BMI slashes Sub-Saharan Africa vehicle sales forecast growth to 1.9% as Iran conflict raises fuel costs

/ bne IntelliNewsFacebook

TwitterLinkedInTelegramFlipboardFeedly

By Brian Kenety June 30, 2026

Sub-Saharan Africa's new vehicle sales are expected to grow by just 1.9% in 2026 to around 1.2mn units, according to BMI, sharply below its previous forecast of 4.4%, as higher fuel prices, weaker currencies and rising vehicle import costs stemming from the conflict involving Iran continue to weigh on consumer demand across the region.

BMI, a Fitch Solutions company, said the region's heavy dependence on imported vehicles, automotive components and refined fuels leaves it particularly exposed to such external shocks. New vehicle sales in Sub-Saharan Africa remain among the lowest globally on a per-capita basis, with the market dominated by imported used vehicles. Affordability constraints, limited access to consumer credit and currency depreciation continue to suppress demand despite favourable long-term demographic trends.

BMI said the "material downward revision from our previous forecast" reflects the "escalating risk posed by the war involving Iran."

The revised forecast reflects the sensitivity of Sub-Saharan Africa's automotive market to global commodity prices, with higher oil prices quickly translating into more expensive transport, rising inflation and weaker consumer spending.

According to BMI, the main transmission channels are higher fuel prices, weaker currencies, rising inflation and elevated vehicle import costs, all of which are eroding purchasing power in one of the world's most price-sensitive automotive markets.

"The region remains highly exposed to external shocks given its dependence on imported vehicles, parts and refined fuels, meaning that any sustained increase in global oil prices or disruption to shipping routes would feed quickly into domestic transport and retail costs," it said.

BMI added that a broader and more prolonged conflict involving Iran would create downside risks for vehicle sales across several of the region's largest markets.

Chinese EVs gain momentum

Despite the weaker outlook for overall vehicle demand, BMI has become increasingly optimistic about electric vehicle adoption across Sub-Saharan Africa. The consultancy said aggressive pricing by Chinese manufacturers such as BYD Company Ltd (SZSE: 002594; HKEX: 1211), Chery Automobile and Great Wall Motor (SSE: 601633; HKEX: 2333) is making battery electric vehicles increasingly price-competitive with conventional vehicles.

"The consumer logic for EVs in SSA is beginning to shift meaningfully," BMI said. "Internal combustion engine (ICE)-EV price parity has been reached across most segments in several markets, driven largely by the aggressive pricing of Chinese EV exports, fundamentally altering the cost calculus for prospective buyers."

Last year, Egypt led the continent in total EV sales with around 7,900 units sold, followed by Morocco with 5,500 and South Africa with 3,800. Together, the three countries accounted for nearly 70% of Africa's total electric vehicle sales during the year.

Higher fuel prices and periodic fuel shortages, particularly in markets such as Kenya, are also making electric vehicles more attractive for commercial fleets and high-mileage users seeking to reduce operating costs, BMI noted.

Toyota Motor Corporation (TYO:7203; NYSE:TM) in early June entered Kenya's fully electric vehicle market with the launch of the bZ4X sport utility vehicle, marking the Japanese automaker's first battery electric offering in the country and signalling growing confidence in East Africa's emerging EV sector.

Meanwhile, Chinese manufacturers have become the dominant force in Africa's emerging EV market, expanding aggressively through local distributors, assembly partnerships and lower-priced models as they seek export growth outside increasingly competitive domestic and European markets.

As IntelliNews reported, BYD—China's largest carmaker, largest pure-play EV manufacturer and now the world's biggest EV producer by unit sales—increased its African market share to 35% in 2025 from just 4% two years earlier. According to the International Energy Agency's Global EV Outlook 2026, sustained disruption to oil supplies through the Strait of Hormuz could further improve the economics of electric vehicles across Africa by raising the cost of conventional fuels.

BMI cautioned, however, that widespread EV adoption remains constrained by weak charging infrastructure, unreliable electricity supplies, high financing costs and the continued dominance of imported used vehicles, which account for more than 80% of four-wheel vehicle purchases in many Sub-Saharan African markets.

Global manufacturers including Stellantis (NYSE: STLA), Volkswagen and Toyota are also expanding assembly operations across Africa, although Chinese manufacturers have moved more aggressively into the battery electric vehicle segment through competitive pricing and local partnerships.

AfCFTA to support long-term industry growth

The report also highlighted the adoption of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) Rules of Origin for automotive products in February 2026 as a significant long-term positive for the continent's automotive industry. The agreement establishes a common framework for tariff preferences designed to promote intra-African trade, supplier localisation and investment planning.

The rules are intended to prevent simple vehicle re-exporting between member states by requiring minimum levels of local value addition before products qualify for preferential tariffs, providing greater certainty for manufacturers considering new assembly plants and component investments.

BMI said the rules should encourage industrialisation and strengthen regional automotive supply chains over time, although implementation risks, weak logistics networks and subdued new vehicle demand will continue to limit near-term gains.

Within Sub-Saharan Africa, South Africa is expected to remain the region's dominant vehicle manufacturing hub, while Morocco will continue to lead vehicle production in North Africa. Kenya and Ghana could increasingly benefit through component manufacturing, vehicle assembly and upstream supply chains.

Country outlook remains mixed

Among the region's largest markets, BMI maintained its forecast for South African vehicle sales to decline 1.6% in 2026 as higher fuel costs weaken demand. By contrast, Nigeria's market is expected to expand 7.6%, supported by easing inflation and increased domestic fuel supply following the ramp-up of the Dangote refinery.

Angola is forecast to record 6.0% growth on improving macroeconomic conditions, while Tanzania's vehicle market is expected to expand 6.3%, supported by rising disposable incomes, urbanisation and continued road infrastructure investment.

BMI said the region's short-term outlook will remain closely tied to developments in global energy markets. Over the longer term, however, falling EV prices, greater regional integration under AfCFTA and increasing localisation of vehicle assembly are expected to reshape Africa's automotive industry, even if near-term demand remains constrained by economic uncertainty.

