chatham house

The US governments latest U-turn on Anthropics Mythos sends mixed signals on AI governance The US governments latest U-turn on Anthropics Mythos sends mixed signals on AI governance Expert comment thilton.drupal 2 July 2026 The Trump administrations approach to controlling US companies powerful AI capabilities is volatile. It undercuts global safety and governance at a pivotal time. On Tuesday, the United States Department of Commerce removed restrictions on two of Anthropics new advanced AI models that have prompted security concerns: Mythos 5 and Fable 5. This is a major change in the way the US controls frontier AI and comes after recurring flip-flopping on the issue.The move, described in a letter by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik to Anthropic, lifts the export control directive issued by the Trump administration less than three weeks ago. That 12 June directive banned non-US nationals from accessing the two models. This ban included foreign employees at US companies and cyber defenders from international partners. In response, Anthropic suspended access to Mythos and Fable for all users a day later.The administration then partially changed its approach. On 26 June, Anthropic said the US government had allowed it to release Mythos 5 but had reserved access to the model to only a select group of trusted big companies and agencies: all of them, unsurprisingly, from the US.Now, Anthropic says it is coordinating with the government to expand Mythos access to a broader group including international partners. As of 1 July, Fable 5 – which Anthropic says has stronger safeguards than Mythos 5 – is available to public users globally.A volatile approachSince Anthropics initial limited release of Mythos in April, the models apparently powerful cyber hacking capabilities have led to concerns over who has access. Initially, Anthropic had limited access to trusted partners in Project Glasswing: a select group of companies and agencies that were granted access in order to fix vulnerabilities in their systems and browsers. Since then, the question of access has remained contentious.Many companies and allies will applaud the US administrations latest policy reversal. Access to models like Mythos can be helpful for cyber defenders the world over. Information about model capabilities is critical for regulators and officials. Related work In the face of growing AI cyber threats, do middle powers have agency? This latest U-turn on Mythos aside, the bigger picture is that the US government is regulating powerful AI in a way that it previously indicated it wouldnt. OpenAIs latest models – GPT-5.6 Sol, Terra and Luna – have also recently come under government pressure due to security concerns, and will be initially released to only a small group of trusted partners.However, the governments changeable approach is not a win for security. The policy volatility is concerning. Its unpredictability sends confusing signals to markets and is bad for investors.It also represents competing dynamics at the heart of the USs frontier AI strategy, each with global consequences. These include anxiety about Chinas access to cutting-edge capabilities, a lack of clarity over what the technology can actually do and how transformative it really is, and distrust in the partnerships required to develop and deploy it.Deregulation, re-regulation?This flip-flopping on Mythos is just the latest chapter in the dispute between the Trump administration and Anthropic. Earlier this year, the Department of War (DoW) labelled the company a supply chain risk to national security: the first US company ever to receive this designation. The DoW and Anthropic remain in a legal battle. Regardless, Anthropic engineers reportedly help the National Security Agency to use Mythos in cyber operations targeting adversaries.The administrations turbulent relationship with Anthropic has global consequences, including for US allies. In early June, Anthropic offered the EU access to Mythos after weeks of negotiations, only for the EU to lose it days later following the export control directive (and now, presumably, regain it). The G7 also saw attempts to re-negotiate a trusted partners scheme for access to cutting-edge AI capabilities.  The US government is regulating powerful AI in a way that it previously indicated it wouldnt. This turbulence also highlights the unstraightforward relationship between US political leaders and the countrys most powerful technology companies, two of which are on the cusp of IPOs. Generally, the Trump administration has been in favour of deregulation. It fears stifling innovation, preventing adoption and losing the USs competitive edge over China.But the US governments recent turn towards a more proactive but volatile regulatory approach is a significant change; the Anthropic saga is just one part of this recent shift towards ad hoc government control. Related work AI export controls are not the best bargaining chip On 2 June, an executive order called for AI companies to voluntarily submit their models for safety testing for 30 days before general release. The order was reportedly watered down from a 90-day period after lobbying. On 5 June, a national security directive instructed government agencies to end contracts with AI companies that limit how the government uses their tech. (Some policy experts consider this a response to the Pentagon-Anthropic legal battle.) And OpenAIs limited release of its GPT-5.6 models last week reportedly came at the request of the US government.This approach has its flaws. First, Chatham House experts have previously argued that tightening restrictions around valuable technology – so-called golden eggs, whether software (like models) or hardware (like chips) – will not fully prevent their proliferation.Second, clamping down on models immediately pre-release doesnt control or slow down the frontier of development. And clamping down on foreign access to AI cyber capabilities – which includes restricting access for non-US AI safety institutes and allies – does not improve US readiness for an AI-enabled global crisis, like a global financial crash. It weakens the evidence base and trusted cooperation needed to navigate a shared shock.Not-so-global governanceNext weeks inaugural United Nations meeting on AI – the UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance – faces an impossible balancing act. This is because AI risks are shared, whether to global health, nuclear security or financial systems. They demand a minimum level of global governance to regulate them. This includes monitoring and information-sharing, technical measures like model kill switches, or decision-making pathways like emergency backchannels.This is a non-starter without the US and its powerful AI companies. But the unpredictability and protectionism of US frontier AI governance creates barriers to these types of international cooperation. This is complicated by the dynamics of the US-China AI race, which makes it hard to get Beijing and Washington to reach a consensus on safety, despite promising signs of future intergovernmental talks.

The US governments latest U-turn on Anthropics Mythos sends mixed signals on AI governance The US governments latest U-turn on Anthropics Mythos sends mixed signals on AI governance Expert comment thilton.drupal 2 July 2026 The Trump administrations approach to controlling US companies powerful AI capabilities is volatile. It undercuts global safety and governance at a pivotal time. On Tuesday, the United States Department of Commerce removed restrictions on two of Anthropics new advanced AI models that have prompted security concerns: Mythos 5 and Fable 5. This is a major change in the way the US controls frontier AI and comes after recurring flip-flopping on the issue.The move, described in a letter by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik to Anthropic, lifts the export control directive issued by the Trump administration less than three weeks ago. That 12 June directive banned non-US nationals from accessing the two models. This ban included foreign employees at US companies and cyber defenders from international partners. In response, Anthropic suspended access to Mythos and Fable for all users a day later.The administration then partially changed its approach. On 26 June, Anthropic said the US government had allowed it to release Mythos 5 but had reserved access to the model to only a select group of trusted big companies and agencies: all of them, unsurprisingly, from the US.Now, Anthropic says it is coordinating with the government to expand Mythos access to a broader group including international partners. As of 1 July, Fable 5 – which Anthropic says has stronger safeguards than Mythos 5 – is available to public users globally.A volatile approachSince Anthropics initial limited release of Mythos in April, the models apparently powerful cyber hacking capabilities have led to concerns over who has access. Initially, Anthropic had limited access to trusted partners in Project Glasswing: a select group of companies and agencies that were granted access in order to fix vulnerabilities in their systems and browsers. Since then, the question of access has remained contentious.Many companies and allies will applaud the US administrations latest policy reversal. Access to models like Mythos can be helpful for cyber defenders the world over. Information about model capabilities is critical for regulators and officials. Related work In the face of growing AI cyber threats, do middle powers have agency? This latest U-turn on Mythos aside, the bigger picture is that the US government is regulating powerful AI in a way that it previously indicated it wouldnt. OpenAIs latest models – GPT-5.6 Sol, Terra and Luna – have also recently come under government pressure due to security concerns, and will be initially released to only a small group of trusted partners.However, the governments changeable approach is not a win for security. The policy volatility is concerning. Its unpredictability sends confusing signals to markets and is bad for investors.It also represents competing dynamics at the heart of the USs frontier AI strategy, each with global consequences. These include anxiety about Chinas access to cutting-edge capabilities, a lack of clarity over what the technology can actually do and how transformative it really is, and distrust in the partnerships required to develop and deploy it.Deregulation, re-regulation?This flip-flopping on Mythos is just the latest chapter in the dispute between the Trump administration and Anthropic. Earlier this year, the Department of War (DoW) labelled the company a supply chain risk to national security: the first US company ever to receive this designation. The DoW and Anthropic remain in a legal battle. Regardless, Anthropic engineers reportedly help the National Security Agency to use Mythos in cyber operations targeting adversaries.The administrations turbulent relationship with Anthropic has global consequences, including for US allies. In early June, Anthropic offered the EU access to Mythos after weeks of negotiations, only for the EU to lose it days later following the export control directive (and now, presumably, regain it). The G7 also saw attempts to re-negotiate a trusted partners scheme for access to cutting-edge AI capabilities.  The US government is regulating powerful AI in a way that it previously indicated it wouldnt. This turbulence also highlights the unstraightforward relationship between US political leaders and the countrys most powerful technology companies, two of which are on the cusp of IPOs. Generally, the Trump administration has been in favour of deregulation. It fears stifling innovation, preventing adoption and losing the USs competitive edge over China.But the US governments recent turn towards a more proactive but volatile regulatory approach is a significant change; the Anthropic saga is just one part of this recent shift towards ad hoc government control. Related work AI export controls are not the best bargaining chip On 2 June, an executive order called for AI companies to voluntarily submit their models for safety testing for 30 days before general release. The order was reportedly watered down from a 90-day period after lobbying. On 5 June, a national security directive instructed government agencies to end contracts with AI companies that limit how the government uses their tech. (Some policy experts consider this a response to the Pentagon-Anthropic legal battle.) And OpenAIs limited release of its GPT-5.6 models last week reportedly came at the request of the US government.This approach has its flaws. First, Chatham House experts have previously argued that tightening restrictions around valuable technology – so-called golden eggs, whether software (like models) or hardware (like chips) – will not fully prevent their proliferation.Second, clamping down on models immediately pre-release doesnt control or slow down the frontier of development. And clamping down on foreign access to AI cyber capabilities – which includes restricting access for non-US AI safety institutes and allies – does not improve US readiness for an AI-enabled global crisis, like a global financial crash. It weakens the evidence base and trusted cooperation needed to navigate a shared shock.Not-so-global governanceNext weeks inaugural United Nations meeting on AI – the UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance – faces an impossible balancing act. This is because AI risks are shared, whether to global health, nuclear security or financial systems. They demand a minimum level of global governance to regulate them. This includes monitoring and information-sharing, technical measures like model kill switches, or decision-making pathways like emergency backchannels.This is a non-starter without the US and its powerful AI companies. But the unpredictability and protectionism of US frontier AI governance creates barriers to these types of international cooperation. This is complicated by the dynamics of the US-China AI race, which makes it hard to get Beijing and Washington to reach a consensus on safety, despite promising signs of future intergovernmental talks.

The US governments latest U-turn on Anthropics Mythos sends mixed signals on AI governance The US governments latest U-turn on Anthropics Mythos sends mixed signals on AI governance Expert comment thilton.drupal 2 July 2026 The Trump administrations approach to controlling US companies powerful AI capabilities is volatile. It undercuts global safety and governance at a pivotal time. On Tuesday, the United States Department of Commerce removed restrictions on two of Anthropics new advanced AI models that have prompted security concerns: Mythos 5 and Fable 5. This is a major change in the way the US controls frontier AI and comes after recurring flip-flopping on the issue.The move, described in a letter by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik to Anthropic, lifts the export control directive issued by the Trump administration less than three weeks ago. That 12 June directive banned non-US nationals from accessing the two models. This ban included foreign employees at US companies and cyber defenders from international partners. In response, Anthropic suspended access to Mythos and Fable for all users a day later.The administration then partially changed its approach. On 26 June, Anthropic said the US government had allowed it to release Mythos 5 but had reserved access to the model to only a select group of trusted big companies and agencies: all of them, unsurprisingly, from the US.Now, Anthropic says it is coordinating with the government to expand Mythos access to a broader group including international partners. As of 1 July, Fable 5 – which Anthropic says has stronger safeguards than Mythos 5 – is available to public users globally.A volatile approachSince Anthropics initial limited release of Mythos in April, the models apparently powerful cyber hacking capabilities have led to concerns over who has access. Initially, Anthropic had limited access to trusted partners in Project Glasswing: a select group of companies and agencies that were granted access in order to fix vulnerabilities in their systems and browsers. Since then, the question of access has remained contentious.Many companies and allies will applaud the US administrations latest policy reversal. Access to models like Mythos can be helpful for cyber defenders the world over. Information about model capabilities is critical for regulators and officials. Related work In the face of growing AI cyber threats, do middle powers have agency? This latest U-turn on Mythos aside, the bigger picture is that the US government is regulating powerful AI in a way that it previously indicated it wouldnt. OpenAIs latest models – GPT-5.6 Sol, Terra and Luna – have also recently come under government pressure due to security concerns, and will be initially released to only a small group of trusted partners.However, the governments changeable approach is not a win for security. The policy volatility is concerning. Its unpredictability sends confusing signals to markets and is bad for investors.It also represents competing dynamics at the heart of the USs frontier AI strategy, each with global consequences. These include anxiety about Chinas access to cutting-edge capabilities, a lack of clarity over what the technology can actually do and how transformative it really is, and distrust in the partnerships required to develop and deploy it.Deregulation, re-regulation?This flip-flopping on Mythos is just the latest chapter in the dispute between the Trump administration and Anthropic. Earlier this year, the Department of War (DoW) labelled the company a supply chain risk to national security: the first US company ever to receive this designation. The DoW and Anthropic remain in a legal battle. Regardless, Anthropic engineers reportedly help the National Security Agency to use Mythos in cyber operations targeting adversaries.The administrations turbulent relationship with Anthropic has global consequences, including for US allies. In early June, Anthropic offered the EU access to Mythos after weeks of negotiations, only for the EU to lose it days later following the export control directive (and now, presumably, regain it). The G7 also saw attempts to re-negotiate a trusted partners scheme for access to cutting-edge AI capabilities.  The US government is regulating powerful AI in a way that it previously indicated it wouldnt. This turbulence also highlights the unstraightforward relationship between US political leaders and the countrys most powerful technology companies, two of which are on the cusp of IPOs. Generally, the Trump administration has been in favour of deregulation. It fears stifling innovation, preventing adoption and losing the USs competitive edge over China.But the US governments recent turn towards a more proactive but volatile regulatory approach is a significant change; the Anthropic saga is just one part of this recent shift towards ad hoc government control. Related work AI export controls are not the best bargaining chip On 2 June, an executive order called for AI companies to voluntarily submit their models for safety testing for 30 days before general release. The order was reportedly watered down from a 90-day period after lobbying. On 5 June, a national security directive instructed government agencies to end contracts with AI companies that limit how the government uses their tech. (Some policy experts consider this a response to the Pentagon-Anthropic legal battle.) And OpenAIs limited release of its GPT-5.6 models last week reportedly came at the request of the US government.This approach has its flaws. First, Chatham House experts have previously argued that tightening restrictions around valuable technology – so-called golden eggs, whether software (like models) or hardware (like chips) – will not fully prevent their proliferation.Second, clamping down on models immediately pre-release doesnt control or slow down the frontier of development. And clamping down on foreign access to AI cyber capabilities – which includes restricting access for non-US AI safety institutes and allies – does not improve US readiness for an AI-enabled global crisis, like a global financial crash. It weakens the evidence base and trusted cooperation needed to navigate a shared shock.Not-so-global governanceNext weeks inaugural United Nations meeting on AI – the UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance – faces an impossible balancing act. This is because AI risks are shared, whether to global health, nuclear security or financial systems. They demand a minimum level of global governance to regulate them. This includes monitoring and information-sharing, technical measures like model kill switches, or decision-making pathways like emergency backchannels.This is a non-starter without the US and its powerful AI companies. But the unpredictability and protectionism of US frontier AI governance creates barriers to these types of international cooperation. This is complicated by the dynamics of the US-China AI race, which makes it hard to get Beijing and Washington to reach a consensus on safety, despite promising signs of future intergovernmental talks.

