Time magazine named US President-elect Donald Trump as Person of the Year for 2024.

In its statement, the magazine said Trump had been chosen "for marshaling a comeback of historic proportions, for driving a once-in-a-generation political realignment," as well as "for reshaping the American presidency and altering America's role in the world."

This is the second time Trump has won the accolade, following recognition after winning his first presidency in 2016.

What did Time say about Trump becoming 'person of the year'?

Sam Jacobs, Time's editor-in-chief, explained the decision to US broadcaster NBC, saying that "for better or for worse, [Trump] had the most influence on the news in 2024."

"It's hard to argue with the fact that the person who's moving into the Oval Office is the most influential person in news."

Jacobs called the decision "easier than years past."

Donald Trump was voted as the US' 47th president in last November's election, beating Democratic candidate Kamala Harris.

The Democratic candidate was among those shortlisted for the award, alongside Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Russian economist Yulia Navalnaya, the widow of late opposition leader Alexei Navalny.

Criticism of Ukraine's use of US missiles in Russia

In an interview with the magazine, Trump criticized Ukraine's use of US-supplied missiles deep into Russian territory, calling it "crazy."

"I disagree very vehemently with sending missiles hundreds of miles into Russia. Why are we doing that? We're just escalating this war and making it worse. That should not have been allowed to be done," said the US president-elect.

Trump also spoke about his deportation plans, saying that "there might be" new camps to hold detained migrants before they are deported. He also added the military could be enlisted to round up and deport migrants.

ftm/jcg (AFP, AP, Reuters)

Canada and Mexico are grappling with US President-elect Donald Trump's threat to place 25% tariffs on exports into their most important trade market, with both governments weighing their approaches.

Trump said he would sign executive orders putting the tariffs in place on his first day back in office. He linked the issue to what he says is Mexico and Canada's failure to prevent illegal migration and drug trafficking at US borders.

Economists say tariffs would be very damaging for both Canada and Mexico, with the latter particularly vulnerable.

"Mexico is really tied to the US economy, and any trade dispute will hurt both economies a lot, but it will hurt Mexico much deeper than the US," Jeffrey J. Schott, a senior fellow with the Peterson Institute for International Economics, told DW.

Wendy Wagner, a lawyer specializing in international trade with Ottawa, Canada-based firm Gowling WLG, said tariffs would cause serious problems for Canada.

"It seems like a very unrealistic and damaging proposition to have 25% import tariffs into your main export market," she told DW. 

Divide and conquer

The tariff threats have caused tension between Mexico and Canada.  

During a meeting with Trump at his Florida base last month, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reportedly tried to convince Trump that Canada should not be lumped in with Mexico on drugs or border issues.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said Canada has "a very serious problem with fentanyl," adding that "Mexico should not be used as part of electoral campaigns," referring to forthcoming Canadian elections.

Sheinbaum had a phone call with Trump, after which she claimed, "There will not be a potential tariff war." She said she had made assurances to Trump regarding migration initiatives and drug trafficking.

Schott said he believes Trump's strategy is to deal separately with the countries and undermine the so-called United States-Mexico-Canada agreement (USMCA) — a free-trade deal brokered during his first term and that succeeded the former NAFTA pact.

"Trump likes to deal bilaterally," he said. "So he's not going to treat this as a North American issue."

A new deal or no deal?

Politicians in some Canadian provinces argued that Canada should strike its own deal with the US, cutting out Mexico. For his part, Trudeau said he supports the USMCA and that maintaining it is his "first choice." But he hinted at alternative options "pending decisions and choices that Mexico has made."

Bill Reinsch, a senior economics adviser with the Center for Strategic & International Studies, said he thinks tariffs on Canada and Mexico remain in the "threat category" and emphasized that the USMCA is up for renegotiation in 2026.

"It's unavoidable. They have to deal with it anyway," he told DW. "At best, Trump's going to move negotiations up a year, but it'll still be the same negotiation. It's complicated because the threat is about drugs and migrants. It's not about trade."

From threat to reality

If the tariffs moved from the threat category into reality, there's little doubt that they would present huge challenges for the Canadian and Mexican economies.

Almost 75% of Canadian exports went to the US in 2022, according to the MIT Observatory of Economic Complexity index, underlining how costly tariffs could be for Canada.

"That's a very high figure, but it's made more important by the fact that Canada is an exporting economy," said Wagner. "There's not a huge domestic market. Most Canadian companies go into business with the expectation that they will be exporting."

Canada exports a wide range of goods and commodities to the US, from petroleum to gas turbines and timber to cars. Wagner said an added factor in the relationship is how interlinked their supply chains are, particularly in the automobile industry.

Mexican dependency

Mexico is even more dependent on the USA as an export destination, with 77% of its goods going there in 2022, according to the MIT index.

The automobile sector is especially embedded and Schott emphasized that tariffs would make cars more expensive for consumers in the United States. 

"It's not going to be a boon for US production because the companies that are going to be hurt by the tariffs affecting Mexico are the companies also producing in the United States. Those costs are going to be passed on to the US consumer," he said, adding that tariffs on Mexico could make one of the issues Trump is trying to resolve — which is migration — even bigger.

"Damage to the Mexican economy only makes economic conditions in Mexico worse and encourages more illegal migration to the United States," Schott said. "I'm not sure that factor is being adequately addressed in the proposals of the incoming Trump administration."

Idle threat or serious risk?

In the event of tariffs, retaliation from both Mexico and Canada would be likely, according to Reinsch, who noted that Mexico's president already said she would put tariffs in place.

"I think the political situation in Canada would probably compel them to do the same which would be enormously disruptive to all three economies and would be enormously inflationary," said Reinsch.

There is still some optimism that Trump's style of negotiating, by making threats in advance of striking a deal, means the tariffs will not come to pass.

Wagner said she is hoping for a different solution to the problem, noting that "tariffs are really a very imperfect solution."

Yet the fact that Trump placed tariffs on steel and aluminum from both Canada and Mexico prompted Schott to take the fresh threat seriously: "He did it, and he would be willing to do it again under the right circumstances." 

Edited by: Uwe Hessler

The landscape is shaped by vast fields with grain silos and long clotheslines strung in front of farmhouses. Combined with the many horse-drawn carriages on the roads, it feels like being transported back to a bygone era.

The Amish strive for humility and community. As members of the Anabaptist faith, they follow a strict interpretation of the Bible. In the Amish world, modern innovations like cars or the internet are mostly off-limits. This also rules out dating apps, which otherwise dominate the dating scene across the United States.

So how do members of this Christian faith community find a prospective romantic partner?

To find out, we drive to Lancaster County in the northeastern US state of Pennsylvania, which is home to the world's largest Amish settlement, with more than 43,600 members.

A German-language connection

The Amish originally came from Switzerland, Alsace and southern Germany. In the 17th and 18th centuries, they faced persecution there for their religious beliefs, which led many to seek refuge in the USA and Canada.

Pennsylvania provided ideal conditions for their agricultural lifestyle.

As visitors of the settlement, we are seen as "English" — the label the Amish use to refer to outsiders — even though we are German-language Europeans. 

The language spoken by the Amish is Pennsylvania Dutch, a mix of German and English.

Because of our language similarities, it is easy to start conversations as we visit Amish farms and quilt shops. Many ask where we're from when they hear us speaking German. 

We talk with them about how the average age of marriage for Amish couples has shifted over time: "Most people don't marry as teenagers anymore, like I did back then, but in their early 20s," says farmer Martha.

Wedding season in fall and winter

It's fall, and we're right in the Amish wedding season, which begins in mid-October and ends in March.

The months after the harvest offer more free time for the elaborate celebrations, and the colder weather makes it easier to store all the food needed for the feast, since Amish people don't use electric refrigerators.

"A wedding is a major event," a young waitress in a restaurant tells us. "Families celebrate at home and host 300 to 500 guests. A wedding lasts the entire day, with three meals being served."

A traditional meal consists of homemade bread stuffing with chicken, mashed potatoes, creamed celery and pepper slaw. Between meals, everyone sings songs from the "Ausbund," the oldest hymn book of the Anabaptists.

"My younger sister is getting married next October," the waitress says. Her sister has been with her partner for a year, with brief interruptions. This is allowed and not considered a sin by the Amish. However, divorce would result in excommunication. Premarital sex is also frowned upon. In case of a premarital pregnancy, marrying quickly is necessary to remain part of the community, she explains.

Courting and dating

On social media, an ex-Amish person called Lizzie Hershberger explains how dating works in her former community: A group of friends rides a buggy to a girl's house at night and asks on behalf of their friend if she's interested. If the interest is mutual, the young man is allowed into her room.

"They will lay in bed, no sex allowed. They'll have conversations, but at one point the guy takes the lead and he'll wrap his arms around the girl ... and then they're supposed to kind of rock around for a bit," Lizzie says in the video. "The rule is like you rock around three times and then there is a kiss. And then you let go and go back to talking."

