Richest 0.001% Now Own Three Times More Wealth Than Poorest Half of Humanity Combined

“The choices we make in the coming years will determine whether the global economy continues down a path of extreme concentration or moves toward shared prosperity.”

People attend a demonstration in support of taxing the super-rich in São Paulo, Brazil on July 10, 2025.

(Photo by Miguel Schincariol/AFP via Getty Images)

Jake Johnson
Dec 10, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

A landmark report on global inequality published Wednesday shows that the chasm between the richest slice of humanity and everyone else continued to expand this year, leaving the top 0.001%—fewer than 60,000 multimillionaires—with three times more wealth than the poorest half of the world’s population combined.

The global wealth gap has become so staggering, and its impact on economies and democratic institutions so corrosive, that policymakers should treat it as an emergency, argues the third edition of the World Inequality Report, a comprehensive analysis that draws on the work of hundreds of scholars worldwide. Ricardo Gómez-Carrera, a researcher at the World Inequality Lab, is the report’s lead author.
RECOMMENDED...


Global System ‘Rigged for the Wealthy’ Delivers World With ‘More Billionaires Than Ever’

“Inequality has long been a defining feature of the global economy, but by 2025, it has reached levels that demand urgent attention,” reads the new report. “The benefits of globalization and economic growth have flowed disproportionately to a small minority, while much of the world’s population still face difficulties in achieving stable livelihoods. These divides are not inevitable. They are the outcome of political and institutional choices.”

The richest 10% of the global population, according to the latest data, own three-quarters of the world’s wealth and capture more income than the rest of humanity. Within most countries, it is rare for the bottom 50% to control more than 5% of national wealth.

“This concentration is not only persistent, but it is also accelerating,” the report observes. “Since the 1990s, the wealth of billionaires and centimillionaires has grown at approximately 8% annually, nearly twice the rate of growth experienced by the bottom half of the population. The poorest have made modest gains, but these are overshadowed by the extraordinary accumulation at the very top.”

“The result,” the report adds, “is a world in which a tiny minority commands unprecedented financial power, while billions remain excluded from even basic economic stability.”

The report comes as the world’s richest and most powerful nation, led by President Donald Trump, abandons international cooperation on climate and taxation and works to supercharge inequality by slashing domestic and foreign aid programs while delivering massive handouts to the wealthiest Americans.

Jayati Ghosh, a member of the G20 Extraordinary Committee of Independent Experts on Global Inequality and co-author of the forward to the new report, said in a statement that “we live in a system where resources extracted from labor and nature in low-income countries continue to sustain the prosperity and the unsustainable lifestyle of people in high-income economies and rich elites across countries.”

“These patterns are not accidents of markets,” said Ghosh. “They reflect the legacy of history and the functioning of institutions, regulations and policies—all of which are related to unequal power relations that have yet to be rebalanced.”

Reversing the decadeslong trend of exploding inequality will require the political will to pursue obvious solutions, including fair taxation of the mega-rich and bold investments in social programs and climate action, which is disproportionately fueled by the wealthy.

“The choices we make in the coming years,” the report says, “will determine whether the global economy continues down a path of extreme concentration or moves toward shared prosperity.”

ANTI-FA

Leaked Memo Shows Pam Bondi Wants List of ‘Domestic Terrorism’ Groups Who Express ‘Anti-American Sentiment’

“Millions of Americans like you and I could be the target,” warned journalist Ken Klippenstein of the new memo.



Attorney General Pam Bondi conducts a news conference at the Department of Justice on Thursday, December 4, 2025.
(Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Brad Reed
Dec 07, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

A leaked memo written by US Attorney General Pam Bondi directs the Department of Justice to compile a list of potential “domestic terrorism” organizations that espouse “extreme viewpoints on immigration, radical gender ideology, and anti-American sentiment.”

The memo, which was obtained by journalist Ken Klippenstein, expands upon National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 (NSPM-7), a directive signed by President Donald Trump in late September that demanded a “national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts.”


Broadening Assault on the Left, Trump Designates EU Anti-Fascist Groups as ‘Foreign Terrorist Organizations’

The new Bondi memo instructs law enforcement agencies to refer “suspected” domestic terrorism cases to the Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs), which will then undertake an “exhaustive investigation contemplated by NSPM-7” that will incorporate “a focused strategy to root out all culpable participants—including organizers and funders—in all domestic terrorism activities.”

The memo identifies the “domestic terrorism threat” as organizations that use “violence or the threat of violence” to advance political goals such as “opposition to law and immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders; adherence to radical gender ideology, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, or anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; hostility towards traditional views on family, religion, and morality.”

Commenting on the significance of the memo, Klippenstein criticized mainstream media organizations for largely ignoring the implications of NSPM-7, which was drafted and signed in the wake of the murder of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.

