Massive Democratic midterm wins have observers wondering about the U.S.’s relationship with Israel. The nation once had bipartisan U.S. support, but many Democrats newly elected to Congress ran on a platform of shrinking its lobbying influence. With Israel also being rocked by electoral changes, the relationship may never be the same.

What did the commentators say?

Republican midterm losses have “only added to Israel’s growing sense of international isolation after years of war,” said The New York Times. Billions of dollars in aid to Israel could now potentially dry up, considering “how far traditional support for Israel has fallen.” Critics of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — who is fighting to keep power in his own country amid an opposing coalition effort to oust him — have “seized on the results” of the U.S. election as “proof of his mishandling of Israel’s national security interests.”

As Democrats prepare to take congressional control, Israel will “become a litmus test” for a party in which “only 13% have a positive view” of the country, said Bloomberg, citing a March NBC News poll. The incoming surge of pro-Palestine politicians in Congress will likely push to limit cooperation with the nation. “Legislation restricting U.S. arms transfers is unlikely to become law under Trump,” but shifting public sentiment “could eventually translate into policy that would limit Israel’s access to munitions and expose it to broader sanctions.”

Trump’s recent pledge to end aid to Israel was “condemned across the board,” said The Guardian. Pro-Palestinian advocates dismissed the move as “‘desperate’ and pro-Israel ones as ‘unserious.’”

What next?

The “future of U.S. policy toward Israel rides heavily on who will lead the country next,” said The Christian Science Monitor. And “come January,” said The Guardian, the House will “include an army doctor who went on a medical mission in Gaza, a lawyer who was fired by her firm over a blog post criticizing Israel’s war, a Jewish lawmaker who was recently detained by Israeli forces while helping Palestinians harvest olives in the occupied West Bank, and a community organizer who participated in a pro-Palestine student encampment.” Of course, this still “does not mean that the Democratic party is unified on Israel and Palestine.”

“After months of waiting, the Bank of England was finally forced off the sidelines,” Sanjay Raja, chief UK economist at Deutsche Bank, told The Times after the central bank hiked interest rates to 4%.

Conflict in the Middle East has pushed oil prices consistently above $100 a barrel in recent months, and hopes have faded that a deal could lead to a reopening of the key Strait of Hormuz. As a result, the Bank now expects UK inflation to rise to 4.9% in the middle of next year, up from the 3.2% it forecast in July.

What did the commentators say?

In his decision, the Bank’s governor, Andrew Bailey, said that “without news which softens the risks to inflationary pressures, I can see the argument for a further increase in rates”. So “the Bank looks poised to raise borrowing costs further unless a miracle takes place and price pressures simmer out”, said Maurício Alencar in City A.M.

Following its counterparts in the US, the EU and Japan, the Bank of England is the last of the major central banks to respond to rising global oil prices with an interest rate rise this year. But think tanks that “take more of an interest in people on lower incomes”, like the New Economics Foundation, “tend to see interest rate rises as a blunt instrument in the battle against inflation”, said Will Dunn in The New Statesman.

The textbook explanation for higher rates “is that they control prices by reducing demand and promoting saving”, but when people have relatively little money to either spend or save, “this doesn’t seem particularly useful”.

It is, however, one of the few effective instruments against rising inflation. After the global oil crisis of 1973 Britain’s central bank had to use interest rates (which peaked at 17% in 1979) to prevent prices from spiralling further upwards.

Yet this “should not be seen as the start of a cycle of hikes”, said economics editor Faisal Islam on the BBC. Oil prices are already lower than they have been, reflecting “expectations or guesses that President Trump will now retreat or de-escalate from the Iran war”.

Equally “the UK economy is performing much better than forecasts and expectations”. So this isn’t the same economic uncertainty that has brought massive price rises in the past. Even the expected further rise in interest rates, probably in February next year, “is conditional on the war continuing”.

What next?

It is, “regrettably, true that we have become used to debt being artificially cheap” in the UK, said Dunn.

It could be argued that historically normal interest rates were “still a fair bit higher than they are after today’s hike”. For instance, in the 15 years prior to the 1973 oil crisis they averaged 6%. In the 15 years prior to the 2008 crash they averaged 5.5%. “The glum take on today’s hike is that this is not a temporary measure to deal with a period of inflation but a return to normal.”

Republicans are losing control of Congress. But not quite yet: The Democratic victors in Tuesday’s races do not take office until January, and President Donald Trump wants lame-duck legislators to pass his proposed $1.5 trillion defense budget in the remaining weeks his party has leverage on Capitol Hill. Some of his GOP allies, grumpy about the election results and Trump’s overtures to Russia, may not play along.

What did the commentators say?

A “handful of defections” by GOP defense hawks could “jeopardize Trump’s entire defense agenda,” said Politico. Some members of the president’s party are unhappy with his choice to allow Russian fuel sales and waive sanctions on Vladimir Putin’s regime, and they still want answers about the recent throttling of Starlink access to Ukraine. Trump “can’t even see Russia as our adversary,” said outgoing Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) to the outlet. “Why do I want to fund his agenda?”

The “growing pushback” extends to Trump’s staunchest allies, said Reuters. Putin “cannot be trusted,” and there could be “unintended consequences” from sanctions relief, said House Speaker Mike Johnson to Fox News before the election. Several House and Senate Republicans signed October letters objecting to the diesel and sanctions decisions. Their frustration could “pose new hurdles” for the president’s defense and spending bills during the lame-duck session, Reuters said.

Outgoing Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), an occasional Trump antagonist, might be the most notable opponent. Passing the defense bill will require the support of Republicans “who know the difference between the good guys and the bad guys,” said McConnell at The Wall Street Journal. Trump should “plan accordingly” and end the “obeisance to Mr. Putin.”

What next?

Trump’s lame-duck agenda will “run into a brick wall” if defeated GOP incumbents decide to play hooky during their final weeks in office, said The Hill. Defeated candidates often “lose their appetite to stick around Washington” during the last weeks of their term. Some of those candidates will also “blame Trump on election results, and that will factor in,” Bacon said to the outlet.

“We will kill Trump,” says a huge new billboard in central Tehran. There is a “good degree of triumphalism” inside Iran at the results of the US midterms, said Patrick Wintour, diplomatic editor of The Guardian. But supreme leader Mojtaba Khamenei has warned those expecting an immediate shift in American policy towards Iran that they are “seriously mistaken”.

Donald Trump will soon face pressure on military spending from a Democrat-controlled Congress. But, in the two months before the new Congress convenes, “he has greater latitude and little accountability”. The president has paid a high “political price” for his war with Iran, and, “having come so far”, he may look to “cement his legacy and finish the job”.

What did the commentators say?

Trump will not “go gentle into the political twilight of his career”, said the BBC’s international editor Jeremy Bowen. Despite his drubbing at the ballot box, “he retains broad powers to use America’s military might”, and his “determination never to be seen” as a loser might tempt him to “blot out the electoral rout” by taking action abroad.

The new Congress will curb Trump’s “sledgehammer” approach to diplomacy, said Foreign Policy. The Democrats may not “get their way” completely but “the power of the purse will grant them considerable influence and negotiating power”. They could also “use their new oversight authorities” to hold hearings on the Iran war. If these are navigated shrewdly, any mistakes Trump makes in Iran could be weaponised as a “line of political attack” stretching to the 2028 presidential election.

“The president had been planning with Israel a new offensive after the midterm elections,” said Samer Al-Atrush, The Times’ Middle East correspondent. But such is the “historic drop in support for Israel” among US voters, that, even before the elections, Trump suggested he might soon “scale back American aid to Israel”. Key US ally Saudi Arabia will be “alarmed” by the Democrat triumphs and other Gulf nations that “initially opposed the war” will “welcome the moderating influence of an opposition-led Congress”.

But Trump “is peevish”, said Sam Kiley, The Independent’s world affairs editor. “His will has been thwarted, and his administration has been humiliated by Iran’s defiant resilience.” He will blame Iran’s survival, not his own actions, for “the spike in fossil fuel prices”. And if the world sees Iran as some “plucky underdog”, he “will want to shoot that animal”.

What next?

“All of Trump’s options are problematic,” said Axios. He could launch further strikes but going back to war would keep fuel prices high and be “highly unpopular”. Negotiation could be dogged by Iran, “sensing weakness”, refusing to make concessions, meaning Trump will have a “hard time reaching a deal”. He could continue to “strangle” Iran with naval blockades and sanctions but that “could take months to show progress”. The bottom line is: “there’s no tidy way for Trump to ‘finish the job’”.

Americans woke up to a decidedly bluer map this morning, as sweeping Democrat victories in Kansas, Texas and beyond dramatically realigned the country’s electoral makeup. With Congress soon to be under Democratic control, Republicans face a potential end to an era defined — and perhaps doomed — by President Donald Trump.

What did the commentators say?

After imploring voters “not once, not twice, but 47 times this fall” to act as if he himself were on the ballot, Trump got his wish, said Peter Baker at The New York Times. “Just not the way he hoped.” That Democrats won as decisively as they did suggests the country is “signaling the beginning of the end of the Trump era.”

There is “something bigger than the misadventures” of any one Republican candidate at play, said John Kennith White at The Hill. The “stench of political death has repelled even Trump’s most devoted followers,” as voters demand an “end to the anything-goes rhetoric” in favor of “leaders they can admire.”

GOP hopes that Trump’s previous victories were a “political realignment grounded in expanded support” from “working-class minority voters” have been “reduced to rubble,” said Ronald Brownstein at Bloomberg. The electoral “drubbing” also “exposed some cracks in the core MAGA coalition” of white men who did not attend college and rural voters that has “sustained Trump since 2016.”

Trump, “like lots of populists,” forgot the “economic bit of populism,” said Janan Ganesh at the Financial Times. That lapse made it “hard to distinguish him from a laissez-faire Republican of yesteryear.” A “voter rebellion” against Republicans could “force conservatives to rethink their undying allegiance” to the “80-year-old lame-duck leader,” said Steve Peoples at The Associated Press. Before polls closed Tuesday, some GOP candidates had already “begun to distance themselves from him.” These midterms mark the “beginning of a high-stakes fight” over the United States’ “political future in the twilight of the Trump era.”

What next?

How Trump responds to the midterm results will “shape the GOP’s fate,” not only for the remainder of his term but in the 2028 race to succeed him, said Bloomberg. While “Trumpism may be receding,” said the Times, its namesake has the “power of the presidency for two more years.” Trump may do “everything he can to remain a dominant voice for as long as he can.”

Republicans facing a likely electoral blowout in today’s midterms are looking ahead to a very different election. It is one that will determine who leads the party through a new term as the likely minority in one, if not both, chambers of Congress. While current Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has signaled he intends to stay on as party leader, other Republican aspirants are eyeing the midterms as an opportunity to move up the leadership ladder.

What did the commentators say?

There is a “shadow election battle” now “quietly underway” among Republicans to lead “what is expected to be a diminished House Republican Conference,” said Politico. Speaker Johnson’s “recent hints that he intends to remain GOP leader” have “rattled the party’s leadership outlook,” said The Hill. The prospect of Johnson remaining in party leadership has prompted “fresh new questions” about the GOP’s place in the coming Congress, as most House speakers during the modern era have “stepped out of Congress after losing the gavel.”

“Most” Republicans expect Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Steve Scalise (R-La.) to “make a play for minority leader,” said Semafor. But both lawmakers have “publicly refused to entertain questions” about a potential leadership fight “on the record,” said The Washington Post. Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Minn.), current GOP caucus whip, has also been “floated as a potential minority leader,” though he said he “plans on running for whip again next Congress.”

Johnson staying on as party leader is “not out of the realm of the possibility,” as members of his caucus “like him,” said one GOP insider to the Post. “Alas,” said Puck. What was once shaping up to be a “clear-cut race between Scalise and Jordan,” Republican leaders with “opposing styles and vastly different strengths and coalitions,” might now become a “three-way battle.”

What next?

The “size and ideological makeup” of the post-midterms GOP conference will be “key factors” in any leadership race, said Puck. “Heavy losses” that “obliterate moderates representing swing districts” would place the GOP in a “smaller but more conservative minority.”

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is expected to water down plans to double the length of time foreign workers must wait before they are eligible to settle permanently in the UK following opposition from within the Labour Party.

As originally laid out in November 2025, the proposals would extend the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain (ILR) from five to 10 years. The lowest-paid workers, including many employed in the care sector, faced an even longer wait, of 15 years. Adding yet more controversy, the changes would apply to migrants already in the UK. Angela Rayner, the housing secretary, said making the rules apply retrospectively was “un-British” while Energy Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh called for more “compassion” in migration policy.

As Mahmood prepares to unveil her revised plans, the prime minister and home secretary are maintaining a united front, said John Rentoul in The Independent, “but we do not yet know what it is that they are united on”.

What did the commentators say?

“Mahmood is tying herself in a large and unedifying knot,” said James O’Brien in The i Paper. Moving the goalposts for overseas migrants already here is a “breach of the metaphorical contract” and sends an “ugly” message that such workers are “irreversibly second class”. By making settlement harder for vital care workers in particular – who do work British nationals consider “beneath them or too poorly paid” – Mahmood would show she been influenced by “immigration rhetoric as opposed to immigration reality”. She is “pandering to feelings built on lies”.

It would be a “grave error” for Mahmood to change her original plans, said The Telegraph in an editorial. The situation Labour finds itself in is “depressingly familiar”: the government insists it supports border controls, but objects to policies to secure them. Indeed, Mahmood may be forced to “retreat” from the “necessary” changes to ILR to regain backbench support. But she must break free from this “Faustian pact. She was right the first time round.”

Given the backlash, the Home Office could compromise by changing the rules only for new arrivals. But that would be “defeating the entire purpose of the reforms”, said David Shipley in The Spectator, which was mitigating the impact of the “ruinous” so-called “Boriswave” of immigrants.

What next?

“The exact shape of the compromise has been fought over for months,” said Rentoul in The Independent. By now, Burnham and Mahmood will have “calculated where to draw the line so that they can be sure that they have a solid majority of Labour MPs behind them”.

Burnham runs a better “ego management programme” with Labour backbenchers than Keir Starmer, and so is unlikely to have a repeat of last year’s backlash over welfare reforms.

The government will also benefit from a divided opposition on the right. As architects of the Boriswave, any Conservative criticism of Mahmood’s plan will sound hypocritical, while Reform UK “is finding it increasingly hard” to compete with Restore’s more extreme positions on immigration.

Viktor Orbán is being touted by the Trump administration as the next secretary general of the United Nations.

“You read that correctly,” said The Wall Street Journal in an editorial, reflecting that the appointment of Hungary’s former authoritarian populist prime minister to succeed António Guterres would be hugely controversial.

