Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
News
Outgoing and term-limited North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper speaks alongside his wife, Kristin Cooper, thanking North Carolinians for his two terms in office as Governor on Nov. 5, 2024.
There’s not much Democrats and Republicans agree on these days, but one area where they seem to share a view is this: the race for North Carolina’s open US Senate seat could be the most important election in the 2026 midterms.
How do we know? Follow the money. Each party is planning to spend gargantuan sums of money to win it, potentially breaking records.
“It’s going to be astronomical,” Matt Ballance, a former local Democratic Party chair in the southern state, told GZERO. “I think we’re going to see numbers that are going to blow past records out of the water.”
“It’ll be the most expensive Senate race in US election history,” says Michele Woodhouse, a former local Republican Party chair in the Tar Heel state.
Why the focus on North Carolina? It’s one of the few “swing states” – meaning ones that are still closely decided – that will have a Senate election next year. Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – four of the seven battleground states from 2024 – don’t have an open seat this cycle. Michigan, one of the other two, hasn’t had a Republican senator since 2000. And with Georgia Democrat Jon Ossoff running as an incumbent, North Carolina becomes the biggest prize.
While Democrats are unlikely to flip the Senate next year – they’d need to gain four seats in total to do so – winning the Tar Heel state would put them in a much stronger position to win back the chamber outright in 2028.
The North Carolina race was blown open a month ago when current Republican Sen. Thom Tillis announced he would vote against President Donald Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill, over concerns it would slash healthcare funding. After Trump threatened to back a challenger to Tillis in the Republican primary, the two-term senator announced he’d retire next year rather than face the president’s wrath in a re-election fight. (He still voted against the bill.)
So who will replace him in the race? Trump is pushing for Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Whatley, a former North Carolina GOP leader who is set to announce a run imminently. As a close Trump ally, he will likely prioritize strong immigration enforcement, gun rights, and law and order. However, he has never held public office, so his policy preferences aren’t fully clear.
Woodhouse, who knows Whatley from their time working in the North Carolina GOP, thinks Trump’s endorsement will carry him through the primary, but she says he may face challenges at the grassroots level where he isn’t as well known to voters – especially among Trump supporters who don’t necessarily identify as Republican.
“I think he will be the nominee, but I don’t think it will be without a fight.”
What about the Democrats? There was only ever going to be one choice: former Gov. Roy Cooper, the 68-year-old centrist from rural Nash County.
When it comes to North Carolina politics, the man is a “powerhouse,” says Ballance. He has won six consecutive statewide races – including four as an attorney general – and took the governorship in 2016, despite Trump winning the state in that year’s presidential race. Cooper declared on Monday that he would run for the seat, prompting former US Rep. Wiley Nickel to suspend his nascent campaign the next day.
Cooper will put the economy at the center of his appeal. “I know that today, for too many Americans, the middle class feels like a distant dream,” he said in his announcement video. The video also features Cooper alongside members of law enforcement, and makes no reference to abortion, even though the former governor tried desperately to protect access to the procedure in his state.
Who’s the favorite? Despite its battleground status, North Carolina is something of a white whale for the Democrats, who haven't won a Senate seat (or a presidential election) there since 2008. But Cooper’s candidacy changes the calculus – a GOP-aligned polling firm found him leading Whatley by three points.
“Roy Cooper is the most formidable opponent Democrats could put up,” says Woodhouse. “Michael Whatley has a long road and a short time. He doesn’t have high name recognition. … It will be a very, very hard seat for Republicans to hold onto.”
If there is a way to target Cooper, per Woodhouse, it’ll be over his response to the COVID-19 pandemic, when he imposed some lockdowns, and the “failed” recoveries from a pair of hurricanes that struck the state during the course of his eight-year governorship.
But Ballance isn’t worried.
“He has a proven record of being able to get over the finish line,” he said, before describing Whatley as a “just a mouthpiece” who has “done nothing in terms of policy.”
Cooper plants a flag. The former governor doesn’t just put the Senate majority in sight; he also lends the party some leadership, something it desperately lacks in the wake of its shambolic 2024 campaign.
While he is on the older end of the spectrum in a party that seems to want to move in a younger direction, he has something most of his contemporaries don’t have in purple or southern states: a winning election record – he’s never lost a race.
