Economy

US electronic design automation software makers were told via letters to stop supplies to China, the FT reported.

United States President Donald Trump’s administration has ordered US firms that offer software used to design semiconductors to stop selling their services to Chinese groups, the Financial Times has reported, citing people familiar with the move.

Electronic design automation software makers, which include Cadence, Synopsys and Siemens EDA, were told via letters from the US Commerce Department to stop supplying their tech, the report, which was published on Wednesday, said.

A spokesperson for the Commerce Department declined to comment on the letters but said it is reviewing exports of strategic significance to China, while noting that, “in some cases, Commerce has suspended existing export licenses or imposed additional license requirements while the review is pending”.

Shares of Cadence, which declined to comment, closed down by 10.7 percent, while shares of Synopsys fell by 9.6 percent.

Synopsys CEO Sassine Ghazi said in a call with analysts that the company had not received a letter, nor had it heard from the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry (BIS) and Security, which enforces export controls.

“We are aware of the reporting and speculations, but Synopsys has not received a notice from BIS. So, our guidance that we are reiterating for the full year, reflects our current understanding of BIS export restrictions as well as our expectations for year-over-year decline in China. We have not received a letter,” Ghazi said.

After the market closed, Synopsys reaffirmed its revenue forecast for 2025. Its shares and those of Cadence bounced back 3.5 percent in trading after the close.

Siemens EDA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The software of these firms is used to design both high-end processors as well as simpler products.

While the scope of the policy change described in the report was not immediately clear, any move to strip the software makers of their Chinese customers could deal a blow to their bottom line and to their Chinese chip design customers, which heavily rely on top-of-the-line US software.

“They are the true choke point,” said a former Commerce Department official, who added that rules restricting the export of EDA tools to China have been under consideration since the first Trump administration, but were ruled out as too aggressive.

Synopsys relies on China for about 16 percent of its annual revenue, while China accounts for about 12 percent of annual revenue for Cadence.

Synopsys, which partners with chip companies such as Nvidia, Qualcomm and Intel, provides software and hardware used for designing advanced processors.

Praise follows conflict of interest concerns after Trump launches his own coin and hosts a dinner for his investors.

United States Vice President JD Vance has urged the domestic cryptocurrency industry to remain involved in US politics, highlighting the close ties of President Donald Trump’s administration to a deep-pocketed industry.

Speaking at a Bitcoin conference in Las Vegas, Nevada, on Wednesday, Vance urged cryptocurrency executives and enthusiasts to keep pressure on the US Congress to pass pro-crypto legislation supported by the White House

“We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to unleash innovation and use it to improve the lives of countless American citizens,” Vance said in his address. “But if we fail to create regulatory clarity now, we risk chasing this $3 trillion industry offshore in search of a friendly jurisdiction.”

Vance made the speech after Trump promised to make the US the “crypto capital of the planet” when he addressed the same Bitcoin conference in Nashville, Tennessee, last year in the middle of the presidential campaign. The crypto industry, which felt unfairly attacked by former President Joe Biden’s administration, spent heavily to help Trump and pro-cryptocurrency lawmakers win election.

Vance praised how quickly the crypto industry was able to organise and influence US politics during last year’s elections, giving special credit to Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, the billionaire founders of the crypto exchange Gemini.

“You chose to speak up, and you chose to get involved, and I believe you changed the direct trajectory of our country because of it,” Vance told the crowd gathered at the Venetian Hotel.

Vance hailed cryptocurrencies as a hedge that can help conservative populists protect themselves against what he called bad politicians, overly aggressive regulators and unethical elites. He predicted continued assimilation of the digital currencies into the financial mainstream and said it was strategically important for the US to be a world leader in the industry, noting that the Chinese government is hostile to crypto.

As president, Trump has established a Bitcoin reserve for the federal government and pardoned Ross Ulbricht, the founder of Silk Road, a black market website that was key to the early growth of Bitcoin.

Trump has also put outspoken crypto backers in his administration, which has undone or paused several enforcement actions taken against large cryptocurrency companies

Several other Trump officials are speakers at the Bitcoin conference, as are his sons Don Jr and Eric.

Conflict of interest

The president and his family’s use of cryptocurrencies as a platform to make money has drawn criticism from Democrats and even crypto enthusiasts as corrupt and unseemly.

The Trump family holds about a 60 percent stake in a crypto project called World Liberty Financial, which recently launched its own stablecoin, a fast-growing form of cryptocurrency whose value is often tied to the US dollar. This month, the US Senate advanced legislation that would create a federal framework to regulate stablecoins, a bill that Vance said the Trump administration wants passed into law quickly.

Trump’s media company announced on Tuesday that it was raising $2.5bn to buy Bitcoin, the world’s oldest and most popular cryptocurrency.

The president and first lady Melania Trump have also launched their own meme coins. Last week, Donald Trump rewarded investors in his coin. About 220 of the biggest investors in the $TRUMP were invited to Trump’s luxury golf club in northern Virginia.

United States President Donald Trump has brushed aside criticism of his wide-ranging budget bill — known as the One Big Beautiful Bill — from a high-profile source, government adviser Elon Musk.

On Wednesday, at a swearing-in ceremony in the Oval Office, Trump faced questions about Musk’s comments, which suggested the bill would balloon the national debt.

The Republican leader responded with a degree of ambivalence, though he staunchly defended the bill’s tax cuts.

“We will be negotiating that bill, and I’m not happy about certain aspects of it, but I’m thrilled by other aspects of it,” Trump said. “That’s the way they go.”

The budget bill clocks in at over a thousand pages, and it contains a range of domestic policy priorities for the Trump administration.

That includes legislation cementing some of the tax cuts Trump championed during his first term as president, in 2017. It would also increase the funds available for Trump’s “mass deportation” effort and heightened security along the US-Mexico border.

Some $46.5bn, for instance, would be earmarked to renew construction of the southern border wall and other barriers, another hallmark of Trump’s first term in office.

But to pay for those tax cuts and policy priorities, the bill proposes measures that remain controversial on both sides of the political spectrum.

One provision, for instance, would increase the federal debt limit by $4 trillion. Others would impose strict work requirements on programmes like Medicaid — a government health insurance for low-income Americans — and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), sometimes known as food stamps.

Those work requirements are expected to bar thousands of people from accessing those safety-net programmes, allowing for cost savings. But critics fear those barriers will drive some families deeper into poverty.

In a preview of an interview with the TV show CBS Sunday Morning, Musk expressed frustration with the sheer cost of the bill, echoing criticism from fiscal conservatives.

He also accused the “Big Beautiful Bill” of setting back the progress he made as leader of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a task force Trump established to pare back “wasteful” spending.

“I was, like, disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not decrease it, and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing,” Musk told CBS, dressed in an “Occupy Mars” T-shirt.

“I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful,” he added. “I don’t know if it could be both. My personal opinion.”

This is not the first time that Musk has spoken out against a US budget bill. In December, under former President Joe Biden, Musk rallied public outrage against another piece of budget legislation that weighed in at over a thousand pages, calling on Congress to “kill the bill“.

Musk’s latest comments, however, signal a potentially widening fracture between himself and the Trump White House.

Up until recently, Musk, a billionaire thought to be the world’s richest man, has played a prominent role in Trump’s government. He even helped him secure a second term as president.

In 2024, Musk endorsed Trump’s re-election effort, joined him on the campaign trail and donated hundreds of millions of dollars to the Republican leader and his political allies.

For his part, Trump returned Musk’s warm embrace. Days after he won a second term as president, Trump announced that Musk would join his incoming administration as head of DOGE.

But Musk’s role in the White House has remained ambiguous, and highly controversial. Though Musk is a regular presence at presidential cabinet meetings, he has not had to undergo a Senate confirmation hearing.

