Home Blog Page 61

When the Lights Go Out: America’s Retreat from Global Humanitarian Aid

Volunteer team having a meeting

By Patrick Reichert and Vanina Farber

This piece explores the ripple effects of America’s retreat from humanitarian aid and what it means for fragile states, global stability, and future financing models for the sector.

In 2023, the United States accounted for 42% of global humanitarian aid.

On July 1st, 2025, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), for decades a cornerstone of global relief and development, officially shut its doors. Funding to thousands of life-saving aid programs was terminated. Local clinics, food distribution centers, refugee camps, and education projects lost critical support. In total, close to $40 billion in annual assistance evaporated with the agency’s closure, leaving a gaping void in the global humanitarian landscape.

The decision to shutter USAID wasn’t made in a vacuum. For years, foreign aid faced mounting criticism over failed projects, excessive overhead, and programs that created dependency rather than development. Critics also pointed to the system’s over-reliance on a single donor—a structural vulnerability that aid experts had long warned about.

With the wholesale shutdown of USAID, that structural vulnerability has been laid bare in the starkest terms. Whatever the system’s flaws, it had become the backbone of global emergency response. Furthermore, the majority of that response had clear, measurable impact. Emergency food assistance, vaccine distribution, HIV treatment, disaster relief: these are not experimental programs but proven interventions with well-documented results.

Although shortcomings in the humanitarian system have become increasingly apparent, reform should strengthen the foundation, not bring the whole structure down. This crisis has exposed the urgency to establish a new architecture: one that breaks down silos between humanitarian, development, and peacebuilding efforts; reduces dependency on any single state donor; and fosters collaboration among governments, international organizations, private philanthropy, and local communities. Instead, what we are seeing is not transformation but outright dismantling — leaving millions to bear the cost while the sector scrambles to rebuild from the ground up.

Unfortunately, last month, that void has deepened.

On July 17th, 2025, Congress passed the Rescissions Act of 2025, eliminating an additional $9.4 billion in unobligated foreign assistance and public broadcasting funds. Nearly $8.3 billion of that came directly from international aid budgets, slashing planned spending on humanitarian relief, health programs, democracy promotion, and economic support. Despite bipartisan concern, the bill passed narrowly along party lines and was swiftly signed into law. Though narrower in scope than the USAID shutdown, it reinforces a troubling trajectory: the dismantling of foreign aid as we know it.

It’s hard to overstate how disruptive USAID’s closure is to the humanitarian sector. In 2023, the United States contributed~$68 billion the world’s humanitarian aid. Of that, USAID’s direct spending accounted for about $40 billion, around 59% of the U.S.’s total humanitarian aid effort.[1] The agency is being folded into the state department, where it is to be replaced by a successor organization called “America First.”

With the funding cuts, humanitarian operations worldwide came to a standstill. For these programs, and the communities that depend on them, the opportunity to secure new resources and either complete, hand over, or responsibly close out their work is vanishing fast.

For implementing partners already reeling from USAID’s collapse, the Rescissions Act is a double-whammy. In some cases, planned back-up funding is now gone. In others, program transitions that were expected to be gradual are being aborted. And for fragile states that depended on American assistance—from Ukraine to Sudan, Congo to Gaza—the risk of a full-blown humanitarian collapse is growing by the week.

Amidst this uncertainty, we conducted a targeted analysis of USAID’s final funding obligations to understand where the gaps are sharpest—across geographies, sectors, and delivery partners. Our goal was to identify the most exposed communities and programs, and to help inform decisions about where resources and attention are most urgently needed.

Where the Gaps Are Sharpest: Who and What Is Most Affected?

Analysis of USAID’s FY2024 obligations reveals the scale and scope of the disruption. Across more than 24,000 funding records, more than $35 billion had been committed globally. With many of these activities now paused or cancelled, critical humanitarian services face an existential threat.[2] At an average cost of $4,500 to save a life through proven global health interventions like malaria treatment or child illness prevention, the $35 billion lost from USAID’s shutdown represents an opportunity cost of over 7.7 million lives.

Many of the hardest-hit countries include Ukraine, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Ethiopia: each expected to receive $1–6 billion in assistance. This funding spanned emergency food aid, healthcare, economic support, and more, all of which now faces uncertainty. Ukraine alone accounted for ~$6 billion of assistance in 2024, largely to bolster its war-torn economy and public services. Likewise, critical humanitarian and health programs (from emergency food aid to HIV/AIDS treatment) comprised some of the largest slices of the USAID portfolio.

Map of USAID 2024 Funding Obligations

Map of USAID 2024 Funding Obligations for Humanitarian
Source: Authors based on data from U.S. Department of State

USAID 2024 Obligations by International Sector & Implementing Partner

USAID 2024 Obligations by International Sector & Implementing Partner for Humanitarian
Source: Authors based on data from U.S. Department of State

Ukraine: A Wartime Lifeline Cut Off

For Ukraine, USAID’s closure could not have come at a more precarious time. Ravaged by ongoing conflict and economic strain, Ukraine had become the single largest beneficiary of U.S. foreign aid via USAID in 2024, receiving roughly $6 billion. This figure included nearly $3.9 billion in direct budget support to keep the Ukrainian government and essential services running, as well as hundreds of millions for infrastructure and energy repairs to keep the lights on during wartime.

That lifeline has now been severed. The macroeconomic support that helped Ukraine pay salaries, stabilize its currency, and maintain critical public utilities is gone. Likewise, USAID-funded projects shoring up Ukraine’s electricity grid and heating systems have been left in limbo. The consequences are already looming. Without USAID, Ukraine faces a massive budget shortfall in the midst of a costly war and humanitarian crisis. Funds that had been sustaining hospitals, schools, and social safety nets have dried up. While European and other allies may try to fill some gaps, the sudden loss of U.S. economic support poses risks to Ukraine’s stability and its ability to provide basic services during the conflict.

Democratic Republic of Congo: Humanitarian Lifelines Severed

In the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), home to one of the world’s most complex and protracted humanitarian crises, the end of USAID funding has been devastating. With more than $1.3 billion in USAID obligations in 2024, the DRC now faces funding shortfalls for programs including food aid, healthcare, and conflict mitigation for millions of Congolese civilians and refugees from abroad.

Aid agencies on the ground warn of immediate and life-threatening impacts. According to Manenji Mangundu, Oxfam’s country director, “USAID cuts will have an immediate and devastating impact on millions of the world’s most vulnerable people who depend on humanitarian aid for survival.”[3] In eastern Congo’s conflict zones, where over half a million people were already desperate for food, water, and shelter, the sudden funding halt means relief efforts are grinding to a halt.

USAID-funded food convoys and nutrition programs are being suspended, and NGO-run health clinics are running out of supplies. Agencies that relied on U.S. funds for everything from cholera prevention to support for displaced families now find themselves without resources, forced to make decisions about who gets help and who is turned away.

The loss of U.S. aid is also causing chaos for the organizations themselves. Most humanitarian groups in DRC depended heavily on USAID grants; without them, many programs face closure and staff layoffs. Oxfam estimates that the health of up to one million people is now at risk in DRC due to cuts in vital clean water and sanitation services, heightening the threat of disease outbreaks like cholera and measles.[4]

The Scale of Human Impact: Food, Health, and Fragile States

Of all the sectors upended by USAID’s closure, emergency food aid may be the most immediately consequential. The shock comes at a time when global hunger was already at record highs. The U.N. World Food Programme (WFP) – the world’s largest hunger relief agency, has sounded alarm bells about a massive funding shortfall. In March 2025, WFP warned that 58 million people worldwide are at risk of extreme hunger or starvation unless urgent funding is secured, after seeing drastic donor shortfalls this year (including the loss of U.S. contributions). The agency’s donor income in 2025 is projected to be 40% lower than the year before, a gap that “threatened feeding programmes in 28 crisis zones around the world” from Congo to Sudan, Syria to Yemen.[5]

The United States has long been WFP’s largest donor, so the abrupt halt of USAID-administered food funding forced WFP to contemplate deep cuts. With donor budgets shrinking and U.S. foreign aid in flux, the agency faces tough choices about where – and whether – it can deliver food aid. WFP’s own estimates show it may receive only about $8 billion of the $16.9 billion it needs to assist 123 million people in 2025.[6] The funding shortfall comes even as private donations have tripled since 2019. However, private donations only account for ~3.5% of WFP’s funding, nowhere near enough to compensate.