With former Vice President Kamala Harris deciding to sit out the midterms, and the North Carolina Senate race becoming the focal point of next year’s elections, Cooper could become one of the principal faces of the party in 2026, per Woodhouse.
It could be just what the doctor ordered for Democrats.
“Democrats are rudderless right now,” says Woodhouse, the Republican. “Roy Cooper in this race could be the rally call that they all coalesce behind.”
Palestinians mourn the loss of their loved ones killed in Nasser Hospital for after Israel opened fire at Palestinians trying to reach the points in the southern Gaza Strip, on July 30, 2025.
91: Israeli forces killed 91 Palestinians seeking aid in Gaza on Wednesday, according to the enclave’s Hamas-run Health Ministry. A local hospital has confirmed at least 50 of the deaths. The latest toll adds to a string of killings at aid points, as global pressure mounts on Israel to allow more humanitarian aid into the territory.
$10 billion: On Thursday, Australia’s parliament passed a law wiping out 20% of student loan debt – worth AU$16 billion (US$10 billion). It’s the first major legislative win for center-left Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who promised to address the rising cost of living prior to his election in May.
300: Sotheby’s will repatriate 300 jewels from the Piprahwa Gem collection – relics believed to be linked to the Buddha’s burial ground – following pressure on the famed auction house from the Indian government. The artifacts, excavated by English explorer William Claxton Peppé in the 19th century, were initially set to be auctioned off in May.
$50 million: Spanish football giant FC Barcelona has struck a $50 million 4-year sponsorship deal with the Democratic Republic of Congo to display the slogan “DR Congo – Heart of Africa” on the back of their training jerseys. The government hopes the deal will boost DR Congo’s international image, but some Congolese are questioning the decision to invest in global branding rather than domestic economic and social priorities.
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang speaks to media members after the opening ceremony for the China International Supply Chain Expo in Beijing, China July 16, 2025.
China targets Nvidia over security fears
Beijing has summoned Nvidia execs over allegations that the US company’s H20 AI chips pose a security risk, claiming they can track locations and be remotely disabled. This comes just weeks after Congress approved sales of the highly-coveted chips to China despite lingering concerns about helping Washington’s biggest tech rival. Beijing, for its part, wants Nvidia chips to help grow its AI sector, but also worries that Nvidia could crowd out domestic chipmakers like Huawei.
Trump sends his Middle East Man to address Gaza crisis
Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff is en route to Israel to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The trip comes amid rising international outcry over Israel’s restrictions on the entry of aid to the besieged strip – Trump himself even disputed Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s claim that there is “no starvation” there. However, Trump also slammed Canada’s new pledge to recognize Palestine this fall, saying that the move – which follows similar pledges from France and the UK – would wreck US-Canada trade talks.
Hezbollah rejects calls to disarm
The Lebanese militant group flatly rejected recent calls to lay down its weapons, saying that to do so would only serve Israel’s interests. The US is pressuring Lebanon to disarm the Iran-backed group as part of wider peace negotiations with Israel, which has continued to pound the group’s strongholds despite a ceasefire. Hezbollah, heavily weakened after the most recent war with Israel, has privately weighed scaling back their arsenal. Read about what it would take for Hezbollah to disarm here.
What we’re ignoring: Myanmar’s power move
Myanmar’s military has lifted the country’s state of emergency and handed power to a nominally civilian-led interim government ahead of December elections. But Min Aung Hlaing, who led the 2021 coup that entrenched the junta, remains in control as acting president and army chief. The elections, which come as the junta battles several armed insurgencies, are seen as a farce meant to legitimize the army chief's rule. Opposition parties are either barred from running or boycotting the vote.
Collage of Ian Bremmer, Putin, and Trump.
Moose and I are trading Manhattan’s muggy sidewalks for Nantucket sand, but first, one more mailbag. Since this is the last newsletter you’ll get from me until after Labor Day, we’ve got an extra-long edition to tide you over. Thanks to those who sent in so many smart and snarky questions, to all of you for reading, and I’ll see you fully energized in September.
What recourse does the Supreme Court have against a president who doesn't follow the rule of law?
Ultimately, the Court’s leverage lies with its own legitimacy in the eyes of the American public. President Donald Trump has thus far respected its rulings because outright defiance would risk a backlash that could damage his political standing. That said, the Court has also been selective about the cases it’s taken, partly to avoid confrontations with the executive it might struggle to enforce that would expose the limits of its power. The institution is being challenged; even if for now its authority is holding. It’s a mistake to assume that will necessarily last forever.
