Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the man mistakenly deported from the US to El Salvador, has been returned to the US, where he will face charges including “alien smuggling.” US Attorney General Pam Bondi says the charges were returned by a Tennessee grand jury last month.
Published On 6 Jun 20256 Jun 2025
Muslims around the globe are celebrating Eid al-Adha, one of the biggest holidays in the Islamic calendar that commemorates sacrifice and submission to God.
The festival, running from June 6-9, honours the Prophet Ibrahim’s willingness to obey God’s command that he sacrifice his only son Ismail, ignoring the devil’s attempts to dissuade him from the act.
The devil appeared before Ibrahim three times, but the prophet responded by throwing stones, driving him away. As he was about to kill his son, God stayed his hand and spared his son, giving him a lamb to sacrifice instead.
The “Feast of Sacrifice” is traditionally marked by the slaughter of an animal, typically a goat, sheep, cow, bull or camel, with the meat shared among neighbours, family members and the poor.
The start of the event coincides with the final rites of the annual Hajj, the once-in-a-lifetime pilgrimage to the holy city of Mecca, Saudi Arabia, observed by adult Muslims.
In remembrance of Ibrahim’s resistance to Satan, pilgrims at Hajj participate in a symbolic “stoning of the devil” at the Jamarat complex in Mina, near Mecca.
The stoning ritual takes place at the three spots where it is said the devil tried to dissuade Ibrahim from obeying God, represented by three concrete walls.
Pilgrims collected their pebbles overnight on Thursday from Muzdalifah, an area located a few kilometres away from Arafat, a hill outside the city of Mecca with great spiritual significance.
On Friday, an estimated 1.6 million-plus pilgrims stoned the devil, throwing their pebbles at the concrete walls in Mina.
For some, the ritual marks a solemn moment – a complete submission to God. For others, it represents a victory over evil.
Officials say at least nine more Palestinians were killed trying to reach aid distribution sites in Rafah.
Source link
“Valuation: Measuring and Managing the Value of Companies” has long been a definitive guide for corporate finance professionals. Eight editions in, the book’s lead author, Tim Koller—a partner at consulting giant McKinsey & Company—says the biggest surprise is what hasn’t changed. Koller speaks to Global Finance about one of the dealmaking world’s most enduring topics.
Global Finance: To what extent does geography play a role in affecting a company’s valuation?
Koller: It applies to most parts of the world. If you are a purely local business, in Europe or Asia, for example, then it’s less of an issue. But, if the US were to experience a severe recession, it would probably affect everybody. And then, of course, there are those businesses that are directly impacted—companies that export, import or compete with US companies. A lot of companies, even if they appear to be local, they’re competing with US-based companies, or they’re trading with US-based companies. So, the impact is felt far beyond the US.
GF: Are more companies growing frustrated with US volatility and seeking opportunities in Europe and the APAC region?
Koller: For most companies, it takes years to build or to change strategies from a geographic perspective. Some of the companies I talked to are thinking about these things, but, at this stage, you don’t just break into a market in a couple of months. If you want to build a business in a new country, or if you want to change your supply chain, these things take time. So it depends. If your supply chain is highly specialized, that could take years to restructure. If your supply chain is simple or there are lots of other producers, and you can switch from one country to another, that’s a little bit easier.
Bringing things back to the US is also very time consuming—no matter what industry it is. People are thinking about it and making plans, but for the most part, the timeframe of any kind of major structural change is fairly long, and you don’t want to commit to it until you probably know more about what’s going on.
GF: In this latest edition of your book, did you touch upon digital assets or how companies are building their own reserves?
Koller: We don’t address it, and I’ll tell you why. For the most part, a lot of what people are talking about is not a currency. We call it a cryptocurrency, but it’s not a currency. It is a speculative investment. And the nature of these speculative investments is unlike a stock or a bond. There’s no inherent valuation. We won’t know what the answer is eventually. It’s purely a function of supply and demand of investors and sentiment for many of these cryptocurrencies. It’s like investing in vintage automobiles or fine art. It’s nothing more than that. As far as I’m concerned, that’s why we don’t touch on it, because you can’t do anything with it, and then I wouldn’t understand why a company would put money into that. Because you’re really betting on market sentiment. You’re betting on other investors wanting to get into that market and pushing up the price.
GF: What about stablecoins?
Koller: Stablecoins are cryptocurrencies tied to real-world assets, usually the US dollar or another fiat currency. The more reputable ones are backed 1:1 by actual reserves. From a corporate valuation perspective, they’re not particularly interesting. If a cryptocurrency is simply pegged to the dollar but involves additional transaction costs, it doesn’t offer much advantage over using dollars directly.
There’s been talk for decades about something replacing the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency—whether the euro, the yuan, or others—but those alternatives face their own challenges. For a currency to be viable for transactions, especially everyday purchases, it needs to have a stable value. That’s why something backed by the dollar or another relatively stable fiat currency is necessary.
However, stablecoins don’t really factor into the strategic decision-making of most companies or investors unless they’re directly involved in currency or cryptocurrency markets. And that’s a niche area I’m hesitant to speculate on.
GF: Are there certain basic mistakes that happen at a company that hurts valuation or leads to their failure?
Koller: It’s rarely that a company is fundamentally unsound. The real issue is often the gap between how companies value themselves and how the market values them. Many CEOs and CFOs believe their companies are undervalued, but when we analyze hundreds of companies each year—using discounted cash flow models and peer comparisons—we usually find valuations are within 10% of fair value. That margin is small and can fluctuate day to day.
Companies, on the other hand, often have financial projections that are inconsistent with their market values, because the market doesn’t give them credit for things that they hope to achieve, unless they have a strong track record. For example, if an industry grows at 4% annually and a company projects 6% growth, the market may only price in 4%. If the company hits just that, it’s not a failure—investors never expected more. It’s not a disaster from a valuation perspective, because investors didn’t expect that anyway.
The bigger issue is the disconnect we saw in the dotcom bubble. There’s sometimes a disconnect, you might argue, with some of the big mega [magnificent seven] stocks. One of the characteristics I look for, in terms of potential overvaluation, is who are the investors in a company. And, in particular, what share of retail investors? And if you see a very high share of retail investors inside in a stock, that is often a sign of overvaluation. Retail investors don’t crunch the numbers. They typically buy based on emotion and hype. It may be a great company, but that doesn’t mean you should pay 100 times earnings for it.
GF: Could that also complicate M&A strategies?
Koller: Yes, although that does create an opportunity. Very few companies have the guts to take advantage of it. If my shares are overvalued, that’s the time when you can use those shares to buy something, and that’s great. We’ve seen a couple of those, but not that often.
GF: Over the eight editions on valuation, what’s the most surprising change that you’ve seen in how companies wrestle with value?
Koller: The most surprising thing isn’t how much companies have changed, but how little they have. And it’s not just because we’ve written a book, but other academics have done research. Many companies remain too short-term oriented. Large firms still try to cost-cut their way to success, which only works for a limited time. And while innovation continues, it often comes from smaller companies rather than the big players.
One positive shift has been the steady decline of conglomerates. More companies are breaking themselves up into simpler, more focused entities. This trend, certainly evident in the US and to some extent in Europe as well, has improved management effectiveness and is favored by investors who value focus and clarity. That’s probably the most meaningful change—the breaking up of complex companies into smaller ones.
GF: Do the recent headlines of Google and Meta being under scrutiny and possibly broken up exemplify that trend?
Koller: I can’t speak specifically to Google or Meta, because their business units are more interconnected than, say, a company making both valves and toothpaste—where there’s clearly no synergy. What matters isn’t size but complexity, especially when businesses don’t share customers, technologies, suppliers, or distribution channels. That’s when it makes sense to consider breaking them up.
More broadly, while the trend toward focused companies has been positive, many firms remain too short-term oriented. They often blame the stock market, but that’s not entirely fair. Our research shows that about 75% of investors—whether retail, index funds, or institutions—are long-term holders. The problem is that companies tend to pay too much attention to the loudest voices, which are often short-term traders. There’s still a lot of room for companies to take a more long-term approach, and that’s work that continues.
GF: In past editions or in this new edition on valuations, has there been any sort of trend or surprising development you noticed?
Koller: One major trend we’ve seen is the globalization of equity markets over the last 35 years. Today, the shareholder-base of large companies in Europe, Japan, and Taiwan often looks very similar to their US peers. As an individual investor, you can easily buy hundreds of international funds or even individual foreign stocks—and the same goes for investors abroad buying US equities. So, from a capital markets perspective, things have truly globalized.
