Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in workplaces is resulting in lower productivity due to employees using them to create substandard output, according to a Sept. 22 analysis published in the Harvard Business Review.

“A confusing contradiction is unfolding in companies embracing generative AI tools: while workers are largely following mandates to embrace the technology, few are seeing it create real value,” the report said.

The analysis, conducted by researchers from Stanford Social Media Lab and behavioral research lab BetterUp, identified a possible reason why this was happening.

Employees were using the AI tools to create “low-effort, passable looking work” that ended up generating more work for other employees.

Researchers term such content “workslop” defined as “AI generated work content that masquerades as good work, but lacks the substance to meaningfully advance a given task.”

The “insidious effect” of workslop is that the receiver of such content is burdened with interpreting, correcting, and redoing the work, according to the report.

In a survey of 1,150 U.S.-based full-time employees conducted by researchers, 40 percent said they had received inferior quality work in the past month.

“The phenomenon occurs mostly between peers (40 percent), but workslop is also sent to managers by direct reports (18 percent),” it said.

“Sixteen percent of the time workslop flows down the ladder, from managers to their teams, or even from higher up than that. Workslop occurs across industries, but we found that professional services and technology are disproportionately impacted.”

Employees in the survey said they had to spend one hour and 56 minutes on average to deal with a single instance of workslop.

Researchers calculated that unsatisfactory work results in an “invisible tax” of $186 per month, which for an organization with 10,000 workers translates into more than $9 million in lost productivity annually, it said.

“When we asked participants in our study how it feels to receive workslop, 53 percent report being annoyed, 38 percent confused, and 22 percent offended,” the report states.

“Approximately half of the people we surveyed viewed colleagues who sent workslop as less creative, capable, and reliable than they did before receiving the output. Forty-two percent saw them as less trustworthy, and 37 percent saw that colleague as less intelligent.”

While Stanford Social Media Lab and BetterUp research show that AI is negatively affecting productivity, a Sept. 8 report by Penn Wharton projects artificial intelligence to boost productivity and GDP by 1.5 percent by 2035, rising to 3.7 percent by 2075.

“AI’s boost to annual productivity growth is strongest in the early 2030s but eventually fades, with a permanent effect of less than 0.04 percentage points due to sectoral shifts,” Penn Wharton said in the report.

The top occupations exposed to AI automation were identified to be office and administrative support, business and finance operations, computer and mathematical, and sales and related jobs.

In contrast, occupations least exposed to AI automation were building and grounds cleaning and maintenance operations; construction and extraction sectors; farming, fishing, and forestry jobs; and installation, maintenance, and repair works.

Sophie, a robot using artificial intelligence from Hanson Robotics, shares a high five with a visitor during the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) AI for Good Global Summit in Geneva, on July 8, 2025. Valentin Flauraud/AFP via Getty Images

In an Aug. 13 report, Goldman Sachs said that AI-related innovation could displace 6–7 percent of America’s workforce if the technology is adopted widely.

Goldman sees such an impact as “transitory,” since jobs created via such technologies are expected to employ people in other roles.

“Despite concerns about widespread job losses, AI adoption is expected to have only a modest and relatively temporary impact on employment levels,” the report said. “Goldman Sachs Research estimates that unemployment will increase by half a percentage point during the AI transition period as displaced workers seek new positions.”

An Aug. 26 research paper from Stanford University estimated that early-career employees, those in the age group of 22–25, faced a disproportionate threat of job loss from widespread generative AI adoption.

These workers have experienced a 13 percent relative decline in employment in most occupations exposed to AI, the authors wrote.

“In contrast, employment for workers in less exposed fields and more experienced workers in the same occupations has remained stable or continued to grow,” it said.

A report from Anthropic reveals AI to possess a more deceptive attitude when it faced scenarios where the tech was assigned to be updated to the latest version or when the AI’s assigned goal conflicted with the company’s changing direction.

After a modest increase two months ago, and a steady print in July, analysts expected headline PCE to be steady at +2.6% YoY in August and Core PCE – the Fed’s favorite indicator – to also be unchanged at 2.9% YoY… and the numbers all came in right in line with expectations.

Indeed, “as expected” is the them of this morning’s data with headline and Core PCE both matching expectations and staying in the same range they have been in for two years… not exactly the Trump Tariff terror future that every “respected” economist predicted.

