President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that he is ordering the “cessation” of U.S. sanctions on Syria, seemingly bringing an end to the U.S.'s decades-long economic suppression of the country as he cozies up to Saudi Arabian leaders. “I will be ordering the cessation of sanctions against Syria in order to give them a chance at greatness,” Trump said in a speech at an investment forum in Riyadh, on the first of his four-day visit to the Middle East. The announcement came after the White House announced a $600 billion investment deal with Saudi Arabia, following Trump's meeting with MBS. These sanctions were escalated by the Obama administration in 2011. They have created numerous humanitarian crises, hitting every sector of Syria's economy; fueling hunger and poverty; and failing at their supposed purpose of overthrowing the Assad regime or otherwise bringing peace for decades on end. In fact, human rights experts have noted that sanctions are currently serving as a roadblock toward rebuilding after the Assad regime. However, the Trump administration is not motivated by alleviating human rights concerns. In fact, rights groups have said that his second term has thus far been marked by egregious attacks on human rights both in the U.S. and across the world. Rather, as he effectively admitted, Trump likely views the lifting of the sanctions as a way to further consolidate his own power and influence during his visit to Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia — three countries with a history of dire human rights abuses. Analysts have noted that Trump's primary interest for this trip is striking business deals, including ones that enrich him personally, like accepting a $400 million luxury jet as a gift from Qatar. The announcement also comes after Sharaa reportedly pitched Trump's team on creating a Trump Tower in Damascus and giving the U.S. access to Syrian fossil fuels, according to Reuters, in efforts to get a meeting with Trump during his visit. The Trump administration is cracking down on political dissent. Under pressure from an array of McCarthy-style tactics, academics, activists and nonprofits face significant threats for speaking out or organizing in resistance. Truthout is appealing for your support to weather this storm of censorship. We've launched a fundraising campaign to find 500 new monthly donors in the next 10 days. Your support during our fundraiser (9 days left) will help us continue our nonprofit movement journalism in the face of right-wing authoritarianism. Sharon Zhang is a news writer at Truthout covering politics, climate and labor. Before coming to Truthout, Sharon had written stories for Pacific Standard, The New Republic, and more. Get the news you want, delivered to your inbox every day. We've set a goal to add 500 new monthly donors in the next 9 days – will you be one of them?

Hasan Piker, a left-wing political commentator with millions of followers on social media, was detained and interrogated on his political views for hours by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents after he returned from a trip overseas this week. The spokesperson denied that Piker's politics played any role in his questioning, accusing him of “lying for likes.” However, Piker's recollection of being singled out for his political views is consistent with other accounts of customs agents detaining citizens reentering the country under the Trump administration. Detailing the ordeal on his Twitch stream on Monday, Piker said he was led to a private room at the airport and was interrogated by CBP agents for around two hours. He described the interaction as “really interesting” and “very cordial,” but was troubled by agents' line of questioning. “It's very obvious they knew exactly who the fuck I was,” said Piker, who is a vocal critic of President Donald Trump and of Israel's genocide in Gaza. Piker said that agents inquired whether he has any connections to Hamas, the Houthis or Hezbollah. They also questioned him regarding his criticism of the Trump administration, he said. “[An agent was] like, ‘Do you talk about Trump?' I was like, ‘Why are you asking me this…what does this have to do with anything? Piker suspects that the CBP agents were trying to “get something out of me that I think they could use to basically detain me permanently,” he said. In text messages with The Washington Post, Piker elaborated on his release, saying that when he asked if he would be detained again when traveling abroad, agents gave him a piece of paper to contact the DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program. The agent “basically said, you know, you can figure out what not to do so that this doesn't happen again,” Piker told The Post. “And I suspect the what-not-to-do is just don't be a political commentator that speaks about American foreign policy, which is not something I'm planning on stopping.” “We are deeply disturbed that CBP is stopping political commentators at the border to interrogate them about First Amendment-protected activities. “If Piker, a U.S. citizen, was detained and questioned solely over his views on the Gaza war, it would mark a troubling escalation of the Trump administration's efforts to punish dissent on the issue,” Terr said, adding that “the First Amendment squarely protects speech on matters of public debate.” The Trump administration is cracking down on political dissent. Under pressure from an array of McCarthy-style tactics, academics, activists and nonprofits face significant threats for speaking out or organizing in resistance. Truthout is appealing for your support to weather this storm of censorship. We've launched a fundraising campaign to find 500 new monthly donors in the next 10 days. As independent media with no corporate backing or billionaire ownership, Truthout is uniquely able to push back against the right-wing narrative and expose the shocking extent of political repression under the new McCarthyism. Your support during our fundraiser (9 days left) will help us continue our nonprofit movement journalism in the face of right-wing authoritarianism. He can be found on most social media platforms under the handle @thatchriswalker. Get the news you want, delivered to your inbox every day. We've set a goal to add 500 new monthly donors in the next 9 days – will you be one of them?

