David Hasselhoff’s Steamy Life with Younger Wife Revealed
David Hasselhoff may be 74, but insiders claim the Hoff has no plans to slow down when it comes to romance.
The Baywatch and Knight Rider legend has been married to wife Hayley Roberts since 2018, and according to a source, their private life is still sizzling years after they said “I do.”
Roberts, 46, is nearly three decades younger than Hasselhoff. But according to the insider, the age gap has not cooled things down. If anything, sources claim their marriage still has plenty of spark.
As Hasselhoff celebrates his 74th birthday, RadarOnline.com looked back at the couple’s unlikely love story, from a chance meeting in the U.K. to a marriage insiders say is still packed with passion.
The couple first met in 2011 at a hotel in the U.K. while Hasselhoff was working as a judge on Britain’s Got Talent.
Roberts approached the TV star for an autograph. Hasselhoff reportedly agreed, but only if she handed over her phone number.
That bold move apparently paid off.
According to resurfaced comments from a source, the pair had an instant connection. The insider described it as “practically love at first sight.”
The two began dating soon after. Seven years later, they tied the knot in a romantic ceremony in Italy.
Now, years into their marriage, sources claim the chemistry between them is still red-hot.
“Women in their early 40s are in their prime, while men in their mid to late 60s often have trouble when it comes time to perform in bed,” one source said. “But Hayley and David joke that in their case, too little s– is not the issue!”
In fact, the insider claimed Roberts sometimes would not mind a little breather.
Despite his age, Hasselhoff has allegedly kept the romance alive without needing any extra help in the bedroom.
“So when it comes to romance, she’s got more than she can handle!” the source teased.
But the Hoff’s secret is not just physical chemistry.
According to the insider, Hasselhoff works hard to make Roberts feel adored. He reportedly showers her with flowers, thoughtful gifts, and romantic vacations.
“According to wife Hayley, he’s always spoiling her with flowers, thoughtful little gifts and romantic vacations,” the source said.
The racy claims come as Hasselhoff has also been dealing with a more serious chapter in his life.
Fans grew concerned in May when the actor was seen looking frail as Roberts helped him after a medical appointment. He was photographed being pushed in a wheelchair and assisted into a car by his wife.
The outing came after Hasselhoff underwent hip and knee replacement surgeries in 2025. He has been in physical therapy while working his way back to strength.
“For a man who has always been fit and very active and in shape, his recent surgeries have kicked his a– a bit more than he expected,” an insider told Radar.
The photos sparked a wave of reaction from fans.
“At his age it doesn’t take much trauma to cause a great deal of damage. A simple slip can be devastating,” one person wrote.
Another added, “Time is unforgiving.”
But plenty of supporters rushed to defend the TV icon.
“Seeing the Hoff out and about proves he still has that legendary fighter spirit,” one fan wrote.
Another had a shorter message for critics: “Don’t hassle the Hoff.”
Even after surgery, health concerns, and decades in the spotlight, insiders claim Hasselhoff still has the same larger-than-life energy that made him famous.
And according to those close to the couple, Roberts remains right by his side as his wife, caregiver, biggest supporter, and the woman still keeping the Hoff’s fire burning.
India’s AI moment more about deployment than discovery
For three decades, India was the world’s back office. During the next three decades, it may become the world’s AI workshop.
That possibility lies behind one of the most consequential questions facing India’s economy. Artificial intelligence threatens the very industry that helped transform India into a global technology powerhouse. Yet the same technology may also create India’s greatest opportunity since the outsourcing revolution began.
Much of the discussion about AI in India has focused on job losses. Large language models can write software, generate reports, answer customer queries and perform many of the routine tasks that fueled India’s US$280 billion IT services industry. If machines can increasingly perform the work of millions of Indian engineers, what becomes of the world’s outsourcing capital?
It is a legitimate concern. But it may also be the wrong question. Rather than asking whether AI will eliminate India’s outsourcing industry, we should ask how it will redefine it. The AI revolution is not simply replacing jobs; it is redistributing roles across nations. The United States, China and India are beginning to occupy distinct positions in a new global AI economy.
Understanding that emerging division of labor may be the key to understanding India’s next chapter.
The end of labor arbitrage?
India’s rise as an IT powerhouse rested on a simple economic proposition: highly skilled engineers working at costs significantly below those of Europe and the United States.
Beginning in the 1990s, companies such as TCS, Infosys, Wipro, and HCLTech became indispensable partners for corporations seeking to develop software, manage enterprise systems, and maintain global IT infrastructure.
Generative AI changes that equation. Software that once required weeks of programming can increasingly be produced in hours. AI assistants accelerate coding, automate testing, draft documentation, and troubleshoot technical problems. Tasks that justified large offshore teams are becoming increasingly automated.
For companies built on labor-intensive services, this is undeniably disruptive. If productivity doubles while demand remains constant, fewer engineers may be needed for routine work.
India’s IT sector has recognized this reality. Major firms are investing heavily in AI training, building AI practices, and reshaping their business models around automation rather than labor alone.
Yet every major advance in software development—from high-level programming languages to cloud computing—has shifted engineers toward higher-value work rather than eliminating them altogether. Artificial intelligence is likely to continue that pattern.
From code to integration
The real opportunity lies beyond just writing code.
As AI becomes increasingly capable of producing software, the bottleneck shifts from programming to implementation. Businesses still need people who understand workflows, regulations, languages, customers and industries.
Someone must adapt AI systems to hospitals in Germany, banks in Singapore, manufacturers in Japan, retailers in Europe, and government agencies in Africa.
Integration has long been India’s comparative advantage. Indian engineers have usually succeeded by improving existing computing paradigms. Their expertise lies in deploying technology at scale, adapting global software to local requirements, and integrating complex systems across organizations.
Artificial intelligence may therefore increase — not reduce — the demand for precisely these capabilities. Instead of supplying inexpensive programming labor, India’s IT industry could increasingly provide something more valuable: AI implementation expertise.
Quiet turn toward China
A second transformation is unfolding, one that receives far less attention.
Over the past decade, India’s manufacturing sector has become deeply intertwined with Chinese technology. Smartphones, industrial machinery, batteries, renewable-energy equipment, and countless electronic components increasingly originate in Chinese supply chains despite continuing geopolitical tensions.
AI may follow a similar trajectory.
While American companies continue to dominate proprietary frontier models, Chinese firms have adopted a different strategy: releasing increasingly capable open-weight models that anyone can download, modify, and deploy on their own infrastructure.
Former Google Brain co-founder and Baidu chief scientist Andrew Ng has argued that this strategy is rapidly expanding China’s influence because it allows developers worldwide to build on Chinese AI without relying on commercial APIs or recurring licensing fees.
This distinction may prove more important than many observers realize.
