Most people think of testosterone as “the defining male hormone”, said biochemist Daniel Kelly on The Conversation. But women also produce it and levels decline with age.

Women have long used testosterone therapy to improve libido and energy. Now, many are turning to it to manage other menopause-related symptoms, such as brain fog and mood swings.

But concerns are growing that the hormone treatment’s surge in popularity on social media is fuelling demand that vastly outstrips evidence for its long-term safety and efficacy.

How widespread is this new use?

Only four countries – Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and the UK – have authorised a testosterone cream for women, but mostly only to treat low libido. The UK approved the female-formulated testosterone cream AndroFeme in 2025, but the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) still needs to appraise it for cost effectiveness; it isn’t yet available on the NHS.

Still, there has been a “very sharp increase” in testosterone referrals to the NHS in Wales for post-menopausal women, a consultant told the BBC. Women there are “posing as men” to buy products from online pharmacies because of difficulties getting NHS prescriptions, she said. In England, NHS prescriptions for testosterone gel to women rose roughly tenfold between 2015 and 2022, said The Pharmaceutical Journal.

The issue is “receiving attention from regulators”, said Kelly on The Conversation. In September, the US Food and Drug Administration held a landmark public workshop on testosterone therapy, “examining evidence gaps and the need for future drug development”.

Does it work?

Most studies have focused on testosterone’s effect on low libido. But preliminary evidence indicates it could help with “a wide range of menopause symptoms, from mood changes to muscle loss”, said New Scientist.

A study published last year involving 510 women at a specialist menopause clinic in the UK found that, after four months on testosterone gel, there were improvements in mood, cognitive symptoms and libido. These findings “do not prove that the testosterone treatment caused these changes”, said Kelly. Testosterone is usually prescribed alongside oestrogen and sometimes progesterone in standard hormone replacement therapy. A study in Wales is currently trying to discover if “anecdotal reports of improved cognition and energy could be scientifically backed”, said the BBC.

More than 30 trials studying testosterone use for various health conditions in women are under way or planned in the US, said Reuters. “We do not have any evidence in women that it will improve muscle mass or bone density or mood or well-being or really any other metric,” said Stephanie Faubion, director of Mayo Clinic’s Center for Women’s Health and medical director of The ​Menopause Society. “What testosterone is being touted for in the lay public and on social media is not really what we have data for.”

Placebo-controlled trials have also not conclusively proven that testosterone alleviates brain fog, mood, bone density or fatigue, endocrinology professor Susan Davis told LiveScience.

What are the concerns?

Most testosterone treatments are not formulated and dosed for female patients. So in the UK, a “workaround” has been to measure out a tenth of a sachet of men’s testosterone gel by eye, said Kelly. That’s “a less precise way to deliver a hormone for which the therapeutic dose is so small”. Too much testosterone can increase the likelihood of unwanted side effects, such as voice deepening or rapid growth of facial and body hair.

“When you persistently have very high testosterone levels, you can get undesirable permanent side effects,” menopause specialist Michelle Olver told the BBC. “Nobody wants to have baldness, deepening of the voice or enlargement of the clitoris.”

The potential impacts of extra testosterone on cardiovascular health and breast cancer risk are “poorly understood”, said LiveScience. There is little evidence or data on the long-term safety for women. Yet online, they are “being bombarded with a tsunami of information providing them with the most sky-high expectations imaginable”, said gynaecology professor Nanette Santoro.

Speculation is rife about how Chancellor John Healey will attempt to balance the books in his first Autumn Budget.

Healey will deliver the Budget on 28 October and with Labour pledging not to raise income tax, VAT or national insurance and to keep the triple lock until April 2030, “targeted measures” on wealth, investments, pensions and property are “the most likely revenue-raising options”, said Rathbones.

The Treasury is facing pressures of “rocketing government borrowing”, said The Sun, driving fears of “painful tax hikes”.

1. Don’t act too early

Nothing has been confirmed, but there are rumours of changes to capital gains tax rates and pensions tax.

The “general consensus”, said Saga, is that it is unwise to make decisions based on “Budget rumour and speculation”.

It is worth reviewing transactions that are “already in the pipeline” and reassessing your tax position “if changes are ultimately announced in the Budget”.

There is an “annual rumour”, said Trustnet, that the amount that can be taken tax-free from a pension at retirement will be cut. But “acting early has risks” as reinvesting a withdrawn lump sum can breach HMRC’s recycling rules and lead to penalties.

2. Make use of existing tax allowances

We already know that the cash ISA allowance is being reduced to £12,000 for under-65s from April 2027.

ISAs remain one of the “most valuable tax shelters”, said Hargreaves Lansdown, so it is worth making use of the current full £20,000 allowance.

Married couples and civil partners have “additional flexibility” as they can move assets to each other without any tax liability and can “maximise two sets of tax-free allowances” including on capital gains tax exemptions.

3. Boost your pension contributions

A “limited number of taxes” could rise in the Budget, said The i Paper, due to manifesto pledges on income tax, VAT and national insurance, plus Prime Minister Andy Burnham has “ruled out” changes to stamp duty and council tax.

But income tax thresholds remain frozen and the chancellor could even reduce these for additional rate taxpayers. The impact of frozen thresholds could “continue to hit hard”, said FT Adviser.

It is therefore “worth seeing” if higher earners can increase their pension contributions to help “cut their income tax bill”.

4. Focus on what you can control

There is plenty of speculation about what will be announced in the Budget, said Coutts, but while “headlines come and go, your financial goals are likely to be longer term”.

Focusing on objectives is important, and it is also worth reviewing finances to “highlight opportunities that already exist, rather than speculating on changes that may never happen”.

5. Plan for what you know

There are changes announced in the previous Budget that you can prepare for such as the reduced cash ISA allowance from April 2027 and the inclusion of pensions for inheritance tax calculations.

These are changes “we already know about”, said The i Paper, so it is something “that people can plan for”.

This week’s deadly attacks by Yemen’s Houthi rebels on Saudi Arabia’s airports and energy facilities have renewed focus on the Iran-backed militia’s growing strength, as well as its potential to disrupt global oil supplies.

Saudi Arabia has now launched “a major offensive” to support the Yemeni government forces who are trying to drive the militia out of the territory they’ve gained over the past 12 years, said CNN. But the rebels “have so far held their ground”.

How did they gain power?

Formally named Ansar Allah (“helpers of God”), the Houthis emerged in the 1990s as an armed political and religious group championing Yemen’s Zaidi Shia minority. Initially fighting for more autonomy in their northern homeland, they took a lead role in mass anti-government protests when civil war broke out in 2014. They captured the capital, Sanaa, and forced the internationally-recognised government to retreat to Aden in the south.

In 2015, Saudi Arabia intervened in the civil war, insisting that Iran was supporting the Houthis, and led a nine-country coalition in a years-long effort to restore the Yemeni government. The coalition’s bombing campaign led to “one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises” and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, said The New York Times. But the Houthis survived, “cementing their power” over northern and central Yemen.

A UN-brokered truce in 2022 led to peace talks but these broke down after Israel launched its campaign against Iran-backed Hamas in Gaza.

How have they grown so powerful?

A 2024 report to the UN Security Council concluded that support and training from Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps had helped the Houthis transform from “a localised armed group” to “a powerful military organisation”. Their forces had grown to an estimated 350,000 fighters – up from just 30,000 in 2015. The Houthis had also been forcibly recruiting large numbers of children and Ethiopian migrants, using them as human shields, spies and for dangerous mine-planting.

While Iran is believed still to supply expertise, as well as “cutting-edge components like guidance systems”, the Houthis can now “manufacture much of their weaponry domestically”, said The Associated Press. They have “little aerial and naval power” but have been “increasingly turning to drones”, said Middle East Eye. These are very effective against pro-government forces, which lack “effective air defences”, global security consultant Wolf-Christian Paes told the news organisation.

How much of Yemen is under Houthi control?

The Houthis control between a quarter and a third of Yemen, but that portion is home to around three-quarters of the population. The militia “rules over its impoverished territory with an iron fist”, said The New York Times. The Houthis are the de-factor regime in northern and western Yemen, while the Yemeni government “controls much of the rest of the country”, said Al Jazeera. The Houthis have recently grown more powerful, “consolidating control over major cities and pushing to seize others”, said CNN. In September, they seized control of key locations along the Red Sea coast, giving them leverage over the Bab al-Mandab Strait, which is vital to global shipping.

“Half of the story is Iranian support,” international affairs professor and Yemen specialist Thomas Juneau told AP. The other half is “the weakness of their adversaries”. The anti-Houthi forces are “deeply divided” in the loyalty either to Saudi-backed government troops or to UAE-supported southern separatists, while Yemen’s recognised government remains “fragmented”, disunited and corrupt. The Houthis “have systematically been able to exploit that”.

If something sounds too good to be true — like 0% interest on a credit card — then it’s smart to ask questions. While a credit card advertising a 0% APR generally does not charge interest on qualifying purchases or balance transfers for a period of time, there is a lot of fine print to read. Here are four key things to know before you apply or start swiping.

1. The no-interest period is only temporary

The 0% interest “only lasts for the duration of the introductory period, and once it ends, the card will revert to its regular APR (the exact rate is determined based on your creditworthiness),” said NerdWallet. Exactly how long this period lasts can vary widely from card to card. Some may offer 0% APR for just 12 months and others for as long as 21 months. Regardless, you will want to know exactly when it ends, because standard credit card APRs are usually well into the double digits.

2. The 0% APR may not apply across the board

Be aware that a 0% APR may not apply to everything, since a single credit card can have multiple APRs. While “just about every 0% APR offer is for new purchases made with the card,” known as the purchase APR, only “some of these introductory offers also feature 0% on balance transfers, but not all do,” said NerdWallet. Further, even if the offer is for both types of APRs, the length of the promotional period may not be the same for each of them.

3. You could lose the rate if you do not abide by the rules

When you “miss a payment or make a late payment on a 0% APR credit card, the terms of the offer likely stipulate that the issuer could nullify your promotional offer,” said Bankrate. “This also happens if you don’t make at least your minimum payment each billing cycle.” In some cases, these missteps may result in the penalty APR applying, which is significantly higher than the regular purchase or balance transfer APR.

4. You will owe interest if any balance remains after the promo period

If you are not able to pay off your full balance before the promotional period ends, you could see your credit card balance balloon. This is where it becomes particularly important to pay attention to the fine print. While a standard 0% deal “charges interest only on whatever remaining balance exists after the promotional period ends,” it is also possible to instead end up with a deferred interest offer, which works differently, said The Washington Post. For that, “if you can’t pay by the deadline, you get hit with backdated interest, which can amount to hundreds or thousands of dollars.”

“Netanyahu knew” – that was the verdict of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz as it reported allegations that Benjamin Netanyahu was warned about the 7 October attacks.

A string of claims that Arab officials warned the longtime Israeli PM that a violent attack was coming have put him on the defensive less than 30 days before the nation’s crucial elections. Netanyahu has said the reports are an “absolute lie” and threatened to sue the paper.

What are the claims?

The claims “began to trickle out” last month in a book by two Israeli journalists called “Hostages: 843 Days of Abandonment”, said The Washington Post. It details an encrypted call reportedly made by the Emirati president, Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, also known as MBZ, less than two weeks before 7 October 2023, to warn Netanyahu about a planned attack. Netanyahu did not pass on the warnings to his security aides, according to the authors, Shlomi Eldar and Ruth Yuval.

The PM was also warned of an impending attack by Egypt’s intelligence chief, Abbas Kamel, according to The Wall Street Journal. Kamel allegedly phoned Netanyahu just days before 7 October, adding to warnings from the previous month, when he is said to have flown to Israel to inform security officials in person that Hamas was planning a major assault, claimed the paper.

“We know that Egypt’s chief of intelligence flew to Israel on 26 September and warned Israel of a… Hamas attack,” Ahron Bregman, an Israeli security analyst and senior teaching fellow at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera. “We also know that similar messages came from MBZ.”

How might they affect the election?

According to polling, events surrounding the attacks and “questions over responsibility for security failures that preceded them” are “important issues” for voters in the parliamentary elections to be held later this month, said the outlet.

But the polls have “held relatively steady in recent weeks”, said The Washington Post. Jonathan Rynhold, a political scientist at Bar-Ilan University, Tel Aviv, said Netanyahu’s loyal base and Israel’s mainly right-leaning electorate may not move their votes to the “centrist bloc led by Eisenkot without a ‘clear smoking gun’”.

Naftali Bennett, the leader of the Beyachad (Together) alliance, said that if the allegations were proven true, Netanyahu “cannot continue to serve in his position for another minute”, while the former military chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot, who leads Netanyahu’s Likud party in the polls by the “slenderest of margins”, said, “Netanyahu received dozens of warnings for 7 October and ignored them all. He is unfit.”

Many of Netanyahu’s electoral rivals, including Eisenkot, have promised to immediately establish an independent commission of inquiry if elected.

What does Netanyahu say?

Netanyahu has strongly denied ever receiving any warning of an attack. The Israeli PM said the report that he was warned by bin Zayed was an “absolute lie” and denied he even spoke to the Emirati leader at that time.

The Israeli PM has tried to “shift the blame” for not being warned of the attack to the former head of Israel’s internal security service, Ronen Bar, said Al Jazeera. Bar announced last month that he would sue the prime minister, a “longtime political nemesis”, for defamation over the claims.

Kristi Noem was ousted from her role as Homeland Security secretary in March 2026, but her final moments as the agency’s head are under renewed scrutiny due to airplanes she purchased for DHS. These transactions are especially controversial because they were reportedly made through one of Noem’s political donors.

What did Noem do?

Noem purchased the vehicles on her last morning as DHS secretary, paying at least $304 million for five airplanes from the Daedalus Aviation Corporation, according to a report by The New York Times. The prices that Daedalus sold the planes for were “millions of dollars higher than the typical market value for jets of that age,” said the Times, and included a Gulfstream jet purchased by Daedalus for $83 million but resold to DHS for $106 million. In all, Noem acquired 10 airplanes throughout her 14 months at the department.

One of the agency’s purchases included a Boeing 737 that was “converted into a massive private jet, complete with a stand-up bar, two bedrooms, marble showers and a table covered in manta ray skin,” said the Times. The purchases are coming under additional fire because the head of Daedalus, William Walters, is one of Noem’s donors and gave “$10,000 to political action committee American Resolve, which supported Noem,” said NewsNation.

What has the fallout been?

Many have criticized Noem for the purchases. The deal “smacks of Noem making money for a former donor and saddling American taxpayers with the cost, without any benefit to them or the government,” said The New Republic. Some were especially angry that Walters was essentially “given a no-bid contract to acquire planes for deportation flights, acting as a middleman by buying planes from elsewhere and reselling them to the government.”

Noem has denied any wrongdoing regarding the plane purchases. The Times’ report was “dishonest” and “factually incorrect,” she said on X. While not disputing that the planes were bought, Noem rejected the characterization of Walters as a donor because he “did not personally make political contributions to Secretary Noem.” The Times “stands by the characterization of the political donor and his firm,” the outlet’s public relations department said in a response on X. Walters’ donation was given to a “group that existed to support Ms. Noem.”

We may be about to call time on the leap second, which for decades has kept Coordinated Universal Time (the global standard underpinning timekeeping systems) in sync with the Earth's daily rotation.

The International Bureau of Weights and Measures is convening its governing body for its General Conference in Versailles this week, as it does every four to six years. The timekeepers had already voted in 2022 to phase out the leap second by 2035. “But now there is a spanner – or spinner – in the works,” said the Financial Times. Earth has been rotating unusually rapidly for a decade, meaning that before 2035, there’s a chance we’d need the first-ever negative leap second – in other words, deleting a second. Scientists say this unprecedented step could “create mayhem in the digital time-stamped continuum”. The guardians of time are therefore considering an urgent draft resolution to fast-track the phase-out of the leap second.

How do we measure time?

“For millennia, a day has been defined as one full rotation of the Earth,” said physics and astronomy professor Vahe Peroomian on The Conversation. Ancient Egyptians were the first known civilisation to divide day and night into twelve parts each, establishing the 24-hour day.

Dividing hours into 60 minutes, and minutes into 60 seconds, harks back to ancient Mesopotamian numerical systems, which were based on the concept of 60. Greek astronomers like Claudius Ptolemy adopted the system while measuring the motions of planets, dividing degrees into 60 units. These subdivisions were adopted worldwide for timekeeping, dividing each hour into 60 minutes, and a minute into 60 seconds.

But it took many centuries before devices, such as 17th-century pendulum clocks and 20th-century quartz watches, “became accurate enough” to measure seconds, said BBC Future.

What’s the problem with astronomical timekeeping?

The speed of the Earth’s rotation can fluctuate, so defining a second as a fraction of a solar day is imprecise. In 1967, the General Conference on Weights and Measures adopted a new definition of a second based on the cesium-133 atom, which oscillates at “a remarkably steady rate”, said Peroomian. One second was defined as 9,192,631,770 oscillations. Atomic clocks use cesium-133 to give us Coordinated Universal Time (UTC): the super-precise global standard used by telecoms, computer networks, international businesses and power grids.

So what are leap seconds?

