TheChek News Flow

Latest orders to leave extend to suburbs within 30km of the centre of Bordeaux

Forest fires burning out of control in France and Spain have forced the evacuation of almost 260,000 people, with the latest orders stretching to the outer suburbs of Bordeaux.

The emergency measures issued early on Saturday morning encompassed the Mérignac area around the Bordeaux airport, which said it was still operating but that bus and tram services to the site had been suspended.

The Bordeaux-Lac exhibition centre has been turned into a shelter for those displaced by the wildfires, which have escalated through the summer, fuelled by drought conditions and extreme heat.

Residents and tourists in the seaside resort of Cap Ferret had been asked to leave the peninsula on Arcachon Bay both by road and by emergency ferries on Friday.

France’s wildfires have forced 197,000 people to evacuate and burnt an area of just under 98,000 hectares so far, a new historic record, interior minister Laurent Nuñez said on Saturday.

Several fires have been raging in the forests in the Gironde region around Bordeaux this week, with more than 1,000 firefighters deployed to seek to limit the damage. Separate blazes in the Landes and Var regions have stretched resources further.

“The fires that are hitting our country have reached a level that has never been seen before,” France’s Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu wrote on social media.

In Spain, out-of-control wildfires close to Madrid did not spread significantly overnight, which Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said this weekend presented a pivotal “window of opportunity” to tame them.

Fires around rural towns west of the Spanish capital worsened dramatically on Friday, forcing almost 60,000 people to be evacuated and 28,000 to be confined to their homes as flames and smoke filled darkening skies.

“We’re going to face a challenging few hours,” Sánchez said on a visit to the disaster zone on Saturday morning, “because temperatures have indeed dropped, but we don’t know exactly how the winds will develop or how strong they will be.”

His government said the overnight fight against the flames, which are as close as 50km to the capital, had been aided by reduced winds, higher humidity and lower temperatures.

Isabel Díaz Ayuso, president of the Madrid region, which includes rural towns scattered around the capital, called the fires the worst in the area’s history as attempts were made to stop the bigger blazes from converging.

Both France and Spain have requested EU assistance to help battle the fires. Sánchez said that Madrid was awaiting the imminent arrival of firefighting vehicles and personnel from Italy, Greece and Portugal.

EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen said on Saturday that a total of 11 planes and helicopters had been sent.

With more than 20,000 hectares scorched by the fires near Madrid, Sánchez said the amount of land ravaged by wildfires this year in Spain had already reached 130,000 hectares — well above the average of 100,000 hectares per year over the past decade.

“Now is the time to act responsibly and to strengthen our unity in the face of this emergency. It is also time to speed up the agreements needed to tackle the climate emergency,” Sánchez wrote on X.

Spain and France have been the epicentre of this year’s European wildfire season. Especially severe blazes in southern Spain killed at least 13 people earlier this month.

Despite a wetter than usual start to the year in western Europe, the fire conditions have been worsened by successive heatwaves that dried out vegetation, making it easier for blazes to start and spread.

Last month was the hottest June on record on the fastest-warming continent as a result of climate change.

Wildfires have broken out from the UK to Norway. A major incident was declared on Saturday by Scotland’s government, bringing in extra firefighting services after the worsening of a blaze burning in the Cairngorms National Park for more than a week. 

They Used GLP-1s to Lose Weight. They Ended Up in Treatment for Anorexia.

The miracle drugs helping America fight obesity can have a dangerous downside: triggering disordered eating

When Molly Taylor started taking Mounjaro in the fall of 2024, she marveled at the speed of results. She wasn’t overweight, but she hadn’t been comfortable in her body. Now, she could eat whatever she wanted, just in smaller portions, and people were complimenting her looks. She no longer felt self-conscious.

Then her mindset began to shift.

“I gradually started to worry about what I was eating, how many calories were in it, if it was going to stop me from losing more weight,” said the 23-year-old nanny, who is studying to be a nurse in London. “I think that’s when I was starting to develop anorexia.”

GLP-1s have been hailed as miracle drugs, their rise leading to critical breakthroughs in America’s fight against obesity. Roughly 13 million Americans are now on them, according to research from JPMorgan published in February. The drugs mimic naturally occurring hormones to suppress appetite and cravings and make people feel full. For those who’ve struggled with restrictive eating and anorexia, that can be a tantalizing proposition—and a dangerous one.

Anorexia kills a higher percentage of patients than any other eating disorder, and it is the second most deadly mental illness after opioid addiction, according to data compiled by the nonprofit National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders.

“I recovered from anorexia myself many years ago, and had this been on the market, I think I certainly would have tried to access it,” said Jennifer Rollin, therapist and founder of the Eating Disorder Center, which is based in Rockville, Md., and provides therapy for patients in seven states.

“Seeing all of the celebrities on the red carpet and so many friends and family members, kind of, bragging about weight loss—that has been a huge trigger for many of the clients I work with,” she said.