Even before the USAID shutdown, WFP and other agencies had begun rationing aid due to funding gaps. For example, in East Africa, refugees in countries like Ethiopia and Kenya saw their food rations cut by up to 40% in 2023–2024 because donor money wasn’t keeping up.[7] WFP officials are prioritizing “the worst-affected regions and stretching food rations” as far as possible, but they acknowledge that they are approaching a funding cliff with life-threatening consequences.[8]

Programs in Sudan, South Sudan, DRC, Palestine, Syria, Yemen, and other hotspots are at risk of suspension in the coming months if new funding doesn’t materialize. In humanitarian terms, this means millions of hungry people could be cut off from food assistance. The most vulnerable – including children, displaced families, and refugees – will feel it first. Already, in Bangladesh, WFP has had to reduce rations for Rohingya refugees due to lack of funds.[9] In Afghanistan, Yemen, and Syria, programmes to prevent child malnutrition are being scaled back and could halt entirely. The USAID freeze adds immense pressure to an already strained system. The coming months will determine whether stopgap measures can avert the worst outcomes, or whether 2025 will see a dramatic spike in famine and undernutrition because the world’s largest donor stopped feeding the hungry.

Health Programs in Peril: The case of HIV/AIDS

The human impact of the aid cutoff is equally stark in the health sector, particularly for disease-specific programs that had depended on U.S. leadership. One of the most illustrative is the fight against HIV/AIDS. For two decades, the U.S. (through U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and contributions to the Global Fund) led a global campaign that saved millions of lives and brought AIDS under control in many countries.

However, when the U.S. government paused all foreign assistance, it caused an instant rupture in HIV services: deliveries of life-saving HIV medicines were interrupted, and prevention programs for at-risk populations were halted across dozens of countries.[10] Millions of people who depend on consistent antiretroviral treatment and outreach support were suddenly and abruptly cut off, left without care from one week to the next.

UNAIDS, the United Nations agency leading the global HIV response, has issued dire warnings. According to UNAIDS projections, if U.S. support for HIV programs is not quickly restored or replaced, the world could see an additional 6 million new HIV infections and 4 million AIDS-related deaths between 2025 and 2029.[11] “This is not just a funding gap. It’s a ticking time bomb,” said UNAIDS Executive Director Winnie Byanyima, noting how services have “vanished overnight” in some places and health workers have been sent home. The progress of the last decades is at risk of unraveling: before the crisis, global HIV infections and deaths had been steadily declining (new infections were 40% lower in 2024 than in 2010), but that hard-won progress could reverse if treatment and prevention stall out now.

Amid this bleak outlook, there was one notable exception. Following bipartisan pushback, the Senate amended the Rescissions Act of 2025 to preserve PEPFAR funding, stripping out a planned $400 million cut.[12] This move protected a cornerstone of the global HIV/AIDS response, ensuring that key services—such as antiretroviral distribution and testing—can continue in the short term.

However, the safeguard appears to apply only to PEPFAR. Other HIV/AIDS initiatives, particularly those funded through USAID or routed through broader global health platforms, were not exempted. With nearly $8 billion in international assistance rescinded overall, the fallout for HIV programs outside the PEPFAR umbrella is significant. Community-based prevention efforts, health systems strengthening, and cross-cutting support services are among the casualties, leaving dangerous service gaps in many countries.

On the ground, the disruption also entails knock-on effects. In countries like Mozambique, more than 30,000 health personnel (many of them involved in HIV and TB programs) have lost their jobs as U.S.-funded projects shut down.[13] Such losses not only hurt HIV treatment delivery but also weaken healthcare overall, as these workers also handle maternal health, vaccinations, and more.

Beyond HIV/AIDS, other health initiatives are suffering a similar fate. Tuberculosis clinics and outreach programs, some funded through USAID’s global health security efforts, are reporting shortages of medicines and diagnostic kits.[14] Malaria control programs that depended on U.S. funding for bed nets and spraying have scaled back, even as cases surge in places like Ethiopia.[15] Maternal and child health programs, from vaccine campaigns to nutrition for pregnant women, are likewise facing gaps.

In summary, the global health safety net has unraveled. The sudden withdrawal of the world’s largest donor is being measured in clinic closures, medicine stock-outs, and lives at risk. Whether it’s an HIV-positive mother in Kenya, a malaria-stricken child in Ethiopia, or a TB patient in Ukraine, vulnerable people are seeing their lifelines weakened. Health experts fear that without an urgent solution, the coming years could see resurgences of epidemics that had been under control, and a loss of confidence in health systems in some of the world’s poorest countries.

Can the Void Be Filled?

The closure of USAID’s programs in 2025 sent shockwaves through the humanitarian sector. The passage of the Rescissions Act of 2025 has now cemented a broader shift: a systemic retreat of the United States from its long-held role as the world’s leading humanitarian donor. Together, the agency’s shutdown and the rescissions mark an abrupt and ideologically driven pivot in U.S. foreign policy, one that deprioritizes humanitarian principles in favor of short-term domestic optics.

Front-line services have been disrupted, implementing partners destabilized, and local capacity gutted. In conflict zones and refugee camps, people who yesterday had food, medicine, or shelter provided by an American-funded project are waking up today to nothing. The ripple effects will not stop here. With each round of funding clawbacks, the humanitarian landscape becomes more fragile, more reliant on fewer actors, and more vulnerable to political shocks. The instability has rippled through organizations as well – tens of thousands of aid workers have lost employment globally due to the cuts, undermining local capacities built up over years.[16] It is a stark reminder of the interdependency and fragility of the humanitarian system and how quickly gains can be reversed.

Yet, amid the uncertainty, there are seeds of adaptation. Other nations and international institutions are under pressure to step up their contributions, even as many face their own budget constraints. Philanthropic actors, exemplified by Project Resource Optimization (PRO)[17], are innovating to plug critical gaps, however modestly. And affected communities and governments are striving to do what they can to fill the void – whether it’s health ministries reallocating scarce domestic funds to keep HIV clinics open, or local NGOs rallying volunteers to continue aid distribution on a shoestring. These efforts highlight the resilience and resourcefulness within the humanitarian sector.

Still, the road ahead remains challenging. The scale of disruption, $30+ billion annually, is not something that can be easily or quickly patched. The worry is that without prompt action to restore funding streams, today’s cutbacks will become tomorrow’s full-blown catastrophes – be it famine, disease outbreaks, or instability from unaddressed crises. The international community is therefore at a crossroads. Will new coalitions of donors emerge to restore at least a portion of the lost aid? Will cost-effective initiatives like PRO inspire more strategic giving to soften the blow? Can some projects spin-off into revenue-generating programs? Or will the world’s vulnerable populations simply be left to bear the brunt of a political decision beyond their control?

The 2025 USAID closure has infused a sense of urgency and clarity about what is at stake. This moment demands not just emergency stopgaps, but a fundamental rethinking of how global aid is structured, financed, and sustained. The old model—with its heavy dependence on a single donor and rigid institutional silos—has proven dangerously fragile. The new architecture must be more resilient: distributed across multiple funding sources, integrated across sectors, and rooted in partnerships that strengthen rather than replace local capacity.

The hope is that this crisis will catalyze not just a restoration of funding, but a reimagining of the humanitarian response itself. The Rescissions Act should be a rallying cry for systemic change. The world cannot afford for the lights to go out, but neither can it afford to simply flip the same old switches. The system holds—until it doesn’t. Now it’s time to build one that will.

This article was originally published in The European Business Review. It can be accessed here: https://www.europeanbusinessreview.com/when-the-lights-go-out-americas-retreat-from-global-humanitarian-aid

Go to top

About the Authors

Patrick ReichertPatrick Reichert is the Associate Director & Research Fellow at the elea Chair for Social Innovation at IMD. Patrick conducts research at the intersection of entrepreneurship, finance and social impact, with a particular focus on the mechanisms and practices that investors use to seed investment in social organizations.

Vanina FarberVanina Farber is the elea Professor for Social Innovation and Dean of the EMBA Programme at IMD. Vanina is a macroeconomist and political scientist specializing in humanitarian finance, impact investment, and social innovation, with more than twenty years of experience in research, teaching, and consultancy. At IMD, Vanina designs and directs the Driving Innovative Finance for Impact (DIFI) program, equipping leaders with tools to drive sustainable financial solutions.

