Gamble

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom stepped to the microphone at the state Democratic headquarters in mid-August with the conviction of a man certain he was on the right side of history, bluntly saying California has a moral obligation to thwart President Trump’s attempt to tilt the balance of Congress.

Over the next 2½ months, Newsom became the public face of Proposition 50, a measure designed to help Democrats win control of the U.S. House of Representatives by temporarily redrawing California’s congressional districts.

Newsom took that leap despite tepid support for a gerrymandering measure in early polls.

With Tuesday’s election, the fate of Proposition 50 arrives at a pivotal moment for Newsom, who last week acknowledged publicly that he’s weighing a 2028 presidential run. The outcome will test not only his political instincts but also his ability to deliver on a measure that has national attention fixed squarely on him.

From the outset, Newsom paired his conviction with caution.

“I’m mindful of the hard work ahead,” Newsom said in August, shortly after lawmakers placed Proposition 50 on the ballot.

It was familiar territory for a governor who has built a career on high-stakes political bets. As San Francisco mayor, his decision to issue same-sex marriage licenses in 2004 made him a progressive icon. It also drew accusations he’d energized conservative turnout that year in the presidential election that ended with George W. Bush winning a second term.

As the state’s newly elected governor, he suspended the death penalty in 2019 despite voters having twice rejected measures to do so, calling it a costly and biased system that “fails to deliver justice” — a move that drew fury from law enforcement groups and victims’ families. His decision to take on Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in a 2023 prime-time debate hosted by Sean Hannity on Fox News was intended to showcase his command of policy and political agility, but instead fell flat amid an onslaught of insults.

With Proposition 50, Newsom placed himself at the center of another potentially career-defining gamble before knowing how it would land. Ahead of Tuesday’s special election, polling suggests he may have played his cards right. Six out of 10 likely voters support Proposition 50, according to a survey by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies that was co-sponsored by The Times.

“You know, not everybody would have done it,” veteran Democratic strategist Gale Kaufman said. “He saw the risk and he took it.”

If approved by voters, the ballot measure would redraw California’s congressional maps to favor Democrats beginning with the 2026 midterm elections in hopes of discounting Republican efforts to gerrymander more seats for themselves. California introduced the measure in response to Trump and his political team leaning on Republican-led states to redraw their district lines to help Republicans retain control of the House.

The balance of power in the closely divided House will determine whether Trump can advance his agenda during his final two years in office — or face an emboldened Democratic majority that could move to challenge, or even investigate, his administration.

And while critics of the governor see a power-craving politician chasing headlines and influence, supporters say this is classic Newsom: confident, risk-tolerant and willing to stand alone when he believes he’s right. He faced intense backlash from his political allies when he had conservative personality Charlie Kirk as his inaugural guest on his podcast this year, on which Newsom said he believed it was “deeply unfair” for transgender athletes to compete in women’s sports. After Kirk was killed, Newsom regularly brought up that interview as a point of pride, noting the backlash he received from his own party over hosting a Trump ally.

In recent months Newsom struck a deal to stabilize struggling oil refineries, pushed cities to ban homeless encampments and proposed walking back healthcare coverage for undocumented immigrants — a series of moves that have tested his standing with progressives. Supporters say the moves show his pragmatic streak, while critics argue they reflect a shift to the center ahead of a possible presidential run.

“In so many ways, he is not a cautious politician,” said Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Law School. “His brand is big, bold decisions.”

With Proposition 50, Newsom has cast the redistricting counterpunch as a moral imperative, arguing that Democrat-led states must “fight fire with fire,” even if it means pausing a state independent redistricting process largely considered the gold standard. The measure upends a system Californians overwhelmingly endorsed to keep politics out of the map-drawing process.

Levinson said Newsom’s profile has been rising along with the polling numbers for Proposition 50 as he has booked national television shows like ‘The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” and appeared in an ad in favor of the ballot measure with former President Obama, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and other prominent Democrats that ran during the World Series.

“We are talking about Proposition 50 on a nationwide scale,” Levinson said. “And it’s really hard to talk about Proposition 50 without saying the words ‘Gov. Newsom of California spearheading the effort to pass.’”

California Republicans have called the effort misguided, arguing that the retaliatory response creates a slippery slope that would erode the independent redistricting process California voters have chosen twice at the ballot box.

“When you fight fire with fire, the whole world burns,” said California Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin), whose district is among those that would be overhauled under Proposition 50. “Newsom is trying to claim that Texas did a bad gerrymandering, but what California is doing is a good gerrymander because somehow it’s canceling it out … I just think gerrymandering is wrong. It’s wrong in Texas and it’s wrong in California.”

Kiley said Newsom never has been one to shy away from national attention “and for pursing explicitly partisan goals.”

“He’s certainly used this as an opportunity to do both of those things,” Kiley said.

Out of the gate, the redistricting plan had lackluster support. Then came the flood of ads by proponents peppered with talking points about Trump rigging the election.

Supporters of Proposition 50 took in more than four times the amount that opponents raised in recent weeks, according to campaign finance reports filed with the state by the three main committees campaigning about the measure. Supporters of Proposition 50 raised so much money that Newsom told them “you can stop donating.”

Political analysts said the redistricting fight has given Newsom what every ambitious politician craves: a narrative. It’s allowed him to cast himself as a defender of democracy while reenergizing donors. That message sharpened when Trump administration officials said they’d monitor polling sites in several California counties at the state GOP’s request, prompting Newsom to accuse the Trump administration of “voter intimidation.”

Republican strategist Rob Stutzman said the campaign gave Newsom something he’d struggled to find: “an authentic confrontation” with Trump that resonates beyond California.

“And I think it’s worked well for him nationally,” Stutzman said. “I think it’s been great for him in some ways, regardless of what happens, but if it does lose, it’ll hurt the brand that he can win and there will be a lot of disgruntled donors.”

While Newsom has framed the measure as good for the country, Stutzman said it’s clear that Proposition 50 has been particularly good for the governor.

“He’s used it for his own purposes very, very effectively,” Stutzman said. “If he becomes the [presidential] nominee, you could look back and say this was an important part of him getting there.”

After City scored, they took a defensive approach unlike one Guardiola has opted for previously.

They sat deep and blocked the centre of the pitch, making it difficult for Arsenal to find striker Viktor Gyokeres or attacking midfielders between the lines. Guardiola has typically asked his team to defend in a 4-4-2 and did to begin with, but City moved into a 5-4-1 or 5-5-0 as the game progressed.

So why did he opt for this approach?

