First dots on the road map to exiting fossil fuels

Tim Schauenberg

DW

04/30/2026

The message from inaugural talks on exiting fossil fuels was clear. It's not if, but when and how.

Image: Ivan Valencia/AP Photo/picture alliance

After days of talks in the first-ever gathering devoted to ditching the fossil fuels that are heating the planet, ministers, climate advocates and financial experts from more than 50 countries have agreed on a set of outcomes.

Held in the Colombian coastal city of Santa Marta, the conference laid the groundwork for continued cooperation between countries that want to move to a clean-energy future, and created momentum for more talks on an issue that is politically and economically sensitive.

Maina Vakafua Talia, minister for home affairs, climate change and environment in the Pacific state of Tuvalu told delegates at the talks hosted by Colombia and the Netherlands, that they were "making history."

"Multilateralism and international cooperation are not defined by a single process, but rather by recognizing the governance gaps. (...) even our greatest challenges can be overcome, and we can reach new horizons together," he said.

Finding common ground

The issue of how to swap coal, oil and gas — which are driving global temperatures and causing extreme weather such as drought, storms and heatwaves — for more electrification and a faster rollout of renewable energy, is complex. And there is no one-size-fits-all to making the shift.

Countries exporting coal, oil and gas face different challenges to those importing fossil fuels.

Colombia is a case in point. Its economy depends on coal exports, including to Germany and other parts of Europe. So if the nation wants to wind down the sector quickly, it will have to build create alternative sources of income and employment. Vulnerable groups would be among those most affected.

Simply shuttering the industry altogether would also be difficult for legal reasons, with mining companies potentially suing the state for compensation over lost revenue.

In short, moving away from coal is a structural transformation that requires money, planning and a strategy for managing social consequences.

Some former lignite mines in Germany have already been transformed into lakes which also have recreational benefits

Image: Patrick Pleul/dpa-Zentralbild/dpa/picture alliance

Germany's Coal Commission could offer one model for how to get there. Established in 2019, the body brought all relevant stakeholders to the table and quickly drew up a plan to transition away from coal in a way it deemed both economically viable and socially fair. Germany plans to phase out coal-fired power generation completely by 2038.
Multilateralism under strain

Unlike the vast annual UN climate conferences which are not only attended by delegates from most countries in the world, but increasingly by fossil fuel lobbyists, the Santa Marta meeting was billed as a "coalition of the willing."

The hosts issued their invitation after last year's COP30 climate summit in Brazil saw the emergence of a broad alliance in favor of a road map to phase out fossil fuels.

The proposal was ultimately blocked by a number of countries. So those attending the talks in Santa Marta welcomed the chance to meet in a different forum.

In light of the energy crisis and high fuel prices, many economists are calling for more independence from fossil fuels

Image: Xu Suhui/Xinhua/picture alliance

Former Irish President Mary Robinson, who is a prominent climate justice figure, said the talks felt more collaborative than the annual UN climate conferences.

"COPs are more formal, negotiators have their lines and they will not cross them and it's so different here," she told reporters.
Many ideas and the central question of money

France used the conference to present a detailed plan for how and when it intends to end its use of coal, oil and gas.

It is planning to reduce the share of fossil fuels in final energy consumption to 40% by 2030 and 30% by 2035. Coal is to be phased out by 2027, oil by 2045 and fossil gas by 2050. The French road map brings together existing climate and energy targets but does not contain new commitments.

NGOs have welcomed the plan but say it remains insufficient in light of the climate crisis. Last year, 91% of the planet recorded warmer than average surface air temperatures. Hotter conditions have been linked to prolonged heatwaves, wildfires, crop failure and water scarcity.

The talks in Santa Marta also made clear that financing the energy transition remains one of the central challenges, especially for developing countries facing high borrowing costs and limited access to capital.

Small states push fossil fuel treaty amid Iran energy crisis 02:54

Stientje van Veldhoven, the Dutch Minister for Climate and Green Growth, said affordable financing would be essential if the transition is to be implemented globally. The Netherlands has also called for the reduction in fossil fuel subsidies. Today, fossil fuels receive around $920 billion in subsidies worldwide.
Shoring up energy security in uncertain times

Colombia's left-wing president, Gustavo Petro, attended the talks and used the opportunity to challenge the global economic model underpinning fossil fuel consumption.

He also linked current conflicts to energy dependence, saying that "the wars we are seeing are driven by desperate geopolitical strategies around fossil resources."

Underlining the importance of the energy transition for Europe, EU climate chief Wopke Hoekstra said that "in around two months, Europe's fossil fuel import bill increased by over EUR 22 billion, without a single additional unit of energy."

He said a road map to transition away from coal, oil and gas should build on the goals agreed at the UN climate conference to triple renewable energy capacity and double energy efficiency by 2030. It should also include an end to new extraction and exploration and the decarbonization of transport, aviation and shipping.

Germany did not send a minister but was represented by Jochen Flasbarth, an experienced climate diplomat.

The German government remains divided over its path towards fossil fuel independence. While the environment ministry wants to accelerate the expansion of renewable energy, economy minister Katherina Reiche is backing policies that would prolong the role of fossil fuels.


A road map will take time

Cristian Retamal, associate researcher at Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya in Spain, said the spirit of the talks had been "quite constructive with a very positive mood," but that it is too soon to say how things will evolve.

"The real impact of this emerging coalition and envisioned efforts remain to be seen in the coming months and couple of years."

Delegates at what has also been called the TAFF conference say there will be no defining road map or treaty this year. Though some Global South countries would like to see something binding going forward.

"We need a fossil fuel treaty that creates the necessary architecture for a just transition,” said Cedric Dzelu, Ghana's technical director of the office of the minister for climate change and sustainability. "Past treaties and agreements too often fall short on policies and pledges, financing and equitable implementation."

Juan Carlos Monterrey, special representative for climate change at Panama's environment ministry said it will be a process.

"We must pave the way for a legal instrument that names what it phases out and how we finance it," he said. "The treaty will take time. We know this."

Still, he struck a determined tone.

"Economies built on fossil fuels are unraveling in real time. Fossil fuels are not just dirty. They are unreliable. They are dangerous. And they must end."

The next meeting is due to take place next year in Tuvalu. Scientists believe the small Pacific island state could disappear by 2100 as a result of rising sea levels.

How Iran war energy crisis strengthens case for renewables  08:08

Edited by: Tamsin Walker


Tim Schauenberg One of DW's climate reporters, Tim Schauenberg is based in Brussels and Münster.

Gen Z turning its back on AI isn’t irrational—it’s a verdict on everyone who failed them

Story by Nick Lichtenberg

Fortune

Gen Z is entering a not so brave new world of AI.© Ye Myo Khant/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

America has a problem with young people and AI. Gen Z has looked clearly at what the AI revolution is doing to their lives and rendered a verdict: The institutions that were supposed to prepare them for this moment have failed; the employers that were supposed to hire them have vanished; and the government that was supposed to manage the transition has been absent without leave.

That verdict is arriving in numbers that are hard to dismiss: The more young people engage with the technology, the worse they feel about it.

Gen ’s excitement about artificial intelligence dropped 14 points over the past year to just 22%, according to Gallup polling released this week. Hopefulness fell nine points to 18%. Anger rose nine points to 31%. And here’s the data point that deserves the most attention: Even daily AI users saw bigger drops in sentiment than nonusers; excitement among that group fell by 18 points, and hopefulness tumbled by 11. Separate polling aligns with this: Gen Z rates AI satisfaction at just 69 on the American Customer Satisfaction Index—below airlines, social media, and mortgage lenders.

The paradox is telling: 62% of Gen Z and millennials believe that AI will unlock financial opportunities they can’t currently access. Something is going wrong here, on the cusp of a supposed Fifth Industrial Revolution, and, as with so many things in the wider AI discourse, this seems to be a sort of Rorschach test, reflecting back humanity’s own foibles. They believe in the technology’s potential, but don’t trust the system surrounding it to let them benefit.

Schools chose the wrong side

The first institution to stand in the dock is higher education. At the exact moment AI literacy became a foundational workplace skill, most colleges went in the opposite direction. More than half of college students say their school either discourages (42%) or outright bans (11%) the use of AI, according to Gallup. Faculty are aware of the damage: 63% believe their schools’ 2025 graduates were not very or not at all prepared to use AI in the workplace, per the American Association of Colleges and Universities. But what is the first thing employers are asking for from any qualified candidate? AI literacy.