However, corporate behavior still varies by region. On average, European companies continue to earn lower returns on capital than their US counterparts—though the gap has narrowed, and some of the best-performing companies in various industries are European. In Asia, there’s still a noticeable emphasis on size and prestige over value creation. I’m surprised that focus persists. While it’s slowly shifting, many companies still prioritize growth and scale rather than returns, which often results in lower valuations compared to US firms—unless they’re high-growth global competitors.
GF: What will modern finance look like in the future?
Koller: I’m hopeful that AI will help us value companies more effectively. Right now, it’s good at tasks like summarizing and researching quickly, and over time it may become more capable. But while tech—and AI in particular—makes up a large share of the stock market, it still represents a relatively small part of the broader economy. Most people still need housing, food, clothing, travel—those businesses aren’t going away.
AI will be used across many industries to improve customer experience, reduce costs, or enhance products, but it’s not fundamentally going to change things. Valuations are going to be disproportionate towards those companies. But the real question is: Will companies use AI to actually boost profits, or will those gains be passed on to consumers, like with many past innovations? For investors and executives, the key is understanding whether AI is a true source of competitive advantage. That distinction will vary by industry, but it’s central to how we think about value in the future.
Jordan is celebrating the qualification of its football team for a FIFA World Cup for the first time following a decisive 3-0 victory against Oman.
Huge celebrations erupted as fans drove their cars through Jordan’s capital Amman late on Thursday and into Friday, honking their horns and chanting victory while others waved the national flag in triumph.
“We are all with you!” and “It’s getting closer, heroes” read messages written into the night sky in a spectacular drone light show.
Jordan sealed their place on the penultimate day of Asian qualifying for the 2026 tournament, which will be played in the United States, Mexico and Canada.
Ali Olwin netted a hat-trick as the 2023 Asian Cup runners-up to Qatar etched their name in the history books.
They secured their spot in the World Cup when South Korea defeated Iraq, also on Thursday, 2-0.
The royal court published pictures of King Abdullah II wearing a national team jersey as he watched the game from the embassy in London, where he was on a visit.
I wholeheartedly congratulate the sons and daughters of our dear people on our national football team’s qualification for the World Cup finals,” he wrote on social media platform X.
“This historic qualification is well-deserved by our team, which includes stars and cadres of whom we are proud.
“Special thanks go to our loyal fans who have been our support and encouragement.”
His Majesty King Abdullah watches the national football team’s World Cup qualifier match against Oman, at the Jordanian embassy in London, during a working visit to Europe
( Photos courtesy of Royal Court ) pic.twitter.com/CI4JMurjQu— The Jordan Times (@jordantimes) June 5, 2025
Sohad Idrissi, a 48-year-old housewife who watched the game with her siblings, beamed with pride as she told AFP that her side had played “a beautiful game and deserved to qualify for the World Cup”.
“Today the joy is two-fold: there is the joy of Eid al-Adha, and the joy of Nashama qualifying,” she said, using a nickname for the Jordanian team.
Fadi Qalanzi, a 21-year-old university student, called the win “a dream that is finally coming true”.
“Our team put on a beautiful performance, and they truly deserved to qualify,” he added.
Osama al-Shreeda, a 60-year-old retired civil servant, also called it a dream come true.
“I’ve been following Jordanian football since 1978, and a relative of mine used to play with the national team,” he said.
“It’s a great opportunity for our team and its players to be recognised globally,” he added, calling it an achievement not just for Jordan but for the wider Arab region.
“It was about time, this is a joy we’d been waiting for, for a long time,” said 55-year-old teacher Nashat Badr.
For Uzbekistan, a 0-0 draw against the United Arab Emirates was enough to take the second automatic qualification spot in Group A behind Iran.
With Asia now having eight guaranteed qualifiers – after just four for the 2022 edition in Qatar – Uzbekistan was a likely contender to step up.
While most of its team plays in the domestic league, it includes a few Europe-based stars like Roma forward Eldor Shomurodov and Manchester City defender Abdukodir Khusanov.
Jordan’s highest-profile player is winger Mousa Tamari at French club Rennes.
Palestine’s 2-0 win in Kuwait kept alive their hopes of reaching their first World Cup finals.
The victory, thanks to goals from Tamer Seyam and Wessam Abou Ali, means Palestine in fifth spot in Group B are one point outside the playoff qualification positions with one game to play.
A win in their final match in Amman, Jordan, against Oman, who hold fourth spot and are one point ahead of Palestine, on Tuesday will see them finish above their opponents.
Third and fourth positions in the three groups, in the third round of AFC qualifiers for the World Cup, progress to a fourth qualifying stage of playoffs.
The top two teams from each of the three six-team groups qualify automatically for next summer’s tournament, while the teams in fifth and sixth position are eliminated.
Indonesia, meantime, remain on course for a playoff finish, and only a second appearance at a World Cup finals, following their 1-0 win against China to hold fourth spot in Group C.
Who: Portugal vs Spain
What: UEFA Nations League final
Where: Allianz Arena, Munich, Germany
When: Sunday, June 8, 2025 – 3pm kickoff (13:00 GMT)
How to follow our coverage: We’ll have all the build-up from 12pm (10:00 GMT) on Al Jazeera Sport.
Portugal, the inaugural winners in 2019, and defending champions Spain have set up one of the most highly anticipated international finals in years as the pair prepare to face off for the UEFA Nations League trophy.
The final not only pits the Iberian rivals together, but also two of football’s greatest talents – Cristiano Ronaldo and Lamine Yamal.
Although at opposing ends of their careers, both were vital in leading their sides to Sunday’s showdown in Munich.
Al Jazeera Sport takes a closer look at the game – and the mouth-watering prospect of Ronaldo vs Yamal.
Portugal beat the host nation Germany 2-1 in the first semifinal on Wednesday with Ronaldo scoring the winner.
Liverpool target Florian Wirtz gave the Germans the lead early in the second half before Francisco Conceicao levelled just past the hour mark, with the winner coming five minutes later.
Spain and France then served up one of the all-time greats in a 5-4 thriller that saw the latter come from 4-0 and 5-1 down to push the game to the wire.
Yamal scored twice and was the star turn as he outshone the much-lauded French trio of Kylian Mbappe, Ousmane Dembele and Desire Doue – the latter two being fresh from Paris Saint-Germain’s Champions League final victory.
There is little doubt that both finalists, and the defeated semifinalists, will see these final three games of the 2024-2025 edition of the competition as vital game time ahead of the 2026 FIFA World Cup.
The tournament itself, which runs qualification over a two-year period, has replaced the much-maligned and ever-more meaningless list of friendlies between nations on the continent, providing competitive games to keep club-focused players interested during the global international breaks.
The way the two semifinals have played out has built even greater anticipation for the already notable final, and added weight to the Nations League value as a warm-up competition between the more prestigious World Cups and UEFA European Champions, both of which take place every four years.
On the meeting with Ronaldo in the final, Yamal remarked after the win against France: “Playing against Cristiano? He’s a football legend. I’ll do my job, which is to win the game, and that’s it.”
So much of the external focus in the build-up to the game will turn to the showdown between young Barcelona star Yamal and former Real Madrid and Manchester United legend Ronaldo.
Yamal will turn 18 next month and has already stirred imaginations with star turns for the Catalan club over the last two years, helping them to a domestic treble this season. The Barca-born forward also shone for Spain in last summer’s Euro 2024 success, scoring in the semifinal against France – only days before his 17th birthday.
Taking to the field, and battling for the spotlight, with Ronaldo – regarded as arguably the greatest footballer of all time – offers a unique and potentially final chance for Yamal to prove himself against a player who, at 40 years of age, is winding down his career.
With Doue’s rise at PSG this year, and Yamal’s ever-growing stock, the question has now been posed as to whether there is a changing of the guard from Ronaldo and Argentinian legend Lionel Messi as the game’s two best current players.
Both are strong contenders to lift the Ballon d’Or trophy – the award for the global game’s best player each year. Spanish international Rodri is the current holder after helping Manchester City to their unique five-trophy winning year in 2023.
Dembele, Mbappe and his fellow Real star Vinicius Junior will also be in the running for the 2025 award but Sunday’s final could tip the balance in favour of Yamal ahead of the award ceremony in September.
Much of the talk heading into the final three games of the UEFA Nations League has focused on Ronaldo’s club future – and whether he would participate at the imminent FIFA Club World Cup in the United States.
The global club competition has been rebranded and expanded to 32 teams for this edition and is headlined by Lionel Messi at the host nation’s Inter Miami, who will kick off the tournament against Egyptian club Al Ahly on June 14.
