On April 2, United States President Donald Trump unveiled a sweeping new “reciprocal tariff” regime he says will level the playing field in global trade – by treating other countries the way ( he claims ) they treat the US.
First, Trump’s strategy may impose a “baseline” 10 % tax on almost all products imported into the US, effective April 5. Therefore, from April 9, 57 states will experience higher “reciprocal taxes”.
These vary by state, according to a method based on individual business imbalances.
On face value, the new tax plan may sound like a easy answer for fairness. If a certain nation was taxing American imports with a 50 % price, it might seem good for the US to tax their goods at 50 % as well.
But appearances are deceiving.
These innovative “reciprocal” taxes apparently aim to eliminate the US trade deficit by making exports more expensive so that Americans buy less from abroad until goods similar exports.
But the Trump administration hasn’t instantly matched certain unusual taxes. Instead, they’ve opted for a simplistic method based on bilateral trade imbalances between the US and each particular state. Those aren’t the same items.
Trade imbalances aren’t taxes
A nation has a business gap when the full price of everything it imports from somewhere else exceeds the value of what it exports it. A business deficit is the same.
Trade imbalances and surplus – the balance of trade – may be calculated between certain countries, but also between one state and the rest of the world.
Taxes are unique things entirely – income a land charges on imports when they cross the border, paid by the buyer.
Trump’s fresh mutual taxes have been calculated by taking the US trade deficit with each nation, dividing it by full US exports from that country, therefore halving the resulting amount and converting it into a portion.
For example, in 2024, the US imported approximately US$ 605.8 billion from the European Union, but exported only$ 370.2 billion, resulting in a trade deficit of$ 235.6 billion.
Dividing the deficit by total imports from the EU gives a ratio of 39 %. The White House interpreted this figure as the EU’s trade “advantage” and subsequently imposed a “discounted” 20 % tariff on EU products – roughly half of 39 %.
This same calculation led to a 34 % tariff on China, 26 % on India, 24 % on Japan and 25 % on South Korea. More export-dependent developing countries, including many in Southeast Asia, face some eye-wateringly high reciprocal tariffs.
Trade experts swiftly criticised the methodology behind the tariffs. James Surowiecki, a financial journalist, labelled it “extraordinary nonsense”.
Just figured out where these fake tariff rates come from. They didn’t actually calculate tariff rates non-tariff barriers, as they say they did. Instead, for every country, they just took our trade deficit with that country and divided it by the country’s exports to us.
So we … https ://t.co/PBjF8xmcuv
— James Surowiecki ( @JamesSurowiecki ) April 2, 2025
While the use of economic formulas in the corresponding US Trade Representative document might give it an appearance of being grounded in economic theory, it is detached from the rigours of trade economics.
The formula assumes every trade deficit is a result of other countries ‘ unfair trade practices, but that is simply not the case. To see why, we need to understand why Trump’s obsession with trade deficits is wrong.
A government isn’t a household
Why does Trump detest trade deficits? He appears to think of the national balance of trade like a business or household’s finances.
Under Trump’s logic, if more money is leaving the “account” than coming in, that’s bad business. A$ 200 million trade deficit would mean the US is “losing” – with money and jobs being siphoned away.
Trump argues other countries have been taking advantage of America by running up big trade surpluses and “hollowing out” US industry. He has long argued that America’s massive deficits indicate unfair trade deals, foreign protectionism, and even a threat to national security.
Few economists share Trump’s view
The trade gap is not money simply being drained overseas by allegedly rapacious foreigners. Rather, it represents the exchange of value.
American consumer behaviour is a significant driver of the US trade deficit. As a consumption powerhouse, the United States sees its residents and businesses spending vast sums on imported products ranging from iPhones and TVs to clothing and toys.
Many of these are actually produced by US companies but made overseas. Moreover, those US companies license foreign factories to produce these goods, and the intellectual property revenues earned make up a huge US surplus in services trade.
But services trade does not feature in the formula. This shows the singular obsession with tangible things, or goods trade. Yet, in most supply chains, it is the services components that yield the most value.
Back on the goods side, when the US economy is robust and people have disposable income, imports naturally increase. Ultimately, while trade deficits indicate economic dynamics, they are not inherently negative nor do they signify economic weakness.
Rather, they often reflect a nation’s economic structure and consumer preference for diverse global products. After all, Australia has run trade deficits for decades, including with the US, and is one of the wealthiest countries in the world.
The uninhabited Heard and McDonald Islands, home to a large population of penguins, were hit with tariffs in this week’s announcement. Image: VW Pics/Getty via The Conversation
The real reason for the deficit
The formula used to calculate the reciprocal tariffs is highly misleading. Responsible policy makers would take account of many other factors in their calculations.
Among other variables, the US Trade Representative formula fails to consider strong US consumer demand for imports. It also overlooks the US government’s gigantic fiscal deficit. This requires it to borrow money from overseas, pushing up the value of the US dollar. This strong dollar supports US purchases of imports.
In other words, the US runs large trade deficits not primarily because other nations have high trade barriers but largely because Americans need to fund their debts and want to buy lots of imported goods. The misleading formula places the blame entirely on an ill-conceived notion, and we are all going to pay the price.
Artificial intelligence ( AI ) has seen rapid growth, transforming industries and daily life. From bots to superior conceptual designs, AI’s skills continue to expand, driven by effective businesses investing heavily in research and development.
” The development of AI is as important as the design of the microcontroller, the individual computer, the Internet, and the smart phone”, wrote Bill Gates in 2023. ” It may change the way people work, learn, travel, get health care, and communicate with each other”.
In 2025, companies such as OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, and emerging challengers like DeepSeek have pushed the boundaries of what large language models ( LLMs) can do. Additionally, business solutions from Microsoft and Meta are making AI equipment more accessible to companies and developers alike.
This article explores the latest Artificial designs available to the public, their advantages and drawbacks and how they compare in the dynamic AI environment.
AI designs rely on considerable computational resources, especially large language versions ( LLMs) that require large data and processing power. The leading AI designs undergo difficult education procedures that involve billions of parameters, consuming substantial energy and equipment.
Important AI players invest in cutting-edge technology and marketing strategies to improve effectiveness while maintaining high efficiency. The harmony between computing power, speed, and pricing is a significant factor in differentiating these AI models.
The Dynamic Landscape: Best AI Models
OpenAI’s ChatGPT
ChatGPT, developed by OpenAI, is one of the most recognized and commonly used AI types in the world. Built with a dialogue-driven style, ChatGPT is designed to reply follow-up questions, challenge incorrect facilities, admit mistakes, and accept improper calls. Its versatility has made it a leading AI tool for both casual and professional use, spanning industries such as customer service, content creation, programming, and research.
ChatGPT is ideal for a wide range of users, including writers, business professionals, educators, developers, and researchers. Its free-tier accessibility makes it an excellent starting point for casual users, while businesses, content creators, and developers can leverage its advanced models for enhanced productivity and automation.
It is also among the most user-friendly AI models available, featuring a clean interface, intuitive responses, and seamless interaction across devices. However, organizations that require custom AI models or stricter data privacy controls may find its closed-source nature restrictive, particularly compared to open-source alternatives like Meta’s LLaMA.
The latest version, GPT-4o, is available for free-tier users and offers a strong balance of speed, reasoning, and text generation capabilities. For users seeking enhanced performance, ChatGPT Plus provides priority access and faster response times at a monthly subscription cost.
For professionals and businesses requiring more robust capabilities, ChatGPT Pro unlocks advanced reasoning features through the o1 pro mode, which includes enhanced voice functionality and improved performance on complex queries.
Developers looking to integrate ChatGPT into applications can access its API, a type of software interface. Pricing starts at approximately$ 0.15 per million input tokens and$ 0.60 per million output tokens for GPT-4o mini, while the more powerful o1 models come at a higher cost. A token is defined as a fundamental unit of data, like a word or subword, that an AI model processes to understand and generate text.
One of ChatGPT’s greatest strengths is its versatility and conversational memory. It can handle a broad range of tasks, from casual conversation and creative writing to technical problem-solving, coding assistance, and business automation. When memory is enabled, ChatGPT can retain context across interactions, allowing for a more personalized user experience.
Another key advantage is its proven user base—with hundreds of millions of users worldwide, ChatGPT has undergone continuous refinement based on real-world feedback, improving its accuracy and usability. Additionally, GPT-4o’s multimodal capabilities allow it to process text, images, audio, and video, making it a comprehensive AI tool for content creation, analysis, and customer engagement.
While a free version exists, the most powerful features require paid subscriptions, which may limit accessibility for smaller businesses, independent developers, and startups. Another drawback is an occasional lag in real-time updates, even though ChatGPT has web-browsing capabilities, it may struggle with the most recent or fast-changing information.
Lastly, its proprietary model means users have limited control over modifications or customization, as they must adhere to OpenAI’s data policies and content restrictions.
Google’s Gemini
Google’s Gemini series is renowned for its multimodal capabilities and its ability to handle extensive context, making it a versatile tool for both personal and enterprise-level applications.