Lizzie was part of the "Swartzentruber," one of the most conservative subgroups.

The 'Rumspringa' years

Traditions can vary significantly depending on the group, bishop and family rules. Here in Lancaster County, nearly everyone is part of the "Old Order Amish." 

Susan, whom we meet in a craft store, describes dating customs in her community. "Once we're 16, we attend youth services on Sundays. We sing Bible songs and play volleyball. It's also where boys and girls meet," Susan explains. "The boys initiate the first contact. So boys and girls get to know each other during these gatherings, not in the dark. They're allowed to be seen together in public and can visit each other at home."

This phase, in which young Amish distance themselves from their parents and get to know more of the outside world, is called "Rumspringa," borrowed from the German word "herumspringen," which means "to run/jump around."

"For some, this time might involve deviant behavior — on Saturday nights, going to a party in which there's a lot of alcohol served or something like that. Although that's not necessarily the norm," says Steven Nolt, director of the Young Center for Anabaptist and Pietist Studies at Elizabethtown College.

The Rumspringa ends with baptism, usually between the ages of 18 and 22. To allow a conscious commitment to faith, the Anabaptists reject infant baptism, as opposed to most Christians who baptize their babies.

Opening up to modernity

Although traditions are deeply valued and maintained, the idea that the Amish shun every form of modern technology is a misconception.

In Lancaster County, we spot solar panels in front of some farms. That allows people to use electricity while remaining off the grid. 

The "Old Order Amish" appear to be living in a more modern way than we assumed.

This freedom of choice allows members to leave at any time. Nolt says the dropout rate among the Amish is 10-15%. 

Edited by: Elizabeth Grenier

United States President-elect Donald Trump announced on Wednesday that Peter Navarro, a former trade advisor who served a jail sentence in relation to the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, will join his new administration as senior counselor for trade and manufacturing.

Announcing the appointment on social media, Trump praised Navarro's "broad range of White House experience" and "extensive policy analytic and media skills."

He said that Navarro's mission in the new role "will be to help successfully advance and communicate the Trump Manufacturing, Tariff and Trade Agendas."

Why did Navarro serve jail time?

Navarro, 75, was sentenced to four months in prison  for defying a subpoena from a House committee probing the January 6 attack by Trump supporters, a conviction he described as "partisan weaponization of the judicial system."

Immediately after his release in July, Navarro told the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee: "I went to prison so you won't have to. The committee demanded that I betray Donald J. Trump to save my own skin. I refused."

What is Navarro's stance on China?

Navarro, a former economics and public policy professor at the University of California, has a reputation as a hawkish critic of trade arrangements with China.

As director of the White House National Trade Council during Trump's first term from 2017-2021, he fiercely defended tariffs on $370 billion worth of Chinese imports and advocated for national security tariffs on aluminium and steel.

"During my first term, few were more effective or tenacious than Peter in enforcing my two sacred rules, Buy American, Hire American," Trump said, praising Navarro for "moving every one of my Tariff and Trade actions FAST."

Navarro's Canada controversy

But Navarro's fiery language also upset US allies. In 2018, after a dispute between Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Navarro said:

"There's a special place in hell for any foreign leader that engages in bad faith diplomacy with President Donald J. Trump and then tries to stab him in the back on the way out the door."

Ottawa was outraged, and Navarro later apologized.

Trump's second administration taking shape

Navarro's appointment came amid a flurry of announcements on Wednesday as Trump's second administration begins to take shape.

Wall Street CEO Howard Lutnick is set to be Commerce Secretary with overall lead on trade, joining Jamieson Greer, another veteran of the 2018-2020 US-China trade war appointed last week.

Trump said he wanted Paul Atkins, a financial industry veteran and an advocate for cryptocurrency, to serve as the next chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Atkins "recognizes that digital assets and other innovations are crucial to Making America Greater than Ever Before," Trump wrote on social media.

Trump's preferred choice for Pentagon chief, Pete Hegseth, however, is facing allegations of sexual misconduct, excessive drinking and financial mismanagement, leading Trump to consider other options.

mf/kb (AP, Reuters)

On Tuesday, China's Commerce Ministry announced that it was banning the export of certain minerals and metals to the United States.

The products, such as gallium, germanium and antimony, are so-called dual-use items, which can be used in the production of semiconductors and also for a wide range of military and technological applications.

Why has China taken this step?

China's move is a direct response to export controls that the United States placed on Beijing on Monday. The US and Chinese actions are the latest exchanges in the countries' rivalry, with much of the recent focus being around trade, the production of military technology and the development of artificial intelligence.

"It's a hardening and a defensiveness on both the Chinese and the United States side, and it's not a new phenomenon for either country," Claire Reade, a senior counsel with Washington, DC, legal firm Arnold & Porter and an expert in US-China trade relations, told DW.

Reade said the perception had become widespread in China that the United States is trying to halt the country's legitimate development, whereas the US sees it as a national security issue to prevent China from gaining supremacy in certain areas. 

The Commerce Ministry said its decision to strengthen export controls on dual-use items to the United States was "to safeguard national security."

The US continued its ongoing campaign against China's semiconductor sector by announcing its third list of restrictions in as many years.

Just over a month before it is set to leave office, the Biden administration launched export controls on 140 companies, including chip sector specialists such as Naura, Piotech, ACM Research and SiCarrier Technology.

US Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo said: "They're the strongest controls ever enacted by the US to degrade the People's Republic of China's ability to make the most advanced chips that they're using in their military modernization."

China's response is not limited to the restriction on certain key metals and minerals. Four of the country's main industry associations — covering the semiconductor, internet, car and communications sectors — have told their members to reduce their purchases of US chips, with the country's semiconductor association saying "US chip products are no longer safe or reliable."

How will the new restrictions affect the US?

The US National Security Council says it is still assessing the latest move from China. Officials "underscore the importance of strengthening our efforts with other countries to de-risk and diversify critical supply chains away from the People's Republic of China."

Gallium and germanium are two of the products that China has banned from export to the United States, having already placed controls on their export in 2023.

They have many specialty applications, with gallium particularly needed for high-end semiconductors, as well as for solar panels and radar equipment. Germanium has several uses, including for fiber optics and satellites.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies, a US think tank, says "gallium-based semiconductors are vital to the US defense industry, particularly in next-generation missile defense and radar systems, as well as electronic warfare and communications equipment."

According to the US Geological Survey, a government agency, China produced 98% of the world's supply of raw gallium in 2023. Data for germanium extraction and production is not readily available but China also controls the majority of global supply.

 

The US imports both products from China but also trades with countries such as Canada, Germany and Japan. However, since China began phasing in restrictions last year, prices have increased markedly on the global market.

The risks of supply disruption are well-known. In November 2024, the US Geological Survey said there could be a $3.4 billion (€3.23 billion) decrease in US GDP if China implements a total ban on exports of gallium and germanium.

China's dominance does not mean that the United States does not have other options. First, there are other producers, and, second, it is possible to increase non-Chinese production. Gallium is largely derived as a byproduct of bauxite processing, the primary ore for aluminum. While investing in gallium extraction in the US and other countries would be costly, it is possible.

What does China hope to achieve?

The latest developments come just over a month before the start of Donald Trump's second term as US president. Trump has vowed to put massive tariffs on Chinese imports, having begun a trade war with Beijing during his first term.

Though the possibility of future negotiations with Trump has probably fed into China's decision-making, Reade said,  "it definitely is a broader trend that goes beyond any given president."

Reade said the decision suggested that China is becoming more assertive in its efforts to shake off any dependence it has on the West.

"This will be another step along the road where China hopes that it will not harm China, and it will send messages to the rest of the world about China's unwillingness to sit by if its economic development and its national security — which is a very broad term in China — is somehow being compromised or threatened," she said.

Edited by: Ashutosh Pandey

Why does BRICS want to challenge the US dollar?

The BRICS nations — named after original members Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — are among the fast-growing economies in the 21st century. They are keen to reduce their dependence on the US dollar, the world's reserve currency, used for nearly 80% of global trade.

Most economists agree that the dollar-dominated financial system gives the United States major economic advantages, including lower borrowing costs, the ability to sustain larger fiscal deficits and exchange-rate stability, among others. 

The dollar is the main currency used to price commodities like oil and gold, and its stability means investors often flock to the dollar during uncertain times.

Washington also benefits from enormous geopolitical influence from so-called dollarization, including the ability to impose sanctions on other nations and restrict their access to trade and capital.

BRICS nations, which expanded recently to include Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the United Arab Emirates, have accused Washington of "weaponizing" the dollar, leveraging the currency so that rivals must operate within a framework defined by US interests.

