Category World News

President Donald Trump has strewn a number of policies over the past year that have impacted businesses, supply chains, and employment.

Despite this, the US economy appears to be expanding at a healthy rate and there is no safe harbor for unemployment.

According to experts, the reality is that the stock market boom has helped to conceal deeper economic issues.

Trump has imposed a number of tariffs on various nations, including key trading partners, which has sparked fears of rising inflation, manufacturing sluggishness, and rising unemployment.

None of those scenarios actually happened.

Although inflation was above the target of the Federal Reserve, December’s inflation rate was only 2.7%.

Last month, the unemployment rate was comparatively low, at 4.4 percent. The third quarter of 2025 saw the fastest growth in two years in terms of GDP.

The “surprising and awe we anticipated just didn’t materialize,” said Oxford Economics’ lead US economist Bernard Yaros.

Yaros claimed that the limited fallout was caused by Trump’s “liberation day” dialing back of the most expensive tariffs and the relative absence of other countries’ retaliation.

The stock market, which is heavily favored by the “magnificent seven” tech companies, has increased by nearly 30% since Trump’s announcement on April 2 and has helped Americans increase their paper wealth and ease their purse strings.

In a research briefing in October, Oxford Economics reported that net wealth gains account for almost one-third of the increase in consumer spending since the COVID-19 pandemic.

The gains have also been distributed differently.

According to Moody’s Analytics, the top 10% of earners now account for roughly half of all spending, which is the highest proportion since data collection began in 1989.

According to Marcus Noland, executive vice president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, “the gains are going a lot to people in higher income brackets – they are the ones who have the stock portfolios” and to people in fields and occupations related to AI.

However, these figures conceal the economy’s growth unevenness.

Employees’ net decline

This unevenness is revealed by careful analysis of the data. For instance, despite the impressive GDP figures, there isn’t a rise in hiring that comes with that growth.

While last year, the industries that rely heavily on immigrants added workers, such as hospitality and healthcare, have all lost jobs.

According to a Brookings Institution analysis, the US experienced negative&nbsp, net migration for the first time in at least half a century as a result of the Trump administration’s widespread deportation of undocumented immigrants and tightening of legal immigration pathways.

Noland noted that the US workforce is projected to experience a net decline of two million workers this year due to their “very public and brutal way of going about deportations.”

Smaller businesses lack the resources to hold stockpile inventories or negotiate with suppliers in the face of higher tariffs, which is a “bifurcation” in the US economy that is felt everywhere.

In a report from November, Oxford Economics stated that “the increase in policy uncertainty this year has had an outsized impact on smaller firms.”

Due to the capital-intensive chip manufacturing and cloud services industry’s boom, these companies also have little to gain from the boom in the artificial intelligence (AI) sector.

There are concerns about a large number of people being laid off of work, despite AI supporters’ belief that the world is about to experience significant productivity gains that could significantly raise living standards.

“This might represent the new trend of jobless growth,” the author speculates. One of the reasons why people don’t feel so good about themselves is because of this, Yaros said.

While there is still much hype surrounding AI and the potential productivity gains, we believe that if it persists, hiring will suffer as a result.

India’s most well-known composer, Allah Rakha Rahman, is unquestionably the most well-known in India. He has won some of the world’s most coveted musical awards – including Oscars, Grammys and a Golden Globe. His song, Jai Ho (May You Win), became a well-known anthem after earning him an Oscar. For his contributions to music, the 59-year-old “Mozart of Madras” received Padma Vibhushan, India’s third highest civilian award, in addition to his honor.

But last week, when Rahman, a man of few words, shared in a TV interview that he potentially has lost work due to “communal” bias in Bollywood, India’s Hindi film industry, he was subjected to a massive online backlash from Hindu right-wing voices.

“People who are not creative have the power now to decide things, and this might have been a communal thing also but not in my face”, Rahman told the BBC Asian Network in the interview aired on Friday.

“The music company hired its five composers, but they whispered to me that they had booked you.” Oh, that’s great, take some rest, I said. I can chill out with my family, ‘” he said in the 90-minute interview.

