The American economy is once again under pressure as inflation continues to rise, putting financial strain on millions of households across the country. In the 2024 presidential election, many voters supported promises of economic reform and relief from the rising cost of living. But two years later, inflation is becoming one of the biggest concerns for ordinary Americans yet again. According to the latest Consumer Price Index (CPI) data released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, inflation climbed to 3.8% in April, driven largely by higher fuel, grocery, housing, and travel costs. Analysts warn that while the numbers may not yet match the historic inflation spikes seen after the COVID-19 pandemic, the current trend is alarming because it is closely tied to global instability and supply chain disruptions rather than domestic consumer demand alone. Inflation occurs when the prices of goods and services rise over time and reduce the purchasing power of money. For average Americans, this means everyday essentials such as gasoline, rent, food, and airline tickets cost significantly more than they did just a year ago. Families across the country are adjusting budgets, reducing discretionary spending, and delaying major purchases. Some of the biggest driving forces behind the latest inflation surge are the growing instability in the Middle East and the disruptions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important oil shipping routes. Nearly a fifth of the world’s oil passes through the narrow waterway. Fears surrounding supply interruptions have sent global energy prices sharply higher. Economists say these rising oil prices are now affecting almost every sector of the economy from transportation and manufacturing to grocery distribution. The impact is especially visible at gas stations across the United States. According to the AAA, the national average gasoline price has climbed to around $4.50 per gallon—the highest it has been since July 2022. Rising fuel costs are also increasing airline ticket prices and shipping expenses, which further contribute to a broader inflationary pressure upon the economy. President Donald Trump has repeatedly described the price increases as temporary. He argues that the administration’s economic strategy will stabilize markets over time. However, many economists are warning that geopolitical uncertainty and prolonged global conflicts could make recovery slower and more difficult than anticipated. At the same time, the White House is also facing growing pressure over trade policy and international diplomacy. On Thursday, President Trump met Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing for a high-stakes summit focused on trade, artificial intelligence, tariffs, and global security concerns. The meeting occurs at a critical moment considering that inflation, energy instability, and tensions in the Middle East continue to affect both global markets and public confidence. Reports suggest that both countries are discussing possible tariff reductions and renewed trade cooperation involving energy and agricultural products. U.S. officials indicated that China may consider purchasing more American oil as Beijing seeks alternatives to unstable Middle Eastern supply routes. The Trump-Xi meeting is being closely watched by global investors because the United States and China remain the world’s two largest economies. Any improvement in trade relations could help reduce market uncertainty and stabilize supply chains. However, analysts caution that no major breakthrough is expected immediately, particularly given ongoing disagreements over Taiwan, technology restrictions, and tariff policies. The inflation crisis is not limited to the United States. Around the world, governments are struggling with the economic consequences of rising energy prices and geopolitical tensions. In India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently urged citizens to reduce fuel and cooking oil consumption and avoid unnecessary foreign travel as global economic pressure intensifies. European economies, especially Germany’s, are also facing renewed energy inflation due to unstable oil supply chains and high import costs. Meanwhile, Japan continues to struggle with rising import prices caused by a weaker yen and expensive fuel imports. Countries like Canada and Australia are also battling persistent housing and grocery inflation despite tighter monetary policies and higher interest rates. The result is growing public frustration across multiple advanced economies. Citizens increasingly feel that wages are not sufficient to keep up with living costs. In the United States, inflation has also become deeply political. Supporters of President Trump argue that global conflicts and energy disruptions are largely outside Washington’s control. Critics, however, say aggressive tariff policies, international tensions, and commercial uncertainty have contributed to market instability and higher prices for consumers. Financial markets are now watching the Federal Reserve closely for possible responses. Some analysts believe the central bank may delay interest rate cuts if inflation continues rising while others fear prolonged inflation could eventually slow economic growth and further weaken consumer confidence. Despite differing political views, economists generally agree on one point: global stability plays a critical role in controlling inflation. Wars, trade disputes, supply chain disruptions, and energy insecurity can quickly push prices higher across the global economy. As Americans continue facing higher grocery bills, expensive fuel, and increased housing costs, many are beginning to question the attainability of the economic recovery that was promised. The coming months—which will hopefully bring the outcome of negotiations between the U.S. and China and developments in the Middle East—may determine whether inflation begins to cool or becomes an even greater burden on households worldwide.