Atomic clocks run at a fixed rate but – apart from right now – Earth’s rotation has been gradually slowing, primarily due to the Moon’s gravitational pull. To keep UTC in sync with Earth’s rotations, timekeepers invented “the leap second” in 1972. This “interloper” allows the two systems of time – astronomical and UTC – to “run in parallel”, said the Financial Times. Once the lag reaches a certain point, a leap second is inserted to “yank them back in alignment”. At irregular intervals, 27 leap seconds have been added to global clocks since 1972 – the last in 2016.

Why are they being phased out?

Leap seconds have become “increasingly difficult to deal with in the computer age”, said ABC News. They can disrupt computer operating systems, which assume a day is always 86,400 seconds long, resulting in glitches and outages. But the prospect of the first negative leap second poses an even greater risk. “Many computer programmes assume all leap seconds are positive”, Setnam Shemar, the UK’s principal timekeeping scientist, told the FT. Removing a second could “result in a major technology failure in telecommunications or electricity grid networks or satellite navigation systems”.

This week, the world’s timekeepers will vote on introducing a “leap hour” instead. This could take “a millennium or more” to accumulate and, by then, life may be so different, there may be no need to adjust the lag at all. All this change “would be a practical win for tech overlords, digital gatekeepers and official clock-watchers” but it could be “something of a cultural loss for our stargazing species, detaching human timekeeping from its ancient, astronomical roots”.

Looking to invest beyond your 401(k)? Opening a brokerage account could make sense. These accounts allow you to buy and sell a variety of investments, from stocks and bonds to ETFs, mutual funds and even cryptocurrency. And unlike retirement plans, they do not have limits on contributions or withdrawals.

You may find, however, that there are also seemingly unlimited options when it comes to brokerage accounts to choose from. Here are the key criteria to consider on your quest to finding an account that supports your investing goals, whether it be learning about stocks or building wealth (or both).

Investment and trading options

“Not all brokerage accounts offer the same menu of investments,” so “knowing what you want to invest in will help you narrow down your choices,” said The Motley Fool. Some may focus their offerings on more hands-off investment options, like mutual funds, while other brokerage accounts are tailored for investors participating in more advanced strategies, like futures trading, in which case execution quality may matter more. Do not overlook the platform itself, either — you want to make sure it feels navigable and in alignment with your intended uses.

Commissions and fees

Cost is an important consideration when choosing a brokerage, as there can be some variance when it comes to trading and management fees. But do not automatically assume the least expensive option is right for you. Discount brokerages “charge significantly lower fees than their full-service counterparts but also offer fewer services,” and they will require you to make your own investment decisions, said Investopedia. Some investors may prefer the guidance of a full-service brokerage, despite the added cost.

Tools, research and educational resources

Especially “if you’re new to investing, it may be best to look for a brokerage that offers free educational resources, such as live webinars, thorough how-to guides, video tutorials, glossaries and more,” said NerdWallet. Investors pursuing more complex, advanced strategies, on the other hand, may be looking for in-depth market analysis and monitoring and analysis tools.

Customer service

“Ask your broker what the firm does to support its customers. Does the firm return calls promptly? Does it offer explanations when something goes wrong?” said U.S. News & World Report. When your money is on the line, you want to know. Also consider what your preferred format of communication is, whether that be live chat or a phone line, and if a particular brokerage offers that.

User experience and reputation

If you have found a few potential accounts that seem to meet your needs, digging into a brokerage’s reputation and general user satisfaction can be a deciding factor. What types of investors are typically using the platform? Are there any widespread, notable complaints? You will also have the choice between newer names and longstanding institutions. While not having years under their belt “doesn’t mean these newcomers are untrustworthy,” keep in mind “it does mean they may be unproven during a variety of stock market scenarios,” said NerdWallet.

Home warranties may feel like a catch-22: They can offer some financial protection in case something big breaks in your house — think a major appliance or your heating and cooling system — but they also add an extra cost to your monthly budget. And they do not always cover everything.

The good news: If you are weighing a home warranty, there are some clear considerations that can make the whole decision feel a bit less like guesswork. Here is what to know.

What do home warranties cover?

In short, a home warranty “covers appliance and system repairs related to wear and tear from everyday use,” said NerdWallet. This can include large appliances like your washer and dryer, refrigerator, dishwasher and garbage disposal, or systems such as plumbing, heating, A/C and the electrical system.

What a home warranty will not cover is “your home’s structure, foundation, walls or workmanship,” said RocketMortgage. It also will not cover systems and appliances under certain conditions, such as if the item was not “specifically listed in the contract,” or if the breakdown is due to a “problem that predates the contract” or “from anything other than regular wear and tear.” Same goes for if the item was “modified or installed incorrectly” or “you made the problem worse by trying to fix it yourself.”

When is a home warranty worthwhile?

On a “strictly financial level, home warranties have the potential to pay for themselves if covered items malfunction and need repairs or replacements cost more than what the customer pays for the plan premium and service fee,” said Forbes. But because you cannot predict what unexpected home repairs may arise, or when those issues may occur, home warranties are “generally best for homeowners who have appliances and systems reaching the end of their lifespans,” said Forbes.

Same goes for if you recently bought a home and are not totally sure of the status of various systems or appliances. In these scenarios, having a home warranty can make your future repair bills a little less unpredictable.

Just bear in mind that “there could also be a preexisting condition — even if it wasn’t evident to you when you bought the home warranty — that allows the provider to deny coverage,” said Consumer Reports. This is another gamble of these warranties. There is also a risk if anything is too old, as “many home warranties pay less to repair or replace older items through a process known as depreciation,” said NerdWallet.

When should you skip a home warranty?

A home warranty generally will not be worthwhile if you already have protection in place. For instance, “new-home appliances may already be covered,” and “even if your appliances aren’t new, they may still be under warranty if you made the purchase with a credit card” since some cards “extend warranty length,” said Consumer Reports.

It is also worth noting that when you request a repair under a home warranty, you may only be able to work with a technician in their network, rather than your preferred repair person. In some cases, “you might have to wait longer for appointments than if you’d hired a repair company on your own,” said NerdWallet.

Finally, there is the ultimate risk: “You may pay for it for years without actually using it,” said Forbes. Or you might pay for it, only for the repairs you end up needing not to be covered.

Establishing an emergency fund is likely something you know you should do. Setting aside the funds to make it happen, however, can be another story, especially with the ever-rising costs of living and other savings priorities.

But if you ever find yourself in a pinch — whether it be from a surprise medical bill or a pricey but nonnegotiable car repair — you will be very glad to have an emergency fund stashed away. You may otherwise find yourself taking on debt to cover the cost, which will just add another worry to your financial plate. Here are three tips to help you start building.

1. Figure out your target number

Savings goals are often easier to meet the more concrete they are. If you just have a vague idea in mind, like saving enough money to cover a potential job loss, it can be trickier to accomplish because there is no clear end goal.

While you may hear some experts “recommend you save three to six months’ worth of expenses for emergencies,” in truth, the “amount you need for emergency savings can vary based on your own financial situation,” said Bankrate. You’ll want to consider “how stable your income is, your level of risk tolerance and whether you have children or other dependents,” all of which will influence what an appropriate buffer is for you. Generally, though, you want to define your typical monthly costs (making a budget is a good way to figure this out), then aim to be able to cover those from your emergency fund at least a few times over.

2. Have a plan for how you will fund it

Just as important as knowing how much you need to save is figuring out how you will achieve that balance. But “instead of focusing on one large savings goal, focus on smaller, attainable monthly goals,” as “this can help you keep the habit of saving regularly and make the overall task less daunting,” said NerdWallet. Maybe you aim to set aside a certain amount each month, such as $50 from every paycheck. Automating that amount to move from checking to savings each time your paycheck hits can make it that much easier to do consistently and regularly.

Do not overlook the impact of any financial windfalls, either. Even just putting a portion of your tax refund or annual bonus into your emergency fund can give it a good boost.

3. Be strategic about where you keep your money

Where you keep your emergency fund parked and waiting can make a difference in how quickly it grows. But “while investing your money can bring higher returns, it can also come with losses, especially if you have to sell quickly in the event of an emergency,” said Experian. Instead, keep your emergency fund in a liquid account — meaning one that is easily accessible when you need it — but that still earns some interest. A high-yield savings account is often an ideal candidate, as you will earn interest above the low rates that standard savings accounts offer but still be able to easily access your money in case of, well, an emergency.

At present, England’s adult care system is “one of the most threadbare in the developed world”, according to Thea Stein of the Nuffield Trust, which has analysed the arrangements of 11 comparable nations and regions. England is an “outlier” in that eligibility for any public funding at all is strictly means-tested.

The most generous system is in Denmark, where the state pays 100% of care costs, with no means test. Those in residential care do get billed for bed and board, but means-tested housing benefit is available.

Australia has a similar system, also funded by general taxation. In most cases, bed and board have to be paid for, but there are a series of daily spending caps on different elements, such as food and hotel costs.

Japan, with the oldest population in the world, introduced a tax on all over-40s in 2000, ring-fenced for care. Everyone who needs it is given a monthly care allowance. They contribute 10%-30% of costs, depending on income; total contributions are capped.

A similar insurance system operates in Germany, but with no cap. Individuals usually pay half of costs. Unusually, adult children can (in rare cases) be liable to pay for parents’ care if the parents run out of money.

The execution by firing squad of former US Army major Nidal Hasan will be livestreamed for the public to watch, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has said.

This will make it the first public execution in the US since 1936, and the prospect has already been described as “medieval”.

Who is he and what did he do?

Hasan, a former US Army psychiatrist from Virginia, fatally shot 13 unarmed US soldiers at Fort Hood in November 2009, injuring another 32. The attack took place in a crowded medical building where soldiers were waiting for check-ups and vaccines. It was the deadliest ever non-combat attack on an American military base.

He admitted in court that he was the gunman, and said that he believed he was protecting Muslims and the Taliban in Afghanistan. He apologised for “any mistakes” but was convicted of 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted murder.

Why is it being livestreamed?

Hegseth signalled that the execution would be livestreamed as a deterrent for the sort of crime Hasan committed. “We’ll make sure that people are able to watch it, that it’s public, because people need to understand that there’s serious consequences for these types of things,” he said.

The US government is sending “a very clear message”, said Sky News US correspondent David Blevins. Deborah Denno, a death penalty expert and law professor at Fordham University, New York, told The Associated Press that livestreaming an execution could make the process “much more transparent”, and inform the public about all that capital punishment entails. Those are benefits that she said would be useful at a time when Christa Pike’s botched execution has raised fresh questions about the manner by which criminals are put to death.

What’s the reaction been?

The Republican senator Thom Tillis said the plan is “beyond disgusting”. Chris Murphy, a Democrat senator, told CNN that public executions are “medieval” and mimic Islamic State killings. “That’s what America has become? That’s pretty extraordinary.”

Livestreaming “will not educate”, it will “terrorise”, and is “beneath the dignity that we owe to anyone”, even those who commit a “horrific” crime such as Hasan’s, Austin Sarat, a legal expert in the death penalty at Amherst College, Massachusetts, told The iPaper.

The decision to livestream the execution is “unprecedented in the modern era” and “on uncertain legal terrain”, John Mills, a lawyer who works with inmates sentenced to death, told the BBC.

The livestream may face a legal challenge because federal regulations forbid the “visual or audio recording” of an execution without a specific judicial order.

The Department of Justice is revoking the citizenship of 40 naturalized citizens who have been accused of various crimes. The sweeping effort is in line with the Trump administration’s escalation of immigration enforcement.

Who is being targeted?

This week’s announcement marks the “largest denaturalization effort in modern history,” said Attorney General Todd Blanche in a press release. From an “individual convicted of espionage” to those convicted of other serious offenses, the defendants “concealed critical facts” from the government and “represent serious criminal offenders.” Under Trump’s leadership, the DOJ will “continue to employ the denaturalization process” to “maintain our national security” and “protect the American people.”

The denaturalization petitions were “lodged against the 40 individuals” between Aug. 10 and Oct. 2, said Time. They are accused of a variety of crimes, including “child sexual abuse, fraud and tax evasion.” Not all are “convicted of or pleaded guilty to violent crimes,” said USA Today. At least “19 of the 40 people” face denaturalization proceedings for “reasons related to accusations of lying on visa forms.”

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, a federal court can revoke naturalized U.S. citizenship if the government establishes that the citizenship was “illegally obtained or procured through concealment of a material fact or willful misrepresentation,” said Newsweek.

How does this fit into Trump’s larger agenda?

The Justice Department has “made denaturalization a priority” under the Trump administration’s “hard-line immigration crackdown,” said Newsweek. In June 2025, the Justice Department’s Civil Division in an internal memo directed attorneys to “prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence.” The guidance cited “fraud or willful misrepresentation in obtaining citizenship, certain criminal conduct and national security concerns” among the grounds for pursuing cases, said Newsweek.

What used to be a “rare process reserved for the most egregious offenders” has become “common during Trump’s presidential terms,” said Time. At one point, Trump “leveled the threat at his political enemies” like New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and tech titan and “on-again, off-again ally” Elon Musk. The administration allegedly plans to file at least 250 denaturalization cases by this October, according to an unnamed senior Justice Department official, per CNN.

When the winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature was revealed today, “all eyes in the literary world” were firmly fixed on Stockholm, said Deutsche Welle.

But the announcement of 76-year-old Canadian poet and essayist Anne Carson as this year’s laureate marked the end of a lengthy, secretive selection process that began more than a year ago. And the world’s most prestigious literary award has, according to Euronews, “generated more controversies” than any of the other Nobel Prizes.

Who chooses the Nobel Prize laureates in literature?

Awards are chosen by the Swedish Academy, founded in 1786 by King Gustav III. The 18 members, known as “De Aderton” (The Eighteen), are currently made up of “distinguished Swedish writers, linguists, literary scholars, historians, and a prominent jurist”, according to the Nobel Prize website. They have tenure for life.

How do nominations work?

In September last year, the Academy’s “Nobel Committee” sent out hundreds of invitation forms to individuals and organisations eligible to submit nominations. These include literature and linguistics professors at universities, previous Nobel laureates in literature, and the heads of writers’ associations in various countries. The committee can also add names, such as past laureates. The list “can reach 200 names per year”, Gisele Sapiro, research director and Nobel Prize expert, told DW.

Those who don’t receive an invitation but are still qualified to submit nominations can do so – but no one can nominate themselves. That said, “there’s a tradition of writers lobbying for the prize by giving talks in Gothenburg or Stockholm and then flirting with Academy members over drinks”, said the Financial Times.

The Committee screens submissions after the January deadline and, over the next few months, “whittles down the nominations” to five candidates. The 18 then read and assess the work over the summer, confer in September, and vote in early October. The winner must receive more than half the votes. He or she takes home 12 million Swedish kronor (about £910,000), as well as a “lifetime of laurels”, said LitHub. But the public – and nominees – don’t learn which authors made the shortlist until 50 years later. Some authors are considered year after year, but never win.

What are they looking for?

In his will, Alfred Nobel stipulated that the prize should go to the writer of the “most outstanding work in an idealistic direction”. The Academy “spent decades puzzling over what ‘ideal’ meant”, said the FT, before “quietly dropping the criterion”.

Last year, the prize went to Hungarian modernist László Krasznahorkai, for his “compelling and visionary oeuvre that in the midst of apocalyptic terror reaffirms the power of art”. The prize is given to a writer’s body of work, rather than one book.

According to Sapiro, the Academy is looking for ambitious, influential literature that has spawned a new literary movement. The work must also be “universal, being able to transcend its own culture”, she told DW. Translations are key: most laureates are translated into English, French and German – “these three languages are the most important”. It’s also a “major advantage” if nominees have already won other prestigious literary awards, she said, such as the International Man Booker Prize.

So far, only 33 out of 122 laureates have come from outside Europe. Only about 15% of winners have been women, but since 2018, the prize has alternated between a man and a woman. Genre doesn’t seem to matter: in 2016, Bob Dylan won the prize for his song lyrics.

Why is it so controversial?

Possibly the most controversial winner was Peter Handke in 2019. The Austrian writer was a “known denier of the Bosnian genocide”, as well as a “close supporter” of former Serbian president Slobodan Milošević, said Euronews. Hundreds protested, and several countries either condemned the award or boycotted the ceremony. Even Bob Dylan’s fans were “baffled” by his selection.

“The prize is ritually mocked,” said the FT’s Simon Kuper. Because achievement in literature is more subjective than in the sciences, the decision “reliably angers critics”. There is also a “comic discrepancy between the weight of the prize and the parochialism of the judges”. Some of the 18 are “obscure even in Sweden”. They have also awarded eight Nobels to Sweden: more than Asia, Africa or Latin America have each received.

But the prize still “shapes the global canon – even if the globe can push back”. Dylan’s award may have been “ridiculed”, but it “sparked a global debate on what constitutes literature”. The prize can also “turbocharge sales”, which benefits small presses that publish literature in translation. It also gets authors’ names trending on social media, far beyond their countries. In a world where reading is “in decline”, the prize matters more than ever.

Increasing numbers of workers are opting out of their workplace pensions to save money, but there are risks to be aware of.