The White House has described him as a “special government employee”, a temporary role given to consultants from business fields. Normally, those employees can only work with the government for 130 days per year, and they are barred from using their government roles for financial gain.

But critics have argued that the length of Musk’s tenure at the White House has not been clearly established and that he has indeed leveraged his position for personal profit. In March, for instance, Trump held a news conference to show off models from Musk’s car company Tesla.

Musk’s other business ventures, including the rocket company SpaceX and the satellite communications firm Starlink, have also raised conflict-of-interest questions, given that they are competitors for government contracts.

Media reports have indicated that there have been behind-the-scenes clashes between Musk and other members of the Trump White House that may have cooled relations between the president and his billionaire backer. But Trump has so far avoided criticising Musk publicly.

On Wednesday, for instance, Trump pivoted from the question about Musk’s comments to attacking Democratic members of Congress, who refuse to back his signature budget bill.

“ Remember, we have zero Democrat votes because they’re bad people,” Trump said. “There’s something wrong with them.”

A version of the budget bill narrowly passed the House of Representatives last week. Currently, it is being considered by the Senate. But with a 53-seat majority in the 100-person chamber, Senate Republicans can only afford to lose three votes if they hope to pass the bill.

Trump renewed his call for party unity on Wednesday, despite concerns from his fellow Republicans.

“We have to get a lot of votes,” Trump said. “We need to get a lot of support, and we have a lot of support.”

Some Republicans have voiced opposition to the increase in the national debt. Others fear the effects that Medicaid restrictions might have on their constituents.

Trump himself has said he opposes any cuts to Medicaid. But he has tried to frame the bill’s tax cuts as a boon to lower-income people, though critics point out those cuts are poised to deliver the biggest savings to the wealthy.

“We’ll have the lowest tax rate we’ve ever had in the history of our country,” Trump said. “Tremendous amounts of benefits are going to the middle-income people of our country, low- and middle-income people of our country.”

Avelo Airlines, a struggling, Houston, Texas-based budget carrier, has faced weeks of backlash after taking a contract with the United States government to use its planes to deport migrants, the first commercial airline to do so.

Avelo, which started the deportation flights in mid-May, defended the move in an April 3 letter to employees, saying its partnership with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency is “too valuable not to pursue”.

Founded in 2021, the airline has been in financial turmoil and was projected to have only about $2m in cash on hand by June, the trade publication Airline Observer reported last month. An Avelo spokesperson told Al Jazeera that that reporting is outdated.

The airline has not disclosed the terms of the deal with ICE but is said to be using three of its Boeing 737 aircraft for the flights. Avelo has 20 aircraft in its fleet.

At the beginning of 2024, Avelo reported its first profitable quarter since its founding but hasn’t released any financial results since then. Because it is not a publicly traded company, Avelo is not legally obligated to regularly disclose its financial status to the public.

Avelo’s deal was brokered through a third-party contractor, CSI Aviation, which received $262.9m in federal contracts, mostly through ICE, for the 2025 fiscal year. While CSI Aviation did not confirm to Al Jazeera the specifics of its deal with Avelo, federal spending records show the company was awarded a new contract in March and received $97.5m in April when the Avelo flights were announced.

April’s contract marks the biggest for CSI Aviation since it began receiving federal contracts in 2008. Until now, CSI Aviation’s highest payouts had come more frequently during Democratic administrations. In October under former President Joe Biden, the federal government paid out more than $75m to CSI Aviation.

CEO Andrew Levy has said Avelo operated similar flights under the Biden administration but the public outcry against Avelo this time is because of how Republican President Donald Trump’s administration has conducted deportations.

“In the past, the deportees were afforded due process,” aviation journalist and New Hampshire state lawmaker Seth Miller said. “[They were] not snatched off the street, moved multiple times to evade the judicial process and put on planes before they could appeal. In the past, they were returned to their country of origin, not a third country. In the past, they were not shipped to a labour camp from which no one is ever released.”

“These are, to me, not the same deportations as in the past, and any company signing on in April 2025 to operate those flights knows that,” Miller told Al Jazeera.

The US government has awarded CSI Aviation $165m for deportation charter flights so far in the current year until August 31, and that could be extended to February 26. The data does not specify how much goes to each subcontractor. However, the March 1 $165m contract was modified on March 25 with an additional $33.7m tacked onto it just days before Avelo announced its deal.

Al Jazeera was unable to confirm the specific dollar amount for the Avelo contract.

CSI Aviation did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

Avelo, led by Levy – an industry veteran who previously served as CEO of another US-based budget airline, Allegiant, and as chief financial officer for United Airlines – has stood by the deal despite the public outcry.

“We realize this is a sensitive and complicated topic. After significant deliberations, we determined that charter flying will provide us with the stability to continue expanding our core scheduled passenger service and keep our more than 1,100 Crewmembers employed for years to come,” Levy said in a statement to Al Jazeera, comments the company had also provided to other publications.

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong pressed the airline for the terms of the deal. Avelo responded by instructing Tong to file a  Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. FOIA requests typically take several months to process. Connecticut is home to one of Avelo’s biggest hubs in New Haven.

Avelo declined Al Jazeera’s request for information on the terms of its agreement with CSI Aviation, saying in an email that it was not “authorised to share the details of the contract”.

Al Jazeera has submitted a FOIA request for the contract terms. ICE denied our expedited request for the contract terms, saying our request lacked “an urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged federal government activity, if made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information”. The phone number ICE gave to challenge the request through its public liaison did not work when called.

“For reasons of operational security, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement does not release information about future removal flights or schedules in advance. However, the removal of illegal aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States is a core responsibility of ICE and is regularly carried out by ICE Air Operations,” a spokesperson for ICE told Al Jazeera.

Several lawmakers, including Senator Alex Padilla of California and Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, have voiced concerns over these flights.

“Given the Trump Administration’s mission to indiscriminately deport our nation’s immigrants – without due process, in violation of the Constitution and federal immigration law, and, in some cases, in defiance of court orders – it is deeply disturbing that Avelo has determined that its partnership with ICE is ‘too valuable not to pursue,’” Padilla’s office said in a news release.

Flight attendants have also raised safety concerns, saying there is no safe plan in the event of an emergency and it is only a matter of time before a tragic incident occurs.

As first reported by ProPublica, ICE Air detainees have soiled themselves because they did not have access to bathrooms while being transported to prisons without due process.

ICE has denied allegations that detainees lacked access to bathrooms during flights.

Are financiers concerned?

Avelo’s largest investor is Morgan Stanley Tactical Value, whose managing director, Tom Cahill, sits on Avelo’s board. Morgan Stanley’s fund invested an undisclosed amount in the airline’s Series A funding round, the first major investment stage for a company.

That round raised $125m in January 2020, weeks before the COVID-19 pandemic was declared a US and global emergency. A subsequent Series B round in 2022 brought in an additional $42m, $30m of which came from Morgan Stanley.

Morgan Stanley Tactical Value remains Avelo’s largest shareholder. Cahill, who has been with Morgan Stanley since 1990, has not publicly commented on the deal. He did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment. Morgan Stanley declined to comment.

Avelo has also hired Jefferies Financial Group, an investment bank and financial services company, to raise additional capital in a new investment round, reportedly aiming to raise $100m, according to the Airline Observer, information that Avelo said is outdated.

Jefferies did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

A public image problem

Avelo’s involvement in the deportation programme has sparked intense public backlash. Upon the launch of the flights, protests erupted at airports in Burbank, California; Mesa, Arizona; and New Haven, Connecticut.

A Change.org petition calling for a boycott of the airline has garnered more than 38,000 signatures. Avelo did not comment on the petition.