White House touts deal made on first stop of US president's four-day diplomatic tour to Gulf states Speaking at an investment forum on Tuesday, Trump said that he planned to lift sanctions on Syria after holding talks with Saudi Arabia's Mohammed bin Salman and Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. “I will be ordering the cessation of sanctions against Syria in order to give them a chance at greatness,” Trump said. Sharaa's pitch to woo the US president offered access to Syrian oil, reconstruction contracts and to build a Trump Tower in Damascus in exchange for the lifting of US sanctions on Syria. “This is amazing, it worked,” said Radwan Ziadeh, a Syrian writer and activist who is close to the Syrian president. “This is how you win his heart and mind,” he said, noting that Sharaa would probably show Trump the design during their meeting in Riyadh on Wednesday. The visit was heavily focused on business interests and securing quick wins – often with characteristic Trumpian embellishment – for the administration. Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed pledged to invest $600bn in the United States during a lunch with Trump, including $20bn in artificial intelligence data centres, purchases of gas turbines and other energy equipment worth $14.2bn, nearly $5bn in Boeing 737-8 jets, and other deals. The US president was feted with a royal guard as he arrived in Riyadh on Tuesday. Royal Saudi Air Force F-15s escorted Trump's Air Force One jet as it arrived in Riyadh and Trump sat with Salman in an ornate hall at the Royal Court at Al Yamamah Palace with members of the US and Saudi and business elite. Among them were Elon Musk, prominent figures in AI like Sam Altman, as well the chief executives of IBM, BlackRock, Citigroup, Palantir and Nvidia, among others. When Salman pledged that Saudi Arabia would invest $600bn in the US economy, Trump smiled and joked that it should be $1tn. The gift has provoked anger from congressional Democrats, one of whom described it as an “aerial palace” and said it would constitute “the most valuable gift ever conferred on a president by a foreign government”. Trump has defended the offer, saying it would “replace the 40 year old Air Force One, temporarily, in a very public and transparent transaction” and called Democrats asking for an ethics investigation “World Class Losers!! The meeting between Trump and Salman was characterised by smiles and friendly backslapping, a sharp contrast to past summits when the Saudi leader was mired in controversy over the 2018 murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. While his administration touted big deals, Trump also admitted that his geopolitical goals of Saudi Arabia's diplomatic recognition of Israel would take time due in large part to the Israel's prosecution of the war in Gaza. His negotiations in the region have been characterised by big ticket investment deals, and those appeared to play a role in his reversal of US policy on Syria as well. Sharaa, who is keen to normalise relations with the US, has reportedly offered Trump a number of sweeteners including the Trump tower in Damascus, a demilitarised zone by the Golan Heights that would strengthen Israel's claim to the territory it has occupied since 1967, diplomatic recognition of Israel, and a profit-sharing deal on resources similar to the Ukraine minerals deal. The idea to offer Trump a piece of real estate with his name on it in the heart of Damascus was thought up by a US Republican senator, who passed on the idea to Sharaa's team. “Sanctions in Syria are very complicated, but with Trump, he can [get] most of them lifted. Netanyahu doubled down on the war on Tuesday in a show of defiance, saying that any ceasefire would only be “temporary”. “There will be no situation where we stop the war,” he added.

White House touts deal made on first stop of US president's four-day diplomatic tour to Gulf states Speaking at an investment forum on Tuesday, Trump said that he planned to lift sanctions on Syria after holding talks with Saudi Arabia's Mohammed bin Salman and Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. “I will be ordering the cessation of sanctions against Syria in order to give them a chance at greatness,” Trump said. Sharaa's pitch to woo the US president offered access to Syrian oil, reconstruction contracts and to build a Trump Tower in Damascus in exchange for the lifting of US sanctions on Syria. “This is amazing, it worked,” said Radwan Ziadeh, a Syrian writer and activist who is close to the Syrian president. “This is how you win his heart and mind,” he said, noting that Sharaa would probably show Trump the design during their meeting in Riyadh on Wednesday. The visit was heavily focused on business interests and securing quick wins – often with characteristic Trumpian embellishment – for the administration. Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed pledged to invest $600bn in the United States during a lunch with Trump, including $20bn in artificial intelligence data centres, purchases of gas turbines and other energy equipment worth $14.2bn, nearly $5bn in Boeing 737-8 jets, and other deals. The US president was feted with a royal guard as he arrived in Riyadh on Tuesday. Royal Saudi Air Force F-15s escorted Trump's Air Force One jet as it arrived in Riyadh and Trump sat with Salman in an ornate hall at the Royal Court at Al Yamamah Palace with members of the US and Saudi and business elite. Among them were Elon Musk, prominent figures in AI such as Sam Altman, as well the chief executives of IBM, BlackRock, Citigroup, Palantir and Nvidia, among others. When Salman pledged that Saudi Arabia would invest $600bn in the US economy, Trump smiled and joked that it should be $1tn. The gift has provoked anger from congressional Democrats, one of whom described it as an “aerial palace” and said it would constitute “the most valuable gift ever conferred on a president by a foreign government”. Trump has defended the offer, saying in a post it would “replace the 40 year old Air Force One, temporarily, in a very public and transparent transaction” and called Democrats asking for an ethics investigation “World Class Losers!! The meeting between Trump and Salman was characterised by smiles and friendly backslapping, a sharp contrast to past summits when the Saudi leader was mired in controversy over the 2018 murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. While his administration touted big deals, Trump also admitted that his geopolitical goals of Saudi Arabia's diplomatic recognition of Israel would take time due in large part to the Israel's prosecution of the war in Gaza. His negotiations in the region have been characterised by big-ticket investment deals, and those appeared to play a role in his reversal of US policy on Syria as well. Sharaa, who is keen to normalise relations with the US, has reportedly offered Trump a number of sweeteners including the Trump tower in Damascus, a demilitarised zone by the Golan Heights that would strengthen Israel's claim to the territory it has occupied since 1967, diplomatic recognition of Israel, and a profit-sharing deal on resources similar to the Ukraine minerals deal. The idea to offer Trump a piece of real estate with his name on it in the heart of Damascus was thought up by a US Republican senator, who passed on the idea to Sharaa's team. “Sanctions in Syria are very complicated, but with Trump, he can [get] most of them lifted. Netanyahu doubled down on the war on Tuesday in a show of defiance, saying that any ceasefire would only be “temporary”. “There will be no situation where we stop the war,” he added.