All employees are automatically enrolled into workplace pension schemes if they are over the age of 22. But a “growing number” of Gen Z and millennials are choosing to opt out, “due to cost-of-living pressures”, said BBC News.

However, the over-60s are “consistently the highest rate of any age group” opting out, said Fidelity International, but this “may not be the right decision and could cost them dearly”.

Why people are opting out of workplace pensions

Saving for retirement is, of course, sensible but with a “cost-of-living crunch and compressed real wage growth ”younger workers are “prioritising having money in their pockets now”, said Investors’ Chronicle.

Some over-60s may also feel they have enough for retirement or have a health issue that reduces life expectancy, said Fidelity, so their priorities “may understandably change”.

How to opt out of your pension scheme

If you wish to opt out of your pension scheme, your employer will tell you the scheme you are enrolled in. To leave, you will need to contact the provider directly.

Businesses “must not actively encourage their staff to opt out”, said the Pensions Regulator, so it must be your own decision.

You can opt out within a month of being added to your employer’s scheme, and you will get back any contributions. Once you have been enrolled for a month, any contributions will usually stay in your pension fund until you retire.

Other options include reducing the level of your contributions, although there is a minimum of 5% of pay for employees and 3% for employers.

The benefits of opting out

The “main benefit” of opting out, said Legal & General, is getting your hands on extra cash. This can be useful if you have “new financial commitments, or changed your spending priorities”.

But while it can seem an “easy way” to pocket more money each month, said TPT Retirement Solutions, it can have a “surprisingly large impact” on the plans you have for your golden years.

The drawbacks of opting out

Opting out of a workplace pension is like giving up “free money”, said Armstrong Watson, as you lose employer contributions and government tax relief.

It is easy to underestimate the impact of “even a few years of missing pension contributions” though, said The Times, especially when you are young.

Your retirement is more likely to be comfortable “if you can save over the longest time possible”, said MoneyHelper.

You will miss out on potential investment growth if you opt out from your pension, which can slow down your savings, said Legal & General, which means “you might end up having to fill the gap by working for longer, later on in life”.

Opting out isn’t a “one-time decision” though, said LV, and you can usually rejoin your company’s workplace scheme. But this can be a “lengthy process” so you will miss out on any benefits and investment growth in the meantime.

When mortgage rates are high, many buyers are less inclined to make a home purchase. This can end up being bad news for sellers.

Conventional wisdom has called for staying put until rates cool off. But with “mortgage rates on the cusp of topping 7% for the fifth year in a row, it might be time to stop waiting for lower rates to put your home on the market,” said The Wall Street Journal. It may also be a good time to get more strategic.

How do high mortgage rates affect home sales?

Higher mortgage rates squeeze the budgets of buyers. Because “rising mortgage rates reduce purchasing power even when home prices change little,” prospective buyers may “lower their target price or postpone a purchase,” said U.S. Bank. Buyers are also likely to be more cautious and critical about making an offer. When rates are high, they are “quick to walk away from homes that are overpriced or in poor condition,” said the Journal.

For sellers, this means they may not sell their home for as much as they want or get it done as quickly as they want. While there are exceptions, “most sellers can no longer count on a swift sale,” said the Journal. They may also be forced to make concessions and address issues they may have otherwise avoided in a seller’s market.

What can you do to sell when mortgage rates are high?

When buyers are price-sensitive, “pricing your home correctly from the start is one of the most important things you can do,” said Homie, a real estate technology company. “Overpricing can scare buyers away, while smart pricing can lead to more offers — and even a bidding war.”

If you do get an offer, it’s worth being a little flexible. Although “five years ago, sellers could say no to repairs and rely on a backup offer,” today, it “might pay to provide a reasonable credit or fix the problem,” said Chris Wands, a Douglas Elliman real estate agent, to the Journal. It could additionally help to offer concessions, like paying closing costs, in order to make the sale.

Last but not least, it is vital that your home is in tip-top shape when you begin showing it. “Standing out from the competition is particularly important when interest rates are high because buyer traffic will be lower,” said REMAX.

Is it worth staying put instead of selling?

“When you look at the actual numbers, the high mortgage rates seller’s dilemma makes sense,” said REMAX. Still, “homeowners waiting to sell their homes due to high interest rates need to think about the whole picture.” Consider what the trade-offs are of postponing a move you want to make, and factor in the possibility that home prices themselves could go up while you are waiting for mortgage rates to fall.

It’s worth pointing out that staying where you are and selling are not necessarily the only two options on the table. As a third path, “owners holding ultralow fixed-rate mortgages can take advantage of the strong rental demand,” said Ben Dixon, another Douglas Elliman agent, to the Journal. “High rents might cover carrying costs, generate cash flow and allow the owner to hold on to their low-cost debt until the market takes a turn for the better.”

Concerns are sweeping across Russia and the world after a laboratory technician reportedly died from pneumonic plague in Siberia. Many more people are now being quarantined. But health officials in the United States say there is no reason to worry about a global outbreak, at least for the time being.

What happened in Russia?

A 28-year-old researcher at the Irkutsk Antiplague Research Institute of Siberia in the town of Shelekhov died last week after being infected with pneumonia of “unknown” origin, according to Russia’s public health agency, Rospotrebnadzor. The disease is now possibly believed to be pneumonic plague, an illness “caused by bacteria, Yersinia pestis, famous for causing the Black Death, that remains with us today mostly in animals across parts of Asia, Africa and the Americas,” Simon Clarke, a professor of cellular microbiology at the U.K.’s University of Reading, said in a statement.

The disease is deadly but “generally treatable with antibiotics if identified quickly,” said Clarke. After the researcher’s death, “dozens of people were reported to be in isolation,” even as Russia claimed “no microorganisms associated with the employee’s professional duties were detected in samples taken from the patient,” said CNN. The head of Rospotrebnadzor later arrived in Shelekhov to hold an emergency meeting about a “particularly dangerous infection,” said Russian news outlet IRK. It was originally reported that the worker who died caught the disease from a broken test tube, which Russia has denied.

What next?

Given the similarities to the alleged coronavirus lab leak cover-up, some people have “likened the reports coming out of Russia to those that circulated in the early days of the Covid-19 outbreak in early 2020,” said Time. But for now, experts are saying a similar pandemic is unlikely. It is “important to remember that pneumonic plague is a very different disease,” Clarke said. U.S. officials say they will continue to watch for updates.

The State Department has also sent a letter to Moscow warning that its “failure to disclose details about the death of a lab worker from a plague research center in Siberia runs counter to its international health obligations,” said The Wall Street Journal. The U.S. is “monitoring it closely,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters. “I don't think it's cause for alarm, but it is cause for focus.”

The Free Application for Federal Student Aid, aka FAFSA, is the key to securing federal-, state- or school-based financial aid, from student loans to grants and work study funding. But when you are in the thick of admissions essays and applications, or just another semester’s worth of schoolwork, filling out a stack of paperwork may feel like the last thing you want to do.

The good news: This year the FAFSA may be a little bit less of a headache. “We’ve simplified it,” said Department of Education Under Secretary for Higher Education Nicholas Kent to ABC News. “Instead of it taking hours or even days to fill out, it takes 15 minutes on average.” Plus, applicants will have more time to get it done, thanks to the form for the 2027-2028 school year launching “earlier than ever before.” To make the process even easier, here is what to know ahead of time.

What information does the FAFSA request?

The first section of the FAFSA collects basic personal information such as your name, date of birth, contact information and Social Security number. You will also be asked to answer questions about your personal circumstances, which will determine whether you qualify as a dependent or independent student for financial aid purposes. Demographic questions, like your race and ethnicity, also appear in the form, though these are “used for research purposes only and not factored into your aid eligibility,” said SoFi.

The next — and likely more time-consuming — section collects information about your financial situation. You will need to report your federal tax information and details on any financial assets you own, as well as child support or federal benefits you receive. You will also be asked to list any colleges or career schools you are applying to.

If you’re a dependent student, the FAFSA will also request information about your parents and their finances. Students who are married will need to provide details about their spouse.

Which documents will you need to complete FAFSA?

When filling out the FAFSA, you will generally need the following:

• Social Security or Alien Registration number
• Most recent tax return
• Records of income, such as W-2s
• Balances of cash, checking and savings accounts
• Investment information
• Details on net worth of businesses or farms, if applicable
• Records of child support payments, if relevant

To access the form, you will also need to have a StudentAid.gov profile. Setting one up requires your name, date of birth, email address and Social Security number.

When should you aim to submit your FAFSA?

Ideally, as soon as you can. “For the best chance at receiving available financial aid, submit your FAFSA as soon as possible after the application becomes available,” said Sallie, a student loan resource and lender. “Filing early gives colleges more time to prepare your financial aid offer and may improve your chances of receiving aid that has limited funding.”

Technically, though, the 2027-2028 FAFSA deadline is 11:59 p.m. Central Time (CT) on June 30, 2028.

“Authorities seek to drive us out of our places of study through budget cuts, the closure of places, dilapidated buildings, selection, or repression, let’s not let them: let’s block and retake the universities and high schools!”, wrote the Student Union and the High School Trade Union in a statement last week.

What started as a “spontaneous blockade” of a high school in a Paris suburb in mid-September, has now led to the closure of up to 500 schools across the country, said Le Monde. Since protests began, more than 5,000 people have been arrested, “85% of them minors”, said the same paper, with the education minister confirming that 24 schools had either been “burned or ransacked”, and millions of euros of damage caused.

Ever since the student demonstrations of May 1968 and, more recently, the gilets jaunes protests in 2018, “every government has run scared of angry French youth”, said Paris correspondent Hugh Schofield on the BBC. With no sign of slowing down, and presidential elections coming up, the protests will “send shivers” down the French government’s spine.

Why has this happened?

A major cause of the protest has been a lack of central government funding for the education system. On Thursday, French Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu outlined a modest 1.7% rise in education spending to €65.53 billion (£55.7 billion) in a draft of the 2027 budget, said The Telegraph. However, this is below the rate of inflation, and excludes teacher pensions. Traditionally, education has been the “largest item in the French budget”, but this year, debt-servicing costs are expected to reach €74.5 billion (£63.1 billion), according to the draft.

Another “main complaint” is a shortage of teachers and support staff in schools, said Time Magazine. In the year 2024/25, nearly 10% of teaching hours in public secondary education went untaught, according to data from the education ministry. The majority of that (7.5%) was due to a failure to find substitute teachers, and 2.3% because of complete school closures.

Students have had to navigate “overcrowded classes of up to 40 children in crumbling buildings”, said The Guardian. “Ceilings partially collapsing during class, leaks, cockroaches and buildings in disrepair” are fairly common experiences.

Many have also found the online system designed for university applications – “Parcoursup”, the equivalent of UCAS – “opaque and difficult”, and in urgent need of reform. Discontent this year has also been exacerbated by “unbearable temperatures in classrooms during heatwaves in May and June”.

How has the government responded?

The government has “strongly condemned the violence and responded forcefully”, said The New York Times. On Friday, France’s justice minister Gérald Darmanin said on X that he would pursue a “firm” criminal response, and hold parents of minors civilly liable “wherever possible”.

But the government has also tried to “placate” the rapidly spreading protests, and has “acknowledged some of the students’ grievances”, said the NYT. Education minister Édouard Geffray announced on Thursday that the government would scrap plans to increase some higher education registration fees, an idea floated just hours before in the proposed 2027 budget. Ahead of meeting unions for talks on Friday, Geffray said he would introduce a new platform, where students could voice their thoughts for education reform, which would then be included in a “national report”, said Time.

Geffray also told broadcaster France 2 on Thursday evening that the protests, which were “legitimate at the outset”, had been “taken hostage by ultra-left groups”, said Le Monde. Lecornu’s team had directly blamed La France Insoumise (France Unbowed, or LFI) and “its ultra-left proxies” for the violence. LFI, led by presidential candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon, has strongly denied the claim, though supported the students’ right to protest. However, party member and mayor of Paris suburb Saint-Denis, Bally Bagayoko, had said that “violence can sometimes be legitimate”.

What could be the effect of the protests?

Talks between student representatives and Geffray “failed to produce the concrete measures they were seeking”, said The Wall Street Journal. Student unions have called for a third day of nationwide protest on Tuesday, joined by several teachers’ unions. The General Confederation of Labour, one of France’s largest unions, also “threw its support behind the demonstrations, raising the prospect of the unrest broadening beyond schools and universities”.

We cannot forget that French presidential elections are “only months away”, said the BBC. These protests, like many youth movements, are “unpredictable and shapeless”, and have “no clear structure” that would allow for negotiation. Because of this, they will have Emmanuel Macron in “cold sweats”.

One person who stands to gain is Mélenchon, who “stands a good chance of making it to the second round of the presidential elections”. Polls show he has “massive” support – around 40% – among 18- to 24-year-olds. He still lies behind Marine Le Pen in popularity, but given the current unrest, France is in “unstable territory”, and the “young people’s protests of recent days will indeed have been a harbinger” for the election’s results.

For Americans in rural communities, getting adequate health treatment has often been an uphill battle. Now, new research shows just how dire the state of healthcare is in these areas, particularly because of a dearth of surgeons in places across the United States.

How bad is the surgeon shortage?

Currently, 1,180 out of 3,144 counties in the United States — more than a third — have no general surgeon, and at least 951 of them “have no surgeon in any of 12 surgical specialties,” said a recent report from the American College of Surgeons (ACS). These shortages represent “15.1 million people lacking access to surgical care.” At least 434 rural hospitals are also in counties “with no identified full-time surgeon.”

Surgeon supply across all specialties is significantly varied and “12 times higher in some regions than others,” said the ACS. And the paucity is likely to increase during the coming years. The U.S. is “projected to be short nearly 28,000 surgeons by 2038, with the workforce meeting just 84.3% of national need,” said a separate ACS study. The greatest gaps are expected to be in “vascular surgery, ophthalmology, thoracic surgery and plastic surgery.”

What has the shortage’s effect been?

Rural communities can be harmed in various ways. While many people “assume that surgeons primarily perform elective procedures, many surgeons in rural communities serve multiple roles,” study co-author Dr. Thomas Tsai, the medical director for health policy research at the ACS, said to Time. “Access to surgeons is the keystone for the broader rural healthcare ecosystem.” Part of the problem is that “training isn’t keeping pace with demand, especially as the country ages and needs more medical procedures.”

Bringing in more surgeons is crucial because the “average American may undergo as many as 20 diagnostic and therapeutic procedures over the course of their life, factoring in minor procedures such as endoscopies to major operations,” Tsai told the industry outlet Fierce Healthcare. The “ability to provide innovative surgical care is a feature and not a flaw of the U.S. healthcare system,” and Americans “need the resources to both expand the supply of surgeons in the U.S. and to sustain viable surgical practices” in rural areas.

The government spent £329.1 billion on benefits in the financial year 2025-26 – equivalent to 10.7% of GDP, and about £4,700 per person in Britain. It amounts to roughly a quarter of all government spending, and dwarfs the totals spent on the NHS (about £257 billion), education (about £126 billion) and defence (about £62 billion).

The welfare bill increased by about £18.8 billion in the last financial year; by 2030-31, it is expected to rise to £408.6 billion. This projected increase is fuelling calls from across the political spectrum to rein in welfare spending, particularly on disability and incapacity benefits; many also argue that increases in pension spending are unsustainable.

Who actually receives this money?

More than 24 million people claimed some form of Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) benefit in August last year. Of these, 13.4 million were pensioners: of the entire welfare budget, about 55% goes to pensioners.

The state pension cost an estimated £146 billion in 2025-26; and another £31 billion or so went on pension credit, housing benefit for pensioners, the winter fuel allowance, and so on. In total, the UK spent £145 billion on benefits for working-age people and children – including incapacity and disability benefits (£77 billion); housing benefit (£37 billion); and child benefit (£13 billion).

Last August, about ten million recipients were of working age; and 860,000 were children receiving disability living allowance. Around a third of working-age benefit claimants are in employment of some kind (for example, low-paid workers get in-work top-up via universal credit). The latest figures show 1.6 million people who are fit for work are claiming an unemployment benefit; the cost, spread across different benefits, is some £1.4 billion.

Why is the bill rising?

In no small part, because of pensions. Since the “triple lock” was introduced by the coalition government in 2011, pensions have been guaranteed to increase by whichever is highest: inflation, average wage growth or 2.5%. This has led to sharp rises in the state pension in recent years, when inflation and wage growth have run high (pensions rose by 10.1% in 2023, 8.5% in 2024, 4.1% in 2025, and 4.8% in 2026).

But pensions are by no means the only factor. Benefits are also rising because more people are claiming disability and incapacity benefits. In 2010, Britain spent about £45 billion on such benefits; by 2025, this had risen to £77 billion.

Which benefits are these?

By the middle of this year, more than 4.5 million people in England and Wales were claiming at least one of an overlapping patchwork of incapacity and disability benefits, up from fewer than three million in 2020.

The fastest growing is the Personal Independence Payment (Pip): cash payments to cover the extra costs of being disabled – a payment that has gradually replaced the older Disability Living Allowance and Incapacity Benefit. By July, 4.1 million people were claiming a Pip in England and Wales, up 7% from last year’s 3.83 million; in 2019 there were two million. More than two million now receive health-related benefits under a separate universal credit regime.