Ronaldo’s time at Al Nassr in the Saudi Pro League appears to be over following a social media post from the forward following the final day of the competition’s season.
The question remains: Where next for Ronaldo? A host of participants at the Club World Cup are being linked with a move for a player who still grabs the headlines the world over, and it would give FIFA’s attempt to elevate the tournament a much-needed boost.
Spain won 1-0 in Portugal in a Nations League group stage match in 2022 in the last encounter between the sides.
Alvaro Morata netted the only goal of the game in the 88th minute of the match at Estadio Municipal de Braga.
Although this will be a first meeting for Yamal and Ronaldo, the Spain and Portugal on-field rivalry dates back to a friendly in 1921.
Spain won the fixture 2-1 in December of that year and have claimed victory in 17 of the 34 encounters overall.
Portugal have only recorded six wins against their neighbours, with the last being in a friendly in 2010.
Six of the following seven matches have ended in a draw.
Spain – who were defeated finalists in the 2021 edition of the tournament – beat Croatia 5-4 on penalties after a goalless draw in Rotterdam, Netherlands, in June 2023.
In the 2021 final, the Spaniards were beaten 2-1 by France, whom they face in Thursday’s second semifinal. Their victory in 2023 ended an 11-year search for silverware.
Portugal beat the Netherlands 1-0 in the 2019 final.
The match itself was played on home soil for the Portuguese at Porto’s Estadio do Dragao, where Goncalo Guedes scored the only goal of the game in the 60th minute.
Potential Portugal XI: Diogo Costa; Joao Neves, Ruben Dias, Inacio, Mendes; Ruben Neves, Bernardo Silva; Trincao, Fernandes, Neto; Ronaldo
Potential Spain XI: Simon; Porro, Huijsen, Le Normand, Cucurella; Zubimendi, Merino, Pedri; Yamal, N Williams, Oyarzabal
India has reported a sudden rise in COVID cases, starting from late May. Authorities said the number of active cases of the disease has surpassed 5,000.
India is the latest of a number of countries to report an uptick in COVID cases this year as, more than five years after the virus was declared a global pandemic, waves of new strains continue to emerge.
Here is what we know about the new variant of COVID and where it has spread:
As of Thursday this week, there are 5,364 active cases in India, according to India’s Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Since January 1, more than 4,700 people have recovered from COVID in India, while 55 people have died from the virus.
The main coronavirus variant causing a new spread of the disease is known as NB.1.8.1. Cases caused by this variant have been reported in the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Thailand, China and Hong Kong, among other countries. It is now the dominant variant in China and Hong Kong.
A second variant, LF.7, is also responsible for some of the cases in India.
The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) said it had recorded 13 cases of the NB.1.8.1 variant in England, with “small numbers” detected across the UK.
By late April, NB.1.8.1 comprised about 10.7 percent of submitted sequences globally, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). This rose from just 2.5 percent one month before.
The Omicron variant NB.1.8.1 was first detected in January this year.
It is a “recombinant” variant, which means it has arisen from the genetic mixing of two or more existing variants.
On May 23, 2025, the WHO declared the NB.1.8.1 strain a “variant under monitoring” (VUM).
According to a 2023 definition by the WHO, a VUM is a variant which has undergone genetic changes that scientists believe could potentially affect the behaviour of the virus; early data suggests that this variant can grow faster or spread more easily than others, but this has not yet been confirmed.
The evidence of the variant’s impact on health, immunity or transmission is still unclear.
While the NB.1.8.1 strain is still being researched, the evidence so far suggests that the strain may spread more easily, virologist Lara Herrero wrote for The Conversation on May 28.
Researchers using lab-based models have found that of several variants tested, the new strain had the strongest ability to bind to human cell receptors. This suggests that the strain may “infect cells more efficiently than earlier strains”, Herrero wrote.
“It is more transmissible,” Subhash Verma, a professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine, told CBS News.
Common symptoms of the NB.1.8.1 strain include a sore throat, cough, muscle aches, fever and nasal congestion.
It can also cause gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea and diarrhoea.
Vaccines remain a powerful defence against COVID infections, severe sickness, hospitalisation and death, clinicians say.
However, virologist Herrero wrote that besides spreading more easily, NB.1.8.1 may “partially sidestep” immunity gained from the vaccines or prior infection.
For now, health authorities say current COVID jabs are expected to be effective against this coronavirus variant and protect people from severe illness.
Health experts worldwide say there is no evidence that the new strain of the coronavirus is more severe or deadly than any previous strain. However, it does appear to spread more easily.
Since COVID spreads through airborne particles and droplets, the spread of the virus can be prevented by getting tested if symptoms show, wearing a mask and social distancing, clinicians have advised.
At least 11 people died and dozens were injured in stampede outside Bengaluru stadium on Wednesday.
Police in the southern Indian city of Bengaluru have arrested four people after a stampede during the Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) cricket team’s Indian Premier League victory celebrations killed 11 people and injured at least 47, local media reported.
Three people from an event management company and one official from the RCB team were arrested on Friday, according to local media reports.
Media outlet India Today said Nikhil Sosale, Royal Challengers Bengaluru’s head of marketing, was arrested at Bengaluru’s airport.
The Indian Express newspaper reported Sosale was arrested along with an executive from an event management company.
There was no immediate comment from RCB.
Tens of thousands of people had packed the streets of the city in the southern Indian state of Karnataka on Wednesday to welcome home their hero Virat Kohli and his RCB team after they beat Punjab Kings in the final of the Indian Premier League.
As the team was celebrating with the trophy inside a stadium in the city, thousands of people tried to push through the gates, leading to a stampede.
The franchise said later the incident was “unfortunate” and pledged one million Indian rupees ($11,655) to each family of the 11 fans who died.
The deaths have prompted widespread anger and top police officers have been suspended.
On Thursday during a news conference, Karnataka state’s chief minister Siddaramaiah, who only uses one name, criticised the suspended officials.
“These officers appear to be irresponsible and negligent and it has been decided to suspend them,” Siddaramaiah said.
The chief minister also said “legal action has been taken against the representatives of RCB,” as well as the event organisers and the state’s cricket association. He noted that a first information report, which marks the start of a police investigation, had been “registered against them”.
Kohli, who top-scored in the final, said he was “at a loss for words” after celebrations of a dream first IPL crown turned to tragedy.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi called the accident “absolutely heartrending”.
Stampedes occur frequently in India, mainly at religious events, but it was the first time in 45 years that fans had died in a crush at a sporting event, local media said.
India’s head cricket coach Gautam Gambhir said on Thursday he did not support such roadshows and celebrations.
“Celebration is important. But more important than that is the life of any person. So, if we are not prepared or if we can’t handle the crowd in that way, then we might as well not have these roadshows,” Gambhir told reporters.
The pioneering IPL sold its broadcast rights in 2022 for five seasons to global media giants for an eye-popping $6.2bn, putting it up amongst the highest-ranked sport leagues in cost-per-match terms.
As pressure mounts from the EU and his domestic rivals, Hungary’s prime minister is rallying allies to paralyse European institutions.
A “Trump tornado” has swept the globe, bringing with it a wave of “hope” for a return to “normalcy and peace.” So declared Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban in a strikingly blunt keynote speech at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Budapest.
Originally a platform for United States Republican Party politicians and theorists, CPAC has, in recent years, evolved into a global forum for radical right-wing forces. Its arrival in Europe was facilitated by the Foundation for Fundamental Rights – a government-organised NGO backed and funded by the Orban administration.
While Orban lavished praise on Donald Trump, this year’s CPAC had a distinctly European focus. After 15 years in power, Orban faces growing opposition at home. Public frustration over entrenched corruption, economic stagnation and increasingly hostile relations with Hungary’s allies has eroded his popularity. A newly emergent opposition movement, led by former Fidesz insider Peter Magyar, is now polling 6 – 8 percentage points ahead of Orban’s Fidesz–KDNP coalition, posing a serious challenge ahead of the 2026 general election.
In response, the government has ramped up attacks on dissent. Fidesz recently introduced a series of sweeping legislative proposals that threaten opposition politicians, independent media, NGOs and private businesses with Russian-style crackdowns. June’s LGBTQ+ Pride march in Budapest was among the first casualties – banned on the grounds of “child protection”. Alongside these measures, the government has begun rewriting electoral laws and funnelling state resources towards potential Fidesz voters.