Rahman’s patriotism and talent were questioned by right-wing activists and commentators, who claimed he had played the “victim card.”

Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), a far-right organization, demanded an apology from Rahman for “defaming” the nation.

“We are proud of him and whatever he has done for the country. However, he claimed that the way he is trying to defame India is highly objectionable for someone who has made his living from it.

Industry insiders have remained silent and distazoned themselves from the remarks, avoiding a few outspoken voices.

Within a day, the composer was forced to tender an explanation amid an unrelenting stream of social media trolling. Rahman stated in a video that was posted to his Instagram account that: “I realize that intentions can occasionally be misunderstood, but my goal has always been to uplift, honor, and serve through music.

He praised Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi for his support for India’s young creatives and the entertainment sector, and he said he was still giving thanks to the country. He also worked with Hans Zimmer to create the score for the upcoming film Ramayana, a film based on the Hindu epic.

Indian religious intolerance is growing.

But the backlash on social media continued for days, bringing into the spotlight the struggle of being a Muslim amid rising religious intolerance in India.

Indian journalist Fatima Khan wrote on X, “Incredible to see Rahman being shifted from the good Muslim category to the bad Muslim category overnight.

“Almost every Muslim public figure in India has experienced or will experience a penny drop.” No matter how many patriotic songs, movies or tweets. They will all endure the suffering it causes.

According to To Kill a Democracy: India’s Passage to Despotism coauthor Debasish Roy Chowdhury, online trolling aids in the production of majoritarian consent.

He argued that when enough noise is generated on social media, it seeps into mainstream coverage and starts to look like the dominant social mood.

According to Roy Chowdhury, who has written about Bollywood being used as a propaganda tool, “the loudest voices drown out tolerance and reason until hate is all that is heard and can be falsely claimed as representative of society.”

Hindu right’s influence on art and cinema

Rahman is not well known for speaking out about his Muslim heritage or for politics. Roja, one of his many nationalist films, was released in 1992 and is renowned for its patriotic themes and depiction of the armed uprising in India-administered Kashmir in the 1990s.

Rahman’s 1997 song Maa Tujhe Salam (Salute to You, Mother) on his album Vande Mataram was seen as unifying the diverse nation of 1.4 billion people.

The composer’s career began in the Tamil film industry in southern India. He is based in Chennai, Tamil Nadu’s state capital.

The Oscar winner’s comments last week raised questions about the Hindu right’s influence on art and cinema in India, particularly in Bollywood.

The Hindi film industry has received criticism for producing movies that disparage Hindu leaders and secular leaders or even glorify Hindu extremists.

Some claim that this is the result of a persistent cultural conflict involving Bollywood, which has led to a shift away from its pluralist, liberal, and Hindu majoritarian narratives, which aligns film closely with the ruling party’s ideology.

The Kashmir Files (2022) triggered anti-Muslim hate across India while the Kerala Story (2023) was accused of spreading Islamophobia by portraying Muslims as potential “terrorists”.

Rahman’s music was recently used in Rahman’s music to the controversial Muslim-mongering movie Chhaava. Aurangzeb, the film depicted the brutal and violent ruler of the Mughal Empire. Rahman, in his BBC interview, admitted the film was “divisive”.

“Muslim vilification”

Screenwriter and critic Raja Sen said, “We’re seeing a kind of vilification of Muslims on our screens.”

“Earlier, it was just like an anti-Pakistan narrative. He told Al Jazeera, “There is now a different kind of narrative.”

Pakistan has traditionally been depicted as the enemy in Hindi films that deal with war, “terror,” and espionage, themes that have been the subject of decades of hostility. The two neighbouring countries have fought several wars over the disputed Kashmir region. After 26 tourists were killed by gunmen in India-administered Kashmir, they were briefly engaged in a four-day war in May.

Indian Muslims are now being increasingly portrayed as a threat by movies that once focused on foreign foes.

Sen claimed that a major filmmaker changed an upcoming film’s Muslim protagonist’s name to a Hindu name, fearing controversy.