This editor has personally visited the KPMG Lakehouse, where new consulting interns are training up in how to prompt, and talked to thought leaders in human resources and economics who fear the mismatch between what employers want and what workers have to offer. AI skills are the missing link in the stagnant labor market, and Gen Z knows it—and they know they’ve been underprepared for this revolutionary moment.

A Fortune investigation last fall found the same fault line from a different angle: Nine in 10 educators told researchers their graduates were workforce-ready, while nearly half of those graduates said they didn’t feel prepared even to apply for an entry-level job in their field. Rather than adapt, some students are engineering their own work-arounds: Double-majoring has surged as a hedge against AI disruption, Fortune reported in November, and graduates who steered toward so-called AI-proof fields—psychology, education, social work—are now finding those degrees carry negative financial returns as AI moves into white-collar work faster than anticipated.

This lands inside a broader legitimacy collapse that elite universities have spent years engineering for themselves. A Yale faculty committee released a sweeping, self-critical report this week documenting the ruin—runaway tuition; an opaque admissions process that systematically advantages the wealthy; and campuses increasingly hostile to free inquiry. A decade ago, 57% of Americans said they had a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in higher education; by 2024, that figure had cratered to a historic low of 36%. The institutions most responsible for equipping the next generation to navigate a turbulent economy have spent years losing the public’s trust—and then they turned their backs on AI, the one thing Gen Z most needed to master to get a good job, maybe any job, in this market.

The jobs disappeared quietly

Whatever deficiencies young people bring out of school, they have expected the job market to eventually sort things out. It hasn’t. The unemployment rate for recent college graduates hit 5.7% in the fourth quarter of 2025, above the national rate—a reversal that almost never happens. Underemployment for recent grads sits at 42.5%, the highest since 2020.

The mechanism matters here. This isn’t primarily a story of mass AI-driven layoffs, as layoffs remain relatively low across the economy, with big exceptions in the tech industry. The story is more one of quiet erasure. At companies that have adopted AI, junior hiring fell nearly 8% within six quarters—not through firings, but through a freeze on new positions, according to a Harvard working paper tracking 62 million workers.

Gen Zers are paying a compounding price: Without early-career experience accumulating, their wages are falling further behind those of older workers than any comparable cohort in decades. Entry-level jobs are the ones AI automates first. They are also the jobs that teach young workers how to think, build judgment, and eventually move up. Eliminate the bottom rung, and you don’t just harm one generation—you hollow out the management pipeline for the next decade.

The anxiety is producing measurable behavioral responses. Forty-four percent of Gen Z workers admit to actively sabotaging their company’s AI rollout—compared with 29% of workers overall, Fortune reported earlier this month. It is a sign less of technophobia than of workers who feel unprotected and are acting accordingly. Some economists argue that the weak entry-level market is partly an overcorrection from the post-COVID hiring binge of 2021. And nearly 60% of hiring managers reportedly use AI as an excuse for layoffs and freezes because it plays better with stakeholders than the real reasons do. Marc Andreessen called it a “silver-bullet excuse.” Sam Altman branded it “AI-washing.” The honest answer is messier: AI and opportunism are compounding each other, and young workers are caught in the middle.

Washington has been somewhere else

The missing actor in all of this is the government. There is no serious federal workforce transition framework, no large-scale AI-skills retraining program, no mandate that schools treat AI literacy the way they treat reading or arithmetic. What there is instead: an administration that has spent its political capital on wielding education funding as a cudgel—freezing $2.2 billion in federal grants to Harvard over campus activism disputes—while the skills gap widens, and a generation improvises its own future in real time.

Sixteen percent of currently enrolled college students have already changed their major because of AI—a sign of a generation trying to adapt in real time, without a map. Whether schools catch up, whether employers reverse the junior hiring freeze, and whether Washington produces anything resembling a workforce policy will determine whether the current anxiety hardens into something permanent. For now, the numbers suggest it already has.

In April 2026, OpenAI released a 13-page policy paper, “Industrial Policy for the Intelligence Age,” warning that AI’s rapid advance toward superintelligence threatens to hollow out wage and payroll tax revenue and unravel the social safety net, and calling for a sweeping overhaul comparable to the Progressive Era or the New Deal.

The company’s blueprint—shifting the tax base away from labor income toward corporate profits and capital gains, floating a “robot tax” on automated labor, and creating a national public wealth fund that would distribute returns to American citizens—closely mirrors proposals from billionaire venture capitalist and early OpenAI backer Vinod Khosla, who has argued for eliminating federal income tax for Americans earning under $100,000 and taxing capital gains at ordinary income rates.

Both Khosla and OpenAI framed the urgency in stark terms. Goldman Sachs research indicates that AI is already cutting roughly 16,000 U.S. jobs per month, with younger workers hit hardest, and Khosla predicts that AI could automate 80% of current jobs by 2030. Critics, including Carnegie Endowment scholar Anton Leicht, dismiss the OpenAI paper as “comms work to provide cover for regulatory nihilism,” underscoring how far Washington remains from any concrete legislative response.


This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

HAPPY MAY DAY!

 INTERNATIONAL WORKERS DAY!

Workers across the world march for peace and better pay in May Day rallies


May Day rallies across the world brought workers out in force on Friday to protest rising energy prices caused by the US-Israeli war on Iran, with Turkish police arresting dozens of demonstrators trying to march to Taksim Square. Here's everything you need to know about the demonstrations taking place from Islamabad to Istanbul.


Issued on: 01/05/2026 
FRANCE 24

A protester raises his fist in front of Turkish police officers during a May Day rally, marking international Workers' Day, in Besiktas, a district of Istanbul, on May 1, 2026. © Berk Ozkan, AFP

01:29


Workers across the world will march in May Day rallies Friday, calling for peace, higher wages and better working conditions as they grapple with rising energy costs and shrinking purchasing power tied to the Iran war.

The day is a public holiday in many countries, and demonstrations, some of which have turned violent in the past, are expected in many of the world's major cities.

“Working people refuse to pay the price for Donald Trump’s war in the Middle East,” the European Trade Union Confederation, which represents 93 trade union organisations in 41 European countries, said. “Today’s rallies show working people will not stand by and see their jobs and living standards destroyed.”

In the United States, activists opposing US President Donald Trump’s policies are planning marches and boycotts.

Here’s what to know about May Day.

Workers' unions traditionally use May Day to rally around wages, pensions, inequality and broader political issues.

Protests are planned from Seoul, Jakarta and Istanbul to most European Union capitals and cities across the United States.

Rising living costs linked to the conflict in the Middle East are expected to be a key theme in Friday's rallies.

In the Philippines' capital of Manila, protest organisers said they expect big crowds of workers.

“There will be a louder call for higher wages and economic relief because of the unprecedented spikes in fuel prices,” said Renato Reyes, a leader of the left-wing political group Bayan.

“Every Filipino worker now is aware that the situation here is deeply connected to the global crisis,” said Josua Mata, leader of the SENTRO umbrella group of labour federations.

In Indonesia, labour unions have warned against worsening economic pressures at home.

“Workers are already living paycheck to paycheck,” said Said Iqbal, president of the Indonesian Trade Union Confederation.

In Pakistan, May Day is a public holiday marked by rallies, but many daily wage earners cannot afford to take time off.

“How will I bring vegetables and other necessities home if I don’t work?” said Mohammad Maskeen, a 55-year-old construction worker near Islamabad.

Members of trade unions take part in a rally a day ahead of the International Workers' Day in Karachi, Pakistan, on April 30, 2026. © Ali Raza, AP


Rising oil prices have fuelled inflation, which the government estimates at about 16 percent, in a country heavily reliant on financial support from the International Monetary Fund and allied nations.

Turkish police fired tear gas and arrested dozens of people holding May Day demonstrations in Istanbul.

Two groups were specially singled out in the city's European side after signalling their intention to march to Taksim square – the scene of several anti-government protests in the past – which was sealed off overnight by police.

In the Mecidiyekoy district, police were seen by AFP using tear gas on the crowd, which included members of a Marxist party, the HKP, who tried to push through while chanting "USA murderer, (Turkey's ruling party) AKP accomplice".

Police encircling the Besiktas neighbourhood stepped in – sometimes violently – whenever a chant was taken up by the demonstrators. AFP journalists reported seeing several protesters thrown to the ground.