A proprietary model remains under the control of its creator. Access can be restricted, prices can change, and export controls may determine who can use it. An open-weight model, once downloaded, becomes part of a country’s own technological infrastructure. It can be customized, fine-tuned, and deployed independently.
For India, the decision is less a geopolitical choice than an economic one.
India does not need to build the world’s most powerful foundation model to create enormous economic value. The software industry excels at adapting technology to specific industries and customers.
Banks require different AI systems from hospitals. Manufacturers have different requirements from insurance companies. Governments have different needs than retailers. India’s decades of experience in customizing enterprise software naturally translate to customizing artificial intelligence.
The economics are equally compelling. Rather than paying recurring fees for proprietary AI services, Indian companies can deploy open models on local infrastructure, train them on industry-specific data, and tailor them to local languages and regulations. Value shifts away from inventing the underlying model toward implementing it effectively.
This transition echoes India’s earlier success in software services. During the outsourcing revolution, India did not invent the personal computer, enterprise software, or the internet. It became indispensable by helping organizations around the world use them more effectively. AI may reward the same capabilities.
New global division of labor
The first wave of globalization separated design from manufacturing. The AI era may separate model creation from model deployment. A new international division of labor is beginning to emerge.
The emerging AI economy may be less about who wins than about who contributes what.
The framework is, of course, simplified. Every major economy participates across the AI value chain. Yet broad specialization is becoming increasingly visible.
The United States remains the center of frontier AI research. China is embedding AI into logistics, manufacturing, finance, transportation, healthcare and urban infrastructure while simultaneously promoting open-weight ecosystems.
India occupies a unique position between them. Its vast software engineering workforce, decades of enterprise experience, and global customer relationships make it an ideal bridge between foundation models and real-world deployment.
Put simply, America invents. China scales. India integrates.
Translating AI tools practically
None of these factors suggests an easy transition.
Routine programming, software maintenance, documentation, and testing are already becoming increasingly automated. India’s universities, corporate training programs and labor market will need to adapt quickly to changing demands.
But technological revolutions rarely eliminate industries. Rather, they reorganize them.
For India, the challenge is not to compete directly with Silicon Valley in frontier model development or with China in AI-enabled infrastructure. Its opportunity lies elsewhere: becoming the country that translates increasingly powerful AI into practical tools for governments, businesses, hospitals, factories and financial institutions around the world.
Realizing the future will require a new generation of engineers whose expertise extends beyond programming to the integration of AI into the complex realities of business, government and society.
For three decades, India was the world’s back office. In the AI age, it may become even more valuable: the world’s AI workshop — not by building every breakthrough model, but by helping the rest of the world put AI to work.
A more diverse AI ecosystem could benefit not only India but the world. An international division of labor — where different countries specialize in frontier research, infrastructure, and implementation — is likely to prove more innovative and more resilient than one dominated by any single nation.
The Pentagon’s Space Development Agency hasn’t moved as fast as anyone would like
The Space Development Agency was established in 2019 to help speed up the deployment of US military space systems by sidestepping the Pentagon’s traditional sluggish bureaucracy.
Seven years later, SDA is finally launching its first batches of operational satellites, just as the Pentagon plans to shutter the semi-autonomous agency and fold it back into the Space Force’s procurement pipeline, newly reorganized under several program acquisition executives in a bid to streamline weapons buying.
SDA’s fate is not a surprise, and lawmakers in both houses of Congress have backed the agency’s closure in drafts of this year’s National Defense Authorization Act.
The Space Development Agency’s primary mission has been to develop a constellation of several hundred missile warning and data relay satellites in low-Earth orbit designed to detect, track, and target ballistic and hypersonic missiles. The military calls the constellation the Proliferated Warfighter Space Architecture (PWSA). The Pentagon currently has a small fleet of legacy missile warning satellites in much higher geosynchronous orbits. These satellites are expensive and vulnerable to attack, and their distance from Earth makes them less sensitive to smaller, dimmer missiles.
The idea was to rapidly procure, develop, and field new generations, or tranches, of tracking and data “transport” satellites every two years. SDA’s strategy was to cast a wide net across the US space industry, using satellites and sensors developed by many companies. Launches of SDA’s new satellites were supposed to occur at a cadence of about once per month.
Rough waters
Much of SDA’s mission will continue under a different banner within the US Space Force. The missile-warning and data-relay satellites will eventually be part of the Pentagon’s planned Golden Dome missile shield, one of the Trump administration’s top priorities for the Space Force.
The capabilities foreseen for SDA’s satellite constellation predate President Trump’s announcement of Golden Dome last year, and are far less controversial than the White House’s push to include space-based weapons as part of the missile shield.
SDA’s history has been marred by schedule delays, production and supply chain bottlenecks, and technical issues with the organization’s first batches of operational data relay satellites after their launch last year. The purpose of the data relay, or “transport,” satellites is to receive tracking data from SDA’s missile-warning satellites via inter-satellite laser communication links and relay the information to the ground for action.
SDA started launching prototype tracking and data transport satellites in 2023 and launched its first two batches of transport satellites last year. The third group of data transport satellites launched Thursday on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket from Vandenberg Space Force Base, California, bringing the total number of transport satellites launched in Tranche 1 to 63.
“This launch continues to expand warfighting capability to deliver persistent tactical satellite communication for the warning and tracking of advanced missile threats,” said Gurpartap “GP” Sandhoo, director of the Space Development Agency, in a statement. Sandhoo also serves as the Space Force’s portfolio acquisition executive for missile warning and tracking, which would keep him in charge of much of the SDA’s mission after the agency’s dissolution.
“The deployment of Tranche 1’s proliferated capability will soon deliver continuous overwatch—neutralizing any first-mover advantage by delivering data to warfighters around the world, nearly instantaneously,” Sandhoo said.
Thursday’s launch marked the resumption of SDA satellite deployments after standing down for nine months due to issues with the spacecraft on the first two Tranche 1 launches last September and October. Those launches were successful, but ground teams ran into problems activating and commissioning satellites made by York Space Systems and Lockheed Martin.
Sandhoo identified several issues with the first Tranche 1 satellites during a roundtable with reporters before this week’s launch. Ground controllers lacked sufficient ground station coverage to communicate with the satellites after last year’s launches. Some of the satellites encountered thermal control and propulsion system problems as they climbed from their insertion orbit to an operational altitude of more than 600 miles (1,000 kilometers), significantly higher than SpaceX’s Starlink Internet network, Sandhoo said.
“We are in a pretty harsh radiation environment at 1,000 kilometers, so not all of our orbit raising has gone according to plan,” he said. “It has been sporadic. We’re working through it.” Sandhoo is optimistic that ground teams will eventually declare most of the satellites ready for operations, but it’s taking longer than expected.
The Space Development Agency’s “Tranche 1” architecture includes 154 operational satellites, 126 for data relay and 28 for missile tracking. With this illustration, the SDA does its best to show how it’s supposed to work.