“They must have thought, why make the Muslim protagonist a good, heroic figure. According to Sen, it’s “perhaps similar” to what used to happen in post-9/11 America in terms of how stereotyping was carried out,” Sen continued.

Bollywood’s once largely secular ethos presented Muslim characters as positive, even if stereotypical. In films like Amar Akbar Anthony (1977) and Coolie (1983), they were devoted friends, brothers, or benevolent poets and singers.

Muslims have appeared in recent years as violent (Kalank), regressive (Haq), or debauched (Animal), a “terrorist” (A Wednesday), a “terrorist,” or violent (Kalank), a development that echoes post-9/11 Hollywood movies, where Muslim identity has evolved as a synonym for danger or moral deficiency.

Muslim stars are targeted

From the beginning of Hindi cinema, Muslim actors, filmmakers, and other artists have had a significant influence.

The prominence of stars such as Shah Rukh Khan, Aamir Khan, Salman Khan and Saif Ali Khan has often been cited as evidence of Bollywood’s secular credentials and broad appeal.

The country’s biggest Muslim stars, however, have increasingly become targets in recent years. This is not just apparent in their movies, but also in the way that their views on religious intolerance have been publicly expressed.

Aamir Khan’s films have repeatedly faced boycott calls from right-wing Hindu groups, including his 2014 film PK for critiquing organised religion, including Hinduism and Islam, and 2022’s Laal Singh Chaddha for his past remarks on intolerance.

Aamir Khan had to reassure the public that he “really loved his country.” A televised interview with news anchor Rajat Sharma, who questioned him about marrying Hindu women, also raised the accusation of promoting love jihad, a conspiracy theory that claims Muslim men are engaged in union to convert Hindu women.

Shah Rukh Khan has been targeted on multiple occasions for remarks and professional choices. He was called “anti-national” in 2015 because of his mention of intolerance. When his son, Aryan Khan, was detained in a 2021 drug case despite the charges being later dropped, he also faced campaigns that questioned his patriotism.

More recently, he was labelled a traitor by a ruling party member after his Indian Premier League cricket team signed a Bangladeshi player. In response to the conflict between the two nations, the Kolkata Knight Riders, which is co-owned by Shah Rukh Khan, dropped the Bangladeshi player.

Rights organizations and independent observers have documented what they believe to be a systematic campaign of hate and discrimination against Muslims in India, which account for 1.4 billion people there, over the past few years.

According to the India Hate Lab Report 2025, there has been a sharp rise in antiminority hate speech – from 668 reported incidents in 2023 to more than 1, 300 in 2025 – much of it voiced at political rallies, processions and public events that is then amplified online into mainstream discourse.

In a number of states, human rights organizations like Amnesty International have documented demolitions of Muslim-owned businesses and homes.

Beyond studies, lived accounts and news coverage highlight a systematic exclusion from daily life, including difficulties finding rental housing, practicing religion, and being lynched over accusations of transporting cows, which some Hindus consider to be sacred.

‘ A chilling effect ‘

Such a chilling effect is produced by the backlash. In recent years, according to artists, the scope of creative freedom in Hindi films has slowed significantly, largely as a result of the anticipation of a backlash. Silence and self-censorship, some feel, have become critical for survival in the film industry today.

Avinash Das, a filmmaker, said, “There has been a group within the film industry that works within the influence of the government and benefits from it, that boldly and aggressively underlines and creates many of these controversies.”

After learning about Das’s criticism of the government, producers repeatedly turned down his services.

He pointed out that a 1983 satirical film, Jaane Bhi Do Yaaro, which depicted a Hindu religious performance, cannot be made now.

Filmmakers and producers are cautious of anything that might be perceived as controversial because, in his opinion, film is not just an art form but a business driven by risk. The same applies to those who declare their opinions.

Indian celebrities seem to be bound by the same code of silence, which explains why so few, regardless of whether they are Hindu or Muslim, speak publicly about the country’s current direction.

Bollywood contrasts sharply with Hollywood, where celebrities frequently express out against one another, or even make disparaging remarks about US President Donald Trump.

