sounding the alarm on this injustice and elevating your story time and again, Rümeysa.
And yesterday, the federal court ordered Rümeysa released on bail.
When we traveled to Louisiana last month to meet with Rümeysa, what we saw was unconscionable. Rümeysa was being denied proper medical care, left to suffer through intense and worsening asthma attacks without prescribed medications, forced to endure inadequate meals and religious accommodations, denied even basic necessities and subjected to inhumane living conditions.
Rümeysa, I shared upon our arrival, when Senator Markey and Congressman McGovern and I landed here at Logan, upon leaving here, I went right to Somerville for what had been a long scheduled town hall, and I shared with our Somerville community and the public what you told me of the constant fear, the trauma of being torn away from the community you love, the community that you have given so much to.
But Rümeysa’s spirit was unwavering, and her light shone through for all of us to see.
When you sat down with us Rümeysa, you spoke first of the women detained alongside you. You carried with you in your heart and in neatly copious written notes, like the qualified researcher that you are, their stories, their fears, their urgent medical conditions, their worry that they had been abandoned.
I was haunted by those words where Rümeysa said, “the women here have cried aloud. Has God forgotten about us? Has the world forgotten about us?”
Rümeysa’s experience was not just an act of cruelty. Was a deliberate, coordinated attempt to intimidate, to instill fear, and to send a chilling message to anyone who dares to speak out against injustice.
I’ve said it before, Donald Trump is a dictator. A dictator seeks to silence dissenting voices. He wants a citizenry that is ignorant and uninformed, a citizenry that is indifferent to the suffering of a neighbor, a citizenry that is inactive.
Today, we’re sending a message of our own to this White House: your efforts to silence Rümeysa, to crush dissent, to undermine our fundamental rights are being rejected.
Rümeysa, my sister, our sister, we welcome you home with open arms.
We never forgot about you. You are loved, you are seen, and we will not rest until you are fully exonerated, your visa is restored, and you are free to continue your studies and your service to our community.
But let us also be clear, this fight is not over. Rümeysa is released on bail, but her deportation proceedings continue.
So while we take stock of this important victory, made possible because of the dedicated people behind me and thousands more, because of public outcry, we are clear-eyed about the work that remains.
To everyone who has stood with Rümeysa, who was spoken out, who has joined in this fight — in Congress, in the courts and in community — thank you.
We would not be here today if it weren’t for you. Our work is not done, but we are stronger together.
Throughout my time in public life, I’ve had the privilege and emotional honor throughout these years to say these two words to many people upon their return from prisons, jails and detention facilities: welcome home.
This week, Congresswoman Pressley, along with Senator Markey, Ranking Member Bennie Thompson, Congressman Jim McGovern, and Congressman Troy Carter sent a letter to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) seeking more information on the detention conditions of immigrants held at the Central Louisiana ICE Processing Center (CLIPC) and the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center (SLIPC) after an oversight trip to the facilities last month.
On May 7, 2025, Pressley, Markey, and McGovern applauded the Second Circuit for ordering Rümeysa’s transfer from ICE custody in Louisiana to Vermont and rejecting the Trump administration’s attempt to delay complying with a lower court order to do so.
In a powerful New York Times op-ed, Pressley, Markey, and McGovern discussed their meeting with Ms. Öztürk in detention and warned the American people of the dangers posed by the Trump administration’s unlawful attacks on our constitutional rights to freedom of speech and due process. Full text of the op-ed is available here.
Rep. Pressley, along with Sens. Warren and Markey, have pushed for answers and action since Öztürk’s March arrest. In March, they led over 30 lawmakers in writing to Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Acting Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Todd Lyons, demanding information about Öztürk’s arrest and detention as well as similar incidents across the country.
In April, the lawmakers sounded the alarm on Öztürk’s medical neglect in DHS custody and renewed urgent calls for her release. Last week, Pressley, Warren and Markey demanded Secretary of State Rubio released any documents related to her arrest after a recent report indicated that an internal State Department memo concluded that the key premise underlying Tufts graduate student Rümeysa Öztürk’s arrest and detention was false. Last month, Congresswoman Pressley issued a statement condemning reports that ICE arrested and detained Rümeysa Öztürk, an international student with legal status in a graduate program at Tufts University. Earlier in the week, Rep. Pressley issued a statement following reports of ICE activity in Boston and other municipalities in Massachusetts.
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on May 11, 2025.
Indonesia’s Pacific manoeuvres – money, military, and silencing West Papua ANALYSIS: By Ali Mirin On April 24, 2025, Indonesia made a masterful geopolitical move. Jakarta granted Fiji US$6 million in financial aid and offered to cooperate with them on military training — a seemingly benign act of diplomacy that conceals a darker purpose. This strategic manoeuvre is the latest in Indonesia’s efforts to neutralise Pacific
Who killed Shireen Abu Akleh? Film names Israeli soldier but Biden, Israel ‘did best to cover up’ Report by Dr David Robie – Café Pacific. – NERMEEN SHAIKH: We begin today’s show looking at Israel’s ongoing targeting of Palestinian journalists. A recent report by the Costs of War Project at Brown University described the war in Gaza as the “worst ever conflict for reporters” in history. By one count, Israel has killed
Who killed Shireen Abu Akleh? Film names Israeli soldier but Israel ‘did best to cover up’ Democracy Now! NERMEEN SHAIKH: We begin today’s show looking at Israel’s ongoing targeting of Palestinian journalists. A recent report by the Costs of War Project at Brown University described the war in Gaza as the “worst ever conflict for reporters” in history. By one count, Israel has killed 214 Palestinian journalists in Gaza over the
Pacific region hopes for ‘climate-conscious’ pope, says PCC leader By Christina Persico, RNZ Pacific bulletin editor The leader of the Pacific Conference of Churches (PCC) has reacted to the election of the new pope. Pope Leo XIV was elected by his fellow cardinals in the Conclave on Thursday evening, Rome time. Leo, 69, formerly Cardinal Robert Prevost, is originally from Chicago, and has spent
Absurd attack on free speech by Israel Institute over social media comment By Gordon Campbell The calls by the Israel Institute of New Zealand for Peter Davis to resign from the Helen Clark Foundation because of comments he made with regard to an ugly, hateful piece of graffiti are absurd. The graffiti in question said “I hated Jews before it was cool!” On social media, Davis made
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Elise Stefanik (21st District of New York)
ICYMI: Stefanik Joined Fox News’ Mark Levin on Antisemitism in Higher Education, Pro-Terrorist Rioters at Columbia University | Press Releases | Congresswoman Elise Stefanik
On April 24, 2025, Indonesia made a masterful geopolitical move. Jakarta granted Fiji US$6 million in financial aid and offered to cooperate with them on military training — a seemingly benign act of diplomacy that conceals a darker purpose.
“There’s no need to be burdened by debt,” declared Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka during the bilateral meeting at Jakarta’s Merdeka Palace.
More significantly, he pledged Fiji’s respect for Indonesian sovereignty — diplomatic code for abandoning West Papua’s struggle for self-determination.
This aligns perfectly with Indonesia’s Law No. 2 of 2023, which established frameworks for defence cooperation, including joint research, technology transfer, and military education, between the two nations.
This is not merely a partnership — it is ideological assimilation.
Indonesia’s financial generosity comes with unwritten expectations. By integrating Fijian forces into Indonesian military training programmes, Jakarta aims to export its “anti-separatist” doctrine, which frames Papuan resistance as a “criminal insurgency” rather than legitimate political expression.
The US $6 million is not aid — it’s a strategic investment in regional complicity.
Geopolitical chess in a fractured world Indonesia’s manoeuvres must be understood in the context of escalating global tensions.
The rivalry between the US and China has transformed the Indo-Pacific into a strategic battleground, leaving Pacific Island nations caught between competing spheres of influence.
Although Jakarta is officially “non-aligned,” it is playing both sides to secure its territorial ambitions.
Its aid to Fiji is one move in a comprehensive regional strategy to diplomatically isolate West Papua.
Flashback to West Papuan leader Benny Wenda (left) meeting Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka in Suva in February 2023 . . . At the time, Rabuka declared: “We will support them [ULMWP] because they are Melanesians.” Image: Fiji govt
By strengthening economic and military ties with strategically positioned nations, Indonesia is systematically undermining Papuan representation in important forums such as the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG), and the United Nations.
While the world focuses on superpower competition, Indonesia is quietly strengthening its position on what it considers an internal matter — effectively removing West Papua from international discourse.
The Russian connection: Shadow alliances Another significant yet less examined relationship is Indonesia’s growing partnership with Russia, particularly in defence technology, intelligence sharing, and energy cooperation
This relationship provides Jakarta with advanced military capabilities and reduces its dependence on Western powers and China.
Russia’s unwavering support for territorial integrity, as evidenced by its position on Crimea and Ukraine, makes it an ideal partner for Indonesia’s West Papua policy.
Moscow’s diplomatic support strengthens Jakarta’s argument that “separatist” movements are internal security issues rather than legitimate independence struggles.
This strategic triangulation — balancing relations with Washington, Beijing, and Moscow– allows Indonesia to pursue regional dominance with minimal international backlash. Each superpower, focused on countering the others’ influence, overlooks Indonesia’s systematic suppression of Papuan self-determination.
Institutionalising silence: Beyond diplomacy The practical consequence of Indonesia’s multidimensional strategy is the diplomatic isolation of West Papua. Historically positioned to advocate for Melanesian solidarity, Fiji now faces economic incentives to remain silent on Indonesian human rights abuses.
A similar pattern emerges across the Pacific as Jakarta extends these types of arrangements to other regional players.
It is not just about temporary diplomatic alignment; it is about the structural transformation of regional politics.
When Pacific nations integrate their security apparatuses with Indonesia’s, they inevitably adopt Jakarta’s security narratives. Resistance movements are labelled “terrorist threats,” independence advocates are branded “destabilising elements,” and human rights concerns are dismissed as “foreign interference”.
Most alarmingly, military cooperation provides Indonesia with channels to export its counterinsurgency techniques, which are frequently criticised by human rights organisations for their brutality.
Security forces in the Pacific trained in these approaches may eventually use them against their own Papuan advocacy groups.
The price of strategic loyalty For just US$6 million — a fraction of Indonesia’s defence budget — Jakarta purchases Fiji’s diplomatic loyalty, military alignment, and ideological compliance. This transaction exemplifies how economic incentives increasingly override moral considerations such as human rights, indigenous sovereignty, and decolonisation principles that once defined Pacific regionalism.
Indonesia’s approach represents a sophisticated evolution in its foreign policy. No longer defensive about West Papua, Jakarta is now aggressively consolidating regional support, methodically closing avenues for international intervention, and systematically delegitimising Papuan voices on the global stage.
Will the Pacific remember its soul? The path ahead for West Papua is becoming increasingly treacherous. Beyond domestic repression, the movement now faces waning international support as economic pragmatism supplants moral principle throughout the Pacific region.
Unless Pacific nations reconnect with their anti-colonial heritage and the values that secured their independence, West Papua’s struggle risks fading into obscurity, overwhelmed by geopolitical calculations and economic incentives.
The question facing the Pacific region is not simply about West Papua, but about regional identity itself. Will Pacific nations remain true to their foundational values of indigenous solidarity and decolonisation? Or will they sacrifice these principles on the altar of transactional diplomacy?
The date April 24, 2025, may one day be remembered not only as the day Indonesia gave Fiji US$6 million but also as the day the Pacific began trading its moral authority for economic expediency, abandoning West Papua to perpetual colonisation in exchange for short-term gains.
The Pacific is at a crossroads — it can either reclaim its voice or resign itself to becoming a theatre where greater powers dictate the fate of indigenous peoples. For West Papua, everything depends on which path is chosen.
Ali Mirin is a West Papuan from the Kimyal tribe of the highlands that share a border with the Star Mountain region of Papua New Guinea. He graduated with a Master of Arts in international relations from Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
Frontiers in Communication is a multidisciplinary journal that focuses on advancing communication developments across society and culture, in areas including politics, health, media and industry, science and environment.
Led by Field Chief Editor Prof Justin Lewis (Cardiff University, UK), this Scopus and DOAJ indexed journal welcomes research contributions in all areas of communication that advance our understanding of communication technologies and bridge the gap between theory and practice. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:
advertising and marketing communication
culture and communication
disaster communications
health communication
language communication
media, culture and creative industries media governance and the public sphere
multimodality of communication
organizational communication
science and environmental communication
visual communication.
Frontiers in Communication is a cross-disciplinary journal that seeks to develop understanding of the rapidly-changing global communication revolution and its relevance across social, economic and cultural spheres. Submissions that focus on new areas, such as multimodality of communication, advertising, and the creative industries are of particular interest.
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
A conference press release presented at the European Congress on Obesity (ECO) in Malaga looks at time-restricted eating (TRE) and weight loss in obese adults.
Dr Adam Collins, Associate Professor of Nutrition, University of Surrey, said:
“The finding that TRE protocols, whether early, late or self-selected eating windows, lead to weight loss, is consistent with other studies. What is of interest here is that, strictly speaking, TRE protocols are not prescribed to reduce or restrict calories, just the eating window itself. Yet inevitably, most people fail to squeeze all of what they used to eat daily into the new window; instead, they change their eating behaviour and end up eating less. This may manifest as skipping whole meals, such as breakfast when abiding to late TRE windows. Or omitting snacks and drinks (including alcohol), either between meals or later in the day/evening. The latter may be significant in early time-restricted protocols.
“The novelty of this new communicated study is in the follow-up of these participants after 12 months, with the observation that both early and late TRE groups managed to maintain their weight loss. Interestingly, those who self-selected their window didn’t manage to keep the weight off as successfully. It is possible that following the more regimented early and late TRE created more sustainable changes in eating behaviour and dietary habits, that remained after the intervention.
“The originally published study was, I feel, robustly designed, with MRI-derived VAT as the primary outcome. It is unclear in this follow-up a) how many (i.e. what proportion) of the original participants were measured at follow-up across the different intervention arms. And b) what outcome measures were assessed (e.g. VAT). This would be very important for context.
“One general note of caution on TRE protocols is that altering the opportunities to eat, and potential for meal skipping, may compromise the nutritional adequacy of the diet. This may be an issue for those whose diet was marginally nutritionally replete to start with. To this end, we are midway through a study exploring the impact of TRE specifically on eating behaviour and nutritional adequacy of people’s diets.”
Dr Maria Chondronikola, Principal Investigator and Lead for Human Nutrition, University of Cambridge Metabolic Research Laboratories, University of Cambridge, said:
“The research study described in the press release explores the effects of time-restricted eating (TRE) on weight management, a topic that has attracted significant interest attention due to its potential health implications.
“While the press release provides an overview of the main outcomes of the study, it does not offer sufficient information to fully evaluate the scientific rigor and methodology of this investigation. This is not surprising given that the summary is intended for a broader audience. However, this limits the ability to assess the scientific value of the study in detail. Nevertheless, the findings outlined in the release appear reasonable within the context of existing literature.
“The 3-month results showing a 3–4% weight loss in response to the different TRE groups align with previous studies in the field. These results suggest that TRE may have modest effects on weight management. However, the novel finding in this study is the observation that the early and late TRE groups (but not the TRE group with the self-selected eating window) experienced greater weight loss maintenance over time. This is an interesting development and warrants further exploration, particularly in how TRE might help individuals sustain weight loss.
“It is important to note that this study did not include a caloric restriction group, and therefore, its results cannot be directly compared to other weight loss strategies that involve intentional caloric restriction.
“Furthermore, additional information on participant adherence to the prescribed eating windows is crucial. Understanding how well participants adhered to the timing of their meals, the level of their caloric intake and whether TRE changed any obesity-related metabolic outcomes would provide valuable insight into the true effectiveness of TRE.
“In conclusion, while the study’s findings are interesting, more detailed data on study design and compliance rates are needed to fully evaluate the results.”
Prof Alexandra Johnstone, Theme Lead for Nutrition, Obesity and Disease, Rowett Institute, University of Aberdeen, said:
“Dr Alba Camacho-Cardenosaand colleagues have shared some preliminary comments on their research findings, which are to be presented to peers at an obesity-related conference. With only the press release to refer to, this limits the scope of this commentary, and I am unable to comment on the robustness of the work. For example, there are no statistics mentioned in the press release, and it is therefore rather vague to interpret the results.
“I do, however, look forward to reading the paper when peer-reviewed, as there is a lot of interest in the role of chrono-nutrition and timing of eating as a dietary weight loss tool. The team present interesting data that support a time-restricted eating approach, as a 16 hour fasting window (with 8 hours eating), with a 12 week intervention period and a one-year follow-up. The TRE approach was useful to help participants maintain their weight loss. Aside from looking at their reported percentage weight change, I am interested in how health parameters changed in response to the dietary approaches, and this information is not provided in the press release.
Press release: ‘3-month programme of time-restricted eating at any time of the day supports long-term weight loss in adults with overweight or obesity’. Authors are Alba Camacho-Cardenosa et al.
This was presented as a poster at the European Congress on Obesity. The embargo lifted at 23:01 UK time on Saturday 10th May 2025.
There is no paper.
Declared interests
Dr Adam Collins: “No conflict of interest to declare.”
Prof Alexandra Johnstone: “My COI is that I hold voluntary committee roles for The Nutrition Society, Association for The Study of Obesity and British Nutrition Foundation.”
“Our committeehas been engaged in a variety ofeffortstocollaborate with community partners tohelp address unmet health needs in communities in northeast Connecticut,”according toDevra Dang, clinical professor of pharmacy practice and a co-chair of CIPEH.Its Northeast CT Initiativewasdevelopedinresponse to arural health summithosted by State Comptroller Sean Scanlon.
CIPEH faculty at the Northeast CT Family Health and Wellness Day
The event hostedinteractivebooths and activities aimed atpromoting health and wellnessforindividualsof all ages.Attendees received free health screeningssuch asblood pressure and hearing loss tests,learned aboutlung health andasthma inhaler techniques, prescription medication affordability tips,healthynutrition,andbalance assessment and fall prevention. According to Stephanie Gernant, assistant professor of pharmacy practice and a CIPEH co-chair, “The focus was not just on learning about health conditions that attendees may already have developed, but also on prevention and wellness across the lifespan.”
Nicole Gallagher, a clinical professor of speech-language and CIPEH secretary was especially fond of the hands-on experiences the event provided children and their families:“The foundation of good healthhabitsshould start earlyin life.We all loved seeing the kidswho attended the health fairbe so engaged with ourfun,interactivetopics.”In addition, children and teens had opportunities to discuss health career options with UConn health professionstudents andgot tovisualizethemselves as future healthcare professionals at the photo booth.
“[It]was excellent. Seeing all the different programs, and hearing from current students, really shows what a wonderful University we have, so close to home. Everyone weencounteredwas excited to share about their program, and very engaging with my kids!” -Cassie Kileyfrom Brooklyn, CT who attended with her family
Community partner organizations were a keycomponentof this collaborative event.The Northeast District Department of Healthco-hosted thefamily health and wellness dayand worked with Dang and twoMaster of Public Health studentsovera number ofweekstodevelop activities forthis multi-faceted event.In total, nine community organizationsbrought a variety of health-related topics and resources, includingGenerations Family Health Center, Day Kimball Hospital, Hartford Healthcare Community Health, andAHEC/Health Education Center.Participants from UConn’s Master Gardener Program provided science-based tips on gardening topics and distributed free seeds.
The eventalsoprovided an excellent avenue for UConn health profession students toengage in interprofessional education and collaboration, learning with, from, and about each profession as theyteamed upto presenthealth topics.“Brainstorming health fair plans and developing Psychological Sciences’materials promoting stress management across the lifespan tapped into creative and collaborative skills. We enjoyed the planning process, learning from other UConn faculty and students, and look forward to strengthening future efforts to serve those in Northeast Connecticut,”statedChristine Yantz, assistant clinicalprofessorand assistant director of the Psychological Services Clinic.
CIPEH consists of 11 UConn heath profession programs acrossthreecampuses (Storrs, Farmington, Hartford): athletic training/kinesiology, audiology,clinical psychology,dietetics, dental medicine, medicine, nursing, pharmacy, physical therapy, speech-language pathology, and social work, andreportstothehealth profession deans andtheVice Provost for Health Sciences and Interdisciplinary Initiatives, Amy Gorin.Establishedin 2013with the support of the deans of health profession programs, CIPEH’sprimarygoal is to advance interprofessional collaboration in education, community outreach and patient care, and research.
Brother and sister at the health careers photo booth
According to Dang, the Northeast Connecticut Family Health and Wellness Day was just one of several community-based events that CIPEH faculty and students have activelyparticipatedinattowns in Windham and Tolland Countyduring this academic year. Other recent community outreach events includeda health fair for older adults hosted by the town of Thompson,the Coventry Winter Farmers’ Market, and vaccine clinics at senior centers in collaboration with the Eastern Hyland Health District.A number ofupcominghealth-related outreach activities are being planned, including eventsduringthesummer.
Christine Haines, clinical professor ofaudiologynotedthat,“Interprofessional education within health profession training is crucial so that our students know how to best work together tooptimizepatient care when they become clinicians.”
“I look forward to collaborating with students and faculty from across UConn health disciplines in supporting the wellbeing of Connecticut’s residents in future community engagement efforts.”– Christine Haines
UConn programs and community organizations interested in collaborating with CIPEH on futurehealth-relatedcommunity outreach events can reach out to Devra Dang atdevra.dang@uconn.edu.
India and Pakistan have seen the scenario play out before: a terror attack in which Indians are killed leads to a succession of escalatory tit-fot-tat measures that put South Asia on the brink of all-out war. And then there is a de-escalation.
The broad contours of that pattern have played out in the most recent crisis, with the latest step being the announcement of a ceasefire on May 10, 2025.
