China's lead in orbital data centres risks leaving Europe behind

Copyright Zelch Csaba/Pexels

By Indrabati Lahiri

Published on 13/08/2026 - EURONEWS

China is racing ahead on orbital data centres while Europe still debates the concept, a new policy brief warns, and the gap is starting to widen.

China's push into orbital data centres risks leaving Europe behind, according to a new policy brief from the European Space Policy Institute (ESPI).

Orbital data centres are increasingly seen as key strategic assets for processing the vast amounts of data generated by AI and satellite systems.

The brief, titled "Constellating Compute: China's Domestic Policy Towards Orbital Data Centre Leadership," warns that if the technological gap widens significantly, Europe risks having to compute its own space data through third-party actors and losing access to orbital information.

European efforts are under way but remain limited in scale.

The EU-funded research project ASCEND, backed under Horizon Europe since 2023, found that orbital data centres could strengthen European digital sovereignty.

The European Space Agency (ESA) has also worked with UK firm Open Cosmos on the Φ-sat-2 satellite, which carries AI capabilities for Earth observation.

French start-up ALATYR has also announced plans to manufacture robotically assembled orbital data centres. Even so, compared with developments in China and the US, the gap in Europe is starting to widen.

Related

• AI cyber threat is 'months, not years' away, Western intelligence agencies warn
• Which countries have the best cyber security? Albania tops the global list

Why is China ahead in the orbital data centre race?

China has treated space-based computing as a national strategic priority, giving rise to a wave of state-backed initiatives and policies to support the goal.

Central to this effort is the state-owned China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC), which first formalised orbital data centres in a new strategy, alongside the Beijing Municipal Government and the Zhongguancun Science Park.

China has combined top-down policy drafting, private and state-owned industry adaptation, municipal and provincial government incentives, and support for non-state actors and working groups, according to the brief.

High-profile prototype constellations have driven early implementation. The Three-Body Constellation, launched by start-up ADAspace in May 2025, marked the first operational example of space-based computing.

In a joint laboratory with Shanghai Jiao Tong University, ADAspace has since used the constellation's in-orbit computing power to control a robot on the ground, one of several technical trials the company has run since the satellites reached orbit.

Other companies have followed. Beijing Orbital Twilight Technology Co., Ltd. (Orbital Chenguang) announced an undisclosed equity round alongside €7.4bn worth of debt financing in April 2026.

Nayuta Space unveiled its ALAYA supercompute constellation, planned to deploy 12,500 computing satellites. Shanghai Xingshu Tiansuan Space Technology Co. unveiled its Xingshu Plan at the World AI Conference in July 2026, envisioned to grow to 1,000 satellites.

China Mobile, Zhejiang Lab, Bailing Aerospace, Zhongke Tiansuan Technology and Interstellar Glory Space-Based Computing Technology (iSpace) have also announced their own constellations.

Beijing's municipal government has moved to incubate the sector further, issuing a call for orbital data centre project proposals in June 2026 alongside the Zhongguancun Science Park, and launching a space computing innovation centre bringing together rival companies including GalaxySpace and Landspace under a company-plus-alliance model.

According to state broadcaster CGTN, the centre's priority areas include space-based computing chip design, high-performance computing payloads and integrated space-ground cloud computing technologies.

CASC has also outlined a five-year plan for the sector, agreed with the Chinese Society of Astronautics in January 2026 under the guidance of state bodies including the China National Space Administration.

According to CGTN's reporting on the plan, it includes building gigawatt-level space digital infrastructure combining cloud, edge and terminal technologies, though the underlying policy documents do not appear to have been formally published, and Euronews could not independently verify the claims.

The brief recommends that the EU establish coordinated political guidance, investment support and a regulatory framework for orbital data centre development, that a flagship initiative be included in the Horizon Europe Moonshot Projects under the 2028-2034 Multiannual Financial Framework, and that European space actors convene working groups with international counterparts on standards and data sovereignty.

What Did Heidegger Mean By ‘Only A God Can Save Us’? – OpEd



August 14, 2026
By Bert Olivier

Key Takeaways

Heidegger’s 1966 remark “Only a god can save us” refers to the need for a fundamental shift beyond the dominant framework of modern “technicity,” which he saw as a planetary force that uproots humans from the earth and reduces all relationships to technical functioning, rather than a mere collection of tools under human control.

The essay argues that this diagnosis remains valid and has intensified: technology’s essence has evolved from Heidegger’s “enframing” (Gestell) into a more pervasive, saturating form of transhuman agency, especially through AI systems that increasingly shape social reality.

Philosophy and ordinary human action cannot directly master or reverse this condition; at best they can prepare a readiness for a new, transformative “god” or epochal shift, making Heidegger’s warning more relevant than ever in the current age of digital and AI saturation.

When Martin Heidegger gave an interview to the German news magazine, Der Spiegel (The Mirror) in 1966, on condition that it would only be published after his death, no one could anticipate the sentence he uttered in the course of this event, which would become the title by which the interview has been known, namely, ‘Only a god can save us.’

Save us from what? And why ‘a god’ instead of ‘God?’ The answers to these questions would shock some readers and puzzle others. In the case of the first question, it would be a shock of confirmation for some, because they never fully trusted this ‘thing,’ and their suspicions seemed to be confirmed by Heidegger’s remark in the context of the interview. On the part of others it elicited puzzlement, because they had already virtually deified this ‘thing.’ What was it, then? In a word, technology.

The second question is more complex, given the emergence of technology as a world-shaping power in the early 20th century – recall the colossal world ExhibitionUniverselle (of technology and engineering) in Paris in 1889, to commemorate the centenary of the French Revolution, which adumbrated the veritable apotheosis of technology to come, and where all the wondrous new inventions of the time were celebrated.

By the time Heidegger wrote his famous essay, ‘The question concerning technology’ around 1949 (published in 1954; English translation in Heidegger, M. The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, Harper Torchbooks, 1977, pp. 3-35), it was more than three decades after the end of World War I, and four years after the more advanced military technology that was used in World War II.

Apart from that, technologies such as trains, motor cars, aeroplanes, telephones, and hydroelectric power were already familiar to people, and it did not take a genius to grasp that the post-industrial world, with its roots in the 18th century, had developed into one where new inventions were transforming society apace. In other words, technology was, visibly and audially, a force that was bringing about a metamorphosis on a grand scale. Needless to say, today we are witnessing another technological metamorphosis, arguably even more far-reaching than the one that Heidegger perceived with concern.