“For months, major media outlets have largely blown off the story of NSPM-7, thinking it was all just Trump bluster and too crazy to be serious,” he wrote. “But a memo like this one shows you that the administration is absolutely taking this seriously—even if the media are not—and is actively working to operationalize NSPM-7.”

Klippenstein also warned that NSPM-7 appeared to be the start of a new “war on terrorism,” but “only this time, millions of Americans like you and I could be the target.”

Billionaire Palantir Co-Founder Pushes Return of Public Hangings as Part of ‘Masculine Leadership’ Initiative

“Immaturity masquerading as strength is the defining personal characteristic of our age,” said one critic in response.


Joe Lonsdale speaks onstage at TechCrunch Disrupt NY 2013 at The Manhattan Center on May 1, 2013 in New York City.
(Photo by Brian Ach/Getty Images for TechCrunch)

Brad Reed
Dec 07, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

Venture capitalist Joe Lonsdale, a co-founder of data platform company Palantir, is calling for the return of public hangings as part of a broader push to restore what he describes as “masculine leadership” to the US.

In a statement posted on X Friday, Lonsdale said that he supported changing the so-called “three strikes” anti-crime law to ensure that anyone who is convicted of three violent crimes gets publicly executed, rather than simply sent to prison for life.

“If I’m in charge later, we won’t just have a three strikes law,” he wrote. “We will quickly try and hang men after three violent crimes. And yes, we will do it in public to deter others.”

Lonsdale then added that “our society needs balance,” and said that “it’s time to bring back masculine leadership to protect our most vulnerable.”

Lonsdale’s views on public hangings being necessary to restore “masculine leadership” drew swift criticism.

Gil Durán, a journalist who documents the increasingly authoritarian politics of Silicon Valley in his newsletter “The Nerd Reich,” argued in a Saturday post that Lonsdale’s call for public hangings showed that US tech elites are “entering a more dangerous and desperate phase of radicalization.”

“For months, Peter Thiel guru Curtis Yarvin has been squawking about the need for more severe measures to cement Trump’s authoritarian rule,” Durán explained. “Peter Thiel is ranting about the Antichrist in a global tour. And now Lonsdale—a Thiel protégé—is fantasizing about a future in which he will have the power to unleash state violence at mass scale.”

Taulby Edmondson, an adjunct professor of history, religion, and culture at Virginia Tech, wrote in a post on Bluesky that the rhetoric Lonsdale uses to justify the return of public hangings has even darker intonations than calls for state-backed violence.

“A point of nuance here: ‘masculine leadership to protect our most vulnerable’ is how lynch mobs are described, not state-sanctioned executions,” he observed.

Theoretical physicist Sean Carroll argued that Lonsdale’s remarks were symbolic of a kind of performative masculinity that has infected US culture.

“Immaturity masquerading as strength is the defining personal characteristic of our age,” he wrote.

Tech entrepreneur Anil Dash warned Lonsdale that his call for public hangings could have unintended consequences for members of the Silicon Valley elite.

“Well, Joe, Mark Zuckerberg has sole control over Facebook, which directly enabled the Rohingya genocide,” he wrote. “So let’s have the conversation.”

And Columbia Journalism School professor Bill Grueskin noted that Lonsdale has been a major backer of the University of Austin, an unaccredited liberal arts college that has been pitched as an alternative to left-wing university education with the goal of preparing “thoughtful and ethical innovators, builders, leaders, public servants and citizens through open inquiry and civil discourse.”

U.S. Navy Hires Palantir to Reorganize Shipbuilding Supply Chain With AI

GD Electric Boat will be among the participants in the program (Courtesy USN)

Published Dec 10, 2025 7:20 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

The U.S. Navy has awarded a contract worth nearly $450 million to the technology company Palantir to reorganize the submarine supply chain with advanced AI tools. 

Palantir is a leading defense tech contractor with tools for analyzing and organizing manufacturing activity, sorting through intelligence, and aiding the process of targeting. It built the mission command platform for U.S. Special Operations Command,  and it has carried out countless sensor integration and data projects for the U.S. Army. For the Navy, it will be building Ship OS, a system to organize parts ordering and delivery for the nuclear sub prime contractors (Huntington Ingalls and GD Electric Boat) and three public shipyards that conduct submarine repairs. More than 100 suppliers will be hooked up to the company's inventory management system in the initial rollout. 

"This investment provides the resources our shipbuilders, shipyards, and suppliers need to modernize their operations," Navy Secretary John Phelan said. "By enabling industry to adopt AI and autonomy tools at scale, we're helping the shipbuilding industry improve schedules, increase capacity, and reduce costs."

The rollout builds on early trials funded by the BlueForge Alliance at GD Electric Boat and HII Newport News, initially dubbed "Warp Speed for Warships" and based on Palantir's Foundry product. The Navy said that these testbed applications yielded hundreds of hours in labor savings for production scheduling and material reviews. 