Morocco's long reach

Morocco has consolidated its position as Africa’s largest automotive manufacturing hub, producing 559,645 vehicles in 2024, up 5% year on year, and is projected to exceed 600,000 units in 2025, according to industry estimates. This compares with South Africa's output of 599,755 vehicles in 2024, down 5% year on year, ending its long-standing position as the continent's leading vehicle producer.

The North African country also hosts early electric vehicle assembly operations by Chinese and European manufacturers, providing an established EV production base. By comparison, South Africa has yet to establish local production of fully electric passenger vehicles, with its automotive industry remaining focused on internal combustion engine and hybrid models.

Morocco's logistics advantages include short shipping routes to European markets and lower transport costs. Policymakers have pursued an expansive EV strategy that includes tax exemptions, reduced import duties and an expanding public charging network with close to 1,000 charging points nationwide.

"Its proximity to Europe—South Africa's largest export market for vehicles—gives Morocco a geographical advantage in terms of supply chains and shipping costs. The country is also ahead of South Africa in EV production, producing 40,000 to 50,000 units in 2024, with plans to increase this. South Africa has not yet produced a single fully electric car," local outlet MyBroadband wrote.

 

Chinese copper supplier says US demand can bear Trump’s tariffs

Bloomberg News | June 25, 2026 

Zhejiang Hailiang’s facility in Houston. Credit: Zhejiang Hailiang

Chinese copper manufacturer Zhejiang Hailiang Co. is betting its American customers won’t balk at higher prices if the US follows though on placing tariffs on the refined metal.

The Hangzhou-based maker of copper tubes has expanded to locations from Indonesia to Morocco to get closer to clients and escape trade restrictions. Its operations include a plant in Houston that’s nearing full capacity after delays to construction during Covid.

“We’re not concerned about the cost increases because we can fully pass those onto clients,” Yan Yuhao, a trader and senior analyst with the company, said in an interview. “US consumers are very different from Chinese consumers. We are amazed by the resilience of US spending power.”

The Trump administration’s looming decision on whether to tariff refined copper has electrified the global market, juicing the premium paid for metal in the US and creating lucrative opportunities for traders. While the policy is aimed at shoring up domestic copper production, it also threatens to fan the inflationary pressures that Washington has struggled to control.

Yan said the need to cut dependence on foreign copper, a metal crucial to hi-tech manufacturing and power transmission, means the administration is highly likely to impose tariffs sooner or later.

But the idea that heftier costs for refined copper won’t derail demand is relatively alien to Hailiang’s home market. Until the Iran war, Chinese factories had only experienced deflation since the pandemic ended. That’s left buyers far more resistant to chasing copper prices higher during rallies.

Hailiang’s Texas plant makes tubes for autos, plumbing and air conditioners and is close to full capacity of 90,000 tons a year, said Yan. Trump’s tariffs on semi-finished copper last year have already boosted the company’s fortunes and its stock in Shenzhen has more than doubled over the past 12 months.

The Decline In India’s Birth Rate – Analysis

June 27, 2026 
 Anbound
By Zhao Zhijiang

Key Takeaways

India’s Fertility Rate Drops Below Replacement – India’s TFR has fallen to 1.9, with births down ~20% from peak and the child population projected to shrink sharply by 2051.

Widespread Decline Hits Schools First – The trend affects most states (some at 1.3), already causing thousands of school closures and enrollment drops.

Risk of “Getting Old Before Getting Rich” – Driven by education, smartphones, and high child costs, India must urgently upgrade education and jobs or lose its demographic dividend.

Analysis

As the world’s most populous nation, India is undergoing a structural shift that is noteworthy, where there is a significantly accelerating decline in fertility. Latest statistics reveal that India’s total fertility rate (TFR) has dropped to 1.9, falling below the replacement level of 2.1 required to maintain long-term population stability. For India, long perceived as a “young country” with a “demographic dividend”, this shift marks a crucial moment. It serves as a reminder to the outside world that India’s development can no longer be viewed through the outdated lens of “Indians prefer large families”. Instead, there is a critical need to re-evaluate the new challenges brought about by its population growth momentum, labor force structure, and intergenerational replacement processes.

This of course does not imply that India will immediately enter a phase of population contraction. Its total population will continue to grow from the current 1.45 billion, as it takes a considerable amount of time for a reduction in births to translate into a decline in total population. However, India’s annual number of births has already fallen by approximately one-fifth from its peak in 2001. The International Institute for Migration and Development (IIMAD), a well-known Indian institution, recently completed population projections for India from 2021 to 2051. The results show that the number of children aged 0 to 14 in India stood at 341 million in 2021. By 2031, this figure is projected to decline to 322 million. This means that during the decade from 2021 to 2031, the number of children aged 0 to 14 will decrease by 19 million. Between 2031 and 2041, the child population will shrink by another 34 million, followed by a further reduction of 22 million between 2041 and 2051.


More notably, this demographic shift is not confined to a few affluent cities but has emerged as a pervasive trend across multiple states. The total fertility rate in Tamil Nadu and West Bengal is approximately 1.3, on par with Finland. Maharashtra, which includes Mumbai, stands at around 1.4, close to the level of Norway. The appearance of a “Nordic-style” demographic profile in India was entirely unimaginable in the past.

This shift has already shown visible consequences at the local level. The tangible impacts of India’s demographic transition are reflected in realities ranging from the closure of 1,200 schools in Tamil Nadu last year due to insufficient student enrollment, to a sharp drop in first-grade enrollment in Kerala, a massive wave of school consolidations in Karnataka, and a nationwide reduction of approximately 20,000 public schools over five years (between the 2019-20 and 2024-25 academic years). A declining child population first impacts schools, subsequently rippling into child-related consumption, local employment, housing demand, and future labor supply. The shocks of demographic change never unfold uniformly, as they tend to manifest first in localized sectors before gradually spreading into nationwide structural issues.