General consumers and productivity users benefit from Gemini’s deep integration with Google Search, Gmail, Docs, and Assistant, making it an excellent tool for research, email drafting, and task automation. Business and enterprise users find value in Gemini’s integration with Google Workspace, enhancing collaboration across Drive, Sheets, and Meet.
Developers and AI researchers can leverage its capabilities through Google Cloud and Vertex AI, making it a strong choice for building AI applications and custom models. Creative professionals can take advantage of its multimodal abilities, working with text, images, and video. Meanwhile, students and educators benefit from Gemini’s ability to summarize, explain concepts, and assist with research, making it a powerful academic tool.
Google Gemini is highly accessible, especially for those already familiar with Google services. Its seamless integration across Google’s ecosystem allows for effortless adoption in both personal and business applications.
Casual users will find it intuitive, with real-time search enhancements and natural interactions that require little to no learning curve. Developers and AI researchers can unlock advanced customization through API access and cloud-based features, though utilizing these tools effectively may require technical expertise.
The current versions, Gemini 1.5 Flash and Pro, cater to different needs, with Flash offering a cost-efficient, distilled option and Pro providing higher performance. Meanwhile, the Gemini 2.0 series, designed primarily for enterprise use, includes experimental models like Gemini 2.0 Flash with enhanced speed and multimodal live APIs, as well as the more powerful Gemini 2.0 Pro.
Basic access to Gemini is often free or available through Google Cloud’s Vertex AI. Still, advanced usage, especially when integrated into enterprise solutions, was introduced at$ 19.99–$ 25 per month per user, with pricing adjusted to reflect added features like a 1-million-token context window.
Gemini’s main advantage over other AIs is that it excels in processing text, images, audio, and video simultaneously, making it a standout in multimodal mastery. It also integrates seamlessly with Google Workspace, Gmail, and Android devices, making it a natural fit for users already in the Google ecosystem. Additionally, it offers competitive pricing for developers and enterprises needing robust capabilities, especially in extended context handling.
However, Gemini’s performance can be inconsistent, particularly with rare languages or specialized queries. Some advanced versions may be limited by safety testing, delaying wider access. Furthermore, its deep integration with Google’s ecosystem can be a barrier for users outside that environment, making adoption more challenging.
Anthropic’s Claude
Anthropic’s Claude is known for its emphasis on safety, natural conversational flow, and long-form contextual understanding. It is particularly well-suited for users who prioritize ethical AI usage and structured collaboration in their workflows.
Researchers and academics who need long-form contextual retention and minimal hallucinations, as well as writers and content creators who benefit from its structured approach and accuracy, will find Claude an essential and beneficial AI assistant.
Business professionals and teams can leverage Claude’s” Projects” feature for task and document management, while educators and students will find its safety guardrails and clear responses ideal for learning support.
Because Claude is highly accessible for those seeking a structured, ethical AI with a strong contextual understanding, it is moderately suitable for creative users who may find its restrictive filters limiting and less ideal for those needing unrestricted, fast brainstorming tools or AI-generated content with minimal moderation.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet, on the other hand, is the flagship model, offering enhanced reasoning, speed, and contextual understanding for both individual and enterprise users. For businesses and teams, the Claude Team and Enterprise Plans start at approximately$ 25 per user per month ( billed annually ), providing advanced collaboration features.
Individual users can access Claude Pro, a premium plan that costs around$ 20 per month, offering expanded capabilities and priority access. A limited free tier is also available, allowing general users to explore basic features and test its functionality.
Unlike most AIs, Claude excels in ethical AI safety, extended conversational memory, and structured project management, making it ideal for users who require reliable and well-moderated AI assistance. Its intuitive interface and organization tools enhance productivity for writers, researchers, educators, and business professionals.
However, there are instances when availability constraints during peak hours can disrupt workflow efficiency. Claude’s strict safety filters, while preventing harmful content, sometimes limit creative flexibility, making it less suitable for highly experimental or unrestricted brainstorming sessions. Additionally, enterprise costs may be high for large-scale teams with extensive AI usage.
DeepSeek AI
DeepSeek, a newcomer from China, has quickly gained attention for its cost efficiency and open-access philosophy. Unlike many established AI models, DeepSeek focuses on providing affordable AI access while maintaining strong reasoning capabilities, making it an appealing option for businesses and individual users alike.
” DeepSeek R1 is one of the most amazing and impressive breakthroughs I’ve ever seen—and as open source, a profound gift to the world”, said Marc Andreessen, former software engineer and co-founder of Netscape.
Being an excellent choice for cost-conscious businesses, independent developers, and researchers who need a powerful yet affordable AI solution, DeepSeek is particularly suitable for startups, academic institutions, and enterprises that require strong reasoning and problem-solving capabilities without high operational costs.
It is highly accessible for individuals due to its free web-based model, and even developers and enterprises benefit from its low-cost API. However, organizations requiring politically neutral AI models or strict privacy assurances may find it less suitable, especially in industries where data security and regulatory compliance are paramount.
The latest model, DeepSeek-R1, is designed for advanced reasoning tasks and is accessible through both an API and a chat interface. An earlier version, DeepSeek-V3, serves as the architectural foundation for the current releases, offering an extended context window of up to 128, 000 tokens while being optimized for efficiency.
DeepSeek is free for individual users through its web interface, making it one of the most accessible AI models available. However, for business applications, API usage comes at a significantly lower cost than US competitors, making it an attractive option for enterprises looking to reduce expenses.
Reports indicate that DeepSeek’s training costs are drastically lower, with estimates suggesting it was trained for approximately$ 6 million, a fraction of the cost compared to competitors, whose training expenses can run into the tens or hundreds of millions.
One of DeepSeek’s biggest strengths is its cost efficiency. It allows businesses and developers to access powerful AI without the financial burden associated with models like OpenAI’s GPT-4 or Anthropic’s Claude. Its open-source approach further enhances its appeal, as it provides model weights and technical documentation under open licenses, encouraging transparency and community-driven improvements.
Additionally, its strong reasoning capabilities have been benchmarked against leading AI models, with DeepSeek-R1 rivaling OpenAI’s top-tier models in specific problem-solving tasks. As Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark wrote in his” Import AI” newsletter,” R1 is significant because it broadly matches OpenAI’s o1 model on a range of reasoning tasks and challenges the notion that Western AI companies hold a significant lead over Chinese ones”.
A notable problem with DeepSeek is that its response latency, especially during periods of high demand, makes it less ideal for real-time applications where speed is crucial. Censorship and bias are also potential concerns. DeepSeek aligns with local content regulations, meaning it may sanitize or avoid politically sensitive topics, which could limit its appeal in global markets.
Additionally, some users have raised privacy concerns due to its Chinese ownership, questioning whether its data policies are as stringent as those of Western AI companies that comply with strict international privacy standards.
Microsoft’s Copilot
Microsoft’s Copilot is a productivity-focused AI assistant designed to enhance workplace efficiency through seamless integration with the Microsoft 365 suite. By embedding AI-powered automation directly into tools like Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, and Teams, Copilot serves as an intelligent assistant that streamlines workflows, automates repetitive tasks, and enhances document generation.
Ideal for businesses, enterprise teams, and professionals who heavily rely on Microsoft 365 applications for their daily operations, Microsoft’s Copilot is particularly beneficial for corporate professionals, financial analysts, project managers, and administrative staff who need AI-powered assistance to enhance productivity and reduce time spent on routine tasks.
However, organizations that prefer open-source AI models or require flexible, cross-platform compatibility may find Copilot less suitable, especially if they rely on non-Microsoft software ecosystems for their workflows.
Microsoft 365 Copilot is available across Microsoft’s core productivity applications, providing AI-powered assistance for document creation, email drafting, data analysis, and meeting summarization.
The service costs approximately$ 30 per user per month and typically requires an annual subscription. However, pricing can vary based on region and enterprise agreements, with some organizations receiving customized pricing based on their licensing structure.
One of Copilot’s most significant advantages is its deep ecosystem integration within Microsoft 365. For businesses and professionals already using Microsoft Office, Copilot enhances workflows by embedding AI-driven suggestions and automation directly within familiar applications.
Its task automation capabilities are another significant benefit, helping users generate reports, summarize meetings, draft emails, and analyze data more efficiently. Furthermore, Copilot receives continuous updates backed by Microsoft’s substantial investments in AI and cloud computing, ensuring regular improvements in performance, accuracy, and feature expansion.
In contrast, one of the significant drawbacks of Microsoft’s Copilot is its ecosystem lock-in—Copilot is tightly coupled with Microsoft 365, meaning its full potential is only realized by organizations already invested in Microsoft’s software ecosystem. Limited flexibility is another concern, as it lacks extensive third-party integrations found in more open AI platforms, making customization difficult for businesses that rely on a broader range of tools.
Additionally, some users report occasional response inconsistencies, where Copilot may lose context in long sessions or provide overly generic responses, requiring manual refinement.