Discussions about a new joint currency gained traction after the US and European Union imposed sanctions on Russia over its 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine, amid concerns other BRICS nations could be targeted if they fell out with the West.

How has the BRICS currency plan developed?

The creation of a BRICS currency was first mooted shortly after the 2008/9 financial crisis, when a US real estate boom and poor regulations nearly collapsed the entire global banking system.

At last year's BRICS summit in South Africa, the bloc agreed to study the possibility of creating a common currency to minimize exposure to dollar-related risks, although BRICS leaders noted it would likely take many years to come to fruition.

Russian President Vladimir Putin went further during the most recent BRICS summit in Kasan in October, proposing a blockchain-based international payments system, designed to circumvent Western sanctions.

There was little enthusiasm for Putin's plan, but BRICS leaders did agree to facilitate more trade in local currencies, cutting their reliance on the dollar.

Putin and his Brazilian counterpart Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva are the strongest proponents of the new currency. While China has not explicitly expressed a view, Beijing has supported initiatives to reduce reliance on the dollar. India, meanwhile, is a lot more cautious about the idea.

How feasible is a common currency?

A new joint currency would be a huge undertaking for BRICS nations, fraught with many complexities due to the differing political and economic systems within the nine current members. The BRICS states are at varied stages of economic development and have vastly different growth rates.

China, for example, is an authoritarian state but is responsible for about 70% of the bloc's total gross domestic product (GDP) at $17.8 trillion (€17 trillion). China runs a trade surplus and maintains a large holding of dollars to support its competitiveness as a major exporter. India, on the other hand, runs a trade deficit, is the world's largest democracy and its economy is worth $3.7 trillion.

China's dominance in BRICS would create a huge imbalance that would make it tricky for New Dehli to agree on a framework for the new currency that wouldn't overshadow its national interests. Disparities between other BRICS members are also likely to spur resistance to a shared currency.

It is also unlikely that the BRICS members want to eventually move towards a fully-traded currency like the dollar or euro. The euro took more than 40 years from 1959, when it was first mooted, till 2002 when its notes and coins became legal currency in 12 EU countries, later 20 states.

The most likely option would be the creation of a joint currency used purely for trade, valued based on a basket of currencies and/or commodities like gold or oil.

The BRICS currency could work in a similar way to the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) Special Drawing Rights (SDR). The SDR is an international financial asset, valued on the daily exchange rates of the dollar, euro, yuan, yen and pound. Some proponents have suggested a BRICS alternative could be a digital currency.

Is Trump's 100% tariff threat too premature?

Trump wrote on Truth Social Saturday that when he returns to the White House in January, he would "require a commitment" from BRICS countries that they "neither create a new BRICS Currency nor back any other Currency to replace the mighty US Dollar."

The President-elect could, however, be jumping the gun somewhat because the currency proposal has made little progress, despite the rhetoric from BRICS leaders.

Indeed on Monday (December 2), the South African government insisted there were no plans to create a BRICS currency, blaming "recent misreporting" for spreading a false narrative. Chrispin Phiri, spokesman for the country's Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO), said in a statement posted on X (formerly Twitter) that discussions have until now focused on boosting trade within the bloc using national currencies.

Trump's threat could now strain ties with the world's fastest-growing economies, which are some of the US's key trading partners. It could also spark the threat of retaliatory measures.

Added to Trump's existing threats to levy additional tariffs on America's rivals, including China, any move by his administration could further spike inflation both globally and domestically, potentially slowing economic growth.

The decision to prioritize the dollar also marks a policy shift from Trump's first term, where he favored a weakening of the currency to boost US exports. His threat caused a strengthening in the dollar on Monday, and a weakening of gold along with the yuan, rupee and rand.

Russian government spokesman Dmitry Peskov said a trend was gathering pace against the dollar as a reserve currency, saying that "more and more countries are switching to the use of national currencies in their trade and foreign economic activities."

Edited by: Uwe Hessler

The idea of 400 million tons is too huge to be easily graspable. Yet that is the volume of virgin plastic produced annually. It is also roughly the weight of the entire human population.

Regardless of its existing heavyweight footprint, plastic is on track to take up even more space in the world. Current projections suggest today's output will roughly triple by 2060. Currently, an estimated 20 million tons of plastic end up in the environment each year, while annual global recycling rates stand at just 9%. 

For years, experts and civil society groups have been sounding the alarm on the impossibility of recycling our way out of the growing mountains of plastic waste, calling instead for a cap on production. But for those same years, the wheels of the manufacturing machine have continued to turn — at an ever-giddier pace.

And in an age of booming renewable energy sources, the increasing production volume of virgin plastic, has much to do with the oil and gas industries. The vast majority is made using fossil fuels.

What do fossil fuel companies have to do with plastics? 

"Fossil fuel companies today do not rely on selling gasoline or fuel for energy or transport as a way to stay alive," said Delphine Levi Alvares, global petrochemicals campaign manager at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) in a briefing. "They are increasingly relying on producing petrochemicals." 

Which ultimately means the companies that have traditionally sold the world its fuel, are now investing in producing ever more plastic. To the tune of tens of billions of dollars. 

Reducing production has emerged as a contentious issue during two years of talks to reach a global plastics treaty. Though the final round did not deliver agreement on that point, there are other meaningful moves afoot to force change. Not least via a legal complaint filed earlier this year by the US state of California against oil and gas major ExxonMobil. 

Can a lawsuit change the amount of plastic? 

In the lawsuit, California's Attorney General Rob Bonta alleges that ExxonMobil, the biggest producer of single-use plastics in the world "aggressively promoted the development of fossil-fuel-based plastic products and campaigned to minimize the public's understanding of the harmful consequences of these products." 

And as such had "deceived Californians for almost half a century by promising that recycling could and would solve the ever-growing plastic waste crisis." 

Mark James, interim director of the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law and Graduate School said that although ExxonMobil does not sell directly to consumers doing their groceries, oil and gas companies have been very intentional in creating markets for the plastic products that go into the shopping basket.

"There has definitely been marketing of the recyclability of plastics to those end users," he said. "But it is an industry creation and once we know that, we can understand all the things that they have been doing to maintain that false sense of recyclability of their product." 

In a response to the claim, ExxonMobil said that California officials "had known their recycling system isn't effective" and had failed to act. At the time of publication, the company had not responded to a DW request for further comment. 

Levi Alvares sees the California lawsuit as a critical step joining the dots that the broader public does not always see — to make the connection between plastic production and fossil fuel companies.

"This kind of lawsuit really cements in people's minds this trend that lots of people haven't been connecting the impact these companies have on the climate crisis to the impact they have in other sectors."

What is advanced recycling and is it the solution? 

Because despite the historically low rate of global recycling — just 10% of all plastic ever produced has been turned into something else — and the reality that many products cannot easily be processed into other goods, ExxonMobil is betting on "advanced recycling." This technology, it says "converts plastic waste back into molecular building blocks," meaning they become the raw material for new products.

The company says it has used advanced recycling to "process more than 60 million pounds [27.2 million kilograms] of plastic waste into usable raw materials, keeping it out of landfills." And just weeks after California filed its lawsuit, ExxonMobil announced it was expanding its capacity.

But the California complaint, which is based on two years of investigation, says even in ExxonMobil's "best-case scenario," advanced recycling will account for a tiny fraction of the plastic the company continues to produce. And is therefore "nothing more than a public relations stunt meant to encourage the public to keep purchasing single-use plastics that are fueling the plastics pollution crisis." 

The elephant in the room: virgin plastic production

Adam Herriott, senior specialist at global environmental action NGO WRAP says from their position at the very start of the plastic supply chain, fossil fuel companies "significantly impact the volume of plastic entering the market," and that "by actively participating in efforts to reduce virgin plastic production, they can help drive systemic change." 

Yet like other leading fossil fuel, petrochemical and fast-moving consumer goods companies, ExxonMobil is a member of the independent global non-profit Alliance to End Plastic Waste (AEPW), which works to tackle plastic once it has become waste rather than addressing the issue through reduced production.

In an email to DW, a spokesperson for the Alliance said its mandate mainly focuses on developing "solutions that support the collection, sorting, and recycling of plastic waste to promote a circular economy for plastic." The statement added that AEPW believes "it is the sum of the work of the multiple stakeholders — from upstream to downstream solutions — that will help solve the challenge." 

How successful will litigation against fossil fuel companies be?

There is plenty riding on California's case against ExxonMobil.Not just whether the company will be ordered to meet California's demands, which include monetary damages, and for the company to stop making misleading claims, but whether it leads to similar actions elsewhere that could try to force the hand of fossil fuel companies through the courts. 

Patrick Boyle, corporate accountability attorney with CIEL, says he expects to see more such cases in the US, and even beyond because evidence and testimony presented in the context of the Exxon suit — which is likely to play out over a matter of years — will become public record.