Credit: Space Development Agency
The Space Development Agency’s “Tranche 1” architecture includes 154 operational satellites, 126 for data relay and 28 for missile tracking. With this illustration, the SDA does its best to show how it’s supposed to work. Credit: Space Development Agency
Getting it right
SDA and its contractors “took a pause” after last year’s launches to “make sure we fixed at least the known issues,” Sandhoo said. “We expect this launch to be a lot smoother than the last one.”
Thursday’s launch was the second SDA launch of York’s data transport satellites, and the third for Tranche 1 overall. Seven more launches will complete Tranche with 63 additional data transport satellites and 28 missile tracking satellites manufactured by Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and L3Harris. None of the Tranche 1 tracking satellites have launched yet.
Sandhoo said the schedule for the next series of SDA satellites is “still constrained” by the availability of optical communication terminals, the laser transmitters and receivers needed to connect the transport and tracking satellites into one integrated mesh network.
While SDA officials declined to say when the next few launches might occur, the agency said the Tranche 1 satellites will “provide initial warfighting capability beginning in 2027. Sandhoo said the agency is no longer focused on achieving a monthly launch cadence. It’s more important, he said, to make sure SDA’s satellites launch when they are ready. “The goal is to get operational as quickly as possible once you get in orbit,” he said.
If all the Tranche 1 satellites had launched as originally scheduled, the constellation’s enhanced missile warning capability might have been available to military commanders today. That might have proven useful for US and allied forces to counter Iranian ballistic missiles launched during the current war in the Middle East.
“That’s what I think the nation needs right now, to face the threat that we are in,” Sandhoo said. “If you see what’s going on, I wish we were on orbit and supporting this mission right now because, literally, missiles are being launched at the joint force every single day in [Operation] Epic Fury.
“We are where we are,” Sandhoo said. “But we are doing everything we can to solve these technical challenges to get these systems on orbit, so we can deliver these capabilities.”
In all, SDA’s Tranche 1 constellation will number 154 operational satellites when complete. Tranche 2, set to begin launching next year, will include more than 250 transport and tracking satellites supplied by six manufacturers. SDA has ordered 108 satellites in the Tranche 3 tracking layer due to start launching in 2028.
The transport layer will end after Tranche 3. It will be superseded by the Space Force’s Space Network. The Space Force announced in May that it selected SpaceX to build the SDN “backbone” using technology originally developed for SpaceX’s Starlink broadband constellation. SDA’s transport satellites will fold into the Space Data Network to work alongside SpaceX’s satellites, Sandhoo said.
Wildfire smoke threatens the World Cup final. FIFA still doesn’t have a plan.
The biggest game in soccer is set for Sunday, when Argentina and Spain will meet in the World Cup final, held just outside of New York City. There’s just one problem — wildfire smoke now threatens the match and FIFA, the sport’s governing body, doesn’t appear to have any plan in place to protect player or fan health.
Wildfire smoke blowing from Canada has blanketed large swaths of the Midwest and East Coast in recent days, impacting more than a dozen states, with some of the worst-hit cities facing air quality in ranges considered hazardous. New Yorkers are among those who have been watching their air turn orange and hazy this week. On Thursday, the state issued an alert as the air quality index climbed to “unhealthy” and “very unhealthy”levels. “Avoid spending time outdoors, if possible,” officials advised.
As of Friday morning, air quality near the stadium remained in the unhealthy range, and while it’s forecast to improve to “’moderate”’ by Sunday’s kick off, smoke patterns could still change. If concerns continue during the finals, there’s no way to close off the open-air stadium where stars Lionel Messi and Lamine Yamal are slated to square off. That means fans and players would almost certainly be exposed to smoke, which could lead to symptoms such as a burning throat, coughing, or headache, among others. This can be particularly dangerous for sensitive groups, including children, older individuals, and people with respiratory conditions such as asthma.
Players have also practiced outdoors during air quality events in the lead up to the game — the Spanish team held a practice Thursday in New Jersey. “These are high-level athletes who are moving a lot of air through their lungs,” Dr. Courtney Howard, an emergency room physician and Global Climate and Health Alliance official told the Associated Press. “They shouldn’t be practicing outside if the air quality levels are at hazardous sort of ranges for wildfire-related air pollution.”
World Cup organizer FIFA does not appear to have any contingency plans in place for wildfire smoke. Neither FIFA nor New York City Department of Health officials immediately responded to Grist’s request for comment. In a previous statement to Grist, FIFA detailed extensive protocols related to extreme heat, including mandatory water breaks for players, but didn’t mention air quality.
“Climate-related risks,” the organization wrote last month, “are assessed as part of overall tournament planning and managed in close coordination with host cities, stadium authorities, and national agencies.”
Unlike FIFA, a number of other leagues implement standardized adjustments triggered by air quality warnings. Per National Women’s Soccer League policy, for instance, a women’s soccer game at Citi Field in New York on Thursday had additional hydration breaks for safety. NWSL policy adds hydration breaks at an air quality index of 101 (“unhealthy for sensitive groups”) and cancels or postpones games when the AQI tops 200 (“very unhealthy”). Major League Baseball rescheduled one game this week in Philadelphia, and Major League Soccer canceled a game in Chicago due to smoke.
The World Cup is in its fifth and final week, and despite the games taking place across multiple wildfire-prone regions, so far FIFA’s bet that the air would stay clear has paid off. They may get lucky again this weekend, says Nicholas Watanabe, a professor of sport and entertainment management at the University of South Carolina, but that doesn’t excuse not being ready.
“FIFA seems unprepared for these wildfires,” said Watanabe. “At the same time, it looks like the worst of the pollution will dissipate before the World Cup Final, so FIFA will dodge a bullet and likely push forward with the match.”
Some, however, question whether enough is being done, both by FIFA and other outdoor sports leagues facing these and other climate threats. FIFA has already been criticized this year for its policies regarding extreme heat.”If we have to have a hydration break every 15 minutes, then we shouldn’t be playing the game,” said Trinity Rodman, who played in the smoke-affected NWSL soccer game in New York.
One professional cyclist recently questioned whether the Tour de France should be held in the summer, as this year’s iteration of the iconic event has been plagued by wildfires, smoke, and extreme heat. “I would change the whole calendar,” said yellow jersey holder Tadej Pogačar earlier this month. “It’s not something I can do.”
The power to make changes generally rests with a sport’s governing body, rather than athletes, and Watanabe thinks climate issues should be taken more seriously. Even if the World Cup final is spared any impacts, he said this close call should serve as a warning.
“Hopefully,” he said, “this is a wake up call to FIFA and all other sport leagues and competitions of the need for regulations and a comprehensive plan to deal with climate risks.”