“From a reputational perspective, someone in a boardroom somewhere made the decision that the hit to reputation wasn’t as important as staying alive,” said Hannah Mooney Mack, an independent strategic communications consultant.

Miller has taken action to raise awareness about the airline’s recent contract, funding two billboards near Tweed New Haven Airport that criticise Avelo’s participation in deportation flights. The signs read: “Does your vacation support their deportation? Just say AvelNO!”

“I love almost all of the things that aviation does in helping bring people together and connect communities and things like that. This is decidedly not that. And it rubbed me the wrong way,” the congressman told Al Jazeera.

“I certainly understand that from a financial perspective there may be a need. I happen to disagree with it from a moral perspective and think it’s abhorrent.”

Miller said he spent $7,000 on the billboards and 96 people contributed to the effort. Avelo reportedly convinced billboard operator Lamar Advertising to take down the ads, citing copyright concerns. Miller has since sued Avelo on First Amendment grounds. He said he’s fighting because he thinks people need to know about Avelo’s contract.

“I don’t like that this is happening, and I think other people should not fly Avelo as long as they are running these deportation flights.”

Many of the world’s poorest countries are due to make record debt repayments to China in 2025 on loans extended a decade ago, at the peak of Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative, a report by the Sydney-based Lowy Institute think tank has found.

Under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a state-backed infrastructure investment programme launched in 2013, Beijing lent billions of dollars to build ports, highways and railroads to connect Asia, Africa and the Americas.

But new lending is drying up. In 2025, debt repayments owed to China by developing countries will amount to $35bn. Of that, $22bn is set to be paid by 75 of the world’s poorest countries, putting health and education spending at risk, Lowy concluded.

“For the rest of this decade, China will be more debt collector than banker to the developing world,” said Riley Duke, the report’s author.

“Developing countries are grappling with a tidal wave of debt repayments and interest costs to China,” Duke said.

What did the report say?

China’s BRI, the biggest multilateral development programme ever undertaken by a single country, is one of President Xi Jinping’s hallmark foreign policy initiatives.

It focuses primarily on developing country infrastructure projects like power plants, roads and ports, which struggle to receive financial backing from Western financial institutions.

The BRI has turned China into the largest global supplier of bilateral loans, peaking at about $50bn in 2016 – more than all Western creditors combined.

According to the Lowy report, however, paying off these debts is now jeopardising public spending.

“Pressure from Chinese state lending, along with surging repayments to a range of international private creditors, is putting enormous financial strain on developing economies.”

High debt servicing costs can suffocate spending on public services like education and healthcare, and limit their ability to respond to economic and climate shocks.

The 46 least developed countries (LDCs) spent a significant share – about 20 percent – of their tax revenues on external public debt in 2023. Lowy’s report implies this will increase even more this year.

For context, Germany used 8.4 percent of its budget to repay debt in 2023.

Lowy also raised questions about whether China will use these debts for “geopolitical leverage” in the Global South, especially with Washington slashing foreign aid under President Donald Trump.

“As Beijing shifts into the role of debt collector, Western governments remain internally focused, with aid declining and multilateral support waning,” the report said.

While Chinese lending is also beginning to slow down across the developing world, the report said there were two areas that seemed to be bucking the trend.

The first was in nations such as Honduras, Burkina Faso and Solomon Islands, which received massive new loans after switching diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China.

The other was in countries such as Indonesia and Brazil, where China has signed new loan deals to secure critical minerals and metals for electric batteries.

How has China responded?

Beijing’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it was “not aware of the specifics” of the report but that “China’s investment and financing cooperation with developing countries abides by international conventions”.

Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said “a small number of countries” sought to blame Beijing for miring developing nations in debt but that “falsehoods cannot cover up the truth”.

For years, the BRI has been criticised by Western commentators as a way for Beijing to entrap countries with unserviceable debt.

An often-cited example is the Hambantota port – located along vital east-west international shipping routes – in southern Sri Lanka.

Unable to repay a $1.4bn loan for the port’s construction, Colombo was forced to lease the facility to a Chinese firm for 99 years in 2017.

China’s government has denied accusations it deliberately creates debt traps, and recipient nations have also pushed back, saying China was often a more reliable partner than the West and offered crucial loans when others refused.

Still, China publishes little data on its BRI scheme, and the Lowy Institute said its estimates, based on World Bank data, may underestimate the full scale of China’s lending.

In 2021, AidData – a US-based international development research lab – estimated that China was owed a “hidden debt” of about $385bn.

Does the Lowy report lack ‘context’?

Challenging the “debt-trap” narrative, the Rhodium consulting group looked at 38 Chinese debt renegotiations with 24 developing countries in 2019 and concluded that Beijing’s leverage was limited, with many of the renegotiations resolved in favour of the borrower.

According to Rhodium, developing countries had restructured roughly $50bn of Chinese loans in the decade before its 2019 study was published, with loan extensions, cheaper financing and debt forgiveness the most frequent outcomes.

Elsewhere, a 2020 study by the China Africa Research Initiative at Johns Hopkins University found that, between 2000 and 2019, China cancelled $3.4bn of debt in Africa and a further $15bn was refinanced. No assets were seized.

Meanwhile, many developing countries remain in hock to Western institutions.

In 2022, the Debt Justice Group estimated that African governments owed three times more to private financial groups than to China, charging double the interest in the process.

“Developing country debt to China is less than what is owed to both private bondholders and multilateral development banks (MDBs),” says Kevin Gallagher, director of the Boston University Global Development Policy Center.

“So, Lowy’s focus on China lacks context. The truth is, even if you remove China from the creditor picture, lots of poor countries would still be in debt distress,” Gallagher told Al Jazeera.

Following the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, inflation prompted the United States Federal Reserve, as well as other leading central banks, to hike interest rates.

Attracted to higher yields in the US, investors withdrew their funds from developing country financial assets, raising yield costs and depreciating currencies. Debt repayment costs soared.

Global interest rates have since come down slightly. But according to the UN, developing country borrowing costs are, on average, two to four times higher than in the US and six to 12 times higher than in Germany.

“A crucial aspect about Chinese lending,” said Gallagher, “is that it tends to be long-term and growth enhancing. That’s precisely why a lot of it is focused on infrastructure investment. Western lenders tend to get in and out faster and charge higher rates.”

Labour prosecutors allege that workers were brought to Brazil illegally and toiled in ‘slavery-like conditions’.

Brazilian labour prosecutors have filed a lawsuit against the Chinese auto manufacturer BYD and two contractors over allegations of illegally trafficking labourers to live and work under conditions “analogous to slavery”.

On Tuesday, the prosecutors, charged with enforcing labour laws, said in a statement that they would seek 257 million reais ($45m) in damages from BYD as well as contractors China JinJiang Construction Brazil and Tecmonta Equipamentos Inteligentes.

They accused the three companies of trafficking Chinese workers to build a BYD plant in Camacari, in the northeastern state of Bahia. There, the prosecutors allege that the companies subjected the workers to “extremely degrading” conditions.

“In December last year, 220 Chinese workers were found to be in conditions analogous to slavery and victims of international human trafficking,” the statement said.

The damages the prosecutors are seeking amount to a penalty of 50,000 reais ($8,867) per violation, multiplied by the number of workers affected, in addition to moral damages.

The lawsuit is the result of a police raid in December 2024, during which authorities say they “rescued” 163 Chinese workers from Jinjiang and 57 from Tecmonta.

The prosecutors say the workers were victims of international human trafficking and were brought to Brazil with visas that did not fit their jobs.

They also allege that conditions at the construction site left the labourers almost totally dependent on their employers, by withholding up to 70 percent of their wages and imposing high contract termination costs. Some of the workers even had their passports taken away, limiting their ability to leave, according to the prosecutors.