Chinese leader Xi Jinping says “bullying” and “hegemonism” will only backfire, in a veiled reference to the United States just a day after a temporary truce was agreed in the trade war between the world's two largest economies. Xi chose to deliver this message, which paints China as a global leader and defender of free trade, at a summit of Latin American and Caribbean officials — including the presidents of Brazil, Colombia and Chile — in Beijing on Tuesday. Bullying or hegemonism only leads to self-isolation,” Xi said, reiterating a warning he has made throughout the trade showdown with US President Donald Trump. Great changes unseen in a century are accelerating, which have “made unity and cooperation among nations indispensable,” he added. Xi's speech comes a day after the US and China announced they would drastically roll back tariffs on each other's goods for an initial 90-day period, in a surprise breakthrough that has de-escalated a punishing trade war and buoyed global markets. While the White House is hailing the tariff pause as a win for the United States and a demonstration of Trump's “unparalleled expertise in securing deals that benefit the American people,” Chinese commentators and state-run media are celebrating the agreement as “a huge victory” for China and a vindication of Beijing's tough stance. “This shows that China's firm countermeasures and resolute stance have been highly effective,” Yuyuan Tantian, a social media account affiliated with state broadcaster CCTV, wrote on microblog Weibo. As countries rushed to make deals with Trump after his April 2 announcement of “reciprocal tariffs,” China took a markedly different approach, standing its ground and retaliating with tariffs on US goods along with a host of other countermeasures. For over a month, Trump's second-term tariffs on Chinese imports remained at a staggering 145%, while China's retaliatory levies on US goods held at 125%, a tit-for-tat trade war that was already inflicting economic pain on both sides. Related article Trump's China trade breakthrough might be enough to avoid self-inflicted recession The trade agreement reached over the weekend effectively means the US will temporarily lower its overall tariffs on Chinese goods from 145% to 30%, while China will cut its levies on American imports from 125% to 10%, according to the joint statement. Trump's 20% fentanyl-related levies on China, imposed in February and March, will stay, so will China's countermeasures against the US for those tariffs. Under the agreement, China will also suspend or cancel its non-tariff countermeasures imposed on the US since April 2. In addition, the US will cut its “de minimis” tariff on small packages from China from 120% to 54% starting from May 14, while still maintaining the $100 flat-fee option, according to a White House executive order issued Monday. Chinese state media have cast the reduction in tariffs as being on equal terms, emphasizing that both sides are suspending the 24% “reciprocal tariffs” for 90 days and removing the 91% additional tariffs mutually imposed during the rapid-fire retaliatory escalation in April. “This is a huge victory for China's commitment to the principles of equality and mutual respect,” Hu Xijin, the former editor of the state-run Global Times, wrote in a Weibo post. He called the agreement “a triumph for international trade rules and the rightful global order,” adding that it “sets an example and is bound to inspire other countries to defend their own rights.” “This is something China must stand firm on. But China also showed flexibility in coming to the negotiation table, Wang said, instead of insisting on its demand that the US must remove all of its unilateral tariffs before any discussion. The agreement bought both sides time, he added. “It's like shifting from the original shock therapy to a gradual treatment approach.” Although the Trump administration is touting the temporary tariff truce with China as a “win,” the trade war has inflected great damage to US credibility, including with its allies, Wang said, and that gives China opportunity to strengthen ties with other countries. For weeks, China had stood firm against US pressure and launched a diplomatic charm offensive presenting itself as a supporter of global trade, rallying countries to push back against what it calls “US bullying.” On Tuesday, Xi continued that push despite the trade truce, vowing to strengthen “solidarity” with Latin America and the Caribbean, a region that Trump has sought to pull closer to Washington's orbit. CELAC stands for the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States. Countries in Latin America are among Beijing's top trading partners. Last year, China was the main destination for Brazil's soybeans, accounting for more than 73% of the country's total soybean exports. This story has been updated with additional reporting and context. Most stock quote data provided by BATS. US market indices are shown in real time, except for the S&P 500 which is refreshed every two minutes. Dow Jones: The Dow Jones branded indices are proprietary to and are calculated, distributed and marketed by DJI Opco, a subsidiary of S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC and have been licensed for use to S&P Opco, LLC and CNN. Standard & Poor's and S&P are registered trademarks of Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC and Dow Jones is a registered trademark of Dow Jones Trademark Holdings LLC. All content of the Dow Jones branded indices Copyright S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC and/or its affiliates. Market holidays and trading hours provided by Copp Clark Limited.

“Jewish students were subjected to pervasive insults, physical assault, and intimidation, with no meaningful response from Harvard's leadership.” “The decision was reviewed and approved by a faculty committee, demonstrating just how radical Harvard has become,” it said. As such, the agencies have decided to terminate $450 million in grants. The Trump administration had proposed a series of “common sense” reforms such as ensuring merit-based admissions and hiring, ending programs promoting “crude identity stereotypes,” disciplinary reforms, cooperation with law enforcement, and reporting compliance with federal agencies such as the Education Department and the Department of Homeland Security, McMahon said. Admission to Harvard is based on “academic excellence and promise,” he said, adding that employment at the university is “similarly based on merit and achievement.” Garber dismissed accusations that international students may be “collectively more prone” to violence, disruption, and other misconduct compared to other students. Furthermore, the institution has taken steps to combat anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry, Garber said. Garber said the university has commenced initiatives to make Harvard a “more pluralistic and welcoming place” where there is greater intellectual diversity on campuses. In her May 5 letter, McMahon said that “at its best, a university should fulfill the highest ideals of our Nation, and enlighten the thousands of hopeful students who walk through its magnificent gates. In one alleged instance, the Harvard Law Review's editor reportedly said it was “concerning” that four of the five individuals who wanted to reply to an article about police reform were white men, the Education Department said. In another alleged instance, an editor suggested expediting the review of submissions from minority contributors.

Uranium is used as fuel in nuclear reactors and for the production of tritium, which is required for nuclear weapons, while vanadium is used in steel production and titanium aerospace alloys. “The project will undergo an accelerated environmental review by the Bureau of Land Management, with a completion timeline of 14 days. A key security risk posed by the lack of domestic uranium and vanadium production is that America is dependent on its rivals. “America is facing an alarming energy emergency because of the prior administration's Climate Extremist policies,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said. Approval times will be reduced to a maximum of 28 days from the months or years it used to take, the department said. The policy is applicable to a wide range of energy sources such as oil, gas, uranium, geothermal, biofuels, and coal. “The United States cannot afford to wait,” Burgum said. “By reducing a multi-year permitting process down to just 28 days, the Department will lead with urgency, resolve, and a clear focus on strengthening the nation's energy independence.” “A shoddy review means the true hazards of a project may only be known when the air or water thousands of people rely on is dangerously polluted.” “Critical minerals are essential for U.S. military readiness, as they are key components in fighter jets, satellites, submarines, smart bombs, and missile guidance systems,” it said, adding that “financing, loans, and investment support will be provided for new mineral production projects.”