Iran strikes eastern Syria, in first such attack during current war
Iran struck eastern Syria on Friday, Iranian state media and a Syrian military source said, in the first known attack by Tehran on Syrian territory since a regional war erupted earlier this year.
Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said they had attacked a U.S. special operations command centre at al-Tanf in Syria in retaliation for the killing of Iranian soldiers in Iranshahr, state media reported.
Reuters could not independently verify the claim. A Syrian military source told Reuters that Iran had carried out an attack near Tanf but that it had not hit the base itself. The source said there were no casualties or material damage.
The U.S. military said in February it had completed a withdrawal from the al-Tanf base positioned at the tri-border confluence of Syria, Jordan and Iraq.
Syria has sought to avoid being drawn into the regional conflict that has engulfed neighbouring countries, including Lebanon, where Hezbollah has fought Israeli forces, and Iraq, where Iran-backed armed groups have launched drone and rocket attacks.
Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa said in March that his country would stay out of any conflict unless it came under attack.
“Unless Syria is targeted by any party, Syria will remain outside any conflict,” Sharaa said at an event hosted by the Chatham House think tank in London.
The Guards also said Iran retained full control of the Strait of Hormuz and that no oil or gas would be exported through the waterway for as long as U.S. attacks continued, according to the state media report.
Damascus Calls Hezbollah ‘Terrorist Militia,’ Partners With Iraq To Stop Arms Smuggling
Hezbollah played a central role in supporting Assad’s government after openly entering the Syrian conflict in 2013, deploying thousands of fighters across multiple battlefronts
[DAMASCUS] Syria’s Interior Ministry said Tuesday it had foiled an alleged attempt to smuggle a shipment of advanced weapons through Syrian territory to Hezbollah, while publicly describing the Lebanese group as a “terrorist militia” in what analysts say marks a significant shift in the new government’s official rhetoric.
The ministry said specialized security units intercepted a suspicious vehicle near the Syrian-Iraqi border and discovered a cache of long-range missiles, guided anti-tank missiles and drones.
Drones displayed by Syria’s Interior Ministry after authorities said they were seized during an operation that foiled an alleged cross-border weapons smuggling attempt near the al-Tanf border crossing with Iraq, July 16, 2026. (Syrian Interior Ministry)
According to the ministry, preliminary investigations indicate that the shipment was intended to transit Syria en route to Lebanon for Hezbollah. Officials said the investigation remains ongoing to identify those responsible and dismantle the broader network allegedly involved in the operation.
A Syrian Interior Ministry source told The Media Line that the seizure was “an exceptional and highly significant operation,” adding that Damascus would share all available evidence with Iraqi authorities as part of a joint effort to pursue everyone connected to the alleged smuggling network.
The investigation treats this as a cross-border network rather than an isolated incident
“The investigation treats this as a cross-border network rather than an isolated incident,” the source said, adding that coordination with Baghdad would focus on tracing the shipment’s route and identifying all parties involved.
New details obtained by The Media Line from Mazen Alloush, director of public relations at Syria’s General Authority for Land and Sea Border Crossings, indicate that the weapons were concealed inside an oil tanker officially registered as transporting black fuel oil.
According to Alloush, Iraqi customs authorities sealed the tanker after processing it as a routine fuel shipment and attached instructions prohibiting inspectors from opening it until it reached its designated destination, citing delivery procedures.
A member of Syria’s Interior Ministry holds a drone that authorities said was part of an alleged weapons shipment intercepted near the Syrian-Iraqi border, July 16, 2026. (Syrian Interior Ministry)
The tanker departed Iraq approximately nine days earlier, after completing all customs formalities, and joined convoys transporting Iraqi fuel to Syria’s Baniyas refinery via the al-Tanf border crossing as part of an existing oil transport arrangement between the two countries.
Alloush said the shipment included large quantities of missiles and drones carefully hidden inside the tanker. He explained that the concealment method allowed the vehicle to pass multiple inspection points because specialized equipment capable of scanning liquid tankers remains limited, while the weapons had been wrapped in insulating materials and submerged beneath black fuel oil, making them difficult for police dogs to detect.
The shipment was discovered only after reaching the Syrian side of the border, where inspectors uncovered what Alloush described as a sophisticated concealment operation designed to evade customs inspections.
The al-Tanf crossing has long been considered one of the most sensitive border crossings between Syria and Iraq, serving for years as a corridor exploited by smuggling networks during Syria’s civil war. Syrian authorities say border security has been significantly tightened since the country’s new administration assumed power.
Members of Syria’s Interior Ministry display one of the missiles seized during an operation targeting an alleged cross-border weapons smuggling network near al-Tanf, July 16, 2026. (Syrian Interior Ministry)
The Interior Ministry said protecting Syria’s borders and national sovereignty remains a top priority and pledged that Syrian territory would not be used as a transit route for weapons trafficking or activities threatening Syria or neighboring countries.
In a subsequent statement, Hezbollah rejected the Syrian allegations, dismissing them as “fabricated claims with no basis in fact” that were intended to damage the group’s reputation.
Iraq responded by announcing the formation of a high-level investigative committee composed of security and technical officials to examine the incident.
In a statement, Iraq’s Security Media Cell said the committee would coordinate with Syrian authorities to establish the full circumstances surrounding the case and hold any negligent parties accountable “to safeguard the security and stability of the shared border and prevent any attempts to undermine national security.”
The announcement comes as Baghdad and Damascus seek to deepen security cooperation along their roughly 600-kilometer (370-mile) shared border, an area long exploited by cross-border smuggling networks amid years of conflict and weak state control.
For many observers, however, the most consequential aspect of the case extends beyond the weapons seizure itself.
Daoud al-Sayed, a Syrian researcher specializing in political science and international relations, said the Interior Ministry’s decision to publicly describe Hezbollah as a “terrorist militia” represents a significant departure from the rhetoric maintained under former President Bashar Assad, when the Lebanese group was regarded as one of Damascus’ closest military allies.
Last month, President Trump said he spoke with al-Sharaa at the G-7 conference, and that the two leaders discussed the possibility of Syria taking an active role in combatting Hezbollah.
The new Syrian administration has consistently emphasized that relations with Lebanon should be conducted through state institutions rather than armed groups
“The new Syrian administration has consistently emphasized that relations with Lebanon should be conducted through state institutions rather than armed groups,” al-Sayed told The Media Line. “The ministry’s statement reflects that policy.”
He argued that the alleged smuggling operation prompted Damascus to publicly define its position toward Hezbollah more explicitly than at any point since the new government took office.
“If this rhetoric is followed by additional security and political measures,” he said, “it could signal a broader restructuring of Syria’s policy toward non-state armed groups and a new framework governing relations with Lebanon and border security.”
