Listen to this story.Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.
Your browser does not support the <audio> element.
Nikki Haley became the first woman to win a Republican presidential primary on March 3rd, when she earned 63% of the roughly 2,000 votes cast in the District of Columbia. Donald Trump’s campaign quickly sent out a press release knocking Ms Haley for being “crowned Queen of the Swamp by the lobbyists and DC insiders”. Mr Trump is busy creating a new Republican establishment anyway.
Ms Haley notched up a second win, in Vermont, on March 5th, but that came amid an avalanche of defeats. Fifteen states and one territory held primaries, with 854 of the 1,215 delegates needed to clinch the Republican nomination up for grabs. Known as Super Tuesday, the typically important day proved unusually sleepy. As expected, Mr Trump dominated, as he has throughout the primary process. The front-runner won every Super Tuesday primary but Vermont’s.
Before Ms Haley dropped out of the race on Wednesday morning, Mr Trump wrote that many of her supporters were “Radical Left Democrats” but he “would further like to invite all of the Haley supporters to join the greatest movement in the history of our Nation”. Ms Haley declined to endorse Mr Trump, who is now running unopposed and will soon officially clinch the delegates needed to become the party’s presumptive nominee.
Mr Trump did receive an endorsement from Mitch McConnell, the veteran Republican leader in the Senate and one of the last prominent holdouts. But the former president was already flexing his influence over the national party before Super Tuesday. The Republican National Committee (RNC), a 168-member body, is convening in Houston on March 7th and 8th, and merging the institution with Mr Trump’s campaign will be at the top of the agenda. Ronna McDaniel, the RNC’s chair since 2017, will finish her two-year term early after Mr Trump grew dissatisfied. Mr Trump has picked Michael Whatley, chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party, to replace her. Lara Trump, the former president’s daughter-in-law, is expected to join as co-chair. And Chris LaCivita, a top campaign official, will oversee day-to-day operations at the national committee.
Last month Ms Haley criticised these moves as premature, but presidential campaigns always integrate with the national committee eventually. “Of course he’s going to take over the building and the party,” says Sean Spicer, who worked at the RNC before joining the Trump administration. “It unifies the effort. You don’t need people swimming against the stream.”
Mr Trump was able to move faster than usual because he remains extremely popular with Republicans, and even his critics could see that only he could win the nomination. Both organisations will now co-ordinate strategy and spending that could pass $1bn. The committee traditionally focuses on get-out-the-vote operations and could take on some campaign expenses. Then there are Mr Trump’s legal bills, which continue to mount as he fights multiple criminal indictments.
Henry Barbour, a longtime committeeman, sought to pass a resolution preventing the RNC from picking up a legal tab that could run into tens of millions of dollars. He said ahead of the Houston meeting that the effort could not muster enough support even to come up for a vote by the full committee, though Mr LaCivita has said that Mr Trump will not rely on the RNC funds for legal liabilities.
A Trumpified RNC today does not guarantee one in perpetuity. The institution typically shrinks as it comes under financial pressure after presidential elections, and many Trump appointees will depart. The newly installed chair and co-chair will be up for re-election next year. Their successors will be chosen by RNC members, who generally support Mr Trump, but Republicans who have witnessed such transitions before say they can be unpredictable.
The presidential candidate will have greater influence over the future of the party by wading into congressional races. More than 90% of Trump-endorsed candidates won their primaries in 2022, and his endorsement remains potent in 2024. A Republican pursuing a US Senate seat in Montana dropped out days after Mr Trump endorsed his rival. A House Republican strategist declines to share details on discussions with the Trump campaign, but says Mr Trump wants to see the party’s majority grow: “He’s definitely a team player.”
Even a Trump loss in 2024 would not necessarily diminish the appetite for Trump-aligned populists in the future. “That is where the energy is in the party,” says Alex Conant, a Republican operative. “I expect it will remain that way for a while regardless of what happens to Trump.”
Mr Trump’s strength among primary voters should surprise no one, but some of the party’s money men have shown less enthusiasm. Many donors preferred Ms Haley or Ron DeSantis, the Florida governor whose $168m effort ended after the Iowa caucuses. Last year was the RNC’s worst fundraising year, adjusting for inflation, since 1993—and its Democratic rival brought in over $30m more. The DNC started 2024 with more than $21m cash on hand compared with just over $8m for the RNC.
Money is not all that matters. Hillary Clinton spent nearly twice as much as Mr Trump in 2016 and still lost. But in a close race, any extra advantage could decide the outcome. Mr Trump is a potent small-dollar fundraiser, but he appears to know he will need more billionaires onside.
The Club for Growth, an influential anti-tax group that fell out with Mr Trump in recent years, has begun to reconcile with him lately. Jeff Yass, a billionaire trader, gave the group’s Super PAC $10m as it sought a Trump alternative. He later donated to the Super PAC for Chris Christie, a former New Jersey governor. On March 1st Mr Trump called Mr Yass “fantastic”.
Whether Mr Trump can win over donors—and more moderate Republicans—may depend on how he adapts his tone in the coming months. Most presidential nominees undergo a shift after securing their base, adopting a more moderate message during the general election. Mr Trump has been notably more circumspect on abortion and other social issues than his Republican rivals. But his broader strategy is unlikely to change: hammering Mr Biden for his handling of immigration and the economy while pointing to increasing chaos around the world.
“Winning campaign messaging requires a few key ingredients: being simple, compelling and able to draw a clean contrast against the opposition,” says Rob Lockwood, a former RNC strategist. “Biden’s political prospects are primarily haunted by his record,” and Mr Trump can point to four years in office that polls suggest many voters recall fondly.
Mr Trump still faces the challenge of healing wounds within his own party. After Iowa, he opted for a unifying message. A week later in New Hampshire, visibly annoyed, he departed from his script and delivered a lengthy personal attack on Ms Haley. As the results came in on Super Tuesday, Mr Trump said: “We want to have unity, and we’re going to have unity, and it’s going to happen very quickly.” ■
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