What did the commentators say?

Russia and China are “believed to be supportive” and “when the US, Russia and China all want the same thing at the UN Security Council, they usually get it”.

There are “plenty of reasons” not to back Orbán, “such as that he would act as an apologist for Vladimir Putin and other dictators”. But he would be the “dream Maga-conservative candidate”, one State Department official told the WSJ, thanks to what the paper called “his moves against mass migration, liberal NGOs and Hungary’s left-leaning courts and press”.

It has been more common for “failed liberal politicians” to end up in roles at “intergovernmental networks and transnational bureaucracies”, said Philip Cunliffe on UnHerd. These appointments “allow politicians to retain the trappings of high office long after they have been rejected by their own country”.

Orbán won “five national elections, four with supermajorities” so “has a more impressive electoral track record than most liberals” who might be candidates for the top UN job.

But “it would be strange to think of a person less inclined toward the UN”, said Balkan Insight. He was “apparently encouraged by the Trump administration to enter the race”, said Josie Ensor in The Times, but some “UN watchers” think Orban’s name may be being used a “‘stalking horse’ to make the case for another, more pragmatic, contender: the British-educated Emirati diplomat Lana Nusseibeh”.

“Momentum has quickly shifted” towards Nusseibeh, prompting “speculation that she may have been America’s first choice all along”. But her denial of accusations that the UAE is fuelling the civil war in Sudan by supporting the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces has caused criticism.

“With all five Security Council permanent members so tied to and dependent on the UAE, it will be no surprise if they eventually wave Nusseibeh through,” said Dino Mahtani on Middle East Eye. “But don’t expect her to act in the interest of the victims of wars, mass atrocities and genocides.”

What next?

Guterres’ second five-year term as UN secretary general ends on 31 December. There are seven candidates officially running to replace him, including Nusseibeh but not, yet, Orbán.

To save the UN “from the irrelevance in which it now wallows”, said former EU and US officials Alex Rondos and Mark Medish in The Guardian, its next leader “will require the concerted backing of the few powers that govern the security council”. War has become preferable to dialogue and diplomacy, but the UN can be a “problem-solver rather than a bystander, a credible forum rather than a costly talking shop, and the prime instrument for collective action”.

This won’t happen “unless the great powers want it to”. Appointing a new secretary general “is one of the few moments when they must agree on a qualified person and a timely agenda”.

Arab parties could reshape the political landscape of Israel after securing a record number of seats in Tuesday’s bitterly fought election. The left-wing Joint List, which includes Hadash, Balad and Ta'al, alongside the socially conservative Ra’am party led by Mansour Abbas, are on course for 18 of the Knesset’s 120 seats.

With neither Benjamin Netanyahu or his main rival, former military chief Gadi Eisenkot, close to securing a majority on their own, the Arab parties’ strong showing could make them “kingmakers”, said Liam Stack in The New York Times. “But building a governing coalition with Arab participation remains a fraught exercise in Israel.”

What did the commentators say?

Arab Israeli citizens make up around 20% of the country’s population, and at this election they have turned out in record numbers, driven by what Al Jazeera’s Nour Odeh called “an existential moment for Palestinian-Israelis”.

Their success at the polls poses an “urgent and fundamental challenge to the country’s mainstream opposition: either cooperate with Arab Israelis or hand Benjamin Netanyahu a roadmap to political survival”, said Julian Borger in The Guardian.

While Yair Golan, leader of the left-wing Democrats party, hailed the results as an “opportunity to form a change government in partnership with Israel’s Arab citizens”, for the larger opposition parties, the picture is “less straightforward”, said The Washington Post. Their voters tend to “lean further right, and many have long rejected any government propped up by Arab lawmakers”.

Eisenkot has not explicitly ruled out working with the Arab parties but the conditions he has set for any party to join him are so stringent they may make any partnership impossible. Then there are the concessions the various Arab factions would demand in return for power-sharing. “Cooperation would have to survive those disagreements,” said Zvika Klein in The Jerusalem Post. “A shared interest in replacing a prime minister does not settle what comes afterwards.”

What next?

If no bloc secures the 61-seat threshold once the final result is announced, it falls to Israel’s president, Isaac Herzog, to decide who he asks first to try to form a government. They then have six weeks to cobble together a coalition, after which the challenge is passed on to the next option.

Although Netanyahu and Eisenkot are “unlikely to enter a formal coalition with Arab parties”, the record Arab turnout is still “significant”, said Nada AlTaher in The National.

With Netanyahu’s chances of forming a majority government all but over, he would be forced into putting together a unity government. This would have to include members of the opposition, potentially pushing extreme figures such as Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich out of a future cabinet.

It’s “not the outcome” Arab voters, or indeed those fundamentally opposed to Netanyahu staying in power, will have hoped for, said Danny Citrinowitz, from the Institute for National Security Studies, but it could at least force the PM towards a more moderate position.

Buoyed by polls showing historic winds at their backs ahead of next week’s midterms, Democrats are wasting little time preparing for the day they capture one, or both, chambers of Congress. For all the speculation about how the party might use a congressional majority to rein in the Trump administration, Democrats have also set their sights beyond the beltway on tech billionaire Elon Musk.

The party is threatening investigations during the new legislative term into the GOP megafunder’s businesses and previous government work. Musk, unsurprisingly, has threatened Democrats back, setting up a potential clash that could reverberate through Washington.

What did the commentators say?

Having “long eyed investigating the world’s richest man,” senior Democrats are “mulling how a range of panels could target Musk and a huge swath of his businesses,” said Politico. Even Democrats on committees with “less obvious ties to the tech mogul” are “eyeing targets.”

Musk’s recent interference in Ukrainian military operations is one of a “glut” of alleged conflicts of interest that the Democrats see as “ripe for oversight,” said Politico. But “above all else,” Democrats appear eager to “delve into the disaster” of his DOGE project, said Talking Points Memo.

Democrats should be wary of targeting a man whose three private companies are “almost single-handedly driving American power and influence and our military edge in the next century,” said Fox News host Jesse Watters on “The Five.” “You are gonna destroy that edge.”

In response to increased Democratic interest, Musk threatened to “find out who is really pulling the strings and come for them, not just their puppets,” he said on X. “Live by the sword, die by the sword.”

Musk’s “wartime posture” shows he’s “bracing for a fight,” said The Washington Post. And with days to go before polls close, he “continues to signal he’s readying a counteroffensive.”

What next?

Some Democrats are “not waiting for election results to get started” investigating Musk, said Politico. Members of the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security in September demanded Musk testify on reports that his DOGE project “overstated its savings,” while the Ways and Means Committee in January called for probes into “alleged DOGE-related data theft” from programs like Social Security.

With the Milwaukee Brewers and Tampa Bay Rays battling in the World Series, Major League Baseball has something it rarely gets: a small-market Fall Classic. But with a potential December lockout on the horizon, this year’s World Series could affect the game’s future beyond the baseball diamond.

What did the commentators say?

This World Series is “equally intriguing for what it means on the field” as for “what it means off the field, as terms such as ‘market size,’ ‘payroll’ and ‘revenue sharing’ have become as big a part of baseball as hits, home runs and RBIs,” said NBC News. The small-spending Brewers and Rays beat out several big spenders to make it to the Fall Classic: Milwaukee “swept the Los Angeles Dodgers and their $412 million team in the NLCS,” while Tampa took down the New York Yankees’ $310 million-payroll club.

Whoever emerges victorious will be the first team to win the World Series in the bottom half of the league’s spending since the Kansas City Royals in 2015, a “rebuke of sorts to what MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred had to say about the sport,” said NBC. Manfred “has set this winter up to be a big huffy showdown over runaway major market payrolls and the desperate need to install a salary cap,” said The Wall Street Journal. But the opposite happened, as a “couple of crafty, thrifty, well-run teams with low payrolls but dynamo management knocked out the spenders to reach the big show.”

For team owners, it “plays right into the hands of their opponent in the labor dispute,” said the Journal. The MLB Players Association has long argued that a “cap isn’t necessary, because money isn’t what delivers championships.” But the “truth is it’s a bit of both — a baseball team needs smart management and talent development, but having loads of money can make up for mistakes.”

What next?

Many players also see the small-market World Series as a positive trend. “It kind of paints a different picture, right? You don’t really need all the money out there to win baseball games,” said Brewers closer Trevor Megill to USA Today. “It kind of just matters who’s in the clubhouse and what they are willing to do for each other.’’

Israelis go to the polls today. It’s their first general election since the Hamas attacks of 7 October 2023 led to war in Gaza. With opinion polls suggesting that Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing coalition is “neck and neck” with the main opposition bloc, this is a nation “deeply divided and ready for a fight”, said the BBC. Most Israelis see this election as “the most consequential in their country’s history”, said The Guardian.

What did the commentators say?

For Israelis in Netanyahu’s electoral strongholds, the prime minister is their “champion and protector against enemies across the region” and against a loathed “domestic ‘elite’ they perceive as undermining the will of the people” by succumbing to “international pressure to allow a Palestinian state”, said Neri Zilber in the Financial Times.

Elsewhere, the atmosphere is very different. On Saturday, thousands rallied in Tel Aviv to protest against Netanyahu’s government and call for an independent inquiry into the security failures that led to the 7 October Hamas attacks. “Taking part were leading figures from opposition parties, including Gadi Eisenkot,” said Al Jazeera. The Yashar party leader, and Netanyahu’s main centre-right rival, “was greeted by chants of ‘Who’s coming? The next prime minister’”.

Division has also arrived by air. As most Israelis living abroad are not allowed to vote by post, “expatriates need to cross oceans to cast their ballots”, said The Telegraph. Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics estimates the number of citizens living abroad at 600,000, so the expat vote has the “potential to tip the scale”. There’s much talk “about the thousands coming home, determined to remove Netanyahu”, said Jonathan Sacerdoti in The Spectator, “but thousands also are coming to keep him in office”.

The young will be a crucial voting demographic. More than 500,000 Israelis have reached voting age since the last election in 2022. This generation “came of age after the Oslo process collapsed” and were teenagers when the October 7 attacks occurred, said The Guardian. “Bucking global trends,” they “are more right-wing than older generations”.

What next?

The first exit polls will be published at 10pm local time (8pm in the UK) but neither Netanyahu’s bloc nor Eisenkot’s are projected to win the 61 seats needed to form a majority government. There’s likely to be weeks or months of political wrangling before any workable coalition government can be formed.

The “critical balance of power” will almost certainly be held by the two Arab-majority groupings, said the BBC’s Middle East correspondent, Yolande Knell. Most of the other parties, including Eisenkot’s Yashar, have so far said they would not work with Arab parties, because of “a lack of shared values”. The Arab groupings are open to alliances but they have their own policy aims, not least a solution to “rampant gang crime”. In this high-stakes election, it’s “Arab citizens could yet decide who wields power in Israel, and they see this vote as key to their own future in the country”.

Netflix should be on top of the world. The streamer has far more subscribers than rivals Amazon Prime, HBO Max or Disney+. But revenue and viewership growth has slowed, the streaming service is cutting staff and there are no hits like “Stranger Things” or “Squid Game” on the horizon.

What did the commenters say?

Netflix investors have been “increasingly worried” since the company’s failed bid for Warner Bros. Discovery, said The Wall Street Journal. While the service has the lowest cancellation rate among major streamers, Netflix has recently “struggled” with subscribers “spending less time watching programming on the platform.” That is a critical marker. Strong viewership tells executives “customers are satisfied and less likely to cancel their subscriptions.” Company stock has fallen 40% over the last year.

The problem is “keeping viewers hooked,” said The New York Times. Shows like “Beef” and “The Night Agent” are shedding audience in their latest seasons. Viewers are instead “drifting toward TikTok and YouTube for the attention Netflix used to own,” said Investing.com’s Jesse Cohen in an analysis, per the Times. While Netflix accounts for just under 8% of all U.S. viewing time, YouTube comes in at 14%.

The service has also suffered a “brain drain” that is affecting its hit-making ability, said Drew Taylor at The Wrap. The Duffer Brothers, who created “Stranger Things,” have left for Paramount, and filmmakers like David Fincher and Noah Baumbach are also departing. The key to any revival “will be to reestablish those relationships.”

What next?

Netflix earlier this month announced layoffs of 1,000 employees, as well as the departure of several top executives, said Variety. “I know that we could do better,” said co-CEO Ted Sarandos on an earnings call, per the outlet.

Peter Rice, the newly installed chief content officer at Netflix, “understands talent relations” and will help make the streamer a place where Hollywood creators “love to do” their “best work,” Sarandos said. Can wooing hitmakers help Netflix find its way back to dominance? “Stranger Things” have happened.

A student-led protest movement has won the Serbian parliamentary elections, defeating Aleksandar Vučić, the strongman who has ruled the country for 14 years. “After toppling governments in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal, and rattling others in India, Kenya, and Vietnam,” it seems Gen Z protests “have come for Europe”, said Judah Grunstein in World Politics Review.

The Student List – which has no obvious leaders and whose candidates were not politicians but academics, engineers, farmers and athletes – attracted voters angry at government fraud and corruption with the slogan “Serbia or Mafia?”.

Vučić threw “the kitchen sink at the campaign to skew the result his way”, including taking control of all Serbia’s broadcast channels, “cranking up the nationalist rhetoric” and “cultivating support from Moscow”, said veteran central Europe correspondent Misha Glenny in The Guardian. But he and his once-dominant Serbian Progressive party were beaten, in a result that will reverberate across European countries already rocked by their own student protests.

What did the commentators say?

“Protest movements always respond to local factors,” said Grunstein in World Politics Review. But the student grievances in Serbia “and their underlying causal factors” have “more than a passing similarity” to those in France, Spain and Italy: “educational systems starved of funding, a bleak employment outlook and scarce opportunities for housing”. And corruption “is often the trigger that catalyses anger over the rest”.

In Serbia, the catalyst was the 2024 collapse of newly renovated station roof in Novi Sad, killing 15 people. What started as weekly student protests against the corruption that allegedly lay behind the botched building project “soon became a national movement” that “encompassed far more sections of Serbian society, including farmers, actors and judges”, said the BBC’s Europe editor Paul Kirby.

When Vučić, “clearly shaken” by the scale of the protests, announced snap elections last month, the students made a “calculated decision” not to stand as candidates themselves “as the electorate would probably not voted for a list of candidates with little life experience”.

Instead, they “turned months of university sit-ins” and “anti-corruption marches into a serious parliamentary challenge” by hopping on bicycles, walking across the countryside and knocking on doors to build a 250-candidate campaign slate “unlike anything Serbia has seen”, said Noah Sanders on Geosirius.