References

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/13/donald-trump-elon-musk-usaid-soft-power?

[2] Analysis draws upon data from the official US foreign assistance website: https://foreignassistance.gov/

[3] https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/oxfam-reaction-usaid-funding-cuts-drc

[4] https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/oxfam-reaction-usaid-funding-cuts-drc

[5] https://www.reuters.com/world/uns-wfp-says-58-million-face-hunger-crisis-after-huge-shortfall-aid-2025-03-28

[6] https://executiveboard.wfp.org/document_download/WFP-0000161321

[7] https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/ng-interactive/2025/feb/21/the-impact-has-been-devastating-how-usaid-freeze-sent-shockwaves-through-ethiopia

[8] https://www.reuters.com/world/uns-wfp-says-58-million-face-hunger-crisis-after-huge-shortfall-aid-2025-03-28

[9] https://www.reuters.com/world/uns-wfp-says-58-million-face-hunger-crisis-after-huge-shortfall-aid-2025-03-28

[10] https://www.unaids.org/en/impact-US-funding-cuts

[11] https://healthpolicy-watch.news/millions-at-risk-of-hiv-infection-and-death-after-us-funding-cuts-warns-unaids

[12] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/17/us-senate-passes-aid-public-broadcasting-cuts-victory-trump

[13] https://healthpolicy-watch.news/millions-at-risk-of-hiv-infection-and-death-after-us-funding-cuts-warns-unaids

[14] https://www.unaids.org/en/impact-US-funding-cuts

[15] https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/ng-interactive/2025/feb/21/the-impact-has-been-devastating-how-usaid-freeze-sent-shockwaves-through-ethiopia

[16] https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/10/06/2025/cuts-usaid-fallout-continues-part-2

[17] Project Resource Optimization (PRO) is an independent initiative formed in 2025 with a singular mission: to channel resources to the most urgent and effective aid programs left stranded by USAID’s shutdown. PRO uses rigorous analysis, sector expertise, and a “living” database of projects to guide donors. It scours the list of cancelled or paused USAID programs to identify those that are high-impact, cost-effective, and time-sensitive – for example, a partially completed health clinic that just needs a few months of funding to finish, or a food aid program mid-way through feeding a community. These vetted opportunities are then shared with philanthropies, charities, and even high-net-worth individuals who are eager to step in and contribute funding.

Court Rules Trump Overstepped Authority on Global Tariffs

President Donald Trump’s trade strategy suffered a major setback after a federal appeals court ruled that most of his “reciprocal tariffs” were imposed illegally.

In a 7-4 decision on Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said Trump exceeded his authority when he announced sweeping levies on nearly every trading partner during his April 2 “liberation day” address. The court ruled that the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which Trump cited to justify the tariffs, does not grant the president authority to impose such duties.

“The core Congressional power to impose taxes such as tariffs is vested exclusively in the legislative branch by the Constitution,” the judges wrote.

The duties, which cover more than 60 nations and in some cases reach as high as 50%, will remain in place until Oct. 14 while the administration appeals to the Supreme Court. Before the ruling, Trump’s tariffs were on track to affect nearly 70% of all U.S. imports. If struck down, they would cover only about 16%, according to the Tax Foundation.

The court also rejected Trump’s justification for tariffs on China, Mexico and Canada, which the administration said were necessary to combat fentanyl trafficking. Those levies, along with the broader reciprocal tariffs, were deemed unlawful.

Trump responded by vowing to fight the decision. “If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America,” he wrote on social media.

If the Supreme Court upholds the ruling, Trump could still seek other legal avenues, such as the 1974 Trade Act. But that law limits tariffs to 15% for 150 days unless Congress extends them, significantly narrowing his options.

Not all of Trump’s trade measures were struck down. His sector-specific tariffs on steel and aluminum remain untouched because they were imposed under separate presidential authority known as Section 232. Earlier this month, those duties were expanded to cover more than 400 additional products. Trade lawyers say such targeted tariffs are less vulnerable to legal challenges.

Levies first imposed on China during Trump’s first term and later maintained by Joe Biden also remain intact. In addition, the administration’s elimination of the “de minimis” exemption on imports under $800 — a move that hits small and medium-sized businesses — is unaffected by the appeals court ruling.

Related Readings:

Indonesia and United States two flags together

Container Terminal. Shipping Container with Philippines flag

Go to top

How Ukraine Lost its Future: From China’s Bridge to US Military Hub

Silhouettes of a soldiers and a main battle tank on a battlefield with Ukraine flag against the sunset.

By Dan Steinbock                                     

As the endgame looms over the proxy war in Ukraine, the catastrophic costs of the unwarranted conflict continue to soar. There was an alternative future for Ukraine, based on development. But it was purposely denied.

The war in Ukraine was not only avoidable but there was an alternative and more peaceful future.

Since the onset of hostilities in Ukraine three years ago, I have argued that, whatever its stated rationales, the war would “penalize severely Ukraine, Russia, the US and the NATO, Europe, developing economies and the global economy.”

The war in Ukraine was not only avoidable but there was an alternative and more peaceful future. It was purposely collapsed because it did not fit the neoconservatives’ plans for Ukraine.

Zelensky’s dream of Ukraine as China’s bridge to Europe          

Even as Ukraine-Russian tensions began to escalate a decade ago, trade ties between Ukraine and China expanded after President Viktor Yanukovych’s state visit to Beijing in 2013. Four years later, Ukraine, now under President Poroshenko, joined China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). And in 2019, China bypassed Russia as Ukraine’s biggest single trading partner.

Together, China, Ukraine’s new economic partner, and Russia, its historical trade partner, absorbed a fourth of Ukraine’s exports. That figure was over six times the share of the US.

In June 2021, China and Ukraine signed a deal to strengthen cooperation in multiple areas, particularly in infrastructure financing and construction. In 2021, overall trade boomed to $19 billion, having soared 80% since 2013. To Ukraine’s President Zelensky, the BRI meant an alternative future that would be more stable and prosperous. And so, in a phone conversation with President Xi Jinping, he called China “Ukraine’s No. 1 trade and economic partner in the world.” expressing hope that Ukraine could become “a bridge to Europe for Chinese business.”

In just a year, major Chinese companies started operations in construction, food and telecoms. New contracts signed by Chinese companies in the Ukrainian engineering market exceeded $2 billion for two consecutive years.

But this was not the future that was planned for Ukraine in the White House.        

Hammering Ukraine into a military-industrial hub              

From 1991 to 2014, the US flooded Ukraine with $4 billion in military assistance , even though it wasn’t a NATO member. By 2021, over $2.7 billion was added to the figure, plus over a billion provided by the NATO Trust Fund.

To Erik Prince, it heralded a great money-making opportunity, Iraq déjà vu. As the founder of the private US military contractor, then known as Blackwater, Prince had long supplied mercenaries to the CIA, Pentagon and State Department for covert operations, including torture and assassinations. In early 2020, Prince outlined a roadmap for the creation of a “vertically integrated aviation defense consortium” that could bring $10 billion in revenues.

Prince desperately needed the Motor Sich factory, which already had a deal with Beijing Skyrizon Aviation. The Chinese company had bought its 41% stake already in 2017. However, Biden’s election win undermined Prince’s plan. Moreover, his Ukrainian partners got under criminal investigation for alleged efforts to sway the 2020 presidential election and the investigation included President Biden’s son and his stakes in Ukraine. Washington blacklisted the Chinese firms involved, then Ukrainian court froze their holdings for reasons of “national security” and Chinese companies and dealmakers were sanctioned.

Nonetheless, the idea of a Ukrainian military-industrial complex remained attractive to the US and Ukraine, where the state-controlled defense sector employed more than 1 million people and had been moving, with rising US influence, toward military procurement since 2014. To the Biden administration, it offered a massive military-logistical hub that could serve both the US and NATO.

Yet, by late fall 2022, even European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen acknowledged Ukraine’s losses in the war with Russia amounted to 100,000 soldiers and 20,000 civilians.

Today, three years later, the total cost of reconstruction and recovery in Ukraine is estimated at $524 billion over the next decade – almost three times Ukraine’s GDP 2024.

The military aid has brought neither peace nor security. But it has prolonged Ukrainians’ suffering.

