FT : Ukraine offers to drop Nato membership demands

Ukraine offers to drop Nato membership demands
Zelenskyy says Kyiv still needs US and European protection guarantees ahead of Berlin talks

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said he is ready to give up on demands for Nato membership in exchange for security guarantees from the US and Europe, in a move aimed at advancing peace talks in Berlin on Sunday. 

US President Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner have pushed Ukraine to accept painful concessions, including ceding frontline territory to Russia, ahead of talks with Zelenskyy and Ukraine’s European allies on the White House plan to end Russia’s invasion.

Ukraine has admitted that it was unlikely to join Nato in the foreseeable future due to strong opposition from Russia, which has long demanded that the transatlantic alliance pledge to halt its eastward expansion as a condition for ending the war.

But Zelenskyy told reporters on Sunday that Ukraine still requires security guarantees from the US and Europe, similar to Nato’s Article 5 clause of mutual protection for any member under attack.

“We are talking about bilateral security guarantees between Ukraine and the United States — namely, Article 5–like guarantees . . . as well as security guarantees for us from our European partners and from other countries such as Canada, Japan and others,” Zelenskyy told journalists in a WhatsApp chat. “And this is already a compromise on our part.”

Zelenskyy said Ukraine has yet to receive a response from Washington to revised proposals sent earlier this week from Kyiv after consultations with European leaders. 

“The plan will certainly not be one that everyone likes. There are many compromises in one or another version of the plan,” he said.

Russia has said it would probably reject all the proposals from Ukraine and Europe, throwing doubt on whether Trump’s push to end the nearly four-year war could succeed.

Yuri Ushakov, Putin’s foreign policy adviser, said any Ukrainian and European suggestions for the plan were “unlikely to be constructive” and Russia would have “sharp objections” if the US adopted them. “It’s not like there’s going to be anything good there,” Ushakov said in comments broadcast on state television on Sunday.

Both sides appeared to reject Trump’s proposal that all troops be withdrawn from the Donbas region to create a “free economic zone” in parts of eastern Ukraine now held by Kyiv. The proposal would require Ukraine to withdraw from “fortress belt” of cities that Moscow’s forces have failed to capture in more than 11 years of war.

Zelenskyy said on Sunday he did “not consider this fair”.

“If Ukrainian troops withdraw five to 10 kilometres, for example, then why should Russian troops not also withdraw deeper into the occupied territories by the same distance?” he asked. “This is a question to which there is still no answer, but it is extremely sensitive and very heated.”

Zelenskyy said the “only fair and possible option” for a true peace is that “the sides stop where they are, and then try to resolve all broader issues through diplomacy”.

“We stand where we stand,” he added. “That is precisely a ceasefire.”

Ushakov also seemed to oppose the demilitarised zone plan, saying this week that Russia would only accept full control over the Donbas. Russia, he added, has not discussed a “Korean scenario”, which could involve freezing the current frontline, with the US.

Ushakov also rejected Zelenskyy’s earlier suggestions that Ukraine could regain control of Crimea, which Putin annexed in 2014, or join Nato. Both proposals “one million per cent won’t happen”, Ushakov said.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz is hosting talks with other European security officials on Sunday night ahead of negotiations with Zelenskyy, the US delegation and European leaders on Monday. Europe is pushing to regain influence over the Ukraine talks, from which the bloc has largely been sidelined despite their far-reaching consequences for the continent.

In a speech in Bavaria on Saturday, Merz compared Putin’s war in Ukraine to Adolf Hitler’s annexation of Czechoslovakia’s German-speaking border regions in 1938, to which western allies failed to react.

“This war of aggression by Russia against Ukraine is a war against Europe. And if Ukraine falls, it won’t stop, just as the Sudetenland was not enough in 1938. Putin won’t stop,” Merz said.

WSJ : The Publicity War Between AT&T and T-Mobile Is Getting Ugly

The Publicity War Between AT&T and T-Mobile Is Getting Ugly
T-Mobile and Verizon are looking to lure competitors’ customers, while AT&T is taking legal action

  • Wireless carriers are intensifying competition with promotions like Verizon’s “Bring Your Bill” and T-Mobile’s “Easy Switch” to attract customers.
  • AT&T sued T-Mobile over its “Easy Switch” tool, alleging unauthorized access to its systems and customer data, leading T-Mobile to disable the tool.
  • The National Advertising Division referred T-Mobile to the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general for not participating in an inquiry regarding its 5G claims.

The wireless wars are heating up.