"It may not look exactly like this like litigation against Exxon with these specific claims," he said, but collected evidence could potentially be leveraged to fight other cases around issues like microplastics, greenwashing or permits for advanced recycling. 

"So, I think there's a lot of really interesting conversations and brainstorming to have and begin having with partners to see how do we leverage what we get here, in the international context." 

In the meantime, Levi Alvares says the complaint against Exxon is strengthening the understanding that plastic waste is a problem "engineered by industry."

Edited by: Sarah Steffen, Jennifer Collins

This article was amended to attribute the statement from the AEPW to an Alliance spokesperson as opposed to a specific individual, and reflect the failure of talks on the terms of a global plastic agreement.

US President-elect Donald Trump has nominated loyalist Kash Patel to lead the US Federal Bureau of Investigation, amid a series of controversial picks following his November victory.

"Kash is a brilliant lawyer, investigator, and 'America First' fighter who has spent his career exposing corruption, defending Justice, and protecting the American People," Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social announcing the nomination.

The nomination comes to confirm earlier expectations that Trump would replace the FBI's current director Christopher Wray, whom he had picked in 2017 but later turned against.

It was during Wray's tenure that the FBI carried out a court-approved search at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in search of classified documents.

Who is Kash Patel?

The 44-year-old former federal public defender and former federal prosecutor first emerged as a controversial figure during Trump's first presidential term.

He worked as an aide to former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes. Patel during that stint was an integral part of leading the House Republican's probe into the FBI's 2016 investigation into contacts between Trump's 2016 campaign and Moscow.

He was also suspected of secretly serving as a back channel between Trump and Ukraine without authorization during the former president's first impeachment trial, although he denies this. 

That impeachment came over allegations that Trump had withheld aid from Ukraine to pressure Kyiv into probing Hunter Biden in an effort to boost his reelection chances against rival Joe Biden.

Even after Trump's presidential term ended, Patel remained within his orbit, being among several people the former president designated as a representative for access to his presidential records.

He was among the few former Trump administration officials who claimed without evidence that Trump had declassified all the records in question.

He has previously shared controversial views regarding the FBI, including calls for stripping the bureau of its intelligence-gathering role, as well as hunting down any of its employees who refuse to support Trump's agenda.

Patel also said he would be after all "conspirators," including in the media.

rmt/wd (Reuters, AP, AFP)  

"Because of the HIV virus that I have obtained, I will have to retire from the Lakers, today," the then-32-year-old told a hushed press conference in Los Angeles on November 7, 1991.

The Los Angeles Lakers point guard added in the next breath that he did not have AIDS, but HIV. This had been confirmed by Dr. Michael Mellman just before that press conference. HIV, or human immunodeficiency viruses, can lead to acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), which has fatal consequences.

The Lakers had instructed Johnson to return to Los Angeles from a pre-season game in Utah so that the team doctor could give him the bad news in person.

"At the very first, when he first announced it to me, I thought: 'Oh, man, I am going to die. I think it's over.' And he said: 'No, no, it's not like that.'" Johnson later recalled in an interview with US public broadcaster PBS.

Mellman reassured him that if he took his medication, he could go on to live a long life

A shock on par with Kennedy's assassination

At the time, becoming infected with HIV was generally regarded as a death sentence, which is why Johnson's press conference came as such a shock. Some Americans compared it to the way they felt when learning of President John F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963 or Richard Nixon's resignation over the Watergate scandal in 1974.

The announcement came when Magic Johnson was in his prime as a basketball player. He had already led the Lakers to five NBA titles and been named the league's MVP three times.

Until then, HIV and AIDS had been widely seen as diseases that only gay men or drug addicts got. However, as Johnson pointed out, he belonged to neither of these groups.

"I am going to be a spokesman for this HIV virus because I want them (the kids) to understand that safe sex is the way to go," Johnson told reporters.

"Sometimes we think only gay people can get it, it's not going to happen to me. Here I am saying it can happen to anybody, even me Magic Johnson it can happen to," he said.

The announcement came just two months after Johnson had married his wife Cookie, who, he stressed, did not have the virus. It was only later that Johnson revealed that he had contracted HIV during unprotected sex with another woman.

The 'Johnson effect'

Shortly after learning of his infection, he established the Magic Johnson Foundation, which provides financial support to AIDS groups and campaigns. And Johnson himself has never tired of campaigning on behalf of those affected, and educating people about the disease.

He was one of the keynote speakers at theWorld AIDS Day conference in 1999, when he described the virus as "public enemy No. 1."

Johnson's words did not fall on deaf ears. Statistics released by US scientists in 2021 demonstrated that the press conference on November 7, 1991, led to significantly more American men getting tested for HIV. This was particularly true for heterosexual black and Hispanics in cities with NBA clubs.

Magic Johnson's basketball career did not end on that November day. In 1992, he played in the NBA All-Star Game and was later part of the USA's "Dream Team" that won Olympic gold in Barcelona. Johnson also made a comeback in the NBA, spending the 1995-96 season with the Lakers, before retiring as a player for good.

Having achieved everything there is to achieve in the sport, the Lakers retired his number, 32 and he was inducted into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame in 2002.

Billionaire and philanthropist

Now, as World AIDS Day is marked on Sunday, Johnson is a successful investor, having sunk his money into real estate, cinemas and companies like EquiTrust  and Starbucks. Forbes magazine estimates Johnson's current fortune to be some $1.2 billion (€1.14 billion).

For many years his foundation has been involved not just in AIDS projects, but also other organizations that support the education, health and social needs of people in ethnically diverse cities.

When Johnson was diagnosed with HIV in 1991, azidothymidine (AZT) was the first HIV drug on the market. Today there are numerous active substances that help to reduce the viral load to below the detection limit. If this is successful, the patient's immune system recovers and the patient can live and work normally. HIV is now considered to be treatable, provided the infection is detected early and treatment begins immediately.

The number of people who are HIV positive worldwide today is estimated at around 40 million. More than than half of them live in southern Africa. A quarter of all infected people worldwide do not receive any medication. Johnson admits he is fortunate.

To this day, he does not have AIDS.

"I am not cured. I have just been taking my meds," Johnson said in that PBS interview. "I am doing what I am supposed to be doing and thank God the HIV virus in my blood system and in my body have laid dead in a sense, and we don't want anything to wake it up."

This article was originally published in German. 

It is Donald Trump's unpredictability that worries German politicians the most. Will he once again criticize Germany harshly, like he did during his first term in office? Will he rant against NATO, particularly his European partners, or even threaten to leave the alliance?

It is difficult to know — and this is causing a certain degree of unease in Berlin. When German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock offered Trump "partnership and friendship" after he won the election, it also conveyed a desire for reliability in difficult times.

For Germany, NATO is indispensable

Few on either side of the Atlantic doubt that the German-American relationship rests on a solid foundation. US President Joe Biden emphasized that the US would defend "every inch of NATO territory" in the event of an attack.

This was a comforting assurance for European NATO members. In the event of a conflict, Germany, with just over 180,000 troops who are still inadequately equipped, would be totally dependent on the protection of the military alliance.

However, things will be different under the Republican Donald Trump than they were under the committed transatlanticist Biden. It's not just that Trump sees Europe playing a subordinate role, well behind China and the Indo-Pacific region. But Trump also sees Europe's defense as primarily a European responsibility — and not an American one. 

Currently, the US contributes the lion's share to NATO, supplying the most troops and maintaining core capabilities in intelligence and logistics. Trump, who has often described NATO membership as too costly for the US, could greatly reduce this commitment.

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius was quick to respond after Trump's election victory: "We Europeans have to do more for our own security. We have to come to a fair burden sharing," — and called on his counterparts from France, Poland, the UK, and Italy to discuss Europe's defense capabilities.

Germany could have a leading role to play, but it is currently in the midst of a political crisis that will lead to early elections on February 23.

Security only in exchange for money?

During his first term in office (2017-2021), Trump regularly mocked Germany for what he regarded as insufficient defense spending. Germany owes NATO "huge sums of money," Trump alleged. Then-Chancellor Angela Merkel from the center-right Christian Democratic Union party (CDU) reacted with irritation.

One can expect Trump to raise the issue of defense spending once again. He even mentioned the issue during the election campaign. Those who do not meet NATO's "two percent target," in other words, do not spend at least 2% of their gross domestic product on defense, will not be protected by the US, the Republican ranted to the applause of his supporters.

Security expert Ulrike Franke from the European Council on Foreign Relations thinks such statements are dangerous: "That alone undermines NATO to an insane degree, because trust in NATO is based on the belief that the other allies will come to one's aid," she told DW.

Former NATO chief strategist Stefanie Babst told public broadcaster ZDF that she is also concerned about Donald Trump's second term in office: "Trump doesn't see NATO as an alliance of shared values, but as a service organization." Whoever pays gets protection — this attitude is "truly poisonous for NATO." Ultimately, it is Russian President Vladimir Putin who benefits from discord within NATO, Babst believes.