But in another important way, the flare-up – which began on April 22 with a deadly attack in Indian-controlled Kashmir, in which 26 people were killed – represents significant departures from the past. It involved direct missile exchanges targeting sites inside both territories and the use of advanced missile systems and drones by the two nuclear rivals for the first time.
These changes have coincided with domestic political shifts in both countries. The pro-Hindu nationalism of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has heightened communal tensions in the country. Meanwhile Pakistan’s powerful army chief, Gen. Syed Asim Munir, has embraced the “two-nation theory,” which holds that Pakistan is a homeland for the subcontinent’s Muslims and India for Hindus.
This religious framing was even seen in the naming of the two countries’ military operations. For India, it is “Operation Sindoor” – a reference to the red vermilion used by married Hindu women, and a provocative nod to the widows of the Kashmir attack. Pakistan called its counter-operation “Bunyan-un-Marsoos” – an Arabic phrase from the Quran meaning “a solid structure.”
The role of Washington
The India-Pakistan rivalry has cost tens of thousands of lives across multiple wars in 1947-48, 1965 and 1971. But since the late 1990s, whenever India and Pakistan approached the brink of war, a familiar de-escalation playbook unfolded: intense diplomacy, often led by the United States, would help defuse tensions.
In 1999, President Bill Clinton’s direct mediation ended the Kargil conflict – a limited war triggered by Pakistani forces crossing the Line of Control into Indian-administered Kashmir – by pressing Pakistan for a withdrawal.
Similarly, after the 2001 attack inside the Indian Parliament by terrorists allegedly linked to Pakistan-based groups Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage engaged in intense shuttle diplomacy between Islamabad and New Delhi, averting war.
And after the 2008 Mumbai attacks, which saw 166 people killed by terrorists linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba, rapid and high-level American diplomatic involvement helped restrain India’s response and reduced the risk of an escalating conflict.
As recently as 2019, during the Balakot crisis – which followed a suicide bombing in Pulwama, Kashmir, that killed 40 Indian security personnel – it was American diplomatic pressure that helped contain hostilities. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo later wrote in his memoirs, “I do not think the world properly knows just how close the India-Pakistan rivalry came to spilling over into a nuclear conflagration in February 2019.”
A diplomatic void?
Washington as peacemaker made sense: It had influence and a vested interest.
During the Cold War, the U.S. formed a close alliance with Pakistan to counter India’s links with the Soviet Union. And after the 9/11 terror attacks, the U.S. poured tens of billions of dollars in military assistance into Pakistan as a frontline partner in the “war on terror.”
Simultaneously, beginning in the early 2000s, the U.S. began cultivating India as a strategic partner.
A stable Pakistan was a crucial partner in the U.S. war in Afghanistan; a friendly India was a strategic counterbalance to China. And this gave the U.S. both the motivation and credibility to act as an effective mediator during moments of India-Pakistan crisis.
Today, however, America’s diplomatic attention has shifted significantly away from South Asia. The process began with the end of the Cold War, but accelerated dramatically after the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. More recently, the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East have consumed Washington’s diplomatic efforts.
Since President Donald Trump took office in January 2025, the U.S. has not appointed an ambassador in New Delhi or Islamabad, nor confirmed an assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian Affairs – factors that must have hampered any mediating role for the United States.
And while Trump said the May 10 ceasefire followed a “long night of talks mediated by the United States,” statements from India and Pakistan appeared to downplay U.S. involvement, focusing instead on the direct bilateral nature of negotiations.
Should it transpire that Washington’s role as a mediator between Pakistan and India has been diminished, it is not immediately obvious who, if anyone, will fill the void. China, which has been trying to cultivate a role of mediator elsewhere, is not seen as a neutral mediator due to its close alliance with Pakistan and past border conflicts with India. Other regional powers like Iran and Saudi Arabia tried to step in during the latest crisis, but both lack the power clout of the U.S. or China.
This absence of external mediation is not, of course, a problem in itself. Historically, foreign interference – particularly U.S. support for Pakistan during the Cold War – often complicated dynamics in South Asia by creating military imbalances and reinforcing hardline positions. But the past has shown external pressure – especially from Washington – can be effective.
Breaking the norms
The recent escalation unfolded against the backdrop of another dynamic: the erosion of international norms since the end of the Cold War and accelerating after 2001.
More recently, Israel’s operations in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria have drawn widespread criticism for violations of international humanitarian law – but have resulted in limited consequences.
In short, geopolitical norms have been ebbed away and military actions that were once deemed red lines are crossed with little accountability.
For India and Pakistan, this environment creates both opportunity and risk. Both can point to behaviors elsewhere to justify assertive actions that they have undertaken that, in previous years, would have been deemed a step too far – such as attacks on places of worship and sovereignty violations.
Multi-domain warfare
But what truly distinguished the latest crisis from those of the past is, I believe, its multi-domain nature. The conflict is no longer confined to conventional military exchanges along the line of control – as it was for the first five decades of the Kashmir question.
Both countries largely respected the line of control as a de facto boundary for military operations until the 2019 crisis. Since then, there has been a dangerous progression: first to cross-border airstrikes into each other’s territories, and now to a conflict that spans conventional military, cyber and information spheres simultaneously.
Reports indicate Chinese-made Pakistani J-10 fighter jets shot down multiple Indian aircraft, including advanced French Rafale jets. This confrontation between Chinese and Western weapons represents not just a bilateral conflict but a proxy test of rival global military technologies – adding another layer of great-power competition to the crisis.
In addition, the use of loitering drones designed to attack radar systems represents a significant escalation in the technological sophistication of cross-border attacks compared to years past.
The conflict has also expanded dramatically into the cyber domain. Pakistani hackers, claiming to be the “Pakistan Cyber Force,” report breaching several Indian defense institutions, potentially compromising personnel data and login credentials.
Simultaneously, social media and a new right-wing media in India have become a critical battlefront. Ultranationalist voices in India incited violence against Muslims and Kashmiris; in Pakistan, anti-India rhetoric similarly intensified online.
Cooler voices prevailing … for now
These shifts have created multiple escalation pathways that traditional crisis management approaches weren’t designed to address.
Particularly concerning is the nuclear dimension. Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine is that it will use nuclear weapons if its existence is threatened, and it has developed short-range tactical nuclear weapons intended to counter Indian conventional advantages. Meanwhile, India has informally dialed back its historic no-first-use stance, creating ambiguity about its operational doctrine.
Thankfully, as the ceasefire announcement indicates, mediating voices appear to have prevailed this time around. But eroding norms, diminished great power diplomacy and the advent of multi-domain warfare, I argue, made this latest flare-up a dangerous turning point.
What happens next will tell us much about how nuclear rivals manage, or fail to manage, the spiral of conflict in this dangerous new landscape.
Farah N. Jan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
NERMEEN SHAIKH:We begin today’s show looking at Israel’s ongoing targeting of Palestinian journalists. A recent report by the Costs of War Project at Brown University described the war in Gaza as the “worst ever conflict for reporters” in history.
By one count, Israel has killed 214 Palestinian journalists in Gaza over the past 18 months, including two journalists killed on Wednesday — Yahya Subaih and Nour El-Din Abdo. Yahya Subaih died just hours after his wife gave birth to their first child.
Meanwhile, new details have emerged about the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh, the renowned Palestinian American Al Jazeera journalist who was fatally shot by an Israeli soldier three years ago on 11 May 2022.
She was killed while covering an Israeli army assault on the Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank. Shireen and another reporter were against a stone wall, wearing blue helmets and blue flak jackets clearly emblazoned with the word “Press”.
Shireen was shot in the head. She was known throughout the Arab world for her decades of tireless reporting on Palestine.
AMY GOODMAN: Israel initially claimed she had been shot by Palestinian militants, but later acknowledged she was most likely shot by an Israeli soldier. But Israel has never identified the soldier who fired the fatal shot, or allowed the soldier to be questioned by US investigators.
But a new documentary just released by Zeteo has identified and named the Israeli soldier for the first time. Below is the trailer to the documentary Who Killed Shireen?
DION NISSENBAUM: That soldier looked down his scope and could see the blue vest and that it said “press.”
ISRAELI SOLDIER: That’s what I think, yes.
SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: US personnel have never had access to those who are believed to have committed those shootings.
DION NISSENBAUM: No one has been held to account. Justice has not been served.
FATIMA ABDULKARIM: She is the first American Palestinian journalist who has been killed by Israeli forces.
DION NISSENBAUM: I want to know: Who killed Shireen?
CONOR POWELL: Are we going to find the shooter?
DION NISSENBAUM: He’s got a phone call set up with this Israeli soldier that was there that day.
CONOR POWELL: We just have to go over to Israel.
DION NISSENBAUM: Did you ever talk to the guy who fired those shots?
ISRAELI SOLDIER: Of course. I know him personally. The US should have actually come forward and actually pressed the fact that an American citizen was killed intentionally by IDF.
FATIMA ABDULKARIM: The drones are still ongoing, the explosions going off.
CONOR POWELL: Holy [bleep]! We’ve got a name.
DION NISSENBAUM: But here’s the twist.
Who Shot Shireen Abu Akleh? Video: Zeteo/Democracy Now!
NERMEEN SHAIKH:The trailer for the new Zeteo documentary Who Killed Shireen? The film identifies the Israeli soldier who allegedly killed Shireen Abu Akleh as Alon Scagio, who would later be killed during an Israeli military operation last June in Jenin, the same city where Shireen was fatally shot.
AMY GOODMAN:We’re joined right now by four guests, including two members of Shireen Abu Akleh’s family: her brother Anton, or Tony, and her niece Lina. They’re both in North Bergen, New Jersey. We’re also joined by Mehdi Hasan, the founder and editor-in-chief of Zeteo, and by Dion Nissenbaum, the executive producer of Who Killed Shireen?, the correspondent on the documentary, longtime Wall Street Journal foreign correspondent based in Jerusalem and other cities, a former foreign correspondent. He was twice nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.
We welcome you all toDemocracy Now!Dion, we’re going to begin with you. This is the third anniversary, May 11th exactly, of the death of Shireen Abu Akleh. Talk about your revelation, what you exposed in this documentary.
DION NISSENBAUM: Well, there were two things that were very important for the documentary. The first thing was we wanted to find the soldier who killed Shireen. It had been one of the most closely guarded secrets in Israel. US officials said that if they wanted to determine if there was a crime here, if there was a human rights violation, they needed to talk to this soldier to find out what he was thinking when he shot her.
And we set out to find him. And we did. We did what the US government never did. And it turned out he had been killed, so we were never able to answer that question — what he was thinking.
But the other revelation that I think is as significant in this documentary is that the initial US assessment of her shooting was that that soldier intentionally shot her and that he could tell that she was wearing a blue flak jacket with “Press” across it.
That assessment was essentially overruled by the Biden administration, which came out and said exactly the opposite. That’s a fairly startling revelation, that the Biden administration and the Israeli government essentially were doing everything they could to cover up what happened that day to Shireen Abu Akleh.
‘Who Killed Shireen?’ Zeteo premiered an explosive investigative documentary that reveals the identity of the soldier who shot Shireen Abu Akleh.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, let’s go to a clip from the documentary Who Killed Shireen?, in which Dion Nissenbaum, our guest, speaks with former State Department official Andrew Miller. He was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Israeli-Palestinian Affairs in 2022 when Shireen was killed.
ANDREW MILLER: It’s nearly 100 percent certain that an Israeli soldier, likely a sniper, fired the shot that killed or the shots that killed Shireen Abu Akleh. Based on all the information we have, it is not credible to suggest that there were targets either in front of or behind Shireen Abu Akleh.
The fact that the official Israeli position remains that this was a case of crossfire, the entire episode was a mistake, as opposed to potentially a mistaken identification or the deliberate targeting of this individual, points to, I think, a broader policy of seeking to manage the narrative.
DION NISSENBAUM: And did the Israelis ever make the soldier available to the US to talk about it?
ANDREW MILLER: No. And the Israelis were not willing to present the person for even informal questioning.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: That was State Department official — former State Department official Andrew Miller, speaking in the Zeteo documentary Who Killed Shireen? He was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Israeli-Palestinian Affairs in 2022 when Shireen was killed.
I want to go to Shireen’s family, whom we have as guests, Anton Abu Akleh and Lina, who are joining us from New Jersey. You both watched the film for the first time last night when it premiered here in New York City. Lina, if you could begin by responding to the revelations in the film?
LINA ABU AKLEH: Hi, Amy. Hi. Thank you for having us.
Honestly, we always welcome and we appreciate journalists who try to uncover the killing of Shireen, but also who shed light on her legacy. And the documentary that was released by Zeteo and by Dion, it really revealed findings that we didn’t know before, but we’ve always known that it was an Israeli soldier who killed Shireen. And we know how the US administration failed our family, failed a US citizen and failed a journalist, really.
And that should be a scandal in and of itself.
But most importantly, for us as a family, it’s not just about one soldier. It’s about the entire chain of command. It’s not just the person who pulled the trigger, but who ordered the killing, and the military commanders, the elected officials.
So, really, it’s the entire chain of command that needs to be held to account for the killing of a journalist who was in a clear press vest, press gear, marked as a journalist.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Anton, if you could respond? Shireen, of course, was your younger sister. What was your response watching the documentary last night?
ANTON ABU AKLEH: It’s very painful to look at all these scenes again, but I really extend my appreciation to Zeteo and all those who supported and worked on this documentary, which was very revealing, many things we didn’t know. The cover-up by the Biden administration, this thing was new to us.
He promised. First statements came out from the White House and from the State Department stressed on the importance of holding those responsible accountable. And apparently, in one of the interviews heard in this documentary, he never raised — President Biden never raised this issue with Bennett, at that time the prime minister.
So, that’s shocking to us to know it was a total cover-up, contradictory to what they promised us. And that’s — like Lina just said, it’s a betrayal, not only to the family, not only to Shireen, but the whole American nation.
AMY GOODMAN: Mehdi Hasan, you’ve backed this documentary. It’s the first big documentary Zeteo is putting out. It’s also the first anniversary of the founding of Zeteo. Can you talk about the proof that you feel is here in the documentary that Alon Scagio, this — and explain who he is and the unit he was a part of? Dion, it’s quite something when you go to his grave. But how you can absolutely be sure this is the man?
MEHDI HASAN:So, Amy, Nermeen, thanks for having us here. I’ve been on this show many times. I just want to say, great to be here on set with both of you. Thank you for what you do.
This is actually our second documentary, but it is our biggest so far, because the revelations in this film that Dion and the team put out are huge in many ways — identifying the soldier, as you mentioned, Alon Scagio, identifying the Biden cover-up, which we just heard Tony Abu Akleh point out. People didn’t realise just how big that cover-up was.
Remember, Joe Biden was the man who said, “If you harm an American, we will respond.” And what is very clear in the case of Shireen Abu Akleh, an American citizen who spent a lot of her life in New Jersey, they did not respond.
In terms of the soldier itself, when Dion came to me and said, “We want to make this film. It’ll be almost like a true crime documentary. We’re going to go out and find out who did it” — because we all — everyone followed the story. You guys covered it in 2022. It was a huge story in the world.
But three years later, to not even know the name of the shooter — and I was, “Well, will we be able to find this out? It’s one of Israel’s most closely guarded secrets.” And yet, Dion and his team were able to do the reporting that got inside of Duvdevan, this elite special forces unit in Israel.
It literally means “the cherry on top.” That’s how proud they are of their eliteness. And yet, no matter how elite you are, Israel’s way of fighting wars means you kill innocent people.
And what comes out in the film from interviews, not just with a soldier, an Israeli soldier, who speaks in the film and talks about how, “Hey, if you see a camera, you take the shot,” but also speaking to Chris Van Hollen, United States Senator from Maryland, who’s been one of the few Democratic voices critical of Biden in the Senate, who says there’s been no change in Israel’s rules of engagement over the years.
And therefore, it was so important on multiple levels to do this film, to identify the shooter, because, of course, as you pointed out in your news headlines, Amy, they just killed a hundred Palestinians yesterday.
So this is not some old story from history where this happened in 2022 and we’re going back. Everything that happened since, you could argue, flows from that — the Americans who have been killed, the journalists who have been killed in Gaza, Palestinians, the sense of impunity that Israel has and Israel’s soldiers have.
There are reports that Israeli soldiers are saying to Palestinians, “Hey, Trump has our back. Hey, the US government has our back.” And it wasn’t just Trump. It was Joe Biden, too.
And that was why it was so important to make this film, to identify the shooter, to call out Israel’s practices when it comes to journalists, and to call out the US role.
AMY GOODMAN: I just want to go to Dion, for people who aren’t familiar with the progression of what the Biden administration said, the serious cover-up not only by Israel, but of its main military weapons supplier and supporter of its war on Gaza, and that is Joe Biden, from the beginning.
First Israel said it was a Palestinian militant. At that point, what did President Biden say?
DION NISSENBAUM: So, at the very beginning, they said that they wanted the shooter to be prosecuted. They used that word at the State Department and said, “This person who killed an American journalist should be prosecuted.” But when it started to become clear that it was probably an Israeli soldier, their tone shifted, and it became talking about vague calls for accountability or changes to the rules of engagement, which never actually happened.
So, you got to a point where the Israeli government admitted it was likely them, the US government called for them to change the rules of engagement, and the Israeli government said no. And we have this interview in the film with Senator Chris Van Hollen, who says that, essentially, Israel was giving the middle finger to the US government on this.
And we have seen, since that time, more Americans being killed in the West Bank, dozens and dozens and dozens of journalists being killed, with no accountability. And we would like to see that change.
This is a trajectory that you’re seeing. You know, the blue vest no longer provides any protection for journalists in Israel. The Israeli military itself has said that wearing a blue vest with “Press” on it does not necessarily mean that you are a journalist.
They are saying that terrorists wear blue vests, too. So, if you are a journalist operating in the West Bank now, you have to assume that the Israeli military could target you.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, let’s go to another clip from the film Who Killed Shireen?, which features Ali Samoudi, Shireen Abu Akleh’s producer, who was with Shireen when she was killed, and was himself shot and injured. In the clip, he speaks to the journalist Fatima AbdulKarim.
FATIMA ABDULKARIM: We are set up here now, even though we were supposed to meet at the location where you got injured and Shireen got killed.
ALI SAMOUDI: [translated] We are five minutes from the location in Maidan al-Awdah. But you could lose your soul in the five minutes it would take us to reach it. You could be hit by army bullets. They could arrest you.
So it is essentially impossible to get there. I believe the big disaster which prevented the occupation from being punished and repeating these crimes is the neglect and indifference by many of the institutions, especially American ones, which continue to defend the occupation.
FATIMA ABDULKARIM: [translated] We’re now approaching the third anniversary of Shireen’s death. How did that affect you?
ALI SAMOUDI: [translated] During that period, the occupation was making preparations for a dangerous scenario in the Jenin refugee camp. And for this reason, they didn’t want witnesses.
They opened fire on us in order to terroriSe us enough that we wouldn’t go back to the camp. And in that sense, they partially succeeded.
Since then, we have been overcome by fear. From the moment Shireen was killed, I said and continue to say and will continue to say that this bullet was meant to prevent the Palestinian media from the documentation and exposure of the occupation’s crimes.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: That was Ali Samoudi, Shireen Abu Akleh’s producer, who was with Shireen when she was killed, and was himself shot and injured.
We should note, Ali Samoudi was just detained by Israeli forces in late April. The Palestinian journalist Mariam Barghouti recently wrote, “Ali Samoudi was beaten so bad by Israeli soldiers he was immediately hospitalised. This man has been one of the few journalists that continues reporting on Israeli military abuses north of the West Bank despite the continued risk on his life,” Mariam Barghouti wrote.
The Committee to Protect Journalists spoke to the journalist’s son, Mohammed Al Samoudi, who told CPJ, quote, “My father suffers from several illnesses, including diabetes, high blood pressure, and a stomach ulcer . . . He needs a diabetes injection every two days and a specific diet. It appears he was subjected to assault and medical neglect at the interrogation center . . .
“Our lawyer told us he was transferred to an Israeli hospital after a major setback in his health. We don’t know where he is being held, interrogated, or even the hospital to which he was taken. My father has been forcibly disappeared,” he said.
So, Dion Nissenbaum, if you could give us the latest? You spoke to Ali Samoudi for the documentary, and now he’s been detained.
DION NISSENBAUM: Yeah. His words were prophetic, right? He talks about this was an attempt to silence journalists. And my colleague Fatima says the same thing, that these are ongoing, progressive efforts to silence Palestinian journalists.
And we don’t know where Ali is. He has not actually been charged with anything yet. He is one of the most respected journalists in the West Bank. And we are just seeing this progression going on.
AMY GOODMAN: So, the latest we know is he was supposed to have a hearing, and that hearing has now been delayed to May 13th, Ali Samoudi?
DION NISSENBAUM: That’s right. And he has yet to be charged, so . . .
AMY GOODMAN:I want to go back to Lina Abu Akleh, who’s in New Jersey, where Shireen grew up. Lina, you were listed on Time magazine’s 100 emerging leaders for publicly demanding scrutiny of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, the horror.
And again, our condolences on the death of your aunt, on the killing of your aunt, and also to Anton, Shireen’s brother. Lina, you’ve also, of course, spoken to Ali Samoudi. This continues now. He’s in detention — his son says, “just disappeared”.
What are you demanding right now? We have a new administration. We’ve moved from the Biden administration to the Trump administration. And are you in touch with them? Are they speaking to you?
LINA ABU AKLEH: Well, our demands haven’t changed. From day one, we’re calling for the US administration to complete its investigation, or for the FBI to continue its investigation, and to finally release — to finally hold someone to account.
