Omar El Sayed - World Editor

Shares of Visa, Mastercard and IBM tumbled Monday, extending a recent wave of volatility across companies heavily invested in artificial intelligence, as investor anxieties mount over whether AI spending will translate into profits. The declines followed a weekend report from Citrini Research warning of a potential stock market crash, consumer spending pullback, and widespread layoffs by 2028 due to the rapid advancement of AI.

IBM experienced its steepest single-day drop since October 2000, coinciding with an announcement from Anthropic that its Claude Code tool could update a legacy computing language central to IBM’s business. Investors interpreted this as a threat to IBM’s maintenance and modernization services, a key revenue stream. Accenture and Cognizant Technology shares also fell in response.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell more than 800 points Monday, with the financial and consumer discretionary sectors leading the declines, down 3.3% and 2.2% respectively. The consumer staples sector, including companies like Walmart and Coca-Cola, bucked the trend, attracting investment as a comparatively stable haven.

The sell-off reflects a growing investor concern that the initial enthusiasm surrounding AI may be unsustainable, according to Mona Mahajan, head of investment strategy and asset allocation at Edward Jones. Mahajan noted investors are pulling funds from sectors perceived as vulnerable to AI disruption, including financial services, real estate, transportation, and logistics, despite a lack of fundamental changes in those businesses.

Visa and Mastercard were specifically named in the Citrini Research report as potentially vulnerable to shifts in consumer spending patterns driven by AI. Both companies announced initiatives in 2025 to enable AI agents to make purchases on behalf of consumers. Visa unveiled “Intelligent Commerce,” allowing AI agents to search for and buy goods, while Mastercard launched “Agent Pay” to integrate payments into AI-driven recommendations. PayPal also announced its own agentic commerce offering in May 2025.

The developments come as AI-powered coding systems like Anthropic’s Claude Code and OpenAI’s Codex have rapidly increased in capability, enabling faster software development. This has led investors to question the competitive landscape and the potential for disruption across various industries. Melissa Otto, head of Visible Alpha research at S&P Global, told NBC News that increased capital expenditure focused on AI and recent advances in the field are challenging existing business models. Otto highlighted that companies with unique data and complex workflows may be better positioned to withstand the changes.

Despite the concerns, some analysts believe the anxieties are overblown. Lori Calvasina, head of U.S. Equity strategy research at RBC Capital Markets, wrote in a note to clients that the existential threats to industries beyond software, such as wealth management and transportation, appear exaggerated. She suggested a shift in focus to other market topics would be beneficial.

The market fluctuations occur as companies continue to explore the potential of “agentic commerce,” where AI agents autonomously shop and make purchases for consumers based on pre-set preferences. Visa is collaborating with tech companies including Anthropic, IBM, Microsoft, and Stripe to develop these AI-powered shopping experiences. Mastercard is working with Microsoft and IBM, among others, to scale “agentic commerce” use cases.

Four years after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the United Nations marked the anniversary Tuesday with high-level debate and a renewed call for an end to the conflict. The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution supporting lasting peace in Ukraine, calling for an immediate ceasefire and reaffirming Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The resolution comes as the war enters its fifth year, with significant implications for regional and global stability.

The resolution, titled “Support for lasting peace in Ukraine,” passed with 107 votes in favor, 12 against, and 51 abstentions, according to voting results shared by Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha on X (formerly Twitter). The text specifically calls for a comprehensive, just, and lasting peace in line with the UN Charter, as well as the exchange of prisoners of war and the return of civilians forcibly transferred, including children.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres urged the Security Council to utilize “every tool available” to finally end the war, as reported by UN News. The General Assembly’s emergency special session on Ukraine resumed earlier Tuesday, and the Security Council convened later in the day to discuss the ongoing crisis. This marks the fourth anniversary of what has become the largest armed conflict in Europe since World War II.

The resolution’s adoption follows a period of intensifying Russian attacks, raising concerns about the safety of civilians. The UN has consistently voiced concern over these attacks and the broader humanitarian consequences of the war. The vote at the General Assembly underscores the international community’s continued focus on finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

Resolution Details and Voting Breakdown

The UN General Assembly resolution supporting peace in Ukraine saw a significant level of international support, but similarly notable opposition and abstentions. According to Pravda.com.ua, twelve countries voted against the resolution: Russia, Belarus, North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Eritrea, Mali, Sudan, Nicaragua, and Niger. Fifty-one countries, including the United States and China, abstained from the vote.