The US governments latest U-turn on Anthropics Mythos sends mixed signals on AI governance The US governments latest U-turn on Anthropics Mythos sends mixed signals on AI governance Expert comment thilton.drupal 2 July 2026 The Trump administrations approach to controlling US companies powerful AI capabilities is volatile. It undercuts global safety and governance at a pivotal time. On Tuesday, the United States Department of Commerce removed restrictions on two of Anthropics new advanced AI models that have prompted security concerns: Mythos 5 and Fable 5. This is a major change in the way the US controls frontier AI and comes after recurring flip-flopping on the issue.The move, described in a letter by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik to Anthropic, lifts the export control directive issued by the Trump administration less than three weeks ago. That 12 June directive banned non-US nationals from accessing the two models. This ban included foreign employees at US companies and cyber defenders from international partners. In response, Anthropic suspended access to Mythos and Fable for all users a day later.The administration then partially changed its approach. On 26 June, Anthropic said the US government had allowed it to release Mythos 5 but had reserved access to the model to only a select group of trusted big companies and agencies: all of them, unsurprisingly, from the US.Now, Anthropic says it is coordinating with the government to expand Mythos access to a broader group including international partners. As of 1 July, Fable 5 – which Anthropic says has stronger safeguards than Mythos 5 – is available to public users globally.A volatile approachSince Anthropics initial limited release of Mythos in April, the models apparently powerful cyber hacking capabilities have led to concerns over who has access. Initially, Anthropic had limited access to trusted partners in Project Glasswing: a select group of companies and agencies that were granted access in order to fix vulnerabilities in their systems and browsers. Since then, the question of access has remained contentious.Many companies and allies will applaud the US administrations latest policy reversal. Access to models like Mythos can be helpful for cyber defenders the world over. Information about model capabilities is critical for regulators and officials. Related work In the face of growing AI cyber threats, do middle powers have agency? This latest U-turn on Mythos aside, the bigger picture is that the US government is regulating powerful AI in a way that it previously indicated it wouldnt. OpenAIs latest models – GPT-5.6 Sol, Terra and Luna – have also recently come under government pressure due to security concerns, and will be initially released to only a small group of trusted partners.However, the governments changeable approach is not a win for security. The policy volatility is concerning. Its unpredictability sends confusing signals to markets and is bad for investors.It also represents competing dynamics at the heart of the USs frontier AI strategy, each with global consequences. These include anxiety about Chinas access to cutting-edge capabilities, a lack of clarity over what the technology can actually do and how transformative it really is, and distrust in the partnerships required to develop and deploy it.Deregulation, re-regulation?This flip-flopping on Mythos is just the latest chapter in the dispute between the Trump administration and Anthropic. Earlier this year, the Department of War (DoW) labelled the company a supply chain risk to national security: the first US company ever to receive this designation. The DoW and Anthropic remain in a legal battle. Regardless, Anthropic engineers reportedly help the National Security Agency to use Mythos in cyber operations targeting adversaries.The administrations turbulent relationship with Anthropic has global consequences, including for US allies. In early June, Anthropic offered the EU access to Mythos after weeks of negotiations, only for the EU to lose it days later following the export control directive (and now, presumably, regain it). The G7 also saw attempts to re-negotiate a trusted partners scheme for access to cutting-edge AI capabilities.  The US government is regulating powerful AI in a way that it previously indicated it wouldnt. This turbulence also highlights the unstraightforward relationship between US political leaders and the countrys most powerful technology companies, two of which are on the cusp of IPOs. Generally, the Trump administration has been in favour of deregulation. It fears stifling innovation, preventing adoption and losing the USs competitive edge over China.But the US governments recent turn towards a more proactive but volatile regulatory approach is a significant change; the Anthropic saga is just one part of this recent shift towards ad hoc government control. Related work AI export controls are not the best bargaining chip On 2 June, an executive order called for AI companies to voluntarily submit their models for safety testing for 30 days before general release. The order was reportedly watered down from a 90-day period after lobbying. On 5 June, a national security directive instructed government agencies to end contracts with AI companies that limit how the government uses their tech. (Some policy experts consider this a response to the Pentagon-Anthropic legal battle.) And OpenAIs limited release of its GPT-5.6 models last week reportedly came at the request of the US government.This approach has its flaws. First, Chatham House experts have previously argued that tightening restrictions around valuable technology – so-called golden eggs, whether software (like models) or hardware (like chips) – will not fully prevent their proliferation.Second, clamping down on models immediately pre-release doesnt control or slow down the frontier of development. And clamping down on foreign access to AI cyber capabilities – which includes restricting access for non-US AI safety institutes and allies – does not improve US readiness for an AI-enabled global crisis, like a global financial crash. It weakens the evidence base and trusted cooperation needed to navigate a shared shock.Not-so-global governanceNext weeks inaugural United Nations meeting on AI – the UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance – faces an impossible balancing act. This is because AI risks are shared, whether to global health, nuclear security or financial systems. They demand a minimum level of global governance to regulate them. This includes monitoring and information-sharing, technical measures like model kill switches, or decision-making pathways like emergency backchannels.This is a non-starter without the US and its powerful AI companies. But the unpredictability and protectionism of US frontier AI governance creates barriers to these types of international cooperation. This is complicated by the dynamics of the US-China AI race, which makes it hard to get Beijing and Washington to reach a consensus on safety, despite promising signs of future intergovernmental talks.

The US governments latest U-turn on Anthropics Mythos sends mixed signals on AI governance The US governments latest U-turn on Anthropics Mythos sends mixed signals on AI governance Expert comment thilton.drupal 2 July 2026 The Trump administrations approach to controlling US companies powerful AI capabilities is volatile. It undercuts global safety and governance at a pivotal time. On Tuesday, the United States Department of Commerce removed restrictions on two of Anthropics new advanced AI models that have prompted security concerns: Mythos 5 and Fable 5. This is a major change in the way the US controls frontier AI and comes after recurring flip-flopping on the issue.The move, described in a letter by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik to Anthropic, lifts the export control directive issued by the Trump administration less than three weeks ago. That 12 June directive banned non-US nationals from accessing the two models. This ban included foreign employees at US companies and cyber defenders from international partners. In response, Anthropic suspended access to Mythos and Fable for all users a day later.The administration then partially changed its approach. On 26 June, Anthropic said the US government had allowed it to release Mythos 5 but had reserved access to the model to only a select group of trusted big companies and agencies: all of them, unsurprisingly, from the US.Now, Anthropic says it is coordinating with the government to expand Mythos access to a broader group including international partners. As of 1 July, Fable 5 – which Anthropic says has stronger safeguards than Mythos 5 – is available to public users globally.A volatile approachSince Anthropics initial limited release of Mythos in April, the models apparently powerful cyber hacking capabilities have led to concerns over who has access. Initially, Anthropic had limited access to trusted partners in Project Glasswing: a select group of companies and agencies that were granted access in order to fix vulnerabilities in their systems and browsers. Since then, the question of access has remained contentious.Many companies and allies will applaud the US administrations latest policy reversal. Access to models like Mythos can be helpful for cyber defenders the world over. Information about model capabilities is critical for regulators and officials. Related work In the face of growing AI cyber threats, do middle powers have agency? This latest U-turn on Mythos aside, the bigger picture is that the US government is regulating powerful AI in a way that it previously indicated it wouldnt. OpenAIs latest models – GPT-5.6 Sol, Terra and Luna – have also recently come under government pressure due to security concerns, and will be initially released to only a small group of trusted partners.However, the governments changeable approach is not a win for security. The policy volatility is concerning. Its unpredictability sends confusing signals to markets and is bad for investors.It also represents competing dynamics at the heart of the USs frontier AI strategy, each with global consequences. These include anxiety about Chinas access to cutting-edge capabilities, a lack of clarity over what the technology can actually do and how transformative it really is, and distrust in the partnerships required to develop and deploy it.Deregulation, re-regulation?This flip-flopping on Mythos is just the latest chapter in the dispute between the Trump administration and Anthropic. Earlier this year, the Department of War (DoW) labelled the company a supply chain risk to national security: the first US company ever to receive this designation. The DoW and Anthropic remain in a legal battle. Regardless, Anthropic engineers reportedly help the National Security Agency to use Mythos in cyber operations targeting adversaries.The administrations turbulent relationship with Anthropic has global consequences, including for US allies. In early June, Anthropic offered the EU access to Mythos after weeks of negotiations, only for the EU to lose it days later following the export control directive (and now, presumably, regain it). The G7 also saw attempts to re-negotiate a trusted partners scheme for access to cutting-edge AI capabilities.  The US government is regulating powerful AI in a way that it previously indicated it wouldnt. This turbulence also highlights the unstraightforward relationship between US political leaders and the countrys most powerful technology companies, two of which are on the cusp of IPOs. Generally, the Trump administration has been in favour of deregulation. It fears stifling innovation, preventing adoption and losing the USs competitive edge over China.But the US governments recent turn towards a more proactive but volatile regulatory approach is a significant change; the Anthropic saga is just one part of this recent shift towards ad hoc government control. Related work AI export controls are not the best bargaining chip On 2 June, an executive order called for AI companies to voluntarily submit their models for safety testing for 30 days before general release. The order was reportedly watered down from a 90-day period after lobbying. On 5 June, a national security directive instructed government agencies to end contracts with AI companies that limit how the government uses their tech. (Some policy experts consider this a response to the Pentagon-Anthropic legal battle.) And OpenAIs limited release of its GPT-5.6 models last week reportedly came at the request of the US government.This approach has its flaws. First, Chatham House experts have previously argued that tightening restrictions around valuable technology – so-called golden eggs, whether software (like models) or hardware (like chips) – will not fully prevent their proliferation.Second, clamping down on models immediately pre-release doesnt control or slow down the frontier of development. And clamping down on foreign access to AI cyber capabilities – which includes restricting access for non-US AI safety institutes and allies – does not improve US readiness for an AI-enabled global crisis, like a global financial crash. It weakens the evidence base and trusted cooperation needed to navigate a shared shock.Not-so-global governanceNext weeks inaugural United Nations meeting on AI – the UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance – faces an impossible balancing act. This is because AI risks are shared, whether to global health, nuclear security or financial systems. They demand a minimum level of global governance to regulate them. This includes monitoring and information-sharing, technical measures like model kill switches, or decision-making pathways like emergency backchannels.This is a non-starter without the US and its powerful AI companies. But the unpredictability and protectionism of US frontier AI governance creates barriers to these types of international cooperation. This is complicated by the dynamics of the US-China AI race, which makes it hard to get Beijing and Washington to reach a consensus on safety, despite promising signs of future intergovernmental talks.

The US governments latest U-turn on Anthropics Mythos sends mixed signals on AI governance The US governments latest U-turn on Anthropics Mythos sends mixed signals on AI governance Expert comment thilton.drupal 2 July 2026 The Trump administrations approach to controlling US companies powerful AI capabilities is volatile. It undercuts global safety and governance at a pivotal time. On Tuesday, the United States Department of Commerce removed restrictions on two of Anthropics new advanced AI models that have prompted security concerns: Mythos 5 and Fable 5. This is a major change in the way the US controls frontier AI and comes after recurring flip-flopping on the issue.The move, described in a letter by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik to Anthropic, lifts the export control directive issued by the Trump administration less than three weeks ago. That 12 June directive banned non-US nationals from accessing the two models. This ban included foreign employees at US companies and cyber defenders from international partners. In response, Anthropic suspended access to Mythos and Fable for all users a day later.The administration then partially changed its approach. On 26 June, Anthropic said the US government had allowed it to release Mythos 5 but had reserved access to the model to only a select group of trusted big companies and agencies: all of them, unsurprisingly, from the US.Now, Anthropic says it is coordinating with the government to expand Mythos access to a broader group including international partners. As of 1 July, Fable 5 – which Anthropic says has stronger safeguards than Mythos 5 – is available to public users globally.A volatile approachSince Anthropics initial limited release of Mythos in April, the models apparently powerful cyber hacking capabilities have led to concerns over who has access. Initially, Anthropic had limited access to trusted partners in Project Glasswing: a select group of companies and agencies that were granted access in order to fix vulnerabilities in their systems and browsers. Since then, the question of access has remained contentious.Many companies and allies will applaud the US administrations latest policy reversal. Access to models like Mythos can be helpful for cyber defenders the world over. Information about model capabilities is critical for regulators and officials. Related work In the face of growing AI cyber threats, do middle powers have agency? This latest U-turn on Mythos aside, the bigger picture is that the US government is regulating powerful AI in a way that it previously indicated it wouldnt. OpenAIs latest models – GPT-5.6 Sol, Terra and Luna – have also recently come under government pressure due to security concerns, and will be initially released to only a small group of trusted partners.However, the governments changeable approach is not a win for security. The policy volatility is concerning. Its unpredictability sends confusing signals to markets and is bad for investors.It also represents competing dynamics at the heart of the USs frontier AI strategy, each with global consequences. These include anxiety about Chinas access to cutting-edge capabilities, a lack of clarity over what the technology can actually do and how transformative it really is, and distrust in the partnerships required to develop and deploy it.Deregulation, re-regulation?This flip-flopping on Mythos is just the latest chapter in the dispute between the Trump administration and Anthropic. Earlier this year, the Department of War (DoW) labelled the company a supply chain risk to national security: the first US company ever to receive this designation. The DoW and Anthropic remain in a legal battle. Regardless, Anthropic engineers reportedly help the National Security Agency to use Mythos in cyber operations targeting adversaries.The administrations turbulent relationship with Anthropic has global consequences, including for US allies. In early June, Anthropic offered the EU access to Mythos after weeks of negotiations, only for the EU to lose it days later following the export control directive (and now, presumably, regain it). The G7 also saw attempts to re-negotiate a trusted partners scheme for access to cutting-edge AI capabilities.  The US government is regulating powerful AI in a way that it previously indicated it wouldnt. This turbulence also highlights the unstraightforward relationship between US political leaders and the countrys most powerful technology companies, two of which are on the cusp of IPOs. Generally, the Trump administration has been in favour of deregulation. It fears stifling innovation, preventing adoption and losing the USs competitive edge over China.But the US governments recent turn towards a more proactive but volatile regulatory approach is a significant change; the Anthropic saga is just one part of this recent shift towards ad hoc government control. Related work AI export controls are not the best bargaining chip On 2 June, an executive order called for AI companies to voluntarily submit their models for safety testing for 30 days before general release. The order was reportedly watered down from a 90-day period after lobbying. On 5 June, a national security directive instructed government agencies to end contracts with AI companies that limit how the government uses their tech. (Some policy experts consider this a response to the Pentagon-Anthropic legal battle.) And OpenAIs limited release of its GPT-5.6 models last week reportedly came at the request of the US government.This approach has its flaws. First, Chatham House experts have previously argued that tightening restrictions around valuable technology – so-called golden eggs, whether software (like models) or hardware (like chips) – will not fully prevent their proliferation.Second, clamping down on models immediately pre-release doesnt control or slow down the frontier of development. And clamping down on foreign access to AI cyber capabilities – which includes restricting access for non-US AI safety institutes and allies – does not improve US readiness for an AI-enabled global crisis, like a global financial crash. It weakens the evidence base and trusted cooperation needed to navigate a shared shock.Not-so-global governanceNext weeks inaugural United Nations meeting on AI – the UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance – faces an impossible balancing act. This is because AI risks are shared, whether to global health, nuclear security or financial systems. They demand a minimum level of global governance to regulate them. This includes monitoring and information-sharing, technical measures like model kill switches, or decision-making pathways like emergency backchannels.This is a non-starter without the US and its powerful AI companies. But the unpredictability and protectionism of US frontier AI governance creates barriers to these types of international cooperation. This is complicated by the dynamics of the US-China AI race, which makes it hard to get Beijing and Washington to reach a consensus on safety, despite promising signs of future intergovernmental talks.

On its 250th birthday, the US is still defined by its fault lines On its 250th birthday, the US is still defined by its fault lines Expert comment jon.wallace 2 July 2026 The most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe in the system of government and those who do not. It is, in fact, the foundational US fault line being relitigated for modern times. For 250 years, the United States of America has been defined by its fault lines, which have bound the landmass and its people together and, at times, have driven them apart. It is a history of rupture and repair. The original fault line was between the thirteen American colonies and British imperial rule. The Declaration of Independence stated that When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. For the American colonists, those causes emerged from British rule, which had brought a series of abuses and usurpations amounting to a form of Tyranny. Pursuing their unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, required an altering of their former Systems of Government, and a setting of a new course. In the centuries that followed independence, the US wrestled with a set of homegrown fault lines. The Civil War erupted along the great dividing line between the North and South over slavery, nearly ripping the country apart in the 1860s.  The most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe the current system of US democracy can provide rights, equity and prosperity for all, and those who do not. The American Industrial Revolution in the decades that followed created booming urban population centres, setting up an enduring tension between the US farming heartland and its cities. The social revolutions of the 1960s and 70s fractured the country along generational, gender and racial lines. Threaded throughout has been a series of disputes about economic distribution and equality, from taxation without representation to the Great Depression, the Seattle anti-globalization protests of 1999 and the Occupy Wall Street movement. Today, as the US looks to celebrate its 250th anniversary, the most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe the current system of US democracy can provide rights, equity and prosperity for all, and those who do not. It is, in fact, the foundational US fault line being relitigated for modern times. A long unthinkable question is being asked by Americans: is it necessary again to dissolve the political bands which connect them?The new (old) fault lineThis fault line can be seen at play in the emergence of New York City mayor and self- described democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani. It can be seen in the near daily reporting of outside political voices performing well in primaries running up to this years mid-term elections. Americans want new leadership. It can be seen in shifting views of wealth and anti-billionaire sentiment: Americans want affordability, and a majority now view billionaires as a threat to democracy. And it can be seen in the growing skepticism around artificial intelligence (AI), which has become the engine of US economic growth. More Americans now think AI will have a negative impact on society and are concerned about the personal dangers it poses. The fault line can also be discerned in a shift over the last decade from partisanship and polarization to radicalization: on 6 January 2021 citizens overtook the US capital to reject an election outcome they viewed as fraudulent. Politically motivated attacks have surged: In 2022 House Speaker Nancy Pelosis husband, Paul Pelosi, was attacked in his home. In 2024 and in 2026, attempts were made on the life of Donald Trump. In 2025, Melissa Hortman, a Democratic member of the Minnesota House of Representatives, was assassinated with her husband. Charlie Kirk, a right-wing political activist, was also assassinated that year. Meanwhile US governmental departments have flagged the threat posed by the accelerationist movement, an ideology holding that the democratic state is so corrupt and irreparable that violent action must be taken against it to precipitate its replacement. This turn towards the use of violence is not isolated. As many a third of Americans polled agree that the US government is corrupt and it may soon be time to take up arms against it. Americans are increasingly considering bullets over ballots. A loss of faithTogether, these fractures reflect a catastrophic loss of public trust in the US government from 49 per cent at the turn of this century to just 18 per cent as of 2025. Approval ratings of the executive, legislative and judicial approval ratings have also waivered.  Related work Europe watches the next American revolution take shape Especially telling is that even as Americans believe their freedoms are under threat, Supreme Court favourability has reached historic lows. The Supreme Court this cycle eased some restrictions on campaign finance caps, limited the scope of the Voting Rights Act and affirmed the presidents right to remove members of independent governmental agencies. But it also allowed mail-in ballot rules to stand and upheld birthright citizenship. Americans searching for clarity from the Court will be left wanting. As political skepticism grows, the two party-system that has defined US politics for centuries is showing cracks. A record-level 45 per cent of Americans now identify as independent of a political party. This surge in independents has overlapped with a declining number of Americans strongly identifying as either Republican or Democratic. Both parties are feeling this heat. For Republicans, questions of party cohesion and direction have for the last decade been answered by US President Donald Trump and the Make America Great Again movement. But defections from former prominent faces of the party including Representative Marjorie Taylor Green and journalist Tucker Carlson are revealing. 