Alarmed by Orban’s escalating authoritarianism, 20 European Union member states this week issued a joint declaration urging him to reverse the new measures. They called on the European Commission to deploy the full range of rule-of-law mechanisms should the laws remain in place. Orban’s behaviour is no longer just a domestic matter. His confrontational, transactional approach increasingly paralyses EU decision-making – a luxury the continent can ill afford amid intensifying challenges from Russia, China and the second Trump administration. European unity is not merely a motor of prosperity; it is a cornerstone of collective security.
The Article 7 process – a rarely used EU mechanism that can strip a member state of voting rights for violating fundamental values – was triggered by the European Parliament in 2018 due to concerns over judicial independence and media freedom in Hungary. While the European Council has discussed the matter eight times, it has yet to move forward with a vote on sanctions. That may soon change as tensions continue to mount.
CPAC 2025 thus served as a strategic platform for Orban to consolidate and expand a coalition of radical right-wing Central European leaders – particularly those with a realistic shot at gaining or retaining power. His aim: to forge a bloc capable of obstructing any EU efforts to sanction his government, whether by suspending voting rights or slashing financial transfers. The EU is already withholding over 20 billion euros ($23bn) in structural funds from Hungary – a figure that could rise, creating a serious political liability for Orban ahead of the 2026 elections.
Orban’s ambition is to entrench support among regional allies – and it is telling that the governments of Bulgaria, Croatia, Italy, Poland, Romania and Slovakia have yet to join the growing list of countries condemning Hungary’s recent democratic backsliding. Through CPAC, the Visegrad Group – a longstanding alliance between Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic — and the “Patriots for Europe” group – a far-right alliance in the European Parliament launched by Orban and allies in 2024 – the Hungarian leader is laying the foundations for a counterweight bloc designed to frustrate EU countermeasures.
This makes the presence of Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico and Poland’s Mateusz Morawiecki – of the Law and Justice (PiS) party – at this week’s event especially significant. While neither of their parties belongs to the Patriots group in the European Parliament, they remain political allies with growing mutual dependence.
Orban has developed a near cult-like following on the European far right: he consistently wins elections, offers a ready-made ideological narrative, and has poured resources into building a pan-European coalition. But his greatest limitations are Hungary’s small size and his own deepening isolation from the European mainstream. Should far-right parties enter government elsewhere in Europe, they may opt to distance themselves from Orban – as Italy’s Giorgia Meloni has already done.
CPAC underscored the scale of Orban’s effort to preserve the influence he has worked so hard to build. He cannot take on the EU alone. He needs allies if he is to realise his vision of “occupying Brussels” and unleashing his own “tornado” of “civility” across Europe. The Patriots group, Hungary’s Visegrad neighbours and a Trump-led Washington may yet serve as vehicles for that ambition – and for Orban’s own political survival.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
At least four people were killed and 20 were wounded in multiple Russian missile and drone attacks overnight on the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, local officials have said.
Kyiv mayor Vitali Klitschko said on Friday morning search and rescue operations were continuing in several locations. Among the wounded, 16 were admitted to hospital.
Ukrainian authorities said Russian forces launched 407 drones and 45 missiles, including cruise and ballistic missiles, of which they succeeded in destroying, respectively, around 200 and 30.
“It was a very frightening night. We heard some of the drones go over this area in central Kyiv, giant explosions ringing out across the city, some so loud that they were shaking the glass here of our hotel, we’ve seen pictures of people who took shelter in the metro stations underground and underground car parks,” said Al Jazeera’s Charles Stratford, reporting from the Ukrainian capital.
Multiple explosions were heard in Kyiv, where falling debris sparked fires across several districts as air defence systems attempted to intercept incoming targets, said Tymur Tkachenko, head of the Kyiv City Administration.
“Our air defence crews are doing everything possible. But we must protect one another – stay safe,” Tkachenko wrote on Telegram.
Ukraine’s human rights chief, Dmytro Lubinets, called for a strong international response to the overnight attack, saying the assault violated basic human rights.
“Russia is acting like a terrorist, systematically targeting civilian infrastructure,” Lubinets wrote on Telegram. “The world must respond clearly and take concrete steps, including condemning the aggressor’s actions.”
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha also called on Western allies to ramp up pressure on Russia. “Russia’s overnight attack on civilians once again demonstrates that the international pressure on Moscow must be increased as soon as possible,” he said in a statement.
Moscow denies targeting civilians since it launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
Authorities reported damage in several districts, and rescue workers were responding at multiple locations. They urged residents to seek shelter.
Ukraine’s Ministry of Internal Affairs said three emergency workers were killed in Kyiv while responding to the aftermath of Russian attacks. “They were working under fire to help people,” the ministry said in a statement.
In Solomyanskyi district, a fire broke out on the 11th floor of a 16-storey residential building. Emergency services evacuated three people from the apartment, and rescue operations were under way. Another fire broke out in a metal warehouse.
Tkachenko said the metro tracks between two stations in Kyiv were damaged in the attack, but no fire or injuries occurred.
The attack hit at least six regions across Ukraine, leaving a trail of civilian injuries, damaged infrastructure and disrupted utilities.
The number of people injured in a Russian attack on the western city of Ternopil early Friday rose to 10, including five emergency workers, regional governor Viacheslav Nehoda said. The strike damaged industrial and infrastructure facilities, left parts of the city without electricity, and disrupted water supplies.
Three people were injured in Ukraine’s central Poltava region following a Russian attack that damaged administrative buildings, warehouses and a cafe, regional head Volodymyr Kohut said. Fires caused by the strike have been extinguished, and debris fell on a private home.
Russian forces also struck the Khmelnytskyi region overnight, damaging a private residential building, outbuildings, a fence, and several vehicles, regional governor Serhii Tiuryn said.
Meanwhile, air defence forces shot down three Russian missiles over the western Lviv region overnight, the regional head Maksym Kozytskyi said.
In the northern Chernihiv region, a Shahed drone exploded near an apartment building, shattering windows and doors, according to regional military administration chief Dmytro Bryzhynskyi. He said explosions from ballistic missiles were also recorded on the outskirts of the city.
The overnight attack took place as hopes for a truce between Russia and Ukraine seemed to be faltering, despite two rounds of direct talks in Istanbul.
On Thursday, United States President Donald Trump said it may be better to let Ukraine and Russia “fight for a while” rather than pursue peace immediately – a remarkable shift from Trump’s previous appeals for a quick end to the war.
Earlier this week, Russian President Vladimir Putin told Trump in a telephone conversation that Moscow would have to respond to the earlier huge Ukrainian drone attacks deep inside Russia against Russian military warplanes.
Fiery lava seen flowing from the volcano near the capital as disaster agency issues warning to nearby residents.
Guatemalan authorities have ordered the evacuation of hundreds of people, after Central America’s most active volcano spewed gas and ash thousands of metres into the sky.
According to an emergency bulletin issued late on Thursday by the country’s National Coordinator for Disaster Reduction (CONRED), Volcan de Fuego (Volcano of Fire) emitted hot gases and volcanic matter that was registered up to 7km (4 miles) from the site of the eruption.
Residents from communities near the volcano, which is located some 35km (22 miles) from the capital, Guatemala City, were told to move to shelters.
Juan Laureano, spokesperson for CONRED, said at least 594 people were moved to shelters from five communities in the Chimaltenango, Escuintla and Sacatepequez areas, The Associated Press news agency reported. Given the volcanic activity, the number of evacuees was expected to rise.
The government has suspended classes at 39 schools and closed a road linking the south of the country to the colonial city of Antigua, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, CONRED said.
Images posted on social media showed fiery lava flowing from the volcano and a mix of ash, rocks and water raging down the volcano’s slopes following the eruption.
CONRED said the mix of ash and gas spewing into the sky was affecting several communities situated to the northwest, west, and southwest of the volcano.
Guatemala’s National Institute of Seismology, Volcanology, Meteorology, and Hydrology (INSIVUMEH) said the volcanic activity is expected to last for 40 hours.
Ash clouds could reach altitudes of between 3,000 and 7,000 metres (2 to 4 miles) with the potential to affect air navigation, according to reports.
The 3,763-meter (12,350-foot) Volcan de Fuego is one of the most active in Central America, resulting in several mass evacuations in recent years due to eruptions, including the most recent in March.
In 2018, 215 people were killed and more than 200 went missing when rivers of lava poured down the volcano’s slopes, devastating a nearby village, following an eruption.
Published on
06/06/2025 – 6:42 GMT+2
ADVERTISEMENTIn three hours on Thursday, shares in Elon Musk’s electric vehicle company plunged by more than 14% in a stunning wipeout, as investors dumped their holdings amid a bitter war of words between the president and the world’s richest man.
