The U.S. government shut down just after midnight Wednesday after lawmakers failed to agree on temporary funding legislation, leaving hundreds of thousands of federal employees facing furloughs.
Talks collapsed as Republicans and Democrats stood firm on opposing demands. Democrats insisted on extending enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credits as part of any short-term spending bill, while Republicans pushed for a “clean” resolution without health care provisions.
Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought directed federal agencies Tuesday night to begin implementing shutdown procedures. The Congressional Budget Office estimated about 750,000 federal employees could be furloughed, costing roughly $400 million per day in lost compensation.
“It’s a sad day for our nation,” Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., said after breaking ranks to back a Republican-led stopgap plan. “I won’t vote for the chaos of shuttering our government. My vote was for our country over my party.”
Business leaders expressed alarm over the gridlock. “Funding the government is an essential responsibility of Congress,” said Business Roundtable CEO Joshua Bolten. “A government shutdown would create uncertainty, disrupt critical services and harm American businesses, workers and families.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., blamed Democrats for blocking a resolution. “They need to come to their senses here, and do the right thing,” he said in an interview. Johnson accused Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of holding out to protect party interests.
Republicans also rejected Democrats’ claims that ACA subsidies were necessary, with Senate Minority Whip John Thune calling the debate “a made-up problem by the Democrats.”
Jeffries countered that Republicans are at fault. “If the government shuts down, it’s their decision to do it,” he said on CNBC. “We are ready and willing and able to find a bipartisan way forward.”
Democrats warned the lapse in funding could trigger higher health insurance premiums for millions if ACA subsidies are not extended. Jeffries dismissed Republican accusations that Democrats want to fund coverage for undocumented immigrants, calling the claim “an outright lie.”
“Federal law prohibits the use of taxpayer dollars to provide medical coverage to undocumented individuals,” Jeffries said. “There is nothing in anything we have proposed that changes that.”
The shutdown comes as both parties brace for public fallout, with no immediate path forward to reopen the government.
On October 3–4, 2025, the Czech Republic will elect a new parliament. Yet this is no ordinary vote: it comes at a time when Prague finds itself on the front line of hybrid threats that reach far beyond its borders. Over the past year, Russia has intensified its campaign of airspace violations, sabotage, submarine cable disruptions, cyberattacks, and wide-scale disinformation operations. These incidents underscore that safeguarding the Czech state is inseparable from Europe’s collective security.
Babiš and Pro-Russian Rhetoric
At the heart of the campaign stands Andrej Babiš, leader of the populist and Eurosceptic ANO movement. His past continues to cast a long shadow: documents revealed in the Pandora Papers and historical records connect him to cooperation with Czechoslovakia’s communist-era secret police, the StB, under the codename “Bureš.” While Czech lustration laws prohibit former collaborators from holding public office, gaps in archival evidence have allowed Babiš to sidestep restrictions. His premiership was also marked by allegations of misappropriating EU subsidies to benefit his conglomerate Agrofert—controversies that continue to shape public perception of his political orientation.
Security and Foreign Policy in Focus
Although Babiš has softened his rhetoric during the campaign, he has pledged to end Prague’s initiative to supply ammunition to Ukraine should he return to power. His ongoing scepticism toward the EU and NATO raises concerns over how Czech foreign policy might shift under his leadership. Analysts warn such positions could undermine European unity at a time of heightened Russian aggression.
Disinformation and Social Media Influence
Czech cybersecurity firm Online Risk Labs has uncovered a coordinated network of 300 TikTok accounts spreading pro-Russian narratives and amplifying right-wing parties including ANO, SPD, and Stačilo!. In the weeks leading up to the election, these accounts generated between five and nine million weekly views, outperforming the official communications of mainstream parties. In a country where one in four citizens uses TikTok, such campaigns represent a powerful tool for shaping public opinion.
Migration and Public Debate
Another central theme of the election is the status of Ukrainian refugees. Populist parties have sought to blame them for rising inflation and social burdens. Yet official data tells a different story: in the first half of 2025, Ukrainian refugees contributed 15 billion CZK in taxes and social payments, while state spending amounted to just 7.6 billion CZK. According to Labour Minister Marian Jurečka, since the third quarter of 2023, contributions have consistently outweighed costs.
Coalition Scenarios and Broader Implications
To secure a majority in the 200-seat parliament, ANO would need at least 101 seats—an outcome deemed unlikely by most polls. This means Babiš may be forced into coalition talks with parties such as SPD or Stačilo!, both of which favour distancing from EU and NATO commitments in favour of “pragmatic relations” with Russia, China, and Iran. By contrast, the current governing coalition Spolu has positioned itself firmly in favour of strong transatlantic ties and deeper European integration.
The result of the October elections will therefore not only determine Czechia’s domestic direction but will also act as a signal for Europe’s resilience against hybrid threats. Whether Prague remains a steadfast ally within EU and NATO, or shifts toward a more ambivalent stance, will carry lasting implications for Europe’s security architecture. Read more on WorldSignal
Picture highly skilled epidemiologists and analysts jolted awake by a middle-of-the-night email that cancels the accommodations they rely on to work. That is the scene after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention told staff on September 15 that approvals for long-term telework, including reasonable accommodations, were paused and existing permissions were revoked pending clarification of an August Health and Human Services policy update.
The decision followed a January order directing agencies to end most remote work, but disability law does not bend to internal handbooks or political winds. The CDC’s move triggered immediate questions under the Rehabilitation Act’s requirement for individualized assessments and an interactive process, not blanket rules. After strong pushback from unions, the CDC put this initiative on a temporary halt. Still, the overarching policy is a major lawsuit waiting to happen, that taxpayers will pay for it through higher damages and turnover costs; that’s besides the fact that the federal record shows well-run remote work delivers measurable benefits.
Federal agencies cannot replace individualized dialogue with a one-size-fits-all edict when an employee requests accommodation.