AT&T T 1.15%increase; green up pointing triangle, T-Mobile US and Verizon Communications have long traded barbs over who offers the most reliable service, best price and broadest wireless-service coverage. Now some are upping the ante with explicit poaching efforts—and litigation.

This fall, both Verizon VZ 1.67%increase; green up pointing triangle and T-Mobile TMUS -0.09%decrease; red down pointing triangle launched promotions designed to lure in their competitors’ customers.

Verizon’s “Bring Your Bill” campaign invites AT&T and T-Mobile customers to upload their bills or bring them in-store to get a counteroffer from Verizon. Last month, T-Mobile introduced “Easy Switch,” which asked AT&T and Verizon customers to share their login and password, then checked their rates with an automated tool and provided a personalized competing offer.

T-Mobile’s new feature kicked off a technical cat-and-mouse game. AT&T twice implemented new security measures to block the tool, then sued T-Mobile late last month in a federal court in Texas. It alleged the Easy Switch tool intruded into AT&T’s computer systems and violated its terms of service “to harvest private customer account information and AT&T business information.”

AT&T requested an injunction to prevent T-Mobile from accessing its computer systems and asked that the court order T-Mobile to destroy any data it obtained.

Verizon has also said T-Mobile’s feature poses customer privacy concerns but isn’t a party to the lawsuit. T-Mobile has since disabled the Easy Switch online tool, but maintained in court filings that the feature was lawful.

A T-Mobile spokeswoman said AT&T was blocking the tool to make it harder for customers to leave and said the litigation was an effort to limit consumer choice.

Requesting customer credentials for a rival is unprecedented, according to Roger Entner, founder of telecom research firm Recon Analytics.

Access to so much price information could give carriers the ability to undercut competitors with razor-sharp precision. For instance, T-Mobile could customize its offer for each individual, just a smidgen below competitors’ rates, rather than roll out broad-based pricing plans.

Cancellation rates, known as “disconnects,” have risen for major wireless carriers in recent quarters, a sign that consumers are more willing to jump between providers for the best deal, according to data from UBS. The companies have said they want to make it easier for customers to switch—in the interest of expediting their own growth.

With Easy Switch, T-Mobile told prospective customers they could switch their service in 15 minutes without even having to call their current carrier. “In as little as one mimosa, you could switch,” T-Mobile’s chief operating officer, Jon Freier, said in a promotional video.

AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon regularly take direct swipes at one another in splashy ad campaigns, then lodge complaints about their rivals’ commercials with the National Advertising Division, an industry watchdog that referees disputes over claims like false advertising. The challenges often result in providers adjusting the claims in their ads, but can also be referred to state and federal authorities.

The ad challenges themselves are even becoming a focal point of new commercials. In a spot that AT&T introduced in October, actor Luke Wilson pulls a newspaper out of a tumbleweed and reads, “T-Mobile most challenged for deceptive ads.”

An NAD spokeswoman declined to confirm whether the ad’s claim about T-Mobile was accurate. T-Mobile said AT&T’s recent ad campaign was deceptive.

Still, the NAD asked AT&T to pull the commercial the day after it began airing, determining that the ad ran afoul of its policy prohibiting participants from using the ad-challenge process itself for promotional purposes. AT&T then sued BBB National Programs, of which NAD is a division, accusing the group of seeking to muzzle free speech.

Meanwhile, on Wednesday the NAD referred T-Mobile to the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general for declining to participate in an NAD inquiry after AT&T challenged T-Mobile advertising from November 2024 that claimed superior 5G capacity compared with its competitors.

AT&T and the Federal Trade Commission didn’t respond to requests for comment.

T-Mobile said its challenged claims are true and declined to participate in the NAD inquiry because of AT&T’s position that it isn’t bound by NAD rules. “T-Mobile has serious confidentiality concerns with any information that would have to be shared in an NAD proceeding initiated by AT&T,” a T-Mobile spokeswoman said.

AT&T’s request for an injunction that would prevent T-Mobile from re-enabling its Easy Switch tool is pending. The National Advertising Division hasn’t responded to AT&T’s lawsuit.

The carriers are using the performance claims and account-access moves to show their personalities in the escalating marketing fight, said George Heudorfer, practitioner in residence at the University of New Haven’s Pompea College of Business. He likened it to the cola wars of the 1980s—but warned it may not be a winning strategy.

“In the end, the carrier that wins won’t be the one with the loudest ad,” Heudorfer said. “It’ll be the one that makes wireless feel simple, fair and trustworthy.”