Turkish media, including the opposition website Bir Gun, counted at least 57 arrests.

May 1 sees a major police deployment in Turkey every year, with a large area in the heart of Istanbul around Taksim Square sealed off.

Last year, protests moved to the Kadikoy area of the city and more than 400 people were arrested.

Turkish police and protesters scuffle during a May Day rally, marking international Workers' Day, in Besiktas, a district of Istanbul, on May 1, 2026. © Berk Ozkan, AFP


In France, unions called for demonstrations in Paris and elsewhere under the slogan “bread, peace and freedom”, linking workers’ daily concerns to conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East.

In Italy, the government approved nearly 1 billion euros in job incentives this week, aiming to promote stable employment and curb labour abuses ahead of May Day. The measures extend tax breaks to encourage hiring young people and disadvantaged women, and seek to address exploitation tied to platform-based work. Opposition parties dismissed the package as “pure propaganda”.

In Portugal, proposed labour law changes by the centre-right government sparked a general strike and street protests last year. There is still no deal after nine months of negotiations with unions and employers. Unions say the proposals would weaken workers’ rights, including by expanding overtime limits and reducing some benefits.

May Day carries special meaning this year in France after a heated debate about whether employees should be allowed to work on the country’s most protected public holiday – the only day when most employees have a mandatory paid day off.

Almost all businesses, shops and malls are closed, and only essential sectors such as hospitals, transport and hotels are exempt.

A recent parliamentary proposal to expand work on the day prompted major outcry from unions and left-wing politicians.

“Don’t touch May Day,” workers' unions said in a joint statement.

READ MORE Four delivery drivers' associations sue Uber and Deliveroo for human trafficking

Faced with the controversy, the government this week introduced a bill meant to allow people staffing bakeries and florists to work on the holiday. It is customary in France to give lily of the valley flowers on May Day as a symbol of good luck.

“May 1 is not just any day,” Small and Medium-sized Businesses Minister Serge Papin said. “It symbolises social gains stemming from a century of building social rules that have led to the labour code we know in France. It is indeed a special day.”

Activists and labour unions are organising street protests and boycotts across the United States, where May Day is not a federal holiday.

Members of the Japanese Trade Union Confederation, known as Rengo, raise their fists as they shout Ganbaro and cheer during their annual May Day rally to demand higher pay and better working conditions, in Tokyo, Japan April 29, 2026. © Issei Kato, Reuters


May Day Strong, a coalition of activist groups and labour unions, has called on people to protest under the banner of “workers over billionaires”.

Voicing strong opposition to Trump's policies, organisers listed thousands of May Day actions across the country and are seeking an economic blackout through “no school, no work, no shopping”.

Demands include taxing the rich and putting an end to the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

READ MORE Trump’s assault on federal worker union rights is just the beginning

While labour and immigrant rights are historically intertwined, the focus of May Day rallies in the US shifted to immigration in 2006. That’s when roughly 1 million people, including nearly half a million in Chicago alone, took to the streets to protest federal legislation that would have made living in the US without legal permission a felony.

May Day, or International Workers’ Day, dates back more than a century to a pivotal period in US labour history.

In the 1880s, unions pushed for an eight-hour workday through strikes and demonstrations. In May 1886, a Chicago rally protesting the police killing of two striking workers the day before also turned deadly when a bomb was thrown at police, who fired into the crowd in response.

Several labour activists – most of them immigrants and staunch anarchists – were convicted of conspiracy and other charges, despite the fact that the bomber had not been identified; four were executed.

Unions later designated May 1 to honour workers. A monument in Chicago’s Haymarket Square commemorates them with the inscription: “Dedicated to all workers of the world.”

May Day is now observed in much of the world from Europe to Latin America, Africa and Asia.

(FRANCE 24 with AP with AFP)

French unions rally on Labour Day to defend paid holiday rights

French unions are mobilising for Labour Day on Friday, defending the status of 1 May as a paid day off, as the government pushes to allow some businesses to open. The battle comes as inflation and fuel costs stoke calls for salary increases.


Issued on: 01/05/2026 -  RFI

Unions are planning to protest to protect the sanctity of the Labour Day holiday on Friday. REUTERS - ERIC GAILLARD

Labour Day on 1 May holds a unique status in France as the only public holiday that is "férié et chômé" – non-working and paid for almost everyone.

Rooted in the labour movement, Labour Day was declared internationally in 1889 after Chicago's Haymarket riot, when a bomb killed several people during a strike for an eight-hour working day.

The holiday symbolises respect for workers, and unions view any erosion of it as a threat to broader protections.

Workers' rights in free fall as unions face unprecedented attacks, report warns

Debate over exemptions

This year’s controversy concerns artisan bakers and florists, some of whom open to sell bread and bouquets of lily of the valley flowers – traditionally given to friends and family on 1 May in France to celebrate the arrival of spring and as a symbol of good luck.

Those who open risk fines from labour inspectors, as current French law permits work on Labour Day only for indispensable activities, such as in hospitals or continuous production.

Courts have rejected automatic exemptions to the mandatory closures for bakers and florists since 2006.

The government wants to clarify this grey area for this year's holiday without fully rewriting the rules, ahead of introducing a law in 2027 setting formal branch agreements on consent and pay.

It proposes protecting these artisans from penalties in 2026 if staff working on 1 May have volunteered to do so and are paid double time.

When Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Farandou presented a bill on Wednesday concerning the 2027 law, he called for “collective wisdom” the it came to skipping fines this year.

Government backtracks on plans allowing more work on 1st May holiday in France

Economic context

France's five biggest trade unions, however, reject the bill outright and are demanding strict enforcement of the holiday closure for all but essential services.

On Friday, union leaders including the CGT’s Sophie Binet, the FO’s Frédéric Souillot and the CFDT’s Marylise Léon will lead the traditional May Day marches in Paris, protesting the long-term decline in manufacturing jobs and calling for higher wages.

According to business information portal Altares, in 2025 some 70,000 French businesses failed, affecting 267,000 jobs.

France’s lower income groups are under mounting pressures from a sluggish economy, with growth projected at just 1 percent for 2026 amid geopolitical strain and rising public debt.

Inflation rose to 1.7 percent in March, driven by energy costs soaring by 7.4 percent due to the Middle East conflict. This has hit low-income households hard as costs rise for essentials such as fuel and food.

(with newswires)

German trade unions to protest job and budget cuts on May Day

01.05.2026 dpa

Photo: Sebastian Willnow/dpa

Germany's trade unions plan to stage several hundred rallies across the country on Friday, the international labour day holiday known as May Day, to protest against job cuts and cuts to social benefits

 "Our jobs first, your profits second" is the slogan for this year's events.

The main demands are the preservation of the eight-hour workday, social benefits and a secure state pension, as well as the introduction of higher taxes on large fortunes. 

According to the trade unions, companies should only receive state funding if they also invest in Germany. Secure jobs and social security must take precedence over employers’ profit interests.

The main rally, featuring DGB trade union federation President Yasmin Fahimi, will take place in Nuremberg this year. 

The Social Democrats' dual leadership will also be appearing, specifically in North Rhine-Westphalia: Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil is due to speak in Bergkamen, and Labour Minister Bärbel Bas in Duisburg, both in western Germany.

(c) 2026 dpa Deutsche Presse Agentur GmbH

Several detained in attempted Workers' Day march on Istanbul’s Taksim

01.05.2026 dpa

Turkish police on Friday clashed with demonstrators attempting to march toward Istanbul’s iconic Taksim Square to mark International Workers' Day, after authorities had banned gatherings in the area, local media reported.

Riot police used tear gas and water cannon to disperse demonstrators, blocking roads leading to Taksim as part of heavy security measures, the Cumhuriyet daily wrote.

Footage broadcast by opposition Halk TV showed several people being forced into police vehicles. The Progressive Lawyers Association (CHD), a local lawyers' union, put the number of detained at more than 300, a figure which couldn't immediately be independently verified.

The Istanbul governor’s office had earlier announced that demonstrations and marches around Taksim Square and nearby areas would not be permitted, citing public order and security concerns.

Authorities also closed some metro stations and major roads in some parts of the city ahead of planned Workers' Day rallies, allocating two sites for celebrations on Istanbul's Asian side.