By the end of the trading day, $150 billion (€139bn) of Tesla’s market value had been erased — more than what it would take to buy all the shares of Starbucks and hundreds of other big publicly traded US companies.
The disagreement started over the president’s budget bill, then quickly turned nasty after Musk said that Trump wouldn’t have been elected without his help. Trump then implied that he may turn the federal government against Musk’s companies, including Tesla and SpaceX.
“The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,” Trump wrote on his social messaging service Truth Social. “I was always surprised that Biden didn’t do it!”
The drop on Thursday partially reversed a big run-up in the eight weeks since Musk confirmed that Tesla would be testing an autonomous, driverless “robotaxi” service in Austin, Texas, this month.
Investors fear Trump might not be in such a rush to usher in a future of self-driving cars in the US, and that could hit Tesla.
“The whole goal of robotaxis is to have them in 20 or 25 cities next year,” Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives, said. “If you start to heighten the regulatory environment, that could delay that path.”
He added that there’s a fear Trump is not going to play ‘Mr Nice Guy’ anymore.
However, Trump’s threat to cut government contracts could be aimed more at another of Musk’s businesses, SpaceX. The privately held rocket company has received billions of dollars for sending astronauts and cargo to the International Space Station, providing launches and doing other work for NASA. The company is currently racing to develop a mega-rocket for the space agency to send astronauts to the Moon next year.
A subsidiary of SpaceX, the satellite internet company Starlink, appears to also have benefited from Musk’s once-close relationship with the president.
On a trip with Trump to the Middle East last month, Musk announced that Saudi Arabia had approved Starlink for aviation and maritime use. Though its not clear how much politics has played a role, a string of other recent deals in Bangladesh, Pakistan, India and elsewhere has followed, as Trump has threatened tariffs and sent diplomats scrambling to please the president.
One measure of SpaceX’s success: A private financing round followed by a private sale of shares in recent months reportedly valued it at $350 billion (around €325bn), up from an estimated $210 billion (about €195.3bn) a year ago.
Now all that is possibly in danger. Tesla shares got an even bigger lift from Musk’s close relationship with Trump, initially at least.
After the presidential election in November, investors rushed into the stock, adding more than $450 billion (€418.5bn) to its value in a few weeks. The belief was that the company would see big gains as Trump eased regulatory oversight of Tesla. They also bet that the new administration would embrace Musk’s plans for millions of cars on US roads without drivers behind the wheel.
After hitting an all-time high on 17 December, the shares retreated as Musk’s time as head of a government cost-cutting group led to boycotts and a hit to Tesla’s reputation. They’ve recently popped higher again after Musk vowed to focus more on Tesla and its upcoming driverless taxi launch.
Now investors aren’t so sure, a worry that has translated into big paper losses in Tesla stock held by Musk personally.
The failed mission comes two years after the Japanese start-up’s first moonshot ended in a crash landing.
A Japanese-made private lunar lander has crashed while attempting to touch down on the moon, with its makers officially declaring the mission a failure.
Tokyo-based company ispace said on Friday that its lander, named Resilience, dropped out of lunar orbit as planned and that the mission appeared to be going well.
But flight controllers lost contact with Resilience, which was carrying a mini rover, moments before its scheduled touchdown on the surface of the moon following an hourlong descent. Ground support was met with silence as they attempted to regain contact with the lander and after several hours declared the mission a failure.
The company’s livestream of the attempted landing then came to an abrupt end.
“We have to take seriously what happened,” ispace CEO and founder Takeshi Hakamada said after the failed mission, as he apologised to everyone who contributed.
This is the firm’s second failed attempt to soft land on the lunar surface, coming two years after the Japanese start-up’s first attempt to reach the moon ended in a crash landing.
Launched in December 2022, the firm’s Hakuto-R Mission 1 reached lunar orbit but crashed during its final descent after an error caused the lander to believe it was lower than it actually was.
That mission’s successor, Resilience, was launched in January from Florida on a long, roundabout journey. It shared a ride on a SpaceX rocket with Firefly Aerospace’s Blue Ghost, which, upon reaching the moon first in March this year, made the US firm the first private entity to make a “fully successful” soft landing there.
The 2.3-metre (7.5-foot) Resilience lander was targeting the top of the moon, where the ispace team had chosen a flat area with few boulders in Mare Frigoris, or Sea of Cold, to land.
Resilience was expected to beam back pictures within hours of landing, before ispace’s European-built rover – named Tenacious – would have been lowered onto the lunar surface this weekend. The rover, made of carbon fibre-reinforced plastic and sporting a high-definition camera, would then have scouted out the area and scooped up lunar dirt for NASA.
Resilience was also carrying a toy-sized red house created by Swedish artist Mikael Genberg. Moonhouse, as the model Swedish-style cottage was called, was intended to be the moon’s first “building”, in a nod to Hakamada’s vision of humans living and working there as early as the 2040s.
But ispace’s now second failed landing has left the Japanese entrepreneur’s vision in doubt. The aerospace company’s next, much bigger lander is scheduled to launch by 2027 with NASA’s involvement.
Prior to Friday’s failed mission, the Japanese firm’s chief financial officer, Jumpei Nozaki, promised to continue its lunar quest regardless of the outcome.
But Jeremy Fix, chief engineer for ispace’s US subsidiary, said at a conference last month that the firm does not have “infinite funds” and cannot afford repeated failures.
Company officials said this latest failed mission cost less than the first one – which exceeded $100m – but declined to provide an exact figure.
Harvard University has broadened its existing lawsuit against the administration of President Donald Trump to fight a new action that attempts to stop its international students from entering the United States.
On Thursday, the prestigious Ivy League school filed an amended complaint that alleges Trump’s latest executive order violates the rights of the school and its students.
Just one day earlier, Trump published an executive order claiming that “it is necessary to restrict the entry of foreign nationals who seek to enter the United States solely or principally” to attend Harvard.
He called Harvard’s international students a “class of aliens” whose arrival “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States”. As a result, he said that he had the right under the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny them entry into the country.
But in Thursday’s court filing, Harvard dismissed that argument as the latest salvo in Trump’s months-long campaign to harm the school.
“The President’s actions thus are not undertaken to protect the ‘interests of the United States,’ but instead to pursue a government vendetta against Harvard,” the amended complaint says.
It further alleged that, by issuing a new executive order to restrict students’ entry, the Trump administration was attempting to circumvent an existing court order that blocked it from preventing Harvard’s registration of foreign students.
The complaint called upon US District Judge Allison Burroughs in Massachusetts to extend her temporary restraining order to include Trump’s latest attack on Harvard’s foreign students.
“Harvard’s more than 7,000 F-1 and J-1 visa holders — and their dependents — have become pawns in the government’s escalating campaign of retaliation,” Harvard wrote.
Trump began his campaign against Harvard and other prominent schools earlier this year, after taking office for a second term as president. He blamed the universities for failing to take sterner action against the Palestinian solidarity protests that cropped up on their campuses in the wake of Israel’s war on Gaza.
The president called the demonstrations anti-Semitic and pledged to remove foreign students from the US who participated. Protest organisers, meanwhile, have argued that their aims were non-violent and that the actions of a few have been used to tar the movement overall.
Critics have also accused Trump of using the protests as leverage to exert greater control over the country’s universities, including private schools like Harvard and its fellow Ivy League school, Columbia University.
In early March, Columbia — whose protest encampments were emulated at campuses across the country — saw $400m in federal funding stripped from its budget.
The school later agreed to a list of demands issued by the Trump administration, including changes to its disciplinary policies and a review of its Middle East studies programme.
Harvard University was also given a list of demands to comply with. But unlike Columbia, it refused, citing concerns that the restrictions would limit its academic freedom.
The Trump administration’s demands included ending Harvard’s diversity programmes and allowing the federal government to audit its hiring and admissions processes to “establish viewpoint diversity”. When those demands were not met, it proceeded to strip Harvard of its federal funding, to the tune of billions of dollars.
Trump also threatened to revoke the school’s tax-exempt status and barred it from receiving future federal research grants.
But the attack on Harvard’s international students has threatened to drive away tuition revenue as well. Nearly a quarter of Harvard’s overall student body is from overseas.
In May, the Department of Homeland Security announced it would revoke Harvard’s access to a system, the Student Exchange Visitor Program, where it is required to log information about its foreign students.
That would have forced currently enrolled Harvard students to transfer to another school, if they were in the country on a student visa. It would have also prevented Harvard from accepting any further international students.
But Harvard sued the Trump administration, calling its actions “retaliatory” and “unlawful”.
On May 23, Judge Burroughs granted Harvard’s emergency petition for a restraining order to stop the restriction from taking effect. But since then, the Trump administration has continued to exert pressure on Harvard and other schools.