The lawsuit also describes meagre living conditions, including some beds without mattresses.

“In one dormitory, only one toilet was identified for use by 31 people, forcing workers to wake up around 4am to wash themselves before starting their workday,” the prosecutors’ statement notes.

Brazil is the largest market for BYD outside China. The Chinese auto giant has said that it is committed to human rights, is cooperating with authorities and will respond to the lawsuit in court.

A spokesman for the company said in December that allegations of poor working conditions were part of an effort to “smear” China and Chinese companies.

But the Brazilian labour prosecutors rejected the notion that their lawsuit was based on anti-Chinese sentiment.

“Our lawsuit is very well-founded, with a substantial amount of evidence provided during the investigation process,” deputy labour prosecutor Fabio Leal said in an interview.

He stated that the workers, who have all returned to China, would receive any payments related to the lawsuit there, with the companies in Brazil responsible for providing proof of payment.

The ruling comes as US Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy is set to pause federal funds to New York state.

New York City has won a temporary reprieve in its legal battle against the administration of US President Donald Trump, which had threatened to withhold federal funding from New York state unless the city ended its congestion pricing programme.

United States District Judge Lewis Liman held the hearing on the matter on Tuesday and granted a temporary restraining order that will allow the programme to keep running until at least June 9 as the administration and state-level officials battle over the future of congestion pricing.

A day earlier, US Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy said he believed the federal government would withhold government approvals in the state, which would have frozen contracts for highway and transit projects.

Congestion pricing is likely to move forward indefinitely despite the federal administration’s objections because the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) – New York City’s mass transit system, which is operated as a state-level agency – “showed a likelihood of success”, according to the judge.

The courts said this is because the plan was already reviewed by state, local and federal agencies, according to the New York Times newspaper.

“Congestion relief is perfectly legal and thoroughly vetted. Opponents exhausted all plausible arguments against the programme, and now the increasingly outlandish theories are falling flat, too,” Danny Pearlstein, policy and communications director for the Riders Alliance, a transportation advocacy group, told Al Jazeera.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul called the judge’s decision “a massive victory” for New York commuters.

“So here’s the deal: Secretary Duffy can issue as many letters and social media posts as he wants, but a court has blocked the Trump Administration from retaliating against New York for reducing traffic and investing in transit … Congestion pricing is legal, it’s working and we’re keeping the cameras on,” the governor’s office said in a statement.

“It’s really upsetting that it came to this point to begin with. We should not be in a position where the federal government is trying to stop New York state from enacting its own policy and trying to blackmail New York state when it doesn’t follow their [the US Department of Transportation’s] lead,” Alexa Sledge, communications director for the advocacy group Transportation Alternatives, told Al Jazeera.

New York state launched the programme in January. Drivers have to pay congestion pricing tolls of $9 per day for driving during peak times in parts of Manhattan. The state made the programme in an effort to cut congestion in the nation’s most populous city as well as raise funds for NYC’s mass transit system.

“New York state should be able to make their own laws, and they should be able to run their own streets. And so hopefully, this can be the end of this,” Sledge said.

Meeting its goals

Since the programme began earlier this year, it has fulfilled many of its goals. Within a month of congestion pricing, subway ridership increased by six percent, and bus ridership by nine percent. Traffic decreased by 11 percent.

In March, the MTA forecasted that congestion pricing would bring in $500m in revenue for the system, which will fund a swath of new transit-system projects including station upgrades and zero-emissions buses. At the time, a Siena College poll found that 42 percent of New Yorkers wanted to keep the programme, while 35 percent wanted to get rid of it.

Neither the MTA nor the US Department of Transportation was immediately available for comment.

Law to take effect on January 1 has support of social media companies, but Apple and Google oppose it.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott has signed into law a bill requiring Apple and Alphabet’s Google to verify the age of users of their app stores, putting the second most populous state in the United States at the centre of a debate over whether and how to regulate smartphone use by children and teenagers.

The bill was signed into law on Tuesday.

The law, which goes into effect on January 1, requires parental consent to download apps or make in-app purchases for users aged below 18. Utah was the first US state to pass a similar law this year, and US lawmakers have also introduced a federal bill.

Another Texas bill, passed in the state’s House of Representatives and awaiting a Senate vote, would restrict social media apps to users over the age of 18.

Wide support

Age limits and parental consent for social media apps are among the few areas of wide US consensus. A Pew Research poll in 2023 indicated that 81 percent of Americans support requiring parental consent for children to create social media accounts and 71 percent supported age verification before using social media.

The effect of social media on children’s mental health has become a growing global concern. Dozens of US states have sued Meta Platforms, and the US surgeon general has issued an advisory on safeguards for children. Australia last year banned social media for children under 16, with other countries such as Norway also considering new rules.

How to implement age restrictions has caused a conflict between Meta, the owner of Instagram and Facebook, and Apple and Google, which own the two dominant US app stores.

Meta and the social media companies Snap and X applauded the passage of the bill.

“Parents want a one-stop shop to verify their child’s age and grant permission for them to download apps in a privacy-preserving way. The app store is the best place for it, and more than one-third of US states have introduced bills recognising the central role app stores play,” the companies said.

Kathleen Farley, vice president of litigation for the Chamber of Progress, a group backed by Apple and Alphabet, said the Texas law is likely to face legal challenges on First Amendment grounds.

“A big path for challenge is that it burdens adult speech in attempting to regulate children’s speech,” Farley told the Reuters news agency in an interview on Tuesday. “I would say there are arguments that this is a content-based regulation singling out digital communication.”

Child online safety groups that backed the Texas bill have also long argued for app store age verification, saying it is the only way to give parents effective control over children’s use of technology.

“The problem is that self-regulation in the digital marketplace has failed, where app stores have just prioritised the profit over safety and rights of children and families,” Casey Stefanski, executive director for the Digital Childhood Alliance, told Reuters.

Apple and Google opposed the Texas bill, saying it imposes blanket requirements to share age data with all apps, even when those apps are uncontroversial.

“If enacted, app marketplaces will be required to collect and keep sensitive personal identifying information for every Texan who wants to download an app, even if it’s an app that simply provides weather updates or sports scores,” Apple said in a statement.

Google and Apple each have their own proposal that involves sharing age range data only with apps that require it, rather than all apps.

“We see a role for legislation here,” Kareem Ghanem, senior director of government affairs and public policy at Google, told Reuters.

“It’s just got to be done in the right way, and it’s got to hold the feet of [Meta CEO Mark] Zuckerberg and the social media companies to the fire because it’s the harm to kids and teens on those sites that’s really inspired people to take a closer look here and see how we can all do better.”

Trump Media says the money will be used to create a ‘Bitcoin treasury’.

The Trump Media and Technology Group will raise about $2.5bn to invest in Bitcoin, United States President Donald Trump’s social media firm says, as it looks to diversify its revenue streams with a push into the financial sector.

The company is raising the funds by selling $1.5bn in stock at its last closing price and $1bn in convertible notes priced at a 35 percent premium, it said in a statement on Tuesday. The money will be used to build a “Bitcoin treasury”, the company said.

The Bitcoin will be held on Trump Media’s balance sheet alongside existing cash and short-term investments totalling $759m at the end of the first quarter. Crypto platforms Anchorage Digital and Crypto.com are to provide custody for the Bitcoin holdings.

“We view Bitcoin as an apex instrument of financial freedom,” Trump Media CEO Devin Nunes said, hailing the move as a “big step forward” in the company’s plan to acquire “crown jewel assets consistent with America First principles”.

Shares of the company behind Truth Social, a streaming and social media platform, were down 6 percent in early trading.

Trump Media has been exploring potential mergers and acquisitions as it aims to diversify into financial services.