The Student List successfully “transformed itself” from “social revolt into electoral legitimacy”, said Ljubiša Ivanović on Euronews. They were vilified by pro-government media but used their energy to attract voters across the country who were disillusioned with their local politicians. Their message, said The Associated Press, was “focused on a non-partisan effort to rebuild Serbia’s economy and restore its democracy”. This youth-led victory over an authoritarian leader echoes the recent defeat of Viktor Orbán, once Vučić’s staunch ally in Hungary.

What next?

“Winning an election is one thing; governing a country is another,” said Euronews’ Ivanović. Student List must now “formulate policies on the economy, foreign affairs, the European integration process, social policy and the rule of law”. Its newly elected parliamentarians, with little to no experience of governing, will be tasked with implementing an 11-point programme that includes purging ministries of officials linked to organised crime, “freeing” Serbia’s media and restoring transparency to public procurement.

“For years, Serbian politics revolved around one dominant question: whether a political force could challenge Vučić. The answer has now been given. It can.” But “the force that did it was not one of the established opposition parties, but a student movement” that’s only two years old. It’s a “political earthquake”.

With four political factions working together to defeat Israel’s right-wing Likud Party in upcoming elections, there is a real possibility that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may lose power for the first time since the Gaza war began. But this doesn’t necessarily mean conditions in the region will improve for Palestinians.

What did the commentators say?

Israelis consider the Oct. 27 election to be important, but for “Palestinians in Gaza and the Israeli-occupied West Bank, the stakes are just as high — even though they do not have a vote,” said The New York Times. Netanyahu has long vowed to “prevent the creation of a Palestinian state, and his government has built Israeli settlements in the West Bank at a breakneck pace.” Many Palestinians are “desperate to avoid another four years” of his government.

Still, even a victory that ousts Likud from power “may bring only marginal change for Palestinians suffering record levels of settler violence and mass displacement,” said Al Jazeera. While the opposition coalition of the Yashar party, the Democrats, the Yisrael Beiteinu party and the Together alliance have joined forces against Netanyahu, there is “little daylight between them when it comes to Israel’s foundational policies in Gaza and the West Bank.”

Yashar party leader Gadi Eisenkot, who could potentially become Israel’s next prime minister, also opposes an independent Palestinian nation. The election is “unlikely to produce a sweeping shift in policies that have hampered a decades-old peace process,” said Reuters. Even if Netanyahu is ousted, the new coalition “effectively repudiates the ‘two-state solution’ that underpinned international peace negotiations for generations.”

What next?

Whether Netanyahu stays or goes, he has left an indelible mark on Israel. The “security doctrine he champions — opposition to a Palestinian state, stifling Iran’s nuclear ambitions, stationing troops in neighboring countries to neutralize perceived threats and the insistence that peace comes from strength, not the other way around — is now utterly mainstream,” said Bloomberg. With no end in sight to the destruction in Gaza, no “matter who wins, there will be no fundamental shift in our policy,” Michael Oren, Israel’s former ambassador to the U.S., said to Bloomberg. “It may even be a more aggressive policy.”

The UK is facing a greater threat “than we have, certainly for most, if not all, of my lifetime”, Wes Streeting told the BBC.

The defence secretary was referring to the vulnerabilities discovered in PHP, a programming language used in up to 70% of websites. Since then “millions of attacks” have been launched in attempts to exploit the flaw, said The Times, and a “patch” has been rolled out to help sites deal with the issue. The government announced 32 of its services were offline, though there is no indication of a breach.

For many, this episode has highlighted the dependence on, and vulnerability of, internet use. With AI growing ever more powerful – and likely being used by hackers as well as those researchers who found the PHP vulnerabilities – this could be just the beginning of an era of disruption.

What did the commentators say?

In the last few days, the internet has been “tested in a way I have not seen in my – or its – lifetime”, said Andrew Griffin in The Independent. Usually global catastrophes “capture our attention and excite our energy”, whereas the “gradual weakening of things we depend on engenders boredom”. But we need to be aware that AI does threaten the world, just not in a traditional way. It does so in a “way so dull and disengaging that we don’t even realise”.

“The future is here” and our digital infrastructure is “looking very fragile”, said Chris Stokel-Walker in The Guardian. “The solution is the same one we keep talking about, but rarely actually do anything about.” Large tech companies, who make “billions” from software they are obtaining for free from open-source data, “should contribute properly to maintaining it”. Unless we start “properly valuing those who keep our internet safe”, the internet will break, again.

There have been warnings of this crisis for the “better part of a year”, said Matteo Wong in The Atlantic. In the last few weeks, there have been major cyberattacks on “governments, data centres, and hospitals in Ukraine, Russia, Argentina, Bangladesh and Indonesia”.

“Bulking up” IT departments and using passkeys and two-factor authentications are still “important”, but the “most urgent and practical advice being given now is to retreat: prepare to simply go offline”. There is little time now to prepare for the “deluge” of AI-based hacking. In fact, “the dam may have already broken”.

The PHP “patch” does not spell the end of these “dramatic” issues, said an editorial in The Times. “Millions” of websites will still need to be updated, despite the fix, and even then, hackers could use the opportunity to “illuminate their route into systems that may still be sitting unprotected”.

Government preparedness should be an absolute “political priority”. Pilot projects on cyber defence and the AI Safety Institute represent “sensible” first steps, but “more must be done” in the form of public awareness and creating “decisive state emergency levers” in times of crisis. We should not panic, but the coming weeks will “no doubt reveal continuing threats, especially to smaller bodies with less stringent security”.

What next?

“There’s a race on” between attackers and the tech companies who are rolling out the “patch”, said Rowland Manthorpe on Sky News. “The trouble is, this patch doesn’t cover all PHP sites.” Based on data gathered from around 2.6 million services, about 75% don’t run newer versions of PHP, and so it will be “much harder” for them to implement the fixes.

In the long term, AI “could be amazing” for developing cyber defences, but for now it seems the “attackers might have the advantage”. So “we could be in for a bumpy few years”.

When President Harry S. Truman, Soviet General Secretary Joseph Stalin and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill met at Potsdam in 1945, the goal was for World War II’s victorious leaders to coordinate plans for postwar Europe. Eighty years later, Russian President Vladimir Putin has proposed another seismic trilateral meeting — this time between himself, President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping. Meanwhile, Russia continues its attempted invasion of Ukraine, a country conspicuously left off the invitation list.

What did the commentators say?

Putin is attempting to “capitalize on warming ties” between himself and Trump in the hopes of negotiating an end to the war in Ukraine that “would favor Moscow,” said The Wall Street Journal. But by omitting Ukraine, Putin’s “unprecedented” summit would “send alarm bells ringing in European capitals and beyond.” Coordinating a summit of global superpowers “appeals to Trump’s idealized view of the world” — a vision that would entail powerful leaders carving up territory with Trump “taking his seat, recognized by all, as one of those great powers,” said Slate.

Publicly, Trump has shown interest in Putin’s summit as an opportunity to address atomic weaponry. “I would do it, not so much for Ukraine,” he said to reporters this week, per Bloomberg. “We would have it to talk about denuclearization.” For years, Trump has had an “aspiration to reach a deal” with Russia and China regarding nonproliferation, said Axios. But “so far, Putin and Xi haven’t shown much openness to the idea.”

While the three countries have “overlapping interests,” they lack a “common strategic vision,” said Denis Simon, of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, to the South China Morning Post. Nuclear weapons offer the “most obvious potential starting point,” yet issues like Ukraine, Taiwan and the “broader international order” would “inevitably enter any conversation” among the trio.

What next?

Chinese officials have “privately welcomed” the potential talks but “have not pushed aggressively for them,” said the Morning Post. There is “no clear understanding yet regarding the meeting itself or its potential agenda,” said Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov to the Journal. Still, all three parties “acknowledge the hypothetical possibility of such a meeting taking place.”

The deadly missile attack by Houthi rebels on Riyadh’s international airport last week “exposed vulnerabilities in the kingdom’s defences that have heaped pressure on the Saudi royal family”, said The Observer.

Thirteen people were killed and hundreds injured in the assault on the heart of Saudi power. “At a stroke, the attack shattered the kingdom’s effort to establish its reputation as a secure global investment hub, backed by world-class sporting events, as it tries to diversify away from a dependence on oil.”

What did the commentators say?

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s bold Saudi Vision 2030 aims to turn the oil-rich country into a hub for tourism, international events and multinational enterprises. Iran’s attacks on US allies in the Gulf had already “dealt a blow” to MBS’ plan, said Agence France-Presse. It “now faces an existential hurdle with unprecedented Houthi attacks, in particular targeting oil infrastructure and airports”.

“I can’t think of another time when the challenge facing MBS was more,” said H.A. Hellyer, an analyst at the Royal United Services Institute think tank.

Houthi attacks have already caused a number of major events to be cancelled, most notably the Future Investment Initiative, nicknamed “Davos in the desert”, which forms the centrepiece of MBS’ diversification drive. Upcoming summits between the EU and Gulf Cooperation Council, the inaugural MIPIM Middle East real estate investment event and the Six Kings Slam tennis exhibition tournament have also been disrupted.

Saudi Arabia’s hosting of football’s Asian Cup in January and February is also now “being questioned”, said Rob Draper in The Guardian. As a result “the kingdom’s position in the sporting landscape looks hugely different from a year ago”.

“For Saudi Arabia’s economic transformation to succeed, it needs to welcome global talent, investment and tourists,” said The Washington Post. But “you can’t do that when people can’t land in your country safely,” said Kristen Smith Diwan, from the Arab Gulf States Institute think tank in Washington.

The events of the past week “highlight the profound dilemma facing MBS, who must juggle immediate security imperatives and long-term economic interests”, said the Post.

What next?

Riyadh’s decision to delay the Future Investment Initiative until 2027 underscores the regime’s “willingness to make difficult decisions – as showcased by an ability to pivot from projects like Neom to sectors like artificial intelligence”, said Bloomberg.

But even before the US’ war against Iran began in February, some international investors and Wall Street firms had begun “questioning whether there was enough money to be made in Saudi Arabia”. Analysts now fear “the fallout from the war will hurt the kingdom’s attractiveness”.

Saudi Arabia’s image as “the premier investment destination within the Gulf has taken a hit”, said Matthew Mullman, from Signum Global Advisors. Firms, he said, could now question the case for building critical infrastructure in the kingdom.

The country “can reduce its exposure through diplomacy and a serious Yemeni political process, but a ceasefire cannot endure if it leaves the country’s power struggle unresolved”, said Amine Ayoub, from the Middle East Forum, on Ynet Global. “Riyadh’s nightmare is not merely the Houthi arsenal” but that “strategic choices helped strengthen an adversary whose consequences continue to outlast the policies that produced them”.

Canada’s largest prairie province will remain part of the country, as voters in Alberta overwhelmingly denied an independence referendum that would have started the province on a path to separation. The ripple effect of the defeated referendum now appears set to echo across Canada.

What did the commentators say?

Most Albertans apparently have no desire to break away. With 93% of the votes reported, nearly 76% of respondents chose to remain part of Canada, according to the preliminary referendum results. The vote “marks a major win for Prime Minister Mark Carney, who is facing a trade and political war with the United States amid President Donald Trump’s higher tariffs and repeated suggestions of annexing the country,” said Al Jazeera. While the vote is clear, it may “not spell the end for a movement that has spent decades pushing for greater autonomy from the federal government.”

Many Albertans are “expressing frustration that their views aren’t sufficiently represented by the Liberal government,” said Time. Still, many in the Canadian Parliament have been reluctant to support an independence push because Alberta is an “oil-rich province; mining, quarrying and oil and gas extraction made up about a quarter of the province’s GDP in 2025.” Some in the province feel that “central Canada is taking advantage of Alberta; that the central government has, at times, through environmental regulations, for example, hindered the development of the oil resources,” Andrew McDougall, a professor of political science at the University of Toronto Scarborough, said to Time.

The vote will also precipitate further questions about whether Alberta Premier Danielle Smith “can maintain control of her party and the province,” said The Globe and Mail. Smith has consistently said she wants Alberta to be part of a “United Canada” but also has a “contentious relationship with the pro-Canada crowd, who have accused her of pandering to separatists.” The vote’s outcome is “unlikely to position Ms. Smith as an ally to the movement.”

What next?

Carney waxed poetic about the referendum’s defeat. Albertans “made a clear choice. They chose unity, to build together and to take care of each other,” the prime minister said on X. The results “mean that Albertans and all Canadians will move forward together with renewed purpose.”

Americans keep buying a lot of stuff, even though said stuff is getting more expensive. The spending helps keep the economy afloat amid rising inflation — but at a cost to households digging deeper into debt to stretch their paychecks.

What did the commentators say?

Americans “continue to spend” even though they are “feeling pessimistic about their finances as affordability pressures mount,” said NBC News. Retail sales were up in August, and holiday spending is “projected to hit record levels this year.” The seemingly good numbers flick at a gloomier reality, however. The rise in spending is largely “because people are paying more” for the stuff they routinely buy.

The trend is “particularly remarkable” given the overall “downbeat consumer sentiment,” said The Wall Street Journal. Those dark moods historically “correlated with lower consumer spending,” but that rule of thumb mostly broke since the pandemic. Now economists say bad feelings about the economy are “increasingly decoupled from spending and other economic indicators.” Americans are “spending their financial condition, not their psyche,” said Mark Mathews, the chief economist at the National Retail Federation, to the outlet.

Older consumers are driving the economy, said CNBC. The affordability crisis is for “younger people,” said economist Ed Yardeni to the outlet. Senior Americans have “accumulated an enormous amount of net worth” that has allowed them to keep spending.

What next?

It is not clear the spending can continue much longer. U.S. households are “borrowing more, saving less and watching their paychecks lose purchasing power,” said The Wealth Advisor. Consumer debt is now above $18 trillion, a total which will carry future consequences. Today’s borrowing has the potential to “constrain spending for years, particularly when balances carry high interest rates.”

High prices “haven’t put a dent in U.S. holiday spending,” said The Street. Consumers have already begun Christmas shopping, increasingly relying on “buy now, pay later” options to buy gifts and other seasonal items. September purchases of holiday items “ran well ahead of 2025,” said Bank of America in a statement, per the outlet.

Ukrainians are “gearing up for the worst-case scenario”, said Finbarr Toesland in The i Paper. In the face of an “emboldened Russia”, this winter is expected to be the “most brutal since Vladimir Putin launched his invasion in February 2022”.

Stunned by Donald Trump’s surprise announcement of an “energy ceasefire” that would favour Russia, and apparent plans for “peace talks” without Ukraine present, Volodymyr Zelenskyy is struggling to win back US favour. But he needs ways to help Kyiv make it through winter months where temperatures can drop as low as -20C.

What did the commentators say?