Earlier this week, for example, the Trump administration wrote a letter to Columbia University’s accreditor, accusing the New York City school of falling short of federal civil rights laws.
Manish Kohli, head of Global Payments Solutions at HSBC, discusses the bank’s digital-payments strategy and how it is innovating in transaction banking. HSBC was named one of Global Finance’s Most Innovative Banks.
Global Finance: Open banking is on the rise. How does HSBC see its role evolving in this new ecosystem?
Manish Kohli: HSBC is a major player in the open-banking and open-finance ecosystem. We’re the world’s largest transaction bank and have a global footprint that spans the numerous jurisdictions and clearing systems that are driving the open-banking agenda.
We are reengineering our processes by integrating advanced digital solutions, from automated cash management to robust API connectivity. So we automate manual processes and integrate systems to improve efficiency and risk management.
Collaboration is key, because we see open banking as a catalyst for a more client-centric ecosystem. This collaboration starts with our clients as they help shape our product-development road map.
We also collaborate across clients’ treasury tech stacks and have live API integrations with partners such as SAP, Oracle, Kyriba, and FIS. This ensures we are providing clients with an end-to-end solution and staying focused on incorporating technology into payment solutions that support our clients and their treasurers with the real-time information they need to make more-informed cash management decisions.
GF: What is HSBC’s strategy for incorporating emerging payment technologies such as digital currencies—including central bank digital currencies (CBDCs)—andhow do you see these impacting your payment solutions?
Kohli: Whilst CBDC maturity varies greatly by market, it will play a critical role in the payments solutions of tomorrow, which is why we continue to research, test, and invest with various central banks globally.
Currently, HSBC is involved in pilot projects with central banks in markets including the UK, France, Singapore, Hong Kong, China, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates, and with the Bank for International Settlements’ Project Agorà.
Our tokenization platform for digital bond issuance, Project Orion, has led the way in the digitalization of capital markets infrastructure. HSBC was also one of the first financial institutions to complete proof-of-concept use cases within the Project Ensemble Sandbox, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority’s CBDC project to accelerate tokenization.
GF: How is HSBC utilizing data analytics to gain deeper insights into customer behavior within digital channels? And how are you using these insights to drive innovation in client service?
Kohli: We process numerous transactions per second, generating a wealth of data. This data is used not only for retrospective analysis but also in real time, powering intelligent payments solutions. The insights gathered from millions of transactions help us to not only improve our own processes but deliver tailored, actionable advice to our clients ranging from choosing the fastest or cheapest route for international payments to risk-mitigated strategies for currency management.
Our innovative analytics tools can detect when a payment is made in an alternative currency. This allows us to offer customers the option to secure the best rate. The use of AI and API integration further ensures that insights derived from data immediately support payment decisions.
We’ve established a dedicated Treasury Solutions Group, which conducts gap analyses and recommends best practices to improve treasury operations.
GF: Beyond incremental improvements to existing digital channels, what “moon shot” or disruptive digital banking or payment solutions is HSBC investing in?
Kohli: We don’t underestimate the importance of incremental improvement, given that we operate in a heavily regulated, market-driven ecosystem that spans numerous regulators, central banks, and payments partners.
We are focused on building innovative solutions that enable our clients to transform in the digital economy. In recent years, we’ve made significant investments to develop digital solutions that help accelerate the pace at which money moves globally. Our most recent innovative solution, Digital Merchant Services, has enabled HSBC to become a digital-merchant acquirer for cards, local e-wallets, and real-time payments, helping our merchant clients with seamless payment collections at scale and to grow their business efficiently.
We’ve invested $30 million in building a next-generation liquidity engine, and our use of AI allows us to provide real-time, data-driven insights during transactions. For example, through FX Prompt, our systems can instantly advise customers on the best currency option, ensuring they secure the most favorable rates, making our payment solutions smarter and more agile. Tomorrow’s moon shots will be the result of ongoing collaboration with numerous stakeholders in the ecosystem, persistent investment, and continuous R&D.
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said the country used armed gangs in Gaza to help fight Hamas, his admission coming after a new wave of military strikes on the besieged Gaza Strip that left at least 52 Palestinians dead.
Netanyahu said the government had “activated” powerful local clans in the enclave on the advice of “security officials”, his video statement posted to X on Thursday coming hours after former Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman accused him of deploying the tactic.
The statement marked the government’s first public acknowledgement that it had backed the armed Palestinian groups based around powerful families, which stand accused by aid workers of carrying out criminal attacks and stealing aid from trucks as starvation stalks the entire territory due to a punishing Israeli blockade.
An Israeli official cited by news agency The Associated Press said that one of the groups Netanyahu was referring to was the so-called Popular Forces, led by Yasser Abu Shabab, a local clan leader in Rafah.
Last month, Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported on the group’s activities – though it was named the “Anti-Terror Service” in the report – saying that sources in Gaza claimed it consisted of roughly 100 armed men operating with the tacit approval of the Israeli military.
In recent weeks, the Abu Shabab group announced online that its fighters were helping protect supply shipments to new US- and Israel-backed distribution centres run by the shadowy Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF).
“The Israeli opposition claims that there was no consultation within the Israeli government or the Israeli cabinet,” said Al Jazeera’s Hamdah Salhut, reporting from Jordan’s capital Amman. “Netanyahu says that these armed gangs … could essentially help the Israelis defeat Hamas in Gaza.”
“But it’s not going down well within Israel, where people are saying that these are armed criminal enterprises within the Gaza Strip. That they should not be armed and that these are Israeli weapons that are being put in their hands,” she said.
Netanyahu made his statement on another deadly day in Gaza, the military hitting targets throughout the besieged coastal enclave where the crippling blockade has brought the population to the brink of mass starvation.
Deadly incidents, killing more than 100 and wounding many more, at aid distribution sites run by the GHF since last week have sparked widespread condemnation, with Israeli troops opening fire on Palestinians seeking aid on four separate occasions since last week.
Chris Gunness, former spokesperson for the UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA), told Al Jazeera that the operations of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation had turned Gaza into a “human abattoir”.
“Hundreds of civilians are herded like animals into fenced-off pens and are slaughtered like cattle in the process,” he said.
Amid growing international condemnation, GHF shuttered operations for a full day on Wednesday, saying the next day that it would reopen two aid distribution centres in the Rafah area of southern Gaza. It did not say when aid distribution would resume.
At least 52 Palestinians were killed on Thursday, according to hospital sources who spoke to Al Jazeera. The sources said 31 bodies had arrived at Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, with 21 admitted to Gaza City’s al-Ahli Arab and al-Shifa hospitals.
Israel killed four journalists in an attack on al-Ahli Hospital itself, also known as the Baptist Hospital, in Gaza City
Gaza City local Fadi al-Hindi told Al Jazeera that he had seen one of the strikes on al-Nasser Street, near the al-Shifa Hospital, witnessing scenes of death after running outside his tent to check on his children.
“When I arrived, I saw a man in pieces; he had been riding a bicycle, and the lower half of his body was gone. Everyone in the street was injured, and we started to collect the pieces of the wounded,” he said.
At least three Palestinians were killed in the strike, reportedly including children.
The Palestinian news agency Wafa also reported five deaths in areas around Khan Younis, four west of Beit Lahiya in the north, and one south of Gaza City, as well as the injuring of a child near Bureij in central Gaza.
Wafa also reported that Israeli forces opened fire on Palestinians trying to reach an aid centre near Wadi Gaza.
In the meantime, Hamas chief Khalil al-Hayya has said in a prerecorded speech that the group did not reject a proposal for a ceasefire in Gaza put forward by US special envoy Steve Witkoff, stating that it had instead requested some changes to ensure an end to the war.
Al-Hayya added that Hamas is ready to engage in further talks and that communications with the mediators are ongoing. Israel broke off a previous truce in March to resume the war in Gaza.
Uncertainty continues to cloud the global economic horizon, with tariffs remaining a dominant con- cern in both political and financial circles. In the
United States, decisions by the Trump administration have increasingly been subject to legal scrutiny and challenged in court, and what’s legal one week may be overturned the next. As economists at BNP Paribas aptly describe it, the legal status of trade decisions moves like a yo-yo.