At the same time, religious faith had taken a knock in the previous two centuries; in the course of the 18th century, historically known as the Enlightenment or ‘Age of Reason,’ the latter faculty had started overshadowing faith, and the 19th century, which witnessed the further growth of reason, also saw the emergence of Darwinand Wallace’s theory of evolution, which dealt faith a more severe blow than Newtonian mechanics. Hence, with mechanical technology raising its head, it could no longer be taken for granted that the belief in the God of Christendom would remain steadfast.


Back to the question, then. Heidegger was well aware of this historical backdrop to his own work, and that of his contemporaries, and knew that there could be other world-transforming powers comparable to technology in the future. Therefore, ‘a god’ who could potentially ‘save us’ from technology is probably a reference to such an as-yet unknown phenomenon. One should note, in this regard, that the German for ‘Only a god can save us’ is ‘Nur noch ein Gott kann uns retten,’ and if he had omitted the indefinite article, ‘ein,’ it would have made all the difference, because then ‘Gott’ (which, as noun, is capitalised in German) would have meant ‘God, instead of ‘a god.’

To the vast majority of Heidegger’s contemporaries, including his interviewers (as will become apparent below), with the exception of a mere handful, the notion that we need to be rescued from technology must have seemed insane. Today this attitude is probably exacerbated to the nth degree. What, do without our beloved cellphones? (Appropriately named as such, I would think: these cellular devices, the ‘smart’ ones more than their quaint predecessors, are indeed ‘cells’ in which contemporary peoples’ souls are imprisoned.) Not to mention our chatbot chum(s) – whichever one among the growing number it might be; they have become indispensable ‘conversation partners,’ after all. To individuals who think along this avenue, I would recommend Sherry Turkle’s Alone Together (2011) as essential reading in the interest of their sanity.

But back to Heidegger’s Der Spiegel interview, an internet-accessible version of which I have linked here – the text of the William Richardson translation (which first appeared in Heidegger: The Man and the Thinker, edited by Thomas Sheehan and published by Transaction in 1981; the page numbers refer to this publication). I have decided to write about it because it remains as relevant today as when it was finally published in 1976, a few days after Heidegger’s death.


From the beginning of the interview, one notices that the interviewers are primarily interested in the events surrounding Heidegger’s appointment as Rector of Freiburg University in the early 1930s, when the Nazis were going out of their way to infiltrate universities and to make it clear – through notices being posted on university campuses, among other things – that Jews were not welcome there. Heidegger makes it explicit that he was never interested in becoming Rector, but that he was pressurised by colleagues to accept the nomination because, like his predecessor – who refused to have such notices being put up on campus, and was forced to resign – he was also against it. His mentor – the founder of phenomenology, Edmund Husserl – was a Jew, and Heidegger’s famous book, Being and Time (1927), was dedicated to Husserl.

As the to-and-fro of question and answer continues, the interviewers home in on what they really want to uncover; namely, the truth about Heidegger’s alleged complicity with the Nazis, and they acknowledge the new information they are receiving from him. One of the things that Heidegger tells them in the context of his inaugural rectoral address is that, during the ten months of his rectorship, he only once articulated a positive appraisal of the role of Hitler in relation to Germany, stressing that it was not in a prominent journal or other such forum, but in a student newspaper.


Furthermore, he states that it was done for practical reasons pertaining to his relationship with the students at Freiburg University. It seems clear, from Heidegger’s elaboration on his short-lived involvement with German politics, that despite this concession to student sentiments, he was not a supporter of the Nazi movement. Yet, as William J. Richardson, the original translator of the Der Spiegelinterview, notes on the first page:


Although Heidegger was one of the seminal thinkers of the twentieth century, few such men of his time were criticized more severely or resented more bitterly than he. Much of this criticism arose because of an association with the Nazis while Rector of the University of Freiburg, 1933-34, one that publicly he neither repudiated, justified, nor explained. In 1966 the editors of the German news weekly, Der Spiegel, requested of Heidegger an interview to discuss these issues. In granting the interview, which took place on September 23, 1966, Heidegger insisted that it remain unpublished during his lifetime. (It appeared in Der Spiegel on May 31, 1976, five days after his death.) Its substance goes far beyond the personal issues involved and rephrases his entire philosophical experience. He saw this as an opportunity to meditate upon the meaning of Being, particularly under the guise that most profoundly characterizes contemporary culture— labeled by him ‘Technicity’ (die Technik). In these terms the interview takes on the quality of a last will and testament.

Der Spiegel continues pressing Heidegger on his possible Nazi ties in the 1930s, questioning his intentions with his rectoral address titled, ‘The self-assertion of the German university.’ His answers highlight an important tension between the ‘political science’ demanded by the Nazis and its affiliated organisation, the National Socialist Student Organisation, on the one hand, and his own understanding of ‘science’ (including political science) as articulated in his address. For the former, it simply meant political ‘science’ insofar as it had ‘practical utility for the people’ (p. 48), while Heidegger’s rectoral discourse expressed direct opposition to such a misunderstanding of the true meaning of ‘science.’


When his interviewers ask him whether this meant that he ‘could bring about the restitution of the University in conjunction with the National Socialists,’ he corrects them by stating: ‘That is the wrong way to put it. Not “in conjunction with the National Socialists,” but the University ought to renew itself through a reflection all its own and thereby gain a firm position against the danger of the politicizing of science’ (p. 49) – something today’s university authorities might learn from, I daresay. The next exchange must be quoted in full, because of its importance regarding the topic of this essay (p. 49):


Spiegel: And for that reason you proclaimed in your rectoral discourse these three supporting columns: ‘service by labor,’ ‘service under arms,’ ‘service through knowledge.’ Accordingly, ‘service through knowledge,’ or so you thought anyway, was to be raised to a position equal [to the others] that the National Socialists had not conceded to it? [sic]

Heidegger: It is not a matter of ‘supporting columns.’ If you read [the text] carefully, service through knowledge stands in third place numerically, to be sure, but in terms of its meaning it is placed first. The task remains to consider how labor and the bearing of arms, like every human activity, are grounded in knowledge and illumined by it.

Questions concerning Heidegger’s position on book burnings organised by the Hitler Youth – which he forbade as Rector – and his relations with Jewish students (which were cordial) also crop up, together with that of his position on books by Jewish authors, including those by Husserl, his mentor. On all of these Heidegger’s responses are adequate to exculpate him, particularly the calumnious claim that as Rector, he forbade Husserl access to the University‘s libraries. After ten months as Rector of the University, Heidegger resigned, when he was summoned by the Minister (of Education, presumably), who demanded that he replace two deans, recently appointed by him, with others who are acceptable to the Party, and he refused.

