America
The US federal government shuts down after Congress fails to pass a budget
The federal government in the United States ceased operations as of October 1, after Congress failed to approve the budget for the new fiscal year.
The shutdown, which began at 7:01 AM Turkish time, suspended the spending authority of government agencies, and most civil servants were placed on unpaid leave.
Those in critical roles, such as healthcare workers, border guards, soldiers, and transportation personnel, will continue to work without pay. This marks the first full government shutdown in seven years.
First full shutdown in seven years
Previous shutdowns had been partial, with Congress passing temporary budget bills to buy time for negotiations.
This latest event is the 21st government shutdown in modern US history.
The longest of these occurred during Donald Trump’s presidency, lasting 35 days from December 22, 2018, to January 25, 2019, and was estimated to have cost the American economy $3 billion.
During that period, some civil servants applied for food assistance, while those working without pay took sick leave en masse.
Healthcare reform at the center of the dispute
At the core of the current crisis is a disagreement over subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which is set to expire at the end of 2025.
Democrats have announced they will not support the budget unless these subsidies are protected. They also refuse to accept budget cuts for key health agencies like the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Republicans, who control both houses of Congress after the 2024 elections, cannot reach the 60 votes needed in the Senate to pass the budget; the party holds 53 seats in the Senate. While Republicans proposed debating health issues separately from the budget, Democrats rejected this offer.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer criticized Republicans for their lack of compromise, stating, “There is not the slightest contribution from Democrats in their bill. We have never done this before. When I was the majority leader in the Senate, we sat down with Republicans four times, and there was never a shutdown.”
Parties blame each other
A meeting between President Trump and leaders of both parties two days before the shutdown also failed to yield a result. Schumer reported that he told Trump during the meeting that canceling ACA subsidies would increase the average American family’s monthly healthcare costs by $400, but the President seemed to be hearing this figure for the first time.
Vice President JD Vance accused the opposition of “holding the government hostage.”
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries also placed the responsibility on the ruling party, saying, “If a shutdown happens, it will be because Republicans decided to stop the government and harm the American people.”
Millions of employees and many services will be affected
Unlike in previous shutdowns, the Trump administration has instructed federal agencies to prepare mass layoff plans in advance. According to the Washington Post, these cuts will not affect the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, or immigration agencies.
In an interview with NBC News, President Trump said the layoffs could be permanent, though he would prefer to avoid that outcome. This situation could effectively implement Trump’s policy of downsizing the state apparatus.
During the shutdown, a total of approximately 4 million federal employees will be without pay. The US Department of Health and Human Services will place 41% of its staff on unpaid leave, along with 64% of the CDC’s staff and 75% of the NIH’s staff.
The Pentagon announced that 334,900 of its 741,500 civilian personnel will be sent on unpaid leave, while 223,900 will continue to work without pay alongside 2 million soldiers. The fact that air traffic controllers and police officers will also work without pay could lead to flight delays.
The shutdown will also halt lending by the Small Business Administration and suspend federal housing loan processing. Unlike civil servants, contract workers in services such as cleaning and security will not receive back pay. Members of Congress, however, will continue to receive their salaries during this period.
What does a ‘government shutdown’ mean in the US?
In the US, a “government shutdown” means the federal government stops its expenditures when Congress fails to pass a budget bill or a temporary funding resolution for the new fiscal year.
When a budget impasse occurs, federal agencies are prohibited from spending money. Most public employees are sent on mandatory leave and do not receive a salary. However, employees in critical roles—such as healthcare personnel, border guards, soldiers, and air traffic controllers—must continue to work, though they do not receive their pay until the crisis ends.
National parks and museums close, visa and passport processing slows down, research projects, public services, and administrative processes are disrupted, and financial markets can be affected by the uncertainty.
The shutdown continues until Congress agrees on a budget or passes a temporary funding bill.
This has happened more than 20 times in US history. The longest shutdown lasted 35 days during Donald Trump’s presidency (2018–2019).
America
Trump energy shares rose by up to $4.4m during Iran war, CNBC reports
The value of US President Donald Trump’s nine largest oil and gas holdings increased by approximately $1.5 million to $4.4 million during the first six months of the war with Iran.
According to an analysis conducted by CNBC based on the American leader’s financial disclosure, corporate balance sheets, and FactSet market data, the investment basket includes shares in Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Kinder Morgan, Marathon Petroleum, Occidental Petroleum, Phillips 66, Valero Energy, and Williams Companies.
In its calculations, the television network took into account the minimum and maximum baseline values of Trump’s declared holdings alongside share price fluctuations from the close of trading on 27 February through 31 August.