WSJ : How a $901 Billion Plan Changes U.S. Military Policy

How a $901 Billion Plan Changes U.S. Military Policy
Congress’s National Defense Authorization Act proposal weighs in on boat strikes, drones, DEI, foreign investment and fights overseas

The $901 billion defense-policy bill passed by the House would codify more than a dozen of President Trump’s executive orders, authorizing major weapons programs, troop deployments and international-security assistance. The Senate is expected to take it up in the week ahead.

The 3,086-page National Defense Authorization Act authorizes $8 billion more than what Trump requested in May and contains a 3.8% pay increase for troops. While the bill authorizes spending levels in defense accounts, actual appropriations must be passed separately by Congress.

Here is what is in the bill:

Boat strikes
The legislation would withhold some Pentagon funds until Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth turns over unedited video footage of military strikes on suspected drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. The move reflects growing bipartisan frustration with how little the administration has disclosed about its expanding campaign of boat strikes.

Support for Ukraine
The bill sets a floor for U.S. force levels in Europe of 76,000 troops and bars the Pentagon from cutting forces, closing facilities or moving equipment without consulting NATO allies and certifying that such moves are in the national interest. It extends through 2029 the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, authorizing $400 million annually to buy weapons from U.S. defense companies. Congress would have to be informed if U.S. intelligence provided to Ukraine is paused or scaled back.

Military presence in Asia
The bill extends the Pacific Deterrence Initiative, which highlights military spending in Asia, and orders a military exercise testing the Pentagon’s readiness to effect a surge in troops and supplies in the event of a crisis with China. It calls for a review of how well the military can move and keep forces supplied across all branches in a major conflict or emergency, and requires the Air Force to integrate new tasks into exercises with Japan, Australia, South Korea, the U.K. and others.

Iraq war authorizations
The legislation scraps the decades-old authorizations for the use of military force that provided the legal basis for the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Presidents from both parties have relied on these authorizations for military operations long after major combat ended.

Partnership with Israel
The bill boosts U.S.-Israeli cooperation on defense technology, provides $80 million for joint research into countering adversaries in underground tunnels and $70 million for counterdrone programs.

Repeal of Syria sanctions
The bill repeals the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2019, which imposed sanctions on Syria’s government and other entities related to the country’s civil war.

D.C.-area airspace
The bill rolls back some safety rules for military helicopters in the busy Washington, D.C., area airspace that were put in place after a midair collision in January 2025 in which 67 people died. The chair of the National Transportation Safety Board, along with the bipartisan Senate committee that oversees aviation, warned that this change would make the airspace less safe.

Restrictions on outbound investment
The legislation empowers the president to block Americans from buying significant equity or debt in some foreign companies, particularly those that are based in China, Hong Kong or Macau, operating in defense or surveillance sectors or controlled by state actors or Chinese Communist Party officials. The bill requires U.S. companies to report “national security-sensitive” transactions.

Diversity, equity and inclusion
The bill broadly prohibits Pentagon programs promoting diversity, equity and inclusion, though it preserves existing Equal Employment Opportunity offices and those focused on the Americans with Disabilities Act. It extends merit-based decision-making to command selection in addition to accession and promotion.

Shipbuilding authorization
Lawmakers authorized up to five Columbia-class submarines and two Ford-class aircraft carriers, and multiyear procurement of munitions including SM-3 and SM-6 missiles, Tomahawks and both air-to-air and standoff missile systems.

The legislation directs the Army to produce critical materials currently sourced solely from China, such as propellants and some precursor chemicals.

Prohibition on foreign components
The bill restricts purchases of critical materials and components from “foreign entities of concern,” including China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. New acquisition programs starting in 2028 can’t use advanced batteries linked to these countries.

It calls for eliminating the purchase of optical systems, computer displays and other equipment by 2030 from foreign adversaries. Seafood for military dining facilities may not be sourced from these countries.

Drones defense
The bill creates a task force to approve and oversee technology that can detect and stop small drones, as well as measures to protect bases and other sites from them. The legislation calls for tighter rules and research on protecting nuclear facilities from unmanned systems.

What didn’t make it in
Several proposals were removed during negotiations, including expansion of military coverage of in vitro fertilization, collective-bargaining protections for Defense Department civilian employees, military-housing changes and language governing a potential central-bank digital currency.

The bill refers to the Pentagon chief as the secretary of defense rather than Trump’s preferred title for the role, secretary of war.