By Susmita Majumder
Recently, international law, or more specifically, violation of international law, has been at the forefront of the media. For example, the U.S.- Israeli attacks on Iran have been criticized as a breach of UN Charter Article 2(4). The United Nations has “condemned” these actions, but nothing has actually been done. This has called into question the effectiveness of international law: why do these rules matter if countries are not actually obliged to follow them? What’s the point of international law? First, we need to establish there are two kinds of international law: binding and non-binding. So which one is more effective in ensuring state compliance? Binding law carries legal repercussions for violations, and non-binding law does not. At first glance, one would assume that binding law is more effective because there are repercussions for breaking it, which would encourage further compliance and cooperation. If a centralized coercive authority existed to punish states that violated international law, this would likely be true. However, there is no way to actually enforce binding international law in the same way that states enforce their own domestic laws. There is no central global authority, or put more simply, there is no official “world police” to punish violators of international law. Conversely, non-binding law is widely regarded as more effective than binding law because it does not require states to go through their domestic formal ratification processes. Since there is no coercive enforcement mechanism and all international law ultimately depends on voluntary compliance anyway, non-binding law is considered more effective because it is able to establish norms more quickly and broadly. This is especially important for countries where ratification of specific binding agreements is less likely, especially due to concerns regarding sovereignty. For example, the 1948 Human Rights Declaration was a non-binding agreement, but has served as the foundation for human rights norms in the modern day. Essentially, the “point” of international law is that it helps to establish “norms” for states to adhere to. Although international law cannot be enforced in the same way that domestic law would be, states are incentivized to follow international law because it represents a set of established global norms; such as collective security and sovereignty. Breaking these norms would damage a state’s credibility, hurting relations with other states. This is the reason international organizations are successful in sustaining cooperation: because they force states to repeatedly interact with each other, incentivizing “friendlier” behavior for fear that certain actions could cause them damage down the line. Furthermore, norms are entrenched by states and international organizations through a public calling out of violations, this is known as “naming and shaming.” This reputational pressure is the closest thing that international law has to an enforcement mechanism. However, it is important to acknowledge that there are limitations to the effectiveness of “naming and shaming.” Geopolitical affinity, or a state’s relationship to another state (positive or negative) is demonstrated to have an effect on which issues are brought to public attention (Terman and Byun 2021). Rival states are shown to criticize each other on more “sensitive” issues such as human rights abuses, while allied states will scrutinize “safer” problems such as socioeconomic inequality. Therefore, this form of enforcement through reputational pressure, though effective in some cases, is inconsistently applied because it is dependent on states’ political interests. Evidently, some states are more vulnerable to these reputational costs than others. Certain states are powerful and self-sufficient enough to not be dependent on the approval of other states. Also, some states have far more influence than others in setting these norms in the first place. For example, the permanent five members of the United Nations Security Council– the U.S., France, the U.K., Russia, and China –possess exclusive veto power regarding proposed resolutions. Why do these countries have such a large amount of influence over international law? Powerful states will always have more influence than other states when it comes to establishing global standards, and this has been institutionalized in international organizations such as the UN. Similarly, in the aforementioned process of “naming and shaming,” the criticisms of larger, more powerful states are given more credibility compared to those from smaller, weaker nations. Ultimately, because there is no central international authority, the cooperation and support of powerful states is vital to the credibility of international law and organizations as a whole. Evidently, international law has limitations: it reflects the existing global hierarchy, lacks enforcement power, and reputational pressure is inconsistently effective. Because of these factors and how they have impacted current events, we might be tempted to write it off as pointless. However, it is important to recognize that international law is still instrumental in sustaining international cooperation by providing a set of norms for states to follow. Although conflict is not eliminated, by creating an international order where criticism is encouraged, it is less likely than in the absence of the forum for cooperation that is facilitated by international law. References: Terman, Rochelle, and Joshua Byun. “Punishment and Politicization in the International Human Rights Regime.” American Political Science Review, vol. 116, no. 2, Nov. 2021, pp. 1–18, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055421001167.