The military aid has brought neither peace nor security. But it has prolonged Ukrainians’ suffering. To date, the US alone has provided $67 billion in military assistance since February 2022 and $70 billion in military assistance since 2014. These have been coupled with military assistance via the presidential emergency authority by up to $32 billion from Pentagon’s stockpiles.

That’s a total of $167 billion – in wasted lives, economic prospects and global prospects.

Economic and human costs of the avoidable war  

After the end of the Cold War, the peaceful rise of Ukraine was the prevailing reality. But as the plans of development and welfare were replaced with those of geopolitics and warfare, Ukrainian GDP has suffered a drastic plunge (see black line in the below figure). Assuming incremental trends in the next half a decade, Ukrainian GDP is anticipated to reach $283 billion in 2030. But if the hostilities of 2022-25 had been avoided, this figure could have been $372 billion (light-blue line). And if all these hostilities since 2014 had been avoided and if Ukraine had been able to continue Zelensky’s infrastructure modernization with Chinese development, Ukraine’s GDP could have soared to $482 billion in 2030.

The fall of Ukrainian GDP, current prices, 1990-2030
Ukrainian GDP, current prices, 1990-2030
Source: IMF, WEO Outlook Database

These missed opportunities reflect a catastrophic collapse of a future that Ukraine could have had, if it had been allowed to build on development and prosperity. Had that peaceful trajectory prevailed, Ukraine’s economy in 2030 would be 70% larger than what it is likely to be.

The demographic collapse is even worse. As the NATO expansion intensified in Eastern Europe and geopolitical tensions substituted for peaceful development, Ukraine’s population has declined from 51 million in 1990 to just 34 million people.

Ukraine has lost over 33% of its population since the end of the Cold War; and 9 million in just three years. Due to migration, the final toll is even worse. Since spring 2022, millions of Ukrainians have fled the country, with nearly 7 million Ukrainian refugees living abroad.

Since the onset of hostilities, total Ukrainian casualties amount to 400,000.

The demise of Ukraine?              

In spring 2022, the West promised Ukraine freedom and democracy, security and prosperity. Today, most freedoms have been compromised under the fog of war. Democratic institutions are overshadowed by external interests and domestic oligarchs. Many national assets have been mortgaged to Western interests for years to come.

Had Ukraine followed the development trajectory, its economy would not be the size of Algeria in 2030. It would be a half-trillion-dollar economy, like Iran or South Africa. Per capita income would be more than 40% higher than today. Economic opportunities might have reversed some of the migration flows back to Ukraine, which would have over 10 million more inhabitants than today.

And if the war is allowed to fester further, global economic prospects will be penalized even worse. 

The proxy war between the US-led West and Russia in Ukraine has proved just as catastrophic as projected in 2022 and thereafter. It has contributed to secular stagnation in the US and particularly in Europe where the misallocation of scarce allocations from welfare to rearmament is compounding a series of cost-of-living crises. Coming at the heel of the global pandemic, the consequent food and energy crises have severely aggravated the challenges of the Global South. And if the war is allowed to fester further, global economic prospects will be penalized even worse. 

What happens in Ukraine will not stay in Ukraine. As long as aggressive geopolitics is favored at the expense of proactive international diplomacy, even promising futures can turn into dark wastelands.

The original commentary was published by China-US Focus on August 28, 2025.

Go to top

About the Author

Dr.-Dan-Steinbock-1Dan Steinbock is an internationally renowned visionary of the multipolar world and the founder of Difference Group. He has served at India, China and America Institute (US), Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (China) and the EU Center (Singapore). For more, see https://www.differencegroup.net/ 

The New Rules of Global Business: Why Geopolitics Now Dictates Where and How Companies Operate

Global management team business people meeting silhouettes rendered with computer graphic.

By Srividya Jandhyala

Global businesses are navigating unprecedented geopolitical shifts that redefine market access, competition, and investment security. Srividya Jandhyala examines how structural changes in trade and regulations are reshaping corporate strategies worldwide. Her insights help executives understand geopolitical risk and adapt operations for long-term resilience in an increasingly fragmented global economy.

Today’s business leaders are facing a complex geopolitical landscape. From trade wars and sanctions, to supply chain disruptions and political conflict, they must navigate a world they are not always prepared for.

How can companies, managers, and employees of global businesses make sense of our rapidly evolving world? How can they assess whether their risk is increasing or decreasing?

Traditionally, the assessment of geopolitical risk was centered around specific events. For example, a global company will expect geopolitical risk to be high if war breaks out between two countries it has operations in, and the risk to be low when the two countries establish a military alliance. But this approach does not account for structural changes that are likely to remain even as the intensity of an event itself dies down. Another issue with the traditional approach is that it fails to help companies determine how geopolitical events will affect their businesses. If strategic rivalry between the world’s biggest economies is an important geopolitical event, what are the implications for a company’s strategy and operations? Are there specific dimensions of a company’s operations and profitability that will be impacted?

The biggest risk for companies is that the institutional scaffolding that supports cross-border trade and investment is being reshaped. This means global companies have to find alternatives or learn to manage in a world where they have less confidence in their ability to transact across borders. Here are four ways geopolitics is reshaping global businesses.

Geopolitics shapes where you can compete. In years past, global companies found new markets as countries opened up. Liberalization and privatization were buzzwords that provided new market opportunities for internationalizing firms. Today, global companies can no longer take access to international markets for granted. Many governments are imposing increasingly stringent conditions and requirements for firms to access their domestic markets. This restricts the number and type of firms that can operate in a given country or sell their products/services there. When Indian firms learnt of the 50% tariff rate imposed on their products by the US, they quickly realized that this wasn’t just a tax; rather, their market access had been cut. In a sector like textiles, where margins are low, Indian firms would have to sell below cost just to continue operations in the US, or risk losing the market to other competitors.

Geopolitics influences how level the playing field is. In an ideal world, companies from around the world would compete on attributes like innovativeness, efficiency, and product quality. In other words, the rules of the game would level the playing field, no matter where in the world your company came from. Today, however, companies have to recognize that a level playing field is a myth. Domestic firms have an advantage over foreign rivals because of policy and regulatory advantages. Courts are more likely to rule in favor of domestic firms. Local companies also receive subsidies and other forms of support from their home governments. Germany’s largest semiconductor manufacturer, Infineon Technologies, received a nearly 1 billion euros subsidy for the construction of a new semiconductor manufacturing plant in Dresden.

At the same time, the playing field is also not level among foreign companies. India’s shrimp farmers are worried about losing market share to their Ecuadorian competitors because of differential tariffs; 50% for India and 15% for Ecuador. Brazilian products face 50% tariffs while their counterparts in other countries have a lower tariff rate. The fundamental principle of the World Trade Organization, the  Most-Favored-Nation clause, is increasingly challenged or ignored.

Geopolitics shapes how secure a company’s foreign investments are. A central concern for any company investing abroad is that their physical assets and human capital will be safe. But investing in a foreign market is increasingly fraught because of geopolitical tensions. Carlsberg, the Danish brewer, assessed its Russian assets to be worth roughly $1 billion in 2023, but agreed to sell them for roughly $320 million as when it sought to exit the country in late 2024. Wells Fargo, an American bank, reportedly suspended all travel to China after a senior executive faced an exit ban and was blocked from leaving the country. Companies are left wondering how to ensure that investments are protected, guarantee the safety of employees or expatriate managers, or repatriate profits. 

Geopolitics determines the technical and operational standards. Werner von Siemens, the founder of the eponymous German conglomerate, is said to have noted that “He who owns the standards, owns the market”. Some companies appear to have learnt this lesson well; American technology companies like IBM and Qualcomm earned hundreds of millions from licensing their intellectual property. But today’s geopolitical contestation is also about controlling standards in new technologies. New 6G standards adopted by the International Telecommunication Union were championed by the Chinese Academy of Sciences and China Telecom. BYD’s new megawatt chargers, which can add up to 400 kilometers of range in just five minutes, could set new standards in electric vehicles. Companies that license such technologies may wonder if geopolitical competition would lead governments to turn on and off access.

Global businesses need to adapt

Major geopolitical events like military conflicts and trade wars are forcing companies to evaluate how their businesses will be impacted. While such events no doubt have an immediate impact, managers must also understand how the structural factors enabling cross-border trade and investment are changing. The challenge for global businesses is to figure out an alternate system to support their international operations.