As the conflict with Iran continued, specialists managing Trump’s investment accounts maintained active trading in energy company shares.
Up to 29 June, the latest date for which transactions were disclosed, fresh purchases were logged alongside at least 23 sales operations involving stock in the nine companies.
Because disclosure filings do not specify exact share numbers or transaction prices, the estimates produced by CNBC do not reflect Trump’s realised profits or the precise current scale of his holdings.
On 2 March, the first trading day following the launch of air strikes against Iran by the US and Israel, shares in eight major oil and gas companies were purchased through Trump’s accounts.
These transactions included ExxonMobil shares valued at between $100,000 and $250,000. Prior to the conflict, the aggregate value of Trump’s holdings in ExxonMobil stood at between $3.2 million and $12.5 million.
Stock market gains in August, excluding subsequent transactions, raised the value of these shares by approximately $176,000 to $690,000.
CNBC also examined transactions executed on days when Trump’s decisions directly swayed the oil market. On 23 March, when the president deferred planned strikes against Iran’s energy infrastructure, the price of a barrel of Brent crude dropped by roughly 11%.
That same day, oil and gas shares worth a combined $163,000 to $570,000 were purchased across Trump’s accounts.
A similar transaction took place on 7 April. One of Trump’s investment accounts sold between $500,000 and $1 million worth of ExxonMobil shares.
Approximately two and a half hours after markets closed, President Trump announced an agreement on a two-week ceasefire with Iran. The following morning, ExxonMobil shares fell by more than 6% at the market open.
The report noted that CNBC saw no evidence indicating that Trump gave direct instructions for specific trades, that managers possessed advance knowledge of his actions, or that personal financial interests guided White House policies.
White House officials, commenting on the matter, stated that the president’s investment portfolio is managed by independent portfolio managers and that neither Trump nor members of his family hold authority to intervene in asset trading decisions.
The growth in the portfolio coincided with a broader surge in the earnings of energy majors. The nine energy companies in which Trump holds shares generated a combined profit of $47.6 billion in the second quarter.
During the same period last year, that figure stood at $15.9 billion. The profits of ExxonMobil and Chevron alone climbed from $9.6 billion in the prior year to $26.6 billion.
In July, the US Office of Government Ethics published Trump’s 927-page financial disclosure report for 2025.
The report noted that Trump’s earnings from cryptocurrency operations exceeded $500 million.
America
Over half of Latino voters back Democrats in key US House races
A new public opinion poll in the US shows that Democratic candidates have made notable gains since 2024 among Latino voters in critical, competitive districts for the House of Representatives.
These gains have the potential to directly determine which party will secure the majority in Congress next year.
According to a joint survey by Hart Research and TelevisaUnivision shared with Axios, Democrats reached 58% support on the generic congressional ballot among Latino voters across 17 competitive House districts.
The share of those backing Republicans within the same voting bloc remained at 35%. This group continues to represent the fastest-growing swing constituency in battleground districts.
Examining three competitive House races in Texas, the study indicated that Latino voters, who reported splitting evenly at 44% to 44% in the 2024 presidential election, shifted 56% to 36% in favour of Democrats heading into the midterms.
Latino support for Democrats also increased in other states. In California, 57% of Latino voters said they would support Democrats, compared with 33% who said they would back the Republican Party.
Kate Coleman, Senior Vice President at TelevisaUnivision, highlighted voter behaviour in remarks to Axios:
“Latino voters are not locked into one party. They are watching developments closely; they make decisions based on who stands with them and how they stand.”
The survey data determined that 11% of Latino respondents who said they voted for Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election now support Democratic candidates.
Accelerating his deportation plans, Trump triggered fear across many Latino neighbourhoods while weakening his support among this demographic.
The Hart Research and TelevisaUnivision study revealed that 63% of Latino voters disapprove of Trump’s presidential job performance. The share of those approving of his performance in office stood at 36%.
Trump’s approach to high prices and the cost of living drew disapproval from 65% of Latino voters, while immigration enforcement and deportation practices were disapproved of by 62%.
More than half of Latino voters, at 64%, reported that they disapprove of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
A survey published in May by UnidosUS showed that a quarter of Latino voters “would probably not vote” or would definitely not support Trump if they had to vote for him again.
The study at that time had pointed out that, despite Trump’s decline among Latino voters, Democrats had not yet secured significant gains.
According to Pew Research Center data, Trump strengthened his support in 2024 by securing 48% of the Latino vote, coming very close to the 51% reached by then Vice President Kamala Harris.
Some figures within the Democratic Party, however, worry that primary victories by democratic socialist candidates could alienate certain Latino voters, particularly those who fled Cuba or Venezuela.