Meta AI
Meta’s suite of AI tools, built on its open-weight LLaMA models, is a versatile and research-friendly AI suite designed for both general use and specialized applications. Meta’s approach prioritizes open-source development, accessibility, and integration with its social media platforms, making it a unique player in the AI landscape.
It is ideal for developers, researchers, and AI enthusiasts who want free, open-source models that they can customize and fine-tune. It is also well-suited for businesses and brands leveraging Meta’s social platforms, as its AI can enhance customer interactions and content creation within apps like Instagram and WhatsApp.
Meta AI is highly accessible for developers and researchers due to its open-source availability and flexibility. However, businesses and casual users may find it less intuitive compared to AI models with more refined user-facing tools. Additionally, companies needing strong content moderation and regulatory compliance may prefer more tightly controlled AI systems from competitors like Microsoft or Anthropic.
Meta AI operates on a range of LLaMA models, including LLaMA 2 and LLaMA 3, which serve as the foundation for various applications. Specialized versions, such as Code Llama, are tailored for coding tasks, offering developers AI-powered assistance in programming.
One of Meta AI’s standout features is its open-source licensing, which makes many of its tools free for research and commercial use. However, enterprise users may encounter service-level agreements ( SLAs ) or indirect costs, especially when integrating Meta’s AI with proprietary systems or platform partnerships.
Meta AI’s biggest advantage is its open-source and customizable nature, allowing developers to fine-tune models for specific use cases. This fosters greater innovation, flexibility, and transparency compared to closed AI systems.
Additionally, Meta AI is embedded within popular social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, giving it massive consumer reach and real-time interactive capabilities. Meta also provides specialized AI models, such as Code Llama, for programming and catering to niche technical applications.
Despite its powerful underlying technology, Meta AI’s user interfaces and responsiveness can sometimes feel less polished than those of competitors like OpenAI and Microsoft. Additionally, Meta has faced controversies regarding content moderation and bias, raising concerns about AI-generated misinformation and regulatory scrutiny.
Another challenge is ecosystem fragmentation, with multiple AI models and branding under Meta, navigating the differences between Meta AI, LLaMA and other offerings can be confusing for both developers and general users.
AI’s impact on the future of technology
As AI adoption grows, the energy demand for training and operating these models increases. Companies are developing more efficient AI models while managing infrastructure costs.
Modern AI models, particularly those known as large language models ( LLMs), are powerhouses that demand vast computational resources. Training these models involves running billions of calculations across highly specialized hardware over days, weeks, or even months.
The process is analogous to running an industrial factory non-stop—a feat that requires a tremendous amount of energy. The rise of AI assistants, automation, and multimodal capabilities will further shape industries, from customer support to content creation.
” The worst thing you can do is have machines wasting power by being always on”, said James Coomer, senior vice president for products at DDN, a California-based software development firm, during the 2023 AI conference ai-PULSE.
AI competition will likely drive further advancements, leading to smarter, more accessible, and environmentally conscious AI solutions. However, challenges related to cost, data privacy, and ethical considerations will continue to shape the development of AI.
AI companies are actively addressing concerns about energy consumption and sustainability by optimizing their models to enhance efficiency while minimizing power usage. One key approach is leveraging renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, to supply data centers, which significantly reduces their carbon footprint.
Additionally, advancements in hardware are being developed to support more energy-efficient AI computation, enabling systems to perform complex tasks with lower energy demands. These innovations not only help reduce environmental impact but also contribute to long-term cost savings for AI companies.
Beyond technological improvements, regulatory policies are being introduced to ensure AI growth aligns with environmental sustainability. Governments and industry leaders need to work together to establish guidelines that encourage responsible energy consumption while promoting research into eco-friendly AI solutions. However, the fear of governmental regulation often makes technology leaders hesitant to collaborate.
One voice at the forefront of global AI governance is Amandeep Singh Gill, the United Nations Secretary-General’s envoy on technology, who emphasizes the importance of collaborative governance in AI development —and sustainable development needs to be part of this cooperation and coordination.
” ]W] e have to find ways to engage with those who are in the know”, he said in a September 2024 interview in Time. ” Often, there’s a gap between technology developers and regulators, particularly when the private sector is in the lead.
When it comes to diplomats and civil servants and leaders and ministers, there’s a further gap. How can you involve different stakeholders, the private sector in particular, in a way that influences action? You need to have a shared understanding”.
No matter the level of collaboration between the private and public sectors, companies need to aggressively explore emission-mitigation methods like carbon offset programs and energy-efficient algorithms to further mitigate their environmental impact.
By integrating these strategies, the AI industry is making strides toward a more sustainable future without compromising innovation and progress.
Balancing innovation and responsibility
AI is advancing rapidly, with OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, DeepSeek, CoPilot and MetaAI leading the way. While these models offer groundbreaking capabilities, they also come with costs, limitations, and sustainability concerns.
Businesses, researchers, and policymakers must prioritize responsible AI development while maintaining accessibility and efficiency. The Futurist: The AI ( R ) evolution panel discussion held by the Washington Post brought together industry leaders to explore the multifaceted impact of artificial intelligence ( AI ) on business, governance, and society.
Martin Kon of Cohere explains that his role is securing AI for business with an emphasis on data privacy, which is essential for” critical infrastructure like banking, insurance, health care, government, energy, telco, etc”.
Because there’s no equivalent of Google Search for enterprises, AI, Kon says, is an invaluable tool in searching for needles in haystacks–but it’s complicated:” Every year, those haystacks get bigger, and every year, the needles get more valuable, but every enterprise’s haystacks are different. They’re data sources, and everyone cares about different needles”. He is, however, optimistic on the job front, maintaining that the new technology will create more jobs and greater value than many critics fear.
” Doctors, nurses, radiologists spend three and a half hours a day on admin. If you can get that done in 20 minutes, that’s three hours a day you’ve freed up of health care professionals. You’re not going to fire a third of them. They’re just going to have more time to treat patients, to train, to teach others, to sleep for the brain surgery tomorrow”.
May Habib, CEO of Writer, which builds AI models, is similarly optimistic, describing AI as “democratizing”. ” All of these secret Einsteins in the company that didn’t have access to the tools to build can now build things that can be completely trajectory-changing for the business, and that’s the kind of vision that folks need to hear. And when folks hear that vision, they see a space and a part for themselves in it”.
Sy Choudhury, director of business development for AI Partnerships at Meta, sees a vital role for AI on the public sector side. ” ]I ] t can be everything very mundane from logistics all the way to cybersecurity, all the way to your billing and making sure that you can talk to your state school when you’re applying for federal student–or student loans, that kind of thing”.
Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-CA ), who led the House AI Task Force in 2024, acknowledges the need for” an institute to set standards for AI and to create testing and evaluation methodologies for AI” but emphasizes that” those standards should be non-compulsory …” And while agreeing that AI is” a very powerful tool”, he says that it’s still” just a tool”, adding that “if you concentrate on outcomes, you don’t have to worry as much about the tools …”
But some of those outcomes, he admits, can be adverse. ” ]O ] ne example that I use a lot is the potential malicious use of AI for cyber fraud and cyber theft”, he says. ” ]I ] n the pantheon of malicious uses of AI, that’s one of the ones that we at the task force worried the most about because we say bad actors are going to bad, and they’re going to bad more productively with AI than without AI because it’s such a powerful tool for enhancing productivity”.
Consumers can also do their part by managing AI usage wisely—turning off unused applications, optimizing workflows, and advocating for sustainable AI practices. AI’s future depends on balancing innovation with responsibility. The challenge is not just about creating smarter AI but also ensuring that its growth benefits society while minimizing its environmental impact.
Sharon Kumar is a technology editor at The Observatory, where he provides analysis and critical perspectives on the rapidly evolving tech landscape. As a seasoned MAANG tech professional with over a decade of experience in program management, strategic planning, and technology-driven business solutions, including AI and system performance optimization, Kumar has a deep understanding of emerging trends, digital infrastructure, and software development.
This article was produced by The Observatory, a project of the Independent Media Institute, and is republished with permission.
It may seem a bit odd, but the shotgun is a new battlefield weapon against drones, specifically First Person View ( FPV ) drones. Some innovative options may enable man field endurance.
Most FPV robots are smaller, usually quadcopters. These robots are electric powered with four vehicles. They are being used in the hundreds of thousands in the Ukraine war and, according to some Russian options, accounts for as much as three-quarters of the deaths on the field, far more than from artillery attacks, missiles, or weapons. These robots can get out even smaller army units and eliminate them.
There is a great struggle throughout NATO and in Russia to come up with answers to the destruction caused by tiny robots. No one is proposing shutting down the manufacturers, however.
One technique, jamming, is in common use. However, newer robots work on various wavelengths and are difficult to jam online. Also, when you attack army drones online you also disable your own robots and other gear.
Now, more advanced drones are using imaging and AI so that if a message is interrupted, the aircraft can also bring out its activity, provided it has already locked onto a goal. But – thus much – these “fancy” robots are the exception, not the law, on the field.