WSJ : OpenAI Ends ‘Vesting Cliff’ for New Employees in Compensation-Policy Chang

OpenAI Ends ‘Vesting Cliff’ for New Employees in Compensation-Policy Change
Maker of ChatGPT and its competitor xAI have relaxed restrictions meant to keep new hires from leaving in the midst of a fierce talent war

  • OpenAI informed staff that it was ending a compensation policy that required employees to work at the company for at least six months before their equity vests.
  • The decision to loosen or do away with restrictions meant to ensure new hires stick around reflects the frenzied competition for top-tier technical talent.
  • Tech investors have privately complained about the ballooning stock-based compensation associated with fast-growing AI startups.

OpenAI told staff this past week that it was ending a compensation policy that required employees to work at the company for at least six months before their equity vests.

The change to the “vesting cliff,” announced by applications chief Fidji Simo, is designed to encourage new employees to take risks without fear of being let go before accessing their first chunk of equity, according to people familiar with the matter.

OpenAI shortened its vesting period for new employees to six months from the industry standard of 12 months in April. Elon Musk’s xAI, an OpenAI competitor, made a similar change in the late summer, people familiar with the change said.

XAI didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The decision to loosen or do away with restrictions meant to ensure new hires stick around reflects the frenzied competition for top-tier technical talent within the AI industry. Tech companies typically have a one-year vesting cliff for new employees, preventing them from having to give away stock to hires who leave quickly or don’t work out.

But with AI companies including Meta Platforms, Google and Anthropic wooing top researchers with pay packages that can be worth $100 million or more, researchers and engineers have been able to hold out for the most-attractive terms, and in many cases have been quick to leave jobs they have found not to their liking.

OpenAI is already doling out far more stock-based compensation than other tech companies, owing to an intense talent war it is waging with its competitors. The company expects to spend $6 billion this year on such costs—almost half of its projected revenue—according to financial documents sent to investors over the summer and viewed by The Wall Street Journal.

Tech investors have privately complained about the ballooning stock-based compensation associated with fast-growing AI startups, arguing that it eats into shareholder returns.

“Companies that are needing to be more competitive are dropping the traditional first-year vesting cliff,” said Zaheer Mohiuddin, co-founder of Levels.fyi, a platform that gathers data on compensation in tech careers.

In August, after Meta Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg launched a full-scale raid of OpenAI’s staff and offered giant pay packages, OpenAI gave some of its top researchers and engineers a one-time bonus, with some employees receiving millions of dollars, the Journal previously reported.

At xAI earlier this year, hiring managers were having to work harder to persuade potential recruits to be interviewed, according to people involved in hiring decisions at the time. Already facing a rash of departures and reputation issues, xAI quietly made the decision in the third quarter to shorten the vesting period for new hires, according to people familiar with the change.

Musk, who has said he works “every waking hour,” is known for expecting long, grueling hours of his employees and burning through executives who struggle to keep up with his demands. Since the summer, xAI has lost leaders in charge of X, legal, finance and engineering. One legal executive announced his departure on LinkedIn with a meme of a man in a suit shoveling coal.

In late 2024 and early 2025, Musk’s close political alliance with Donald Trump and his outspokenness on right-wing culture-war issues increasingly posed a challenge for his companies, with many Tesla buyers souring on the brand and at least two engineers publicly saying they left jobs at the company over Musk’s political activities.

At xAI, some product decisions created an additional image problem that came up in recruiting, the people involved in hiring said. In July, the company’s Grok chatbot published a series of antisemitic posts. Also that month, the company launched Ani, a racy animated chatbot with blond pigtails and revealing outfits. While some job applicants expressed interest in working on Ani, other prospects were deterred, some of the people said.

The rate at which recruits have been accepting xAI’s offers has increased since the startup implemented the shorter period, they said.

WSJ : The Chinese Billionaires Having Dozens of U.S.-Born Babies Via Surrogate

The Chinese Billionaires Having Dozens of U.S.-Born Babies Via Surrogate
Videogame executive Xu Bo, said to have more than 100 children, and other elites build mega-families, testing citizenship laws and drawing on nannies, IVF and legal firms set up to help them

  • Wealthy Chinese elites are using U.S. surrogacy to have large numbers of children, exploiting legal and regulatory gaps.
  • A prominent case involved a Chinese billionaire denied parental rights by a U.S. judge after pursuing multiple surrogate births.
  • The trend is triggering legal, ethical, and political scrutiny around surrogacy and birthright citizenship.

Inside a closed Los Angeles courtroom, something wasn’t right.

Clerks working for family court Judge Amy Pellman were reviewing routine surrogacy petitions when they spotted an unusual pattern: the same name, again and again.

A Chinese billionaire was seeking parental rights to at least four unborn children, and the court’s additional research showed that he had already fathered or was in the process of fathering at least eight more—all through surrogates.