Last month, it reached a binding agreement to launch retail investment products, including cryptocurrency and exchange-traded funds aligned with Trump’s policies.

Embracing cryptocurrencies

The Trump family, long rooted in skyscrapers and golf clubs, has opened multiple beachheads in cryptocurrencies, quickly gaining hundreds of millions of dollars. Its other crypto forays include Trump nonfungible tokens (NFTs), a meme coin, a stake in a newly formed Bitcoin producer called American Bitcoin and the cryptocurrency exchange World Liberty Financial.

But the crypto push has attracted scrutiny from lawmakers, including Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, who last month asked the US securities regulator about its plans to supervise exchange-traded funds (ETFs) due to be launched by Trump Media.

Trump, who referred to cryptocurrencies in his first term as “not money”, citing their volatility and a value “based on thin air”, has shifted his views on the technology.

During an event at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida during his presidential campaign in May 2024, Trump received assurances that crypto industry backers would spend lavishly to get him re-elected.

Last week, Trump rewarded 220 of the top investors in one of his other cryptocurrency projects, the $Trump meme coin, with a swanky dinner with him at his luxury golf club in northern Virginia, spurring accusations that the president was mixing his duties in the White House with personal profit.

The lawsuit alleges the Trump administration’s move to cut federal funding to public broadcasting is a violation of the US Constitution’s First Amendment.

National Public Radio (NPR) and three of its local stations have filed a lawsuit against United States President Donald Trump, arguing that an executive order aimed at cutting federal funding for the organisation is illegal.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court on Tuesday in Washington, DC by NPR and three local stations in Colorado — Colorado Public Radio, Aspen Public Radio and KUTE Inc – argues that Trump’s executive order to slash public subsidies to PBS and NPR violates the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Trump issued the executive order earlier this month, instructing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and other federal agencies “to cease Federal funding for NPR and PBS” and requiring that they work to root out indirect sources of public financing for the news organisations. Trump issued the order after alleging there is “bias” in the broadcasters’ reporting.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting spends roughly $500m on public TV and radio annually. PBS and NPR get part of their funding from federal grants: 17 percent and two percent, respectively.

“The Order’s objectives could not be clearer: the Order aims to punish NPR for the content of news and other programming the President dislikes and chill the free exercise of First Amendment rights by NPR and individual public radio stations across the country,” the lawsuit alleges.

“The Order is textbook retaliation and viewpoint-based discrimination in violation of the First Amendment, and it interferes with NPR’s and the Local Member Stations’ freedom of expressive association and editorial discretion,” it said.

The White House’s executive order argued that editorial choices – including that NPR allegedly “refused to cover the Hunter Biden laptop story”, and that it ran a “Valentine’s Day feature around ‘queer animals’” – were some of the reasons it wanted to cut federal funding.

“This is retaliatory, viewpoint-based discrimination in violation of the First Amendment,” NPR CEO Katherine Maher said in a statement.

“NPR has a First Amendment right to be free from government attempts to control private speech as well as from retaliation aimed at punishing and chilling protected speech. By basing its directives on the substance of NPR’s programming, the Executive Order seeks to force NPR to adapt its journalistic standards and editorial choices to the preferences of the government if it is to continue to receive federal funding.”

The absence of PBS from Tuesday’s filing indicates the two systems will challenge this separately; PBS has not yet gone to court, but is likely to do so soon.

The US president’s attempts to dismantle government-run news sources like Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty have also sparked court clashes.

The administration has battled with the press on several fronts. The Federal Communications Commission is investigating ABC, CBS and NBC News. And after The Associated Press refrained from calling the Gulf of Mexico “the Gulf of America”, as Trump directed, the administration restricted the news outlet’s access to certain government events.

US President Donald Trump has backed away — for now — from imposing steep levies on the European Union, two days after he threatened the bloc with 50 percent tariffs.

On Sunday, Trump agreed to extend his deadline for trade talks until July 9, from the June 1 deadline he set on Friday, after European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the bloc needed more time to “reach a good deal”.

Von der Leyen reportedly told Trump during a phone call that the EU needed more time to come to an agreement and asked him to delay the trade duties until July, the deadline he had originally set when he announced his “reciprocal” tariffs on almost all countries around the world in April.

Trump said that he had granted the request, and that von der Leyen told him, “We will rapidly get together to see if we can work something out.” Von der Leyen said in a social media post that the EU was ready to move quickly in trade talks.

During a trip to Vietnam on Monday, French President Emmanuel Macron said that he hoped Washington and Brussels could achieve a deal with the lowest tariffs possible. “The discussions are advancing,” he told reporters.

The US president’s latest salvo comes amid Washington’s stop-and-start global trade war that kicked off in April. Trump’s moves have unnerved markets, businesses and consumers and raised fears of a global economic downturn.

But while his approach has yielded a trade deal with the United Kingdom, and negotiations are believed to be progressing with a range of other nations — from India to Vietnam to Japan — key sticking points complicate the prospects of an agreement with the EU.

Here’s what the tiff is about, and why the US and EU are struggling to reach a trade deal:

What’s the backdrop?

Trump’s recent broadside against the EU was prompted by the White House’s belief that negotiations with the bloc are not progressing fast enough. “Our discussions with them are going nowhere!” Trump posted on Truth Social.

“Therefore, I am recommending a straight 50% Tariff on the European Union, starting on June 1, 2025. There is no Tariff if the product is built or manufactured in the United States,” he wrote last Friday.

By Sunday, however, Trump had changed course. He welcomed von der Leyen’s assertion that the bloc was willing to negotiate but that it needed more time. He added that it was his “privilege” to delay the increased tariffs.

Trump said, “[von der Leyen] said she wants to get down to serious negotiation. We had a very nice call … she said we will rapidly get together and see if we can work something out,” he told reporters.

Trump is thought to be opposed to the idea of mutually cutting tariffs to zero – an EU proposal. The US president has insisted on preserving a baseline 10 percent tax on most imports from America’s trading partners.

On May 8, the UK agreed to a trade deal that kept Trump’s 10 percent reciprocal tariff rate in place.

EU trade chief Maros Sefcovic said the European Commission – the EU’s executive arm – remains committed to securing a deal that works for both sides. But he warned that EU-US trade “must be guided by mutual respect, not threats.”

In 2024, EU exports to the US totalled about 532 billion euros ($603bn). Pharmaceuticals, cars and auto parts, chemicals and aircraft were among the largest exports, according to EU data.

What is the EU offering?

Last week, the US rejected a proposal sent by the European Commission. The EU had offered to remove tariffs on industrial goods, boost access for some US agricultural products and co-develop AI data centres, Bloomberg reported.

It also proposed enhancing economic cooperation in areas like shipbuilding and port infrastructure, as well as by establishing an EU-US energy partnership covering gas, nuclear power and oil.

In exchange, Brussels wants the Trump administration to have more flexibility on lowering the 10 percent baseline tariff — including by potentially lowering it in phases over time.

While the EU has said it wants to find a negotiated solution, it has also been preparing to retaliate if necessary.

Member states have approved a 50 percent tariff on a batch of US products worth 21 billion euros ($23.8bn), including maize, wheat and clothing, which will kick in on July 14 without a deal.

The bloc is also preparing tariffs on other imported products totalling 95 billion euros ($107.8bn), targeting industrial goods like Boeing aircraft and cars, as well as bourbon.

What does the US want?

Trump has long accused the European Union of “ripping off” the US, and is determined that Brussels will adopt measures to lower its 198.2-billion-euro ($225bn) goods trade surplus with the US.

Washington has repeatedly raised concerns over Europe’s value-added tax, as well as its regulations on IT and food exports. Trump contends that these controls act as de facto trade barriers to the EU.