The Trump administration is incredibly pro-Israel, both in terms of sending weapons to Israel for offensive operations throughout the Middle East as well as arresting pro-Palestinian protesters on US college campuses (and also going after the colleges themselves). How does one reconcile this position with the administration's support for the Alternative for Germany (AfD) and other far-right parties in Europe and elsewhere that hold very strong antisemitic views?
There’s no contradiction: pro-Israel policy, anti-Palestine campus crackdowns, and support for far-right parties all serve the same worldview – nationalist, populist, anti-globalist, anti-immigration – rather than any coherent, principled stance against antisemitism. The Trump administration’s support for the AfD, France’s National Rally, and other European ultranationalists – all of which praise Israel as a model “ethnostate” despite their persistent antisemitism – was driven less by President Trump himself than by Elon Musk (who’s now out) and Vice President JD Vance (who has now stepped back from that policy push). Trump personally likes leaders like Hungary’s Viktor Orban, but that’s less about shared ideology than the fact that Trump likes people who profess their love for him.
The question is not why Trump is so strongly pro-Israel, but rather, why the United States is. After all, Trump may be even more pro-Israel than Joe Biden, but compared to the rest of the world, both presidents are outliers in terms of their support for the Jewish state. Some of that comes down to the depth of intelligence-sharing and military coordination between the two countries. Some is about genuinely shared geostrategic interests and common enemies in the region. Some is about the strength of the political lobby in the US. And some used to be about Israel’s status as the only strong democracy in the Middle East (Gaza and the West Bank notwithstanding), though that’s now less true of Israel and less important to American leaders.
With the broken promises of "no new wars," increased budget deficits, and now the swirling conspiracies around the Epstein files, can Trump hold together a cohesive base to maintain the very slim majorities they hold in Congress come midterms?
I would not call “no new wars” a broken promise. True, Trump has failed to end the war in Ukraine (so far at least), but he has clearly tried. He’s had moderate success helping to broker truces in the India-Pakistan, Thailand-Cambodia, and Rwanda-DRC conflicts. He does get a big zero on Gaza, having helped make matters worse. It’s unclear he (unlike Elon, who was not on the ballot) credibly promised to end budget deficits; his base cares less about this than ending the two-tiered economic and justice system – and on that front, they have grounds to be angry both about the tax breaks for the rich in the “big beautiful bill” and the lies and misdirection about Jeffrey Epstein. I suspect that undermines his (very resilient) support with the base somewhat, but it might get washed out by a kept promise that was key to getting him elected in 2024: closing the southern border and deporting illegal aliens. At the end of the day, though, a lot will come down to how the economy is doing by then.
Is it too early to even think about a Vance presidency?
It’s too early, especially given how much has already happened – and how fast things have changed – in the first six months of the Trump-Vance administration. Folks need to pace themselves; this is a marathon, not a sprint. Trump has no incentive to crown a successor and weaken his own power while he’s still center stage. Expect him to keep everyone guessing until the very last minute (and maybe even later).
Global investors are increasingly de-risking from US assets and reducing their US dollar exposure. As the US moves away from the rules-based order, who (China, the EU) or what (gold, oil, cryptocurrencies) can fill the vacuum?
There’s still no alternative to King Dollar. Yes, more investors are trimming their outsized holdings of historically overvalued USD assets and looking for alternatives to hedge against political shock and weaponization risk. In the long term, China’s economic heft and global lead in some of the most important frontier technologies make the yuan a leading contender (yes, despite its demographic collapse). But a true substitute has to offer scale, liquidity, open capital markets, and trustworthy national institutions. Washington’s self-inflicted wounds may erode the greenback’s appeal, but they don’t make the RMB – with its capital controls and legal opacity – any more suitable to be a reserve asset. Nor do they allow Europe’s rule of law, deep markets, and capital openness to make up for the persistent lack of a true fiscal, financial, and political union. Gold and oil remain commodities, not currencies; they can’t grease modern finance. And crypto is still far too volatile (and, in the case of dollar-pegged stablecoins, paradoxically reinforces greenback dominance).