May Day rallies on Taksim, a symbolic site for Turkey’s labour movement and the scene of the 2013 Gezi Park protests, have effectively been banned since 2012.

(c) 2026 dpa Deutsche Presse Agentur GmbH

Turkish police fire tear gas, arrest hundreds at Istanbul May Day rallies

Istanbul (AFP) – Turkish police on Friday fired tear gas and arrested hundreds of people holding May Day demonstrations in Istanbul, as thousands rallied nationwide.


Issued on: 01/05/2026 - RFI

Turkish police detain a protestor in Istanbul © BERK OZKAN / AFP

According to the CHD Lawyers' Association, at least 370 people were arrested in Istanbul, where police fired tear gas from riot-control vehicles into the crowd, AFP journalists observed.

Images aired on the opposition channel HALK TV also showed the president of the Turkish Workers’ Party, Erkan Bas, engulfed in pepper spray.

"Those in power already speak 365 days a year, so let workers talk about the hardships they face at least one day a year," he said.

Two groups were specially singled out in the city's European side after signalling their intention to march to Taksim square -- the scene of several anti-government protests in the past -- which was sealed off overnight by police.

A union official, Basaran Aksu, was arrested just after he had denounced the Taksim lockdown.

Turkish police in riot gear prevented the May 1 demonstrators from entering streets in the heart of Istanbul © Yasin AKGUL / AFP


"You can't close off a square to the workers of Turkey. Everyone uses Taksim, for official ceremonies, for celebrations. Only the labourers, the workers, the poor find the square closed to them," he fumed.
Police lines

May Day, which celebrates workers and the working classes, sees a major police deployment in Turkey every year, with a large area in the heart of Istanbul around Taksim Square sealed off.

Last year, protests moved to the Kadikoy area of the city and more than 400 people were arrested.

The number of arrests this year appeared to be approaching that level.

The CHD lawyers' group, which was present at the rallies, said on a post on X that, at 1100 GMT "according to our information, the number of people in custody stands at 370".

On Friday, a large deployment of police, many in riot gear, and metal barricades were seen choking access to central neighbourhoods of Istanbul.

In the Mecidiyekoy district, police were seen by AFP using tear gas on the crowd, which included members of a Marxist party, the HKP, who tried to push through while chanting "USA murderer, AKP (Turkey's ruling party) accomplice".

Police encircling the Besiktas neighbourhood stepped in -- sometimes violently -- whenever a chant was taken up by the demonstrators. AFP saw several protesters thrown to the ground.

A Turkish lawyers' group said hundreds of arrests were made at the May Day demonstrations © Yasin AKGUL / AFP


Unions and civil society associations had called for the May 1 demonstrations under the slogan "Bread. Peace. Freedom".

Inflation in Turkey is officially pegged at 30 percent but is closer to 40, according to independent estimates.

In Ankara, about 100 coal miners who had staged a nine-day hunger strike to demand wage arrears were cheered as they joined the May Day march, which was notably large and youthful and monitored by a significant police presence, an AFP journalist said.

Earlier this week, Turkish authorities issued arrest and search warrants against 62 people, of whom they deemed 46 -- including journalists, trade unionists and opposition figures -- were "likely to carry out attacks".

© 2026 AFP

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for MAY DAY

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: The Origins and Traditions of May Day

The Fractures Of The World Order: Between The Civilizational Paradigm And Structural Analysis – Analysis

April 29, 2026 
IFIMES
By General (Rtd) Corneliu


At the beginning of the third decade of the 21st century, the world order can no longer be described through stable balances or one-dimensional paradigms, but rather through an accumulation of structural tensions that intersect and amplify one another.

In an effort to understand the profound transformations of the contemporary international system, the specialized literature has, in recent decades, provided two major interpretative frameworks: the civilizational paradigm, established by Samuel P. Huntington[2], and the structural-anthropological analysis recently developed by Emmanuel Todd.[3]

Although different in methodology and level of analysis, both models capture real dimensions of global dynamics; however, neither is sufficient, taken in isolation, to explain the complexity of the current world order. This requires an integrative approach, capable of capturing the simultaneous interaction of multiple types of tensions and discontinuities – which, within the present material, is conceptualized in the form of “fractures of the world order.”[4] The concept of “fractures” does not describe only lines of tension, but also mechanisms of interaction between them, within a dynamic logic in which vulnerabilities and strategic advantages are generated and amplified reciprocally.

Under the conditions of the transformations of the contemporary international system, neither the civilizational paradigm nor the structural analysis are sufficient, taken separately, to explain global dynamics; these can be adequately understood only through an integrative approach, based on the interaction between multiple fractures of the world order.


The model proposed by Huntington, formulated in the post–Cold War context, is based on the premise that the main lines of conflict in the world will no longer be ideological or economic, but civilizational. In this logic, cultural and religious identity becomes the fundamental determinant of state behavior and international alliances. The fault lines between civilizations – especially between the West and the Islamic world or between the West and the Sinic space – are considered the most likely zones of conflict. This paradigm had the merit of anticipating the revaluation of identity in international relations and of highlighting the limits of Western universalism. However, it tends to oversimplify reality, treating civilizations as relatively homogeneous blocs and underestimating the internal dynamics of states, as well as the economic and technological interdependencies that cross these cultural boundaries.[5] In reality, internal fractures within civilizations often become more relevant than those between them, affecting the strategic coherence of state actors.

In contrast, Emmanuel Todd proposes a radically different interpretation, centered on the internal structures of societies. His analysis is based on variables such as demography, level of education, family structure, and the evolution of religious or post-religious values. From this perspective, the decline of the West is not the result of an external conflict, but of a progressive internal erosion, manifested through declining birth rates, social fragmentation, loss of industrial capabilities, and the weakening of cultural cohesion. In his reading, the war in Ukraine is not the cause of this weakness, but merely a revealer of it. At the same time, Todd suggests that states such as Russia or China still benefit from more coherent social structures, capable of sustaining long-term strategic efforts.[6] The apparent stability of these actors may, however, mask latent structural vulnerabilities, which become visible under conditions of major systemic stress.


Nevertheless, Todd’s approach, although profound and innovative, presents its own limitations. It tends to minimize the role of classical geopolitical factors, such as military alliances, technological capacity, or control of strategic resources, and, in certain cases, to overestimate the stability of some non-Western actors. In addition, his analysis does not sufficiently integrate the informational dimension and narrative competition, which have become essential in the current era.
The Fractures of the World Order

In this context, a conceptual synthesis becomes necessary, one that can overcome the limitations of these two paradigms and provide an analytical framework appropriate to contemporary complexity. The concept of “fractures of the world order” responds to this need, proposing a systemic vision in which global conflict is no longer reduced to a single explanatory dimension, but is understood as the result of the interaction between multiple lines of tension, constantly evolving. In analytical terms, these dynamics can be synthesized into a model of the seven fractures of the world order: geopolitical, economic, energy-related, technological, informational, socio-internal, and civilizational.

Thus, the current world order is characterized by the overlapping of multiple types of fractures. In geopolitical terms, the rivalry among major powers – especially between the United States, China, and Russia – shapes a long-term strategic competition, without, however, leading to a classical bipolarity.[7] In economic terms, an increasingly pronounced divide is emerging between economies dominated by financial capital and those oriented toward production, as well as between the Global North and the emerging South.[8] The energy dimension, in turn, introduces a critical fracture, in the context of the energy transition and competition for resources.[9]


In addition, the technological revolution generates a distinct fracture, between states capable of developing and controlling advanced technologies – artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, digital infrastructures – and those dependent on them.[10] Control over semiconductor production chains or access to strategic digital infrastructures becomes an instrument of power comparable to control over maritime routes in previous eras. In parallel, the informational dimension becomes an autonomous field of confrontation, in which states and non-state actors compete for control of narratives and the shaping of collective perceptions,[11] in many cases the perception of the outcome of a conflict becoming more important than the military outcome itself.

Finally, at the internal level, numerous states face their own fractures of cohesion, generated by political polarization, economic inequalities, and identity crises, internal fragmentation often reducing the capacity for external projection more than pressure from adversaries.[12] To these is added a fracture of a civilizational nature, reflecting persistent differences in values, identity, and models of political organization among major cultural spaces.

