Connect with us

Economics

America’s foreign aid pause puts lives at risk

Published

on

THE SPRAWLING al-Hol camp in north-eastern Syria is part of a network of prisons holding tens of thousands of detainees and family members from Islamic State’s jihadist “caliphate”, which was smashed by America and its allies in 2019. Western securocrats have long worried that prisoners might break out and wreak bloody havoc, in Syria and abroad. Such fears have intensified given the turmoil after the fall of Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad, in December.

There could scarcely be a worse time for the Trump administration to order, as it did on January 24th, an immediate halt to almost all aid work—at al-Hol and around the world—pending a 90-day review to ensure foreign assistance aligns with America First principles. The only exceptions were aid for Israel and Egypt (mostly military) and “emergency food aid”.  Waivers could subsequently be issued on a case by case basis.

Chart: The Economist

America is by far the world’s largest aid donor, spending $68bn in fiscal 2023, the most recent year. The US accounts for about 40% of all humanitarian assistance provided by governments. The announcement of an abrupt cutoff of much of this money hit humanitarian agencies like an earthquake. American-funded projects wobbled and some risked collapse.

The affected work included the distribution of antiretroviral drugs for people infected with HIV under a scheme known as PEPFAR, credited with saving some 26m lives since 2003; medical services for Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh; mine-clearing in South-East Asia; reconstruction of bombed-out energy infrastructure in Ukraine; pro-democracy work in Russia’s near-abroad; and much more.

“Every dollar we spend, every program we fund, and every policy we pursue must be justified with the answer to three simple questions: Does it make America safer? Does it make America stronger? Does it make America more prosperous?” the state department said.

Among the casualties were groups working at al-Hol, home to about 40,000 Islamic State (IS) fighters and their relatives, among them European women who married combatants and bore their children. The Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which controls north-eastern Syria, is in charge of security at the camps. But aid workers speak of a free-for-all within. Women loyal to IS hold sway with guns and train a new generation of ideologues. The perimeter is pierced by tunnels, allowing weapons in and inmates out. Killings are commonplace. Children are sold as fighters. “It’s more an IS base than a prison,” says a Western researcher.

Blumont, the American firm that manages al-Hol (and a smaller camp called Roj) under a state department contract, says its teams left the camps when they received the stop-work order, and arranged for other groups to provide “very much reduced basic services”. Some humanitarian groups said they were issuing termination letters for their staff. On January 27th Blumont received a 14-day waiver and said its staff returned the next day.

Amid chaos and an outcry that countless lives were at risk, Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, later widened exemptions to include “life-saving humanitarian assistance”. This includes “medical services, food, shelter, and subsistence assistance, as well as supplies and reasonable administrative costs.” Programs would not be funded if they involved abortion, family-planning, transgender surgeries or other aid deemed not to be life-saving.

Even with this concession, aid groups say confusion abounds. “Does work on clean water count as life-saving aid?” asked an official in one large ngo. Some projects were being closed because of the uncertainty. The status of PEPFAR is unclear.

Waivers apparently still need to be issued case-by-case. Whether the government has the staff to process them quickly is another question. Few of the state department’s political appointees have yet arrived. USAID, the main American development agency, has furloughed hundreds of senior staff and contractors. One spoke of a “sad and apocalyptic” atmosphere.

The state department says the full halt was necessary because “it is impossible to evaluate programs on autopilot”, arguing that those running them have little incentive to give details if the money keeps flowing. It claims to have already saved about $1bn, halting things such as the delivery of condoms to Gaza, sex education globally and clean-energy programmes for women in Fiji. The department offered no details to support its $1bn estimate.

Al-Hol offers just one example of how stopping work suddenly for such dubious reasons is an avoidable act of self-harm. “Without aid, it’s difficult to maintain the security of the camps,” says Ali Rahmoun, a spokesman for the Syrian Democratic Council, the political wing of the SDF. “The jihadists won’t just be a problem for Syria but for the region and even Europe.”

Americans would be in danger, too. Shamsud-Din Jabbar, a 42-year-old US army veteran, rammed his Ford pickup into a crowd in New Orleans on New Year’s Day, killing 14. He was killed by police. In his vehicle they found IS’s black flag. 

Stay on top of American politics with The US in brief, our daily newsletter with fast analysis of the most important political news, and Checks and Balance, a weekly note from our Lexington columnist that examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.

Economics

UK Has a New Prime Minister Without a General Election

Published

on

UK Has a New Prime Minister Without a General Election

On July 20, Andy Burnham has been chosen to be the next Prime Minister in UK. The appointment of a new Prime Minister in the United Kingdom often raises questions from people outside the country, especially when no nationwide election has taken place. Many wonder how a new national leader can assume office without voters casting ballots. The answer lies in the UK’s parliamentary system, where the Prime Minister is not directly elected by the public but is instead chosen based on who commands the confidence of the House of Commons.

How the UK Selects Its Prime Minister

Unlike presidential systems where citizens vote directly for the head of government, the United Kingdom elects Members of Parliament (MPs) during a general election. The political party that secures a majority of seats in the House of Commons usually forms the government, and that party selects its own leader to serve as Prime Minister.

If the leader resigns, becomes unable to continue, or is replaced by their party, the governing party can choose a new leader without triggering a general election. As long as the new leader is able to maintain the confidence of Parliament, they can immediately become Prime Minister after being formally appointed by the monarch.