The Russians have even introduced robots connected to providers using fiber optic cables. These robots can’t get online jammed, but the fibre optic cable limits their range.
FPV helicopter with various Optical fiber length adjustable to mission. ( Photo: Russian Telegram channel )
Different methods involve using netting and wire bars to cause drones or their bombs before they can strike a target. To a level, this is successful at predetermined locations, but it’s impossible in a changing fight.
A lot of work is going into some out-of-the-box options, including rapidly-firing anti-drone weapons, nets to catch drones that can be launched from the ground, and lasers that can fire up a vehicle’s electronics.
One” option” turns out to be an ancient weapon, the gun. A gun is a tool of last hotel on the field, but firearms are having some success against drones. The Russians and Ukrainians are using them.
Benelli M4 A. I. Drone Guardian
There is some new gun technology that offers better odds to take down robots on the battlefield. One of the best advancements is a custom design by the Roman gun maker Benelli. Benelli is owned by Italy’s leading gun business, Beretta.
Benelli’s fresh pistol is called the M4 A. I. Drone Guardian. ( The” A. I”. stands for sophisticated influence, not artificial intelligence ). The weapons features a new weapon cylinder and gun drown designed to improve the range the shot you accomplish and drastically increase the focus of the shotgun pellets.
The cannon is matched to a new weapons produced by a Finnish company, Norma. Norma designed the weapons, AD-LER, especially to work best with the Benelli M4 A. I. The weapons selected is# 6 killed at 2.75mm. There are 350 grains in each photo, up weighing 34 ounces.
The materials for the granules is tungsten, which is an incredibly tough material. Other materials ( lead, steel ) were also evaluated, but military drones, as opposed to civilian drones, typically have harder shells and are more difficult to penetrate.
Shotgun drown design is important in being able to modify the gun against drones. The choke is at the end of the cannon barrel. It can be built into the chamber pattern, or in some instances the drown can be screwed into the chamber. This is handy for hunters who are targeting different kinds of game or shooting clay targets (skeet ).
Most shotguns have simplistic sights, but the Benelli M4 A. I. is fitted with a site called the MPS made by Steiner Optics ( also owned by Beretta Holdings ). This is quickly frame the target for the gun operator.
Apart from blasting a helicopter out of the atmosphere, there are other associated systems. One of them is an ammunition that stems cords and bits that wrap around the vehicle’s shafts, causing the aircraft to be forced to the surface.
If a large misses its goal, it’s designed to safely balloon to the floor, minimizing any risk of unwanted damage or injury. Called the Skynet A-4 large, it works with most 12 gauge shotgun but is most effective on weapons with a rifled drown.
Skynet shells
The Russians have their own options for the base man. While they are using firearms and developing anti-drone weapons, they are also converting rocket launchers mounted on firearms to blaze shotgun rounds.
The grenade launchers are GP 25 , Kostyor , (” Bonfire” ), GP-30 , Obuvka , (” Shoe” ) and GP-34. These devices mount under a common AK-47 assault weapons. They are designed to build 40mm bombs.
A Russian business, INGRA-RU, has developed a 12-gauge converter that can fit inside the rocket app and allows the AK-47 to perform both as a shotgun and as a one-shot shotgun. The adapter is called Rozenka. It is 5 inches long and claims a range of 15 to 30 meters using standard shotgun shells. An aiming adapter is fitted to the AK-47 to help the operator correctly aim the shotgun.
Because the adapter has to be removed to be reloaded, in practice, it is a one-shot solution. Miss, and you are toast. Rozenka is priced at ₽ 9, 300 or$ 102.
INGRA 12 gauge adapter ( in green )
The Ukrainians have a number of shotgun-type solutions. One of them is made by Stellarium SV, a company located in Chernihiv in northern Ukraine. It is a hand-held plastic and polymer five-barrel device called MSD-5. The five barrels can be sleeved with stainless steel or titanium, allowing the device to fire shotgun shells.
The MSD-5 weighs about 800 grams and uses three CR-123A batteries like those used in many automobile key fobs. The device is priced at 430 euros ($ 473 ). The device has uses for signaling, fire suppression and other applications.
At the end of the day, a shotgun is a last-ditch weapon for the foot soldier. Using any of them requires training, and the operator has to be fearless to stand a few hundred feet from an attacking drone.
There are many other products, some machine guns with burst shells, others that can fire multiple shotgun rounds, but none of them so far promise to eliminate the drone threat. Even so, improving the chances for foot soldier survival is an important goal, and some of these new solutions hold promise to do so.
Stephen Bryen is a special correspondent to Asia Times and former US deputy undersecretary of defense for policy. This article, which originally appeared on his Substack newsletter , Weapons and Strategy, is republished with permission.
The Wall Street Journal’s Spencer Jakab pointed out anything engaging the other day: There’s been a rise in Google searches on the term “recession”.
It’s easy to know why. Problems that tariffs will drive inflation have sent customer confidence tumbling. The University of Michigan’s Index of Consumer Expectations fell 18 % in March from April and 30 % from last November.
When customers ‘ trust falls, they commonly cut back on payments. That idea has economics lowering their economic growth projections and seeing higher chances of a downturn. Researchers cite recession fears as a main cause of the new stock-market fall.
In all this crisis talk that lurks a problem most of the observers take for granted. What is a recession, simply, and how will we recognize when we’re in one?
Economics favor the description used by the non-partisan National Bureau of Economic Research. A recession, NBER said, is” a considerable decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, usually obvious in real GDP, true income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales”.
Many commentators who aren’t economists rely on a simpler ( though somewhat misleading ) rule of thumb: A recession is two consecutive quarters of declining GDP.
For the man on the street, there’s Ronald Reagan’s popular description:” Recession is when your roommate loses his job. Unhappiness is when you lose yours”.
Each of these concepts has difficulties.
The NBER description may be the standard one, but NBER normally calls downturns after they’ve ended. Those calling are important for financial researchers, but not to state politicians responsible for responding to recessions.
The two-quarters explanation simply looks at one changing, GDP, and over a firm time frame. A recession may be afoot after four weeks of sharply rising poverty and high falling retail sales. This definition doesn’t catch it.
The Reagan description is genteel and cute, but evidently one individual losing a job does not create a recession. In a dynamic market with more than 160 million jobholders, several tens of thousands of work are lost every time– also during times when the economy is expanding.
But the Reagan definition does illustrate an important point: Politicians are far more vulnerable to employment than to industrial output, financial sales or the other variables NBER looks at.
However, if unusually large numbers of Americans are losing their jobs and the unemployment rate is soaring, officials won’t care that the pain isn’t” stretched across the market” or hasn’t gone on for two consecutive quarters. They’ll want to do something.
By viewing the position from the personal American’s perspective, the Reagan definition even indirectly recognizes that sectors of the economy can be in recession – or feel like they’re in recession– even if the economy as a whole isn’t.
Get the housing market. Figures of home selling and pending household income published recently by Well Fargo economics show sales falling abruptly between 2022 and 2023 to extremely low levels and bumping along the base since.
High interest rates deter would-be home buyers and “lock in” owners who have mortgages at the much lower rates available in years past. They aren’t selling even if they want to move because a new mortgage would saddle them with higher monthly payments.
And then there’s agriculture. From 2022 to 2024, farm income fell sharply. USDA is forecasting a$ 41 billion increase in farm income in 2025, but that’s thanks to government payments. USDA expects cash receipts to fall another$ 1.8 billion.
Just as the national economy has many sectors, some of which are doing well and some poorly, so too does the agricultural economy. The definition of an agricultural recession is murky. But if it’s defined as a multi-year period of low crop prices, higher costs and paltry farm income, the row crop sector is in recession. Some other ag sectors are doing somewhat better.
USDA figures ( forecasts for 2024 and 2025 ) show how some sectors of the ag economy can feel like they’re in recession while others don’t. The same sector-by-sector breakdown is true for the national economy. ( USDA Economic Research Service/DTN graphic )
Both the ag economy and the national economy are bracing for a trade war. The national economy might grow slower, but avoid a downturn. Many of the economists who’ve upped their recession odds still put those odds below 50 %.
The ag economy is more dependent on exports and therefore more vulnerable to the expected retaliation.
Ag exports have been growing slowly in recent years after falling sharply between 2022 and 2023.
Should they take another plunge in a trade war, will government payments increase enough to compensate? If not, we could see an agricultural economy that no one will doubt is in recession.
Former longtime Wall Street Journal Asia correspondent and editor , Urban Lehner , is editor emeritus of DTN/The Progressive Farmer.
South Korea’s Constitutional Court unanimously ruled to reduce President Yoon Suk Yeol from office on Thursday, capping a months-long social crisis triggered by his extraordinary declaration of martial law.
In the ruling, the Constitutional Court said the accused, President Yoon, “neglected his duty to protect the law by mobilizing the defense to harm democratic institutions, such as the National Assembly, and intrude on basic human rights”.