“Trump’s efforts on the part of Russia” are “the act of an enemy”, said The Independent’s world affairs editor Sam Kiley. He has “strangled” Kyiv’s intelligence systems and “crippled weapons on the battlefield”. That’s an “act of sabotage”, and “Europe’s leaders must stand up and say so”.

This “sorry episode” shows “just how dependent Ukraine still is on the US”, said The Telegraph’s editorial board. For all the “strong words” of Europe’s leaders, “there remains a gulf” between their “rhetoric and the reality” of their support. Iris2, the EU’s version of Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite network won’t even be operational before 2030, and the Americans are still the only ones who can offer “ballistic-missile defence”. Europe must step up its provision of hardware, or “Kyiv’s security will remain hostage to Mr Trump, who has shown repeatedly that he cannot be relied upon”.

Britain and Europe have already reached their “limit” of what they can deliver, said Dimitar Bechev, a foreign-policy analyst at Carnegie Europe, in Al Jazeera. Its €90 billion loan of frozen Russian assets to Ukraine now looks like it “might be exhausted well before the end of 2027”, and any attempt to find additional funding could “open a can of worms” in both EU budget negotiations and upcoming elections in member states like France, Spain, Italy and Poland. But the EU and the UK have nevertheless “replaced the US” as the “de facto guarantors” of Ukraine’s survival. Joining the EU – or, at least becoming a closely integrated partner like Norway – is the “best-case scenario for Kyiv in the long run”.

Zelenskyy may have to “consider a temporary, if unwelcome, change of tactics” to relieve the “terminal stress” on his relationship with Trump, said The Times’ editorial board. And two US senators have suggested “a useful compromise”: if Ukraine pledges to stop attacks on Russian energy assets, SpaceX’s Starshield coverage could be “extended to roughly 200 miles inside Russia” to “help Kyiv take out some of the launchers firing at civilians all over Ukraine”.

What next?

To “reduce the impact of Russian missile and drone attacks” on Kyiv’s small number of combined heat-and-power plants, Ukraine “needs to decentralise” such “critical infrastructure”, Olena Pavlenko of Ukrainian energy think-tank DiXi Group told Toesland in The i Paper, but this is not a “short-term solution”.

More urgently, Ukraine must find a way to halt Russia’s “devastating air onslaught”, said The Times. It needs “proper air defences – and fast”, even if that means halting strikes on Russian refineries in return for Patriot missiles. Trump “may not be minded to provide these weapons” but he is under “growing pressure” from the US Congress, where even members of his own party have “expressed disquiet at the so-called energy deal” with Putin. A strategic pause in strikes may help to “prevent further Trump hostility to Kyiv”, which would be a “welcome” contribution to Ukraine’s cause.

Ukrainian officials are scrambling to address the recent throttling of their crucial Starlink internet connectivity, a major engine of the country’s successful drone operations. While SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and President Donald Trump have blamed each other for directly ordering the outage, a growing number of European leaders see the incident as a worrying sign that Musk's products have undue influence in Ukraine’s theater of war — and across the continent as a whole.

What did the commentators say?

Europe “must not leave it up” to Musk and Trump to “decide whether Ukraine will be able to defend itself or not,” said Renew Europe, the European Parliament’s liberal group, in a letter last week to European Union officials obtained by Euronews. Existing European satellites could instead “fill the gap” while the countries pivot away from Musk, said the outlet. The collective effort to respond to Musk comes as French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot this month accused the tech oligarch of using his X platform to “attempt to influence debate in European democracies,” said Le Monde.

“Big man, are you playing politics with your products again?” said Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski in a message to Musk on X after Starlink’s latest disruption. “As your European customers, we are watching you.” The minister’s “mocking address” recalled his 2025 clash with Musk, in which he explained that Poland provides millions of dollars for Ukraine’s Starlink access and would “seek another supplier if SpaceX proved unreliable,” said the Kyiv Post. “Be quiet, small man,” said Musk on X at the time, promising later that “Starlink will never turn off its terminals” in Ukraine or “use it ​as a bargaining chip.”

What next?

Even before this month’s throttling episode, European leaders were exploring ways to “strengthen collective satellite capacity” and wean themselves off Musk’s service, said Politico. The EU is now “aiming to give speedy antitrust approval” to a new satellite service “seen as the bloc’s answer to SpaceX,” said Bloomberg. The hope is to “help Europe cut its reliance on American satellite providers” while testing a “revamped EU approach” to creating “regional giants to compete with U.S. and Chinese rivals.”

A weekend of protests in France that saw widespread violence, destruction and looting has made next April’s presidential election even more consequential than it already was.

What started off as student demonstrations over poor school conditions has spiralled into a mass protest movement driven by anger at the cost of living and the state of public services.

Emmanuel Macron refused to accept the resignation of his interior minister over the weekend. The president also used a televised address on Sunday to call for national unity and sought to reassure the public that the perpetrators of the violence would be punished.

“The French passion for protest is legendary in Europe,” said Katya Adler, the BBC’s Europe editor. But six months out from an “already fraught” election, these demonstrations are becoming highly politicised, with the hard left, under presidential hopeful Jean-Luc Mélenchon, accused of “weaponising student frustration” and the far-right, under Marine Le Pen, using footage of the violence to pitch herself as the candidate of a calm and peaceful France.

What did the commentators say?

PM Sébastien Lecornu has made little secret of who he believes is to blame for the protests, accusing members of Mélenchon’s La France Insoumise of “instrumentalising the high school movement for their electoral advantage”, then going through the motions of condemning any violence.

The 75-year-old left-wing firebrand joined Saturday’s protests in which half a million people took to the streets in Paris, but has said accusations that he was responsible for the mayhem were aimed at weakening his presidential bid.

He is in a close race with centre-left candidate Raphaël Glucksmann and Edouard Philippe, from the centre-right, to see who will go up against Le Pen in a two-way run-off for the presidency next April.

Mélenchon is a veteran politician who “appeals to young people and heads an insurgent party built on grass-roots protest”, so the student-led demonstrations that have swept the country in recent weeks are “a golden opportunity” for him, said Mark Landler in The New York Times. But images of riot police, tear gas and streets in flames also carry “acute risks for a politician seeking mainstream acceptance”.

The violence on the margins of what were mostly “massive, peaceful demonstrations” is “potentially ruinous” for Mélenchon, said Peter McPhee, a history professor at the University of Melbourne, on The Conversation.

By contrast, it has been an “early Christmas present” for Le Pen, who has promised to “reimpose discipline in schools, increase funding for police” and target the instigators of the violence and looting as “obviously” illegal migrants to be deported.

“I see only one beneficiary and that’s Le Pen,” Paul Smith, from the University of Nottingham, told Al Jazeera. But Emile Chabal, from the University of Edinburgh, cautioned against automatically assuming a far-right gain, with “fear of disorder” historically benefiting conservative or centrist parties in France.

What next?

With six months left in office and unable to run for a third term, Macron is already seen as head of “pretty much a lame duck government”, said Alistair Bunkall on Sky News. Now his authority seems to be “ebbing away” even more.

“The TV pictures of the past few weeks will hardly inspire confidence,” said the broadcaster. There are “red warning signs” flashing for France’s economy and “a failure by the minority French government to secure a budget deal would be the next big tipping point”.

It is still too early to tell how this will play out at the polls next year. As Jérôme Rodrigues, a prominent activist from the 2018 gilets jaunes protests, said: “Anger has no political party. An empty fridge has no political party.”

With the merger of Paramount and Warner Bros. complete, the amalgamated company, Skydance, now has control of both CNN and CBS News. Some seem happy CNN promised to maintain editorial independence; others worry the network could take the same controversial rightward shift as CBS.

What did the commentators say?

Skydance CEO David Ellison reportedly asked Thompson to stay at CNN, and the new company “confirmed that CNN’s Mark Thompson will stay on as editor-in-chief of the network — separate from CBS, where Bari Weiss remains at the helm,” said The Associated Press. But how the “combined company’s news operations will look farther down the road is yet to be seen.”

Ellison has pledged to maintain CNN’s editorial freedom, but he also has a “cozy relationship with President Donald Trump — who has been far from shy about targeting coverage he deems unfavorable from both CNN and CBS.”

Because of this closeness, many at CNN seem relieved that Thompson will stay aboard. “That sound you hear is a giant sigh of relief from the halls of Techwood,” a CNN producer told The Guardian, referring to CNN’s Atlanta headquarters. Even so, the “completion of the merger raises uncomfortable questions about media capture in the United States,” said the Columbia Journalism Review. CNN under Skydance “likely won’t replicate Fox News, but it will look to stay in Trump’s good graces.”

For CNN, Thompson remaining on board is the “best-case scenario under its new owners,” said the Poynter Institute. At the network, some “uncertainty about the new ownership has inflamed anxieties” about a potential Bari Weiss takeover, said The New York Times, which was especially true for CNN’s most famous anchor, Anderson Cooper, who “told colleagues that he did not want to work for her.”

What next?

Thompson’s staying on will “at least initially, establish a boundary around Weiss’ authority,” said The Wrap. It may also “ease some concerns among lawmakers, regulators and other merger critics about Ellison’s potential influence over CNN.” But just because the two media powerhouses appear separate, it “does not necessarily mean CNN and CBS News will remain editorially distinct over the long term.”

Have the Tories been written off too soon? As commentators point to a “Badenoch bounce”, Reform UK has fallen to third place behind the Conservatives in recent polls.

Nigel Farage’s party has slipped to 21%, two points behind the Tories and three behind Labour, according to a YouGov poll carried out this week. The Conservatives’ 23% – up three percentage points on the previous week – is their highest rating since January 2025.

What did the commentators say?

Recent polling seems to point to a “Badenoch bounce” after “the most trouble-free Conservative Party conference in some years”, said Sean O’Grady in The Independent. Her “improving recognition, policy announcements and forceful personality have helped to slowly drag her party back up in the polls”.

Badenoch “intends to reunite the right by welcoming back Reform UK’s voters while dismissing its leaders as racists, fraudsters and takers of dodgy donations”, said Andrew Gimson in The i Paper.

Boris Johnson “pursued” the same strategy seven years ago when he “proved he was serious about getting Brexit done by removing the whip from 21 Conservative MPs who refused to back him”, and this forced Farage “to stand down Brexit Party candidates in Tory-held seats”.

“Respectability is an important element in her pitch” and Badenoch “dares to be unfashionable”. This is “one reason why she carries conviction with those who might vote Conservative”, because “they too are unfashionable”.

Meanwhile, “cracks have begun to appear” in Farage’s “image as a straight-talking, honest alternative to the politicians whom he claims has let down the country”, said Jules Walkden on Politics Home. He “appears to be alienating the very voters Reform needs to win over”, and though he was once his party’s “greatest asset”, he “may fast be turning into a liability”.

You may be wondering “why much of the media are talking about a Badenoch revival”, said Jonathan Liew in The Guardian, when “her party lost 563 councillors and 40% of its councils” this year and “remains about four points below its apparent nadir of 2024”.

The fact is this “civil war on the right” is a “charade” – a “fake fight being enacted for our benefit” because the “right bloc is now a single basic substance, responsive and carefully calibrated to the different audiences it needs to capture”.

So if, “after all the bickering and infighting, a coalition should be required”, do we “really expect a Conservative Party founded entirely on the gain and exercise of power to suddenly turn it down?”

What next?

Following the successful Tory conference, Badenoch’s “first objective” is not “a spectacular leap in support, but to establish a consistent lead over Reform”. This would “begin changing the political dynamic on the right”, said Caroline Wheeler and Kitty Donaldson in The i Paper.

With sustained “small gains” leading to “incremental progress”, she can “gradually change how voters, commentators and rival parties perceive the contest”. This would increase the “evidence” that the Tories are “recovering” – a “perception” that might, “in turn”, help “attract voters who want a credible alternative to Labour”.

James Talarico is not the only Democrat with a shot at winning an election in Texas. Polls show challenger Gina Hinojosa, spurred on by Latino voters and the data center backlash, is running neck and neck with longtime GOP incumbent Greg Abbott in the governor’s race.

What did the commentators say?

Polls have the Hinojosa-Abbott race “statistically tied” heading into the final weeks, said The Center Square. It is a startling turn for Abbott, who is seeking a fourth term. He has never lost a statewide election “by less than 11 points,” said Slate. But some rural voters are defecting over Abbott’s “past support for data centers,” and Lone Star Latino voters are turning against the GOP because of the “president’s handling of the economy and mass deportations,” said NBC News.

Hinojosa is “perhaps the most serious electoral challenger” Abbott has faced, said the Houston Chronicle. The Democrat has sharpened a “populist message” that asks voters to “set aside the culture wars” in favor of policies and politicians that help them “make ends meet.” It is a message that arrives amid voter anger over “rising prices and seemingly unchecked growth of Big Tech.”

Democrats have long dreamed of a “blue Texas,” said Nicole Russell at USA Today. Nonetheless, the Lone Star state is “one of the top places Americans move” because it has no income tax and is affordable. All that is made possible by “embracing conservative values.” Voters will not want to “upend that way of life” by electing a Democrat.

What next?

Polls in previous elections have given Texas Democrats “reason to hope for an upset” only to end in disappointment, said The Washington Post. Hinojosa still faces an uphill climb. A Democrat has “not been elected to the governor's mansion in Texas since Ann Richards in 1990,” said CBS News. Still, national Democrats are “stepping up” their support for Hinojosa. The Democratic Governors Association and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker are both putting “at least $1 million” toward her election.

Donald Trump’s proposed “energy ceasefire” between Russia and Ukraine has been dismissed as unfair and partisan with the US leaving Kyiv significantly weakened.

As the challenges of winter draw near, Trump’s move has thrown the future of Ukraine into doubt.

“It had already been a terrible week in Ukraine” before Trump’s “one-sided ceasefire plan” put Kyiv “in a tough spot as winter approaches”, said The New York Times.

What did the commentators say?

The deal “comes at a particularly bad time”, said The New York Times, as Russia is “stepping up efforts to target Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure, including, crucially, its energy infrastructure” as “part of an ongoing effort to both cripple Ukraine’s economy and break its will to fight”. The coming winter “might be the hardest yet” because Ukraine is “facing a critical shortage of air defences”.

But the “bigger problem” is that Trump is “pressuring Ukraine to give up the best tool it has for fighting back” – its attacks on Russian oil refineries. Ukraine “effectively has no operational oil refineries”, so “this ceasefire, such as it is, would really only tie the hands of one party”.

After Russian drones and missiles “pummelled nearby power stations, triggering power cuts” and Kyiv was “plunged into darkness”, there was a “sense of outrage and betrayal”, said The Economist.