By Madeleine Harp
Yes, he could be outrageous. When a little girl fell into a well in Texas and the rescue of “Baby Jessica” unfolded live on TV, CNN’s ratings skyrocketed. Ted joked maybe CNN should place candy bars around other wells. Yet, you could also find him in war-torn regions poking sticks in the ground searching for land mines that children were stepping on, blowing themselves up. He was complicated. Until I met Ted, I thought Lyndon Johnson was the most complex person I had ever known. Before I accepted the job as CNN’s president, I told him, “Ted, before you hire me, you need to know that I battle depression.” He shot back, “Hell, pal, let me tell you about me.” That’s all he said. It was classic Ted: disarming, revealing, and removed, all at once. He was impatient with a restless energy that could make him difficult. If you were late for a meeting with him, it was almost a death sentence. I think the reason he hated delay was because he couldn’t wait to get to the future. Above all, Ted Turner was a visionary. When he founded CNN as a 24-hour news channel, the other networks only provided morning and evening news shows. They would break into regular programming only for major events. Ted saw the need for an around-the-clock news network. He envisioned CNN as a truly global channel that would provide honest, reliable, unbiased information to people around the world, especially in countries where independent news was suppressed. When I was considering accepting the job, I asked Ted what he would expect of the next president of CNN. He said, “I want us to make CNN the absolute best news network on the planet.” When I asked him, what are your policies about news. He said, “Be fair.” He wanted reporters to report, anchors to anchor, and neither to editorialize. He wanted news to be the star, not the personalities. My first day at CNN was August 1, 1990. The following day, Iraq’s Sadam Hussein invaded Kuwait. I told Ted that if we were to be the premiere news source for a possible war between the U.S. and Iraq, it could cost as much as thirty million dollars over budget. His answer startled me: “You spend whatever you think it takes, pal.” With Ted’s total support, we established a special communications link, so that when all other networks lost their transmission capabilities from Baghdad all eyes turned to CNN. Over the eleven years I was with Ted, we covered so many other stories—the fall of the Soviet Union, the OJ Simpson trial, the Balkan Wars, the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the Waco siege, the death of Princess Diana. What would those years have been like without CNN? Ted told me that the most important thing he did in life was raising his five children. A close second was creating CNN. He was a man of many accomplishments. He won the America’s Cup, the renowned sailing race. He bought the Atlanta Braves and transformed them from one of baseball’s worst teams into one of its best. You could call those rich man’s toys, but Ted cared far more deeply about the planet. In 1998, he donated one billion dollars and created the United Nations Foundation to fund humanitarian causes such as helping refugees, fighting disease, and clearing landmines. He worked with former Senator Sam Nunn to reduce the dangers of nuclear weapons with the Nuclear Threat Initiative. He was a passionate steward of the land. Over the years, he acquired and worked to restore two million acres, cleaning the streams, removing the cattle, and reintroducing bison, gray wolves, and native plants and grasses. His bison herd now numbers over 45,000 head. On those lands, you can see what the Native Americans saw when they roamed there. No mention of Ted’s life can ignore the love he had for Jane Fonda. They were remarkable together, sharing both passion and purpose in the common cause for peace. Ted was dashing and charismatic with the neatly trimmed mustache of a Hollywood leading man of yesterday. He was a swashbuckler whose bravado exuded the promise of daring, romantic adventures. Ted was a maverick like no one I have ever known. We will miss you, pal. Tom Johnson was the President of CNN and is the author of Driven: A Life in Public Service and Journalism from LBJ to CNN.
By Tom Johnson
Follow Us