Why No Election Was Required

A general election is not automatically required every time the office of Prime Minister changes hands. The governing party retains its parliamentary majority because voters elected MPs rather than an individual Prime Minister. If the ruling party chooses a new leader through its internal leadership process, the government continues to operate without interruption.

This constitutional arrangement provides stability and allows the government to continue functioning during periods of political transition. It also avoids the expense and disruption of holding a nationwide election every time party leadership changes.

The King’s Constitutional Role

After a governing party elects a new leader, the monarch invites that individual to form a government. This constitutional step is largely ceremonial and follows long-established conventions. The King appoints the person most likely to command a majority in the House of Commons, ensuring continuity of government.

Although the monarch formally appoints the Prime Minister, political power rests with Parliament and the elected representatives of the British people.

Could an Election Still Happen?

Yes. A newly appointed Prime Minister has the authority to request a general election if they believe it is politically advantageous or if they seek a stronger public mandate. Parliament can also reach a point where a government loses the confidence of the House of Commons, potentially leading to an election or the formation of a new government.

In many cases, however, a new Prime Minister continues governing until the next scheduled general election.

What This Means for the UK

The UK’s parliamentary democracy is designed to ensure government continuity while respecting the results of the most recent general election. Leadership changes within the governing party do not automatically alter the composition of Parliament, which is why a new Prime Minister can take office without another nationwide vote.

Understanding this process helps explain why political transitions in the United Kingdom can appear different from those in countries with presidential systems. While the Prime Minister may change, the democratic mandate of Parliament remains in place until voters elect a new House of Commons at the next general election.

Continue Reading

Economics

Global Grid Upgrades Reshape Macro Economics

Published

on

Global grid upgrades reshape macro economics

On July 21, 2026, global economic analysis shifts focus toward a defining structural macroeconomic trend: the massive expansion of public and private capital deployment into high-capacity electrical grid infrastructure. As industrial electrification, automated data center hubs, and renewable energy integration accelerate worldwide, sovereign governments and institutional investors are facing a monumental economic challenge. Updating legacy power grids to meet skyrocketing demand has emerged as a primary driver of long-term capital expenditures and industrial productivity across both developed and emerging market economies.

According to international economic policy updates released this week, grid infrastructure investments are projected to exceed multi-trillion-dollar thresholds over the coming decade. Economic planners caution that without modernized, high-voltage transmission networks, regional manufacturing sectors face severe energy bottlenecks, localized power price volatility, and operational constraints. Consequently, infrastructure spending is rapidly transitioning from passive utility maintenance into a vital component of national economic competitiveness and industrial policy.

The macroeconomic ripple effects of this capital deployment are being felt across global commodity markets and labor networks. High demand for structural industrial inputs—such as copper, aluminum, specialized electrical steel, and high-capacity transformers—has created sustained pricing support for critical material producers. Simultaneously, the specialized technical labor required to manufacture and deploy modern grid hardware is driving wage growth in industrial sectors, adding a complex new layer to central bank disinflation trajectories.

For global policymakers and strategic investors, the economics of energy grid modernization represent a double-edged sword. While massive infrastructure investment boosts short-term gross domestic product (GDP) and strengthens domestic industrial foundations, it requires disciplined fiscal allocation to prevent inflationary crowding-out of private capital. Countries that efficiently streamline grid infrastructure permitting and mobilize private investment will secure lower long-term energy costs, attracting high-tech manufacturing and reinforcing sustainable economic growth.

Continue Reading

Economics

Global Trade Realignment and Supply Chains in 2026

Published

on

Global Trade Realignment and Supply Chains in 2026

The international trade architecture entering the second half of 2026 is undergoing a profound structural pivot. As major sovereign economic blocs adjust to the long-term impact of unilateral tariffs and escalating regional subsidies, traditional globalized supply chains are being rapidly replaced by bilateral trade corridors and regional alliance networks. Data released in late July 2026 highlights a significant divergence: while cross-continental freight volumes between non-aligned partners have cooled, intra-regional trade throughout North America, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe has surged to record levels. This shift reflects a broader macroeconomic strategy wherein multinational corporations prioritize geopolitical resilience over pure cost minimization.

The primary economic catalyst behind this regionalization is the proliferation of sector-specific tariffs targeting critical industries, notably battery components, clean energy technology, and advanced semiconductor hardware. In response, global manufacturers have adopted multi-tier sourcing models that distribute production across intermediate partner nations before final assembly. While this strategy successfully bypasses primary import duties, it adds structural layers of logistical complexity and administrative oversight. Economists note that while total output remains robust, aggregate production costs have drifted upward, contributing to persistent baseline inflation across major consumer markets.

Simultaneously, currency settlement patterns within these regional blocs are experiencing a notable transformation. Sovereign central banks and commercial institutions are increasingly utilizing localized currency swap lines and digital clearing mechanisms to settle cross-border trade transactions. This transition reduces direct exposure to foreign exchange volatility and mitigates third-party liquidity constraints, further solidifying regional economic cohesion. However, for developing economies situated outside these primary trading alliances, the tightening of international trade networks presents severe challenges, restricting access to key export markets and foreign direct investment.

For corporate strategists and policy analysts navigating late 2026, success requires a thorough understanding of these emerging trade corridors. Organizations must conduct regular risk assessments of their multi-tier supplier networks, model tariff sensitivities under shifting geopolitical scenarios, and invest in real-time supply chain telemetry. As regional economic blocs strengthen their regulatory borders, supply chain agility and compliance fortitude will distinguish market leaders from vulnerable enterprises in the evolving global economy.

Continue Reading

Trending