The Ship OS program will be overseen by the Navy's Maritime Industrial Base (MIB) program, a government initiative to support, subsidize and reorganize private industry in support of Navy needs. The most pressing need is in the overstressed submarine supply chain, and MIB hopes that Palantir's help will yield cost and efficiency savings that will offset the expense of the initial investment. More importantly, it hopes to shave critical months off of the delayed production timetable for submarine programs and help get manufacturing and repair work back on schedule - a key consideration for national security. Once proven in the sub supply chain, Ship OS will be rolled out for surface ship programs as well. 

Last year, the Navy also announced plans to award Palantir a $920 million, five-year IDIQ contract for a variety of software, hardware and consulting services. 

AI trends: Automation is inevitable


By  Dr. Tim Sandle

SCIENCE EDITOR

DIGITAL JOURNAL
December  11, 2025


Amazon logistics center: — © AFP SETH HERALD/File

Artificial intelligence continues to be of value to the global economy. It is estimated related technologies could automate up to 70% of activities done by employees. According to a report by McKinsey, generative AI has the potential to automate between 60% to 70% of the work that most of us engage in every day, particularly with regard to the work done by those working within sales and marketing, customer service, software engineering, and research and development.

The challenge for most companies is deciding what should stay in human hands and what is better to be automated, along with the inevitable job losses. Goldman Sachs reports that “two-thirds of occupations could be partially automated by AI.”

For those seeking to introduce AI into an organisation, what are the optimal ways by which professionals can optimise their workflows using AI in key departments? To help answer these questions, Digital Journal canvassed the views of Vahan Poghosyan, co-founder and CEO at Linkee and Maria Harutyunyan, co-founder and head of SEO, Loopex Digital.
We Reduced Lead Response Time by 60% with Artificial Intelligence

Poghosyan shared how artificial intelligence showed tangible results in the sales department, by citing a recent example: “We managed to cut our response times by 60% which means we can now focus on the leads that really matter. The system evaluates every new inquiry, checking metrics like intent signals and past engagement, and automatically routes high-potential leads to the right sales rep. It’s been a real game-changer for us, and I think other teams exploring possible automation in sales could see similar results.”
Artificial Intelligence Helped Us Save Over 1 hour per Candidate Screening

Harutyunyan explained how artificial intelligence improved their candidate screening, noting: “We recently had a job opening for a Technical SEO Specialist position, and used automation tools in the CV screening process. With a few preset criteria like skills and experience, we now save about 1 hour 15 minutes per role – time we used to spend manually reviewing around 150 applications, about 30 seconds each. Having more time to focus on the right candidates made all the difference. It’s actually one of the reasons we were able to grow our team by 50% this year.
Automation Helps Us Cut Video Creation Time from 2 Days to 40 Minutes

Poghosyan then clarified how automation streamlined his firm’s video production process: “When we need a short promo video, we just feed the script into an AI video tool, and it gives us a polished clip as an output! That would’ve taken approximately 2 days between scripting, editing, and feedback rounds before, and now it takes around 40 minutes. We can now focus more on what really matters – figuring out the story we want to tell and testing how people respond to it.”

Key Recommendations

In terms of learning from these case studies and applying them to multiple business settings, Poghosyan provided the following business tips:Look for tasks that slow down your team. Typically, it involves tasks such as lead scoring, CV screening, or content creation.
Measure how much time and effort it takes to complete a task without artificial intelligence.
Run small-scale tests with automation tools that can automate those tasks.
Conduct recaps with your team, discussing the results of the testing.
If automation reduces costs or time compared to manual work, integrate it into your regular process.

‘Dinosaur tartare’ and holograms: Dubai AI chef sparks awe and ire


ByAFP
December 11, 2025


At Woohoo, the brains behind the menu is not a person but an AI programme -- known as chef Aiman -- trained on thousands of recipes and decades of culinary research - Copyright AFP FADEL SENNA
Maha Loubaris

A Dubai restaurant has opened that prides itself on having the world’s “first AI chef”, the latest ostentatious dive into new technology in a city obsessed with being on the cutting edge of the future.

The Emirati city has become increasingly known for its growing culinary scene, with thousands of restaurants on offer from luxurious Michelin-starred eateries to greasy spoons serving up bona fide street food from across the Middle East and Asia.

But at Woohoo, the brains behind the menu is not a person but an AI programme — known as chef Aiman — trained on thousands of recipes and decades of culinary research and molecular gastronomy.

Chef Aiman can also optimise menus and balance flavours, according to the establishment.

The real work of preparing and serving the food, however, remains in human hands, for now.

“AI is going to create better dishes than humans maybe in the future,” said the restaurant’s Turkish co-founder Ahmet Oytun Cakir.