A Ukraine government source said American officials warned that unless Kyiv stopped its drone assaults on Russian oil refineries, the US would block weapons shipments under the Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List, under which Ukraine has received “about $10 billion [£7.5 billion]-worth of American weapons” paid for by Nato allies and partners.

This move would “further weaken some of the country’s defences” and although Trump’s “new turn against Ukraine may be as transitory as the earlier ones”, this is still “a dangerous moment for Ukraine”.

But Trump’s threat of a suspension is “far from hypothetical”, said Sasha Vakulina on EuroNews. In 2025, the White House “temporarily halted intelligence-sharing and military assistance to Ukraine amid a diplomatic confrontation with Kyiv”.

Although “both were subsequently restored” following talks, the episode “demonstrated how quickly Washington could use security cooperation as a source of political leverage” and “how dependent Ukraine remained on American capabilities”.

US intelligence “remains crucial to Ukraine’s ability to anticipate Russian attacks”, and it is still “unclear how far European allies could compensate should another American suspension come into force”.

Although Trump’s announcement “seemed to make Ukraine’s situation even more perilous”, said Eric Ciaramella on Foreign Affairs, it’s not “necessarily a major setback for Ukraine”, because it “comes amid a broader shift” by Trump to “move away from pursuing an elusive comprehensive peace agreement in favour of a mutual ceasefire on strikes against energy infrastructure”. This shift “could ultimately be beneficial to Kyiv”.

Also, “in his angry retort” to Zelenskyy’s criticism of the diesel deal, Trump “revealed a potential way forward: as long as Ukraine stopped hitting Russian refineries, the president said, ‘you can do whatever you want to Russia’”.

Ukraine has “more leverage than a year ago”, said Nicholas Vinocur on Politico, and European leaders are “warning” Trump “not to squander it by pressuring Kyiv to ease up on Russia”. Although Trump “wants the attacks to stop, Ukraine’s European allies are keen to cripple Russia’s war effort”.

What next?

Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said “repeatedly” that Ukraine is ready to halt its strikes on Russian oil refineries and other energy facilities if Moscow “did the same”, said the BBC.

But Moscow said Ukraine does not deserve the “respite” a ceasefire would bring, because it would mean Europe would be able to “pump” Ukraine with new weaponry.

Leaders of India’s Cockroach Janta Party have been detained after breaching a security cordon to demand the resignation of the country’s election chief, who deleted 130 million names from voters’ lists.

The activists, who claim the mass deletion was designed to benefit Narendra Modi’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, evaded security to enter Jantar Mantar, a “historic Delhi observatory popular for protests”, said the BBC.

The election commission insists the purging of electoral rolls was to remove voters who have died, moved, or cannot otherwise be verified, and that those impacted can apply to be re-enrolled. But over the weekend, tens of thousands of people, including prominent lawyers and journalists, were detained and released in protests that show no signs of slowing.

What did the commentators say?

It will be “difficult” for Modi, who denies the deletions were carried out to benefit his party, to “quell the turmoil”, wrote Andres Schipani and Jyotsna Singh in the Financial Times.

The Cockroach Janta Party emerged as a student-led movement focussing on alleged examination irregularities, but it is now targeting the institution that “oversees elections in the world’s largest democracy”, making it harder for Modi to “find the right response”.

If the PM concedes to the demand for Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation, he could open the door to questioning the wider legitimacy of his government, Ruchi Gupta, executive director of the Future of India Foundation, told the broadsheet. Fundamentally, “the government has a trust deficit that it needs to address.”

“If you pluck a chicken one feather at a time, nobody notices,” said Vidya Krishnan on Al Jazeera. Indian democracy currently resembles a “plucked chicken, stripped of its plumage”. The revision of the country’s electoral rolls was the last straw – an “exercise in bureaucratic fascism”, for “there is simply no other way to frame an event that strips 130 million Indians of their right to vote.”

Modi now finds himself “retreating behind barricades, facing the wrath of students for whom the slow erosion of democracy has left little to lose and even less to fear”. The mass protest on Saturday was “just an opening salvo”.

But even so, Modi “remains popular” among large swathes of the population, said Faisal Mahmud on Asia Times. His “popularity, cult-like charisma, organisational strength and electoral record cannot simply be wished away”, and “nor can allegations of electoral manipulation substitute for evidence”. But now, “the government’s handling of dissent has become an issue in its own right”.

What next?

The protesters and opposition party are showing no sign of letting up. Modi “does not understand that the game is over”, said the leader of India’s opposition alliance, Rahul Gandhi. “We will ensure that Modi pays for the crimes he has committed against the country.”

“The youth will keep coming out,” Uday Bhanu Chib, national president of the Indian Youth Congress, a unit of Gandhi’s party, told the FT. They’re “no longer afraid of this government”.

The Cockroach Janta Party protests “have laid bare the hollowed-out democracy that India holds up to the world as exemplary”, said Krishnan on Al Jazeera. There is little doubt that “history books will cast Modi in his proper role as the man who caused an entire generation of Indians to lose all respect for the government”.

Saudi Arabia has vowed a firm response to the deadly attacks on the kingdom’s airports and oil and gas facilities by Yemen’s Houthi rebels.

The Iran-backed Houthis said their latest drone and missile strikes – some of which struck King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh, killing 13 people and injuring more than 300 – were launched in retaliation for “brutal Saudi aggression” against areas they control in western Yemen.

“The events of recent weeks are serious. Our response must be equally serious,” said Saudi energy minister Prince Abdul Aziz bin Salman today. There is “no room for fear in the vocabulary of Saudis”.

What did the commentators say?

“No political slogan, ideological grievance or claim of resistance can justify turning airports into targets,” said Hani Hazaimeh on Arab News. The Houthis are reckless, and Saudi Arabia “has every right to defend its citizens” and its “critical infrastructure”. It’s easy “to urge calm from a distance, far from the airports” and homes under missile attack; “it is far harder to explain to grieving families why the international response remains trapped in a cycle of condemnation followed by inaction”. All thought of “diplomatic theatre is over. The time for effective action is now.”

The Houthis are “drawing from Iran’s playbook” and “vowing a painful escalation” by “targeting critical infrastructure in Saudi Arabia and imposing a global economic cost”, said Mostafa Salem on CNN. So far, Saudi Arabia has largely confined itself to providing air cover for the anti-Houthi Yemeni coalition but “whether that restraint will hold” is now “an open question”. Putting Saudi troops on the ground in Yemen would plunge the nation “into an expensive and grinding ground war” and undercut Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s carefully cultivated image “of a stable, investment-friendly kingdom and global tourism hub”.

But the airport death toll is “bewilderingly high” for the Saudis, who are “unaccustomed to such fatalities”, and that’s “likely to prompt a bloody response”, said Nesrine Malik in The Guardian. If so, the kingdom faces a “long, intractable war with a resourceful and impassioned antagonist, one willing to sustain a high degree of pain in ways that Riyadh can’t match without orienting itself entirely towards war”.

The Iran war has “stirred political loyalties, triggering a surge of Houthi advancement”, destabilising the “region’s tense equilibriums” as Donald Trump “decided that the safety and security” of America’s Gulf allies were “secondary” to his beef with Tehran. Saudi Arabia is “bewildered and losing lives and capital, stuck between old alliances that no longer work and new hostilities that are too calamitous to confront”.

What next?

The Houthi attacks on the Saudis could “drive global oil prices even higher”, said Sky News’ Middle East correspondent, Adam Parsons. “Were the Houthis to put a stranglehold” on the Bab al Mandab strait, “it would have a major influence on trade that would hit the price of oil”.

This would “anger Donald Trump, who sees the price of oil as such a barometer of his own success”. The US president has said he is reviewing the situation, and is “going to look at” joining any Saudi response.

President Donald Trump’s tariffs and trade wars were intended to reduce the U.S. trade deficit. It is getting bigger instead. The gap between imports and exports hit $100 billion in August, a sign that Trump is losing ground on a signature policy.

What did the commentators say?

The latest trade deficit report marked a “17-month high, after also rising significantly in July,” said The New York Times. The last time the gap reached $100 billion was in March 2025, before Trump launched his “Liberation Day” tariffs — later struck down by the Supreme Court — and this fall’s trade war with Canada. But U.S. imports “hit a record $420.8 billion” in August. The United States is “just as dependent as ever on foreign-produced goods,” said Christopher Rupkey, the chief economist at FWDBONDS, to the Times.

The trade gap has actually been “gradually increasing in fits and starts” for most of the last year, said Sabri Ben-Achour at Marketplace, driven in part by the artificial intelligence build-out. It is also a consequence of foreigners investing in “all kinds of American stuff.” The trade number is driven by foreign investors using their dollars to “invest in our companies, lend to our government and buy our assets,” said John R. Puri at the National Review. U.S. officials should “treat that preference as a compliment.”

The $100 million milestone suggests the president’s economic agenda is “failing on his own terms,” said Steve Benen at MS NOW. Trump’s trade deficit is “now larger than at any time during Joe Biden’s presidency.” The importance of the import-export gap may be “exaggerated,” but the president has also argued that “this is a metric that matters.” That makes the latest report “notable.”

What next?

Trump has “scrambled the politics of U.S. trade policy,” said Marc L. Busch at The Hill. A “durable realignment in U.S. trade politics” might come after he leaves the scene. Democrats are arguing the president’s tariffs “raise costs and undermine ‘affordability,’” and it’s unclear if Republicans will be “willing to defend” the regime going forward.

Tuesday “may go down as one of the most consequential days in the history of mathematics,” said The Economist. Less than a month after astonishing the world with its solution to the long-standing Navier-Stokes problem, OpenAI has released 722 maths papers, proving or disproving problems across numerous fields from algebraic geometry to number theory. OpenAI said it had consulted extensively with mathematicians about publishing the results but the news seems to have stunned maths world. How they react to this “mathspocalypse”, and the panic it’s inducing, could determine if there’s any human-led maths at all in 50 years’ time.

What did the commentators say?

“If you want some sense of what things feel like now in maths, imagine a hunter-gatherer who’s spent his entire life learning to survive deep in an unforgiving rainforest, then a giant resort hotel springs up right next to him with a helipad and heated pools and Airbnbs,” wrote Scott Aaronson, chair of computer science at the University of Texas at Austin, according to Sky News.

This is “heartbreaking” for our community, said Jordana Cepelewicz, maths editor at Quanta Magazine. In mathematics, “problems are posed not so much because their answers will be practical and important, but because they represent interesting journeys”. As we “struggle to solve a problem” we might “come up with intriguing tools and connections, stumble on novel ideas and directions, take fruitful detours, and answer new questions” no one’s ever thought to ask. AI models “just skip to the end”.

AI was already changing maths. Researchers have stopped positing open conjectures at the end of their paper, so they’re not “scraped by bots”. Others are publishing their papers prematurely, to avoid getting “scooped” by AI. There is now widespread fear that new blood will no longer be “attracted to this remade discipline”, resulting in a “whole lost generation”.

“Releasing over 700 files at once is not a demonstration of scholarship, but a demonstration of power," said the Association for Human Mathematics in a statement. “We urge mathematicians to discontinue their work with OpenAI and to return to a vision of science that centres human understanding.”

The “floodgates are open”, said Joseph Howlett in Scientific American. This is without question the “biggest maths breakthrough in two decades”. But such is the speed of advancement, there are concerns the movement may be “coming too fast” even for the AI labs themselves. Not that they plan on slowing the tools down; they’re aiming to make them as powerful as possible to “show that their AI is really getting smarter”. The “consequences of this race are becoming harder and harder to predict”.

This could also have dangerous implications for cybersecurity, said Anthony Cuthbertson in The Independent. Cryptography forms the backbone of online encryption, used in web browsers, secure messaging and online banking. It also relies on “mathematical problems that are currently too difficult to solve efficiently”. There is no evidence that AI models have come close to breaking them but these latest advances could “lead to new algorithms capable of cracking them”, and reduce the time available to develop adequate protections.

What next?

It will take years to verify Open AI’s breakthroughs, said The Economist. Many of the papers are more than 100 pages long, only 127 of them “are accompanied by a code guaranteeing logical consistency (a norm in the field)”, and there is published internal reasoning for just 10. And it remains to be seen how many new research avenues the papers could open up. “For now, the mathematical problems AI is revealing are more existential than numerical.”

The Mecca Joint Defence Agreement has been invoked for the first time since it was signed in August, following Houthi-led attacks on Saudi infrastructure Mecca, Medina and the capital’s airport.

While not identifying the Yemeni group by name, the alliance, composed of Turkey, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, will undertake a “rapid deployment” of troops to Saudi Arabia as part of their “collective defence commitments”.

Saudi Arabia is also supporting an offensive by the Yemeni government to take back the capital, Sanaa, held by the Houthis since 2014. Three people have been killed in attacks on Saudi Arabian airports over two days, as fighting spilled across the Yemen border into the Kingdom. It is unclear how Pakistan and Turkey will contribute to this action.

As the US continues to focus on Iran, and has ruled out direct intervention in Yemen, the alliance’s success could redraw the lines of power and control in the region.

What did the commentators say?

“Even the threat of joint involvement could dramatically shift the Saudi-Houthi conflict,” said Foreign Policy. Although in its infancy, members of the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement boast nearly 1.4 million active troops combined, as well as “3,400 aircraft, 6,000 tanks, and more than 340 naval assets”. Pakistan has nuclear capabilities – “the only nuclear-armed Muslim-majority nation in the world” – and Turkey stands second only to the US for the largest armed forces in Nato.

Defence relations between the countries had already been close, even before the Mecca Accord was signed in August, said Abid Hussain on Al Jazeera. Pakistan has trained Saudi military personnel since 1967, and a declassified CIA assessment from 1985 estimated that 13,000 to 14,000 Pakistanis were serving in the Saudi army.

However, the Turkish “footprint is less clear”. And there is a potential sticking point, as Article 92 of Turkey’s constitution stipulates that the “authority to send troops abroad rests with the parliament, which has yet to ratify the Mecca pact”.

The timing of the announcement also “carries deep symbolic weight”, said Sean Mathews in Middle East Eye. Pakistan has been positioning itself as an “honest broker” for peace in the region, mediating between the US and Iran in previous negotiations, and Turkey has overtly established its stance as a “rival to Israel”. And by invoking the pact, Saudi Arabia has demonstrated that it has the “support of the wider region in its counter-offensive against the Houthis” and, by extension, Iran.

In the grand scheme of things, the Mecca Accord should be perceived more as an “additional layer of regional security rather than a wholesale strategic realignment”, said international relations expert John Calabrese on The Conversation. Traditionally, states in the region have relied on external support to gain “greater strategic autonomy”. Yet, as the threats in the region become harder to “separate into discrete categories”, and suspicion of the conventional allies grows, Saudi Arabia is moving to “hedge” its bets to avoid becoming vulnerable.