Federal agencies cannot replace individualized dialogue with a one-size-fits-all edict when an employee requests accommodation. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s own guidance explains that working from home may be a reasonable accommodation when job duties allow it, and that employers must assess each request case by case, not by category. Executive Order 13164 requires every agency to maintain effective written procedures for processing accommodation requests, a point reinforced in the EEOC’s policy guidance and its questions and answers.
OPM reiterates that reasonable accommodations remain legally required for qualified employees with disabilities, including when telework is the effective adjustment. When an agency announces that long-term telework is “no longer considered” a reasonable accommodation, as reported in the CDC email and in follow-on coverage, it reads like a categorical prohibition that conflicts with those obligations and invites complaints that the agency skipped the required process. The Rehabilitation Act’s core protections, including Section 501, apply to federal employers regardless of shifting workplace policies.
Recent appellate decisions underscore the risk. In 2024, the D.C. Circuit in Ali v. Regan held that a take-it-or-leave-it approach to accommodations presents a jury question because reasonableness turns on facts, not agency preferences. The Sixth Circuit’s Mosby-Meachem decision affirmed a jury verdict that telework was a reasonable, time-limited accommodation for an in-house attorney on medical bed rest, because the essential functions could be performed remotely for that period. Courts do not guarantee telework for every role. They do insist that agencies engage with the employee’s duties and limitations rather than declare categorical answers. That is exactly the kind of individualized analysis the CDC’s blanket pause appears to sidestep.
The financial exposure is real and paid from public funds. In federal EEO cases, remedies include back pay, front pay, compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, and injunctive relief, as laid out in the EEOC’s federal-sector remedies guidance. Compensatory and punitive damages are capped by statute, but back pay and fees are not, and the law reduces exposure only when the employer can prove a good-faith interactive process under Section 1981a. Dozens of meritorious individual claims can aggregate into seven- and eight-figure liabilities once back pay periods, fee awards, and compliance monitoring stack up. Every dollar in avoidable remedies increases agency operating costs that flow into appropriations and, ultimately, public borrowing. That is a bad trade for a policy adopted without the individualized review the law requires.
The pause also runs headlong into what agencies have already learned about telework’s value when managed with discipline. OPM’s most recent governmentwide assessment found telework eligibility rose to 57 percent of the federal workforce in FY 2023 and documented agency-reported gains in recruitment, retention, and productivity when telework is part of a deliberate hybrid strategy. The same report counted roughly 7 percent of the workforce in fully remote positions by the end of FY 2023, reflecting mission-driven job design rather than ad hoc exceptions. Evidence from a large randomized trial examined by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that hybrid schedules cut attrition by about one-third without harming performance, a result that speaks directly to agencies competing for scarce technical talent. Lower attrition means fewer vacancies and less institutional knowledge drainage, both of which save money.
Taxpayers benefit when telework discipline aligns with real-estate decisions. GAO’s testimony to Congress showed that, during sampled weeks in early 2023, 17 of 24 headquarters buildings ran at 25 percent capacity or less, and agencies spend about $2 billion annually to operate and maintain owned office buildings in addition to about $5 billion to lease space regardless of utilization. A smart telework posture tied to footprint reductions can capture those fixed-cost savings without sacrificing mission delivery.
By contrast, yanking accommodations and forcing attendance where location does not affect outcomes trades proven savings for litigation exposure and turnover costs. The return-to-office push has political energy, but it does not change the math agencies face when underused buildings drain budgets.
The immediate context around the CDC only sharpens the concern. STAT reported the September 16 story based on the September 15 email and linked the change to an August HHS telework instruction revision. Axios added that officials who oversaw accommodations at the CDC were removed in an April reduction in force, complicating compliance. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution noted that workers had just returned to the office after an August 8 attack on the agency’s headquarters, a factor that makes a blanket denial of telework accommodations even more fraught for employees with disabilities who can perform their roles remotely. None of these facts relax the Rehabilitation Act’s requirements. OPM’s return-to-in-person FAQs and the Federal Register entry for the January 20 memorandum both emphasize that implementation must remain consistent with applicable law, which includes individualized analyses and the interactive process.
The broader debate has been clear for years, and the policy arguments were mapped out long before this week’s controversy. Analysts have chronicled how indiscriminate return-to-office mandates waste money and weaken recruitment while ignoring empirical gains in productivity and service delivery under well-designed hybrid models. One piece framed federal telework as a success story at risk of being sacrificed to symbolism rather than performance, while another warned that killing remote work would bleed taxpayers without solving any real problem. Additional commentary examined proposals to slash pay for remote workers and explained why accountability can be enforced regardless of location.
These themes are now immediately relevant. The CDC’s blanket pause takes the worst version of RTO politics and applies it to the very population Congress intended to protect. It offers no operational upside, risks losing trained specialists, and all but guarantees legal fights the public will pay to litigate and then to unwind.
Congressional pressure has amplified the noise. Advocates of the SHOW UP Act continue to argue that telework has left federal offices underused, but GAO’s findings show the correct response is to right-size the footprint, not to declare that location equals productivity.
The evidence shows that well-run telework boosts retention, safeguards continuity, and enables right-sizing of an underused real-estate portfolio.
Meanwhile, executive-branch policy has oscillated. The January 20 White House memorandum directed agencies to end most remote work while permitting exemptions, and HHS updated its telework instruction in August. Those documents do not change the Rehabilitation Act’s command. EEOC guidance under Executive Order 13164 still requires individualized procedures and written explanations when accommodations are denied. Agencies that forget these basics learn them again in court, with taxpayers funding the refresher.
The fix is straightforward and fiscally conservative. Restore individualized review immediately. Re-open the interactive process on every paused or revoked request. Document job-duty-based reasons when a specific accommodation would be ineffective or impose undue hardship. Align workforce posture with real-estate strategy to capture the savings GAO identified rather than paying to heat and cool empty floors. Use the federal evidence base that OPM and GAO already assembled, add agency-level performance metrics, and manage telework like any other tool. That is how leaders reduce risk, retain talent, and protect the public purse.