While Woohoo’s menu is mostly comprised of international fusion dishes, some AI creations stand out.

This includes a “dinosaur tartare” meant to recreate the taste of extinct reptiles.

The restaurant did not reveal the dinosaur tartare recipe, which was created using DNA mapping.

Priced at roughly 50 euros ($58), the dish tastes like a combination of raw meats and is served on a pulsating plate to appear as if it were breathing.

“It was a total surprise. It was so delicious,” said customer Efe Urgunlu.

Along with AI-generated holograms and sci-fi animation, the heart of the neon-lit venue features a giant cylindrical computer — presented as the digital mainframe powering the restaurant’s lights and smoke shows.

– ‘I don’t believe in it’ –

Woohoo’s Turkish chef Serhat Karanfil oversees the cooking and the final presentation and admits that he does not always agree with the AI chef’s choices and selections.

“If I taste it, for example, and it is too spicy, I talk to chef Aiman again. After we discuss, we find the right balance,” he said.

Cakir has high hopes that chef Aiman will one day become “the next Gordon Ramsay — but AI”.

Not everyone in Dubai’s vibrant food scene is convinced.

For Michelin-starred chef Mohamad Orfali, “there is no such thing as an AI chef”.

“I don’t believe in it,” the Syrian Dubai-based chef told AFP.

His Orfali Bros restaurant snatched a Michelin star last year, after Dubai became the first Middle Eastern city to join the prestigious guide in 2022.

Cooking requires “nafas”, or soul, Orfali explained, using the Arabic term that describes a cook’s personal flair for food and their ability to conjure up exceptional meals.

“Artificial intelligence lacks feelings and memories; in short, it has no nafas… It can’t imbue it into food.”

– Dubai ideas –

Orfali said he limited the use of AI in his own establishment to administrative tasks like setting the kitchen schedule and providing additional research.

“We use it as a kitchen assistant, but ultimately, it won’t cook,” he said.

Nonetheless, Woohoo has resonated with customers accustomed to the lavish offerings of Dubai, a tech-forward megalopolis with a proclivity for extravagance where AI has its own minister.

“Everyone is supporting these ideas here in Dubai,” said Cakir.

The restaurant has also created a social media buzz, with an Instagram account dedicated to the AI Chef that features chef Aiman’s avatar in videos sharing tips and recipes.

Dio, a customer who didn’t give her last name, said she visited the restaurant after seeing the craze around it.

“It is such a creative concept, so I thought I must experience it myself,” she said.

“The dishes were extraordinary.”

Research suggests autonomous vehicles will be safer and more reliable


By Dr. Tim Sandle
SCIENCE EDITOR

DIGITAL JOURNAL
December 10, 2025


With an ageing population in need of transport, Japan is betting on autonomous cars — © AFP Kazuhiro NOGI

Imagine sliding into the driver’s seat or perhaps not needing one at all and still arriving safely at your destination. This possibility – of self-driving vehicles – could be edging closer. In terms of development, analysis by Omega Law Group, finds that fully autonomous vehicles logged over 25.3 million miles and delivered an astonishing 88 % fewer potential property‑damage claims and 92 % fewer potential bodily‑injury claims compared with traditional human‑driven vehicles.

These numbers reflect real‑world operations across Phoenix, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Austin, and they raise key questions about how law, policy, and insurance must evolve to keep pace.

The main findings are captured in the following data table:
 

Metric	Value	Context / Insight
Property‑damage claims reduction	88%	Waymo vs human driver benchmark (25.3 miles)
Bodily injury claims reduction	92%	Same dataset
Injury‑involving intersection crash reduction	≈ 96% (87‑99% CI)	Rider‑Only Waymo is comparing 56.7 miles to the human benchmark
Manufacturer exemption cap (Part 555)	Up to 2,500 vehicles/year	NHTSA’s limit for non‑compliant AVs
Consumer trust is willing to ride AVs	~13% of U.S. drivers (2025)	Indicates public hesitancy despite safety gains

The 88% reduction in property‑damage claims and 92% reduction in bodily‑injury claims derive from a large‑scale dataset of 25.3 million driver‑only miles recorded by Waymo in partnership with Swiss Re.  In real terms, the dataset included just nine property‑damage claims and two bodily‑injury claims over that distance, compared to an expected 78 and 26, respectively, for human drivers. 

Unlike generic comparisons, the human baseline was calibrated using over 500,000 claims and more than 200 billion miles of exposure, ensuring geographic and operational alignment. 

The study further indicates Waymo outperformed even the latest human‑driven vehicles equipped with advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS): 86% fewer property‑damage claims and 90% fewer bodily‑injury claims.Waymo robotaxis in San Francisco. Photo: Mliu92 Courtesy of Wikipedia Commons. CC BY-SA 3.0

On crash‑type specificity, a separate peer‑reviewed study of 56.7 million Rider‑Only (RO) miles through January 2025 found statistically significant reductions across all crash types when compared to human benchmarks.