• PCE 0.3% MoM, Exp. 0.3%, in line
• PCE 2.7% YoY, Exp. 2.7%, in line
   
• PCE Core 0.2% MoM, Exp. 0.2%, in line
• PCE Core 2.9% YoY, Exp. 2.9%, in line

On an annual basis headline PCE was flat at 2.741%, while core PCE actually dipped modestly to 2.905 in August.

All those expecting a bounce in Durable Goods inflation will have to wait another month: in August it actually declined again, as did Nondurable Goods, while Services costs increased the most.

Headline PCE rose 0.2% MoM (as expected) and +2.6% YoY (as expected)…

Core PCE rose 0.3% MoM (as expected) and +2.9% YoY (as expected)…

For the second month in a row, Financial Services costs (i.e., soaring stock market and associated services) dominated SuperCore prices (and certainly have nothing to do with tariffs at all). Food services and transportation costs also boosted Supercore.

While prices are rising but in their recent normal range, income and spending both came in a fraction hotter than expected, up 0.4% MoM (above exp. 0.3%) and 0.6% MoM (above exp. 0.5%) respectively…

The historical change in personal income and spending in nominal dollars is shown below. The Covid breach is still brutally clear. 

On the income side, there was more good news: after outpacing the private sector for nearly three years, wage growth of private workers (5.0% YoY) is once again rising faster than government workers. In fact, government worker wage growth of 4.2% was the lowest since August 2021.

With spending growth outpacing income, it naturally meant that consumer had to dig into their savings, and sure enough the personal savings rate dropped to a new 2025 low of 4.6% from 4.8%, which in turns follows the comprehensive data revision published yesterday, and which lifted the savings rate by about 1% across the board historically (the various data revisions are shown below).

Yet while it dipped, it is isn’t exactly screaming that the US consumer is struggling with a savings rate at 4.6% of disposable personal income.

The Baby Boomer generation is arguably the richest in history, averaging $1 million in wealth per person in America.

Thanks to decades of strong economic growth and falling interest rates, America’s Boomer generation holds more than half of all of the country’s wealth. Notably, they make up only a fifth of the population.

This chart, via Visual Capitalist’s Dorothy Neufeld, shows U.S. household wealth distribution by generation, using data from the UBS Global Wealth Report 2025.

Breaking Down Wealth Distribution by Generation in 2025

Below, we show the distribution of assets owned, net of mortgage debt in 2025:

In 2025, Americans hold a combined $163.1 trillion in wealth, with Baby Boomers accounting for $83.3 trillion.

For Boomers, the largest share comes from financial assets (29.3%), followed by real estate net of debt (23.3%). Today, the youngest Boomers are turning 60 or 61, with the generation approaching peak wealth accumulation as they exit the workforce.

Generation X—now ages 45 to 60—holds $42.6 trillion, roughly half the wealth of Boomers. This gap reflects slower income growth compounded by weaker stock market performance in the years following the dot-com bust.

Importantly, these years overlapped with Gen X’s prime earning period. In comparison, Boomers benefited from a fourfold surge in financial markets during their 30s, accelerating their wealth growth.

For Millennials and Gen Z—those born after 1981—total wealth stands at $17.1 trillion. Interestingly, private business assets (10.8%) makes up a bigger part of their wealth than other generations, suggesting an entrepreneurial edge relative to older generations today.

To learn more about this topic, check out this graphic on global population projections by generation in 2035.

Authored by Guy Birchall via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Apple urged the European Union on Sept. 24 to revise the bloc’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), saying the legislation is hindering its ability to serve customers.

The company stated that users in the EU are experiencing delays in new features and facing increased privacy and security risks as a result of the legislation.

“It’s been more than a year since the Digital Markets Act was implemented,” Apple said in a statement. “Over that time, it’s become clear that the DMA is leading to a worse experience for Apple users in the EU.

“It’s exposing them to new risks, and disrupting the simple, seamless way their Apple products work together. And as new technologies come out, our European users’ Apple products will only fall further behind.”

Apple submitted its comments as the European Commission reviews the law, the first time the DMA has been assessed for its effectiveness. The commission, which acts as the 27-nation bloc’s executive branch, invited stakeholder feedback until Sept. 24 to help with the assessment.

According to the EU, the DMA is focused on regulating the gatekeeping power of the largest digital companies and ensuring fair and open digital markets, whether they are established within or outside the EU.