Meanwhile, formal and informal trade talks between sovereign nations continue moving up and down. Financial markets reflect this instability with sharp reactions. But for the corporate world, time doesn’t stop. Daily decisions must be made—regardless of the uncertainty hanging over long-term strategies. Questions abound: Will multinational infrastructure projects go ahead? Will financing for wind and alternative energy initiatives hold firm? These are difficult questions, and for many, the answers remain elusive. And yet, in this uncertainty, one sector shows remark- able resilience: innovation. In this issue, we’re proud to present our annual awards for innovation and innovators, along with a selection of some of the most dynamic innovation labs around the world. Unsurprisingly, artificial intelligence leads the way, both in concept and in real- world application. Many of the financial institutions and fintech firms recognized this year are not just adapting to the future—they are helping to shape it.
The innovations profiled by our global team of reporters and analysts are impressive on their own merits. But more striking is the broader trend they represent. Despite economic and political volatility, organizations across the financial and technology spectrum—banks, startups, consulting firms, and independent labs—are continuing to invest aggressively in R&D. Why? Because innovation is not a luxury. It’s a necessity.
This strong commitment to innovation suggests something profound: in uncertain times, looking forward becomes more important, not less. Innovation, in this context, is not merely a growth strategy—it’s a survival strategy. And in many ways, it proves to be counter-cyclical. When the present is unstable, thinking ahead becomes not just prudent, but essential.
Andrea Fiano | Editor At Large | [email protected]
Access the digital edition.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has called on the US to apply more pressure on Russia to end its three-year-old war on Ukraine.
“You know that we gave support to Ukraine and that we are looking for more pressure on Russia,” Merz told US President Donald Trump at the start of their meeting on Thursday at the Oval Office.
Merz emphasised that Germany “was on the side of Ukraine”, while Trump likened the war to a fight between two young children who hated each other.
“Sometimes, you’re better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart,” Trump said. He added that he had relayed that analogy to Russian President Vladimir Putin in their phone conversation on Wednesday.
Asked about Trump’s comments as the two leaders sat next to each other, Merz stressed that both he and Trump agreed “on this war and how terrible this war is going on,” pointing to the US president as the “key person in the world” who would be able to stop the bloodshed.
Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett said that, while the two men agreed that the war needed to end, how that happens “seems to be a point of contention”.
“What we saw there was the German chancellor suggesting and pointing out that … Russia continues to hit back at civilian targets, whereas, when it comes to Ukraine, the focus in the eyes of Germany has been strictly on military targets inside Russia,” she said from Washington, DC.
Halkett added that Trump revealed during the meeting that he “implored the Russian president not to retaliate for that attack that took place over the weekend … and Vladimir Putin said he was going to attack regardless.”
Thursday’s meeting marked the first time that the two leaders sat down in person. After exchanging pleasantries – Merz gave Trump a gold-framed birth certificate of the US president’s grandfather, Friedrich Trump, who immigrated from Germany – the two leaders were to discuss issues such as Ukraine, trade and NATO spending.
Trump and Merz have spoken several times by phone, either bilaterally or with other European leaders, since Merz took office on May 6. German officials say the two leaders have started to build a “decent” relationship, with Merz wanting to avoid the antagonism that defined Trump’s relationship with one of his predecessors, Angela Merkel, in the Republican president’s first term.
The 69-year-old Merz, who came to office with an extensive business background, is a conservative former rival of Merkel’s who took over her party after she retired from politics.
Merz has thrown himself into diplomacy on Ukraine, travelling to Kyiv with fellow European leaders days after taking office and receiving Zelenskyy in Berlin last week.
He has thanked Trump for his support for an unconditional ceasefire while rejecting the idea of “dictated peace” or the “subjugation” of Ukraine and advocating for more sanctions against Russia.
In their first phone call since Merz became chancellor, Trump said he would support the efforts of Germany and other European countries to achieve peace, according to a readout from the German government. Merz also said last month that “it is of paramount importance that the political West not let itself be divided, so I will continue to make every effort to produce the greatest possible unity between the European and American partners.”
Under Merz’s immediate predecessor, Olaf Scholz, Germany became the second-biggest supplier of military aid to Ukraine after the United States. Merz has promised to keep up the support and last week, pledged to help Ukraine develop its own long-range missile systems that would be free of any imposed range limits.
At home, Merz’s government is intensifying a drive that Scholz started to bolster the German military after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. In Trump’s first term, Berlin was a target of his ire for failing to meet the current NATO target of spending 2 percent of gross domestic product on defence, and Trump is now demanding at least 5 percent from allies.
The White House official said the upcoming NATO summit in the Netherlands later this month is a “good opportunity” for Germany to commit to meeting that 5 percent mark.
During their meeting on Thursday, Trump described Merz as a good representative of Germany and also “difficult,” which he suggested was a compliment. He said US troops would remain in Germany and said it was positive that Berlin was spending more money on defence.
Another top priority for Merz is to get Germany’s economy, Europe’s biggest, moving again after it shrank the past two years. He wants to make it a “locomotive of growth,” but Trump’s tariff threats are a potential obstacle for a country whose exports have been a key strength. At present, the economy is forecast to stagnate in 2025.
Germany exported $160bn worth of goods to the US last year, according to the Census Bureau. That was about $85bn more than what the US sent to Germany, a trade deficit that Trump wants to erase.
“Germany is one of the very big investors in America,” Merz told reporters Thursday morning. “Only a few countries invest more than Germany in the USA. We are in third place in terms of foreign direct investment.”
The United States and the European Union are in talks to reach a trade deal, which would be critical for Germany’s export-heavy economy, but Trump said he would be fine with an agreement or with tariffs.
“We’ll end up hopefully with a trade deal,” Trump said. “I’m OK with the tariffs, or we make a deal with the trade.”
Paul Brody is global blockchain leader at professional services firm EY and co-author of a 2023 book, Ethereum for Business: A Plain-English Guide to the Use Cases that Generate Returns from Asset Management to Payments to Supply Chains. He speaks with Global Finance about blockchain technology’s impact on everything from routine payments to cross-border remittances to the future of banking and the CFO and treasurer roles.
Global Finance: If we look at what people are transacting on blockchains today, it’s not primarily bitcoin but stablecoin, a type of cryptocurrency designed to maintain a stable value over time. Does this surprise you?
Paul Brody: The ability of people to pay each other in dollars is hugely valuable. And to give you a sense of how big stable- coin dollars have become, last month the ethereum blockchain ecosystem did $2 trillion in stablecoin payments, over 99% of which were in US dollars.
GF: Who is actually using them?
Brody: By far the most popular initial use case for stablecoin is in emerging markets. Countries without independent central banks often experience high inflation or even hyperinflation, and so demand for US dollars is really high among the local population.
GF: And they’re being used for cross-border remittances too?
Brody: A lot of traditional cross-border systems take days to execute, and they cost a fair amount of money. If both participants have smartphones and cryptocurrency accounts, you can send dollars across borders in a matter of seconds for almost nothing.
GF: Lately, the US Treasury Department seems to be saying that the US doesn’t need a central bank digital currency [CBDC], i.e., a digital dollar. It can use stablecoin. Is that your read too?
Brody: What we need is well-regulated stablecoin. We need some regulatory safeguards to make sure that if you say there’s a dollar on-chain, there’s also a dollar in the bank account to back that up, or its equivalent in assets.
CBDCs have been flopping, mostly because central banks don’t really know why they’re doing them. I’ve talked to many central bankers, and they generally have no idea why they’re doing this other than Facebook wanted one.
GF: How will blockchain technology change things for corporate CFOs and treasurers?
Brody: CFOs and treasurers have some questions to ask themselves: Am I plugged into the crypto and blockchain system? Can I make stablecoin payments? Should I include bitcoin in my corporate treasury alongside US dollar-denominated bonds? Going further, can I automate my business contracts? My procurement? How can I run my business operations more efficiently? And if a customer wants to pay me in stablecoin, can they do so? The answer for most companies today is, no, they can’t.
GF: If you’re a stablecoin issuer, how do you make a profit on that business?
Brody: You make money with transaction fees and, potentially, your float on the interest rate. But that depends on interest rates. If rates go down really low, it’s going to be a painful business. Fees are pretty small because it’s such a competitive environment.
GF: What does all this mean for banks generally going forward? Is it going to lessen their importance?
Brody: It’s going to change banks’ role, and may diminish it. It depends on how a bank makes its money.
Banks that make their money processing credit card transac- tions are the most at risk because blockchains represent a new, more efficient way to process transactions. You swipe your credit card in a store, and you don’t see the cost of the payment, but it’s real and it’s substantial, like 3% to 4%. International wire trans- fers are usually a fixed fee, as much as $50. Stablecoin transfers cost almost nothing by comparison.
But if you’re a regional bank that does a lot of corporate finance, blockchain probably doesn’t change your business that much.