On its 250th birthday, the US is still defined by its fault lines On its 250th birthday, the US is still defined by its fault lines Expert comment jon.wallace 2 July 2026 The most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe in the system of government and those who do not. It is, in fact, the foundational US fault line being relitigated for modern times. For 250 years, the United States of America has been defined by its fault lines, which have bound the landmass and its people together and, at times, have driven them apart. It is a history of rupture and repair. The original fault line was between the thirteen American colonies and British imperial rule. The Declaration of Independence stated that When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. For the American colonists, those causes emerged from British rule, which had brought a series of abuses and usurpations amounting to a form of Tyranny. Pursuing their unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, required an altering of their former Systems of Government, and a setting of a new course. In the centuries that followed independence, the US wrestled with a set of homegrown fault lines. The Civil War erupted along the great dividing line between the North and South over slavery, nearly ripping the country apart in the 1860s.  The most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe the current system of US democracy can provide rights, equity and prosperity for all, and those who do not. The American Industrial Revolution in the decades that followed created booming urban population centres, setting up an enduring tension between the US farming heartland and its cities. The social revolutions of the 1960s and 70s fractured the country along generational, gender and racial lines. Threaded throughout has been a series of disputes about economic distribution and equality, from taxation without representation to the Great Depression, the Seattle anti-globalization protests of 1999 and the Occupy Wall Street movement. Today, as the US looks to celebrate its 250th anniversary, the most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe the current system of US democracy can provide rights, equity and prosperity for all, and those who do not. It is, in fact, the foundational US fault line being relitigated for modern times. A long unthinkable question is being asked by Americans: is it necessary again to dissolve the political bands which connect them?The new (old) fault lineThis fault line can be seen at play in the emergence of New York City mayor and self- described democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani. It can be seen in the near daily reporting of outside political voices performing well in primaries running up to this years mid-term elections. Americans want new leadership. It can be seen in shifting views of wealth and anti-billionaire sentiment: Americans want affordability, and a majority now view billionaires as a threat to democracy. And it can be seen in the growing skepticism around artificial intelligence (AI), which has become the engine of US economic growth. More Americans now think AI will have a negative impact on society and are concerned about the personal dangers it poses. The fault line can also be discerned in a shift over the last decade from partisanship and polarization to radicalization: on 6 January 2021 citizens overtook the US capital to reject an election outcome they viewed as fraudulent. Politically motivated attacks have surged: In 2022 House Speaker Nancy Pelosis husband, Paul Pelosi, was attacked in his home. In 2024 and in 2026, attempts were made on the life of Donald Trump. In 2025, Melissa Hortman, a Democratic member of the Minnesota House of Representatives, was assassinated with her husband. Charlie Kirk, a right-wing political activist, was also assassinated that year. Meanwhile US governmental departments have flagged the threat posed by the accelerationist movement, an ideology holding that the democratic state is so corrupt and irreparable that violent action must be taken against it to precipitate its replacement. This turn towards the use of violence is not isolated. As many a third of Americans polled agree that the US government is corrupt and it may soon be time to take up arms against it. Americans are increasingly considering bullets over ballots. A loss of faithTogether, these fractures reflect a catastrophic loss of public trust in the US government from 49 per cent at the turn of this century to just 18 per cent as of 2025. Approval ratings of the executive, legislative and judicial approval ratings have also waivered.  Related work Europe watches the next American revolution take shape Especially telling is that even as Americans believe their freedoms are under threat, Supreme Court favourability has reached historic lows. The Supreme Court this cycle eased some restrictions on campaign finance caps, limited the scope of the Voting Rights Act and affirmed the presidents right to remove members of independent governmental agencies. But it also allowed mail-in ballot rules to stand and upheld birthright citizenship. Americans searching for clarity from the Court will be left wanting. As political skepticism grows, the two party-system that has defined US politics for centuries is showing cracks. A record-level 45 per cent of Americans now identify as independent of a political party. This surge in independents has overlapped with a declining number of Americans strongly identifying as either Republican or Democratic. Both parties are feeling this heat. For Republicans, questions of party cohesion and direction have for the last decade been answered by US President Donald Trump and the Make America Great Again movement. But defections from former prominent faces of the party including Representative Marjorie Taylor Green and journalist Tucker Carlson are revealing. 

On its 250th birthday, the US is still defined by its fault lines On its 250th birthday, the US is still defined by its fault lines Expert comment jon.wallace 2 July 2026 The most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe in the system of government and those who do not. It is, in fact, the foundational US fault line being relitigated for modern times. For 250 years, the United States of America has been defined by its fault lines, which have bound the landmass and its people together and, at times, have driven them apart. It is a history of rupture and repair. The original fault line was between the thirteen American colonies and British imperial rule. The Declaration of Independence stated that When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. For the American colonists, those causes emerged from British rule, which had brought a series of abuses and usurpations amounting to a form of Tyranny. Pursuing their unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, required an altering of their former Systems of Government, and a setting of a new course. In the centuries that followed independence, the US wrestled with a set of homegrown fault lines. The Civil War erupted along the great dividing line between the North and South over slavery, nearly ripping the country apart in the 1860s.  The most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe the current system of US democracy can provide rights, equity and prosperity for all, and those who do not. The American Industrial Revolution in the decades that followed created booming urban population centres, setting up an enduring tension between the US farming heartland and its cities. The social revolutions of the 1960s and 70s fractured the country along generational, gender and racial lines. Threaded throughout has been a series of disputes about economic distribution and equality, from taxation without representation to the Great Depression, the Seattle anti-globalization protests of 1999 and the Occupy Wall Street movement. Today, as the US looks to celebrate its 250th anniversary, the most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe the current system of US democracy can provide rights, equity and prosperity for all, and those who do not. It is, in fact, the foundational US fault line being relitigated for modern times. A long unthinkable question is being asked by Americans: is it necessary again to dissolve the political bands which connect them?The new (old) fault lineThis fault line can be seen at play in the emergence of New York City mayor and self- described democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani. It can be seen in the near daily reporting of outside political voices performing well in primaries running up to this years mid-term elections. Americans want new leadership. It can be seen in shifting views of wealth and anti-billionaire sentiment: Americans want affordability, and a majority now view billionaires as a threat to democracy. And it can be seen in the growing skepticism around artificial intelligence (AI), which has become the engine of US economic growth. More Americans now think AI will have a negative impact on society and are concerned about the personal dangers it poses. The fault line can also be discerned in a shift over the last decade from partisanship and polarization to radicalization: on 6 January 2021 citizens overtook the US capital to reject an election outcome they viewed as fraudulent. Politically motivated attacks have surged: In 2022 House Speaker Nancy Pelosis husband, Paul Pelosi, was attacked in his home. In 2024 and in 2026, attempts were made on the life of Donald Trump. In 2025, Melissa Hortman, a Democratic member of the Minnesota House of Representatives, was assassinated with her husband. Charlie Kirk, a right-wing political activist, was also assassinated that year. Meanwhile US governmental departments have flagged the threat posed by the accelerationist movement, an ideology holding that the democratic state is so corrupt and irreparable that violent action must be taken against it to precipitate its replacement. This turn towards the use of violence is not isolated. As many a third of Americans polled agree that the US government is corrupt and it may soon be time to take up arms against it. Americans are increasingly considering bullets over ballots. A loss of faithTogether, these fractures reflect a catastrophic loss of public trust in the US government from 49 per cent at the turn of this century to just 18 per cent as of 2025. Approval ratings of the executive, legislative and judicial approval ratings have also waivered.  Related work Europe watches the next American revolution take shape Especially telling is that even as Americans believe their freedoms are under threat, Supreme Court favourability has reached historic lows. The Supreme Court this cycle eased some restrictions on campaign finance caps, limited the scope of the Voting Rights Act and affirmed the presidents right to remove members of independent governmental agencies. But it also allowed mail-in ballot rules to stand and upheld birthright citizenship. Americans searching for clarity from the Court will be left wanting. As political skepticism grows, the two party-system that has defined US politics for centuries is showing cracks. A record-level 45 per cent of Americans now identify as independent of a political party. This surge in independents has overlapped with a declining number of Americans strongly identifying as either Republican or Democratic. Both parties are feeling this heat. For Republicans, questions of party cohesion and direction have for the last decade been answered by US President Donald Trump and the Make America Great Again movement. But defections from former prominent faces of the party including Representative Marjorie Taylor Green and journalist Tucker Carlson are revealing. 

On its 250th birthday, the US is still defined by its fault lines On its 250th birthday, the US is still defined by its fault lines Expert comment jon.wallace 2 July 2026 The most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe in the system of government and those who do not. It is, in fact, the foundational US fault line being relitigated for modern times. For 250 years, the United States of America has been defined by its fault lines, which have bound the landmass and its people together and, at times, have driven them apart. It is a history of rupture and repair. The original fault line was between the thirteen American colonies and British imperial rule. The Declaration of Independence stated that When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. For the American colonists, those causes emerged from British rule, which had brought a series of abuses and usurpations amounting to a form of Tyranny. Pursuing their unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, required an altering of their former Systems of Government, and a setting of a new course. In the centuries that followed independence, the US wrestled with a set of homegrown fault lines. The Civil War erupted along the great dividing line between the North and South over slavery, nearly ripping the country apart in the 1860s.  The most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe the current system of US democracy can provide rights, equity and prosperity for all, and those who do not. The American Industrial Revolution in the decades that followed created booming urban population centres, setting up an enduring tension between the US farming heartland and its cities. The social revolutions of the 1960s and 70s fractured the country along generational, gender and racial lines. Threaded throughout has been a series of disputes about economic distribution and equality, from taxation without representation to the Great Depression, the Seattle anti-globalization protests of 1999 and the Occupy Wall Street movement. Today, as the US looks to celebrate its 250th anniversary, the most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe the current system of US democracy can provide rights, equity and prosperity for all, and those who do not. It is, in fact, the foundational US fault line being relitigated for modern times. A long unthinkable question is being asked by Americans: is it necessary again to dissolve the political bands which connect them?The new (old) fault lineThis fault line can be seen at play in the emergence of New York City mayor and self- described democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani. It can be seen in the near daily reporting of outside political voices performing well in primaries running up to this years mid-term elections. Americans want new leadership. It can be seen in shifting views of wealth and anti-billionaire sentiment: Americans want affordability, and a majority now view billionaires as a threat to democracy. And it can be seen in the growing skepticism around artificial intelligence (AI), which has become the engine of US economic growth. More Americans now think AI will have a negative impact on society and are concerned about the personal dangers it poses. The fault line can also be discerned in a shift over the last decade from partisanship and polarization to radicalization: on 6 January 2021 citizens overtook the US capital to reject an election outcome they viewed as fraudulent. Politically motivated attacks have surged: In 2022 House Speaker Nancy Pelosis husband, Paul Pelosi, was attacked in his home. In 2024 and in 2026, attempts were made on the life of Donald Trump. In 2025, Melissa Hortman, a Democratic member of the Minnesota House of Representatives, was assassinated with her husband. Charlie Kirk, a right-wing political activist, was also assassinated that year. Meanwhile US governmental departments have flagged the threat posed by the accelerationist movement, an ideology holding that the democratic state is so corrupt and irreparable that violent action must be taken against it to precipitate its replacement. This turn towards the use of violence is not isolated. As many a third of Americans polled agree that the US government is corrupt and it may soon be time to take up arms against it. Americans are increasingly considering bullets over ballots. A loss of faithTogether, these fractures reflect a catastrophic loss of public trust in the US government from 49 per cent at the turn of this century to just 18 per cent as of 2025. Approval ratings of the executive, legislative and judicial approval ratings have also waivered.  Related work Europe watches the next American revolution take shape Especially telling is that even as Americans believe their freedoms are under threat, Supreme Court favourability has reached historic lows. The Supreme Court this cycle eased some restrictions on campaign finance caps, limited the scope of the Voting Rights Act and affirmed the presidents right to remove members of independent governmental agencies. But it also allowed mail-in ballot rules to stand and upheld birthright citizenship. Americans searching for clarity from the Court will be left wanting. As political skepticism grows, the two party-system that has defined US politics for centuries is showing cracks. A record-level 45 per cent of Americans now identify as independent of a political party. This surge in independents has overlapped with a declining number of Americans strongly identifying as either Republican or Democratic. Both parties are feeling this heat. For Republicans, questions of party cohesion and direction have for the last decade been answered by US President Donald Trump and the Make America Great Again movement. But defections from former prominent faces of the party including Representative Marjorie Taylor Green and journalist Tucker Carlson are revealing. 

On its 250th birthday, the US is still defined by its fault lines On its 250th birthday, the US is still defined by its fault lines Expert comment jon.wallace 2 July 2026 The most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe in the system of government and those who do not. It is, in fact, the foundational US fault line being relitigated for modern times. For 250 years, the United States of America has been defined by its fault lines, which have bound the landmass and its people together and, at times, have driven them apart. It is a history of rupture and repair. The original fault line was between the thirteen American colonies and British imperial rule. The Declaration of Independence stated that When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. For the American colonists, those causes emerged from British rule, which had brought a series of abuses and usurpations amounting to a form of Tyranny. Pursuing their unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, required an altering of their former Systems of Government, and a setting of a new course. In the centuries that followed independence, the US wrestled with a set of homegrown fault lines. The Civil War erupted along the great dividing line between the North and South over slavery, nearly ripping the country apart in the 1860s.  The most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe the current system of US democracy can provide rights, equity and prosperity for all, and those who do not. The American Industrial Revolution in the decades that followed created booming urban population centres, setting up an enduring tension between the US farming heartland and its cities. The social revolutions of the 1960s and 70s fractured the country along generational, gender and racial lines. Threaded throughout has been a series of disputes about economic distribution and equality, from taxation without representation to the Great Depression, the Seattle anti-globalization protests of 1999 and the Occupy Wall Street movement. Today, as the US looks to celebrate its 250th anniversary, the most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe the current system of US democracy can provide rights, equity and prosperity for all, and those who do not. It is, in fact, the foundational US fault line being relitigated for modern times. A long unthinkable question is being asked by Americans: is it necessary again to dissolve the political bands which connect them?The new (old) fault lineThis fault line can be seen at play in the emergence of New York City mayor and self- described democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani. It can be seen in the near daily reporting of outside political voices performing well in primaries running up to this years mid-term elections. Americans want new leadership. It can be seen in shifting views of wealth and anti-billionaire sentiment: Americans want affordability, and a majority now view billionaires as a threat to democracy. And it can be seen in the growing skepticism around artificial intelligence (AI), which has become the engine of US economic growth. More Americans now think AI will have a negative impact on society and are concerned about the personal dangers it poses. The fault line can also be discerned in a shift over the last decade from partisanship and polarization to radicalization: on 6 January 2021 citizens overtook the US capital to reject an election outcome they viewed as fraudulent. Politically motivated attacks have surged: In 2022 House Speaker Nancy Pelosis husband, Paul Pelosi, was attacked in his home. In 2024 and in 2026, attempts were made on the life of Donald Trump. In 2025, Melissa Hortman, a Democratic member of the Minnesota House of Representatives, was assassinated with her husband. Charlie Kirk, a right-wing political activist, was also assassinated that year. Meanwhile US governmental departments have flagged the threat posed by the accelerationist movement, an ideology holding that the democratic state is so corrupt and irreparable that violent action must be taken against it to precipitate its replacement. This turn towards the use of violence is not isolated. As many a third of Americans polled agree that the US government is corrupt and it may soon be time to take up arms against it. Americans are increasingly considering bullets over ballots. A loss of faithTogether, these fractures reflect a catastrophic loss of public trust in the US government from 49 per cent at the turn of this century to just 18 per cent as of 2025. Approval ratings of the executive, legislative and judicial approval ratings have also waivered.  Related work Europe watches the next American revolution take shape Especially telling is that even as Americans believe their freedoms are under threat, Supreme Court favourability has reached historic lows. The Supreme Court this cycle eased some restrictions on campaign finance caps, limited the scope of the Voting Rights Act and affirmed the presidents right to remove members of independent governmental agencies. But it also allowed mail-in ballot rules to stand and upheld birthright citizenship. Americans searching for clarity from the Court will be left wanting. As political skepticism grows, the two party-system that has defined US politics for centuries is showing cracks. A record-level 45 per cent of Americans now identify as independent of a political party. This surge in independents has overlapped with a declining number of Americans strongly identifying as either Republican or Democratic. Both parties are feeling this heat. For Republicans, questions of party cohesion and direction have for the last decade been answered by US President Donald Trump and the Make America Great Again movement. But defections from former prominent faces of the party including Representative Marjorie Taylor Green and journalist Tucker Carlson are revealing. 

On its 250th birthday, the US is still defined by its fault lines On its 250th birthday, the US is still defined by its fault lines Expert comment jon.wallace 2 July 2026 The most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe in the system of government and those who do not. It is, in fact, the foundational US fault line being relitigated for modern times. For 250 years, the United States of America has been defined by its fault lines, which have bound the landmass and its people together and, at times, have driven them apart. It is a history of rupture and repair. The original fault line was between the thirteen American colonies and British imperial rule. The Declaration of Independence stated that When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. For the American colonists, those causes emerged from British rule, which had brought a series of abuses and usurpations amounting to a form of Tyranny. Pursuing their unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, required an altering of their former Systems of Government, and a setting of a new course. In the centuries that followed independence, the US wrestled with a set of homegrown fault lines. The Civil War erupted along the great dividing line between the North and South over slavery, nearly ripping the country apart in the 1860s.  The most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe the current system of US democracy can provide rights, equity and prosperity for all, and those who do not. The American Industrial Revolution in the decades that followed created booming urban population centres, setting up an enduring tension between the US farming heartland and its cities. The social revolutions of the 1960s and 70s fractured the country along generational, gender and racial lines. Threaded throughout has been a series of disputes about economic distribution and equality, from taxation without representation to the Great Depression, the Seattle anti-globalization protests of 1999 and the Occupy Wall Street movement. Today, as the US looks to celebrate its 250th anniversary, the most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe the current system of US democracy can provide rights, equity and prosperity for all, and those who do not. It is, in fact, the foundational US fault line being relitigated for modern times. A long unthinkable question is being asked by Americans: is it necessary again to dissolve the political bands which connect them?The new (old) fault lineThis fault line can be seen at play in the emergence of New York City mayor and self- described democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani. It can be seen in the near daily reporting of outside political voices performing well in primaries running up to this years mid-term elections. Americans want new leadership. It can be seen in shifting views of wealth and anti-billionaire sentiment: Americans want affordability, and a majority now view billionaires as a threat to democracy. And it can be seen in the growing skepticism around artificial intelligence (AI), which has become the engine of US economic growth. More Americans now think AI will have a negative impact on society and are concerned about the personal dangers it poses. The fault line can also be discerned in a shift over the last decade from partisanship and polarization to radicalization: on 6 January 2021 citizens overtook the US capital to reject an election outcome they viewed as fraudulent. Politically motivated attacks have surged: In 2022 House Speaker Nancy Pelosis husband, Paul Pelosi, was attacked in his home. In 2024 and in 2026, attempts were made on the life of Donald Trump. In 2025, Melissa Hortman, a Democratic member of the Minnesota House of Representatives, was assassinated with her husband. Charlie Kirk, a right-wing political activist, was also assassinated that year. Meanwhile US governmental departments have flagged the threat posed by the accelerationist movement, an ideology holding that the democratic state is so corrupt and irreparable that violent action must be taken against it to precipitate its replacement. This turn towards the use of violence is not isolated. As many a third of Americans polled agree that the US government is corrupt and it may soon be time to take up arms against it. Americans are increasingly considering bullets over ballots. A loss of faithTogether, these fractures reflect a catastrophic loss of public trust in the US government from 49 per cent at the turn of this century to just 18 per cent as of 2025. Approval ratings of the executive, legislative and judicial approval ratings have also waivered.  Related work Europe watches the next American revolution take shape Especially telling is that even as Americans believe their freedoms are under threat, Supreme Court favourability has reached historic lows. The Supreme Court this cycle eased some restrictions on campaign finance caps, limited the scope of the Voting Rights Act and affirmed the presidents right to remove members of independent governmental agencies. But it also allowed mail-in ballot rules to stand and upheld birthright citizenship. Americans searching for clarity from the Court will be left wanting. As political skepticism grows, the two party-system that has defined US politics for centuries is showing cracks. A record-level 45 per cent of Americans now identify as independent of a political party. This surge in independents has overlapped with a declining number of Americans strongly identifying as either Republican or Democratic. Both parties are feeling this heat. For Republicans, questions of party cohesion and direction have for the last decade been answered by US President Donald Trump and the Make America Great Again movement. But defections from former prominent faces of the party including Representative Marjorie Taylor Green and journalist Tucker Carlson are revealing. 

