تابع رؤية 2030
بذكاء سياقي

Back in 2016, Marco Gutiérrez, the Mexican-born founder of Latinos for Trump, issued an ominous warning to the US. “My culture is a very dominant culture,” he said on MSNBC. “It is imposing and it’s causing problems. If you don’t do something about it, you’re going to have taco trucks on every corner.” A decade later, I regret to inform you there is not a taco truck on every corner. But I am here to issue my own ominous warning about the takeover of America: not by immigrant culture but by AI culture. To echo Gutiérrez: it is imposing and it’s causing problems. And if we don’t do something about it, we’re going to have datacenters on every corner. I’m not some sort of data-hater, OK? Datacenters – physical facilities housing storage systems, servers and network devices – are a critical part of powering the internet; if they disappeared, the modern world would cease to function. The banking system would collapse; you wouldn’t be able to stream Netflix, go on social media, or (most importantly) read the Guardian online. But while we obviously need datacenters, the AI boom, and the enormous amounts of computing power it requires, has caused their footprint to massively expand – and our utility bills to jump. “When a data center comes online, retail customers usually help to foot the electric bill: American utilities sought almost thirty billion dollars in retail rate increases in the first half of 2025,” the New Yorker explained last year. Meanwhile Bloomberg reported on a new study this week that shows “power prices on the largest electric grid in the US jumped 76% in the first quarter due to rampant demand from data centers.” Things will only get worse. Today datacenters consume 6% of electricity supply in the UK and US; by 2030, they could account for more than 14% of the US’s total power demand. It’s not just how much they cost that’s problematic. AI datacenters are noisy, emit pollution that could harm community health and divert much-needed resources. Last year, for example, residents in Fayetteville, Georgia, noticed low water pressure; eventually they discovered a nearby datacenter had taken 30m gallons of water, initially without paying for it. It is no surprise that a new Gallup poll has found seven in 10 Americans oppose constructing AI datacenters in their local area. Indeed, most Americans would rather live by a nuclear power plant than a datacenter. Of course, the people getting filthy rich from AI will never have to live nextdoor to their moneymaking creations and seem fairly blase about the issues associated with their expansion. Take the OpenAI CEO, Sam Altman, for example. “As AI grows, how big do data centers need to be?” podcaster Theo Von asked Altman last year. “Is that a concern of you guys?” Not really, judging by his response. Altman waxed lyrical about the scale of the datacenter OpenAI was building before saying that while he wasn’t sure where things were going, he had a lot of guesses. “I do guess a lot of the world gets covered in datacenters over time,” Altman said. “But I don’t know because maybe we put them in space … I wish I had, like, more concrete answers for you, but like, we’re stumbling through this.” In true Silicon Valley fashion, while the industry may be “stumbling”, it’s regular people getting hurt. But forget the regular people. Won’t anyone think of the poor, oppressed datacenters? As backlash grows, the industry has gone into full-on defensive mode. The venture capitalist Kevin O’Leary, for example, has claimed that people protesting against a vast datacenter in Utah are not actually concerned, they’re just paid agitators. “There are professional protesters that are paid by somebody, I don’t know who,” O’Leary said in a video on X last week. More perniciously, we’re starting to see more discussion around the idea that AI might have legal personhood, and datacenters might have certain rights. Earlier this month, MLive and 404 Media reported on the University of Michigan’s attempts to build a $1.2bn, nuclear weapons research and AI datacenter in Ypsilanti Township. Township officials voted on a year-long moratorium on water and sewer services for the facility, while it conducted environmental impact studies. In response, the university claimed the moratorium discriminated against datacenters. “[T]he proposed moratorium is pretextual and unlawfully discriminatory because it singles out ‘data centers’ by label rather than by utility impact,” a legal threat said. It seems highly likely that we are going to see more discussion about certain “rights” being attached to datacenters. After all, looking at the issue more broadly, corporate personhood has been a part of US law for over a century and, in recent decades, the rights afforded to corporations have steadily expanded. The supreme court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling found corporations have a right to political speech. Then in 2014, the supreme court’s Hobby Lobby ruling found some companies should be allowed a religious exemption from requirements to include contraception in employee health plans. This significantly broadened the scope of personhood rights by acknowledging a right to corporate religious