States

why the United States needs the old continent more than it admits

by

That the United States is the absolute reference of the West is a reality that we have been seeing all our lives: American Way of Life from the 1950s to the hackneyed phrase “without us, you would all be speaking German” that Trump took it upon himself to remember in Davos and that we have seen countless times in war films. Spain has its own version of that story with Welcome, Mister Marshall. But Trump returned to the White House willing to fulfill his promise to “Make American Great Again” at any price: immigration management with ICE as the executing arm about their citizenship, threats to Greenland or tariffs as a tool of permanent pressure. His ways are more reminiscent of a school bully than of a leader running one of the most powerful countries on the planet. And Europe? Well, between caution, diplomacy and even turning the other cheek. The million-dollar question is whether Europe has as little room for maneuver as it appears. The answer, according to a recent analysis from the German institute Dezernat Zukunft, no. United States > Europe. In case it was necessary to remember the power of the United States in general, it has the largest GDP in the world according to the IMFit is also the country with more military spendingthe dollar It is the world reserve currency par excellence since 1945. Furthermore, leads in digital infrastructure and semiconductors (in design and sales), almost half the world share. In fact, as Dezernat Zukunft points outnot even the 10 largest European countries combined compete with those key indicators of material power. But power is not negotiating ability. The United States is the strongest in the yard, but Europe has the leverage. And here the game board changes. A close example: the gas key. Russia’s GDP It is less than the ninth part of the EUbut Russia has something that Europe needs: the gas required to heat in winter. Changing suppliers overnight was unfeasible. Europe is a succulent client. The magnificent seven (Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet, Nvidia, Tesla, Meta) have an important part of their market in Europe. According to estimates by Dezernat Zukunftthese big tech companies generate more than $500 billion annually in Europe alone. If the old continent closes the market or fines them, their stock market shares would suffer a severe blow. And this point is not only important for companies. The magnificent seven They represent a third of the entire S&P 500the index in which the pension plans of millions of Americans are invested. If these big tech companies lose Europe, North American seniors earn less when they retire and that can be dramatic on a social and political level. Europe controls nuclear fuel. On Donald Trump’s roadmap Nuclear power plants are being built everywhere, but the United States does not have enough enriched uranium to supply itself in the short or medium term. Europe, through companies such as Urenco and Orano, is the main supplier of enriched uranium to the US, according to data from the Energy Information Agency. If the EU turns off the tap by prioritizing its own supply, the United States would have a problem meeting its nuclear needs, a key element for powering AI data centers. Because in the artificial intelligence race, The US desperately needs energy. Europe manufactures the turbines. To achieve enough electricity to meet the demand of data centers for AI, a specific type of gas turbines (40 – 60 MW) is also needed and here a European company is the queen: Siemens Energy. Siemens Energy’s SGT-800 has delivery times of one to three years, in a market where general deadlines have skyrocketed to seven years due to the demand for data centers, according to Utility Dive. Europe does not even need to turn its back on the United States, prioritizing its own orders would be enough for US artificial intelligence projects to suffer a few valuable years of delay. And time is money: the cost for large US technology operators could exceed 50 billion euros, according to Dezernat Zukunft estimates. American debt is fragile. The US dollar accounts for 58% of world reserves, but its weight as a reserve currency has been declining for two decades. USA accumulate a deficit of 1.8 trillion dollars annually that is financed by issuing debt and needs buyers. The problem is that central banks have stopped buying that debt: now it is speculative investment funds based in London that support the market. For the German institute, Europe has regulatory tools to discourage the purchase of American debt and favor European debt. If American bond rates rise, mortgages, credit and public spending in the US become more expensive. And we have seen it recently: when 30-year bonds exceeded 5%, Trump backed down in their tariffs. Europe is the best customer for gas. USA is the main supplier of LNG to the EU. However, if war conflicts allow it, starting in 2027 The International Energy Agency plans a gas surplus that will change the balance: sellers will need buyers and not the other way around. Dezernat Zukunft explains that due to geographical proximity, Europe is the best customer for the US, so if the United States tried to use gas as a weapon, it would be making a fatal mistake: it would sink the profits of its gas industry and Europe could buy gas from other countries. In fact, the EU is already working on it. Who needs who more. Although from an objective and abstract point of view parameters such as the largest army or the most powerful economy make Europe look weaker compared to the United States, Dezernat Zukunft highlights one power: that of necessity. And on some issues, the US needs Europe as much or more than Europe needs the US. It is not that Europe does not have cards to play, it is that it is difficult for it to agree to play them. In Xataka | Europe has realized that it cannot … Read more