Prime Minister Mark Carney added fresh faces to the Liberal cabinet Tuesday with a post-election shuffle that also kept veteran ministers in key economic portfolios like finance, Canada-U.S. relations, internal trade and foreign affairs. The three senior ministers who joined Mr. Carney on his recent trip to meet U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House - Melanie Joly, Dominic LeBlanc and David McGuinty - also remain in cabinet, but with adjusted roles. Prime Minister Mark Carney and Governor General Mary Simon pose for a family photo with newly sworn in cabinet members.Blair Gable/Reuters Prime Minister Mark Carney, centre, arrives for the cabinet swearing-in ceremony at Rideau Hall in Ottawa.Christinne Muschi/The Canadian Press François-Philippe Champagne gives the thumbs up as Dominic LeBlanc, left, and Mélanie Joly look on.Christinne Muschi/The Canadian Press Dominic LeBlanc is sworn as President of the King's Privy Council and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. trade.Blair Gable/Reuters Gen. Mary Simon, left, and Prime Minister Mark Carney are shown during a cabinet swearing-in ceremony at Rideau Hall.Spencer Colby/The Canadian Press Prime Minister Mark Carney arrives at Rideau Hall for the cabinet swearing-in Ottawa.Ashley Fraser/The Globe and Mail Randeep Sarai, left to right, Patty Hajdu, Mélanie Joly and Wayne Long arrive for the swearing-in ceremony.Spencer Colby/The Canadian Press Prime Minister Mark Carney arrives for the cabinet swearing-in ceremony at Rideau Hall in Ottawa.Justin Tang/The Canadian Press High-profile rookie MP Tim Hodgson was added to cabinet with an economic portfolio. He also worked as an adviser to Mr. Carney at the Bank of Canada. The latter will not manage federal departments or attend all cabinet meetings. Instead, they have been assigned specific policy priorities, such as defence procurement, seniors and combatting crime. Mr. Carney said in a statement Tuesday that the new cabinet is built to deliver change. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is also planning to hold a news conference Tuesday. Former Vancouver mayor Gregor Robertson joins the cabinet as Minister of Housing. Gregor Robertson, left to right, Rebecca Alty, Tim Hodgson, Marjorie Michel arrive for a cabinet swearing-in at Rideau Hall in Ottawa on May 13.Spencer Colby/The Canadian Press Ms. Alty represents the Northwest Territories and is a former mayor of Yellowknife. Two new cabinet job titles suggest a focus on modernizing the federal public service. Quebec MP Joël Lightbound, first elected in 2015, joins cabinet as Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement, while former television journalist Evan Solomon joins cabinet as Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation. She is a former deputy chief of staff in the Prime Minister's Office. Steven Guilbeault, who was Mr. Carney's Quebec adviser during the federal election campaign, remains as Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture. The lone Liberal MP elected in Saskatchewan, Buckley Belanger, is Secretary of State for Rural Development. Some of the other former ministers who have been dropped from cabinet include Rachel Bendayan, Kody Blois, Terry Duguid, Ali Ehsassi, Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Jonathan Wilkinson, Élisabeth Brière and Nathaniel Erskine-Smith. Authors and topics you follow will be added to your personal news feed in Following.

Prime Minister Mark Carney speaks outside Rideau Hall after the new Liberal cabinet announced on May 13.Ashley Fraser/The Globe and Mail Prime Minister Mark Carney looks on as he leaves a cabinet swearing-in ceremony at Rideau Hall in Ottawa.Spencer Colby/The Canadian Press Prime Minister Mark Carney and Governor General Mary Simon pose for a family photo with newly sworn in cabinet members.Blair Gable/Reuters David McGuinty is sworn-in as Minister of National Defence.Christinne Muschi/The Canadian Press François-Philippe Champagne gives the thumbs up as Dominic LeBlanc, left, and Mélanie Joly look on.Christinne Muschi/The Canadian Press Dominic LeBlanc is sworn as President of the King's Privy Council and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. trade.Blair Gable/Reuters Gen. Mary Simon, left, and Prime Minister Mark Carney are shown during a cabinet swearing-in ceremony at Rideau Hall.Spencer Colby/The Canadian Press Prime Minister Mark Carney arrives at Rideau Hall for the cabinet swearing-in Ottawa.Ashley Fraser/The Globe and Mail Randeep Sarai, left to right, Patty Hajdu, Mélanie Joly and Wayne Long arrive for the swearing-in ceremony.Spencer Colby/The Canadian Press Prime Minister Mark Carney arrives for the cabinet swearing-in ceremony at Rideau Hall in Ottawa.Justin Tang/The Canadian Press Prime Minister Mark Carney unveiled a new cabinet Tuesday that he said will act quickly on Liberal campaign pledges to focus on the Canada-U.S. relationship and boost economic growth at home. However, Mr. Carney is keeping experienced ministers in key economic portfolios like finance, Canada-U.S. relations, internal trade and foreign affairs. Prime Minister Mark Carney and Governor-General Mary Simon pose for a family photo with newly sworn-in cabinet members, at Rideau Hall on May 13.Blair Gable/Reuters The three senior ministers who joined Mr. Carney on his recent trip to meet U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House - Mélanie Joly, Dominic LeBlanc and David McGuinty - also remain in cabinet, but with adjusted roles. Oakville MP Anita Anand will replace Ms. Joly as Minister of Foreign Affairs. High-profile rookie MP Tim Hodgson was added to cabinet with an economic portfolio. He also worked as an adviser to Mr. Carney at the Bank of Canada. The secretaries of state will not manage federal departments or attend all cabinet meetings. Instead, they have been assigned specific policy priorities, such as defence procurement, seniors and combatting crime. Mark Carney's new cabinet: A look at the ministers who are in and out Former Vancouver mayor Gregor Robertson joins the cabinet as Minister of Housing. She replaces Patty Hajdu, who becomes Minister of Jobs and Families. Ms. Alty represents the Northwest Territories and is a former mayor of Yellowknife. Two new cabinet job titles suggest a focus on modernizing the federal public service. Quebec MP Joël Lightbound, first elected in 2015, joins cabinet as Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement, while former television journalist Evan Solomon joins cabinet as Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation. She is a former deputy chief of staff in the Prime Minister's Office. Gregor Robertson, left to right, Rebecca Alty, Tim Hodgson, Marjorie Michel arrive for a cabinet swearing-in at Rideau Hall in Ottawa on May 13.Spencer Colby/The Canadian Press Steven Guilbeault, who was Mr. Carney's Quebec adviser during the federal election campaign, remains as Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture. The lone Liberal MP elected in Saskatchewan, Buckley Belanger, is Secretary of State for Rural Development. Newfoundland and Labrador MP Joanne Thompson remains as Fisheries Minister. Some of the other former ministers who have been dropped from cabinet include Rachel Bendayan, Kody Blois, Terry Duguid, Ali Ehsassi, Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Jonathan Wilkinson, Élisabeth Brière and Nathaniel Erskine-Smith. Mr. Carney also opted to keep some former ministers on the back benches, including Terry Beech, Jean-Yves Duclos, Karina Gould, Ahmed Hussen and Jenna Sudds. He also responded dismissively when asked if the Liberals would support giving the NDP official party status, which comes with extra funding for staff and research. Authors and topics you follow will be added to your personal news feed in Following.