Rollin’s business has helped treat people with eating disorders who’ve obtained GLP-1 medications to suppress their appetites, as well as those who were triggered into disordered eating while taking the drugs for approved conditions.

The popularity of Novo Nordisk’s Ozempic, approved for use in 2017 to treat Type 2 diabetes, helped usher in a new wave of GLP-1 drugs that are helping people address chronic weight issues and related problems like sleep apnea and adverse cardiovascular events. Researchers are probing for other applications.

Some doctors say the drugs have as much potential to hurt people with certain eating disorders as to help people with others. The drugs have been used off-label to help with conditions like binge eating and bulimia, which are notoriously difficult to treat.

Jamie Thayer, 48, was prescribed Wegovy for weight loss. “It was like a miracle at first,” she said.

She weighed 240 pounds when she started taking the drug in March 2023, and she rapidly started to shed pounds. She also experienced very low energy, hair loss, severe dizziness, fainting spells from low blood sugar and brain fog. Her son, who had recovered from anorexia, shared his concern with her that Thanksgiving.

“I was really proud of my weight loss at that point,” said Thayer, a Title IX coordinator in Frederick, Md. “I thought I was doing a really good thing.”

When her insurance stopped covering brand-name GLP-1s, she started buying a compounded powder version from China and reconstituting it at home. Meanwhile, her eating became more disordered, governed by strict rules.

“I wouldn’t eat Monday or Tuesday, then on Wednesday I could get a pastry,” she said. “My shot would start to wear off around Saturday, so I usually got some calories on Saturday and Sunday.”

In July 2024, after losing 100 pounds, she checked into a residential treatment center in Connecticut, where she was diagnosed with atypical anorexia and, soon after, re-feeding syndrome, which endangers malnourished people who take on food too fast. She said it saved her life.

Sam DeCaro, director of clinical outreach and education at the Renfrew Center, described a common misconception: that undereating is fine for people who are not considered underweight. In fact, it can be a sign of atypical anorexia, where someone has all the hallmarks of anorexia but is not underweight by body-mass index standards.

“Their undernourishment is causing them all these medical issues, heart issues,” DeCaro said. “It affects every system in the body.”

The rise of telehealth has made it easier than ever for people to obtain pharmaceuticals. Taylor, the nanny in London, said she submitted a doctored photograph of herself that made her look heavier to obtain her prescription. Jessica Scheer, CEO of National Eating Disorders Association, said the organization has heard that some providers don’t screen for a history of disordered eating before prescribing GLP-1s.

The makers of popular GLP-1 drugs have condemned the use of their medications for cosmetic weight loss. The medications don’t warn against using the drugs if you have a history of eating disorders. As with all prescriptions, it is up to care providers to determine whether a medication is right for a particular patient.

“We support our medicines being prescribed to patients who meet the indicated criteria and only promote the FDA-approved indications of our medicines for appropriate patients,” a Novo Nordisk spokesperson said in a statement.

“Patient safety is Lilly’s top priority,” an Eli Lilly spokesperson said in a statement. “As part of our routine safety review process for obesity management and Type 2 diabetes medications, we are working closely with regulators regarding potential safety topics, and we will continue to review data, including any data regarding eating disorders.”

Taylor, who began injecting in October 2024, was hospitalized in May 2025, soon after returning from a vacation. She’d gone about two weeks without eating, and her weight had dropped from 147 pounds to 103.

“I had to slowly re-feed myself and also get all my electrolytes and everything replenished,” she said. She didn’t tell the hospital about her GLP-1 use. “I wanted to carry on losing weight.”

When Mounjaro became harder to get, she sought out the medication through a friend of a friend. This January, she stopped the injections and began going to eating disorder treatment several times a week.

“I still struggle massively, and my weight has continued to go down,” she said. She currently weighs 88 pounds and plans to seek inpatient treatment, as soon as a room becomes available.

‘Matisse’s “Femme au chapeau”: A Modern Scandal’ Review: The Legacy of a Revolutionary Portrait

An exhibition at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art considers the controversial 1905 painting and the Salon that launched the artist and his fellow Fauvists to fame.

San Francisco

In late summer 1905, as Henri Matisse was preparing for the Salon d’Automne, he decided to add a portrait to the colorful landscapes he had created that year in Collioure, in southern France. Using spontaneous brushstrokes, he painted his wife, Amélie, with strange green skin (save for a rosy cheek and her ear), a direct gaze and an elaborate blue hat. Critics at the Salon raged. “A pot of paint has just been thrown in the public’s face,” howled one; another famously called Matisse and fellow artists in the Salon’s Gallery VII “wild beasts” (“fauves” in French). Even Leo Stein, the American expatriate proponent of avant-garde art, called it “brilliant and powerful, but the nastiest smear of paint I had ever seen.”