In particular, injury‑involving intersection (vehicle‑to‑vehicle) crash events dropped by 96% (87‑99% confidence interval) and airbag‑deployment intersection events declined by 91% (76‑98% CI). Furthermore, vulnerable‑road‑user outcomes also improved: pedestrian injury crashes fell by ≈92%, cyclist crashes by 82%, and motorcyclist crashes by 82% in the Waymo RO metrics.

Importantly, no crash‑type group showed statistically worse performance for the AV fleet, meaning no identified scenario in the dataset where the AV rate exceeded the human benchmark.

The policy metrics layered into the table reveal complementary dimensions: the 2,500-vehicle/year cap in the Part 555 exemption rule signals a cautious regulatory rollout, while the extended 5-day incident-reporting requirement marks a change in oversight structures. These changes align with the operational expansion of AVs while drawing attention to transparency and liability oversight during transition.

Taken together, these data paint a layered story: specifically, in geofenced urban operational domains, AVs are achieving major safety‑performance improvements over human driving. However, the data also highlight that this is still an early‑stage dataset. The scope remains limited in geography and volume compared to the trillions of human‑driven miles annually.

It should be noted that, in terms of current status for autonomous vehicles, rollout remains limited, reserves remain in place, and consumer trust is still at single‑digit percentage levels.

Canada launches billion dollar plan to recruit top researchers


By AFP
December 9, 2025


Canada's Industry Minister Melanie Joly — © GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA/AFP Andrej Ivanov

Canada on Tuesday launched a CAN$1.7 billion ($1.2 billion) program to recruit leading global researchers, part of the effort to poach intellectual talent looking to leave the United States because of President Donald Trump’s policies.

Top Canadian institutions — including the country’s largest hospital network and the University of Toronto — have previously announced multimillion dollar strategies to recruit experts whose work has been impacted by Trump’s broad cuts to scientific research.

Canada’s federal government has now joined this effort, in what it called “one of the largest recruitment programs of its kind globally.”

The plan is not strictly catered to US-based researchers impacted by Trump.

A statement from the ministries of industry and health says the goal is “to attract and support more than 1,000 leading international and expatriate researchers,” including French speakers.

But asked by AFP at a press conference on Tuesday if scientists alienated by the president would be targeted for recruitment, Joly said, “some countries are turning their backs on academic freedom. We won’t do that.”

The recruitment effort would be global, she said, but added: “We know that many people south of the border are raising their hands and are already showing interest. Our universities have already started having these conversations.”

Experts have warned that Trump’s policies could trigger major shifts in the global competition to hire some of the world’s brightest minds, which for decades has been dominated by deep-pocketed US universities backed by robust federal funding.

Trump’s funding cuts have impacted a range of research projects, and studies that involve climate change or diversity, equity and inclusion have been heavily affected.

The European Union also made a push to draw US researchers, announcing an incentives package worth €500 million ($582 million) earlier this year to make the 27-nation bloc “a magnet for researchers.”

Joly said a priority would be to encourage leading Canadian researchers working abroad to return.

“I think that for a long time in Canada, we’ve talked about brain drain,” Joly said, voicing hope the country would now be able to “bring our people back home.”

Microsoft’s $19-billion Canadian AI investment stokes digital sovereignty debate


ByDavid Potter
DIGITAL JOURNAL

December 10, 2025


Prime Minister Mark Carney and Brad Smith, vice chair and president of Microsoft, during a meeting in Ottawa. - Photo courtesy Microsoft

This week, Microsoft announced a $19-billion plan to expand its AI and cloud infrastructure in Canada, including new data centre projects scheduled to come online in 2026, increased compute capacity across the country, and a five-point initiative focused on digital sovereignty.

Government leaders positioned the investment as a significant development for Canada’s digital economy at a time when demand for compute capacity is rising across every sector.

But the announcement has also stoked the debate about how Canada secures and controls the digital systems it depends on.

Canada needs more AI infrastructure to stay competitive, yet much of that capability is supplied by foreign-owned cloud providers that are subject to external legal regimes.

The investment promises faster access to advanced tools, but it also raises questions about jurisdiction, long-term dependency, and who ultimately governs the infrastructure supporting Canada’s public and private sectors.
What the investment delivers

Canada has faced persistent constraints in access to high-performance compute for researchers and smaller firms, prompting the federal government to create the AI Compute Access Fund in 2025 to expand affordable access for researchers and small- and medium-sized enterprises.

New infrastructure is expected to reduce barriers to experimentation, improve access to advanced tools, and strengthen the ability of Canadian firms to build and deploy AI systems.