Serbian leader Aleksandar Vucic has rejected European Council President Antonio Costa's call to condemn Russia, citing a duty to do the right thing for his country, not the EC. "I am not obliged to obey anyone. My duty is to serve the people of Serbia. This is what I will always do. Serbia continues to pursue a European path but sometimes, its president can rebel. However, even amid this rebelliousness, I have never put Serbia's European path into question," the Serbian leader pointed out following a meeting with Costa. During the meeting, the European Council chief urged Belgrade to work together with the European Union "to overcome its history" and fully back the EU's foreign policy, condemning Russia and supporting Ukraine, as well as normalizing relations with Kosovo, steps which he said were necessary for Serbia's ongoing EU accession process. Earlier, Russian Ambassador to Belgrade Alexander Botsan-Kharchenko stated that the European Union's threats against Belgrade over Vucic's visit to Moscow to attend the Victory Day parade were an affront to the country's sovereignty. The Serbian leader, in turn, has repeatedly stressed that his visit to Moscow and talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin would in no way harm Belgrade, while as for himself, he was ready to take any "punishment" from the European Union. Vucic also noted that he knew EU officials would not be happy with him but that he was determined to stand up for himself and answer any potential grievances.

BEIJING, May 13. /TASS/. The proposals of Brazil and China on the settlement of the Ukrainian conflict will lay the foundation for a comprehensive dialogue between the parties and the restoration of peace in Europe, Brazil's head of state Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said at a joint press address following his talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing. "The common agreements between Brazil and China, aimed at a political solution to the crisis in Ukraine, provide the basis for a comprehensive dialogue that will bring peace back to Europe," the Brazilian leader stated. Lula da Silva reiterated his call for a reform of the United Nations, emphasizing that the current format of the UN Security Council does not allow it to address the planet's major challenges. "The Security Council must reflect the diversity that has emerged in today's realities," he emphasized. On May 12, CNN Brasil quoted the Brazilian president's foreign policy advisor, Celso Amorim, as saying that Lula da Silva offered to mediate talks on Ukraine with Russian leader Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin on May 9. Amorim added that the position of the Brazilian government was close to that of the administration of US President Donald Trump, which is to facilitate the earliest possible start of the negotiation process.

With just two days to go before Russian-proposed peace talks might begin in Istanbul, the Kremlin is still refusing to confirm whether or not President Vladimir Putin will attend the event. Upping the pressure further, U.S. President Donald Trump said on May 12 that he believes that "both leaders" will be there, thrusting Putin into a delicate diplomatic dilemma — how to avoid caving into Zelensky's proposal without upsetting Trump. "We're quite hesitant about whether or not Putin will arrive in Turkey," Yelyzaveta Yasko, a lawmaker from Zelensky's Servant of the People party, told the Kyiv Independent. "I wonder if he would send someone else or make up an excuse not to be there — it's very hard to say at this point what will happen." Instead, it has unilaterally announced short-term ceasefires that Ukraine says have all been violated by Moscow. Putin's proposal to hold direct talks with Ukraine in Turkey came after the latest push for a full, 30-day ceasefire, backed by Ukraine, Europe, and the U.S. You cannot talk to Russia in this language," Peskov told a pool of Russian journalists on May 12. "First, it's an attempt to damage Ukraine's reputation as a responsible international partner and paint us as unwilling to negotiate — Moscow clearly hoped we would reject the offer outright. "Second, it's a push to revive the so-called 'Istanbul agreements' from 2022 which effectively demanded Ukraine's capitulation. Moscow and Kyiv held unsuccessful talks in Belarus and Turkey in the early months of the full-scale war, with no direct negotiations having taken place ever since. Leaked copies of Russia's demands at this time show Moscow was demanding Ukraine reduce its army to 50,000 people, five times less than the country had before the all-out war, as well as reduce the number of ships, helicopters, and tanks. As well as leaving Ukraine defenseless, Russia now insists that, as a condition for peace negotiations, Ukrainian troops must leave the country's Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia oblasts, recognize Russia's annexation of the regions, and abandon any ambition to join NATO. The Kremlin has yet to say whether or not Putin will attend in person, and to do so would not be in the Russian president's interests. Putin does not see himself as Zelensky's equal, and has repeatedly mocked him and called him "illegitimate," so to appear on the same level on the global stage would risk him, in Russian eyes, as gifting Zelensky with the legitimacy he has tried so hard to deny. "I don't think there's a cat in hell's chance of him turning up," former U.K. Defense Attache in Moscow, John Foreman, told the Kyiv Independent. "He doesn't regard Zelensky as legitimate, and any talks would be technical. This view is shared by Jenny Mathers, a Russian political expert and lecturer at the U.K.'s Aberystwyth University, who told the Kyiv Independent that Putin is "very good at finding excuses" and will likely try to engineer one that allows him to save face whilst also keeping Trump on side. "He could easily engineer another pressing engagement, or give no excuse at all but send a negotiating team," she added. "Putin is not ready to stop the military campaign already planned for this summer and autumn." Moscow has previously cited Zelensky's decree as a ban on talks with Putin and used it as an excuse for avoiding direct talks with Kyiv. They added that it had been "twisted" by the Kremlin and it was in fact solely up to Zelensky to determine if he could speak directly with Putin. Among Ukrainian lawmakers who spoke to the Kyiv Independent, it's clear that Putin is simply stalling for time in order to prolong the war. "Putin is not ready to stop the military campaign already planned for this summer and autumn," Volodymyr Ariev, Ukrainian lawmaker from the opposition European Solidarity party, said. As Russia continues to reject a full ceasefire, there are plenty of signs that its military and offensive operations are still in full swing. Even as the U.S.-led peace talks have been in progress since February, Russia has been amassing troops across the border from Ukraine's Sumy Oblast, Zelensky has said. Meanwhile, devastating missile and drone attacks against Ukrainian civilians have only escalated during Trump's term in office, and there is no indication they will relent. Russia regularly uses close, and short-range ballistic missiles in aerial attacks against Ukraine, but intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) are far larger, can be equipped with nuclear payloads, and are designed to hit targets at far longer ranges. "Putin does not want any peace talks, because his goal is to seize Ukraine," Ariev said. Chris York is news operations editor at the Kyiv Independent. Previously, back in Britain, he spent nearly a decade working for HuffPost UK. He holds an MA in Conflict, Development, and Security from the University of Leeds.