In response to questions by Der Spiegel’s interviewers, it becomes apparent that, subsequent to his resignation as Rector, Heidegger was under constant surveillance by the Party, including by one of his doctoral students (who played open cards with him in the end), and that there were several modes of discrimination against him, such as his publications not being reviewed in Germany, and not being included in the German delegation to important conferences. Furthermore, the new rector declared Heidegger to be among the faculty members who were ‘completely expendable,’ and when he commenced teaching a course which was a continuation of the theme of his previous Nietzsche lectures, namely, his ‘confrontation with National Socialism,’ he was promptly conscripted in the Civil Defense Forces, thus becoming the oldest member of the teaching staff at the University to be called up for such service.

The issue of technology is introduced when his interviewers draw Heidegger’s attention to a sentence in his book, Introduction to Metaphysics (based on a course he gave in 1935), reminding him that (p. 55):



…you said: ‘What today’— this was, therefore, 1935— ‘is bandied about as the philosophy of National Socialism but has absolutely nothing to do with the inner truth and greatness of this movement (namely, with the encounter between technicity on the planetary level and modern man) casts its net in these troubled waters of “values” and “totalities”…’

To the question, whether the words in parenthesis were already there in his 1935 manuscript, or were added later, Heidegger replies that it was indeed in his original manuscript and was in accordance with his idea of ‘technicity’ at the time, but that it was not yet his later conception ‘of the essence of technicity as “pos-ure” (Ge-Stell).’ He admits that this ‘form of planetary technicity’ is encountered in communist countries as well as in America. Moreover, he argues (p. 55),


…the planet-wide movement of modern technicity is a power whose magnitude in determining [our] history can hardly be overestimated. For me today it is a decisive question as to how any political system— and which one— can be adapted to an epoch of technicity. I know of no answer to this question. I am not convinced that it is democracy.

This is one of the most important insights on Heidegger’s part in the course of this interview, and determines the direction taken by everything that comes afterwards. Der Spiegel takes issue with his reference to democracy, objecting that it is a ‘collective term’ that may be understood in many diverse ways, and observes that Heidegger has called it, as well as the continuing Christian Weltanschauung and the human rights ‘system’ ‘half-way measures’ as far as technicity is concerned. Heidegger agrees that this is how he would characterise these things, because they show no serious ‘confrontation’ with technicity, because they are all undergirded by ‘the conception that technicity in its essence is something that man holds within his own hands.’

Heidegger is uncompromising. He insists that this commonly held belief is not possible. Instead, he says, ‘Technicity in its essence is something that man does not master by his own power’ (p. 56). From the exchange that follows this remark it is increasingly clear that Der Spiegel’s representatives, however intelligent and informed they might be, do not understand Heidegger’s thinking. For instance, citing the story of The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, they agree that humans are never complete masters of their own tools (already a fundamental misunderstanding of Heidegger’s position, which explicitly warns against confusing modern technology – or its essence, at least – with a set of tools), but suggest that it may be too ‘pessimistic’ to claim that humans are ‘…not gaining mastery over this surely much greater tool [that is] modern technicity…’ (p. 56). The German thinker emphasises that positions like pessimism and optimism do not go far enough, and when his interlocutors wonder why humanity should be ‘overwhelmed by technicity,’ he patiently points out that this is not what he is arguing, but merely that modern people ‘have not yet found a way to respond to the essence of technicity.’


From the interviewers’ reaction it is clear that they do not have an inkling of what he meant by this, for which one cannot really blame them, because for decades people have been conditioned to regarding technology – and not only technical devices – as a set of ‘tools.’ Their response to Heidegger actually confirms their own naivety (p. 56):


But someone might object very naively: what must be mastered in this case? Everything is functioning. More and more electric power companies are being built. Production is up. In highly technologized parts of the earth, people are well cared for. We are living in a state of prosperity. What really is lacking to us?

Heidegger’s answer is a perfect summary of his position, which can only be understood by someone who is prepared to ‘bracket’ (to use a phenomenological term) their own, understandable, everyday biases; that is, to set them aside for the moment (p.56):


Everything is functioning. That is precisely what is awesome, that everything functions, that the functioning propels everything more and more toward further functioning, and that technicity increasingly dislodges man and uproots him from the earth. I don’t know if you were shocked, but [certainly] I was shocked when a short time ago I saw the pictures of the earth taken from the moon. We do not need atomic bombs at all [to uproot us] —the uprooting of man is already here. All our relationships have become merely technical ones. It is no longer upon an earth that man lives today. Recently I had a long…dialogue in Provence with Réné Char—a [French] poet and resistance fighter, as you know. In Provence now, launch pads are being built and the countryside laid waste in unimaginable fashion. This poet, who certainly is open to no suspicion of sentimentality or of glorifying the idyllic, said to me that the uprooting of man that is now taking place is the end [of everything human], unless thinking and poetizing once again regain [their] nonviolent power.

This paves the way for Heidegger’s ‘Only a god can save us’ remark. But what does it all mean? Consider that, as he points out elsewhere in the context of worldviews, every distinctive epoch is marked by a dominant, fundamental, all-encompassing assumption. This is what these days, following Thomas Kuhn’s use of the term in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), is called a paradigm, and what Foucault termed an epistemé, underpinning identifiable periods in his 1966 book, The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. For instance, the Christian Middle Ages were governed by the virtually unquestioned assumption that God created the world, and all important questions or problems were addressed within this frame of reference, such as ‘What is the relationship between humans and the Creator?’ or ‘What should the relationship between Church and State be?’ Or ‘What is more fundamental – faith or reason?’

Considering Heidegger’s work on technology, by the mid-20th century, such a framework has definitively been replaced by a technocentric one, which means – as his remark, above demonstrates – that all important questions are approached without questioning the primacy of technology, or what he calls ‘technicity.’ Hence the interviewers’ emphasis on things ‘functioning’ well. As long as everything is ‘functioning,’ all is well with the world, apparently. But Heidegger questions this as only a true philosopher can, for the simple reason that there are other ways of ‘framing’ the world, such as art and religion, for example, or by who knows what could emerge in the future as a new epistemé, as Foucault might say.