Football on the continent had an embarrassing night watching Morocco and Senegal play in the Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) final. African football’s reputation will suffer a long time to come.

In the Moroccan capital Rabat, an encounter that offered so much to two top-notch teams led to ephemeral scenes of acrimony and chaos. The inquest will begin when the dust has settled.

As a score of 0-0 in the final stage of the extravaganza started to get heated. Ismaila Sarr of Senegal appeared to have scored, but referee Jean-Jacques Ndala decided Abdoulaye Seck had fouled Morocco’s Achraf Hakimi, but the goal was disallowed. Senegal coach Pape Thiaw was obviously upset by the decision.

The chaos then developed. Brahim Diaz, a Moroccan star, hit the ground in the final minute of added time and vehemently appealed for a penalty. A highly contentious penalty was awarded after a video assistant referee (VAR) review in which Ndala was thrown into by suffocating coaches and players, with a chance for Morocco to win it at the death.

Then the conflict’s ignobles caught fire. Although Thiaw believed Senegal had a case and had been cheated, he pivoted the final into dangerous territory when he led his team off the field and down the tunnel in protest. Play didn’t restart for over 17 minutes as some fans staged a pitch invasion and objects were thrown from the crowd. After that, Thaw later acknowledged that he should not have done this.

Diaz’s “Panenka” error costs the host country.

Before the penalty spot and the ball in Diaz’ hands, the tension inside Prince Moulay Abdellah Stadium could have produced even more obscene scenes, while Senegal’s players continued to be bitterly criticized. After a painful 50-year wait to become the African champions, it was his moment, Morocco’s moment.

What Diaz did next encapsulated the crazyness of the night, who was the media darling of AFCON 2025 and had a tournament-high five goals.

He attempted a “Panenka” chip, but embarrassingly, the Real Madrid winger accidentally clipped the ball straight into the arms of Senegal’s Edouard Mendy. The stadium’s over 66, 000 home fans were having trouble understanding what had just happened.

And when extra time arrived, Moroccan fans were shocked to learn that Senegal’s brilliant winning goal, which would have been the most memorable moment if the final hadn’t already been completely chaotic, had it not been for the Moroccans.

Senegal won the second time in Africa. They merited it, in football terms. However, the celebrations will be overshadowed by accusations due to the final inquests.

Disciplinary measures are likely to follow.

Gianni Infantino, the president of FIFA, addressed the “ugly scenes” on Instagram while watching the match.

Infantino criticized the decision-making by the match officials as “unacceptable” and said “violence cannot be tolerated in our sport.”

The Confederation of African Football (CAF), the tournament’s governing body, is likely to take severe disciplinary measures after the final, where its famous showpiece has been severely damaged.

The scenes were “shameful,” according to Moroccan coach Walid Regragui, who added that they “do not honor Africa.”

Strong measures are likely to be taken in the press room against&nbsp, Thiaw, whose media briefing had to be postponed as a result of further unrest. He’s not the only one who will face scrutiny, he’s, according to his, one who’s not.

Prior to the final, the Senegalese Football Federation (FSF) had expressed concern about the security at the game and claimed that its players and staff were “in danger”. The FSF also raised concerns about the final’s hotel, lodging, and ticket allocation.

There was a lot of criticism for the final officiating. There is no escaping the fact that the Congolese referee made a difficult decision during stoppage time, even though Ndala was under intense pressure when the Senegal players left. Seck actually harmed Hakimi, right? Senegal’s player was subjected to a harsh call. And why didn’t the referee consult VAR?

Did Morocco’s Diaz then succumb to the pressure exerted by Senegalese singer El Hadji Malick Diouf, who appeared innocent? Ndala initially appeared uninterested, but a pleading Diaz and the crowd soon made him appear to give in. It would be difficult to make a decision in the hosts’ favor. The other was obliterating.

claims of host country bias

Regragui, the coach of Morocco, felt the need to publicly deny any favoritism toward the host nation that had been racked up by this AFCON, which had been fueled by Cameroon’s rejection of two penalties in its quarterfinal victory.