So could Germany, as a supposed "debtor," be excluded from the new US administration's promise of protection — even though it is home to US nuclear weapons that serve as a nuclear deterrent?

This year, for the first time in decades, the German government spent 2% of its gross domestic product on defense — thus fulfilling the voluntary commitment of NATO members. However, this was only possible thanks to a one-off special fund (requiring new debt) of €100 billion ($105 billion) for the Bundeswehr, which the government made available after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

By 2026 or 2027, however, it will be used up. It will be the task of the new federal government to increase the defense budget permanently. Otherwise, Germany could again fall below the 2% threshold and find itself criticized by its allies. During his last term in office, Trump even threatened to withdraw some of the US troops stationed in Germany — as a "sanction" for what he saw as insufficient defense spending.

The end of US support for Ukraine looms

Another issue that causes headaches for Europeans is military aid for Ukraine. Here, too, the US has been Ukraine's largest donor, followed by Germany. Trump's statements on the subject give reason to fear that he will not approve any further US aid.

Security expert Ulrike Franke doubts that the Europeans will be able to compensate for this shortfall. The problem is not so much a lack of money as a lack of weapons. "In my opinion, the really big problem is the military equipment. We have emptied our arsenals in the last two and a half years. What we haven't done enough of is to build up our industrial production."

Although Germany has significantly increased its arms production since the start of  Russia's war in Ukraine, it was starting from a low level, for example in the production of ammunition.

Trump's grandiose announcement that he would end the war in Ukraine "in 24 hours" also caused irritation in Germany. It could be that Trump "makes whatever kind of deal with Putin — and the Europeans are neither sufficiently united nor really in a position to reject it," Franke told DW. For her, this is "a horror scenario."

"If Trump tries to reach an agreement with Putin, Ukraine will most likely not sit at the negotiating table — and neither will Europe," wrote Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff, director of the German Council on Foreign Relations on the DGAP website. "No one will want to accept being shut out. Therefore, the major European countries (Poland, Great Britain, France, Italy and Germany) should form a contact group with Ukraine to explore the conditions for a ceasefire and an eventual peace before Trump even assumes office."  

This article was originally written in German.

While you're here: Every Tuesday, DW editors round up what is happening in German politics and society. You can sign up here for the weekly email newsletter Berlin Briefing.

I was 17 years old the first (and only) time I used laughing gas — nitrous oxide — for fun. I was with some friends who showed me. It was sold at the grocery store.

As an anxious teenager, I was wary, but the fact it was available for legal purchase at the supermarket helped assuage my concerns. If it was really that harmful, I thought, surely it wouldn't be available for anyone to buy.

Health experts say this is a common introduction to the party drug. Kids are told, often by peers, that laughing gas won't harm them. They may believe it because there are no warnings plastered across whipped cream canisters in stores. You don't have to find a dealer, or even be 21, to get hold of the substance.

Many teenagers don't realize laughing gas is dangerous 

In 2018, a report published in the journal Frontiers in Psychiatry reported that 92% of teenagers in the UK who had heard of laughing gas "were not aware of any side effects" associated with its use.

Now, governments are moving to regulate the substance. The UK passed a law in 2023 banning nitrous oxide. It is classified as a drug in the Netherlands. And as recently as May 2024, Louisiana became the first US state to sign a law prohibiting laughing gas from being sold in retail stores. German regulators are also considering a ban.

But why? What makes nitrous oxide dangerous? Here's what you should know about laughing gas and how it can affect your health.

What is laughing gas and why is it widely available?

Laughing gas is the colloquial term for nitrous oxide, a clear gas.

It is used in medicine to relax patients when they are having wisdom teeth removed, for instance, or during childbirth.

Nitrous oxide can cause a euphoric feeling that users describe as a "head rush." You may feel light-headed, dizzy or disoriented.

When used recreationally, the effect of the gas is short-lived, lasting 30 seconds to a minute. Users may inhale it multiple times in a single session.

Along with its use in medical settings, nitrous oxide is used to make whipped cream, hence its availability at your local grocery store.

The canisters are reportedly also sold at kiosks and corner shops across Europe and in vape shops in the US.

Health experts say they have seen a boom in the number of vendors selling nitrous oxide since 2017. That's according to Devan Mair of a student campaign at Queen Mary University of London called N2O: Know the Risks. 

N₂O is the chemical formula for nitrous oxide — a compound of two nitrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. 

Can nitrous oxide be addictive?

Although health experts have said most laughing gas users take the substance infrequently, some research has indicated a subset of individuals who appear to get hooked. But the evidence is thin.

Researchers set out to determine whether nitrous oxide could be addictive in an evaluation of the evidence, a so-called meta study published in the journal Addiction in October 2023.

They found that, although the research is sparse, what has been published indicates "consistent evidence for the presence of at least four substance abuse disorder criteria in heavy N2O [nitrous oxide] users."

The authors concluded that nitrous oxide "could well be addictive." They advised that it should be handled as a "potentially addictive substance" until more assessments are conducted.

How common is laughing gas usage?

Recreational use of nitrous oxide varies from country to country.

The UK, for example, has reported some of the highest levels of its illicit use. A British government report in 2020 warned that nitrous oxide was second on the list of the most commonly used recreational drugs among people aged 16 to 24.

In other European countries and in the US, people also use the substance to get high, with numbers of these users reportedly growing.

A 2018 study of nitrous oxide use in China indicated that teens picked up the habit from peers who studied abroad. Nitrous oxide is banned for recreational sale in Australia and Japan.

Research on the drug's ubiquity in places like India, the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa is largely non-existent.

What are the negative side effects of laughing gas?

Apart from the initial short-term effects described above, regular use of laughing gas has been associated with neurological complications. 

In heavy users, nitrous oxide can inactivate vitamin B12, which aids in the formulation of myelin, Mair told DW.

Myelin, or the myelin sheath, is a protective layer on nerves — including those in the brain and spinal cord. When myelin fails to form, a person's nerves can become damaged, resulting in numbness, the feeling of pins and needles in the hands and feet, loss of balance and general weakness. 

Mair said such cases were common in the UK. "At the Royal London Hospital in East London, in Feb 2023, there was a case of nitrous oxide-related nerve damage every nine days," he said.

Experts say if a heavy recreational user of nitrous oxide starts to notice serious symptoms of a B12 deficiency, they should seek emergency care immediately.

According to a 2023 report on nitrous oxide published by the British government, these warning symptoms include: tingling and numbness in the hands or feet, skin crawling, and later, "staggering uncoordinated walk, lower limb weakness, muscles stiffening or tightening, overactive or overresponsive bodily reflexes such as twitching, bladder/bowel complaints of incontinence or retention and sexual dysfunction."

The adverse effects of nitrous oxide can be reversed, but only if they are addressed quickly. Seek medical advice if you feel unsure and require more information.

Edited by: Zulfikar Abbany

Sources:

Up: The rise of nitrous oxide abuse. An international survey of contemporary nitrous oxide use. Journal: Journal of Psychopharmacology. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26912510/

Laughing gas inhalation in Chinese youth: a public health issue. Journal: The Lancet. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-26671830134-8/fulltext

No Laughing Matter: Presence, consumption trends, drug awareness, and perceptions of "Hippy Crack" (Nitrous Oxide) among young adults in England. Journal: Frontiers in Psychiatry https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5786547/

Does nitrous oxide addiction exist? An evaluation of the evidence for the presence and prevalence of substance use disorder symptoms in recreational nitrous oxide users. Journal: Addiction Opinion and Debate https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.16380

Nitrous oxide: updated harms assessment, UK government report, 2023 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nitrous-oxide-updated-harms-assessment/nitrous-oxide-updated-harms-assessment-accessible#uk-prevalence-and-patterns-of-use

Education in the US is largely a "matter for the states" — with each in charge of its own school system — not the federal government. But Donald Trump's election win is causing a stir among parents, teachers and education experts. During his campaign, the president-elect promised to axe the US Department of Education and threatened to cut funding for schools exploring issues like racism or recognizing students' transgender identities. 

"The main complaint in the realm of education that Republicans had during the campaign was that schools indoctrinated young people with inappropriate material with racial, sexual and gender themes," said David Steiner, the executive director of Institute of Education at Johns Hopkins University. "The ironic thing is that they [the federal government] can't change that, because curriculums are up to the states!" he told DW.

Despite such restrictions, the Trump administration will certainly have space to make far-reaching changes to the US education system.

Could Trump really abolish the Department of Education?

Not just like that. Regardless of campaign promises, even the US president cannot simply abolish a ministry. Trump would need the support of Congress. In the Senate, a "super majority,” of at least 60 senators, would have to vote in favor of the abolition. The Republicans currently have a majority of 53 seats so they would also need votes from the Democrats, which they are unlikely to get.