On its 250th birthday, the US is still defined by its fault lines On its 250th birthday, the US is still defined by its fault lines Expert comment jon.wallace 2 July 2026 The most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe in the system of government and those who do not. It is, in fact, the foundational US fault line being relitigated for modern times. For 250 years, the United States of America has been defined by its fault lines, which have bound the landmass and its people together and, at times, have driven them apart. It is a history of rupture and repair. The original fault line was between the thirteen American colonies and British imperial rule. The Declaration of Independence stated that When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. For the American colonists, those causes emerged from British rule, which had brought a series of abuses and usurpations amounting to a form of Tyranny. Pursuing their unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, required an altering of their former Systems of Government, and a setting of a new course. In the centuries that followed independence, the US wrestled with a set of homegrown fault lines. The Civil War erupted along the great dividing line between the North and South over slavery, nearly ripping the country apart in the 1860s.  The most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe the current system of US democracy can provide rights, equity and prosperity for all, and those who do not. The American Industrial Revolution in the decades that followed created booming urban population centres, setting up an enduring tension between the US farming heartland and its cities. The social revolutions of the 1960s and 70s fractured the country along generational, gender and racial lines. Threaded throughout has been a series of disputes about economic distribution and equality, from taxation without representation to the Great Depression, the Seattle anti-globalization protests of 1999 and the Occupy Wall Street movement. Today, as the US looks to celebrate its 250th anniversary, the most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe the current system of US democracy can provide rights, equity and prosperity for all, and those who do not. It is, in fact, the foundational US fault line being relitigated for modern times. A long unthinkable question is being asked by Americans: is it necessary again to dissolve the political bands which connect them?The new (old) fault lineThis fault line can be seen at play in the emergence of New York City mayor and self- described democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani. It can be seen in the near daily reporting of outside political voices performing well in primaries running up to this years mid-term elections. Americans want new leadership. It can be seen in shifting views of wealth and anti-billionaire sentiment: Americans want affordability, and a majority now view billionaires as a threat to democracy. And it can be seen in the growing skepticism around artificial intelligence (AI), which has become the engine of US economic growth. More Americans now think AI will have a negative impact on society and are concerned about the personal dangers it poses. The fault line can also be discerned in a shift over the last decade from partisanship and polarization to radicalization: on 6 January 2021 citizens overtook the US capital to reject an election outcome they viewed as fraudulent. Politically motivated attacks have surged: In 2022 House Speaker Nancy Pelosis husband, Paul Pelosi, was attacked in his home. In 2024 and in 2026, attempts were made on the life of Donald Trump. In 2025, Melissa Hortman, a Democratic member of the Minnesota House of Representatives, was assassinated with her husband. Charlie Kirk, a right-wing political activist, was also assassinated that year. Meanwhile US governmental departments have flagged the threat posed by the accelerationist movement, an ideology holding that the democratic state is so corrupt and irreparable that violent action must be taken against it to precipitate its replacement. This turn towards the use of violence is not isolated. As many a third of Americans polled agree that the US government is corrupt and it may soon be time to take up arms against it. Americans are increasingly considering bullets over ballots. A loss of faithTogether, these fractures reflect a catastrophic loss of public trust in the US government from 49 per cent at the turn of this century to just 18 per cent as of 2025. Approval ratings of the executive, legislative and judicial approval ratings have also waivered.  Related work Europe watches the next American revolution take shape Especially telling is that even as Americans believe their freedoms are under threat, Supreme Court favourability has reached historic lows. The Supreme Court this cycle eased some restrictions on campaign finance caps, limited the scope of the Voting Rights Act and affirmed the presidents right to remove members of independent governmental agencies. But it also allowed mail-in ballot rules to stand and upheld birthright citizenship. Americans searching for clarity from the Court will be left wanting. As political skepticism grows, the two party-system that has defined US politics for centuries is showing cracks. A record-level 45 per cent of Americans now identify as independent of a political party. This surge in independents has overlapped with a declining number of Americans strongly identifying as either Republican or Democratic. Both parties are feeling this heat. For Republicans, questions of party cohesion and direction have for the last decade been answered by US President Donald Trump and the Make America Great Again movement. But defections from former prominent faces of the party including Representative Marjorie Taylor Green and journalist Tucker Carlson are revealing. 

On its 250th birthday, the US is still defined by its fault lines On its 250th birthday, the US is still defined by its fault lines Expert comment jon.wallace 2 July 2026 The most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe in the system of government and those who do not. It is, in fact, the foundational US fault line being relitigated for modern times. For 250 years, the United States of America has been defined by its fault lines, which have bound the landmass and its people together and, at times, have driven them apart. It is a history of rupture and repair. The original fault line was between the thirteen American colonies and British imperial rule. The Declaration of Independence stated that When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. For the American colonists, those causes emerged from British rule, which had brought a series of abuses and usurpations amounting to a form of Tyranny. Pursuing their unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, required an altering of their former Systems of Government, and a setting of a new course. In the centuries that followed independence, the US wrestled with a set of homegrown fault lines. The Civil War erupted along the great dividing line between the North and South over slavery, nearly ripping the country apart in the 1860s.  The most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe the current system of US democracy can provide rights, equity and prosperity for all, and those who do not. The American Industrial Revolution in the decades that followed created booming urban population centres, setting up an enduring tension between the US farming heartland and its cities. The social revolutions of the 1960s and 70s fractured the country along generational, gender and racial lines. Threaded throughout has been a series of disputes about economic distribution and equality, from taxation without representation to the Great Depression, the Seattle anti-globalization protests of 1999 and the Occupy Wall Street movement. Today, as the US looks to celebrate its 250th anniversary, the most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe the current system of US democracy can provide rights, equity and prosperity for all, and those who do not. It is, in fact, the foundational US fault line being relitigated for modern times. A long unthinkable question is being asked by Americans: is it necessary again to dissolve the political bands which connect them?The new (old) fault lineThis fault line can be seen at play in the emergence of New York City mayor and self- described democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani. It can be seen in the near daily reporting of outside political voices performing well in primaries running up to this years mid-term elections. Americans want new leadership. It can be seen in shifting views of wealth and anti-billionaire sentiment: Americans want affordability, and a majority now view billionaires as a threat to democracy. And it can be seen in the growing skepticism around artificial intelligence (AI), which has become the engine of US economic growth. More Americans now think AI will have a negative impact on society and are concerned about the personal dangers it poses. The fault line can also be discerned in a shift over the last decade from partisanship and polarization to radicalization: on 6 January 2021 citizens overtook the US capital to reject an election outcome they viewed as fraudulent. Politically motivated attacks have surged: In 2022 House Speaker Nancy Pelosis husband, Paul Pelosi, was attacked in his home. In 2024 and in 2026, attempts were made on the life of Donald Trump. In 2025, Melissa Hortman, a Democratic member of the Minnesota House of Representatives, was assassinated with her husband. Charlie Kirk, a right-wing political activist, was also assassinated that year. Meanwhile US governmental departments have flagged the threat posed by the accelerationist movement, an ideology holding that the democratic state is so corrupt and irreparable that violent action must be taken against it to precipitate its replacement. This turn towards the use of violence is not isolated. As many a third of Americans polled agree that the US government is corrupt and it may soon be time to take up arms against it. Americans are increasingly considering bullets over ballots. A loss of faithTogether, these fractures reflect a catastrophic loss of public trust in the US government from 49 per cent at the turn of this century to just 18 per cent as of 2025. Approval ratings of the executive, legislative and judicial approval ratings have also waivered.  Related work Europe watches the next American revolution take shape Especially telling is that even as Americans believe their freedoms are under threat, Supreme Court favourability has reached historic lows. The Supreme Court this cycle eased some restrictions on campaign finance caps, limited the scope of the Voting Rights Act and affirmed the presidents right to remove members of independent governmental agencies. But it also allowed mail-in ballot rules to stand and upheld birthright citizenship. Americans searching for clarity from the Court will be left wanting. As political skepticism grows, the two party-system that has defined US politics for centuries is showing cracks. A record-level 45 per cent of Americans now identify as independent of a political party. This surge in independents has overlapped with a declining number of Americans strongly identifying as either Republican or Democratic. Both parties are feeling this heat. For Republicans, questions of party cohesion and direction have for the last decade been answered by US President Donald Trump and the Make America Great Again movement. But defections from former prominent faces of the party including Representative Marjorie Taylor Green and journalist Tucker Carlson are revealing. 

What can financial regulators learn from Formula 1? What can financial regulators learn from Formula 1? Expert comment jon.wallace 2 July 2026 Formula 1s regulator uses a diverse toolkit of rules and penalties to deliver multiple objectives. This could hold lessons for financial regulators as they respond to a rapidly evolving financial system. Formula 1 (F1) racing is arguably the most complex sport in the world – and one of its most successful. This weekends British Grand Prix at Silverstone will attract around half a million spectators and 80 million TV viewers, while F1 commercial rights alone are valued at $23 billion. The F1 movie, released last June, is the most successful sports film ever made.F1 governance is not without its critics or its controversies, both historic and present day. But at the core of the sports continued success is the way it is regulated by the Fédération International de l Automobile (FIA). The FIAs approach to regulation may offer the worlds national and international financial regulators some valuable pointers on how to meet current challenges.        F1 regulation Liberty Media, a public company, is responsible for F1 s commercial exploitation. However, the FIA controls almost every aspect of F1. It sets the technical standards for the cars and the racetracks. It determines how races are run, how much each team can spend on competing, and even what media activities the drivers should undertake.  F1 regulations are designed to achieve multiple goals – from ensuring the safety of drivers and spectators to creating the spectacle that underpins the sports commercial success, to driving technical innovation with potential benefits across the entire automotive sector. While they are highly detailed, F1 regulations also deliberately leave scope for teams to compete through driver skills, race strategy and technical innovation. Thus, while F1 cars are very fast, with a maximum speed of around 230 mph, they are not designed to be the fastest possible. Nor in some areas do they use the latest available technologies. Electronic driver aids were banned in 1994 for safety reasons and because they reduced the role played by the driver. F1 technical regulations are frequently tweaked and periodically go through a major overhaul. The 2026 regulatory update was one of the most far reaching ever, eliminating complex systems for recovering engine heat and assisting overtaking through drag reduction. In their place is a larger electric engine and smaller internal combustion engine within the hybrid system, creating a roughly 50:50 split between petrol and electric power. To overtake, drivers can draw on a power boost from the electric engine, but having exhausted the battery are vulnerable to being overtaken themselves.    Related work Saving global economic governance from the Trump shock The changes have not been popular with some. But it is hard to dispute that races have become more exciting, featuring frequent changes of position among the leading cars. Meanwhile the rule changes have focused the teams technical skills and resources on advancing the design of hybrid power units, and in particularly those that use 100 per cent sustainable fuel – a new requirement in 2026. The intensely competitive innovative environment in F1 is one of the main reasons that major car manufacturers such as Mercedes, VW and Renault own F1 teams. Regulations are developed through close consultation with F1 teams. But once in place they are rigorously enforced. Some penalties are applied in real time while the race is running. There are also frequent inquiries into possible breaches of technical standards, sometimes resulting in a teams demotion or disqualification. Investigations are usually quick and teams and drivers do not hesitate to report on each other. Financial regulation and F1F1 is by no means the only sport with enormous viewing figures, an evolving rule book and vast financial resources. But it is arguably unique in three respects: the central role played by technical innovation; the high importance of safety regulation; and its relevance to growth in the wider economy. It also stands out for the diverse range of objectives that F1 regulators seek to satisfy and the complexity and sophistication of its regulation.  These features underpin the parallels between the role of the FIA and that of national and international financial regulators: The FIA must keep F1 drivers and spectators safe while promoting exciting racing, technical innovation and commercial success. Similarly, financial regulators must protect bank depositors – and indeed the whole economy – while promoting improved financial services, employment and economic growth. Lessons for financial regulatorsSo, what insights could financial regulators take from F1? Here are two suggestions. First, safety. F1 cars frequently crash and sometimes overturn, but in modern F1 drivers are very rarely hurt. Highly detailed regulations combined with innovation – such as the titanium halo which was made mandatory in 2018 to improve cockpit protection – have made an enormous difference in reducing driver deaths. 12 drivers died during races from 1970 to 1999, while only one has been killed since 2000. Financial regulators seek to prevent losses to retail consumers of financial services and/or the governments that provide insurance. But they typically do not seek to eliminate all risk on the grounds that the level of regulation required would be so high as prevent the financial system delivering on its core functions. However, the experience of F1 suggests policymakers should test this assumption.  A key lesson from F1 could be that regulators should be more willing to block innovation by financial institutions in some areas…and instead focus it even more proactively on areas like cybersecurity. For example, digital communication and artificial intelligence could allow regulators to collect and process much higher volumes of data on what financial institutions are doing with minimal cost to those being regulated. This appears highly intrusive, but it may also improve identification of illegal practices or excessive risk-taking without reducing the value the financial system can deliver to society. A further possible step, echoing F1s enforcement regime, would see financial regulators imposing more varied  prudential penalties more swiftly and with fewer grounds for appeal. The second insight is on innovation. The FIA does not think all innovation will necessarily benefit F1. Instead, it uses detailed regulation to block innovation in some areas and drive it forward in others. By doing so it focusses constructor competition and resources on areas that it judges to be of most benefit to the sport (for instance driver safety) or the wider economy (such as sustainable fuels). By contrast financial regulators tend to start from the assumption that innovation is likely to be of general benefit to the financial system and only seek to limit it when they see evidence of substantial risk. A key lesson from F1 could be that regulators should be more willing to block innovation by financial institutions in some areas, such as stablecoins, where the benefits to society are hard to demonstrate, and instead focus it even more proactively on areas like cybersecurity, where the benefits are clear and the risk of slow progress is high.  More broadly, a regulator inspired by the FIAs approach would find decisions on, for instance, whether to address perverse incentives through bonus caps a lot more straightforward. Similarly, central banks and financial regulators would not hesitate as much as they now do to use regulation to force the financial system to support the transition to net zero. And competition authorities might be more willing to use size caps on financial institutions to drive competition and broader economic growth. Of course, financial regulators might reasonably say that they already do many of the regulatory things that the FIA does. They might add that international competition, political lobbying and resource constraints prevent them from taking a more proactive approach in some areas. But the experience of Formula 1 suggests that a more complex, directive and ultimately intrusive regulatory approach can sometimes produce the best result not just for safety, but also for innovation and growth.    

On its 250th birthday, the US is still defined by its fault lines On its 250th birthday, the US is still defined by its fault lines Expert comment jon.wallace 2 July 2026 The most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe in the system of government and those who do not. It is, in fact, the foundational US fault line being relitigated for modern times. For 250 years, the United States of America has been defined by its fault lines, which have bound the landmass and its people together and, at times, have driven them apart. It is a history of rupture and repair. The original fault line was between the thirteen American colonies and British imperial rule. The Declaration of Independence stated that When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. For the American colonists, those causes emerged from British rule, which had brought a series of abuses and usurpations amounting to a form of Tyranny. Pursuing their unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, required an altering of their former Systems of Government, and a setting of a new course. In the centuries that followed independence, the US wrestled with a set of homegrown fault lines. The Civil War erupted along the great dividing line between the North and South over slavery, nearly ripping the country apart in the 1860s.  The most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe the current system of US democracy can provide rights, equity and prosperity for all, and those who do not. The American Industrial Revolution in the decades that followed created booming urban population centres, setting up an enduring tension between the US farming heartland and its cities. The social revolutions of the 1960s and 70s fractured the country along generational, gender and racial lines. Threaded throughout has been a series of disputes about economic distribution and equality, from taxation without representation to the Great Depression, the Seattle anti-globalization protests of 1999 and the Occupy Wall Street movement. Today, as the US looks to celebrate its 250th anniversary, the most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe the current system of US democracy can provide rights, equity and prosperity for all, and those who do not. It is, in fact, the foundational US fault line being relitigated for modern times. A long unthinkable question is being asked by Americans: is it necessary again to dissolve the political bands which connect them?The new (old) fault lineThis fault line can be seen at play in the emergence of New York City mayor and self- described democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani. It can be seen in the near daily reporting of outside political voices performing well in primaries running up to this years mid-term elections. Americans want new leadership. It can be seen in shifting views of wealth and anti-billionaire sentiment: Americans want affordability, and a majority now view billionaires as a threat to democracy. And it can be seen in the growing skepticism around artificial intelligence (AI), which has become the engine of US economic growth. More Americans now think AI will have a negative impact on society and are concerned about the personal dangers it poses. The fault line can also be discerned in a shift over the last decade from partisanship and polarization to radicalization: on 6 January 2021 citizens overtook the US capital to reject an election outcome they viewed as fraudulent. Politically motivated attacks have surged: In 2022 House Speaker Nancy Pelosis husband, Paul Pelosi, was attacked in his home. In 2024 and in 2026, attempts were made on the life of Donald Trump. In 2025, Melissa Hortman, a Democratic member of the Minnesota House of Representatives, was assassinated with her husband. Charlie Kirk, a right-wing political activist, was also assassinated that year. Meanwhile US governmental departments have flagged the threat posed by the accelerationist movement, an ideology holding that the democratic state is so corrupt and irreparable that violent action must be taken against it to precipitate its replacement. This turn towards the use of violence is not isolated. As many a third of Americans polled agree that the US government is corrupt and it may soon be time to take up arms against it. Americans are increasingly considering bullets over ballots. A loss of faithTogether, these fractures reflect a catastrophic loss of public trust in the US government from 49 per cent at the turn of this century to just 18 per cent as of 2025. Approval ratings of the executive, legislative and judicial approval ratings have also waivered.  Related work Europe watches the next American revolution take shape Especially telling is that even as Americans believe their freedoms are under threat, Supreme Court favourability has reached historic lows. The Supreme Court this cycle eased some restrictions on campaign finance caps, limited the scope of the Voting Rights Act and affirmed the presidents right to remove members of independent governmental agencies. But it also allowed mail-in ballot rules to stand and upheld birthright citizenship. Americans searching for clarity from the Court will be left wanting. As political skepticism grows, the two party-system that has defined US politics for centuries is showing cracks. A record-level 45 per cent of Americans now identify as independent of a political party. This surge in independents has overlapped with a declining number of Americans strongly identifying as either Republican or Democratic. Both parties are feeling this heat. For Republicans, questions of party cohesion and direction have for the last decade been answered by US President Donald Trump and the Make America Great Again movement. But defections from former prominent faces of the party including Representative Marjorie Taylor Green and journalist Tucker Carlson are revealing. 