Canceling telework accommodations for employees with disabilities is not prudent management. It telegraphs legal noncompliance, invites expensive litigation, and discards proven practices that strengthen performance and save money. The Rehabilitation Act requires individualized analysis and good-faith dialogue, and federal guidance already tells agencies exactly how to comply. The evidence shows that well-run telework boosts retention, safeguards continuity, and enables right-sizing of an underused real-estate portfolio. The CDC’s blanket pause offers no benefit and guarantees higher costs. If leaders want to protect taxpayers and deliver results, they should restore lawful accommodations and let data, not optics, drive workforce design.
The United States faces a possible government shutdown Tuesday night as President Donald Trump and congressional Democrats remain locked in a funding dispute that has grown into a broader struggle over executive power.
If lawmakers fail to reach a deal, large parts of the federal government will grind to a halt, forcing thousands of workers to go without pay. Shutdowns have become increasingly common in recent decades, but this confrontation carries added weight as it comes amid Trump’s aggressive push to consolidate authority.
The president has escalated tensions in recent days by deploying troops to Portland, Oregon, after labeling the city a “war zone,” pressing the Justice Department to prosecute former FBI Director James Comey, and amplifying claims that vaccines and even Tylenol pose health risks. Trump has also urged the Supreme Court to strike down birthright citizenship, a move that could upend the lives of thousands of Americans.
The looming funding deadline adds to the sense of crisis. Democrats insist any deal must include an extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies set to expire this year, warning that millions could face higher premiums without it. Republicans argue Democrats are using the shutdown threat to push a partisan agenda.
“Chuck Schumer came back with a long laundry list of partisan demands that don’t fit into this process, and he’s going to try to shut the government down,” House Speaker Mike Johnson told CNN on Sunday. Senate Minority Leader Schumer countered on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that negotiations are still possible if Trump engages in good faith.
The political stakes are high. Shutdowns often damage both parties, but Trump has shown little concern for long-term fallout, focusing instead on consolidating power. Democrats, meanwhile, face pressure from supporters to mount a strong challenge, even if their chances of prevailing are slim.
Republicans control both chambers of Congress and the White House, making it difficult for Democrats to dictate terms. Still, Democratic leaders argue the shutdown fight highlights policies they say will harm Americans, particularly on health care.
The outcome of this standoff will test not only the resilience of Washington’s institutions but also whether Democrats can slow Trump’s momentum as the country edges toward the 2026 midterm elections.
Lobby turnstiles click louder these days, flashing green for arrivals that never materialize. Corporate chiefs extend mandatory office schedules, federal administrators tighten attendance rules, and every week memos promise a revival. The reality feels quieter. People show up just long enough to appease the scanner, then vanish back to environments that let them think, according to new research in the Flex Index.
Required in-office time from employer mandates climbed 13 percent between Q2 2024 and Q2 2025, from 2.49 to 2.82 days per week. Yet physical attendance stayed nearly flat, inching up one percentage point over that time. Stanford economist Nick Bloom summarizes the pattern in six deflating words: “attendance is flat as a pancake.” Rules multiplied; compliance did not. Data expose a mismatch between what leaders decree and what professionals accept.
People show up just long enough to appease the scanner, then vanish back to environments that let them think
Workers respond with creativity rather than confrontation. “Coffee badging” – swiping in, grabbing a latte, and slipping out to work remotely – has become common enough to earn a Wikipedia entry and dominate water-cooler chats. A Owl Labs State of Hybrid Work survey found that 44 percent of U.S. employees admit to the tactic, while Business Insiderprofiled Amazon engineers planning it after learning of the company’s five-day mandate. These stories signal skilled and intentional dissent.
While some executives claim culture requires proximity, badge swipe dashboards measure presence, not purpose. When professionals sacrifice two hours a day to traffic only to sit on video calls with colleagues elsewhere, they conclude the commute tax buys nothing valuable. Every wasted morning fuels skepticism, and the badge-data gap widens further. Leaders meddle with schedules; professionals rewrite the social contract.
Commuter mandates hit some groups harder than others. Parents juggle school pickups against rigid start times. Disabled employees who invested in accessible home setups suddenly absorb costly relocations. Rural professionals who revived struggling main streets during the pandemic now face forced moves or resignations. The badge gap therefore amplifies inequity as well as inefficiency.
Faced with wavering attendance, organizations escalate monitoring. An April 21 2025 Office of Management and Budget memo ordered every federal agency to begin “utilization monitoring,” instructing facility managers to pull badge-swipe and computer-login data to verify daily presence. Nine days earlier the Environmental Protection Agency told supervisors to cross-reference card entries with network pings and warned of “performance consequences” for absences.
NASA quickly followed, rolling out its METEOR system that records every entry and exit, even tracking how long an employee stays away for lunch. Union representatives warn such minute-by-minute logs could chill whistleblowing and collaboration across centers because staff worry that walking to another division without formal clearance might look like slacking. Instead of sparking spontaneous idea-sharing, constant surveillance encourages employees to keep their heads down and their voices low.
Private industry copies government zeal. Amazon funnels raw badge data to managers who must justify team compliance scores, while JPMorgan Chase now ties promotions to documented on-site days. Wired reports a wave of RFID, GPS, and biometric systems “finally coming for the office worker” as companies try to defeat what they label “time theft.” Gartner predicts that by December 2025, 70 percent of large employers will track staff digitally.
These tools promise clarity yet trade in distrust: perks out, monitoring in, and a corporate tone that reduces humans to telemetry. University of Waterloo researchers warn that intrusive tech damages morale and rarely captures creative contribution accurately. Instead of raising accountability, it pushes talent toward concealment or exit.
There is a saner route. Leaders who specify outputs – sales booked, bugs fixed, citizens served – and let teams decide how to achieve those goals consistently gain engagement. Small businesses already understand; the Flex Index shows 70 percent of firms with fewer than 500 employees grant full location choice, while 12 percent of enterprises with 25,000 or more do the same.