Even the Republicans would probably not all vote in favor of such a move because an important task of the Department of Education is to provide schools with funds that are used to support poor children. And there are many of these, particularly in states governed by Republicans.

Funds from the Department of Education are also used to provide further training to teaching staff and to support students with special needs. Steiner believes it is unlikely that the incoming US government would dare to question such payments. "In my judgment, changes there are unlikely, because special needs occur across all income classes. Those parents are a very powerful constituency."

Brandi Urie is one of those parents. She is also an elementary school teacher in the western state of Idaho and says that abolishing the Department of Education would be a big mistake. "Should the Department of Education be dissolved along with it would go federal protection which ensures students with disabilities are able to access the education provided to any other student in the district," Urie told DW.

'Any child who isn't white, straight and Christian is going to be left out in the cold'

The US Department of Education will probably remain but analysts expect the Trump administration to make other changes to the education sector. Currently, one of the Department of Education's tasks is to take action against schools or universities that discriminate against students on the basis of their origins, religion, sexuality or gender identity. "What the conservative majority in Congress could do is make changes to the language on what constitutes discrimination, for example in sports," said Steiner.

A favorite talking point of conservative politicians is that they want to exclude transgender students from girls' and women's teams on the grounds that men shouldn't play on women's teams. Trump's administration could legalize this argument. If a student's family were to sue, Steiner said, a case could potentially go all the way to the Supreme Court, which is now comprised predominantly of conservative judges who would most likely follow Trump's logic.

A conservative administration might not see it as being discriminatory to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms and require students to participate in Christian religious education classes as part of "a curriculum that embraces Christian values," Steiner suggested.

This week, officials in Texas backed a public school curriculum that would incorporate lessons from the Bible into subjects such as English. Schools that opted to adopt the curriculum would receive more funding.

"I am definitely concerned that we elected someone to the highest office who has the intention to influence curriculums," Karen Svoboda, the director and one of the founders of Defense of Democracy, a progressive parents' organization in the US, told DW. " Any child who isn't white, straight and Christian is going to be left out in the cold."

This article was translated from German.

 

It was only estimated to sell for around $150,000 (€142,300). But what Sotheby's calls the first auction of an artwork by a humanoid robot went under the hammer for nearly $1.1 million in New York on November 7.

The 2.2-meter-high (7.2-foot-high) painting created by the robot Ai-Da is titled "A.I. God. Portrait of Alan Turing." The work captures the pioneering computer scientist and mathematician who was celebrated as "the man who cracked the Nazi code," but was later vilified as a gay man.

"My portrait of Alan Turing in this, the 70th year since his death, are a tribute to one of the most profound thinkers in the history of technology and artificial intelligence," said Ai-Da, a feminized robot with a bob hairstyle who spoke thanks to AI language tools.

Ai-Da is an extremely advanced humanoid who creates artworks with her own bionic hands. Featured at the 2022 Venice Biennale, Ai-Da's paintings of pop music legends from Diana Ross to Billie Eilish were also exhibited at the Glastonbury Festival that same year.

 

  

What is an artist?

One person who was surprised by the auction events in London is Henrik Hanstein, head of the Lempertz auction house in Cologne, Germany, and president of the European Federation of Auctioneers.

"I didn't expect that," he told DW. "AI art is created by machines … computers that work with data from other works of art. I find that very difficult."

While robot artist Ai-Da has shocked the art world with its portrait of mathematician Alan Turing, the life-like humanoid is itself named after the British mathematician Ada Lovelace (1815-1852) and was developed at the University of Oxford in 2019.

The outwardly feminine robot with a bob hairstyle has cameras in her eyes, robot arms and can also talk thanks to AI language tools.

The algorithm-controlled machine has already created several works of art, including a portrait of Queen Elizabeth II.

For the picture of Alain Turing (1912-54), it painted several other pictures that were put together to form a new picture.

While the record price for the work marks a turning point in the history of contemporary art, according to Sotheby's, art auctioneer Hanstein is much more skeptical.

"The seven-figure sum is of course being reported around the world," he said. "But you shouldn't overestimate it. It could be a fluke."

Can AI works be art?

"Is it art?" asked Aidan Mellor, director of Ai-Da Robot Studio that created the artist, in an interview with Reuters. "Well that's up to the audience to decide."

For Mellor, the project instead explores "the beginning" of what he calls "the fourth industrial revolution."

Hanstein does not want to completely rule out the possibility that AI-generated works can be art — even if he does not believe that a museum would exhibit such works.

"We must not forget that artists have always taken advantage of the latest possibilities and techniques," said the auctioneer. "Whether it was from wood to canvas, from copper to paper and today canvas."

Art is often ahead of its time, he noted. "That was also the case recently with NFTs . That's why there was a hype and insane prices."

Just a few years later, the market for NFTs (non-fungible tokens that are digital proof of ownership of a work of art) is dead and "old news."

The question of copyright

When it comes to AI art, Hanstein calls for patience — and at the same time urges caution.

"You have to allow for experiments," he believes. "The art market is very critical. Collectors and curators recognize quality very quickly."

But who actually owns an AI-generated work of art? The programmer? The provider? Or the artists who used the AI? Copyright experts have long been debating this issue.

The question of authorship is fundamental to the art market.

And artwork that is unsigned, in the case of an AI work, "is more difficult to sell."

For Hanstein, the problem is clear: "The hand is missing."

"I doubt whether a computer can be as creative as an artist who is ahead of his time," said the art seller. "But I'm happy to be surprised."

This article was originally written in German.

In August, internet behemoth Alphabet lost the biggest antitrust challenge it has ever faced when a US judge found that its subsidiary Google illegally monopolized the search market.

US Federal Court Judge Amit Mehta ruled that $26.3 billion (€24.9 billion) in payments that Google made to other companies to make its internet search engine the default option on smartphones and web browsers effectively blocked any other competitor from succeeding in the market.

As a result of the ruling, the US Department of Justice (DoJ) is proposing that Google be forced to sell off its Chrome browser.

"Google's unlawful behavior has deprived rivals not only of critical distribution channels but also distribution partners who could otherwise enable entry into these markets by competitors in new and innovative ways," the DoJ and state antitrust enforcers said in a court filing on Wednesday.

Last month, DoJ already filed court papers saying it was considering enforcing "structural remedies" to prevent Google from using some of its products. Apart from selling off Chrome, antitrust regulators are reportedly also demanding new measures to be taken by Google related to artificial intelligence as well as its Android smartphone operating system.

US antitrust officials and a number of US states have joined the case that was originally filed under the first Trump administration and continued under President Joe Biden. Touted as the "trial of the decade," the proposal marks the most significant government effort to curb the power of a technology company since the DoJ unsuccessfully attempted to break up Microsoft two decades ago.

In August, Google said it would appeal the ruling as it would mark an "overreach" by the government that would harm consumers.

Chrome is key to Google's ad business

Losing Chrome would be a severe blow for Google. While nearly 90% of global search queries are conducted through Google, more than 60% of users rely on the company's own browser, Google Chrome, to perform those searches.

Chrome serves as Google's gateway to the internet. It allows the company to promote its own products and retain customers, including services like Gmail for email and Gemini for artificial intelligence.

But more importantly, Chrome is a crucial part of Google's core business of selling internet advertising. Unlike searches performed on other browsers, Chrome allows Google to collect significantly more data, such as search behaviors and preferred websites. This wealth of information helps Google target its ads more efficiently.

'If Chrome falls, Google falters'

Advertising is essential to Google and its parent company, Alphabet. In 2023, Alphabet generated over $230 billion ($219.4 billion) in ad revenue, which accounted for the majority of its $307 billion in total revenue for the year.

Nils Seebach, co-CEO and CFO of digital consultancy Etribes, told DW that "if Chrome falls, Google falters significantly." He said that in its current setup, Chrome is "integral to Google's business model but likely couldn't survive on its own." And vice versa, the selloff of Chrome would present a significant challenge for Alphabet as well. "Such an event would be a major disruption, even for the [digital] market."

Ulrich Müller from the anti-monopoly nonprofit Rebalance Now welcomed the proposal. He said that a sell-off of Chrome would reduce Google's ad income and curb its market dominance. This could push the company to compete more heavily based on the quality of its services, he told DW. Müller also sees potential for alternative business models, such as subscription-based search engines.

Seebach noted, however, that it's unclear how long legal proceedings against Google will continue and when the potential breakup will actually happen. "By then, browsers or search engines as we know them today might already be obsolete," he said.

Victory for US antitrust advocates

The ruling against Google reflects over a century of US antitrust law. Way back in 1911, those laws ensured the breakup of Standard Oil, John D. Rockefeller's monopoly oil company.