In the Iraq War, Spain was left “alone” supporting the United States. 23 years later, she has been left alone refusing to help him

by

If a Spaniard from March 2003 could take a look at the press today (03/04/2026) it is most likely that he would not understand anything. And not because of the lack of context, references or the (logical) change of political leaders. Probably what would catch your attention is the 180º turn in the geopolitical chessboard that concerns the US and Europe. Let’s remember. In 2003 José María Aznar he posed smiling together with George W. Bush and Tony Blair to confirm itself as one of the great supporters of the US in the Iraq war. Today the opposite happens. Spain has become almost the loose European verse for his rejection of Trump’s offensive in Iran. It seems like a simple historical curiosity, but it says a lot about how Europe, the US and their relationship have changed over the last two decades. Trump’s anger. This is not the first time that Donald Trump publicly displayed his lack of harmony with Moncloa. In October, in full tug-of-war over the percentage of GDP that should be allocated to defense, the Republican came to suggest that Spain should be “expelled” from NATO. Rarely, however, has the US leader spoken out with the emphatic (and angry) expression he used yesterday when talking about the negative of Pedro Sánchez’s Government to have the US army use the Morón and Rota bases to attack Iran. “Spain has been terrible”. In the threatening tone that has become the hallmark of his second term, Trump made it clear that he does not take no for an answer. “Spain has been terrible,” started . “In fact I have told Scott (Bressent, Treasury Secretary) to cut all relations with her. Spain said we cannot use their bases. We could if we wanted to. Nobody is going to tell us no. But we don’t have to. They have been unfriendly.” In case there were any doubts, the Republican threatened with cutting “everything that has to do with Spain” and pronounced the cursed word: “Embargo.” He didn’t go much further, but neither that nor the fact that other previous announcements have fallen on deaf ears has prevented his words from causing an earthquake. Especially among the sectors that would have it worst if Washington decided to move forward and “cut off trade” with Spain, an otherwise complex scenario since trade policy does not depend on Madrid, but on the European Union. “No to war”. The problem is not only that Spain has refused to allow the US to use the bases in Rota and Morón to bomb Iran. Probably what has raised the most blisters in Washington is that Sánchez has clearly positioned himself against the actions of the US and Israel in the Middle East. did it yesterday and he has done it again this morning with a deliberately emphatic message: “Spain’s position is the same as in Ukraine or Gaza. No to war.” During his speech, Sánchez even recalled the Iraq war, which left (he denounced) “a more insecure world.” His position also has an internal reading: the ‘no to war’ of 2003 was a shock for the PSOE. One club, three positions. Sánchez’s position is not only important for what he says, but also for where and especially when he says it. His speech clashes with that of other European leaders who have been much more understanding of the US and Israeli attacks on Iran. In fact, just a few days ago their counterparts from France, the United Kingdom and Germany they have closed ranks with Trump. On Sunday the three powers (E3) released a statement in which they demanded that Tehran stop its “attacks” and they advanced their willingness to coordinate with the United States. “We will take measures to defend our interests and those of our allies in the region, potentially with necessary and proportionate defensive actions to destroy Iran’s ability to fire missiles and drones,” states the joint writing by Emmanuel Macron, Keir Starmer and Friedrich Merz. It should be remembered that on Sunday a French naval base in Abu Dhabi suffered an attack with drones and on Monday another drone impact against the British RAF facilities in Cyprus. Tehran has also hit bases with German troops. Madrid’s position thus clearly differs from that of Paris, London and Berlin. Also from that of the community club, which has opted for a more ambiguous position. Although the European Commission has not been slow to guarantee its “full” solidarity with its members in a veiled support for Spain in the face of Trump’s threats, the truth is that Brussels maintains a very different tone from that of Sánchez. On Monday Von der Leyen claimed that “diplomacy” is “the only solution” to the open crisis in Iran and, although he condemned Tehran’s attacks on Middle Eastern neighbors, he did not mention the bombings launched by the US and Israel. Just 23 years later… This morning Sánchez not only insisted on his “no to war.” He also wanted draw a parallel with what happened in 2003 when the Government of Spain, then headed by Aznar, decided to clearly support the US deployment in Iraq, distancing of its European partners. “The world has been here before. 23 years ago another US administration led us to an unjust war. The Iraq war generated a drastic increase in terrorism, a serious immigration and economic crisis. That was the gift of the Azores trio, a more insecure world and a worse life,” Sánchez claimed. Ironies of history, the socialist refers to the famous photo taken just 23 years ago, in March 2003, in the Azores and in which Bush, Blair and Aznar pose smiling. Have things changed that much? The truth is that yes. And not only because where Bush, Blair and Aznar sat 23 years ago, today Trump, Starmer and Sánchez sit (respectively). The most relevant change affects the roles and dealings with Washington. In 2003, the invasion of Iraq caused a fracture of Europe into two blocks well differentiated. One, against … Read more