So are people getting sicker?

Some experts point to worsening public health since the 2008 financial crisis, citing factors such as growing obesity, long hospital waiting times, the cost-of-living crisis and other social causes. But critics of the system argue that the rise in disability and incapacity claimants owes more to broadening definitions of disability – and especially to an increase in people claiming benefits for mental health conditions. In 2002, 25% of disability benefit recipients claimed primarily for a mental health condition (or a learning or neurodevelopmental condition); by 2025, this had risen to 45%. About one in seven working-age Britons now report having a long-term mental or behavioural disorder (up 50% in a decade).

How can this be explained?

Again, by most measures there has in fact been a recent increase in mental ill-health in Britain, particularly since the pandemic. Most European countries have seen similar trends; but most have not seen this translate into higher health benefit claims. Another possible explanation is the collapse in face-to-face assessments for Pip claims (down from 80% pre-pandemic to less than 15% in July 2026), which may make it harder to weed out bogus claimants – some of whom are coached by AI bots or so-called “sickfluencers” on social media. A further explanation may lie in the design of the welfare system itself, which encourages people to seek generous long-term sickness benefits.

How so?

If you’re unemployed, you don’t get much from the state. Unemployment benefit under universal credit is £339 per month if you’re under 25, £425 if you’re over 25. Add in housing benefit, and it reaches around £12,000 per year. However, if you have a long-term disability or a health condition, you get extra payments (at least £217 a month more). If you are categorised in the higher form of sickness benefits, the overall figure rises to over £17,000, according to Centre for Social Justice figures. Add in Pip, and it reaches an average of £24,000, just below the full-time minimum wage. Add in child benefit for one child, and you are paid over £27,000 – closer to the national average wage.

Obviously, the system gives powerful incentives for people to claim sickness, physical or mental; and, unlike with unemployment benefit, it brings with it little or no pressure to seek a job. There are currently around 1,000 new Pip claims submitted every day in the UK; about 34% are successful.

Is the welfare bill sustainable?

It is often said to be “spiralling”, but the overall bill has remained pretty stable as a proportion of the UK’s national income. Welfare spending amounted to just under 11% of GDP in the last financial year – up from 10.4% in 1996-97, but lower than the peak of 12.4% in 2009-10. In fact, total non-pensioner benefits have hovered between 4% and 5% for more than 40 years.

International comparisons are difficult, but the UK’s welfare bill is by most measures right in the middle of the OECD developed nations – it spends far less as a share of GDP than, say, France or Italy, and far more than the US or South Korea. Despite recent increases, the state pension is relatively ungenerous, though Britons do have good private pensions.

Spending on disability and incapacity benefits is growing fast: it is set to hit 2.1% of GDP in 2028 (almost double the share two decades earlier). The Timms Review into the Pip system is due soon; but an interim report has already deemed it “unfit for purpose”. Welfare Minister Pat McFadden said this week that Labour would make benefits reform a “moral crusade”.

However, reform is difficult: it is perceived as an attack on society’s most vulnerable. When Keir Starmer tried to tighten the assessment criteria for Pip, with a bill in June 2025 designed to save £5 billion per year, a threatened rebellion by 126 Labour MPs forced him to back down.

It has maybe gotten a little too easy to make a purchase. From saved credit card information to click-to-buy, you can move from contemplating a purchase to following through on it within mere seconds.

But what if you weren’t able to move quite so fast and instead, had to pause for a beat before completing a buy? This is exactly the premise of the 30-day savings rule, which stipulates a mandatory waiting period for unplanned purchases as a way to curb impulse buys.

What is the 30-day savings rule?

When it comes to the 30-day savings rule, the “idea is simple: When you get the urge to buy something, wait at least 30 days before deciding whether to make the purchase,” said U.S. News & World Report. This rule applies specifically to non-essential items, meaning those things you by no means need to survive but that can nonetheless make a dent in your budget.

Once that 30-day waiting period has passed, you can reconsider the purchase you were tempted to make. It’s possible you will decide you still want to make it, but at least then, you’ll be doing it with more intention — and perhaps some financial preparation.

There’s even a good chance you will find that you can’t remember why you wanted to buy the item in the first place. You can also use that pause before purchasing to “comparison shop, dig for coupons or wait for the item to go on sale,” said Yahoo Finance, all of which can contribute to sounder financial decisions.

How can the 30-day rule limit overspending?

This practice isn't “necessarily going to stop you from spending money completely,” said Yahoo Finance. But it will “force you to slow down, be more mindful about your purchases and prevent you from buying items that you don’t really need or want.”

When you repeat these types of purchases throughout the month, they can end up having a real impact on your overall budget. So even just culling a few such impulse buys may make it possible to put a bit more toward savings, debt payoff or a more meaningful long-term financial goal.

How can you implement the 30-day savings rule?

The most important step is to pause and consider. “If you feel the urge to make a significant purchase of something that’s non-essential, whether it’s in a store or online, the rule says: Stop. Leave the store, or click away from the site,” said SoFi.

Next, take a moment to note down the item you were tempted to buy, along with relevant information like where it’s being sold and how much it costs. You can come back to that note in 30 days.

Just don’t stop thinking about the purchase then and there. “In the meantime, ask yourself a few key questions,” such as: “How would this purchase impact my budget and savings goals?,” “how many hours would I have to work to pay for this item?” and finally, “are there more affordable alternatives?,” said Yahoo Finance. The answers may be illuminating.

The government has unveiled a new housing support scheme to boost the property market.

Your First Home aims to “combat malaise” among housebuilders, said The Times, and “get young people on the housing ladder”.

Similar to later versions of the popular but now defunct Help to Buy scheme, it will only be available to first-time buyers.

But the “devil will be in the detail” that is coming in next month’s Budget, said Property Week, especially to “avoid claims of unfairness” for those who have already put money aside in the government’s Lifetime Isa.

What does Your First Home involve?

Under the Your First Home scheme first-time buyers will be able to purchase a new-build property with a 2.5% deposit backed by a 20% government equity loan, which could “save hundreds of pounds per month compared to a 95% mortgage”, said the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

The deposit “eliminates one of the biggest challenges facing would-be homeowners”, said The Guardian, as many first-time buyers can find it hard to save while also covering other costs such as rent, household bills and, in some cases, childcare.

How will it work?

Full details will be revealed in the Budget, but the government has said first-time buyers will be able to purchase a new-build with a low deposit and an equity loan from developers signed up to the scheme.

The government-backed equity loan will be interest-free at the start and with a 2.5% deposit, the upfront costs “should work out considerably cheaper” than a larger loan-to-value mortgage, said The Sun. There will be a local property price cap and a household income cap “to stop wealthier buyers taking advantage of the scheme”.

The terms haven’t been confirmed, but the equity loan will be repayable, “meaning further costs down the line”, said The Independent.

There has been some criticism of the scheme, though. Will Bainbridge, founder of property investment firm Hawthorn Capital, told Money Age it is “irresponsible policymaking dressed up as aspiration”.

He cited the government’s own evaluation of Help to Buy, which estimated that new-build homes attracted a 5.5% premium, with properties purchased through the scheme carrying a further 0.9% over comparable new-builds.

Your First Home vs. Help to Buy

Commentators are describing Your First Home as a revived version of Help to Buy.

Later versions of Help to Buy had “a lot of similarities” to what we know so far about Your First Home, said The Guardian, including an equity loan, new-builds and price caps.

But the “ongoing row” about soaring student loan debts means there will be extra pressure to be “very clear” about how the equity loan interest will work.

Savers can also put up to £4,000 per year in a Lifetime Isa each year to save towards a property deposit, backed by a 25% government bonus.

Any scheme that "penalises those savers”, said Property Week, “would risk widespread criticism”.

The Department of Education has formally rescinded the 2024 Title IX regulations, a Biden-era policy that extended the federal ban on sex discrimination in schools to also protect LGBTQ+ people. The change prompted pushback from advocates.

What has the Trump administration done instead?

In the regulations’ place, the department reinstated 2020 regulations from President Donald Trump’s first administration, which took immediate effect “without a notice-and-comment period,” said EducationWeek. Trump’s regulations outline “how schools must handle reports of sexual misconduct,” including setting a “stricter definition for what constitutes sexual harassment and giving more due process rights to those accused,” said The Washington Post.

The change formalizes how the Trump administration enforced Title IX since January 2025 and will “faithfully reflect court orders and congressional intent” while “reducing confusion for parents, students and educational institutions,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a press release. The department will continue to “hold accountable any school or college that violates the rights, privacy or athletic opportunities of our women and girls.”

McMahon has “led the administration’s push to restrict civil rights protections based on gender identity,” said The New York Times. The Biden-era Title IX rule was “already struck down in the court system” after challenges from Republican states, said The Hill.

Who will the change affect?

Critics of the move say it will harm transgender athletes and weaken protections for sexual assault victims. Sexual harassment and assault “continue to be pervasive in schools,” Shiwali Patel, the senior director of education justice at the National Women’s Law Center, said in a statement. But McMahon and the Trump administration have “decided to ignore what survivors need,” instead “weaponizing Title IX to attack trans students.”

Title IX is supposed to be about protecting students and “ensuring that they are safe from abuse, harassment and discrimination while they pursue their education,” said Kelley Robinson, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, in a press release. But “Trump and his cronies aren’t interested in any of that.” Rather than “enforcing protections for students,” they’re “rescinding them.”

The Trump administration doesn’t care if “sexual harassment and assault go unaddressed,” Robinson said. We know who will be hurt: “women, girls and others who are vulnerable to sexual harassment, assault and abuse — including LGBTQ+ students.”

To the average investor, the bond markets may seem like a concern better left to Wall Street bigwigs. But what happens in these markets can have major implications not only on the larger economy but also on household budgets.

“Keeping an eye on the nearly $32 trillion market for U.S. government bonds, called the Treasury market, is important because it offers a clear signal of where the economy may be headed,” said The New York Times. It can “affect everything from student loans to the housing market.”

Lately, what is happening with bonds has been setting experts on edge. Here’s a breakdown of what to know to make sense of it all.

How do bond markets work?

Bonds work similarly to loans, wherein someone — in the case of bonds, the government, a company or a municipality — borrows money. When investors purchase a bond, they are effectively funding that loan. They will then earn interest on the loan, known as bond yield, in addition to receiving repayment after a certain period of time.

But “bonds can fluctuate in value,” and typically, “bond prices and yields move in opposite directions from each other,” said NPR. So “if bond prices fall — like they are now — investors demand to be paid more in interest as additional compensation,” whereas “if bond prices are rising, investors are fine getting less in interest since they are holding bonds that are appreciating in value.”

What impact do bond yields have on consumers?

In short: They impact interest rates, which translates to how much people pay to borrow. Mortgages are impacted, given that the “10-year Treasury yield serves as an important guide for mortgage rates as it generally moves in tandem ‌with mortgage-backed securities,” said Yahoo Finance. In addition, “rates on new auto loans and other fixed-rate consumer debt ⁠also tend to drift higher as market rates and lenders’ funding costs rise, though the pass-through is not immediate or exact.”

Do the bond market and the stock market affect each other?

Generally speaking, “bond investors and stock investors tend to see things differently,” said NPR, due to the nature of the investment itself. While “bond investors care, primarily, about whether they’ll get paid back,” stock investors “tend to make a more straight-up bet on corporate profits.” That can explain why as of this month, the stock market is soaring but the bond market is sounding the alarm.

This divergence will likely only hold true to a certain point, however. Ultimately, “yields matter for investors’ assessment of stocks’ value,” and a “sharp rise in yields or intense volatility in the bond market can irk the stock market,” said CNN Business. Further, said NPR, if “signs emerge showing that inflation or rising borrowing costs are starting to tamp down economic growth,” then the stock market could very well start showing signs of concern too.

Argentina is subjecting the Falklands to “economic warfare”, the leader of the British overseas territory’s government has said.

As the country ramps up political pressure on its claim of sovereignty over the territory, restrictions are making life more difficult for the residents of the remote Atlantic islands, Andrea Clausen told the Financial Times. And at the centre of the power struggle with Britain is the Falklands’ first oil project: Sea Lion, a joint UK-Israeli venture.

What is life like on the islands?

The Falklands are home to about 3,500 people, most of whom live in the capital, Stanley, with the remainder spread across the sprawling archipelago roughly half the size of Wales. “People are always amazed by the scale when they visit,” one resident told the Metro.

Leaving the islands “isn’t simple – or cheap”. There are two 18-hour direct flights a week to the UK, on a military plane, or one commercial flight a week to Chile. A monthly flight from a small city in southern Argentina is considered a domestic flight by Buenos Aires, although not by the Falklands’ authorities.

Because of the limited connections, imported goods can cost more than double their price in the UK. There’s currently only one shipping link, to Uruguay, which sometimes leads to shortages of cheese and other food staples, said the FT. Most international suppliers “refuse to serve Falklands’ businesses” out of fear of angering Argentina. Officials are preparing a second shipping link to Chile, scheduled to open between November and December. But some islanders worry that Buenos Aires “could try to disrupt those efforts”.

What resources do the Falklands have?

There is a “huge capital programme” underway to boost the islands’ infrastructure, said resident Traighana Smith in The Independent, including a new power station and port, and “a hydrocarbon industry is also on the horizon”.

There are “vast energy reserves” just 136 miles north of the islands, said The Telegraph. Surveys suggest the Sea Lion oilfield contains up to 1.7 billion barrels of oil: “larger than anything remaining in British North Sea waters”.

Two oil companies, Britain’s Rockhopper Exploration and Israel’s Navitas Petroleum, are due to begin a joint project extracting from the oilfield within two years. The $2.2 billion venture, the Falklands’ first commercial oil project, aims to produce 50,000 barrels per day. It could be “economically transformative for the islands”, said the FT. It could “triple GDP” and reduce dependence on the inconsistent fishing industry.

“We never want to rely on handouts from the UK,” said Stirling Harcus, a director at the islands’ Chamber of Commerce. “We’re already a growing self-sufficient economy, but oil would supercharge that process.”

What is Argentina doing?

At the start of September, President Javier Milei announced restrictions on companies involved in oil extraction, along with additional military funding. His new sanctions regime “appears to target both oil and fishing”, said the FT, which is responsible for more than half of the islands’ GDP.

And on Monday, Milei warned that his government would request an emergency order to stop development of the Sea Lion oilfield if drilling is not halted within two weeks. If the “illegitimate exploitation” does not stop, his statement said, Argentina will ask the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, a Hamburg-based maritime court, to order a temporary halt to the project. Argentinian officials argue the project is “an inflection point”, said the FT, because it violates a UN resolution banning “unilateral” changes to the status quo on the islands.

“Time will tell” if Milei follows through on his threats, said Smith in The Independent. But in the meantime, the Falklands will “continue to grow its industries and care for its people”.

You’ve undoubtedly heard of borrowing money to buy a house or a car. But Americans are also increasingly borrowing funds to invest, a practice known as margin trading.

As of this month, the “amount of money that investors are borrowing to make trades is at an all-time high — more than $1.5 trillion,” said NPR, which, impressively, is “more than the country’s total credit card debt.” But while it may sound better to invest more, there are some major risks involved, especially when someone else’s money is on the line.

What does it mean to buy on margin?

When you “buy securities on margin,” you are “able to leverage the value of securities you already own to increase the size of your investment,” said Fidelity. This investment strategy increases purchasing power, allowing investors to access opportunities they might not otherwise be able to afford. It can also “potentially magnify your returns, assuming the value of your investment rises.” Ideally, this would snowball into a “self-fulfilling opportunity cycle where increases in collateral value further increase leverage opportunities,” said Investopedia.

How does margin trading work?

To buy on margin, you must have a margin trading account, as opposed to the standard brokerage account. Once your account is open, you will need to make an initial deposit to a broker by putting down eligible securities, which will serve as collateral, backing the amount you borrow (and allowing the broker to seize it, if needed to recoup their losses).

The broker will then float you money to buy more investments, usually “up to 50% of the initial investment capital,” said Kiplinger. So, for example, this may give you the “ability to make a $20,000 investment despite having just $10,000 funded in your account.”

As with any loan, “when an investor buys securities on margin, they must eventually pay back the money borrowed, plus interest,” said Investopedia. This cost, which gets charged to your margin account, can make it that much harder to come out ahead when borrowing funds to invest.

Why is margin trading risky?

Although “making profits with other people’s money is great,” the “problem is when markets go down,” said NPR. And just as margin trading can potentially magnify returns, it does the same for losses. It’s “even possible for a margin trader to lose more money than they originally had to invest — meaning that they would have to make up the difference with additional assets,” said Investopedia.

This demand for more money is what is known as a margin call. And as if that were not already enough pressure, “if you do not act promptly, your brokerage firm may sell securities you own — without notifying you — in order to increase the equity in your account,” said Fidelity.

When DOGE began cutting up government entities in 2025, among the most severely affected was the Education Department’s little-known National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Now, more than a year later, experts say the gutting of this center has made it very hard to keep track of the nation’s education goals.

What does NCES do?