So began the life of the painting that birthed Fauvism, France’s first contribution to 20th- century modernism, and that is now the subject of “Matisse’s ‘Femme au chapeau’: A Modern Scandal” at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. With nearly 90 artworks and more than 60 historical documents and ephemera, the exhibition tells a three-part story: of the Salon, of the influence “Femme au chapeau” has had, and of the painting’s path to becoming a signature of the museum’s collection. Organized by chief curator Janet Bishop and former associate curator Maria Castro, now at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, it remains on view through Sept. 13.

The first gallery introduces Matisse (1869-1954) and Amélie, including a pleasant landscape he painted on their Corsican honeymoon (1898); a portrait of her (c. 1900) by Albert Marquet; and some period hats and fans. On one wall, an animation (2026) of the Grand Palais, made with archival images by Google Arts & Culture Lab, recreates the Salon’s milieu and readies visitors for the next gallery.

There they will see a stripped-down version of Gallery VII, with 27 examples by all 10 artists, from Matisse and Marquet to André Derain and Maurice de Vlaminck, who contributed the 55 artworks displayed in that space. As if to underscore the radical turn these artists were making, the paintings are hung on an ornate plum-red wallpaper in a wainscoted gallery that harks back to the Grand Palais’s look.

Today, the artworks look tame: Their thick paint, loose brushstrokes and vibrant, often clashing colors no longer shock. If some, like Derain’s “Fishing Boats, Collioure” (1905), with its pale pink and orange waters, seem “unnatural,” a critics’ complaint, they are also beautiful.

What is obvious is Matisse’s superiority; little wonder that he was attacked. “Open Window, Collioure” (1905)—depicting sailboats on the water seen through a large window in a room with green, peach and hot-pink walls—is an early example of what became a signature motif. In “La Japonaise: Woman Beside the Water” (1905), Matisse uses big daubs of paint to portray a kimono-clad female who blends into her surroundings. And of course there is “Femme au chapeau”—the obvious star.

On the Salon’s last day, Stein bought it with his sister, Gertrude. They hung it in their apartment, soon to host their Saturday evening salons for artists and writers. The exhibition transports visitors there in the next gallery via another large-scale animated projection.

The following space shows how artists drew on “Femme au chapeau” through 1948. Jean Metzinger’s “Femme au chapeau” (c. 1906), Vlaminck’s “Femme au chapeau” (1906) and Kees van Dongen’s “Femme au chapeau fleuri” (1905) read as homages, exhibiting little innovation. Yasuo Kuniyoshi’s untitled still life (1934) goes furthest afield—seemingly unrelated until, under the compote, a grisaille image of Matisse’s masterpiece becomes clear, embellished by grapes Kuniyoshi painted atop Madame’s hat.

Here the exhibit detours. Gertrude and Leo Stein split their collection in 1913-14, with Gertrude taking “Femme,” which she soon peddled to her brother Michael and his wife, Sarah. In 1948, they sold it to Elise Stern Haas, a Levi Strauss heiress. In 1990, the painting was part of her large bequest to SFMOMA, which is honored here by the display of 26 other early 20th-century works she gave it, including paintings by Picasso, Georgia O’Keeffe and Diego Rivera.

The last gallery showcases art made since the 1950s. Richard Diebenkorn’s “Woman in Hat and Gloves” (1963) depicts his wife, seated cross-legged, in muted blues and grays. She faces in the opposite direction of “Femme,” but the shape of her face and pointed nose, and the way her large hat exceeds the picture frame, allude to Matisse. David Hockney, David Park, Wayne Thiebaud, Joan Brown and Mickalene Thomas all painted women in hats, each with a color, a pose, a gaze or another affinity with the Matisse, but none as inspired as Diebenkorn, who created something truly fresh out of his lifelong admiration for the French master. The one sculpture, Rachel Harrison’s “Hoarders” (2012), a large amorphous lump, accompanied by a digital monitor, trash can and purple carpet, hints at Matisse’s palette, but it looks irrelevant.

It is too much to expect artists to rise to Matisse’s level. But then maybe a better ending to this exhibition would have addressed the effect the “Modern Scandal” had on Matisse, who was distressed but undeterred by it. Fauvism soon faded, but color—bold, brilliant hues—remained among his hallmarks as he grew to become one of the 20th century’s greatest artists. Just a coda to this important episode would do.

Matisse’s ‘Femme au chapeau’: A Modern Scandal

San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, through Sept. 13

Kaleidoscope of industries emerge as early winners from administration’s health regulation overhaul

Businesses tied to Robert F Kennedy Jr’s Make America Healthy Again movement are poised to benefit from a regulatory overhaul in Washington, as companies aligned with his agenda emerge as its earliest winners.

At a two-day meeting at the US Food and Drug Administration on Thursday and Friday, a Kennedy-backed advisory panel voted to broaden public access to a handful of drugs known as peptides, despite the agency’s scientific staff advising against it.

Wall Street analysts say the market for the drugs — which have gained popularity through social media claims ranging from rapid healing to muscular development — could grow into a multibillion-dollar opportunity for pharmacies, telehealth providers and drugmakers.