Go to top

About the Author

Srividya JandhyalaSrividya Jandhyala is an Associate Professor of Management at ESSEC Business School. She is the author of the bestselling book The Great Disruption: How Geopolitics is Changing Companies, Managers, and Work.

Essential Tips For Keeping Your Produce Fresh This Harvest Season

Essential Tips For Keeping Your Produce Fresh This Harvest Season

August marks the start of the peak harvest season in the UK, which continues through September and into October. It is typically the busiest period of the year for farmers, who often work around the clock to harvest the crops they have been growing throughout the year. This stage is so important, as the success of the entire year’s efforts depends on the timing and management of the harvest. In this article, we will explore some of the key challenges farmers face during this period, along with effective strategies for maintaining produce at its freshest.

The Importance of Freshness During Harvest Season

The freshness of produce is important for several reasons, all of which underscore the fact that fresher produce equates to higher quality.

Market Value

Whether produce is sold to wholesale markets, retailers, or directly to consumers, its quality determines the price. In wholesale and retail settings in particular, food is graded according to quality, with prices set accordingly, making freshness a key factor in maximising value.

Reputation and Repeat Business

For farmers who are more consumer-facing, such as those operating farm shops or selling at local markets, the freshness of their produce directly reflects the quality of their farm and brand. It plays a vital role in customer satisfaction and can be a deciding factor in whether customers choose to buy from them again.

The Biggest Challenges to Keeping Produce Fresh

There are many challenges that can affect the freshness of harvested produce, and it is important to be aware of these in order to identify and implement effective solutions.

Time Pressure After Picking

As soon as crops are harvested, they begin to lose their freshness immediately. It is therefore essential to carry out harvesting promptly and to have appropriate storage arrangements in place for the produce once it has been gathered.

Temperature Control Gaps

Inconsistent or delayed cooling after harvest can quickly cause produce to lose moisture, texture, and flavour. Maintaining the right temperature from field to storage is essential to slowing natural deterioration.

Damage During Transportation

Even minor bumps, or abrasions during handling and transit can compromise the integrity of produce and accelerate spoilage, which is why using a reliable courier is so important.

Slow and Unreliable Logistics

Delays in transporting produce from farm to destination can significantly compromise its freshness. In many cases, the decision to harvest may only be made on the day itself, meaning courier arrangements must often be made at short notice. Having a reliable courier service that can be booked last-minute and deliver quickly is therefore essential.

Unpredictable Weather

Both droughts and heavy rainfall can affect the freshness and harvestability of produce, influencing the precise timing of when it is harvested.

Strategies Farmer’s Can Use to Keep Produce Fresh

By its very nature, farming is subject to various factors that can affect crops, many of which are beyond control. However, the following are some of the most effective measures you can take to help preserve the freshness of your produce.

Harvest At An Optimal Time

Plan harvesting to coincide with peak ripeness while factoring in weather conditions. Picking too early or too late can affect both flavour and shelf life.

Have A Cooling Strategy

Introduce cooling measures immediately after harvest to slow the natural deterioration process. Whether using cold storage, refrigerated transport, or other cooling methods, it’s essential to keep temperatures cool.

Use a Reliable Same Day Courier

Partner with a dependable same day courier service like Speedy Freight who is capable of last-minute bookings, fast delivery and has a reliable reputation that they won’t let you down. This ensures produce reaches its destination quickly, preserving quality and reducing the risk of spoilage.

Maximising The Success Of Your Harvest

By prioritising timing, temperature control, efficient logistics, and being aware of potential challenges, farmers can significantly extend the freshness of their harvest. Implementing these measures will increase quality and protect market value, ensuring that the hard work invested throughout the growing season delivers the best possible returns.

Go to top

The Obliteration Doctrine in Gaza – And Beyond

The destruction of Omar Al-Mukhtar Street in central Gaza and the rubble of Al-Shorouk Tower

By Dan Steinbock                        

Israel’s Obliteration Doctrine was first tested already two decades ago, without subsequent international intervention. It has precursors, but the total devastation achieved in Gaza is world historical. As a blueprint, it is a prelude to much worse.  

Not so long ago, UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned that “nothing can justify the obliteration of Gaza that has unfolded before the eyes of the world.”       

Just days ago, Israel’s National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, a disciple of the late far-right rabbi Meir Kahane notorious for his promotion of racism and ethnic cleansing, visited an Israeli prison where he had a large photo of the obliteration in Gaza hung for Palestinian security prisoners to see. In a video, Ben Gvir points to the obliteration: “This is how it’s supposed to look.”

Israeli Minister Ben-Gvir and the footage captioned: “The Israel Prison Service placed photos of destroyed Gaza in the terrorists’ wings — so they understand that you don’t mess with the people of Israel!”
Israeli Minister Ben-Gvir and the footage captioned: “The Israel Prison Service placed photos of destroyed Gaza in the terrorists’ wings — so they understand that you don’t mess with the people of Israel!”
Source: (Screen capture/ Courtesy Office of National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir)

As I show in my new book The Obliteration Doctrine, the ultimate objective of obliteration is the total destruction of something so that nothing of it remains.

But actually, this hellish nightmare was first tested already two decades ago.

The test laboratory of Dahiya, Beirut              

The pioneering Obliteration Doctrine was first outlined in 2005 by Gadi Eizenkot, former chief of General Staff. Interestingly, he is no extremist. Subsequently an influential Israeli military leader and politician, Eisenkot supports Israeli democracy and a two-state solution. But as a military strategist, he opened the Pandora’s Box that both Israel’s right-wing Likud and Messianic far-right would subsequently embrace – and he resigned from Netanyahu’s war cabinet only after its darkest destruction.

Two decades ago, Eisenkot’s strategy was based on the idea that the Israel Defense Force (IDF) would have to severely damage Dahiya to create effective deterrence against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. His predecessor had been compelled to quit for having been “too cautious.” The assumption was that the deployment of disproportionate power would end Hezbollah for good, or at least for a sustained period.

When the IDF embraced the nascent Obliteration Doctrine, the Cold War was history and ad hoc international criminal tribunals had been set up. The Genocide Convention was in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the UN even had its special adviser with a mandate for warning the UN on the Prevention of Genocide. So, ostensibly, things were in place to deal with a military doctrine that explicitly targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure.

Yet, when Eisenkot stated in public that Israel would embrace a new military doctrine—that of extreme disproportion which virtually ensured genocidal atrocities—there was no consequential international outcry, not to speak of intervention. It was this silence that made a war of total obliteration a matter of time rather than a matter of principle.

Piloting the Obliteration Doctrine in Dahiya, Beirut
Piloting the Obliteration Doctrine in Dahiya, Beirut
Source: Wikimedia

Civilian devastation as strategic objective    

Armed with the Obliteration Doctrine, the IDF deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure to wreak massive suffering on the civilian population, presumably seeking to establish an effective deterrence. Following the 2006 Lebanese War, the doctrine was deployed again in the 2008–2009 Gaza War, which caused the deaths of 1,200–1,400 Palestinians. Over 46,000 homes were destroyed, making more than 100,000 people homeless. As Eisenkot saw it:

What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which shots will be fired in the direction of Israel. We will wield disproportionate power and cause immense damage and destruction.

After these efforts, the Obliteration Doctrine was effectively in place. Civilian devastation was no longer unfortunate collateral damage, but the very focus of a new military doctrine. So, 17 years before October 7, 2023, there was a broad public consensus among both the Israeli military and political elites that “in the next war the IDF would deploy disproportionate force” and feature heavy firepower and “immense destruction.”

Oddly enough, the very public launch of and debate on what was then described as the Dahiya strategy attracted little attention from international bodies and authorities ostensibly dedicated to genocide prevention.

“Exterminate all the brutes!”                 

Nonetheless, after just one month of the Gaza War, Eisenkot charged the Netanyahu cabinet for “near-criminal behavior” as the PM tried to hide protocols, leak lies to media and sway war goals to appease the Messianic far-right. With advancing obliteration, Eisenkot had lost his own son and two nephews in a war he now opposed. Yet, the doctrine that was foundational to the Obliteration Doctrine was to a great extent his handiwork.

These arguments unleashed a broad Israeli and international condemnation, but they were aligned with the strategic objectives of the Obliteration Doctrine.