The NCES is the federal body “responsible for collecting, analyzing and reporting data on the condition of U.S. education — from early childhood to adult education — to help improve student outcomes,” said the agency’s website. It produces reports via “direct student assessments, longitudinal studies, international surveys, postsecondary institutions, adult surveys and synthesizing data from federal sources.”

The agency has been significantly hampered by federal cuts from the Trump administration. As part of nearly $900 million in cuts to the Department of Education last year, NCES’ work was “abruptly terminated and its headcount dropped” massively, said The Guardian. Prior to the funding slashes, NCES had about 100 staffers; it currently has just 12, according to a government directory. This has “hamstrung the historically under-resourced agency’s ability to collect and report on a range of data on K-12 and college students.”

What will NCES do now?

The American Statistical Association put together a report on how the situation at NCES could be improved. More streamlined data collection would allow NCES to “much more readily modernize how it meets its responsibility to report on the condition and progress of education,” said the report. NCES should also be “ensuring that data is handled safely and ethically and is more useful to state and local practitioners,” said Education Week.

It would be beneficial for NCES to “become a more modern, data-centric partner to states” instead of returning to the “structure it had before it was largely dismantled” and relying on the methods it used before being gutted, said StateScoop. “What is lacking is national comparability,” said Shelly Martinez, an independent statistical consultant who worked on the report, to the outlet. “I think there is an interest and an understanding that there’s federal data that could really enhance those analyses and that evidence is building.”

Owners of high-value homes will be hit with a new mansion tax from April 2028 but there are already fears that it could affect more homeowners than expected.

The High Value Council Tax Surcharge, to give it its official name, was presented by former chancellor Rachel Reeves in her 2025 Autumn Budget as a way to “make the council tax system fairer”, said MoneyWeek.

The Treasury says that under the current system, the average band D charge for a typical family home across England is £2,280. That is £250 more per year than for a £10 million property in Mayfair, based on the band H charge in the City of Westminster. The government says that “this surcharge will change that”. Here is what you need to know.

What is the mansion tax?

The levy targets wealth “tied up in property”, while positioning it as “a tool to support public finances”, said property specialists Benham & Reeves.

Under the proposals, properties worth above £2 million will be placed into bands based on their value. Owners of homes worth between £2 million and £2.5 million will pay £2,500 extra council tax per year, rising to £3,500 for homes worth between £2.5 million and £3.5 million, and it will be £5,000 for homes worth £3.5 million to £5 million. Properties worth more than £5 million will incur a charge of £7,500. Charges will increase in line with the consumer prices index inflation rate each year from 2029-30.

How will homes be valued?

Over the next two years, the Valuation Office, an executive agency of HM Revenue & Customs, will be conducting a “targeted valuation exercise” to identify the properties that will be affected, said MoneyWeek. It will use professional valuers and industry-standard automated valuation models to assess sales data and property attributes such as the size, sale price and age of properties.

Information gaps may “pose a problem”, said Transparency International; the price paid for properties is in many cases “incomplete or missing” and in some cases it may be unclear who owns the property.

Homeowners who disagree with the valuation may face a “long and expensive appeals process”, said north London estate agency Maunder Taylor. The Treasury has also indicated there may be exemptions, such as for individuals who bought or inherited their home but who now have a lower income.

How many people will have to pay it?

The high threshold to be eligible for mansion tax means the “vast majority” of homeowners and buyers “won’t be impacted”, said law firm Setfords. Estimates from the Office for Budget Responsibility suggest around 165,000 households will be impacted under the current scope.

But there have been reports that the tax threshold could be lowered to £1.5 million. This would affect another 160,000 homes, said Tax Policy Associates. Such a “controversial move” would “hammer” swathes of homeowners in the capital, said London’s The Standard. The Telegraph estimates that lowering the threshhold would make one in four homes in the capital eligible for mansion tax.

How will it tax impact the housing market?

Properties in London and the South East of England will “bear most of the brunt” of the mansion tax, said the HomeOwners Alliance. It is “unlikely to have a marked impact” on the overall property market, said financial advisers CMS Wealth, but it could push down prices around the mansion tax thresholds. Those looking to avoid the tax may think about downsizing, although stamp duty costs “may make this option prohibitive”.

The three-and-a-half-year inquiry into alleged war crimes carried out by members of the SAS in Afghanistan will be further delayed after the Ministry of Defence produced nearly 100 million new files as evidence.

The MoD has apologised to the inquiry’s chair, Lord Justice Charles Haddon-Cave, for “delays in failing to explain why it unexpectedly revealed a further 97 million new documents”, said BFBS Forces News. The government department did later concede that only “around 1,200 might be relevant”.

But Haddon-Cave said the “somewhat casual way” the inquiry was informed about the documents “did not give cause for confidence”.

With mounting costs and the latest delays, the outcome of the inquiry could still be years away. A spokesperson for the MoD said the government is “fully committed to the Afghanistan inquiry”.

What has the inquiry heard so far?

The inquiry was launched in 2023 after claims that British special forces personnel had “executed captives in Afghanistan and destroyed evidence of wrongdoing”, said The Telegraph. The allegations were that “80 or more unarmed Afghans, including children and detainees, were executed by soldiers” between 2010 and 2013. It is expected that around 150 SAS soldiers who served in Afghanistan will be called to give evidence.

Several senior UK military personnel have told the inquiry that the SAS “carried out extra judicial killings of Afghan civilians”, said the BBC. Concerns were also raised about the secrecy measures used by the SAS and that previous investigations into the allegations had “ended prematurely”.

At closed hearings reported in January last year, several senior officers spoke of their fears “that the regiment, fresh from aggressive, high-tempo operations in Iraq, was being driven by kill counts”, said the BBC. One told the inquiry that the SAS had a “golden pass allowing them to get away with murder”. In emails seen by the inquiry, the officer said the presentation of operational killings in official reports was “quite incredible”, and described the SAS and murder as “regular bedfellows”.

Why has it been delayed?

Proceedings were already behind schedule. Haddon-Cave said an interim report would be published within 18 months (at the end of 2024), but lawyers had accepted publishing in 2028 would be more likely.

Now, more than 97 million files relating to the period 2010-2013, which had previously been discounted by the MoD as being outside the scope of the investigation, have been brought to Haddon-Cave’s attention. This discovery is “troubling and regrettable, and if not rapidly addressed and managed has the capacity to delay the important work of this inquiry”, he said.

Speaking for the Afghan families, Edward Craven KC told the inquiry that due to the number of files to trawl through, “there may be a tension between the imperative of thoroughness and the imperative of timeliness”.

What has the reaction been?

Former SAS personnel have argued that the inquiry is a “witch hunt”, said The Telegraph. Ed Butler, who was an SAS brigadier in Afghanistan, said soldiers had been pursued “through the prism of human rights laws, as opposed to the law of armed conflict and the rules of engagement from the Geneva Convention”, which is “totally inappropriate”.

Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton, a former sergeant-major in the SAS, told The Times that the unit’s “principles form the backdrop of every special forces unit in the Western world”.

The inquiry, which has yet to publish any findings, has already racked up costs of £58 million in the three years from its launch to March 2026, according to a Freedom of Information request by the BBC. The MoD revealed that 74 of its staff were currently spending “more than 50% of their time” working on the inquiry.

But public inquiries are “rarely quick or cheap”, said the BBC. For example, the Bloody Sunday inquiry, which found that the killing of 13 protesters in Northern Ireland by British soldiers in 1972 was “unjustified”, took “12 years to complete and cost more than £190 million”.

The building projects envisaged by the tech industry are on a truly staggering scale. In 2025, Morgan Stanley estimated that $2.9 trillion would be spent on AI data centres worldwide between that year and 2028; McKinsey projects $5.2 trillion spending on AI by 2030. Specialised “hyperscale” data centres are already springing up across the developed world.

As little as a year ago, many politicians were keen to attract such large investments. But in the US, public opinion has swung sharply against data centres. A recent Gallup poll suggests that they’re now facing more opposition than nuclear power stations: seven in ten Americans don’t want them in their area. Scepticism is rising in Britain, too.

Aren’t they everywhere already?

Regular data centres – warehouses where racks of computers store emails and photos, stream media, process credit card transactions and generally keep the internet running – have been a standard sight on the peripheries of large towns since the 1990s. Nearly a quarter of the world’s internet traffic reportedly passes through northern Virginia; London is largely served by two hubs in the Docklands and Slough.

There are more than 520 data centres in the UK – but some 100 more are planned, the majority designed to handle AI workloads, as use by business and consumers surges. Google’s new centre in Waltham Cross, Hertfordshire, sits on a 33-acre site. A £10 billion AI facility on the 130-acre site of a former power station is being built in Blyth, Northumberland. These are dwarfed by some in the US. Meta’s Hyperion centre in Louisiana, for example, will cover 4,000 acres, and is expected to use at least twice as much electricity as the entire city of New Orleans.

Why do people object to them?

The US seems to be experiencing a wide, bipartisan “AI revolt”, based on a series of linked factors. People don’t want huge, ugly, ominously humming industrial infrastructure in their backyard. They object to the massive water and electricity consumption (which, in some cases, has led to higher utility bills), and to the pollution: most rely on diesel back-up generators.

Opposition is fed by a deep distrust of corporate power, embodied by tech billionaires, and by a sense that ordinary people will gain little from AI; industry leaders tend to reinforce this message, often saying that their tech will lead to massive job losses and, quite possibly, the extinction of humanity. Once their construction is complete, data centres also provide surprisingly few jobs.

Why are they so big?

AI depends as much on brute-force computing power – raw “compute”, as it’s known – as it does on clever software. Massive groups of specialised computer chips must sit very close together to work at top speed. They use “parallel processing”: speeding things up by tackling lots of small mathematical tasks simultaneously, rather than one by one. Every metre between two chips adds a nanosecond to the processing time, so the idea is to pack as many as possible closely together. The chips are power-hungry (a ChatGPT AI query consumes about ten times as much energy as a normal Google search) and also generate a lot of heat, which requires cooling systems.

How much water do they use?

UN researchers report that data centres used around 4.5 trillion litres last year – enough to meet the basic needs of some 600 million people – and they expect that figure to double. In Britain, clear figures are hard to come by: data centres are not required to report how much water they use. But consumption varies widely, depending on design. Older centres use evaporative cooling systems. In Slough, one data centre has an abstraction licence for 1.7 million litres of water a day. A US expert has likened such facilities to “a giant soda straw sucking water” out of a basin.

Newer centres tend to have closed-loop cooling systems, recycling the same water, so their consumption is relatively negligible; or air-cooling systems, like Google’s in Waltham Cross, which use even less. A recent study found that data centres account for just 0.2% of all non-household drinking-water consumption in England.

What about energy?

That is a more intractable problem. AI computing, and its cooling systems, are unavoidably energy-intensive. According to UN figures, data centres across the world used more electricity than France did last year; and they’re projected to use more than Japan by 2030, with AI accounting for more than a third of that.

Some of the biggest companies are trying to limit their carbon output: Microsoft and Google are investing in nuclear power, and hyperscale projects are gravitating to cold, clean energy-heavy countries such as Finland. The UK’s National Energy System Operator estimated that data centres consumed 5.0 TWh of electricity in 2023 – equivalent to 2% of the total, or that of 1.8 million households. Today, the figure is 6%, and rising fast.

Where is all this leading?

Data centres are a campaign issue in November’s US midterm elections. Even Republican Texas has called a moratorium on new facilities; Donald Trump, however, has told Americans they’ll end up “backwards and poor”, and let China win the AI race, if they don’t accept data centres.

In the UK, there have been protests against new centres from Leeds to Devon to Slough. But the Government, aiming to create growth and make Britain an AI power with a “sovereign AI ecosystem”, is actively pushing the development of data centres, in particular in “AI growth zones” such as Culham in Oxfordshire, Teesside and South Wales. It treats centres as “critical national infrastructure”, allowing local planners to be overruled. As for the economic effects of the vast AI investment boom now contorting the global economy, they have yet to be discerned.

Six Flags Magic Mountain is one of the most popular amusement parks in the United States, but its flagship attraction and most popular ride, the X2 roller coaster, has come under fire for possibly causing more than eight dozen severe brain injuries in the past two years. Now, a series of lawsuits has put the future of the ride in jeopardy.

What are these lawsuits about?

The three lawsuits represent more than 100 clients who reportedly received brain injuries while riding Magic Mountain’s X2. The ride, which has been operating since 2002 at the Los Angeles County amusement park, has “seats that rotate independently as the train travels along the track, spinning riders as much as 360 degrees,” said The New York Times, sending “riders through dives, flips and twists.” The 200-foot-high attraction can reach speeds of up to 76 miles per hour.

The lawsuits accuse Six Flags and Magic Mountain of knowingly operating a “defectively designed ride and failing to adequately warn passengers about the risk of serious brain injuries,” said the Times. The allegations come less than a month after a CNN investigation documented numerous instances of injuries on the ride. Two of the lawsuits represent people featured in the investigation, including a pair of riders who “both fell unconscious after getting off the roller coaster and underwent emergency brain surgery for severe traumatic brain injuries,” said CNN.

Attorneys are “actively investigating these incidents and representing individuals who allege they suffered traumatic brain injuries after riding X2,” Dordick Law Corporation, which filed the three lawsuits, said in a statement. The lawsuit also references a 22-year-old man who “died from a traumatic brain injury after riding X2 four years ago,” said CNN, with Six Flags later reaching a settlement with his family. The outlet also claims it heard from people who “had injuries that were not brain-related or did not have proof of medical treatment.”

What comes next?

X2 has supposedly been closed since July 12, which was “nearly a full day after the latest injury there, and park officials have remained silent about what necessitated the closure,” said CNN. Six Flags’ website still lists the ride as closed, with no timeline listed for its reopening. The company has denied that it was negligent; in court filings related to a different X2 case, Six Flags “said testing showed that the ride operated within accepted acceleration limits and argued that the rider’s injury, a brain bleed, was instead caused by a preexisting condition,” said the Times.

But lawyers for the alleged injured riders are not backing down. “We want transparency. We want the public to know about the dangers of riding these rollercoasters, and in particular, X2,” attorney Gary Dordick said during a press conference. Magic Mountain “seems to think that it’s okay that if people voluntarily choose to ride a roller coaster, then they’ve assumed the risk.” Ultimately, the “fate of X2 remains unknown, as Six Flags officials remain tight-lipped on the attraction’s future,” said KTLA-5.

Despite the injuries, U.S. amusement parks “typically have high safety standards, with many requiring daily inspections of roller coasters and other attractions before they can operate,” said Entertainment Weekly. Every ride at a Six Flags park “undergoes extensive inspection and maintenance procedures designed to meet or exceed manufacturer requirements and industry standards,” according to the company’s safety statement. They are “designed with sophisticated control systems, advanced restraint technologies, redundant safety features and multiple layers of monitoring.”

Britain is on course for a hung parliament with no party securing an overall majority in the next general election, according to a YouGov MRP poll that predicts how constituencies would vote.

Labour would be the biggest party with 241 seats, 85 short of an outright majority; the Conservatives would be on 130, trailed by Reform on 123. With the Liberal Democrats at 71 and the Green Party on nine, it is likely to mean a scramble to form a coalition.

Benjamin Disraeli famously said in 1852, “England does not love coalitions”, but the country may have to put any deep-seated scepticism to one side in the near future. Here are some of the most likely coalitions.

Labour-Liberal Democrat

According to the YouGov results, a Labour and Lib Dem combination would still not be enough to reach the 326-seat bar for a majority in the House of Commons.

Andy Burnham has not commented directly on the prospect of a future coalition, but Ed Davey, when approached, did not rule it out completely. Asked if he would form a coalition with Labour, the Lib Dem leader said he did not deal in “hypotheticals”. Insiders in the PM's team told The Times that Burnham’s support of electoral reform, a long-held Lib Dem cause, could provide the perfect olive branch to Davey’s party.

A Labour-Lib Dem coalition was widely expected following the 2010 general election, but its prospects were felled by a series of issues, including a lack of faith in the then Labour leader Gordon Brown.

Conservative-Liberal Democrat

Unlike his neutral response to a Lab-Lib coalition, Davey has dismissed suggestions his party could do a deal with the Conservatives. “We’ve got a moral responsibility to stop Nigel Farage – and indeed stop Kemi Badenoch giving the keys to No. 10 to Nigel Farage – I think there could be that sort of coalition on the right and we've got to stop that,” he told the BBC.

“Mention of a coalition often sparks fear into the heart of a Lib Dem because of how the last one ended,” said Politico. In 2010, the parties formed the UK’s first coalition government since 1945. The cabinet was made up of 16 Conservatives and five from Nick Clegg's party. But after five years as junior partner, the Lib Dems crashed from 57 Westminster seats to just eight in the next election.

Conservative-Reform

Reform’s projected total of 123 seats is a dramatic reversal for the party, which was forecast to win 311 last September. At the end of last year, Farage said the Conservatives would be finished. He denied he would form an electoral pact after the Financial Times reported he told donors he thought an agreement was inevitable. “I would never do a deal with a party that I do not trust,” he said. “No deals, just a reverse takeover.”

Kemi Badenoch has rejected calls to “unite the right” and ruled out entering a coalition with Reform. Speaking to GB News, she said “problematic people” have joined Farage’s party, adding: “How can we join with them?”