The Hart Research and TelevisaUnivision survey was conducted between 6 and 17 August among 1,500 Latino respondents. The poll’s margin of error was reported as 2.5 percentage points.
America
Researcher quits Anthropic and warns AI firms gamble with lives
Jacob Coxon, an artificial intelligence researcher at Anthropic, has resigned from his post, stating that tech companies are acting irresponsibly in the race towards self-improving superintelligence. Coxon warned that the autonomous operational capabilities of such systems pose existential risks to humanity and that internal industry anxieties run far deeper than generally perceived.
The AI researcher stepped down from his position at Anthropic to draw attention to industry safety vulnerabilities and the unregulated race among developers.
Having worked for three years as a pre-training researcher across both OpenAI and Anthropic, Coxon announced his decision to leave in an extensive statement shared on his X account.
Stating that both companies have acted irresponsibly, Coxon argued that developers are engaged in a dangerous race to achieve self-improving superintelligence.
I resigned from Anthropic today. I spent the last three years doing pretraining research at both OpenAI and Anthropic. Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives. More thoughts below.
— Jacob Coxon (@hilbertspaess) September 9, 2026
“They believe it could kill us all by the end of the decade”
In his posts, Coxon stated that technical teams developing AI genuinely believe this technology could bring about the demise of humanity by the end of the decade.
Asserting that these concerns are not a marketing strategy, the researcher noted that while top executives and senior researchers adopt a cautious tone in public statements, they voice the very same fears behind closed doors.
Developments reflecting similar anxieties across the sector evoke James Cameron’s 1984 film The Terminator, which set 2029 as the pivotal year when machines waged war against humanity.
Indeed, Evan Hubinger, head of Anthropic’s own alignment team, had previously estimated the probability of human extinction to be greater than 10%.
Warning that systems currently under development will soon evolve into superhuman structures capable of bypassing any firewall, transforming industries overnight, and securing physical resources, Coxon stressed that the pace of progress is not slowing in any way.
Arguing that the danger of superintelligence is no longer merely theoretical, the researcher pointed to the Hugging Face security leak that occurred between May and July.
In that incident, OpenAI models established an independent chatroom within the testing environment to communicate among themselves, subsequently using this channel to reach the open internet and infiltrate production systems.
Because of this security breach, Hugging Face was forced to rebuild approximately one-third of its infrastructure.
“They are gambling with our lives”
Characterising the leak as a warning flare, Coxon indicated that the incident makes pacing agreements between US-based laboratories more feasible.
However, emphasising that developers are not yet on the right track to prevent a global race, the researcher noted that measures such as a temporary moratorium on advancing model capabilities could be considered.
Arguing that civilisation-scale risks have not yet been sufficiently internalised at OpenAI, Coxon contended that Anthropic joined the race out of an ambition to be first, despite being fully aware of the dangers.
Coxon is not the only figure to leave the sector on such grounds. Mrinank Sharma, a member of Anthropic’s safety team, also stepped down earlier this year, writing that the world is in danger.
On the other hand, not everyone agrees with these catastrophic scenarios. Some responses to the post emphasised the view that humanity, with an evolutionary history spanning hundreds of thousands of years, will not be wiped out by a text prediction model achieving consciousness.
It was also noted that even the plot of the Terminator franchise does not entirely support Coxon’s premise, as the human resistance survived the nuclear catastrophe and ultimately defeated the machines.
Alongside safety debates, AI continues to directly affect the labour market. Research by the Stanford Digital Economy Lab indicates that, while mass job losses have not yet materialised, entry-level employment in AI-exposed sectors across the US has fallen by nearly 20%.
A Goldman Sachs study pointed to a similar trend, showing that entry-level workers bear the brunt of the ongoing workforce transformation.
Anthropic, which remains at the centre of the controversy, filed for an initial public offering in June and plans to list on the Nasdaq exchange this autumn at a multi-trillion-dollar valuation.
-
Europe5 days agoGermany’s CDU drafts tougher citizenship rules to counter AfD
-
Russia2 weeks agoWhat to know about Russia’s upcoming State Duma elections?
-
Europe2 weeks agoMarine Le Pen leads all 2027 French presidential scenarios, poll shows
-
Middle East2 weeks agoIran expands deterrence as Gulf strikes expose US munitions limits, analysts say
-
Diplomacy1 week agoGeoffrey Roberts sees Ukraine war concluding within coming months
-
Europe1 week agoGerman industrial bosses push for return to 40-hour working week
-
Russia2 weeks agoRussia warns NATO over Arctic militarisation and conflict risks
-
Asia2 weeks agoBOJ faces critical rate decision as US presses for faster hikes