When Pellman called Xu Bo in for a confidential hearing in the summer of 2023, he never entered the courtroom, according to people who attended the hearing. The maker of fantasy videogames lived in China and appeared via video, speaking through an interpreter. He said he hoped to have 20 or so U.S.-born children through surrogacy—boys, because they’re superior to girls—to one day take over his business.

Several of his kids were being raised by nannies in nearby Irvine as they awaited paperwork to travel to China. He hadn’t yet met them, he told the judge, because work had been busy.

Pellman was alarmed, according to the people who attended the hearing. Surrogacy was a tool to help people build families, but what Xu was describing didn’t seem like parenting, the people said.

The judge denied his request for parentage—normally quickly approved for the intended parents of a baby born through surrogacy, experts say. The decision left the children he’d paid for to be born in legal limbo.

The court declined to comment on Xu’s case.

Xu, an online megaposter but real-life recluse, has rarely spoken with reporters and hasn’t been photographed in public for nearly a decade.

A representative of Xu’s company, Duoyi Network, didn’t respond to specific questions about the hearing or Xu’s use of surrogacy. “The boss does not accept interview requests from anyone for any purpose,” the representative said in an email to The Wall Street Journal, adding that “much of what you described is untrue.” The representative, who didn’t provide a name, didn’t respond to repeated requests to clarify what was inaccurate.

Pellman’s decision in the confidential case, which has never been reported, was a rare rebuke to a little-known trend in the largely unregulated U.S. surrogacy industry: Chinese elites and billionaires who are going outside of China, where domestic surrogacy is illegal, to quietly have large numbers of U.S.-born babies.

Since U.S. court proceedings for surrogacies are usually private, often taking place without even a mention on the court’s public docket, oversight is limited.

Some Chinese parents, inspired by Elon Musk’s 14 known children, pay millions in surrogacy fees to hire women in the U.S. to help them build families of jaw-dropping size. Xu calls himself “China’s first father” and is known in China as a vocal critic of feminism. On social media, his company said he has more than 100 children born through surrogacy in the U.S.

Another wealthy Chinese executive, Wang Huiwu, hired U.S. models and others as egg donors to have 10 girls, with the aim of one day marrying them off to powerful men, according to people close to the executive’s education company.

Other Chinese clients, usually seeking more typical numbers of babies, are high-powered executives lacking the time and inclination to bear their own children, older parents or same-sex couples, according to people who arrange surrogacy deals and work in surrogacy law. All have the wealth to go outside China while maintaining the privacy needed to manage potential logistical, publicity and legal issues back home. Some have the political clout to avoid censure.

The market has grown so sophisticated, experts say, that at times Chinese parents have had U.S.-born children without stepping foot in the country. A thriving mini-industry of American surrogacy agencies, law firms, clinics, delivery agencies and nanny services—even to pick up the newborns from hospitals—has risen to accommodate the demand, permitting parents to ship their genetic material abroad and get a baby delivered back, at a cost of up to $200,000 per child.

The growing Asian market for international fertility services has drawn the attention of American investors, including Peter Thiel, whose family office has backed a chain of IVF clinics across Southeast Asia and a recently opened branch in Los Angeles.

Most U.S. states don’t bar international parents from working with American surrogates. Chinese law doesn’t strictly prohibit its citizens from going overseas for surrogacy, but officials have criticized it. Stories of Chinese celebrities or government officials working with overseas surrogates have sometimes caused scandal among the public at home, which tends to view surrogacy as ethically dubious and exploitative.

The babies born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens by virtue of the 14th Amendment. The idea of foreign nationals using the Constitution’s guarantee of citizenship has long been a political flashpoint.

In 2020, the State Department moved to curb so-called birth tourism, tightening visa rules for women suspected of visiting the U.S. to give birth. In January, Donald Trump issued an executive order denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. unless one of their parents was a citizen or permanent legal resident, which is being reviewed by the Supreme Court. It’s unclear if either regulation would apply to foreigners working with surrogates who are Americans.

Last month, Sen. Rick Scott, the Florida Republican, introduced a bill in the Senate to ban the use of surrogacy in the U.S. by people from some foreign countries, including China. He cited an ongoing federal human trafficking investigation into a Chinese-American couple in Los Angeles who have more than two dozen children, nearly all born through surrogacy within the past four years, as reported by the Journal.

Law enforcement is more broadly looking at some Chinese parents working with American surrogates. Investigators with the FBI and Department of Homeland Security have interviewed some surrogates who have worked with Chinese parents, according to the surrogates, though the purpose of those investigations is unclear. The FBI declined to comment, and DHS didn’t respond to a request for comment.