A dangerous round of early season extreme heat is on tap for parts of Texas this week in a prelude to what's expected to be an abnormally hot summer across much of the United States. Long-standing records could fall across central and southwest Texas, including in Austin and San Antonio, as temperatures reach highs that would be unusual for mid-summer, let alone early-to-mid May. More than 6 million people in Texas are under heat advisories from the National Weather Service Tuesday and Wednesday, with one forecast office calling this early-season heat wave “potentially historic.” Millions of people in central Texas, including the Austin metro area, will be in the National Weather Service's “major” heat risk Wednesday. Such heat “affects anyone without effective cooling and/or adequate hydration,” the agency warns. Where Americans are at the most risk for extreme heat this year The heat is likely to pose a serious health threat simply because it's the first heat wave of the season, and an early one, coming before people have become accustomed to high temperatures. The unseasonably high temperatures could also stress Texas' power grid with record or near-record demand. Texas, with its independent grid, is no stranger to extreme weather-related electricity problems, whether by heat waves or cold snaps. And it's supercharging Texas heat: Climate change has made San Antonio's forecast high temperature on Wednesday about five times more likely than it would have been without fossil fuel pollution, according to the nonprofit research group Climate Central. Texas needs money to keep the lights on during extreme weather. Before 2022, San Antonio had only seen two heat waves during which there were three straight days with highs of 105 degrees or hotter – this week could potentially bring the sixth such stretch in the last three years if temperatures climb just 1 to 2 degrees higher than currently forecast. Heat is by far the deadliest form of severe weather in the US, killing on average twice as many people a year as tornadoes and hurricanes combined. While summer heat elbows its way into spring, the actual summer months are shaping up to be warmer than normal for the entire US. A sizzling summer is most likely in the West and parts of the South and Northeast — an outlook strikingly similar to last summer's predictions. The hotter an area becomes, the more it dries out, which could be a recipe for new or worsening drought. A dry area will then get even hotter as most of the sun's energy goes into heating the ground, with little energy lost to evaporation of wet soil. It's the opposite story for the East and Southeast, where wetter than normal conditions are likely — a projection that could be due in part to forecasts for an active hurricane season. Combine that with the anticipated heat, and it could be a humid summer for these areas. CNN Meteorologist Brandon Miller contributed to this report.

This website uses cookies to collect information about your visit for purposes such as showing you personalized ads and content, and analyzing our website traffic. By clicking “Accept all,” you will allow the use of these cookies. By Yasuhiro Kobayashi and Azusa Nakanishi / Yomiuri Shimbun Correspondent An optimistic view that U.S.-China trade friction would ease clearly pushed stocks up. Washington and Beijing reached a deal in Geneva on Monday for a 90-day pause and for reciprocal tariffs to be reduced by 115 percentage points. A joint statement on the U.S.-China meeting on tariff measures was well received, easing concerns about a slowdown in the U.S. economy. Shares in major U.S. online retailer Amazon.com Inc., which handles many imports from China, rose 8%. The tech-focused Nasdaq Composite Index closed at 18,708.34, up 779.42 points. Major European stock markets also closed higher on Monday. Germany's DAX rose 0.29% from Friday's close, setting a new record closing high. In Paris, the CAC 40 increased 1.37%, while Britain's FTSE 100 rose 0.59%. The markets saw buy orders swell for firms related to semiconductor, logistics and luxury brands that are expected to benefit from tariff reductions. In the Tokyo market, buy orders increased from Tuesday morning. Market observers generally felt that U.S.-China tariff talks had made progress beyond their expectations. However, an analyst at a major securities firm said there was a sense of overheating in stock markets, stressing the importance of continually monitoring how U.S.-China negotiations develop. Our weekly ePaper presents the most noteworthy recent topics in an exciting, readable fomat.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz warned that further concessions from Ukraine during negotiations would be unreasonable if Russia continues to attack civilian targets. U.S. President Donald Trump's special envoys, Steve Witkoff and Keith Kellogg, will travel to Istanbul for possible peace talks between Ukraine and Russia, Reuters reported on May 13, citing three undisclosed sources. President Volodymyr Zelensky said he will meet with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Ankara, but said both leaders are ready to fly to Istanbul if Russian President Vladimir Putin chooses to attend the talks there. Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, a major industrial and logistical hub, remains untouched by ground incursions but is under growing threat. A captive named Umit allegedly agreed to serve in the Russian army in exchange for Russian citizenship and a monetary reward of 2 million rubles ($25,000). Russia's Buryatia Republic declared a state of emergency on May 13 over massive forest fires that have engulfed multiple regions in the Russian Far East. U.S. President Donald Trump "issued an ultimatum" to Moscow and Kyiv to make progress in peace negotiations, otherwise the U.S. will abandon the process, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff said in an interview with Breitbart News published on May 12. "The president has issued an ultimatum to both sides that without those direct talks and if they don't occur quickly, then he believes the United States ought to step back from this conflict whatever that means and just not be involved," Witkoff said in an interview recorded on May 8, before discussions about possible high-level talks in Turkey on May 15. Witkoff has been a key figure in Trump's efforts to broker a peace between Moscow and Kyiv, personally meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin as well as Ukrainian and European officials. The real estate investor-turned-negotiator has faced criticism over his poor negotiation record, tendency to adopt Russian talking points on Ukraine, and reported reliance on Kremlin translators during talks with Putin. Witkoff told Breitbart News last week that a meeting between President Volodymyr Zelensky and Putin is "entirely possible." Zelensky has proposed meeting Putin in Istanbul on May 15, which would mark their first meeting during the full-scale war, and urged an unconditional ceasefire starting on May 12. Moscow has ignored the proposals for a truce and a meeting of the two leaders but backed starting direct talks this week. Russia currently occupies roughly 20% of Ukraine's territory, including the entire Crimean peninsula, almost the entire Luhansk Oblast, and large parts of Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson oblasts. The Kremlin has illegally declared these territories as part of the Russian Federation and insisted on Ukraine's full withdrawal from these areas to achieve a peace deal. Washington's peace proposals have also reportedly included the U.S. formally recognizing Russian annexation of Crimea, a step resolutely rejected by Ukraine and its European allies. Martin Fornusek is a news editor at the Kyiv Independent. He has previously worked as a news content editor at the media company Newsmatics and is a contributor to Euromaidan Press. He was also volunteering as an editor and translator at the Czech-language version of Ukraïner.