Members of Syria’s Interior Ministry carry missiles and other weapons that authorities said were confiscated during an operation near the al-Tanf border crossing, July 16, 2026. (Syrian Interior Ministry)
Hezbollah played a central role in supporting Assad’s government after openly entering the Syrian conflict in 2013, deploying thousands of fighters across multiple battlefronts. Since the collapse of the former government and the establishment of Syria’s new administration, officials have repeatedly stated that all weapons inside the country should fall exclusively under state authority.
Against that backdrop, analysts say the Interior Ministry’s decision to officially label Hezbollah a “terrorist militia” marks a notable shift in Syria’s public discourse, suggesting that Damascus may be redefining its security and political relationship with the group.
The weapons seizure also forms part of a broader campaign launched by Syria’s new authorities to tighten border security and dismantle networks involved in arms and narcotics trafficking after years of conflict that left large stretches of the country’s frontiers vulnerable to organized smuggling.
Whether the investigation ultimately exposes a wider regional network remains unclear. But the joint Syrian-Iraqi inquiry is expected to determine not only who organized the alleged shipment, but also whether additional actors were involved in moving weapons across one of the region’s most sensitive borders.
For Syria’s new leadership, the outcome may prove to be more than a criminal investigation. It could become an early test of its stated commitment to reassert state authority, redefine relations with armed non-state actors, and demonstrate that Syrian territory will no longer serve as a corridor for regional weapons trafficking.
Troubling new details emerge on diabetes ouster controversy
Last month, we reported on a troubling incident at the annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) in New Orleans. On June 5, five leading scientists were ousted for handing out copies of an editorial, published in the journal Diabetes Care (an ADA journal) in April, sharply criticizing the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on scientific research. There was a public outcry and (eventually) a personal apology from the ADA’s CEO for the heavy-handed response, but it seems the organization has not yet learned its lesson.
The deputy editors of Diabetes Care have posted an editorial and seven accompanying opinion articles to a preprint server—handily contained in a single PDF file—that they say the ADA has refused to publish. Several troubling new details are included in the articles, including an accusation that ADA leadership knew in advance that members would be handing out copies of the editorial and deliberately set up an ambush by venue security and local police. That decision, in turn, might be due to a simmering tensions connected to a session organized the year before.
ADA leadership was provided with the articles in advance of publication with an invitation to simultaneously publish their response.
“The ADA’s response was to refuse to publish these articles,” the deputy editors wrote. “We are speaking out because it is unusual and unacceptable for a medical society to work at cross purposes with its members and its editors. The ADA has already tried to restrict editorial freedom once before related to our raising awareness of what is happening in Washington, DC, and, in particular, with the dismantling of the National Institutes of Health. … A wrong occurred in New Orleans that the ADA has not addressed. There remain open questions surrounding the events of June 5th. It is because we wish to heal and come together following this difficult situation that we believe it is important that these articles be read and these voices heard.”
It’s a complicated story, so it’s worth recapping what’s occurred so far, followed by the most relevant details from the newly published articles.
The New Orleans Five controversy
The five ousted scientists included Steven Kahn, professor of medicine at the University of Washington, who is the editor-in-chief of Diabetes Care and a co-author of the editorial. It also included former ADA President Desmond Schatz of the University of Florida, Aaron Kelly, pediatrics professor at the University of Minnesota; Justin Ryder of Northwestern University; Irl Hirsch, also of the University of Washington; and Maureen Gannon of Vanderbilt University Medical Center.
The scientists were distributing the editorial outside the conference’s opening speech, which was originally scheduled to be given by Jay Bhattacharya, head of the National Institutes of Health under Trump. Bhattacharya canceled at the last minute, and senior NIH official Rick Woychik took his place.
Within minutes of handing out the editorial, police reportedly escorted the scientists out of the conference in New Orleans. The police reportedly shoved at least one scientist, took all of their conference badges, and threatened to arrest them if they tried to return. Louisiana State Police later told media that they acted at the request of the ADA. The ADA subsequently barred the five scientists from the rest of the conference.
Kahn had been slated to chair a symposium. John Buse of the University of North Carolina School of Medicine in Chapel Hill took his place, explaining the situation to attendees in remarks critical of the ADA’s actions. “The applause was deafening, not for the speech, but for Steven and standing up for science,” Buse wrote in his preprint article, which included a draft of those remarks.
Backlash to the ADA’s actions spread rapidly on Twitter/X and BlueSky and sharply increased the number of page views for the April editorial. Several ADA leaders have resigned, and a fiery letter signed by more than 40 ADA officials blasted the decision as “outrageous” and the justifications as “unpersuasive” and “fatuous nonsense,” stating that the community was “overwhelmingly repulsed by the way this unfortunate event has occurred and been excused and justified by the Association leadership.” The officials demanded “an immediate and unconditional public apology,” as well as a review of the incident. An open letter to the ADA, titled “Shame on You,” similarly called for an apology. It has gathered over 7,500 signatures at the time of this publication.
At first, the ADA tried to justify its decision. A media team initially told MedPage Today that the five scientists had violated the conference code of conduct. In an email to ADA members that Saturday, the association said the scientists were removed because they didn’t have prior approval to distribute material at the conference and that it was “not because of the viewpoints expressed in those materials,” according to reporting from Science.
In a statement Sunday, the organization, which is a nonprofit, said it removed the scientists because it was complying with federal regulations for 501(c)(3) nonprofits, which require “maintaining a strictly nonpartisan environment at all organizational events and functions while engaging across party affiliations to advance our mission.” However, the federal regulations do not restrict leaders of organizations from sharing political views in a personal capacity or from speaking on important public policy issues.
After several days of controversy and much negative media coverage, ADA CEO Charles Henderson posted a video statement apologizing for the organization’s decision. “What transpired is not reflective of who I am, the values I hold, or the way I was raised,” Henderson said. “I will work hard to bring our community back together to build on the progress we have collectively made for those affected by diabetes.” Henderson also said that the ADA would commission a “thorough independent review of the events that occurred as well as the policies, procedures, and decision-making process that guided our actions.”
Troubling new details
That should have settled the matter, but in their article, the original New Orleans Five claim that little has happened in the month since the incident: no meeting with the ADA leadership, no official apology (beyond Henderson’s video), and no exoneration. There have been no corrective actions, no resignations of the ADA staff who were involved—and no identification of the person(s) responsible for the decision to forcibly remove the scientists in the first place.
The five are requesting the promised thorough investigation, the establishment of a formal process to identify professional membership concerns, and greater visibility in its patient advocacy and advocacy for research funding. That includes standing behind its journal editors and their publication decisions. “Any disclaimers need to be removed from the published editorials,” they wrote.
Per deputy editors Elizabeth Selvin and Cheryl A.M. Anderson, the roots of the current conflict date back to a 90-minute 2025 session they organized on the topic, “How Do We Fix a Broken Health Care System?” Among the panelists was Washington state congresswoman Kim Schrier, a pediatrician who also has Type 1 diabetes. Months prior, ADA leadership had objected that the session was “unbalanced” and asked that “a congressperson from across the aisle” be invited as well as other speakers who could provide “opposing views.” Since this was impractical, the ADA approved the original session but did not advertise it.