Yoon “has betrayed the person’s respect”, the jury added.  ,
On December 14, 2024, the National Assembly voted to impeach Yoon following his dramatic martial law charter a year earlier. Yoon said in a televised address on December 3 that he was declaring martial law to crush “pro-North Vietnamese and anti-government makes”, banning all political actions and deploying troops to assault important officials.
A constitutional breakdown
The court upheld all five grounds for impeachment: the unconstitutional declaration itself, the first decree issued under martial law, military mobilization against the National Assembly, an illegal raid on the National Election Commission, and orders to arrest politicians and justices.
” By violating the constitution and law to declare martial law, the defendant reenacted a history of emergency power abuse, shocking the public and creating national turmoil”, said Acting Constitutional Court President Moon Hyung-bae.
The Court’s decision took effect as of 11: 22 am, local time, ending Yoon’s presidency just two years and 11 months into his term.  ,
Political fallout
Yoon put out a statement in the afternoon, in which he thanked his supporters for cheering him on. ” I will always pray for my beloved South Korea and its people”, the statement read.  ,
The ruling People’s Power Party swiftly accepted the court’s ruling.  ,
” I think the verdict shows that South Korea’s democracy still lives on strong and that the people still have a strong intention to defend the nation”, ruling party lawmaker Kim Sang-wook told Asia Times. Kim went against party lines in December to vote in Yoon’s impeachment motion.  ,
The party issued an apology. ” We sincerely apologize to the people”, said Kwon Young-se, chairman of the PPP’s Emergency Response Committee. ” We also feel great responsibility for not being able to do our full duty as the ruling party” . ,
Meanwhile, the opposition Democratic Party celebrated the decision, calling it the” Light Revolution” . ,
” The dismissal of President Yoon from office will be remembered as a historic moment in which we protected the constitution and defended our democracy”, Anh Gwi-ryeong, a DP spokesperson, told Asia Times. Anh made headlines when a photo of her standing up to an armed soldier on the night of the martial law went viral.  ,
However, the DP remains cautious. ” Presidents being impeached is a tragedy in Korea’s political history”, Ahn added. ” Everyone in politics, including me, should feel the responsibility”.
Protesters stomp on a wax figure of President Yoon Suk Yeol’s head during a demonstration held in front of the Constitutional Court on April 4. Photo: Kim Jung-yeop
Tense road to election
As Yoon becomes South Korea’s second president to be impeached, Seoul must now hold a presidential election in the next 60 days.  ,
Prime Minister Han Duck-soo will continue to lead the country as acting president while Seoul prepares to elect its next leader.
Han said he would hold a cabinet meeting on April 8, to decide on a date for the next election. In a phone call with the chairperson of the National Election Committee, Han said he would aim for new elections to take place on June 3.  ,
However, DP leader Lee Jae-myung – the most favored candidate in recent polls – faces an appellate court ruling on the same day for his perjury subornation case. During a 2018 trial that accused Lee of spreading false information, Lee allegedly incited his secretary to commit perjury.  , Seoul District Court acquitted him but the prosecution appealed the ruling.
Lee is currently involved in five different criminal cases. A sentence above a 1 million won fine in any of his cases would bar him from running.
Lee is a seasoned politician who ran against Yoon in the 2022 Presidential Elections, losing by a margin of 0.73 % – the smallest in South Korea’s history.  ,
According to the latest polls, released by Korea Gallup on April 4, 34 % of South Koreans favored Lee Jae-myung as the country’s “future political leader”. Former PPP lawmaker and current Labor Minister Kim Moon-soo followed at 9 %, with former PPP leader Han Dong-hoon and Daegu mayor Hong Jun-pyo trailing behind at 5 % and 4 %, respectively.  ,
However, support for Lee doesn’t fully translate to backing for the Democratic Party. The same poll found 41 % of voters favoring the opposition overall, while the PPP trailed at 35 % — a significantly narrower gap compared to 48 % vs. 24 % earlier this year.
Judicial reproach of political gridlock
The Constitutional Court’s verdict also acknowledged public frustration with partisan warfare.
” After the defendant assumed office, the National Assembly proposed 22 impeachment bills”, the court said. ” This raises concerns that the National Assembly is using impeachment as a method of political pressure”.
Of the 16 impeachment cases ever reviewed by the Court, 13 were introduced during Yoon’s presidency. The court noted this pattern might have contributed to the president’s perception that policy execution was becoming “paralyzed”.
Some citizens sympathize with that view.
” At first, I disagreed with the martial law decree. But after seeing how the DP kept abusing impeachment and slashing government budgets, I realized President Yoon had a point”, said a 53-year-old supporter who asked not to be named. ” The DP is becoming a legislative dictator”.
DP officials pushed back. ” Some media framed it as abuse, but we’re just operating within legal boundaries”, said spokesperson Anh.
Street celebrations mark political turning point
Despite lingering divisions, Yoon’s removal sparked celebration in central Seoul. Crowds filled plazas, waving flags, singing, and sharing food into the evening.
” It was so momentous and emotional. I was nervous, then happy, and now I feel calm”, said Lee Myung-hoon, a protester who had demonstrated in front of the Constitutional Court daily since the impeachment motion.
” This miracle was made from the efforts of everyday individuals”, he said. ” The people have won”.
Subscribe now , with a one-month trial for only$ 1, then enjoy the first year at an exclusive rate of just$ 99.
What if you build it, and they don’t travel?
David Goldman explores the sharp decline in US tech companies, attributing it not to US tariffs or a slowing economy but to growing investor skepticism over Big Tech’s information centre spending and intensifying international competition from low-cost Chinese AI firms like DeepSeek.
Significant risk for US technology as EU plans Trump tax retaliation
Diego Faßnacht analyzes the European Union’s evolving plan to store recently announced US tariffs of 20 % on Western goods, highlighting a change from traditional tit-for-tat retaliation toward a broader, more proper confrontation targeting US companies and modern dominance.
Trump peace program stalls as Russia eye cutting off Ukraine’s Black Sea exposure
James Davis explores the faltering position of President Trump’s peace initiative in the Russia-Ukraine discord. As the political deadlock continues, Trump has threatened supplementary sanctions on Russian energy imports, backed by bipartisan Senate ideas for punishing tariffs.
US restrictions on Chinese software: If you find yourself in a tunnel, keep digging
Scott Foster analyzes the latest wave of US trade controls targeting Chinese technology firms, arguing that the Trump presidency, despite its contextual language, is continuing Biden-era efforts to contain China’s industrial rise following its rapid development in AI.
The majority decision by the Constitutional Court of South Korea to reduce President Yoon Suk-yeol from business represents a critical time in the Republic’s political history.
The decision, issued on April 4, 2025, not merely resolves a deepening constitutional issue but also sets a strong law regarding the limits of executive power, the resilience of administrative checks and balances, and the enduring predominance of the rule of law in times of social dysfunction.
Amid common concerns over global political complacency and within a region marked by increasing proper volatility, South Korea’s judiciary has acted quickly to preserve the integrity of its legal framework.
In doing so, it reaffirmed the basic concept of political management: that all democratic actors, including the head of state, remain fully responsible under legal rules.
Troubling range of activities by Yoon
President Yoon’s prosecution stemmed from a large and deeply disturbing variety of activities, all of which the Constitutional Court found to be illegal.
At the center of the case was Yoon’s unilateral declaration of martial law on December 3, 2024– a move the Court deemed unjustified by any legal or factual standard. Far from addressing a genuine national emergency, the declaration was viewed as a deliberate attempt to suppress legislative oversight and criminalize political dissent.
Yoon had further escalated the constitutional crisis by ordering the deployment of military and police units to interfere with the functioning of the National Assembly – an act that directly violated the core principle of separation of powers and undermined the autonomy of the legislature.
The Court also identified procedural violations in the manner martial law was declared, particularly Yoon’s decision to bypass constitutionally mandated cabinet deliberations and disregard the required countersignatures from ministers.
Moreover, his issuance of Proclamation No. 1 – which banned the political activities of lawmakers and parties – was seen as an authoritarian attempt to neutralize political opposition and dismantle representative democracy.
The situation was compounded by attempts to intimidate the National Election Commission through surveillance and planned raids. These actions, taken collectively, were not merely procedural irregularities, they constituted a direct and deliberate assault on the foundational norms of South Korea’s democratic constitutional order.
The impeachment, therefore, was not a matter of partisan rivalry, but a profound legal reckoning with executive overreach.
In assessing the declaration of martial law, the Court cited the South Korean Constitution, which allows such a measure only in extreme situations– such as war or national emergencies – that make civil governance unworkable. The Court found no evidence to support the claim that such conditions existed.
The legislative process– including the initiation of an impeachment motion – cannot be construed as an existential threat to the nation.
As such, the Court ruled that Yoon’s invocation of emergency powers was an unjustified and disproportionate use of state authority. This action, rather than addressing any legitimate security concern, sought to criminalize dissent and circumvent the democratic process.