Müller said regulatory scrutiny of monopolies was very intense in the 1960s and early 1970s, but fell off in the 1980s when the neoliberal teachings of the Chicago School of Economics condoned market concentration if monopoly companies were efficient. This led to fewer structural interventions in the following years.

In the 1980s, one big antitrust case was, however, successfully launched against telecommunications giant AT&T, which was broken up in 1982.

Some 20 years later, Microsoft became the target of monopoly regulators, with a US court ruling the software giant must be split up due to its monopolistic practices. The company's Windows operating system was so tightly integrated with its Internet Explorer browser that it pushed competitor Netscape out of the browser market.

Microsoft appealed the ruling, however, avoiding a breakup after making parts of its system accessible to competitors.

This article was originally written in German.

Editor's note: The article, originally published on November 20, has been updated to reflect the US Department of Justice's proposal seeking the sale of Chrome.

Would you buy a banana for millions of dollars?

Justin Sun, a Chinese collector and founder of the cryptocurrency platform TRON, just did. He was the winning bidder on an artwork by Italian-born artist Maurizio Cattelan titled "Comedian" at a Sotheby's auction on Wednesday, which he acquired for $6.2 million (€6.5 million) — far exceeding the auction house's estimates of $1-1.5 million.

No, it's not a banana made of solid gold; it's your regular old edible banana affixed to the wall with a piece of duct tape.

After the auction, Sun immediately vowed to eat the banana.

'Essential conceptual idea'

Cattelan, a conceptual artist known for satirical and provocative work, caused a stir with this piece back at the Art Basel Miami Beach art fair in 2019. The Perrotin Gallery sold three editions of it at prices ranging from $120,000 to $150,000.

In a 2021 interview with The Art Newspaper, Cattelan said, "To me, 'Comedian' was not a joke; it was a sincere commentary and a reflection on what we value. At art fairs, speed and business reign, so I saw it like this: If I had to be at a fair, I could sell a banana like others sell their paintings. I could play within the system but with my rules."

The piece was the talk of the art world for a while, with some critics calling it a brilliant commentary on consumerism and art itself, and others saying it was one of the worst works to be exhibited at that year's fair.

But what did the winning bidder actually buy at auction? Justin Sun won't be getting a moldy fruit or even a preserved one, but rather a fresh banana, a roll of duct tape, extensive instructions on displaying the work and a certificate of authenticity.

So much like NFTs, what you're buying isn't the actual, physical work crafted by the artist's hands, but the idea of the artwork — which, after all, is what conceptual art is all about.

"If at its core, 'Comedian' questions the very notion of the value of art, then putting the work at auction this November will be the ultimate realization of its essential conceptual idea — the public will finally have a say in deciding its true value," David Galperin, head of contemporary art for the Americas at Sotheby's, said in a statement.

A banana on a different level

One of Cattelan's peers, Georgian performance artist David Datuna, also found nutritional value in the work. At Art Basel Miami Beach, he removed the banana from the wall and ate it in an artistic intervention he titled "Hungry Artist." 

In a 2019 interview with The Guardian following the act, Datuna was critical of the work being sold for so much money, but said of Cattelan: "I think he is a genius. Art is about comedy, about fun, about tragedy, about emotions. He played this very well. I love the banana of Andy Warhol, but I think Cattelan has put the banana on a different level."

American pop artist Andy Warhol, who had a background in advertising, made almost fetishistic objects out of ordinary household items, including bananas.

Warhol used this motif for the iconic cover of the 1967 album "The Velvet Underground & Nico," creating a sticker of a yellow banana skin that peeled off to reveal an oddly pink fruit underneath.

However, unlike Cattelan's banana, where the high sale price is determined by its scarcity, Warhol intended his work to be endlessly reproducible and suited for a mass market.

In true Warholian style, he never copyrighted that iconic banana image, leaving the door wide open for other artists to use it.

One of those is German artist Thomas Baumgärtel, who has spray-painted his version of Warhol's banana on the facades of more than 4,000 museums and galleries worldwide since 1986, turning the yellow fruit into a kind of symbol denoting art itself.

Sometimes a banana is not just a banana

The banana has often been used for symbolic effect in art. Its phallic shape has made it a cipher for male sexuality — as suggested by the Warhol work mentioned above — but also in works by painters like Frida Kahlo, while its tropical origins make it a useful element of the exotic for European artists.

Both elements are at play in "Consumer Art," a video and photo work from the 1970s by pioneering Polish feminist artist Natalia LL, who depicted a model slowly and suggestively eating several food items, including a banana.

That work is provocative not only for its sensual element — which led Poland's National Museum to remove it from an exhibition in 2019, prompting widespread ridicule — but also because at the time it was made, bananas were a luxury item in Poland, then part of the Soviet Bloc.

With climate change and a fungal pathogen threatening some banana crops and driving up prices, it's possible the fruit could again become an exotic luxury.

And then Cattelan's $6-million banana might not seem quite so absurd anymore.

Update, November 21, 2024: This article has been updated with the results of the auction.

Edited by: Elizabeth Grenier

Religion can arouse strong feelings. Antisemitism and other forms of group hatred can trigger heated discussions, and a combination of the two is a recipe for clicks. With it, a userwho claimed to be leveraging their X account to earn money ("funded by X payouts") surpassed the 1 million "views" mark within 18 hours of posting.

Claim: "The ADL has listed Christianity as an extremist, terrorist & bigoted group."

As alleged proof, the user posted a screenshot of the ADL website. On it, the words "Christian Identity" can be seen in bold print in an entry filed with the keywords "Terrorism, Extremism and Bigotry."

The post has been shared more than 4,000 times in various languages and countries. It has been particularly successful with accounts that spread antisemitic content.

DW fact check: False

The screenshot does show the actual website of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a US-based nonprofit that was founded to combat antisemitism, bigotry and discrimination. But in this case, "Christian Identity" does not refer to the identity of Christians per se, but rather the Christian Identity movement.

What is Christian Identity?

Christian Identity (CID) is a movement that the ADL has described "as a religious ideology popular in extreme right-wing circles." In a 1989 document, the FBI, the US domestic intelligence and security service, stated that CID was spreading a message of "racial hatred behind the guise of religion." It explained that its ideology derived from a very idiosyncratic interpretation of the biblical creation story.

According to the FBI, in the 1980s in particular, a number of members or associates of CID groups were "investigated for their involvement in criminal activities, including bombings, murders, robberies and weapons violations. All of these activities have been carried out in furtherance of white supremacy, the basis of which is contained in Identity." The FBI concluded, "these people are fanatics about that in which they believe."

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a US legal advocacy organization specialized in civil rights, also classifies CID as "an antisemitic, racist theology ideology." It adds: "'Christian' in name only, it asserts that white people, not Jewish people, are the true Israelites favored by God in the Bible."

Although the movement became less influential after the 1980s and has failed to find new adherents, the SPLC said there were 10 active CID groups in the US in 2023. It argues that those who adhere to Christian Identity are among the most radical of white supremacists who believe that white people are superior to others.

"Despite its small size, Christian Identity influences virtually all white supremacist and extreme anti-government movements," writes the ADL on its website. "It has also informed criminal behavior ranging from hate crimes to acts of terrorism."

What is the ADL?

The Anti-Defamation League, a civil rights organization based in New York City, was founded in 1913 and describes its "timeless mission" thus: "To stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all."

In recent years, it has become increasingly pro-Israel and critics from across the political spectrum have accused it of too frequently equating criticism of Israel and the Israeli government to antisemitism. According to critics, including J Street, a nonprofit liberal Zionist advocacy group, the ADL has stifled legitimate criticism of Israel.

On its website, the ADL lists "myths and facts" to counter what it calls "false accusations."

"This compilation addresses some of those direct attacks while separating fact from fiction," the ADL says. 

Post triggers debate and goes viral

On its website, the ADL has an explanation for why the X post might have gone viral, even though the article dates back to 2017: "Identity's current influence ranges from Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazi groups to the anti-government militia and sovereign citizen movements — yet most Americans are unaware that it even exists."

It's impossible to say whether the author of the post was actually shocked that the ADL had allegedly classified Christianity as a terrorist ideology, whether they possibly felt targeted as a Christian, or simply wanted to spread antisemitism.

What is clear, however, is that they were using the mechanisms that help generate a wide audience on X and other social media platforms by doing exactly what the account "Funded by X payouts" promises.

The allegation that the ADL rejects Christianity outright touches the core of Christian anti-Judaism, the idea that "the Jews" want to disempower or erase, at the very least, discredit Christianity. Several comments under the post seem to support this conspiracy theory. The author continues by claiming that various institutions have been infiltrated by Mossad, Israel's secret service: "The ADL and SPLC and Wikipedia lol, 3 Mossad-owned companies."