The more realistic future is a messier, more multipolar system where central banks, institutional investors, and corporations still keep most of their dry powder in dollars yet diversify more into euros, yuan, bullion, and digital tokens. Fragmentation means higher transaction costs and less automatic US leverage, but until someone marries China-style scale with Swiss-style trust, the dollar remains first among unequals – just less overwhelmingly so.
If critical minerals are necessary for energy security and warfighting, how can the US diversify supply chains within a credible timeframe?
Trump’s executive order to fast-track permitting and expand financing for mining projects is useful, as is the Pentagon’s direct equity investment in MP Materials. But it’s going to take a lot of money and several years – I’d say no fewer than five – of coordinated and consistent policy support to build out not just production capacity but refining and processing ecosystems, especially for defense-critical heavy rare earths. Putting aside the technical hurdles, fiscal constraints, and permitting bottlenecks, there’s presently no strategy to make Western-led projects commercially viable against a non-market competitor whose dominance not only spans upstream and midstream production but also extends to pricing, logistics, and trading infrastructure, resulting in both direct supply pressure and indirect influence over global pricing.
Is the fight against climate change dead? What will it take for it to return to the political agenda?
No, because clean energy technologies are getting cheaper and being deployed at an unprecedented speed and scale, driven not by woke ideology or government regulation but by scientific breakthroughs and market forces. To be sure, the global transition is not being led by the United States, but it’s also not being particularly held back by it. That deep-red Texas leads the US (and China and India lead the world) in renewable deployment is a case in point: the fight against climate change will be won by economic self-interest and tech ingenuity, not Greta tweets and political diktat.
Do you think the US will ever leave NATO altogether?
Ever? Sure, since it’s easy to see nation-states no longer being the principal geopolitical actors a generation or two from now. But probably not in the coming, say, 5-10 years. Trump may once again threaten to pull out of the alliance (both for domestic politics and to encourage fairer burden-sharing), but even before taking office in January he had already admitted to changing his mind about NATO being obsolete.
What is preventing Secretary of State Rubio and President Trump from insisting that Israel stop impeding the free flow of humanitarian aid (including food) into Gaza?
They don’t consider the Palestinians strategically relevant and/or worthy of concern (also see: Europe). They certainly have more political leeway and, therefore, more leverage to pressure Israel with than the Biden administration did (and than the Europeans). But they just don’t care (not enough and not yet, at least).
Are we ever going to witness the United States of Europe?
If the pandemic, climate change, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and America’s isolationist turn haven’t done the trick, I have a hard time imagining what will. Each crisis nudges the bloc toward more coordination and incremental integration (banking union, joint vaccine procurement, a modest pandemic recovery fund), but the same shocks also fuel populist backlash against ceding another inch of sovereignty. Add the centrifugal pull of NATO for security, national capitals for taxation, and Berlin-Paris bargaining for everything in between, and the path to a true federation keeps receding. That reality means Europe will keep punching below its collective weight – let alone the US and China’s.
Do you think the UK should consider rejoining the EU?
Brexit dented growth and diminished Britain’s bargaining power vis-à-vis great powers, but re-entry is a practical, political, and diplomatic slog with diminishing returns. Having spent years extricating the UK, Europeans are once burned, twice shy; even if they were to reopen the wound, good luck getting Brussels to agree to London’s old rebates and opt-outs. At home, any government would have to sell free movement, loss of sovereignty, and a meaningful budget contribution to voters who were told they’d “taken back control.” Plus, the world has changed since 2016. Relinquishing veto power to 27 other capitals in a G-Zero era where agility and autonomy are key strategic assets risks trading one set of constraints for another. The smarter play is to stitch together flexible partnerships with the EU – from security to green tech – while keeping a free hand on the steering wheel.
If the US steps away from the Ukraine/Russia negotiations, do you think Europeans will step up and take a leading role in defending Ukraine?
They are already taking the lead. Since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion, the combined support for Ukraine (financial, military, and humanitarian) from European countries has exceeded US contributions by over $45 billion – and that’s not including the over $110 billion in European aid commitments still to be allocated plus new funding to scale the continent’s own defense industry so the flow keeps growing.
Considering Russia's historical proficiency in winter warfare and its ability to exhaust enemy resources ahead of spring offensives, why have they been unable to decisively overwhelm Ukrainian forces during the past several winters of the ongoing conflict?