Forceful defense of rule of law &, constitutionalism
The Court’s decision thus served as a forceful defense of legislative sovereignty and the inviolability of constitutional procedures.
The use of state force to disrupt legislative proceedings and intimidate elected representatives was declared a grave constitutional violation. The constitutional provisions safeguarding the autonomy and supremacy of the National Assembly in its legislative and oversight roles were unequivocally breached.
The Court also ruled that Proclamation No. 1 had no legal foundation and amounted to an autocratic directive that suppressed political pluralism – an essential component of democratic governance. By replacing lawful democratic engagement with executive decree, Yoon attempted to substitute authoritarian control for constitutional rule.
What further distinguishes this ruling is the unanimity with which it was delivered. In contrast to the impeachment of President Park Geun-hye in 2017, which, although upheld, exposed deep public and political divisions, the decision to remove President Yoon was endorsed by all eight sitting justices.
This rare judicial solidarity amplifies the legitimacy of the verdict and underscores the judiciary’s commitment to defending democratic norms. The court presented itself not as a partisan actor but as a guardian of constitutionalism – rising above political polarization to deliver a clear and binding interpretation of the law.
Its assertion that President Yoon had “abandoned his duty to uphold the Constitution and betrayed the trust of the people” captured both the moral weight and legal precision of its conclusion.
Although the Court acknowledged the reality of political dysfunction, including obstructionist tactics by the opposition, it categorically rejected any suggestion that such circumstances could justify an executive override of constitutional processes. The ruling emphasized the imperative of resolving political disputes through established legal mechanisms, dialogue, and compromise.
By framing Yoon’s conduct as not just illegal but a betrayal of democratic ethos, the court reinforced the principle of constitutional patriotism – asserting that loyalty to the constitutional order must supersede personal ambition or partisan loyalty.
In this sense, the verdict transcended the legal realm to offer a philosophical reaffirmation of democracy itself: a vision in which the rule of law stands as the final arbiter of power.
New leadership on the horizon
In the wake of the ruling, South Korea must now transition toward new political leadership. Under the Constitution, a presidential election must be held within 60 days following the removal of a president from office. With Yoon’s dismissal finalized on April 4, 2025, the country is poised for a pivotal electoral contest
Current polling indicates that Lee Jae-myung, former leader of the Democratic Party, is the leading candidate. Should Lee secure the presidency, he is expected to implement significant changes in both domestic governance and South Korea’s foreign policy orientation.
Unlike Yoon, who closely aligned his administration with the US-led Indo-Pacific Strategy and emphasized trilateral cooperation with the US and Japan, Lee is likely to pursue a more balanced and multipolar foreign policy.
His approach envisions a diversification of strategic partnerships, a strengthening of ties with middle powers such as Eurasian, ASEAN and South Asian countries, and active advocacy for the reform of global governance structures to make them more inclusive and equitable.
This prospective shift signals a reorientation of South Korea’s international role – from one rooted in rigid geopolitical blocs to a more pragmatic and issue-based regional framework.
Within this evolving foreign policy landscape, the potential for deeper strategic engagement with India stands out as a particularly promising development. As two of Asia’s most prominent democracies, India and South Korea share a longstanding commitment to a rules-based international order, peaceful conflict resolution, and economic growth propelled by technological innovation.
India’s expanding global influence – demonstrated through its campaign for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and leadership in multilateral platforms such as the G20, BRICS, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation – aligns well with South Korea’s aspiration to pursue middle power diplomacy and strategic autonomy.
There exists a clear opportunity to deepen bilateral cooperation across a range of strategic sectors. Economic integration remains a high priority, bringing with it enhanced collaboration in emerging domains such as artificial intelligence, green technologies, and digital trade.
On the multilateral stage, both nations can benefit from closer coordination in global governance reform efforts – particularly in areas like climate policy, cybersecurity, and the restructuring of institutions such as the WTO and WHO.
South Korea’s anticipated shift toward deeper engagement with middle powers under new leadership represents more than a tactical adjustment in foreign policy – it reflects a broader convergence of democratic values and a mutual acknowledgment of each nation’s evolving influence in the global order.
At the same time, the administration’s expected outreach to China, Russia, and North Korea signals a significant recalibration of regional diplomacy.
By pursuing more constructive relations with these neighboring powers, South Korea has the potential to reshape the geopolitical landscape of Northeast Asia. Such efforts could help ease long-standing tensions on the Korean Peninsula, revive dormant diplomatic initiatives, and promote a more balanced and inclusive security framework.
Beyond political rapprochement, this strategic realignment may pave the way for enhanced economic cooperation, joint energy ventures, and expanded humanitarian engagement – marking a shift toward pragmatic diplomacy grounded in coexistence, stability, and long-term regional resilience.
Ultimately, the Constitutional Court’s ruling on April 4, 2025, marks more than the removal of a sitting president – it stands as a democratic milestone. By holding President Yoon accountable for flagrant violations of constitutional norms, the court delivered a powerful message both domestically and internationally: Democracy is not just a form of government but a framework of accountability and institutional integrity.
South Korea has shown that even in times of crisis, it is possible for a democracy to confront and overcome internal challenges without compromising its core principles. The decision affirms the strength of constitutionalism in East Asia and serves as a reminder that the true test of democracy lies not in the absence of conflict but in the ability to resolve it through law, justice, and the enduring authority of democratic institutions.
As the nation prepares for new leadership and a possible redefinition of its global role, the world watches closely – perhaps with admiration for a democracy that has chosen to uphold its highest ideals when they were most at risk.
The Constituional Court’s implementation of the senate of South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol on April 4 has sent shockwaves through the Asian Peninsula and beyond. With opposition head Lee Jae-myung then favored to win the presidency in a good snap vote, South Korea stands at a political intersection – dangerously perched between its political allies and an increasingly assertive China.
This is not only a local problems. It’s a time of geopolitical vulnerability. Beijing, for one, is watching with silent happiness. China sees an opportunity to regain control much denied, the US, disillusioned with an ally it extremely sees as selfish, questions the pretty value of its commitments on the peninsula.
Lee Jae-myung – known for his diplomatic approach toward Beijing and Pyongyang – may bend South Korea toward a new kind of alignment, one much more pleasant to Xi Jinping than to Washington.
China’s much activity: a watershed state reimagined
Beijing has rarely shed its historic perception of Korea as a superior – an attentive tributary nestled under the Middle Kingdom’s darkness. From the political rituals of the Joseon Dynasty to Mao Zedong’s Cold War framing of Vietnamese deference, the narrative has remained remarkably constant: keep Korea close, obedient and within China’s sphere.
Xi Jinping’s current technique echoes that conventional ambition. Now, with South Korea socially rattled and financially stressed, Beijing sees a unique opening. Yoon’s resignation undermines the pro-US tent, while China’s financial utilize grows ever more powerful – over 25 % of Korean exports also flow to China.
Through business dominance, modern connection, and social politics, Beijing is well-positioned to establish dominance.
For China, the objective is clear: a South Korea that no longer functions as a ahead base for British power but, rather, becomes a reduced buffer – or, better still, a servile partner to counter US influence in Northeast Asia. The vassal-state vision never died. It simply evolved.
Lee Jae-myung may be Beijing’s best bet
Enter Lee Jae-myung: a populist firebrand known for bucking convention and challenging Washington’s strategic expectations. As governor of Gyeonggi Province, Lee championed engagement with China through initiatives such as the” Korea-China Friendship City”, while minimizing US contributions to Korean security.
Lee’s calls for a “balanced diplomacy” are widely interpreted as code for downgrading the US alliance in favor of warmer ties with Beijing. If he takes power, Lee may revive inter-Korean projects such as the Kaesong Industrial Complex, welcome Chinese investment in sensitive sectors or edge Seoul away from the US-led Indo-Pacific strategy.
In Lee, China sees a leader unlikely to resist its ambitions and more than willing to lead Korea out from under Washington’s shadow.
US view: strategic ally or security freeloader?
Washington, meanwhile, is growing increasingly impatient. For years, US policymakers –especially on the right – have accused Seoul of free-riding on American security guarantees.
That frustration flared again on April 3, when the Trump administration abruptly slapped a 25 % tariff on South Korean export materials– just one day before the court ruling removing Yoon.
Justified as a matter of economic self-defense, the tariff decision undermines the strategic trust that anchors the alliance. And in light of Cold War precedent, it looks dangerously shortsighted.
In the 1960s, the Kennedy and Johnson administrations saw Japan’s economic rise as vital to regional stability. In a now-declassified 1964 memo, the State Department urged “firm Executive Branch resistance of American industry demands for curtailment of Japanese imports” and supported Japan’s growth – even at the cost of short-term US trade interests.
This tacit bargain – security in exchange for economic leniency – enabled Japan’s postwar ascent and kept the country from falling into Soviet hands.
Today, the inverse seems to be happening. Rather than shielding South Korea from external pressure, Washington’s punitive posture threatens to drive a strategically vital ally toward Beijing just as China’s influence expands.