In their article, Selvin and Anderson insisted that the session was not partisan in nature. They said that Schrier’s comments focused on a video of congressional testimonies, her own experiences with Type 1 diabetes, her bipartisan work to reduce drug costs and with the Congressional Diabetes Caucus, and a warning of the likely harm NIH funding cuts would have on diabetes research. Selvin and Anderson also said that, in the wake of the June 5 ousters, ADA leadership canceled the scheduled annual in-person meetings with the Diabetes Care editorial board and associate editors—“the only opportunity we have all year to connect face-to-face with the full editorial team.”
“Now, with a public relations crisis firm in tow, the ADA has emailed advocacy messages opposing federal policies and is taking strong stances on proposed changes that would be harmful to diabetes patients and research,” Selvin and Anderson wrote in their article. “These are the very things we have been writing about in the journal. The irony is not lost on us.”
Mark Atkinson, chair of the Scientific Sessions Meeting Planning Committee, penned another opinion piece detailing his reasons for resigning from that position in the wake of the June 5 events. (The ADA president-elect also resigned but has not said anything about her reasons.) Atkinson was among the signatories of the June 6 ADA letter—except he says he never agreed to sign onto the text that was ultimately sent out. He was involved in face-to-face discussions in which he argued that an apology, and not just a defense of the ADA’s decisions, was necessary.
Atkinson had to leave the meeting early, assuming that he would have a chance to review any final version before it was sent out. Instead, “a substantially different letter was released, bearing my name and that of the ADA’s chief executive officer,” he wrote. “Had I been given the opportunity, I would not have agreed to have my name associated with it. I realized that remaining as chair… would imply confidence in a process that I no longer had confidence in.” He called his resignation “among the most difficult professional decisions I have ever made,” adding, “I do not regret resigning. I regret the circumstances that made my resignation necessary.”
A deliberate ambush?
The most serious allegation in the preprint comes from Buse, who claims that he now believes that “the ADA actions were a premeditated attack on Steven Kahn and other attendees” that present “an existential threat to the ADA.”
The New Orleans Five wrote in their piece that the ADA leadership was aware that people would be handing out the editorial at the conference. Desmond Schatz even texted Chief Scientific and Medical Officer Rita Kalyani before the meeting, advising that she call Kahn and let him know where he could and could not hand out copies, adding that the activity “should not in any way be disruptive.” Kalyani responded that she was on a plane and would find out those details once she landed.
Kalyani never followed up, so the five stuck with their original plan to hand out copies to those entering the hall for the keynote, leading to their ouster. But as Kahn, Kelly, Ryder, and Schatz were being removed, a police officer asked the head of conference security whether “that was sufficient.” The security officer said he needed “one more badge,” and directed them to remove Gannon, who had been part of a group of women handing out flyers (which by then had been confiscated). Gannon asked if they could speak to ADA leadership to clear up any misunderstanding. The head of security said this was what “the client” (i.e., ADA) had told them to do.
“It was an ambush,” Buse wrote. “ADA leadership knew exactly what was going to happen and when. They could have contacted Steven and tried to come to some accommodation. Instead they set in place armed law enforcement officers to disrupt the activity, apparently with a quota for the number of people to be hustled out of the meeting. The ADA actions are not dissimilar in nature to the efforts of our federal government to quell protests—force against people exercising constitutional rights as an act of both retribution and a display of power. We are lucky this event did not have even greater consequences.”
Despite his clear indignation, Buse ended his editorial on a note of hope that ADA leadership would apologize for their actions and “people will be held to account,” he wrote. “Processes to ensure our rights as members of the ADA will be restored. The ADA will stand up for science. But the opportunity will come from an awakening of the spirit of the science and medicine community who founded this organization 85 years ago and the struggle that will emerge. With new focus, the ADA can emerge stronger. That will require a reworking of governance and engagement to align strategy with mission.”
Two-Thirds of Shri Thanedar’s Campaign Cash Came Through AIPAC as He Lost Over $600K
Rep. Shri Thanedar, D-Mich., lost more than $630,000 in investment income last quarter after he put $3.7 million in campaign funds into the cryptocurrency industry, according to a new filing with the Federal Election Commission released on Wednesday. Amid those losses, bundlers from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee have stepped in to prop up his campaign.
Two-thirds of the money Thanedar raised in the last quarter came from AIPAC, which collects money from multiple donors and funnels it to the pro-Israel group’s preferred candidates, according to his campaign’s most recent FEC filing. Less than a quarter of those donors listed Michigan as their state of residence. Thanedar, who is facing a challenge from a democratic socialist in next month’s Democratic primary, was in the minority of House Democrats who voted against cutting $3.3 billion in military aid to Israel from a State Department spending bill this week.
“That’s a lot of money for a campaign to be losing, especially when the market is at record highs.”
“They’re not raising a lot of money from donors at this point,” said Brendan Glavin, director of insights at the watchdog campaign finance group OpenSecrets, about Thanedar’s filing. Asked about the investment losses Thanedar listed in the filing, Glavin said, “That’s a lot of money for a campaign to be losing, especially when the market is at record highs.”
Thanedar — who has made his money building, buying, and selling off companies — has heavily self-funded his campaign to stave off Donavan McKinney, a Michigan state representative aiming to maintain a wave of socialist success that’s seen challengers from the left topple establishment favorites in New York, Pennsylvania, and Colorado so far this midterm cycle. Thanedar gave himself $800,000 in June, the latest in more than $12 million he’s loaned his campaign since he first ran for Congress in 2021. He outraised McKinney last quarter, though Thanedar’s campaign carries his personal loans as debt.
In his most recent campaign filing, Thanedar reported more than $3.9 in investment income losses this cycle.
The August 4 Michigan primary is among the next races to pit a democratic socialist candidate against an incumbent. McKinney — whose endorsers include Justice Democrats, the Working Families Party, the Metro Detroit chapter of Democratic Socialists for America, several major unions, and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. — is running on Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, a national homes guarantee, opposing President Donald Trump’s war on immigrants, and ending military aid to Israel. He has hit Thanedar for buying his seat in Congress, paying campaign expenses with taxpayer money, and spurning his constituents.
Deep-pocketed donors “get a massive return on investment when Shri Thanedar votes with 99.9% of Republicans and against a majority of Democrats to keep spending our taxpayer dollars funding Israel’s genocide, or when he votes for Trump’s crypto corruption, or even when he simply refuses to answer his constituent’s calls during a crisis,” said Justice Democrats spokesperson Usamah Andrabi, calling Thanedar’s service “representation for the 1% at the expense of one of the poorest districts in the country.”