For his part, Sefcovic recently told the Financial Times that he wants to slash the US-EU trade deficit by buying more US gas, weapons and agricultural products.

In addition, the bloc is reportedly open to reducing its dependence on Chinese exports and on erecting tariffs against subsidised Chinese exports, which Trump is keen on.

Sefcovic and his US counterpart, Jamieson Greer, are scheduled to meet in Paris next month to discuss ways of de-escalating the ongoing US-EU trade dispute.

How badly would Trump’s tariffs affect both economies?

In 2024, the EU exported 531.6 billion euros ($603bn) in goods to the US and imported products worth 333 billion euros ($377.8bn), resulting in a trade surplus of almost 200 billion euros ($227bn).

On the flip side, the US runs a surplus of more than 109 billion euros ($124bn) in services as of 2023, with notable IT exports, led by large American tech companies, charges for intellectual property and financial services.

Trump’s tariffs would, in turn, hit both economies hard. According to a 2019 study by the International Monetary Fund, a full-scale US-EU trade war could cost 0.3-to-0.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on both sides.

The layoffs come days after US President Donald Trump threatened 50 percent tariffs on EU goods.

Swedish automaker Volvo is set to cut 3,000 white-collar jobs amid restructuring efforts as prices begin to rise due to tariff-driven uncertainty.

The company announced the news on Monday. The layoffs come as the Swedish automaker tries to resurrect its rock-bottom share price and drum up better demand for its cars by restructuring part of its business and cutting costs.

CEO Hakan Samuelsson, who was recently brought back to the role after heading the company for a decade until 2022, unveiled a programme in April to slash costs by $1.9bn (18 billion Swedish crowns), including a substantial cut to Volvo’s white-collar staff, who make up 40 percent of its workforce.

“It’s white collar in almost all areas, including R&D  [research and development], communication, human resources,” Samuelsson told the Reuters news agency.

The layoffs represent around 15 percent of the company’s office staff, Volvo Cars said in a statement, and would incur a one-time restructuring cost of $160m (1.5 billion crowns).

Volvo Cars’ new CFO Fredrik Hansson told Reuters that while all of its departments and locations would be impacted, most of the redundancies will happen in Gothenburg.

“It’s tailored to make us structurally more efficient, and then how that plays out might vary a bit depending on the area. But no stone is left unturned,” Hansson said.

With most of its production based in Europe and China, Volvo Cars is more exposed to new United States tariffs than many of its European rivals, and has said it could become impossible to export its most affordable cars to the US.

The company said in a press release that it would finalise a new structural setup by the third quarter of this year.

Volvo withdrew its financial guidance as it announced its cost cuts last month, pointing to unpredictable markets amid weaker consumer confidence and trade tariffs causing turmoil in the global auto industry.

The layoff announcement comes only days after US President Donald Trump threatened to impose a 50 percent tariff on imports from the European Union from June 1. On Monday, however, he backed away from that date, restoring a July 9 deadline to allow for talks between Washington and Brussels.

As a result, Volvo’s CEO said the move would make it harder for it to sell one of its electric vehicles (EVs) — the EX30 EV that is made in Belgium — in the US market.

Farmers demonstrate against changes to legislation that would ease restrictions on pesticide and water use in farming.

French farmers have disrupted highway traffic around Paris and rallied in front of parliament to protest against amendments filed by opposition lawmakers to a bill that would loosen environmental regulations on farming.

Members of France’s leading farming union, the FNSEA, parked about 10 tractors outside the National Assembly on Monday to put pressure on MPs, who began debating the legislation in the afternoon.

The legislation, tabled by far-right MP Laurent Duplomb, proposes simplifying approvals for breeding facilities, loosening restrictions around water use to promote irrigation reservoirs and reauthorising a banned neonicotinoid pesticide used in sugar beet cultivation that environmentalists say is harmful to bees.

The proposed law is part of a wider trend in numerous European Union states to unwind environmental legislation as farmers grapple with rising costs and households struggle with the cost-of-living crisis.

More than 150 farmers from the Ile-de-France, Grand Est and Provence-Alpes-Cote d’Azur regions gathered peacefully in front of the National Assembly, drinking coffee and eating croissants, after blocking the main roads around the capital.

“This bill to lift the constraints on the farming profession is very important to us,” FNSEA Secretary-General Herve Lapie told the AFP news agency.

“What we are asking for is simply to be able to work in a European environment: a single market, a single set of rules. We’ve been fighting for this for 20 years. For once, there’s a bill along these lines. … We don’t have the patience to wait any longer.”

The FNSEA and its allies say the neonicotinoid pesticide acetamiprid, which has been prohibited in France since 2018 due to environmental and health concerns, should be authorised in France like it is across the EU because it is less toxic to wildlife than other neonicotinoids and stops crops from being ravaged by pests.

Environmental campaigners and some unions representing small-scale and organic farmers say the bill benefits the large-scale agriculture industry at the expense of independent operators.

President Emmanuel Macron’s opponents on the political left have proposed multiple amendments that the protesting farmers said threatened the bill.

“We’re asking the lawmakers, our lawmakers, to be serious and vote for it as it stands,” Julien Thierry, a grain farmer from the Yvelines department outside Paris, told The Associated Press news agency, criticising politicians from the Greens and left-wing France Unbowed (LFI).

Ecologists party MP Delphine Batho said the text of the bill is “Trump-inspired” while LFI MP Aurelie Trouve wrote in an article for the French daily Le Monde that it signified “a political capitulation, one that marks an ecological junction”.

FNSEA chief Arnaud Rousseau said protests would continue until Wednesday with farmers from the Centre-Val de Loire and Hauts-de-France regions expected to join their colleagues.

Protests are also expected in Brussels next week, targeting the EU’s environmental regulations and green policies.

Farmers across France and Europe won concessions last year after railing against cheap foreign competition and what they say are unnecessary regulations.

ECB President Christine Lagarde argues the US economic policy shifts have created inroads for the euro to the standard currency for future global trade.

The euro could become a viable alternative to the US dollar as the global standard currency for international trade, according to European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde.

In a speech in Berlin, Germany, Lagarde said on Monday that the erratic economic policy of the United States has spooked global investors into limiting their exposure to the dollar in recent months. Many have opted to invest in gold, without seeing a viable alternative.

“The ongoing changes create the opening for a ‘global euro moment’,” she said.

Lagarde said investors seek “geopolitical assurance in another form: they invest in the assets of regions that are reliable security partners and can honour alliances with hard power”.

“The global economy thrived on a foundation of openness and multilateralism underpinned by US leadership … but today it is fracturing.”

The dollar’s role has been on the decline for years and now makes up 58 percent of international reserves, the lowest in decades, but still well above the euro’s 20 percent share.

Any enhanced role for the euro must coincide with greater military strength that can back up partnerships, Lagarde said.

Europe should also make the euro the currency of choice for businesses invoicing international trade, she said. This could be supported by forging new trade agreements, enhanced cross-border payments and liquidity agreements with the ECB.

Looming challenges

The euro’s global role has been stagnant for decades now since the European Union’s financial institutions remain unfinished and governments have shown little appetite to embark on more integration.

For this, Europe needs a deeper, more liquid capital market, must bolster its legal foundations, and needs to underpin its commitment to open trade with security capabilities, Lagarde argued.

Reforming the domestic economy may be more pressing, however, she said. The euro area capital market is still fragmented, inefficient and lacks a truly liquid, widely available safe asset that investors could flock to.

“Economic logic tells us that public goods need to be jointly financed. And this joint financing could provide the basis for Europe to gradually increase its supply of safe assets,” Lagarde said.

Joint borrowing has been taboo for some key eurozone members, particularly Germany, which fears that its taxpayers could end up having to pay for the fiscal irresponsibility of others.