“Canada is scaling homegrown companies while also working with international partners to build the advanced infrastructure our innovators require,” said Evan Solomon, Canada’s minister of artificial intelligence and digital innovation, in a media release. “Microsoft employs 5,300 Canadians, and their new major commitment shows continued belief in Canada’s talent, economy and AI ecosystem.”

Microsoft’s five-point plan includes commitments around transparency, security, data residency options, responsible AI, and operational practices intended to strengthen trust in its cloud services. These measures are designed to give Canadian organizations more reliable access to the compute capacity required for AI development.
Why concerns are growing

Industry leaders and policy experts argue that the value of new infrastructure depends on who ultimately controls it. Their concerns centre on legal jurisdiction and economic dependency, particularly in sectors where sensitive data and critical systems rely on platforms headquartered outside Canada.

A key point of contention is the difference between where data resides and whose laws apply to it.

Under the United States CLOUD Act, U.S. authorities can compel American companies to provide access to data they control, even when that data is stored in another country. Critics say this raises fundamental questions about whether Canada can exercise full sovereignty over data and systems managed by U.S. cloud providers.

John Ruffolo, a longtime technology investor and founder of Maverix Private Equity, says the sovereignty risk comes down to how foreign laws apply to foreign-owned platforms. His concern centres on the idea that Canada cannot assume that data stored in domestic facilities is fully insulated from foreign legal orders if the provider is headquartered in the United States.

“It is specifically to the existence of the U.S. Cloud Act,” Ruffolo told Digital Journal. “If you read it, it grants the U.S. government an extraterritorial right to override Canadian or any other country for that matter, to access the data hosted by any U.S. based cloud provider no matter which country the data center is located. It does not need to notify the infringed party nor the government whose sovereignty is breached.”

Microsoft has stated that it will challenge inappropriate requests for Canadian customer data.

“We contract with our Canadian customers and one of the things we promise to them is that we will use every diplomatic and legal means at our disposal, including in other countries, including going to court, if that is what it takes to protect the sovereignty of Canada,” Brad Smith, vice chair and president of Microsoft, told CBC’s Power and Politics.

Concerns extend beyond legal jurisdiction to the economic structure that emerges when critical infrastructure and intellectual property are owned abroad.

We’ve covered this issue before, when Microsoft France’s Director of Public and Legal Affairs, Anton Carniaux, was asked if he could guarantee that data from French citizens could not be transmitted to United States authorities without the explicit authorization of French authorities. In a senate hearing in that country this August, Carniaux said he could not offer that guarantee.

Critics warn that foreign-led infrastructure can mirror past patterns in which Canada serves as a market and talent base while long-term economic value accrues elsewhere.

Ruffolo says the concern is not foreign investment itself, but foreign ownership of critical industries. He says that Canada benefits when international capital helps domestic firms grow, but loses long-term economic value when foreign investors end up owning the entire company or sector.

“Would we like foreign capital to help support our Canadian companies? Sure why not,” he said. “Do I want all the capital to account for 100% of the capital of that Canadian company. No.’

Ruffolo adds that the issue becomes more serious in sectors that shape Canada’s future.

“When we talk about sovereign industries in which we give up control over our future, are you ok in accepting some dollars and some jobs to sell out Canada for generations? Are you happy to be a branch plant economy not capturing the wealth from these IP based businesses?”

In a statement issued today, the Council of Canadian Innovators (CCI) underscored the broader strategic implications in a response to the new United States National Security Strategy.

CCI argues that sovereignty, prosperity, and national security now depend on Canada’s ability to “build, scale and retain Canadian companies that generate value at home, strengthen our supply and value chains, and give Canada strategic leverage and sovereign capability,” the statement reads.

“The United States is saying clearly: sovereignty in the 21st century will be defined by who controls the standards, the IP, the AI and data, the cloud, and the dual-use technologies that nations rely on,” said CCI’s incoming CEO Patrick Searle. “America intends to build, export and control those systems at scale. Canada needs to decide whether we will be strategic participants or a vassal state to global tech giants,” says Patrick Searle, incoming CEO of the Council of Canadian Innovators.
The decisions ahead

For many Canadian organizations, access to hyperscale cloud platforms can accelerate product development and support more ambitious digital strategies.

For institutions handling sensitive information or operating in regulated sectors, cloud adoption also requires careful evaluation of jurisdiction, data governance, and exposure to foreign legal environments.

Technical safeguards such as customer-controlled encryption keys and external key management can reduce some risks but cannot alter the legal obligations that accompany foreign ownership.

Microsoft’s investment in Canada is part of a broader global expansion, including a $17.5 billion (USD) initiative in India, a $10 billion (USD) plan for Portugal, and $15 billion (USD) earmarked for the United Arab Emirates. Each project is framed as strengthening local digital infrastructure while supporting Microsoft’s broader AI strategy.