Notably, the United States attempted to amend the resolution, proposing the removal of points related to Ukraine’s territorial integrity and the pursuit of a just peace. Though, the General Assembly rejected these proposals by a vote of 69 against, 11 in favor, and 62 abstentions. This indicates a strong consensus among member states regarding the importance of upholding Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders.

Ukraine initiated the resolution, seeking international backing for its position and a pathway towards a peaceful resolution. Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha welcomed the adoption of the resolution, stating on X that it reaffirms Ukraine is “not alone.”

I welcome today’s adoption of the UN GA resolution “Support for lasting peace in Ukraine” initiated by Ukraine. At defining moments, the international community must be clear. Today, We see.For us, this is not just another vote. It is a reaffirmation that Ukraine is not alone —… pic.twitter.com/tmd0mG17OU

— Andrii Sybiha 🇺🇦 (@andrii_sybiha) February 24, 2026

Geopolitical Context and Regional Stakes

The conflict in Ukraine has far-reaching geopolitical implications, extending beyond the immediate region. The war has triggered a major humanitarian crisis, with millions of Ukrainians displaced both internally and as refugees in neighboring countries. According to UN News, the conflict has also disrupted global supply chains, particularly for food and energy, contributing to rising prices and economic instability worldwide.

The involvement of external actors, such as the United States and NATO providing military aid to Ukraine, and Russia’s allies offering political and economic support, has further complicated the situation. The conflict has also heightened tensions between Russia and the West, leading to increased military deployments and sanctions. The resolution passed by the UN General Assembly reflects a broader international effort to de-escalate the conflict and uncover a diplomatic solution.

The UN’s call for a ceasefire and the return of prisoners of war aligns with international humanitarian law and principles. The focus on the return of civilians forcibly transferred, including children, addresses a particularly grave concern raised by international organizations and human rights groups. The resolution’s emphasis on Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity reaffirms the fundamental principles of international law.

What to Watch Next

The immediate impact of the UN General Assembly resolution remains to be seen. While the resolution is non-binding, it carries significant political weight and serves as a clear signal of international condemnation of Russia’s actions. The next steps will likely involve continued diplomatic efforts to secure a ceasefire and facilitate negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. The UN Security Council is expected to continue its deliberations on the conflict, and the international community will be closely monitoring the situation on the ground. Further developments in the conflict, including potential escalations or breakthroughs in negotiations, will undoubtedly shape the future of Ukraine and the broader geopolitical landscape.

What are your thoughts on the UN resolution? Share your comments below and help us continue the conversation.

European ambitions to boost domestic manufacturing and reduce reliance on foreign supply chains through a “Made in Europe” initiative are facing significant hurdles, with member states locked in disagreement over implementation. The strategy, intended to ensure a portion of products benefiting from public funding are manufactured within Europe, has been postponed for a third time, highlighting deep divisions among EU nations.

At the heart of the debate is the question of how to define “Made in Europe” and the level of local content required to qualify for support. France is a vocal proponent of stricter rules, advocating for a significant percentage of production to occur within the EU, while other member states express concerns about potential infringements of EU law regarding free competition, as well as the practical challenges of implementing such measures. This comes as the European Commission prepares to propose a law requiring a minimum share of products supported by public funds for key strategic technologies to be “made in Europe,” according to a report from Reuters.

The “Made in Europe” Partnership: A Broader Context

The current debate builds upon existing efforts to strengthen European manufacturing. The “Made in Europe” partnership, established under the European Union’s Horizon Europe program (2021–2027), aims to drive sustainable and competitive manufacturing across the continent. This initiative brings together industry, academia, research centers, the European Commission, and EU Member States to steer research and innovation priorities. The partnership operates on a co-programmed basis, with EFFRA representing the private sector and contributing expertise and strategic direction.