expression. In its 2023 303 Creative LLC v Elenis decision, the supreme court similarly held that a website design business owned by an evangelical Christian could refuse service to same-sex couples. This once again seemed to put the free speech right of corporations over the rights of LGBTQ+ people not to be discriminated against. “Today the Supreme Court once again advanced the personhood rights of some corporations to the detriment of actual human beings,” The Brennan Center for Justice said at the time of the Hobby Lobby judgment. “[We are] very concerned about the continued trend of corporations successfully asserting the rights of human beings, while injuring the interests of actual human beings.” They were right to be concerned. Given the way things are going in the US, corporations seem to have more freedom of speech than university students. And it might not be long before datacenters have more rights than women. Oklahoma bill on child marriage becomes law The bill makes it illegal for anyone under 18 to be married, removing current exceptions that allow minors to get married with parental consent or court approval. While one lawmaker voted against it, we were largely spared the creepy speeches we saw when New Hampshire raised the legal age of marriage in 2024. Back then the Republican state representative Jess Edwards said that the bill would make abortion “much more desirable” for people of a “ripe, fertile age”. What happened to Aisha and Huda Al-Aqqad? Ever since seeing it, I have been haunted by this photo of 78-year-old Aisha and 41-year-old Huda Al-Aqqad, a mother and daughter who were abducted from Gaza. A grinning Israeli soldier posted a photo of the blindfolded women in a van while flashing a thumbs-up. An investigation by Sky News identified the women and tried to find out what happened. Are they being sexually tortured in an Israeli detention center? Are they dead? The Israeli military has no answers and seemingly no interest in investigating. Supreme court allows abortion pill mifepristone to continue to be available by mail While this is good news, we shouldn’t be complacent. Expect anti-abortion extremists to continue to try to outlaw abortion pills nationwide. Single women are buying more houses than single men The Guardian has a fascinating piece about the men who feel emasculated by this. (Love is Blind enthusiasts will immediately recall the Chris Fusco/Jessica Barrett drama from season 10, and how hostile Chris was after seeing Jessica’s nice house. Which reinforces my thesis that all you need to know about US culture, you can learn from Love is Blind.) Hannah Einbinder is in a new lesbian horror movie, and she’s got her priorities straight During her Emmy Awards win last year, the Hacks star signed off with the instantly iconic phrase: “Go birds, fuck ICE, free Palestine.” (For confused non-Americans, Einbinder wasn’t bigging up her local street pigeon – “‘birds” refers to Philadelphia’s football team.) In an interview promoting her new queer slasher film, Einbinder, who has called out Hollywood’s silence about Gaza, said she would continue to be vocal about Palestine. In antiquity, women were considered the more sexual sex The Guardian has a piece by a historian on why that changed. The week in pawtriarchy A Canadian fox was caught red-handed after police officers received a call about a “theft of BBQ goods”. Despite apprehending the fox with a mouth full of hotdogs, police let the animal go. I don’t know if justice was served, but dinner certainly was. Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist

It was historic, to be sure, but not as anyone had predicted. First there was Donald Trump, a self-declared teetotaler, apparently drinking champagne after Xi Jinping assured him that China’s “great rejuvenation” could go hand in hand with “Make America great again”. Then there was a Chinese military band playing a rendition of the US president’s signature campaign song, YMCA. Beneath giant chandeliers, blue and gold balconies and a big orange backdrop with pagoda-style roofs, Thursday’s state banquet in Beijing featured characters whose presence would have been unthinkable here a decade ago: Elon Musk, the eccentric tech billionaire, Pete Hegseth, the Fox News host turned “secretary of war”, and of course Trump himself, a former reality TV star now leading the world’s biggest superpower. As the guests dug into a quirky menu that included lobster in tomato soup, crispy beef ribs, Beijing roast duck and slow-cooked salmon in mustard sauce, the mood was convivial after the first day of a summit that had offered cosy choreography and the promise of stability in the world’s most important bilateral relationship. But by the time Trump and his entourage boarded Air Force One on Friday, the generous helpings of food might not have been enough to stave off an empty feeling. He came, he saw, he left without much to show for it: no swift end to the war in Iran, no definitive answer on the fate of Taiwan and only the vague outlines of corporate mega-deals. Underwhelmed observers suggested that the summit failed to live up to the hype. “It was heavier on symbolism than it was on substance,” Rush Doshi, director of the China