Companies can be fined by up to 10 percent of their annual worldwide revenue

for a first offense and up to 20 percent for repeat violations.

Apple called on the commission to reassess how the law was affecting EU citizens who use the company’s devices and services, saying it will continue to work to bring new features to market while still meeting the legal requirements placed upon it.

Among the issues the tech giant based in Cupertino, California, said the DMA had thrown up was the forced postponement of several features within the bloc, including iPhone mirroring to Mac and live translation with AirPods.

Apple also said location-based features in Apple Maps had to be delayed in the EU because the DMA requires certain features to work with non-Apple products and third-party developers before they are put on the market.

The company stated that it has still not found a way to comply with the act’s requirements without compromising user data, and that its proposed safeguards had been rejected by the commission.

“It’s become clear that we can’t solve every problem the DMA creates,” Apple stated. “Over time, it’s become clear that the DMA isn’t helping markets. It’s making it harder to do business in Europe.”

In June, Apple changed rules and fees in its EU App Store to comply with the bloc’s antitrust order, which requires large tech companies to open up their platforms to competitors.

Apple said this has led to a “riskier, less intuitive” experience for users and has introduced new threats such as scams and malware.

The company also said it has led to pornography apps appearing on the App Store, something Apple had previously banned.

Apple’s submission to the commission came the same day that the U.S. ambassador to the EU, Andrew Puzder, also criticized both the DMA and its sister legislation, the Digital Services Act, in comments to The Epoch Times.

“The way the law is written, it looks facially neutral because it says it applies to companies with over a certain level of revenue,“ Puzder said. ”But the reality is that those are primarily American companies, and so the regulations hit American companies hard.

“When a company like Facebook or Twitter or X has to change its algorithm, and that algorithm might impact the free speech rights of Americans, that’s something that we really can’t tolerate. I know [U.S. President Donald Trump] is not going to allow a foreign government to restrict the free speech rights of American citizens in ways that even our own government couldn’t restrict them.”

Earlier in September, Trump threatened to initiate a trade investigation to “nullify” fines imposed by the EU against U.S. tech giants, including Apple and Google.

He said the trade bloc was “effectively taking money that would otherwise go to American investments and jobs.”

The Epoch Times contacted the European Commission for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

Kevin Stocklin contributed to this report.

Amid all the threats and counterthreats related to warnings NATO is prepared to shoot down Russian aircraft this week, Germany has in a major policy U-turn called for the European Union to use frozen Russian assets to help fund Ukraine’s defense.

Berlin’s stance the whole time Europe has tried to gain consensus on this issue was marked by prior reluctance, but German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in a newly published op-ed for the Financial Times said the bloc needs to urgently establish a legal framework through which to unlock the assets, calling it essential to “systematically and massively raise the costs of Russia’s aggression.”

He laid out his plea for the loan to be directed toward military aid, with procurement decisions made jointly by EU member states and Ukraine, based on utilizing the €194 billion in frozen Russian assets held at Euroclear, Belgium’s central securities depository.

The fact that Germany as Europe’s largest economy is now on board is likely to both vigorously renew the debate and give fresh momentum to the hawks. Recall that a big European holdout remains France and President Emmanuel Macron, who said in Sunday interview with CBS News that confiscating frozen Russian assets would constitute a violation of international law. 

Macron, already facing a political crisis at home, tried put a lid on these discussions. “You cannot seize these assets from the (Russian) Central Bank even in such a situation. And I think it’s a matter of credibility, and it’s very important that our countries remain… and do respect the international laws,” he said.

And so this has left European governments and G7 allies exploring ways to generate revenue from these immobilized funds without outright seizing them, which would have legal and political ramifications, as well as ‘blowback’ as much of the globe’s trust in Western institutions would further erode.

The Kremlin has already long warned that any such use of its frozen assets “will not go unanswered”. But this is not scaring Merz away, who newly argues that Europe must demonstrate “greater staying power” in the war in order to force the Kremlin to the negotiating table while giving Kiev more leverage.

Merz wrote that “This must not hold us back” in reference to the lingering legal hurdles, urging the EU to consider “circumventing these problems.”