GF: What about major custody banks, such as BNY Mellon, JPMorgan, etc.? Is their business at risk?
Brody: Major custody banks are in an interesting place. They have a ton of assets, and if you’ve got assets and you control and custody those assets, you’re then in a position to help people tokenize them.
So, this new technology is certainly a threat, but it’s also potentially a substantial opportunity. At the end of the day, if you’re custodying assets and you’re now helping people tokenize them or manage them in different ecosystems, that represents the additive potential to your business.
GF: In your book Ethereum for Business, you highlight the importance of blockchain-based smart contracts. With these, one can define not only dollars but all sorts of things, even coffee mugs. Why aren’t more corporations using smart contracts?
Brody: The answer is that blockchains don’t yet have privacy built into them, and this is a huge problem. But it’s being fixed. It’s like the early days of the internet, when we didn’t have encryption. Most companies don’t feel comfortable doing business without privacy.
It’s why private blockchains have never worked. If companies had a private blockchain, they thought it ensured privacy. What they didn’t realize is that inside that walled garden there’s still no privacy. If you’re a big company and you have all your suppliers in your private blockchain, you still can’t run your procurement process there, because supplier A can see how much you’re paying supplier B, and also how much you’re ordering from them.
GF: How deep are banks going to go in providing blockchain services?
Brody: Every single bank is going to offer some kind of DLT [distributed ledger technology] service. You have stocks, you have bonds [to offer clients], and now you may add crypto. Other institutions may send cash to an ethereum address for you, instead of setting up a wire transfer to a bank address. There will be new versions of money transfer and payments, and some of them are going to be quite sophisticated.
GF: Skeptics are asking when they will see blockchain’s “killer app”: meaning an application that’s universally used, along the lines of what email did for the internet?
Brody: Stablecoins are the killer app, the one that gets everybody on-chain. The stablecoin market is about to get crazy competitive, and yield-bearing stablecoins will be widely available soon.
“CFOs and treasurers have to ask themselves: If a customer wants to pay me in stablecoin, can they do so?”
GF: All in all, is blockchain a niche innovation—useful but not earth-shattering—or is it something that can fundamentally change global finance?
Brody: It’s not only going to change global finance, but it will transform all global commerce.
Blockchain is going to become the plumbing by which all B2B transactions are done.
And the reason it’s so transformational is that historically, money, contracts, and “stuff” [i.e., goods] all were in different systems. Companies still spend huge amounts on reconciling money, stuff, and contracts. For example, it costs the average large company about $100 to pay a bill. And the reason is, somebody in procurement has to say, I’ve got this bill. Does it match the purchase order that I sent out? Do the terms on the bill and the purchase order match the terms of the contract? And so on. Imagine a future where the money, the stuff, and the terms of the contract are all in the same digital system and they all reconcile with each other. It’s done instantly. In 10, 15 years, the whole process will be universal and invisible. Back-end plumbing, right?
The Netherlands is still supporting the supply chain of Israel’s version of the F-35 fighter jet, more than a year after a court banned direct Dutch exports of F-35 parts to Israel, a report claims.
Research by the Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM) shared with Al Jazeera shows that the port of Rotterdam is frequented by ships carrying F-35 parts for maintenance and assembly. The ships belong to the Danish shipping giant Maersk.
By examining import data and shipping receipts of Maersk and Lockheed Martin – the United States weapons manufacturer that designed the F-35 – the group found that more than a dozen shipments from Israel travelled through the port of Rotterdam on their way to the US from April 2023 until early 2025.
The F-35 fighter jet has been used by Israel to bomb Gaza from the air with devastating effect. Much of the Strip, where more than 50,000 people have been killed since October 2023, is in ruins.
“Maersk now operates a recurring shipping cycle between Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth facility in Texas and Israel Aerospace Industries in Israel, routed through Rotterdam,” the report stated. “In this cycle, Maersk transports pairs of empty F-35 wing containers from Houston to Ashdod, Israel, where they are loaded with completed F-35 wings. The filled containers are then shipped back to the US for final assembly or repair.”
The researchers noted that Rotterdam is a “key stopover point in this process, and shipments for this cycle have occurred beyond February of 2024”.
Then, a judge at a Dutch appeals court ordered the Netherlands to stop exporting and transiting F-35 parts to Israel, saying there was a “clear risk” they were being used in “serious violations of international humanitarian law”.
The Dutch state immediately lodged an appeal at the Supreme Court, but until a decision is made, it is still bound by the lower court’s ruling.
“The findings in the report show that the port of Rotterdam plays an important role in sustaining the operational capacities of Israel’s F-35 fighter jets. This way, the port of Rotterdam is complicit to international law violations in Gaza,” Gerard Jonkman, director of a Dutch NGO, The Rights Forum, told Al Jazeera.
The Dutch Foreign Ministry told Al Jazeera that the court had subsequently confirmed that the judgement in February 2024 applied only to the export or transit of F-35 parts from the Netherlands to Israel and that the Dutch state had implemented the judgement accordingly.
A spokesperson for the port of Rotterdam told Al Jazeera that the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs was responsible for issuing permits for the transhipment of military goods. Port officials check vessel compliance with environmental and safety regulations for shipping on behalf of the government and municipality of Rotterdam, they said.
“The harbour master receives only limited information regarding vessel cargo. The information received mainly pertains to whether the vessel is carrying hazardous substances. Other aspects of vessel cargo are monitored by various other public authorities, such as customs.”
They said they were “aware” of the February 2024 court ruling.
“All activities in the port must comply with international laws and regulations and the permits issued by the government. If we see any indication that this is not the case, the Port of Rotterdam Authority alerts the competent authority.”
The Rights Forum was one of three parties, together with the Dutch affiliate of Oxfam and PAX for Peace, the largest peace organisation in the Netherlands, that sued the Dutch state over its export of F-35 parts to Israel.
“In this case, there is no direct export from the Netherlands to Israel, but the Netherlands is still part of the supply chain for the Israeli F-35 programme,” Gerard Jonkman, head of the Rights Forum, said of the Palestinian Youth Movement’s findings. “This way the Netherlands facilitates the Israeli F-35 programme and might breach its obligations under international law.”
PAX for Peace project leader Frank Slijper told Al Jazeera: “This indeed shows that the Netherlands is part of the F-35 supply chain.”
A grassroots organisation, the Palestinian Youth Movement believes that targeting Maersk directly disrupts the flow of weapons in the “supply chain of death used to genocide Palestinians”.
According to the group, Maersk has shipped the wings for every Israeli F-35 since March 2022.
In November 2024, following a decision by Spain to deny docking permission to two ships carrying weapons bound for Israel, Maersk adjusted its routes. The company’s fleet now avoids Spain in favour of Rotterdam and the port of Tangier in Morocco
“Maersk has, for years, knowingly supplied the Israeli military with key weapons components used to carry out genocide in Gaza,” Aisha Nizar of the Palestinian Youth Movement told Al Jazeera. “The company has done so without hesitation, potentially violating multiple arms embargo policies across Europe.”
The F-35 is considered a top-of-the-line fighter jet. The aircraft designed by Lockheed Martin costs at least $80m in its most basic configuration.
Currently, 12 countries operate the jet. F-35 parts are made in the United States and several participating partner countries, giving the project the moniker Joint Strike Fighter.
“It is very sad to see that Maersk is not distancing itself from Israel’s crimes against humanity in Gaza and more broadly continues lending itself to the crucial replenishment of Israel’s armed forces,” Slijper said. “Shipping military supplies for the benefit of Israel’s arms industry and the [Israeli army] risks Maersk being complicit in Israel’s crimes.”
The use of the jet by Israel, the only country with its unique version of the F-35, has been scrutinised since the start of the onslaught in Gaza.
Recently, campaign groups took the United Kingdom government to court in a bid to halt the exports of British-made F-35 parts to Israel.
In a statement to Al Jazeera, Lockheed Martin said: “Foreign military sales are government-to-government transactions, and we closely adhere to US government policy with regard to conducting business with international partners.”
Regarding F-35 shipments, Maersk told Al Jazeera that it upholds a strict policy of not shipping weapons or ammunition to active conflict zones and that it conducted due diligence, particularly in regions affected by active conflicts, including Israel and Gaza, and adapts this due diligence to the changing context. It confirmed, however, that its US subsidiary Maersk Line Limited was one of “many companies supporting the global F-35 supply chain” with transport services.
The F-35 programme includes several coalition countries, including Israel.
“As part of the coalition-building of the F-35, Maersk Line Limited regularly transports parts between participating countries, including Israel, where F-35 wings are manufactured,” it said.