Researchers at ANBOUND believe that the decline in India’s birth rate is a major case of “cognitive reversal” in global demographic logic. In the past, it was generally assumed that developed countries had low fertility rates while developing countries had high fertility rates. Under such logic, affluent groups have fewer children, whereas impoverished groups have more. This conventional wisdom once possessed strong explanatory power, but it is now failing. Both statistical data and empirical field surveys clearly indicate that low fertility is no longer a unique characteristic of developed economies like Europe, Japan, and South Korea, but is rapidly spreading to middle-income and certain lower-income countries. Brazil, Iran, Thailand, and Turkey have remained below replacement level for years. Sri Lanka’s total fertility rate is approximately 1.3, Tunisia’s is around 1.6, and Morocco’s has also fallen below the replacement threshold. Even in regions characterized by high marriage rates and low female formal employment rates, birth rates are declining. This demonstrates that the impact of modernization on reproductive behavior has transcended traditional income levels and cultural differences.

A closer inspection of the drivers behind India’s rapid fertility decline reveals three primary factors.

The first is the universalization of female education, which constitutes the most critical long-term factor driving down fertility rates. Demographic research shows that increases in female educational attainment typically lead to a significant reduction in fertility desires and actual births because it alters women’s timing of marriage and childbearing, intra-household status, life choices, and labor force participation opportunities. Since the 1990s, India has vigorously promoted enrollment policies for girls, leading to a continuous rise in net enrollment rates for girls at both primary and secondary school levels. This change exhibits a clear chronological correspondence with the subsequent acceleration of fertility decline. In contrast to India, birth rates remain high to this day in regions such as Niger, Chad, and northern Nigeria, where formal education coverage for girls remains very low. India’s experience demonstrates that once education penetrates broader households, the preferences for fewer children, delayed childbearing, and high-quality parenting gradually replace traditional mindsets of “more children bring more blessings”, becoming the mainstream reproductive choice in society.


The second factor is the widespread penetration of smartphones and media dissemination. Although this variable occasionally sparks debate, it is equally impossible to ignore. Smartphones may influence fertility rates by altering social patterns, reducing face-to-face interactions, increasing leisure time, and expanding access to information regarding contraception, marriage, and childbearing. Some studies have identified a correlation between smartphone penetration and declining adolescent birth rates. In India, earlier research pointed out that when cable television first entered villages, it was associated with a decline in fertility rates because the portrayal of urban middle-class families in television series reshaped rural residents’ imaginations regarding family size and female roles. Today, the reach and influence of smartphones far exceed that of television, bringing urban lifestyles, consumption standards, educational anxiety, and middle-class family models into a broader spectrum of rural and low-income populations. This does not necessarily lead directly to having fewer children, but it reinforces people’s perceptions of modern life, causing lifestyles characterized by nuclear families, fewer children, and high investment to become social norms at a faster pace.

More practical and fundamental pressures stem from the third factor, namely the economic dimension. The decision made by Indian families is not a simple matter of “not wanting to have children” but rather a recalculation of child-rearing costs amidst intensifying social competition. With the advancement of urbanization, rising housing costs, escalating educational competition, and growing healthcare expenditures, children are no longer viewed merely as a source of household labor or the continuation of lineage in the traditional sense. Instead, they have become a long-term, high-cost, and high-investment project. The higher parents’ expectations are for their children’s education and upward social mobility, the more they tend to reduce the number of children to concentrate resources on fewer offspring. This logic is highly pronounced in India. In 2025, approximately 39% of Indian children attended fee-charging private schools, up from 32% in 2015, indicating that an increasing number of families have been drawn into an educational arms race. Deficiencies in the quality of public education have further intensified the financial pressure on families to fund private schooling. When a household observes neighbors having fewer children and investing more money into their upbringing, they are compelled to adopt similar strategies to prevent their own children from falling behind in the competition.

It must be pointed out that a distinct characteristic facing India is that it will confront the pressure of “getting old before getting rich”. India’s economy is growing rapidly, infrastructure development is accelerating, and high hopes are pinned on its manufacturing sector and digital economy. The country indeed retains substantial room for growth and may well become a wealthier and globally more influential nation over the next two decades. However, demographic structural changes remind external observers that India’s window of opportunity will not remain open indefinitely. The key to the so-called demographic dividend lies not merely in a large population size, but in a high proportion of young labor, robust employment absorption capacity, improvements in educational quality, and industrial upgrading capable of accommodating labor transfers. If the birth rate continues to decline while employment quality, the educational system, social security, and public health systems fail to improve in tandem, India will bear the burden of an aging population prematurely, before fully transitioning into a high-income society.


To the world, the continuous decline in India’s birth rate means that the international community’s traditional imagination of India’s future path needs to be adjusted accordingly. India is no longer simply a country experiencing continuous population expansion, nor is it a place that will forever supply an infinite amount of cheap labor. Although it still possesses the potential to rise, this rise will be accompanied by demographic constraints far more complex than in the past. For global capital and multinational corporations, merely viewing India as the next market to enjoy a long-term demographic dividend risks underestimating the structural changes unfolding within it. The India of the future will become wealthier, but it may also simultaneously become older. It will possess a larger consumer market, yet face higher household child-rearing costs. At the same time, it will project stronger national ambitions, while simultaneously being forced to manage comprehensive challenges woven from interlocking pressures in education, employment, religion, regional disparities, and social security.

Final analysis conclusion:

The obvious decline in India’s birth rate signifies that the global trend of low fertility has penetrated deeply into major developing nations. Advancements in female education, rising child-rearing costs, intensifying educational competition, the diffusion of urban lifestyles, and the spread of smartphones have collectively driven Indian families toward a transition marked by fewer births and high-investment parenting. India retains the potential to rise, but its future challenges are no longer a matter of pure population quantity. Instead, they center on the phenomenon of “getting old before getting rich” and whether it can effectively translate a finite demographic dividend into comprehensive capabilities across education, employment, industry, and social security.

Zhijiang Zhao is a Research Fellow for Geopolitical Strategy programme at ANBOUND, an independent think tank.