“I am advocating the mobilization of financial resources on a scale that will secure Ukraine’s military resilience for several years,” he spelled out. He outlined the following plan:

The German chancellor is now seeking to use $160 billion in a loan for Kyiv. The sum would be made available to Ukraine as an interest-free loan that would be “repaid once Russia has compensated Ukraine for the damage” the war has caused.

…Under Merz’ proposal, Ukraine would only be allowed to use the funds for the procurement of weapons, and not for budgetary purposes.

The payments to Kyiv would be made in instalments and EU states, in conjunction with Ukraine, would then determine “which material is procured.” Merz added that he felt this mechanism would also help to “strengthen and expand” Europe’s own defense industry.

In essence it would involve taking billions of euros of Russian state cash held in Belgium, transferring it to Ukraine, and then replacing the drawdown with EU-backed bonds.

BREAKING:

Danish media reveals that a Russian Navy Ropucha-class landing ship, Aleksandr Shabalin has been spotted by helicopter ~12 km off southern Langeland/Lolland in Denmark with its AIS transponder switched off.

It has been loitering there for days during Denmark’s drone… pic.twitter.com/IH6MWAoIv9

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) September 25, 2025

One diplomat has described the idea as “legally creative” as replacing the taken funds with IOUs would beat accusations of illegally confiscating property of the Russian state.

Authored by Gregg Roman via The Epoch Times,

At the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin, China, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian shook hands, announcing a strategic drift with operational consequences that Washington and NATO can no longer ignore.

The SCO is a bloc built by Beijing and Moscow to counter Western power. Iran has been a full member since 2023. Turkey, a NATO ally, attended as a dialogue partner and lent the alliance’s credibility to a forum designed to oppose the United States.

The implications are concrete. Political theater at the SCO translates into permissive space for logistics, finance, and technology flows that erode sanctions and complicate allied coordination. Ankara’s engagement offers Tehran diplomatic oxygen, potential economic channels, and a path to normalize cooperation.

The operational question is not Ankara’s rhetoric but what capabilities and relationships this forum enables. If Turkish ministries, state‑owned enterprises, or defense companies use SCO mechanisms to expand contact with Russian and Iranian counterparts, the result will be stress on export controls, financial compliance, and intelligence deconfliction.

Defenders will call the maneuver pragmatic nonalignment. They will argue that Turkey balances among centers of power to maximize leverage. That case ignores scale and direction. When a NATO ally lends political cover to a bloc positioned against the United States, and does so alongside a U.S.-designated state sponsor of terrorism, the cost is not theoretical. It appears in blurred compliance lines, contested technology transfer, and allied planning that must discount Turkish reliability at the margin. The problem is not Turkey’s desire for autonomy; it is the friction imposed on collective defense when autonomy is performed on stages designed by Beijing and Moscow.

Washington should move from unease to policy. The U.S. State Department should formally request that Ankara explain the commitments it has made or intends to make under SCO auspices, including any participation in security or law enforcement coordination with Moscow or Tehran. That record matters because allied planners need to know whether Turkey is volunteering to sit in rooms where Western adversaries shape counter‑U.S. strategy. The U.S. Congress should open a review of security and financial assistance to Turkey and condition future support on verifiable alignment with NATO’s posture, including tighter oversight of export‑controlled technology, defense industrial cooperation, and access to U.S. financing.

NATO must also conduct an urgent compartmentalization assessment. The SCO signal requires a tighter calibration of who accesses what and when. Planning for air and missile defense, maritime posture in the Eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea, and joint intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance should be stress‑tested against scenarios in which Turkish equities diverge from allied priorities. That is prudence, not provocation. If not, the alliance will have built guardrails to protect sources, methods, and warfighting coherence.

This is a moment to speak to Turkish interests. The United States should make clear that the benefits Ankara seeks—modernization of its air fleet, deeper industrial collaboration, privileged intelligence and training pipelines—depend on choices that reinforce, not erode, the coalition deterring Russia and constraining Iran. Strategic ambiguity may serve domestic politics in Ankara, but it is incompatible with alliance systems that depend on trust. The price of trying to arbitrate between blocs is that both will question reliability; the side that runs the institutions you need will act on that doubt.

None of this requires hostility toward Turkey or indifference to its legitimate security concerns. It requires clarity about the consequences of choices. Ankara sits at the hinge of Europe, the Middle East, and the Caucasus, and wants room to maneuver. But depth is not neutrality. When that maneuver space is used to legitimize forums that consolidate the power of Russia, China, and Iran, the maneuver becomes a vector for adversaries. The result is not leverage for Turkey; it is leverage for those who prefer a divided alliance.