Even if the two right-wing leaders changed their minds, a Tory-Reform pact would manage only 253 MPs according to the poll – 73 short of the 326 majority line.

“If uniting the right has never been more important since we entered the era of five-party politics, it has also never been more difficult,” said Lord Ashcroft, a right-wing political donor and pollster. An electoral alliance between Reform and the Conservatives “would be doomed to fail, and the Conservatives have much more to lose from trying”.

Progressive alliance (Lab-Lib-Green-SNP)

If Labour were to team up with the Lib Dems and the Greens, which would amount to 321 seats, Burnham would still need backing from others to get over the line.

With the nationalist parties, the SNP or Plaid Cymru, in the mix, then a range of “coalition of the left” options are open to build a majority, Patrick English, YouGov elections chief, said in The Times.

Off-label prescriptions for GLP-1 drugs are on the rise among children under 12, despite a lack of FDA approval in this age group. While most of the kids given the treatment had severe obesity and comorbidities, doctors and parents also seem to be considering weight-loss drugs much earlier. Whether or not it is safe to do so remains unclear.

How common is GLP-1 use among young children?

The American Academy of Pediatrics began recommending GLP-1 therapy for childhood obesity in 2023. Although the number of children under age 12 with obesity being prescribed weight loss drugs like Wegovy and Zepbound remains low compared to the rest of the population, the rise in incidences is striking.

Prescriptions for GLP-1 receptor agonists among children ages 8 to 11 with obesity increased dramatically between 2019 and 2026, according to a study published in the journal Pediatrics. Annual prescriptions rose from 0.03% in 2019 to 9.3% in 2026, a “310-fold increase,” said Forbes.

The study offers the “first national overview in young children” showing “absolute numbers” of children under the age of 12 “receiving GLP-1 treatment,” lead investigator and obesity medicine specialist Babak Orandi said in a statement to NYU Langone. The “careful use of GLP-1s” remains a “valuable tool in confronting the obesity epidemic among young Americans.”

Young children with obesity who lived in upper-income communities were 55% more likely to be prescribed GLP-1 medications than those who did not. Physicians and policymakers have a responsibility to ensure that “all young children with obesity who need these drugs have access to them,” study co-author Allan Massie said.

Is it dangerous for kids to take GLP-1s?

It is important to note that “GLP-1 medications aren’t entirely untested in younger children,” with some encouraging evidence available for some drugs, said Forbes. There is “strong data” that daily liraglutide is “safe and effective for children aged 6 to 11 with obesity,” Sarah Armstrong, co-director of the Duke University Center for Childhood Obesity Research, said to Forbes.

Still, the growing trend of children using GLP-1 medications isn’t “completely without its risks,” said Gizmodo. Nearly one in six children and teens who go on a GLP-1 become diagnosed with a nutritional deficiency, according to a recent study published last week in the journal Childhood Obesity. This is only an observational study, meaning that the “researchers can’t conclusively prove that the children’s GLP-1 use contributed to their later deficiencies,” Gizmodo said.

The results suggest doctors should be keeping a closer eye on the nutritional health of kids prescribed these treatments, the researchers said. Nutritional deficiencies are a “meaningful and underrecognized risk among pediatric patients" receiving GLP-1 therapy, the authors said in their paper.

Hopefully the findings bring “much-needed recognition” to the importance of “proactive nutritional management when GLP-1s are prescribed to children,” as opposed to “waiting until a nutritional deficiency is diagnosed,” said Justin Ryder, a study co-author and a surgeon at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, in a statement from the hospital. Knowing the risks, “we are in a much better position” to prevent harm to “children treated with GLP-1s during a pivotal period.”

“Nobody goes into politics, whatever party, to close a school,” said Una O’Halloran, leader of Islington council.

“There’s a generation that are not going to be having children, or maybe just having one child, and that’s really sad. You need children in the city.”

The number of pupils in the capital is falling, as birth rates decline, and costs for housing and childcare services increase. But as London’s population continues to rise, experts fear an unbalanced and unsustainable future for the city.

How bad is it?

Due to falling numbers, more than 90 schools have either closed or merged over the past five years, said a new report by London Councils. And the problem is “intensifying”. In Hackney, primary school numbers are down 15% since the pandemic, and projected to dip another 14% between 2024-25 and 2029-30. Islington is set for the “sharpest decline in the country” at 22%.

In the past five years across the UK, nine of the 10 fastest-shrinking local authorities for primary school children were in London, according to The Education Policy Institute. Eight were in inner London.

It is not just primary schools. Secondary school numbers, which have been “rising until 2026, will start to fall next year”, said Chris Smyth in the Financial Times.

But London’s population is rising, according to London Assembly Economy, Culture and Skills Committee (LAECSC) data, quoted in Bloomberg. In the decade up to 2023, the population increased by more than 500,000, yet the number of residents under 10 fell by 99,100.

And since 2018, 100 of London’s 2,500 schools – 4% – have closed, mostly in inner London. If this trend continues, the report warned, the capital could become a “childless city”.

Why is this happening?

Many experts think unaffordable housing and childcare are the principal causes of this decline. LAECSC data showed that the typical London home costs 11.1 times the average salary, compared with 7.7 times across England. Rents are also “60% higher than for England as a whole”, and nursery costs for a child under two in inner London are “34% higher than the English average”.

The birth rate in London also “continues its steady downward march”, said The Telegraph, revealing “an ageing city at the sharp end of Britain’s baby bust”. Many fertility rates in London hovered just above 1.0 births per woman in 2024, where 2.1 is needed to maintain a population. Some experts believe that “big jumps” in the minimum wage and National Insurance have left the childcare sector “reeling”, squeezing resources for parents and prospective parents.

Is London alone?

London’s falling numbers are “mirrored across cities in Europe and the US”, said Hugo Cox in the Financial Times. Primary school enrolment in Paris has “fallen by a quarter” in the last 10 years, while the same group in New York fell almost 20% in the decade to autumn 2024. In Barcelona, preschool entry – “the main entry point into the school system” – was 16% lower in 2024 than in 2016.

As in London, much of the decline is blamed on falling birth rates and rising housing costs. Also, in these cities a “growing use of homes for short-term rentals and housebuilding strategies geared away from families are fanning the demographic imbalance”. In other words, families are being forced out for financial reasons.

But these “divergent lines are not inevitable”. In Vienna, authorities provide family-sized homes, often through “large-scale subsidised or municipal housing”. Copenhagen, aided by high immigration, also implements “strong childcare and parental leave policies”. Both cities “buck the trend of falling child numbers”.

What will the consequences be?

“Change can create uncertainty and anxiety for children, families and staff,” said the foreword of the London Councils report. “While changes to school organisation are often discussed in terms of pupil numbers and finances, their human impact is equally important.” Closures can create a “genuine sense of loss, reflecting the deep connections between schools and the communities they serve”.

Councils are still hedging their bets, said Smyth in the FT. They are holding onto empty buildings in case of a revival. Hackney “planned for a pupil boom more than a decade ago”, only to be met with a decline. “It does not want to make the opposite mistake now.”

Without solid credit, becoming a homeowner may be that much more challenging. While credit score is not the only thing that lenders weigh when evaluating mortgage applications, it is a major factor in determining whether or not you get approved for a mortgage and what your interest rate will be.

Lately, it seems credit requirements are getting harder to meet. The “average credit score of people who successfully obtained a mortgage” has “skyrocketed starting in 2007 and continued to climb in recent years, hitting a high of 742 in 2024 — 29 points above the average credit score in the U.S.” said The Washington Post. Meanwhile, the “share of mortgages going to people with credit scores in the 600s has plummeted.”

What credit score do you need to buy a house?

To buy a house, “most mortgages (including the popular conventional loan) need a credit score of at least 620,” said NerdWallet. Credit requirements can, of course, vary from lender to lender and depending on the specific loan.

Having a score that’s lower than the typical minimum does not automatically mean you are out of the running for a home loan. Certain loan programs work with borrowers with lower scores. For instance, FHA loans insured by the Federal Housing Authority require a minimum credit score of just 500 if you can make a down payment of at least 10%.

In general, the higher your credit score, the better your odds of approval — and of landing a lower mortgage rate. Lenders tend to look more favorably upon more creditworthy borrowers, especially with a loan as sizable as a mortgage.

What other factors do mortgage lenders weigh?

Alongside credit history, “lenders will also consider your income, employment history and debt, along with the amount of the mortgage you’re requesting and your down payment,” said U.S. Bank.

Lenders are essentially attempting to verify, to the extent it is possible, that you are likely to make good on your loan payments. That is why, for example, “if you've been in the same salaried position or industry for a long time, you may have better odds of getting good terms than someone with a spotty job history or who is self-employed with irregular income,” said Experian.

What if your credit score is not high enough to get a mortgage?

Taking steps to improve your credit score makes sense prior to applying for a mortgage. Not only will it increase your odds of approval, but it can also help you land a lower interest rate. Some simple ways to do this include improving your credit utilization ratio, either by paying down existing debt or increasing available credit, and reviewing your credit report for any mistakes. Avoid applying for any new accounts in the interim, and don’t underestimate the impact of making on-time payments.

Beyond improving your credit, you can also shop around with different lenders. “One lender might be more accepting of your situation and offer a better rate,” said Fidelity. Just “be prepared to discuss your financials and explain why you’d be a good borrower, even with a lower credit score.”

The Trump administration notified Congress this week of plans to admit up to 17,500 refugees into the United States during the coming fiscal year. Notably, the vast majority of those refugees will be white South Africans, for whom this White House and President Donald Trump have become reliable international patrons.

By focusing almost exclusively on Afrikaners, the white South African ethnic group responsible for that country’s former system of apartheid, Trump and his allies have dramatically reshaped the U.S. refugee program as a whole. And this change, critics argue, is at the material expense of other at-risk communities worldwide.

How has Trump helped resettle white South Africans?

The White House has predominantly portrayed Afrikaners seeking to resettle in the U.S. as “victims of racial oppression in postapartheid South Africa,” said CBS News. The group faces “seizure of agricultural property without compensation,” laws designed to “dismantle equal opportunity in employment, education and business,” and “hateful rhetoric fueling disproportionate violence against racially disfavored minorities,” said the State Department in its notification to Congress, per the outlet. The South African government has “consistently denied” persecuting the primarily Dutch-descended community.

Resettling the thousands of South African refugees is “expected to cost approximately $500 million,” said CNN. The push comes after Trump “increased the refugee cap for South Africans” in May, more than doubling it “from a limit of 7,500.” The U.S. refugee resettlement program had “historically enjoyed strong bipartisan support” for welcoming “tens of thousands of refugees from countries around the world to new lives in America,” said The Associated Press. “Instead,” Trump has “transformed it into a vehicle to resettle white South Africans" in the U.S.

Why are critics concerned?

By focusing solely on South Africa at the expense of other refugee communities, the Trump administration is “stranding people fleeing persecution without the safety they’ve been promised after years of waiting,” said the immigration advocacy group HIAS in a statement. The White House is “diminishing and distorting” the U.S.' refugee programs “in service of its political whims,” said Naomi Steinberg, the HIAS vice president of refugee and immigration policy and advocacy, in the same release.

After Trump “slashed the number of refugees approved every year” during his first term, said the AP, the Biden administration “built the system back up.” Then Trump “immediately” suspended it when he returned to office, “stranding people around the world who had been slated to come to the U.S.”

A refugee program that “centers one group and sidelines all others” is an “abdication of our global ⁠humanitarian leadership ​and an abandonment of thousands of vulnerable ​families,” said Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, the president and CEO of refugee advocacy group Global Refuge, in a statement.

What else has Trump done for white South Africans?

One week before notifying Congress of its new, almost exclusively Afrikaner refugee resettlement plan, the Trump administration announced it would “revoke U.S. visas or reject visa applications” from foreign nationals “responsible for discrimination against whites and other minority groups in South Africa,” said the AP. Trump had cited disparate instances of violence and various discrete local policies as “evidence of a larger antiwhite stance” in the country. In addition to encouraging Afrikaner resettlement in the United States, Trump last year “froze most foreign assistance to South Africa,” said Al Jazeera.

The prime minister announced military support to Saudi Arabia in a bid to avoid further disruption to global energy supplies, which could have a knock-on effect on the cost of living at home.

He made the decision ahead of his first meeting with Donald Trump in New York, as a statement from the Ministry of Defence said an RAF Voyager air-to-air refuelling aircraft is to be deployed to bolster Saudi “defensive activity in support of the legitimate government of Yemen”.

Why is the UK getting involved?

The conflict between Iranian-backed Houthis and Yemen’s Saudi-backed government has reignited in recent weeks, with the rebels aiming missile and drone attacks at Saudi Arabia itself, including on the capital Riyadh over the weekend. Having seized the strategically vital port city of Mokha in Yemen earlier this month, they have also declared a blockade on Saudi shipping in the Red Sea and Bab el-Mandeb Strait, through which around 12% of global trade passes.

Last week The Associated Press reported that Saudi was running low on missile interceptors and had “turned to regional and Western allies for assistance”. With the US’ missile stockpile depleted by its war against Iran, France, Britain, Pakistan and Egypt were asked to step in with air-defence assistance to help defend against missile attacks by the Houthis and other Iran-backed groups.

UK Defence Minister Luke Pollard told Sky News that the UK was stepping up “for national security reasons in support of our own national security”, but Andy Burnham alluded to another reason closer to home.

The Bab el-Mandeb Strait has been used increasingly as an alternative route for oil exports, bypassing disruption in the ⁠Strait of Hormuz. Any blockade would drive up global energy prices even further.

“On cost-of-living pressures and acting to secure the interests of Britain and the wider region … we need to keep those pathways open,” said the PM.

Could the UK get dragged into a wider conflict?

The use of the RAF Voyager, normally based in Cyprus, is expected to start within days and will be time-limited. The initial agreement is believed to be for a matter of weeks, but Burnham said it will be kept under review.

It is understood to be focused on defensive capabilities, “but could include shooting down drones, which is considered a defensive measure”, said The Independent.

The support builds on the UK’s existing military contribution to Saudi Arabia’s air defence, including the deployment of air defence equipment and UK personnel helping to protect against missile and drone attacks.

Addressing the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Tuesday, Burnham chose to focus less on ongoing tensions in the Middle East and instead target Russian disinformation and the threat posed by AI.

On the Iran war he told reporters, “the message is that we want to see an end to the conflict as quickly as possible and we stand ready to play our part”.

After years of reports about artificial intelligence potentially being incorporated into air traffic control systems, the prospect is finally becoming a reality. The FAA is rolling out an AI tool that’s already being used in control towers at major airports. But while the federal government is lauding the new AI program, many aviation experts are wary of letting the technology take off.

What is the FAA’s new technology?

This AI tool is a software called the Strategic Management of Airspace, Routes and Trajectories (SMART). It “centralizes 200 data streams — including weather patterns, flight paths, traffic flow and controller staffing metrics — into one platform,” the FAA said in a press release. An AI engine analyzes the data to “provide a comprehensive visualization of where planes are going, how much traffic the system can handle and where congestion or weather could cause challenges.”

While the thought of AI-powered air traffic control may conjure images of computers telling airplanes when to take off and land, this is not the case — at least for now. The SMART system “will not replace human operators or direct any changes to flight routes but merely offer recommendations that controllers can choose to heed or ignore,” said The New York Times. SMART is headquartered at the FAA’s Air Traffic Control System Command Center in Virginia, where officials will “disseminate the AI recommendations to controllers at the regional towers and other air traffic facilities.”

SMART is the brainchild of the AI firm Air Space Intelligence, which earned an $875 million contract from the government to develop the system. For now, the rollout is “limited to the Washington region, affecting three airports: Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, Dulles International Airport and Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport,” said the Times, though officials expect its implementation at other airports in the future. When fully integrated nationwide, officials believe SMART will “act as something like the brains of the nation’s air traffic control system,” said The Wall Street Journal.

Why are some experts worried?

Even though SMART won’t be directly controlling airplanes, many in the aviation industry are still skeptical about its widespread use. There are remaining questions about “where the system would get its data,” and “controllers must be able to veto its recommendations,” S. Todd Yeary, a former air traffic controller, told NewsNation. One of his biggest worries is that AI has a tendency to hallucinate false information, and since air traffic control information is always changing, any “data fed into a system cannot be assumed to remain reliable.” For example, a pilot “requesting VFR flight following service” — meaning he or she is flying using visual references around them, as opposed to navigational instruments — would “not appear in airline schedules, so the on-duty controller must be able to step in.”

The airlines themselves have expressed similar safety concerns. There were originally “weeks of industry confusion over the FAA’s vague description of its much-hyped plans” for SMART, said Politico, which only eased when the agency said it “would use the tool in just a limited way at first.”

A major concern for the airlines was “how extensively the AI would be integrated into day-to-day air traffic management,” said Politico. Even after some meetings with the FAA, airlines are reportedly still nervous that SMART could “inject chaos by prompting increases in flight cancellations and reschedulings in the name of preventing aviation bottlenecks and avoiding weather-related delays.” While this “could become a costly headache for both airlines and passengers,” no airline officials have “alleged that the system would compromise safety.”

A US federal appeals court has ruled Donald Trump’s policy of deporting migrants to so-called third countries is unlawful, setting up a potential showdown with the Supreme Court.