The magazine has featured contributions from many leading international affairs experts. IAN BREMMER is President and Founder of Eurasia Group. In February 2022, as Russian forces advanced on Kyiv, Ukraine's government faced a critical vulnerability: with its Internet and communication networks under attack, its troops and leaders would soon be in the dark. Elon Musk—the de facto head of Tesla, SpaceX, X (formerly Twitter), xAI, the Boring Company, and Neuralink—stepped in. Within days, SpaceX had deployed thousands of Starlink terminals to Ukraine and activated satellite Internet service at no cost. Having kept the country online, Musk was hailed as a hero. But the centibillionaire's personal intervention—and Kyiv's reliance on it—came with risks. Musk refused—worried, he said, that this would cause a major escalation in the war. Even the Pentagon's entreaties on behalf of Ukraine failed to convince him. An unelected, unaccountable private citizen had unilaterally thwarted a military operation in an active war zone while exposing the fact that governments had remarkably little control over crucial decisions affecting their citizens and national security. This was “technopolarity” in action: a technology leader not only driving stock market returns but also controlling aspects of civil society, politics, and international affairs that have been traditionally the exclusive preserve of nation-states. For most of this time, the structure of that order could be described as unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar, depending on how power was distributed among countries. The world, however, has since entered a “technopolar moment,” a term I used in Foreign Affairs in 2021 to describe an emerging order in which “a handful of large technology companies rival [states] for geopolitical influence.” Major tech firms have become powerful geopolitical actors, exercising a form of sovereignty over digital space and, increasingly, the physical world that potentially rivals that of states. I argued that governments would not go down without a fight, and in the time since, their struggle for control over digital space has intensified. But the balance of power between technology firms and states has shifted in some surprising ways. What is emerging as a result of this contest is not quite any of the scenarios I originally envisioned—neither a globalized digital order, in which tech companies wrested control of digital space from the state, nor a U.S.-Chinese tech cold war, in which governments reasserted authority over the digital realm, nor a fully technopolar world, in which Westphalian state dominance gave way to a new order led by tech firms. Instead of a clean triumph of states over firms or vice versa, the future is taking on a more hybrid form—a bifurcated system pitting a technopolar United States, where private tech actors increasingly shape national policy, against a statist China, where the government has asserted total control over its digital space. As tech power and state power fuse everywhere, the question is no longer whether tech companies will rival states for geopolitical influence; it is whether open societies can survive the challenge. Companies that controlled major technology platforms were at the zenith of their power. The COVID-19 pandemic had forced people to spend more time online than ever before, cementing tech's influence as digital platforms became essential for work, education, entertainment, and interpersonal connection. This period accelerated the adoption of digital tools and made tech companies even more central to private, social, economic, and civic life. But Big Tech companies didn't just become more autonomous masters of their virtual walled gardens. If American companies such as SpaceX, Microsoft, and Palantir hadn't chosen to leap to Ukraine's defense—enabling communication, repelling cyberattacks, analyzing intelligence, and powering drones—Russia could have knocked the country offline, decapitated its command structure, and seized the capital. But it wasn't long before governments realized that what technologists giveth, they can as easily taketh away. In 2022, a wave of legislation and regulatory action targeted Big Tech on issues such as market power, content moderation, user protection, and data privacy. The United States advanced high-profile antitrust cases, congressional oversight efforts, and state-level privacy rules. India, South Africa, and others followed suit, while the EU, the United Kingdom, Brazil, and others took more aggressive enforcement action against big platforms. But these rearguard actions did little to dent Big Tech's control of the digital space, where they—not governments—continued to act as the primary architects, actors, and enforcers. The development and deployment of advanced AI systems demands immense computational power, vast data troves, and specialized engineering talent—resources concentrated in a handful of firms. Even if regulators could design adequate governance regimes to contain the technology as it currently exists, AI's exponential pace of advancement would quickly render them obsolete. But as tech companies expanded their influence, traditional geopolitics came roaring back. Rising protectionism fueled by a populist backlash to globalization, a post-pandemic push for economic security reinforced by the shock of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and, above all, intensifying U.S.-Chinese strategic rivalry converged to shatter the illusion of a global tech ecosystem. In Washington, an effort to limit China's technological development began with targeted export and investment controls on a narrow set of strategically sensitive advanced technologies—a “small yard, high fence” approach, as the Biden administration framed it. But the campaign soon widened into an ever-expanding domain of restrictions on a vast array of goods that could be considered dual-use. Even mundane data became a national security concern, as did the apps and devices that generate it. Meanwhile, industrial policy made a comeback as Western governments poured billions into subsidy programs to build strategic capabilities at home. Those carrots, however, came with sticks: build at home and leave China, or miss out on U.S. government largess. Even before Trump's return to office, many of these firms had begun “friend shoring” some of their operations, shifting them from China to countries such as India, Mexico, and Vietnam to hedge against rising geopolitical risk. Last month, however, Trump announced massive tariffs that would hit allies and adversaries alike. By contrast, so-called national champions, such as Microsoft and Palantir, now find themselves in a new golden hour, able to leverage their long-standing alignment with the U.S. government to thrive in a fractured, post-globalization environment. Washington's statist turn has been more surprising but far less complete than Beijing's. Since 2020, when the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) cracked down on the Alibaba CEO Jack Ma, whom officials believed had grown too powerful and independent, Beijing has reasserted total control over its tech sector. A subset of Silicon Valley visionaries such as Musk, Zuckerberg, Peter Thiel, and Marc Andreessen once saw technology not just as a business opportunity but as a revolutionary force—one capable of liberating society from the limits of government and ultimately rendering the state obsolete. These “techno-utopians,” as I defined them in 2021, were skeptical of politics and “look[ed] to a future in which the nation-state paradigm that has dominated geopolitics since the seventeenth century has been replaced by something different altogether.” But in recent years, some of these figures have taken a techno-authoritarian turn. Part of this shift has been self-interested, driven by a desire to secure favorable regulations, tax breaks, and public contracts, as the wealthy and special interests in America often try to do. But it also reflects the rising stakes and changing balance of technological power in a geopolitically contested era. Unlike earlier digital platforms, which blossomed under minimal government intervention, most of today's frontier technologies—such as aerospace, AI, biotech, energy, and quantum computing—actively require implicit or explicit state backing to scale up. As these domains grew central to U.S.