‘We’re not Costco’
Nathan Zhang, the founder and CEO of IVF USA, a network of fertility clinics in the U.S. and Mexico that cater to wealthy Chinese and partner with surrogacy agencies, said his clientele in the past were largely parents trying to bypass China’s one-child policy. Babies brought back to China, as U.S. citizens instead of Chinese citizens, fell outside the country’s penalty system. The one-child policy was abolished in 2015.

More recently, a new clientele has emerged. “Elon Musk is becoming a role model now,” said Zhang. An increasing number of “crazy rich” clients are commissioning dozens, or even hundreds, of U.S.-born babies with the goal of “forging an unstoppable family dynasty,” he said.

One wealthy businessman in China, who like Wang is also in the education business, wanted more than 200 children at once using surrogates, envisioning a family enterprise, Zhang said. “I asked him directly, ‘How do you plan to raise all these children?’ He was speechless,” said Zhang, who said he refused him as a client.

Other surrogacy professionals described similarly head-spinning numbers. The owner of one agency in California said he had helped fill an order for a Chinese parent seeking 100 children in the past few years, a request spread over several agencies.

A Los Angeles surrogacy attorney said he had helped his client, a Chinese billionaire, have 20 children through surrogacy in recent years.

Amanda Troxler, a Los Angeles-based surrogacy lawyer, said her firm consulted with a hopeful Chinese parent who said she wanted eight or 10 surrogacies and asked for a discount. “I was like, ‘No, we’re not Costco,’” said Troxler, who didn’t take the client because she rejects those looking for more than two surrogacies at once.

Oversight of the industry is so scant that it’s almost impossible to figure out whether parents are working with multiple surrogates, across different agencies and law firms, people in the industry said.

California surrogacy agency owner Joy Millan said she was approached by a single father in China seeking to hire four surrogates. She agreed to connect the father with one, only to learn later that he had gone to another agency to find more.

“When we contacted him saying this is your due date, the baby is on the way, he panicked and was like, ‘We’re already taking care of two babies!’” Millan said. “It’s not like you can’t have four kids, there are families that have four or five, but if you regret, there’s no way back.”

Industry groups recommend that agencies and IVF clinics not work with parents seeking more than two simultaneous surrogacies, because of the logistical and emotional challenges, and the risk that it will increase the perception that surrogacy commodifies pregnancy. But Millan said the suggestion lacks teeth. The harshest penalty for failing to follow the groups’ recommendations is to be removed as a member.

Lisa Stark Hughes, a surrogacy agency owner and board member of the Society for Ethics for Egg Donation and Surrogacy, acknowledged the difficulty of ensuring those recommendations are followed. The group has been discussing ways to more proactively detect when parents are pursuing multiple simultaneous surrogacies across different agencies without violating patient privacy laws, she said.

Some agencies don’t hesitate. Hu Yihan, the CEO of New York IVF clinic Global Fertility & Genetics, who helps connect Chinese parents with surrogacy agencies, said that when one of her clients wants three or four simultaneous surrogacies, the reaction is often enthusiastic. “I’m getting positive feedback from the surrogacy agencies, they’re like, ‘This is a big one! I want to do this!’” she said.

Agencies typically receive $40,000 to $50,000 per surrogacy, separately from payments made to the surrogate carriers.

Girls for future world leaders
The Chinese government usually turns a blind eye to citizens who pursue surrogacy abroad, even allowing foreign agencies to quietly market their services at home. Still, Chinese parents who work with surrogates sometimes face blowback.

Liu Pengyu, the spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in the U.S., said in a statement to the Journal that the government’s health authorities believe surrogacy can lead to a number of negative outcomes, including “serious family and social ethical crisis.”

Wang, who fathered the 10 girls through U.S. surrogacies, purchased dozens of eggs from models, a finance Ph.D. and a musician—at a cost of between $6,000 and $7,500 each, according to the people close to his company. He is the president and CEO of Sichuan-based education group XJ International Holdings, formerly known as Hope Education Group, which owns and operates universities and technical colleges.

Wang preferred girls, the people said, and hoped they would grow up to marry world leaders.

Screenshots purporting to be of messages from a person claiming to share a nanny with Wang, discussing Wang’s use of surrogacy in the U.S., went viral on social media in 2021.

Chinese media criticized the executive, saying that commercial surrogacy exploits women and violates Chinese public order and morals. Shares at Wang’s company plunged around this time.

XJ International Holdings, which previously dismissed the claims as rumors, didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Around the start of 2019, Zheng Shuang, an actress and model who briefly signed with Prada, hired two U.S. surrogates with her boyfriend, Zhang Heng.