The United States has found how to protect its most vulnerable ships on the high seas: with escort drones

by

The planet’s oceans and seas are anything but a pond of oil, and not precisely because of the climate: the Black Sea with the war between Russia and Ukrainethe Baltic Sea with hybrid warfare and ghost fleets, Strait of Hormuz tensions through which 20% of the world’s oil passes or the Red Sea crisiswith Houthi drones and missiles. And those are just some of the hot spots that cause logistics and merchant vessels to face serious problems in carrying out their functions. The possibility of sending the navy as a companion for those routes where the atmosphere is heated is obviously not an option. So the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has contracted to a company to solve it with an autonomous escort system with drones. Context. If the Strait of Hormuz is a strategic point for international trade, the Bab el-Mandeb Strait is not far behind: 12% of world maritime trade passes through it, according to the Middle East Research Center. But since 2023, passing through there is a minefield, which has led to thousands of boats (according to Wikipedia citing Pentagon sources) follow an alternative route that involves going around all of Africa passing through the Cape of Good Hope. That’s 20,000 extra kilometers, ten more days of travel and the consequent expense in fuel. This specific case is not a mere example: it is what has led DARPA to make the decision to count on Raytheon to unclog this bottleneck as soon as possible, as explains the company’s president of Advanced Technology, Colin Whelan. Why is it important. Because 80% of world trade circulates by sea and there are a series of straits that are critical and that, in the event of conflict, act as bottlenecks due to their vulnerability. And the effects are immediate in the form of delays in supplies and prices. The protection of merchant ships to date required a naval escort in a slow, expensive operation and for which there are not enough troops to allocate them to that mission. What Pulling Guard proposes is autonomous protection without requiring extra crew or structural modifications. What is Raytheon? That company is not any: Raytheon is the arms division of the RTX group, the largest aerospace and defense company in the world, with 180,000 workers and $88 billion in turnover in 2025. With more than a century behind it and headquartered in Virginia, it has missiles such as the Patriot or the Tomahawk on its resume. It is one of the Pentagon’s Big Five contractors and is a regular in DARPA contracting. What is Pulling Guard. Pulling Guard is the system developed by Raytheon, a semi-autonomous platform towed by the ship it protects. From this, a drone operates with electro-optical and infrared sensors to detect potential threats and transmit information in real time to remote operators on the ground or on board. The latter are in charge of making decisions without the crew exposing themselves. It has two phases: in the first it is an advanced surveillance system and in the second it integrates weapons. Pulling Guard is neither a passive shield nor a preventive warning system: it is, in short, a light autonomous combat unit attached to a civilian ship. What we still don’t know. Beyond technical unknowns such as the budget, the phase schedule or the type of integrated weapons, this proposal raises two tricky questions: international law and gray areas. Without going any further, from issues such as what rules of engagement apply to the remote operator from the ground authorizing fire, who is legally responsible for the attack or what happens if the system acts in the waters of a third state. Not to mention something more mundane like flag registrations or insurance companies. Or something even more basic: does the ship lose its civilian status by carrying this system? In Xataka | The US Navy already knows how to fool enemy radars: drones that create ghost fleets In Xataka | The US is preparing a new radar for Greenland with one objective: to monitor every movement of Russia and China in the Arctic Cover | Raytheo

China is building submarines faster than anyone else. And that’s a problem for the United States.