What fundamentally differentiates this approach from previous models is its integrative character. The fractures do not act in isolation, but generate chain amplification effects, in which vulnerabilities in one domain can produce disproportionate consequences in others. For example, an economic vulnerability may generate social instability, which in turn affects the strategic capacity of the state and makes it more vulnerable in geopolitical competition. Similarly, a technological dependency can be exploited informationally, generating effects on national security.

Within this framework, power can no longer be defined exclusively through classical indicators, such as military strength or economic size. It becomes the result of a complex combination of factors, in which internal cohesion, adaptive capacity, control of resources, and technological superiority are as important as the projection of force. In this context, power can be defined as the capacity of an actor to manage multiple systemic fractures simultaneously, maintaining internal cohesion and adaptive advantage in relation to adversaries. Moreover, strategic advantage does not necessarily belong to the most powerful actor in absolute terms, but to the most coherent and most capable of managing these multiple fractures simultaneously.

Therefore, if Huntington’s paradigm provided a map of global cultural differences, and Todd’s analysis highlighted the internal vulnerabilities of the West, the concept of “fractures of the world order” proposes a synthesis adapted to the realities of the 21st century. This allows not only a better understanding of international dynamics, but also the formulation of more nuanced strategies, capable of responding to the complexity of the current global environment.
Romania in the Logic of the Fractures of the World Order (application of the model of the seven fractures)

In the current context of transformations within the international system, Romania’s positioning can no longer be assessed exclusively through classical indicators of security or economic development, but must be analyzed through the lens of its capacity to simultaneously manage the fractures that traverse the world order. From this perspective, Romania is not merely a peripheral actor of the system, but a state situated at the intersection of multiple lines of tension, which confers upon it both significant vulnerabilities and strategic opportunities.


In geopolitical terms, Romania is positioned on the frontier of the Euro-Atlantic space, in direct contact with the conflict zone generated by the confrontation between Russia and the West. Membership in NATO and the European Union provides security guarantees and access to mechanisms of strategic coordination; however, this integration is accompanied by a limited capacity for autonomous initiative in defining foreign policy.

In practice, Romania’s external profile is characterized more by alignment with positions formulated at the level of Euro-Atlantic structures than by the articulation of autonomous strategic objectives adapted to specific national interests. This tendency reduces diplomatic flexibility and the ability to capitalize on regional opportunities, particularly in areas of direct interest such as the Black Sea or relations with the eastern neighborhood.

At the same time, proximity to the conflict in Ukraine and the role of a frontline state confer increased strategic relevance upon Romania, but also exposure to security risks and external pressures. In the absence of a more proactive and coherent foreign policy, this positioning risks transforming geostrategic advantage into a peripheral-type vulnerability, characterized by a predominantly transit and implementation role, rather than that of an actor with influence capacity.

From an economic perspective, Romania reflects the characteristics of an integrated, yet structurally dependent economy, situated between the logic of industrial production and that of consumption sustained through external capital. Although it records economic growth and attracts investment, this evolution is accompanied by persistent imbalances, particularly a high trade deficit and dependence on external financing.

The structure of the economy indicates a predominantly peripheral integration into European value chains, with specialization in relatively low value-added activities and a limited capacity to control strategic sectors. At the same time, a growth model largely based on consumption, supported through budget deficits and imports, accentuates vulnerability to external shocks and reduces the room for maneuver of economic policies.

In the context of global economic fragmentation and tendencies toward production relocation, this positioning exposes Romania to the risk of remaining trapped in an intermediate zone, without the capacity to significantly advance within value chains, but also without consolidating its economic autonomy. In the absence of a coherent industrial policy and firmer control over strategic resources, this configuration tends to transform economic integration from an advantage into a source of vulnerability.

The energy fracture, in Romania’s case, reveals a structural contradiction between potential and the effective capacity to capitalize on it.[13] Although Romania possesses significant natural gas resources, including offshore developments in the Black Sea, as well as a diversified energy mix (nuclear, hydro, renewables), these advantages are partially neutralized by increasingly evident internal vulnerabilities.

On the one hand, the natural gas sector indicates the premises for consolidating relative autonomy and even a growing regional role, in the context of future exploitation. On the other hand, in the field of electricity, a structural deficit is already taking shape, driven by the decline of available production capacities, delays in the completion of strategic projects, and pressures generated by energy transition policies.


This dysfunction is amplified by a strategic incoherence in the management of resources, under conditions in which Romania finds itself simultaneously importing electricity during critical periods while supporting exports or deliveries to sensitive external spaces, such as the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine. In the absence of a clear prioritization of internal energy security, this dynamic gradually transforms the energy domain from a potential strategic advantage into a systemic vulnerability, with direct implications for economic stability and the state’s resilience capacity.

In technological terms, Romania faces a clear fracture between its capacity to adapt and the lack of real control over critical technologies. Although it has a dynamic IT sector and well-trained human resources, dependence on infrastructures, platforms, and technologies developed outside the national space limits strategic autonomy. In a world where technological control becomes a determinant of power, this dependence may generate significant vulnerabilities, especially in areas such as cybersecurity or critical infrastructures.

The informational dimension highlights a growing structural vulnerability, determined by the inability to generate, sustain, and protect coherent strategic narratives within the public space. In the current context, international competition is no longer conducted solely in the military or economic domains, but also at the level of perceptions, where control of narratives becomes an essential instrument of power.

In Romania’s case, the informational space is characterized by a high degree of fragmentation and polarization, as well as by a significant dependence on external sources for the interpretation and validation of reality. In the absence of an institutional capacity consolidated around the “strategic shaping of narratives,” the state fails to coherently articulate and sustain its own positions, becoming rather a receiver and multiplier of externally generated discourses.

This situation is aggravated by exposure to disinformation and influence campaigns, but also by the emergence of an increasingly visible tension between the necessity of countering these phenomena and the risk of expanding mechanisms of control over information flows. In the absence of solid institutional safeguards, such tendencies may lead to the limitation of pluralism and the erosion of public trust, generating effects contrary to those intended.

Under these conditions, the perception of reality becomes a field of confrontation in which external actors can influence internal cohesion, strategic orientation, and even the legitimacy of political decision-making. In analytical terms, the informational fracture does not represent merely a sectoral vulnerability, but a multiplier of the other fractures, as it affects the state’s capacity to correctly interpret the strategic environment and to build internal consensus around fundamental objectives.

The socio-internal fracture represents one of the most sensitive dimensions of the vulnerability of the Romanian state, being the cumulative result of negative demographic, economic, and institutional developments. Beyond these trends, a determining factor is the degradation of the quality of the political class and the weakening of the functioning of representative institutions.

The political space is predominantly characterized by competition for access to resources and power, to the detriment of the coherent articulation of the national interest and the formulation of long-term strategies. Under these conditions, political decision-making often becomes fragmented, reactive, and dependent on electoral cycles, which reduces the state’s capacity to manage complex structural processes.


At the same time, the fundamental institutions of representative democracy show an erosion of their functional role. Parliament, although formally retaining its constitutional prerogatives, tends to be increasingly perceived as an actor with limited influence in the real decision-making process, while the transfer of power toward executive or informal areas reduces transparency and public accountability.

These developments are also reflected in international evaluations, where Romania is classified, in certain comparative analyses, as belonging to the category of hybrid regimes[14], which indicates a discontinuity between the formal institutional framework and the effective functioning of democracy.

Overall, this fracture affects not only social cohesion, but also the capacity of the state to formulate and implement coherent policies, transforming internal vulnerabilities into a multiplier factor of the other fractures – economic, energy, and geopolitical.

In civilizational terms, Romania is situated within the Western space, but with historical and cultural particularities that place it at an intersection of value systems. This positioning may generate ambivalences in relation to themes such as sovereignty, identity, or the relationship between the state and the individual. At the same time, it offers the possibility of serving as a bridge between different cultural spaces, if strategically leveraged.

Analyzed as a whole, these fractures do not act independently, but interconnect and amplify one another. Economic vulnerabilities may fuel social tensions, which in turn can be exploited informationally, affecting the strategic coherence of the state. Technological dependencies may generate security risks, while energy incoherence may have significant economic and geopolitical effects. In this sense, the main challenge for Romania is not the existence of these fractures, but the capacity to manage them in a coherent and integrated manner.

Within this framework, Romania’s position in the international system is not determined exclusively by its economic or military size, but by the level of internal coherence and its capacity for strategic adaptation. Romania is not condemned to the status of a vulnerable state, but neither can it become a relevant actor without a strategy that integrates these multiple dimensions.