And we have enough evidence that could have been — that the administration could have used to expedite this case. But, unfortunately, this new administration, as well, no one has spoken to us. We haven’t been in touch with anyone, and it’s just been radio silence since.
For us, as I said, our demands have never changed. It’s been always to hold the entire system to account, the entire chain of command, the military, for the killing of an American citizen, a journalist, a Palestinian, Palestinian American journalist.
As we’ve been talking, targeting journalists isn’t happening just by shooting at them or killing them. There’s so many different forms of targeting journalists, especially in Gaza and the West Bank and Jerusalem.
So, for us, it’s really important as a family that we don’t see other families experience what we are going through, for this — for impunity, for Israel’s impunity, to end, because, at the end of the day, accountability is the only way to put an end to this impunity.
AMY GOODMAN: I am horrified to ask this question to Shireen’s family members, to Lina, to Tony, Shireen’s brother, but the revelation in the film — we were all there last night at its premiere in New York — that the Israeli soldiers are using a photograph of Shireen’s face for target practice. Tony Abu Akleh, if you could respond?
ANTON ABU AKLEH: You know, there is no words to describe our sorrow and pain hearing this. But, you know, I would just want to know why. Why would they do this thing? What did Shireen do to them for them to use her as a target practice? You know, this is absolutely barbaric act, unjustified. Unjustified.
And we really hope that this US administration will be able to put an end to all this impunity they are enjoying. If they didn’t enjoy all this impunity, they wouldn’t have been doing this. Practising on a journalist? Why? You know, you can practice on anything, but on a journalist?
This shows that this targeting of more journalists, whether in Gaza, in Palestine, it’s systematic. It’s been planned for. And they’ve been targeting and shutting off those voices, those reports, from reaching anywhere in the world.
NERMEEN SHAIKH:And, Anton, if you could say — you know, you mentioned last night, as well, Shireen was, in fact, extremely cautious as a journalist. If you could elaborate on that? What precisely —
ANTON ABU AKLEH: Absolutely. Absolutely. Shireen was very careful. Every time she’s in the field, she would take her time to put on the gear, the required helmet, the vest with “press” written on it, before going there. She also tried to identify herself as a journalist, whether to the Israelis or to the Palestinians, so she’s not attacked.
And she always went by the book, followed the rules, how to act, how to be careful, how to speak to those people involved, so she can protect herself. But, unfortunately, he was — this soldier, as stated in the documentary, targeted Shireen just because she’s Shireen and she’s a journalist. That’s it. There is no other explanation.
Sixteen bullets were fired on Shireen. Not even her helmet, nor the vest she was wearing, were able to protect her, unfortunately.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Mehdi Hasan, you wanted to respond.
MEHDI HASAN: So, Tony asks, “Why? Why would you do this? Why would you target not just a journalist in the field, but then use her face for target practice?” — as Dion and his team reveal in the film. And there is, unfortunately, a very simple answer to that question, which is that the Israeli military — and not just the Israeli military, but many people in our world today — have dehumanised Palestinians.
There is the removal of humanity from the people you are oppressing, occupying, subjugating and killing. It doesn’t matter if you’re an American citizen. It doesn’t matter if you have a press jacket on. It only matters that you are Palestinian in the sniper’s sights.
And that is how they have managed to pull of the killing of so many journalists, so many children. The first documentary we commissioned last year was called Israel’s Real Extremism, and it was about the Israeli soldiers who go into Gaza and make TikTok videos wearing Palestinian women’s underwear, playing with Palestinian children’s toys. It is the ultimate form of dehumanisation, the idea that these people don’t count, their lives have no value.
And what’s so tragic and shocking — and the film exposes this — is that Joe Biden — forget the Israeli military — Joe Biden also joined in that dehumanisation. Do you remember at the start of this conflict when he comes out and he says, “Well, I’m not sure I believe the Palestinian death toll numbers,” when he puts out a statement at the hundred days after October 7th and doesn’t mention Palestinian casualties.
And that has been the fundamental problem. This was the great comforter-in-chief. Joe Biden was supposed to be the empath. And yet, as Tony points out, what was so shocking in the film is he didn’t even raise Shireen’s case with Naftali Bennett, the prime minister of Israel at the time.
Again, would he have done that if it was an American journalist in Moscow? We know that’s not the case. We know when American journalists, especially white American journalists, are taken elsewhere in the world, the government gives a damn. And yet, in the case of Shireen, the only explanation is because she was a Palestinian American journalist.
AMY GOODMAN:You know, in the United States, the US government is responsible for American citizens, which Biden pointed out at the beginning, when he thought it was a Palestinian militant who had killed her. But, Lina, you yourself are a journalist. And I’m thinking I want to hear your response to using her face, because, of course, that is not just the face of Shireen, but I think it’s the face of journalism.
And it’s not just American journalism, of course. I mean, in fact, she’s known to hundreds of millions of people around world as the face and voice of Al Jazeera Arabic. She spoke in Arabic. She was known as that to the rest of the world. But to see that and that revealed in this documentary?
LINA ABU AKLEH: Yeah, it was horrifying, actually. And it just goes on to show how the Israeli military is built. It’s barbarism. It’s the character of revenge, of hate. And that is part of the entire system. And as Mehdi and as my father just mentioned, this is all about dehumanizing Palestinians, regardless if they’re journalists, if they’re doctors, they’re officials. For them, they simply don’t care about Palestinian lives.
And for us, Shireen will always be the voice of Palestine. And she continues to be remembered for the legacy that she left behind. And she continues to live through so many, so many journalists, who have picked up the microphone, who have picked up the camera, just because of Shireen.
So, regardless of how the Israeli military continues to dehumanise journalists and how the US fails to protect Palestinian American journalists, we will continue to push forward to continue to highlight the life and the legacy that Shireen left behind.
NERMEEN SHAIKH:Well, let’s turn to Shireen Abu Akleh in her own words. This is an excerpt from the Al Jazeera English documentary The Killing of Shireen Abu Akleh.
SHIREEN ABU AKLEH: [translated] Sometimes the Israeli army doesn’t want you there, so they target you, even if they later say it was an accident. They might say, “We saw some young men around you.” So they target you on purpose, as a way of scaring you off because they don’t want you there.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, that was Shireen in her own words in an Al Jazeera documentary. So, Lina, I know you have to go soon, but if you could just tell us: What do you want people to know about Shireen, as an aunt, a sister and a journalist?
LINA ABU AKLEH: Yes, so, we know Shireen as the journalist, but behind the camera, she was one of the most empathetic people. She was very sincere. And something not a lot of people know, but she was a very funny person. She had a very unique sense of humor, that she lit up every room she entered. She cared about everyone and anyone. She enjoyed life.
Shireen, at the end of the day, loved life. She had plans. She had dreams that she still wanted to achieve. But her life was cut short by that small bullet, which would change our lives entirely.
But at the end of the day, Shireen was a professional journalist who always advocated for truth, for justice. And at the end of the day, all she wanted to do was humanise Palestinians and talk about the struggles of living under occupation. But at the same time, she wanted to celebrate their achievements.
She shed light on all the happy moments, all the accomplishments of the Palestinian people. And this is something that really touched millions of Palestinians, of Arabs around the world. She was able to enter the hearts of the people through the small camera lens. And until this day, she continues to be remembered for that.
AMY GOODMAN: Before we go, we’re going to keep you on, Mehdi, to talk about other issues during the Trump administration, but how can people access Who Killed Shireen?
MEHDI HASAN: So, it’s available online at WhoKilledShireen.com, is where you can go to watch it. We are releasing the film right now only to paid subscribers. We hope to change that in the forthcoming days.
People often say to me, “How can you put it behind a paywall?” Journalism — a free press isn’t free, sadly. We have to fund films like this. Dion came to us because a lot of other people didn’t want to fund a topic like this, didn’t want to fund an investigation like this.
So, we’re proud to be able to fund such documentaries, but we also need support from our contributors, our subscribers and the viewers. But it’s an important film, and I hope as many people will watch it as possible, WhoKilledShireen.com.
AMY GOODMAN:We want to thank Lina, the niece of Shireen Abu Akleh, and Anton, Tony, the older brother of Shireen Abu Akleh, for joining us from New Jersey. Together, we saw the documentary last night, Who Killed Shireen? And we want to thank Dion Nissenbaum, who is the filmmaker, the correspondent on this film, formerly a correspondent with The Wall Street Journal. The founder of Zeteo, on this first anniversary of Zeteo, is Mehdi Hasan.
The National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) has distanced itself from a message currently circulating on social media platforms claiming that its 2025 registration portal has closed due to ongoing budget constraints.
In a statement issued this week, NSFAS described the claims as “entirely misleading” and a “gross misrepresentation” of its current operations and funding position.
“NSFAS strongly repudiates this inaccurate communication,” the scheme said.
The misleading message allegedly originated from the Durban University of Technology (DUT).
NSFAS has called on the institution to issue an immediate correction, warning that such inaccurate statements not only mislead students and stakeholders but also potentially undermine the reputation of the funding scheme.
NSFAS explained that it had issued Circular Notice No. 4 of 2025, on 3 March 2025, confirming that the registration portal was open and ready to receive valid registration data from the institutions, form that date onwards.
While the official cut-off date for submission of 2025 registration data was 31 March 2025, NSFAS said the universities were encouraged to submit by 14 March 2025 (close of business).
“This earlier submission was recommended to ensure timely processing and subsequent disbursement of funds by the end of March 2025. It is therefore regrettable that some institutions, including the Durban University of Technology (DUT), did not adhere to the recommended deadline for the submission of the required registration data,” NSFAS explained.
It said the non-compliance has unfortunately delayed the disbursement of tuition and living allowances to eligible students at these institutions.
NSFAS confirmed that student allowance payments were released to the affected universities on 6 May 2025, and tuition fee payments are expected to follow in due course.
The scheme reiterated its commitment to ensuring timely and efficient disbursement of funding and urged all institutions to comply with the stipulated data submission deadlines, to avoid unnecessary delays.
Outstanding 2024 TVET Allowances
Meanwhile, NSFAS has acknowledged ongoing concerns regarding unpaid 2024 allowances for Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) students.
The scheme attributed the delays to transitional challenges experienced during the switch to direct payment partners, and the subsequent return of this function to NSFAS during the 2024 academic year.
“This transition necessitated a complex reconciliation process, which has been undertaken concurrently with the commencement of the 2025 academic year. NSFAS is nearing the completion of this reconciliation process, and is committed to resolving the outstanding payments,” NSFAS said.
NSFAS confirmed that the monthly TVET allowances for the 2025 academic year will be paid on 25 May 2025, while a special payment run to clear unpaid 2024 TVET allowances is scheduled for 31 May 2025.
“NSFAS remains steadfast in its commitment to working collaboratively with the sector to meet its obligations and address systemic challenges to ensure the efficient disbursement of funds to eligible students.” – SAnews.gov.za
NERMEEN SHAIKH:We begin today’s show looking at Israel’s ongoing targeting of Palestinian journalists. A recent report by the Costs of War Project at Brown University described the war in Gaza as the “worst ever conflict for reporters” in history.
By one count, Israel has killed 214 Palestinian journalists in Gaza over the past 18 months, including two journalists killed on Wednesday — Yahya Subaih and Nour El-Din Abdo. Yahya Subaih died just hours after his wife gave birth to their first child.
Meanwhile, new details have emerged about the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh, the renowned Palestinian American Al Jazeera journalist who was fatally shot by an Israeli soldier three years ago on 11 May 2022.
She was killed while covering an Israeli army assault on the Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank. Shireen and another reporter were against a stone wall, wearing blue helmets and blue flak jackets clearly emblazoned with the word “Press”.
Shireen was shot in the head. She was known throughout the Arab world for her decades of tireless reporting on Palestine.
AMY GOODMAN: Israel initially claimed she had been shot by Palestinian militants, but later acknowledged she was most likely shot by an Israeli soldier. But Israel has never identified the soldier who fired the fatal shot, or allowed the soldier to be questioned by US investigators.
But a new documentary just released by Zeteo has identified and named the Israeli soldier for the first time. This is the trailer to the documentary Who Killed Shireen?
DION NISSENBAUM: That soldier looked down his scope and could see the blue vest and that it said “press.”
ISRAELI SOLDIER: That’s what I think, yes.
SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: US personnel have never had access to those who are believed to have committed those shootings.
DION NISSENBAUM: No one has been held to account. Justice has not been served.
FATIMA ABDULKARIM: She is the first American Palestinian journalist who has been killed by Israeli forces.
DION NISSENBAUM: I want to know: Who killed Shireen?
CONOR POWELL: Are we going to find the shooter?
DION NISSENBAUM: He’s got a phone call set up with this Israeli soldier that was there that day.
CONOR POWELL: We just have to go over to Israel.
DION NISSENBAUM: Did you ever talk to the guy who fired those shots?
ISRAELI SOLDIER: Of course. I know him personally. The US should have actually come forward and actually pressed the fact that an American citizen was killed intentionally by IDF.
FATIMA ABDULKARIM: The drones are still ongoing, the explosions going off.
CONOR POWELL: Holy [bleep]! We’ve got a name.
DION NISSENBAUM: But here’s the twist.
NERMEEN SHAIKH:The trailer for the new Zeteo documentary Who Killed Shireen? The film identifies the Israeli soldier who allegedly killed Shireen Abu Akleh as Alon Scagio, who would later be killed during an Israeli military operation last June in Jenin, the same city where Shireen was fatally shot.
AMY GOODMAN:We’re joined right now by four guests, including two members of Shireen Abu Akleh’s family: her brother Anton, or Tony, and her niece Lina. They’re both in North Bergen, New Jersey. We’re also joined by Mehdi Hasan, the founder and editor-in-chief of Zeteo, and by Dion Nissenbaum, the executive producer of Who Killed Shireen?, the correspondent on the documentary, longtime Wall Street Journal foreign correspondent based in Jerusalem and other cities, a former foreign correspondent. He was twice nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.
We welcome you all toDemocracy Now!Dion, we’re going to begin with you. This is the third anniversary, May 11th exactly, of the death of Shireen Abu Akleh. Talk about your revelation, what you exposed in this documentary.
DION NISSENBAUM: Well, there were two things that were very important for the documentary. The first thing was we wanted to find the soldier who killed Shireen. It had been one of the most closely guarded secrets in Israel. US officials said that if they wanted to determine if there was a crime here, if there was a human rights violation, they needed to talk to this soldier to find out what he was thinking when he shot her.
And we set out to find him. And we did. We did what the US government never did. And it turned out he had been killed, so we were never able to answer that question — what he was thinking.
But the other revelation that I think is as significant in this documentary is that the initial US assessment of her shooting was that that soldier intentionally shot her and that he could tell that she was wearing a blue flak jacket with “Press” across it.
That assessment was essentially overruled by the Biden administration, which came out and said exactly the opposite. That’s a fairly startling revelation, that the Biden administration and the Israeli government essentially were doing everything they could to cover up what happened that day to Shireen Abu Akleh.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, let’s go to a clip from the documentary Who Killed Shireen?, in which Dion Nissenbaum, our guest, speaks with former State Department official Andrew Miller. He was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Israeli-Palestinian Affairs in 2022 when Shireen was killed.
ANDREW MILLER: It’s nearly 100 percent certain that an Israeli soldier, likely a sniper, fired the shot that killed or the shots that killed Shireen Abu Akleh. Based on all the information we have, it is not credible to suggest that there were targets either in front of or behind Shireen Abu Akleh.
The fact that the official Israeli position remains that this was a case of crossfire, the entire episode was a mistake, as opposed to potentially a mistaken identification or the deliberate targeting of this individual, points to, I think, a broader policy of seeking to manage the narrative.
DION NISSENBAUM: And did the Israelis ever make the soldier available to the US to talk about it?
ANDREW MILLER: No. And the Israelis were not willing to present the person for even informal questioning.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: That was State Department official — former State Department official Andrew Miller, speaking in the Zeteo documentary Who Killed Shireen? He was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Israeli-Palestinian Affairs in 2022 when Shireen was killed.
I want to go to Shireen’s family, whom we have as guests, Anton Abu Akleh and Lina, who are joining us from New Jersey. You both watched the film for the first time last night when it premiered here in New York City. Lina, if you could begin by responding to the revelations in the film?
LINA ABU AKLEH: Hi, Amy. Hi. Thank you for having us.
Honestly, we always welcome and we appreciate journalists who try to uncover the killing of Shireen, but also who shed light on her legacy. And the documentary that was released by Zeteo and by Dion, it really revealed findings that we didn’t know before, but we’ve always known that it was an Israeli soldier who killed Shireen. And we know how the US administration failed our family, failed a US citizen and failed a journalist, really.
And that should be a scandal in and of itself.
But most importantly, for us as a family, it’s not just about one soldier. It’s about the entire chain of command. It’s not just the person who pulled the trigger, but who ordered the killing, and the military commanders, the elected officials.
So, really, it’s the entire chain of command that needs to be held to account for the killing of a journalist who was in a clear press vest, press gear, marked as a journalist.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Anton, if you could respond? Shireen, of course, was your younger sister. What was your response watching the documentary last night?
ANTON ABU AKLEH: It’s very painful to look at all these scenes again, but I really extend my appreciation to Zeteo and all those who supported and worked on this documentary, which was very revealing, many things we didn’t know. The cover-up by the Biden administration, this thing was new to us.
He promised. First statements came out from the White House and from the State Department stressed on the importance of holding those responsible accountable. And apparently, in one of the interviews heard in this documentary, he never raised — President Biden never raised this issue with Bennett, at that time the prime minister.
So, that’s shocking to us to know it was a total cover-up, contradictory to what they promised us. And that’s — like Lina just said, it’s a betrayal, not only to the family, not only to Shireen, but the whole American nation.
AMY GOODMAN: Mehdi Hasan, you’ve backed this documentary. It’s the first big documentary Zeteo is putting out. It’s also the first anniversary of the founding of Zeteo. Can you talk about the proof that you feel is here in the documentary that Alon Scagio, this — and explain who he is and the unit he was a part of? Dion, it’s quite something when you go to his grave. But how you can absolutely be sure this is the man?
MEHDI HASAN:So, Amy, Nermeen, thanks for having us here. I’ve been on this show many times. I just want to say, great to be here on set with both of you. Thank you for what you do.
This is actually our second documentary, but it is our biggest so far, because the revelations in this film that Dion and the team put out are huge in many ways — identifying the soldier, as you mentioned, Alon Scagio, identifying the Biden cover-up, which we just heard Tony Abu Akleh point out. People didn’t realise just how big that cover-up was.
Remember, Joe Biden was the man who said, “If you harm an American, we will respond.” And what is very clear in the case of Shireen Abu Akleh, an American citizen who spent a lot of her life in New Jersey, they did not respond.
In terms of the soldier itself, when Dion came to me and said, “We want to make this film. It’ll be almost like a true crime documentary. We’re going to go out and find out who did it” — because we all — everyone followed the story. You guys covered it in 2022. It was a huge story in the world.
But three years later, to not even know the name of the shooter — and I was, “Well, will we be able to find this out? It’s one of Israel’s most closely guarded secrets.” And yet, Dion and his team were able to do the reporting that got inside of Duvdevan, this elite special forces unit in Israel.
It literally means “the cherry on top.” That’s how proud they are of their eliteness. And yet, no matter how elite you are, Israel’s way of fighting wars means you kill innocent people.
And what comes out in the film from interviews, not just with a soldier, an Israeli soldier, who speaks in the film and talks about how, “Hey, if you see a camera, you take the shot,” but also speaking to Chris Van Hollen, United States Senator from Maryland, who’s been one of the few Democratic voices critical of Biden in the Senate, who says there’s been no change in Israel’s rules of engagement over the years.
And therefore, it was so important on multiple levels to do this film, to identify the shooter, because, of course, as you pointed out in your news headlines, Amy, they just killed a hundred Palestinians yesterday.
So this is not some old story from history where this happened in 2022 and we’re going back. Everything that happened since, you could argue, flows from that — the Americans who have been killed, the journalists who have been killed in Gaza, Palestinians, the sense of impunity that Israel has and Israel’s soldiers have.
There are reports that Israeli soldiers are saying to Palestinians, “Hey, Trump has our back. Hey, the US government has our back.” And it wasn’t just Trump. It was Joe Biden, too.
And that was why it was so important to make this film, to identify the shooter, to call out Israel’s practices when it comes to journalists, and to call out the US role.
AMY GOODMAN: I just want to go to Dion, for people who aren’t familiar with the progression of what the Biden administration said, the serious cover-up not only by Israel, but of its main military weapons supplier and supporter of its war on Gaza, and that is Joe Biden, from the beginning.
First Israel said it was a Palestinian militant. At that point, what did President Biden say?
DION NISSENBAUM: So, at the very beginning, they said that they wanted the shooter to be prosecuted. They used that word at the State Department and said, “This person who killed an American journalist should be prosecuted.” But when it started to become clear that it was probably an Israeli soldier, their tone shifted, and it became talking about vague calls for accountability or changes to the rules of engagement, which never actually happened.
So, you got to a point where the Israeli government admitted it was likely them, the US government called for them to change the rules of engagement, and the Israeli government said no. And we have this interview in the film with Senator Chris Van Hollen, who says that, essentially, Israel was giving the middle finger to the US government on this.
And we have seen, since that time, more Americans being killed in the West Bank, dozens and dozens and dozens of journalists being killed, with no accountability. And we would like to see that change.
This is a trajectory that you’re seeing. You know, the blue vest no longer provides any protection for journalists in Israel. The Israeli military itself has said that wearing a blue vest with “Press” on it does not necessarily mean that you are a journalist.