What next?

Despite the invocation, a resolution in Yemen against the Houthis is “unlikely without a wider deal between the US and Iran”, said Samer Al-Atrush, The Times’ Middle East correspondent. Currently, however, Washington is intent on demanding “concessions” from Tehran by enforcing its own naval blockade.

The employee in the cubicle next to yours is probably a woman. Recent job gains under President Donald Trump have gone mostly to women, who now outnumber men in the workforce. But gainful employment and truly gainful employment — that is, with more pay and status — are two different things.

What did the commentators say?

U.S. jobs reports of late “may feel especially lousy for men,” said CNBC. Women have outnumbered them in the workforce for eight straight months, the longest such stretch since 2010. That gap during the Great Recession happened “because men were losing jobs,” said economist Cory Stahle to the outlet. Now “women are gaining” jobs faster than men.

“The pink-collar economy is here,” said Justin Wolfers at Platypus Economics. Men once vastly outnumbered women in the workplace. Women’s employment “rose quickly” since 1970 while men’s work “grew more slowly and occasionally plateaued.” The gender gap “flipped” because of the growth of industries, especially healthcare, in which the job force was “already dominated by women.”

The trends defy Trump’s vision of an economy in which men can earn a “good living but also a sense of accomplishment and status,” said Paul Waldman at MS NOW. The president could urge men to seek out jobs in women-dominated fields like healthcare instead of an ever-diminishing manufacturing sector. “But it’s not the kind of profession Trump will encourage men to go into.”

The flip is “not an entirely good thing,” said Noam Scheiber at The New York Times. Women have become the majority of workers amid the “diminishing status of many American jobs,” a trend driven by factors such as reduced union membership, outsourced work and the rise of artificial intelligence. Women spent decades “reaching for the brass ring” only to find out that “it’s hopelessly tarnished once they finally grasp it.”

What next?

The next milestone is narrowing the wage gap. Women on the job “still earn far less starting the day they graduate,” said Fortune. They also make up “two-thirds of workers in low-wage jobs” such as teaching and nursing but remain “underrepresented in more lucrative fields such as finance, construction and STEM.”

A seventh man has been arrested in connection with a suspected terror plot near RAF Fairford, Gloucestershire, last month, which Andy Burnham has said was most likely linked to Iran.

Amid fears that Tehran was planning a complex drone attack against Fairford, which serves as a forward operating base for US aircraft targeting Iran, the Trump administration made a “historic, unprecedented” decision to withdraw all its 12 B-1 bombers on Sunday, said David Dunn, a professor of international politics at the University of Birmingham.

The incident “tells us much about Iran, Britain and the emerging threats to US forces and assets. None of it is good,” said The Wall Street Journal in an editorial.

What did the commentators say?

The Fairford plot is far from an isolated event. On Tuesday, three Iranian men appeared in court accused of spying on British-based dissident journalists on behalf of Iran’s foreign intelligence service. Earlier this year, a wave of arson attacks targeting British Jews were linked to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). And in July, a Tehran-backed cyberattack halted operations at a UK power plant for four days.

It is important to note here that the UK is technically “not at war with Iran”, said BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner. But the US is, and “that is a distinction Tehran has publicly challenged”.

In July, Iran warned “any base used for aggression against Iranian territory constitutes a legitimate target for our forces”. As far as the IRGC “is concerned, Britain is already a participant in America’s war with Iran”, said Gardner.

The emergence of sophisticated state-run drone attacks, such as Ukraine’s Operation Spider’s Web last year, when low-cost drones were smuggled into Russia and carried on lorries to locations near airbases before being set upon strategic targets, have changed the game when it comes to perceived threats from hostile nations.

But “the question on minds in London is not whether Britain could stage such an attack but whether it could repel one”, said The Times’ defence editor Larisa Brown.

Given that it would require “months of planning, utmost secrecy and the purchase or smuggling of large quantities of explosives undetected by Britain’s security services”, one senior US diplomat asked, does Iran “really have the capability to pull off an Operation Spider’s Web on foreign soil? I think most of the community doubts that.”

“Yet there was enough concern for America to act”, said The Times.

What next?

The government’s strategic defence review published last year earmarked up to £1 billion for homeland air and missile defence over the next four years.

This week, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch ramped up this pledge to £10 billion over the next 10 years to go towards a “Britannia Shield” that would protect military bases and critical infrastructure from missile or drone attacks.

While defence experts have questioned these figures, for Britain the “bigger problem has been finding the will to confront the Iranians and go on offence against their terror networks. Does protecting US jets and UK Jews fit the bill?”, asked the WSJ.

“The IRGC, like Vladimir Putin, clearly doesn’t think it will pay much of a price for orchestrating terror in Britain – or many other states. Until that changes, even the best defence technology can only do so much.”

While some have accused Zohran Mamdani of antisemitism for his criticism of Israeli government policies, the Democratic New York City mayor recently unveiled a massive new plan to counter Jewish hatred in the Big Apple. It has been both lauded and scoffed at.

What did the commentators say?

The 35-page plan, titled “Tackling Hate: The Mamdani Administration’s Strategy to Combat Antisemitism,” is part of a $7.4 million “citywide commitment to confront antisemitism and to build a New York where Jewish New Yorkers can live their lives authentically on every block, in every neighborhood and across every borough,” Mamdani said in the plan’s introduction. While Jews make up only 12% of New York’s population, the city has the highest concentration of Jews in the world outside Israel.

Mamdani has been accused of antisemitism because he is a “longtime critic of Israel,” said The New York Times. But this report never expressly mentions the ongoing war in the Middle East. Rather, it “recommends continuing and expanding many existing city policies, such as teaching public school students about the Holocaust and providing training to city workers” about Jewish customs. The report’s “omission of any discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict reflects the sensitive and fraught politics around the issue.”

What next?

Since the report’s unveiling, some have “welcomed the additional security and education funding but said the strategy glaringly omits the role that anti-Israel hostility plays in fueling anti-Jewish hostility,” said The Wall Street Journal. Others have praised Mamdani’s effort. At a “moment of real and rising antisemitism, extremism and violence across the ideological spectrum, our communities deserve a whole-of-government response,” Amy Spitalnick, the chief executive of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, said to the Journal.

Antisemitism remains an ongoing issue in New York City. In 2026 so far, there have been about “223 antisemitic hate crimes, making up more than half of all hate crimes in the city,” said Politico.

Still, while Mamdani’s report does not specifically define “antisemitism,” that may not ultimately be its purpose. It is not the city’s “role to settle a debate over how to define” this, and governments that have “adopted the definition have not seen a reduction in antisemitism,” Phylisa Wisdom, the executive director of the Mayor’s Office to Combat Antisemitism, said in a statement. “No other hate crime category is formally defined by the city.”

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has launched a legal action against Thames Valley Police over search warrants issued for raids on his homes at the Sandringham Estate and Royal Lodge, Windsor, in February. He was subsequently arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office, before being released without charge. The investigation remains ongoing, and Mountbatten-Windsor denies all wrongdoing.

An initial judicial hearing will take place in private on Thursday, though it is not known whether the former prince will attend.

This is the “first time a member of the royal family has challenged the lawfulness of criminal actions against them since Charles I in 1649”, said royal editor Hannah Furness in The Telegraph. “And we all know how that went.”

What did the commentators say?

The review is the “last roll of the dice” to rehabilitate Mountbatten-Windsor’s image, said Furness. Winning would at least “put the idea of his innocence, or injustice, back in the public imagination”. With silence and charity work, he could in time have been able to at least become “unremarkable” in public life. However, this legal action will break that “stalemate”. Ultimately, though, there is only one way Mountbatten-Windsor can re-emerge: by “actually clearing his name”. “No loopholes, no PR – just the truth in the eyes of the law.”

There is an “unusual” form of “gamesmanship” going on here, former senior detective Martyn Underhill told The Times. “In about 50 years in policing I’ve never known legal action against a warrant,” because the threshold required to obtain one is “really quite low”. This looks more like an “effort to try and change the dynamic and narrative, to show he’s fighting back”.

His “calculated gamble” could destabilise wider accusations made against him, said Andrew Tillett in the Australian Financial Review. He will be encouraged by the “weakness” of the police’s “faltering” case against Peter Mandelson, and the failure of US investigators to make the full, unredacted version of the Epstein files available to UK forces.

Mountbatten-Windsor has lost almost everything, and challenging the police “won’t get that back”. But, with “customary arrogance”, he thinks he can “ease some of the shackles on his life in limbo”.

What next?

The former prince will have to finance proceedings on his own, said The Times. Mountbatten-Windsor’s “counter-attack” was made “seemingly without the King’s knowledge”, and Charles has “made it clear” that his brother’s private stipend – “understood to be in excess of £1 million a year” – “should not be used to fund the judicial review”.

“There are several possible scenarios ahead”, said The i Paper. The High Court will establish whether police had “reasonable grounds” for the searches. But even if the police were deemed to have acted unlawfully, “any material gathered in those searches could potentially still be used” against Mountbatten-Windsor.

Alternatively, the court could order that materials from the search be excluded from any case against him, and in the extreme, could award Mountbatten-Windsor compensation and a police apology. However, even if this were the case, “I can’t see that this judicial review would be able to derail the criminal investigation,” solicitor John Hagan told the newspaper.

Conservatives are in “revolt” over a new welfare-discouraging commercial from Arkansas Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said Fox News. The ad touts Huckabee Sanders’ proposal that “able-bodied adults without dependents” meet employment, volunteer and training standards in order to “continue receiving assistance.” But it has also enraged critics who claim casting a “young white man as the face of welfare abuse” does not “reflect reality.” Given typical conservative support for anti-welfare efforts, the furor over this ad could either signal shifting MAGA policy priorities or prove a warning sign for the GOP ahead of a potentially catastrophic midterm cycle.

What did the commentators say?

The ad depicts the character “Brad,” an “able-bodied white man” who spends his days “avoiding work while relying on taxpayer-funded benefits,” said Fox News. The commercial comes as polling shows “younger men drifting from the Republican Party” during the second Trump administration, said Forbes. But “most of the critics” were silent on the “political risks of the ad in deterring a core demographic in the GOP base” and were instead “simply angry because of the actor’s race and gender.”

Republicans “don’t have the balls to do this ad with ‘Shaniqua’ as the villain,” said far-right pundit Matt Walsh on X — “even though that would actually be an accurate portrayal of the problem at hand.” The ad “seemed to provoke some of the anger” that has fueled President Donald Trump’s political fortunes, said The New York Times: “A feeling among men, and white men in particular, that the country has turned against them.” Although the criticism prompted Huckabee Sanders to “defend the ad,” she did not “address accusations of racism.”

What next?

“Despite MAGA’s outrage,” said The New Republic, “between 52 and 54% of food stamps or SNAP recipients in the state are white, as are 57.8% of those on Medicaid.” And Huckabee Sanders’ program “won’t solve any problems” anyway, since adding work requirements “doesn’t reduce poverty, and in some cases, makes people poorer.”

After having won Arkansas “by more than 30 points in 2024,” Huckabee Sanders is still “favored to win reelection in the red state,” said The New Republic. Her campaign has “continued to air the ad,” said the Times.

The Conservatives have kicked off their conference in Birmingham in a buoyant mood. Four years on from the Liz Truss mini-Budget that shredded the party’s economic credibility, and a mere two years since the party’s worst general election result in history, Kemi Badenoch has “a modest spring in her step”, said Politico’s Noah Keate.

The Tory leader “can point to disarray” in Reform’s ranks, “decent personal ratings” and the establishment of “clear dividing lines with Labour” as “reasons to be cheerful”. But “it’s still a massive road back” for Britain’s “once-dominant” centre-right party.

What did the commentators say?

Last year’s conference “marked a low ebb for the Conservatives”; they were “in a fight for relevance and, perhaps, survival”, said Rob Ford, Sky News’ election analyst. A year on and “things are looking up at last”. The public have “warmed to Kemi Badenoch, soured on Nigel Farage” and the party has hauled itself “back into polling contention”.

Key to this turnaround has been the Tory leader’s stance as the “common sense” candidate, combining low-tax economic policies with a disdain for identity politics and a promise to put “foundation conservative values” at the heart of her offering to the public. Although 50% of voters still do not see her as a prime-minister-in-waiting, her net favourability rating is up 20 points from this time last year, according to YouGov polling in August

“Reports of the death of the Conservative Party now look premature,” political scientist Tim Bale told Agence France-Presse. Yet despite attempts by the Tories and their allies in the media to “create some momentum”, it’s still “too early to talk about a ‘Kemi-naissance’”, with the party itself far less popular than its leader and still four points below its disastrous general-election showing in 2024.

There has been “one clear message” from Badenoch’s public announcements: “that Britain must get off benefits and back to work”, said Robin Ashenden in The Spectator. She had framed this as a moral crusade, saying that a life of work, rather than dependency, is not just “better for society” but “better for the soul”. Badenoch’s lean into Thatcherite “Victorian values”, along with “her customary war-cry of ‘What a lot of nonsense!’ may have increasing voter appeal”.

With its talk of benefits scroungers and repealing the Human Rights Act, the party “the country still regards as toxic is determined to double down on its toxicity”, said John Crace in The Guardian. Badenoch seems “desperate to track ever further to the right and abandon its centre right to Labour and the Lib Dems.” This “feels like madness” but “this conference is all about Kult Kemi”.

What next?

Badenoch has released a 30,000-word treatise, “The Right Way” outlining her core principles. This is “the sacred text of the Badenoch project, designed to underpin this week’s Tory conference, the manifesto and – she hopes – a return to government”, said The Times’ political editor Ben Riley-Smith.

With unfavourable economic headwinds likely to limit Andy Burnham’s ambitious reform agenda, there’s now a question Labour strategists “dare not ask”, said Keir Starmer’s former speechwriter Alan Lockey in Arguably: Has Kemi Badenoch managed to turn her party round like Keir Starmer did his? “Is she, after two years of patient preparation, finally ready to make her move?”

President Donald Trump was impeached twice during his first term. As the midterm elections inch closer, there is impeachment talk in the air again, but this time with a twist. Democrats are now talking about impeaching members of Trump’s Cabinet, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth could be first on the list.

What did the commentators say?

Democrats “stumbled” onto the Cabinet-impeachment strategy thanks to Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, said MS NOW. Massie, who lost his primary election to a Trump-endorsed opponent, introduced articles of impeachment against Hegseth last month. This is a “highly underrated” strategy for forcing accountability on the administration, Massie said to the outlet.

Some party leaders are mum about the idea for now. Democrats “haven’t ruled anything out” if they win the midterms, said House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries to MS NOW. “And we haven’t ruled anything in.”