Resentment on both sides
Anti-American sentiment, long simmering within Korea’s leftist circles, may now return with renewed vigor. Lee’s political base – animated by economic frustration and nationalist pride – has long bristled at US military exercises and the continued presence of American forces.
Ironically, Washington’s complaints about “unfairness” may only hasten the strategic drift that Beijing hopes to exploit. Impatience in Washington and indignation in Seoul now reinforce each other.
A precarious balancing act
For South Korean conservatives – those of us who’ve worked to keep Korea aligned with the liberal democratic order – this is a nightmare scenario unfolding in real time.
The coming months will determine whether Seoul remains a steadfast partner of the West, or drifts toward a new geopolitical reality, one shaped not in Seoul or Washington but in Beijing.
Hanjin Lew is a former international spokesman for South Korean conservative parties.
For years, the earth moved along a distinct trail of creation laid down by the United States.
As the political anchor and designer of the post– World War II international order, America not just offered protection and investment—it also sold a powerful narrative of what improvement meant. Progressive politics, free markets, eternal growth—these were packaged as the only legitimate way to the prospect.
But slowly, we began to realize the value. Natural loss. Social injustice. A deepening issue of interpretation. The problem today is no longer whether this concept works but why we still cling to it even as its fissures grow louder and wider.
As American hegemony falters—marked by rising protectionism, trade war and declining world trust—many will mourn the pump of global leadership.
But apparently in that very pump lies a long-overdue offer: a time to wait, turn around and question again—what sort of enhancement do we truly need? Not only development that creates work or hydrocarbons GDP, but one that sustains career, heals the earth and restores human integrity in our relation with each other and the Earth.
The growth model that America designed and spread—through organizations like the IMF, World Bank and WTO—quietly imposed a hierarchy of principles. A state was deemed “advanced” if its business grew rapidly, its markets opened wide and its rules conformed to international standards set by a privileged few.
But today, we live in a world fractured by climate crisis, ecological exhaustion and extreme inequality. In such a world, development can no longer mean expansion, it must become consolidation. Not scaling up extraction but rebalancing power and rethinking how we relate to nature, capital and each other.
This reckoning reached a turning point in 2025, when Donald Trump returned to the presidency and declared what he called” Liberation Day” on April 2.
Standing at the White House, he announced sweeping tariffs on nearly all imports, framing them as an act of economic emancipation—an attempt to free the United States from what he called the shackles of unfair global trade.
But beyond its protectionist aims, Liberation Day marked something far more symbolic: the world’s leading superpower formally retreating from the very global order it had built and championed for decades.
Suddenly, the stage lacked an anchor. And in that moment of rupture, a door opened—not just for trade realignments but for deeper reflection. Has global development ever truly been designed for all? Or has it long functioned as a mechanism to prolong dominance beneath the language of universality?
We often associate sustainability with clean energy, green tech, and ESG investing. But true sustainability demands more than surface solutions: It requires structural change. The world cannot achieve ecological balance while its economic logic still rewards fossil fuel dependency, large-scale mining and supply chains that externalize harm.
There will be no climate justice as long as financial systems continue to incentivize extractive growth. And there can be no real sustainability if it remains a corporate slogan rather than a core principle of global governance.
America’s dominance normalized inequality. Countries deep in debt were pressured to cut social protections to meet loan conditions. Environmental regulations were weakened in the name of competitiveness.
Even the energy transition was calculated through the lens of profit, not collective survival. What the world needs now is not just redistribution of resources but a redistribution of direction. A reorientation of what development is meant to serve and whom.
Still, a world without a dominant power carries its own risks. Multipolarity without ethics can easily descend into new forms of chaos. Those stepping into the void may replicate the very logic they seek to replace: seeking influence, expanding control and chasing growth.
The question, then, is not who leads—but how we redefine leadership itself. Leadership not as domination but as collective responsibility. Leadership that serves life, not leverage.
We need global institutions that are no longer beholden to geopolitical monopolies. The United Nations must be reformed to be more democratic and responsive. The IMF and World Bank must abandon their outdated logic of austerity and begin centering justice. Global trade must internalize ecological and social costs into its core pricing structures.
This is not a technical reform. This is a transformation of values. Because no system can fix the crisis it was designed to protect unless it first changes what it believes to be valuable.
At this juncture, we must find the courage to admit: sustainable development is not about balancing growth with the environment—it’s about choosing the values that guide our lives together.
Will we continue to measure progress through GDP? Or will we begin to ask deeper questions—about community resilience, ecological limits and our shared capacity to live with dignity?
If American dominance handed us one model that dismissed these questions, then a post-American world must become the space where they are answered—honestly, urgently and together.
Perhaps for the first time in modern history humanity stands at the threshold of redesigning the global order—not from the ruins of war, but from a consciousness quietly rising from within the wreckage of illusion.
A consciousness that knows the planet cannot endure another century of extractive ambition. That the climate crisis is not just technical, it is moral. And that true sustainability cannot be owned by any single country, system or ideology.
If we can see America’s retreat not as a void but as an opening—for co-creation, co-responsibility, and collective redesign—then we are entering a new era of development.
One not obsessed with speed but rooted in depth. One not built on control, but on shared stewardship. One that refuses to be dictated by markets alone and begins instead with meaning.
From here, a quieter kind of hope can emerge. Not loud or triumphant, but grounded and enduring. A hope that does not seduce us with promises, but one that invites us back to what matters. The chance to build a world that no longer serves empire but serves life.
Setyo Budiantoro is Nexus Strategist at The Prakarsa, MIT Sloan IDEAS Fellow 2024, and member of the Advisory Committee of Fair Finance Asia
I don’t really think you may beat Trump’s tariffs by arguing with them sensibly or by explaining financial concept. I mean, how do you say with something like this?
I’ve resigned myself to the concept that the only way America is going to travel to the large revelation that broad-based tariffs are negative is to experience the adverse consequences first-hand — i. e., to reach the proverbial warm stove. Luckily, I think Americans properly be coming about very quickly:
But regardless, this is an economy website, and so even though I don’t expect it to give some political earnings, I thought I might as well explain why trade imbalances don’t make a country poorer ( though that doesn’t mean they’re Fine ).
Trump’s mistaken perspective of business imbalances
Trump and his officials and sycophants believe that business imbalances constitute America being “ripped off” by foreign nations.  , As I explained in today’s blog, this is why Trump set his price prices at a level that he thinks may reduce America’s trade imbalance with each unique country.
Trump’s perspective of business deficits is based on two fundamental errors. The second is , a basic finance problem. Trump’s officials looked at the formula for GDP and noted that goods get subtracted from GDP.
They didn’t know that this is because goods even get , added , to use and investment, so you have to remove them at the end in order to eliminate them from the amount. The truth is that goods don’t change GDP one way or another.
Trump’s subsequent mistake is based on the idea that imports will be replaced 1-for-1 by domestic production — i. e., if you stop America from importing a cleaning system, an American company will make one more cleaning system instead. That’s certainly one , possible , outcome, but it’s not the only one. American consumers could just go without one washing machine, making everyone poorer.
In fact, Trump and his people probably don’t even realize these are two , separate , misunderstandings. They probably think that their mistaken belief about accounting ( i. e. that imports reduce GDP ) follows naturally from their mistaken belief about import substitution. The two mistakes mutually reinforce each other.
Anyway, because Trump misunderstands trade deficits in these two ways, he believes that when America runs a trade deficit with a country, that country is ripping us off. He thinks imports are lowering U. S. GDP by forcing us to produce less stuff — essentially,  , stealing American production. He thus sees trade deficits as a measure of how much is being stolen from America.
But that’s not actually how trade deficits work at all.
A trade deficit is like buying stuff with a credit card
Suppose you import a washing machine from some Chinese guy named Ruimin. Why would Ruimin give you that washing machine? Nothing is free. Basically, you can pay for that washing machine in two ways. The first way is to give Ruimin something he wants — say, 50 interesting books ( Ruimin famously likes to read ). The second way is to write Ruimin an IOU. 1
The first case is called , balanced trade. You get a washing machine, Ruimin gets 50 books. There’s no trade deficit or surplus.
The other thing that can happen is , unbalanced , trade. In this case, instead of 50 books, you give Ruimin a US Treasury bond. A bond is an IOU. In this case, you’ve contributed to America ‘s , trade deficit , with China. A real good or service — the washing machine — went from China to America, and the only thing that went back in return was a slip of paper (or, actually, a number in a spreadsheet ).
At some point when you hear economists discuss trade, you might hear them talk about the” current account” and the” capital account”. The current account is basically just the net flow of real goods and services, 2 , and the capital account is basically just the net flow of IOUs.
If you give Ruimin an IOU in exchange for a washing machine, it means you’ve contributed to America ‘s , current account deficit, and you’ve also contributed to its , capital account surplus.  , Both of those things just mean “paying foreigners for stuff with IOUs”.
Now you can see why a trade deficit is like buying stuff with a credit card. When I buy a washing machine from Target with my credit card, I’m writing an IOU and I’m getting a tangible thing in return.