The handshake in Tianjin is therefore a decision trigger. Washington and NATO do not need to overreact, but they do need to decide whether to treat this as business as usual or as a signal that Turkey’s calculus is shifting in ways that require a reassessment of the security relationship. Contingency planning should begin: alternative basing and logistics routes for critical missions, tighter technology sharing, and a framework for reconstituting cooperation if Ankara chooses to reaffirm its commitments. If, instead, Ankara deepens its ties to the SCO’s orbit, the alliance should be ready to operate with a Turkey that is formally in NATO but functionally semi-aligned with a rival bloc. Designing for that possibility today will protect allied deterrence tomorrow.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Porsche AG shares fell almost 10% last week—the steepest drop since its 2022 debut—after the carmaker scaled back its electric-vehicle ambitions. The stock is down nearly 30% this year and will fall out of Germany’s benchmark DAX index. Parent company Volkswagen also slid 8.4%, its sharpest drop in more than two years, according to Bloomberg.

The 911 maker scrapped plans for a battery-powered luxury SUV and will instead expand its lineup of combustion-engine and hybrid cars. The shift triggered a €1.8 billion hit to operating profit, Porsche’s fourth profit warning this year, and pushed both Porsche and VW to cut their earnings outlooks. VW also flagged a €3 billion impairment tied to the move, lowering its forecast for operating return on sales to just 2% to 3%, down from as much as 5%.

Bloomberg writes that auto buyers “are putting little value on luxury electric cars,” said Matthias Schmidt, an independent analyst near Hamburg. “Porsche has now realized this and is jumping back into high-margin combustion-engine models.”

The setback underscores the wider struggles of Germany’s auto sector. Porsche faces weak demand in China, where local champion BYD dominates EVs, and has been hit hard by U.S. tariffs in its largest market. Luxury spending is muted, and analysts say Porsche has disappointed investors since its blockbuster listing. “Porsche has now been disappointing investors for over two years,” Citi’s Harald Hendrikse wrote. “It is hard to conclude that these disappointments have now completed.”

Volkswagen, once an EV frontrunner, is also scaling back battery plans and restructuring to cut costs. While VW outsold Tesla, Stellantis and BYD in Europe this year with several affordable EVs, its premium brands—Audi, Bentley, Lamborghini and Ducati—have weakened, with shipments falling across major markets.

Porsche has already replaced executives, scrapped its in-house battery program, and announced job cuts to reduce costs. But the crisis is fueling calls for CEO Oliver Blume—who leads both Porsche and VW—to step aside from running Porsche so a new leader can attempt a turnaround.

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

Germany’s disastrous industrial and energy policies are driving companies abroad in droves. Interestingly, Hungary, a country frequently maligned in German media, has emerged as a preferred location for investors.

German mainstream media regularly take aim at Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. His unflinching skepticism toward Brussels’ meddling, his uncompromising stance on migration, and his steadfast commitment to affordable Russian gas have brought him into open confrontation with both Berlin and the EU Commission. You can almost set your watch by it: when Brussels says A, Orbán responds with B. He holds up a mirror to the EU’s ideological strategies—and in doing so has become the biggest disruptor in Europe’s political consensus machinery.

Nearly every domestic policy decision he makes is under scrutiny, regularly attracting criticism from a press that typically pays little attention to Eastern European affairs. From controversial media laws to a fully understandable approach to NGOs—often used as tools to pressure governments through staged internal conflicts and mass demonstrations—the outrage in Germany is constant.

In this way, tiny Hungary, with its 9.6 million inhabitants—roughly half the size of North Rhine-Westphalia—shakes Europe’s political landscape significantly.

Propaganda vs. Reality

German media coverage has skillfully painted a distorted picture of Hungary: Orbán as a semi-dictatorial ruler, the country entirely subject to the will of his Fidesz party. In short: a place too risky to invest without sleepless nights. The reality, however, tells a very different story. Over the years, Hungary has become a true magnet for capital—including German money and multi-billion euro corporate investments.

Last year alone, Hungary recorded a surplus in foreign direct investment of around €10 billion. Remarkably, roughly 80% of this capital, which flows directly into new factories, jobs, and expansion of existing production capacities, comes from China, Japan, and South Korea.

