Latest news with #ruthless
Time Magazine
23-07-2025
- Business
- Time Magazine
How Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Consolidated Power
An old newsroom quip has it that every story about the Middle East for the past 50 years could open with, 'The region is, as ever, at a critical moment.' Few journalists have witnessed more of those moments than Karen Elliott House, whom I worked with for many years at The Wall Street Journal, where she was a correspondent, editor and publisher. House has covered the Middle East since the 1970s, earning a reputation as one of the best-connected and most incisive observers of Saudi Arabia, which in the current 'critical moment' has emerged as the region's indispensable player. With Iran and its proxies diminished and Gulf states anxious to diversify their economies, any prospect for broader peace and normalization runs through Riyadh. That makes The Man Who Would Be King: Mohammed bin Salman and the Transformation of Saudi Arabia, House's new book about Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler, Mohammed bin Salman, essential reading. Chronicling both his ruthless consolidation of power and his vision of economic transformation, it's a sequel of sorts to House's 2012 On Saudi Arabia, which explored the internal dysfunction, oil dependency and sclerotic bureaucracy that MBS has now inherited. Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity. TIME: Let's start in the headlines. Our former WSJ colleague Bret Stephens recently wrote a column that says recent decisive moves on the battlefield have created 'diplomatic openings that have been out of reach for decades.' Do you agree? House: There are opportunities now that haven't existed for a long time because of Israel having almost eliminated Iran's proxies. But I remain a pessimist about the Middle East. There's no end to the ability of people in the region to blow opportunity. I became diplomatic correspondent for The Wall Street Journal right after [Anwar] Sadat had been to Jerusalem. That was in everyone's mind a history opportunity. And we did get Israeli-Egyptian peace, which is significant, but far from Middle East peace. The possibility is to get to a Saudi-Israeli peace. But the difficulty is that the Crown Prince does need something on the Palestinian issue, and I don't see Israel being willing to give it. The war in Gaza has raised [the level of] what he needs to be able to recognize Israel, and it has vastly raised Israel's determination to avoid any kind of Palestinian state unless the Palestinians are willing to have Israel in charge of security. TIME: What would it take to make a compromise happen? House: Trump now has more leverage over both MBS and Israel, and the Palestinians have been through so much that they might be willing to have some kind of coexistence where they have no military. It's not that the Palestinian people themselves in my view are so eager to do away with Israel. It's that the militants in the Arab world and Iran as the greatest militant in the region take the view that Israel must be destroyed. The Crown Prince with his Saudi-first doctrine is not willing forever to put off relations that allow for a security and a commercial relationship that protects Saudi Arabia and advances [his aspiration for] a new Silicon Valley in the northwest with Israeli technology and Saudi money. There's so much he can gain from that. TIME: Transitioning to your reporting for the book, what was it like going from interviewing elderly, opaque, distant Saudi royals as you have done so often over the years to the Crown Prince in his Yeezys? House: [In the past], it was like interviewing somebody from on high. You couldn't even make much eye contact because there were all these people around pouring coffee, bringing papers, doing other things. They had no interest really in conveying information. It was a kind of almost meet-and-greet, a formality, not an interview. MBS from the first time I met him in January of 2016 – well, I had met him before that actually with his father in 2010 – but when I met him as Deputy Crown Prince, you sit down, and the translator and the press minder are far away. As I say in the book, he doesn't need the airs of power because he's got the real stuff. He doesn't try to act like a potentate. TIME: Is he cultivating the image of informality, or is it real? House: He is a modern informal person. He still plays video games every morning. He goes to the Formula One race and poses for selfies with people. He rode his dirt bike up the hills at Al Ula, this place they're turning into a tourist site. And when the people on the other side saw that it was Mohammed bin Salman, they were totally shocked because again royal rulers don't ride dirt bikes. TIME: You write about his growing-up, that he was not his father's favorite, that he had fewer privileges than many of his cousins. House: There is a chip-on-the-shoulder quality. He is the first of his mother's sons. She's the third wife. His mother told him don't be an also-ran to the first wife's sons. You have to