The result: Main Street shops lure specialists as well as new recruits who reject badge quotas, gaining an agility edge over giants. Nearly one in three professionals plan to launch a job search in 2025, according to new data from Robert Half’s Demand for Skilled Talent report. Greater control over when and where they work represents a top priority. Among active job seekers, 48% are targeting hybrid roles, while 26% want fully remote positions.
Tax incentives for companies that verify productivity gains from flexible practices would further tilt the marketplace toward evidence rather than rhetoric.
This trend isn’t just about convenience—it’s reshaping the talent market. Flexible work models don’t just appeal to candidates; they also lock in loyalty. In a separate Robert Half survey, 76% of employees said that the ability to choose their schedule and work location plays a major role in whether they stay with a company. For employers, the message is clear: offer flexibility or risk losing your best people.
Policy can accelerate the pivot. Congress could require quarterly disclosure of actual occupancy averages next to attendance rules, forcing executives to own the gap between aspiration and reality. Legislators might also mandate privacy impact assessments before government agencies purchase monitoring software, ensuring taxpayer dollars do not bankroll culture erosion. Tax incentives for companies that verify productivity gains from flexible practices would further tilt the marketplace toward evidence rather than rhetoric.
This struggle never revolved around technology; it revolves around trust. Sensors illuminate motion, not meaning, and spreadsheets of swipe counts cannot capture the spark that drives innovation. When leaders chase head-count optics, they sacrifice the autonomy and motivation that propel performance. The future of work will reward organizations bold enough to trade suspicion for purpose, to replace scanning with conversation, and to judge professionals by results. Those who cling to swipe tallies will watch talent keep inventing exit routes, and the desks behind those gleaming turnstiles will stay empty.
As Generative AI (Gen AI) revolutionizes industries, the challenge for organizations isn’t just technological integration—it’s preparing their workforce to thrive alongside this transformative tool. Training employees to use Gen AI effectively is critical, but the real differentiator is engagement. When employees are invested in their learning journey, they’re more likely to retain information, apply new skills practically, and ultimately drive the organization’s success. To achieve this, companies need to embrace interactive learning, incentivize progress, and foster a community of collaboration.
Why Engagement Matters for Your Gen AI Learning Strategy
Employee engagement in training is the cornerstone of Gen AI adoption. Without it, even the best-designed learning programs fail to produce results. Engaged learners are more motivated to complete training, understand complex concepts, and explore how new tools can enhance their work. They take ownership of their learning and contribute innovative ideas that can shape how AI transforms the organization.
Employee engagement in training is the cornerstone of Gen AI adoption. Without it, even the best-designed learning programs fail to produce results.
Studies consistently show that engaged employees are more productive and adaptable. A report by Gallup revealed that highly engaged teams see 21% greater profitability and 17% higher productivity. Translating this principle into Gen AI adoption means creating a learning ecosystem where employees not only gain technical skills but also feel empowered to innovate.
Interactive Learning Methods
Traditional training programs often rely on static content, which fails to capture attention or encourage active participation. In contrast, interactive methods make learning dynamic and memorable. These approaches allow employees to learn by doing—a crucial aspect of Gen AI training, where practical application reigns supreme.
Hands-on workshops are one of the most effective tools for engaging employees. In these sessions, participants can experiment with AI tools, solve real-world problems, and collaborate with peers. For instance, a customer service team could simulate how Gen AI can assist with complaint resolution, testing AI-driven chatbots in controlled environments before implementing them with actual customers. This method builds both confidence and competence as employees see the immediate impact of their learning.
Gamified training modules are another way to maintain interest and foster motivation. By integrating elements like points, badges, and leaderboards, organizations can inject a sense of friendly competition into the learning process. Employees are not only encouraged to complete training modules but also strive to outperform their peers, boosting engagement.
Incentives and Recognition
Recognizing employee efforts is another key to driving engagement. Incentives—both tangible and intangible—motivate employees to invest in their learning. These rewards can take many forms, from badges and certifications to monetary bonuses and career advancement opportunities.
Public recognition plays an equally important role. When organizations celebrate learning milestones, they create a culture where continuous improvement is valued. A simple acknowledgment in a team meeting or a shoutout on an internal platform can go a long way in reinforcing positive behavior.
A great example of this comes from global law firms integrating AI into their operations. According to Financial Times, firms offer rewards like gift cards or additional vacation days to employees who excel in AI training programs. These initiatives not only boost participation rates but also encourage employees to become advocates for AI adoption within their teams.
Linking incentives to career development further strengthens engagement. For instance, employees who complete advanced AI training could qualify for leadership roles in AI-focused projects. This alignment of learning with professional growth creates a powerful motivator for employees to embrace Gen AI training.
Building a Community of Practice
While individual learning is essential, collective growth drives sustainable innovation. A community of practice—where employees with shared interests collaborate, exchange knowledge, and solve problems—is vital for fostering engagement in Gen AI training.
Such communities provide an ongoing platform for employees to discuss their experiences, troubleshoot challenges, and share success stories. For example, a team implementing AI for data analysis could regularly meet to compare notes, refine techniques, and learn from each other’s experiments. These collaborative spaces encourage employees to see themselves as part of a larger effort, increasing their commitment to the organization’s AI goals.
Integrating Gen AI Tools into Learning
Gen AI itself can play a role in transforming employee training. Interactive AI-driven tools, such as adaptive learning platforms, personalize the training experience to suit individual needs. These platforms can identify knowledge gaps and provide tailored content, ensuring employees remain engaged and progress at their own pace.
For example, dynamic quizzes can adapt to an employee’s performance, offering additional challenges to advanced learners while reinforcing concepts for those who need more support. Virtual environments powered by AI can simulate real-world scenarios, allowing employees to practice and refine their skills without fear of failure.