They are saying that terrorists wear blue vests, too. So, if you are a journalist operating in the West Bank now, you have to assume that the Israeli military could target you.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, let’s go to another clip from the film Who Killed Shireen?, which features Ali Samoudi, Shireen Abu Akleh’s producer, who was with Shireen when she was killed, and was himself shot and injured. In the clip, he speaks to the journalist Fatima AbdulKarim.
FATIMA ABDULKARIM: We are set up here now, even though we were supposed to meet at the location where you got injured and Shireen got killed.
ALI SAMOUDI: [translated] We are five minutes from the location in Maidan al-Awdah. But you could lose your soul in the five minutes it would take us to reach it. You could be hit by army bullets. They could arrest you.
So it is essentially impossible to get there. I believe the big disaster which prevented the occupation from being punished and repeating these crimes is the neglect and indifference by many of the institutions, especially American ones, which continue to defend the occupation.
FATIMA ABDULKARIM: [translated] We’re now approaching the third anniversary of Shireen’s death. How did that affect you?
ALI SAMOUDI: [translated] During that period, the occupation was making preparations for a dangerous scenario in the Jenin refugee camp. And for this reason, they didn’t want witnesses.
They opened fire on us in order to terroriSe us enough that we wouldn’t go back to the camp. And in that sense, they partially succeeded.
Since then, we have been overcome by fear. From the moment Shireen was killed, I said and continue to say and will continue to say that this bullet was meant to prevent the Palestinian media from the documentation and exposure of the occupation’s crimes.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: That was Ali Samoudi, Shireen Abu Akleh’s producer, who was with Shireen when she was killed, and was himself shot and injured.
We should note, Ali Samoudi was just detained by Israeli forces in late April. The Palestinian journalist Mariam Barghouti recently wrote, “Ali Samoudi was beaten so bad by Israeli soldiers he was immediately hospitalised. This man has been one of the few journalists that continues reporting on Israeli military abuses north of the West Bank despite the continued risk on his life,” Mariam Barghouti wrote.
The Committee to Protect Journalists spoke to the journalist’s son, Mohammed Al Samoudi, who told CPJ, quote, “My father suffers from several illnesses, including diabetes, high blood pressure, and a stomach ulcer . . . He needs a diabetes injection every two days and a specific diet. It appears he was subjected to assault and medical neglect at the interrogation center . . .
“Our lawyer told us he was transferred to an Israeli hospital after a major setback in his health. We don’t know where he is being held, interrogated, or even the hospital to which he was taken. My father has been forcibly disappeared,” he said.
So, Dion Nissenbaum, if you could give us the latest? You spoke to Ali Samoudi for the documentary, and now he’s been detained.
DION NISSENBAUM: Yeah. His words were prophetic, right? He talks about this was an attempt to silence journalists. And my colleague Fatima says the same thing, that these are ongoing, progressive efforts to silence Palestinian journalists.
And we don’t know where Ali is. He has not actually been charged with anything yet. He is one of the most respected journalists in the West Bank. And we are just seeing this progression going on.
AMY GOODMAN: So, the latest we know is he was supposed to have a hearing, and that hearing has now been delayed to May 13th, Ali Samoudi?
DION NISSENBAUM: That’s right. And he has yet to be charged, so . . .
AMY GOODMAN:I want to go back to Lina Abu Akleh, who’s in New Jersey, where Shireen grew up. Lina, you were listed on Time magazine’s 100 emerging leaders for publicly demanding scrutiny of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, the horror.
And again, our condolences on the death of your aunt, on the killing of your aunt, and also to Anton, Shireen’s brother. Lina, you’ve also, of course, spoken to Ali Samoudi. This continues now. He’s in detention — his son says, “just disappeared”.
What are you demanding right now? We have a new administration. We’ve moved from the Biden administration to the Trump administration. And are you in touch with them? Are they speaking to you?
LINA ABU AKLEH: Well, our demands haven’t changed. From day one, we’re calling for the US administration to complete its investigation, or for the FBI to continue its investigation, and to finally release — to finally hold someone to account.
And we have enough evidence that could have been — that the administration could have used to expedite this case. But, unfortunately, this new administration, as well, no one has spoken to us. We haven’t been in touch with anyone, and it’s just been radio silence since.
For us, as I said, our demands have never changed. It’s been always to hold the entire system to account, the entire chain of command, the military, for the killing of an American citizen, a journalist, a Palestinian, Palestinian American journalist.
As we’ve been talking, targeting journalists isn’t happening just by shooting at them or killing them. There’s so many different forms of targeting journalists, especially in Gaza and the West Bank and Jerusalem.
So, for us, it’s really important as a family that we don’t see other families experience what we are going through, for this — for impunity, for Israel’s impunity, to end, because, at the end of the day, accountability is the only way to put an end to this impunity.
AMY GOODMAN: I am horrified to ask this question to Shireen’s family members, to Lina, to Tony, Shireen’s brother, but the revelation in the film — we were all there last night at its premiere in New York — that the Israeli soldiers are using a photograph of Shireen’s face for target practice. Tony Abu Akleh, if you could respond?
ANTON ABU AKLEH: You know, there is no words to describe our sorrow and pain hearing this. But, you know, I would just want to know why. Why would they do this thing? What did Shireen do to them for them to use her as a target practice? You know, this is absolutely barbaric act, unjustified. Unjustified.
And we really hope that this US administration will be able to put an end to all this impunity they are enjoying. If they didn’t enjoy all this impunity, they wouldn’t have been doing this. Practising on a journalist? Why? You know, you can practice on anything, but on a journalist?
This shows that this targeting of more journalists, whether in Gaza, in Palestine, it’s systematic. It’s been planned for. And they’ve been targeting and shutting off those voices, those reports, from reaching anywhere in the world.
NERMEEN SHAIKH:And, Anton, if you could say — you know, you mentioned last night, as well, Shireen was, in fact, extremely cautious as a journalist. If you could elaborate on that? What precisely —
ANTON ABU AKLEH: Absolutely. Absolutely. Shireen was very careful. Every time she’s in the field, she would take her time to put on the gear, the required helmet, the vest with “press” written on it, before going there. She also tried to identify herself as a journalist, whether to the Israelis or to the Palestinians, so she’s not attacked.
And she always went by the book, followed the rules, how to act, how to be careful, how to speak to those people involved, so she can protect herself. But, unfortunately, he was — this soldier, as stated in the documentary, targeted Shireen just because she’s Shireen and she’s a journalist. That’s it. There is no other explanation.
Sixteen bullets were fired on Shireen. Not even her helmet, nor the vest she was wearing, were able to protect her, unfortunately.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Mehdi Hasan, you wanted to respond.
MEHDI HASAN: So, Tony asks, “Why? Why would you do this? Why would you target not just a journalist in the field, but then use her face for target practice?” — as Dion and his team reveal in the film. And there is, unfortunately, a very simple answer to that question, which is that the Israeli military — and not just the Israeli military, but many people in our world today — have dehumanised Palestinians.
There is the removal of humanity from the people you are oppressing, occupying, subjugating and killing. It doesn’t matter if you’re an American citizen. It doesn’t matter if you have a press jacket on. It only matters that you are Palestinian in the sniper’s sights.
And that is how they have managed to pull of the killing of so many journalists, so many children. The first documentary we commissioned last year was called Israel’s Real Extremism, and it was about the Israeli soldiers who go into Gaza and make TikTok videos wearing Palestinian women’s underwear, playing with Palestinian children’s toys. It is the ultimate form of dehumanisation, the idea that these people don’t count, their lives have no value.
And what’s so tragic and shocking — and the film exposes this — is that Joe Biden — forget the Israeli military — Joe Biden also joined in that dehumanisation. Do you remember at the start of this conflict when he comes out and he says, “Well, I’m not sure I believe the Palestinian death toll numbers,” when he puts out a statement at the hundred days after October 7th and doesn’t mention Palestinian casualties.
And that has been the fundamental problem. This was the great comforter-in-chief. Joe Biden was supposed to be the empath. And yet, as Tony points out, what was so shocking in the film is he didn’t even raise Shireen’s case with Naftali Bennett, the prime minister of Israel at the time.
Again, would he have done that if it was an American journalist in Moscow? We know that’s not the case. We know when American journalists, especially white American journalists, are taken elsewhere in the world, the government gives a damn. And yet, in the case of Shireen, the only explanation is because she was a Palestinian American journalist.
AMY GOODMAN:You know, in the United States, the US government is responsible for American citizens, which Biden pointed out at the beginning, when he thought it was a Palestinian militant who had killed her. But, Lina, you yourself are a journalist. And I’m thinking I want to hear your response to using her face, because, of course, that is not just the face of Shireen, but I think it’s the face of journalism.
And it’s not just American journalism, of course. I mean, in fact, she’s known to hundreds of millions of people around world as the face and voice of Al Jazeera Arabic. She spoke in Arabic. She was known as that to the rest of the world. But to see that and that revealed in this documentary?
LINA ABU AKLEH: Yeah, it was horrifying, actually. And it just goes on to show how the Israeli military is built. It’s barbarism. It’s the character of revenge, of hate. And that is part of the entire system. And as Mehdi and as my father just mentioned, this is all about dehumanizing Palestinians, regardless if they’re journalists, if they’re doctors, they’re officials. For them, they simply don’t care about Palestinian lives.
And for us, Shireen will always be the voice of Palestine. And she continues to be remembered for the legacy that she left behind. And she continues to live through so many, so many journalists, who have picked up the microphone, who have picked up the camera, just because of Shireen.
So, regardless of how the Israeli military continues to dehumanise journalists and how the US fails to protect Palestinian American journalists, we will continue to push forward to continue to highlight the life and the legacy that Shireen left behind.
NERMEEN SHAIKH:Well, let’s turn to Shireen Abu Akleh in her own words. This is an excerpt from the Al Jazeera English documentary The Killing of Shireen Abu Akleh.
SHIREEN ABU AKLEH: [translated] Sometimes the Israeli army doesn’t want you there, so they target you, even if they later say it was an accident. They might say, “We saw some young men around you.” So they target you on purpose, as a way of scaring you off because they don’t want you there.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, that was Shireen in her own words in an Al Jazeera documentary. So, Lina, I know you have to go soon, but if you could just tell us: What do you want people to know about Shireen, as an aunt, a sister and a journalist?
LINA ABU AKLEH: Yes, so, we know Shireen as the journalist, but behind the camera, she was one of the most empathetic people. She was very sincere. And something not a lot of people know, but she was a very funny person. She had a very unique sense of humor, that she lit up every room she entered. She cared about everyone and anyone. She enjoyed life.
Shireen, at the end of the day, loved life. She had plans. She had dreams that she still wanted to achieve. But her life was cut short by that small bullet, which would change our lives entirely.
But at the end of the day, Shireen was a professional journalist who always advocated for truth, for justice. And at the end of the day, all she wanted to do was humanise Palestinians and talk about the struggles of living under occupation. But at the same time, she wanted to celebrate their achievements.
She shed light on all the happy moments, all the accomplishments of the Palestinian people. And this is something that really touched millions of Palestinians, of Arabs around the world. She was able to enter the hearts of the people through the small camera lens. And until this day, she continues to be remembered for that.
AMY GOODMAN: Before we go, we’re going to keep you on, Mehdi, to talk about other issues during the Trump administration, but how can people access Who Killed Shireen?
MEHDI HASAN: So, it’s available online at WhoKilledShireen.com, is where you can go to watch it. We are releasing the film right now only to paid subscribers. We hope to change that in the forthcoming days.
People often say to me, “How can you put it behind a paywall?” Journalism — a free press isn’t free, sadly. We have to fund films like this. Dion came to us because a lot of other people didn’t want to fund a topic like this, didn’t want to fund an investigation like this.
So, we’re proud to be able to fund such documentaries, but we also need support from our contributors, our subscribers and the viewers. But it’s an important film, and I hope as many people will watch it as possible, WhoKilledShireen.com.
AMY GOODMAN:We want to thank Lina, the niece of Shireen Abu Akleh, and Anton, Tony, the older brother of Shireen Abu Akleh, for joining us from New Jersey. Together, we saw the documentary last night, Who Killed Shireen? And we want to thank Dion Nissenbaum, who is the filmmaker, the correspondent on this film, formerly a correspondent with The Wall Street Journal. The founder of Zeteo, on this first anniversary of Zeteo, is Mehdi Hasan.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
BEIJING, May 10 (Xinhua) — Chinese President Xi Jinping recently published an article entitled “Lessons from the Past for the Future” in the Rossiyskaya Gazeta newspaper, stressing the need to learn from history, draw wisdom and strength from the profound experience of World War II and the great victory in the World Anti-Fascist War, resolutely oppose all forms of hegemonism and power politics, and jointly create a better future for humanity.
Representatives of many countries told Xinhua that in this article, the Chinese leader, based on the common interests of all mankind, looks at both the past and the present and puts forward a series of important proposals. Today, when unilateralism, hegemonism, tyranny and bullying have become serious threats, all countries in the world should stand on the right side of history, the side of justice, resolutely safeguard the post-war world order, firmly uphold international justice and work together for a bright future for mankind.
“TO PROTECT HISTORICAL TRUTH, WE MUST WORK HARD”
On the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the Victory of the Chinese People in the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression and the Victory of the Soviet Union in the Great Patriotic War, Chinese President Xi Jinping emphasized that holding a correct view of the history of World War II is of great practical importance. In his opinion piece, the Chinese leader quoted a line from the well-known Soviet song “Katyusha”: “Apple and pear trees were in bloom.” This not only reminded us of the shared historical memory of the two peoples who fought shoulder to shoulder in World War II, but also that Russian-Chinese friendship has only grown stronger,” said Alexei Rodionov, a sinologist and professor at St. Petersburg State University.
“The air raid sirens for the victims of the Nanjing Massacre still sound, and the railway tracks in front of the Auschwitz concentration camp still gleam coldly,” said Virun Phichaiwonphakdee, director of the Thailand-China Belt and Road Studies Center. “Historical memory and truth that are not erased by time provide us with inspiration and lessons, always reminding us of reality and pointing the way to the future,” he quoted Xi Jinping as saying. “Victory in World War II was achieved at the cost of blood and sacrifice. Protecting history is not only respecting history, but also protecting justice in the modern world,” the expert noted.
“Any attempt to distort the historical truth about World War II and deny the victory in World War II will not succeed. The people of the world will not tolerate attempts to turn back history,” said Japanese biological weapons expert, Professor Emeritus of Shiga Medical University Kazuo Nishiyama. He fully agrees that humanity should draw wisdom and strength from the profound lessons of World War II and the great victory in the anti-fascist war. “In order to protect the historical truth, it is still necessary to work tirelessly to prevent the repetition of tragedies in the future,” the scientist believes.
“World War II is a tragedy for all of humanity. We must tell history in a comprehensive and truthful manner, deeply understand the atrocities of war, and strengthen education for peace,” said Pawel Machcewicz, founding director of the Museum of World War II in Gdansk, Poland.
“For Serbia, Xi Jinping’s article carries an important message: defending the truth requires great efforts. The state visit of President Xi Jinping to Russia is such an effort,” said Aleksandar Mitic, a research fellow at the Serbian Institute of International Politics and Economics. “Unfortunately, we still see how certain Western forces are trying to downplay the enormous sacrifices and contributions of China, Russia, Serbia and other countries to the historic victory over fascism and militarism, but these attempts are doomed to failure,” he said.
According to French entrepreneur and commentator Arnaud Bertrand, Xi Jinping’s article contains many profound thoughts, especially when he compares the past and the present, points out that humanity is once again at a crossroads of “solidarity or division, dialogue or confrontation, win-win or zero-sum game,” and declares the need to resolutely defend the post-war international order and the authority of the UN. “President Xi Jinping’s opinion piece is a window into China’s contemporary strategic thinking. As a defender of the post-war world order, China is committed to countering hegemonic forces and is an important power that upholds the multilateral system and international law,” A. Bertrand noted.
“CHINA, AS THE MAIN THEATER OF MILITARY OPERATIONS IN THE EAST, MADE AN OUTSTANDING CONTRIBUTION TO THE VICTORY IN WORLD WAR II”
In his opinion article, Xi Jinping emphasized that, as the main theaters of military operations in Asia and Europe, China and the Soviet Union bore the brunt of the attacks of militaristic Japan and Nazi Germany, and made a decisive contribution to the victory in the World Anti-Fascist War. The international community generally believes that the victory on the main eastern front completely destroyed the ambitions of militarism and fascism and was of great global significance.
“The victory was achieved thanks to the joint efforts of the anti-Hitler coalition, and the USSR and China were its most important part,” emphasized the scientific secretary of the Victory Museum in Moscow Boris Cheltsov. According to him, the peoples of the USSR and China fought shoulder to shoulder against fascism and militarism, supporting each other. As the main theater of military operations in the East, China made an invaluable contribution to the final defeat of Japanese militarism and the victory over fascism due to the enormous sacrifice of the entire people.
Guzel Maitdinova, Director of the Center for Geopolitical Studies at the Russian-Tajik /Slavonic/ University, noted that China has always been the main force in the fight against Japanese militarism, and most of the Japanese army was held back on the Chinese front. The Chinese people, having made enormous sacrifices, held the main eastern front and made an outstanding contribution to the victory in World War II, she added.
“Without China, World War II might not have ended in 1945,” said Faruk Borić, chairman of the Bosnian-Chinese Friendship Association. According to him, the front in China effectively held back the Japanese invaders and provided valuable time for victory in Europe, playing an important role in the global fight against fascism. He also noted that as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, China has always actively supported the multilateral order, firmly upholding the international system with the UN as the core and the world order based on international law. “China’s respect for history makes it an indispensable force in maintaining world peace,” the expert said.
President Xi Jinping has emphasized that Taiwan’s return to China is an important part of the outcome of World War II and the post-war world order. Gu Xuewu, Director of the Center for Global Studies at the University of Bonn in Germany, noted that Taiwan’s return was one of the outcomes of the victory in World War II and was widely recognized by the international community. Undermining these outcomes would seriously disrupt the existing world order.
Muhab Nassar, an associate professor of international law at Cairo University, said China’s sovereignty over Taiwan is a legally justified and recognized fact. Xi Jinping’s opinion piece once again expressed a firm position: the Taiwan issue concerns China’s fundamental interests, which China will not compromise under any circumstances.
“TO ACHIEVE UNIVERSAL DEVELOPMENT AND PROSPERITY, THE WORLD NEEDS JUSTICE, NOT HEGEMONY”
In his opinion article, President Xi Jinping stated that today’s world still faces a growing deficit in peace, development, security and governance. The vision of a community with a shared future for humanity, the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative and the Global Civilization Initiative are designed to address this deficit, actively participate and join forces with other countries in advancing the reform of the global governance system through the prism of justice and fairness.
Akkan Suver, chairman of Turkey’s Marmara Group Foundation for Strategic and Social Research, said the three global initiatives proposed by Xi Jinping “represent a fair concept of global governance that truly protects multilateralism.” “Amid the rise of unilateralism, China firmly opposes any form of hegemony and power politics, and is committed to upholding the international order and norms that serve the interests of developing countries. In the face of multiple conflicts, the world needs dialogue and cooperation rather than division, and global development needs reason and conscience rather than dictate,” he said.
General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Kurdistan operating in Iraq Kawa Mahmud fully agrees with Xi Jinping’s statement that “the world needs justice, not hegemony.” He noted that today’s world still suffers from manifestations of hegemonism and power politics, which only increases uncertainty in the international situation. “To achieve universal development and prosperity, the world needs justice, not hegemony. Only a fair and rational system of global governance can meet the interests of all countries. The formation of a multipolar world based on mutual respect and mutual benefit has become the consensus of most states,” the politician emphasized.
“The Middle East has long been an arena of instability, from the war in Iraq to the Syrian crisis, the conflict in Yemen and the Palestinian-Israeli issue. The peace deficit is only getting worse,” said Abdullah al-Dosari, editor-in-chief of the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Arab, after reading Xi Jinping’s article. “The concept of a community with a common destiny for humanity that he proposed, the emphasis on dialogue rather than confrontation, on partnership rather than the creation of blocs, on mutually beneficial cooperation rather than a zero-sum game – all of this is important for ensuring peace and stability in the region,” the editor-in-chief is confident.
Qaiser Nawab, Chairman of Pakistan’s Belt and Road Organization for Sustainable Development, said President Xi Jinping had deeply revealed China’s understanding of the world order, emphasizing dialogue, common development and respect for diversity, and calling for a more inclusive and fair international governance system. He said China’s three global initiatives are helping to shape a fairer and more inclusive world.
“In his article, President Xi Jinping noted that light will dispel darkness, and justice will ultimately triumph over evil. This is not only a profound summary of the historical lessons of World War II, but also a reflection of the realities of the modern world: peace and justice do not come naturally, they must be firmly defended,” said Chuan Keng Koon, director of the Sun Yat-sen Centre of the Penang Science Society (Malaysia). “Today, when we recall that history, we do not do so for the sake of inciting hatred, but to gain wisdom and strength. By learning from the past, we resolutely oppose hegemonism and power politics, and always uphold the path of peace, development and mutually beneficial cooperation,” the expert emphasized. –0–
HDOA and County of Hawaii Continue Coconut Rhinoceros Beetle Treatments at Kona Airport
Posted on May 9, 2025 in Main
May 9, 2025 NR25-11
HONOLULU – The Hawai‘i Department of Agriculture (HDOA), with the assistance of the County of Hawai‘i Public Works Department (COH-PWD), began another round of treatment of palm trees at the Ellison Onizuka Kona International Airport (KOA) on Tuesday, May 6, in an effort to stop the coconut rhinoceros beetle (CRB) from becoming established on Hawai‘i Island. This was a follow-up to treatment conducted last month at the airport.(Link to previous news release: https://hdoa.hawaii.gov/blog/main/nr25-08-konacrbtreatments/ )
“It really is ‘all hands on deck’ in West Hawai‘i and all our partner agencies are dedicating everything they have to stop the establishment of CRB on Hawai‘i Island,” said Sharon Hurd, chairperson of the Hawai‘i Board of Agriculture. “Mahalo, again, to Mayor Kimo Alameda and his public works crew– their resources and assistance have been phenomenal in this coordinated effort.”