get out there and make something of yourself. TIME: Take us from that observation to his role in the most visible family contest, the Ritz lockup and purge that followed. House: I think it had two purposes—at least, maybe more—but one was to consolidate his power by removing from potential competition the sons of King Abdullah. Prince Mitteb was the head of the National Guard, and he was one of the first people called to the Ritz Carlton. Then his brother Turki. When I wrote my first book, people in the royal family and in the government said at least 30% of the government budget every year was simply siphoned off to this royal and that one, and this businessman and that one. Corruption was simply an accepted way of life. [MBS] wanted to modernize the economy and get people off of dependence on government handouts. They had to wring some of the corruption out to make young people think the playing field was level—if you weren't a royal or you weren't the child of one of the dozen biggest businessmen in Saudi Arabia. And he succeeded. Prince Turki is still in prison. Prince Miteb, in essence, is under house arrest. He can't fly. Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the famous businessman who owns part of various banks in New York and the Four Seasons Hotel, etc.—he was one of those arrested. And he says, 'It's all in the family. We have forgiven everything. I mean, I'm content with this.' And he's back in his business empire. TIME: How do you reconcile the ruthlessness and the charm, the lock-up and purge against the selfie-posing, video game playing, informality? House: That's a very interesting question. As I write in the book, Peter the Great was a similar kind of person to MBS. He was prepared to be ruthless. He killed his own son, whom he thought had betrayed him. But as a young man, he was determined to be a modernizer. He went to Europe, learned how to build ships. He thought he knew how to be a doctor—he would operate on people. He clearly had an engaging charm. He was a big beer drinker with his workers, but he had this brutality of, 'I'm in charge, and I know what needs to be done.' Napoleon also could be a very engaging man and also a very ruthless man. I cite [Singapore's] Lee Kuan Yew as a latter-day kind of example. I knew Lee well, and he was the smartest man I've ever met. He didn't have a frivolous, video game-playing side—he was all serious—but he had that perspective that MBS [has], which is ' I can step on anyone's human rights or individual rights, but I'm busy trying to do what's good for the country.' TIME: You call out the Khashoggi murder as the grotesque crime it was but also call it a disaster for MBS and his global ambitions. I gather you believe that MBS is too strategic to have intended it to play out the way it did. House: My view is that it was a rendition gone wrong—that they intended to pick him up and bring him back to Saudi Arabia. Because once somebody is in the kingdom, things can happen to them, and the Western press doesn't really know. They had a prince who was lured onto a plane by the same man—[Saud al-] Qahtani, who was the leader of the Khashoggi operation. He had been the press officer at the royal court and had kind of made himself the crown prince's—or MBS's—number-one enforcer of no-opposition, suppressing or dealing with anybody that opposed him. TIME: You write about several friends of yours who've literally disappeared under MBS's rule. How did that shape your reporting? House: I didn't realize at first that two men I knew were among those detained. One was Mohammed al-Qahtani, who had been arrested under King Abdullah for criticizing the lack of judicial independence. That was considered treasonous, and he was sentenced to 10 years. But in 2023, he wasn't released, which obviously caused consternation with his family. I pursued what happened, and I was told on my last visit, in March 2025, that he's now out of prison—he's in an apartment in Riyadh with his family but saying nothing. And I believe that to be the case. I don't think they've killed him. Abdullah al-Shammari, my translator, wasn't a democracy activist in any way. I never heard him say anything critical about the Crown Prince. I used to see him every time I went back, but he stopped responding on WhatsApp in 2021, and when I've asked about him, I've gotten vague answers. The Saudi Press Agency carried a story a year ago that listed him as arrested and executed along with others for 'criminal acts that entail betrayal' of the country. I haven't been able to confirm any of it, but it's obviously deeply troubling. So I don't know. It's a huge mystery. Khashoggi was, of course, a known figure in Saudi Arabia. He had worked in the media, for King Abdullah, and was often put forward to speak with foreign journalists. He had visibility. I saw him about nine months before he left for Washington. We had lunch, and he was antsy, frustrated—he said he'd essentially been banned from writing by MBS. He said to me at the time, 'I would prefer democracy, but at least we have KPIs [key performance