Strategy Initiative at the Council on Foreign Relations thinktank in Washington, told reporters. “There was a focus on managing problems, not on solving the problems that exist between the US and China … A lot of pomp, a lot of pageantry, a lot of symbolism but not a lot of substance or deliverables.” View image in fullscreen Donald Trump raises a glass of champagne as he speaks at a state banquet at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Thursday. Photograph: Evan Vucci/Reuters The Beijing that greeted Trump is oozing self-confidence. Commuters cram into smooth-running subway trains and find just enough room to scroll through slick social media apps. Designer labels from around the world populate luxury shopping malls. The magnificent National Centre for the Performing Arts rests like a titanium and glass boiled egg in an artificial lake. The National Museum on Tiananmen Square shows off the latest advances in green energy, robotics and space exploration and proclaims: “Forging the path to national strength.” America, meanwhile, is plagued by self-doubt over its internal divisions and external misadventures. Sensing a potential shift in the balance of power, Xi urged the two nations to avoid the “Thucydides Trap”, the historical concept that an established power tends to be threatened by a rising one, leading to an inevitable clash. The summit, held partly in the ornate surroundings of Zhongnanhai – the secretive Communist party leadership compound often likened to a Chinese Kremlin or White House – unfolded with pageantry and fanfare. Xi personally escorted the US president through manicured gardens filled with centuries-old trees and Chinese roses. Trump marvelled at them as “the most beautiful roses anyone has ever seen”, prompting Xi to promise he would send him seeds. Beijing appeared determined to flatter a president known to value personal diplomacy and spectacle. Trump responded in kind, repeatedly praising Xi as “all business” but also “a warm person”, adding: “We’ve settled a lot of different problems that other people wouldn’t have been able to settle.” View image in fullscreen Xi and Trump talk at the Zhongnanhai leadership compound in Beijing on Friday. Photograph: Mark Schiefelbein/Reuters The Chinese leader described the visit as “historic”, saying the two countries had agreed on “a constructive, strategic and stable China-US relationship”. Chinese officials suggested the framework could guide relations for the remainder of Trump’s presidency. George Chen, a partner at the consultancy The Asia Group, told the Associated Press that the summit resembled “a political reality show at times” but both sides had achieved something important by simply restoring direct leader-to-leader rapport after months of escalating tensions. Chen added: “The readouts from Beijing and the White House differ in tone and emphasis but neither side contradicted the other’s account. That alone reflects a rare moment of mutual respect.” ‘Clashes and even conflicts’ Still, the disagreements were profound. Nothing loomed larger over the talks than Taiwan, the democratic island claimed by Beijing as Chinese territory and viewed by many analysts as the most likely trigger for a US-China war. Xi used the summit to warn Trump in unusually stark terms that mishandling Taiwan could propel China and the US towards “clashes and even conflicts”. Trump later claimed that ​Xi asked directly whether the US would ​defend Taiwan if China attacked the island but Trump declined ⁠to answer. “There’s only one person that knows that, and it is me,” he told reporters later. “I’m the only person.” For decades, the US adopted a policy of “strategic ambiguity” towards Taiwan but then president Joe Biden was explicit in saying he would use military force to defend the island. China, meanwhile, has sharply intensified military pressure on Taiwan in recent years and has never renounced the use of force to seize the island. View image in fullscreen Elon Musk and his son X Æ A-Xii walk on as the Chinese premier, Li Qiang, meets with American CEOs in Beijing on Thursday. Photograph: Go Nakamura/AP Ahead of the summit, Trump had hinted he might reconsider a massive $11bn weapons package for Taiwan approved last year by his administration. The sales have not yet been implemented and Beijing has made clear it views them as a core test of US intentions. Speaking onboard Air Force One on Friday, Trump said only that he would make a decision “over the next fairly short period of time”. That vagueness is likely to alarm officials in Taipei, who have watched Trump’s rhetoric on Taiwan with increasing nervousness. He has repeatedly complained that Taiwan “stole” America’s semiconductor industry and demanded the island pay more for its own defence. If Taiwan represented the long-term strategic danger, Iran dominated the immediate agenda. China remains Iran’s biggest oil customer. Trump emerged from his meetings with Xi insisting that China and the US were broadly aligned over the conflict, now in its 11th week after US and Israeli strikes on Iran on 28 February. View image in fullscreen A person reads a local newspaper reporting on Trump’s meeting with Xi in Beijing on Friday. Photograph: Jessica Lee/EPA “We don’t want them to have a nuclear weapon,” Trump said beside Xi. “We want the straits open.” The strait of Hormuz – through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil previously flowed – has been effectively closed since the outbreak of the war. The resulting disruption has sent oil prices surging towards $109 a barrel and raised fears of a global recession. Rising gas prices in the US have also dragged Trump’s approval rating to an all-time low. Trump claimed Xi had agreed that Tehran must reopen the waterway and had promised China would not supply Iran with military equipment. “That’s a big statement,” Trump said later in a Fox News interview. Beijing’s own public statements were more restrained. China’s foreign ministry bluntly declared that the conflict “should never have happened” and called for shipping routes to reopen but stopped short of endorsing Trump’s approach. View image in fullscreen Trump stands after his speech at a state dinner with Xi at the Great Hall of the People on Thursday. Photograph: Mark Schiefelbein/AP Trump also returned from Beijing promising sweeping commercial gains and “fantastic trade deals”. He claimed that China would buy “billions of dollars” worth of American agricultural goods, particularly soybeans, offering a potential lifeline to US farmers who have suffered badly from years of trade tensions and Chinese diversification towards Brazilian suppliers. The US trade representative, Jamieson Greer, said Washington expected “double-digit billions” in agricultural purchases over the next three years. Trump added: “The farmers are going to be very happy.” Trump announced what could become one of the biggest aircraft deals in history, saying China had agreed to purchase 200 Boeing aircraft immediately, with the possibility of expanding the order to 750 jets if the arrangement proved successful. But Chinese officials did not confirm the deal. One of the more surprising announcements concerned nuclear arms control. Trump said he had proposed a trilateral agreement among the US, Russia and China to cap nuclear arsenals. “I got a very positive response,” he said. “This is the beginning.” But hopes that Trump and Xi might put the brakes on the uncontrolled development of AI were seemingly dashed. Despite the presence of Musk, who pulled funny faces when asked for photos, Apple’s Tim Cook, chipmaker Nvidia’s Jensen Huang and other tech executives, there were no obvious signs of new guardrails in the AI arms race between the two countries. Unnaturally subdued The talks also touched on human rights, albeit briefly. Trump said he had raised the cases of the imprisoned Hong Kong media tycoon Jimmy Lai and detained Chinese pastor Jin Mingri. Xi appeared more open regarding the latter, according to Trump. “I think he’s giving very serious consideration to the pastor,” the president said. But Lai’s case was “a tough one”. For a president who normally commands the spotlight with daily, freewheeling press interactions, Trump was unnaturally subdued in Beijing. In what appeared to be an act

The UK and 45 other European countries have signed an agreement that explicitly endorses plans to send unwanted asylum seekers to third country hubs. A political declaration from the 46 members of the Council of Europe, the body that oversees the European convention on human rights (ECHR), said states had an “undeniable sovereign right” to control their borders. It is understood that the UK is now seeking a deal with an unnamed third country, similar to the Italy-Albania agreement that allowed Rome to place detention centres in Albania. In that deal, the hubs were initially intended for asylum seekers from countries considered safe while their applications were processed. Giorgia Meloni’s government has since used them to hold people to be deported whose applications have been rejected. According to the seven-page document, countries should be free “to address and potentially deter irregular migration”. It said: “Amongst the forms of new approaches that have been envisaged by several member states are processing requests for international protection in a third country, third country ‘return hubs’, and cooperation with countries of transit.” The agreement also attempts to give more scope for countries to deport people to places where they may be in danger of inhuman or degrading treatment, and to limit courts’ powers to intervene. Ministers have claimed that articles 3 and 8 of the convention – the right to live free from torture and the right to family life – have been used to prevent people with no right to be in the UK from being removed. “Caution should be exercised … when assessing whether the expulsion or extradition of an individual to a non-state party would violate a state’s obligations under article 3 of the convention,” the agreement said. The convention has become a significant point of contention between the main political parties. While Keir Starmer backs ECHR changes, the Conservatives and Reform UK have pledged to leave. One leading migration specialist said she was not convinced that a political agreement would have a significant effect on immigration cases. Madeleine Sumption, the director of the