by

In a tense geopolitical moment on a global scale with several open fronts such as Greenland, whose melting ice is allowing us to see nuclear submarinesChina just achieved a historic milestone: it is manufacturing nuclear submarines faster than any other country in the world, according to a report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies. This is a complete surprise to the United States, the power that until now held this title, and threatens the advantage that Washington has maintained for decades. Brief notes on nuclear submarines. Without wanting to delve into their characteristics, it is worth distinguishing what types there are: He SSBN is a nuclear-powered submarine designed to launch ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads (some with intercontinental range). They are strategic second response platforms, practically undetectable and guarantee that if someone attacks first, they will receive a response. The SSN/SSGN are nuclear attack submarines (the second, guided missiles), true maritime control weapons: they can attack land or sea targets, block routes and operate for months without resupply. Context. American hegemony underwater lasts for decades, but Beijing has on its roadmap modernize its military capabilities by 2035: it already has the largest surface fleet in the world in the words of the Pentagon and now he has turned on the turbo to reach the last bastion of the United States: the depths. The data. China has surpassed the United States in the pace of launching nuclear-powered submarines (SSN/SSBN). Thus, between 2021 and 2025, the Asian giant launched 10 units compared to Washington’s seven, according to has discovered the IISS through satellite analysis of the Bohai shipyard in Huludao (northern China), as the epicenter of the industrial leap. In a decade, China has gone from being far behind to leading the race: Why is it important. This shift in underwater hegemony has three implications, one of which points directly to the US: Nuclear deterrence. The new submarines Type 094 and future Type 096 They expand China’s nuclear response capacity in the face of possible nuclear attacks. A preemptive attack is strategically unfeasible. Maritime control of commercial routes. SSGNs with high-speed missile systems add a layer of threat to foreign combat groups in the Indo-Pacific, complicating access for the US and its allies to potentially conflictive areas, such as the South China Sea or Taiwan. At a time when The United States is betting on boarding As a sign of maritime control, China has in this fleet a safeguard for its commercial routes. The United States cannot cope with that pace. John Phelan, US Secretary of the Navy, recognized in Congress that “All of our programs are a disaster, honestly. Our best-performing program is six months behind schedule and 57% over budget.” Phelan mentions the erosion of this industry, which according to the Government Accountability Office Today it faces problems such as aging infrastructure and a shortage of qualified labor. The surprise figures. The IISS Military Balance 2025 leaves other interesting figures to better diagnose the reality of both powers in nuclear submarines: Launch rate from 2021 to 2025: seven from the US to 10 from China. The difference in tonnage is notable: while those from China weigh 79,000 tons, those from the US are 55,500. Active nuclear fleet: The United States wins by a landslide, with 65 units compared to China’s 12 units (plus another 46 conventional ones). Quantity vs quality. We have already seen in the previous point that the United States continues to gain in numbers (still) and it is not the only reason for optimism for the country led by Trump. CNN echoes the IISS report where he explains that “Chinese designs are almost certainly behind American and European submarines in terms of quality.” Among other qualities, in noise: Chinese submarines are noisier, which makes them more vulnerable, they explain. But as a captain warns Retired US Navy Half USNI Officer, Biggest Fleets Win. In Xataka | In the midst of rearmament, Spain has just surprised Europe: 5,000 million for 34 warships and four submarines In Xataka | The new fear of Western fleets is not nuclear. They are conventional submarines armed with surprise and a flag: China Cover | CSR Report RL33153 China Naval Modernization: Implications for US Navy Capabilities—Background and Issues for Congress by Ronald O’Rourke dated February 28, 2014 – United States Naval Institute News Blog, Public Domain

There is a paradise island that you only enter armed. And the United Kingdom wants to “liberate” it from the United States

by

Prima facie, chagos It’s just a handful of perfect islands lost in the middle of the Indian Ocean, too small and remote to matter to anyone. But precisely that distance, that silence and that almost total absence of glances, have turned the archipelago into one of the most uncomfortable places of the map, one where paradise and power have been coexisting for decades without giving explanations. A paradise taken by force. part of history we tell it a few months ago. In the middle of the Indian Ocean, the Chagos Archipelago was for centuries a forgotten place, inhabited by a community that developed your own culture far from the great powers, until in the middle of the Cold War the United Kingdom decided to turn it into a global strategic piece. To make this possible, London separated the islands of Mauritius and, in agreement with the United Statessystematically expelled the entire local population between the late 1960s and early 1970s, emptying Diego Garcia to build a joint military base that has since operated outside of public scrutiny. We are talking about a territory where civil life disappeared completely. No one enters here without a weapon. For more than half a century, Diego Garcia is a geopolitical anomaly: a tropical island with perfect beaches and intact reefs that cannot be accessed without military authorization and where the armed presence it’s the norm. Officially administered by the United Kingdom and rented to the United States, the base has been key in operations in the Middle East and Central Asiaand has been surrounded by persistent accusations about secret flights, clandestine detentions and activities that have never been fully clarified. What happens inside remains, to a large extent, a state secret shared. Diego Garcia Island Invisible expelled. As the base grew, the Chagossians were trapped in exile, many of them scattered between Mauritius and Seychellesdeprived of their land, of adequate compensation and for decades even of the right to return. Their towns were swallowed up by the jungle, abandoned churches and cemeteries, and their history was minimized by official documents that described them as temporary workers, not as a community with deep roots. To this day, many continue to die without having seen the place where they were born, while decisions about their future are made. systematically without them. The transfer in small print. Thus, after years of international pressure and a strong opinion of the International Court of Justice, a few days ago London announced its intention to return sovereignty from Chagos to Mauritius, a gesture presented as the closing of a colonial wound with an important “but” in the background. It happens that the agreement includes a key condition: the Diego García base would remain operational for decades (99 years), thus shielding Anglo-American military interests. For many Chagossians, devolution without the island of Diego García is not a real liberation, but a repetition of the same pattern under another name. The clash between allies. The latest twist has come when the United States stopped the processwary of any change that could affect one of its most sensitive military installations, and provoking open tensions with the United Kingdom while returning the negotiations to the starting box in the already closed offices. Thus, Chagos it is again the scene of a dispute where the discourse of international law and decolonization collides with the logic of global security, confirming the central idea that has run through its entire history: on this paradisiacal island, neither the landscape nor its former inhabitants rule, but rather an armed silence of which, still todayyou can’t really know what the hell is going on inside. Image | Anne Sheppard, POT In Xataka | A Finnish couple found an uninhabited island on Google Maps. Today they rent it for 2,400 euros per night In Xataka | One of the most remote islands was taken 60 years ago by the United Kingdom and the United States. Since then, what happens there has been a secret.