The County of Hawai‘i and HDOA have been working collaboratively since January 2025 after CRB was detected in the Kona area. COH-PWD has been providing the assistance of their boom trucks to treat the tops of palm trees.
The following is a brief timeline of detections and intense treatments around West Hawai‘i:
October 2023
A Waikoloa resident found six grubs (larvae) in a decaying palm tree stump. Increased surveillance continued throughout the island and more intensely on the Kona side.
April 2024
The Big Island Invasive Species Committee (BIISC) reported that four adult CRB were found in three traps in the Waikoloa area.
September 2024
HDOA Plant Pest Control (PPC) personnel found a single CRB in a trap during routine monitoring in Waikoloa.
January 2025
The County of Hawai‘i offered its resources and assistance to HDOA, including the use of its 75-foot boom truck to treat the crowns of palm trees.
Jan. 14, 2025
Waikoloa Village – HDOA/COH team treated a total of 38 trees via crown treatments and 24 trees were treated via an injection system which provides systemic protection against CRB.
March 3, 2025
BIISC reported one adult CRB in a detection trap along the boundary of KOA. A day later, BIISC reported that two more adult CRBs were found in traps at the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawai‘i (NELHA).
March 14-19 2025
KOA – HDOA/COH and KOA airport staff used two boom trucks to treat 123 trees on the airport grounds and injected 12 more trees that were inaccessible to the boom trucks.
April 7 & 8, 2025
NELHA – HDOA/COH crews treated the crowns of 44 trees and injected 14 trees due to the close proximity to water.
April 15, 16 & 21, 2025
Honokōhau Small Boat Harbor and Marina – HDOA/COH crews treated 313 crowns and treated 50+ trees via injection due to the close proximity to water.
April 24, 2025
West Hawai‘i Veteran’s Cemetery – 13 crowns treated. BIISC had reported finding one wing of an adult CRB. Although a full specimen was not found, HDOA treated all palms on the site as a precaution.
May 6, 2025
KOA – HDOA/COH and Kona airport staff treated 86 palms via crown application.
May 2025
Treatment at the Keāhole Ag Park is being scheduled later this month.
Ongoing
Surveillance for CRB continues around Hawai‘i Island by HDOA, BIISC, University of Hawai‘i, the County of Hawai‘i and the state Department of Health Vector Control Branch.
March 2025 to present
A total of 10 adult CRB have been reported in the areas of Keāhole Ag Park, NELHA, O‘oma, Kohanaiki and KOA.
Staff from HDOA’s Plant Pest Control Branch and Pesticides Branch applied the treatments, both on the crown of the trees and via injection into the trees when necessary. All palms that were treated were tagged and surrounded with yellow tape to indicate treatment. Coconuts from treated trees should not be consumed. Questions regarding pesticide use may be addressed to HDOA’s Pesticides Branch at 808-973-9402.
Residents on all islands are asked to be vigilant when purchasing mulch, compost and soil products, and to inspect bags for evidence of entry holes. CRB breed in decomposing plant and animal waste. An adult beetle is about 2-inches long, all black and has a single horn on its head. CRB leave distinctive V-shaped cuts and/or scalloped edges in palm leaves and bore holes may be visible in the trunks.
Residents may go to the CRB Response website at: https://www.crbhawaii.org/ to learn more about how to detect the signs of CRB damage and how to identify CRB life stages. Reports of possible CRB infestation may also be made to the state’s toll-free Pest Hotline at 808-643-PEST (7378).
# # #
Link to video by County of Hawai‘i: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sfY1cZxHJkVQeTkQzs2hPCRmzbO_RX54/view?usp=share_link
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on May 10, 2025.
Tracing radiation through the Marshall Islands: Reflections from a veteran Greenpeace nuclear campaigner SPECIAL REPORT: By Shaun Burnie of Greenpeace We’ve visited Ground Zero. Not once, but three times. But for generations, before these locations were designated as such, they were the ancestral home to the people of the Marshall Islands. As part of a team of Greenpeace scientists and specialists from the Radiation Protection Advisers team, we
USP World Press Freedom Day warnings over AI, legal reform and media safety World Press Freedom Day is not just a celebration of the vital role journalism plays — it is also a moment to reflect on the pressures facing the profession and Pacific governments’ responsibility to protect it. This was one of the key messages delivered by two guest speakers at The University of the South Pacific
Labor likely to gain 5 senators, cementing the left’s Senate dominance Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne I previously wrote about the Senate the morning after the election. About half the Senate is elected at each House of Representatives election. Those up for election
The Kiwi heart surgeon, his wife and the film maker in Palestine Auckland film maker Paula Whetu Jones has spent nearly two decades working pro bono on a feature film about the Auckland cardiac surgeon Alan Kerr, which is finally now in cinemas. She is best known for co-writing and directing Whina, the feature film about Dame Whina Cooper. She filmed Dr Kerr and his wife Hazel
Glyn Davis to quit as the prime minister’s top public servant Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra Glyn Davis, Anthony Albanese’s hand-picked Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, will leave the post on June 16. Albanese paid tribute to Davis for rebuilding the public service. “One of the key priorities of our government’s
Keith Rankin Analysis – Make Deficits Great Again: Maintaining a Pragmatic Balance Analysis by Keith Rankin. Donald Trump is a mercantilist, as noted in Trump’s tariffs: Short-term damage or long-term ruin? ‘The Bottom Line’, Al Jazeera, 11 April 2025 (or here on YouTube). But the United States, in today’s world, is not a mercantilist country. Or at least not a successful mercantilist country, though it is inhabited
It’s almost winter. Why is Australia still so hot? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew King, Associate Professor in Climate Science, ARC Centre of Excellence for 21st Century Weather, The University of Melbourne This year, for many Australians, it feels like summer never left. The sunny days and warm nights have continued well into autumn. Even now, in May, it’s still
Labor has promised to tackle homelessness. Here’s what homeless people say they need Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robyn Martin, Associate Dean, Social Work and Human Services, RMIT University Pressmaster/Shutterstock The 2025 election is over and now it’s time for Labor to deliver on campaign promises to address homelessness. Action on homelessness is long overdue. Affordable housing options remain scarce and public and community housing
View from The Hill: two ministers and the Nationals discover the limits of loyalty in politics Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra Labor’s extraordinary election result has triggered a power play that has exposed the uglier entrails of Labor factionalism. Even before the new caucus met in Canberra on Friday, the Labor right had dumped two of its cabinet ministers: Attorney-General Mark
What’s the difference between probiotics and prebiotics? A dietitian explains Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Evangeline Mantzioris, Program Director of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Accredited Practising Dietitian, University of South Australia Simply Amazing/Shutterstock If you walk through your local pharmacy or supermarket you’re bound to come across probiotics and prebiotics. They’re added to certain foods. They come as supplements you can drink
What will the Antichrist look like? According to Western thought, an authoritarian king – or the pope Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Philip C. Almond, Emeritus Professor in the History of Religious Thought, The University of Queensland Composite image by The Conversation. Images courtesy of TruthSocial/@realDonaldTrump and Wikimedia Commons The US presidency and the papacy came together on May 3 when Donald Trump posted an AI-generated photograph of himself
Students from the University of Massachusetts Amherst team carry their high-powered rocket toward the launch pad at NASA’s 2025 Student Launch launch day competition in Toney, Alabama, on April 4, 2025. More than 980 middle school, high school, and college students from across the nation launched more than 40 high-powered amateur rockets just north of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. This year marked the 25th anniversary of the competition. To compete, students follow the NASA engineering design lifecycle by going through a series of reviews for nine months leading up to launch day. Each year, a payload challenge is issued to the university teams, and this year’s task focused on communication. Teams were required to have “reports” from STEMnauts, non-living objects inside their rocket, that had to relay real-time data to the student team’s mission control. This Artemis Student Challenge took inspiration from the agency’s Artemis missions, where NASA will send astronauts to explore the Moon for scientific discovery, economic benefit, and to build the foundation for the first crewed missions to Mars. See highlights from the 2025 Student Launch. Text credit: NASA/Janet Sudnik Image credit: NASA/Charles Beason
One year on, NASA scientists are still making huge discoveries about the largest geomagnetic storm to hit Earth in two decades, the Gannon storm. The findings are helping us better understand and prepare for the ways in which the Sun’s activity can affect us.
[embedded content] On May 10, 2024, the first G5 or “severe” geomagnetic storm in over two decades hit Earth. The event did not cause any catastrophic damages, but it did produce surprising effects on Earth. The storm, which has been called the best-documented geomagnetic storm in history, spread auroras to unusually low latitudes and produced effects spanning from the ground to near-Earth space. Data captured during this historic event will be analyzed for years to come, revealing new lessons about the nature of geomagnetic storms and how best to weather them. Credit: NASA/Joy Ng
One year ago today, representatives from NASA and about 30 other U.S. government agencies gathered for a special meeting to simulate and address a threat looming in space. The threat was not an asteroid or aliens, but our very own life-giving Sun. The inaugural Space Weather Tabletop Exercise was supposed to be a training event, where experts could work through the real-time ramifications of a geomagnetic storm, a global disruption to Earth’s magnetic field. Driven by solar eruptions, geomagnetic storms can decimate satellites, overload electrical grids, and expose astronauts to dangerous radiation. Minimizing the impacts of such storms requires close coordination, and this meeting was their chance to practice. Then, their simulation turned into reality. “The plan was to run through a hypothetical scenario, finding where our existing processes worked and where they needed improvement,” said Jamie Favors, director of NASA’s Space Weather Program at NASA Headquarters in Washington. “But then our hypothetical scenario was interrupted by a very real one.” On May 10, 2024, the first G5 or “severe” geomagnetic storm in over two decades hit Earth. The event, named the Gannon storm in memory of leading space weather physicist Jennifer Gannon, did not cause any catastrophic damages. But a year on, key insights from the Gannon storm are helping us understand and prepare for future geomagnetic storms.
The Gannon storm had effects on and off our planet. On the ground, some high-voltage lines tripped, transformers overheated, and GPS-guided tractors veered off-course in the Midwestern U.S., further disrupting planting that had already been delayed by heavy rains that spring.
“Not all farms were affected, but those that were lost on average about $17,000 per farm,” said Terry Griffin, a professor of Agricultural Economics at Kansas State University. “It’s not catastrophic, but they’ll miss it.” In the air, the threat of higher radiation exposure, as well as communication and navigation losses, forced trans-Atlantic flights to change course.
During the storm, Earth’s upper atmospheric layer called the thermosphere heated to unusually high temperatures. At 100 miles altitude, the temperature typically peaks at 1,200 degrees Fahrenheit, but during the storm it surpassed 2,100 degrees Fahrenheit. NASA’s GOLD (Global-scale Observations of the Limb and Disk) mission observed the atmosphere expanding from the heat to create a strong wind that lofted heavy nitrogen particles higher.
In orbit, the expanded atmosphere increased drag on thousands of satellites. NASA’s ICESat-2 lost altitude and entered safe mode while NASA’s Colorado Inner Radiation Belt Experiment (CIRBE) CubeSat deorbited prematurely five months after the storm. Others, such as the European Space Agency’s Sentinel mission, required more power to maintain their orbits and perform maneuvers to avoid collisions with space debris. The storm also dramatically changed the structure of an atmospheric layer called the ionosphere. A dense zone of the ionosphere that normally covers the equator at night dipped toward the South Pole in a check mark shape, causing a temporary gap near the equator. The Gannon storm also rocked Earth’s magnetosphere, the magnetic bubble surrounding the planet. Data from NASA missions MMS (Magnetospheric Multiscale) and THEMIS-ARTEMIS — short for Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions-Acceleration, Reconnection, Turbulence and Electrodynamics of the Moon’s Interaction with the Sun — saw giant, curling waves of particles and rolled-up magnetic fields along the edge of the CMEs. These waves were perfectly sized to periodically dump extra magnetic energy and mass into the magnetosphere upon impact, creating the largest electrical current seen in the magnetosphere in 20 years. Incoming energy and particles from the Sun also created two new temporary belts of energetic particles within the magnetosphere. Discovered by CIRBE, these belts formed between the Van Allen radiation belts that permanently surround Earth. The belt’s discovery is important to spacecraft and astronauts that can be imperiled by high-energy electrons and protons in the belts.
The storm also ignited auroras around the globe, including places where these celestial light shows are rare. NASA’s Aurorasaurus project was flooded with more than 6,000 observer reports from over 55 countries and all seven continents. Photographers helped scientists understand why auroras observed throughout Japan were magenta rather than the typical red. Researchers studied hundreds of photos and found the auroras were surprisingly high — around 600 miles above the ground (200 miles higher than red auroras typically appear).
In a paper published in the journal Scientific Reports, the research team says the peculiar color likely resulted from a mix of red and blue auroras, produced by oxygen and nitrogen molecules lofted higher than usual as the Gannon storm heated and expanded the upper atmosphere. “It typically needs some special circumstances, like we saw last May,” co-author Josh Pettit of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center said of Japan’s magenta auroras. “A very unique event indeed.”
Impacts of the Sun’s amped-up solar activity didn’t end at Earth. The solar active region that sparked the Gannon storm eventually rotated away from our planet and redirected its outbursts toward Mars. As energetic particles from the Sun struck the Martian atmosphere, NASA’s MAVEN (Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution) orbiter watched auroras engulf the Red Planet from May 14 to 20.
Solar particles overwhelmed the star camera on NASA’s 2001 Mars Odyssey orbiter (which uses stars to orient the spacecraft), causing the camera to cut out for almost an hour. On the Martian surface, images from the navigation cameras on NASA’s Curiosity rover were freckled with “snow” — streaks and specks caused by charged particles. Meanwhile, Curiosity’s Radiation Assessment Detector recorded the biggest surge of radiation since the rover landed in 2012. If astronauts had been there, they would have received a radiation dose of 8,100 micrograys — equivalent to 30 chest X-rays.
The Gannon storm spread auroras to unusually low latitudes and has been called the best-documented geomagnetic storm in history. A year on, we have just begun unraveling its story. Data captured during this historic event will be analyzed for years to come, revealing new lessons about the nature of geomagnetic storms and how best to weather them.
By Mara Johnson-Groh, Miles Hatfield, and Vanessa ThomasNASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
Speech by Isabel Schnabel, Member of the Executive Board of the ECB, at Hoover Monetary Policy Conference “Finishing the Job and New Challenges”, Stanford University
Stanford, 10 May 2025
Standard theory of monetary policy rests on a simple premise: a stable relationship between inflation and the output gap. This is the logic behind the Phillips curve, which, in its most common form, relates inflation to a measure of economic slack, expected inflation and supply shocks.[1]
The relationship between output and inflation was already under scrutiny well before the pandemic.
After the global financial crisis of 2008, inflation didn’t fall nearly as much as had been implied by conventional Phillips curve estimates. And once economies around the world recovered and unemployment fell, the bounce-back in inflation fell short of model predictions.
This is why that episode is known as the period of “missing deflation” and “missing inflation”.[2]
The situation changed fundamentally in the aftermath of the pandemic, when the relationship between inflation and the output gap proved to be much stronger than what would have been expected based on historical estimates. We observed a noticeably steeper Phillips curve across advanced economies, including the euro area (Slide 2).[3]
In my remarks today, I would like to draw lessons from the instability of the Phillips curve over the past 20 years for the optimal conduct of monetary policy. I will argue that the evidence of a re-flattening of the Phillips curve after the long period of high inflation suggests that, in the euro area, the most appropriate policy response to the potential risks to price stability arising from fiscal expansion and protectionism is to keep a steady hand and maintain rates close to where they are today – that is, firmly in neutral territory.
Monetary policy and the slope of the Phillips curve
The slope of the Phillips curve has first-order implications for the conduct of monetary policy.
If the curve is steep, as it appeared to be in recent years, monetary policy is highly effective in reducing inflation, with only a limited impact on growth and employment. The smaller “sacrifice ratio” suggests that central banks should react more forcefully to deviations of inflation from target, even when the economy is hit by a supply shock that pushes inflation up and output down.[4]
A steep Phillips curve hence improves the trade-off facing central banks, weakening the case for “looking through”, as forceful policy action minimises the risks of inflation expectations unanchoring and of inflation becoming entrenched.[5]
Policy prescriptions differ fundamentally if the Phillips curve is flat.
In this case, a large policy impulse is required to move output sufficiently to generate aggregate price effects. It can then be optimal for policy to tolerate moderate deviations of inflation from target, as the cost of closing a small inflation gap relative to the target may exceed the benefits.
This prescription holds in both directions.
When inflation is above the target, a flat Phillips curve would require a sharp rise in policy rates to bring medium-term inflation down from, say, 2.3% to 2%. Such a course of action may imply a substantial rise in unemployment and may thus not be welfare-improving for society at large – a trade-off central banks may face during the last mile of disinflation.[6]
The experience of the 2010s, when inflation was persistently below the target, demonstrates that the argument also holds in the opposite direction.
If bringing inflation up from 1.7% to 2%, for example, requires purchasing a large fraction of outstanding government bonds and making potentially time-inconsistent promises about the future path of interest rates, then the central bank must consider carefully whether the benefits outweigh the costs, such as making losses in the future, market dysfunction, rising wealth inequality, financial instability and threats to its reputation.[7]
The role of inflation expectations
However, the ability to tolerate moderate deviations of inflation from target critically hinges on a firm anchoring of inflation expectations – that is, a low sensitivity of inflation expectations to realised inflation.
If inflation expectations are well-anchored, policymakers can tolerate moderate deviations from target, as fluctuations in inflation tend to fade away. If, however, inflation expectations are at risk of unanchoring, central banks should act forcefully.[8]
There are two challenges to this strategy.
One is that the anchoring of inflation expectations is endogenous. Central banks themselves can cause an unanchoring if inaction in the face of price shocks is perceived as weakening its commitment to securing price stability.[9]
History shows that it can be costly to reestablish the credibility of the nominal anchor once it has been lost. This is also because inflation expectations are path-dependent. Research shows that the experience of high inflation may raise the sensitivity of inflation expectations to new inflation surprises.[10]
The other challenge is that different measures of inflation expectations often yield different results (Slide 3). As such, robust trends cannot easily be identified in real time, much like the slope of the Phillips curve.[11]
Measures of inflation expectations can even point in opposite directions. Research from the early days of the pandemic showed that most consumers expected the pandemic to raise prices, contrary to the views held by professional forecasters at the time.[12]
State-dependent pricing and tight labour markets can explain steeper Phillips curve and post-pandemic inflation surge
The recent period of high inflation illustrates how sensitive policy conclusions can be to the assessment of the slope of the Phillips curve and to measures of inflation expectations that central banks use in their analysis.
Two key theories have been proposed to explain the post-pandemic inflation surge.[13]
The first relates to firms’ price-setting behaviour.
Standard New Keynesian models assume that the probability of firms resetting their prices is constant over time. This is a fair description of aggregate price movements when inflation is low and aggregate shocks are small (Slide 4).
However, the past few years have demonstrated that this “linear” relationship breaks down in the face of large shocks.[14] When marginal costs increase rapidly and threaten to erode profit margins, firms tend to raise their prices more frequently. As a result, the Phillips curve steepens.
This feedback loop is strongly asymmetric.[15] It acts as an inflation accelerator when firms face positive demand or adverse cost-push shocks.[16] But it does little to firms’ pricing strategies in the face of disinflationary shocks due to downward price rigidities.
This helps explain why inflation did not fall much when the pandemic broke out but increased sharply after the reopening of our economies (Slide 5).[17]
The second theory relates to the tightness of the labour market.
Downward nominal wage rigidity has been a key factor explaining the “missing deflation” in the aftermath of the global financial crisis.[18] If nominal wages do not fall, or fall only very slowly, firms’ marginal costs change only moderately, and hence disinflationary pressures face a natural lower bound, even if slack is large.
But when the labour market is tight, wages are more flexible as firms outbid each other in securing their desired workforce.
Benigno and Eggertsson show that this channel led to a non-linear inflation surge in the United States whenever the number of job vacancies exceeded the number of unemployed workers (Slide 6).[19] In the euro area, the threshold was lower, but the curve still exhibited strong signs of non-linearity.
Rising near-term inflation expectations may have shifted the Phillips curve up
New research for the United States, however, suggests that the evidence in favour of the second theory is not very robust.
Specifically, the finding of non-linearity depends critically on which measure is used to control for inflation expectations: non-linearity holds when controlling for expectations of professional forecasters, but it disappears once inflation expectations of households and firms are considered.[20]
In other words, it is conceivable that the Phillips curve did not become steeper but rather shifted upwards as inflation expectations rose.[21] Non-linearity has also been rejected recently using a similar approach based on regional data for the euro area.[22]
Moreover, the expectations that are relevant for such an upward shift are not necessarily the longer-term expectations that central banks typically pay most attention to.
These have remained remarkably stable over the past few years (Slide 7).
Rather, inflation expectations over the near term, such as the next 12 months, may be more important in driving macroeconomic outcomes.
Bernanke and Blanchard, for example, show that one-year-ahead inflation expectations explain a significant share of the recent marked rise in nominal wages, and hence inflation, in the United States.[23] Similar evidence has been found for the euro area and other advanced economies.[24]
Again, there appears to be an asymmetry: the risks that the Phillips curve shifts downwards are substantially lower. Research shows that consumers tend to respond more to inflationary than disinflationary news, as households value increases in their purchasing power and as they pay less attention to inflation when it is low.[25]
The impact of tariffs on inflation in the euro area
Understanding the reasons behind the recent inflation surge is not only important from a conceptual perspective. It also matters for setting monetary policy today, as we are once again confronted with historically large shocks.
