Trump's attempts to kneecap Harvard are a national own goal
Your browser does not support the element.
T he Trump administration's determination to bend higher-education institutions to its will seems to know no bounds—and nowhere is getting it worse than Harvard University. The outcome of Poland's presidential runoff matters far beyond its borders, now that it is a continental heavyweight (11:23). And a bid to elevate the humblest drink to a luxury beverage (19:25). Runtime: 25 min
Listen on: Apple Podcasts | Spotify
Get a world of insights by subscribing to Economist Podcasts+. For more information about how to access Economist Podcasts+, please visit our FAQs page or watch our video explaining how to link your account.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
7 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Donald Trump Ukraine plans prompts Pentagon peace summit with UK military chiefs
The Pentagon meeting, attended by Britain's top military chiefs, came amid deep unease in European capitals over the US president's changing stance about committing US resources British military chiefs are gathering at the Pentagon tonight to discuss exactly what role America is prepared to play in ensuring Ukraine's future security. The meeting, along with other European generals, comes amid deep unease in European capitals over Donald Trump's changing stance about committing US resources. Security minister Dan Jarvis yesterday said the talks about ending the war in Ukraine marked a "pivotal moment". "We are closer to peace than we've been at any point previously,' he said. 'And the UK Government - the Prime Minister has been clear about this - will want to play our full part in terms of ensuring that we secure that peace." Asked whether he is uncomfortable about "kowtowing" to Russian President Vladimir Putin, Mr Jarvis said he would describe it as "diplomacy" and "the best strategy to try and get a peace settlement". The minister added: "I think in situations such as this, you've got to be pragmatic. "The loss of life in Ukraine is horrific. "This is a conflict that has gone on for far too long. It needs to be brought to an end." Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, Britain's Chief of the Defence Staff, led the UK delegation at the Pentagon in Washington DC. He is understood to have told his American counterparts the UK is prepared to send troops to defend Ukraine's skies and seas but not to the frontline with Russia, as planning intensifies for a postwar settlement. Radakin joined senior counterparts from Germany, France, Finland and Italy in what officials described as a meeting of the 'coalition of the willing.' According to a senior UK official, last night's formal Pentagon session focused on 'security guarantees and peace deal monitoring. " The discussions were held behind closed doors, but were closely watched for any indication of what Washington is willing to put on the table. Trump has already drawn a firm line. On Monday, as Ukrainian leader Volodmyr Zelensky arrived at the White House, he initially said US troops could play a role, but he later stated it would not happen. His stance, while not unexpected, raises pressing questions about whether the US is prepared to provide other forms of support, ranging from intelligence sharing to air defence and the use of US bases in Europe. At the heart of the talks lies the single issue of whether Trump is willing to offer Ukraine what his adviser Steve Witkoff this week described as 'Article-5-like' assurance. It echoes NATO's principle that an attack on one member is an attack on all. For Ukraine, currently outside the Alliance, such pledges would be unprecedented. For Moscow, they would be viewed as a direct escalation. Ahead of last night's meeting, one Western diplomat said the 'vagueness' of Trump's language had fuelled confusion and anxiety. "European leaders need to know whether this is political theatre or an actual commitment,' they said. 'The difference could shape the entire outcome of the war.' There are also questions over whether coalition forces could rely on US military infrastructure in Europe to support operations. Bases in Germany, Italy and the UK remain critical hubs for NATO, but their use under a purely European-led mission would require White House consent. Another item on the agenda was intelligence sharing. Ukraine's battlefield successes have been heavily reliant on US surveillance and satellite imagery. Any scaling back could benefit Russia, while enhanced guarantees would signal long-term American engagement. Perhaps the most contentious proposal, said to be raised privately by some European chiefs, is whether to consider a no-fly zone in parts of Ukraine. While seen as highly unlikely under Trump, the fact that it remains on the list underscores European concern about Moscow's continued aerial bombardment. The Pentagon talks are not expected to yield immediate announcements. Officials stressed that discussions will continue in the coming weeks. Yet Putin cannot ignore the symbolism of five of Europe's top generals flying to Washington to hear Trump's position firsthand. One defence analyst said: 'This is the moment Europe finds out whether Trump is prepared to lead, or whether he expects the rest of NATO to shoulder the burden alone.'