indicators] for all the ministers.' His point was: there is some accountability. He would've preferred democracy, but KPIs were something. His prominence made him more vulnerable. TIME: Let's move to the economy and Vision 2030. Your 2012 book, On Saudi Arabia, was really about the deep internal challenges—oil dependency, gerontocracy—that you argued were more threatening in the long-run to the country than external ones. Did you see the path that emerged with MBS as a likely outcome of that predicament? Or was it a shock? House: No, it was a surprise. I described, I think very accurately, the country he is trying to now remake. Young Saudis and poor Saudis were frustrated. There was so much corruption, so much hypocrisy. The government forced people to follow the religious rules, but the royal family didn't live by them. At the end of that book, I warned that the risk was Saudi Arabia becoming like the old Soviet Union–one old man after another ruling until a Gorbachev came along, but too late. I used the analogy of a 747: the cockpit full of geriatrics, First Class full of princes who would be king, and Economy full of ordinary Saudis and terrorists. I said there were some young men who could do a good job, and I named a few, but [MBS] wasn't one of them. When the book came out, he was 27—off the radar. I had met him but didn't pick him out as the next leader. So yes, when he appeared, it was a shock—not just to me but to many Saudis. People said, 'Where did he come from?' Nobody expected the sixth son of Salman to rise. But the generational change was the good part. Instead of continuing on with 77- and 80-year-olds with no ideas and no runway to act, they got someone with a vision and time to execute it. TIME: Still, even after 10 years of his rule, the country is highly dependent on oil. House: Yes. But at least they're taking steps—tourism, minerals. They're on a path that, if pursued intelligently and consistently, could leave the country in a much better place. Otherwise, they were on a glide path to becoming a poor Arab country. Not as poor as Egypt, maybe, but declining, because they were using more and more oil domestically, leaving less to sell. TIME: Vision 2030 requires a modern, tech-oriented economy. Is that the core of the strategy, and how would you grade where they are? House: He gets an A for understanding the need for that transition. But probably a C for execution so far. It's still a long road. To build the tech corridor he envisions, he believes he needs a relationship with Israel. His hope is that with Saudi Arabia's low energy costs, it becomes attractive for AI data centers, which are energy-intensive. But it's a big task, and he's competing with Dubai and others who offer a more Western lifestyle to foreign talent. TIME: He needs foreigners to want to live and work there. House: Yes. One reason he's liberalizing society is not just to give young Saudis entertainment in exchange for work, but to make Saudi Arabia livable for foreigners who bring money and know-how. That's always been the model since King Faisal: importing foreigners to do what was necessary. In the past, Saudis checked into a kind of four-star hotel at birth—government job, room service, little accountability. Egyptians and others did the work. Now, he needs Saudis to think and act for themselves. But even today, more foreigners are in the workforce than Saudis. TIME: Let's circle back to where we started. What's the broader role MBS is seeking in the global order? Regional hegemon? A player in a broader multipolar world? House: He sees Saudi Arabia as the most influential of the so-called 'middle powers,' a player not just in the Middle East, but in the global economy. He wants Saudi Arabia to be among the countries putting people on the moon or Mars. His ambitions are very big. He doesn't want to be a U.S. puppet. He partners with Russia to control oil output and prices. China is his biggest oil customer—and he wants China to influence Iran toward stability. He's using money and economic clout to push a Saudi-first agenda: What's good for Saudi Arabia? What can we get? I think he's doing a decent job at that. But my doubt is: can you play all sides against the middle forever? He wanted a U.S. security treaty tied to recognition of Israel, but he probably can't get enough votes in the U.S. Senate. And he's going to have to be more overt, more public about what he's offering and what he wants. The Israelis don't fear Saudi Arabia. But they need help solving their security problems. He doesn't want to push Iran too hard. He's made peace with the Houthis. He doesn't like Hamas, but he's not going to shout it from the rooftops either. TIME: So he's still being too subtle? House: Yes. If he wants to be a leader, he needs to advocate more publicly—not just say what he wants, but sell it. I think he could. My first impression of him was: he's a born marketer. He believes so strongly in what he says, he wants you to see it too. He'll repeat it if needed. He could take a more public role—but so far, I don't think he's doing it.