This was the third game in seven days for an unchanged City side who were fatigued, according to Guardiola. Most teams would struggle to stifle Arsenal’s excellent build-up play, but with City tiring, defending deep prevented them from being exposed trying to press Arsenal.

It wasn’t just about stopping the build-up, but preventing Arsenal creating chances.

Arteta’s men eventually got their equaliser but it was telling the goal came from a direct ball over a City defence that had stepped up, rather than when the visitors sat deep.

Arsenal dominated the ball, but the 68% possession they had amounted to 0.61 expected goals in the second half.

The Gunners have played through the middle this season with Martin Zubimendi and Riccardo Calafiori key to this, before releasing their direct attackers.

City aimed to nullify Arsenal’s dangerous central quality by putting numerous bodies in the middle of the pitch. They also aimed to nullify runners by reducing the space they had in behind by being close to their own goal.

It is unlikely City will play that deep consistently going forward, but it was interesting to see such an attacking manager like Guardiola deploy a shape without a recognised striker, given his previous quotes about the formation.

“In prehistoric times, now and in 100,000 years, it is always very difficult to attack a 5-5 formation,” were his words when facing a similar tactical gameplan deployed by Atletico Madrid in 2022.

Ultimately it was a combination of acknowledging City’s fatigue and strong counter-attackers, while wanting to minimise Arsenal’s quality – particularly the home side’s directness, build-up and central attackers – that help explain the unique approach.

Dividend powerhouse Procter & Gamble (PG 0.94%) owns some of the world’s most valuable consumer brands, including Tide detergent, Crest toothpaste, Pampers diapers, and Bounty paper towels. But over the last year, its stock has badly lagged the S&P 500.

How high has P&G’s stock ever gotten? And can it get there again?

The top of the mountain

P&G stock hit its all-time closing high of $179.90/share on Dec. 2, 2024. But 2025 hasn’t been kind to the consumer staples behemoth. The stock is currently down more than 13% from its all-time high.

P&G shares beat the market from December 2018 to November 2023. P&G returned 83.4% to the S&P 500’s 81.4%.

Image source: Getty Images.

Then, in December 2023, the S&P 500 rose sharply, while P&G’s stock declined. Even though P&G stock recovered the very next month, keeping pace with the S&P 500 for the next nine months, that one-month blip was enough to derail the company’s historical performance. A year later, on the day it hit its all-time high, its five-year total return of 65.7% badly trailed the S&P 500’s 110.3% total return.

What it tells us

This is a good reminder to look at multiple timeframes when researching a stock’s historical performance. I recommend comparing at least the one-, five-, and 10-year returns of a stock to the S&P 500 (and be sure to use total returns — which factor in reinvestment of dividends — when looking at dividend payers like P&G).

Today, P&G’s fundamentals look sound. Revenue is at all-time highs of $84.3 billion, and net income is up sharply at $16.1 billion over the same timeframe. The company plans to cut 7,000 jobs and shed a number of underperforming brands, focusing instead on its major moneymakers. But sales of P&G’s higher-priced brands may take a hit in the event of a recession, which is probably what’s weighing down the stock.

Rob Furber, whose new book The Gambler tell his weird, wacky and wonderful betting exploits over the last two decades, discovered he had a talent for special bets after correctly guessing the winner of Strictly Come Dancing – but had no idea what was to come.

Rob Furber was one of millions sitting anxiously on their edge of their sofas on December 17, 2005, to find out who had won the third series of Strictly Come Dancing.

The struggling freelance writer wasn’t particularly a fan of ballroom, weekend TV or the recent surge in reality shows. But tonight he was particularly invested – because of the £20 bet he’d placed.

Weeks earlier, Rob had become convinced that rank outsider, Darren ‘Dazzler’ Gough, would win the show – not because the former cricketer could dance, but because he would appeal to the Strictly audience demographic at the time. And when Bruce Forsyth revealed the results of the final public vote, Rob’s 25-1 punt earned him a £500 win. It comes after a woman claimed ‘I regret marrying an older man, one part of our history has given me the ick’.

READ MORE: Brits told to never put one banned item in garden bins as you could face punishmentREAD MORE: ‘My friend is naming her baby after a fish – she can’t see how ugly it is’

He recalls: “I punched the air with delight. It had been the only bet I’d made in the entire series. It was a lightbulb moment. I realised I could probably make more money betting on reality TV shows than I scratching around for freelance work or doing the odd shift.”

So began a nail-biting, exhilarating and unexpectedly romantic journey through the strange world of ‘special’ betting, which Rob describes in his new book, The Gambler.

He would go on to gamble on everything from Eurovision and royal baby names to even when a panda in Edinburgh Zoo would give birth.

Perhaps his riskiest bet of all, though, wasn’t made in a bookmakers, but a gamble on love that took him all the way to a remote part of Russia, still not entirely sure that the woman he’d met online wasn’t an elaborate scam by a kidnapping gang.

When, months after his Gough win, he correctly bet that Chantelle Houghton would win Celebrity Big Brother, earning him close to £1,500 profit, then successfully plumped for Matt Willis to win I’m a Celebrity, Rob realised he had a special gift.

When Strictly came around again, he once again picked out the winner, another test cricketer, Mark Ramprakash, even before the series had even started.

This time he gambled £250 on odds of 16/1, taking home a tidy £4,000 when Ramps was handed the glitter ball.

READ MORE: Stage school star Sylvia Young’s savage reprimand to young Rita Ora over rule-break

Rob says it was a series of happy coincidences that turned him into a successful full-time gambler.

“I’d grown up near Newmarket, so flat racing was in my blood and I wasn’t averse to having a bet,” he says. “I was in my mid-20s, working in London on business titles, but I wasn’t enjoying it. I found the 9-5 of office life soul crushing, so decided to embark on a freelance life instead. I was a lot happier.”

Being at home also meant he could watch more television. “The early Noughties saw the advent of reality TV. I was watching the competitions and thinking, ‘I can work this out’.

“My media background helped. Just reading between the lines, knowing what the shows are trying to achieve and the power of the edit, as well as the profile of the audience who were voting, I was getting good at predicting who would end up winning.”

Rob began to spend hours researching reality show contestants and how they might be received by particular audiences.

One of Rob’s biggest jackpots was betting on Tara Palmer-Tomkinson to win Celebrity Fame Academy. He says: “Shaun Williamson, who played Barry from Eastenders, was odds on favourite. But while he could let out a song, I didn’t think he could pull heartstrings like Tara. She didn’t have a great voice, but it was really emotive watching her sing Coldplay songs at the piano.

“That’s where the skill likes, knowing what the audience is going to invest in. Those special ingredients. I found that I could identify them and know who was going to make a connection.”