The case has become “a key test of what due-process protections the government must provide before removing people to countries with which they have no connection”, said Reuters. Trina Realmuto, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the verdict shows such protections “cannot be circumvented by putting someone on a plane to a country that was never part of their removal proceedings”.

How many people have been deported, and to where?

Since Trump returned to office in late January 2025, more than 25,000 migrants, refugees and asylum seekers have been deported to third countries where they often have no ties. The Deportation Project, led by a collection of media organisations, has identified 35 countries where the US has secured agreements to receive third-country deportees. The majority of those deported so far – around 20,000 – were transported to Mexico, while others have been flown to Latin America, Africa, central Asia and the Caribbean.

Often done “under a cloak of secrecy” these have become a “core part of the Trump administration’s repressive migration policy”, said France 24. “At the beginning of the administration, they were really overt about the fact they’re carrying out these flights,” said Savi Arvey, director of Policy, Refugee & Immigrant Rights at the NGO Human Rights First. “But over the past year, the government has been very opaque about these third-country transfers.”

Why are people being sent to third countries?

Third-country deportations represent a solution to cases where deportees’ home countries either refuse to accept them or in which doing so would violate US law, under which “it is illegal to send people back to countries where they are likely to be persecuted”, said The Guardian. Many of those deported to third countries had previously been granted a “withholding of removal” in recognition of the danger they could face if returned to their home countries. However, third countries often go on to deport the arrivals to “the very place they fled”.

The US Department of Homeland Security says third-country deportations are part of a wider strategy that prioritises the swift removal of criminals. The agency said there were serious violent and sexual offenders among the more than 330 deportees sent to third counties in Africa. However, “many of them had already served their sentences”, said Politico, while “others had merely violated immigration regulations or had unsuccessfully applied for asylum”.

What is the future of third-country deportations?

On Friday, a three-judge appeals court panel unanimously agreed with a March 2025 ruling that the Trump administration’s third-country removals policy failed to give people enough notice of the decision to deport them, or the chance to legally contest their removal.

The government has 90 days to appeal, which would send the case to the Supreme Court for a final decision. In the meantime, “the third-country deportation policy continues,” James Percival, the Department of Homeland Security’s general counsel, said in a statement.

According to internal government records reviewed by The Washington Post, at least $410 million has been pledged towards securing more migration deals with third countries. The policy “marks an extraordinary break in US foreign policy, inverting the nation’s long-standing commitment to resettling refugees in need into an intensive focus on expelling them from the country”.

As the United States struggles to extricate itself from the Iran war, longtime regional ally Saudi Arabia is facing a growing Iranian threat of its own. Yemen’s Houthi rebels, long considered proxies of the Iranian regime, have successfully launched a series of military offensives, including the recent capture of the port city of Mokha and the destruction of an overland pipeline. These are key fuel nodes for the Red Sea, made all the more vital as Iran throttles traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

The result is a “nightmare scenario for Saudi Arabia” that has “sent jitters through global markets,” said The Associated Press. With fighting between the Saudi-backed government and Iranian-backed rebel forces spreading, Yemen has become a stand-in for larger forces scrambling to capitalize on a new paradigm in the Middle East.

Why are Saudi officials worried?

Saudi Arabia is “becoming a focal point for the Middle East crisis,” as it “contends with a multifront campaign being waged by Iran and its Axis of Resistance allies,” said Newsweek. Houthi forces have “stepped up cross-border attacks” against Iran while “simultaneously gaining ground” against Saudi-backed government forces “in some of the most intensive clashes since an April 2022 ceasefire halted Yemen’s civil war.”

At the same time, the Saudi’s “most essential ally, the United States,” has been “unpredictable and sometimes unreliable” under this administration, said the AP. The White House “seems reluctant to widen an already unpopular and stalemated Mideast war ahead of congressional elections.”

“For a decade,” the Saudi attitude toward Yemen has “rested on the assumption” that “patiently and strategically” applying time, money and force would “eventually produce enough leverage to subdue the Houthis,” said Responsible Statecraft. “Or at least force them into a settlement on Riyadh’s terms.” For the past several weeks, that “assumption has been tested more severely than at any point since 2015,” as Houthi forces press toward the city of Marib, which is the “last major stronghold of forces loyal to the internationally recognized government of Yemen.” And as “Iran-aligned groups” such as the Houthis “increase pressure” on Saudi Arabia, “diplomacy” between the Gulf States and Iran has “hit its own wall.”

What’s at risk for the kingdom?

Attacks by Houthi forces have “already caused a plunge in Saudi oil exports to Asia” from “around 3.4 million barrels a day in June to 128,000 in August,” said the AP. As the group tightens its grip on the Red Sea’s Bab al-Mandab Strait, Houthi figures have “assured U.S. officials” that the group has “no intention of attacking U.S. shipping in the Red Sea,” said Al Jazeera. Instead, any restrictions would “apply only to vessels linked to Saudi Arabia.”

Israel has “reportedly offered to intervene in Yemen on Saudi Arabia’s behalf,” said Al Jazeera. But kingdom officials may be “wary of being seen to rely on Israeli military support” for fear it could “damage Riyadh’s standing and legitimacy throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds.”

Where is Iran in all this?

The Houthis are “agents and proxies of the Iranians,” said Secretary of State Marco Rubio to reporters earlier this month, per Off the Press. Iran “arms, trains and coordinates with the Houthis” in a relationship that “indeed deserves scrutiny,” said The National Interest. But the group has “independent origins, an autonomous decision-making structure, its own revenue base and a track record of acting against Tehran’s preferences when its own interests demand it.”

Ansar Allah is an “independent Yemeni actor” that “makes its own decisions,” said Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Esmaeil Baqaei on X, using the Houthis’ official group name. It “takes orders from no one and acts as nobody’s proxy.”

The group is “first and foremost” a Yemeni movement “whose fight has always been about power inside Yemen,” said The Conversation. But “Yemeni security sources” have claimed senior Iranian commander Abdul Reza Shahla’i was “on the ground overseeing part of the latest operation in September.” Moreover, there is also a risk that seizing another fuel “choke point” to target Saudi shipping “makes the Houthis look, to much of the world and no small part of Yemen, like Tehran’s instrument,” no matter what their “own objectives actually are.”

Where is China in all this?

Neither the United States nor Saudi Arabia seems “eager to send their forces to die en masse,” said Annelle Sheline, a research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft's Middle East program, to Newsweek. Both countries “prefer to rely on superior air power,” which has “proven repeatedly inadequate as a means of holding territory in Yemen and elsewhere.”

Riyadh has instead “turned to China for help” following recent Houthi victories, said Reuters. Accordingly, Beijing has “privately asked Tehran to help rein in Yemen’s Houthis,” going “further” in its private call for restraint and diplomacy than in China’s “public statements.”

Saudi Arabia could also “seek a diplomatic solution with either the Houthis or their patrons in Tehran,” said the AP. But the Houthis have “demanded the lifting of a Saudi-led blockade,” which would allow them to “grow much stronger over the long term.” Iran similarly has “little interest in stabilizing the region without securing major U.S. concessions.”

Currently, in much of England outside major cities, county councils provide one set of services, and district and borough councils another. County councils cover education, transport and roads, town planning, fire and public safety, social care, and services such as libraries; while district and borough councils, covering smaller geographical areas within the counties, look after more locally focused services such as rubbish collection and recycling, council tax collections, council housing and planning.

The government’s plan, known as local government reorganisation (LGR), was to replace this two-tier system with “unitary authorities”, bringing all responsibilities together into one body, by early 2028.

In five authorities – Surrey, Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk and Suffolk – this process was launched in 2025. In one of the last announcements of Keir Starmer’s government, Steve Reed, the then-secretary of state for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), said 14 other councils would also be reorganised.

Why were they being merged?

The two-tier system, which dates back to the 1970s, was brought in to ensure a balance of central services designed to cover a large geographical area, and local responsiveness on smaller-scale matters. But according to Reed, setting out these plans in December 2024, the system leads to “outdated and misaligned structures that slow down delivery, fragmenting public services, hampering housebuilding and slowing down important decision making”.

Unitary authorities already cover much of England. In 1986, 32 London boroughs and 36 other metropolitan districts became unitary authorities. Since the mid-1990s, 62 other unitary authorities have been created, most recently North Yorkshire, Somerset and Cumbria; over 65% of England’s population already lives in one. The hope was that consolidation would produce major savings, reducing management, back-office operations and other kinds of duplication – and that it would help give more efficient services to residents.

So what happened?

LGR has triggered fierce resistance across England. Essex County Council, now led by Reform UK, challenged the government’s proposals in court; Norfolk, Suffolk and Hampshire were following suit. There were objections from Devon to Rutland. Last Monday, the new MHCLG minister, Angela Rayner, officially announced the withdrawal of all LGR proposals for Essex, Norfolk, Suffolk and Hampshire. A further 14 council reorganisations were paused pending a “rapid review”. The only LGR process now going ahead is Surrey.

Why were the plans opposed?

Many council leaders were furious that central government was choosing to “rearrange the deckchairs”, when they are already facing so many challenges: debt, social care, special educational needs, housebuilding.

The proposed reorganisations were often highly complex. For Essex, the plan was to turn one county council, 12 low-tier councils and two existing unitary councils into five streamlined unitaries by 2028. This would have greatly reduced the number of councillors (from about 700 to perhaps 430), a deliberate policy to reduce costs. The plans, complained Peter Harris, Reform leader of Essex County Council, are “ill-thought, expensive, purely ideological in nature and seek to create further democratic distance between the people of Essex and their elected local politicians”.

What other objections were there?

In some cases, the issue was whether the new authority would be financially viable: the proposed East Norfolk Council would have been one of Britain’s poorest. In Devon, the plan was to merge eight existing second-tier authorities and one county council into four unitary authorities: three based on Plymouth, Exeter and Torbay, and one covering the very large, impoverished “rural rump”, with a vast road network.

The residents of Rutland, England’s smallest county, home to 41,000 East Midlanders, objected that their small unitary authority was to be subsumed into a bigger unitary in neighbouring Leicestershire. The county’s MP, Tory Alicia Kearns, said Rutlanders would “have our identity stripped from us”. Several historic UK cities were also cited as being at risk of being legally demoted to “towns”: Canterbury City Council was to be absorbed into East Kent Authority, perhaps losing its city status.

Is there still a case for going through with LGR?

Yes. North Yorkshire Council, for instance, is an advocate for the process. It has achieved £68 million in recurring annual savings, since it merged seven district councils and one county council into one in 2023 – by removing duplicated senior executives, using smarter central procurement, pruning unneeded offices, and so on.

But the overall financial benefits and costs of LGR are disputed. A PwC report commissioned by the County Councils Network found, in 2020, that savings of £2.9 billion could be made. But this is contested: the BBC found that the government had failed to do “its own analysis of the costs”. The transition itself would be costly: the PwC report found that it could cost £850 million. Norfolk County Council said it would cost it £96 million.

What’s happening now?

It’s unclear whether this is just a pause, or the end of the LGR process. Rayner said: “In light of legal advice, I want to satisfy myself firstly that the right process is in place, that it is robust, and of course complies with the law.” She added that she wanted to be sure it met “the priorities of a new administration”. There was satisfaction in local authorities, but also anger. “The most ambitious change to local government in a generation now looks in danger of becoming a colossal white elephant – a huge drain on time, resources and goodwill,” said the Local Government Intelligence Unit, a think-tank.

Pension plans were starting to seem like a thing of the past. But a recent resurgence suggests this retirement benefit may be staging a comeback.

As companies work to “settle negotiations with labor unions or win over employees in fields where recruiting and retaining workers is especially competitive,” a “small but growing number” of them have begun to either reopen their pension plans or start them, said The Wall Street Journal. However, these pensions may look a little different than those of the past, as “many newer plans instead give workers market-linked returns, similar to a 401(k),” which in turn “shifts most of the investment risk to employees.” Here is what to know.

What is a pension plan?

It’s an employer-sponsored retirement savings account wherein “employers make regular contributions to a pool of money set aside to fund payments to eligible employees after they retire,” said Investopedia. Employees may also be required to make additional contributions to the plan.

Payouts in retirement depend on the type of pension plan. With a defined-benefit plan, the type of pension that used to be more common, the employer “guarantees that the employee receives a specific monthly payment after retiring and for life, regardless of the performance of the underlying investment pool,” said Investopedia. Meanwhile, with the increasingly offered defined-contribution plan, the “final benefit to the employee depends on the investment performance of the plan” and the company’s “liability ends when the total contributions are expended.”

How is a pension different from a 401(k)?

A 401(k) is another type of defined-contribution plan, but it has some meaningful differences from a pension. For one, the “employer provides the bulk of funding for a pension plan, while 401(k) plans are primarily funded by the employee,” said SoFi. This also grants the employer greater control, particularly as a “defined benefit plan generally pools money in the company’s pension fund,” as opposed to an investment account in your name, said SmartAsset.

There is also no option to bring a pension with you if you change jobs, as you can with a 401(k) rollover. Rather, “when an employee leaves a company in which they have a vested pension benefit, the employee must keep track of their pension benefit after their departure,” said Investopedia.

What are the benefits and risks of pensions?

The benefits and risks of pensions can vary widely depending on the specific plan. For instance, if the pension is a defined-benefit plan, the employee can largely count on receiving a certain amount at retirement — though “in the case of public pensions, there’s also the risk that the state or municipality will encounter economic issues and declare bankruptcy, which could result in a reduction of benefits for pension plan participants,” said SmartAsset.

With a defined-contribution plan, payout in retirement will largely depend on investment performance, similar to a 401(k). But “unlike with a 401(k) plan or IRA, you have no say in how your company invests the money in your pension fund,” which means that “if the manager of the fund makes bad investment decisions, that could result in insufficient funds for the overall pension,” said SmartAsset.

As another benefit, “both pension plans allow the worker to defer tax on the retirement plan’s earnings until withdrawals begin,” which “allows the employee to reinvest dividend income, interest income and capital gains — all of which compound and can generate a much higher rate of return,” said Investopedia.

New cases of HIV are surging at an unprecedented rate in Fiji, and the South Pacific island nation has declared a national emergency as a result. The government is doubling down on preventative measures with the help of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), as drug use and taboos around the disease contribute to the outbreak.

Why is there a crisis?

Over the last 15 years, new HIV infections have “increased 12-fold” in Fiji, according to recent UNAIDS data, said The Associated Press. As of 2025, about 9,000 people live with HIV in a country that has “less than a million people.” This means that about one in every 60 adults there has the virus, “compared with one in 167 five years ago.”

HIV is now a “national crisis,” and the government is “treating it like one,” said Fiji Health Minister Atonio Lalabalavu in a video statement on Facebook. “No more business as usual.” More people in Fiji are living with HIV than “ever before.”

Officials warn that the outbreak is not “limited to particular areas or populations,” said The New York Times. And because Fiji “serves as a regional hub for business, tourism and transport,” the surge could also affect nearby countries in the South Pacific if “left unchecked.”

Such interconnectedness may have contributed to a spike in infections, said Eamonn Murphy, the director of regional support teams in the Asia Pacific region, Central Asia and Eastern Europe for UNAIDS, to the Times. An influx of drugs like methamphetamine and cocaine during the Covid-19 pandemic added “fuel on the flame” of a longstanding HIV presence. Fiji is also one of “several global hot spots” in which a dangerous trend called bluetoothing, in which people “inject themselves with the blood of other drug users to get a cheap high,” is contributing to spikes in disease rates, said the Times.

What’s the plan to solve the crisis?

These alarming statistics don’t capture the full scale of the problem, said Renata Ram, the Fiji adviser for UNAIDS, to CNN. Most concerning is the “speed of the epidemic” and the “number of people who may be living with HIV without knowing it.” Only about 39% of Fijians living with HIV know their status, and less than a quarter (22%) are on treatment.

HIV is “not only a health issue,” said Joeli Colati, the executive director of Fiji Network Plus, an advocacy organization for HIV-positive people, to CNN. It’s also connected to “stigma, poverty, confidentiality and fear.”

Limited testing, low condom use, and shame are often cited as factors contributing to infection. And there are many reasons why people might be hesitant to seek treatment, including a “fear of being recognized at the HIV clinic,” said Colati. Fiji is a “deeply religious society” in which “premarital or casual sex is generally considered taboo,” said CNN.

Fiji’s government has “ramped up testing and treatment efforts” since January 2025, when the nation first “declared an HIV outbreak,” said the Times. However, an “outbreak-level response is no longer sufficient,” said Lalabalavu in his video statement. Moving forward, Fiji has pledged a “whole-of-government response,” including “expanded access to free testing, prevention services and treatment,” as well as harm-reduction measures such as programs that “allow people who inject drugs to exchange used needles for clean ones,” said the Times.

Fiji has “recognized the urgency of the moment and is stepping up its response,” said UNAIDS Executive Director Winnie Byanyima in a press release. It’s also a “stark reminder to the world that AIDS is not over.” HIV epidemics can “change quickly,” and countries need “health and community systems that are ready to respond urgently.”