His interlocutors observe that they would rather be ‘there,’ in that age (of technicity) – by implication, than in a world represented by Heidegger and Char – and that, in fact, they do not think that humans need to be confined to the earth, but could possibly ‘reach out from this earth toward other planets’ (p. 57). This goes against everything that Heidegger believes, as he proceeds to argue, when he says that according to his ‘orientation,’ everything worthwhile has arisen only from humans having a home and being ‘rooted’ in traditions on the earth. Clearly at loggerheads with Heidegger on this issue, Der Spiegel asks whether, in the face of the ‘absolutely technical state’ that Heidegger perceives as having arisen, an individual or group, or philosophy, insofar as the latter may ‘guide’ people, could still ‘influence’ this state of affairs ‘to a determined action.’

Needless to say, what this question shows is the understandable – and today still widespread – belief that all it takes for people to change a course of events is to intervene through action of some sort (including technical intervention), which is, as far as Heidegger is concerned, a misguided notion, as his uncannily enigmatic answer reveals (p. 57):


If I may answer briefly, and perhaps clumsily, but after long reflection: philosophy will be unable to effect any immediate change in the current state of the world. This is true not only of philosophy but of all purely human reflection and endeavor. Only a god can save us [My italics; B.O.]. The only possibility available to us is that by thinking and poetizing we prepare a readiness for the appearance of a god, or for the absence of a god in [our] decline, insofar as in view of the absent god we are in a state of decline.

This is the crux of the matter which, not surprisingly, gives rise to great puzzlement on the part of his interlocutors, who inquire whether we can bring this ‘god forth by our thinking.’ His answer, instead of clarifying the matter, is even more perplexing – ‘We can not bring him forth by our thinking. At best we can awaken a readiness to wait [for him].’ He continues (p. 57-58):


It is not through man that the world can be what it is and how it is— but also not without man. In my view, this goes together with the fact that what I call ‘Being’ (that long traditional, highly ambiguous, now worn-out word) has need of man in order that its revelation, its appearance as truth, and its [various] forms may come to pass. The essence of technicity I see in what I call ‘pos-ure’ (Ge-Stell) [Usually translated as ‘Enframing’; B.O.], an often ridiculed and perhaps awkward expression. To say that pos-ure holds sway means that man is posed, enjoined and challenged by a power that becomes manifest in the essence of technicity— a power that man himself does not control. Thought asks no more than this: that it help us achieve this insight. Philosophy is at an end.

This is highly perplexing, but not incomprehensible. Behind Heidegger’s remark stands his grasp of the hubris committed by humankind, to believe that through the essence of technology everything can become what he calls a ‘standing-reserve’ (Bestand) which can be commanded by humans through technology, to do virtually anything, from constructive to destructive, and the apogee of which may be discerned in the WEF’s claim, that they have become like ‘gods’ – although certainly not the liberating kind that Heidegger alludes to in the interview.


After all, even if it seems as if humans ‘control’ this enframing force, this is not at all the case. There is always what the French thinker, Jean Baudrillard (see for example Baudrillard, J. The Intelligence of Evil, or the Lucidity Pact, Oxford: Berg 2005, p. 185-189), calls ‘blowback,’ which takes many forms to restore ‘duality’ – which any totalising strategy (including what Heidegger calls Gestell) attempts to replace with ‘oneness’ or total identity) – such as the radiation that lingers long after the explosion of a nuclear device or catastrophe, like Hiroshima and Chernobyl. Or the techno-industrial production of plastic, initially regarded as a wonder material, given its many uses, but which has today become a nature-destroying pollutant.

Rather than elaborating further on the rest of the Der Spiegel interview – which covers the terrain already uncovered above, from various other angles – I shall ask the question, whether Heidegger’s ‘diagnosis’ of the state of the world in terms of technicity is still valid today, and if not, what has changed. In brief, I believe that it is still valid, but that, since the last decade of the 20th century, the hold of technicity has tightened on the world, and moreover, that it has transmogrified itself according to the inner ontological logic of technicity, which no longer assumes the form of ‘pos-ure’ (Enframing) or Gestell, but of something by which such essential enframing has been exacerbated – as may be gathered by the allusion to the WEF’s hubristic pronouncement, above).

The essence of technicity today has ‘morphed’ – like the eponymous T-1000 terminator in Cameron’s second Terminator film – into something that surpasses a frame or ‘posure’ of sorts, because it no longer merely frames; it pervades and saturates everything on the planet, somewhat like the digitalisation of everything in the film, Transcendence, which becomes so pervasive that leaves on trees mutate into entities no longer evincing biological life, but resembling lifeless, quasi-metallic appendages.

I therefore propose to call this the Age of Pervasive Transhuman Agency (PTA), or alternatively, Transhuman Agentic Saturation (TAS), Optimal Digital Transformation(ODT), or Transformative Digital Protocol (TDP). What these amount to will be clarified in a future post; suffice to say that the idea of saturation is fundamental to it, but also that of the transhuman, and importantly, of agency, because technicity, in the guise of Artificial Intelligence (AI), has reached the stage of development where it is no longer confined to the internet without the ability to effect changes in social reality; it can do so, even if is via mediating, non-AI agents – sometimes to their own detriment. This means that Heidegger’s cryptic saying, ‘Only a god can save us,’ has become more relevant than ever. What this ‘god’ could mean, or whether it is at all meaningful to speculate about it, still has to be addressed.

This article was published by Browstone Institute

About Bert Olivier

Bert Olivier works at the Department of Philosophy, University of the Free State. Bert does research in Psychoanalysis, poststructuralism, ecological philosophy and the philosophy of technology, Literature, cinema, architecture and Aesthetics. His current project is 'Understanding the subject in relation to the hegemony of neoliberalism.'
View all posts by Bert Olivier →

Why Artificial Intelligence Is More Than Just Hype – Analysis



August 14, 2026
By Dr. Majid Rafizadeh

Key Takeaways

Unlike earlier cycles of exaggerated expectations followed by disappointment, current AI systems are already commercially deployable and delivering measurable productivity gains across manufacturing, logistics, healthcare, customer service and other sectors.

Macroeconomic estimates project significant long-term impact, including higher global GDP growth, cumulative contributions measured in the trillions of dollars, and rapid commercial expansion evidenced by strong revenue growth at major AI firms and national industries.
Gains will be uneven and depend on infrastructure, skills and policy readiness; countries such as Saudi Arabia are actively positioning AI as a tool for economic diversification under national strategies, reinforcing the case for treating AI as a durable growth engine rather than temporary hype.

One recurring question that policymakers, business leaders and investors face whenever a powerful new technology emerges is whether it will deliver sustained increases in productivity and output or if enthusiasm will fade once practical limits become clear. Today, artificial intelligence sits at the center of this debate.