The Financial Times reports that these innovations are already reshaping corporate training. Companies are leveraging AI to plug skill gaps and retain top talent, ensuring they remain competitive in an increasingly AI-driven world.
From Reluctance to Mastery
While the benefits of Gen AI are clear, some employees may approach training with skepticism or reluctance. Organizations must address these concerns head-on, demonstrating how AI can empower rather than replace workers, while managing risks.
Transparent communication is essential. Leaders should explain the purpose of Gen AI training and how it aligns with the organization’s broader goals. Highlighting success stories, whether internal or external, can also inspire employees to engage with training programs.
The transition from skepticism to mastery is a journey, but it’s one that organizations can facilitate with the right strategies. Combining interactive learning, incentives, community-building, and AI-driven tools creates a holistic approach that supports employees at every step.
Client Case Study: Mid-Sized Logistics Firm
Recently, I worked with a mid-sized logistics company struggling to adopt Gen AI to optimize supply chain operations. While the leadership recognized AI’s potential, employee engagement in training programs was alarmingly low, leading to slow progress and uneven results.
During our consultation, we developed a strategy to address these challenges through interactive learning, incentives, and community-building.
These real-world scenarios enabled employees to see the immediate value of their training and how it applied directly to their work.
First, we launched a series of hands-on workshops tailored to different employee roles. For example, warehouse managers participated in simulations where they used Gen AI tools to predict inventory needs, while dispatchers learned to leverage AI for route optimization. These real-world scenarios enabled employees to see the immediate value of their training and how it applied directly to their work.
To further boost motivation, we gamified the training process. Employees earned points for completing modules, with prizes like additional paid leave and recognition at company-wide meetings. The competition quickly became a source of excitement, with employees sharing their progress and encouraging peers to participate.
Finally, we created a community of practice to sustain engagement beyond the initial training phase. This involved setting up regular discussion groups where employees could exchange ideas and troubleshoot AI-related challenges. The community provided a space for continuous learning and helped employees feel supported as they integrated Gen AI into their workflows.
Within six months, the company saw a 65% increase in training completion rates and a measurable improvement in supply chain efficiency of over 20%. By investing in engagement, the organization unlocked the full potential of Gen AI, creating a workforce that was not only skilled but also enthusiastic about innovation.
Conclusion
Engaging employees in Gen AI training is not just about imparting technical knowledge—it’s about creating a culture where learning is valued and innovation thrives. By employing interactive methods, recognizing achievements, fostering collaboration, and leveraging AI tools, organizations can prepare their workforce for the future of work.
Telstra’s success underscores the impact of an engaged workforce in driving AI adoption. As companies across industries navigate the complexities of Gen AI, those that prioritize employee engagement will be best positioned to unlock AI’s transformative potential.
The new film Evil Unbound tells the story of Unit 731 and Japanese biowarfare in China. How the mass murderers escaped justice with U.S. support after World War II offers lessons even today.
On May 18, the highly-anticipated film Evil Unbound on the notorious Japanese germ-warfare unit, hit the Chinese cinemas. The screening was purposely set for 9.18 am to highlight the “September 18 Incident,” marking the onset of the Japanese military invasion of China in 1931.
Fig 1: Evil Unbound (2025) directed by Zhao Linshan
Source: Movie poster
The movie grossed over $14 million in presale box office and topped the most-anticipated movies list, with over 4 million people expressing interest in watching it. It is directed by Zhao Linshan who hopes “to save history from oblivion” and “open the wound for healing.”
Unit 731 is the codename for the covert Japanese military medical unit, which was responsible for bacterial warfare and human experiments in 1932-45. The brutal experimentation caused the direct deaths of thousands of Chinese, Korean, Soviet, and Western prisoners of war. The tests were executed in Harbin, Northeast China, where Imperial Japan established the world’s largest biowarfare base in 1936.
These crimes against humanity were systematically and purposely covered and the criminals rewarded by the United States. The lessons reverberate from Auschwitz to Gaza today, as I show in The Obliteration Doctrine.
Fig 2: The Los Angeles premiere of the film “Evil Unbound”, Sept. 18, 2025
Source: China-US Focus
Why war criminals were excluded from the Tokyo Trial
Between 1946 and 1948, the Nuremberg Trials, which prosecuted some high-level Nazi war criminals, were followed by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, or the Tokyo Trial. Building on the Nuremberg Charter, 28 high-ranking Japanese military and political leaders were tried by the court. They were charged with 55 separate counts, including waging wars of aggression, murder, and various war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Emulating the dark pattern set in Nuremberg, none of the leaders of Imperial Japan were charged for genocidal atrocities, despite their racist Yamato doctrine and Japanese war crimes in East and Southeast Asia.
Moreover, evidence that would have incriminated Emperor Hirohito and his family was excluded from the Tribunal.
In this insulation, a key role belonged to General Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers in Japan. He believed the U.S. needed Hirohito for stability in Japan and to move from the occupation policy to reconstruction and remilitarization, to support U.S. Cold War goals in Asia.
Fig 3: General MacArthur and Emperor Hirohito at the U.S. Embassy, Tokyo, Sept. 27, 1945
Source: Wikimedia
In Imperial Japan, Nobusuke Kishi, who later became Prime Minister, had used emergency laws to enslave 1.5 million Chinese in the Japanese puppet state Manchuko, wartime Manchuria. Instead of being sentenced as a Class A war criminal, U.S. occupation authorities did not charge, try Kishi, the maternal grandfather of the subsequent PM, Shinzo Abe. Instead, he was released and became, with overt and covert U.S. support, the subsequent PM. Consolidating Japanese conservatives, he was instrumental in forming the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), Japan’s dominant party.
Intriguingly, the key members of the Japanese biowarfare efforts, too, were absent from the Tokyo Trial. Thanks to U.S. interventions, the Tokyo Trials did not charge the military leaders behind human experiments.