While President Donald Trump has drawn scrutiny for promoting cryptocurrencies and other businesses linked to his administration, less attention has focused on healthcare companies that could benefit from regulatory shifts under Kennedy. Now, a parallel “Maha Inc” kaleidoscope of companies and industries whose prospects are tied to the White House’s healthcare agenda is emerging.

One likely beneficiary is Enhanced Group, a telehealth company whose investors include Donald Trump Jr. It is preparing to sell peptides and its founder and chair, Christian Angermayer, appeared at a Maha event in November. Enhanced did not respond to a request for comment.

Olympia Pharmaceuticals, a Florida-based pharmacy that also appeared at the conference, has made multiple contributions to a Maha political fundraising group operated by one of Kennedy’s close associates, including one payment just a month after the FDA said it would consider loosening restrictions on peptides.

Olympia’s chief executive is also on the Maha group’s board of directors. Olympia also stands to benefit from the regulatory changes, according to investment bank Needham.

The FDA panel was “stacked” with people from the pharmacy industry who stand to benefit from the regulatory changes for peptides, said Paul Kim, a partner at consultancy Kendall Square Policy Strategies. “The conflicts here are astonishing,” he said. “It is political theatre at this point.”

Other sectors featured at the Maha conference have also benefited from regulatory changes under Kennedy. Companies developing psychedelic therapies and wearable health technologies are also poised to benefit from regulatory changes he has championed.

The FDA is scheduled to consider expanding access to psychedelic drugs in September. Shares of companies developing treatments based on psilocybin “magic” mushrooms, LSD and MDMA, also known as ecstasy, rose in April after the president signed an executive order increasing access to the drugs. Angermayer is also founder of psychedelics company AtaiBeckley.

Manufacturers of wearable health-tracking devices have also benefited under Kennedy. Earlier this year, the FDA updated guidance for wellness devices such as wrist-worn health trackers, affirming they do not need to be regulated like medical devices.

Kennedy’s 2025 promotion of wearables “handed the category a tailwind”, said Mike Collett, managing partner at Promus Ventures, a Chicago-based investment firm that holds stakes in manufacturer Whoop and Definium Therapeutics, which is developing psychedelics. Whoop declined to comment.

“The Maha label is yet another political slogan, although one I hope will have a long shelf life,” Collett said.

Maha-aligned businesses are drawing investment interest from Finn Kennedy, one of Kennedy’s sons. Earlier this year, Finn Kennedy sought to raise $100mn for an investment fund targeting Maha businesses in healthcare, AI, consumer health and other health technologies.

It is unclear how much he has raised for the fund, Victura Ventures, named for a sailboat owned by his great-uncle, former president John F Kennedy. Finn Kennedy did not respond to requests for comment.

Maha Holdings organised the November summit, attended by Kennedy, vice-president JD Vance and other officials. Finn Kennedy is listed as a board member. Maha Holdings is planning another event in September and has approached companies about participating, according to two groups that received overtures.

Tony Lyons, president of the Maha Action political fund, said: “We will bring together scientists, innovators, activists and government officials to a conversation that’s been censored at the expense of the kind of health outcomes that the American people have a right to expect.”

The health department said “regulatory decisions are made independently” of Maha.

For peptides, the FDA has warned the drugs considered at the meeting do not have clear health benefits. For BPC-157, known as the “wolverine drug” for its purported ability to heal injuries and reduce inflammation, the agency said research “weighs against” broadening the drug to more people.

“There is insufficient clinical safety information to characterise the safety profile of BPC-157,” FDA staffers said in materials posted on its website before the meeting.

Despite the concerns, healthcare companies are considering peptides as a new market. Telehealth company Hims acquired a peptide-manufacturing facility last year.

“We are very excited about peptides, at the same time we are going to await final guidance from the FDA,” Anant Vinjamoori, Hims’s chief medical officer, said in an interview. “We are starting to build the infrastructure.”

Consumers are buying popular peptides through the grey market, and pharmacy companies maintain a clearer framework would improve safety by shifting production to FDA-regulated facilities.

“We would happily take on the task and be regulated and do this right,” said Joshua Fritzler, president of Olympia Pharmaceuticals.

Olympia contributed $100,000 to the Maha political action committee last year and the company’s chief executive Mark Mikhael gave $25,000 in May, according to federal disclosures.

“I think health and wellness crosses the boundaries of political parties,” Fritzler said.

Jon Lensing, chief executive and founder of telehealth business OpenLoop, another pharmacy business eyeing the peptides market, has contracted with Enhanced Group. Lensing spoke alongside Fritzler at the Maha event.

“The administration, the Health and Human Services Department in particular, is doing what we want them to do,” Lensing said. “It would be a disservice to the American public not to.”

The Kheibar Shekan uses a combination of flight paths, maneuvers and speeds to confuse air defenses

The Kheibar Shekan missile is the workhorse of Tehran’s arsenal—a cheap, mobile, accurate weapon with a range of at least 900 miles. And recently, Iran has been using it in complex attacks, proving itself to be an adaptable adversary for the U.S.