What can financial regulators learn from Formula 1? What can financial regulators learn from Formula 1? Expert comment jon.wallace 2 July 2026 Formula 1s regulator uses a diverse toolkit of rules and penalties to deliver multiple objectives. This could hold lessons for financial regulators as they respond to a rapidly evolving financial system. Formula 1 (F1) racing is arguably the most complex sport in the world – and one of its most successful. This weekends British Grand Prix at Silverstone will attract around half a million spectators and 80 million TV viewers, while F1 commercial rights alone are valued at $23 billion. The F1 movie, released last June, is the most successful sports film ever made.F1 governance is not without its critics or its controversies, both historic and present day. But at the core of the sports continued success is the way it is regulated by the Fédération International de l Automobile (FIA). The FIAs approach to regulation may offer the worlds national and international financial regulators some valuable pointers on how to meet current challenges.        F1 regulation Liberty Media, a public company, is responsible for F1 s commercial exploitation. However, the FIA controls almost every aspect of F1. It sets the technical standards for the cars and the racetracks. It determines how races are run, how much each team can spend on competing, and even what media activities the drivers should undertake.  F1 regulations are designed to achieve multiple goals – from ensuring the safety of drivers and spectators to creating the spectacle that underpins the sports commercial success, to driving technical innovation with potential benefits across the entire automotive sector. While they are highly detailed, F1 regulations also deliberately leave scope for teams to compete through driver skills, race strategy and technical innovation. Thus, while F1 cars are very fast, with a maximum speed of around 230 mph, they are not designed to be the fastest possible. Nor in some areas do they use the latest available technologies. Electronic driver aids were banned in 1994 for safety reasons and because they reduced the role played by the driver. F1 technical regulations are frequently tweaked and periodically go through a major overhaul. The 2026 regulatory update was one of the most far reaching ever, eliminating complex systems for recovering engine heat and assisting overtaking through drag reduction. In their place is a larger electric engine and smaller internal combustion engine within the hybrid system, creating a roughly 50:50 split between petrol and electric power. To overtake, drivers can draw on a power boost from the electric engine, but having exhausted the battery are vulnerable to being overtaken themselves.    Related work Saving global economic governance from the Trump shock The changes have not been popular with some. But it is hard to dispute that races have become more exciting, featuring frequent changes of position among the leading cars. Meanwhile the rule changes have focused the teams technical skills and resources on advancing the design of hybrid power units, and in particularly those that use 100 per cent sustainable fuel – a new requirement in 2026. The intensely competitive innovative environment in F1 is one of the main reasons that major car manufacturers such as Mercedes, VW and Renault own F1 teams. Regulations are developed through close consultation with F1 teams. But once in place they are rigorously enforced. Some penalties are applied in real time while the race is running. There are also frequent inquiries into possible breaches of technical standards, sometimes resulting in a teams demotion or disqualification. Investigations are usually quick and teams and drivers do not hesitate to report on each other. Financial regulation and F1F1 is by no means the only sport with enormous viewing figures, an evolving rule book and vast financial resources. But it is arguably unique in three respects: the central role played by technical innovation; the high importance of safety regulation; and its relevance to growth in the wider economy. It also stands out for the diverse range of objectives that F1 regulators seek to satisfy and the complexity and sophistication of its regulation.  These features underpin the parallels between the role of the FIA and that of national and international financial regulators: The FIA must keep F1 drivers and spectators safe while promoting exciting racing, technical innovation and commercial success. Similarly, financial regulators must protect bank depositors – and indeed the whole economy – while promoting improved financial services, employment and economic growth. Lessons for financial regulatorsSo, what insights could financial regulators take from F1? Here are two suggestions. First, safety. F1 cars frequently crash and sometimes overturn, but in modern F1 drivers are very rarely hurt. Highly detailed regulations combined with innovation – such as the titanium halo which was made mandatory in 2018 to improve cockpit protection – have made an enormous difference in reducing driver deaths. 12 drivers died during races from 1970 to 1999, while only one has been killed since 2000. Financial regulators seek to prevent losses to retail consumers of financial services and/or the governments that provide insurance. But they typically do not seek to eliminate all risk on the grounds that the level of regulation required would be so high as prevent the financial system delivering on its core functions. However, the experience of F1 suggests policymakers should test this assumption.  A key lesson from F1 could be that regulators should be more willing to block innovation by financial institutions in some areas…and instead focus it even more proactively on areas like cybersecurity. For example, digital communication and artificial intelligence could allow regulators to collect and process much higher volumes of data on what financial institutions are doing with minimal cost to those being regulated. This appears highly intrusive, but it may also improve identification of illegal practices or excessive risk-taking without reducing the value the financial system can deliver to society. A further possible step, echoing F1s enforcement regime, would see financial regulators imposing more varied  prudential penalties more swiftly and with fewer grounds for appeal. The second insight is on innovation. The FIA does not think all innovation will necessarily benefit F1. Instead, it uses detailed regulation to block innovation in some areas and drive it forward in others. By doing so it focusses constructor competition and resources on areas that it judges to be of most benefit to the sport (for instance driver safety) or the wider economy (such as sustainable fuels). By contrast financial regulators tend to start from the assumption that innovation is likely to be of general benefit to the financial system and only seek to limit it when they see evidence of substantial risk. A key lesson from F1 could be that regulators should be more willing to block innovation by financial institutions in some areas, such as stablecoins, where the benefits to society are hard to demonstrate, and instead focus it even more proactively on areas like cybersecurity, where the benefits are clear and the risk of slow progress is high.  More broadly, a regulator inspired by the FIAs approach would find decisions on, for instance, whether to address perverse incentives through bonus caps a lot more straightforward. Similarly, central banks and financial regulators would not hesitate as much as they now do to use regulation to force the financial system to support the transition to net zero. And competition authorities might be more willing to use size caps on financial institutions to drive competition and broader economic growth. Of course, financial regulators might reasonably say that they already do many of the regulatory things that the FIA does. They might add that international competition, political lobbying and resource constraints prevent them from taking a more proactive approach in some areas. But the experience of Formula 1 suggests that a more complex, directive and ultimately intrusive regulatory approach can sometimes produce the best result not just for safety, but also for innovation and growth.    

On its 250th birthday, the US is still defined by its fault lines On its 250th birthday, the US is still defined by its fault lines Expert comment jon.wallace 2 July 2026 The most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe in the system of government and those who do not. It is, in fact, the foundational US fault line being relitigated for modern times. For 250 years, the United States of America has been defined by its fault lines, which have bound the landmass and its people together and, at times, have driven them apart. It is a history of rupture and repair. The original fault line was between the thirteen American colonies and British imperial rule. The Declaration of Independence stated that When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. For the American colonists, those causes emerged from British rule, which had brought a series of abuses and usurpations amounting to a form of Tyranny. Pursuing their unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, required an altering of their former Systems of Government, and a setting of a new course. In the centuries that followed independence, the US wrestled with a set of homegrown fault lines. The Civil War erupted along the great dividing line between the North and South over slavery, nearly ripping the country apart in the 1860s.  The most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe the current system of US democracy can provide rights, equity and prosperity for all, and those who do not. The American Industrial Revolution in the decades that followed created booming urban population centres, setting up an enduring tension between the US farming heartland and its cities. The social revolutions of the 1960s and 70s fractured the country along generational, gender and racial lines. Threaded throughout has been a series of disputes about economic distribution and equality, from taxation without representation to the Great Depression, the Seattle anti-globalization protests of 1999 and the Occupy Wall Street movement. Today, as the US looks to celebrate its 250th anniversary, the most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe the current system of US democracy can provide rights, equity and prosperity for all, and those who do not. It is, in fact, the foundational US fault line being relitigated for modern times. A long unthinkable question is being asked by Americans: is it necessary again to dissolve the political bands which connect them?The new (old) fault lineThis fault line can be seen at play in the emergence of New York City mayor and self- described democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani. It can be seen in the near daily reporting of outside political voices performing well in primaries running up to this years mid-term elections. Americans want new leadership. It can be seen in shifting views of wealth and anti-billionaire sentiment: Americans want affordability, and a majority now view billionaires as a threat to democracy. And it can be seen in the growing skepticism around artificial intelligence (AI), which has become the engine of US economic growth. More Americans now think AI will have a negative impact on society and are concerned about the personal dangers it poses. The fault line can also be discerned in a shift over the last decade from partisanship and polarization to radicalization: on 6 January 2021 citizens overtook the US capital to reject an election outcome they viewed as fraudulent. Politically motivated attacks have surged: In 2022 House Speaker Nancy Pelosis husband, Paul Pelosi, was attacked in his home. In 2024 and in 2026, attempts were made on the life of Donald Trump. In 2025, Melissa Hortman, a Democratic member of the Minnesota House of Representatives, was assassinated with her husband. Charlie Kirk, a right-wing political activist, was also assassinated that year. Meanwhile US governmental departments have flagged the threat posed by the accelerationist movement, an ideology holding that the democratic state is so corrupt and irreparable that violent action must be taken against it to precipitate its replacement. This turn towards the use of violence is not isolated. As many a third of Americans polled agree that the US government is corrupt and it may soon be time to take up arms against it. Americans are increasingly considering bullets over ballots. A loss of faithTogether, these fractures reflect a catastrophic loss of public trust in the US government from 49 per cent at the turn of this century to just 18 per cent as of 2025. Approval ratings of the executive, legislative and judicial approval ratings have also waivered.  Related work Europe watches the next American revolution take shape Especially telling is that even as Americans believe their freedoms are under threat, Supreme Court favourability has reached historic lows. The Supreme Court this cycle eased some restrictions on campaign finance caps, limited the scope of the Voting Rights Act and affirmed the presidents right to remove members of independent governmental agencies. But it also allowed mail-in ballot rules to stand and upheld birthright citizenship. Americans searching for clarity from the Court will be left wanting. As political skepticism grows, the two party-system that has defined US politics for centuries is showing cracks. A record-level 45 per cent of Americans now identify as independent of a political party. This surge in independents has overlapped with a declining number of Americans strongly identifying as either Republican or Democratic. Both parties are feeling this heat. For Republicans, questions of party cohesion and direction have for the last decade been answered by US President Donald Trump and the Make America Great Again movement. But defections from former prominent faces of the party including Representative Marjorie Taylor Green and journalist Tucker Carlson are revealing. 

What can financial regulators learn from Formula 1? What can financial regulators learn from Formula 1? Expert comment jon.wallace 2 July 2026 Formula 1s regulator uses a diverse toolkit of rules and penalties to deliver multiple objectives. This could hold lessons for financial regulators as they respond to a rapidly evolving financial system. Formula 1 (F1) racing is arguably the most complex sport in the world – and one of its most successful. This weekends British Grand Prix at Silverstone will attract around half a million spectators and 80 million TV viewers, while F1 commercial rights alone are valued at $23 billion. The F1 movie, released last June, is the most successful sports film ever made.F1 governance is not without its critics or its controversies, both historic and present day. But at the core of the sports continued success is the way it is regulated by the Fédération International de l Automobile (FIA). The FIAs approach to regulation may offer the worlds national and international financial regulators some valuable pointers on how to meet current challenges.        F1 regulation Liberty Media, a public company, is responsible for F1 s commercial exploitation. However, the FIA controls almost every aspect of F1. It sets the technical standards for the cars and the racetracks. It determines how races are run, how much each team can spend on competing, and even what media activities the drivers should undertake.  F1 regulations are designed to achieve multiple goals – from ensuring the safety of drivers and spectators to creating the spectacle that underpins the sports commercial success, to driving technical innovation with potential benefits across the entire automotive sector. While they are highly detailed, F1 regulations also deliberately leave scope for teams to compete through driver skills, race strategy and technical innovation. Thus, while F1 cars are very fast, with a maximum speed of around 230 mph, they are not designed to be the fastest possible. Nor in some areas do they use the latest available technologies. Electronic driver aids were banned in 1994 for safety reasons and because they reduced the role played by the driver. F1 technical regulations are frequently tweaked and periodically go through a major overhaul. The 2026 regulatory update was one of the most far reaching ever, eliminating complex systems for recovering engine heat and assisting overtaking through drag reduction. In their place is a larger electric engine and smaller internal combustion engine within the hybrid system, creating a roughly 50:50 split between petrol and electric power. To overtake, drivers can draw on a power boost from the electric engine, but having exhausted the battery are vulnerable to being overtaken themselves.    Related work Saving global economic governance from the Trump shock The changes have not been popular with some. But it is hard to dispute that races have become more exciting, featuring frequent changes of position among the leading cars. Meanwhile the rule changes have focused the teams technical skills and resources on advancing the design of hybrid power units, and in particularly those that use 100 per cent sustainable fuel – a new requirement in 2026. The intensely competitive innovative environment in F1 is one of the main reasons that major car manufacturers such as Mercedes, VW and Renault own F1 teams. Regulations are developed through close consultation with F1 teams. But once in place they are rigorously enforced. Some penalties are applied in real time while the race is running. There are also frequent inquiries into possible breaches of technical standards, sometimes resulting in a teams demotion or disqualification. Investigations are usually quick and teams and drivers do not hesitate to report on each other. Financial regulation and F1F1 is by no means the only sport with enormous viewing figures, an evolving rule book and vast financial resources. But it is arguably unique in three respects: the central role played by technical innovation; the high importance of safety regulation; and its relevance to growth in the wider economy. It also stands out for the diverse range of objectives that F1 regulators seek to satisfy and the complexity and sophistication of its regulation.  These features underpin the parallels between the role of the FIA and that of national and international financial regulators: The FIA must keep F1 drivers and spectators safe while promoting exciting racing, technical innovation and commercial success. Similarly, financial regulators must protect bank depositors – and indeed the whole economy – while promoting improved financial services, employment and economic growth. Lessons for financial regulatorsSo, what insights could financial regulators take from F1? Here are two suggestions. First, safety. F1 cars frequently crash and sometimes overturn, but in modern F1 drivers are very rarely hurt. Highly detailed regulations combined with innovation – such as the titanium halo which was made mandatory in 2018 to improve cockpit protection – have made an enormous difference in reducing driver deaths. 12 drivers died during races from 1970 to 1999, while only one has been killed since 2000. Financial regulators seek to prevent losses to retail consumers of financial services and/or the governments that provide insurance. But they typically do not seek to eliminate all risk on the grounds that the level of regulation required would be so high as prevent the financial system delivering on its core functions. However, the experience of F1 suggests policymakers should test this assumption.  A key lesson from F1 could be that regulators should be more willing to block innovation by financial institutions in some areas…and instead focus it even more proactively on areas like cybersecurity. For example, digital communication and artificial intelligence could allow regulators to collect and process much higher volumes of data on what financial institutions are doing with minimal cost to those being regulated. This appears highly intrusive, but it may also improve identification of illegal practices or excessive risk-taking without reducing the value the financial system can deliver to society. A further possible step, echoing F1s enforcement regime, would see financial regulators imposing more varied  prudential penalties more swiftly and with fewer grounds for appeal. The second insight is on innovation. The FIA does not think all innovation will necessarily benefit F1. Instead, it uses detailed regulation to block innovation in some areas and drive it forward in others. By doing so it focusses constructor competition and resources on areas that it judges to be of most benefit to the sport (for instance driver safety) or the wider economy (such as sustainable fuels). By contrast financial regulators tend to start from the assumption that innovation is likely to be of general benefit to the financial system and only seek to limit it when they see evidence of substantial risk. A key lesson from F1 could be that regulators should be more willing to block innovation by financial institutions in some areas, such as stablecoins, where the benefits to society are hard to demonstrate, and instead focus it even more proactively on areas like cybersecurity, where the benefits are clear and the risk of slow progress is high.  More broadly, a regulator inspired by the FIAs approach would find decisions on, for instance, whether to address perverse incentives through bonus caps a lot more straightforward. Similarly, central banks and financial regulators would not hesitate as much as they now do to use regulation to force the financial system to support the transition to net zero. And competition authorities might be more willing to use size caps on financial institutions to drive competition and broader economic growth. Of course, financial regulators might reasonably say that they already do many of the regulatory things that the FIA does. They might add that international competition, political lobbying and resource constraints prevent them from taking a more proactive approach in some areas. But the experience of Formula 1 suggests that a more complex, directive and ultimately intrusive regulatory approach can sometimes produce the best result not just for safety, but also for innovation and growth.    