Unit 731’s death camps and Ishii’s immunity deal
Between 1937 and 1945, Unit 731 and its clones engaged in lethal experimentation cooperating with the Nazis. The crimes of the unit were reminiscent of those in the Nazi camps by the infamous SS officer Josef Mengele, Auschwitz’s “Angel of Death.”
In Japanese human experiments, the Chinese victims were routinely dehumanized and internally referred to as “logs.” Dehumanization fostered brutality.
What united the experiments in Auschwitz and Unit 731 was a presumably scientific interest in what was racially desirable and utter disregard of those seen as racially undesirable. But the death factories of General Shirō Ishii went further. The experiments included disease injections, controlled dehydration, biological weapons testing, hypobaric pressure chamber testing, vivisection, organ harvesting, and amputation, and standard weapons testing.
In Harbin, China, Unit 731 murdered an estimated 14,000 victims featuring kidnapped Chinese males, women, children and babies born from the staff’s rapes. Up to 300,000 individuals died due to infectious illnesses caused by the unit and its affiliated research facilities. Yet, General Shirō Ishii, director of Unit 731, was never prosecuted for war crimes or crimes against humanity.
Fig 4: General Shirō Ishii as a lieutenant colonel and after the war
Source: Wikimedia
Responsibility for the germ-warfare program extended to Japan’s government leaders and many respected scientists who escaped indictment. U.S. military intelligence insinuated itself into the Tokyo Trial by blocking prosecution’s access to witnesses and classifying incriminating documents.
Washington decision-makers, supported by General MacArthur, hoped to acquire Japan’s biological warfare expertise to gain an advantage over the Soviet Union.
The moral of the story is that most genocidists escape justice. When Israeli Mossad’s legendary head Isser Harel had his team hijack Eichmann from Argentina, they almost got Mengele, as he told me in Tel Aviv in the mid-1970s. After World War II, Mengele lived happily hiding in São Paulo until his death in 1986. General Shirō Ishii could have been sentenced along with his superiors. Instead, he was given immunity by General MacArthur.
Justice was systematically obstructed by U.S. military and the CIA.
Absolution was not the exception, but the rule. Take, for instance, Yoshimura Hisato, who ran the brutal frostbite experiments including forced mutilation without sedatives. He served later as President of Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine and in 1978 was awarded for pioneering work in “environmental adaptation science” by Emperor Hirohito.
In Japan, witnesses who tried to speak in public about their experiences in Unit 731 were long not only discredited but threatened into silence by ultranationalists. In the West, charges of Japan’s large-scale human experimentation during World War II were rejected largely as “Communist propaganda” until the 1980s.
Bioweapons against adversaries, allies – and fellow-citizens
Both the U.S. and Soviet Union garnered data from the Japanese biowarfare units after the war. After collaboration, the Soviets sentenced the Japanese to Siberian labor camps for 2–25 years, whereas those captured by the U.S. were secretly given immunity.
The infamous Shirō Ishii was hired by the U.S. government to lecture at Fort Detrick on bioweapons and the Unit 731’s “findings.” During the Korean War, he was also among the Japanese war criminals sent to Korea to participate in the U.S. Army’s alleged biological warfare activities.
Instead of death sentences, the U.S. covered up the human experimentations, granted stipends to the perpetrators and coopted bioweapon knowledge. The lethal knowledge was used by in biological and chemical weapons; in the Korean War against China, in the Cold War against the Soviets.
But it wasn’t just U.S. adversaries that would have to suffer from what the Pentagon, the CIA and Fort Detrick learned from Japanese war criminals. Ultimately, U.S. soldiers and American citizens would be targeted, too.
Japanese biowarfare specialists were deployed against U.S. enemies but tested on ordinary Americans. These tests exposed humans to chemical and biological weapons, human radiation experiments, injections of toxic and radioactive chemicals, surgical experiments, interrogation and torture, and tests which involved mind-altering substances.
Reflecting America’s long interest in eugenics and segregation, many tests were performed not just on children, but on the sick, and mentally disabled, while a disproportionate share of the subjects were poor, racial minorities, and prisoners. The experiments included Project MK Ultra, a CIA human experimentation program to develop drugs for interrogation and forced confessions through brainwashing and psychological torture. By 2008, tens of thousands of U.S. military personnel and civilians had been exposed to biological and chemical substances through the Pentagon’s tests.
If we ignore these historical trajectories, we are likely to repeat them in the future. When evil is rewarded, moral collapse is just a matter of time.
The original commentary was published by China-US Focus on Sept. 26, 2025.
Dr Dan Steinbock, a renowned expert of the multipolar world, is the founder of Difference Group and has served at the India, China and America Institute (US), Shanghai Institute for International Studies (China) and the EU Center (Singapore). For more, see https://www.differencegroup.net/
Climate risk is reshaping the cost of business. With global catastrophe losses topping $400 billion in 2024, insurers retreating from high-risk markets, and supply chains increasingly fragile, resilience is now balance-sheet logic. Firms that map exposure, invest in risk reduction, and modernize reporting can turn this into a competitive advantage.
Climate risk has moved from the boardroom to the balance sheet. What once felt like an environmental issue is now a core question of business continuity and resilience. In 2024 the U.S. recorded 27 billion-dollar weather and climate disasters totaling roughly $183 billion; the five-year average has surged to 23 such events per year, up from a long-term average of 9. Globally, natural catastrophes produced $417 billion in economic losses in 2024 (with $154 billion insured) – reminding boards how quickly “physical risk” becomes financial risk.
Resilience planning is now part of the base cost of doing business. That’s not just a small-business view. It’s where the data point. Consider three realities shaping corporate decisions today.
1. The hazard profile is broadening—and intensifying
Globally, floods and storms remain the most common and costly natural disaster, but the risk set is widening to include longer heat seasons, more damaging convective storms, larger wildfires, and more frequent power disruptions that affect facilities and logistics alike.