He also predicted well before everyone else Jedward’s success on The X Factor.

“I knew what Simon Cowell was doing. He was being disparaging of Jedward knowing more people would vote for them to spite him. He wanted them to stay on the show.

“But the bookies were slow to catch on and always priced them very short, every week thinking they were able to get booted out.”

From TV, Rob discovered the world of ‘specials’ – novelty bets that bookies offer on everything from the Nobel Peace Prize and politics to Miss Universe and Royal baby names.

One big win was when he correctly predicted the opening and closing songs Coldplay were going to perform in the 2016 Super Bowl half-time show – and this time it wasn’t guesswork

He says: “A fellow special sleuth infiltrated some of the Coldplay online fan sites, and got the setlist from someone on there. We found out they were going to open with Yellow and end with Up&Up. When you get something like this is is absolutely gold-plated information. It ended up netting me around £1,500.”

Eurovision is a huge part of Rob’s year. He says: “It’s the biggest betting event of them all. It starts around Christmas, with the first country qualifiers. It’s five months of relentless study, every day you’ve got to be all over the news and tune in to all the qualifiers.

“One of my best wins was coming across Portugal’s Salvador Sobral, even before he was picked as the country’s entry. I found his song spellbinding. It was getting odds of 110-1 on Betfair at the time, but he went on to win. Another five-figure profit secured.”

But Rob’s biggest bet of all was when he realised that his new career in betting was leaving him a virtual recluse at home, and facing the possibility of never finding a lifelong partner – so decided to join a dating site for Western men interested in Eastern European women.

Some were clearly sophisticated scams, which made Rob’s decision to go and meet one woman, Anya, in a provincial part of Russia, even riskier.

Rob says: “This was something with more jeopardy than anything else I’d bet on so far, with an unpredictability I couldn’t control or outsmart.

“I applied my gambler’s mindset and thought, nothing ventured, nothing gained, let’s go for it. What’s the worst that could happen?”

Like many of his other wacky bets, this one paid off too, turning into a rollercoaster love affair that ended happily ever after.

Now happily married, Rob and Anya’s against-the-odds, long-distance romance ended up being the most enthralling story of his book, The Gambler.

“I’d like to think the book is an irreverent and laugh-out-loud funny look at risk, romance and what happens when you bet on love,” Rob says. “I hope it comes across as an authentic and honest portrayal and challenges the reader to think about what they are prepared to gamble on in life, and what matters most.”

• The Gambler by Rob Furber, published by Mirror Books (£9.99), is on sale now from Amazon and all good bookshops.

When looking at a majestic residence like the 1908 Gamble House — a Craftsman crown jewel of Pasadena — its easy to romanticize the lives of its owners. Luxury and wealth radiate from its graceful, low-slung eaves, sloping lawns and wide porches. But the idea of class is baked into its architecture, with a series of rooms built to be occupied by the domestic servants who toiled day and night to keep the house running for its privileged inhabitants, the heirs to the Proctor & Gamble fortune.

Through Aug. 17, those rooms are open for tours with the addition of a compelling art installation by Karen Schwenkmeyer and Lisa Mann titled “Dirty Laundry,” which examines the heartache, disappointments and perseverance of domestic laborers in the early 20th century by printing their words on tea towels and sheets hung in the Gamble House’s drying yard, and stitching them into a pillowcase in one of the small staff bedrooms.

“What I mind is the awful loneliness,” reads the pillowcase on austere wooden twin bed. “Many times, many nights I went to bed and cried myself sick.”

A sculpture constructed of Ivory soap, mops and scrub brushes takes up residence in the staff bathroom. The soap, one of Procter & Gamble’s bestselling products, was marketed as 99.44% pure, and the sculpture is a meditation on “who is pure and who is not,” explained Mann during an opening reception for the installation, adding that she and Schwenkmeyer approached the lavatory as “a place of resistance and empowerment.”

The goal of the installation, say Schwenkmeyer and Mann, was to bring to light the “emotional and psychological toll of being on-call every day of the week.”

A tea towel blowing in the warm Southern California air puts it more plainly: “I hope someday will come when I don’t have to work so hard … I do hate to get up in the morning. I am so tired.”

Artists Karen Schwenkmeyer and Lisa Mann stand with their installation “Dirty Laundry” at the Gamble House in Pasadena.

(Paul Takizawa)

Domestic staff in many of the country’s most rarefied households was made up of immigrants who came to America looking for a better life only to find themselves stuck in the same classist , low-wage systems they had fled in the first place, the artists explan.

“Servants in the United States ‘were haunted by a confused and imperfect phantom of equality,’ which promised perfect parity at one moment but then suddenly shouted a reminder that some people are more equal than others,” reads a bedsheet quoting from a book about Americans and their servants by Daniel E. Sutherland, which greets visitors upon entrance to the yard.

Thinking of these words and imagining the lives of the many men, women and children who devoted their lives to caring for wealthy people is a potent way to walk through the beautiful rooms inside the Gamble House. We may not call domestic laborers servants anymore, but the way we choose to treat those who tend to our many needs — to see them and respect them, or not — speaks volumes of who we are as a society.

I’m arts and culture writer Jessica Gelt, rethinking all my assumptions about a bar of soap. Here’s this weeks art news.

Best bets: On our radar this week

The Broadway cast of the musical comedy “Some Like it Hot” in 2022. The national tour is now playing at the Hollywood Pantages.

(Courtesy of Marc J. Franklin)

Some Like It Hot
This musical adaptation of Billy Wilder’s 1959 film comedy about two musicians who go on the run disguised as women after witnessing a mob hit in prohibition-era Chicago brings a contemporary sensibility to the 1930s shenanigans. The Broadway production won four Tony Awards in 2023.
Through Aug. 17. Hollywood Pantages Theatre, 6233 Hollywood Blvd., Hollywood. broadwayinhollywood.com

Keith Carradine and Shelly Duvall in Robert Altman’s “Nashville.”

(Paramount Pictures)

Robert Altman’s America: A Centennial Review
UCLA Film and Television Archive celebrates the late filmmaker’s 100th birthday with a 13-film series that kicks off with 1976’s “Nashville,” which melds politics with country music and features a large ensemble including Ned Beatty, Karen Black, Ronee Blakley, Keith Carradine, Geraldine Chaplin, Shelley Duvall, Barbara Harris, Lily Tomlin and dozens more.
7:30 p.m. Friday; series continues through Sept. 26. Billy Wilder Theater, UCLA Hammer Museum, 10899 Wilshire Blvd., Westwood. cinema.ucla.edu

Musician Adrian Quesada performs a free concert, co-hosted by De Los, on Saturday.

