Listen to this story.Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.
Your browser does not support the <audio> element.
HUGO AND MAGALI Urbina used to consider Greg Abbott, Texas’s governor, a kindred spirit. At the start of the summer the conservative Christian retirees could be found fishing on the banks of the Rio Grande in Eagle Pass, where their pecan orchard abuts Texas’s border with Mexico. Migrants would wade through the water onto their land, where federal border agents usually picked the intruders up without much drama.
In July everything changed. Texas seized the strip of land along the river against the Urbinas’ will. State troopers laid down razor-wire and migrants bleeding from cuts began to climb ashore. Unlike the federal agents, state police were directed not to help the new arrivals and, by some accounts, were told to push them back into the river. By Christmas the couple had grown accustomed to finding little girls wandering alone in their orchard and seeing dead bodies beneath the trees. They blame Mr Abbott.
Three years ago, shortly after Joe Biden’s inauguration, the Texas governor launched “Operation Lone Star”. As migrant arrivals at the border surged, Mr Abbott reckoned it was up to Texas to use state power to stanch the crisis. He declared a “disaster” in dozens of Texas counties and deployed the Texas National Guard as well as state police officers. They had no power to enforce federal laws, but they arrested thousands of people for criminal trespass.
As a partisan gambit, the plan worked brilliantly. Texas Republicans have ignited a constitutional battle with Washington over whether their state has the right to police its own international border and even displace federal border agents. Mr Abbott meanwhile bused asylum-seekers to cities run by Democrats, contributing to a surge of arrivals that overwhelmed shelters and drained social-service budgets.
Democrats dismissed the busing as a stunt, which it unarguably was. Yet it compelled big-city mayors to confront the realities of skyrocketing migration and to lobby the Biden administration for help. In December Mr Abbott signed SB4, a law which allows Texas to arrest and deport people who have entered the state illegally. Most recently, state police blocked federal officers from entering Shelby Park, a busy stretch of the border near the Urbinas’ property in Eagle Pass.
Mr Abbott sometimes talks like an Old West marshal who must stand up for Texas citizens because Democrats in Washington won’t. “The only thing that we’re not doing is we’re not shooting people who come across the border because, of course, the Biden administration would charge us with murder,” the governor said on a talk-show in early January.
Texas’s actions are begging for constitutional review. In 2012 the Supreme Court struck down much of Arizona’s SB1070, a law that made illegal immigration a state crime and allowed cops to ask people to prove citizenship on demand. The recent policing in Texas constitutes a far more aggressive interpretation of state power, says Denise Gilman of the University of Texas at Austin. On January 22nd, in one of several cases challenging Operation Lone Star, the Supreme Court issued an emergency 5-4 ruling against Texas and for the Biden administration, holding that federal border agents had the right to cut razor-wire installed by Texas police.
More such litigation awaits, and the narrow margin in the razor-wire matter suggests the court’s expanded conservative majority may be unsettled about how far to go. In this instance, Justices John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett were the only conservatives to join the court’s liberal minority in backing federal power. “This is not over,” Mr Abbott posted after the decision. Troopers could be seen installing more razor-wire in Shelby Park the next morning. A federal lawsuit challenging buoys erected by Texas in the Rio Grande is before the Fifth Circuit and another on SB4 sits with a district judge in Austin.
Mr Abbott’s political instincts may be sound, but state police have done no better than the feds at deterring migration. Last month, a record 10,000 people crossed into America from Mexico each day and around 40% came through Eagle Pass. There, a string of buoys takes up less than a fifth of a mile in a 1,200-mile-long river border. “It’s like putting a postage stamp in the middle of a football field and saying, hey, stop this running back that’s coming at you,” says Henry Cuellar, a Democratic border congressman. Shelby Park, where federal agents were expelled, is about the size of a small golf course. Though fewer migrants arrived in January, experts attribute the slowdown to seasonal ebbs and flows and to Mexico detaining more migrants across the river in Piedras Negras.
Texas has so far expended more than $4bn on its plan, but under prevailing rules, border counties can apply for grants only for law enforcement, jail operations, court administrations, lawyers for indigent defendants and human-remains processing. That has left many social and humanitarian needs unmet. The hospitals in Eagle Pass and El Paso are staggering under the burden of caring for wounded migrants. Eddie Morales, a Democrat who represents a border district, wants to pause asylum-processing to discourage arrivals until the frenzy calms. Texas officials defend their barriers as necessary deterrents to prevent crossings of a ‘‘dangerous river where many have lost their lives”, Christopher Olivarez, a spokesperson for the Texas Department of Public Safety, wrote on X (formerly known as Twitter) recently.
These days the banks of the Rio Grande are strewn with enough clothing and shoes to fill a shopping mall. Haribo wrappers and stray baby-socks are a reminder of the children coming through. On warmer days Mexicans wade into the water to collect items that they can sell back home, calling out to American soldiers to throw more garments over the razor-wire. The detritus is evidence of the ongoing toll of failed public policies. And politicians at every level of American government bear some responsibility. ■
Stay on top of American politics with Checks and Balance, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter, which 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