Heat is proving to be a silent profit killer. Analyses from The Lancet estimates that heat-related productivity losses totaled a record 512 billion hours in 2023. In the U.S. the average heat-wave season length has increased by more than 200% since the 1960s and heat related productivity losses could reach $500 billion by mid-century without adaptation.
Wildfire is also evolving into a systemic business risk in drier climates. Swiss Re estimates that 2014–2023 wildfires caused over $100 billion in economic losses and $74 billion in insured losses. Insurers are already retreating from high-risk areas due to rising losses.
Case in point: the January 2025 Los Angeles wildfires spread across 57,000+ acres, destroyed over 18,000 structures, and forced the evacuation of more than 200,000 people. For businesses, the fallout included prolonged closures, grid instability, staffing disruptions, logistics snarls, and insurance upheaval. Estimates of total economic losses vary, but even conservative projections place them between $50 billion and $164 billion.
Flooding is disruptive, hitting unprecedented levels in many areas, and has increasingly global impacts. Pakistan’s 2025 monsoon floods submerged 1.3 million acres of farmland, wiping out key cotton and rice crops, cutting into textile exports, and pushing up basmati rice prices in the UK, Middle East, and U.S.
The message is clear: businesses must factor localized climate events and global supply chain disruptions into strategic planning, capex decisions, and operational budgets.
2. Insurance markets are signaling (and pricing) risk
The global insurance industry is experiencing a fundamental recalibration as climate-driven catastrophic losses reshape risk pricing and market structure. Insurers and reinsurers have paid more than $100 billion in natural-catastrophe claims globally for four straight years. The sector faces unprecedented financial pressure that is driving strategic market retreats and coverage restrictions..
Insurers are strategically withdrawing from high-risk areas, creating coverage deserts with profound economic implications. The response is increasingly uneven across geographies. In the U.S., insurers are retreating from California’s wildfire belt, Florida’s coastlines, and parts of Louisiana—leaving businesses facing shrinking availability, rising deductibles, and tighter sub-limits.
European markets mirror this disruption. Germany’s 2024 floods caused €2 billion ($2.4 billion) in insured losses, about €1 billion ($1.2 billion) above the long-term average. Allianz has responded by calling for risk-adjusted premiums, stricter building standards, and even considering compulsory natural hazard insurance—a signal that coverage is at risk of becoming unavailable in exposed regions.
Technological innovation offers partial solutions. Parametric insurance, satellite monitoring, and catastrophe bonds are enabling more granular risk assessment, though these cannot fully offset the capacity constraints facing traditional reinsurers.
Despite technological advances and new financing mechanisms, the move toward precise climate pricing means companies now ask ‘Can we insure it?’ before ‘Should we build here?’.
3. Markets and regulators want comparable resilience information
The International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation’s International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) Standards became effective beginning 1 January 2024, establishing a global framework for sustainability and climate-related financial disclosures that mirrors the precision now driving insurance pricing models. Jurisdictions are moving to adopt or reference them, and investors are increasingly using these disclosures to assess resilience and capital allocation.
The market message is clear: quantify your climate risks or pay premium prices. Organizations with documented hazard assessments and adaptation plans are securing better rates from both insurers and lenders, while those without face mounting costs on both fronts as financial markets price climate risk with increasing precision.
Given these market realities—escalating physical risks, insurance market retreat, and regulatory disclosure requirements—the question becomes how organizations can systematically convert climate exposure into competitive advantage.
From Exposure to Advantage
Five strategic moves are emerging as pathways for organizations to use climate resilience to create competitive advantage.
1) Map exposure beyond Tier 1 suppliers. Identify assets, logistics, and vendors in risk zones. Extend mapping to Tier 2/3 suppliers where single points of failure hide. Build alternate sourcing, inventory buffers, and pre-agreed reroutes.
2) Align procurement with resilience. Give suppliers predictable terms and resilience incentives so they can adapt—reducing your downtime risk. Co-develop practical measures and integrate progress into ISSB reporting.
3) Treat mitigation as high-return capex. Natural hazard mitigation delivers strong returns: $4 saved for every dollar invested in private retrofits, according to National Institute of Building Sciences research. That’s balance-sheet logic, not feel-good spending.
4) Harden operations for heat and smoke. Build heat-response playbooks covering shift timing, cooling protocols, air quality sensors, and backup power. Preparedness for these events can reduce productivity losses.
5) Modernize disclosures to lower cost of capital. Operationalize IFRS S2 with hazard maps, quantified continuity plans, and physical-risk financials. Organizations that credibly quantify resilience secure better rates from lenders, insurers, and investors.
Why this matters for the broader economy
When small businesses fail after disasters, local economies value chains are significantly weakened. Small enterprises represent 90% of businesses and 50% of employment globally, yet public resilience funding typically bypasses them. The strategic response is partnership: corporate anchors that co-invest through faster payments, shared capital, or resilience-linked contracts reduce network fragility while protecting their own operations.
The winners will be those who quantify exposure, invest where the NPV is positive, enable suppliers to adapt, and disclose credibly against global baselines. That combination turns resilience from a cost center into a competitive moat. In an era of $400 billion-plus annual catastrophe losses worldwide, it’s not just prudent—it’s the new cost and benefit of doing business.
Robert Macnee, PH.D.is a climate strategist and communicator who helps make preparedness practical. He has developed guides, toolkits, and public engagement campaigns for governments and nonprofits across the U.S., Europe, and East Asia. As Deputy Director at Climate Resilience Consulting. Robert specializes in making resilience accessible—using clear language, real-world examples, and a deep understanding of what small businesses need to weather the storm and stay strong. He is the co-author of the forthcoming book, The Resilience Advantage: A Small Business Guide to Preparing for Floods, Heatwaves, Wildfire, and Other Climate Disasters (September 2025).
This article questions the dominance of global university rankings as the primary measure of success. Drawing on experiences at PSUT’s King Talal School of Business Technology, it highlights alternative indicators such as skills development, societal impact, sustainability, entrepreneurship, and partnerships, arguing for a balanced approach that values transformative contributions over numerical standings.