About Anbound
Anbound Consulting (Anbound) is an independent Think Tank with the headquarter based in Beijing. Established in 1993, Anbound specializes in public policy research, and enjoys a professional reputation in the areas of strategic forecasting, policy solutions and risk analysis. Anbound's research findings are widely recognized and create a deep interest within public media, academics and experts who are also providing consulting service to the State Council of China.
View all posts by Anbound →

The Fight Against AI Data Centers Is the Newest Frontier of Global Class Warfare

AI is deepening worldwide webs of accumulation, ushering in new class and power relations.

By William I. Robinson ,

Truthout

June 23, 2026

Demonstrators take part in a protest at the Utah State Capitol to oppose the construction of the Stratos data center in Box Elder County on May 23, 2026, in Salt Lake City, Utah.Natalie Behring / Getty Images

The relentless drive by Big Tech corporations to expand data center construction to every continent has sparked a growing movement of mass resistance. From the United States to Ireland, from Chile to Malaysia, grassroots communities are protesting water depletion, soaring utility bills, air and noise pollution, and environmental destruction. Behind the data center boom is the artificial intelligence (AI) revolution. The amount of capital and energy needed to supply AI training and compute power is skyrocketing. The massive increase in compute power in turn requires monumental amounts of electricity along with water for cooling computers. This tsunamic shift in energy requirements has led to a global grab for land on which to locate data centers, energy sources to fuel these centers, and the rare earth and other critical minerals that AI technologies require.

The data center boom has spared no continent. New hyperscale data centers cost more than $100 billion; generate upward of one gigawatt, equivalent to an average nuclear power plant; and sprawl across thousands of acres. China and the United States are experiencing the fastest growth in data centers and investment is also flowing outward from both countries and from Europe to new regions. Southeast Asia is experiencing an unprecedented data center boom, with major hubs in Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Singapore. Latin America is experiencing its own expansion, mirroring that of Southeast Asia, with hubs in Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Peru, with submarine cables linking hubs to global circuits.

Africa is going through a similar construction boom, with major hubs in South Africa, Kenya, Nigeria, and Morocco. Data centers are proliferating in the Middle East, driven by the availability of cheap land, abundant fossil fuel, and billions of investable dollars in sovereign wealth funds. Saudi Arabia’s $40 billon fund made it the largest investor worldwide in AI in 2024. Both it and the United Arab Emirates announced that year that they would launch $100 billion investment plans for data centers, researchers, and other AI ventures. In the words of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, “I do guess that a lot of the world gets covered in data centers over time.”

A data center under construction in the U.S. state of Utah gives an idea of the gargantuan dimensions of these mega-investments. Once completed, it will cover twice as much land as the island of Manhattan, require more power than the entire state of Utah uses, and suck in a vast amount of water in the drought-stricken area. A recent United Nations Report projects that by 2030, global AI development will annually demand 945 terawatt-hours of electricity and 9.3 trillion liters of water — equivalent to the water needs of 1.3 billion people — threatening to aggravate shortages and drought. In the United States, about two-thirds of upcoming data centers are set to be built in places that have been among the driest in the country over the past year. Of 809 planned data centers, 517 are in locations that have been in drought conditions throughout the past year.

Pax Silica and the AI Capital Complex

A data center under construction in the U.S. state of Utah gives an idea of the gargantuan dimensions of these mega-investments. Once completed, it will cover twice as much land as the island of Manhattan.

AI is deepening worldwide webs of accumulation, bringing about new class and power relations, and promising to have a transformative effect around the globe. It is fast becoming a general-purpose technology — meaning that, like electricity or the internet, it spreads throughout all branches of the economy and society and becomes built into everything. Nearly 100 percent of U.S. economic growth in 2025 came from investment in digital technologies. To give an idea of the meteoric rise of AI-driven technologies to the very core of the global economy, adjusted annual private fixed investment in these technologies in the United States alone jumped from $17 billion in 1970, to $65 billion in 1980, to $175 billion in 1990, $496 billion in 2000, topped $800 billion in 2020, and then reached $1.5 trillion by early 2026. Worldwide, AI spending was forecast to total $2.5 trillion in 2026, a 44 percent increase over 2025. To put this in perspective, the expansion of AI infrastructure in 2025 represented nearly three percent of the entire global GDP.

Everybody Hates Data Centers
Anarchists, union activists, Indigenous organizers, and disgruntled Trumpists find themselves side by side in the fight. By Paul Messersmith-Glavin , Truthout June 5, 2026

Use of AI is also skyrocketing around the world. In 2024, 78 percent of organizations surveyed by Stanford University’s Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence center reported using AI, compared to 55 percent just a year earlier (the percentage using generative AI jumped from 33 to 71 in this same period). China showed the highest rate of growth in the use of AI — 27 percent — from 2023 to 2024. This growing dependence on AI is not limited to the core countries of the world capitalist system. The 78 percent figure is global. The figure was 72 percent in Asia-Pacific, 80 percent in Europe, 82 percent in North America, 75 percent in China, and 77 percent in what the Stanford report refers to as “developing markets,” including India, the Middle East and North Africa, and Central and South America.

The new AI-driven technologies mediate the gamut of human interactions. Many corporations, states, political, military institutions, schools, and hospitals are now dependent on these technologies to function. This dependence of our global economy and society on these technologies gives big tech corporations and the billionaires, financiers, and warlords who control them enormous structural power over states and peoples. A vast expansion of data centers to feed the computational needs of AI underpins this emerging AI capital power bloc. This new ruling class is cohering as a triangulated bloc of transnational capital that brings together the giant tech companies, transnational finance capital, and the military-industrial-repression complex — to put this another way, the bloc brings together Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and the Pentagon.

The AI revolution has greatly enhanced the class power of the transnational capitalist class over the global working class and its structural power over capitalist states. In his final farewell address to the nation on January 14, 2025, outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden warned of a “tech industrial complex” and of a new “oligarchy taking shape” through the “dangerous concentration of power in the hands of a very few ultra-wealthy people” — a warning that reenacted president Dwight Eisenhower’s famous 1961 final address on the dangers of the “unwarranted influence of the military-industrial complex.”