-Chinese competition and national security engulfed more of the digital realm itself, alignment with Washington evolved from a nuisance into a strategic necessity, making the techno-utopian vision less viable—and the national champion model more attractive. Several prominent tech figures, most notably Musk and Thiel, have embraced an antidemocratic worldview. These figures want the U.S. government to be run like a startup, with an unelected “national CEO” wielding concentrated power in the name of technological progress. Thiel declared as early as 2009 that he no longer believed “freedom and democracy are compatible.” In 2023, Musk called for a “modern day Sulla,” referring to the Roman dictator whose reign was credited with the collapse of the republic. But this is not a hostile takeover, as some have characterized it. Musk alone spent nearly $300 million to help elect Trump and a Republican Congress in 2024—not including the cost of remaking X into a pro-Trump social media platform. But in his second term, tech moguls haven't just been empowered to shape policy—they have been invited to hire (or fire) their own regulators and write (or erase) their own rules. These technologists now hold sway over federal personnel and policy—shaping rulemaking, regulatory enforcement, procurement, taxation, and subsidies, affecting not only their own firms but their rivals' firms, as well. A recent Senate report estimated Musk's financial gains from this arrangement at $2.37 billion, excluding the potential value of public contracts and competitive advantages that his newfound access could unlock. Already, there are reports that DOGE is collecting and consolidating troves of sensitive government data—tax filings, immigration databases, Social Security records, health information, and more—with the purported aim of uncovering “waste, fraud, and abuse” in federal spending to enhance government efficiency, especially when combined with AI tools. But with no legal firewall between Musk's public role and private interests, there is no way to know whether he has already begun feeding this data into his company xAI's proprietary AI models—and, if he has, whether the outputs will serve the public good or his own. This master dataset could generate significant productivity gains for the U.S. economy, which other countries would soon try to adopt themselves. It could also give him a decisive edge in the race to build superintelligent AI systems that no rival could match, enable new forms of consumer profiling and behavioral targeting, and tighten his grip on markets and platforms. Once in place, the same algorithmic infrastructure that delivers economic advantage could be weaponized for political control. The danger isn't exactly an American version of China's CCP-run surveillance regime, which exists primarily to secure the party's hold on power. What Musk might produce is something more diffuse: an algorithmically powered, decentralized surveillance network leveraging captured state power but infused with market incentives, built to advance the commercial and political interests of select technology owners. Musk has claimed that DOGE is a time-limited initiative, and he has already signaled plans to step back from government amid plummeting public popularity and rising consumer backlash against his companies. Prominent figures in the populist wing of Trump's coalition, such as Steve Bannon, have also denounced Musk and his peers as “technofeudal” globalists bent on turning Americans into “digital serfs.” The tech right's alliance with Trump was always transactional, not ideological. Even if this doesn't last, the damage will. In just a few months, DOGE has so hollowed out U.S. state capacity that after it is gone, private technology firms may become essential to help fill the void. In 2021, I posited three possible paths for our digital future: “Will we live in a world where the Internet is increasingly fragmented and technology companies serve the interests and goals of the states in which they reside, or will Big Tech decisively wrest control of digital space from governments, freeing itself from national boundaries and emerging as a truly global force? Or could the era of state dominance finally come to an end, supplanted by a techno-elite that assumes responsibility for offering the public goods once provided by governments?” Foreign governments are increasingly reluctant to crack down on U.S. tech firms—not just because of their digital leverage and economic clout but also because doing so could provoke official backlash from Washington. In effect, politically endorsed components of Big Tech enjoy geopolitical impunity: shielded by the state but not accountable to it. Although Beijing's statist approach may sacrifice some long-term innovation potential and economic dynamism at the margins, it ensures that strategic technologies are aligned with national priorities. And recent breakthroughs—from DeepSeek's latest AI reasoning models to Huawei's CloudMatrix 384 chip cluster—demonstrate that China's model, despite these political constraints and U.S. export controls, remains highly competitive. Caught between these poles is Europe, once seen as a potential counterweight to the power of Big Tech. As a result, its ability to translate regulatory ambitions into digital sovereignty is limited. Meanwhile, the few remaining efforts at state-led and global tech governance are under siege—undermined by American Big Tech actors such as Musk and stifled by a vacuum of global leadership. As geopolitical, geoeconomic, and geotechnological fragmentation deepen, the checks on technopolar power are rapidly eroding, leaving technopolarity to grow unchecked. Yet beneath their ideological differences, the American and Chinese models are converging in function. In a world where authority accrues to those who control the digital space, it may matter less whether power resides in public or private hands than how effectively it can be centralized. The great paradox of the technopolar age is that, rather than empowering individuals and bolstering democracy as early Internet visionaries once hoped, technology may instead be enabling more effective forms of hypercentralized, unaccountable control. Whether lodged in governments or corporate actors, concentrated tech power poses risks to democracy and individual freedom. In 2021, I wrote that “Big Tech's eclipse of the nation-state is not inevitable.” But it seems as if Big Tech's eclipse of democracy, at least, has already begun. Our editors' top picks, delivered free to your inbox every Friday. * Note that when you provide your email address, the Foreign Affairs Privacy Policy and Terms of Use will apply to your newsletter subscription. Our editors' top picks from the week, delivered on Friday. * Note that when you provide your email address, the Foreign Affairs Privacy Policy and Terms of Use will apply to your newsletter subscription.