(James Carbone/For De Los)

Adrian Quesada
De Los, The Times’ platform for all things Latinidad, co-hosts a free concert by the Grammy-winning musician and Oscar-nominated songwriter. Best known for his work in the bands Grupo Fantasma and Black Pumas, Quesada’s latest album, “Boleros Psicodélicos II,” is “a 12-track sonic field trip through Quesada’s Latin American influences — and a testament to teamwork,” wrote Carlos De Loera in a recent De Los profile.
6 p.m. Saturday. Grand Performances, 350 S. Grand Ave., downtown L.A. grandperformances.org

The Actors’ Gang’s performance of “Roswell That Ends Well.”

(Bob Turton Photography)

Roswell That Ends Well
The Actors’ Gang turns the Bard on his ear in this year’s Shakespeare in the Park production, an adaptation of “All’s Well That Ends Well” where outer space meets the Wild West in the form of a determined cowgirl with big dreams and a four-armed alien king.
11 a.m. Saturdays and Sundays, through Aug. 24. Admission is free, reservations highly suggested. Media Park, 9070 W. Venice Blvd., Culver City. theactorsgang.com

Chow Yun-Fat in John Woo’s “A Better Tomorrow.”

(Shout! Studios)

Hong Kong Cinema Classics
The American Cinematheque and Beyond Fest, in partnership with Shout! Studios and GKIDS, present a retrospective of seminal films, many of which are rarely screened. Genre master John Woo will appear with his films “Hard Boiled” (7 p.m. Saturday), a triple feature of the “A Better Tomorrow” trilogy (11 a.m. Sunday) and “The Killer” (7 p.m. Sunday). The monthlong series also includes films by stalwart action directors Tsui Hark, Ringo Lam and Ching Siu-tung.
7 p.m. Saturday; 11 a.m. Sunday; 7 p.m. Sunday. Egyptian Theatre, 6712 Hollywood Blvd. americancinematheque.com

Karl Benjamin, #13, 1970. Oil on canvas, 68” x 68”

(Gerard Vuilleumier)

Complications in Color
A new exhibition marks the 100th birthday of Claremont artist Karl Benjamin (1925-2012), a painter and leader in the 1950s hard-edge abstraction painting movement. In his review of the 2007 survey of the painter’s work, Times art critic Christopher Knight wrote, “Benjamin emerges as a colorist of great wit and inventiveness.” The current exhibition also features the work of fellow abstractionists Florence Arnold, June Harwood, Rachel Lachowicz and Terry O’Shea.
Noon-4 p.m. Thursdays and Saturdays; noon-7 p.m. Fridays; 10 a.m.-4 p.m. Sundays, through Nov. 16. Claremont Lewis Museum of Art, 200 W. First St., Claremont. clmoa.org

Gustavo Dudamel is back at the Hollywood Bowl on Tuesday and Thursday.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Gustavo Dudamel returns
The maestro is back at the Bowl next week and makes the most of it. On Tuesday, he conducts the L.A. Phil as Ravel meets Ellington with a little help from star Korean pianist Seong-Jin Cho. Two nights later, Dudamel’s back leading the orchestra in works by Korngold (Featuring violinist Vilde Frang) and Mahler. Dudamel completes this brief concert run Aug. 8-9, conducting John Williams’ crowd-favorite “Jurassic Park” score over a live screening of the summer blockbuster.
Ellington and Ravel. 8 p.m. Tuesday; Mahler and Korgold, 8 p.m. Thursday. Hollywood Bowl, 2301 N Highland Ave. hollywoodbowl.com

Culture news

Wallis Annenberg, who died Monday at 86, photographed in 2022.

(Mel Melcon/Los Angeles Times)

Philanthropist Wallis Annenberg — whose name became synonymous with arts and culture in Los Angeles — died earlier this week of complications from lung cancer at the age of 86. The wealthy patron was memorialized in tributes for her commitment to making art accessible to people from all walks of life, as well as for her friendship and love of animals. Annenberg was the daughter of publishing magnate Walter Annenberg, who made his fortune, in part, by selling TV Guide, among other publications, to Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. For the last 16 years of her life, Wallis served as chairwoman of the board, president and chief executive of her family’s Annenberg Foundation.

Only July 23, Congressman Bob Onder introduced the Make Entertainment Great Again Act, which proposed that the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts be renamed the Donald J. Trump Center for Performing Arts. NPR reported that the bill is likely a long shot.

The SoCal Scene

Adam Lambert performs during a rehearsal of “Jesus Christ Superstar” on July 26 at the Hollywood United Methodist Church in Los Angeles.

(Etienne Laurent / For The Times)

“Jesus Christ Superstar,” starring Cynthia Erivo as Jesus and Adam Lambert as Judas , opens tonight at the Hollywood Bowl for a sold-out, three-night run. I spent last Saturday at a rehearsal dishing with Josh Gad on the sidelines while watching Lambert strut his stuff and tearing up over Phillipa Soo’s performance of “I Don’t Know How to Love Him.” Read my behind-the-scenes story of how the musical came together and why the casting is so important in this era of political turmoil and change. (Gad, who was to play King Herod, had to drop out of the show Wednesday, after contracting COVID.)

The Norton Simon Museum’s Garden Pond.

(Norton Simon Museum)

The Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena is celebrating its 50th anniversary with a variety of special programs and events. In August, the museum is holding a Saturday afternoon film series titled, “Cinematic Touchstones 1975,” which features four movies that made a lasting impact on the culture 50 years ago. The stellar lineup consists of “Mahogany,” “Escape to Witch Mountain,” “Grey Gardens” and “Barry Lyndon.” Admission to the theater is free with general admission to the museum. For schedule and additional details, click here.

The Santa Ynez Chumash Museum and Cultural Center opened in May in the tiny Santa Barbara County town on 3.5 acres of land planted with native blooms, trees, grasses and shrubs. Times staff writer Jeanette Marantos paid a recent visit and reported back on the high-tech interactive displays that bring the past to life and highlight the continuing importance of the tribe and its lasting impact on the area.

The nonprofit organization Tierra Del Sol, which champions professional development through arts education for people with disabilities, will stage its inaugural fashion show in West Hollywood on Sept. 27. The show will showcase hand-crafted designs from eight developmentally disabled artists working out of the organization’s Sunland and Upland studios. After the runway show, the creations will remain at Tierra del Sol’s Gallery, located at 7414 Santa Monica Blvd., for a six-week exhibition, ending Nov. 1.

— Jessica Gelt

And last but not least

There is nothing as soul-soothing as a hot bowl of pho — and that’s pho sure! The Times Food section has created a list of 11 great spots to eat your fill.