BYD sells a total of zero cars in the United States. And, despite everything, it has denounced the United States for its tariffs

by

Not a year ago and it seems like a thousand lives have passed. In case you don’t remember, I’ll give you some background: the United States and China went to war about a year ago. A trade war who left us images to remember, like the photo of Donald Trump with the “reciprocal tariffs” table either the penguins who will now have to pay for putting their products there. Assuming, of course, that the penguins knew how to design, develop, produce and sell products. Beyond Pepín Tre’s own approaches, the truth is that we have been in tug-of-war between the United States and China for almost a year. In OctoberDonald Trump and Xi Jinping met to try to relieve tensions. It is one more of the chapters that has left us a most bizarre year in which, for example, China has been playing its own solitary tricks, redefining the origin of products, classifying them by their place of manufacture and not by the place of development or packaging and, thus, make the entry of chips accessible without lifting restrictions on other types of products. The last chapter of this story seems to be being written by BYD. The Chinese company is not selling cars in the United States. And what has already been approved by Joe Biden before the entry of Donald Trump, with bans on the sale of all cars with Chinese software or hardware, it does not seem to make things easy for the Asian company either. Despite this, BYD has made a tough decision: sue the United States. They believe that the tariffs they are paying are not legal. They doubt that the regulations used by Donald Trump allow tariffs to be imposed. And that is why they demand that all the money paid since April be returned to them. But what money? Much more than cars… although with cars in mind As we have told you in Xatakathe Asian company is much more than a car producer. In fact, and this is part of its secret, BYD did not start out as a regular car manufacturer. BYD, in addition to cars, produces batteries or heat pumps. Vertical integration is part of your secret to saving costs. From this evolution and opening new horizons, its automobile division was launched. But also buses and trucks. Because when BYD arrived in Europe it had already been there for many years selling their buses for our continent. And the same thing happens in the United States. It does not sell cars, but it does sell buses, trucks and batteries. In fact, according to Reuters750 BYD employees work in the United States in its North American division. Up to four BYD subsidiaries from which buses, trucks, batteries and renewable energy systems come out are those that have filed their lawsuit in the United States Court of International Trade. In it they defend that “the text of the IEEPA (the International Emergency Economic Powers Act on which the “reciprocal tariffs” policy was based) does not use the word “tariff” or any term of equivalent meaning.” Since Donald Trump announced the tariffs that he was going to impose on practically everyone, doubts about their legality or otherwise have been on the table. The United States Government dusted off the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to move them forward, a rule of the Cold war. However, doubts about whether or not this rule should go through Congress were on the table from day one. Even the Senate has voted against the tariffs to some countries but the resolution is purely aesthetic. Now, BYD claims that nowhere in the law does it specify that tariffs can be imposed on products coming from abroad. It is a theory supported by various companies that in recent months have also presented their own lawsuits in the same terms, such as Toyota, Costco or Prada, they point out in CarNewsChina. The decision of the court in charge of the lawsuit is key because if it rules in favor of the companies, the United States would have to return all the money collected since April. But it would also open the door for products to be exported without these special tariffs being applied, they would simply have to comply with the tariffs that were already active before April 2025. That is to say, At stake is not only money that BYD may have lost on the products it has sold there. At stake is also market entry which, with current tariffs, is almost impossible. Besides, Canada has opened the door to Chinese electric cars and Geely has dropped that their intention is also to sell their Chinese cars in the United States. The big question, as in the case of BYD, is how they intend to do it before the end of the decade with the restrictions that are currently imposed. It is a question that neither BYD nor Geely have answered. Photo | BYD and Joshua Hoehne In Xataka | “They are going to regret it”: Canada has generated even more tension with the US by opening the door to Chinese electric cars