Since the fighting picked back up this month, Iran has been firing the Kheibar Shekan at American bases, U.S. officials said. It is using a combination of different flight paths, maneuvers and speeds to try to confuse U.S. defenses, they say.

The U.S. and its partners have shot down most Kheibar Shekans throughout the war, one of the U.S. officials said, but some have gotten through.

Unlike Iran’s older missiles that require lengthy prelaunch fueling, military analysts say the Kheibar Shekans can be kept fueled and loaded quickly into trucks or other vehicles for launching in an attempt to evade U.S. and Israeli warplanes seeking to knock out Iranian missile sites.

In some variants of the missile, the nose section, which carries the explosive warhead and detaches during the final phase of flight, is equipped with a small engine that makes it capable of adjusting its direction as it nears its target at 6,000 miles an hour, according to analysts and officials.

Ballistic missiles travel into the upper atmosphere or space before plunging back down toward a target, but not all are capable of maneuvering. Military analysts who have studied the Kheibar Shekan said it can vary its trajectory more than some other ballistic missiles in an attempt to make it harder to detect and destroy.

Iran is also launching high-speed attack drones and less sophisticated missiles at the same locations it is targeting with the satellite-guided Kheibar Shekans, adapting its tactics throughout the war, the U.S. officials said.

Since the ceasefire collapsed, Iran has repeatedly targeted housing areas where U.S. troops stay at bases across the Middle East, officials say. Iran has also gone after the radars that underpin air defenses across the region, a strategy that puts American servicemembers at greater risk, they say.

“I think what it tells us is Iran is paying attention, and they’re learning and they’re looking at ways that they can get at us,” said retired Army Gen. Joseph Votel, who has led U.S. Central Command. “This is a military that has a well-developed drone capability, it’s had a missile program, a rocket program for a long period of time. They’ve got a lot of expertise in this area.”

Iran was believed to have 2,500 Kheibar Shekans and other medium-range missiles before the war began, according to U.S. and Israeli estimates. It might be assembling more from components stored in underground bases, but the production facilities where engines for the missiles were built have been destroyed, said Fabian Hinz, an independent missile expert.

“The Iranians kind of figured out during the war that the Kheibar Shekans are great because it’s pretty cheap to produce, it’s flexible with launch systems, and it’s pretty effective,” said Nicole Grajewski, an expert on Iranian strategy at Sciences Po in Paris.

Iran has fired Kheibar Shekans at Israel, which says it shot most of them down. Iran has also claimed that it targeted the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the headquarters of Israel’s air force commander using Kheibar Shekans. Last month, it announced another attack with the missiles, along with jet-powered drones. The results of those attacks couldn’t be determined.

The missile is named after the Battle of Khaybar, the 628 campaign in which the Prophet Muhammad’s forces conquered the fortified oasis of Khaybar, then held by Arabian Jews.

Iran hasn’t disclosed the cost of a Kheibar Shekan, but analysts said it is far cheaper than the U.S. and Israeli interceptors used to take them down at a cost of between $2 million and $15 million, depending on the system.

Iran seems to have improved its missile attacks, likely by studying previous launches and figuring out how to maximize the possibility the weapons will get through, Hinz said.

Iran “has seen what types of maneuvers are the most effective ones for overcoming missile defense,” Hinz said. “Every single combat use gives you some sort of data, so that’s very useful for the Iranians.”

​Iran has long said the Kheibar Shekan can maneuver in the final stage of its flight to evade air defenses, he added.

Pressure builds in Washington to rein in AI, while the industry fights over who should hold the leash

AI panic has swept Washington.

And, in real time, we’re watching wannabe masters of the artificial-intelligence universe try to win an upper hand in controlling the new technology.

OpenAI’s revelation this past week that its AI models escaped confinement and hacked another tech company’s systems gave new credibility to fears that this technology can, in fact, go sci-fi villain mode.

Add into the mix announcements that Chinese AI rivals have new, free models, allegedly built off the learnings of the expensive ones developed by the likes of Anthropic. That opened a new front in the geopolitical fight between China and the U.S.

The Trump administration was already staring down a deadline to put in place the mechanisms for a June 2 executive order to increase oversight of the biggest AI labs’ models. That order was sparked by fears the systems are becoming more powerful.

Taken all together in such rapid succession, it has increased the pressure in Washington to do something. The fear of many in the industry is that a rush to do something—anything—will hinder innovation or benefit one player over another.

For years, the largest AI companies have been trying to get ahead of things, advocating proactively for regulations to place guardrails around the powerful technology. They argued this was needed to prevent disaster for cybersecurity, biological threats and other risky areas.

Such efforts drew eye rolls among those who didn’t believe the predictions. Then, as the technology advanced, their calls drew criticism that what they were really trying to do was write the rules for their own benefit—regulatory capture—at the expense of smaller rivals.

Still, just days ago, it seemed like an unlikely unified front of AI leaders might finally make headway in Washington, D.C.

