Listen to this story.Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.
Your browser does not support the <audio> element.
The night of June 1st 2020 was a chaotic one in Chicago. A week earlier, George Floyd had been murdered by a Minneapolis police officer, and protests against police brutality had spread all over the world. A day before, the then mayor, Lori Lightfoot, had requested help from the National Guard for the first time since the riots of 1968. Such was the situation when Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, a then-28-year-old carpenter, borrowed a gun and joined a group of men defending a tyre shop in Little Village, a Mexican neighbourhood, from would-be looters. At around 11pm, in full view of a camera, Mr Carbajal-Flores shot seven times in the direction of a white car that was speeding past. Forty minutes later, he was arrested.
So far, just another story of madness on that hot summer night. But Mr Carbajal-Flores’s rather reckless defence of property may yet change America. In early March the last of the charges originally filed against him was dismissed by a federal judge in Chicago. Mr Carbajal-Flores, a Mexican citizen who arrived illegally in America as a child, was accused of breaking the federal law which bans undocumented immigrants (as well as foreigners on temporary visas) from owning guns. The judge, Sharon Johnson Coleman, ruled that, as applied to him, the law was unconstitutional. Citing cases of former British loyalists in the revolutionary war who were allowed guns, she argued that Mr Carbajal-Flores was entitled to an “individualised assessment” about whether he had a right to own a gun; and in his case, he did.
In effect, Ms Coleman ruled that some undocumented immigrants are allowed to have guns. Though it will almost certainly be appealed, the ruling has already set off a storm among Republicans. Marco Rubio, a Republican senator from Florida, wondered if the ruling was “being done to sort of mock both gun laws and also the whole…understanding of the value of being a citizen of the United States”. It shows how one conservative priority, the right to gun ownership with few restrictions, may be about to crash into another: a strong dislike of undocumented migrants.
A generation ago the idea that a Mexican illegally in America could have a constitutional right to carry a gun would have been considered absurd. Yet the question has arisen thanks to conservative rulings at the Supreme Court that have widened the scope of the Second Amendment, which gives Americans the right to bear arms.
First, in 2008 there was District of Columbia v Heller, which ruled that a ban on handguns in the nation’s capital was unconstitutional. Then, in 2022, came New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v Bruen, which ruled that requiring individuals to show “proper cause” to get a concealed-carry permit was also unconstitutional, along with any gun-control law lacking an analogue in 1791. Now the Second Amendment is, in the words of Justice Clarence Thomas, no longer “a second-class right” to be given at the discretion of officials. Rather, it is comparable to, say, the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and religion.
Yet the constitution says that the right to bear arms is held by “the people”, and not merely by citizens. Mr Carbajal-Flores’s lawyers argue that their client is a member of “the people” by virtue of his ties to the United States. Though he entered America illegally, he is eligible for protection from deportation under daca, an executive order signed into effect by Barack Obama. The weekend after he was arrested he got married to his longtime girlfriend, who is an American citizen. His children are citizens. They also argue that his specific use of a weapon, to deter looters, was exactly the sort of behaviour that many conservatives admire. Mr Carbajal-Flores says he was instructed by the police to go armed, and the shots he fired were warning shots. “Our client is a legitimate hero,” says Ross Cassingham, one of Mr Carbajal-Flores’s lawyers. “He’s the proverbial good guy with a gun.”
At appeal the government’s lawyers are likely to say otherwise. In their response to the defence’s first motion to dismiss, they noted that Mr Carbajal-Flores armed himself before he even spoke to the police and suggested his gunfire was not obviously intended only to warn, so he was not acting in legitimate self-defence. They also argued that the law banning undocumented migrants from owning guns is constitutional, on the basis that the Heller decision still allowed the government to restrict classes of people from owning firearms. And they contended that restrictions on non-citizens are legitimate, on the basis that people who have already broken the law in moving to the country cannot be trusted with firearms. That argument was initially accepted.
But that came before Bruen, which in effect established a test that gun laws must be in line with the laws of the early republic. Hence Judge Coleman’s consideration of how British loyalists were treated after the revolutionary war. In the late 18th century, notes Adam Winkler, of the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law, the concept of illegal immigration hardly existed, and so “the people” included everybody inside the United States. “It is clear that undocumented immigrants have a right to free speech and free religion,” says Mr Winkler. “So for purposes of consistency, one would imagine they would have Second Amendment rights.”
What happens next? Another case in the Supreme Court will soon decide whether domestic abusers under restraining orders can be restricted from owning guns; that may give some hints as to how the Carbajal-Flores case could be resolved. A final decision could have big implications. At the moment, for example, the state of Illinois requires anyone who wants a gun to apply for a licence, and bans foreigners without green cards from applying. If upheld, this ruling could force the state to consider almost anyone. Hence the outrage of people like Mr Rubio.
Yet as Mr Winkler notes, there is an irony to the backlash. Conservatives usually argue that gun-control laws do not stop criminals from buying guns anyway. But then conservatives have not always been so keen on widespread gun rights—at least when people they dislike start exercising them. In 1967 California banned the carrying of loaded guns, in an attempt to disarm the rifle-carrying Black Panther Party. The governor who signed the law was none other than Ronald Reagan. Views on guns can change, even among Republicans. ■
Stay on top of American politics with The US in brief, our daily newsletter with fast analysis of the most important electoral stories, 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.
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.
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.
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.
Economics4 days ago
Economics5 days ago
Economics4 days ago
Finance6 days ago
Leaders6 days ago
Finance4 days ago
Economics6 days ago
Accounting4 days ago