more and more states are opposed to building them

by

The US is finding increasing resistance ahead of the construction of new data centers to feed AI, and New York has been the last state in joining it. Two Democratic legislators have presented a bill that would suspend the construction of new facilities in the state for three years, becoming the sixth territory to consider this type of measure in just a few weeks. Why is this happening? The bipartisan rejection of data centers has spread like wildfire across the country. In December, Bernie Sanders became the first national politician to ask for a general moratoriumarguing that it was necessary to “ensure that the benefits of technology work for everyone, not just the 1%.” Now, from Florida to Vermont, lawmakers from both parties are pushing for temporary pauses. According to Wired, more than 200 environmental organizations they signed a letter calling data center expansion “one of the biggest environmental and social threats of our generation.” In detail. The proposal, introduced by state Sen. Liz Krueger and Assemblywoman Anna Kelles, establishes a minimum three-year moratorium on issuing construction permits. During that period, the Department of Environmental Conservation and the Public Utilities Commission would evaluate the impact of these infrastructures to suggest new regulations. Just like share In the middle, the state currently has more than 130 data centers, and electricity demand linked to new projects has reached 10 gigawatts, triple what it was just a year ago. Among the developments underway is a 450-megawatt center built on a former coal plant. Where else is it happening. Georgia, Maryland, Oklahoma, Vermont and Virginia have also introduced bills this year to temporarily pause data center development. Although Georgia, Vermont and Virginia are Democratic initiatives, in Oklahoma and Maryland they have been led by Republicans. According to share Wired, as of late December at least 14 states had cities or counties that had suspended building permits. And Virginia, with more than 60 related bills introduced this year, has become the legislative epicenter of this battle. The hidden cost. data centers consume massive amounts of energy and waterand local communities fear an increase in your electric bills greater than what they have had to face until now. Just like account In New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul last month launched an initiative to force data centers to “pay their fair share.” “I don’t think there are many people who want to have higher energy bills just so some chatbot can corrupt a 13-year-old boy online,” declared Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. Resistance from below. Beyond the legislators, there is also citizen opposition that is pausing multimillion-dollar projects. According to Data Center Watch, between March and June 2025 they were delayed or canceled developments valued at 98 billion dollars. In Monterey Park, California, a six week campaign has achieved a 45-day moratorium and a commitment from the city council to explore a permanent ban. Between the lines. What is happening in the United States with data centers is a reflection of the problem that the evolution of AI brings with it: that it is generating a physical infrastructure the costs of which the communities where it is installed are not willing to assume. Many companies promise jobs with their construction, but once operational they hardly require personnel. They promise fiscal investment, but they skyrocket energy consumption and pollute with noise and emissions. A Morning Consult survey revealed that a majority of voters support banning the construction of data centers near where they live and believe they are partially responsible for rising electricity prices. And now what. The industry has begun to react. Just like share Wired, Microsoft presented last month, with support from the White House, a series of commitments to be a “good neighbor” in the communities where it builds. Dan Diorio, vice president of state policy for the Data Center Coalition, assured the outlet that the industry “recognizes the importance of continued efforts to better educate and inform the public about the industry.” The needs of Big Tech to advance their operations collide more than ever with public opinion, and it does not look like the gap is going to narrow anytime soon. Cover image | Tim Mossholder and Kevin Ache In Xataka | Something is changing in the markets and AI: Amazon’s exaggerated spending announcement has been followed by a stock market crash