The world’s largest consumer goods maker said it will have to raise prices on a quarter of its products starting in August.

Procter & Gamble has said it will need to raise prices on a quarter of the goods it sells in the United States starting this month in order to mitigate costs it has faced because of the tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump.

On Tuesday, in conjunction with its earnings report, the world’s largest consumer goods maker named Shailesh Jejurikar as its new chief executive officer as the company navigates tariff-driven uncertainty weighing on the sector.

The price hikes have been communicated to retailers such as Walmart and Target and are in the mid-single digits across categories, a spokesperson said, and will be seen on shelves starting in August.

In May, Walmart also announced that it would need to raise prices on goods sold at the big box retailer because of the economic impact of tariffs.

P&G topped fourth-quarter estimates for its earnings report. The Cincinnati, Ohio-based firm reported revenue of $20.89bn for the quarter. Organic sales grew about 2 percent in fiscal 2025, driven by P&G’s portfolio of branded pantry staples, as well as higher pricing, particularly for fresher products. But that comes as growth is expected to slow.

Growth stalls

P&G expects fiscal 2026 annual net sales growth of between 1 percent and 5 percent, largely below estimates of a 3.09 percent growth.

Market growth slowed from where it was at the start of the year in both the US and Europe, and volatile macroeconomic, geopolitical and consumer dynamics were resulting in headwinds that were not anticipated at the start of the year, CFO Andre Schulten said during a call with journalists.

“The consumer clearly is more selective in terms of shopping behaviour in our categories, and we see a desire to find value either by going into larger pack sizes in club channel or online or big box retailers or by lowering the cash outlay,” Schulten said.

The comments from the company reinforce how consumers, particularly in the lower-income category, are seeking value as they look to stretch their household budgets. Packaged food maker Nestle said last week that consumer spending in North America remained weak.

“Given the immense pressure put on US consumers in particular, the organic growth is a very good sign that long-term earnings projections should hold up,” said Brian Mulberry, portfolio manager at Zacks Investment Management.

P&G, which makes household basics spanning from Bounty paper towels to Metamucil fibre supplements, estimated tariffs will increase its costs by about $1bn before tax for fiscal 2026. That compares with projections of between $1bn and $1.5bn made in April.

The company rolled out a restructuring effort in June to exit some brands and cut about 7,000 jobs over the next two years to increase productivity. Prices rose about 1 percent in the fourth quarter, while volumes were flat.

P&G expects fiscal 2026 core net earnings per share growth in the range of $6.83 and $7.09, compared with estimates of $6.99, according to estimates compiled by LSEG.

On Wall Street, the company’s stock over the last five days is down 0.5 percent, down 1.1 percent for the month and since the beginning of the year, it has tumbled 5.15 percent.

The Valdai Discussion Club, in partnership with the South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA), will hold the 3rd Russian-African conference titled “Realpolitik in a Divided World: Rethinking Russia-South Africa Ties in a Global and African Context” in late July 2025. The primary goal of the conference is to form and expand communities of African and Russian experts interested in cooperation, the confidential discussion of the most pressing international issues, and the preparation of recommendations for practical foreign policy work.

It is no coincidence that South Africa has been chosen as the venue for the Valdai’s conference. In 2025, South Africa chairs the G20 summit. In preparation for the upcoming late July conference, Steven Gruzd, Head of the African Governance and Diplomacy Programme and the Africa-Russia Project at the South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA), offers an insight into the current Russia-South Africa relations, the United States trade issues with Africa, and Africa’s future prospects in this rapidly changing world. Here are the interview excerpts:

The South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA) will host the 3rd Russian-African conference of the Valdai Discussion Club in South Africa. Within the context of the shifting geopolitics, what would you say, in terms of current Russia-South Africa relations, its status and prospects, as one of the themes for discussion?

Steven Gruzd: SAIIA looks forward to co-hosting the Third Russian-African Conference of the Valdai Discussion Club later in July 2025. We believe that it is important to interact and engage with a variety of actors in a balanced and nuanced way. We do not believe that academic boycotts are constructive.

The event is being held against the backdrop of rapidly shifting global geopolitics and the erosion of the “rules-based international order,” as nationalism is reasserted and conflicts endure in the Great Lakes in East-Central Africa and in the Middle East.

South Africa has maintained good relations with Russia throughout the last decade, although trade remains at a relatively low level and there is much scope to improve it. Diplomatically, relations are warm and constructive, and have been enhanced by regular interaction between the two countries in both BRICS and the G20. South Africa has tried to play a mediating role in Russia’s war with Ukraine, but here it has been one voice among many and does not have much concrete to show for these efforts, as the war rages on. Nevertheless, it remains a key driver of the African Peace Initiative. At the UN, most of South Africa’s votes on the Russia-Ukraine war have been abstentions, in line with its declared non-aligned stance.

To what degree are the few points raised above influencing or reshaping Russian-African relations? Do you also think Russia is rivaling and competing with its own BRICS members, for instance, China and India, across the continent?

SG: Russia-Africa relations have been steadily growing, as the two well-attended Russia-Africa Summits in 2019 and 2023 attest to. As Russia has faced sanctions and been shunned by the West, it has sought new markets and to strengthen ties with the Global South, including in Africa. Russia supported the membership of Egypt and Ethiopia to become full BRICS members at the 2023 BRICS Summit in Johannesburg. The 2024 BRICS Summit in Kazan, Russia, was successful and added Algeria, Nigeria, and Uganda as “partner countries.” This was an important occasion for Russia to show that it was not internationally isolated and could still rely on many countries as friends.

The operations of the Wagner Group, especially in the Sahel, have been gradually subsumed under the Africa Corps of the Russian Ministry of Defence.

Russia has been strengthening bilateral relations with many African countries and is looking to provide peaceful-use nuclear technology to about 20 African countries. It is heavily involved in the building of a nuclear energy plant in Dabaa, Egypt.

Russia’s BRICS partners—China and India, but also the UAE and Saudi Arabia—are active on the African continent, but at this stage it seems that all are able to achieve their strategic objectives in Africa without coming into conflict with one another.

Do you view South Africa’s G20 presidency as a unique factor for fighting neo-colonialism and Western hegemony and for addressing thorny trade issues with the United States?