On July 14, Google DeepMind co-founder Demis Hassabis published a proposal calling for the creation of an AI standards body. This would be modeled after the self-regulating organization that oversees stockbrokers. Funding would come from the industry and a board that would include technical specialists and open-source representatives.

“When there is a large degree of uncertainty and the stakes are this high, proceeding with cautious optimism is the sensible and correct strategy,” Hassabis wrote. “That calls for public policy that promotes innovation while also incentivising responsibility and security, fosters international collaboration on key safety issues, and encourages careful consideration of how AI is deployed for the benefit of society.”

The Nobel laureate is a deeply respected, superstar in the AI field but has less of a public profile in the U.S., where his peers have become more polarizing figures.

Before publishing, Hassabis had worked to build support for the idea among his rivals. The effort seemed to pay off—even if it created some odd bedfellows.

Elon Musk called Hassabis’s proposal “a thoughtful framework overall and certainly a good starting point for discussion,” while OpenAI CEO Sam Altman posted something similar on X: “this is a thoughtful proposal from demis.”

You don’t see these two guys agree on much these days. Altman and Musk formed OpenAI years ago in response to Google’s acquisition of DeepMind, and both men have subsequently become bitter rivals.

Nevertheless, the enemy of your enemy’s regulation is your friend. As Musk explained in an interview with the Economist published this past week: “It is quite difficult for someone in the government who doesn’t have a deep technical understanding and isn’t driving the frontier of AI to know whether something should be released or not. However…all of the competitors have an incentive to keep the others honest.”

After publication of Hassabis’s proposal, a report from Bloomberg News suggested Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had been developing a similar proposal. But as quickly as it seemed like they might have a breakthrough, things started to grow more complicated.

OpenAI rocked the Capitol late Tuesday with the disclosure that its models had hacked Hugging Face, an open-source AI tool company. It drew a swift reaction.

“AI is developing extremely fast with no real regulations to keep us safe,” Rep. Greg Casar (D., Texas) said in reference to the OpenAI hack. “That has to change.”

One idea to draw attention was a bipartisan bill introduced Thursday in the House that would require AI makers to include a capability within their systems to allow the government to shut down their models using a so-called kill switch.

“Humans should be in control, not machines. And when AI goes rogue, humans should have the ability to turn it off,” Rep. Ted Lieu (D., Calif.), one of the bill’s sponsors, said in a post on social media Thursday.

OpenAI’s announcement seemed a little too on the nose for some in the tech industry already suspicious of its efforts to shape regulations to its liking.

Timnit Gebru, a prominent AI researcher, on LinkedIn called the lab’s communication “top notch propaganda.”

Legendary venture capitalist Bill Gurley was especially blunt in his own social-media post: “If OpenAI violated Hugging Face in a way that ‘demands’ new regulation; let’s start with a formal criminal investigation. With a proper third party investigation. And sincere liability.”

Amid those exchanges, the Trump administration could be seen publicly wrestling with how to handle the threat of Chinese models.

A statement from Bessent suggesting Chinese AI could face trade restrictions drew pushback from some of the biggest names in tech, including the claim that he is carrying Anthropic’s water. By Friday, several tech giants issued a letter—including X posts from Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella and Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang—advocating for open AI models—a position that helps their businesses.

In fact, Huang made his first-ever X post on the matter.

Former White House AI czar David Sacks called for “panic” to stop around open-weight models, which allow anyone to download for use freely. “President Trump’s light-touch regulatory approach is working,” he posted on X. “We should remain confident in American innovation. As long as we don’t sabotage ourselves with unnecessary rules, the U.S. will continue to win.”

The irony is that as all of these tech companies wrestle to keep ahead of the quick-moving technology, they want the same thing that traditional companies desire: predictability.

Except in the AI age, no one has mastered that.

Europe Express: Macron and Merz move on from fighter jet heartbreak

The threat of a Le Pen presidency has provided an incentive for Paris and Berlin to come together

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and French President Emmanuel Macron met in the Rhine Valley last week to try and repair relations after the acrimonious collapse of their flagship fighter jet project.

As so often in diplomacy between the two countries, the occasion was steeped in symbolism. This 26th annual Franco-German cabinet meeting took place at Augustusburg Castle, near Cologne, where Konrad Adenauer and Charles de Gaulle met in 1962 to discuss what would become the Élysée Treaty — an agreement that transformed two historic enemies into Europe’s closest partners.

This time, however, there was no grand bargain or defining new initiative. Relations have been bumpy in recent months, set back by Berlin’s decision to pull the plug on the jet element of the Future Combat Air System (FCAS).

Since Merz took office last year, the initial enthusiasm for renewed collaboration between Paris and Berlin has given way to resigned pragmatism. “We know by heart what is said about the Franco-German couple,” Macron admitted after the meeting. “The truth is, if it doesn't move forward, Europe doesn't move forward.”