Endemic corruption sapping resources and logistics, overconfident and incompetent military leaders squandering Russian materiel and manpower superiority, and poorly led conscripts with low morale, fighting against a more motivated and savvy Ukrainian force bolstered by strong Western support and impressive homegrown tech capabilities.
Is there hope for Russia after Vladimir Putin?
The analyst in me doesn’t expect a dramatic shift at the Kremlin if Vladimir Vladimirovich were to suddenly croak tomorrow. His successor is far less likely to be a liberalizing democrat than another authoritarian, strongly anti-Western nationalist who’d behave even more risk-aversely than Putin, needing the continuous support of the Russian military, intelligence, and security establishment – the siloviki – to stay in power.
Do you think "traditional" news providers such as the FT, NYT, etc. will become stronger as people look for more credible sources of information in the age of increasing disinformation on social media? Or is this wishful thinking?
I’m skeptical that traditional media as a whole can become stronger in an era of hyper-polarized audiences, an ever-more-fragmented information ecosystem, declining ad revenue, and business models that depend on paywalls. Disinformation thrives not because people actively seek out lies, but because they consume news the way they consume everything else online: passively, emotionally, algorithmically, and in soundbites. The key challenge isn’t trust, it’s attention. The NYT and the FT can’t win a game that’s optimized for engagement without compromising the very accuracy and credibility that make them valuable. Though I do think select sources that are trusted and have authentic voices will become increasingly essential to a narrow slice of the public willing to pay for the “credibility premium” (whether in money or attention). I hope that’s what GZERO Media is for most of you.
What are we missing on the horizon that we should pay more attention to behind all the current dust?
Artificial intelligence transforming our economies, societies, global security, and geopolitics in a matter of years. Compared to the magnitude and speed of change we’re used to, we’re in for a wild ride.
Do you have a p(doom) number for AI? What's your take on the value of making p(doom) predictions?
My distribution of possible AI outcomes currently looks like a barbell. I think either we blow ourselves up in the next 10-20 years or we end up with a radically better quality of life, extremely high economic growth and scientific progress, and even much longer lifespans. But I can’t tell yet which tail scenario is more likely, making my p(doom) – the probability of existentially catastrophic outcomes as a result of AI – incredibly uncertain. I need to see more to update decisively one way or the other. As the technology advances, these estimates will become increasingly important.
Have you noticed any growing suspicion abroad due to your nationality? Are you being threatened or intimidated by anyone here at home because of your opinions?
I’ve noticed a rise in anti-American sentiment more generally, on the back of the belief that the United States is no longer as reliable a partner and ally (fact-check: true). I think some people do presume that as an American you must hold a certain worldview (e.g., Russia and China always bad, US always good, etc. etc.), which is as ridiculous and offensive as thinking you would do that as a white or black person. But I have thankfully never been threatened or intimidated, neither at home nor abroad, other than on social media – which is a feature, not a bug, of these platforms.
Are you giving any thought to moving to a different country, and if so, where would you consider going?
Zero. I love New York City. And unlike mayoral candidate and former governor Andrew Cuomo, I can’t imagine leaving under any circumstances.
With friends like these! President Donald Trump on Wednesday announced a new 25% tariff on India, one of the US’s closest allies in Asia.
Although India is a “friend”, Trump said, the country’s notoriously high trade barriers had prevented more commerce with the US. The new measures will go into effect on Saturday.
The move comes smack in the middle of rocky, ongoing trade talks between the US and India. Trump wants to crack open India’s vast market for American firms, while India is keen to protect certain domestic industries – particularly pharmaceuticals, auto parts, and agriculture – as well as the access of Indian students and high-skilled workers to the US.
India is in a tough spot – as Trump carries on talks with various countries at once, PM Narendra Modi doesn’t want to get stuck with a higher US tariff rate than other export-oriented Asian competitors who are all jockeying for access to the massive US market.
But Trump has put Modi in another, even trickier bind. He said India will pay a “fine” for its purchase of Russian oil. While details have yet to emerge, this looks like the first instance of Trump using so-called “secondary sanctions” to pressure Vladimir Putin, who has serially ignored Trump’s ongoing demands to end the war in Ukraine.
Earlier this month Trump threatened a tariff of 100% on any countries that trade with Russia unless the Kremlin stops the war within 50 days. This week he cut the deadline to “10 or 12 days.”