On its 250th birthday, the US is still defined by its fault lines On its 250th birthday, the US is still defined by its fault lines Expert comment jon.wallace 2 July 2026 The most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe in the system of government and those who do not. It is, in fact, the foundational US fault line being relitigated for modern times. For 250 years, the United States of America has been defined by its fault lines, which have bound the landmass and its people together and, at times, have driven them apart. It is a history of rupture and repair. The original fault line was between the thirteen American colonies and British imperial rule. The Declaration of Independence stated that When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. For the American colonists, those causes emerged from British rule, which had brought a series of abuses and usurpations amounting to a form of Tyranny. Pursuing their unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, required an altering of their former Systems of Government, and a setting of a new course. In the centuries that followed independence, the US wrestled with a set of homegrown fault lines. The Civil War erupted along the great dividing line between the North and South over slavery, nearly ripping the country apart in the 1860s.  The most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe the current system of US democracy can provide rights, equity and prosperity for all, and those who do not. The American Industrial Revolution in the decades that followed created booming urban population centres, setting up an enduring tension between the US farming heartland and its cities. The social revolutions of the 1960s and 70s fractured the country along generational, gender and racial lines. Threaded throughout has been a series of disputes about economic distribution and equality, from taxation without representation to the Great Depression, the Seattle anti-globalization protests of 1999 and the Occupy Wall Street movement. Today, as the US looks to celebrate its 250th anniversary, the most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe the current system of US democracy can provide rights, equity and prosperity for all, and those who do not. It is, in fact, the foundational US fault line being relitigated for modern times. A long unthinkable question is being asked by Americans: is it necessary again to dissolve the political bands which connect them?The new (old) fault lineThis fault line can be seen at play in the emergence of New York City mayor and self- described democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani. It can be seen in the near daily reporting of outside political voices performing well in primaries running up to this years mid-term elections. Americans want new leadership. It can be seen in shifting views of wealth and anti-billionaire sentiment: Americans want affordability, and a majority now view billionaires as a threat to democracy. And it can be seen in the growing skepticism around artificial intelligence (AI), which has become the engine of US economic growth. More Americans now think AI will have a negative impact on society and are concerned about the personal dangers it poses. The fault line can also be discerned in a shift over the last decade from partisanship and polarization to radicalization: on 6 January 2021 citizens overtook the US capital to reject an election outcome they viewed as fraudulent. Politically motivated attacks have surged: In 2022 House Speaker Nancy Pelosis husband, Paul Pelosi, was attacked in his home. In 2024 and in 2026, attempts were made on the life of Donald Trump. In 2025, Melissa Hortman, a Democratic member of the Minnesota House of Representatives, was assassinated with her husband. Charlie Kirk, a right-wing political activist, was also assassinated that year. Meanwhile US governmental departments have flagged the threat posed by the accelerationist movement, an ideology holding that the democratic state is so corrupt and irreparable that violent action must be taken against it to precipitate its replacement. This turn towards the use of violence is not isolated. As many a third of Americans polled agree that the US government is corrupt and it may soon be time to take up arms against it. Americans are increasingly considering bullets over ballots. A loss of faithTogether, these fractures reflect a catastrophic loss of public trust in the US government from 49 per cent at the turn of this century to just 18 per cent as of 2025. Approval ratings of the executive, legislative and judicial approval ratings have also waivered.  Related work Europe watches the next American revolution take shape Especially telling is that even as Americans believe their freedoms are under threat, Supreme Court favourability has reached historic lows. The Supreme Court this cycle eased some restrictions on campaign finance caps, limited the scope of the Voting Rights Act and affirmed the presidents right to remove members of independent governmental agencies. But it also allowed mail-in ballot rules to stand and upheld birthright citizenship. Americans searching for clarity from the Court will be left wanting. As political skepticism grows, the two party-system that has defined US politics for centuries is showing cracks. A record-level 45 per cent of Americans now identify as independent of a political party. This surge in independents has overlapped with a declining number of Americans strongly identifying as either Republican or Democratic. Both parties are feeling this heat. For Republicans, questions of party cohesion and direction have for the last decade been answered by US President Donald Trump and the Make America Great Again movement. But defections from former prominent faces of the party including Representative Marjorie Taylor Green and journalist Tucker Carlson are revealing. 

What can financial regulators learn from Formula 1? What can financial regulators learn from Formula 1? Expert comment jon.wallace 2 July 2026 Formula 1s regulator uses a diverse toolkit of rules and penalties to deliver multiple objectives. This could hold lessons for financial regulators as they respond to a rapidly evolving financial system. Formula 1 (F1) racing is arguably the most complex sport in the world – and one of its most successful. This weekends British Grand Prix at Silverstone will attract around half a million spectators and 80 million TV viewers, while F1 commercial rights alone are valued at $23 billion. The F1 movie, released last June, is the most successful sports film ever made.F1 governance is not without its critics or its controversies, both historic and present day. But at the core of the sports continued success is the way it is regulated by the Fédération International de l Automobile (FIA). The FIAs approach to regulation may offer the worlds national and international financial regulators some valuable pointers on how to meet current challenges.        F1 regulation Liberty Media, a public company, is responsible for F1 s commercial exploitation. However, the FIA controls almost every aspect of F1. It sets the technical standards for the cars and the racetracks. It determines how races are run, how much each team can spend on competing, and even what media activities the drivers should undertake.  F1 regulations are designed to achieve multiple goals – from ensuring the safety of drivers and spectators to creating the spectacle that underpins the sports commercial success, to driving technical innovation with potential benefits across the entire automotive sector. While they are highly detailed, F1 regulations also deliberately leave scope for teams to compete through driver skills, race strategy and technical innovation. Thus, while F1 cars are very fast, with a maximum speed of around 230 mph, they are not designed to be the fastest possible. Nor in some areas do they use the latest available technologies. Electronic driver aids were banned in 1994 for safety reasons and because they reduced the role played by the driver. F1 technical regulations are frequently tweaked and periodically go through a major overhaul. The 2026 regulatory update was one of the most far reaching ever, eliminating complex systems for recovering engine heat and assisting overtaking through drag reduction. In their place is a larger electric engine and smaller internal combustion engine within the hybrid system, creating a roughly 50:50 split between petrol and electric power. To overtake, drivers can draw on a power boost from the electric engine, but having exhausted the battery are vulnerable to being overtaken themselves.    Related work Saving global economic governance from the Trump shock The changes have not been popular with some. But it is hard to dispute that races have become more exciting, featuring frequent changes of position among the leading cars. Meanwhile the rule changes have focused the teams technical skills and resources on advancing the design of hybrid power units, and in particularly those that use 100 per cent sustainable fuel – a new requirement in 2026. The intensely competitive innovative environment in F1 is one of the main reasons that major car manufacturers such as Mercedes, VW and Renault own F1 teams. Regulations are developed through close consultation with F1 teams. But once in place they are rigorously enforced. Some penalties are applied in real time while the race is running. There are also frequent inquiries into possible breaches of technical standards, sometimes resulting in a teams demotion or disqualification. Investigations are usually quick and teams and drivers do not hesitate to report on each other. Financial regulation and F1F1 is by no means the only sport with enormous viewing figures, an evolving rule book and vast financial resources. But it is arguably unique in three respects: the central role played by technical innovation; the high importance of safety regulation; and its relevance to growth in the wider economy. It also stands out for the diverse range of objectives that F1 regulators seek to satisfy and the complexity and sophistication of its regulation.  These features underpin the parallels between the role of the FIA and that of national and international financial regulators: The FIA must keep F1 drivers and spectators safe while promoting exciting racing, technical innovation and commercial success. Similarly, financial regulators must protect bank depositors – and indeed the whole economy – while promoting improved financial services, employment and economic growth. Lessons for financial regulatorsSo, what insights could financial regulators take from F1? Here are two suggestions. First, safety. F1 cars frequently crash and sometimes overturn, but in modern F1 drivers are very rarely hurt. Highly detailed regulations combined with innovation – such as the titanium halo which was made mandatory in 2018 to improve cockpit protection – have made an enormous difference in reducing driver deaths. 12 drivers died during races from 1970 to 1999, while only one has been killed since 2000. Financial regulators seek to prevent losses to retail consumers of financial services and/or the governments that provide insurance. But they typically do not seek to eliminate all risk on the grounds that the level of regulation required would be so high as prevent the financial system delivering on its core functions. However, the experience of F1 suggests policymakers should test this assumption.  A key lesson from F1 could be that regulators should be more willing to block innovation by financial institutions in some areas…and instead focus it even more proactively on areas like cybersecurity. For example, digital communication and artificial intelligence could allow regulators to collect and process much higher volumes of data on what financial institutions are doing with minimal cost to those being regulated. This appears highly intrusive, but it may also improve identification of illegal practices or excessive risk-taking without reducing the value the financial system can deliver to society. A further possible step, echoing F1s enforcement regime, would see financial regulators imposing more varied  prudential penalties more swiftly and with fewer grounds for appeal. The second insight is on innovation. The FIA does not think all innovation will necessarily benefit F1. Instead, it uses detailed regulation to block innovation in some areas and drive it forward in others. By doing so it focusses constructor competition and resources on areas that it judges to be of most benefit to the sport (for instance driver safety) or the wider economy (such as sustainable fuels). By contrast financial regulators tend to start from the assumption that innovation is likely to be of general benefit to the financial system and only seek to limit it when they see evidence of substantial risk. A key lesson from F1 could be that regulators should be more willing to block innovation by financial institutions in some areas, such as stablecoins, where the benefits to society are hard to demonstrate, and instead focus it even more proactively on areas like cybersecurity, where the benefits are clear and the risk of slow progress is high.  More broadly, a regulator inspired by the FIAs approach would find decisions on, for instance, whether to address perverse incentives through bonus caps a lot more straightforward. Similarly, central banks and financial regulators would not hesitate as much as they now do to use regulation to force the financial system to support the transition to net zero. And competition authorities might be more willing to use size caps on financial institutions to drive competition and broader economic growth. Of course, financial regulators might reasonably say that they already do many of the regulatory things that the FIA does. They might add that international competition, political lobbying and resource constraints prevent them from taking a more proactive approach in some areas. But the experience of Formula 1 suggests that a more complex, directive and ultimately intrusive regulatory approach can sometimes produce the best result not just for safety, but also for innovation and growth.    

On its 250th birthday, the US is still defined by its fault lines On its 250th birthday, the US is still defined by its fault lines Expert comment jon.wallace 2 July 2026 The most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe in the system of government and those who do not. It is, in fact, the foundational US fault line being relitigated for modern times. For 250 years, the United States of America has been defined by its fault lines, which have bound the landmass and its people together and, at times, have driven them apart. It is a history of rupture and repair. The original fault line was between the thirteen American colonies and British imperial rule. The Declaration of Independence stated that When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. For the American colonists, those causes emerged from British rule, which had brought a series of abuses and usurpations amounting to a form of Tyranny. Pursuing their unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, required an altering of their former Systems of Government, and a setting of a new course. In the centuries that followed independence, the US wrestled with a set of homegrown fault lines. The Civil War erupted along the great dividing line between the North and South over slavery, nearly ripping the country apart in the 1860s.  The most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe the current system of US democracy can provide rights, equity and prosperity for all, and those who do not. The American Industrial Revolution in the decades that followed created booming urban population centres, setting up an enduring tension between the US farming heartland and its cities. The social revolutions of the 1960s and 70s fractured the country along generational, gender and racial lines. Threaded throughout has been a series of disputes about economic distribution and equality, from taxation without representation to the Great Depression, the Seattle anti-globalization protests of 1999 and the Occupy Wall Street movement. Today, as the US looks to celebrate its 250th anniversary, the most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe the current system of US democracy can provide rights, equity and prosperity for all, and those who do not. It is, in fact, the foundational US fault line being relitigated for modern times. A long unthinkable question is being asked by Americans: is it necessary again to dissolve the political bands which connect them?The new (old) fault lineThis fault line can be seen at play in the emergence of New York City mayor and self- described democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani. It can be seen in the near daily reporting of outside political voices performing well in primaries running up to this years mid-term elections. Americans want new leadership. It can be seen in shifting views of wealth and anti-billionaire sentiment: Americans want affordability, and a majority now view billionaires as a threat to democracy. And it can be seen in the growing skepticism around artificial intelligence (AI), which has become the engine of US economic growth. More Americans now think AI will have a negative impact on society and are concerned about the personal dangers it poses. The fault line can also be discerned in a shift over the last decade from partisanship and polarization to radicalization: on 6 January 2021 citizens overtook the US capital to reject an election outcome they viewed as fraudulent. Politically motivated attacks have surged: In 2022 House Speaker Nancy Pelosis husband, Paul Pelosi, was attacked in his home. In 2024 and in 2026, attempts were made on the life of Donald Trump. In 2025, Melissa Hortman, a Democratic member of the Minnesota House of Representatives, was assassinated with her husband. Charlie Kirk, a right-wing political activist, was also assassinated that year. Meanwhile US governmental departments have flagged the threat posed by the accelerationist movement, an ideology holding that the democratic state is so corrupt and irreparable that violent action must be taken against it to precipitate its replacement. This turn towards the use of violence is not isolated. As many a third of Americans polled agree that the US government is corrupt and it may soon be time to take up arms against it. Americans are increasingly considering bullets over ballots. A loss of faithTogether, these fractures reflect a catastrophic loss of public trust in the US government from 49 per cent at the turn of this century to just 18 per cent as of 2025. Approval ratings of the executive, legislative and judicial approval ratings have also waivered.  Related work Europe watches the next American revolution take shape Especially telling is that even as Americans believe their freedoms are under threat, Supreme Court favourability has reached historic lows. The Supreme Court this cycle eased some restrictions on campaign finance caps, limited the scope of the Voting Rights Act and affirmed the presidents right to remove members of independent governmental agencies. But it also allowed mail-in ballot rules to stand and upheld birthright citizenship. Americans searching for clarity from the Court will be left wanting. As political skepticism grows, the two party-system that has defined US politics for centuries is showing cracks. A record-level 45 per cent of Americans now identify as independent of a political party. This surge in independents has overlapped with a declining number of Americans strongly identifying as either Republican or Democratic. Both parties are feeling this heat. For Republicans, questions of party cohesion and direction have for the last decade been answered by US President Donald Trump and the Make America Great Again movement. But defections from former prominent faces of the party including Representative Marjorie Taylor Green and journalist Tucker Carlson are revealing. 

What can financial regulators learn from Formula 1? What can financial regulators learn from Formula 1? Expert comment jon.wallace 2 July 2026 Formula 1s regulator uses a diverse toolkit of rules and penalties to deliver multiple objectives. This could hold lessons for financial regulators as they respond to a rapidly evolving financial system. Formula 1 (F1) racing is arguably the most complex sport in the world – and one of its most successful. This weekends British Grand Prix at Silverstone will attract around half a million spectators and 80 million TV viewers, while F1 commercial rights alone are valued at $23 billion. The F1 movie, released last June, is the most successful sports film ever made.F1 governance is not without its critics or its controversies, both historic and present day. But at the core of the sports continued success is the way it is regulated by the Fédération International de l Automobile (FIA). The FIAs approach to regulation may offer the worlds national and international financial regulators some valuable pointers on how to meet current challenges.        F1 regulation Liberty Media, a public company, is responsible for F1 s commercial exploitation. However, the FIA controls almost every aspect of F1. It sets the technical standards for the cars and the racetracks. It determines how races are run, how much each team can spend on competing, and even what media activities the drivers should undertake.  F1 regulations are designed to achieve multiple goals – from ensuring the safety of drivers and spectators to creating the spectacle that underpins the sports commercial success, to driving technical innovation with potential benefits across the entire automotive sector. While they are highly detailed, F1 regulations also deliberately leave scope for teams to compete through driver skills, race strategy and technical innovation. Thus, while F1 cars are very fast, with a maximum speed of around 230 mph, they are not designed to be the fastest possible. Nor in some areas do they use the latest available technologies. Electronic driver aids were banned in 1994 for safety reasons and because they reduced the role played by the driver. F1 technical regulations are frequently tweaked and periodically go through a major overhaul. The 2026 regulatory update was one of the most far reaching ever, eliminating complex systems for recovering engine heat and assisting overtaking through drag reduction. In their place is a larger electric engine and smaller internal combustion engine within the hybrid system, creating a roughly 50:50 split between petrol and electric power. To overtake, drivers can draw on a power boost from the electric engine, but having exhausted the battery are vulnerable to being overtaken themselves.    Related work Saving global economic governance from the Trump shock The changes have not been popular with some. But it is hard to dispute that races have become more exciting, featuring frequent changes of position among the leading cars. Meanwhile the rule changes have focused the teams technical skills and resources on advancing the design of hybrid power units, and in particularly those that use 100 per cent sustainable fuel – a new requirement in 2026. The intensely competitive innovative environment in F1 is one of the main reasons that major car manufacturers such as Mercedes, VW and Renault own F1 teams. Regulations are developed through close consultation with F1 teams. But once in place they are rigorously enforced. Some penalties are applied in real time while the race is running. There are also frequent inquiries into possible breaches of technical standards, sometimes resulting in a teams demotion or disqualification. Investigations are usually quick and teams and drivers do not hesitate to report on each other. Financial regulation and F1F1 is by no means the only sport with enormous viewing figures, an evolving rule book and vast financial resources. But it is arguably unique in three respects: the central role played by technical innovation; the high importance of safety regulation; and its relevance to growth in the wider economy. It also stands out for the diverse range of objectives that F1 regulators seek to satisfy and the complexity and sophistication of its regulation.  These features underpin the parallels between the role of the FIA and that of national and international financial regulators: The FIA must keep F1 drivers and spectators safe while promoting exciting racing, technical innovation and commercial success. Similarly, financial regulators must protect bank depositors – and indeed the whole economy – while promoting improved financial services, employment and economic growth. Lessons for financial regulatorsSo, what insights could financial regulators take from F1? Here are two suggestions. First, safety. F1 cars frequently crash and sometimes overturn, but in modern F1 drivers are very rarely hurt. Highly detailed regulations combined with innovation – such as the titanium halo which was made mandatory in 2018 to improve cockpit protection – have made an enormous difference in reducing driver deaths. 12 drivers died during races from 1970 to 1999, while only one has been killed since 2000. Financial regulators seek to prevent losses to retail consumers of financial services and/or the governments that provide insurance. But they typically do not seek to eliminate all risk on the grounds that the level of regulation required would be so high as prevent the financial system delivering on its core functions. However, the experience of F1 suggests policymakers should test this assumption.  A key lesson from F1 could be that regulators should be more willing to block innovation by financial institutions in some areas…and instead focus it even more proactively on areas like cybersecurity. For example, digital communication and artificial intelligence could allow regulators to collect and process much higher volumes of data on what financial institutions are doing with minimal cost to those being regulated. This appears highly intrusive, but it may also improve identification of illegal practices or excessive risk-taking without reducing the value the financial system can deliver to society. A further possible step, echoing F1s enforcement regime, would see financial regulators imposing more varied  prudential penalties more swiftly and with fewer grounds for appeal. The second insight is on innovation. The FIA does not think all innovation will necessarily benefit F1. Instead, it uses detailed regulation to block innovation in some areas and drive it forward in others. By doing so it focusses constructor competition and resources on areas that it judges to be of most benefit to the sport (for instance driver safety) or the wider economy (such as sustainable fuels). By contrast financial regulators tend to start from the assumption that innovation is likely to be of general benefit to the financial system and only seek to limit it when they see evidence of substantial risk. A key lesson from F1 could be that regulators should be more willing to block innovation by financial institutions in some areas, such as stablecoins, where the benefits to society are hard to demonstrate, and instead focus it even more proactively on areas like cybersecurity, where the benefits are clear and the risk of slow progress is high.  More broadly, a regulator inspired by the FIAs approach would find decisions on, for instance, whether to address perverse incentives through bonus caps a lot more straightforward. Similarly, central banks and financial regulators would not hesitate as much as they now do to use regulation to force the financial system to support the transition to net zero. And competition authorities might be more willing to use size caps on financial institutions to drive competition and broader economic growth. Of course, financial regulators might reasonably say that they already do many of the regulatory things that the FIA does. They might add that international competition, political lobbying and resource constraints prevent them from taking a more proactive approach in some areas. But the experience of Formula 1 suggests that a more complex, directive and ultimately intrusive regulatory approach can sometimes produce the best result not just for safety, but also for innovation and growth.    