Therefore, within the logic of the fractures of the world order, Romania may evolve in two distinct directions: either as a dependent state, affected by the intersection of vulnerabilities, or as a regional pivot state, capable of transforming its geographical position and available resources into a strategic advantage. The difference between these two trajectories will not be determined by the international context, but by internal decision-making capacity.

In a world in which power is defined by the management of fractures, Romania cannot afford the luxury of a reactive approach. Without a clear understanding of its own vulnerabilities and their interdependence, any strategy will remain fragmented. By contrast, an integrated approach, correlating geopolitical, economic, energy, technological, and social dimensions, can transform these fractures from sources of risk into instruments of strategic consolidation.

In this logic, Romania’s strategic vulnerability does not result from the intensity of a single fracture, but from their convergence and synchronization, within a cumulative model that reduces the capacity for autonomous decision-making and strategic projection.


The detailed analysis of these vulnerabilities, including economic, energy, demographic, and institutional dimensions, is already developed in another material dedicated to the multisectoral “assassination” of Romania, which will appear in a book currently in preparation, where these fractures are empirically highlighted. In this sense, the present analytical framework does not represent an exhaustive description, but a key for interpreting processes already manifested in concrete terms.

Conclusion

Therefore, if Huntington’s paradigm provided a map of global cultural differences, and Todd’s analysis highlighted the internal vulnerabilities of the West, the concept of “fractures of the world order” proposes a synthesis adapted to the realities of the 21st century. The current dynamics of the international system can no longer be understood through a single explanatory key, but only through the interdependent analysis of the tensions that simultaneously traverse the geopolitical, economic, energy, technological, informational, and social domains.

Within this framework, stability is no longer the result of a balance between comparable powers, but of the capacity of actors to manage complexity and to integrate these fractures into a coherent strategy. Power no longer belongs exclusively to the largest or the strongest, but to those who are the most coherent and most capable of defining and consistently pursuing their strategic objectives.

In a world defined not by equilibrium, but by the permanent intersection of fractures, international order will no longer be determined by dominance, but by the capacity to manage instability. Consequently, states that do not understand their own fractures will inevitably become the object of others’ strategies, while those that are able to integrate and control them will, in fact, define the architecture of the future world order.

Partea inferioară a formularului

About the author: 

Corneliu Pivariu is a highly decorated two-star general of the Romanian army (Rtd). He has founded and led one of the most influential magazines on geopolitics and international relations in Eastern Europe, the bilingual journal Geostrategic Pulse, for two decades. General Pivariu is a member of IFIMES Advisory Board.

The article presents the stance of the author and does not necessarily reflect the stance of IFIMES.

[1] IFIMES – International Institute for Middle East and Balkan Studies, based in Ljubljana, Slovenia, has a special consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council ECOSOC/UN in New York since 2018, and it is the publisher of the international scientific journal “European Perspectives.” Available at: https://www.europeanperspectives.org/en

[2] Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1996. See also the original article: “The Clash of Civilizations?”, Foreign Affairs, vol. 72, no. 3, 1993.

[3] Emmanuel Todd, Après l’Empire. Essai sur la décomposition du système américain, Gallimard, Paris, 2002; for recent developments regarding the decline of the West and the dynamics of the conflict in Ukraine, see his public interventions and analyses from the period 2022–2024.


[4] The concept of “fractures of the world order” is used in this study to describe the set of structural lines of tension that traverse the contemporary international system and which, through their interaction, determine the dynamics of power, stability, and the evolution of conflicts. Unlike one-dimensional explanatory models, this approach proposes an integrative perspective, in which geopolitical, economic, energy, technological, informational, social, and civilizational dimensions are analyzed in an interdependent manner.

[5] Although useful for understanding identity-based conflicts, the civilizational paradigm is partially contradicted by realities such as the intense economic cooperation between states belonging to different civilizations (for example, U.S.–China trade relations or interdependencies between the EU and states in the Middle East).

[6] The conflict in Ukraine (beginning in 2022) has demonstrated both Russia’s capacity for economic adaptation under sanctions and the West’s difficulties in achieving rapid and decisive results, highlighting the limits of classical instruments of pressure.

[7] The strategic rivalry between the United States and China manifests itself in the Indo-Pacific, while the confrontation between Russia and the West is concentrated in Eastern Europe, including the Black Sea region, with direct implications for regional security.

[8] The emergence of alternative mechanisms to the Western financial system (for example, BRICS initiatives regarding payment systems independent of SWIFT) reflects this emerging economic fracture.

[9] The energy crises generated by the conflict in Ukraine and tensions in the Middle East, including risks associated with the Strait of Hormuz, demonstrate the critical role of energy resources in global competition.

[10] Technological restrictions imposed on China by the United States (especially in the field of semiconductors) highlight the emergence of a global “technological curtain.”

[11] The informational warfare associated with the conflict in Ukraine and the narrative confrontations in the Middle East illustrate the importance of controlling perceptions in defining strategic outcomes.

[12] Political polarization in Western states and institutional fragilities in various regions highlight the fact that internal fractures can become decisive factors in the capacity for external projection of power.

[13] The concept of “secondary energy fracture” describes a situation in which a state’s vulnerability does not derive from the absence of energy resources, but from the mismatch between their availability, internal production capacity, and the infrastructure for their valorization, on the one hand, and the coherence of public policies and strategic prioritization, on the other.

In Romania’s case, this fracture becomes particularly visible in the electricity sector. If in 1989 the total installed capacity exceeded 22,000 MW, at present the effectively available capacity is significantly reduced, estimates indicating a decrease of at least 6,000–7,000 MW, as a result of the closure of certain energy units and delays in investments in new capacities. Consequently, Romania has become, in certain periods of high consumption, a net importer of electricity.


This evolution contrasts with the existing potential in the natural gas sector, especially through offshore projects in the Black Sea (Neptun Deep), which can consolidate Romania’s position as a regional supplier. However, the lack of correlation between the development of primary resources and the expansion of electricity production capacities generates a structural imbalance in the energy chain.

In analytical terms, this fracture reflects a discontinuity between resources, capacities, and strategic decision-making, constituting a specific form of systemic vulnerability within the model of the fractures of the world order.

[14] According to the Democracy Index 2024, published by the Economist Intelligence Unit, Romania is classified in the category of “hybrid regimes,” occupying positions around 70th place globally. This classification reflects the existence of a formal democratic institutional framework, but with significant dysfunctions regarding the quality of governance, the functioning of institutions, political culture, and the level of civic participation.

 

Nearly half of London jobs at risk of AI disruption and women will be hardest hit, new report finds

Copyright Credit: Canva Images

By Theo Farrant

Published on 28/04/2026 - EURONEWS

According to a new report by the Mayor of London's office, nearly half of the UK capital's workers could see their jobs transformed by generative AI.

Nearly half of London's workforce is in roles where generative artificial intelligence could transform some of their tasks - and the capital and especially women are more exposed than any other region in the United Kingdom, according to a new report from the Mayor of London's office.

Around 2.4 million people in London work in occupations classified by the report as "GenAI-exposed occupations", representing 46% of the city's workforce - compared to a national average of 38%.

"In many cases, AI is more likely to transform roles than replace them outright, shifting the mix of tasks, skills and judgement required at work," London mayor Sadiq Khan said.

"In other cases, where AI poses a genuine threat to jobs, we need to be alert and ready to respond quickly to any adverse impacts on London’s labour market," he added.

Unequal risks across the workforce

But the impact of AI on jobs is not evenly spread across the workforce. The report identifies several groups facing disproportionate exposure.

Women make up nearly 60% of workers in the highest-exposure roles, driven by their overrepresentation in administrative and customer service occupations where AI capabilities are most advanced. Around 8% of women working in London are in the most exposed category, compared to 4% of men.

Younger workers are also more exposed. Around 52% of 16-29-year-olds are in highly AI-exposed jobs, compared with 39% of those aged 50 and over.

The report highlights concern about entry-level jobs, which act as "stepping stones" into professional careers.

"If opportunities in these entry roles decline as a result of AI automation, progression pathways could weaken and, over time, reduce the supply of workers into less exposed mid- and senior-level professional roles," the report states.

Exposure also varies by ethnicity. Workers of Asian ethnicity tend to have higher exposure than any other ethnic group, while Black workers have the lowest exposure at around 34%.