Spectator
21-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Spectator
Superman has always been ‘woke'
The moment I heard that there'd been a backlash against James Gunn's reboot of the Superman franchise on the grounds that he'd ruined this great American icon by turning the Man of Steel 'woke', I thought, sign me up! Until then, I hadn't been planning to go. Even as a longtime enthusiast for all things men-in-tights, I have always found the big blue schoolboy a bit of a bore. But now I was intrigued. Were they going to make the Man of Steel gender fluid? Have him bop some thinly disguised avatar of Donald Trump on the nose like Captain America socking Hitler? Friends, I was bitterly disappointed. Of wokeness, in this messy and basically terrible new movie, there was very little sign. It turns out that there's one scene in which Lex Luthor denounces him as an 'alien' – which he is – and Supes makes some syrupy speech about our common humanity. This, I guess, has been taken to be a ruthless attack on ICE's mission to purge the US of immigrants. And, y'know, our hero stops one country with a very well-funded military from invading its armed-with-sticks-and-stones neighbours (it's Israel/Palestine! No: it's Russia/Ukraine!… or maybe it is, even more insidious, a general principle). And the villain is a megalomaniac tech billionaire, which comic book villains have been since long before megalomaniac tech billionaires actually became comic book villains. All comic book properties these days are positively marinated in nostalgia But if you think that broad-brush comic book endorsements of defending the weak against the strong, or objecting to rolling tanks over people armed with sticks and stones, or any suggestion that undocumented aliens can be human too, constitutes 'woke propaganda', you need to give your head a bit of a wobble. If standing up for 'truth, justice and the American way' strikes you as unfairly partisan, we may have to start wondering what principles we're allowed to give goodies in movies. I thought it was the left that these guys liked to accuse of moral relativism. Also, I can't wait to tell you about Jesus. Does it need repeating for the zillionth time that by these standards, Superman has always been 'woke'? That he was the creation of two nerdy Jewish boys whose families fled European anti-Semitism, that he made his debut just before the second world war made its debut, and that opposition to fascism was kind of his big thing? Do we have to dig out all those spot-coloured panels from half a century ago in which Superman piously lectures passers-by about how un-American it is to discriminate against people on the grounds of race, creed or colour? The more interesting and more subtle question, I think, is not to do with the predictable conniptions that this children's movie has caused in pantwetting Maga influencers of a certain stripe. It is, rather, that of whether superhero movies (and comics) are by their nature not 'woke' but, at a deep level, what the young people would call fascist-coded. There's a decent case that they are. Their narrative roots are in the oral mythologies of the pre-democratic, pre-Christian world. They are myths, and their heroes are spandex-clad godlings, and their basic message is that humanity needs the vigilante violence of near-invincible individuals, answerable only to themselves, to keep it on the straight and narrow. Comic book universes and superhero stories offer the fantasy of a world in which problems are simple to solve through violence, and the goodies and baddies are painted in bold bright colours – the same fantasy populist and, at the extreme of this tendency, fascist politics depend on. It can't have escaped anyone that 'superman' is the most common translation of Nietzsche's 'Ubermensch' – and we know who loved that idea. Also, all comic book properties these days are positively marinated in nostalgia – the nostalgia of the grown adults who encounter them now for the pristine thrill of their childhood encounters with these characters (I don't mind admitting that includes me). And nostalgia is a cornerstone of fascism – a fantasy of returning to a simpler, purer world before the wokes or the postmodernists or the feminists or the rootless cosmopolitans ruined it for everyone. All these, be it said, are points that the more intelligent writers of superhero comics have repeatedly addressed. Marvel's Civil War plotline (somewhat adapted for the Avengers movie) addressed the vigilante question: unexpectedly and interestingly, Captain America (Marvel's own big blue schoolboy), comes out in the no-democratic-oversight corner, while Iron Man goes to bat for democratic oversight and the military-industrial complex. Alan Moore's Watchmen – named for its on-the-nose evocation of Juvenal ('quis custodiet…') – had looked at just the same issue some years earlier. It concluded that anyone who wanted to set the world to rights by dressing up in a cape and mask and beating spit out of the bad guys deserved a psychological once-over. And it's no accident that 'Nostalgia' was the brand name of the villain's perfume. At the same time as that, back in the late 1980s, Frank Miller's Batman: The Dark Knight Returns drew thrilling power from the mythic grandeur of its set-up, without stinting on the darker aspects of that set-up's appeal: Bats, in despair at juvenile delinquents and liberal apologists for the Joker, comes out of retirement to beat and murder these unwelcome avatars of modernity. (Frank Miller's later politics suggest that he may have got a bit too high on his own supply.) So we can rebuke comics for peddling dangerously simplistic narratives of violent redress by godlike creatures answering to nothing so boring as democracy or the rule of law. But at the same time, I'd suggest we should also step back and – rather than getting our knickers in a twist about whether they are woke propaganda or fascist myth-making – sidestep the whole thing by recognising that they are children's entertainments. Children's entertainments can and should be enjoyed by grown-ups too, but their moral outlooks only make a difference in the world when those grown-ups are childish enough to think that they need to. I took my 11-year-old. What's your excuse?