The U.S. State Department has referred to the new AI dispensation as Pax Silica. “If the twentieth century ran on oil and steel, the twenty-first century runs on compute and the minerals that feed it,” declared U.S. Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs Jacob Helberg in December 2025. Pax Silica involves developing “global supply chains” that are to drive “historic opportunity and demand for energy, critical minerals, manufacturing, technological hardware, infrastructure, and new markets not yet invented.” In the first year of its second term, the Trump government undertook a sweeping deregulation of AI and promised to promote a vast expansion of data centers.

Led by the new hegemonic capital complex, the transnational capitalist class has unleashed a predatory round of digitally driven expansion around the world, pivoting toward more extreme forms of extractivist accumulation as it seizes land, energy, and mineral resources to fuel the demands of AI technology and data centers. This is the big picture behind the global maelstrom, from Venezuela to Iran, from the Congolese and Sudanese civil wars to Washington’s Greenland grab to ICE terrorism in U.S. cities.


Data centers in Ireland rely heavily on fossil fuels, are driving up energy prices, and are projected to add as much as $850 to household utility bills over the next decade.

AI in the hands of the transnational capitalist class is an instrument of class warfare against the global working and popular classes. AI accelerates the process whereby labor is deskilled, made precarious, and expelled through algorithmic restructuring of the labor process and outright automation. The flip side of the jobs apocalypse this will induce is the degradation and immiseration of those workers still required, including the data workers themselves who are reduced to itinerant laborers. One report tracked down the workers who powered OpenAI’s popular AI chatbot, ChatGPT. It found that the wages were so miserable that a number of them could not afford housing and were homeless.

Warfare, social control, and repression are also being digitalized and automated. Global AI supply chains span everything from mineral extraction to manufacturing to data center operation. Each step along the way involves the displacement of communities, the exploitation of labor, and the repression of resistance. Big tech has sought to embed itself in military and security agencies around the world. The AI state is a warfare state with enhanced capacity to surveil and control. The whole thrust of capital investment and accumulation worldwide is shifting to advanced AI-driven militarization.
Communities Fight Back Against the Data Center Takeover

Seen in this light, escalating resistance worldwide to the data center construction boom constitutes working class struggle from below. As the “Silicon Valley of Europe,” Ireland has grabbed global attention for its growing mass movement against the data center invasion. The country has one of the largest clusters of data centers in the world. Dozens of centers in Dublin alone suck in more electricity that all urban homes combined in the country, accounting now for over 20 percent of the country’s electricity supply. A report by Friends of the Earth found that data centers in Ireland rely heavily on fossil fuels, are driving up energy prices, and are projected to add up to nearly $740 to household utility bills over the next decade.


In the United States, 7 out of every 10 people oppose having data centers located in their communities.

In Mexico, residents near a Microsoft data center say that, since the plant opened in 2024, power cuts have become more frequent and water outages can last for weeks, affecting schools and hospitals. In Chile, activists shut down Google’s expansion plans in 2024. In the Netherlands, protests blocked access to a construction site for Microsoft’s planned facility this month. In Malaysia, citizens in the state of Johor launched the country’s first data center protest, demanding compensation for dust and noise pollution. Similar protests have taken place in the United Kingdom, Brazil, Spain, Australia, and throughout the United States as a global movement comes into being to push back against the billionaire tech oligarchs.

In the United States, 7 out of every 10 people oppose having data centers located in their communities. The backlash has led, as of June 2026, to over 100 proposed moratoriums on new data center construction at the local, county, state, and national level. At commencement ceremonies on U.S. university campuses graduates now boo their commencement speakers as soon as they mention AI. In May 2026, a group of leading activists, journalists, scholars, and researchers launched the AI Resist List, a publicly accessible global database that documents resistance against the AI capital takeover. The ruling class is taking notice. There is growing evidence that police departments and other state security and intelligence agencies are surveilling and even preparing to criminalize data center critics.
State Ownership and the Future of AI

In March, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced the AI Data Center Moratorium Act, legislation that would enact a “reasonable pause” to the development of AI “to ensure the safety of humanity.” Sanders also called for the public to take a 50 percent ownership stake in AI companies. In early June, Sanders met with OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, at the latter’s request, to discuss the Senator’s proposal. Altman agreed that there should be some measure of public participation but he made clear he did not support Sander’s 50 percent threshold, which would deprive technology corporations of controlling shares.

However, these kinds of public ownership arrangements can operate as a mechanism to subsidize capital just as they can function to impose constraints on capital’s prerogatives, depending on the nature of the arrangement. Thus far, the state has intervened in the private sector less to regulate than to guide and shore up the development of digitally based accumulation and the war economy, suggesting that the emerging Pax Silica world order requires certain forms of state capitalism.

In early 2026, the U.S. government committed an initial $10 billion to acquiring equity stakes in private companies from the AI capital complex, including semiconductor company Intel, the military firm L3Harris Missile Solutions, and rare earth mining companies MP Materials and USA Rare Earth, among others. In addition, the White House issued an executive order to “revitalize the defense industrial base” that obliges private contractors with the federal government to prove they are prioritizing “warfighter capability and readiness.” Senate legislation later codified the order, requiring contractors to submit “qualified defense investment plans.” Whether public AI ownership in the United States would function to bolster capital’s power or force capital to be more responsive to the working class depends on how mounting class and popular struggles play out.


This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.

William I. Robinson
William I. Robinson is Distinguished Professor of Sociology at the University of California at Santa Barbara. His most recent book is Epochal Crisis: The Exhaustion of Global Capitalism (2026).

AI Is Changing Work—Our Unemployment Insurance System Must Change With It

A functional unemployment insurance system for today’s economy would cover more workers, including part-time, gig, and temporary workers, and would provide benefits that actually allow families to survive while searching for new work.



Job seekers look over job opening fliers at the WorkSource exhibit, a collaborative effort by governmental agencies to offer jobs and job training resources at the Greater Los Angeles Career Expo at the Pasadena Convention Center on May 14, 2009 in Pasadena, California.
(Photo by David McNew/Getty Images)

Rebecca Dixon
Jun 25, 2026

Common Dreams

For millions of workers, the conversation about artificial intelligence and the future of work is no longer theoretical. It is already showing up in layoffs, hiring freezes, shrinking departments, and growing anxiety about whether the paycheck families rely on today will still exist tomorrow.