“We cannot be the party of the working class when we’re represented by multimillionaires, bankrolled by AIPAC donors, doing the bidding of corporate interests,” he added.
It’s not unusual for candidates to put campaign funds into investment vehicles, but Thanedar’s decision to invest campaign funds in the cryptocurrency industry in 2024 was notable, said Glavin. At the time, the pro-crypto lobby was ramping up its spending on elections.
“There are examples of candidates who have lost significant funds in putting their money into the market,” Glavin said. “But you’re usually going to find that they’re going to put it in something a little less volatile than the crypto market.”
The campaign’s investment losses were only partly offset by contributions from AIPAC bundlers. Glavin said the debt incurred from Thanedar’s loans to the campaign and the share of his most recent fundraising haul boosted by AIPAC suggest the campaign isn’t doing much on the fundraising front.
“It’s not like the campaign is actually going out and soliciting those funds,” he said.
Thanedar was a target of AIPAC during his first congressional run; the group endorsed his opponent and its super PAC spent millions against him in 2022. Since then, however, Thanedar has faced scrutiny for his increasingly cozy relationship with the pro-Israel lobby. AIPAC endorsed him during his 2024 reelection campaign, and a pop-up political action committee funded by AIPAC’s super PAC spent more than $2 million against his opponent that cycle.
The Michigan congressman is featured on AIPAC’s political portal for donors, which it uses to funnel contributions to its preferred candidates. As the primary election nears, Thanedar’s critics have recirculated a video he filmed while on an AIPAC trip to Israel in 2023. His campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
Thanedar is facing a potential upset as some members of the Congressional Black Caucus reportedly consider endorsing McKinney against him — an unusual move given that the group tends to side with incumbents. Outside groups have spent just over $2 million on the race so far, all backing McKinney or opposing Thanedar. It’s not clear whether any other groups plan to spend for Thanedar in the final weeks of the race.
In May, Thanedar requested an extension on this year’s financial disclosure until August 13, after the primary. Members of Congress are required to file reports each May, though it’s not necessarily unusual to ask for an extension. Thanedar also filed his last disclosure in August.
At the end of 2025, Thanedar reported to the FEC $11.5 million in debt from loans he’s given his campaign since 2021, when he first ran for Congress and initially loaned himself $5 million.
It’s becoming more common for candidates to spend upward of $1 million self-financing their campaigns, Glavin said. The massive spending of personal wealth became less risky after a 2022 Supreme Court ruling lifted limits on how much campaigns can spend to pay back a loan from a candidate.
Before, candidates understood themselves to be on the hook for the money they use to self-finance, Glavin said. Now, they figure that with the power of incumbency, “I can start raising money, and then I build up a donor base, and then I can get some of that money back, even if it’s five, six years down the road,” Glavin said. “A campaign committee can carry that debt for any amount of time.”
Ukraine’s defence shake-up exposes rift in Zelensky’s inner circle
For the second time in a year, there have been public protests in Ukraine in response to a decision by the country’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky.
In July 2025, protests erupted when Zelensky tried to curb the powers of two independent corruption agencies, forcing him to backtrack. The trigger for the latest protests was the dismissal of Ukraine’s popular defence minister, Mykhailo Fedorov.
This is not the first time Zelensky has reshuffled his defence team. Oleksii Reznikov, who had been defence minister since 2021, was dismissed in 2023 following a string of high-profile corruption scandals.
He was replaced by Rustem Umerov who, after two years in office, was moved to the role of secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defence Council, as part of a full-scale cabinet reshuffle.
Umerov’s replacement, former prime minister Denys Shmyhal, lasted almost exactly six months before another reshuffle linked to the long fallout from the corruption scandals of summer 2025. Shmyhal was moved to the energy ministry and replaced by Fedorov.
What distinguishes Fedorov’s ousting is that this is the first time a reshuffle has been carried out for reasons of internal disagreement within Zelensky’s core team.
In a press conference on July 16, Fedorov accused the commander-in-chief of Ukraine’s armed forces, Oleksandr Syrskyi, of blocking his reform initiatives and dividing the country. Their rift had become increasingly public. Fedorov and Syrskyi had apparently each demanded that the other be dismissed, rather than finding the compromise Zelensky wanted.
Ukraine’s former defence minister, Mykhailo Fedorov, at a recent meeting in the Belgian capital, Brussels.Olivier Matthys / EPA
That the president sided with the commander-in-chief rather than his defence minister seemingly defies all logic. Fedorov had been an advocate of drone warfare during his earlier tenure as Ukraine’s minister for digital transformation, a role he assumed at the beginning of Zelensky’s tenure as president in 2019.
Since Fedorov was appointed minister of defence in January, Ukraine has made significant progress in stalling Russia’s momentum in the war. Key to this has been an intensified campaign of strikes against Russian oil infrastructure – one of the backbones of the country’s war economy.
Fedorov also moved to reform procurement policies in the defence ministry. In June, he stated that his team’s efforts to enforce competitive tendering for defence contracts had saved more than US$100 million (£74 million) by cutting the costs of 155mm artillery shells.
This is one probable source of Fedorov’s conflict with Syrskyi, who decides which weapons systems and military equipment should be procured. More than an issue of corruption, the rift is about control – and a clash of cultures between the moderniser, Fedorov, and the more traditional military leadership around Syrskyi.
After his dismissal, Fedorov apparently refused to continue in an advisory role for Zelensky. Two key advisors in the defence ministry, Serhii “Flash” Beskrestnov and Serhii Sternenko, as well as the deputy commander of the air force, Pavlo Yelizarov, have all now resigned.
These developments further underline the internal strategic disagreements over the direction of Ukraine’s war effort.
Fedorov’s replacement
Zelensky’s initial choice for his next defence minister was Ihor Klymenko, who apparently declined the role and is set to take up the post of secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defence Council instead.
As a former national police chief who had been Ukraine’s interior minister since 2023, Klymenko was seen as someone who could resolve Ukraine’s continued recruitment crisis. This is arguably the area in which Fedorov failed to make sufficient progress.
In light of sustained rumours about a new mobilisation of Russian troops for the war in the autumn, it is clear that Ukraine’s manpower problem is becoming more acute and needs an urgent resolution.
According to Fedorov’s diagnosis of the scale of the problem, 2 million Ukrainians are currently wanted for draft evasion, and 200,000 soldiers are absent without official leave.
Less clear, however, is why Klymenko was touted for the role. As interior minister, he was at least part of the problem caused by so-called “busification” – the forcible seizure of military-age Ukrainian men by recruitment officials. Klymenko has consistently maintained that these officials have acted within the boundaries of martial law.
Klymenko’s refusal to accept the position may also have been an implicit acknowledgement of how difficult a job any reform of recruitment would be. This is particularly the case given Zelensky’s highly public commitment to eradicating busification, during his press conference with the outgoing British prime minister, Keir Starmer, in Kyiv on July 16.