Before the children were born, the couple’s relationship began to deteriorate, and Zheng had second thoughts, according to documents in a Colorado custody suit over the two children after their births.

Zheng allegedly considered asking one of the surrogates to terminate the pregnancy, but the baby was too far along, according to email correspondence with the surrogacy agency included in the court documents.

Ultimately, Zhang, the father, flew to the U.S. to attend births in Colorado and Nevada, and stayed in the country to care for the two babies. After he posted on the Chinese social-media site Weibo that Zheng had contemplated seeking abortions, the Chinese Communist Party released a statement criticizing them.

“For Chinese citizens to exploit legal loopholes and flee to the United States simply because surrogacy is prohibited in China is by no means abiding by the law,” the statement from the party’s Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission said.

Zheng was dropped by fashion labels. The couple were investigated for tax evasion; she was ordered to pay a nearly $46 million fine and he was fined $5 million in the tax case. Zhang, the boyfriend, eventually received sole parenting responsibility for the children, according to court documents, and went on to co-found a California surrogacy agency focused on Chinese parents.

Even some Chinese government officials have turned to the U.S. for surrogacy, industry lawyers and agencies say.

Surrogacy was a key component in the scandal surrounding the 2023 disappearance of Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang. Qin, once a trusted aide to Chinese leader Xi Jinping, fell from grace after a Communist Party investigation found that he had been having an affair with prominent newscaster Fu Xiaotian.

Fu had a child in the U.S. via surrogacy in late 2022. While the Chinese government never disclosed the child’s paternity, the incident fueled speculation that Qin was the father and prompted wider scrutiny within the party regarding whether other top officials had used surrogates to have children overseas, according to officials briefed on the matter. Both Qin and Fu vanished from public view when the scandal erupted.

Meanwhile, some older Chinese parents, who were restricted in their younger years by the one-child policy, are looking to surrogacy to expand their families beyond typical child-raising years.

“Any household that’s middle-upper income, any guy who’s 60 years old, they’re having one-child policy revenge,” said Hu, the New York fertility CEO. “They’re trying to make up for something that they wanted when they were young but it was severely restricted, there was no way out, the tech was not there, the market was not there.”

Regulatory arbitrage
Researchers at Emory University found that international parents’ use of U.S. surrogacy quadrupled from 2014 to 2019, when IVF clinics started 3,240 cycles for surrogate carriers working with international parents, making up almost 40% of the U.S. total. The number dipped during the pandemic amid global travel restrictions. Of international parents between 2014 through 2020, 41% were from China.

Some investors are betting those numbers will continue to rise. In 2018, Jinxin Fertility Group, based in Sichuan and publicly traded in Hong Kong, purchased HRC Fertility, a chain of fertility clinics in Southern California whose doctors already had a substantial Chinese client base.

Jinxin partnered with a U.S. surrogacy consultant in 2020, according to a corporate filing. Wang Bin, Jinxin’s chairman between 2018 and 2021, had previously been a high-ranking official at Chinese state-owned enterprises, and the company’s investors have included state-owned banks.

Jinxin didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The family office of Thiel, who voiced concerns about falling birthrates on Joe Rogan’s podcast last year, has participated in two fundraising rounds totaling $30 million for Rhea Fertility to open a chain of international fertility centers in Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines focused on Asian parents. Rhea CEO Margaret Wang said Rhea, which opened an IVF clinic in Los Angeles late last year, targets parents interested in what she called “regulatory arbitrage” to access fertility and surrogacy services that may be illegal in their home countries.

“The U.S. remains the destination for people who have the resources and need to go down that path,” Wang said. A representative of Thiel Capital didn’t respond to a request for comment.

‘50 high-quality sons’
Xu, the Chinese online gaming billionaire, has for years broadcast his ambitions to build a sprawling dynasty of children.

On Weibo, accounts linked to Xu have written that “Having more children can solve all problems” and fantasized about Xu’s children marrying Elon Musk’s children.

Another, earlier Weibo account verified as being operated by Xu wrote in 2023 that he hoped to have “50 high-quality sons.”

That same year, Judge Pellman denied Xu’s parentage petition in Los Angeles. But a later post on one of the Weibo accounts linked to him said he successfully appealed.

“Xu Bo had several children (all of mixed Chinese and Jewish descent) who were taken away in the United States due to sabotage by feminists and malicious rulings by a female judge,” the account posted in April 2024, seeming to refer to the confidential hearing that Xu had attended the year before. “Later, appeals were filed, and all the cases that went to trial were won. I heard that another case was won today, and one child was awarded to Xu Bo; he has already received the child.”