But the most important question is not simply which jobs AI will eliminate. It is whether workers will have any real support when those jobs disappear.

While policymakers, executives, and economists debate which industries will thrive and which occupations will disappear in the age of AI, working Americans are focused on more immediate concerns: paying rent, affording groceries, covering childcare, and figuring out how they would support their families if their income suddenly vanished.

Workers are right to worry, because the system meant to help them through job loss is already failing to meet this moment.

While we may not be able to control every change AI will bring, we can decide whether workers will face those changes alone.

America’s unemployment insurance system was built for a different era entirely, one in which AI was nonexistent. It was built for an era that assumed stable full-time employment, long-term employer relationships, and relatively predictable layoffs. Today’s economy looks nothing like that.

Millions of workers now move between part-time jobs, contract work, temporary positions, caregiving responsibilities, and periods outside the workforce entirely. But unemployment insurance rules still exclude many of those workers from receiving help when they need it most.

Today, only about 1 in 4 unemployed workers receive unemployment benefits nationwide. In some states, fewer than 13% received support at all. And even when workers do qualify, benefits are often too low and too short-lived to keep families financially stable while they search for new work.

The result of this broken system is families scrambling to avoid financial free fall: draining savings accounts, falling behind on rent, or taking the first low-paying jobs they can find because they can’t afford to wait for something better.

That disconnect is already visible. While the number of unemployed workers has climbed sharply over the past year, unemployment claims have remained relatively flat—not because people are unaffected, but because so many workers are locked out of a system that no longer reflects the realities of modern work.

The first wave of AI disruption is already here. As adoption of these technologies increases, more workers will cycle between jobs, more families will navigate periods of unemployment, and more people will be forced to rebuild after losing work through no fault of their own.

And those burdens will not fall equally. Women—especially Black women, who are disproportionately represented in clerical and administrative jobs—are among the workers most vulnerable to displacement. Workers of color already face persistently higher unemployment rates because of structural inequities in the labor market. Yet when they lose work, they are significantly less likely to receive unemployment benefits and the economic stability those benefits are supposed to provide.

That reality is colliding with an already fragile economy. Data from the New York Federal Reserve shows that college graduates are now experiencing recession-level rates of unemployment. Over the last year, unemployment among young college graduates averaged 5.5%—the highest sustained level outside the brief peak of the Covid-19 pandemic since the aftermath of the Great Recession.

These are graduates who were told that if they worked hard, earned a degree, and applied themselves, they would find stability and opportunity. Instead, many are entering a labor market defined by uncertainty and shrinking opportunities, all while facing a weakening safety net.

That is why modernizing our unemployment systems must be part of the AI conversation.

A functional unemployment insurance system for today’s economy would cover more workers, including part-time, gig, and temporary workers. It would provide benefits that actually allow families to survive while searching for new work. It would make it easier, not harder, for eligible workers to receive support. And it would actually be prepared to withstand economic downturns.

Unemployment insurance should be understood for what it truly is: economic infrastructure.

Just as roads and bridges help goods move through the economy, unemployment insurance helps people move through economic change without falling into crisis. A strong UI system gives people the stability to search for good jobs instead of being pushed into the first low-wage position available. It stabilizes families, communities, and local businesses during periods of disruption.

The age of stable employment is fading. More workers will inevitably face periods of transition, disruption, and job loss in the years ahead.

While we may not be able to control every change AI will bring, we can decide whether workers will face those changes alone. Modernizing unemployment insurance is not simply a matter of compassion. It is a matter of economic readiness.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Rebecca Dixon
Rebecca Dixon is the president and CEO of the National Employment Law Project.
Full Bio >

Fearing Mass Job Loss, Working-Class US Voters Believe Government Must Act to Prevent Economic Disaster

The findings of a new poll could bolster the case made by many progressive politicians about the need to vigorously regulate the AI industry.


Humanoid robots are seen lined up as an engineer works on a robot in the production facility of X-Humanoid on March 20, 2026 in Beijing, China.
(Photo by Kevin Frayer/Getty Images)

Brad Reed
Jun 23, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

A poll commissioned by Working Families Power reveals deep anxiety among US workers about the impacts of artificial intelligence, as well as support for the government intervening to prevent potential mass unemployment.

The survey of just over 2,500 working-class American voters, conducted by Justice Research Group, finds that 73% said they were worried that AI would lead to job losses in the US, while 62% said they were concerned that AI would personally affect them or people close to them.

Workers expect that AI will negatively impact a broad number of industries, with majorities saying it will hurt truckers and delivery drivers; retail and service workers; writers, designers, and other creative workers; and office and administrative workers, according to the poll. Pluralities, meanwhile, expect AI to hurt teachers, education workers, and healthcare support workers.

With so many workers fearing massive jobs losses due to AI, they also support major government interventions to alleviate the harms caused by the technology.

Overall, 84% of those surveyed support free training or education for all workers displaced by AI, while 79% support rules to force companies to share AI productivity gains with their workers in the former of higher pay, stronger benefits, and shorter hours.

Even the least popular policy idea presented in the poll—taxing large companies that replace workers with AI and using the money to create a worker unemployment fund—received 69% support among US workers.

The poll’s findings could bolster the case made by many progressive politicians about the need to vigorously regulate the AI industry to prevent it from hurting working-class Americans.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) earlier this year introduced a bill that would impose a nationwide moratorium on AI data center construction “until strong national safeguards are in place to protect workers, consumers, and communities, defend privacy and civil rights, and ensure these technologies do not harm our environment.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) last month proposed a tax on the use of AI to pay for jobs programs for affected workers.

The Challenges and Opportunities of Living in the Inbetween Time

Ann Mallen

 June 24, 2026

FacebookTwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

In late October, I published an interview with political scientist, Dr. Benjamin Peters, whose work focuses on peace (full bio at the end). Eight months later, the systematic destruction of our democracy continues unabated. In March, the V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg reported that “Democracy in the USA is deteriorating at unprecedented speed.” So, we continue to need experts like Dr. Peters. He graciously agreed to collaborate once again.