In November 2023, Major General (Res.) Giora Eiland, former head of Israel’s National Security Council, took the doctrine even further, arguing as the Messianic far-right had done since the days of rabbi Meir Kahane and the ultra-nationalist rabbis in the 1970s, that since most Gazans support Hamas, all Gaza women are the mothers, sisters, and spouses of Hamas murderers. So, Israel was not only entitled but morally obligated to ignore their pain.

In this view, collective punishment was not a violation of international law or a perverse moral code. Somewhat like Joseph Conrad’s Mr. Kurtz in The Heart of Darkness (1899), Eiland seemed to concur: “Exterminate all the brutes!”

It was the ultimate ethical dictum of inhumanity. Just as the Nazis evoked collective punishment against Jews, Poles, Communists and gypsies in the 1940s, Eiland seized on it to suggest that what the military might not achieve, biowarfare could: “Epidemics in the South [of Gaza] will bring victory closer and will decrease casualties among IDF soldiers.”

These arguments unleashed a broad Israeli and international condemnation, but they were aligned with the strategic objectives of the Obliteration Doctrine.

Origins of the Obliteration Doctrine    

In historical view, the kind of obliteration seen in Gaza in 2023–2025 is reminiscent of scorched-earth policy, a longstanding military strategy of destroying everything that allows an enemy military force to fight a war, including the critical infrastructure, military and state institutions, buildings, crops, livestock, security and so on. 20th century examples feature the American Civil War and American Indian Wars, and Nazi Germany’s war against the Soviet Union.

Yet, the Obliteration Doctrine goes further insofar as it aims at either devastating the entire infrastructure of the target population or destroying it, to achieve “voluntary” mass displacement, dispossession and ultimately extermination.

Another historical component of the Obliteration Doctrine is collective punishment, which violates the principle of individual responsibility since it targets individuals who are not responsible for the perpetrated acts. By the same token, it undermines modern legal systems, which restrict criminal liability to individuals. Yet, it has been widely deployed throughout history, particularly in postwar anti-colonial liberation struggles.

The third historical element of the Obliteration Doctrine is civilian victimization, or the purposeful use of violence against non-combatants in a conflict. It has featured lethal force, including killings, and non-lethal forms of violence, such as forced expulsion, torture, and rape, as evidenced by the US Strategic Hamlet program during the Vietnam War.

The deployment of scorched-earth policy against non-combatants is banned under the 1977 Geneva Conventions. Collective punishment is prohibited in both international and non-international armed conflicts. Civilian victimization is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions.

Yet, thanks to support by Washington and inactivity by Brussels, Israel has been able to ignore all these prohibitions.

Massive indiscriminate area bombardment              

Since the postwar era, obliteration has also been accompanied by largely indiscriminate, massive area bombardment. In Gaza, one of the most densely inhabited areas in the world, it set a historical precedent. Since October 7, 2023, the US spent at least $22.8 billion on military aid to Israel and related US operations in the region.

Based on its historical precursors, massive bombardment and the deployment of artificial intelligence to maximize death and devastation, the result was the Obliteration Doctrine. By late April 2024, after barely half a year of hostilities, Israel had dropped over 70,000 tons of bombs over Gaza, surpassing the World War II bombing of Dresden, Hamburg, and London combined.

Scale of Gaza’s Obliteration = Hamburg + London + Dresden
Scale of Gaza’s Obliteration = Hamburg + London + Dresden
Source: Wikimedia

The scale of destruction in Gaza has been viable only with the incessant flow of US weapons, guaranteed by U.S. military aid and funding to finance it. This aid is a result of half a century of bilateral military cooperation in the dark shadows of history, starting with Israel’s military ties with apartheid South Africa and participation in the US “Dirty Wars” in Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, and even Asia since the 1970s and ’80s.

The scale of destruction in Gaza has been viable only with the incessant flow of US weapons, guaranteed by U.S. military aid and funding to finance it.

The targets in Gaza are typical of the kind of mass atrocities and infrastructural devastation that is covered by the Genocide Convention. Worse, by most accounts, more than two-thirds of the perished in Gaza are women, children and elderly – and the final figure is likely to prove significantly higher.

Erasing Gaza, expunging nations        

As I demonstrate in The Obliteration Doctrine, the eradication of Gaza has been predicated on a deliberately targeted campaign with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the Palestinians and the Palestinian people as a national, ethnical, and religious group. This purposeful obliteration ranges from physical devastation of critical infrastructure, urban hubs and settlements, public buildings and hospitals, to both combatants and non-combatants and the entire ecology of the environment, with Gaza devastated and uninhabitable and over 62,000 Palestinians killed and almost 160,000 injured.

Another aspect of the goal of obliteration suggests a more figurative eradication: removing something from memory. Hence, the Israeli obliteration of Palestinian museums, libraries, institutions of learning, arts and culture; or what Raphael Lemkin used to call “cultural genocide.” Out of sight, out of mind, gone forever.

Third, the Obliteration Doctrine has gone hand in hand with the concerted effort to curtail, reverse or undo future development, and thus entirely undermine all economic progress. The net impact has affinities with de-development and undevelopment, as evidenced by the plummeting of Gaza’s GDP by more than 80 percent already in mid-2024.

In the big picture, the obliteration of Gaza and the efforts to eradicate and cleanse its Palestinian residents in real time with “the whole world watching,” reflects the West’s long and dark track-record of neo-colonial mass civilian destruction.

But what has happened in Gaza won’t stay in Gaza. Left unrestrained, the Obliteration Doctrine is likely to serve as a prelude to new and far more destructive genocidal atrocities in the future.

A version of the commentary was published by TRT World on August 26, 2025. It features some excerpts from Dr. Dan Steinbock’s The Obliteration Doctrine.

Go to top

About the Author

Dr Dan SteinbockThe author of The Fall of Israel (2024) and The Obliteration Doctrine (2025), Dr Dan Steinbock, a renowned visionary 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/

Fed to Honor Court Ruling on Trump’s Attempt to Remove Cook

Federal Reserve

The Federal Reserve said Tuesday it will follow any court decision on whether President Donald Trump has the authority to dismiss Board of Governors member Lisa Cook, who vowed to fight her removal in court.

In its first public response since Trump announced Monday night that he was firing Cook over alleged mortgage fraud, the Fed stressed that she plans to challenge the move. “Cook has indicated through her personal attorney that she will promptly challenge this action in court and seek a judicial decision that would confirm her ability to continue to fulfill her responsibilities as a Senate-confirmed member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,” a spokesperson said.

The central bank avoided direct criticism of Trump but emphasized that Congress set long, fixed terms for governors and allowed removal by the president only “for cause.” The Fed noted such protections are crucial to keep monetary policy decisions focused on data and the long-term interests of Americans.

Trump told reporters Tuesday he will respect any judicial ruling on Cook’s future. “I abide by the court, yeah, I abide by the court,” he said, while adding he expects a majority of his nominees on the Fed board soon, which could help advance his calls for significant interest rate cuts.

Cook’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, said Trump “has no authority to remove” her and called the president’s attempt “illegal.” Lowell said a lawsuit will be filed to block the action, arguing the move relies on a “referral letter” without factual or legal merit. Cook said Monday she will continue working at the Fed despite Trump’s claim of removal. The Fed did not confirm whether she was working from its Washington, D.C. headquarters or remotely on Tuesday.

White House spokesman Kush Desai defended Trump’s move, saying the president acted lawfully under 12 U.S.C. 242. “The President determined there was cause to remove a governor who was credibly accused of lying in financial documents from a highly sensitive position overseeing financial institutions,” Desai said.

Any legal fight is likely to reach the Supreme Court, which could ultimately determine the limits of presidential power over Fed governors. The Fed, in its statement, reaffirmed its commitment to independence, transparency and accountability, noting it was established by Congress to promote maximum employment, stable prices and a sound financial system. “As always, the Federal Reserve will abide by any court decision,” the spokesperson said.

Related Readings:

masdaq

Go to top

Powell Signals Possible September Rate Cut, Markets Surge

Cut rate

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell boosted expectations of an interest rate cut this September, offering cautious reassurance to investors while addressing inflation risks tied to President Trump’s tariffs.

Speaking at the central bank’s annual symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, Powell suggested borrowing costs may soon ease, a shift that sent U.S. equities sharply higher. The Fed’s benchmark rate currently stands between 4.25% and 4.5%.