This has quickly become another point of criticism for the von der Leyen Commission. Budapest is accused of serving as a gateway for Chinese influence in Europe. Yet the simple fact—that Hungary offers decisive advantages over other European countries—never seems to occur to Brussels.

Hungary as the Last Resort

For German politicians who enjoy moralizing about Hungary, it must sting: the German automotive industry sees its future in Hungary. The recently struggling ZF Friedrichshafen chose Hungary, as did Thyssenkrupp, Bosch, and Audi—active in Győr since 1993, with cumulative investments exceeding €8 billion. The facility alone created 12,000 jobs; Audi became the region’s largest employer, producing engines for global markets, with a strong focus on electric drives.

The same holds true for Mercedes in Kecskemét: €1 billion went into expanding e-mobility production, creating 4,400 new jobs.

BMW in Debrecen has invested €2 billion, created 1,000 jobs, and established an entire supplier value chain—the start of fully electric model production is planned for later this year.

The electric revolution that Germany tried to impose by bureaucratic decree is now unfolding in Hungary—thanks to far better conditions. A cynic might say: to get a snapshot of Germany’s innovative industrial landscape, one simply has to go to Hungary.

Hungary’s Advantages

Economically, it was only a matter of time before Hungary became a safe haven. With a flat corporate tax of just 9%, it leaves Germany, with its top tax rates—including trade tax, corporate tax, and solidarity surcharge (not yet fully abolished)—and rates approaching 30%, far behind.

Hungary also wins on energy costs: industrial electricity is around €0.103/kWh, far below German levels; households pay over 75% less.

Skilled labor is abundant, and education systems are aligned with the needs of modern industrial companies. Hungary pursues active subsidy and industrial policies to attract international companies. While understandable in a context of rising global competition, such intervention is, from a market perspective, unnecessary given Hungary’s natural advantages.

Massive Imbalances

The stark contrast between Brussels and Berlin’s regulatory obsession and Hungary’s business-friendly policies—which continue to leverage Russian gas despite sabotage attempts—will likely accelerate capital flight from Germany. Ideally, Hungary should hold a mirror up to German policymakers. Yet the government of Chancellor Friedrich Merz appears determined to maintain Brussels’ eco-socialist course despite Germany’s economic decline.

Hungary’s projected new debt of over 4% this year, with total debt at 73% of GDP, should be enough for Orbán to scale back subsidies. Neighboring states—and Europe overall—are already trapped in spiraling debt. With a government share of 47%, Hungary is approaching European averages—the state must also be trimmed here.

Foreign investment provides ample room to consolidate without falling into the debt trap that ensnares many European states.

Ultimately, those who recognize the signs of the times and structure their business environment smartly—free from ideological fanaticism and grotesque regulation—will bind companies locally. In Hungary’s case, companies are streaming in from across Europe and the world.

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe, a Germany graduate economist, has worked as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

President Trump met with a group of Arab and Muslim leaders on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly on Wednesday and reportedly told them that he wouldn’t allow Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to annex the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

The Muslim and Arab leaders have reasons to doubt pledges from Trump since he has recently significantly damaged the US’s diplomatic credibility by using negotiations with Iran as cover to help Israel launch a war. The president has also claimed he was unaware of Israel’s plans to bomb Hamas leaders in Qatar, an attack that came while they were discussing a US ceasefire proposal, but, according to Israeli officials, he was informed beforehand and didn’t oppose the attack.

The meeting in New York comes ahead of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s fourth visit to the White House this year, where he is expected to push for US support for the Israeli annexation of at least some territory in the West Bank, something he wants to do in response to several Western countries recognizing a Palestinian state. US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee has previously suggested the US wouldn’t oppose Israel annexing the Palestinian territory and has expressed support for illegal Jewish settlements.

Before leaving for New York to attend the UN General Assembly, Netanyahu again reiterated his opposition to a Palestinian state. “The shameful capitulation of some leaders to Palestinian terror does not obligate Israel in any way. There will be no Palestinian state,” he said, according to a statement released by his office.

According to a report from Axios, Trump also presented the Arab and Muslim leaders with a plan to end Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza. US envoy Steve Witkoff also attended the meeting and claimed a breakthrough on a Gaza ceasefire was close, but a source told Haaretz that a Gaza truce deal “was nowhere close to fruition,” and there’s no sign Trump is willing to put pressure on Netanyahu to end the slaughter.