On its 250th birthday, the US is still defined by its fault lines On its 250th birthday, the US is still defined by its fault lines Expert comment jon.wallace 2 July 2026 The most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe in the system of government and those who do not. It is, in fact, the foundational US fault line being relitigated for modern times. For 250 years, the United States of America has been defined by its fault lines, which have bound the landmass and its people together and, at times, have driven them apart. It is a history of rupture and repair. The original fault line was between the thirteen American colonies and British imperial rule. The Declaration of Independence stated that When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. For the American colonists, those causes emerged from British rule, which had brought a series of abuses and usurpations amounting to a form of Tyranny. Pursuing their unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, required an altering of their former Systems of Government, and a setting of a new course. In the centuries that followed independence, the US wrestled with a set of homegrown fault lines. The Civil War erupted along the great dividing line between the North and South over slavery, nearly ripping the country apart in the 1860s.  The most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe the current system of US democracy can provide rights, equity and prosperity for all, and those who do not. The American Industrial Revolution in the decades that followed created booming urban population centres, setting up an enduring tension between the US farming heartland and its cities. The social revolutions of the 1960s and 70s fractured the country along generational, gender and racial lines. Threaded throughout has been a series of disputes about economic distribution and equality, from taxation without representation to the Great Depression, the Seattle anti-globalization protests of 1999 and the Occupy Wall Street movement. Today, as the US looks to celebrate its 250th anniversary, the most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe the current system of US democracy can provide rights, equity and prosperity for all, and those who do not. It is, in fact, the foundational US fault line being relitigated for modern times. A long unthinkable question is being asked by Americans: is it necessary again to dissolve the political bands which connect them?The new (old) fault lineThis fault line can be seen at play in the emergence of New York City mayor and self- described democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani. It can be seen in the near daily reporting of outside political voices performing well in primaries running up to this years mid-term elections. Americans want new leadership. It can be seen in shifting views of wealth and anti-billionaire sentiment: Americans want affordability, and a majority now view billionaires as a threat to democracy. And it can be seen in the growing skepticism around artificial intelligence (AI), which has become the engine of US economic growth. More Americans now think AI will have a negative impact on society and are concerned about the personal dangers it poses. The fault line can also be discerned in a shift over the last decade from partisanship and polarization to radicalization: on 6 January 2021 citizens overtook the US capital to reject an election outcome they viewed as fraudulent. Politically motivated attacks have surged: In 2022 House Speaker Nancy Pelosis husband, Paul Pelosi, was attacked in his home. In 2024 and in 2026, attempts were made on the life of Donald Trump. In 2025, Melissa Hortman, a Democratic member of the Minnesota House of Representatives, was assassinated with her husband. Charlie Kirk, a right-wing political activist, was also assassinated that year. Meanwhile US governmental departments have flagged the threat posed by the accelerationist movement, an ideology holding that the democratic state is so corrupt and irreparable that violent action must be taken against it to precipitate its replacement. This turn towards the use of violence is not isolated. As many a third of Americans polled agree that the US government is corrupt and it may soon be time to take up arms against it. Americans are increasingly considering bullets over ballots. A loss of faithTogether, these fractures reflect a catastrophic loss of public trust in the US government from 49 per cent at the turn of this century to just 18 per cent as of 2025. Approval ratings of the executive, legislative and judicial approval ratings have also waivered.  Related work Europe watches the next American revolution take shape Especially telling is that even as Americans believe their freedoms are under threat, Supreme Court favourability has reached historic lows. The Supreme Court this cycle eased some restrictions on campaign finance caps, limited the scope of the Voting Rights Act and affirmed the presidents right to remove members of independent governmental agencies. But it also allowed mail-in ballot rules to stand and upheld birthright citizenship. Americans searching for clarity from the Court will be left wanting. As political skepticism grows, the two party-system that has defined US politics for centuries is showing cracks. A record-level 45 per cent of Americans now identify as independent of a political party. This surge in independents has overlapped with a declining number of Americans strongly identifying as either Republican or Democratic. Both parties are feeling this heat. For Republicans, questions of party cohesion and direction have for the last decade been answered by US President Donald Trump and the Make America Great Again movement. But defections from former prominent faces of the party including Representative Marjorie Taylor Green and journalist Tucker Carlson are revealing. 

What can financial regulators learn from Formula 1? What can financial regulators learn from Formula 1? Expert comment jon.wallace 2 July 2026 Formula 1s regulator uses a diverse toolkit of rules and penalties to deliver multiple objectives. This could hold lessons for financial regulators as they respond to a rapidly evolving financial system. Formula 1 (F1) racing is arguably the most complex sport in the world – and one of its most successful. This weekends British Grand Prix at Silverstone will attract around half a million spectators and 80 million TV viewers, while F1 commercial rights alone are valued at $23 billion. The F1 movie, released last June, is the most successful sports film ever made.F1 governance is not without its critics or its controversies, both historic and present day. But at the core of the sports continued success is the way it is regulated by the Fédération International de l Automobile (FIA). The FIAs approach to regulation may offer the worlds national and international financial regulators some valuable pointers on how to meet current challenges.        F1 regulation Liberty Media, a public company, is responsible for F1 s commercial exploitation. However, the FIA controls almost every aspect of F1. It sets the technical standards for the cars and the racetracks. It determines how races are run, how much each team can spend on competing, and even what media activities the drivers should undertake.  F1 regulations are designed to achieve multiple goals – from ensuring the safety of drivers and spectators to creating the spectacle that underpins the sports commercial success, to driving technical innovation with potential benefits across the entire automotive sector. While they are highly detailed, F1 regulations also deliberately leave scope for teams to compete through driver skills, race strategy and technical innovation. Thus, while F1 cars are very fast, with a maximum speed of around 230 mph, they are not designed to be the fastest possible. Nor in some areas do they use the latest available technologies. Electronic driver aids were banned in 1994 for safety reasons and because they reduced the role played by the driver. F1 technical regulations are frequently tweaked and periodically go through a major overhaul. The 2026 regulatory update was one of the most far reaching ever, eliminating complex systems for recovering engine heat and assisting overtaking through drag reduction. In their place is a larger electric engine and smaller internal combustion engine within the hybrid system, creating a roughly 50:50 split between petrol and electric power. To overtake, drivers can draw on a power boost from the electric engine, but having exhausted the battery are vulnerable to being overtaken themselves.    Related work Saving global economic governance from the Trump shock The changes have not been popular with some. But it is hard to dispute that races have become more exciting, featuring frequent changes of position among the leading cars. Meanwhile the rule changes have focused the teams technical skills and resources on advancing the design of hybrid power units, and in particularly those that use 100 per cent sustainable fuel – a new requirement in 2026. The intensely competitive innovative environment in F1 is one of the main reasons that major car manufacturers such as Mercedes, VW and Renault own F1 teams. Regulations are developed through close consultation with F1 teams. But once in place they are rigorously enforced. Some penalties are applied in real time while the race is running. There are also frequent inquiries into possible breaches of technical standards, sometimes resulting in a teams demotion or disqualification. Investigations are usually quick and teams and drivers do not hesitate to report on each other. Financial regulation and F1F1 is by no means the only sport with enormous viewing figures, an evolving rule book and vast financial resources. But it is arguably unique in three respects: the central role played by technical innovation; the high importance of safety regulation; and its relevance to growth in the wider economy. It also stands out for the diverse range of objectives that F1 regulators seek to satisfy and the complexity and sophistication of its regulation.  These features underpin the parallels between the role of the FIA and that of national and international financial regulators: The FIA must keep F1 drivers and spectators safe while promoting exciting racing, technical innovation and commercial success. Similarly, financial regulators must protect bank depositors – and indeed the whole economy – while promoting improved financial services, employment and economic growth. Lessons for financial regulatorsSo, what insights could financial regulators take from F1? Here are two suggestions. First, safety. F1 cars frequently crash and sometimes overturn, but in modern F1 drivers are very rarely hurt. Highly detailed regulations combined with innovation – such as the titanium halo which was made mandatory in 2018 to improve cockpit protection – have made an enormous difference in reducing driver deaths. 12 drivers died during races from 1970 to 1999, while only one has been killed since 2000. Financial regulators seek to prevent losses to retail consumers of financial services and/or the governments that provide insurance. But they typically do not seek to eliminate all risk on the grounds that the level of regulation required would be so high as prevent the financial system delivering on its core functions. However, the experience of F1 suggests policymakers should test this assumption.  A key lesson from F1 could be that regulators should be more willing to block innovation by financial institutions in some areas…and instead focus it even more proactively on areas like cybersecurity. For example, digital communication and artificial intelligence could allow regulators to collect and process much higher volumes of data on what financial institutions are doing with minimal cost to those being regulated. This appears highly intrusive, but it may also improve identification of illegal practices or excessive risk-taking without reducing the value the financial system can deliver to society. A further possible step, echoing F1s enforcement regime, would see financial regulators imposing more varied  prudential penalties more swiftly and with fewer grounds for appeal. The second insight is on innovation. The FIA does not think all innovation will necessarily benefit F1. Instead, it uses detailed regulation to block innovation in some areas and drive it forward in others. By doing so it focusses constructor competition and resources on areas that it judges to be of most benefit to the sport (for instance driver safety) or the wider economy (such as sustainable fuels). By contrast financial regulators tend to start from the assumption that innovation is likely to be of general benefit to the financial system and only seek to limit it when they see evidence of substantial risk. A key lesson from F1 could be that regulators should be more willing to block innovation by financial institutions in some areas, such as stablecoins, where the benefits to society are hard to demonstrate, and instead focus it even more proactively on areas like cybersecurity, where the benefits are clear and the risk of slow progress is high.  More broadly, a regulator inspired by the FIAs approach would find decisions on, for instance, whether to address perverse incentives through bonus caps a lot more straightforward. Similarly, central banks and financial regulators would not hesitate as much as they now do to use regulation to force the financial system to support the transition to net zero. And competition authorities might be more willing to use size caps on financial institutions to drive competition and broader economic growth. Of course, financial regulators might reasonably say that they already do many of the regulatory things that the FIA does. They might add that international competition, political lobbying and resource constraints prevent them from taking a more proactive approach in some areas. But the experience of Formula 1 suggests that a more complex, directive and ultimately intrusive regulatory approach can sometimes produce the best result not just for safety, but also for innovation and growth.    

On its 250th birthday, the US is still defined by its fault lines On its 250th birthday, the US is still defined by its fault lines Expert comment jon.wallace 2 July 2026 The most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe in the system of government and those who do not. It is, in fact, the foundational US fault line being relitigated for modern times. For 250 years, the United States of America has been defined by its fault lines, which have bound the landmass and its people together and, at times, have driven them apart. It is a history of rupture and repair. The original fault line was between the thirteen American colonies and British imperial rule. The Declaration of Independence stated that When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. For the American colonists, those causes emerged from British rule, which had brought a series of abuses and usurpations amounting to a form of Tyranny. Pursuing their unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, required an altering of their former Systems of Government, and a setting of a new course. In the centuries that followed independence, the US wrestled with a set of homegrown fault lines. The Civil War erupted along the great dividing line between the North and South over slavery, nearly ripping the country apart in the 1860s.  The most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe the current system of US democracy can provide rights, equity and prosperity for all, and those who do not. The American Industrial Revolution in the decades that followed created booming urban population centres, setting up an enduring tension between the US farming heartland and its cities. The social revolutions of the 1960s and 70s fractured the country along generational, gender and racial lines. Threaded throughout has been a series of disputes about economic distribution and equality, from taxation without representation to the Great Depression, the Seattle anti-globalization protests of 1999 and the Occupy Wall Street movement. Today, as the US looks to celebrate its 250th anniversary, the most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe the current system of US democracy can provide rights, equity and prosperity for all, and those who do not. It is, in fact, the foundational US fault line being relitigated for modern times. A long unthinkable question is being asked by Americans: is it necessary again to dissolve the political bands which connect them?The new (old) fault lineThis fault line can be seen at play in the emergence of New York City mayor and self- described democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani. It can be seen in the near daily reporting of outside political voices performing well in primaries running up to this years mid-term elections. Americans want new leadership. It can be seen in shifting views of wealth and anti-billionaire sentiment: Americans want affordability, and a majority now view billionaires as a threat to democracy. And it can be seen in the growing skepticism around artificial intelligence (AI), which has become the engine of US economic growth. More Americans now think AI will have a negative impact on society and are concerned about the personal dangers it poses. The fault line can also be discerned in a shift over the last decade from partisanship and polarization to radicalization: on 6 January 2021 citizens overtook the US capital to reject an election outcome they viewed as fraudulent. Politically motivated attacks have surged: In 2022 House Speaker Nancy Pelosis husband, Paul Pelosi, was attacked in his home. In 2024 and in 2026, attempts were made on the life of Donald Trump. In 2025, Melissa Hortman, a Democratic member of the Minnesota House of Representatives, was assassinated with her husband. Charlie Kirk, a right-wing political activist, was also assassinated that year. Meanwhile US governmental departments have flagged the threat posed by the accelerationist movement, an ideology holding that the democratic state is so corrupt and irreparable that violent action must be taken against it to precipitate its replacement. This turn towards the use of violence is not isolated. As many a third of Americans polled agree that the US government is corrupt and it may soon be time to take up arms against it. Americans are increasingly considering bullets over ballots. A loss of faithTogether, these fractures reflect a catastrophic loss of public trust in the US government from 49 per cent at the turn of this century to just 18 per cent as of 2025. Approval ratings of the executive, legislative and judicial approval ratings have also waivered.  Related work Europe watches the next American revolution take shape Especially telling is that even as Americans believe their freedoms are under threat, Supreme Court favourability has reached historic lows. The Supreme Court this cycle eased some restrictions on campaign finance caps, limited the scope of the Voting Rights Act and affirmed the presidents right to remove members of independent governmental agencies. But it also allowed mail-in ballot rules to stand and upheld birthright citizenship. Americans searching for clarity from the Court will be left wanting. As political skepticism grows, the two party-system that has defined US politics for centuries is showing cracks. A record-level 45 per cent of Americans now identify as independent of a political party. This surge in independents has overlapped with a declining number of Americans strongly identifying as either Republican or Democratic. Both parties are feeling this heat. For Republicans, questions of party cohesion and direction have for the last decade been answered by US President Donald Trump and the Make America Great Again movement. But defections from former prominent faces of the party including Representative Marjorie Taylor Green and journalist Tucker Carlson are revealing. 