The strong emotions the post seems to have triggered suggests many users didn't question the claims but instead simply felt the need to express their own indignation. Some wrote sarcastically that nothing else was to be expected from the ADL, the supposed representative of Judaism. Others, contradicting the false claims, are only hastening the spread of the post.

The author's comments under the original post indicate that they are deliberately taking advantage of these emotions. They take note of the numerous comments by other X users that Christian Identity does not mean Christianity and acknowledge the error.

However, they have not deleted the post, citing freedom of speech on X. Indeed, they continue to use antisemitic tropes to fuel the debate and to extend the reach of their X posts.

This fact check was originally written in German.

A lot has been written about the budding friendship between President-elect Donald Trump and the world's richest man, Elon Musk.

What seemed like a strange pairing has turned into a job opportunity for Musk and, in the past week, the two have been seen together in Palm Beach, Florida, ringside at an Ultimate Fighting Championship match in New York and eating McDonald's on a jet.

Before the election, Trump announced he would put the South Africa-born Tesla CEO in charge of a government efficiency commission. Last week, Trump made it more concrete and confirmed the new agency will be called the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.

What is Musk's new job?

Since it will be a new agency, no one really knows what it will do and what authority it will have. In the end, it will likely be a small advisory group that operates outside of the government without any real regulatory authority. What it is likely to have is influence and a loud mouthpiece in the form of Musk.

The Department of Government Efficiency aims to slash the US federal budget — which totals roughly $6.8 trillion (€6.4 trillion) in fiscal 2024 — by $2 trillion in an effort to permanently downsize the federal government, cutting bureaucracy, regulations and wasteful expenditures.

Though Musk is known for cutting costs at his own businesses, reducing federal spending will be a big challenge. The project is supposed to wrap up by July 2026.

Donald Moynihan, a professor of public policy at the Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan, thinks Musk has "no real experience with government beyond suing it or spreading conspiracy theories about it." He told DW that the federal government needs to be modernized, "but the only thing Musk has talked about is cutting costs and punishing people he disagrees with. His basic math does not add up."

In 2023, a third of the then $6.1 trillion budget went to social security and Medicare — programs Trump has said he would not touch. Overall, only $1.7 trillion was discretionary spending that lawmakers control through appropriation acts, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

SpaceX and a billion-dollar conflict of interest

Musk already has much on his plate running six companies like Tesla, SpaceX and social media platform X. Such a new position is rife with conflicts of interest, especially since a number of his companies receive government subsidies or direct federal contracts, making them government contractors. They also develop and use innovations and technology that have pushed regulatory boundaries.

"I cannot think of another instance of someone with such clear and obvious conflicts with a public official offering advice on the budget, structure and removal of employees that directly affect his businesses," said Moynihan. "It is cartoonishly corrupt." 

Over the years, SpaceX has received billions in contracts from NASA and the Department of Defense to launch satellites, service the International Space Station or use its Starlink satellite communication network.

Over the past decade, these SpaceX contracts came in at more than $15 billion, according to numbers crunched by The New York Times. Last year alone, Musk's companies signed 100 different contracts with 17 federal agencies totaling $3 billion.

Some other conflicts of interest

Musk has a record of very public altercations with federal departments and other regulators. An investigation by US financial market regulator, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), led to charges of securities fraud in 2018. Stepping down as Tesla's chairman was part of the later settlement.

Tesla has received huge tax breaks and other incentives from various states. On the federal level, it has a small government contract to supply some vehicles. But Musk could convince Trump to keep tax credits for electric vehicles (EVs) in place to keep up sales, or increase tariffs on competitors that make vehicles in Mexico or anywhere else.

He could influence regulators who want to look closer at Tesla's self-driving push. He could also convince those in power to keep emission rules in place that allow Tesla to sell credits worth billions of dollars to other automakers that do not produce enough EVs.

Musk's other companies, xAI, The Boring Co, Neuralink and X, have no government contracts. Still, they have a lot to gain from being close to Trump. This closeness could propel artificial intelligence, influence other regulations or help block social media rival TikTok.

Could the Trump-Musk friendship end?

Trump is not the first president who has wanted to cut spending or has called in efficiency experts. What is different this time is who the president-elect is calling on and the possibilities of personal gain.

So far, Trump has been careful to say that Musk would not be an official part of the executive branch of government and only "provide advice and guidance from outside of government, and will partner with the White House and Office of Management & Budget to drive large scale structural reform."

This is important, because federal law prohibits people from taking part in government matters where they have a financial interest.

The most unpredictable part of this whole project is Trump himself. He has a long track record of picking favorites and then suddenly dropping them. Dropping the world's richest man could be an irresistible ego boost to Trump one day.

They are two big personalities who love the limelight, but Trump "cannot stand to be upstaged," said Moynihan.

Keeping this unlikely relationship going could be a challenge equal to cutting trillions.

"In some ways, assigning Musk to an advisory committee might be seen as a demotion, since it is not clear if it will get anything done," he said.

Edited by: Uwe Hessler

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — the son of assassinated US Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and nephew of assassinated President John F. Kennedy, as well as supporter of Donald Trump and renowned vaccine skeptic — could be the country's next health  secretary.

And Kennedy has big plans for the job. In a social media post, Kennedy announced that upon Trump's inauguration, water fluoridation in the U.S. would be stopped.

He claims that fluoride is industrial waste and responsible for bone cancer, neurological developmental disorders, lower IQs in children and more. 

What fluoride is 

Fluoride is often confused with fluorine in common usage. Fluorine is a highly corrosive and toxic gas with a pungent odor. When it reacts with water, it forms hydrofluoric acid, also known as fluorine acid. 

Fluorides, on the other hand, are salts of hydrofluoric acid. They occur naturally in various minerals and in the human body, primarily in bones and tooth enamel, but also in blood and gastric juice.

Natural sources of fluoride include black and green tea, fish and asparagus. 

In Germany, fluoride is added to toothpaste and table salt; in many other countries, including the United States, it is also added to drinking water. 

Why add fluoride? 

Fluoride naturally occurs in small amounts in water. In the early 20th century, scientists observed that higher levels of natural fluoride in certain regions of the U.S. were associated with lower rates of dental cavities in children.

This discovery led to the practice of adding fluoride to drinking water in other areas, which remains a common practice today. 

"A certain amount of fluoride is beneficial for dental health," toxicologist Carsten Schleh said.

Fluoride is not essential for human survival, but it aids in the remineralization of tooth enamel, thereby reducing the risk of cavities.

Fluoride is used globally in toothpaste, salt, and drinking water as a cost-effective measure to prevent cavities. It has been hailed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as one of the top ten public health interventions of the 20th century. 

Not everyone is celebrating fluoride, as Kennedy's post illustrates. In some circles, fluoride has been labeled a toxin blamed for various health issues. 

Is fluoride dangerous? 

Fluoride's bad reputation is largely undeserved, Schleh said: "As with anything, the dose makes the poison."

Overdosing on fluoride is nearly impossible with toothpaste, as it is typically spit out rather than swallowed. 

The situation is different with fluoridated drinking water or table salt. The CDC states that 0.7 mg of fluoride is added per liter of water, which aligns with the recommended daily dose for toddlers aged one to four, according to Germany's Federal Institute for Consumer Health Protection and Veterinary Medicine (BgVV). 

For adults, the institute advises against exceeding 3.8 mg of fluoride per day. Overdose in children can cause white spots on teeth, known as fluorosis, while higher doses can lead to brown tooth discoloration. 

Long-term excessive intake of 10-25 mg per day can result in skeletal fluorosis, leading to bone fractures and joint deformities. Extremely high fluoride consumption, between 300 and 600 mg daily, can cause kidney damage. 

Fluoride and development 

A 2023 meta-analysis explored whether fluoride in drinking water could harm brain development. Researchers concluded that the fluoride concentrations deemed safe by the CDC might indeed have negative effects on brain development and children's intelligence. 

The authors noted that their findings could be skewed by the varying quality of the studies analyzed, with "a general tendency for weaker or no associations in the most rigorously conducted studies." 

Another meta-analysis found that IQ reductions, if any, occur only when fluoride intake exceeds recommended levels. Based on available evidence, it is not possible to definitively conclude whether fluoride causes any form of neurological disorder. 

If fluoride is removed from US drinking water starting January 20, Schleh predicts no decline in neurological disorders but potentially an increase in cavities among children and adults. 

This article was translated from the German original.

Sources:

CDC: About Community Water Fluoridation (2024)

Environmental Research: Fluoride exposure and cognitive neurodevelopment: Systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis (2023). DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2023.115239

Nature: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between fluoride exposure and neurological disorders (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99688-w

Bundesinstitut für gesundheitlichen Verbraucherschutz und Veterinärmedizin (BgVV): Verwendung fluoridierter Lebensmittel und die Auswirkung von Fluorid auf die Gesundheit (2002)