Impeaching members of Trump’s Cabinet would be an “effective accountability measure,” said David A. Graham at The Atlantic. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has “done serious damage to American public health,” Hegseth “waged an unauthorized war against Iran” and Attorney General Todd Blanche turned the Justice Department into a “partisan tool for persecuting Trump’s political adversaries.” Cabinet impeachments would focus on “actual administration actions and policy” and avoid a presidential impeachment likely to prove a “dead end.”

An impeachment push could “derail” Democrats’ affordability messaging in the midterms campaign, said Chad Pergram at Fox News. While the party’s “hard left” may demand impeachment “for someone,” this could prove “politically toxic” for scandal-weary voters.

What next?

Hegseth might be particularly vulnerable to an impeachment push, with even GOP members expressing “doubts about his leadership” amid a stalemated war in Iran, said The New York Times. The defense secretary has not “developed any productive relationships, even with Republican members,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) to the outlet.

Impeachment is “not a fetish” for Democrats, said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) to NBC’s “Meet the Press.” It is a “critical tool.” But the party’s higher priorities after November are “getting healthcare to the American people and ending the lawlessness.”

The price of diesel has hit £2 per litre – the most expensive it has ever been – at a third of UK petrol stations, said The Sun.

This is “uncharted territory”, financial analyst Kathleen Brooks told City A.M. Donald Trump has already sent markets into a “frenzy” by threatening to ban diesel exports from the US, said the same paper. Weakened infrastructure for refining diesel and lower reserves than European counterparts mean the UK could be uniquely “exposed” to any further “ripple effects”, including more price rises.

What did the commentators say?

President Trump is trying to bring diesel prices down for US consumers ahead of the midterm elections in November. If he does decide to ban exports of US diesel, it would “hurt the countries which heavily depend” on it, said the BBC, including the UK. But it might also have “unintended effects that could hurt US production” in the longer term.

Trump’s threats have “highlighted Britain’s over-reliance on the goodwill of other countries” for its diesel needs, said an editorial in The Times. Last year, the UK imported more than 50% of its diesel supply, around a sixth of that from the US.

Our infrastructure depends on it: around 10 million cars, a quarter of the country’s trains, 70% of buses, virtually all tractors and “almost 99% of HGVs” run on diesel. Yet the UK has enough reserves to last for only around six weeks, according to International Energy Forum data, compared to around six months for France, Italy, Spain and Germany.

Breaking the £2 threshold for a litre of diesel should “set alarm bells ringing in Downing Street”, said The Telegraph in an editorial. The government’s response so far has been to remove VAT from energy bills in an attempt to cushion the blow to consumers, but this “hardly addresses the fundamental issues”. As a nation, we have “failed to prepare”, allowing our refining capacity to “wither away” to leave us “dangerously exposed” to market fluctuations beyond our control.

The diesel crisis could “deepen” after the UK’s largest refinery shut down production for up to 10 weeks, said energy editor Jonathan Leake in The Telegraph. The Fawley refinery in Hampshire – which produces “one fifth of the fuel used on UK roads” – has closed for planned maintenance, a move that “will add to fears about another diesel price spike hurting drivers at the pumps”.

In the 1980s, the UK had 18 refineries, but that has dropped to just four. Two closures last year – in Grangemouth, Scotland and Lindsey in Lincolnshire – “slashed UK refinery output by about a third”. Now, any closures, planned or unplanned, temporary or permanent, have a “rapid impact on supplies”.

What next?

“Rising diesel costs aren’t just a problem for drivers generally but a wider inflation threat,” said Sky News. Diesel is the “engine of the UK economy” and shortages would heavily disrupt supply chains and lead to costs being passed on to consumers, particularly in the run-up to Christmas. This is the type of inflation that “worries” the Bank of England, which is “widely tipped” to raise interest rates in November.

Taxes on fuel – which account for “just over half of the cost of a litre” – are also set to rise. Hikes planned by former chancellor Rachel Reeves are set to come into effect in January, but her successor, John Healey, should “question the wisdom of raising prices at the pump at a time when they are clearly inflationary in nature”. As such, they are likely to be “scrapped or further delayed” at the upcoming Budget.

As the Israel-Hamas war nears its three-year mark, an outbreak of algae throughout Israel’s desalination plants is threatening the country’s water supplies, which could affect the sewage systems in Gaza. Experts say the ongoing war is likely to exacerbate the problem.

What did the commentators say?

The issue began after a microalgae bloom in the Mediterranean Sea forced five out of six desalination plants on the Israeli coast to shut down, according to Israel’s national water company Mekorot, per CNN. These plants remove salt from seawater, and their closures caused a ripple effect due to the “country’s heavy dependence on desalination for drinking water,” said the outlet. Israel is “arid and has neither big rivers nor abundant rainfall, but its mastery of this technology has made it a water superpower.”

While Israel itself is unlikely to see a shortage of water, it could lead to a compounding crisis in Gaza, which has already seen “many of its pipelines and water infrastructure destroyed during the devastating war with Israel,” said NBC News. The algae currently attacking Israel’s water supplies may actually be caused by the situation in Gaza.

The “discharge of untreated sewage from the Gaza Strip into the sea is contributing to the worsening crisis affecting the Israeli desalination facilities,” the Zalul Environmental Association, an Israeli environmental NGO, told The Guardian. The wastewater “contains nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus, which feed microalgae.”

Scientists are “trying to assess possible environmental fallout from Gaza’s destroyed wastewater infrastructure” and determine how much of a role it may have played in the algae bloom, said Middle East Eye. Regardless of the cause, it is a “reminder of the dire humanitarian conditions facing 2 million Gazans,” said The Washington Post. Gazans have “faced severe water shortages and have often resorted to using makeshift latrines.”

What next?

This kind of event will probably keep happening thanks to the steadily warming planet. It’s a “fair estimation that this will not be a once-in-a-lifetime” thing, Edo Bar-Zeev, an associate professor in water research at Israel’s Ben-Gurion University, said to CNN. People “can assume that this will occur more and more through climate change.”

Andy Burnham has promised to “undertake the most ambitious review of Brexit since Britain left the EU”, said Jon Stone in Politico. And, “for now at least, he’s keeping all his options open”.

With different figures within his party arguing in favour of joining the single market, joining the customs union or rejoining the EU altogether, the prime minister is keeping his powder dry, saying only that he hopes to “find consensus” around one option at the UK-EU summit later this year. With nothing yet ruled in or out, there’s “plenty of space for interpretation” about the direction he might take.

What did the commentators say?

Burnham’s pledge undoubtedly marks a “turning point in the story of Brexit”, said Denis Staunton in The Irish Times. He’s signalling a “readiness to rip up Keir Starmer’s red lines on Europe”, which included no return to the single market or the customs union and no unrestricted freedom of movement.

Burnham’s “dramatic shift on Brexit” comes after EU leaders warned him to “tone down British demands to be included in the bloc’s Made in Europe policy”, said Arj Singh, The i Paper’s deputy political editor. The UK’s push for inclusion, in exchange for lower tuition fees for European students, “sparked anger in Brussels” and “underlined the limits” of Labour’s red lines. Days later, Burnham has “used his conference speech to say he was now prepared to drop” them.

The prime minister risks “reopening the bitter division” that followed the 2016 referendum, said Reuters. His “desire to find a consensus will test his political skill in a nation still scarred by the tumult” of Brexit. But the timing makes sense: Donald Trump’s geopolitics are “reshaping alliances around the globe”, and the “threat of war in Europe” adds weight to an argument for a closer UK-EU relationship.

A commitment to stronger ties with the EU is “vital” for the Labour’s chances at the next general election, said Tom Brufatto of campaign group Best For Britain, on Politics Home. Voters would “resoundingly reward” any parties “who take the plunge”, increasing support by 7%, according to a Best For Britain/YouGov poll.

Rejoining the EU would first require another referendum and then “potentially years of de-Brexit negotiations”, said The Guardian. And Brussels would want “cast-iron guarantees that the UK wouldn’t just walk out again”.

It would create a “decade of trading chaos”, said Matthew Lynn in The Spectator. Any discussions will “take a long time”, and require Burnham to win at least one election while they are ongoing, and the EU would almost certainly demand “tough terms”, including signing up to the Euro. Then, in all likelihood, “all our other trade agreements will have to be cancelled”. The last thing that the British economy needs is a “decade of wrangling over the issue all over again”.

What next?

It’s obvious that none of this can be “rushed,” said The Independent’s editorial board. Even in the Labour Party, most recognise that “rejoining is no simple matter”.

There have been calls for Burnham to make reversing Brexit his top policy pledge at the next election but it would not be “right or sensible to try to fight an election on a single issue”. Labour’s next manifesto needs “imaginative solutions” and “now is the time to open up the debate” and “start clearing the way forward from Brexit”.

Who wants to see the new, nearly four-hour documentary about Elon Musk? Not Musk.

The former trillionaire is threatening a defamation lawsuit over explosive claims in Alex Gibney’s film “Musk.” Social media companies are hesitant to allow promotion on their platforms, and Hollywood is whispering that the tech mogul’s power might keep the public from opportunities to see the film.

What did the commentators say?

“So much for free speech,” said The Hollywood Reporter. Social media platforms YouTube, TikTok and Meta’s Instagram and Facebook all initially declined to run the trailer for “Musk,” though YouTube and Meta later backtracked. (Musk-owned X is not accepting ads for the movie.) A hesitance to provide publicity is a problem for the film because “traction on social media is key” to the success of most modern documentaries.

The social media freeze-out comes amid “concerns” that “political considerations are influencing the rollout” of the film, said The New York Times. “Musk” is set for an Oct. 9 release in the United States, but Universal “has yet to announce any release dates” overseas. The studio counters that it “simply needs more time” to schedule foreign markets.

Audiences at this month’s Venice Film Festival “loved” the documentary that depicts Musk as a “plutocrat with questionable judgment and unchecked power,” Lorraine Ali said at the Los Angeles Times. There was a time when Musk would have been featured as a forward-thinking entrepreneur. Now audiences want to see depictions of the “dark side of wealth, fame and alleged genius.”

What next?

“Musk” is scheduled to stream on HBO Max after its theatrical run. But Gibney is nervous the streamer “may not be inclined to back the film” following the merger of Paramount with HBO parent company Warner Bros. Discovery, said The Atlantic.

Paramount is reportedly seeking funding from Musk to help complete the merger. The tech mogul, meanwhile, is making his feelings clear about the film and its future. “Musk” is a “hit piece that misses,” he said on X. The documentary is guilty of the “fatal sin of being boring for four hours.”

Political campaigns are awash in cash, thanks in part to U.S. Supreme Court decisions declaring that campaign contributions are a form of free speech. Montana voters are poised to push back with a proposed ban on corporate political spending.

What did the commentators say?

The November ballot measure is an attempt at “threading the needle” of the Supreme Court’s precedents, said The New York Times. Corporations that violate the proposed ban would have their state corporate registration revoked.

States, backers argue, have the right to “define corporations as ‘artificial persons’” that lack First Amendment rights, said the Times. Montana is not “necessarily associated with anticorporate sentiment.” But advocates say there is “widespread frustration” over the “influence of special interests” in Big Sky politics.

“There’s just one catch” to the Montana plan, Jessica Levinson said at MS NOW. The Supreme Court has found that “corporations should be treated the same way as individuals” when it comes to the First Amendment rights associated with political contributions. Montana is “attempting a clever solution” to the problem of money in politics, but even if voters approve the measure, “it is doomed to fail in court.”

Money “will always play a role in politics,” John Westenberg said at the Missoula Current. The Montana plan, however, would be a “huge step” to keep that money “honest” and stop political spending by “artificial persons” like corporations, nonprofits and trade unions to feed the “dark money machines.” The aim is to “take dark money out of Montana politics.”

What next?

Nearly three-quarters of U.S. citizens believe “money in politics is a problem,” said Bloomberg. As such, other states are joining in the effort to limit corporate political spending. Hawaii has already passed a Montana-style law, which is being challenged in court. And “reformers” in Oregon are pushing for a similar ballot measure, said Oregon Public Broadcasting. Such efforts have “national momentum right now,” Jason Kafoury of Honest Elections Oregon said to the outlet. Expect the Supreme Court to offer the last word.

For most of this century, homebuyers could depend on relatively low mortgage rates at no more than 5%. But that’s no longer true. The average 30-year mortgage rate hit 7% this week, and high rates may be here to stay, which could profoundly impact an already dysfunctional U.S. housing market.

What did the commentators say?

The 7% rate has no significance “beyond the psychological effect of the round number,” said NPR. But it reflects a “sharp rise” in rates in recent months that is “squeezing the budgets of homebuyers” and seems likely to “deepen the freeze” on a housing market that has been stymied by high prices in recent years. Rising rates “contributed to a 2% decline” in existing home sales in August.

High mortgage costs are “forcing home sellers to slash prices,” said Bloomberg. Nearly a fifth of homes for sale “had a price cut in August,” the highest rate since the pandemic. It is true that current rates are “far from the double-digit levels of the 1980s,” but they discourage homebuying when combined with other factors like “stubborn inflation, rising energy prices” and “record-high home prices.” Plus, would-be buyers who can afford the higher rates are “coming to the table expecting to negotiate the price down.” The result: Home sellers are “feeling the strain.”

More buyers are moving to adjustable-rate mortgages “where the rate changes typically after five, seven or 10 years,” said Marketplace. That can “make a big difference in affordability” for buyers but is also risky. An adjustable-rate mortgage that starts out at 6% today “could, depending on the term, in five years be 8.10%,” Susan Wachter, of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, said to the outlet. Many buyers take the adjustable mortgages betting that rates will drop, and “they’ll be able to refinance,” said Marketplace. Trying to predict future rates “can be a dangerous game,” Longbridge Financial’s Chris Mayer told Marketplace.

What next?

The high rates may play a role in November’s midterm election, said Politico. President Donald Trump in 2024 “vowed that interest rates on mortgages would drop to 2%.” His promise is “looking less likely than ever” to come to fruition.

Rates briefly dipped under 6% in February before the Iran war began, said CNN. But somebody buying a house at today’s rates would likely “pay hundreds of thousands of dollars more in interest” over the life of a 30-year mortgage. There may be no going back to the good old days of six months ago. “Expect 7% as the new normal,” economist Lawrence Yun said in a blog post for the National Association of Realtors. Unsurprisingly, this is putting off potential homebuyers: Mortgage applications “fell 11% last week from the same week a year ago,” said CNN.

Near-term relief is unlikely. Rates are “far more likely to go up than down by the end of the year or in the next month or two,” Realtor.com’s Jake Krimmel said to CBS News.