The conspiracy theories focused on the praise Morocco, which it otherwise received, with Mohamed Salah, an Egyptian and Liverpool international, thanking the organizers and saying, “I have never participated in a competition in Africa with such a high level of organization.”

The tearful Moroccan fans who had gathered across the nation ready to celebrate would have left the stadium on Sunday night with this in their minds. It was simple to feel sorry for them because none of this was their fault. The moment was captured by the rain. There were sprinkling of pixie dust. The wait would continue for the champions.

Up until the carnage in the final, it appeared as though the focus of AFCON 2025 would be on the improvement of African football and whether top-tier African teams, especially Senegal and Morocco, could advance to the FIFA World Cup in June. Perhaps even make history.

Underestimating Morocco’s ability to defeat the biggest football players would be foolish after reaching the semifinals in Qatar and with years of youth football investment still showing promise. Senegal’s players also light up European leagues while uniting as a formidable force against the Lions of Teranga.

The carelessness, however, was exhibited in Rabat by coaches, players, and supporters who tarnished the soaring reputation of African football. Infantino has already stated that such scenes will not be tolerated in Africa or elsewhere.

Senegal star Sadio Mane, who appeared reluctant to leave the pitch and appeared to have urged his teammates to do so, is the only one whose reputation improved as a result of the final fiasco. After the two contentious decisions, he also attempted to calm Senegalese supporters.

Fans of football should be ecstatic about Senegal’s success and the calibre of both finalists. Instead, we’ll recall the dishonest actions in the nation that hosts the World Cup once every four years.

The final decision on AFCON 2025 lies with CAF and its disciplinary division. Don’t be surprised if there is more drama in the pipeline because its reputation has been severely harmed and FIFA needs to please.

The resignation of the UK’s West Midlands police chief, who banned Maccabi Tel Aviv fans from attending a football match in Birmingham last year, has triggered concerns that pressure from pro-Israel groups is being allowed to override policing decisions in the United Kingdom.

Police decisions are supposed to be independent of the government or political influence in the UK. But the departure of Craig Guildford, chief constable of West Midlands Police, was the result of political pressure from pro-Israel lobby groups amid heightened sensitivities around the issues of Israel and Palestine, legal and political commentators say.

In November last year, West Midlands Police recommended that Maccabi Tel Aviv football fans should be banned from attending a Europa League match against Aston Villa in Birmingham on public order and security grounds.

West Midlands Police said it had classified the match as high risk based on “current intelligence and previous incidents, including violent clashes and hate crime offences that occurred during the 2024 UEFA Europa League match between Ajax and Maccabi Tel Aviv in Amsterdam”.

“Based on our professional judgement, we believe this measure will help mitigate risks to public safety,” the police force said at the time.

The decision was ultimately approved by Birmingham City Council’s Safety Advisory Group (SAG), a multi-agency body that brings together police, local authorities and emergency services to assess safety risks at major events.

There was a public outcry, and numerous media opinion pieces called the ban “anti-Semitic”.

That pressure has since intensified. Last week, UK Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood publicly stated that she had lost confidence in Guildford following criticism by a police watchdog of how the ban was handled. Guildford resigned on Friday.

But observers say Guildford’s departure is a sign that policing decisions which intersect with the issue of Israel and Palestine are no longer insulated from political consequences.

The reason for this, said Chris Nineham, vice-chair of the British group Stop the War Coalition, is that “most politicians are too scared to challenge the pro-Israel mainstream consensus”.

He believes the fallout from the ban will have lasting consequences for future policing decisions. “I think it will reinforce the tendency for police forces to go along with the establishment bias against Palestine supporters, which is a product of the British ruling class’s support for Israel and is reinforced by Israel’s impressive lobbying operation,” Nineham told Al Jazeera.

‘A very dangerous precedent’

Frances Webber, a retired barrister who writes on politics, human rights and the rule of law, said the significance of Guildford’s resignation extends far beyond football or crowd control.

In the UK, “police forces are operationally independent of government, and any case against Guildford should have been pursued judicially, not politically”, she explained.

The visible role of central government in the fallout from this policing decision, she argued, “sets a very dangerous precedent, not just for police and local authorities but for democracy”.