For central banks, this is a difficult environment to navigate.
Memories of high inflation are still fresh after a long period of sharply rising prices. And just as during the pandemic, there is considerable uncertainty about how firms and households are going to respond to shocks that are largely outside the historical empirical range.
Ultimately, the impact of current shocks on prices and wages, and hence the appropriate monetary policy response, will depend on the shape and location of the Phillips curve.
Monetary policy should focus on the medium term and underlying inflation
Let me illustrate this by looking at the euro area.
Given the lags in policy transmission, the relevant horizon for monetary policy is the medium term. The past few years, however, demonstrated that inflation forecasting at times of large structural shocks is inherently difficult and plagued by large uncertainty.
For this reason, the ECB and other central banks have increasingly turned to a data-dependent approach to monetary policy, where the observed dynamics of underlying inflation and the strength of monetary transmission are used to cross-check the inflation projections.[26]
This approach remains valid today.[27] But data dependence is not in contrast to being forward-looking.
In the current situation, the high level of economic uncertainty, together with the sharp fall in energy prices and a stronger euro exchange rate, will likely dampen headline inflation in the short run, potentially pushing it below our 2% target.
The question is whether these developments provide meaningful signals about the net impact of current shocks on medium-term inflation.
During the pandemic, for example, a strong appreciation of the euro against the US dollar, by nearly 14% over seven months, and a marked decline in energy prices were followed by a historical inflation surge.
Data dependency hence requires examining the potential channels through which current shocks could affect underlying inflation over the medium term.
In the euro area, there are two main forces that could have the size and persistence to pull underlying inflation sustainably away from our 2% medium-term target.
One is fiscal policy, which is set to expand on a scale unseen outside periods of deep economic contraction.
Germany has eased its constitutional debt brake for defence-related spending, and has committed to spending €500 billion, or more than 10% of GDP, on infrastructure and the green transition over the next 12 years. In addition, the European Commission has invited Member States to activate the national escape clause to accommodate increased defence expenditure across the EU.
The impact of these measures on inflation will depend on how they are implemented, especially their impact on the supply side of the economy. But on balance, the fiscal impulse is likely to put upward pressure on underlying inflation over the medium term.
Global fragmentation is the second force that could have a lasting impact on prices and wages.
As we speak, the scale and scope of tariffs, the extent of retaliation as well as how financial markets respond to these developments all remain highly uncertain.
Ongoing negotiations are a sign that mutually beneficial agreements may still be reached. An ideal outcome – the “zero-for-zero” tariff agreement advocated by the European Commission – could even boost growth and employment on both sides of the Atlantic.
However, should these negotiations fail, the euro area will simultaneously face adverse supply and demand shocks, as the EU has announced that it will retaliate against higher tariffs.
Similar to the pandemic, assessing the relative strength of these forces is inherently difficult. Overall, however, there are risks that a lasting and meaningful increase in tariffs will reinforce the upward pressure on underlying inflation arising from higher fiscal spending over the medium term.
To see this, it is useful to look at the factors driving the macroeconomic propagation of tariffs.
Euro area foreign demand may prove resilient, with limited effects on inflation
The severity of the negative demand shock will depend on two factors.
One is the hit to economic activity in the United States and to global demand from raising tariffs across the board. Under the 2 April tariff rates, the United States will face a supply shock of historic proportions. Inflation is poised to rise, real incomes to fall and unemployment to increase. Retaliatory tariffs would weaken the economy further.
So even in the absence of demand reallocation, foreign demand can be expected to decline if there is a broad increase in tariffs. The depth and persistence of this decline will also depend on other policies, such as tax and spending cuts and deregulation.
And it will crucially depend on the final outcome of tariff negotiations, which is likely to be far less severe than the 2 April announcement.
The second factor affecting the severity of the demand shock relates to the degree of demand reallocation – that is, the elasticity of substitution between foreign and domestic products. This elasticity is highly uncertain and varies across industries, products and countries.[28]
However, a robust finding in the literature is that products that are more differentiated tend to be relatively price-inelastic, as they are more difficult to substitute.
This has great relevance for the euro area, where the bulk of exports to the United States comprise pharmaceuticals, machinery, vehicles and chemicals. These goods are typically highly differentiated (Slide 8, left-hand side).
For instance, the supply of machines for producing semiconductors is basically monopolised by one Dutch company. Similarly, banknotes in the United States are overwhelmingly printed using machinery from a single German manufacturer.
These and other machines are not easy to replace in the short run, giving euro area exporters leverage to pass higher costs on to foreign importers and limiting the hit to foreign demand.
In addition, trade diversion may benefit euro area exports.
Should prohibitive tariffs on Chinese imports remain in place, they will measurably raise the euro area’s price competitiveness in the US market. This can be expected to stimulate demand for euro area goods if there are no alternatives in the United States itself, especially as the number of industries in which both Chinese and euro area firms have comparative advantages has increased measurably over the past two decades (Slide 8, right-hand side).[29]
New research corroborates this view.[30] It finds that the euro area stands to win in relative terms from a global trade war, as its net exports to the world will rise rather than fall as global demand is reallocated across the global network, offsetting the hit to domestic consumption.[31]
In other words, for as long as tariffs are not prohibitive to trade and the uncertainty paralysing activity fades, aggregate euro area foreign demand may prove relatively resilient under a range of potential tariff outcomes.
The recent appreciation of the euro does not refute this view.
The euro has gone through two distinct phases since the US presidential election in November last year. It first depreciated in nominal effective terms by 3% until mid-February, before starting to appreciate. So, in net terms, the euro is trading just 2.6% above last year’s average.
In addition, as most exports to the United States are invoiced in US dollars, the pass-through of changes in the exchange rate to import prices tends to be moderate – by recent estimates just about one-fifth.[32] And potential losses in price competitiveness in third countries are in part compensated by lower import costs, as euro area exports have, on average, a large import content.
This price inelasticity is also reflected in recent surveys, with manufacturing firms reporting an expansion in output for the first time in more than two years (Slide 9). Also, fewer firms are reporting falling export orders.
Even if part of these developments may reflect frontloading by firms, it is remarkable how resilient sentiment has remained in the face of the extraordinary increase in economic uncertainty.
Supply shock puts upward pressure on inflation, reinforced by global supply chains
The downward effects on inflation caused by lower demand are likely to be offset, partly or even fully, by the supply shock hitting the euro area through retaliatory tariffs imposed by the EU and other economies.
The strength of this supply shock also depends on two factors.
One is the extent to which firms pass higher tariffs on to consumers.
In the United States, evidence from the 2018 tariff increase suggests that, in most cases, the pass-through to import prices was de facto complete.[33] At the same time, many firms chose to absorb part of the increase in import prices in their profit margins, thereby limiting the increase in consumer price inflation, at least in the short run.[34]
Whether firms will respond similarly to a renewed rise in tariffs in the current environment is uncertain.
On the one hand, the recent appreciation of the euro, if persistent, provides some margin for euro area firms to buffer cost increases from retaliatory tariffs. On the other hand, profit margins have already been squeezed by high wage growth and a sluggish economy, and the post-pandemic inflation surge may have lowered the bar for firms to pass higher costs on to consumers.
Overall, recent surveys of companies in the United States and the euro area suggest that they plan to gradually pass higher tariffs on to consumers over the coming years.[35]
In addition, in order to compensate for the hit to input costs, firms also tend to raise the prices of goods not directly affected by tariffs. There is evidence that retailers broadly adjust price markups even if only a subset of wholesale prices change.[36]
The second, and related, factor determining the strength of the supply shock relates to global value chains.
Unlike during the wave of protectionism in the 1930s, today the dominant share of international trade, about 70%, reflects multinational firms distributing production across countries and along the value chain to minimise costs. In this process, parts and components often cross borders many times.
Prohibitive tariffs between the United States and China are already disrupting supply chains. Shipments of goods are declining, potentially causing future shortages of critical intermediate goods that could reverberate across the world.
While current conditions are very different from those seen during the pandemic, when supply chain disruptions were a main factor driving the surge in inflation, the impact of tariffs is likely to be amplified as the increase in firms’ marginal costs propagates through the production network.
ECB staff analysis shows that, even if the EU does not retaliate, higher production costs transmitted through global value chains could more than offset the disinflationary pressure coming from lower foreign demand, making tariffs inflationary overall (Slide 10, left-hand side).[37]
These effects will become stronger with full retaliation, including intermediate goods. So far, the EU’s retaliatory measures have disproportionately targeted final consumer goods, such as beverages, food and home appliances – precisely to avoid broader cost effects being transmitted through value chains (Slide 10, right-hand side).
But if the trade conflict intensifies, the scale of retaliation will widen and increasingly include intermediate goods, as these account for nearly 70% of euro area imports from the United States.
In other words, retaliatory tariffs on intermediate goods would constitute a much broader cost-push shock for euro area firms, reminiscent of the post-pandemic supply chain disruptions.[38]
It is possible that these effects will be mitigated by China redirecting goods originally destined for the United States towards the euro area and other economies at a discount.
In practice, however, this mitigation channel is likely to be contained. India, for example, has already raised temporary tariffs on China to curb a surge in imports. Similarly, the European Commission has repeatedly clarified that it intends to protect euro area firms against dumping prices should imports from China rise significantly in response to the evolving trade conflict with the United States.[39]
Policy implications
How, then, should the ECB respond to the current shocks?
The lessons from the post-pandemic surge in inflation suggest that, from today’s perspective, the appropriate course of action is to keep rates close to where they are today – that is, firmly in neutral territory.
A “steady hand” policy provides the best insurance against a wide range of potential outcomes. In other words, it is robust to many contingencies.
Specifically, it avoids reacting excessively to volatility in headline inflation at a time when domestic inflation remains sticky and new forces are putting upward pressure on underlying inflation over the medium term. Given lags in policy transmission, an accommodative policy stance could amplify risks to medium-term price stability.
This steady hand policy also avoids overreacting to concerns that tariffs may destabilise inflation expectations once again.
In recent months, households’ short-term inflation expectations have reversed and started rising again. According to the ECB’s Consumer Expectations Survey, expectations for inflation one year ahead increased to 2.9% in March from their trough of 2.4% in September 2024 (Slide 11, left-hand side). Qualitative inflation expectations, as measured by the European Commission, even rose to levels last seen in late 2022 (Slide 11, right-hand side).
Currently, there are no indications that this rise is persistent, or that inflation expectations are at risk of unanchoring.
Hence, we can afford to look through the rise in short-term inflation expectations. This could change if we see clear signs of a strong and front-loaded pass-through of potential tariff increases – something that could bring us back to the steep part of the Phillips curve. So far, however, evidence suggests that firms have notably slowed the frequency with which they revise their prices.
A steady hand policy also addresses risks of a more substantial decline in aggregate demand in response to the trade conflict.
If tight labour markets were the main culprit for the recent steepening of the Phillips curve, risks of a sharp decline in inflation caused by a rise in unemployment are much more moderate today.
The reason for this is that in both the United States and the euro area, the vacancy-to-unemployment ratio has fallen markedly and is now at a level that suggests that labour markets are much more balanced (Slide 12).
We are thus likely to be operating close to, or at, the flat part of the Phillips curve where a change in unemployment has only limited effects on underlying inflation, in stark contrast to the high inflation period.[40]
We would only need to react more forcefully to the tariff shock if we observed a sharp deterioration in labour market conditions or an unanchoring of inflation expectations to the downside.
Both seem unlikely at the current juncture.
Despite the number of vacancies declining, the euro area labour market has proven resilient, with unemployment at a record low. And most measures of medium-term inflation expectations remain tilted to the upside, including those of professional forecasters (Slide 13).
Conclusion
My main message today, and with this I would like to conclude, is therefore simple: now is the time to keep a steady hand.
In the current environment of elevated volatility, the ECB needs to remain focused on the medium term. Given long and variable transmission lags, reacting to short-term developments could result in the peak impact of our policy only unfolding when the current disinflationary forces have passed.
Over the medium term, risks to euro area inflation are likely tilted to the upside, reflecting both the increase in fiscal spending and the risks of renewed cost-push shocks from tariffs propagating through global value chains.
Therefore, from today’s perspective, an accommodative monetary policy stance would be inappropriate, also because recent inflation data suggest that past shocks may unwind more slowly than previously anticipated.
By keeping interest rates near their current levels, we can be confident that monetary policy is neither excessively holding back growth and employment, nor stimulating it. We are thus in a good place to evaluate the likely future evolution of the economy and to take action if risks materialise that threaten price stability.
Speech by Isabel Schnabel, Member of the Executive Board of the ECB, at Hoover Monetary Policy Conference “Finishing the Job and New Challenges”, Stanford University
Stanford, 10 May 2025
Standard theory of monetary policy rests on a simple premise: a stable relationship between inflation and the output gap. This is the logic behind the Phillips curve, which, in its most common form, relates inflation to a measure of economic slack, expected inflation and supply shocks.[1]
The relationship between output and inflation was already under scrutiny well before the pandemic.
After the global financial crisis of 2008, inflation didn’t fall nearly as much as had been implied by conventional Phillips curve estimates. And once economies around the world recovered and unemployment fell, the bounce-back in inflation fell short of model predictions.
This is why that episode is known as the period of “missing deflation” and “missing inflation”.[2]
The situation changed fundamentally in the aftermath of the pandemic, when the relationship between inflation and the output gap proved to be much stronger than what would have been expected based on historical estimates. We observed a noticeably steeper Phillips curve across advanced economies, including the euro area (Slide 2).[3]
In my remarks today, I would like to draw lessons from the instability of the Phillips curve over the past 20 years for the optimal conduct of monetary policy. I will argue that the evidence of a re-flattening of the Phillips curve after the long period of high inflation suggests that, in the euro area, the most appropriate policy response to the potential risks to price stability arising from fiscal expansion and protectionism is to keep a steady hand and maintain rates close to where they are today – that is, firmly in neutral territory.
Monetary policy and the slope of the Phillips curve
The slope of the Phillips curve has first-order implications for the conduct of monetary policy.
If the curve is steep, as it appeared to be in recent years, monetary policy is highly effective in reducing inflation, with only a limited impact on growth and employment. The smaller “sacrifice ratio” suggests that central banks should react more forcefully to deviations of inflation from target, even when the economy is hit by a supply shock that pushes inflation up and output down.[4]
A steep Phillips curve hence improves the trade-off facing central banks, weakening the case for “looking through”, as forceful policy action minimises the risks of inflation expectations unanchoring and of inflation becoming entrenched.[5]
Policy prescriptions differ fundamentally if the Phillips curve is flat.
In this case, a large policy impulse is required to move output sufficiently to generate aggregate price effects. It can then be optimal for policy to tolerate moderate deviations of inflation from target, as the cost of closing a small inflation gap relative to the target may exceed the benefits.
This prescription holds in both directions.
When inflation is above the target, a flat Phillips curve would require a sharp rise in policy rates to bring medium-term inflation down from, say, 2.3% to 2%. Such a course of action may imply a substantial rise in unemployment and may thus not be welfare-improving for society at large – a trade-off central banks may face during the last mile of disinflation.[6]
The experience of the 2010s, when inflation was persistently below the target, demonstrates that the argument also holds in the opposite direction.
If bringing inflation up from 1.7% to 2%, for example, requires purchasing a large fraction of outstanding government bonds and making potentially time-inconsistent promises about the future path of interest rates, then the central bank must consider carefully whether the benefits outweigh the costs, such as making losses in the future, market dysfunction, rising wealth inequality, financial instability and threats to its reputation.[7]
The role of inflation expectations
However, the ability to tolerate moderate deviations of inflation from target critically hinges on a firm anchoring of inflation expectations – that is, a low sensitivity of inflation expectations to realised inflation.
If inflation expectations are well-anchored, policymakers can tolerate moderate deviations from target, as fluctuations in inflation tend to fade away. If, however, inflation expectations are at risk of unanchoring, central banks should act forcefully.[8]
There are two challenges to this strategy.
One is that the anchoring of inflation expectations is endogenous. Central banks themselves can cause an unanchoring if inaction in the face of price shocks is perceived as weakening its commitment to securing price stability.[9]
History shows that it can be costly to reestablish the credibility of the nominal anchor once it has been lost. This is also because inflation expectations are path-dependent. Research shows that the experience of high inflation may raise the sensitivity of inflation expectations to new inflation surprises.[10]
The other challenge is that different measures of inflation expectations often yield different results (Slide 3). As such, robust trends cannot easily be identified in real time, much like the slope of the Phillips curve.[11]
Measures of inflation expectations can even point in opposite directions. Research from the early days of the pandemic showed that most consumers expected the pandemic to raise prices, contrary to the views held by professional forecasters at the time.[12]
State-dependent pricing and tight labour markets can explain steeper Phillips curve and post-pandemic inflation surge
The recent period of high inflation illustrates how sensitive policy conclusions can be to the assessment of the slope of the Phillips curve and to measures of inflation expectations that central banks use in their analysis.
Two key theories have been proposed to explain the post-pandemic inflation surge.[13]
The first relates to firms’ price-setting behaviour.
Standard New Keynesian models assume that the probability of firms resetting their prices is constant over time. This is a fair description of aggregate price movements when inflation is low and aggregate shocks are small (Slide 4).
However, the past few years have demonstrated that this “linear” relationship breaks down in the face of large shocks.[14] When marginal costs increase rapidly and threaten to erode profit margins, firms tend to raise their prices more frequently. As a result, the Phillips curve steepens.
This feedback loop is strongly asymmetric.[15] It acts as an inflation accelerator when firms face positive demand or adverse cost-push shocks.[16] But it does little to firms’ pricing strategies in the face of disinflationary shocks due to downward price rigidities.
This helps explain why inflation did not fall much when the pandemic broke out but increased sharply after the reopening of our economies (Slide 5).[17]
The second theory relates to the tightness of the labour market.
Downward nominal wage rigidity has been a key factor explaining the “missing deflation” in the aftermath of the global financial crisis.[18] If nominal wages do not fall, or fall only very slowly, firms’ marginal costs change only moderately, and hence disinflationary pressures face a natural lower bound, even if slack is large.
But when the labour market is tight, wages are more flexible as firms outbid each other in securing their desired workforce.
Benigno and Eggertsson show that this channel led to a non-linear inflation surge in the United States whenever the number of job vacancies exceeded the number of unemployed workers (Slide 6).[19] In the euro area, the threshold was lower, but the curve still exhibited strong signs of non-linearity.
Rising near-term inflation expectations may have shifted the Phillips curve up
New research for the United States, however, suggests that the evidence in favour of the second theory is not very robust.
Specifically, the finding of non-linearity depends critically on which measure is used to control for inflation expectations: non-linearity holds when controlling for expectations of professional forecasters, but it disappears once inflation expectations of households and firms are considered.[20]
In other words, it is conceivable that the Phillips curve did not become steeper but rather shifted upwards as inflation expectations rose.[21] Non-linearity has also been rejected recently using a similar approach based on regional data for the euro area.[22]
Moreover, the expectations that are relevant for such an upward shift are not necessarily the longer-term expectations that central banks typically pay most attention to.
These have remained remarkably stable over the past few years (Slide 7).
Rather, inflation expectations over the near term, such as the next 12 months, may be more important in driving macroeconomic outcomes.
Bernanke and Blanchard, for example, show that one-year-ahead inflation expectations explain a significant share of the recent marked rise in nominal wages, and hence inflation, in the United States.[23] Similar evidence has been found for the euro area and other advanced economies.[24]
Again, there appears to be an asymmetry: the risks that the Phillips curve shifts downwards are substantially lower. Research shows that consumers tend to respond more to inflationary than disinflationary news, as households value increases in their purchasing power and as they pay less attention to inflation when it is low.[25]
The impact of tariffs on inflation in the euro area
Understanding the reasons behind the recent inflation surge is not only important from a conceptual perspective. It also matters for setting monetary policy today, as we are once again confronted with historically large shocks.
For central banks, this is a difficult environment to navigate.
Memories of high inflation are still fresh after a long period of sharply rising prices. And just as during the pandemic, there is considerable uncertainty about how firms and households are going to respond to shocks that are largely outside the historical empirical range.
Ultimately, the impact of current shocks on prices and wages, and hence the appropriate monetary policy response, will depend on the shape and location of the Phillips curve.
Monetary policy should focus on the medium term and underlying inflation
Let me illustrate this by looking at the euro area.
Given the lags in policy transmission, the relevant horizon for monetary policy is the medium term. The past few years, however, demonstrated that inflation forecasting at times of large structural shocks is inherently difficult and plagued by large uncertainty.
For this reason, the ECB and other central banks have increasingly turned to a data-dependent approach to monetary policy, where the observed dynamics of underlying inflation and the strength of monetary transmission are used to cross-check the inflation projections.[26]
This approach remains valid today.[27] But data dependence is not in contrast to being forward-looking.
In the current situation, the high level of economic uncertainty, together with the sharp fall in energy prices and a stronger euro exchange rate, will likely dampen headline inflation in the short run, potentially pushing it below our 2% target.
The question is whether these developments provide meaningful signals about the net impact of current shocks on medium-term inflation.
During the pandemic, for example, a strong appreciation of the euro against the US dollar, by nearly 14% over seven months, and a marked decline in energy prices were followed by a historical inflation surge.
Data dependency hence requires examining the potential channels through which current shocks could affect underlying inflation over the medium term.
In the euro area, there are two main forces that could have the size and persistence to pull underlying inflation sustainably away from our 2% medium-term target.