SG: South Africa’s G20 presidency is important. It remains the only African member state of the G20, although the African Union has joined as a full member since 2023. This is the first time that the G20 is hosted in Africa. As the president, South Africa has the ability to influence the G20’s agenda. It is the fourth developing country in a row to host the G20—after Indonesia (2022), India (2023), and Brazil (2024). It has continued several of the initiatives of these Global South states in its focus. South Africa’s priorities include strengthening disaster resilience and response, ensuring debt sustainability for low-income countries, mobilizing finance for a just energy transition, and harnessing critical minerals for inclusive growth and sustainable development. The aim is for a more equitable, sustainable, and resilient global economy.

So far, the US has not sent its top leaders to preparatory meetings in South Africa, and there is doubt whether US President Donald Trump will attend the G20 Summit in November. This threatened to damage South Africa’s leadership, but the other G20 members have rallied to support South Africa.

I do not think that the G20 is the venue to “fight neo-colonialism, Western hegemony, and trade issues with the United States,” or at least not in using that language. I think BRICS may be a more appropriate platform to air these issues. South Africa will nevertheless push the concerns of the Global South this year.

Can South Africa’s presidency change perceptions of the G20’s role in global politics and its invaluable contributions to Africa’s development?

SG: I believe South Africa is doing well in its G20 stewardship so far and will hopefully host a successful summit, which has become especially challenging in the current geopolitical environment. If Trump does not attend, it will be damaging to the G20, particularly because the US is the host for 2026. South Africa’s relations with the US have deteriorated, including over Trump’s views on the treatment of white farmers, the expulsion of Ambassador Ebrahim Rasool from Washington, and threatened high tariffs, among many other issues.

The summit will hopefully showcase South Africa and change perceptions about failed or failing African states. South Africa remains a key player in Africa, contributing to the continent’s development through peace efforts, trade, and political interactions.

But I also think South Africa should be and has been modest in its expectations of what the G20 can do during any one-year presidency. The G20 remains one of the few forums where Russia and the West still sit around the same table, and it has been challenging to reach consensus.

South-South cooperation is frequently resonating, as is the United States skipping the G20, Trump, and the new world architecture featuring in bilateral and multilateral discussions. Can African leaders change attitudes and face geopolitical development realities? Can Africa remain non-aligned? What then can we expect as future prospects, especially for Africa?

SG: There is no doubt that South-South cooperation is happening and being talked about more and more, and it is set to continue. The global environment is subject to profound geopolitical tensions, not least due to Trump’s “America First” policies, including high trade tariffs. The entire world of development assistance or foreign aid is likewise undergoing far-reaching changes. Trump has destroyed the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), putting at risk or shutting down countless development projects in Africa. European countries—for a long time generous donors to Africa—are diverting billions of euros in development funding to defense and dealing with migration-related issues.

African countries will be under continual pressure to “pick a side” in what some have called the “New Cold War,” and for the most part they will continue to assert their non-aligned stances. How long they can continue on this path is unclear. And many say they are non-aligned but continue to lean closer to either the West or China and Russia in reality. African leaders are having to adjust to a rapidly changing and uncertain world, the contours of which are not entirely clear at this point. African leaders have been forced to deal with a world with less aid. Hopefully this will encourage African states to be more self-reliant, curb corruption, and pursue their national interests.

If we are going to make an overview of what is going on now through the lens of the so-called dangerous opportunity, we can list some challenges and opportunities that Iran and China both face through this tension. I will try to name challenges and opportunities.

Challenges

The first challenge is that the United States of America is in a big competition and rivalry against China, which is the main actor trying to compete against the Western order. The US tries to create a “burned land” within the Middle East by using the major strategy of balkanization. In this strategy, the United States attempts to create a weak, failed, chaotic space for China throughout the region to actually block any attempts to initiate the Belt and Road Initiative and land corridors from China to the western part of the world. You can see a clear idea of balkanization throughout the region, and of course, we can see this example in Syria. The main role that Israel and the United States try to duplicate in different parts of the region may be seen in Yemen, Iraq, and even Afghanistan. The challenge is that we will have a burnt land in the Middle East that actually makes it impossible to follow initiatives like the Belt and Road.

The second challenge could be an energy crisis in the Middle East. We know that China tries its best to mediate between Saudi Arabia and Iran to secure regional security and stability, and of course, energy stability within the Middle East and at the global scale. This crisis and tension, which Israel initiated through unprovoked actions, could lead to a worldwide energy crisis because Iran and Tehran have mentioned multiple times that there are different options available for Iran to affect the whole region if there is more tension or further attacks from any foreign actors, especially the United States or Israel.

The third challenge we can name is the corridor blockade or dead-end. We can name different initiatives and corridors made and created by the United States, such as I2U2, Quad, AUKUS, and of course IMEC, as initiatives to create a kind of blockade for China through maritime corridors. If the United States and Israel follow through with their goals in the current tension, there would be a kind of corridor blockade from the East to the West.

Another challenge we can name is about the Abraham Accords. China and Beijing should understand that this kind of alliance is not really just about Palestine or normalization with the Zionist regime; it is a big alliance and outsourcing of the regional order from Washington to Tel Aviv. In this regional order, which is totally supported and facilitated by Washington, the Middle East—or better said, Southwest Asia—would be a total ally of the United States. This could strongly affect the national interests of Beijing.

Last but not least, a challenge after the current tension between Iran and Israel is the possibility of initiating the next big conflict. Currently, we have two big open wounds from previous years: the Ukraine crisis and Palestine. The result and balance of power around these two hot zones will create a balance of power around a third hot zone, which is Taiwan. Therefore, the outcomes of Ukraine and Palestine will directly affect the Taiwan situation in the upcoming months and years.

Opportunities

The Chinese letter for crisis shows us that there is an opportunity in this kind of crisis. If we can name them:

The first opportunity is that supporting policy, especially for the nations of the region and the Global South, is simply being on the right side of history. Every actor who supports Palestine gains favorability within nations, especially in the Global South. As you can see, Iran has gained much soft power within the current tension with Israel in the region. This is a real comeback from the Arab Spring for Iran’s image in the eyes of the Middle Eastern people. Actually, China may understand that in the region there is a deep real desire to resist Israel. Every actor who stands against the operations of Israel will gain and has gained much favorability in the region and even the world. This is the big, big side of the resistance idea.

The second opportunity during this kind of conflict is that Iran can show and test its military capability against the Western alliances. It is not a clear and accurate vision if you consider the current situation and tension as a simple war between Tehran and Tel Aviv. Tehran, in the current 12-day war, stands and fights against Washington, the whole NATO, and some regional actors. Iran has not only avoided defeat in this situation but also tried to push the whole Israel and Western alliances to a ceasefire point.

The third opportunity is the chance and moment for almost all old actors in the region to shift their ideas towards a strong region without the US. It seems that even countries like Saudi Arabia and other regional states are thinking about a region without the presence of the United States. The good news is that if Iran and its allies can play a good role during the conflict and upcoming tension, there could be a regional order emerging from the regional actors, and there would be no vacuum of power.