Time of India
15-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Time of India
The Nice Guy: 3 reasons why Lee Dong Wook and Lee Sung Kyung's upcoming K-drama is a must-watch
Set your reminders, K-drama fans - JTBC's The Nice Guy is gearing up for its big premiere on July 18, and it's poised to deliver a fresh take on noir-meets-melodrama. The series stars Lee Dong Wook as Park Seok Chul, a third-generation gangster with the heart of a poet, and Lee Sung Kyung as Kang Mi Young, a would-be singer whose reunion with her first love sets off a journey of love, pain, and second chances. Still deciding whether to tune in for this upcoming K-drama? Here are three compelling reasons The Nice Guy should be on your radar: A gangster with a poet's heart Park Seok Chul isn't a average mobster. Though born into a world of crime, he once dreamed of becoming a novelist - and beneath his tough exterior lies a deeply empathetic soul. His chance reunion with Kang Mi Young, who battles her own past traumas and stage fright, rekindles something both beautiful and heartbreaking. Their love story is shaping up to be one of the show's emotional anchors. Director Song Hae Sung describes Seok Chul as "a contradiction - a pure heart in a ruthless world," while writer Kim Hyo Seok notes, "These characters are messy, flawed, and human. They reflect real people trying to change." Trusted storytellers The Nice Guy brings together a powerhouse creative team. It is co-directed by acclaimed filmmaker Song Hae Sung (Failan, Boomerang Family) and Park Hong Soo (Lost), with a script by Kim Woon Kyung (Yoona's Street) and Kim Hyo Seok (Yadang: The Snitch). It's also the first TV drama produced by Hive Media Corp, known for critically acclaimed films like Inside Men and 12.12: The Day. The production promises both quality storytelling and cinematic scale, blending gritty crime drama with emotional depth. Fiery cast The drama features a stellar lineup of actors Lee Dong Wook as Park Seok Chul, a man torn between loyalty and love. Lee Sung Kyung as Kang Mi Young, whose courage grows through love. Park Hoon as Kang Tae Hoon, Seok Chul's former comrade turned rival, entangled in a tense love triangle. Oh Na Ra as Park Seok Kyung, Seok Chul's impulsive sister who spirals after personal failures. Ryu Hye Young as Park Seok Hee, the youngest sibling - smart, upright, but facing her own moral dilemmas. Chun Ho Jin as Park Sil Gon, the patriarch carrying the weight of past regrets. Director Song praised the ensemble, saying, "Casting was everything here. These actors embody their roles perfectly." Writer Kim Hyo Seok echoed this, calling the casting "fated." Romance, revenge, and redemption The love story between Seok Chul and Mi Young is not just about rekindled feelings - it's about healing. Their connection helps them face their pasts and imagine better futures. "They complete each other," says director Song, "He regains innocence through her, and she finds the strength to sing again through him."But with family tensions, rival gangs, and personal betrayals threatening to tear them apart, The Nice Guy promises a rollercoaster of emotions. The Nice Guy premieres July 18 at 8:50 PM KST on JTBC, airing two back-to-back episodes every Friday. Prepare for a gritty, heartfelt journey where love and loyalty are put to the ultimate test. For all the latest K-drama, K-pop, and Hallyuwood updates, keep following our coverage here.