Ihor Klymenko apparently refused to accept Zelensky’s offer to become the next defence minister.Sergey Dolzhenko / EPA
Yevhenii Khmara, a major general and acting head of the Ukrainian intelligence service SBU, has now been appointed as acting defence minister. Given Kharma’s previous role in supporting Ukraine’s intensifying air campaign against Russia, his appointment placates critics of the Fedorov dismissal. These include members of Zelensky’s own party, who saw Klymenko as insufficiently aligned with Fedorov’s strategy in the war.
But a realignment with Fedorov’s vision of how to win the war will do little to address either the recruitment issue or the underlying conflict with Syrskyi. That this will likely fester could be particularly destabilising, because the timeline towards Kharma’s parliamentary confirmation is unclear.
Under Ukrainian law, Kharma first has to resign from active military service before he can take on the civilian role of defence minister. He then has to be formally nominated by the president, after which the Ukrainian parliament must approve his appointment.
Like the summer 2025 corruption crisis, Zelensky will probably weather this storm. But the price he is likely to pay is a further erosion of his authority – and a shrinking of his inner circle of trusted advisors.
This is an unnecessary and unwelcome distraction from a defence effort that had finally seemed to put Ukraine on the front foot, for the first time since the end of 2022.
Autocracies get more repressive when opening up their economies – a political scientists explores why
The current state of democracy in the world is fragile. According to the V-Dem Project, which measures global democracy, 41% of the world’s population live in autocratizing countries — that is, those becoming more authoritarian.
In fact, a “third wave of autocratization” has seen democracy pushed back to levels not seen since 1978, the authors of the 2026 V-Dem report conclude. Worse, many of the 92 autocracies around the world are becoming more repressive.
And all this is happening while the economy has globalized — something that many political economists thought would encourage democracy among previously undemocratic nations.
The logic was straightforward: Take away the state’s economic power, and you limit its ability to repress. The theory was that economic liberalization did this by privatizing state-owned enterprises, deregulating markets and opening economies to trade and investment. As people became less dependent on the government for jobs, credit and economic opportunity, they would gain the autonomy to organize, oppose authoritarian rulers and demand greater political freedoms.
This idea, associated with Nobel laureates Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, remains influential among many scholars and even served as part of the founding mythos of the Washington Consensus, a policy agenda championed by international financial institutions and leading world powers. It helped make economic liberalization the default prescription for countries across the developing world.
But reality has been much messier. The book documents how countries like Mexico, Malaysia and Senegal saw human rights abuses increase after embracing liberalization. About half of all autocracies have experienced similar trajectories after opening their economies. Why did a policy meant to weaken authoritarian rule sometimes make it more violent instead?
My answer focuses on the role of autocratic political elites – that is, the party officials, military officers and other regime insiders who control the state. For them, liberalization not only brings economic change, but it also represents a fundamental political threat. It can empower regime outsiders, such as an emerging business class or opposition leaders, who may later force their way into the system, diluting the influence of the old guard.
Dictators who liberalize then risk alienating their ruling coalition. When elites are strong, dictators cannot afford to lose their support, as they would risk a potential coup. Leaders with strong elites must then find ways to appease insiders, and one way they do that is through repression.
By cracking down on opposition groups, leaders signal that they remain committed to protecting elite interests. Repression, in this sense, is not just about silencing dissent — it’s about managing elite politics. The book documents, for example, how Mexico’s presidents used repression against the same opposition they had long tolerated to compensate the party elite for accepting reforms that threatened their political influence.
When dictators deploy repression in this way, they solve a broader political dilemma. On the one hand, they must contend with a political elite that sees liberalization as a threat to its influence. But, on the other, they also need to avoid alienating international actors, such as the United States, that are quick to punish governments that abandon the Washington Consensus. Repression allows leaders to retain elite backing while adhering to international demands for economic liberalization.
How does your theory apply to Cuba or Venezuela today?
A key distinction in my theory is that the effects of liberalization depend on how strong the regime’s elites are relative to the leader.
When elites are strong, dictators need to accommodate them, often by repressing outsiders to shield insiders from potential challenges. When elites are weak, leaders do not need to make those concessions.
The question then comes down to which of these two camps Venezuela and Cuba currently occupy.
In the case of Cuba, we have seen some of the power flow from the leader to the party. Former leader Raúl Castro extended and institutionalized the role of the party in the late 2010s. The military also gained more autonomy during that period, having secured economic privileges that are more resilient to the whims of the leader.
This all suggests that elites have extended their capacity to make demands on the leadership. In that context, further economic liberalization could trigger the dynamics I describe, pushing the regime toward more repression. There is a good argument that we have already started to see some of that.
Venezuela is in a similar situation. It is too early to say for sure, but the removal of Nicolás Maduro in a U.S. raid in January 2026 might create an opportunity for regime insiders to carve out some more independence and influence. If that is the case, then future deregulation may hurt, rather than help, human rights.
Ultimately, outcomes will depend on how these regimes evolve. But if current dynamics persist, external pressure for economic reform is unlikely to improve human rights – and may well make them worse, if my theory holds.
I got the idea for this book from listening to my father’s stories about how the liberalization of the automobile industry in Mexico in the 1970s affected the factory where he worked. It was all very specific, so I assumed it would not apply more generally to more countries. But the more cases I looked at, the more I realized this pattern of liberalization leading to repression was not uncommon.
In the book, I ended up statistically estimating that most dictatorships who have liberalized have displayed this pattern.
Another thing that surprised me was how the implications of the core argument kept extending to new areas.
For example, I expected that leaders pushed to liberalize their economies would become especially repressive if they also faced the threat of international prosecution. These leaders want to avoid ending up in front of institutions like the International Criminal Court, so they go to greater lengths to stay in power. That often means keeping their elites satisfied at all costs.
Where else are you seeing the dynamic play out?
One area I’m watching is the rise of artificial intelligence. My book focuses on economic liberalization, but it really is about how autocratic regimes adapt to a shifting economic structure. When new sources of wealth or influence emerge, they can give leaders an opportunity to bring in new allies and, in the process, weaken established elites.
China is probably the most relevant case for how these dynamics might play out in AI. Under Xi Jinping, there has been a clear push to centralize control over the AI sector. For example, the new Central Science and Technology Commission is led by one of Xi’s closest allies, placing oversight of this key sector closer to his inner circle. At the same time, the state has been heavily involved in promoting AI firms aligned with priorities associated with Xi’s leadership, while disciplining more independent tech entrepreneurs.
What I find interesting is what this might mean politically. If these sectors are producing new elites whose success depends on their relationship with the leader, they could become an alternative base of support.
That, in turn, could give leaders more room to maneuver in dealing with established elites. I do not think we know yet how far that goes, but I suspect it may very much fall in line with the dynamics the book highlights.