The scale and pace of these investments reflect rising global demand for compute capacity rather than a singular bet on Canada.

Microsoft’s investment highlights the scale of opportunity that greater compute capacity can create. As Evan Solomon noted, expanded infrastructure can help firms move faster, compete more effectively, and bring new ideas to market. Those gains matter in an economy where AI is becoming embedded in everything from business operations to public service delivery.

The debate surrounding the announcement shows that there is more to consider than capacity alone. As cloud systems take on a larger role in managing sensitive data and critical processes, questions about jurisdiction, ownership, and long-term control become part of the conversation.

These issues do not diminish the potential benefits, but they add important context for how Canada evaluates major technology investments.

The decisions ahead will shape how the country balances the advantages of global platforms with the responsibilities of safeguarding economic and digital autonomy.

How Canada navigates that balance will determine whether new infrastructure strengthens both innovation and sovereignty, or leaves unresolved questions that cannot be addressed by investment alone.
Final shotsInvestments of this scale help close Canada’s compute gap, but they also highlight how much of the country’s digital future may depend on foreign owned systems.
Sovereignty debates will move from technical circles to executive tables as AI adoption accelerates and more data shifts into cloud environments.
Canada’s response to this moment will signal whether it intends to shape the rules of its digital economy or adapt to frameworks set elsewhere.
The value of foreign investment will increasingly be measured not only by activity and jobs, but by how much capacity, ownership, and strategic control remain in Canada.

Written ByDavid Potter


David Potter is Editor-at-Large and Head of Client Success & Operations at Digital Journal. He brings years of experience in tech marketing, where he’s honed the ability to make complex digital ideas easy to understand and actionable. At Digital Journal, David combines his interest in innovation and storytelling with a focus on building strong client relationships and ensuring smooth operations behind the scenes. David is a member of Digital Journal's Insight Forum.

OpenAI beefs up GPT models in AI race with Google


By AFP
December 12, 2025

A ChatGPT adult mode that OpenAI is aiming to make available early next year is expected to allow for erotic conversations between users and the chatbot - Copyright AFP VALERIE MACON

OpenAI released its latest artificial intelligence models on Thursday, shrugging off worries about how it will cash in on massive spending in its technology race with Google.

The San Francisco-based AI superstar touted GPT-5.2 Pro and GPT-5.2 Thinking as its best models yet for handling math or science work.

“Strong mathematical reasoning is a foundation for reliability in scientific and technical work,” OpenAI said in a blog post.

“These capabilities are also closely tied to progress toward general intelligence.”

Artificial general intelligence has become a holy grail of sorts in the tech world, seen as a threshold where machines think the way people do or even better.

The release comes on the heels of OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman urging his team to strive to keep up with Google, the search engine juggernaut that has been relentlessly innovating in AI.

While Google can tap into its massive online ad revenue to invest in AI, OpenAI has been committing tens of billions of dollars to computing infrastructure while having yet to turn a profit.

“We are confident we can continue to drive the revenue growth to meet” the investments in computing power, Altman said Thursday in a CNBC interview.

Without the infrastructure investments, “of course, we can’t drive the revenue growth, but we see way more reasons to be optimistic than reasons to be pessimistic.”

OpenAI chief of applications Fidji Simo told reporters during a briefing about the new models that she expects a ChatGPT “adult mode” to debut early next year, noting that the company wants to improve detection of user age before making it available.

Altman earlier this year announced plans to ease restrictions to allow adult users to engage in erotic conversations with ChatGPT.

OpenAI also faces a series of lawsuits from families accusing the startup of allowing teenagers to have dangerous interactions with its AI chatbots that in some cases led to suicide.

Simo confirmed that a “red alert” about Google sprinting ahead had been issued at OpenAI, but refuted the notion it has sped up the release of new GPT models.

Google last month debuted its latest Gemini AI model, capping a dramatic turnaround since it was caught off guard by ChatGPT’s launch three years ago and mocked for early blunders in its chase of OpenAI.

Trump issues ominous warning NYT committed 'treasonous' acts for reporting on his health

Robert Davis
December 9, 2025 

RAW ST0RY

President Donald Trump speaks during a cabinet meeting at the White House in Washington, D.C. on Dec. 2, 2025. REUTERS/Brian Snyder

President Donald Trump attacked The New York Times in a new Truth Social post on Tuesday night, suggesting the paper's reporting on his health may be "seditious" and that reporters for the outlet may have committed treason.

Trump issued the screed after he delivered a speech in Monroe County, Pennsylvania, that was supposed to focus on affordability, but meandered through old talking points about immigration and the wonderful job his cabinet secretaries are doing.

In the post, Trump claimed he is the hardest-working president in history and that his "results are among the best."