The UK collectively donates an estimated 350,000 tons of clothes each year to our 9,900 charity shops, but the future of the sector seems in doubt as “more and more” of the outlets are closing.

Oxfam is considering shutting 100 of its 500 UK retail stores just months after the British Heart Foundation announced plans to close 150 of its 640 shops.

How do charity shops work?

When one of Britain’s earliest recorded charity shops was opened in Edinburgh in 1937, there were “queues outside” and “police on hand to manage restive shoppers”, said The Guardian.

By the 1960s, charity shops were becoming more familiar sights, and in recent years shopping for second-hand goods has lost its stigma and become recognised as a sustainable alternative to fast-fashion and throwaway culture.

The UK’s charity shops are staffed by about 223,000 volunteers and 24,900 paid employees. Together, they made more than £300 million in 2024-25. Charity shops don’t have to pay business rates, although they’re “still hit by increases in national insurance and wage bills”.

Why the decline?

Those running charity shops agree that “the glut of fast fashion” has led to a drop in the number of good-quality items being donated, said The Guardian.

“Charity shops in Britain are overwhelmed with stuff,” said Tansy Hoskins, author of “Charity Shop World: An Investigation into Community, Consumption and Waste”, in The Telegraph. The problem is they are “desperate to get rid of most of the old clothes they are given”, with most of them sold off to recycling companies in “ragbags”. The average price paid to charities for a kilo of worn clothes has “dropped from 45p to 15p” over the past decade.

Charity shops are also competing with second-hand online retailers like Vinted and eBay, which are increasingly also a resource for the charities themselves. “We need to put the higher value items that we do get on eBay to make the most money for the charity that we can,” said one charity shop manager on Reddit.

The picture is not entirely bleak. The rise of resellers who visit charity shops to buy stock to sell on themselves for profit creates a “virtuous circle”, providing the shops with “significant income”, said The Guardian, while also increasing interest in thrifting.

What’s the reaction been?

“I’m struggling to shed a single tear,” said Simon Heptinstall in The Spectator. Charity shops’ exemption from business rates has given them a “ridiculous near monopoly” on high streets, helping to push out “butchers, bakers and normal clothes shops”. Thanks to “an army” of “unpaid volunteers” and prices worthy of a “Bond Street boutique”, they rake in vast profits to support their own “sprawling corporate infrastructure”; they are no longer a community asset but an “optimised extraction racket”.

Robin Osterley, outgoing chief executive of the Charity Retail Association, has rejected suggestions that the sector is in crisis. Acknowledging that charity shops are facing challenges “maintaining their profitability in the face of some really significant rising costs”, he told Civil Society in May that I don’t “have any concerns about the future of shops”. I also “think some of the trends we’ve been seeing towards higher standards and towards larger shops in particular will continue”. He also flagged the potential of AI to “identify, describe and list donations”.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has arrested a record number of pregnant people and placed them in detention centers where they receive subpar prenatal and postnatal care. And the agency has lost count of how many have suffered miscarriages.

What’s happening to women who miscarry in ICE custody?

The Trump administration “placed more pregnant immigrants in detention” last fall and winter than at “any time over the previous year,” said The Guardian. In October, there were at least 87 pregnant women and teens in detention, and by November, there were 101, according to government documents obtained by the outlet. ICE reported 18 miscarriages during the first nine months of the Trump administration, but the agency stopped recording miscarriages after Oct. 3. There is no updated data on miscarriages because ICE ended its contract with the Veterans Affairs Financial Services Center, which had been handling medical billing for the agency, according to internal documents.

Detained pregnant women report they are “struggling to access routine and emergency medical care,” said The Guardian. Women who miscarried or were hospitalized for pregnancy complications told the outlet they “did not receive follow-up care, despite experiencing ongoing pain and symptoms.” While it is difficult to attribute the miscarriages to the detention conditions, it is clear these “incarcerated women” are not “getting the prenatal visits that they’re supposed to get,” Deborah Ottenheimer, an obstetrician-gynecologist and medical expert with Physicians for Human Rights, said to The Guardian. They’re not getting “high-risk prenatal visits if they need them.” And if they do miscarry, the “medical care they receive is minimal to none.”

Center for Reproductive Rights reports from earlier this year also indicate high numbers of miscarriages in detention centers and, in severe cases, “allegations of coerced or unnecessary gynecological surgeries and hysterectomies without proper informed consent,” said Forbes. These reports “raise concerns about compliance with established maternal health standards.”

Is anything being done to improve the problem?

Initially, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees ICE, said the agency was tracking miscarriages in monthly reports in response to The Guardian’s follow-up questions about the missing data. Later, the spokesperson confirmed it “does not have data on miscarriages from October 2025 through June 2026,” said The Guardian. DHS has “never before acknowledged” that it lost count of miscarriages, “not even when U.S. senators asked the agency for the data.” It is convenient for the Trump administration that ICE cannot report how many miscarriages happened in its custody, because when “you don’t track something of that magnitude,” you don’t have to be “confronted with the reality of what your policies have yielded,” said Faisal Al-Juburi, the co-chief executive of Texas-based immigration services nonprofit Raíces, to The Guardian. “

In May, Democratic senators Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) and Jon Ossoff (Ga.) demanded answers from DHS regarding the “appalling and horrific treatment” of pregnant, postpartum and nursing women in immigration detention, in a letter sent to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin and private contractors operating an ICE detention facility in Texas. The trio cited “cases of miscarriages, medical neglect and the use of shackles during pregnancy,” said The Latin Times. They also urged the Trump administration to “restore a policy presuming the release of pregnant women from immigration custody except in extraordinary circumstances.”

This letter came right after new legislation was introduced by Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.) that “would establish care standards for federally incarcerated pregnant people,” including those in ICE and Customs and Border Protection facilities, said Mother Jones. The bill builds on one that the “House already passed in 2022,” which only applied to those in the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ custody.

Immigration detention is known to foster “medical neglect, abusive conditions” and “utter disregard for the dignity of people,” Eunice Cho, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s National Prison Project and the co-author of a letter to ICE documenting these conditions, said in an ACLU report. “What we heard from the pregnant women we interviewed” are some of the “most horrifying stories I’ve heard about detention.”

The transition from college to the “real world” is never easy. But when you add inflation, a tough labor market and the ubiquity of AI, the transition can feel especially tricky.

When the going is tough, the best bet is often to fall back on financial basics. While the larger economic environment may be out of your control, you can at least make sure your financial situation is starting off on the right track. Use these four tips as guidance after graduation.

1. Do not underestimate the importance of a budget

“When it comes to money, it’s best not to wing it,” said Investopedia. To formulate a plan, begin by getting a handle on the full details of your current situation, accounting for what income, savings and debt you have. Then, assign every dollar that hits your bank account a job, whether that is covering bills or rent, bolstering your emergency fund or paying off student loans.

Once you have made your budget, you’ll come to the hard part: sticking to it. It may sound dull, but the reality is that “staying on budget as a recent college graduate — or even better, under budget — can ensure your financial goals stay achievable,” said Navy Federal Credit Union.

2. Be open to opportunities to cut costs

Experts say “young workers need to prepare for financial uncertainties and job market challenges by staying frugal and saving what they can,” said Investopedia. This may look like relying on public transportation instead of getting a car or moving to a less trendy but more affordable neighborhood.

Another major way that many young professionals are cutting costs is by moving back home. But make sure you do not end up spending more in other areas just because mom and dad are footing the rent. “Recent grads need to use the money they save when moving back home to set them up for a stable financial future,” said Bruce Maginn, a partner at Solomon Financial, to Investopedia.

3. Start to get a handle on debt sooner than later

Although technically most student loans have a six-month grace period, that does not mean recent graduates need to wait to start paying. “If you can start making payments earlier, you’ll save on interest and establish the habit,” said NerdWallet.

There are situations where student loan debt may not be your primary concern, like if you have other high-interest debt, such as credit card debt. In that case, “put as much as possible toward the higher-interest debt first, while continuing to make minimum payments on other debt,” said Navy Federal Credit Union. “This will save you money and allow you to pay off higher-interest debt quicker, giving you more money to put toward student loan debt repayment.”

4. Use credit, but be smart about it

When finances are tight, pulling out a credit card may seem irresponsible. But using your credit wisely is one of the best things you can do to set yourself up financially. Good credit helps with everything from qualifying for better borrowing opportunities at lower rates when you need them to influencing whether or not you land an apartment when you are ready to strike out on your own.

One of the easiest ways to build your credit is to make payments on time and in full, each and every time. And if you do not yet have a credit card, student loan payments count, too.

“The United States now has on-orbit space control weapons capable of defending the joint force against hostile adversary action.”

This was US air force secretary Troy Meink confirming for the first time at a conference in Maryland this week that such weapons exist. Meink said the US was “ready to meet the challenges of evolving threats wherever they exist”.

It has been an “open secret” that the US, Russia and China are developing space weapons, but to say it officially is “extraordinary”, said The Guardian. Over time, the “cooperation” of the post-Cold War era has “gradually become a potential battlefield”, and announcements such as this threaten to “accelerate a risky arms race”.

What are the weapons?

Meink declined to give any details on the capabilities of the weapons, only that they were “important from a deterrence perspective”.

There is a “broad range of possibilities” for what they could be, Clayton Swope, from the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank, told CNN. There could be “satellites capable of jamming enemy communications” or weapons that could “target and destroy ground-based equipment”. In the extreme, there might also be anti-satellite weapons that could “seek out and physically destroy” enemy satellites in orbit.

In its “war-fighting framework”, the US Space Force has acknowledged that threats of orbital strikes on the country can include “both kinetic – or physically destructive – weapons and non-kinetic ones”, said the Financial Times, implying weapons would need to be capable of nullifying them.

What is the US space strategy?

Donald Trump established the US Space Force in 2019, making it the first new branch of the US military in more than 70 years.

Under the control of the Department of the Air Force, its primary goal is “bolstering the nation’s defence capabilities” and maintaining satellites for communication and surveillance, said CNN. But last year, Trump issued an executive order underlining the USSF’s “role in not only defending assets, but also as an attacking force”, said the BBC.

Russia and China are perceived to be the main threats to US national security. The USSF claims that China already “operates space and counterspace capabilities”, while Russia “views space as a war-fighting domain and believes space supremacy will be a decisive factor in future conflicts”.

Next year, the department is “slated to have a budget of $71.3 billion”, said The Times. New space weapons form a part of the wider “Golden Dome” missile defence shield, protecting the US from foreign attack. Trump has “championed” the “$185 billion” programme, which “would potentially involve deploying interceptors to space”.

How have others reacted?

Dmitry Peskov, spokesperson for the Kremlin, told reporters that Russia believed “space must be free of any weapon” and called for “the complete demilitarisation” of space.

China’s foreign ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun has urged the US to “stop expanding military build-up in outer space, and uphold global strategic stability with concrete actions”. The country “stands for peaceful use of outer space and keeping it safe” and “opposes any arms race in outer space or any attempt to weaponise it and turn it into a war zone”.

Chinese military analyst Song Zhongping told the state-owned Global Times that “if the US continues down this path, other countries may be forced to respond”.

Could this development spread?

In theory, weapons in space are banned. Following Starfish Prime – the “largest nuclear test in outer space” – in 1962, nations signed the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which “banned weapons of mass destruction in orbit”, said The Telegraph.

But while it bans the use or testing of nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction in orbit, “it does not prohibit the use of conventional weapons in space or the use of ground-based weapons against assets in space”, said CNN. This leaves “room for interpretation”.

And the “emerging space weapons race is not limited to the US, Russia and China”, said Al Jazeera. India has already demonstrated “anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons” capability and is “developing technologies that could allow spacecraft to operate alongside other satellites”. France has reportedly begun developing similar “co-orbital capabilities”, and the UK has “conducted on-orbit cooperative operations” in conjunction with the US.

The Secure World Foundation found that while the threats from Iran and Israel are “less visible”, they are relying on “jamming and spoofing satellite-based services” and “electronic-warfare capabilities” respectively to advance their space security. North Korea is also “racing to develop more sophisticated space-based tech”.

“There is only one reason that young people come into the city wearing balaclavas, and that is to conceal their identity to commit crime and intimidate members of the public,” said Nottinghamshire Police superintendent Chris Pearson earlier this month. “Not any longer. Your time is up.”

The city has become one of the first in the country to enact a ban on balaclavas, as part of a wider initiative, dubbed “Operation Reclaim”, to tackle youth anti-social behaviour across Nottingham.

Following masked anti-migrant protests on the south coast, other areas of the UK are looking to follow Nottingham’s lead, although opinion is divided on the extent and effectiveness of bans on face coverings.

Why is the balaclava so controversial?

Popularised by US drill rappers “wearing head coverings and ski-masks in videos”, the balaclava has become something of a transatlantic “urban fashion trend”, said The Telegraph. Ironically, the garment “is now marketed by British leisurewear outlets on the very high streets blighted by ‘ballie’ crime”.

The balaclava has traditionally been used by both “far-right” and “left-wing agitators” to conceal identities during protests, said James Hanson on LBC. But it is also a common accessory for street crime and anti-social behaviour, such as shoplifting sprees by “groups of balaclava-wearing youths”. “If you’re popping into Sainsbury’s in a balaclava, you’re hardly there to top up your Nectar points”.

The controversy over face coverings resurfaced following anti-migrant protests in Dover and Portsmouth earlier this month, in which balaclava-clad men blocked roads to try to prevent the movement of newly arrived migrants.

How will the ban work?

From today, Nottinghamshire police and council officers will be permitted to ask people to remove face coverings if they “reasonably believe” they are worn to conceal their identity, or to commit crime or anti-social behaviour. Those who refuse can be given a £70 on-the-spot fine and face referral to the Immediate Justice Programme, a scheme requiring community work including “litter picking or graffiti removal in the city centre”, said Nottinghamshire Police. If the individual is prosecuted, courts are able to impose a maximum fine of £1,000. Repeat offenders may also be issued with a criminal behaviour order, “which could ban them from the city centre indefinitely”.

Those wearing face coverings for religious, health, medical or work reasons or another legitimate purpose will not be affected by the ban.

The ban has been introduced following a public consultation in which more than 90% of 2,200 respondents supported police action. Authorities had identified around 180 city centre incidents involving face coverings or balaclavas between June 2025 and June 2026.

Are bans likely to spread?

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has told police chiefs in a private meeting that she expects them to “make full use of their powers to stop protesters wearing face coverings”, said The Independent. Current legislation already allows senior police officers to “declare a protest area where concealing one’s identity would be an offence”, but this power was not used during the Dover protests.

Other councils in the UK will be “carefully watching Nottingham’s progress”, said The Telegraph. A few areas have already adopted similar measures. In 2024, Wolverhampton City Council introduced powers allowing police to request the removal of face coverings worn with no reasonable purpose. The London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham introduced a similar policy in February this year, joined by Woking in July. “Even in leafy Cambridge”, an e-petition is calling for a Nottingham-style ban on balaclavas.

Knowing you need to save enough for retirement and actually doing it are two different things. Today’s economy has left younger generations struggling to determine how to navigate a financially tricky present while also setting something aside for the future. Along the way, many are hoping to catch a break, and maybe even enjoy themselves a little.

This conundrum has led to the rise of Coast FI (short for Coast Financial Independence). The aim of this financial planning approach is to set aside enough for retirement that, assuming reliable investment growth, people will have some room in the future to just “coast,” so to speak.

What is Coast FI?

This retirement savings strategy is a subset of the FIRE movement, which stands for Financial Independence, Retire Early. But instead of the goal being early retirement, the Coast FI philosophy aims for just the former: achieving financial independence.

Without the focus on retiring as soon as possible, Coast FI “encourages a focus on a different question,” said Kiplinger. “How much would you need to have invested, such that if you didn’t touch your nest egg, it would grow to support your future retirement spending needs?”

Coast effectively refers to the point at which you have saved enough that you can breathe a sigh of relief. In other words, “Coast FI is when you have enough in investments to fund your full retirement without any more contributions,” with the idea being that “reaching Coast FI early frees you up to, say, take a lower paying job, take time off from work or try to start a business,” said The Wall Street Journal.

What is the appeal of Coast FI?

For many, the promise of freedom and flexibility. While it requires saving aggressively for retirement until you hit your target number, there is then the chance to pump the brakes. That could “free up money to travel or invest for other goals, like a down payment,” said NerdWallet. You may alternatively decide to leverage that freedom to “shift to more fulfilling, perhaps even part-time, work instead.”

Given its recent rise in popularity, having these options on the table is likely reassuring. “Younger Americans worry about how new technology like artificial intelligence will affect their careers and ponder the uncertain future of Social Security,” said the Journal.

Are there any risks to the Coast FI approach?

Despite its allure, it is important not to let Coast FI lull you into a false sense of security. “The core principle hinges on the market performing how you expect it to,” said NerdWallet, and there are, of course, no guarantees when it comes to investing. “If the market tanks in the first few years after you stop contributing, it could greatly reduce how much you have in retirement years,” said the Journal.

Estimating “how much you’ll spend in retirement and your withdrawal rate (factors that go into calculating your Coast FIRE number) can also be hard to figure if you’re decades away from retirement,” said the Journal. This raises the risk of miscalculations, depending on what kind of twists and turns your life takes.