Despite earlier cycles of optimism only leading to disappointment, the technology has advanced rapidly in recent years. The latest developments and concrete evidence indicate that AI is going to become a major driver of long-term economic growth, with its impact likely to accelerate in the years ahead.

Technological revolutions have historically generated both exaggerated hopes and underestimations of their lasting effects. For example, the early commercial internet produced a speculative bubble that collapsed around the turn of the millennium, yet the underlying infrastructure later supported durable gains in commerce, communication and productivity.


Other similar patterns exist, such as those relating to the diffusion of electricity and the internal combustion engine. AI has followed a comparable path. Periods of heightened expectation in earlier decades gave way to “AI winters,” when capabilities lagged behind promises.

But the present phase differs because foundational advances have already produced systems that are commercially deployable, rather than being confined to research laboratories.

Secondly, evidence of the industry’s transformation is widespread, covering fields such as manufacturing, logistics and supply-chain operations, while healthcare applications include machine-learning assistance in medical imaging analysis and accelerated drug discovery and clinical trial design.

Another aspect is AI’s customer service applications, which provide clear micro-level results. For example, in a carefully studied rollout at a Fortune 500 firm, access to a generative AI conversational assistant raised the number of issues resolved per hour by about 15 percent on average among more than 5,000 agents, with the largest gains accruing to less experienced workers.


Research looking at European firms found that AI adoption raises labor productivity by about 4 percent in the short run, driven primarily by capital deepening rather than immediate job displacement, while complementary investments in software, data and workforce training increase the benefits.

Macroeconomic assessments and reports reinforce these findings. For instance, the International Monetary Fund has estimated that AI could raise average annual global gross domestic product growth by 0.5 percentage points between 2025 and 2030. World Trade Organization analysis projects that, by 2040, global GDP could be up to 13 percent higher and the value of trade nearly 40 percent higher, relative to a baseline without AI-driven advances. These effects arise from lower trade costs and stronger productivity growth in sectors integrated into international commerce.

In addition, longer-horizon estimates associated with PwC place AI’s cumulative contribution to the global economy by 2030 in the vicinity of $15 trillion, reflecting both productivity improvements and demand-side effects from better products and personalized services.

But it is vital to note that gains are likely to be uneven. Advanced economies with strong digital infrastructure, skills and institutional readiness will have larger near-term benefits.

Further evidence of progress is corporate performance, which provides tangible illustrations of commercialization at scale. For example, Nvidia, the leading supplier of AI accelerators, reported record revenue of $215.9 billion for the fiscal year ending in January, a 65 percent increase from the prior year. This growth reflects intense demand for training and inference infrastructure.

Meanwhile, Microsoft’s AI business has reached an annualized revenue run rate of $37 billion and OpenAI generated more than $20 billion in revenue in 2025.


In China, the AI industry exceeded 1.2 trillion yuan ($176 billion) in 2025, growing about 40 percent year-on-year, with more than 6,000 AI companies and expanding applications in manufacturing and services.

These figures demonstrate that AI is already generating substantial commercial value and is not confined to experimental research.

The Middle East, and Saudi Arabia in particular, illustrates how determined national strategies can convert AI into a tool of economic diversification and growth. PwC estimates that AI could contribute about $320 billion to the Middle East economy by 2030. Saudi Arabia is projected to capture the largest absolute share — about $135 billion or some 12 percent of GDP — while the UAE is expected to see a relative impact approaching 14 percent of GDP.

Under Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 and its National Strategy for Data and Artificial Intelligence, overseen by the Saudi Data and AI Authority, the Kingdom aims to rank among the top 15 AI nations by 2030. The Public Investment Fund has established Humain as a dedicated AI vehicle, pursuing large-scale data center capacity, Arabic-language foundation models and partnerships with leading technology firms including Nvidia and AMD.

In conclusion, I believe the evidence clearly shows that AI has progressed from a speculative narrative and is now operating systems that are already enhancing productivity, reshaping industries and generating commercial returns that are measured in the tens and hundreds of billions of dollars. Institutional forecasts of contributions to global GDP and the rapid growth of national AI industries in places as diverse as China and Saudi Arabia are also real and expanding. Therefore, for policymakers, business leaders and investors, the evidence clearly supports treating AI as a durable engine of economic expansion rather than a temporary field filled with irrational enthusiasm and hope

This article was published at Arab News

About Dr. Majid Rafizadeh
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a Harvard-educated Iranian-American political scientist. X: @Dr_Rafizadeh
View all posts by Dr. Majid Rafizadeh →

Pakistan's emerging DJ scene: The women behind the turntables

Cover image: Focus © France 24
Issued on: 11/08/2026 
05:25 min

Pakistan, a country known for its conservative values, rarely makes waves in the music and entertainment industry. Yet in major cities like Karachi and Lahore, a quiet but thriving DJ scene is beginning to make itself heard, with emerging talents and artists transforming the music industry. At the heart of this evolution, more and more women are asserting themselves in a field largely dominated by men.

Yet this culture remains largely limited to an urban elite, while the Pakistani electronic scene is still very informal – made up of one-off events, temporary collectives and underground raves, in a climate where the authorities seek to crack down on so-called immoral cultural productions.

FRANCE 24's Shahzaib Wahlah and Ondine de Gaulle report.

In Malaysia, wave of hate speech threatens Rohingya refugees


Malaysia – The spread of hostile content on social media in Malaysia has intensified tensions towards the Rohingya refugee community, leading to the eviction of more than 100 people from their village and the temporary closure of schools attended by refugee children.


Issued on: 10/08/2026 - 
By: The FRANCE 24 Observers/ Marguerite MARAMICI

Rohingya refugees camp near the offices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur, after being expelled from the village of Kuala Muda in the state of Penang on July 27, 2026. © SinarOnline/ X

Malaysia has long been considered a safe haven for Rohingya Muslims fleeing persecution in predominantly Buddhist Myanmar. As of the end of February 2026, 126,000 Rohingyas were registered with the UN refugee agency in Malaysia, out of a total of around 215,600 refugees and asylum seekers.

However, they have faced growing hostility since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, culminating in a wave of online hate and disinformation that began in April 2026. On July 27, around 1 hundred Rohingya refugees were forced to leave their homes in a fishing village after their neighbours put up signs urging them to leave.
#SaveMalaysiaFromRohingya

Maryam* works for the NGO Article 19, which defends freedom of expression in Malaysia and combats hate speech.