India is one of those countries, big league. Delhi purchases roughly 2 million barrels of oil daily from Russia, accounting for 40% of India’s total oil imports. That amount reflects a huge boost in Russian imports after 2022, when European sanctions over the invasion of Ukraine made Russian crude way cheaper for non-European buyers.
Analysts say that India could certainly go back to its traditional suppliers in the Middle East and Africa, but it would have to accept significantly higher costs compared to the blackballed Russian crude it’s gotten used to.
The dragon in the room. Still, if Trump is serious about landing a blow on Russia’s oil-dependent economy, he’ll sooner or later have to look towards the other
billion-person Asian power that gulps down Kremlin crude. China imports more than 2 million barrels of the stuff a day, about a fifth of its total imports. Together with India, the two countries buy more than 80% of Russia’s oil exports, accounting for about 5% of overall global crude demand.
Beijing is also Russia’s largest trade partner overall. With the US locked in tricky trade talks with its biggest global rival, is Trump ready to swing the secondary sanctions hammer at Beijing too?
What We’re Watching: Pressure mounts on Bibi, Ivorian leader announces another run, China’s top property firm to delist
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during ‘Christian Conference’ in Jerusalem July 27, 2025.
Netanyahu faces the squeeze
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is coming under criticism from both sides of the political spectrum amid the desperate humanitarian situation in Gaza. Far-right US Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) declared on Monday that Israel was committing genocide in the enclave, while center-left UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Tuesday he’d recognize Palestinian statehood unless Israel met certain conditions by September. Given the importance of Israel’s relationship with the US, Netanyahu will be far more concerned about whether MAGA figures are distancing from Israel, as well as a Gallup poll that showed just 32% of Americans approve of Israel’s military action in Gaza (down from 50% at the start of the war).
Ivorian leader announces he’s running for fourth term
After winning a third term in 2020, Côte d'Ivoire’s President Alassane Ouattara hinted that he wouldn’t run again. Five years on, the 83-year-old has changed his mind, announcing another run and starting the race in pole position – the election is on October 25. Located on Africa’s West Coast, Côte d'Ivoire is home to over 30 million people and is the world’s top producer of cocoa. Its economy has been booming lately, but there has also been political unrest: Ouattara’s decision to run for a third term angered many, and he had to deny widespread – and false – rumors of a coup earlier this year.Embattled Chinese property developer to be delisted
The troubles continue for Evergrande, once one of China’s largest property developers. After being ordered into liquidation earlier this year, the firm will be delisted from Hong Kong’s stock exchange after failing to produce a viable plan to restructure $23 billion in offshore debt. Evergrande’s stunning collapse has become a symbol of China’s broader economic slowdown as consumer demand weakens, the workforce shrinks, and debt climbs.
Hard Numbers: Sudanese return home, Earthquake in the Pacific, US economy rebounds, Poland arrests multinational spies
A Sudanese man smiles while carrying his luggage, as families displaced by conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) crowd at Cairo's main station to board a free train with a voluntary return coordinated by the Egyptian government to Aswan, where buses will take them back to their homes in Khartoum, in Cairo, Egypt July 28, 2025.
190,000: Thousands of Sudanese refugees are returning home from Egypt after the army recaptured territory from RSF paramilitaries in Khartoum. Over 190,000 crossed back since January 2025, five times 2024's total. Despite ongoing fighting elsewhere in Sudan, families are boarding free transit from Cairo to Khartoum, hoping for stability.
8.8: An 8.8-magnitude earthquake – the sixth-most powerful ever recorded – struck off the eastern coast of Russia, sending shockwaves through buildings in Siberia and Japan, and injuring several people. The quake also prompted tsunami warnings in Japan, the state of Hawaii, and the US West Coast, but, thankfully, only modest tsunami waves arrived ashore, with no initial reports of damage.
3%: The US economy rebounded in the second quarter of 2025, growing at an annual rate of 3% after it contracted 0.5% in the first quarter. The recovery defied the recession warnings that followed the introduction of widespread tariffs, although that threat may return as the White House prepares to finally impose its larger “reciprocal” rates on Friday.
32: Poland announced the arrest of 32 people for allegedly spying for Russia on Tuesday – including Poles, Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, and a Colombian. The Colombian allegedly conducted two arson attacks on construction warehouses in May 2024 following Russian intelligence instructions, including how to make Molotov cocktails.