Daily Record
10-07-2025
- Sport
- Daily Record
Luke Donald issues ruthless Ryder Cup warning to Team Europe at stately home summit
The captain gathered his stars in a Scottish camp again for talks about the New York Ryder Cup that they will never before have experienced Luke Donald has warned his troops New York is going to be absolutely ruthless and togetherness holds the key to the Ryder Cup. The European skipper brought together a squad of players for a gathering ahead of the Genesis Scottish Open. Donald had 20 potential team members as well as vice-captains involved on Tuesday night at the lavish Gilmerton House near The Renaissance for an informal evening of messaging and chat. At this stage, Rory McIlroy is the only European star automatically qualified for the team to face the United States in September. LIV players Jon Rahm and Tyrrell Hatton are in Spain competing at Valderrama this week, but with many places up for grabs, Donald assembled 20 others at the stately home with established stars and team-hopefuls mingling and unifying over dinner. Donald's masterful captaincy was a feature of the Rome triumph in 2023 with the togetherness he built in his group a critical factor in the win. Just as he did prior to Italy, he used Gilmerton House for talks on Scottish Open week. Danish star Rasmus Neergaard-Petersen, who is currently 15th on the qualification list, was amongst those at the gathering and gave an insight into the messaging of the captain. Speaking at an Under Armour event staged the following night at the same venue, he said: 'His message was, you know, we know that the environment we're going to go into in New York is going to be nothing like a European side's ever seen before. 'It's going to be absolutely ruthless and the better we can be at not reacting to whatever might be there emotionally, just kind of keeping our head down and minding our business and sticking together as a group, the stronger we can be as a team. 'One thing is that we have world-class players, but the better we can be as a team, the better chance we have to go get the trophy home with us.' Neergaard-Petersen is clearly in with an outside chance of making the team with four other Danes, Hojgaard twins Rasmus and Nicolai, Thornbjorn Olesen and Niklas Norgaard also in the Top 20 in the qualification rankings. Intriguingly, Donald will play alongside the 26-year-old for the opening two days at Renaissance to get a close look at the emerging talent. Neergaard-Petersen, who came 12th in last month's US Open, said: 'Obviously I know that I have to play extremely well from now basically until the Ryder Cup's being played. But just to have a reasonable chance is incredible and, obviously, gives me a lot of motivation going forward as well. 'I always thought that I had the level and the talent to get to here at some point, but obviously I'm maybe a little bit surprised that it's been this fast, but just kind of taking it as it comes and now we're here. To be in this position now with contending a major championship, being in talks for Ryder Cup teams already, still a lot of years ahead of me, I'm just super excited for the future. 'I'm obviously going to do whatever, as much as I possibly can to make the team this year, but also just take a lot of confidence in knowing and believe that, even if it's not this year, then certainly down the road and have full belief that I'm going to make it happen. 'It'd be a dream come true. I've watched every Ryder Cup growing up that I can remember and that's one of the reasons that I started playing golf is I wanted to play the biggest events, I wanted to play Ryder Cups, so that's what drives me. So that would be a dream come true. 'And again, as I said, whether or not it's this year or down the line, I'm okay with. I'm just going to go out and do whatever I possibly can and do my absolute very best to see if I can make it this year. And if not this year, then just keep plugging away and then definitely in the future.'
Daily Maverick
08-07-2025
- Business
- Daily Maverick
Trump's budget is not the end: it's the beginning of the end of America
In the end it passed. But, as is the case with American politics these days, it was not without drama; Donald Trump's signature tax-and-spending legislation, dubbed the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' Act ('OBBA' in the parlance), overcame a record-breaking eight-and-a-half-hour filibuster attempt by Democratic house leader Hakeem Jefferies, who used his so called 'magic minute' to delay the vote. It was in vain. By late Thursday the house had approved the bill, and on Friday – Independence Day in America – Trump signed it into law. Now the country, and the global economy, awaits the fallout. The bill marks the culmination of Trump's first five months in power, and never has he looked so politically dominant. Regardless of whether one likes him or agrees with his policies, Trump has shown a ruthless efficiency in getting his agenda passed. 'There could be no better birthday present for America than the phenomenal victory we achieved just hours ago,' Trump declared last Thursday night at a celebratory rally in Des Moines, Iowa, where he achieved his first victories in the two elections he has won. Referencing the passage of OBBA, he assured the crowd that it will 'make America great again'. The moment caps a period of aggressive policymaking in which Trump has consolidated and centralised power. 