Reimagining a post-FCAS method

Both leaders reaffirmed their commitment to developing a joint combat cloud, the digital system designed to link aircraft, drones, sensors and command systems. But the months-long industrial dispute between contractors Dassault Aviation and Airbus has left deep scars.

Macron and Merz called for a new approach to managing joint defence projects. At stake is the future of the Main Ground Combat System, the Franco-German programme to develop the next generation battle tank that will replace France’s Leclerc and Germany’s Leopard 2. The project has been mired in delays and industrial wrangling.

Yet the two leaders appeared to differ on what the new approach should look like. Macron, who launched FCAS alongside then-Chancellor Angela Merkel at a similar cabinet meeting in 2017, argued for tighter governmental oversight to prevent such programmes from “drifting”. From Merz’s perspective, “industrial differences” cannot simply be overridden by political will.

FCAS is likely to serve as a cautionary tale, prompting Paris and Berlin to pursue smaller, more clearly defined forms of co-operation, according to Paul Maurice at the French Institute of International Relations. Such an approach would better suit Germany’s growing defence ambitions. “2017 — the era of the big speeches, the grand visions — is over,” Maurice said. “The world has completely changed.”

Merz’s hawkish shift on China

The two leaders seemed most in agreement on a tougher approach to China. That largely reflects a recent shift in Merz’s own thinking, according to government insiders.

The Chancellor was particularly forceful in discussions about how to better protect EU manufacturers from heavily subsidised Chinese imports and a devalued renminbi, one participant said. German carmakers continue to invest heavily in China despite official calls to “de-risk” and, according to Berlin government sources, are lobbying Merz’s coalition to go easy on trade measures being discussed in Brussels. But they are also shedding jobs and shutting down plants at home, spreading the pain to the country’s Mittelstand.

Macron appeared notably pleased, saying the two countries had “never been as aligned” on the issue. Merz did not contradict him, adding that China’s “€1bn-a-day” trade surplus with the EU “cannot carry on like this.” Paris and Berlin will outline joint proposals in September.

“It’s gradual, but we can see that Germany is starting to shift on the issue of European measures in the face of Chinese industry and its subsidies,” Maurice said.

Guntram Wolff at Bruegel was “disappointed” the two leaders failed to agree on joint measures at the joint cabinet meeting itself. But this is due to divergences within both Merz’s own government and his Christian Democratic Union party. While the German chancellor has recently “become a [China] hawk”, his economy minister Katherina Reiche, who hails from the CDU, is a dove, Wolff said.

The ghost of Marine Le Pen

The possible victory of Marine Le Pen in next year’s French presidential elections hung over the discussions. “It’s the elephant in the room,” Maurice said.

One participant said that the threat acted as an incentive rather than an inhibitor, with a German side willing to “engage, engage, engage with Paris” to cement whatever could be cemented in the next months. This is why Berlin is urging Paris to reach a compromise on the EU’s 2028-2034 budget plans.

But this is also where the French election campaign may clash with German demands: Merz wants the EU to trim agriculture spending and reduce cohesion funds to make space for increased defence and innovation spending.

Macron suggested Berlin would have to relent and agree to “smart cuts” that would preserve an “ambitious agricultural budget.” “Unfortunately for me it’s my third [EU budget] negotiation, I know what I am talking about,” said the Brussels-savvy president.

Europe “has built food sovereignty after the war, we need to defend it”, he added.

Both leaders insisted that closer Franco-German co-operation on nuclear deterrence would outlast any change of government in Paris, arguing that it reflected shared security interests rather than political alignment.

Macron insisted his offer to associate Germany more closely with France’s nuclear doctrine had no financial implication for Berlin. “The goal is to improve the continent’s security deterrence by fuelling even more uncertainty in our adversaries,” he said.

But this, as with many other topics including defence, EU enlargement, support for Ukraine and EU energy markets, would likely become more complicated for Paris and Berlin under a Le Pen presidency.

“The German hand will always be extended for deep, trustful co-operation with France, regardless of voters’ choice,” Merz said. Whether a President Le Pen would reciprocate is far less certain.

The best way to spend the summer? Studying St Augustine

Or medieval magic, Mesopotamian demons or K-pop — the online courses opening up a whole world of art, history, philosophy and, yes, teen idols

It begins with a late-night Google search in January. I am looking for the author of a quote — “our heart is restless until it rests in you” — which is attributed to a “church father” in an article I’ve just read about why we binge-watch TV shows. My dive down this internet rabbit hole eventually leads me to a University of Oxford course on St Augustine, the fifth-century North African bishop who shaped western thinking for a thousand years and beyond. The price is £360; there are no entry requirements, and the expected study time is 10 hours a week. On a whim, I sign up.

What follows is transformational. Over the next two and a half months, Susan Griffith, a member of the Department of Theology and Religion, leads a group of 20 students ranging from a 91-year-old retired teacher in Canada to pastors in the US and undergraduates from various countries (the course comes with transferable credits if you complete the written assignments) through the various stages of Augustine’s life, work and intellectual trajectory.