One is fiscal policy, which is set to expand on a scale unseen outside periods of deep economic contraction.
Germany has eased its constitutional debt brake for defence-related spending, and has committed to spending €500 billion, or more than 10% of GDP, on infrastructure and the green transition over the next 12 years. In addition, the European Commission has invited Member States to activate the national escape clause to accommodate increased defence expenditure across the EU.
The impact of these measures on inflation will depend on how they are implemented, especially their impact on the supply side of the economy. But on balance, the fiscal impulse is likely to put upward pressure on underlying inflation over the medium term.
Global fragmentation is the second force that could have a lasting impact on prices and wages.
As we speak, the scale and scope of tariffs, the extent of retaliation as well as how financial markets respond to these developments all remain highly uncertain.
Ongoing negotiations are a sign that mutually beneficial agreements may still be reached. An ideal outcome – the “zero-for-zero” tariff agreement advocated by the European Commission – could even boost growth and employment on both sides of the Atlantic.
However, should these negotiations fail, the euro area will simultaneously face adverse supply and demand shocks, as the EU has announced that it will retaliate against higher tariffs.
Similar to the pandemic, assessing the relative strength of these forces is inherently difficult. Overall, however, there are risks that a lasting and meaningful increase in tariffs will reinforce the upward pressure on underlying inflation arising from higher fiscal spending over the medium term.
To see this, it is useful to look at the factors driving the macroeconomic propagation of tariffs.
Euro area foreign demand may prove resilient, with limited effects on inflation
The severity of the negative demand shock will depend on two factors.
One is the hit to economic activity in the United States and to global demand from raising tariffs across the board. Under the 2 April tariff rates, the United States will face a supply shock of historic proportions. Inflation is poised to rise, real incomes to fall and unemployment to increase. Retaliatory tariffs would weaken the economy further.
So even in the absence of demand reallocation, foreign demand can be expected to decline if there is a broad increase in tariffs. The depth and persistence of this decline will also depend on other policies, such as tax and spending cuts and deregulation.
And it will crucially depend on the final outcome of tariff negotiations, which is likely to be far less severe than the 2 April announcement.
The second factor affecting the severity of the demand shock relates to the degree of demand reallocation – that is, the elasticity of substitution between foreign and domestic products. This elasticity is highly uncertain and varies across industries, products and countries.[28]
However, a robust finding in the literature is that products that are more differentiated tend to be relatively price-inelastic, as they are more difficult to substitute.
This has great relevance for the euro area, where the bulk of exports to the United States comprise pharmaceuticals, machinery, vehicles and chemicals. These goods are typically highly differentiated (Slide 8, left-hand side).
For instance, the supply of machines for producing semiconductors is basically monopolised by one Dutch company. Similarly, banknotes in the United States are overwhelmingly printed using machinery from a single German manufacturer.
These and other machines are not easy to replace in the short run, giving euro area exporters leverage to pass higher costs on to foreign importers and limiting the hit to foreign demand.
In addition, trade diversion may benefit euro area exports.
Should prohibitive tariffs on Chinese imports remain in place, they will measurably raise the euro area’s price competitiveness in the US market. This can be expected to stimulate demand for euro area goods if there are no alternatives in the United States itself, especially as the number of industries in which both Chinese and euro area firms have comparative advantages has increased measurably over the past two decades (Slide 8, right-hand side).[29]
New research corroborates this view.[30] It finds that the euro area stands to win in relative terms from a global trade war, as its net exports to the world will rise rather than fall as global demand is reallocated across the global network, offsetting the hit to domestic consumption.[31]
In other words, for as long as tariffs are not prohibitive to trade and the uncertainty paralysing activity fades, aggregate euro area foreign demand may prove relatively resilient under a range of potential tariff outcomes.
The recent appreciation of the euro does not refute this view.
The euro has gone through two distinct phases since the US presidential election in November last year. It first depreciated in nominal effective terms by 3% until mid-February, before starting to appreciate. So, in net terms, the euro is trading just 2.6% above last year’s average.
In addition, as most exports to the United States are invoiced in US dollars, the pass-through of changes in the exchange rate to import prices tends to be moderate – by recent estimates just about one-fifth.[32] And potential losses in price competitiveness in third countries are in part compensated by lower import costs, as euro area exports have, on average, a large import content.
This price inelasticity is also reflected in recent surveys, with manufacturing firms reporting an expansion in output for the first time in more than two years (Slide 9). Also, fewer firms are reporting falling export orders.
Even if part of these developments may reflect frontloading by firms, it is remarkable how resilient sentiment has remained in the face of the extraordinary increase in economic uncertainty.
Supply shock puts upward pressure on inflation, reinforced by global supply chains
The downward effects on inflation caused by lower demand are likely to be offset, partly or even fully, by the supply shock hitting the euro area through retaliatory tariffs imposed by the EU and other economies.
The strength of this supply shock also depends on two factors.
One is the extent to which firms pass higher tariffs on to consumers.
In the United States, evidence from the 2018 tariff increase suggests that, in most cases, the pass-through to import prices was de facto complete.[33] At the same time, many firms chose to absorb part of the increase in import prices in their profit margins, thereby limiting the increase in consumer price inflation, at least in the short run.[34]
Whether firms will respond similarly to a renewed rise in tariffs in the current environment is uncertain.
On the one hand, the recent appreciation of the euro, if persistent, provides some margin for euro area firms to buffer cost increases from retaliatory tariffs. On the other hand, profit margins have already been squeezed by high wage growth and a sluggish economy, and the post-pandemic inflation surge may have lowered the bar for firms to pass higher costs on to consumers.
Overall, recent surveys of companies in the United States and the euro area suggest that they plan to gradually pass higher tariffs on to consumers over the coming years.[35]
In addition, in order to compensate for the hit to input costs, firms also tend to raise the prices of goods not directly affected by tariffs. There is evidence that retailers broadly adjust price markups even if only a subset of wholesale prices change.[36]
The second, and related, factor determining the strength of the supply shock relates to global value chains.
Unlike during the wave of protectionism in the 1930s, today the dominant share of international trade, about 70%, reflects multinational firms distributing production across countries and along the value chain to minimise costs. In this process, parts and components often cross borders many times.
Prohibitive tariffs between the United States and China are already disrupting supply chains. Shipments of goods are declining, potentially causing future shortages of critical intermediate goods that could reverberate across the world.
While current conditions are very different from those seen during the pandemic, when supply chain disruptions were a main factor driving the surge in inflation, the impact of tariffs is likely to be amplified as the increase in firms’ marginal costs propagates through the production network.
ECB staff analysis shows that, even if the EU does not retaliate, higher production costs transmitted through global value chains could more than offset the disinflationary pressure coming from lower foreign demand, making tariffs inflationary overall (Slide 10, left-hand side).[37]
These effects will become stronger with full retaliation, including intermediate goods. So far, the EU’s retaliatory measures have disproportionately targeted final consumer goods, such as beverages, food and home appliances – precisely to avoid broader cost effects being transmitted through value chains (Slide 10, right-hand side).
But if the trade conflict intensifies, the scale of retaliation will widen and increasingly include intermediate goods, as these account for nearly 70% of euro area imports from the United States.
In other words, retaliatory tariffs on intermediate goods would constitute a much broader cost-push shock for euro area firms, reminiscent of the post-pandemic supply chain disruptions.[38]
It is possible that these effects will be mitigated by China redirecting goods originally destined for the United States towards the euro area and other economies at a discount.
In practice, however, this mitigation channel is likely to be contained. India, for example, has already raised temporary tariffs on China to curb a surge in imports. Similarly, the European Commission has repeatedly clarified that it intends to protect euro area firms against dumping prices should imports from China rise significantly in response to the evolving trade conflict with the United States.[39]
Policy implications
How, then, should the ECB respond to the current shocks?
The lessons from the post-pandemic surge in inflation suggest that, from today’s perspective, the appropriate course of action is to keep rates close to where they are today – that is, firmly in neutral territory.
A “steady hand” policy provides the best insurance against a wide range of potential outcomes. In other words, it is robust to many contingencies.
Specifically, it avoids reacting excessively to volatility in headline inflation at a time when domestic inflation remains sticky and new forces are putting upward pressure on underlying inflation over the medium term. Given lags in policy transmission, an accommodative policy stance could amplify risks to medium-term price stability.
This steady hand policy also avoids overreacting to concerns that tariffs may destabilise inflation expectations once again.
In recent months, households’ short-term inflation expectations have reversed and started rising again. According to the ECB’s Consumer Expectations Survey, expectations for inflation one year ahead increased to 2.9% in March from their trough of 2.4% in September 2024 (Slide 11, left-hand side). Qualitative inflation expectations, as measured by the European Commission, even rose to levels last seen in late 2022 (Slide 11, right-hand side).
Currently, there are no indications that this rise is persistent, or that inflation expectations are at risk of unanchoring.
Hence, we can afford to look through the rise in short-term inflation expectations. This could change if we see clear signs of a strong and front-loaded pass-through of potential tariff increases – something that could bring us back to the steep part of the Phillips curve. So far, however, evidence suggests that firms have notably slowed the frequency with which they revise their prices.
A steady hand policy also addresses risks of a more substantial decline in aggregate demand in response to the trade conflict.
If tight labour markets were the main culprit for the recent steepening of the Phillips curve, risks of a sharp decline in inflation caused by a rise in unemployment are much more moderate today.
The reason for this is that in both the United States and the euro area, the vacancy-to-unemployment ratio has fallen markedly and is now at a level that suggests that labour markets are much more balanced (Slide 12).
We are thus likely to be operating close to, or at, the flat part of the Phillips curve where a change in unemployment has only limited effects on underlying inflation, in stark contrast to the high inflation period.[40]
We would only need to react more forcefully to the tariff shock if we observed a sharp deterioration in labour market conditions or an unanchoring of inflation expectations to the downside.
Both seem unlikely at the current juncture.
Despite the number of vacancies declining, the euro area labour market has proven resilient, with unemployment at a record low. And most measures of medium-term inflation expectations remain tilted to the upside, including those of professional forecasters (Slide 13).
Conclusion
My main message today, and with this I would like to conclude, is therefore simple: now is the time to keep a steady hand.
In the current environment of elevated volatility, the ECB needs to remain focused on the medium term. Given long and variable transmission lags, reacting to short-term developments could result in the peak impact of our policy only unfolding when the current disinflationary forces have passed.
Over the medium term, risks to euro area inflation are likely tilted to the upside, reflecting both the increase in fiscal spending and the risks of renewed cost-push shocks from tariffs propagating through global value chains.
Therefore, from today’s perspective, an accommodative monetary policy stance would be inappropriate, also because recent inflation data suggest that past shocks may unwind more slowly than previously anticipated.
By keeping interest rates near their current levels, we can be confident that monetary policy is neither excessively holding back growth and employment, nor stimulating it. We are thus in a good place to evaluate the likely future evolution of the economy and to take action if risks materialise that threaten price stability.
Source: The White House
This week, President Donald J. Trump advanced his America First agenda with remarkable successes that bolster the economy, enhance national security, and promote global stability. From a landmark trade agreement to bold steps to secure our borders and skies, President Trump is delivering results that matter to every American.
Here is a non-comprehensive list of wins in week 16:
President Trump announced a “breakthrough” trade deal with the United Kingdom that expands market access, curbs non-tariff barriers, and levels the playing field for American exporters.
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association: “President Trump has delivered a tremendous win for American family farmers and ranchers … Thank you, President Trump, for fighting for American cattle producers.”
National Corn Growers Association: “This is great news. We applaud President Trump and his administration for brokering this deal.”
International Dairy Foods Association: “On behalf of America’s dairy processors and producers, IDFA applauds President Trump’s announcement today that the United States and the United Kingdom have reached the terms for a significant trade deal between our two markets that promises to expand access for U.S. agricultural goods, reduce tariffs, and remove barriers to trade.”
President Donald J. Trump’s relentless pursuit of manufacturing dominance spurred onshoring and additional U.S. investment.
The Wall Street Journal: Trump’s Tariffs Are Lifting Some U.S. Manufacturers
The Washington Post: This U.S. manufacturer doesn’t mind Trump’s tariffs at all
Bristol Myers Squibb announced a $40 billion investment over the next five years in its research, development, technology, and U.S.-based manufacturing operations.
Gilead Sciences announced an $11 billion boost to its planned U.S.-based manufacturing investment.
Invenergy announced a $1.7 billion investment in U.S. electric transmission.
Merck Animal Health announced an $895 million investment to expand their manufacturing operation in Kansas.
Wistron Corp., a Taiwanese electronics manufacturer and AI server maker, announced $455 million in additional U.S. investment.
Lego announced a $366 million investment to build a new distribution center in Prince George County, Virginia.
Hotpack, a Dubai-based maker of food packaging materials and related products, announced a $100 million investment to establish its first U.S. manufacturing facility in Edison, New Jersey.
The Trump Administration unveiled a plan to completely overhaul the nation’s air traffic control system, building on the unprecedented actions already taken to secure America’s skies and improve air travel.
American Airlines CEO Robert Isom: “This plan from President Trump and Secretary Duffy is absolutely the best opportunity that we’ve had in decades to do something about our outdated air traffic control infrastructure and build a best-in-class system that our country deserves.”
Delta Air Lines CEO Ed Bastian: “I want to especially thank Secretary Duffy and the Administration for gathering us all here today and taking such a strong approach to overhauling our air traffic control system in the U.S.”
United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby: “This really is an historic day — a day I have been looking forward to my entire career when I felt like we have turned the corner and are on the path to give the United States the best-in-class air traffic control system that the citizens of the United States deserve.”
Southwest Airlines CEO Bob Jordan: “I cannot say enough thanks to Secretary Duffy, to the administration, to President Trump for the stellar leadership to bring everyone together on this problem.”
President Trump continued to secure our borders, rid our communities of illegal immigrant criminals, and keep Americans safe.
President Trump announced plans to house America’s most ruthless, violent criminals at Alcatraz prison.
President Trump established “Project Homecoming” to encourage illegal immigrants to voluntarily depart the U.S.
The Department of Justice announced the takedown of a massive drug and weapons trafficking organization in New Mexico, operated by the Sinaloa cartel — resulting in the largest fentanyl seizure in our nation’s history and the arrests of six high-level cartel members illegally in the U.S.
The Department of Justice announced that 115 children were rescued and 205 child sex predators were arrested in just five days as part of Operation Restore Justice.
The Department of Homeland Security announced it will offer financial assistance and stipends for illegal immigrants voluntarily returning to their home country via the CBP Home App — saving taxpayers as much as $1 million per illegal alien family in long-term costs of welfare and public support.
Breitbart: Southern Border Migrant Apprehensions Continue Record-Shattering Decline
Fox News: Daycare in wealthy enclave shutters after housing fugitive child predator arrested by ICE
The percentage of Americans “who worry a great deal” about crime has fallen by ten points over last year.
President Trump continued to pursue peace through strength around the world.
President Trump announced a ceasefire with Houthi terrorists in Yemen, restoring freedom of navigation in the Red Sea for U.S.-flagged ships.
The Department of the Treasury targeted a third teapot refinery for facilitating the delivery of Iranian oil as part of President Trump’s broad and aggressive maximum pressure campaign.
The Department of State designated Haitian gangs as foreign terrorist organizations.
The Department of State announced all hostages held by the Maduro regime at the Argentinian Embassy in Caracas, Venezuela, were rescued and brought safely to the U.S.
A new survey showed 70% of farmers expect the President Trump’s tariffs to strengthen the agricultural economy in the long-term.
President Trump announced his first wave of judicial nominations.
President Trump ended federal funding for dangerous gain-of-function research in foreign countries.
President Trump ended the racist and discriminatory Biden-era “Digital Equity Act,” which provided billions in handouts based on race.
President Trump announced new tariffs on movies produced in foreign countries in an effort to boost the American film industry.
President Trump signed an Executive Order to restore a robust domestic manufacturing base for prescription drugs and promote domestic production of critical medicines.
President Trump eliminated useless water pressure standards that make household appliances less effective and more expensive.
President Trump signed an Executive Order to provide better care to veterans, improve accountability for such care, and establish a National Center for Warrior Independence for homeless veterans.
President Trump signed an Executive Order to ease the regulatory burden on Americans and ensure no one is transformed into a criminal for violating a regulation they have no reason to know exists.
President Trump directed his administration to expeditiously implement the most effective mechanisms, barriers, and other measures to prevent the migration and expansion of invasive carp in the Great Lakes Basin and the surrounding region.
President Trump directed the Office of the Federal Register to speed up publishing time and decrease costs, enabling agencies to more quickly and effectively restore freedom through President Trump’s deregulatory agenda.
President Trump officially declared May 8 as “Victory Day for World War II” in commemoration of the unmatched might, strength, and power of the American Armed Forces.
The Department of Education continued their rigorous oversight of secondary and higher education institutions to ensure compliance with federal law.
The Department of Education opened an investigation into the Saratoga Springs City School District in New York for Title IX violations relating to male participation in female sports and occupation of female facilities.
The Department of Education informed Harvard University that the federal government will no longer award new grants to the university amid their failure to uphold federal law.
The Department of Education opened a formal foreign funding investigation into the University of Pennsylvania after a review of the university’s foreign reports revealed inaccurate and incomplete disclosures.
The Department of Education initiated a Title IX investigation into Western Carolina University amid allegations the school failed to ensure sex-separated intimate spaces.
The Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism announced a review of recent incidents of anti-Semitic violence at the University of Washington and its affiliates.
The Department of Education resumed collections for student borrowers in default following a five-year pause and reminded institutions of their obligations to support student loan borrowers.
The Department of Education directed states to maximize parental options for choosing the safest school setting for their children.
The Department of Justice opened an investigation into a recent policy by Hennepin County, Minnesota, to consider race in plea deals.
The Department of the Treasury announced a fast-track process to facilitate greater investment in U.S. businesses from ally and partner sources.
The Department of Energy announced new policies to limit indirect costs of certain grant funding, which is projected to save taxpayers more than $935 million per year.
The Department of Energy halted the Biden-era ban on fossil fuels in federal buildings, ensuring they’re utilizing the most efficient power available to lower taxpayer costs and curb regulatory overreach.
The Department of State closed its “Office of Palestinian Affairs,” a Biden-era creation that encouraged Israel not to respond to the October 7 terrorist attacks.
The Department of Health and Human Services warned medical schools that DEI admissions or employment practices violate federal law and must be eliminated, or the institution risks its federal funding.
The National Institutes of Health announced all beagle experiments on its campus have been terminated.
The Department of Agriculture announced the removal of hazardous fuels — such as dead or downed trees — that pose wildfire threats to communities, critical infrastructure, and recreation areas.
The Department of Agriculture announced enhanced enforcement for making sure states are appropriately and lawfully preserving SNAP benefits for only eligible Americans.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development, in collaboration with First Lady Melania Trump, announced an investment in a new program to prevent homelessness in Americans aging out of the foster care system.
The Department of Labor recovered more than $1.4 million in back wages for more than 2,600 employees after finding a California company had failed to pay its employees proper rates.
The Department of Labor announced additional funding to support disaster-relief jobs and continue employment training for Tennesseans and Floridians affected by last year’s tropical storms.
The Department of Transportation terminated $54 million in woke, radical grant funding.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence released an additional 60,000 documents related to the assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy.
The Supreme Court ruled the Trump administration can enforce its ban on individuals with gender dysphoria serving in the military, boosting efforts to restore a military focused on readiness rather than woke gender ideology.
President Trump announced Washington, D.C., will host the NFL Draft in 2027.
The House of Representatives passed a bill to codify President Trump’s “Gulf of America” Executive Order.
HONOLULU, Hawaii — U.S. Air Force Maj. Gen. Joel Carey, chief of staff for U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, welcomed retired Adm. Harry Harris, former U.S. ambassador to South Korea and the 24th USINDOPACOM commander, and the National Defense University Capstone 25-3 Fellows at the USINDPACOM headquarters on Camp H.M. Smith in Honolulu, May 9, 2025.
Speech by Isabel Schnabel, Member of the Executive Board of the ECB, at Hoover Monetary Policy Conference “Finishing the Job and New Challenges”, Stanford University
Stanford, 10 May 2025
Standard theory of monetary policy rests on a simple premise: a stable relationship between inflation and the output gap. This is the logic behind the Phillips curve, which, in its most common form, relates inflation to a measure of economic slack, expected inflation and supply shocks.[1]
The relationship between output and inflation was already under scrutiny well before the pandemic.
After the global financial crisis of 2008, inflation didn’t fall nearly as much as had been implied by conventional Phillips curve estimates. And once economies around the world recovered and unemployment fell, the bounce-back in inflation fell short of model predictions.
This is why that episode is known as the period of “missing deflation” and “missing inflation”.[2]
The situation changed fundamentally in the aftermath of the pandemic, when the relationship between inflation and the output gap proved to be much stronger than what would have been expected based on historical estimates. We observed a noticeably steeper Phillips curve across advanced economies, including the euro area (Slide 2).[3]
In my remarks today, I would like to draw lessons from the instability of the Phillips curve over the past 20 years for the optimal conduct of monetary policy. I will argue that the evidence of a re-flattening of the Phillips curve after the long period of high inflation suggests that, in the euro area, the most appropriate policy response to the potential risks to price stability arising from fiscal expansion and protectionism is to keep a steady hand and maintain rates close to where they are today – that is, firmly in neutral territory.
Monetary policy and the slope of the Phillips curve
The slope of the Phillips curve has first-order implications for the conduct of monetary policy.