If Europe succeeded, the benefits would be large, Lagarde said. The investment inflow would allow domestic players to borrow at lower cost, insulate the bloc from exchange rate movements and protect it against international sanctions.

US president continues to fuel global economic uncertainty with erratic trade policy.

United States President Donald Trump has backed away from launching a trade war with the European Union, two days after threatening to impose punishing tariffs.

Trump said on Sunday that he has agreed to extend trade negotiations with the EU to July 9 following a call with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. As part of that agreement, the US will also hold back from imposing a 50 percent tariff on imports from the bloc, which Trump announced on Friday would be imposed on June 1.

The announcement is the latest U-turn on US trade policy in a long series in recent months, and will only add to the uncertainty that Trump’s erratic and unpredictable policy is casting over the global economy.

Trump said, “[von der Leyen] said she wants to get down to serious negotiation. We had a very nice call.”

“She said we will rapidly get together and see if we can work something out,” he told reporters.

The European Commission chief noted that she had shared a “good call” with Trump and that the EU was ready to move swiftly.

Backtracked

Trump set a 90-day window for trade negotiations with the EU in April, making them due to end on July 9.

He had backtracked on Friday, saying he was not interested in reaching an agreement at all and escalated the transatlantic trade dispute.

“I’m not looking for a deal,” the president said. “We’ve set the deal – it’s at 50 percent.”

However, by Sunday, he welcomed von der Leyen’s assertion that the bloc is willing to negotiate but needs more time.

“Europe is ready to advance talks swiftly and decisively,” she recapped on X. “To reach a good deal, we would need the time until July 9.”

The bloc’s top trade negotiator, Maros Sefcovic, had on Friday urged the US to show “mutual respect, not threats”.

Trump roiled financial markets with his Liberation Day announcement in April, which threatened sweeping tariffs on multiple countries.

However, amid nosediving markets, threats of retaliation, and turmoil across the globe, the US president has in many cases softened his stance in favour of negotiations.

Washington has made deals with the United Kingdom and opened talks with China. Those moves have buoyed markets somewhat, but uncertainty persists as the US stance continues to shift.

A series of new executive orders seeks to fast-track approvals to grow the US’s nuclear energy sector, a lengthy process.

United States President Donald Trump has signed a series of new executive orders aimed at boosting nuclear energy production in the country, while rolling back regulations.

Friday’s orders, signed by Trump at an Oval Office event, called on the nation’s independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission to cut down on regulations and fast-track new licences for reactors and power plants.

One order requires the body to make decisions on new nuclear reactors within 18 months. That would severely pare down a process that can take more than a decade. Speaking from the Oval Office, Trump described the nuclear industry as “hot”.

“It’s a brilliant industry. You have to do it right,” he said, flanked by CEOs of nuclear companies, as well as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum.

Burgum told reporters that the president’s actions would “turn the clock back on over 50 years of overregulation” in the nuclear industry.

Trump’s orders also called for assessing staffing levels at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and directed the US Departments of Energy and Defense to work together to build nuclear plants on federal land.

Building more nuclear reactors, an official told reporters in advance of the signing, is aimed in part at addressing the increased energy needs created by artificial intelligence (AI) technology.

It was not immediately clear how much authority Trump and the executive branch could assert over the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which Congress created as an independent agency in 1974.

Trump’s orders also called for growth in the domestic production and enrichment of uranium, the primary fuel used in nuclear power.

‘National energy emergency’

Trump has focused heavily on energy industry deregulation since taking office for a second term in January, but much of the emphasis has been directed at fossil fuels.

On January 20, the day he returned to the White House, Trump declared a “national energy emergency”.

As part of that order, he called on the heads of federal agencies to identify any emergency powers they could use to “facilitate the identification, leasing, siting, production, transportation, refining, and generation of domestic energy resources” on federal and non-federal land.

He further called high energy prices an “active threat” to US citizens and national security.

Nuclear energy has long been a thorny issue in the US, splitting those who seek alternatives to fossil fuels.

On one hand, the industry offers a means of producing energy with low levels of greenhouse gas emissions. But on the other hand, the production of nuclear energy creates waste that can remain radioactive for long periods of time, and requires special storage to ensure public safety.

Nuclear power also carries the risk of rare, but potentially cataclysmic, accidents.

For many, incidents like the Three Mile Island accident represent the possible dangers. In 1979, the nuclear generator on Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania suffered a mechanical failure, releasing radioactive gases into the air and spurring a backlash against nuclear power.

Even with Trump’s regulatory rollback, many experts in the field believe it would take years for the US to scale up its nuclear infrastructure.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has taken its first concrete action to deliver sanctions relief for Syria, following a surprise policy pivot earlier this month.

On Friday, the US Department of the Treasury announced sweeping relief to an array of individuals and entities, which it said will “enable new investment and private sector activity consistent with [Trump’s] America First strategy”.

The US State Department, meanwhile, concurrently issued a waiver to a 2019 law, the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act, that would “enable our foreign partners, allies, and the region to further unlock Syria’s potential”.

Trump surprised the international community when, on May 13, he pledged to remove sanctions placed on Syria during the leadership of its now-ousted leader, President Bashar al-Assad.

Friday’s announcements mark an initial step towards that goal, as Syria recovers from abuses under al-Assad’s government and 13 years of civil war.

“As President Trump promised, the Treasury Department and the State Department are implementing authorizations to encourage new investment into Syria,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a statement.

“Syria must also continue to work towards becoming a stable country that is at peace, and today’s actions will hopefully put the country on a path to a bright, prosperous, and stable future”.

Sanctions relief is critical for Syria to move forward. The United States is issuing a Caesar Act sanctions waiver to increase investments and cash flows that will facilitate basic services and reconstruction in Syria. We support the Syrian people’s efforts to build a more…

— Secretary Marco Rubio (@SecRubio) May 23, 2025

Trump first unveiled his plans for sanctions relief during a tour of the Middle East in mid-May. He said lifting US sanctions would give Syria “a chance at greatness”, since the restrictions left the war-torn country economically isolated.

“It’s their time to shine. We’re taking them all off,” he said from Riyadh.

Shortly after, Trump met and shook hands with Syrian leader Ahmed al-Sharaa, who had only recently been removed from the US’s “Specially Designated Global Terrorist” list.

Appeal for relief

Calls for sanctions relief had grown following the fall of al-Assad’s government last December. As head of the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) group, al-Sharaa spearheaded the offensive that led to al-Assad fleeing the country, bringing the civil war to an end.

The war, which first broke out in 2011, had left Syria’s economy in tatters.

As many as 656,493 people were killed during the conflict, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, and a 2020 report from the United Nations estimated that the country suffered total economic losses of about $442.2bn in the first eight years of the war alone.

Sanctions have further dampened Syria’s economic outlook, making it difficult for countries with ties to the US to conduct business there.

Since taking power in December, Syria’s interim government has argued the ongoing sanctions, largely imposed during al-Assad’s rule, would slow development and cause further instability.

Trump’s announcement earlier this month buoyed hope for many Syrians of a new path forward, although the extent of the relief had remained unclear.

Earlier this week, the European Union also announced it had lifted sanctions against Syria.

Friday’s sanctions relief in the US applies to the “the Government of Syria … as in existence on or after May 13, 2025”, according to the Treasury Department.

The reprieve also applies to several previously sanctioned transportation, banking, tourism and fossil fuel entities.

Transactions related to Russia, Iran and North Korea remain under US sanctions.

One of the biggest hurdles, however, is the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act, a law that was passed in 2019, during Trump’s first term.

It included broad sanctions that targeted al-Assad’s government and its allies and supporters for atrocities committed against civilians.