However, the partnership’s goals of bolstering European manufacturing ecosystems and reinforcing technological leadership are complicated by the ongoing disagreements over the specifics of the “Made in Europe” labeling and funding requirements. The first version of the Made in Europe-SRIA was presented in May 2019 and has been refined through dialogue between the European Commission, Member States, and EFFRA.

Legal and Economic Considerations

The push for “Made in Europe” labeling isn’t new. The concept of highlighting products manufactured within a specific country, such as “Made in France,” has been used as a marketing tool to appeal to consumers valuing quality and lower environmental impact. According to a 2024 report from the French Directorate-General of Enterprises, 59% of French consumers consider the country of origin when making purchasing decisions.

However, the European Union’s commitment to free competition presents a legal challenge. The Court of Justice of the European Union has previously ruled that mandating “Made in France” or “Made in Germany” labeling would infringe EU law. This legal constraint necessitates a careful approach to any new regulations, ensuring they do not create undue barriers to trade within the single market.

France’s Push and Consumer Demand

France has been particularly assertive in promoting the “Made in France” label, viewing it as a way to support domestic industries and create jobs. Arnaud Montebourg, a former industry minister, was a key architect of a “Made in France” campaign. The French government recognizes the growing consumer interest in locally produced goods, with a 2020 Ifop poll indicating that 56% of French consumers locate it “difficult to find products made by SMEs engaged in Made in France production.”

This consumer demand extends beyond France. A 2024 report indicates that consumers are increasingly interested in products with a lower environmental impact, making locally sourced goods more attractive. However, translating this consumer preference into concrete policy requires navigating the complex legal and economic landscape of the European Union.

What’s Next?

The European Commission’s upcoming proposal for a “Made in Europe” law represents a critical juncture. The success of the initiative will depend on finding a compromise that balances the desire to support European manufacturing with the principles of free competition and the practical realities of global supply chains. The debate is likely to continue as member states negotiate the details of the legislation, with France pushing for stronger safeguards for domestic industries and other nations prioritizing open markets. The next procedural step will be the Commission’s formal presentation of the draft law, followed by negotiations with the European Parliament and Council.

What are your thoughts on the “Made in Europe” initiative? Share your opinions in the comments below and facilitate us continue the conversation.

U.S. Ambassador to France Charles Kushner spoke with French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot on Tuesday, following a diplomatic dispute sparked by his failure to attend a formally requested meeting, according to the French Foreign Ministry.

The meeting request stemmed from concerns raised by the French government regarding comments reposted by the U.S. Embassy in Paris relating to the death of Quentin Deranque, a 23-year-old far-right activist who died from head injuries sustained in clashes with counter-protesters in Lyon on February 12. The U.S. Embassy shared statements originally issued by the Trump administration that characterized the incident as involving “terrorism” and “left-wing violence,” prompting the summons from Minister Barrot.

Kushner’s initial failure to appear at the scheduled meeting on Monday led France to announce that government ministers would no longer grant him direct access, a measure intended to underscore the seriousness of the diplomatic breach. “In light of this apparent failure to grasp the basic requirements of the ambassadorial mission and the honour of representing one’s country,” the French Foreign Ministry stated, access to ministers would be suspended. The ministry clarified that Kushner could continue to perform other diplomatic duties and maintain “exchanges” with officials, but would be excluded from direct engagements with government leadership.

Minister Barrot had publicly expressed his dissatisfaction with Kushner’s conduct, describing the ambassador’s absence from the meeting as a “surprise” and stating it would “naturally affect his ability to carry out his mission in our country.” The French Foreign Ministry had formally summoned Kushner to explain the U.S. Embassy’s decision to amplify the Trump administration’s comments on the Deranque case.

The situation marks a further deterioration in Franco-American relations, which have experienced friction over trade tariffs, the war in Ukraine, and differing perspectives on European security. Kushner’s appointment itself has been met with some scrutiny, as he is not a career diplomat but a real estate developer and former attorney who served time in prison after pleading guilty to tax evasion, witness tampering, and illegal campaign contributions before receiving a pardon from former President Trump in 2020.

As of Tuesday evening, the French Foreign Ministry has not disclosed the content of the conversation between Kushner and Minister Barrot, nor has it indicated whether the suspension of access to government ministers has been lifted. The U.S. Embassy in Paris has not issued a statement regarding the meeting.