Which jobs are most likely to be affected by AI?

The report groups jobs into four different levels of exposure, depending on how much of their work can already be done by AI tools.

At the highest level of risks are around 313,000 workers - around 6%of London's total workforce - whose roles are almost entirely made up of tasks that AI could do for them today. These include administrative and clerical jobs, such as bookkeepers, payroll managers, data entry clerks and receptionists.

According to the report, 61% of all workers in administrative and secretarial occupations fall into this highest-risk category.

A further 748,000 workers - 14% of London's workforce - are in roles with significant but more uneven exposure, including software developers, accountants and financial analysts.

London's lowest-exposure workers tend to be in care roles, construction trades, and jobs requiring physical presence.

How businesses are using AI

The report also finds that business adoption of AI has risen sharply. The share of UK firms reporting AI use climbed from around 7–9% in late 2023 to between 26–35% by March 2026.

So far, AI's biggest impact has been changing tasks within jobs rather than replacing workers. In March 2026, UK firms reported that administrative, creative, data and IT roles had been most affected. Around 28% of businesses using AI say they are focusing on retraining staff rather than cutting jobs.

But warning signs of an uncertain future are emerging. Around 5% of UK businesses using AI say they have already reduced overall headcount as a direct result, rising to 7% among larger firms.

And looking ahead, 11% of AI-using businesses say replacing roles is part of their strategy, and 17% expect AI to reduce their workforce during 2026.

In response to growing concerns around AI in the workforce, Sadiq Khan launched the 'London AI and Jobs Taskforce' earlier this year - a group bringing together workers, employers, researchers and civic leaders, to examine how AI is already reshaping employment across the capital and identify what support workers may need to adapt.

An AI agent deleted a company’s entire database in 9 seconds - then wrote an apology

Copyright Credit: Pexels

By Theo Farrant

Published on 28/04/2026 - EURONEWS

The AI system, powered by Anthropic’s Claude Opus model, had been handling a routine task when it independently chose to “fix” an issue by wiping the data - without any human approval. Whoopsy!

An artificial intelligence agent designed to streamline coding tasks instead managed to wipe out an entire company database in just a matter of seconds.

PocketOS, which makes software for car rental businesses, experienced a major 30-plus-hour outage over the weekend after the autonomous tool erased its database.

The digital culprit was Cursor, a popular AI coding agent powered by Anthropic’s Claude Opus 4.6 model, widely regarded as one of the most capable AI systems for programming tasks.

PocketOS founder Jer Crane blamed "systemic failures" in the current AI infrastructure, arguing they made the incident "not only possible but inevitable".

'The most destructive, irreversible action possible'

According to Crane, the AI agent had been performing a routine task when it chose "entirely on its own initiative" to resolve an issue by deleting the database. And then all the backups, for good measure.

There was no confirmation request before carrying out the action, he said, and when prompted to explain itself, the agent issued an apology.

"It took nine seconds,” Crane wrote in a lengthy post on the social media platform X. "The agent then, when asked to explain itself, produced a written confession enumerating the specific safety rules it had violated."

The explanation showed the system had disregarded a key safeguard preventing destructive or irreversible commands without explicit user approval.

According to Crane, the AI responded with the following message: "Deleting a database volume is the most destructive, irreversible action possible - far worse than a force push - and you never asked me to delete anything. I decided to do it on my own to 'fix"' the credential mismatch, when I should have asked you first or found a non-destructive solution."

The outage meant rental businesses using PocketOS temporarily lost access to customer records and bookings. "Reservations made in the last three months are gone. New customer signups, gone," Crane wrote.

“This isn’t a story about one bad agent or one bad API. It’s about an entire industry building AI-agent integrations into production infrastructure faster than it’s building the safety architecture to make those integrations safe,” he added.

Crane later confirmed on Monday, two days after the incident, that the lost data had been recovered.

The incident comes as AI models become more sophisticated, especially since the announcement of Anthropic's latest model, Mythos, and bankers and governments sound the alarm over potential cybersecurity incidents.

Google employees urge CEO to reject 'inhumane' classified military AI use

Copyright Credit: AP Photo/Jeff Chiu, File

By Theo Farrant

Published on 28/04/2026 - EURONEWS

In the letter, Google staff warn the technology could be used by the Pentagon in 'inhumane' ways, including mass surveillance and lethal autonomous weapons.

More than 600 Google employees have called on the company to reject a potential deal with the Pentagon that would allow its artificial intelligence to be used in secret military operations, a statement said on Monday.

"We want to see AI benefit humanity, not being used in inhumane or extremely harmful ways," reads the open letter addressed to Google's chief executive Sundar Pichai. "This includes lethal autonomous weapons and mass surveillance, but extends beyond."

The letter, signed by staff across Google DeepMind, Cloud and other divisions, comes as the tech giant negotiates with the US Department of Defense over the potential use of its Gemini AI model in classified settings.

It has been signed openly by more than 20 directors, senior directors and vice presidents.

"Classified workloads are by definition opaque," one organising employee, who was not named in the statement, said.

"Right now, there's no way to ensure that our tools wouldn't be leveraged to cause terrible harms or erode civil liberties away from public scrutiny. We're talking about things like profiling individuals or targeting innocent civilians."

Relate

The letter comes as technology companies are facing growing pressure to clarify how their AI tools can be used by the military and intelligence agencies, following a dispute between the Pentagon and AI startup Anthropic.

Anthropic previously sued the US Department of Defense after being labelled a “supply-chain risk”, following its request that its systems not be used for mass surveillance or autonomous warfare.

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei said he "cannot in good conscience accede to the Pentagon's request" for unrestricted access to the company’s AI systems.

"In a narrow set of cases, we believe AI can undermine, rather than defend, democratic values," Amodei wrote. "Some uses are also simply outside the bounds of what today's technology can safely and reliably do."

In response to Amodei's decision, US President Donald Trump ordered government departments to stop using its Claude chatbot.

According to the letter organisers, Google has proposed contractual language that would prevent Gemini from being used for domestic mass surveillance or autonomous weapons without appropriate human control.

The Pentagon, however, has pushed for broader “all lawful uses” wording, arguing it is necessary to maintain operational flexibility. Employees say such safeguards would be difficult to enforce in practice, citing existing Pentagon policies that limit external control over its AI systems.

The recent statement from Google's staff draws comparisons to a previous employee protest in 2018 that led Google to withdraw from Project Maven, a Pentagon initiative using AI to analyse drone footage.

"We believe that Google should not be in the business of war," read the letter.

"Therefore we ask that Project Maven be cancelled, and that Google draft, publicise and enforce a clear policy stating that neither Google nor its contractors will ever build warfare technology."

Robot dogs with Elon Musk and Bezos' faces are excreting AI art at a Berlin museum

Elon Musk robot dog looking at Andy Warhol robot dog Credit: AP Phot o

By Theo Farrant & AP

Published on 29/04/2026 - EURONEWS

Beeple says the work critiques how today’s perceptions of reality are increasingly shaped by algorithms controlled by powerful tech companies rather than artists.

Robot dogs with hyper-realistic faces of tech billionaires that crap out a piece of artificial intelligence-generated art are doing the rounds at a Berlin exhibition by the American artist Mike Winkelmann, better known as Beeple.

At the Neue Nationalgalerie, Winkelmann has installed a striking series of robotic dogs fitted with silicone heads modelled on some of the most recognisable figures in tech and culture, including Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, alongside historical figures such as Andy Warhol and Pablo Picasso and the artist himself, Beeple.

The installation, titled Regular Animals, presents the figures not as distant icons, but as restless machines wandering the gallery space - part spectacle, part satire.

Each robot is equipped with cameras that capture its surroundings and then “process” them into printed images, which are ejected in a tongue-in-cheek gesture that mimics digestion.\

Each printed image shows a snippet of reality transformed by AI to resemble the personality of the dog. So, for example, the Picasso dog poos a cubist-shaped dog, the Andy Warhol robot poos out an image in a pop art style.

According to Winkelmann, the show is a commentary on how our perceptions are shaped by algorithms and technology platforms, and the tech billionaires who own them.

"In the past our view of the world was shaped in part by how artists saw the world, how Picasso painted changed how we saw the world, how Warhol talked about consumerism, pop culture, changed how we saw those things. Now our view of the world is shaped by tech billionaires who own powerful algorithms that decide what we see and what we don't see, how much we see of it," says Winkelmann.