Every fall, when the latest global university rankings are published, the higher education world holds its breath. Institutions celebrate their ascent or lament their decline; media headlines announce winners and losers; and prospective students scan the tables for guidance. Rankings have become a powerful currency of reputation, shaping decisions about where students study, where faculty work, and where governments allocate resources.
Yet I often find myself asking: What if rankings weren’t the only way to measure success?
Beyond Rankings: Redefining Success in Context
At the King Talal School of Business Technology (KTSBT) at Princess Sumaya University for Technology (PSUT) in Amman, Jordan we believe success cannot be captured solely by league tables. For us, success means equipping students with the skills and mindsets to navigate a rapidly changing world. It means producing research that addresses pressing societal challenges, from digital transformation to sustainable business models. It means forging partnerships with industry, government, and civil society to ensure that our impact is felt beyond campus walls.
This commitment is reflected in our integration of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into our curriculum. At our school, we have embedded the SDGs into teaching, learning, and research, ensuring that graduates leave with not only technical expertise but also a strong sense of responsibility toward society and the environment. This approach reflects a broader understanding of success—one that emphasizes relevance, resilience, and responsibility.
At PSUT, this vision is further supported by a vibrant entrepreneurship ecosystem that nurtures innovation and impact. The system includes the Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Residence (EIR) program, which connects students with experienced entrepreneurs for mentorship and guidance; the Queen Rania Center for Entrepreneurship (QRCE), which promotes entrepreneurial culture and provides training opportunities; the Venture Lab, where students and faculty can develop, prototype, and scale their ideas; and iPark, a leading incubator that supports startups and spin-offs in their growth journey. Together, these initiatives create an environment where students do not just learn about entrepreneurship—they actively practice it, building ventures that tackle real-world challenges such as digital inclusion, sustainability, and job creation.
These contributions may not dramatically shift a university’s global ranking, but they create tangible value for society. They demonstrate that higher education can be a catalyst for national competitiveness, social mobility, and sustainable development. In many ways, these outcomes represent a truer measure of success than any number on a table.
The Case for Balance
This is not to suggest that rankings are irrelevant. They provide a degree of comparability, and they can motivate universities to improve. But they should not be the sole narrative of success. Instead, we need balance: a recognition that while rankings offer one perspective, the true value of an institution lies in its transformative power—on students, on communities, and on society.
A Call to Action
As deans, educators, and policymakers, we must lead this shift in perspective. We need to champion success stories that do not fit neatly into rankings tables: the small but powerful innovations in teaching, the long-term partnerships that drive community development, the research that quietly changes lives. By doing so, we encourage a culture where institutions strive not only to be the best in the world, but also the best for the world.
The world is facing unprecedented challenges such as climate change, inequality, technological disruption. Meeting them requires universities and business schools to redefine what success looks like. Rankings may tell us who is ahead in the race, but impact tells us whether we are running in the right direction.
And so I return to the question: What if rankings weren’t the only way to measure success? Perhaps then we would begin to value the deeper, lasting contributions of education, the ones that numbers alone cannot capture.
Dr. George Sammouris Associate Professor at Princess Sumaya University for Technology, Jordan. His expertise includes data analytics, business intelligence, and e-learning. He serves on editorial boards and accreditation committees, mentors universities in AACSB accreditation, and has published widely while leading quality assurance and academic development initiatives in higher education.
Oracle, Silver Lake, and Abu Dhabi’s MGX will emerge as the lead investors in TikTok’s American business under a deal expected to reshape ownership of the popular social media platform, according to people familiar with the negotiations.
The three firms will jointly hold about 45% of TikTok USA. ByteDance, the Beijing-based parent company, will retain a 19.9% interest, while the remaining 35% will be divided between existing ByteDance backers and new stakeholders.
President Donald Trump is set to sign an executive order on Thursday endorsing the agreement, which ensures that TikTok remains operational in the United States. The move follows months of uncertainty as ByteDance faced a federal mandate to divest its U.S. operations or risk a nationwide ban. Lawmakers from both parties had raised alarms about the app’s algorithm and its potential ties to Chinese authorities.
Last week, Trump issued an order delaying the divestiture deadline until December 16, giving negotiators additional time to finalize the structure.
Sources said ByteDance’s American investors, including General Atlantic, Susquehanna, and Sequoia, are expected to contribute equity to the new company. The arrangement does not give the federal government an ownership share or special voting rights in the U.S. entity, CNBC reported earlier this week. Instead, a board composed mostly of American members will oversee operations, and Oracle will take charge of data security and compliance.
Trump has frequently highlighted TikTok’s importance, noting its role in mobilizing younger audiences during his election campaign. He has also pointed to billionaire donor Jeff Yass, a significant ByteDance investor through Susquehanna, as a key figure in the deal. Yass also holds a stake in Trump’s own media company, Truth Social.
In addition, Trump recently suggested that media executives Rupert Murdoch and Lachlan Murdoch, along with Oracle founder Larry Ellison and Dell Technologies CEO Michael Dell, could play a role in shaping the future of TikTok USA.
The restructured ownership aims to ease national security concerns while keeping the platform accessible to its more than 100 million American users. The agreement also underscores the high stakes of balancing global tech investment with Washington’s demand for stronger oversight of foreign-linked digital platforms.
By Terence Tse
CFOs are evolving into AI-driven transformation orchestrators, balancing finance, technology, and strategy while upskilling teams, managing risks, and driving measurable business value.
A key insight from this year’s AI for CFOs event, organized...
The World Financial Review uses cookies to improve site functionality, provide you with a better browsing experience, and to enable our partners to advertise to you. Detailed information on the use of cookies on this Site, and how you can decline them, is provided in our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions. By clicking on the accept button and using this Site, you consent to our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions. ACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
Dr. Gleb Tsipursky 
Dr Dan Steinbock
Robert Macnee, PH.D.
Dr. George Sammour