"Despite all of this, the time and work involved, The New York Times, and some others, like to pretend that I am 'slowing up,' am maybe not as sharp as I once was, or am in poor physical health, knowing that it is not true, and knowing that I work very hard, probably harder than I have ever worked before," Trump wrote in the post. "I will know when I am 'slowing up,' but it’s not now!"

"After all of the work I have done with Medical Exams, Cognitive Exams, and everything else, I actually believe it’s seditious, perhaps even treasonous, for The New York Times, and others, to consistently do FAKE reports in order to libel and demean 'THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,'" he added. "They are true Enemies of the People, and we should do something about it. They have inaccurately reported on all of my Election Results and, in fact, were forced to apologize on much of what they wrote."

"The best thing that could happen to this Country would be if The New York Times would cease publication because they are a horrible, biased, and untruthful 'source' of information," he continued.

Trump's health has been called into question recently after the president admitted to taking a cognitive test and getting an MRI. Some psychological experts suggested that Trump may be experiencing early signs of dementia.

Other medical experts have pointed to the bandage on his hand and the swelling of his ankles as evidence of his physical decline.

Trump's eugenic horror is about to get the green light — and that's just the beginning

Jordan Liz

Common Dreams
December 9, 2025 


Official White House photo by Andrea Hanks


The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a lawsuit regarding the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order to restrict the right to birthright citizenship. If the Supreme Court rules in Trump’s favor, then children born in the US would be denied citizenship if their parents are undocumented or residing in the country under temporary legal status.

Let’s not mince words here: Trump’s executive order is cruel and xenophobic. Children born of undocumented immigrants or visa holders have committed no crimes. They are not responsible for the circumstances of their birth. There is also no legitimate legal basis. The 14th Amendment is clear:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

None of these facts matter to Trump. His administration would readily tear families apart and see children born into a second-class status simply because their births were not to his liking.

This is only the beginning of the cruelty that his birthright ban would unleash. If the Supreme Court rules in his favor, it would pave the way for any president (or wannabe monarch) to redefine citizenship at their discretion. After all, if simply being born in the US is not enough to guarantee citizenship, then what is? Where do we draw the line?

Well, if you’re Trump, then it’s the color line. For the Trump administration, not all babies are created equal. Restricting birthright citizenship is their way of preventing “hundreds of thousands of unqualified people” from acquiring the “privilege of American citizenship.” It is about dissuading the wrong kinds of people from having the wrong kinds of babies.

Sound far-fetched? Well, consider this: Trump, the self-proclaimed “fertilization president” (gross!), has sought to expand access to in vitro fertilization (IVF). As Trump puts it, we want “beautiful babies in this country, we want you to have your beautiful, beautiful, perfect baby. We want those babies, and we need them.”

Mehmet Oz, the administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, champions the future of “Trump babies.” Vice President JD Vance literally says he wants “more babies in the United States of America.” The Trump White House insists that they need “growing numbers of strong, traditional families that raise healthy children.”

But, if that’s true, then what is the purpose of Trump’s executive order? If they want more babies to be born in this country, then why push to deny babies their legitimate birthright? It’s because Trump is pro-baby so long as it’s the right kind of baby.

Beautiful, healthy, strong and perfect — those are the babies Trump wants. And those are the babies that, in his view, migrants do not have.

Trump has explicitly said that migrants have “bad genes” that cause them to commit crimes. That they are “not humans, they’re animals.” He has said that migrants from South America, Africa, and Asia are “poisoning the blood of our country” — a view that parallels Hitler’s rhetoric about “blood poisoning” and race mixing. Trump calls Somalis “garbage” and says that “I don’t want them in our country, I’ll be honest with you … their country is no good for a reason.”

He believes this about migrants, and he believes it extends to their children. This pseudoscientific eugenic drivel is at the core of his executive order.

That is the real danger of Trump’s birthright ban. As it stands, birthright citizenship provides a clear-cut metric. Aside from two niche exceptions, if you were born here, you are from here. There’s no loophole to exploit. There’s no definition to reevaluate and abuse. There’s no place for prejudice, discrimination, or bigoted understandings of what it means to be an American. There’s no ambiguity regarding who belongs. The simplicity of birthright is precisely its strength.

It’s also precisely why the Trump administration wants to undo it. Birthright citizenship is a strong barrier against the administration’s most fascist impulses to recreate “the meaning and value of American citizenship.” As he said on the campaign trail, “If I win, the American people will be the rulers of this country again. The United States is now an occupied country.” His current administration similarly claims that Europe faces “civilizational erasure” if it does not restrict migration and preserve its “Western identity.”

If Trump’s mission is, as he explicitly says, to liberate the US and protect Western values threatened by migration, then he won’t stop with the children of undocumented immigrants. Trump cannot be allowed to define who is a citizen. For the good of the nation and for future generations, we cannot let him succeed.

Jordan Liz is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at San José State University. He specializes in issues of race, immigration and the politics of belonging.