If the curve is steep, as it appeared to be in recent years, monetary policy is highly effective in reducing inflation, with only a limited impact on growth and employment. The smaller “sacrifice ratio” suggests that central banks should react more forcefully to deviations of inflation from target, even when the economy is hit by a supply shock that pushes inflation up and output down.[4]
A steep Phillips curve hence improves the trade-off facing central banks, weakening the case for “looking through”, as forceful policy action minimises the risks of inflation expectations unanchoring and of inflation becoming entrenched.[5]
Policy prescriptions differ fundamentally if the Phillips curve is flat.
In this case, a large policy impulse is required to move output sufficiently to generate aggregate price effects. It can then be optimal for policy to tolerate moderate deviations of inflation from target, as the cost of closing a small inflation gap relative to the target may exceed the benefits.
This prescription holds in both directions.
When inflation is above the target, a flat Phillips curve would require a sharp rise in policy rates to bring medium-term inflation down from, say, 2.3% to 2%. Such a course of action may imply a substantial rise in unemployment and may thus not be welfare-improving for society at large – a trade-off central banks may face during the last mile of disinflation.[6]
The experience of the 2010s, when inflation was persistently below the target, demonstrates that the argument also holds in the opposite direction.
If bringing inflation up from 1.7% to 2%, for example, requires purchasing a large fraction of outstanding government bonds and making potentially time-inconsistent promises about the future path of interest rates, then the central bank must consider carefully whether the benefits outweigh the costs, such as making losses in the future, market dysfunction, rising wealth inequality, financial instability and threats to its reputation.[7]
The role of inflation expectations
However, the ability to tolerate moderate deviations of inflation from target critically hinges on a firm anchoring of inflation expectations – that is, a low sensitivity of inflation expectations to realised inflation.
If inflation expectations are well-anchored, policymakers can tolerate moderate deviations from target, as fluctuations in inflation tend to fade away. If, however, inflation expectations are at risk of unanchoring, central banks should act forcefully.[8]
There are two challenges to this strategy.
One is that the anchoring of inflation expectations is endogenous. Central banks themselves can cause an unanchoring if inaction in the face of price shocks is perceived as weakening its commitment to securing price stability.[9]
History shows that it can be costly to reestablish the credibility of the nominal anchor once it has been lost. This is also because inflation expectations are path-dependent. Research shows that the experience of high inflation may raise the sensitivity of inflation expectations to new inflation surprises.[10]
The other challenge is that different measures of inflation expectations often yield different results (Slide 3). As such, robust trends cannot easily be identified in real time, much like the slope of the Phillips curve.[11]
Measures of inflation expectations can even point in opposite directions. Research from the early days of the pandemic showed that most consumers expected the pandemic to raise prices, contrary to the views held by professional forecasters at the time.[12]
State-dependent pricing and tight labour markets can explain steeper Phillips curve and post-pandemic inflation surge
The recent period of high inflation illustrates how sensitive policy conclusions can be to the assessment of the slope of the Phillips curve and to measures of inflation expectations that central banks use in their analysis.
Two key theories have been proposed to explain the post-pandemic inflation surge.[13]
The first relates to firms’ price-setting behaviour.
Standard New Keynesian models assume that the probability of firms resetting their prices is constant over time. This is a fair description of aggregate price movements when inflation is low and aggregate shocks are small (Slide 4).
However, the past few years have demonstrated that this “linear” relationship breaks down in the face of large shocks.[14] When marginal costs increase rapidly and threaten to erode profit margins, firms tend to raise their prices more frequently. As a result, the Phillips curve steepens.
This feedback loop is strongly asymmetric.[15] It acts as an inflation accelerator when firms face positive demand or adverse cost-push shocks.[16] But it does little to firms’ pricing strategies in the face of disinflationary shocks due to downward price rigidities.
This helps explain why inflation did not fall much when the pandemic broke out but increased sharply after the reopening of our economies (Slide 5).[17]
The second theory relates to the tightness of the labour market.
Downward nominal wage rigidity has been a key factor explaining the “missing deflation” in the aftermath of the global financial crisis.[18] If nominal wages do not fall, or fall only very slowly, firms’ marginal costs change only moderately, and hence disinflationary pressures face a natural lower bound, even if slack is large.
But when the labour market is tight, wages are more flexible as firms outbid each other in securing their desired workforce.
Benigno and Eggertsson show that this channel led to a non-linear inflation surge in the United States whenever the number of job vacancies exceeded the number of unemployed workers (Slide 6).[19] In the euro area, the threshold was lower, but the curve still exhibited strong signs of non-linearity.
Rising near-term inflation expectations may have shifted the Phillips curve up
New research for the United States, however, suggests that the evidence in favour of the second theory is not very robust.
Specifically, the finding of non-linearity depends critically on which measure is used to control for inflation expectations: non-linearity holds when controlling for expectations of professional forecasters, but it disappears once inflation expectations of households and firms are considered.[20]
In other words, it is conceivable that the Phillips curve did not become steeper but rather shifted upwards as inflation expectations rose.[21] Non-linearity has also been rejected recently using a similar approach based on regional data for the euro area.[22]
Moreover, the expectations that are relevant for such an upward shift are not necessarily the longer-term expectations that central banks typically pay most attention to.
These have remained remarkably stable over the past few years (Slide 7).
Rather, inflation expectations over the near term, such as the next 12 months, may be more important in driving macroeconomic outcomes.
Bernanke and Blanchard, for example, show that one-year-ahead inflation expectations explain a significant share of the recent marked rise in nominal wages, and hence inflation, in the United States.[23] Similar evidence has been found for the euro area and other advanced economies.[24]
Again, there appears to be an asymmetry: the risks that the Phillips curve shifts downwards are substantially lower. Research shows that consumers tend to respond more to inflationary than disinflationary news, as households value increases in their purchasing power and as they pay less attention to inflation when it is low.[25]
The impact of tariffs on inflation in the euro area
Understanding the reasons behind the recent inflation surge is not only important from a conceptual perspective. It also matters for setting monetary policy today, as we are once again confronted with historically large shocks.
For central banks, this is a difficult environment to navigate.
Memories of high inflation are still fresh after a long period of sharply rising prices. And just as during the pandemic, there is considerable uncertainty about how firms and households are going to respond to shocks that are largely outside the historical empirical range.
Ultimately, the impact of current shocks on prices and wages, and hence the appropriate monetary policy response, will depend on the shape and location of the Phillips curve.
Monetary policy should focus on the medium term and underlying inflation
Let me illustrate this by looking at the euro area.
Given the lags in policy transmission, the relevant horizon for monetary policy is the medium term. The past few years, however, demonstrated that inflation forecasting at times of large structural shocks is inherently difficult and plagued by large uncertainty.
For this reason, the ECB and other central banks have increasingly turned to a data-dependent approach to monetary policy, where the observed dynamics of underlying inflation and the strength of monetary transmission are used to cross-check the inflation projections.[26]
This approach remains valid today.[27] But data dependence is not in contrast to being forward-looking.
In the current situation, the high level of economic uncertainty, together with the sharp fall in energy prices and a stronger euro exchange rate, will likely dampen headline inflation in the short run, potentially pushing it below our 2% target.
The question is whether these developments provide meaningful signals about the net impact of current shocks on medium-term inflation.
During the pandemic, for example, a strong appreciation of the euro against the US dollar, by nearly 14% over seven months, and a marked decline in energy prices were followed by a historical inflation surge.
Data dependency hence requires examining the potential channels through which current shocks could affect underlying inflation over the medium term.
In the euro area, there are two main forces that could have the size and persistence to pull underlying inflation sustainably away from our 2% medium-term target.
One is fiscal policy, which is set to expand on a scale unseen outside periods of deep economic contraction.
Germany has eased its constitutional debt brake for defence-related spending, and has committed to spending €500 billion, or more than 10% of GDP, on infrastructure and the green transition over the next 12 years. In addition, the European Commission has invited Member States to activate the national escape clause to accommodate increased defence expenditure across the EU.
The impact of these measures on inflation will depend on how they are implemented, especially their impact on the supply side of the economy. But on balance, the fiscal impulse is likely to put upward pressure on underlying inflation over the medium term.
Global fragmentation is the second force that could have a lasting impact on prices and wages.
As we speak, the scale and scope of tariffs, the extent of retaliation as well as how financial markets respond to these developments all remain highly uncertain.
Ongoing negotiations are a sign that mutually beneficial agreements may still be reached. An ideal outcome – the “zero-for-zero” tariff agreement advocated by the European Commission – could even boost growth and employment on both sides of the Atlantic.
However, should these negotiations fail, the euro area will simultaneously face adverse supply and demand shocks, as the EU has announced that it will retaliate against higher tariffs.
Similar to the pandemic, assessing the relative strength of these forces is inherently difficult. Overall, however, there are risks that a lasting and meaningful increase in tariffs will reinforce the upward pressure on underlying inflation arising from higher fiscal spending over the medium term.
To see this, it is useful to look at the factors driving the macroeconomic propagation of tariffs.
Euro area foreign demand may prove resilient, with limited effects on inflation
The severity of the negative demand shock will depend on two factors.
One is the hit to economic activity in the United States and to global demand from raising tariffs across the board. Under the 2 April tariff rates, the United States will face a supply shock of historic proportions. Inflation is poised to rise, real incomes to fall and unemployment to increase. Retaliatory tariffs would weaken the economy further.
So even in the absence of demand reallocation, foreign demand can be expected to decline if there is a broad increase in tariffs. The depth and persistence of this decline will also depend on other policies, such as tax and spending cuts and deregulation.
And it will crucially depend on the final outcome of tariff negotiations, which is likely to be far less severe than the 2 April announcement.
The second factor affecting the severity of the demand shock relates to the degree of demand reallocation – that is, the elasticity of substitution between foreign and domestic products. This elasticity is highly uncertain and varies across industries, products and countries.[28]
However, a robust finding in the literature is that products that are more differentiated tend to be relatively price-inelastic, as they are more difficult to substitute.
This has great relevance for the euro area, where the bulk of exports to the United States comprise pharmaceuticals, machinery, vehicles and chemicals. These goods are typically highly differentiated (Slide 8, left-hand side).
For instance, the supply of machines for producing semiconductors is basically monopolised by one Dutch company. Similarly, banknotes in the United States are overwhelmingly printed using machinery from a single German manufacturer.
These and other machines are not easy to replace in the short run, giving euro area exporters leverage to pass higher costs on to foreign importers and limiting the hit to foreign demand.
In addition, trade diversion may benefit euro area exports.
Should prohibitive tariffs on Chinese imports remain in place, they will measurably raise the euro area’s price competitiveness in the US market. This can be expected to stimulate demand for euro area goods if there are no alternatives in the United States itself, especially as the number of industries in which both Chinese and euro area firms have comparative advantages has increased measurably over the past two decades (Slide 8, right-hand side).[29]
New research corroborates this view.[30] It finds that the euro area stands to win in relative terms from a global trade war, as its net exports to the world will rise rather than fall as global demand is reallocated across the global network, offsetting the hit to domestic consumption.[31]
In other words, for as long as tariffs are not prohibitive to trade and the uncertainty paralysing activity fades, aggregate euro area foreign demand may prove relatively resilient under a range of potential tariff outcomes.
The recent appreciation of the euro does not refute this view.
The euro has gone through two distinct phases since the US presidential election in November last year. It first depreciated in nominal effective terms by 3% until mid-February, before starting to appreciate. So, in net terms, the euro is trading just 2.6% above last year’s average.
In addition, as most exports to the United States are invoiced in US dollars, the pass-through of changes in the exchange rate to import prices tends to be moderate – by recent estimates just about one-fifth.[32] And potential losses in price competitiveness in third countries are in part compensated by lower import costs, as euro area exports have, on average, a large import content.
This price inelasticity is also reflected in recent surveys, with manufacturing firms reporting an expansion in output for the first time in more than two years (Slide 9). Also, fewer firms are reporting falling export orders.
Even if part of these developments may reflect frontloading by firms, it is remarkable how resilient sentiment has remained in the face of the extraordinary increase in economic uncertainty.
Supply shock puts upward pressure on inflation, reinforced by global supply chains
The downward effects on inflation caused by lower demand are likely to be offset, partly or even fully, by the supply shock hitting the euro area through retaliatory tariffs imposed by the EU and other economies.
The strength of this supply shock also depends on two factors.
One is the extent to which firms pass higher tariffs on to consumers.
In the United States, evidence from the 2018 tariff increase suggests that, in most cases, the pass-through to import prices was de facto complete.[33] At the same time, many firms chose to absorb part of the increase in import prices in their profit margins, thereby limiting the increase in consumer price inflation, at least in the short run.[34]
Whether firms will respond similarly to a renewed rise in tariffs in the current environment is uncertain.
On the one hand, the recent appreciation of the euro, if persistent, provides some margin for euro area firms to buffer cost increases from retaliatory tariffs. On the other hand, profit margins have already been squeezed by high wage growth and a sluggish economy, and the post-pandemic inflation surge may have lowered the bar for firms to pass higher costs on to consumers.
Overall, recent surveys of companies in the United States and the euro area suggest that they plan to gradually pass higher tariffs on to consumers over the coming years.[35]
In addition, in order to compensate for the hit to input costs, firms also tend to raise the prices of goods not directly affected by tariffs. There is evidence that retailers broadly adjust price markups even if only a subset of wholesale prices change.[36]
The second, and related, factor determining the strength of the supply shock relates to global value chains.
Unlike during the wave of protectionism in the 1930s, today the dominant share of international trade, about 70%, reflects multinational firms distributing production across countries and along the value chain to minimise costs. In this process, parts and components often cross borders many times.
Prohibitive tariffs between the United States and China are already disrupting supply chains. Shipments of goods are declining, potentially causing future shortages of critical intermediate goods that could reverberate across the world.
While current conditions are very different from those seen during the pandemic, when supply chain disruptions were a main factor driving the surge in inflation, the impact of tariffs is likely to be amplified as the increase in firms’ marginal costs propagates through the production network.
ECB staff analysis shows that, even if the EU does not retaliate, higher production costs transmitted through global value chains could more than offset the disinflationary pressure coming from lower foreign demand, making tariffs inflationary overall (Slide 10, left-hand side).[37]
These effects will become stronger with full retaliation, including intermediate goods. So far, the EU’s retaliatory measures have disproportionately targeted final consumer goods, such as beverages, food and home appliances – precisely to avoid broader cost effects being transmitted through value chains (Slide 10, right-hand side).
But if the trade conflict intensifies, the scale of retaliation will widen and increasingly include intermediate goods, as these account for nearly 70% of euro area imports from the United States.
In other words, retaliatory tariffs on intermediate goods would constitute a much broader cost-push shock for euro area firms, reminiscent of the post-pandemic supply chain disruptions.[38]
It is possible that these effects will be mitigated by China redirecting goods originally destined for the United States towards the euro area and other economies at a discount.
In practice, however, this mitigation channel is likely to be contained. India, for example, has already raised temporary tariffs on China to curb a surge in imports. Similarly, the European Commission has repeatedly clarified that it intends to protect euro area firms against dumping prices should imports from China rise significantly in response to the evolving trade conflict with the United States.[39]
Policy implications
How, then, should the ECB respond to the current shocks?
The lessons from the post-pandemic surge in inflation suggest that, from today’s perspective, the appropriate course of action is to keep rates close to where they are today – that is, firmly in neutral territory.
A “steady hand” policy provides the best insurance against a wide range of potential outcomes. In other words, it is robust to many contingencies.
Specifically, it avoids reacting excessively to volatility in headline inflation at a time when domestic inflation remains sticky and new forces are putting upward pressure on underlying inflation over the medium term. Given lags in policy transmission, an accommodative policy stance could amplify risks to medium-term price stability.
This steady hand policy also avoids overreacting to concerns that tariffs may destabilise inflation expectations once again.
In recent months, households’ short-term inflation expectations have reversed and started rising again. According to the ECB’s Consumer Expectations Survey, expectations for inflation one year ahead increased to 2.9% in March from their trough of 2.4% in September 2024 (Slide 11, left-hand side). Qualitative inflation expectations, as measured by the European Commission, even rose to levels last seen in late 2022 (Slide 11, right-hand side).
Currently, there are no indications that this rise is persistent, or that inflation expectations are at risk of unanchoring.
Hence, we can afford to look through the rise in short-term inflation expectations. This could change if we see clear signs of a strong and front-loaded pass-through of potential tariff increases – something that could bring us back to the steep part of the Phillips curve. So far, however, evidence suggests that firms have notably slowed the frequency with which they revise their prices.
A steady hand policy also addresses risks of a more substantial decline in aggregate demand in response to the trade conflict.
If tight labour markets were the main culprit for the recent steepening of the Phillips curve, risks of a sharp decline in inflation caused by a rise in unemployment are much more moderate today.
The reason for this is that in both the United States and the euro area, the vacancy-to-unemployment ratio has fallen markedly and is now at a level that suggests that labour markets are much more balanced (Slide 12).
We are thus likely to be operating close to, or at, the flat part of the Phillips curve where a change in unemployment has only limited effects on underlying inflation, in stark contrast to the high inflation period.[40]
We would only need to react more forcefully to the tariff shock if we observed a sharp deterioration in labour market conditions or an unanchoring of inflation expectations to the downside.
Both seem unlikely at the current juncture.
Despite the number of vacancies declining, the euro area labour market has proven resilient, with unemployment at a record low. And most measures of medium-term inflation expectations remain tilted to the upside, including those of professional forecasters (Slide 13).
Conclusion
My main message today, and with this I would like to conclude, is therefore simple: now is the time to keep a steady hand.
In the current environment of elevated volatility, the ECB needs to remain focused on the medium term. Given long and variable transmission lags, reacting to short-term developments could result in the peak impact of our policy only unfolding when the current disinflationary forces have passed.
Over the medium term, risks to euro area inflation are likely tilted to the upside, reflecting both the increase in fiscal spending and the risks of renewed cost-push shocks from tariffs propagating through global value chains.
Therefore, from today’s perspective, an accommodative monetary policy stance would be inappropriate, also because recent inflation data suggest that past shocks may unwind more slowly than previously anticipated.
By keeping interest rates near their current levels, we can be confident that monetary policy is neither excessively holding back growth and employment, nor stimulating it. We are thus in a good place to evaluate the likely future evolution of the economy and to take action if risks materialise that threaten price stability.
Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts Ed Markey
Washington (May 9, 2025) – Senators Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Representatives Ayanna Pressley (MA-07) and Jim McGovern (MA-02) released the following statement after the United States District Court for the District of Vermont granted bail to Rümeysa Öztürk and directed the Trump administration to release her from detention. On March 25, 2025, Ms. Öztürk, a PhD student at Tufts University, was abducted by six plainclothes ICE agents off the streets of Somerville, Massachusetts. She was quickly moved across state lines and shipped more than 1,500 miles away from her community to a detention facility in Louisiana.
“We are relieved that Rümeysa has finally been ordered released. Let us be clear: Rümeysa should have never been abducted off the streets of Somerville, had her visa revoked, and been moved to a detention site more than 1,500 miles away, all in violation of her constitutional rights. Rümeysa has been unlawfully detained for six weeks in an ICE facility in Louisiana, where she has suffered intolerable living conditions and multiple intense and worsening asthma attacks. We applaud the district court’s decision to grant bail and order her release from detention, while her habeas petition is resolved. Rümeysa is a cherished member of her community, and we are relieved that she can finally return to Massachusetts. This is a victory for Rümeysa, for justice, and for our democracy.”
On April 22, Senator Markey and Representatives Pressley and McGovern, along with Representative Bennie Thompson (MS-02), Ranking Member of House Committee on Homeland Security, and Representative Troy Carter (LA-02), visited the Louisiana ICE facility where Rümeysa Öztürk was being held. Also on April 22, Senator Markey, Representative Pressley, and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) sent a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Todd Lyons to demand answers about the Trump administration’s concerning practice of detaining individuals, such as Öztürk, far from their attorneys and communities and in legal environments where their rights are more difficult to defend. The Trump administration is forum shopping to obtain a legal outcome favorable to its deportation agenda.
Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region
The results of the 2025 Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education (HKDSE) Examination will be released on 16 July. To facilitate Secondary 6 (S6) students’ early planning for the way forward, the Education Bureau (EDB) will continue to provide them with appropriate support and latest information on multiple pathways.
On the “Designated Webpage for S6 Students” (the “Webpage”) (https://www.edb.gov.hk/s6/en) updated by the EDB in a timely manner, students can obtain essential information related to the HKDSE Exam results release, further studies in local/ non-local institutions, multiple pathways, and counselling and support services. The “Reminders for 2025 HKDSE Exam and Exam Results Release” section on the “Webpage” features clear visuals and concise text highlighting the important dates and points to note for students’ easy reference.
In addition, students can access the electronic tool “e-Navigator” (https://enavigator.edb.hkedcity.net/main/index.php) through the “Webpage” to search for matching local institution programmes and to formulate an appropriate plan for further studies by inputting their predicted or actual HKDSE Examination results.
To better prepare S6 students and their parents for the results release ahead of time, the EDB will organise an online parents’ seminar titled “Get prepared for the HKDSE Examination Results Release – the Latest Information on Multiple Pathways” on 10 June 2025 (Tuesday). The seminar will cover various topics including the EDB’s support measures for S6 students, arrangements for the HKDSE results release, procedures for programme choice modification and results release through the Joint University Programmes Admissions System (JUPAS), and the latest information on non-JUPAS programmes and multiple pathways. Registration for the seminar is now open. For details, please visit the EDB “Parents’ Talks” webpage (https://www.edb.gov.hk/parentstalks) (Chinese version only). The presentation slides (Chinese and English versions) and video recording of the seminar will be uploaded to the “One-stop Portal on Articulation to Multiple Pathways‧Transition to Senior Secondary and Post-secondary Education” website (https://www.edb.gov.hk/amp/en) in late June 2025 for public reference.