What do “Seinfeld,” “The Office” and “Family Guy” have in common? Each was used in a recent White House promotional video for the launch of what the administration has dubbed Trump TV, an official White House broadcast that has thus far largely been limited to previously recorded MAGA speeches and events.

Notably, the splashy, if dubiously copyright-compliant, rollout of what the White House has deemed its “Essentials Station” comes as the Trump administration escalates its running altercation with mainstream media outlets. So what exactly is Trump TV, who is it for, and what does this White House have in mind for the programming’s future?

What did the commentators say?

Trump TV was “born of necessity” after multiple major media companies “boycotted the White House press pool in response to the president’s ban on certain outlets,” said New York magazine. But unlike the “Oprah Winfrey Network-esque conservative media company Trump (allegedly) envisioned” as a potential outlet over the years, Trump TV is, for now, “just a dinky livestream on the White House YouTube page.” Still, the launch of an “administration-operated, around-the-clock video channel” places Trump TV “at the center of a coverage gap” caused by multiple major networks pulling out of the White House press pool, said USA Today.

“Not every big moment has made it on your tv,” said the White House in a social media post announcing the new service. “Now it can.”

In addition to streaming on YouTube, “Trump TV” is also featured on the White House website, alongside a “box titled ‘White House Live,’” which noted that it was “‘Off Air’ but advised viewers to ‘Stay Tuned,’” said The Hill. The window also features a “chyron reading official updates” and “statements praising Trump’s actions as president, among other texts.”

In launching Trump TV, the president “follows in Hugo Chávez’s footsteps,” said Al Jazeera. The former Venezuelan autocrat, with his “Hello, President” television program, “sang, took calls from viewers, attacked his opponents and sometimes announced major policy live on air.”

The White House is “drawing sharp backlash from critics” over the platform’s launch, said NJ.com. After banning independent media from the White House, President Donald Trump has launched “what is quite literally state-run TV,” said California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), rumored to be mulling a presidential run himself in 2028, on X. Trump is “drowning out the fact that he and his corrupt administration are failing the American people.”

Trump TV “peaked at 8,000 viewers” for its Monday evening premiere before “dipping to around 4,000,” said The Independent. “Some 1,600 people” tuned in the following morning, “when footage showed the president signing an executive order to rename the Gulf of Mexico ‘Gulf of America’”

Some MAGA loyalists have “supported the launch of Trump TV” for “punching holes in the mainstream media propaganda,” said The Independent. Trump critics have “lost their minds over Trump TV,” said conservative commentator Benny Johnson, per the outlet. “The White House has perfectly trolled them again.”

What next?

It remains “unclear” whether the streaming platform will air “all current events and conferences involving the president,” said NJ.com. “Weirdly,” said New York magazine, Trump TV “did not even air the president’s big address” to the United Nations on Tuesday. “So far,” said Axios, Trump TV has “no anchors or news ticker.” It does display “banners asking viewers to text White House officials,” although it’s “unclear who staffs the channel, makes programming decisions or sets its schedule.”

Given this “calamitous start to life after the press pool,” The Daily Beast asked the White House if it “intends to try to fix the viewership issues” or if it is “waiting to patch things up with the TV networks,” said the outlet. The White House, to date, has not responded.

China is being quietly credited with keeping energy prices down in the wake of Donald Trump’s war with Iran, in turn helping prop up the global economy while cementing its own power on the world stage.

By tapping into its huge reserves of oil, “China kind of saved the day,” and helped the world avoid the “doomsday scenario” when the Strait of Hormuz closure choked off 20% of global energy supply, said Paul Gruenwald, global chief economist at S&P Global Ratings.

What did the commentators say?

For decades, China heavily depended on imported crude to meet its ever-growing energy needs. But over the past few years Chinese President Xi Jinping has sought to address what has long been viewed in Beijing as a major security weakness by spending billions of dollars amassing the world’s biggest stockpile of oil.

Last year China’s reserves were estimated at nearly 600 million barrels bigger than the US. This enabled it to dramatically cut its oil imports when the war in the Middle East broke out, keeping a lid on global oil prices and safeguarding its own economy.

Not only has this enabled China to weather the global commodities storm resulting from the closure of the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, it has seen China emerge as a “clear winner” from Donald Trump’s foray into the Middle East, said The Guardian, citing the findings of a report from geopolitical consulting firm Asia Group.

Long thought to be vulnerable to oil supply shocks, the conflict has made clear how China has “managed to transform that weakness into a surprising source of geopolitical power”, said The New York Times.

This has “big implications for the global energy industry, where oil producers like Saudi Arabia and the United States — not importers like China — have traditionally held most of the cards”.

“If they come to feel that in this domain, they are less vulnerable than they and many others may have assessed previously, that is a profound and important shift in one of the key inputs to how China makes decisions about its global strategy,” said Julian Gewirtz, a former White House and State Department official who worked on China issues in the Biden administration.

What next?

While the Iran crisis has vindicated Xi’s investment strategy, the “buffer” of China’s stockpile of oil, which has helped the world avoid a far deeper energy crisis up to now, “may face a test as Beijing shows signs of resuming purchases”, said CNBC.

Should this happen, the drag on global growth from elevated oil prices would deepen well beyond current estimates, said Krishna Srinivasan, director for the Asia and Pacific Department at the International Monetary Fund.

But the Iran crisis has also shown how “China’s muscular energy policy has afforded Beijing a major tool it could use, for instance, in a war over Taiwan”, said The Wall Street Journal.

“In the future, such power could be wielded in a clash with the US In the event of a war over Taiwan”. For example, “Beijing’s ability to slash oil imports for months on end could help China resist efforts by the US and its allies to block energy shipments”.

For China, “oil is not the Achilles’ heel we thought it was,” said Michal Meidan, head of China energy research at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. “I think a lot of people thought China was very, very vulnerable to oil supply disruptions. It’s not.”

China and the U.S. are locked in a race to develop the most powerful artificial intelligence models. Industry leaders are increasingly calling for regulations and guardrails to keep the technology from threatening humanity, which means the competing nations must collaborate to rein in AI as it gallops ahead. But observers are skeptical that Washington and Beijing can find the will to do so.

What did the commentators say?

AI safety is “on the agenda” for this week’s summit between President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping, said The Associated Press. But both sides “see the other as the problem.” Trump has warned that “any efforts to regulate the technology would help China,” while Chinese leaders see talk of new safety rules as an attempt to slow their nation’s rapid advances so that the U.S. can create a “monopoly” on AI.

Some experts say Trump and Xi do not need to come to a full agreement on rules to create room for a slowdown. The two leaders “just need to create political space by acknowledging AI poses risks to both countries,” said Samm Sacks, a fellow at John Hopkins, to the AP.

Chinese leaders don’t see AI as an “existential threat to humanity,” said Kyle Chan, of the Brookings Institution, at The New York Times. The two countries have different anxieties. U.S. companies like Anthropic and OpenAI use AI to “develop even better AI systems,” creating concerns about a “feedback loop” in which humans “no longer have control over the process.”

Chinese companies like DeepSeek and Moonshot, by contrast, have “limited access to AI computing power” and so see that tipping point as being a “long way off.” Beijing is more worried about AI being used to spark a “mass movement powerful enough to topple the Communist Party.” It will be hard for the two countries to find common ground on the issue “without a baseline level of mutual understanding.”

Beijing would be “perfectly happy to watch Washington scare America into slowing itself down,” said Rep. Kat Cammack (R-Fla.) at the National Review. China’s Communist leaders are “actively working to exploit Americans’ fears” about the technology, and Beijing wins every time the U.S. “makes itself slower, more expensive and more afraid to experiment.” Washington is “flirting with exactly that mentality on AI.”

What next?

The U.S. is proposing an “emergency AI hotline” with China, said Axios. “More transparency” between the world’s AI superpowers is “very important," said Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to reporters, per the outlet.

Still, neither nation “expects a breakthrough” at this week’s Trump-Xi summit, said The Economist. The growing risks posed by artificial intelligence “demand more urgency” than either side is bringing to the table. Until that urgency arrives, the “best hope is that the two sides keep talking.”

“What is the point of the Liberal Democrats?” asked Joanna Williams in The Times. Even those at the party conference weren’t sure: a Lib Dem council leader said the party was “lacking ambition”, while MP Roz Savage wondered why they were “struggling for relevance at precisely the moment when so many people feel powerless”.

During his headlining speech, leader Ed Davey campaigned for an anti-Reform firewall, income tax cuts and a closer proximity to the EU. Yet despite achieving a record number of MPs at the last election, the party is sliding in the polls and its blueprint to Westminster, for many members, is blank.

What did the commentators say?

“Younger readers may not believe me, but we used to take the Lib Dems seriously,” said Gareth Roberts in The Spectator. “Or at least more seriously.” We are surrounded by swathes of “repulsive or infuriating politicians”, but even so Davey is “merely laughable”. There have been calls from within for him to step down, but such is the predicament of the party, these outbursts “hardly seemed to register”.

Davey’s campaign to rejoin the single market in his closing speech underlines how the party’s strategy is “built on sand”, said columnist Sherelle Jacobs in The Telegraph. Traditionally, yes, the issue of Brexit proved the “ultimate gift” for the Lib Dems, allowing them to move to the left economically, while profiting as the “right tore itself apart”.

But now, the subject ranks “as a fifth-order issue” electorally, and placing it at the core of the party’s agenda “just seems odd”. In practical terms, Davey’s claim that his personal allowance reforms would be offset by “growth from a new EU partnership” would take “years to negotiate”, and also just “doesn’t seem credible”. The Lib Dem leader, aptly, is using the nostalgia of “exhuming the corpse of remainerism” to mask the problem that his party’s present “relevance is too terrifying to face”.

Given the current political climate, it “ought to be a boom time for Britain’s traditional third party”, said The Times. Labour is “tilting left”, the Conservatives are also “struggling for national relevance”, and Reform UK is embroiled in funding controversies. But Davey is leading them “towards irrelevance”. At the conference, all he could offer was a “grab-bag of woke talking points”, and he strayed from the popular issue of social care to pursue economic growth, “the standard fallback for the fiscally challenged (see Reeves 2024)”. Davey’s vision is “neither liberal nor democratic. Nor, for that matter, is it ­especially inspiring.”

Unlike other parties, the Lib Dems don’t crave the “sugar rush of going for temporary poll bounces”, said Ailbhe Rea, political editor of The New Statesman. Davey has a “seat-first, not vote-first, strategy”, a source told the outlet. His strategy is founded on local initiatives, building support “typically from councils up”, said Rea, and efficiently targeting only seats it can win. The party had 11 MPs when Davey took over in 2019, and rose to 72 after the 2024 general election, and made gains in “eight consecutive sets of local council elections”. This approach may grind out “unimpressive poll numbers”, but produces “sustainable gains”: “many of the party’s MPs are fully behind both it and him”.

The strange thing is, if a general election were to be called tomorrow, the Lib Dems would “probably repeat their record-breaking performance of 2024, or get very close”, said Hugo Gye in The Economist. They have “firmly dug in to their core areas”, such as Richmond-upon-Thames, where the Lib Dems won all 54 positions in recent council elections.

More pressingly, the party thrives most by riding a certain “brand of eccentricity”, appealing to a concoction of “wealthy, woke and weird” constituents who advocate for “cultural leftism” but hold “centrist views on the economy”. It may have strength in this demographic, but it’s difficult to see where the party will go next. “Not everywhere can be Richmond.”

What next?

Davey has a “balance to strike”, said Rafael Behr in The Guardian. He must hammer home his “progressive credentials” by showing his “anti-Farage firewall will be suitably robust”, and consolidate support among former Tory voters in “blue wall” seats that his economic policies will hold.

Local elections next year will test whether Davey’s method is working and a by-election win “may settle Lib Dem nerves”. Currently, while it is difficult to pinpoint the purpose of the party, if its firewall tactic works its “utility to British democracy won’t be in doubt”. Then again, you can only find out if it holds water “when you need it most, and then you don’t get a second chance”.

Andy Burnham, stateside for the United Nations General Assembly, is meeting Donald Trump for their first in-person talks today in a stronger position than Keir Starmer was as a new PM. Trump is increasingly unpopular at home, and preoccupied with the Iran war and looming midterm elections, while the UK has been strengthening its ties with Europe and Canada. “It’s completely different this time,” one official told Politico. “There’s no drama about having to stay in his good books.”

But Trump has previously called Burnham “extremely liberal” and dismissed him as the “mayor of a town”. And if his past meetings with world leaders are anything to go by, there’s still plenty of potential for drama.

What did the commentators say?

In 2024, sucking up to Trump was the “medicine required”, one UK diplomat told Politico. Burnham, however, has inherited “an established relationship” with no need to lavish praise. His job is therefore to “fix the mess of unresolved threads left behind” – and “avoid a barrage of abuse on Truth Social”.

He is “not expected to take a big list of deliverables or policy goals”. His aim, according to senior UK officials and MPs, is: “Get in, smile, press the case for Ukraine, and try to leave without a major upset.” Officials are hopeful that he will encounter a “more pro-Ukraine atmosphere” in Washington, after the House of Representatives approved a “sweeping Russia sanctions bill”. Burnham hopes to persuade the US to increase the deliveries of air defence interceptors – but it’s unlikely that Ukraine is even in the top five of Trump’s priorities, said Daniel DePetris in The Spectator.

Burnham’s more assertive approach seems to be working so far, said Reuters. His team pointed out that Trump “did not push back” against Burnham’s ban on imports from illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. But Trump is a “notoriously fickle and unpredictable” man who “spreads trade tariffs like confetti”, said The i Paper. Burnham will have to avoid the “minefield” of some of Trump’s “fixations”, such as North Sea oil and defence spending.

There is “no suggestion” Burnham will go further and emulate “the more combative approach” of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, said The Guardian’s Pippa Crerar. Nor would it be wise to; Trump is still angry the UK didn’t join him in strikes on Iran, and recent comments on the Falklands and Irish unification “suggest his displeasure has not abated”. The meeting will be “fraught with tension” with “potential for further clashes”. The US president might be weaker domestically, but he’s still in office for two more years. For now, “the power still rests with Trump”.

What next?

Even if Trump and Burnham hit it off, the meeting itself “isn’t the most important event”, said DePetris. “What truly matters is the follow-through.”

The Iran war remains “a dark storm cloud hovering over US-UK relations”, and with Houthi rebels continuing to advance, effectively controlling Yemen’s Red Sea coastline, Trump could grant Saudi Arabia’s request for military intervention. In that case, “you can be almost certain the Trump administration will expect the UK to get involved”, and Trump could slam Burnham’s government for insufficient defence spending in next month’s Budget. Remember, things were fine between Trump and Starmer – “until they weren’t”.