What can financial regulators learn from Formula 1? What can financial regulators learn from Formula 1? Expert comment jon.wallace 2 July 2026 Formula 1s regulator uses a diverse toolkit of rules and penalties to deliver multiple objectives. This could hold lessons for financial regulators as they respond to a rapidly evolving financial system. Formula 1 (F1) racing is arguably the most complex sport in the world – and one of its most successful. This weekends British Grand Prix at Silverstone will attract around half a million spectators and 80 million TV viewers, while F1 commercial rights alone are valued at $23 billion. The F1 movie, released last June, is the most successful sports film ever made.F1 governance is not without its critics or its controversies, both historic and present day. But at the core of the sports continued success is the way it is regulated by the Fédération International de l Automobile (FIA). The FIAs approach to regulation may offer the worlds national and international financial regulators some valuable pointers on how to meet current challenges.        F1 regulation Liberty Media, a public company, is responsible for F1 s commercial exploitation. However, the FIA controls almost every aspect of F1. It sets the technical standards for the cars and the racetracks. It determines how races are run, how much each team can spend on competing, and even what media activities the drivers should undertake.  F1 regulations are designed to achieve multiple goals – from ensuring the safety of drivers and spectators to creating the spectacle that underpins the sports commercial success, to driving technical innovation with potential benefits across the entire automotive sector. While they are highly detailed, F1 regulations also deliberately leave scope for teams to compete through driver skills, race strategy and technical innovation. Thus, while F1 cars are very fast, with a maximum speed of around 230 mph, they are not designed to be the fastest possible. Nor in some areas do they use the latest available technologies. Electronic driver aids were banned in 1994 for safety reasons and because they reduced the role played by the driver. F1 technical regulations are frequently tweaked and periodically go through a major overhaul. The 2026 regulatory update was one of the most far reaching ever, eliminating complex systems for recovering engine heat and assisting overtaking through drag reduction. In their place is a larger electric engine and smaller internal combustion engine within the hybrid system, creating a roughly 50:50 split between petrol and electric power. To overtake, drivers can draw on a power boost from the electric engine, but having exhausted the battery are vulnerable to being overtaken themselves.    Related work Saving global economic governance from the Trump shock The changes have not been popular with some. But it is hard to dispute that races have become more exciting, featuring frequent changes of position among the leading cars. Meanwhile the rule changes have focused the teams technical skills and resources on advancing the design of hybrid power units, and in particularly those that use 100 per cent sustainable fuel – a new requirement in 2026. The intensely competitive innovative environment in F1 is one of the main reasons that major car manufacturers such as Mercedes, VW and Renault own F1 teams. Regulations are developed through close consultation with F1 teams. But once in place they are rigorously enforced. Some penalties are applied in real time while the race is running. There are also frequent inquiries into possible breaches of technical standards, sometimes resulting in a teams demotion or disqualification. Investigations are usually quick and teams and drivers do not hesitate to report on each other. Financial regulation and F1F1 is by no means the only sport with enormous viewing figures, an evolving rule book and vast financial resources. But it is arguably unique in three respects: the central role played by technical innovation; the high importance of safety regulation; and its relevance to growth in the wider economy. It also stands out for the diverse range of objectives that F1 regulators seek to satisfy and the complexity and sophistication of its regulation.  These features underpin the parallels between the role of the FIA and that of national and international financial regulators: The FIA must keep F1 drivers and spectators safe while promoting exciting racing, technical innovation and commercial success. Similarly, financial regulators must protect bank depositors – and indeed the whole economy – while promoting improved financial services, employment and economic growth. Lessons for financial regulatorsSo, what insights could financial regulators take from F1? Here are two suggestions. First, safety. F1 cars frequently crash and sometimes overturn, but in modern F1 drivers are very rarely hurt. Highly detailed regulations combined with innovation – such as the titanium halo which was made mandatory in 2018 to improve cockpit protection – have made an enormous difference in reducing driver deaths. 12 drivers died during races from 1970 to 1999, while only one has been killed since 2000. Financial regulators seek to prevent losses to retail consumers of financial services and/or the governments that provide insurance. But they typically do not seek to eliminate all risk on the grounds that the level of regulation required would be so high as prevent the financial system delivering on its core functions. However, the experience of F1 suggests policymakers should test this assumption.  A key lesson from F1 could be that regulators should be more willing to block innovation by financial institutions in some areas…and instead focus it even more proactively on areas like cybersecurity. For example, digital communication and artificial intelligence could allow regulators to collect and process much higher volumes of data on what financial institutions are doing with minimal cost to those being regulated. This appears highly intrusive, but it may also improve identification of illegal practices or excessive risk-taking without reducing the value the financial system can deliver to society. A further possible step, echoing F1s enforcement regime, would see financial regulators imposing more varied  prudential penalties more swiftly and with fewer grounds for appeal. The second insight is on innovation. The FIA does not think all innovation will necessarily benefit F1. Instead, it uses detailed regulation to block innovation in some areas and drive it forward in others. By doing so it focusses constructor competition and resources on areas that it judges to be of most benefit to the sport (for instance driver safety) or the wider economy (such as sustainable fuels). By contrast financial regulators tend to start from the assumption that innovation is likely to be of general benefit to the financial system and only seek to limit it when they see evidence of substantial risk. A key lesson from F1 could be that regulators should be more willing to block innovation by financial institutions in some areas, such as stablecoins, where the benefits to society are hard to demonstrate, and instead focus it even more proactively on areas like cybersecurity, where the benefits are clear and the risk of slow progress is high.  More broadly, a regulator inspired by the FIAs approach would find decisions on, for instance, whether to address perverse incentives through bonus caps a lot more straightforward. Similarly, central banks and financial regulators would not hesitate as much as they now do to use regulation to force the financial system to support the transition to net zero. And competition authorities might be more willing to use size caps on financial institutions to drive competition and broader economic growth. Of course, financial regulators might reasonably say that they already do many of the regulatory things that the FIA does. They might add that international competition, political lobbying and resource constraints prevent them from taking a more proactive approach in some areas. But the experience of Formula 1 suggests that a more complex, directive and ultimately intrusive regulatory approach can sometimes produce the best result not just for safety, but also for innovation and growth.    

On its 250th birthday, the US is still defined by its fault lines On its 250th birthday, the US is still defined by its fault lines Expert comment jon.wallace 2 July 2026 The most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe in the system of government and those who do not. It is, in fact, the foundational US fault line being relitigated for modern times. For 250 years, the United States of America has been defined by its fault lines, which have bound the landmass and its people together and, at times, have driven them apart. It is a history of rupture and repair. The original fault line was between the thirteen American colonies and British imperial rule. The Declaration of Independence stated that When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. For the American colonists, those causes emerged from British rule, which had brought a series of abuses and usurpations amounting to a form of Tyranny. Pursuing their unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, required an altering of their former Systems of Government, and a setting of a new course. In the centuries that followed independence, the US wrestled with a set of homegrown fault lines. The Civil War erupted along the great dividing line between the North and South over slavery, nearly ripping the country apart in the 1860s.  The most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe the current system of US democracy can provide rights, equity and prosperity for all, and those who do not. The American Industrial Revolution in the decades that followed created booming urban population centres, setting up an enduring tension between the US farming heartland and its cities. The social revolutions of the 1960s and 70s fractured the country along generational, gender and racial lines. Threaded throughout has been a series of disputes about economic distribution and equality, from taxation without representation to the Great Depression, the Seattle anti-globalization protests of 1999 and the Occupy Wall Street movement. Today, as the US looks to celebrate its 250th anniversary, the most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe the current system of US democracy can provide rights, equity and prosperity for all, and those who do not. It is, in fact, the foundational US fault line being relitigated for modern times. A long unthinkable question is being asked by Americans: is it necessary again to dissolve the political bands which connect them?The new (old) fault lineThis fault line can be seen at play in the emergence of New York City mayor and self- described democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani. It can be seen in the near daily reporting of outside political voices performing well in primaries running up to this years mid-term elections. Americans want new leadership. It can be seen in shifting views of wealth and anti-billionaire sentiment: Americans want affordability, and a majority now view billionaires as a threat to democracy. And it can be seen in the growing skepticism around artificial intelligence (AI), which has become the engine of US economic growth. More Americans now think AI will have a negative impact on society and are concerned about the personal dangers it poses. The fault line can also be discerned in a shift over the last decade from partisanship and polarization to radicalization: on 6 January 2021 citizens overtook the US capital to reject an election outcome they viewed as fraudulent. Politically motivated attacks have surged: In 2022 House Speaker Nancy Pelosis husband, Paul Pelosi, was attacked in his home. In 2024 and in 2026, attempts were made on the life of Donald Trump. In 2025, Melissa Hortman, a Democratic member of the Minnesota House of Representatives, was assassinated with her husband. Charlie Kirk, a right-wing political activist, was also assassinated that year. Meanwhile US governmental departments have flagged the threat posed by the accelerationist movement, an ideology holding that the democratic state is so corrupt and irreparable that violent action must be taken against it to precipitate its replacement. This turn towards the use of violence is not isolated. As many a third of Americans polled agree that the US government is corrupt and it may soon be time to take up arms against it. Americans are increasingly considering bullets over ballots. A loss of faithTogether, these fractures reflect a catastrophic loss of public trust in the US government from 49 per cent at the turn of this century to just 18 per cent as of 2025. Approval ratings of the executive, legislative and judicial approval ratings have also waivered.  Related work Europe watches the next American revolution take shape Especially telling is that even as Americans believe their freedoms are under threat, Supreme Court favourability has reached historic lows. The Supreme Court this cycle eased some restrictions on campaign finance caps, limited the scope of the Voting Rights Act and affirmed the presidents right to remove members of independent governmental agencies. But it also allowed mail-in ballot rules to stand and upheld birthright citizenship. Americans searching for clarity from the Court will be left wanting. As political skepticism grows, the two party-system that has defined US politics for centuries is showing cracks. A record-level 45 per cent of Americans now identify as independent of a political party. This surge in independents has overlapped with a declining number of Americans strongly identifying as either Republican or Democratic. Both parties are feeling this heat. For Republicans, questions of party cohesion and direction have for the last decade been answered by US President Donald Trump and the Make America Great Again movement. But defections from former prominent faces of the party including Representative Marjorie Taylor Green and journalist Tucker Carlson are revealing. 

What can financial regulators learn from Formula 1? What can financial regulators learn from Formula 1? Expert comment jon.wallace 2 July 2026 Formula 1s regulator uses a diverse toolkit of rules and penalties to deliver multiple objectives. This could hold lessons for financial regulators as they respond to a rapidly evolving financial system. Formula 1 (F1) racing is arguably the most complex sport in the world – and one of its most successful. This weekends British Grand Prix at Silverstone will attract around half a million spectators and 80 million TV viewers, while F1 commercial rights alone are valued at $23 billion. The F1 movie, released last June, is the most successful sports film ever made.F1 governance is not without its critics or its controversies, both historic and present day. But at the core of the sports continued success is the way it is regulated by the Fédération International de l Automobile (FIA). The FIAs approach to regulation may offer the worlds national and international financial regulators some valuable pointers on how to meet current challenges.        F1 regulation Liberty Media, a public company, is responsible for F1 s commercial exploitation. However, the FIA controls almost every aspect of F1. It sets the technical standards for the cars and the racetracks. It determines how races are run, how much each team can spend on competing, and even what media activities the drivers should undertake.  F1 regulations are designed to achieve multiple goals – from ensuring the safety of drivers and spectators to creating the spectacle that underpins the sports commercial success, to driving technical innovation with potential benefits across the entire automotive sector. While they are highly detailed, F1 regulations also deliberately leave scope for teams to compete through driver skills, race strategy and technical innovation. Thus, while F1 cars are very fast, with a maximum speed of around 230 mph, they are not designed to be the fastest possible. Nor in some areas do they use the latest available technologies. Electronic driver aids were banned in 1994 for safety reasons and because they reduced the role played by the driver. F1 technical regulations are frequently tweaked and periodically go through a major overhaul. The 2026 regulatory update was one of the most far reaching ever, eliminating complex systems for recovering engine heat and assisting overtaking through drag reduction. In their place is a larger electric engine and smaller internal combustion engine within the hybrid system, creating a roughly 50:50 split between petrol and electric power. To overtake, drivers can draw on a power boost from the electric engine, but having exhausted the battery are vulnerable to being overtaken themselves.    Related work Saving global economic governance from the Trump shock The changes have not been popular with some. But it is hard to dispute that races have become more exciting, featuring frequent changes of position among the leading cars. Meanwhile the rule changes have focused the teams technical skills and resources on advancing the design of hybrid power units, and in particularly those that use 100 per cent sustainable fuel – a new requirement in 2026. The intensely competitive innovative environment in F1 is one of the main reasons that major car manufacturers such as Mercedes, VW and Renault own F1 teams. Regulations are developed through close consultation with F1 teams. But once in place they are rigorously enforced. Some penalties are applied in real time while the race is running. There are also frequent inquiries into possible breaches of technical standards, sometimes resulting in a teams demotion or disqualification. Investigations are usually quick and teams and drivers do not hesitate to report on each other. Financial regulation and F1F1 is by no means the only sport with enormous viewing figures, an evolving rule book and vast financial resources. But it is arguably unique in three respects: the central role played by technical innovation; the high importance of safety regulation; and its relevance to growth in the wider economy. It also stands out for the diverse range of objectives that F1 regulators seek to satisfy and the complexity and sophistication of its regulation.  These features underpin the parallels between the role of the FIA and that of national and international financial regulators: The FIA must keep F1 drivers and spectators safe while promoting exciting racing, technical innovation and commercial success. Similarly, financial regulators must protect bank depositors – and indeed the whole economy – while promoting improved financial services, employment and economic growth. Lessons for financial regulatorsSo, what insights could financial regulators take from F1? Here are two suggestions. First, safety. F1 cars frequently crash and sometimes overturn, but in modern F1 drivers are very rarely hurt. Highly detailed regulations combined with innovation – such as the titanium halo which was made mandatory in 2018 to improve cockpit protection – have made an enormous difference in reducing driver deaths. 12 drivers died during races from 1970 to 1999, while only one has been killed since 2000. Financial regulators seek to prevent losses to retail consumers of financial services and/or the governments that provide insurance. But they typically do not seek to eliminate all risk on the grounds that the level of regulation required would be so high as prevent the financial system delivering on its core functions. However, the experience of F1 suggests policymakers should test this assumption.  A key lesson from F1 could be that regulators should be more willing to block innovation by financial institutions in some areas…and instead focus it even more proactively on areas like cybersecurity. For example, digital communication and artificial intelligence could allow regulators to collect and process much higher volumes of data on what financial institutions are doing with minimal cost to those being regulated. This appears highly intrusive, but it may also improve identification of illegal practices or excessive risk-taking without reducing the value the financial system can deliver to society. A further possible step, echoing F1s enforcement regime, would see financial regulators imposing more varied  prudential penalties more swiftly and with fewer grounds for appeal. The second insight is on innovation. The FIA does not think all innovation will necessarily benefit F1. Instead, it uses detailed regulation to block innovation in some areas and drive it forward in others. By doing so it focusses constructor competition and resources on areas that it judges to be of most benefit to the sport (for instance driver safety) or the wider economy (such as sustainable fuels). By contrast financial regulators tend to start from the assumption that innovation is likely to be of general benefit to the financial system and only seek to limit it when they see evidence of substantial risk. A key lesson from F1 could be that regulators should be more willing to block innovation by financial institutions in some areas, such as stablecoins, where the benefits to society are hard to demonstrate, and instead focus it even more proactively on areas like cybersecurity, where the benefits are clear and the risk of slow progress is high.  More broadly, a regulator inspired by the FIAs approach would find decisions on, for instance, whether to address perverse incentives through bonus caps a lot more straightforward. Similarly, central banks and financial regulators would not hesitate as much as they now do to use regulation to force the financial system to support the transition to net zero. And competition authorities might be more willing to use size caps on financial institutions to drive competition and broader economic growth. Of course, financial regulators might reasonably say that they already do many of the regulatory things that the FIA does. They might add that international competition, political lobbying and resource constraints prevent them from taking a more proactive approach in some areas. But the experience of Formula 1 suggests that a more complex, directive and ultimately intrusive regulatory approach can sometimes produce the best result not just for safety, but also for innovation and growth.    

On its 250th birthday, the US is still defined by its fault lines On its 250th birthday, the US is still defined by its fault lines Expert comment jon.wallace 2 July 2026 The most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe in the system of government and those who do not. It is, in fact, the foundational US fault line being relitigated for modern times. For 250 years, the United States of America has been defined by its fault lines, which have bound the landmass and its people together and, at times, have driven them apart. It is a history of rupture and repair. The original fault line was between the thirteen American colonies and British imperial rule. The Declaration of Independence stated that When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. For the American colonists, those causes emerged from British rule, which had brought a series of abuses and usurpations amounting to a form of Tyranny. Pursuing their unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, required an altering of their former Systems of Government, and a setting of a new course. In the centuries that followed independence, the US wrestled with a set of homegrown fault lines. The Civil War erupted along the great dividing line between the North and South over slavery, nearly ripping the country apart in the 1860s.  The most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe the current system of US democracy can provide rights, equity and prosperity for all, and those who do not. The American Industrial Revolution in the decades that followed created booming urban population centres, setting up an enduring tension between the US farming heartland and its cities. The social revolutions of the 1960s and 70s fractured the country along generational, gender and racial lines. Threaded throughout has been a series of disputes about economic distribution and equality, from taxation without representation to the Great Depression, the Seattle anti-globalization protests of 1999 and the Occupy Wall Street movement. Today, as the US looks to celebrate its 250th anniversary, the most urgent fault line in US politics is between those who believe the current system of US democracy can provide rights, equity and prosperity for all, and those who do not. It is, in fact, the foundational US fault line being relitigated for modern times. A long unthinkable question is being asked by Americans: is it necessary again to dissolve the political bands which connect them?The new (old) fault lineThis fault line can be seen at play in the emergence of New York City mayor and self- described democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani. It can be seen in the near daily reporting of outside political voices performing well in primaries running up to this years mid-term elections. Americans want new leadership. It can be seen in shifting views of wealth and anti-billionaire sentiment: Americans want affordability, and a majority now view billionaires as a threat to democracy. And it can be seen in the growing skepticism around artificial intelligence (AI), which has become the engine of US economic growth. More Americans now think AI will have a negative impact on society and are concerned about the personal dangers it poses. The fault line can also be discerned in a shift over the last decade from partisanship and polarization to radicalization: on 6 January 2021 citizens overtook the US capital to reject an election outcome they viewed as fraudulent. Politically motivated attacks have surged: In 2022 House Speaker Nancy Pelosis husband, Paul Pelosi, was attacked in his home. In 2024 and in 2026, attempts were made on the life of Donald Trump. In 2025, Melissa Hortman, a Democratic member of the Minnesota House of Representatives, was assassinated with her husband. Charlie Kirk, a right-wing political activist, was also assassinated that year. Meanwhile US governmental departments have flagged the threat posed by the accelerationist movement, an ideology holding that the democratic state is so corrupt and irreparable that violent action must be taken against it to precipitate its replacement. This turn towards the use of violence is not isolated. As many a third of Americans polled agree that the US government is corrupt and it may soon be time to take up arms against it. Americans are increasingly considering bullets over ballots. A loss of faithTogether, these fractures reflect a catastrophic loss of public trust in the US government from 49 per cent at the turn of this century to just 18 per cent as of 2025. Approval ratings of the executive, legislative and judicial approval ratings have also waivered.  Related work Europe watches the next American revolution take shape Especially telling is that even as Americans believe their freedoms are under threat, Supreme Court favourability has reached historic lows. The Supreme Court this cycle eased some restrictions on campaign finance caps, limited the scope of the Voting Rights Act and affirmed the presidents right to remove members of independent governmental agencies. But it also allowed mail-in ballot rules to stand and upheld birthright citizenship. Americans searching for clarity from the Court will be left wanting. As political skepticism grows, the two party-system that has defined US politics for centuries is showing cracks. A record-level 45 per cent of Americans now identify as independent of a political party. This surge in independents has overlapped with a declining number of Americans strongly identifying as either Republican or Democratic. Both parties are feeling this heat. For Republicans, questions of party cohesion and direction have for the last decade been answered by US President Donald Trump and the Make America Great Again movement. But defections from former prominent faces of the party including Representative Marjorie Taylor Green and journalist Tucker Carlson are revealing.