The next opportunity I want to mention, after the experience of this war, is really important for Beijing nowadays and the current situation of the international order. China could not find any other strategy or reliable partner within the region with the capability of military, social soft power, enormous energy resources, and favorable geography other than Iran.

Conclusion

It seems that the fundamental strategy of the United States during the Trump administration for the Middle East, called “peace through strength,” is just a choice between two options: surrender or war. Surrender would mean a regional order controlled by Tel Aviv. Iran, as it seems, is trying to prepare itself for full-scale war. As mentioned in the early stage of this note, during the tension, this is a period of rebalancing of actors’ powers. Therefore, the ability and will of order-writers like China to play a role in this conflict will determine the upcoming role of this actor in the new world order.

South Asia, a crucible of ancient civilizations and modern rivalries, stands at a perilous crossroads. For over two decades, Michael Kugelman, a leading American foreign policy expert and Director of the South Asia Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center, has meticulously charted its volatile course. His insights reveal a region increasingly caught between the existential dread of nuclear arsenals and the explosive forces of populist narratives and fervent nationalism. The recent, harrowing crisis between India and Pakistan in May 2025 – a conflict that saw missile strikes, drone warfare, and an almost immediate breakdown of a US-backed ceasefire – serves as a chilling testament to these escalating dynamics.

Kugelman’s analysis begins with a foundational, yet often overlooked, truth: South Asia’s inherent fragmentation. “This is a region where you have many countries that simply struggle to get along,” he observes, pointing beyond the omnipresent India-Pakistan antagonism to include fraught relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and India’s recurring disputes with its smaller neighbors. Borders, everywhere, are a flashpoint – disputed, porous, or simply volatile.

This chronic discord found its sharpest expression in the May 2025 conflagration. Following a brutal terrorist attack in Pahalgam, India launched “Operation Sindoor,” a series of missile strikes deep inside Pakistan. Islamabad retaliated with “Operation Bunyaan al Marsoos,” deploying its own ballistic missiles and engaging in an unprecedented drone duel. Kugelman notes how quickly the Line of Control (LoC), which had enjoyed a four-year truce, ignited. “Once again, now the LoC is extremely tense and particularly significant, given that you’ve got two nuclear states there,” he underscores, highlighting the hair-trigger nature of this enduring fault line.

The ascent of populist and nationalist politics, particularly in India, has fundamentally altered the calculus of nuclear deterrence, making escalation both more probable and profoundly less predictable. Kugelman argues that the current Indian government has shrewdly harnessed a hardline stance on Pakistan for domestic political gain. The 2019 crisis, unfolding on the cusp of Indian elections, saw New Delhi launch airstrikes beyond Pakistan-administered Kashmir for the first time since 1971. “I think that one could argue that the Indian decision to take the steps that it did… was in some ways driven by considerations about politics,” Kugelman explains.

This phenomenon is not unilateral. Domestic political agendas in both nations frequently weaponize cross-border tensions. Even if the strident rhetoric from nationalist media in India is partly performative, “that still has an impact on how the public, the broader public, looks at and perceives Pakistan.” This creates immense public pressure, demanding forceful retaliation for any perceived slight or attack, as demonstrated by the furious public outcry after the Pahalgam incident in May 2025. “There’s going to be significant amounts of pressure from the public on the government in India… it was very clear that India was going to respond with force,” Kugelman states, emphasizing how deeply public sentiment now intertwines with strategic decisions.

Fuelling this volatile public sentiment is a media landscape saturated with jingoism and, often, outright disinformation. While English-language nationalist channels capture global attention, the broader media sphere across South Asia consistently ratchets up hyper-sensationalism during crises. “It can be very dangerous,” Kugelman warns, “Because… the jingoism also encourages and at times propagates disinformation. And, you know, that in and of itself is very dangerous.” He directly connects this trend to recent conflicts, stating, “on the Indian side, so much of the jingoistic media content was accompanied by disinformation. I mean, oftentimes it was synonymous.” In an age where narratives can be manufactured and amplified at warp speed, this weaponized information environment makes rational de-escalation a monumental challenge.

The rise of cyber warfare, hybrid threats, and widespread disinformation campaigns raises critical questions about the efficacy of traditional nuclear doctrines. While governments are undeniably engaging in these new forms of conflict, Kugelman asserts that they do not diminish the paramount importance of maintaining nuclear preparedness. Both India and Pakistan have shown a disturbing willingness to employ conventional force increasingly, pushing closer to the nuclear threshold. “The more that you use, the higher up the escalation ladder you get,” he cautions, “and the higher you get up, you get closer to bumping up against the ceiling.”

Disinformation, by inflaming passions and deepening animosity, can dangerously accelerate this ascent. Kugelman suggests that these new dimensions of warfare, far from supplanting nuclear concerns, in fact amplify them. “One could argue… cyber warfare disinformation can deepen tensions between two countries that are nuclear and raise the risk, further raise the risk of nuclear escalation.” Compounding this is the ongoing internal debate in India regarding its stated No-First-Use (NFU) nuclear policy, with past statements from senior officials hinting at a potential reconsideration – a move that could further erode predictability in an already volatile environment.

China’s expanding military and economic influence casts an undeniable shadow over South Asia’s security dynamics. Despite recent diplomatic efforts between India and China, including a border agreement in late 2024 aimed at easing tensions, the core strategic competition persists. The May 2025 crisis vividly demonstrated the enduring strength of the China-Pakistan alliance, with Pakistan deploying Chinese-made jets against India for the first time in combat. Kugelman emphasizes that China remains Pakistan’s most critical arms supplier, capable of providing weapons systems that no other partner can match, especially as the U.S. continues to restrict Pakistan’s use of American-made weaponry against India.

China’s economic reach, primarily through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), is region-wide. While Kugelman notes a general slowdown in some BRI projects due to security concerns and economic issues – a trend confirmed by recent reports showing a significant drop in CPEC investment – China’s economic influence remains formidable. “This is really just something consistent that’s been playing out for some time,” he states, highlighting Beijing’s deep, steady penetration into the region, reshaping its strategic calculus.