AM: In the last interview, you gave us some ideas for personal peacemaking. (link here) Yet many of us are witnessing (either firsthand or by videos) violence, war, and absolute denial of due process rights by ICE agents. How do we remain peaceful in these scenarios?

BP: There are very good reasons – both moral and strategic – to choose peaceful, nonviolent approaches.

Many traditions valorize nonviolence as morally superior to violence. The Sanskrit term ahimsa means “without a desire to kill” (non-injury), and is a core ethical principle in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. Ahimsa was a guiding value for Gandhi who considered it the source of nonviolence’s power. As he put it, “Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.”

Gandhi had an influence on Martin Luther King, Jr. who confirmed the moral superiority and practical power of nonviolence. Like Gandhi, King believed that ends must be pre-existent in the means. In other words, you must practice the values you are trying to bring into the world. If your goal is a world free of violence, you must bring it into being through nonviolent means.

King’s idea of the Beloved Community provided a regulative norm or a moral guide for action that always centered the commitment to achieving justice nonviolently above the desire to exact revenge or to dehumanize the perpetrators of an evil system. He knew that meeting violence with violence would, at worst, cause an endless cycle of harmful retribution and, at best, prevent the conditions for reconciliation even if violence subsided.

As for the pure practicality of nonviolence, there are two things to consider. First, because the government maintains permanent, organized forces trained to use violence (i.e., the military, the police, ICE, etc.), a violent opposition is always at a disadvantage in terms of resources, training, and experience. Second, there’s compelling evidence that nonviolent opposition movements have been more successful than violent movements. Perhaps the best known statement of that argument is Erica Chenoweth’s TEDTalk on “The Success of Nonviolent Civil Resistance”.

To help us maintain a commitment to nonviolence, we can draw inspiration from the many examples of nonviolent movements that are achieving results right now. I recommend signing up for the newsletters of Waging Nonviolence and Nonviolence News. They report on successful nonviolent actions and often include resources and know-how that can be put into practice whatever your preferred form of organizing, protest, or civic action. Plus, it’s very encouraging to learn about people around the country and around the world who are making change happen every day.

AM: You’ve written extensively about Costa Rica, and my husband and I traveled there in February. It was an item on my bucket list, as I’m fascinated with the abolition of their military in 1948. I was deeply moved by the peaceful lifestyle. We left the resort to drive into the surrounding towns and speak to the locals. My husband is fluent in Spanish, and I can hold my own in easy dialogue. Everywhere we went, the people embraced their “pura vida” lifestyle. Yet, I can’t help worrying about them. While the U.S. is obligated to help in the event of an invasion (Rio Treaty of 1947), I’m not sure it would do so with this current administration. Your thoughts?

BP: Costa Rica is an exemplar of security through peacemaking, and the good news is that the bold and innovative approaches it has taken over the years now make an invasion extremely unlikely.

Twice after it abolished its army, exiles launched invasions (1948 and 1955) with the intent of overthrowing the government. Although Costa Rica invoked the Rio Treaty each time, the invasions were quickly put down by its civilian security force and without armed intervention by other countries. A key outcome was a treaty with Nicaragua, its neighbor to the north, pledging to prevent insurgents from operating in their territories or from crossing their shared border. No invasions have occurred since then.

It made two more breakthroughs in peacemaking in the 1980s. First, in order to avoid U.S. pressure to support its efforts to violently overthrow the Nicaraguan government, Costa Rica announced a policy of Perpetual Unarmed Neutrality in 1983. It then denied the U.S. Navy permission to operate within its territorial waters along its border with Nicaragua and shut down Contra rebel bases and U.S. covert operations in Costa Rican territory. These moves showed that even without an army, Costa Rica could defend its interests and protect its sovereignty.

Second, the declaration of neutrality established a moral high ground that prepared Costa Rica for a role as a trusted and neutral broker for peace in the region. President Óscar Arias used this status coupled with active diplomacy to get the leaders of El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua to end their conflicts and civil wars. The outcome was the Esquipulas Peace Agreement, an unprecedented peace treaty achieved by the countries themselves without outside mediation and despite U.S. interference in the process.

For these efforts, Óscar Arias won the Nobel Peace Prize, and the Esquipulas treaty, which is still in effect, continues to make the possibility of an invasion highly unlikely. To top it all off, Óscar Arias convinced Panama, Costa Rica’s neighbor to the south, to abolish its army in 1990, further shoring up Costa Rica’s security. Talk about waging peace!

But let me get back to your question, which was also about the U.S. Unfortunately, the U.S. has done more than any other country to destabilize the region around Costa Rica. It has launched strikes against civilian vessels in the Caribbean and Pacific, invaded Venezuela to kidnap its president, threatened to reclaim the Panama Canal, threatened to invade Cuba, and threatened to launch strikes inside Mexican territory.

Although there is no sign that the U.S. poses a direct threat to Costa Rica, there’s an argument to be made that its belligerent actions are the biggest threat to peace and international law in the region.

AM: It seems there are signs that more people, here in the States (Trump’s approval polls and No Kings rallies) and worldwide (the Orban upset), are becoming disillusioned with authoritarianism. Do you agree? Can you see a shift happening? (please oh please, say yes)

BP: Well, I hope you’re right! What I can say is that we seem to be at a moment in history that only comes along every so many generations, and that is a moment when things can actually change in significant ways for better or for worse. It’s a time when people of good will working and organizing together can – and must – affect the outcome.

Gramsci called this kind of moment an interregnum, the term for the inbetween time when one era is coming to an end and there’s uncertainty about what will replace it. As he put it, “The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.” I think we see the old order under assault and morbid symptoms all around us, but it’s important to remember that the inbetween time is an opening for new possibilities, a chance to change things for the better in significant ways.