The Arab and Muslim officials who attended the meeting, which included representatives from Qatar, Turkey, Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt, the UAE, and Jordan, released a statement saying they were committed to working with Trump.

“The leaders emphasized the need to end the war and achieve an immediate ceasefire that would ensure releasing the hostages and allowing the entry of sufficient humanitarian aid as the first step toward a just and lasting peace,” they said, according to the Qatari Foreign Ministry.

“They reiterated their commitment to cooperate with President Trump, and stressed the importance of his leadership to end the war and open horizons for a just and lasting peace,” it added.

Authored by Monica O’Shea via The Epoch Times,

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio says high migration numbers have created domestic political pressure for Australia, the UK, France, and Canada to recognise the Palestinian state.

His comments come after U.S. President Donald Trump issued a firm warning to governments at the United Nations on the need to control their borders.

“Well these countries are doing it frankly due to domestic political pressure in their own countries, you know, because of migration policies,” Rubio said on Fox News.

“Their countries have been flooded with foreigners who have become politically active and are insisting that their government do these sorts of things, and so that’s what they are responding to.”

For the Australian Labor government, several cabinet ministers preside over electorates with high Middle Eastern migrant numbers, including Immigration Minister Tony Burke.

These electorates include Blaxland, Watson, Werriwa and Fowler in Western Sydney, and Calwell, Dandenong, and Chisholm in Melbourne.

On Sept. 23, U.S. President Trump called on governments to tighten migration policies, warning that high numbers are distorting social cohesion.

“While we will always have a big heart for places and people that are struggling and truly compassionate … they have to solve the problem, and they have to solve it in their countries, not create new problems in our countries,” Trump said.

“When your prisons are filled with so-called asylum seekers who repay kindness … with crime, it’s time to end the failed experiment of open borders,” Trump said.

Rubio Calls Recognition ‘Vanity Project’

Rubio also added that recognising the Palestinian state would have no meaningful impact.

“But look it’s irrelevant, it’s going to get a little bit of attention, but there is no Palestinian state. It’s kind of emblematic of what the president says about the U.N. You can put out all the paper in the world you want,” Rubio said, but argued the only permanent solution would be a negotiated settlement between Palestine and Israel.

“One in which the Palestinians are going to have a territory and they are going to govern it, but it cannot be one that’s going to be used as a launch pad for attacks against Israel. And that’s something that has to be negotiated with Israel. It isn’t going to exist without Israel’s participation,” the secretary said.

Rubio also called on the leaders of Australia, UK, France, and Canada to put effort into negotiating and eliminating Hamas so that talks can progress.

“But for them, and for some of them in particular more than others, it’s sort of a vanity project that’s trying to make themselves relevant,” Rubio said regarding Palestinian recognition.

Albanese Defends Labor’s Position

Australia formally recognised the state of Palestine on Sept. 21 amid pressure from U.S. Congress members not to.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong said Australia’s move was part of a coordinated international effort to build new momentum for a two-state solution.

“Australia will continue to work with our international partners to help build on today’s act of recognition and to bring the Middle East closer to the lasting peace and security that is the hope, and the right, of all humanity,” Albanese said.

Albanese again defended Australia’s position on Sept. 24 in New York.

“Australia has a position that’s in line with the majority of the world, which is to support a two-state solution, and we see that the people of Israel have a right to peace and security, but the people of Palestine have a right, a right to see their legitimate aspirations for their own state to be realised,” he said.

Trump, Congress, Haley Concerned

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley took aim at the four governments saying they had caved to Hamas.

“It’s a shame our allies are more concerned about pleasing Hamas than releasing the hostages and ending the war,” Haley said in a post to X on Sept. 22.

Republican U.S. Congress members also warned it would disrupt the current peace process.

“Proceeding with recognition will put your country at odds with long-standing U.S. policy and interests and may invite punitive measures in response,” the letter states. 

President Donald Trump called on governments not to give in to Hamas, but to issue the same message: Release the hostages now.”

“Now, as if to encourage continued conflict, some of this [U.N.] body is seeking to unilaterally recognise a Palestinian state. The rewards would be too great for Hamas terrorists for their atrocities,” he said.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.