Amidst these rising pressures, the question of strategic stability looms large. Kugelman offers a cautiously optimistic assessment: “the nuclear deterrent is actually alive and well.” While the May 2025 conflict tested the deterrent in ways not seen since the massive border buildup of 2001-2002, both sides ultimately demonstrated a shared desire to avoid an all-out war. “Neither side wanted an all out war,” he stresses, distinguishing governmental intent from jingoistic public rhetoric. India’s rapid, targeted airstrikes and Pakistan’s contained, albeit forceful, response were, in Kugelman’s view, calibrated moves reflecting a continued respect for the nuclear red line. The fact that India and Pakistan largely managed to negotiate their own ceasefire, rather than relying solely on external mediation, further underscores their grim recognition of the catastrophic stakes.

However, this “alive and well” deterrent is perpetually tested. India’s missile strikes, whether depicted as targeting terrorists or military assets, were unequivocally viewed by Pakistan as a violation of sovereignty. “When it comes to conflict… international normative ideals around respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity… they go out the door,” Kugelman starkly reminds us. The very act of such cross-border retaliation, irrespective of nuclear use, chips away at the foundational principles of statehood and international law, keeping the entire region on tenterhooks.

The path to de-escalation and sustained peace talks remains fraught. The Director Generals of Military Operations (DGMO) hotline, a vital communication channel even during wars, remains open and was utilized during the recent crisis. Beyond this, however, “the two sides just don’t line up when it comes to the issue of dialogue.” India’s unwavering stance against engaging Pakistan until “cross-border terrorism” ceases, combined with its rejection of discussing Pakistan-administered Kashmir, clashes directly with Pakistan’s insistence on Kashmir as a core issue.

Prime Minister Modi’s early attempt at outreach to then-Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, followed by a terrorist attack, appears to have instilled a “once bitten, twice shy” caution. And while Pakistan publicly calls for talks, it too has conditions. Adding to this grim calculus is the recurring “spoiler act”—often a terrorist attack—that invariably derails any nascent momentum toward dialogue. While India traditionally rejects third-party mediation for comprehensive talks, the May 2025 crisis saw a quiet but significant role played by external actors, with the UAE in particular thanked by Pakistan’s Prime Minister for its efforts in de-escalation, building on its prior role in brokering the LoC truce. This suggests that limited, targeted mediation for specific de-escalation objectives might be the only viable avenue for external engagement.

In a world increasingly consumed by its own inward-looking concerns, the question of who will fill the potential vacuum in South Asian peace looms large. Kugelman offers a sobering answer: “the region is going to be on its own.” While major powers like the U.S., Russia, and China broadly align in their desire to prevent nuclear escalation—a shared concern often rooted in their own vested interests in regional stability—their capacity and willingness for sustained, comprehensive mediation are limited. China, despite its rivalry with India, has massive investments in Pakistan that it cannot afford to see imperiled. Russia seeks new friends amidst its isolation. The U.S. balances critical interests with both India and Pakistan, making broad intervention fraught.

Yet, amidst this potential vacuum, Kugelman identifies a crucial, if understated, role for regional powers with significant leverage. He points specifically to the Arab Gulf states. “They provide significant amounts of energy exports and other goods,” he explains, giving them economic sway. Furthermore, the UAE’s successful role in brokering the LoC truce demonstrates a capacity for targeted, effective mediation. These nations, though not global superpowers, may be best positioned to “suggest incentives for India and Pakistan to ensure that things don’t get completely out of control.”

South Asia, a region of immense human potential, finds itself perpetually walking a razor’s edge. The interplay of nuclear might, emotionally charged narratives, and aggressive nationalism threatens to pull it closer to the abyss. Michael Kugelman’s sharp analysis reminds us that while the nuclear deterrent may still hold, its resilience is being tested as never before, demanding sustained vigilance and creative diplomatic solutions from within and, perhaps, from unexpected corners of the world.

June 5 (UPI) — Procter & Gamble said Thursday it plans to cut 7,000 jobs as part of a plan it said aims to accelerate growth.

The company said the cuts will take place over the next two years and represent 15% of its non-manufacturing workforce.

“In Fiscal 2026, we’ll begin a 2-year effort to accelerate P&G’s growth and value creation. These changes across our portfolio, supply chain and organization are designed to unlock significant opportunities for stronger delivery of P&G’s integrated growth strategy,” the company said in a statement.

Procter & Gamble said the workers losing their jobs will be “managed with support and respect, and in line with our principles and values and local laws.”

The workforce reduction is part of similar actions across U.S. industries amid tariff turmoil, fierce competition and consumer spending changes.

Companies are spending less, slowing hiring and sending layoff notices,” Andrew Challenger, senior vice president of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, said in an emailed statement to CBS News.

According to Challenger, job cuts are 47% higher now than a year ago.

According to Procter & Gamble, fiscal year 2024 was the eighth straight year of 2% or better earnings per share growth.

“Through the first three quarters of the 2025 fiscal year, P&G delivered +3% Core EPS growth — at the mid-point of 2-to-4% guidance range for the fiscal year,” the company statement said.

Procter & Gamble also said over the first three fiscal quarters of 2025 $13 billion was returned to shareholders through dividends and share repurchases.

In addition to the layoffs, Procter & Gamble said changes it is implementing are focused on its portfolio, supply chain and organization design.

This will include ending some “categories, brands and product forms in individual markets” that could include some brand divestitures.

The Procter & Gamble supply chain will also be re-sized and re-located in an effort to ” drive efficiencies, faster innovation, cost reduction and even more reliable and resilient supply.”

There will also be changes in what Procter & Gamble said are “accountable organization design,” including making roles broader, making teams smaller while leveraging digitization and automation.

As Procter & Gamble reorganizes to deliver higher profits for shareholders, workers will be impacted by the job cuts and changing responsibilities within the company.

Procter & Gamble said taken together, these changes are “intended to widen P&G’s margin of advantage in superiority leading to growth and value creation.”

He has been dubbed the “Dutch Donald Trump”.

Geert Wilders has pulled his Party for Freedom (PVV) out of the coalition that governs the Netherlands in a row over immigration policy.

It has plunged the NATO ally into political turmoil and new elections.

After years in opposition, the PVV won the most votes in 2023 by tapping into rising populism in Europe with promises to reduce immigration.

Wilders has pushed for a 10-point plan that calls for the militarisation of Dutch borders as well as the repatriation of all Syrian nationals – something his coalition partners rejected.

Before resigning, Prime Minister Dick Schoof labelled Wilders’s actions “irresponsible”, coming at a critical time for Europe.

So was this a reckless or strategic move by Wilders?

And will it deepen uncertainty in the region, only weeks before a NATO summit in The Hague?

Presenter:

Tom McRae

Guests: 

Henk van der Kolk – Professor of electoral politics at the University of Amsterdam

Zoe Gardner – Independent researcher covering migration policy

Pieter Cleppe – Editor-in-chief at BrusselsReport.eu