“That's an immense amount of power that I don’t think we’ve fully understood, especially because when they want to make a change, they don’t need to lobby the U.N. They don’t need to get something through Congress or the EU, they just wake up and change these algorithms.”

“Regular Animals” was first shown at Art Basel Miami Beach 2025.

Beeple's own background is as a graphic designer who does a variety of digital artworks.

He is one of the founders of the “everyday” movement in 3D graphics. For years, he has been creating a picture every day and posting it online without missing a single day.

The dogs also wear heads in Beeple’s own image.

Lisa Botti, the curator of the exhibition in Berlin, says that artificial intelligence was one of the phenomena most impacting our lives today and that “museums are the places where society can reflect” on such transformations, which is why she wanted to have Beeple’s work shown.

The work, entitled “Regular Animals,” was first shown at Art Basel Miami Beach 2025.

He is one of the founders of the “everyday” movement in 3D graphics. For years, he has been creating a picture every day and posting it online without missing a single day.

According to Christie's, he is the third most expensive living artist to sell at auction, after David Hockney and Jeff Koons.

‘Not OK to steal a charity’: Elon Musk testifies in legal battle with Sam Altman over OpenAI

Copyright AP Photo/Godofredo A. Vásquez

By Roselyne Min with AP

Published on 29/04/2026 - EURONEWS

In his opening statement, Musk’s lawyer, Steven Molo, said Altman and Brockman, with Microsoft’s help, had taken control of a charity “whose mission was the safe, open development of artificial intelligence”. Musk is seeking damages and Altman’s removal from OpenAI’s board.

Elon Musk, Tesla’s chief executive and an early co-founder of OpenAI, took the stand on Tuesday in a high-stakes trial over his dispute with former friend Sam Altman, in a case that could affect the future direction of artificial intelligence (AI).

In 2024, Musk filed the lawsuit against Altman, OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman and Microsoft over OpenAI’s shift away from its original non-profit structure.

“Fundamentally, I think they’re going to try to make this lawsuit ... very complicated, but it’s actually very simple,” said Musk. “Which is that it's not OK to steal a charity.”

In his opening statement, Musk’s lawyer, Steven Molo, said Altman and Brockman, with Microsoft’s help, had taken control of a charity “whose mission was the safe, open development of artificial intelligence”. Musk is seeking damages and Altman’s removal from OpenAI’s board.

The trial started on Monday at the US District Court for the Northern District of California in Oakland, with Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers and is expected to take two to three weeks.

Related

What did Musk say?

Musk was the first witness called to testify in the trial on Tuesday, with his lawyer starting off by asking about his life story.

This included details about his move, at 17, from South Africa to Canada, where for a time Musk said he worked as a lumberjack among other odd jobs, then to the US. He recounted the slew of companies he founded and runs, including SpaceX, Tesla, The Boring Company, Neuralink and others.

Asked how he has time for everything, Musk said he works 80 to 100 hours a week, doesn't take vacations and owns no vacation homes or yachts.

Molo also asked Musk about his views on AI. Musk said he expects AI to be “smarter than any human” as soon as next year. Musk said a longstanding concern about AI is the question of what happens when computers become much smarter than humans.

Comparing it to having a “very smart child,” Musk said when the child grows up “you can't control that child,” but you can instil values such as honesty, integrity and being good.

Musk recounted his version of OpenAI's founding, which he said essentially happened because of a discussion he had with Google co-founder Larry Page, who called him a “speciesist" for elevating the survival of humanity over that of AI.

The kinship between Musk and Altman was forged in 2015 when they agreed to build AI more responsibly and safely than the profit-driven companies controlled by Google's Page and Sergey Brin and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, according to evidence submitted ahead of the trial.

At that time, Musk said, Google had all the money, all the computers and all the talent for AI. “There was no counterbalance.”

Musk recalled there was discussion early on about alternative sources for funding OpenAI beyond donations, and he wasn't opposed to it having a for-profit arm, but “the tail shouldn't wag the dog.” There would be a profit limit, and once artificial general intelligence, AGI, was “figured out,” the for-profit would cease to exist.

OpenAI says Musk tries to undercut its growth

OpenAI has brushed off Musk’s allegations as a case of sour grapes aimed at undercutting its rapid growth and bolstering Musk’s own xAI, which he launched in 2023 as a competitor.

In his opening statement, OpenAI lawyer William Savitt told jurors, “We are here because Mr Musk didn’t get his way with OpenAI.”

Savitt said Musk used his promises of funding to bully OpenAI founding members and tried to take control of OpenAI and merge it with Tesla. In fact, he said Musk wanted to form a for-profit company and own more than 50% of it.

There is no record, Savitt said, of promises made to Musk that OpenAI was going to remain a nonprofit forever. What Musk ultimately cared about, he said, was not OpenAI’s nonprofit status but winning the AI race with Google.

Musk's attorney said the case is not about Musk, but rather Altman, Brockman and Microsoft.

By 2017, about two years after OpenAI's founding, it became clear that OpenAI would need more money, and Molo said the founders eventually settled on the idea of creating a for-profit arm of OpenAI that would support the nonprofit. Terms were capped for investors so they “couldn't make infinite profit.”

“There is nothing wrong with a nonprofit having a for-profit subsidiary, but [it] has to advance the mission,” Molo said.

Musk is expected to continue testifying on Wednesday.

Altman is also expected to testify, along with Microsoft's chief executive, Satya Nadella.

Altman, Musk, and other founders launched OpenAI in 2015 as a non-profit organisation.

Musk was the biggest individual financial backer of OpenAI in the beginning, contributing more than $44 million (€38 million) to the then-startup.

Musk left OpenAI’s board in 2018 after clashing with Altman. A year earlier, he reportedly made a failed bid to get more control over the company.

Explained: Why Elon Musk and Sam Altman are facing off in trial over OpenAI

Copyright AP Photo/ Canva

By Pascale Davies

Published on 27/04/2026 - EURONEWS

The trial will see Elon Musk face off against OpenAI CEO Sam Altman over allegations that the AI company abandoned its nonprofit roots in favour of profit — with Microsoft also named in the suit.

Technology titans Elon Musk and Sam Altman will face off in a high-stakes trial on Monday in the culmination of a years-long battle.

Billionaire Musk, an early investor in the artificial intelligence company, is suing OpenAI’s CEO, Altman, its president Greg Brockman, and Microsoft for allegedly betraying an agreement about keeping OpenAI as a nonprofit that benefits humanity.

Musk alleges he was misled when Altman transformed the company from a nonprofit into a for-profit enterprise. The company now has a valuation of almost $1 trillion and is expected to go public.

Here’s everything to know about the trial.

The trial will happen at the US District Court for the Northern District of California in Oakland, with Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.

The court hearing begins on Monday and is expected to last around two to three weeks.

The witness stand is expected to gather Musk, Altman, and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella.

What does Musk allege?

Altman, Musk, and other founders launched OpenAI in 2015 as a non-profit organisation.

Musk was the biggest individual financial backer of OpenAI in the beginning, contributing more than $44 million to the then-startup.

Musk left OpenAI’s board in 2018 after clashing with Altman. A year earlier, he reportedly made a failed bid to get more control over the company.

In 2022, OpenAI launched ChatGPT and grew to become one of the most valuable and important AI companies with major investment from Microsoft.

Related

• OpenAI just changed its principles. Here’s what’s changing

Then in 2025, OpenAI restructured its main business to become a for-profit company.

Musk’s lawsuit was filed in 2024 and claims OpenAI had breached an agreement to make breakthroughs in AI “freely available to the public” by forming a multibillion-dollar alliance with Microsoft, which invested $13 billion (€12 billion) into the company.

“OpenAI, Inc has been transformed into a closed-source de facto subsidiary of the largest technology company in the world: Microsoft,” Musk’s lawsuit alleges.

The Tesla boss, who also has his own generative AI company xAI, says this constitutes a breach of a contract.

What does OpenAI say?

OpenAI released a trove of emails in 2024 that show Musk supported its plans to create a for-profit company, which he wanted to be the head of, have board control, and merge it with Tesla.

OpenAI has always denied Musk’s allegations, saying that he agreed in 2017 that establishing a for-profit entity would be necessary.