"The latest wave of anti-Rohingya rhetoric has undoubtedly been one of the most intense in terms of both scale and duration. It began towards the end of April and is still continuing today.

It all started with a disinformation campaign claiming that Rohingya refugees were demanding land and special rights. In May, an online petition was launched calling on the Malaysian prime minister to expel Rohingya refugees from Malaysia. Organisations such as UNHCR, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM), and NGOs came under pressure and received threats on social media."

This Facebook message posted on July 22, 2026 by anti-Rohingya influencer Abang Koroy reads: “The Rohingyas get rich from begging and doing business without paying taxes; they go to private hospitals—government clinics are beneath them.”

Some Malaysian influencers regularly post anti-Rohingya content and contribute to the spread of hostile hashtags such as #SaveMalaysiaFromRohingya.

Maryam* explains :

"We reported some of the problematic content to Meta so that action could be taken immediately. However, Meta's content moderation, complaint handling, and reporting mechanisms remain far too slow to deal with harmful content."

She adds that the situation is particularly alarming because refugees are neither officially recognised nor protected under Malaysian law, as the country is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention. Although they are registered with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), they have no legal protection and are not allowed to work, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.
'Rohingyas Are Banned from Kuala Muda'

This wave of online hatred has had dramatic consequences. On July 27, more than 1 hundred Rohingyas were forced to leave their homes in the village of Kuala Muda, in the state of Penang.

This Facebook post from July 28, 2026 celebrates the departure of a group of Rohingya people from the village of Kuala Muda, showing photos of signs displayed by residents with hostile messages, such as: “Rohingya people are banned from Kuala Muda.”

According to the local newspaper Sinar Harian, the Rohingya population in this village has almost quadrupled, rising from 108 people in 2018 to around 400 in 2026. A non-Rohingya resident told the media outlet Bharian: “The locals feel disadvantaged, particularly economically, because many Rohingya have taken up fishing, creating competition with local residents who depend on fishing for their livelihoods."

The refugee families were reportedly escorted to buses bound for Kuala Lumpur. On arrival in the capital, they went to the office of the UNHCR to seek assistance. They then set up tents outside the organisation’s offices while awaiting a response. The Malaysian police then intervened and detained them for a day to check their documents and legal status. They were eventually released and placed in the care of local NGOs.
'Many children were chased and harassed on their way to school'

Children are also being targeted. At least nine community schools for refugees have temporarily closed to protect their students. The exact number of affected schools remains difficult to determine.

Amira* is the founder of an NGO that provides education for refugees in Malaysia. She describes the climate of fear that has forced many refugee schools to shut their doors.


"Many children have been chased and harassed on their way to school. Some of these incidents have been shared on social media. Youth teams from several NGOs are now afraid to go in the field. The content being posted online is extremely radical. It is highly aggressive, using dehumanizing and threatening language. There is a real sense of fear within the Rohingya community."

Ahmad* is a Rohingya teacher and activist in Kuala Lumpur. He teaches at two schools in the capital that decided to close.


"One school remained closed for a month, the other for two weeks because of all this chaos. We have only just reopened. Despite the risks, the staff felt it was essential to resume classes so that the children could continue their education. We advised students not to wear their school uniforms so that they would not attract attention on their way to school."

He also points out that his students come from different refugee communities, but many Malaysians assume they are all Rohingya. According to him, this misconception is reinforced by media coverage that often labels all refugees as Rohingya.

This Facebook post, published on 28 July 2026 in a group that regularly shares content hostile to the Rohingya, questions the legitimacy of a community school.

Amira* explains that refugees have no legal right to formal education in Malaysia, as the country is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention.


"Schools like ours operate in a grey area. If someone were to ask, ‘Is this school legal? Do you have the right to be here?’ Of course, the answer is no. Some schools have been closed down by the authorities because they did not have the necessary authorisations.

The lack of the right to work and access to education marginalises the Rohingya and limits their integration in Malaysia. At the same time, disinformation campaigns wrongly portray them as economic migrants or invaders. On social media, many ask why the UNHCR does not send them to other countries, but they are unaware that its ability to organise resettlement depends on the willingness of states to offer places to refugees."
'We cannot trust the Myanmar government to guarantee our safety'

On 23 July, the deputy foreign minister informed Parliament that 5,000 Myanmar nationals currently held in immigration detention centres would be repatriated to Myanmar.

On 28 July, Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Mohamad Hasan said that the presence of the UNHCR office had made Malaysia "a magnet" for refugees and warned that the government could reconsider the agency's presence in the country if it refused to resettle more refugees.

Despite allegations of genocide against the Rohingya in Myanamar, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim announced on 30 July that Myanmar had agreed to take back 5,000 Rohingya asylum seekers currently living in Malaysia.

The Myanmar Ethnic Rohingya Human Rights Organization Malaysia (MERHROM) expressed serious concern over the announcement:

"We cannot trust the Myanmar government to guarantee our safety while the massacres continue. Rohingyas will be forced to join the Myanmar military without any training and used as human shields in the army's war against various ethnic armed groups. That is the only reason the Myanmar military has agreed to take the Rohingyas back."

However, the Malaysian government later appeared to reverse its position. On 5 August, Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil announced that the government would not deport refugees if they faced a risk of persecution.

Denied citizenship under Myanmar's 1982 Citizenship Law, the Rohingya fled the country in large numbers in 2017 following a military campaign marked by massacres, sexual violence, and the systematic destruction of villages. The International Court of Justice is currently examining allegations of genocide against Myanmar over those events, following hearings held in January 2026.

* For security reasons, the people interviewed for this article asked to speak anonymously and their names have been changed.

Rebuilding Aleppo: Syria's war-torn economic capital enjoys gradual rebirth

Cover image: FOCUS © FRANCE 24
Issued on: 13/08/2026 - 
05:58 min  From the show

Syria's economic capital Aleppo was left largely in ruins by the fighting that raged there between regime and rebel forces from 2012 to 2016. A 2023 earthquake also caused severe damage to the old city. But reconstruction is now well underway, in particular of Aleppo's treasured historic monuments.

The labyrinthine streets of Aleppo, stretching across 14 kilometres, were once home to 4,000 shops and around 50 caravanserai inns. Some 60 percent of the historic souks, listed as a UNESCO World Heritage site, have been badly damaged or destroyed. But today, the inhabitants are trying to rebuild their battered city. Traders have been gradually returning and Aleppo's iconic citadel has already reopened to the public.

FRANCE 24's Dana Alboz, Sophie Guignon and Yaser Shahrour report.