enter the United States in three years despite 100% tariffs

by

The Chinese automotive industry has set out to conquer the West, and Europe is too small for them. The great objective is to take a bite of the cake that is the United States, a risky bet if we take into account the tariff wall to the chinese electric car. And there is already a firm proposal: Geely is preparing its assault on the United States with two aces up its sleeve. Volvo… and Canada. The plan. Does a few daysthe Autoline Network media public an interview with Ash Sutcliffe. He is the head of global communications at Geely Holding Group, a Chinese giant that has its own brands such as Zeekr either Lynk&Cobut which also controls the Western Lotus, PolestarSmart and… Volvo. The interview was published within the framework of CES, the technology fair in Las Vegasand it was strange because, if there are 100% tariffs on Chinese electric cars, what was Geely doing there? The answer is simple: they are going to assault the US market. Sutcliffe commented that they are studying all the global markets in which they can expand and there is an internal question: when and where they will land in the United States. He did not share the roadmap, but did comment that they will have “an announcement on this in the next 24 to 36 months.” Trojan horse. There are many questions here and none of them were clearly answered in the interview. For example, what will happen to US tariffs or regulations on the Chinese software in cars? Sutcliffe simply said that Geely is an international group used to following the data protection and trade regulations of various countries, so they will do “whatever is necessary to follow those regulations when the time comes.” He gave the example of the European GDPRand although the interview does not connect the dots, the fact that they have taken advantage of such a framework to firmly assure that they will be in a market as complicated and hostile as the American one in the short term is a sign that they have given the matter more than one turn. Geely has an advantage here with Volvo, Polestar and Lotus. They are brands under their umbrella and already operate in the United States, but specifically, what Sutcliffe stated was that they want to land with Lynk & Co and Zeekr. North American Gate. There are two important questions. One is the tariff wall: 100% on electric vehicles from China. In practice, it would make it unfeasible for Geely to start selling cars because users would have to pay a premium that would make the brand simply unable to compete on price. But there are two safe passages. On the one hand, Geely build factories on American soil, a door opened by the Trump Administration if, with this, local employment is created. The Volvo factory South Carolina It would be an interesting and organic option for that local production. On the other hand, use brokers that export to US soil. There Canada can be the ace up your sleeve for the Chinese company. If they decide not to assemble the Zeekr/Lyn & Co in South Carolina, they can always import the vehicles from Canada and take them to the United States through that northern gate. Canada has recently moved from a 100% tariff Chinese electric vehicles at 6.1%. It is a very limited movement, since the initial quota will be 49,000 units per year. It’s a ridiculous number, but a start, and it could be a test bed for Geely to bring its 100% electric brands to the US from Canada. But hey, the United States is very aware of this and in fact, they have already saying that Canada “is going to regret it.” Feet of lead. With this management of brands like Volvo, Geely has an easier time than other Chinese competitors to get its foot in the US market, but there is an important nuance in all this. Geely has not said “in three years we will be selling thousands of cars,” but rather “in three years we will detail our plan to enter the United States.” However, although as we said, there is no specific public plan, it is evident that a statement like this implies that they are oiling the machinery to try do the same as in Europe. Now, taking into account the political climate and government maneuvers on issues such as trade or tariffs, things could change a lot in 36 months. Images | Zeekr, BYD In Xataka | Chinese cars are no longer just cheap: they are the world’s largest product experiment

Until now, Mexican children under 14 years of age did not have to pass an interview to enter the United States. That’s over

by

Mexico is preparing for an image that is difficult to see in recent years. With the changes in immigration policy and of access to the United States As a backdrop, the Trump administration has decided that both Mexicans under 14 and those over 79 will no longer be exempt to pass an interview with a consular officer to obtain their “non-immigrant” visas. In practice, this will affect children and the elderly who want to travel to the neighboring country to spend their holidays, for studies, business or for medical reasons. What has happened? That the US State Department has changed slightly the guidelines that Mexicans who want to apply for a nonimmigrant visawhich is used for tourism or business trips. And it has done so in an aspect that has generated some expectation in the country. From now on (from a few months ago actually) and as a general rule, Mexicans under 14 years of age and those over 79 must undergo a consular interview in person to obtain the document, just like the rest of the population. So far both (children and elderly) They used to be exempt. What does the US say exactly? The guideline collected in the official website of the US Embassy and Consulates in Mexico is quite clear: “All applicants for non-immigrant visas to the US, including those under 14 years of age and those over 79, will generally be required to appear for an in-person interview with a consular officer.” There are some exceptions, although for specific cases and as long as those involved meet “certain requirements”, such as presenting the petition in their country and not having been rejected before. For example, applicants for diplomatic visas or those who want to renew their B-1, B-2, B1/B2 permits or Border Crossing Card or Folio are exempt from the obligation. Of course, your passes cannot be expired for more than 12 months. This is also new, as remember The Country. Before they could take advantage of Dropbox process (visa interview waiver program) for 48 months following the expiration date of the document. Screenshot of the official website of the US Embassy and Consulates in Mexico. Why is it important? For several reasons. The first, as has been responsible for highlighting part of the Mexican press, is that in practice the change will mean that children and octogenarians will have to meet in person with a consular officer if they want to obtain their visa. In the case of minors under 14 years of age, it is no longer useful for their parents to come alone with all the documentation. The second reason is that the concept of “nonimmigrant visas” is broad. The list published by the US Department of State shows that its vast range includes those people who want to cross the Mexican border for business, tourism, to receive medical treatment, as athletes, to study or work as seasonal agricultural workers, among other cases. What do you recommend doing? The range is so wide that there are those who advises plan the procedures well in advance, especially at the busiest consulates, and starting from the base that the applicant will most likely have to pass the interview. The US administration itself remember That, if necessary, the consulate can request this procedure even from those who are exempt. Is it something exceptional? No. The US has tightened the access conditions for citizens of other countries (not just Mexico) and has become stricter with the requirements required of applicants for family-based immigrant visas. At the end of 2025 even transcended a proposal from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that proposes that foreign travelers who want to cross the border in the United States must reveal up to five years of their network history. In the case of consular interviews for Mexican visa applicants, the change in criteria has come up against another handicap: a confusion in the dates. As remember The ImpartialIn July 2025, a guide was published that advanced the changes and stated that these would come into force as of September 2. According to a later update, the change was activated later: in October. Images | Global Residence Index (Unsplash) and Francesca Albert (Unsplash) In Xataka | More and more Americans want to live outside the US but they have a problem: Europe is closing its doors