The act was named after a former Syrian military photographer and whistleblower who smuggled out of the country a cache of images showing torture and mass killing at detention centres run by al-Assad’s security forces.

But since the law was passed by Congress, it will likely take an act of Congress to completely lift its restrictions.

The president, however, can issue temporary waivers to the law, which is what the Trump administration did on Friday.

In a statement, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the waiver will last for 180 days, in order to “increase investments and cash flows that will facilitate basic services and reconstruction in Syria”.

“We support the Syrian people’s efforts to build a more hopeful future,” Rubio said.

Investors interpreted Trump’s comments to mean Nippon Steel had received his approval for its takeover of US Steel.

United States President Donald Trump has expressed support for Nippon Steel’s $14.9bn bid for US Steel, saying their “planned partnership” would create jobs and help the US economy.

Shares of US Steel soared 21 percent on Friday after Trump’s comments as investors interpreted the president’s post on Truth Social to mean Nippon Steel had received his approval for its long-planned takeover, the last major hurdle for the deal.

“This will be a planned partnership between United States Steel and Nippon Steel, which will create at least 70,000 jobs, and add $14 Billion Dollars to the US Economy,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social on Friday.

This week, the Reuters news agency reported that Nippon Steel has said if the merger is approved, it would invest $14bn into US Steel’s operations, including up to $4bn in a new steel mill.

Trump added that the bulk of that investment would occur in the next 14 months and said he would hold a rally at US Steel in Pittsburgh next Friday.

Nippon Steel said it applauded Trump’s decision to approve the “partnership”. The White House did not immediately reply to questions about the announcement.

US Steel share price kept rising after hours and reached $54, just shy of Nippon Steel’s $55-per-share offer price made in late 2023. While no details were released, investors expressed confidence that terms will be similar to those agreed in 2023. Investors said that eventually US Steel will no longer be publicly traded and they will receive a cash payout for their shares.

Politically controversial

The deal has been one of the most highly anticipated on Wall Street after it morphed into the political arena with fears that foreign ownership would mean job losses in Pennsylvania, where US Steel is based. It factored into last year’s election that saw Trump return to the White House.

Pennsylvania Senator Dave McCormick, who also called the deal a “partnership”, on Friday said it was a “huge victory for America and the US Steel Corporation”, that will protect more than 11,000 Pennsylvania jobs and support the creation of at least 14,000 more.

The last pieces of the deal came together surprisingly fast. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the US (CFIUS), which reviews deals for national security risks, told the White House this week that the security risks can be addressed, Reuters reported, moving the final decision to Trump’s desk.

Following an earlier CFIUS-led review, former President Joe Biden blocked the deal in January on national security grounds.

The companies sued, arguing they did not receive a fair review process. The Biden White House rejected that view.

The companies argued Biden opposed the deal when he was running for re-election to win support from the United Steelworkers union in the battleground state of Pennsylvania. The Biden administration had defended the review as essential to protecting security, infrastructure and supply chains.

Trump also initially opposed the deal, arguing the company must be owned and operated in the US.

The United Steelworkers were against the deal as recently as Thursday when they urged Trump to block the deal despite the $14bn investment pledge from Trump.

For investors, including prominent hedge funds, the news spells relief after more than a year of waiting for a resolution. “There were huge high-fives all around today,” one recent investor said, adding, “We understood Donald Trump’s psyche and we played it to our advantage here.”

Investors said Trump appears to have won ground after the pledge for new investments was increased.

“This deal ensures that steelmaking will live on in Pittsburgh for generations,” another investor said.

The DOJ is expected to have a written agreement with Boeing in place by the end of next week.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has struck a deal in principle with Boeing to allow it to avoid prosecution in a fraud case stemming from two fatal 737 MAX plane crashes that killed 346 people, a harsh blow to the families of the victims.

Boeing will pay more than $1.1bn, including the fine and compensation to families, and more than $455m to strengthen the company’s compliance, safety, and quality programmes, the DOJ said on Friday.

The aircraft maker also agreed to pay an additional $444.5m into a crash victims’ fund that would be divided evenly per crash victim on top of an additional $243.6m fine.

“Boeing must continue to improve the effectiveness of its anti-fraud compliance and ethics program and retain an independent compliance consultant,” the DOJ said on Friday. “We are confident that this resolution is the most just outcome with practical benefits.”

The agreement allows Boeing to avoid being branded a convicted felon and is a blow to families who lost relatives in the crashes and had pressed prosecutors to take the US planemaker to trial. A lawyer for family members and two US senators had urged the DOJ not to abandon its prosecution, but the government quickly rejected the requests.

The DOJ expects to file the written agreement with Boeing by the end of next week. Boeing will no longer face oversight by an independent monitor under the agreement.

Boeing did not immediately comment.

No more guilty plea

Boeing had reached a tentative non-prosecution agreement with the government on May 16, as first reported by the news agency Reuters.

The agreement would forestall a June 23 trial date the planemaker faces on a charge it misled US regulators about a crucial flight control system on the 737 MAX, its best-selling jet.

Boeing in July had agreed to plead guilty to a criminal fraud conspiracy charge after the two fatal 737 MAX crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia spanning 2018 and 2019, pay a fine of up to $487.2m and face three years of independent oversight.

Boeing no longer will plead guilty, prosecutors told family members of crash victims during a meeting last week.

The company’s posture changed after a judge rejected a previous plea agreement in December, prosecutors told the family members.

Judge Reed O’Connor in Texas said in 2023 that “Boeing’s crime may properly be considered the deadliest corporate crime in US history.”

Boeing has faced enhanced scrutiny from the Federal Aviation Administration since January 2024, when a new MAX 9 missing four key bolts suffered a mid-air emergency losing a door plug. The FAA has capped production at 38 planes per month.

DOJ officials last year found Boeing had violated a 2021 agreement, reached during the first Trump administration’s final days, that had shielded the planemaker from prosecution for the crashes.

That conclusion followed the January 2024 in-flight emergency during an Alaska Airlines’ flight. As a result, DOJ officials decided to reopen the 2018-19 fatal crashes case and negotiate a plea agreement with Boeing.

Abu Dhabi’s IMI will take a minority stake in the company of no more than 15 percent.

A consortium led by US investment firm RedBird Capital Partners has agreed to buy the publisher of the United Kingdom’s 170-year-old Daily Telegraph newspaper for about $674m (500 million pounds).

Redbird said it has reached an agreement in principle to become controlling owner of the Telegraph Media Group, ending a lengthy takeover saga for the conservative-leaning newspaper on Friday.

Gerry Cardinale, founder and managing partner of RedBird, said the sale “marks the start of a new era for The Telegraph as we look to grow the brand in the UK and internationally, invest in its technology and expand its subscriber base”.

The Telegraph group, previously owned by the UK’s Barclay family, was put up for sale two years ago to help pay off the family’s debts. It publishes the Daily and Sunday Telegraph newspapers and weekly newsmagazine The Spectator, which all are closely allied to the UK’s Conservative Party.

In 2023, there was an offer to buy the publications from RedBird IMI, a consortium backed by RedBird Capital Partners and Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, a member of Abu Dhabi’s royal family and the vice president of the United Arab Emirates.

But the consortium pulled out last year following strong opposition from the UK government, which launched legislation to block foreign state ownership of the British press.

Under the deal, Abu Dhabi’s IMI will take a minority stake of not more than 15 percent in the Telegraph as a member of the consortium. The sale must be approved by British regulators.

RedBird has investments in football team AC Milan, the parent company of Liverpool football club and film production company Skydance.

Telegraph Media Group chief executive Anna Jones said that “RedBird Capital Partners have exciting growth plans that build on our success — and will unlock our full potential across the breadth of our business.”

The Spectator was sold in September to British hedge fund investor Paul Marshall.