In Nepal, residents learn how to live alongside wild animals

Cover image: FOCUS © FRANCE 24


Issued on: 14/08/2026 -
04:51 min From the show


Over the past five decades, Nepal has established itself as a model for wildlife conservation. Nearly 20 percent of the country’s territory has been designated as protected areas. An effective anti-poaching policy has helped save iconic species such as the one-horned rhinoceros and the gharial crocodile, which were once on the brink of extinction. But this success also comes with tragic consequences.


In the heart of Nepal's Terai plains, presented around the world as a conservation success story, animal attacks have claimed hundreds of lives. In some areas, tigers kill up to three people a month.

Tensions are rising in these communities. Residents no longer just want coexistence; they seek protection. To better understand animal movements and prevent further tragedies, civil society groups are stepping in.

FRANCE 24's Fantine Dantzer and Tashi Bista report.

.
BY:

Fantine Dantzer

Tashi BISTA

Japan summons Russian ambassador after Putin visits disputed Kuril islands


Japan’s foreign minister summoned the Russian ambassador in Tokyo to lodge a “strong protest” against President Vladimir Putin’s surprise visit to the Kuril islands on Thursday. Tokyo maintains its claim to the disputed islands near Japan's northernmost Hokkaido island since they were seized by the Soviet Union in 1945.


Issued on: 13/08/2026 
By: FRACE 24

Cover image: Pool photograph distributed by the Russian state agency Sputnik, President Vladimir Putin greets officers onboard the Russian Navy's guided missile cruiser Varyag on far eastern Sakhalin Island on August 13, 2026. © Gavriil Grigorov, AFP (Pool)
01:45

President Vladimir Putin visited Russia's far-eastern Kuril islands for the first time on Thursday, prompting protests by Japan, which also claims the territory.

Russian-Japanese relations have long been dogged by the contested islands, known in Japan as the Northern Territories and seized by the Soviet Union in 1945.

The Kremlin posted a video of Putin on one of the Kurils' four main islands, with Russian media saying he visited a fish-processing plant and was given caviar.

It was the first visit by a Russian president since Dmitry Medvedev in 2010.


"The Northern Territories are an inherent part of Japan's territory, both historically and under international law," Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi told reporters.

Putin's visit "offends the sentiments of the Japanese people and is absolutely unacceptable", she said, adding that it "made it more difficult to restore relations in the medium to long term".

Putin travelled to the Kurils after visiting the nearby Russian island of Sakhalin on Wednesday, where Russia's navy was conducting drills.

In Sakhalin, Putin, 73, held a meeting "on ensuring the security of Russia's eastern borders", RIA Novosti said.

Also on Thursday, Japan's Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi summoned Russian ambassador to Japan Nikolai Nozdrev to lodge a "strong protest" against Putin's surprise move.

Motegi told the ambassador in the meeting that Putin's visit would "have an extremely negative impact on Japan-Russia relations" already complicated by Moscow's invasion of Ukraine, according to the ministry's statement.
Ukraine sanctions

Ties between Japan and Russia – which fought a war in 1904-5 – have worsened since the full-scale conflict in Ukraine began in 2022.

Japan has joined other G7 countries in sanctioning Russia and giving money and non-lethal defence aid to Kyiv.

Putin on Wednesday called Japan's sanctions "unprovoked".

"Japan has identified Russia as a main source of threats. I would like to point out that we are not threatening Japan... On the contrary it has territorial claims against our country," Putin said.

Russia and China have also moved closer, with their navies and air forces conducting joint exercises in areas around Japan, promoting frequent scrambles by Japanese jets.

North Korea, which this month termed Japan's military build-up a "transformation into a war state", has also sent troops and artillery shells to help Russia's war against Ukraine.

READ MOREZelensky accuses Russia of using North Korean missiles in deadly attack

Japan's latest defence white paper issued this month again highlighted growing risks from all three countries.

The New York Times reported in July that Russia had turned Japan into a "den of spies" and a key source of dual-use technology needed for its war in Ukraine.
Harsh climate, few people

The Soviet Union took the strategically located volcanic archipelago north of Hokkaido in the final days of World War II, and has maintained a military presence there ever since.

The contested isles are part of the volcanic Kuril archipelago, which runs in a broad arc from Russia's Kamchatka peninsula down to Japan's main northern island Hokkaido.

Their population of about 20,000 Russian citizens lives in a harsh climate, but the islands have mineral deposits including gold and silver, and rich fishing grounds.

After the islands were occupied in 1945, Moscow deported their Japanese population of about 17,000 people.

The islands then acquired strategic importance, providing air and sea bases during the Cold War as the Soviet Union confronted the United States and Japan.

"The Kurils have been fortified with Bastion coastal defence missile systems and SU-35 fighter aircraft. These provide Russia with instruments of control over sea lanes in the region, as well as leverage against Japan's claim to the islands," said Yee Kuang Heng, a professor at the Graduate School of Public Policy at the University of Tokyo.

"Putin's visit may be a reminder of the cards he holds and also his displeasure with Japan's continuing sanctions on Russia imposed after the invasion of Ukraine," Heng told AFP.

Infantino's future at FIFA should be decided by election, African football chief says

Confederation of African Football head Patrice Motsepe on Thursday said that the future of FIFA's embattled president Gianni Infantino should be decided via election. Multiple world football federations have recently withdrawn their support for his leadership of football's governing body over his aborted plan to sell stakes in the World Cup to private investors.


Issued on: 13/08/2026 

By: FRANCE 24

Confederation of African Football president Patrice Motsepe and FIFA president Gianni Infantino. © Paul Ellis, AFP


Confederation of African Football chief Patrice Motsepe says Gianni Infantino's future should only be decided by elections after Ireland became the latest federation to withdraw their support for the embattled FIFA president.

Infantino is fighting to save his job after a barrage of criticism for his aborted plan to sell stakes in the World Cup to private investors.

The governing bodies of European football (UEFA), North and Central America (CONCACAF) and Asia (AFC) stepped up the pressure on Infantino in a joint letter this week, declaring "trust is broken through deception, when an individual places himself above the collective that entrusted him with authority".

It is believed they want Infantino to resign before he has the chance to seek re-election in March next year.

But Motsepe, a FIFA vice-president and CAF president, is adamant Infantino's fate should be decided through the ballot box.

"If anybody has got any problem against anybody, whether it's Gianni, whether it is anybody else, follow the process, follow the FIFA process, simple as that," Motsepe told Sky News on Thursday.

"If you want to take him out, go for elections; let the 211 member associations decide. Do that and the vote will express whether they've got confidence in him or not."