“In the near term, risks to inflation are tilted to the upside, and risks to employment to the downside—a challenging situation,” Powell said. He added that the inflationary impact of tariffs appears “clearly visible,” but he believes there is a “reasonable” case that price pressures will be “relatively short lived – a one-time shift in the price level.”

Powell avoided direct mention of political pressure from Trump, who has frequently demanded large rate cuts and hurled insults at the Fed chief, calling him a “numbskull” and a “stubborn moron.” The president has even floated removing Powell from his post, though legal authority for such a move remains unclear.

In his remarks, Powell stressed that monetary policy will depend solely on economic data. “Monetary policy is not on a preset course,” he said. “We will never deviate from that approach.”

Markets welcomed Powell’s comments. The S&P 500 jumped about 1.5% by the close of U.S. trading Friday. Analysts said the tone of the speech pointed toward a potential cut without fully committing.

“Chair Powell has shown he has an open mind to reading the data tea leaves,” said Brian Jacobsen, chief economist at Annex Wealth Management. Diane Swonk, chief economist at KPMG US, added, “Powell opened the door a little wider to a cut in rates in September,” though she warned that the Fed remains wary of persistent inflation.

Stephen Brown of Capital Economics said a September cut looks “almost nailed on” but noted that stronger job gains or troubling price data in August could cause a delay.

Powell’s appearance likely marks his final Jackson Hole address before his term ends in May 2026. He was appointed Fed chair by Trump in 2017. Since then, tensions between the two have escalated, with Trump recently calling for Fed Governor Lisa Cook’s resignation over alleged mortgage fraud. Cook has refused, saying she would not be “bullied” out of office.

Central banks typically cut rates to spur growth during periods of economic weakness, though they must balance that goal with keeping inflation under control. Powell reiterated that the Fed will continue weighing both risks carefully, emphasizing that decisions will rest on evidence rather than political demands.

Related Readings:

inflation tariffs

Go to top

How One Financial Firm Won the Gen AI Adoption Battle 

Financial firm with Gen AI adoption

By Dr. Gleb Tsipursky

In today’s rapidly evolving financial landscape, the integration of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI) has become imperative for firms aiming to maintain a competitive edge. However, the journey toward AI adoption is often fraught with challenges, particularly concerning employee engagement and resistance to change. A mid-sized financial services firm recently embarked on this journey, implementing a comprehensive strategy to integrate Gen AI into its operations. This case study offers valuable insights into effective methods for engaging employees and overcoming resistance during such transitions.

Key Strategies for the Gen AI Adoption Battle

Leadership anticipated potential hurdles, including employee concerns about job security, the complexity of AI tools, and a general fear of change.

The firm acknowledged that to enhance service offerings and operational efficiency, embracing Gen AI was essential. However, leadership anticipated potential hurdles, including employee concerns about job security, the complexity of AI tools, and a general fear of change. These apprehensions are common in the financial sector, where AI adoption can be perceived as a threat to traditional roles and a challenge due to regulatory fears. That’s when they turned to me to guide them through this transition.

The first step we took was to design a holistic approach to engage employees in the learning process while addressing resistance head-on. To cater to the firm’s diverse employee base, I introduced a blend of interactive learning approaches:

  • Hands-On Workshops: These sessions were carefully designed to make Gen AI tangible and relevant to employees’ day-to-day tasks. For instance, during one workshop, we demonstrated how to use AI tools to generate customer insights and identify patterns in financial data. Employees worked through real-world scenarios, enabling them to see how the technology could augment their roles rather than replace them.
  • Gamified Microlearning: Drawing on the power of gamification, we broke complex AI concepts into bite-sized lessons. Modules included point systems, leaderboards, and rewards such as gift cards, creating a sense of achievement. This not only boosted participation rates but also made learning enjoyable, even for employees who were initially wary of technology.
  • Incentives and Recognition: To further motivate employees, we tied achievements in Gen AI learning to career advancement. Certificates, digital badges, and recognition in team meetings incentivized engagement. One employee remarked during a feedback session, “I initially saw AI as a threat, but now I see it as a skill I can use to grow my career.”

Another key strategy centered on fostering a community of practice within the organization. This involved setting up regular forums where employees could share their experiences with Gen AI tools, troubleshoot issues, and celebrate successes. Peer-to-peer learning proved to be a game-changer, as employees felt supported and encouraged by colleagues who were on the same journey.

To sustain engagement, I also recommended the creation of an internal online platform. Employees could post questions, collaborate on AI projects, and access additional resources such as video tutorials and step-by-step guides. Over time, this platform became a hub for innovation and collective problem-solving.

Addressing Resistance in the Gen AI Adoption Battle

Leadership transparency was central to our approach. Resistance to change often stems from fear of the unknown, so we prioritized clear and open communication. Together with the firm’s leadership team, I organized town hall meetings and Q&A sessions to address employee concerns directly. We clarified how AI would complement, not replace, human roles, while managing risks. We emphasized the training and support available for everyone.

Through these efforts, we unearthed specific fears, such as the worry of being left behind due to a lack of technical expertise. To mitigate this, I collaborated with the firm to design tailored training programs for employees at all skill levels. By meeting employees where they were, we reduced anxiety and built trust.

To further minimize resistance, we actively involved employees in the Gen AI adoption process. Focus groups and pilot programs allowed employees to test AI tools and provide feedback on usability. For instance, during the pilot phase, a group of employees from the customer service team used Gen AI to streamline routine inquiries. Their input helped refine the technology rollout and made them feel invested in its success.

This collaborative approach also created internal champions—employees who became advocates for Gen AI within their teams. These champions played a crucial role in shifting the organizational mindset from skepticism to excitement.

Newsletters, internal forums, and team meetings highlighted how AI was driving real, positive change.

Demonstrating the value of Gen AI through measurable success was another critical step. During the initial rollout, the customer service team used AI tools to analyze customer feedback and automate responses to common queries. The results were impressive: response times improved by 30%, and customer satisfaction scores rose by over 20%.

I worked with the leadership team to share these success stories widely within the organization. Newsletters, internal forums, and team meetings highlighted how AI was driving real, positive change. These stories helped build momentum and encouraged employees in other departments to embrace the technology.

Results and Key Metrics

Within nine months, the firm had achieved significant progress:

1. High Engagement:

  • 82% of employees completed at least one Gen AI training module.
  • 68% participated in ongoing peer learning initiatives, far exceeding initial expectations.

2. Adoption Rates:

  • By the end of the implementation period, 75% of teams had integrated Gen AI tools into their workflows.
  • Productivity improved by an average of 22% across AI-enabled tasks.

3. Reduced Resistance:

  • Surveys revealed a 40% drop in negative sentiment toward AI, with many employees reporting greater confidence in their ability to use AI tools.
  • No problems materialized with financial firm’s regulators.

4. Financial Impact:

  • Improved efficiency and client services contributed to a 5% increase in net income.

Insights for Leaders in Financial Services for the Gen AI Adoption Battle

This case study underscores several key insights for leaders in the financial sector considering Gen AI integration:

  • Customized Learning Approaches: Implementing diverse and interactive training methods can cater to different learning styles, enhancing engagement and comprehension.
  • Transparent and Inclusive Communication: Open dialogues about AI’s role and impact within the organization can alleviate fears and build trust among employees.
  • Employee Involvement in Implementation: Engaging employees in the adoption process fosters a sense of ownership and reduces resistance to change.
  • Showcasing Tangible Benefits: Highlighting early successes demonstrates AI’s value, encouraging broader acceptance and enthusiasm.

By adopting a comprehensive and employee-centric approach, financial services firms can successfully navigate the complexities of Gen AI integration, leading to enhanced operational efficiency and a culture of continuous innovation.

Go to top

About the Author

Dr. Gleb TsipurskyDr. Gleb Tsipursky, called the “Office Whisperer” by The New York Times, helps SME leaders in professional and financial services transform AI hype into real-world results. He serves as the CEO of the future-of-work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts. Dr. Gleb wrote seven best-selling books, and his two most recent ones are Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams and ChatGPT for Leaders and Content Creators: Unlocking the Potential of Generative AI. His cutting-edge thought leadership was featured in over 650 articles and 550 interviews in Harvard Business Review, Inc. Magazine, USA Today, CBS News, Fox News, Time, Business Insider, Fortune, The New York Times, and elsewhere. His writing was translated into Chinese, Spanish, Russian, Polish, Korean, French, Vietnamese, German, and other languages. His expertise comes from over 20 years of consulting, coaching, and speaking and training for Fortune 500 companies from Aflac to Xerox. It also comes from over 15 years in academia as a behavioral scientist, with 8 years as a lecturer at UNC-Chapel Hill and 7 years as a professor at Ohio State. A proud Ukrainian American, Dr. Gleb lives in Columbus, Ohio.