The user has denied being Xu, but a Journal analysis linked this and another Weibo account to him. Xu’s company’s Weibo account has reposted one of them, and the accounts shared details of the confidential U.S. court hearing attended by Xu, a cropped photo of Xu’s passport, photos and videos of Xu’s children and other personal documents. The children are shown in the company of nannies or in daycare-like settings eating meals, playing or reciting homework assignments.

The Journal couldn’t find any public records of Xu appealing the judge’s decision. Such an appeal would normally be public in Los Angeles.

Surrogacy attorneys say it is possible that if Xu were denied parental rights in Los Angeles courts, he could have tried filing the same paperwork in a different jurisdiction—choosing from among the locations of the surrogate, the IVF treatment or the baby’s birth. Courts in different jurisdictions don’t necessarily have visibility into parentage applications filed elsewhere.

Last month, Xu’s ex-girlfriend, Tang Jing, alleged in a post on Weibo that he had 300 children, living across numerous properties in multiple countries. Xu has previously accused Tang of theft and the two have ongoing lawsuits. Tang didn’t respond to requests for comment.

In a statement on Weibo at the time, Duoyi Network said the 300 figure was wrong but confirmed a stunning fact: “After many years of effort” through surrogacy in the U.S., Xu has “only a little over 100” children.

Later in November, the user linked to Xu posted a video of more than a dozen toddler or early grade-school-age children playing on an outdoor patio in an unknown location. “What the truth is, everyone can see for themselves,” the user posted.

As the camera panned around the patio, the children—who appeared to be mostly boys—began running toward it. “Daddy!” they yelled. “Daddy!”

FT : Swiss dealmaking surges to record highs despite strong franc

Swiss dealmaking surges to record highs despite strong franc
Swiss groups are involved in deals across sectors, defying currency moves and US tariffs

Switzerland is heading for a record year for mergers and acquisitions, with deals spanning industries despite a surging franc that has made its companies some of the most expensive targets in Europe.

New data shows that Swiss groups have been involved in M&A activity worth more than $163bn so far in 2025. Deals targeting Swiss companies also hit their highest level since 2018.

“It was a very good year, and with some significant deals being announced,” said Olof Engelbrekts, head of investment banking for Switzerland at Bank of America.

The flurry of deals has continued despite currency moves, with the Swiss franc up 14 per cent against the dollar since January and slightly stronger against the euro.


The most high-profile transaction was Swedish-Swiss engineering giant ABB, which agreed to sell a majority stake in its $15bn-plus robotics division to SoftBank. This was one of the largest transactions in Europe this year and a significant step in ABB’s long-running simplification strategy.

In insurance, Helvetia’s merger with Baloise created a significant new force in the Swiss market, combining two of the country’s biggest insurers.

Building materials group Holcim continued its acquisition streak, completing a string of bolt-on deals in construction, aggregates and materials recycling companies, including its €1.85bn deal to buy Xella, another building materials company.

Bankers said the steady stream of deals had made Holcim one of the busiest Swiss companies of the year as it reshaped its portfolio ahead of a planned US listing.

There were also infrastructure transactions, including Mediterranean Shipping Company pursuing a major expansion of its port and terminal network through a deal with Hong Kong-based conglomerate CK Hutchison.


Drugmakers Roche and Novartis targeted biotech assets. Roche struck early stage deals, including an agreement to acquire Poseida Therapeutics to bolster its oncology and immunology pipeline. Novartis continued to add to its pipeline through bolt-on acquisitions and licensing deals in selected growth areas such as immunology. 

“The IPO market had been more challenging,” said Thorsten Pauli, country chief executive of Switzerland at Bank of America. “So there were more M&A exits and large pharmas buying companies that might otherwise have gone public or raised private capital.”

The record year is striking given worries about the potential dampening effect of Donald Trump’s “liberation day” tariffs in April.

“There was the liberation day, and people were very inwardly focused . . . and we all thought it was going to be quite a tough and weak year in terms of M&A announcements. But then come May, it really picked up,” Engelbrekts said.

The Trump administration then slapped a 39 per cent tariff rate on Switzerland. But the country’s status as an investment haven, coupled with overall stability, still attracted deals. The US has since agreed to lower the rate to 15 per cent.

At the same time, bankers said the strong franc, rather than deterring activity, has given Swiss corporates more purchasing power and boosted confidence.

“We have the Swiss franc at all-time highs, financing is very much available, valuations are continuing to go up,” Pauli said. “We’ve got everything playing in your favour to do more M&A.”