"You've got to be very careful. There are elections taking place next year. Shouldn't we allow that process to continue?"

Motsepe was in Salzburg at the UEFA Super Cup on Wednesday to hold talks with UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin, whose organisation are threatening to boycott the World Cup and Club World Cup in protest at Infantino's scheme.

"I've heard so many stories about various issues and am careful to pass judgement on anything," Motsepe said.

"Everybody has a right to be heard. Let's have a hearing, and a proper forum."

CAF had already backed Infantino and Motsepe claimed there was no breach of rules over the World Cup sell-off talks, because the proposals would be submitted to FIFA members for final approval.

"There's a lot that's problematic and negative that they have to fix," Motsepe said.

"But he has apologised and said maybe there's a different way these things should have been done, but we also take advice."

However, there has been no end to the tidal wave of criticism engulfing Infantino.

And on Thursday the Football Association of Ireland (FAI) become the latest FIFA member to withdraw its support for Infantino.

The English FA and Welsh FA had already withdrawn their backing for the 56-year-old Swiss.

"Following an FAI Board Meeting, the decision was taken to rescind the letter of support that the Association supplied earlier this year," the organisation said.

"It has since written to FIFA to explain its reasoning. The Association is grateful for the support that FIFA provides to Irish football, but recent events have raised significant concerns regarding governance, transparency and the lack of meaningful consultation."

(FRANCE 24 with AFP)

Cuba's ex-president Raul Castro makes rare public appearance after US indictment


Cuba's Raul Castro made a rare public appearance Thursday at a celebration marking the centenary of his brother Fidel's birth. The 95-year-old former president, who was indicted by the US in May over an incident during his tenure as defence minister, received a standing ovation at the secure event in Havana amid a deepening economic crisis and frequent energy blackouts.


Issued on: 14/08/2026 
By: FRANCE 24

Cuba's former president Raul Castro, 95, attends a gala marking the 100th anniversary of the birth of his late brother and revolutionary leader Fidel Castro on August 13, 2026. © Yamil Lage, AFP


US-indicted Cuban leader Raul Castro received a standing ovation as he appeared in public for the first time in months on Thursday, attending an event in Havana to mark the centenary of his brother Fidel's birth.

The 95-year-old head of the Cuban armed forces and former president entered the Karl Marx Theatre for a celebration rally amid the island's worst crisis in living memory.

READ MORECuba plunges into darkness as state energy firm reports new nationwide blackout

He appeared at the event dressed in his trademark olive-green military uniform, AFP reporters witnessed, amid tight security.


Cellphones were banned from the ceremony, bags were closely screened and delegates put through a metal detector by a sizeable security force.

Castro is the last surviving leader of Cuba's 1959 revolution and is seen as still wielding power on the island, despite stepping down as president in 2018.

In May, he was indicted by a court in the US state of Florida on four counts of murder.

The charges related to the downing of US civilian planes by Cuban forces on February 24, 1996, when Castro was defence minister.

He last appeared in public at a May 1 event in front of the US embassy in Havana, where he appeared frail, and was shown on state television at events in June.

The United States has set up an energy embargo on the communist-ruled island, demanding a change in government and deep economic and political reform.

Cover image: © France 24
03:26

In recent months President Donald Trump and other senior US officials have openly hinted at a military intervention or takeover of Cuba.

"All options are on the table, to include military options," Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Wednesday.

"I think Cuba would be wise to pay attention to the willingness of President Trump to assert American strategic prerogatives."

WATCH MORE  Cuba: What does Trump really want?

Rallying the party faithful

The crisis and years of poor maintenance have fuelled rolling blackouts and shortages of basic goods.

In June, Cuba's presidency said on social media that the former president had approved a package of economic reforms aimed at addressing the crisis facing the island, which is under heavy pressure from Washington.

Raul Castro backs sweeping Cuba reforms to revive struggling economy

Cuba's Communist Party has used the 100 years since late president Fidel Castro's birth to rally the party faithful and the armed forces through a week-long series of exhibitions, concerts and conferences.

On Thursday they shouted "I am Fidel" and applauded throughout the performances and speeches.

But the anniversary has passed largely unnoticed by ordinary Cubans, who are more concerned with finding water, getting supplies and keeping cool in the intense summer heat.

For many, today's hardships only serve to highlight the absence of a leader who died a decade ago and is still seen as the wily strategist who outwitted his American foes.

Thursday's event featured La Colmenita, a Cuban children's theatre company that was a favourite of Fidel's.

Towards the end of the performance, Raul stood and gestured to the crowd that they should stand and applaud.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP)

WAIT,WHAT?!

Trump imposes tariffs of up to 100% on drone imports

President Donald Trump on Thursday imposed tariffs of up to 100% on imported drones and their components, including from key US allies, citing national security concerns and a need to reduce US reliance on foreign suppliers. The measures are set to take effect in 21 days.


Issued on: 14/08/2026 
By: FRANCE 24

US President Donald Trump talks to reporters after arriving on Air Force One on August 11, 2026. © Mark Schiefelbein, AP


President Donald Trump said on Thursday he will impose tariffs on imports of drones and their components, including from some key US allies, with the Trump administration saying the country was "too reliant" on foreign sources of drones.

A proclamation signed by Trump imposes a 100 percent ad valorem tariff on drones of a certain size or with certain capabilities that are particularly sensitive for national security purposes, the White House said, adding that a tariff of 25 percent will be imposed on smaller drones.

A 15 percent tariff will be imposed on drones and components from the European Union, Japan, Liechtenstein, South Korea, Switzerland and Taiwan, and a 10 percent ad valorem tariff will be imposed on drones from the UK, the White House added.

Trump has made tariffs a central pillar of his foreign and trade policies despite legal setbacks and criticism from some analysts.

Trump said in the proclamation text released by the White House that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick had probed the effects of imports of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), or drones.

"The Secretary found that import penetration from foreign producers of UAS is substantial and that the United States is too reliant on foreign sources of UAS and UAS components," Trump said.

Lutnick found that drone and drone components from certain foreign entities "pose security and safety risks" and that the domestic US industry does not produce enough to meet security needs, Trump said.

The tariffs will take effect in 21 days, the White House said.

For components of drones that are not particularly sensitive, the tariffs will take effect 180 days after signing, it said.

For products the Pentagon has approved for an exemption from the Federal Communications Commission's "Covered List" within 20 days of signing, the tariffs will take effect 180 days after signing, the White House said.

(FRANCE 24 with Reuters)