The weekly video discussions are lively. Early on, one student proposes that Augustine was “clearly gay” because of his outpouring of grief at the death of a male friend in his autobiographical masterpiece Confessions. Griffith explains why this is unlikely, warns of the dangers of reading historical texts with a contemporary mindset, and encourages us to say anything in her class anyway; there are no stupid ideas here (in fact, there are several stupid ideas expressed here, mostly by me).

But as I spend the long winter evenings reading the words of a man who lived 16 centuries ago, it’s as though I’m being slowly unhooked from the matrix — the stultifying Instagram scrolling, the mindless Netflix streaming — and taught how to focus again. And it’s exhilarating.

Seven months on and I am now fully addicted to online learning. Though I’ve been an avid reader for much of my life, in recent years I’ve been distracted by the pressures of work and the grind of responsibilities, and have struggled to finish anything other than trashy novels or audiobooks. Now, I’m making up for lost time.

As I write this, I am one week away from completing a class on Josephus’s The Jewish War, an astounding eyewitness account of the Roman suppression of revolt in Judaea and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70AD, taught by Zoë Eisenman at the University of Chicago’s Graham School, its standalone institute for adult education ($350). I am taking two courses at Stanford University, one on “Demystifying AI” ($470), the other on K-pop ($365) — why not? — and I am slowly working my way through a lecture series and reading list on medieval history at Yale (available on YouTube for free) and another on the possibility of alien life taught by David Spergel, a theoretical astrophysicist who is professor emeritus at Princeton. This is also available for free, on Coursera, a subscription platform for online classes which has 205mn registered users, according to its first quarter financial results for 2026.

There is no hard data on the number of short courses offered by universities in Britain and the US, nor on the number of students taking them, but the University of Oxford reports a “significant growth in demand” since the pandemic, according to a spokesperson. In the academic year 2024-25, its Lifelong Learning division taught more than 15,000 students from 140 countries on more than 700 short courses — both online and in person — ranging from classes in medieval magic, Renaissance art and Tudor history to urban planning, artificial intelligence and psychological disorders, among myriad others in every discipline. 

The overall supply of such teaching from the sector “has definitely increased in the 10-plus years that I’ve been working in higher education”, says Neil Mosley, a consultant specialising in online courses. “Institutions are taking a range of approaches: some want to maximise numbers and therefore focus on subjects with traditionally high enrolment such as business, management, law and, most recently, artificial intelligence, while others use this programming as a way of fulfilling their mandates of offering education to everyone.”

The Courtauld Institute in London, the prestigious art history college that is part of the University of London, sees itself in the latter camp. Next year, it is launching its own open university programme, which will help fulfil the vision of its industrialist founder, says the initiative’s director Jane Fletcher. “Nearly 100 years ago, Samuel Courtauld talked about art for all, and our open university programming can truly be the embodiment of that. We’re breaking down the barriers to entry for people, both geographically and financially.” 

It’s not just universities offering online teaching for the general public. In June, I joined the British Museum’s first such course, on the subject of Mesopotamian art (£95), which you need a museum membership to sign up for. Five curators take it in turns to present video classes on their respective areas of expertise, including cuneiform tablets, excavations in Iraq and magic, divination and medicine. I can now write 10 words in cuneiform and tell you why the director of The Exorcist got the plot point about an ancient Mesopotamian demon called Pazuzu possessing the film’s protagonist, Regan, badly wrong (spoiler alert: Pazuzu is on our side, it’s Lamashtu we need to worry about).

“We have so many leading specialists under one roof here and this is a really nice way of sharing their expertise with our members around the world,” says Celine Nonde, senior supporter engagement manager, who adds that there will be more curator-led courses for British Museum members over the coming year.

Next, I attend a set of three online classes on Zurbarán and 17th-century Spanish painting hosted by the National Gallery (£45) to tie in with its current exhibition on the artist — I pass the quiz asking us to distinguish works by Zurbarán, Velázquez and Murillo with flying colours — and then move on to a surprisingly engaging, pre-recorded series of nine short lectures on English embroidery available on the V&A website (£45). Presented by Jennifer Wearden, formerly the museum’s senior curator of textiles, these are worth the price for the first talk alone, a timely examination of the Bayeux Tapestry — not actually a tapestry at all, but the most famous embroidery of all time — which is soon going on display at the British Museum.

While I enjoy all these museum lectures, for teaching that stays with you there’s no substitute for interactive discussions with fellow students led by university specialists. If you know you’re going to have to contribute to a conversation about St Augustine’s City of God, for example, you’re going to do the required reading and try hard to formulate interesting thoughts about it. 

The popularity of such courses — the counterpoint to grim headlines about falling literacy rates and declining attention spans — should encourage us all. There’s a whole universe of art and history, theology and philosophy, psychiatry, science, technology and, yes, even K-pop out there, and it’s accessible to anyone with an internet connection and a curious mind. So ditch the Netflix subscription and let’s get started.