'I think I have more power now, actually I do,' he said to journalists shortly before flying to Iowa for the victory rally. In the past month alone, Trump has escalated his immigration crackdown through his ICE security state within a state, ordered the military to the streets of Los Angeles, launched stealth bomber strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and strong-armed Nato allies into massive increases in defence spending. He also notched a critical win at the Supreme Court, which has curtailed the ability of federal judges to issue sweeping injunctions against his swathe of executive actions. Meanwhile, strong economic data has muted the shrill criticism from Wall Street and business leaders. Job growth has remained steady, inflation subdued, and stock markets have rebounded from April's collapse, with the S&P 500 and Nasdaq reaching new highs. The market is now forecasting two interest rate cuts in 2025. On Thursday, officials celebrated better-than-expected employment figures as proof that the administration's fiscal and trade plans are working. The passage of Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' marks not just a legislative victory for Trump but proof that he now commands almost complete control over an often-fractured GOP. Yet, at this moment of hubris, there can be no doubting the risks that lie ahead for Trump, the US economy, and particularly America's most vulnerable citizens. Mounting debt and cost of cuts First – the effects of the bill on US public finances. Economist Kathryn Anne Edwards has warned that the bill could be an 'economy killer', with forecasts projecting it will add $3.3-trillion (R58-trillion) to the already burgeoning national debt over the next decade. Most of that increase stems from the permanent extension of the tax cuts introduced during Trump's first term in the White House. When confronted with these numbers, the White House offers little in the way of economic justification. As economist Adam Tooze has written, their answer is 'Baathist-style denial': growth will go up and deficits come down because Trump says so. The fact is that this budget is less about economics than politics. Trump's campaign was funded by billionaires to whom he made one central promise; he will make sure their taxes do not go up. On this, he duly delivered. The second key channel of harm comes from the bill's sweeping cuts to healthcare and nutrition support for low- and middle-income Americans. Roughly 12 million Americans are expected to lose access to Medicaid, primarily due to new work requirements. An additional 17 million are projected to become uninsured as subsidies from the Affordable Health Care Act are gutted. At least two million will lose food stamps, while benefits for a further 40 million will be sharply reduced. That such deep cuts to social welfare programs still result in a $3-trillion (R53-trillion) addition to the national debt is a stark indicator of the cost of the tax cuts being handed to the wealthy. This is a last gasp of looting what they can before the deficit spirals out of control. Consider that the average annual household food benefit is $4,000 (R71,000) and average spending per enrollee in Medicaid is around $7,600 (R135,500). In contrast, the top 10% of households – about 12.7-million of them – will receive an annual tax cut of $13,500 (R240,700). Recession coming But what is even more sobering is that these are almost best-case scenarios; none of these forecasts consider the increasingly likely reality that the US will enter a recession at some point over the next 18 to 24 months. In that case, the damage to public finances and low-income households will be far more severe. Some economists are already comparing OBBA's timing and effects to the infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of the 1930s, which exacerbated the Great Depression and became emblematic of economic blunders. The third major risk to the economy is trade. It is simply impossible to know what will actually transpire with Trump's mooted tariffs, given that he changes his mind seemingly by the hour. Perhaps the only thing which is certain is that nothing which results from this 'reciprocal tariffs' idea is going to work. They won't close the US current account deficit, they won't lead to a manufacturing revival, and they won't replace revenue from slashed federal income tax. But they will harm the economy, both through the endless uncertainty his dithering creates and by increasing the cost of doing business. Average US tariff rates are likely to jump dramatically from their current 12.6% over the next few months, which is already a sharp rise from the pre-Trump level of 1.7%, according to Bloomberg data. This will hurt profits and the US consumer. The dollar's recent slide, attributed largely to tariff uncertainty, was the steepest for any first half of the year since the oil crisis year of 1973. The rest of the world will also pay. Despite President Cyril Ramaphosa's desperate attempts at bootlicking in the White House, flanked by golfers and a billionaire, South Africa is in the firing line. The opening salvo was Monday's letter announcing 30% tariffs on South African imports. While it is impossible to know where this will end, given Trump's propensity for art-of-the-deal-type gambits, these are pivotal weeks in the US president's trade war. More disciplined, strategic Trump Trump has always relished playing the bully, but this time around he is more organised, better advised and dangerous than in his first term. Five months in, the masterplan is becoming clearer, and the damage it will wreak on the US economy, society and the world. Steve Bannon, the high priest of MAGA and a key Trump ally and advisor, recently told the Financial Times that Trump is 'America's third world-historic leader' after George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. 'Trump's not leaving,' he added, hinting at a third-term run. 'He's going to be in your head for a long time.'