Supporters of the ban on Maccabi fans attending the match in Birmingham argue it was rooted in a risk assessment shaped by events abroad and local context.

In 2024, Dutch authorities reported serious disorder involving Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters at a match in Amsterdam, with violence both before and after the fixture. In intelligence shared ahead of the Birmingham match, British police said their Dutch counterparts informed them that significant numbers of visiting fans had been involved in organised confrontations and disturbances.

Birmingham is one of the UK’s most diverse cities, with around 30 percent of its residents Muslim and more than 40 percent identifying as Asian or from minority ethnic backgrounds, according to the 2021 Census.

Officers were therefore concerned that the arrival of large numbers of high-risk, visiting supporters could spark tensions and even retaliatory disorder.

Nineham argues, therefore, that while procedural mistakes have since been identified by a police watchdog, the underlying policing decision about the match in Birmingham was sound. “The undeniably violent element within the Maccabi fans would have been a risk to the local population,” he said.

Webber also points to reports that visiting Maccabi fans in Amsterdam had openly celebrated the killing of children in Gaza, and officers would have had to consider this when assessing the risks surrounding the Birmingham football fixture.

An imbalance in scrutiny?

So why was the ban called into question at all?

Last week, a police watchdog report by Sir Andy Cooke, chief inspector at His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, found that “confirmation bias” had influenced how West Midlands Police assessed and presented intelligence it had received about Maccabi fans to the SAG.

It reported that Dutch police had questioned the intelligence UK police claimed to have received from them. According to a report in the UK newspaper The Guardian this week, Dutch police said key claims about the violence in Amsterdam relied on by West Midlands Police to reach its decision to ban Maccabi fans did not align with its own experience.

The report also criticised the police’s reliance on artificial intelligence (AI), in particular, erroneous AI-generated material such as a reference to a football match between Maccabi Tel Aviv and West Ham that never took place. Guildford later apologised after initially telling MPs that AI had not been used, before clarifying that the error stemmed from an AI-assisted search tool.

Since Cooke’s interim report was published, much of the British media has framed Guildford’s resignation as justified, citing the findings in the report.

However, the report found no evidence that the ban was motivated by anti-Semitism, despite repeated claims to that effect.

Critics of the report, including Jewish Voice for Labour, however, have argued that there was an imbalance when it came to weighing concerns from different members of the community.

In a letter to the West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner, the group said the chief inspector of constabulary met with what his report described as “significant people” including representatives of the Israeli Embassy, members of Birmingham’s Jewish community, and Lord John Mann, the government’s independent adviser on anti-Semitism, but did not meet with any groups representing Birmingham’s Muslim community.

The group said that this disparity showed that Muslim safety concerns had been marginalised during the process.

‘A pro-Israel consensus’

“It is worrying how the line that this ban was anti-Semitic and that only a tiny minority of Maccabi fans are a problem has been able to take hold, despite the clear evidence to the contrary,” Nineham said, adding that most politicians have appeared unwilling to challenge a pro-Israel consensus once it was formed.

The fallout that resulted in Guildford’s departure, he believes, was ultimately shaped less by the report’s findings than by concern within the political establishment about the precedent the ban might set.

“Guildford was forced out because the political establishment didn’t want the decision he made to become a precedent… The message to the police is: don’t make decisions based on a real risk assessment, toe the pro-Israel line,” Nineham noted.

He said he believes the episode will serve to reinforce a wider tendency within policing and other institutions to avoid decisions perceived as unfavourable to Israel, deepening what he describes as an establishment bias against Palestine supporters.

Indeed, the implications of Guildford’s departure extend far beyond this single case, warns Webber, with leaders in the police force being placed in an “impossible situation”, expected to weigh foreign-policy sensitivities alongside public safety – something she said is absolutely not their role.

Israel’s far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich criticised US President Donald Trump’s plan for Gaza, saying it was ‘bad for Israel’ and should be scrapped. He called for the closure of the US-led Civil Military Coordination Centre in Kiryat Gat overseeing the Gaza ceasefire.