Migration Observatory at Oxford University, said: “It’s not clear how much impact a political declaration makes given that judges’ decisions are also driven by domestic and international case law, which this declaration does not change. How much concrete difference it will make remains to be seen.” Yvette Cooper, who finalised the agreement at the high-level meeting in Chişinău, Moldova, is expected to discuss hubs over the next two days. The foreign secretary told the Guardian: “Reform and the Conservatives have called for the ripping up of international law altogether – even though those same international laws are essential to our law enforcement cooperation against the criminal smuggler gangs, or to upholding pillars such as the Good Friday agreement. “The Greens have called instead for the ripping up of border controls – damaging our national security. Neither of their approaches delivers for our national interest. “That is why Labour is reforming the ECHR with partners from across the continent, because we know the relationships we build abroad make us stronger at home.” Alain Berset, the secretary general of the Council of Europe, said discussions about removing people who arrived in Europe by irregular routes would take place during the conference “at a multilateral level”. Starmer’s government has promoted setting up return hubs as a possible deterrent to irregular migration. Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, told MPs in November that the Home Office was in “active negotiations” with several countries, but no deals had been confirmed. The previous government’s plans to send people arriving by small boats to Rwanda, which cost £715m by 2024, was cancelled after failing to send a single person. The supreme court ruled the policy was unlawful because Rwanda was not a safe country. The EU has voted to allow the possibility of return hubs, with Austria, Denmark, Germany, Greece and the Netherlands involved in talks. Discussions have reportedly centred on 11 countries – Armenia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Libya, Mauritania, Rwanda, Senegal, Tunisia, Uganda and Uzbekistan. Montenegro has denied reports that it is considering housing refused asylum seekers. Prof Eirik Bjorge KC, a legal academic at the University of Bristol, also questioned the effect of the declaration, but “deplored” attempts to modify human rights protections. “Article 3 is an embodiment of the very object and purpose of the convention and as such cannot be modified through political declarations,” he said. “In that regard, I deplore the attempt to relativise the notion of inhuman and degrading treatment.” Human rights organisations said they were concerned by the declaration. Akiko Hart, the director of Liberty, said: “The Chişinău political declaration on the ECHR is a hugely significant moment. “We are deeply concerned that changing how the ECHR is used by UK courts will open the door to a gradual weakening of human rights protections.”

CPI data released on Tuesday morning showed that consumer prices in the US, on an annualized basis, heated up more than expected last month, with "core CPI" (excluding food and energy costs) rising by +2.8% YoY and the comprehensive measure spooking investors with a climb to +3.8%. The higher headline inflation number was not terribly surprising, given the upward pressure that the US and Israel's war on Iran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz are putting on oil and energy prices. But the month-over-month core CPI number also increased by more than the consensus projections. At the start of this trading week, we believed that the immediate macro environment might be one of relative calm, and that while there would not be any strong shocks that could spike volatility in the gold market, the yellow metal could be positioned to continue consolidating above $4,725/oz and possibly lift higher. That turned out not to be the case, as gold prices have been driven lower for most of the week: first in a slow but constant slide following hotter-than-expected inflation reads for both US consumers and producers, and then in a sharp drop on Friday as markets fully priced in their initial projections of what the "Warsh Era" of the Federal Reserve will mean for monetary policy in 2026. As a result, gold spot prices are set to end the week around $4,550/oz, just moderately above a major psychological level. The week's primary driver was hotter-than-expected inflation data, with CPI and PPI readings pushing markets to back away from earlier expectations for one to two Fed rate cuts in 2026. Happy Friday, traders. Welcome to our weekly market wrap, where we take a look back at these last five trading days with a focus on the market news, economic data, and headlines that had the most impact on gold prices and other key correlated assets — and may continue to in the future. Story Continues The next morning, month-over-month manufacturing cost inflation for the US economy came in considerably higher than expectations, with overall PPI at +1.4% (versus +0.5% expected) and even core PPI rising to +1.0% (versus +0.3% expected). Gold continues to be caught in a contradictory loop from a historical standpoint: despite being the benchmark for an investment to hedge against inflation, these numbers are pushing sell signals for the yellow metal due to the implications for rate policy, which are the much more dominant focus of investors and traders across several asset classes. Following the inflation data reports, investors eased back from previous positions that implied and expected one to two interest rate cuts from the Fed in 2026, possibly even in the first half of the year. Several analyst desks have gone as far as repricing their projections for just one rate cut from the Fed this year if they were pricing in two, or none at all if they were pricing in one. This shift not only dampened gold valuations directly, but also pushed the US Dollar Index higher alongside Treasury yields, further weighing on the precious metal. Warsh Confirmation Adds a Hawkish Layer Also on Wednesday, the US Senate confirmed the nomination of Kevin Warsh as the new Chair of the Federal Reserve, effective Friday. Warsh is viewed as a more hawkish head of the US central bank despite being nominated by an administration that very publicly campaigns for rates to be lowered. This has solidified the shift in expectations for the timing and size of the FOMC's next moves and firmly holds the potential for rate hikes on the table. Interestingly, markets appear to have waited until the actual date of Warsh's installation on Friday to express these views through trading and bids, rather than immediately after the confirmation vote. On Friday alone, gold prices have slid roughly -$100/oz. Looking Ahead Next week brings a much less busy macroeconomic schedule, aside from another busy slate of public appearances from key Fed officials in which "the new boss" is expected to be a topic of Q&As and parsing. With the war in Iran expected to continue throughout next week as well, if not deteriorate, we might have expected the geopolitical risk premium to support gold buying. But in its third month, it now shamefully seems that investors and markets are normalizing the war and its consistent impacts on stability and global trade. Gold and other primary risk-off assets simply do not seem to be getting the same inflow as they did a month ago. Although last week's quarterly reporting from central banks highlighted an aggressive increase in central bank buying of gold reserves in the developing world, even that support appears to be moderated by a steady outflow from other institutions that are increasingly liquidating physical gold holdings in a play for fiat-currency liquidity. In the meantime, traders, I hope you can get out and safely enjoy your weekend for the next couple of days. After that, I'll see you back here next week for another market recap.

The government will make it illegal to grant new oil and gas licences in the North Sea, the King said at the state opening of Parliament, in a sign ministers are refusing to buckle in the face of a barrage of criticism that the policy is depriving the UK of billions of pounds in tax receipts without helping the environment. As part of an Energy Independence Bill announced in the King’s Speech, the government will bake into law its pre-election pledge not to explore new oil and gas fields in a bid to “take control of our energy security”. In its 2024 manifesto, the Labour Party made a ban on all new exploration and drilling licences in the North Sea a key pillar of its promise to turn Britain into a “clean energy superpower” by 2030. But since entering government, the party has come under growing pressure to renege on the promise, with critics arguing it strangles one of Scotland’s most vibrant industries and fails to improve the UK’s environmental footprint. Backlash against ‘deluded’ North Sea policy Oil and gas still accounts for three-quarters of the UK’s energy mix. And the majority of those fossil fuels are now shipped in from abroad, meaning other economies benefit from the job creation and tax receipts that are derived from the lucrative drilling and refining processes. Calls for the ministers to rethink the ban have grown louder since the outbreak of war in Iran led the price of crude oil to nearly double in a month. Last week, Norway, which drills for oil in the same area of the North Sea as Britain, approved plans to reopen three gasfields that had been shut for decades to help sate the global demand for fossil fuels caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz shipping lane. Two of Labour’s main political opponents – Reform UK and the Conservatives – have both vowed to overturn the ban, in a move they say would help increase the UK’s tax take and inoculate it from any acute supply shocks. The ban, which the government claims will help Britain off the “roller-coaster of fossil fuel markets”, has also drawn criticism from the US’s ambassador to the UK, who has used multiple interviews to urge Britain to make more of its reserves. Shadow energy secretary Claire Coutinho accused her opposite number Ed Miliband of being “utterly deluded” for seeking to put the ban into the statute book. “He is not making us more independent. He is making us more reliant on foreign imports,” she said. By City AM More Top Reads From Oilprice.com