Taiwan colonizing the United States with TSMC as the spearhead

by

TSMC is the big name in the global semiconductor industry. We all have companies like NVIDIA, Qualcomm, Intel or AMD in mind, but It is TSMC that produces most of the chips of these companies. The Taiwanese company produces around 60% of the world’s chips, but when we talk about the most advanced chips, that dominance is practically total. It is a technological candy that has decided to expand and, after the plant in the United States, continues to buy land to expand its footprint. And it is a move that further unbalances the balance in terms of chips. Necessary expansion. TSMC’s base of operations is in Taiwan, but a few years ago, the company saw clearly that they had to expand their operations framework. It is something that responds to a double need. On the one hand, the more footprint they have in other countries, the more the technology industry will continue to depend on their technique. On the other hand, the main factor: the threat of china. China and Taiwan are going through a period of growing tension. We have seen maneuvers by China that I’m sure they’ve made the Taiwanese nervous.. Also Taiwan operations for show that they could defend themselves and countries like Japan and, above all, the United States They are very aware of the situation. 87% of TSMC’s more than 80,000 employees operate in Taiwan and any open conflict between the countries would mean a stoppage in the company’s operations. Little joke with this: if its chips move the world, let TSMC stop producing would cause an economic collapse. Arizona. There is a third factor that is encouraging this international expansion. Although Europe, the United States and China seeks national sovereignty in semiconductor matterthe reality is that companies need the cutting-edge chips that only TSMC can reliably mass produce. And, while financing semiconductor plants, countries have decided to invest millions to attract TSMC to their territories. The plant that will open in Germany either that of Japan They are two examples, but the one that is already operating is the American one. Although Trump, with his protectionist policies and ‘America First’, does not like it being a foreign company that cuts the cod, TSMC already has a huge plant located in Arizona from which it produces key components of the iPhone 16. This facility is the company’s most ambitious project far from Taiwan, and what started as a $12 billion investment in 2020 has become a colossal $160 billion-plus operation. They started to produce 4 nanometer chips at the beginning of 2025 and the idea is refine machinery to reach 2nm in 2029. New lands. Within the ‘Made in the USA’ strategy of the large American technology companies, TSMC Arizona is vital. And considering the economic opportunity that the AI ​​era has opened up, with the astronomical need for chips to create products like NVIDIA’s solutions for data centers, TSMC wants to grab as much of the pie as possible. As we read in The Wall Street Journala series of factors such as Taiwanese investment and a relaxation in US tariffs on Taiwan would allow TSMC to expand further. According to the media, last week the technology company purchased 900 acres – about 360 hectares – of land adjacent to its current property in Arizona. The total has been almost 200 million dollars and the intention is to expand the facilities to reach a dozen. TSMC + NVIDIA Made in the USA (more expensive). With this move, TSMC would discourage the competition from trying to invest to stand up to them because, as we say, they are the ones who dominate the production of advanced chips and who have the capacity to supply their enormous customer base. Apple is one of those that already buys chips from Arizonabut NVIDIA has confirmed that its B30 GPUs will be the first made in the United States. Now, there is a toll. HE esteem TSMC Arizona prices on advanced nodes are between 5% and 30%. There are several factors. In Taiwan they have the policy of “everything at one hour”, so any material the factory needs is very close, creating an extremely efficient chain. That does not happen in the American factory, where suppliers are far away and you have to resort to air transportation, which increases the price. There is also the fact that the wages They are higher in the US than in Taiwan. Headache. Despite these conditions, and being a foreign company controlling the show on home soil, TSMC has so dominated the process that the companies it’s worth it because they know that the chips they get will be the best for their products. Furthermore, from a political perspective, these additional costs may even be reasonable if they ensure that a conflict in Taiwan would not completely paralyze its economy. For TSMC, expansion is a great move. At the political level, countries that embrace their factories also have a reason to attract investment and Big Tech and the CEO of NVIDIA himself is clear that swith those who will lead the industry for decades. However, it is still an industry dependent on a single entity. Without leaving the United States, the country got his hands on Intel in the middle of last year in an almost unprecedented move to turn the company into the great american foundry. With TSMC expanding its network at home, they are going to have it complicated despite having the best technology available. Images | NVIDIA, TSMC, Intel In Xataka | The world’s technology industry practically depends on a single road: the one that leads to the Spruce Prine mine

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.