We can probably trace the full-blown onset of the interregnum to the 2008 Great Recession. Since then, we’ve seen movement after movement demand change. Here in the U.S. that has included Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, the Women’s March, #MeToo, Fridays for Future, the Sunrise Movement, March for our Lives, No Kings, and many others. Of course, something similar has been happening around the world from the Arab Spring through recent “GenZ protests” in countries including Bangladesh, Nepal, Chile, Madagascar, Bulgaria, Morocco, Peru, and others. These movements are demanding solutions to the problems the old order created but that it cannot, or will not, solve.

Here in the U.S., the starkest contrast in the search for new political solutions is between Trump and his dwindling MAGA base on the right and politicians like Sanders, AOC, and Mamdani on the left. The interregnum opened up the “political opportunity structure” that brought both of these political expressions to the national stage in a way that wouldn’t have been possible before 2008.

AM: Considering online and IRL cruelty on one hand and existential threats to peace – including from our own government, like the president’s threat of genocide against Iran – on the other, how can we keep fear in check and continue the work of peacemaking and social change?

BP: Well, we must accept that risks come with being public about what we believe and putting those beliefs into action. At the same time, we must remember that many others share those beliefs and are also willing to work together for change. There really is strength in numbers! There’s also strength in a common vision for change and a shared commitment to doing what each of us can to make change happen.

We have an opportunity to ground a vision for change in the shared values of a government that really represents the people rather than special interests. For example, many Americans support policies like single payer healthcare, national paid family leave, and free higher education. Right now, the political system has too many “veto points” where a small, powerful minority can block what the majority wants, and too many entrenched interests that financially back that minority.

This is a “system failure”, and the consequences are not abstract. People feel them every day in their own lives and in their communities. Many people have a sense that the system is rigged, that it is built to protect the profits and priorities of a few at the expense of the rest of us. This is especially acute with the financial strain people are under. It’s this sense of frustration coupled with vulnerability that is fertile ground for authoritarianism.

The good news is that because the system was built by real people, it can be changed for the better by real people, and people of good will organizing for change tips the balance toward renewed faith in democracy. This requires, for example, working to get big money out of politics, supporting candidates who will give us real choices and force a genuine debate about our national priorities, and pushing for more accountable, more representative government in general. The more we can organize for changes like these, the sooner we bring the interregnum to an end on our terms and reclaim the democratic promise of America.

AM: Many of my friends, family, and acquaintances have expressed real concerns about their physical safety regarding speaking up, protesting, and defending democracy. Thankfully, we’re not in a civil war in this country. Yet, we learn about more human rights abuses every day. Hundreds of people are participating in hunger strikes to protest inhumane conditions, for example, Delaney Hall in NJ comes to mind. (another reason to call our senators and representatives). Asylum seekers are being deported to dangerous countries. American citizens are attacked by ICE. It doesn’t take a deep thinker to imagine things getting much worse, particularly with the massive funding for ICE. Your specific goals: “working to get big money out of politics” and “pushing for more accountable representative government” and the others listed above are so important. Thankfully, there are good candidates running in the midterms.

So, one last question…During this 250th anniversary of our democracy, how do we encourage more people, specifically those who have remained on the sidelines, to vote, help others vote, and get involved in whatever way they can when conditions are legitimately overwhelming and so often scary?

BP: It’s a good question. The history of the past 250 years is the story of struggle after struggle to expand democracy. Given the very real forces working to undermine what’s been won, it can feel a bit overwhelming to see any chance of change. When a majority of people feel like the system is rigged and that it’s risky to take public action in defense of democracy, it’s no wonder so many people stay on the sidelines.

But here’s one thing that can help get folks back in the game: stop telling them to defend a status quo that isn’t working for them. Instead, we need to emphasize that taking action, including voting, is the essence of self-government – the simple, radical idea that we, the people, should actually be the ones in charge.

The reason things feel so overwhelming isn’t because we’re apathetic, polarized, or even scared, it’s because characteristics of our political system that were designed to limit democracy are being exploited to block the changes most of us want. When your rent spikes or you’re rationing prescriptions or you’re living paycheck to paycheck even though you have a middle-class job, that’s not a mystery – that’s a system built over time to benefit the powerful few while ignoring most people’s daily struggles.

To move past the fear, we must remember that democracy isn’t what we have; it’s what we’re fighting for. We aren’t just “voting”; we’re reclaiming our right to have a say in the decisions that affect our communities and our everyday lives. We encourage people by offering solutions at the scale of our problems, like getting big money out of politics, fighting for health care and education as fundamental rights, and shifting spending from militarism to rebuilding public infrastructure and bolstering programs of social uplift.

It’s easy to identify “bad leaders”, but we must start seeing the system as a set of institutions and policies that we can update and use to solve public problems. When we do that, that’s when the overwhelm turns into a plan. Let’s use this anniversary to demand changes to politics so that our elected officials actually answer to us and work on our behalf. Our strength lies in the power of numbers, so getting as many people out to vote and involved in campaigns for change is key.

AM: Many thanks for this! You’ve given us a solid rationale and a strong motivation to talk to as many friends, family, and neighbors as possible to encourage and help them vote with the intent to better our everyday lives.

Benjamin A. Peters, PhD, is the Director of the Global Scholars Program and a faculty member at the University of Michigan. Prior to that, he worked in Japan for fourteen years, where he was a Professor of Political Science, Dean of the School of International Liberal Arts, and Vice President of Miyazaki International University. His teaching and research are in the areas of the human right to peace and cultures of peace, Japanese and Costa Rican politics, and constitutional antimilitarism.

This piece first appeared on Ann’s Substack.

Ann Mallen is a former teacher and current writer of both fiction and nonfiction. Her work has appeared in a variety of literary journals and online periodicals including The Washington Post and HuffPost Personal. She is a cancer survivor and lives with lupus and autoimmune hemolytic anemia. She was also the founder and director for nine years of The Cream Literary Alliance, a 501c3 nonprofit. She advocates for patients with AIHA and has been invited to present for awareness days, to attend professional summits and conferences, and to teach at a patient conference. She also writes the Substack publication: Staying Power. Website: annmallen.com