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Putin hasn't made any real concessions yet
After the jaw-dropping spectacle of the Putin-Trump summit in Alaska, there was another full day of theatre on Monday as Trump hosted European leaders and President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House. Yet the results of this three-day diplomatic pageant are embarrassingly modest. One of Trump's trumpeted achievements is Russia's alleged agreement to western security guarantees for Ukraine. It was President Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff who first announced this breakthrough, with some fanfare, in an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper. 'We sort of were able to… get an agreement,' Witkoff said, 'that the United States could offer Article 5 protection [for Ukraine], which was the first time we had ever heard… the Russians agree to that.' The word 'sort of' does a lot of heavy lifting here because Russia's unprecedented concession is not a concession at all, or certainly not Russia's concession. It is the United States that, ignoring Zelensky's pleas, has refused to provide tangible security guarantees to Ukraine for fear that doing so could lead to a direct conflict with Russia. But, ever the salesman, Trump has managed to sell a US concession to Ukraine as Russia's major concession and an indication that Putin is willing to talk peace. As for Putin, it remains to be seen what he has actually agreed to. During his joint press conference with Trump, the Russian President referred vaguely to the importance of assuring Ukraine's security. 'Of course, we are willing to work on this,' he offered. But it is important to remember that already in the spring of 2022, during the ill-fated talks in Istanbul, the Russians provisionally agreed to a security mechanism for Ukraine that would involve the United States and other western powers. However, Putin made it clear then that he expected to have the right to veto any collective action to help Ukraine. It is unclear whether this expectation was brought up during his brief interaction with Trump in Anchorage. Thus constrained, any US security guarantee would not be worth the paper it's written on. The other major uncertainty pertains to Russia's willingness (or not) to permit Western contingents in Ukraine as part of a peace settlement. Moscow has repeatedly rejected the idea of troops on the ground in Ukraine if these troops are from Nato member states. The latest rebuttal came even as Trump was meeting European leaders in Washington in the form of a scornful comment by the eccentric spokesperson of the Russian Foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova who criticised Great Britain – which, along with France, has been one of the leaders of the so called 'coalition of the willing' and has broached the subject of sending contingents to Ukraine – for 'risky and ill-thought-through geopolitical gambits' and for trying to 'obstruct the careful work of the Russian and American negotiators.' Helping Maria Zakharova's case, President Trump has not been very forthcoming with concrete details of US participation. His message – as he put it in a joint press conference with President Zelensky – is that Europe would be 'the first line of defence… but we're gonna help them out also.' What that 'help' may amount to remains to be seen. For now, at least, Trump's security promise sounds rather hollow. So, the big question – what kind of security guarantees Russia has agreed to, and what kind of security guarantees the United States might be willing to offer – remains completely obscure. In the absence of a breakthrough on this important question, Trump's diplomacy is little more than a fireworks show: it offers a momentary distraction from the gruelling reality of war. Trump has now kicked the ball back over to the Russians and the Ukrainians. He expects Putin and Zelensky to meet in person and just work it out among themselves. In a middle-of-the-night phone call with Trump, Putin promised – per Russian readout – to 'consider the possibility of raising the level of representatives of Ukrainian and Russian sides… participating in direct negotiations.' In the meantime, Russian forces continued pummelling targets across Ukraine. Putin has offered no concrete evidence that he is willing to make a deal on terms that would fall short of Ukraine's capitulation. 'If there aren't concessions, if one side gets everything they want, that's called surrender,' Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared on August 17, shortly after Alaska. But he has failed to show what concessions Putin has made. By all indications, Putin has promised nothing in the way of substance, yet just enough for Trump to drop all talk of 'severe consequences' for Russia if he continued to drag his feet. Shortly before his meeting with European leaders, Trump was caught in hot mic moment: 'I think he wants to make a deal for me,' he said. 'Do you understand? As crazy as it sounds.' Trump may be crazy to believe Putin's good intentions, but he has had us all glued to TV screens in the hope that somehow, against all evidence to the contrary, he will in the end pull a rabbit out of the hat and finally deliver peace. There has been nothing in the hat so far.
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
Estee Lauder forecasts annual profit below estimates as tariffs hit
Aug 20 (Reuters) - Estee Lauder (EL.N), opens new tab forecast annual profit below Wall Street estimates on Wednesday, as the cosmetics giant grapples with persistent weakness in the U.S. and China markets and tariff uncertainty, sending its shares down about 9% in premarket trading. The company also said it expects a hit of about $100 million to its 2026 profit from tariff-related headwinds. The Trump administration's unpredictable trade policies have strained consumers' wallets as well as put an operational strain on businesses, forcing companies to find ways to counter tariff impact while devising strategies to reignite growth. Estee's organic net sales for the fourth quarter fell 13%, compared with an 8% rise a year ago, primarily hurt by weakness in the skincare and makeup segments. To revive sales, Estee Lauder has been accelerating new launches in categories including skincare, introducing new luxury price tiers, increasing investments and implementing cost-savings measures, under new CEO Stephane de La Faverie, who took up the top job earlier this year. The MAC lipstick maker has previously said it expects to take restructuring charges between $1.2 billion and $1.6 billion, before taxes in 2026. The company expects full-year adjusted earnings per share to be in the range of $1.90 to $2.10, compared with analysts' estimates of $2.21, according to data compiled by LSEG.