Resetting the Culture Code for the Generative AI Era

Office workers using technology in the workplace to adopt AI

By Dr. Gleb Tsipursky

Organizations today face a pivotal challenge: integrating transformative technologies like Generative AI (Gen AI) while maintaining the values, trust, and collaboration that define their culture. Gen AI is not just a tool for efficiency—it’s a disruptor that reshapes how people work, communicate, and solve problems. However, without a corresponding cultural transformation, the full potential of Gen AI will remain out of reach.

Without a corresponding cultural transformation, the full potential of Gen AI will remain out of reach.

Resetting the culture code is about more than adopting technology; it’s about redefining how organizations collaborate, innovate, and align their actions with their core mission. This cultural reset ensures that employees and stakeholders see AI as an ally in achieving shared goals rather than a source of disruption or inequity.

Why Culture Code Matters in the Gen AI Era

Culture is the invisible framework that dictates how an organization operates, from how decisions are made to how conflicts are resolved. Introducing Gen AI without adjusting the culture can create confusion, resistance, and unintended consequences. Employees may fear job loss, misunderstand how AI tools function, or distrust the fairness of AI-driven decisions.

Resetting the culture code ensures that AI adoption is thoughtful, inclusive, and ethical. It builds trust by fostering transparency, encouraging collaboration, and embedding a commitment to equity and accountability. This approach not only smooths the transition to AI but also empowers teams to thrive in an era of rapid technological change.

The Pillars of a Gen AI-Ready Culture Code

  1. Collaboration Across Boundaries: Gen AI creates new opportunities for collaboration, both within teams and across silos. However, technology alone cannot guarantee success—organizations must cultivate a culture of transparency and shared purpose, where employees feel encouraged to work together toward common goals.
  2. Inclusion in Innovation: AI systems can unintentionally replicate and amplify biases if not carefully managed. An inclusive culture ensures that all voices are heard, particularly those from underrepresented groups, in both the design and implementation of AI tools. This promotes fairness and makes AI a force for equity rather than division, while managing risks.
  3. Ethical Leadership: Organizations must lead by example in how they adopt and use AI. This includes setting clear ethical standards, ensuring accountability, and building trust among employees, customers, and stakeholders. Ethical leadership demonstrates that technology will always serve human values, not the other way around.
  4. Continuous Learning and Adaptability: AI evolves rapidly, and so must the people who work with it. Organizations need a culture that celebrates learning and adaptability, encouraging employees to experiment with new tools, embrace change, and grow their skills.

Case Study: Resetting the Culture Code in a Mid-Sized Organization

As a consultant, I worked with a mid-sized financial services firm struggling to integrate Gen AI tools into its workflows. While leadership saw the potential for AI to improve efficiency and decision-making, employees expressed fear and skepticism, worried about being replaced or marginalized by the technology.

To address these challenges, we implemented a strategic framework to reset the organization’s culture code:

  1. Engaging Leadership at All Levels: We began with workshops for executives and team leaders to define a shared vision for AI adoption. By framing AI as a tool for amplifying human creativity and productivity, we helped leadership articulate a message of empowerment rather than displacement.
  2. Building Trust Through Transparency: Employees were given clear, jargon-free explanations of how AI would be used, including its limitations and safeguards. For example, the organization committed to auditing AI-driven decisions regularly to ensure fairness and accuracy.
  3. Fostering Inclusion and Collaboration: Cross-functional teams were established to explore AI use cases, ensuring that diverse perspectives were incorporated into decision-making. This included employees from various departments, career stages, and demographics.
  4. Creating Feedback Mechanisms: Employees were encouraged to share their experiences and concerns through structured feedback channels. Leadership used this input to refine AI policies and address pain points, demonstrating a commitment to continuous improvement.
  5. Aligning AI Adoption with Core Values: The company developed an AI ethics policy that aligned with its mission to promote innovation and integrity. This policy became a cornerstone of the culture code, guiding decisions at every level.

The results were remarkable. Within six months, employee engagement surveys showed a significant increase in trust and optimism regarding AI, growing from 24% having a positive impression to 71%. Productivity improved by 23% as repetitive tasks were automated, and teams began using AI to enhance creative and strategic work. The organization also gained recognition as a thought leader in ethical AI adoption in the financial industry in their region, bolstering its reputation among clients and partners.

Cross-Functional and Diverse Teams: The Heart of the Culture Code

Resetting the culture code for Gen AI must address the unique dynamics of cross-functional teams and diverse workforces. Different departments and demographics may have varying levels of comfort with AI, and it’s essential to provide tailored support.

For example, marketing teams may use AI to analyze consumer behavior and optimize campaigns, while operations teams focus on automating logistics. Similarly, younger employees might quickly embrace AI tools, while seasoned professionals may need more training to see their value. A culture code that respects these differences fosters inclusivity and ensures that everyone benefits from AI.

Overcoming Resistance: A Cultural Challenge

Resistance to AI is often less about the technology itself and more about the fear of change. Resetting the culture code requires addressing this resistance with empathy, education, and clear communication.

Sharing stories of how AI enhances, rather than replaces, human work can help shift perceptions.

Organizations can overcome these challenges by celebrating early successes, such as AI-driven projects that save time or improve outcomes. Sharing stories of how AI enhances, rather than replaces, human work can help shift perceptions. Training programs that focus on practical, hands-on applications of AI further demystify the technology and build confidence.

Leading by Example: Organizations as AI Trailblazers

Every organization has the potential to be a leader in responsible AI adoption. By resetting their culture codes, organizations can model how to integrate technology thoughtfully and ethically, setting a standard for their industries and inspiring trust among employees and customers.

This leadership extends beyond internal operations. Organizations can develop thought leadership content, host workshops, and partner with experts to share best practices for AI adoption. By doing so, they not only enhance their own credibility but also contribute to the broader conversation about the future of work.

Conclusion: A Culture Code for the Future

Resetting the culture code for the Generative AI era is about more than technology—it’s about people. By fostering collaboration, inclusion, ethical leadership, and continuous learning, organizations can turn the challenges of AI adoption into opportunities for growth and innovation. With a strong culture code, AI becomes not a disruptor, but a partner in achieving greater success.

As a consultant specializing in this transformation, I’ve seen firsthand how organizations can harness the power of AI while staying true to their values. With the right culture code, organizations can unlock new possibilities, inspire their teams, and lead the way into a brighter future.

Go to top

About the Author

Dr. Gleb TsipurskyDr. Gleb Tsipursky, called the “Office Whisperer” by The New York Times, helps SME leaders in professional and financial services transform AI hype into real-world results. He serves as the CEO of the future-of-work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts. Dr. Gleb wrote seven best-selling books, and his two most recent ones are Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams and ChatGPT for Leaders and Content Creators: Unlocking the Potential of Generative AI. His cutting-edge thought leadership was featured in over 650 articles and 550 interviews in Harvard Business Review, Inc. Magazine, USA Today, CBS News, Fox News, Time, Business Insider, Fortune, The New York Times, and elsewhere. His writing was translated into Chinese, Spanish, Russian, Polish, Korean, French, Vietnamese, German, and other languages. His expertise comes from over 20 years of consulting, coaching, and speaking and training for Fortune 500 companies from Aflac to Xerox. It also comes from over 15 years in academia as a behavioral scientist, with 8 years as a lecturer at UNC-Chapel Hill and 7 years as a professor at Ohio State. A proud Ukrainian American, Dr. Gleb lives in Columbus, Ohio.

1...606162...1,125Page 61 of 1,125

EDITOR'S PICK OF THE WEEK

CFO's new mandate. CFO explaining the presentation

The Performance and Transformation Orchestrator: The CFO’s New Mandate in the Age of AI

Anglea 0
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...
Read more

WISE DECISION MAKER GUIDE

POWER INFLUENCERS

Emerging Trends

BUSINESS AND INNOVATION

FINANCE & BANKING

The Future of Global Trade

© 2025 The World Financial Review | Empowering communication globally