Does using your credit card to buy a washing machine from Target mean that Target has ripped you off? No. Does it make you poorer when you use your credit card to buy a washing machine from Target? Nope. You now have less money, but you have  , more stuff. In just the same way, a trade deficit means that the US has  , less money and more stuff. It does not mean America is poorer, or that it has been ripped off by foreigners.
A case where trade deficits can be good
Asking whether trade deficits are good or bad is like asking whether buying stuff with borrowed money is good or bad. The answer is pretty obviously “it depends on whether the purchase was worth it”.
One thing to remember is that not all purchases are for consumption — a lot are actually , productive investment. If an American factory buys a Japanese CNC machine tool for$ 100, 000, and the Japanese toolmaker simply stashes the money in US Treasury bonds, that contributes to the US trade deficit. But if the American factory uses that tool to make and sell$ 500, 000 worth of car parts, it has come out ahead — and America has come out ahead too.
This is what South Korea did when it was rapidly industrializing. Around 1980 and then again in the early 1990s, South Korea ran a trade deficit:
As an aside, in the late 70s and early 80s, at the same time it was running a trade deficit, Korea was also ramping up , exports , — not just in dollar terms, but also as a percent of its GDP:
Remember that exports add to GDP, while imports don’t subtract from GDP. So even as South Korea ran a big , trade deficit, trade was  , adding more and more to South Korea’s GDP , each year. A MAGA guy will have a very hard time wrapping his head around that fact.
But anyway, South Korea’s trade deficits at that time were probably worth it, because importing capital goods ( machinery, etc. ) helped them industrialize more rapidly than if they had had to take the time to make all those capital goods themselves. They just bought the machines and immediately used them to make cars and TVs and other useful stuff, much of which they sold to the rest of the world at a profit.
In fact, the US does some of this as well. When we think of U. S. trade deficits, we usually think of , consumption goods  , — cheap Chinese TVs and such. But the US also , imports a decent amount of , capital goods, which American companies use to produce and sell things. The US , did even more of this in the 1990s, when we ran a trade deficit but also had an investment and export boom.
But be careful here:” Using a trade deficit for investment” doesn’t mean” The trade deficit is good”. If companies import a lot of capital goods but see a low return on the investment, it can be bad.
What if trade deficits are used for consumption? Is that good or bad?
Anyway, what about when you use trade deficits to buy consumption goods — those cheap Chinese TVs and Canadian-made cars and such? Consumption goods a majority of America’s trade deficit these days. Is , that , trade deficit good or bad?
In this case, we have to decide whether “buy now, pay later” is good or bad. Remember, a trade deficit is like buying something with a credit card. When America imports Chinese TVs and Canadian cars, and China and Canada get US Treasury bonds in exchange, it means that America now , owes China and Canada money.
At any time, China and Canada can choose to sell the bonds for dollars and use those dollars to buy US goods and services. If they eventually do this, then at that time, they’ll run , a trade deficit with the US.  , In that case, what basically happened is that the US , borrowed from China and Canada, and paid them back later.
This is just like if you buy a washing machine from Target with your credit card, then work to earn some salary, and then use your paycheck to pay off your credit card. Was this bad or good? It depends.
Maybe you could have just waited to get the washing machine until you had the cash in the bank. Or maybe it was worth it to you to get the washing machine now instead of waiting a few months, even though you had to pay a bit of interest on the credit card debt.
Buying consumer goods with debt can be a good financial decision or a bad financial decision. That’s basically what the US is doing when it runs a trade deficit with other countries.
It’s also worth mentioning that just like a credit card borrower, the US might never fully pay its foreign loans back. If the US experiences a burst of unexpectedly , high inflation, the US bonds that China and Canada hold will be devalued. 3 , That’s basically like a partial debt default. Or, if someday an irresponsible US leader comes along and defaults on the debt, China and Canada will see some of the value of their Treasury bonds evaporate into thin air.
So when the US runs a trade deficit with other countries, those other countries are taking a risk. They’re basically giving us a credit card that we can use to buy stuff that they make. There’s always the possibility that we might just declare bankruptcy and never pay them back.
So you could say that in a sense, countries that run trade deficits are more short-term focused, or less patient, than countries that run trade surpluses. Nations don’t really have motivations and personalities like that, but it’s not a terrible way to think about it.
Do trade deficits deindustrialize America?
The final question here is whether importing stuff from other countries causes America to make less stuff. Maybe if you buy some tomatoes with your credit card, it’ll mean you grow fewer tomatoes in your own garden as a result. And then when it comes time to pay back the credit card debt, you might have forgotten how to grow tomatoes. That’s basically what deindustrialization is. 4
Obviously, there are some cases where a trade deficit doesn’t cause deindustrialization. For example, in the case of South Korea in the 1980s and 1990s, we saw that trade deficits helped to , industrialize , the country and ramp up manufacturing. Something similar probably happened to the US in the 1990s.
But OK, we’re not talking about those historical cases, right? We’re talking about the trade deficits that the US has run in the last 25 years, mostly with China but also with a bunch of other countries. Those trade deficits were , mostly , America borrowing to consume, not to invest. The question is whether they resulted in America losing its manufacturing industries.
The answer, at least with regards to China, is “yes”. Autor et al. ( 2013 )  , famously find that “import competition ]from China ] explains one-quarter of the contemporaneous aggregate decline in US manufacturing employment]between 1990 and 2007 ]” . , Bloom et al. ( 2024 )  , find that Chinese import competition caused a big reallocation from manufacturing to service jobs on the West Coast and in big cities, but in the Midwest it mostly just caused wage declines and job losses. And , Acemoglu et al. ( 2014 )  , write:
In this paper, we explore the contribution of the swift rise of import competition from China to sluggish U. S. employment growth. We find that the increase in US imports from China, which accelerated after 2000, was  , a major force behind recent reductions in US manufacturing employment , and that, through input-output linkages and other general equilibrium effects, it appears to have significantly suppressed overall US job growth…Our central estimates suggest net job losses of 2.0 to 2.4 million stemming from the rise in import competition from China over the period 1999 to 2011. ]emphasis mine ]
You can just kind of eyeball this by looking at the raw data. Until 2001, when China joined the WTO and started exporting tons of cheap stuff to America, US manufacturing employment had held up pretty well over the years ( despite falling as a percentage of the total ). In the 2000s — the decade of the big Chinese import surge — it just fell off a cliff:
It’s worth noting that it wasn’t  , the trade deficit per se , that caused these job losses. Even if trade between the US and China had been balanced, Chinese import competition would probably have cost some US manufacturing workers their jobs, because A) some of the US exports would have been services instead of manufactured goods, and B) the US probably would have exported more capital-intensive goods, thus shifting away from the labor-intensive goods that China was good at making back in the 2000s.
But yes, the US trade deficit with China was huge, and caused significant deindustrialization. And the continued US trade deficit with China might be holding back US reindustrialization, both through import competition, and through China crowding US companies out of export markets.
So if you think manufacturing is important above and beyond its contribution to GDP ( as I do ), then the trade deficit with China is probably an important thing to address. But that doesn’t mean Trump’s tariffs are the right way to address it. I know that this is repeating stuff I’ve written in a lot of other posts, but this really bears repeating.
First of all, by making imported components more expensive, Trump’s tariffs are weakening US manufacturers — that’s why , auto workers , and , steelworkers , in the US are being laid off right now and why measures of manufacturing activity and sentiment are all , heading down. Second of all, Trump’s tariffs will ultimately reduce America ‘s , exports, not just its imports, both through exchange rate shifts, and through retaliation by other countries. That will hurt American manufacturing.
Tariffs on China might have been one part of a bigger strategy to improve America’s competitiveness in manufacturing. But broad tariffs on all of America’s trading partners, like the ones Trump just rolled out, are highly likely to accelerate America’s deindustrialization— even if they also reduce trade deficits. Ultimately, what’s important for the US isn’t to reduce imports — it’s to increase exports. Trump’s tariffs will only hurt that goal.
Notes
1 In practice, no one actually barters when they trade — no one actually trades books for washing machines. But when two countries have  , balanced trade, it means that they pay each other in currency that gets quickly used to buy some real good or service.
Ruimin gives you a washing machine, you swap some dollars to another Chinese guy for some yuan, you give the yuan to Ruimin, he uses the yuan to pay his doctor to treat his bad back, the doctor swaps the yuan for dollars, and then the doctor uses those dollars to buy 50 books from some other guy in America. That’s how balanced trade actually works.
2 It actually includes a few other things, but let’s keep it simple.
3 This is because the principal and interest on those bonds is specified in , US dollars, and inflation makes a US dollar worth much less in terms of real physical goods and services.
4 This could matter because A) you might need to grow your own tomatoes for a food fight, or B) forgetting how to grow your own tomatoes might make it harder to pay back your debt in the future. OK, so it’s not a great metaphor.
This article was first published on Noah Smith’s Noahpinion , Substack and is republished with kind permission. Become a Noahopinion , subscriber , here.
