The United Nations finalized a landmark cybercrime agreement aimed at establishing global standards for combating cyber threats, including hacking, fraud, and data breaches. Critics, including cybersecurity researchers and human rights advocates, warn that the treaty’s vague language could be exploited by authoritarian governments to suppress dissent, criminalize legitimate research, and restrict free speech under the guise of cybercrime prevention. Supporters argue it fosters international cooperation to tackle rising cyber threats, such as ransomware and state-sponsored hacking, which have surged in recent years. We remain deeply concerned about attempts to leverage the need for safety to implement surveillance and policing regimes that contradict the right to free expression and widespread access to the internet.

Pakistan is actively pursuing membership in the BRICS economic bloc, leveraging its close ties with China to gain support despite anticipated opposition from India due to longstanding geopolitical tensions. The push aligns with Pakistan’s strategy to integrate into the BRICS financial system, including the New Development Bank, to secure economic benefits and counterbalance Western financial influence, especially amid U.S. sanctions on Cuba, which Pakistan sees as a model for alternative financial alignments. Pakistan’s application, discussed at the 2025 BRICS summit, aims to bolster its struggling economy through access to new trade and investment opportunities. The growth and development of BRICS hopefully provide an opportunity for a reset, and in that vein, we hope India can find ways to reconcile an alignment with Pakistan despite their complex and violent history.

The International Monetary Fund projects a slowdown in Asia’s economic growth for 2025 and 2026, driven by looming U.S. tariffs and a weakening U.S. dollar, which could disrupt regional trade dynamics. The IMF warns that protectionist policies, particularly tariffs on Chinese goods, could reduce Asia’s GDP growth by up to 0.5%, affecting export-driven economies like South Korea and Singapore. To counter these risks, the IMF urges Asian nations to dismantle trade barriers and deepen regional integration through agreements like the RCEP to enhance economic resilience. There is much speculation that much of the purported economic growth in the Far East has been a result of misleading data reporting and that they will not be able to sustain the damages incurred through this economic clash with the United States. In due time, we will all see who is swimming naked, to borrow a phrase from Warren Buffett.

September 2025 Consumer Price Index data indicate a significant slowdown in inflation, dropping to 2.4% annually, offering the Federal Reserve room to maintain current interest rates without immediate hikes. This cooling trend, driven by lower energy prices and stabilized supply chains, aligns with the Fed’s goal of keeping inflation at 2% and reduces fears of rapid increases in the cost of goods despite earlier concerns over global commodity price spikes. However, analysts caution that trade tensions, particularly with China, and potential oil market volatility could reignite inflationary pressures, requiring vigilant monitoring. Perhaps we can take this moment to remind you that we take the radical policy position that the Federal Reserve is an illegitimate institution and ought to be abolished.

A looming federal government shutdown, triggered by stalled budget negotiations in Congress, endangers SNAP and WIC benefits for 42 million Americans, with funding potentially expiring by November 1. The disruption threatens to halt food assistance for low-income families, exacerbating hunger and straining food banks already stretched thin by rising demand. States may struggle to cover gaps, as EBT systems face delays, and WIC’s nutritional support for pregnant women and children could be suspended. Lawmakers remain divided, with no clear resolution, raising alarms about the broader economic and social fallout of prolonged funding disputes on vulnerable populations. Given the hyperpolarization of our political sphere due to the failure of the two-party system, we might not see politicians fold even under the political pressure that comes from millions of Americans no longer knowing how they’ll be able to afford to eat.

President Trump has deployed the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group to the Caribbean to target Venezuelan drug cartels, asserting that congressional approval is unnecessary for these military operations, citing executive authority under existing anti-terrorism laws. The strikes aim to dismantle narco-trafficking networks linked to fentanyl smuggling, but critics, including legal scholars and lawmakers, argue this bypasses constitutional checks, risking escalation with Venezuela and regional instability. Trump’s rhetoric, emphasizing direct action to “kill” cartel operatives, has drawn scrutiny for its aggressive tone and potential diplomatic fallout with Canada and other allies. It’s not the tough talk or the hard-on-crime stance that’s troublesome here; it’s that this represents a continuation of the inability of the U.S. federal government to constrain its imperial ambitions in the Americas.

Washington Governor Bob Ferguson has signed an executive order mandating that state agencies consult with Native American tribes in an effort to address the state’s historical failures in collaboration on land, water, and resource management. The directive establishes a framework for regular tribal consultations, aiming to resolve disputes over treaty rights, environmental protection, and economic development projects like salmon restoration. Tribal leaders have welcomed the move but stress the need for concrete actions, such as increased funding for tribal programs. Perhaps Washington can provide a model for how to create institutional mechanisms to ensure these quasi-sovereign nations are able to interact with U.S. political institutions in ways that don’t seem dismissive or disingenuous.

A federal judge in Nevada paused an order disqualifying Sigal Chattah as acting U.S. attorney, pending an appeal, as questions persist about her legal eligibility due to alleged procedural irregularities in her appointment. The controversy centers on whether Chattah, a Republican with a history of challenging election results, meets federal requirements to oversee cases, potentially affecting high-profile prosecutions in the state. The pause allows her to continue serving temporarily, but critics argue it undermines judicial integrity, while supporters claim the challenge is politically motivated. Procedure matters, and no matter the outcome in this case, it is good to see that some elements in the judiciary remain committed to principles over politics.

San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie successfully negotiated with President Trump to halt the deployment of federal troops to the city, proposed to address rising crime and homelessness, by offering enhanced local law enforcement measures instead. The agreement includes federal funding for community policing and social programs, aiming to balance public safety with local autonomy. Critics of the initial plan warned that federal intervention could escalate tensions and erode civil liberties, while supporters argued it was necessary to curb urban decay. This is what cooperation can look like, and we will continue to call for local governments to cooperate with the federal government if they don’t want to see federal policing in their cities.

Aurora’s city council voted to implement AI-based facial recognition technology for police, citing its potential to solve crimes like robbery and violent assaults by cross-referencing surveillance footage with databases. In contrast, Denver residents and council members are resisting similar technology, particularly Flock cameras, due to privacy concerns, fearing mass surveillance and misidentification, especially of marginalized groups. Aurora’s decision includes oversight measures like audit logs, but critics argue these are insufficient to prevent abuse. It is very interesting to see the difference in reaction to the implementation of these tools by both public officials and residents at large.