The debate about how to control AI and limit its potential for damage is healthy and necessary. It is also unavoidable and urgent. 

But this is not the only vital debate. There are also vital questions about how the upsides of AI are shared fairly. Business as usual has left the world's poorest people behind, so far. And for those caught up in conflict—in places like Sudan, Ukraine, Gaza, and Afghanistan—AI can help meet urgent needs. 

It is clear to me that the world has more resources to do good than at any time in human history, but too often, we don't distribute them where they are most needed. Now, AI stands to create even more resources in the form of free time, insights, and funds. And they need to be spent in the right places.

The AI revolution is going to mint a new generation of billionaires and millionaires—and with them, a new generation of philanthropists; a term stemming from the Ancient Greek philanthropia, meaning “love of humanity”. It’s a reminder that the act of giving begins with some of the most fundamentally human impulses: care, love, empathy, and selflessness.

Maybe this explains why Effective Altruism—the idea that generosity should be subjected to evidence and calculation—seemed counterintuitive. But I never understood why. After all, who wants ineffective altruism? We should all be asking where our money can do the most good. 

Organizations working at the sharpest end of the world’s toughest problems—like the one I lead—need philanthropy to be the smart money: hard-headed as well as big-hearted, focused on outcomes not visibility, concerned to add value not just kudos. Results, not just responsibility, should be the watchword.

Fortunately, there’s been an evidence revolution over the last 20 years. We know a whole lot more about what actually works. This makes giving much easier. Distance no longer needs to be the enemy of confidence. 

In fact, there is every reason to think globally, not just locally, about where to make a difference. As the world has become more and more connected, governments have retreated from global problems. For instance, official development assistance funds from Organisation for  Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries dropped by a historic 23.1% in 2025. Now, we need new philanthropy to provide some balance in a world that is clearly out of balance.

Around 94% of American philanthropy is spent in the U.S. But the rest of the world is not just where the needs are greatest—from acute childhood malnutrition to violence against women—but where the gains from philanthropy can be greatest.

The 20 countries at greatest risk of a worsening humanitarian crisis, ranked by the International Rescue Committee (IRC) annually in our Emergency Watchlist, represent just 12% of the global population, but 90% of those in humanitarian need. In these places, led by regions like Sudan, Gaza, and South Sudan, children are three times more likely to die before their fifth birthday and 10 times more likely to grow up in extreme poverty than children born elsewhere. The people living here have done the least to contribute to climate change, but face the combined pressures of climate change and conflict—and receive the least support to adapt.  

If philanthropy and its “love of humanity” belong anywhere, it is these areas. And just in time, humanitarians have developed increasingly sophisticated tools to transform what we know about how to help people survive through and recover from crisis.  Real-time data, randomized controlled trials, cost-effectiveness and cost-efficiency analysis, plus predictive analytics, have transformed the evidence base and the basis for action.  

The IRC alone has conducted over 50 impact evaluations since 2020 as well as 500 cost analyses, allowing us to measure not simply whether an intervention works, but how much it costs and how much further each additional dollar can go. So we don't need to be daunted by the big numbers highlighting the 43 million children who are acutely malnourished, the 20 million kids without full immunization, over 300 million people hungry, and hundreds of thousands of women dying in childbirth in fragile states alone. These are problems that we actually know how to solve at manageable, in fact low, cost.

For example, we have learned how to deliver vaccine shots—40 million of them—at just $2 a shot in places like Somalia, South Sudan, and Yemen, negotiating with armed groups along the way to get access to populations otherwise cut off from healthcare.  This offers lifelong benefit, not just a short-term palliative.

We’ve shown how local health workers can more simply diagnose and treat acute malnutrition directly in communities where crisis-affected children live. This approach offers a 92% recovery rate, and earlier interventions can catch malnutrition before it becomes severe. The result is that we are 20% more cost-effective, allowing us to help more kids for the same amount of money.  

There are more examples. We've demonstrated that violence against women and violence against kids can be reduced by over 70% when they are tackled together. We have also proven the benefits of giving aid in advance of climate disasters, not just in reaction to them: in Afghanistan, our clients were three times less likely to fall further into poverty. 

Of course, the contexts stricken by war and state failure are challenging. But that makes the philanthropic imperative towards the people who live there all the more urgent.

The same technology that is delivering fortunes in Silicon Valley can also deliver help to the least fortunate. IRC’s global digital helpdesk, Signpost, has reached 20 million people forced to flee crisis in 12 languages with timely, life-saving information. Leading tech companies helped us develop it.  In Somalia, IRC teams employed anticipatory action ahead of last year’s devastating drought, a disaster that typically drives cholera outbreaks. Again, it took partnership of financial support, technical know-how, and NGO savvy.

In all these areas, the traditional aid system is falling short.  Too often, climate and humanitarian systems work in separate silos. Despite the evidence, less than 1% of aid is invested in anticipatory action. Every government donor has its own bureaucracy, with different reporting systems, compliance requirements, and measurement metrics. 

This is the syndrome that philanthropy can help break. By focusing on what works, measuring what counts, and investing in innovation. The risk does not lie in action; it lies in inertia. 

We know more than ever about what works in humanitarian crises, and we have new tools capable of extending those gains. The opportunity for this generation of philanthropists is not simply to give more. It is to take what we have learned and apply it where the stakes are highest. The real test isn't how much they give. It’s where.

In 2024, two Michigan high school students were sitting in the bleachers during a student-teacher basketball game when their physical education teacher collapsed from cardiac arrest. They had both recently learned cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) at a career-focused technical nursing center and rushed to help, beginning chest compressions and using an automated external defibrillator (AED) before emergency responders arrived. 

Thanks to their actions, their teacher survived, and is one of approximately 350,000 Americans who experience an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest each year. Roughly nine out of ten will not survive. 

We often describe the difference between life and death as a matter of speed: how quickly emergency services arrive and how fast a hospital can intervene. But in reality, cardiac arrest outcomes often depend on whether someone nearby begins CPR in the first few minutes, which rarely belong to emergency responders, but instead to whomever is standing closest: a classmate, teacher, stranger at a basketball game, or someone waiting for a train. Every minute without CPR sharply reduces the chances the patient will live long enough to reach a hospital.

Schools occupy a special role in public health. As a location most Americans pass through and one of the only places they may ever encounter CPR training, a high school classroom may be the best opportunity to prepare the next generation of lifesavers. 

Schools already rehearse fire drills and lockdown drills for dangers that are statistically rare. Cardiac arrest is the reverse: far more common, and far less rehearsed. CPR skills can save lives years down the road when a cardiac arrest occurs at home, in a gym, at an airport, or at a university. Harnessing that opportunity requires both the resources to teach CPR effectively and the policies to ensure every student has the chance to learn it.

In Europe, Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Portugal, and England implemented school CPR education through national requirements or curriculum standards. Denmark offers a clear example of the positive impact. From 2001 to 2010, as Denmark introduced nationwide resuscitation initiatives including mandatory school CPR education, bystander CPR rates more than doubled, while 30-day survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest more than tripled.

A central challenge is how to implement CPR training at scale. The international KIDS SAVE LIVES initiative offers a practical blueprint. Endorsed by the World Health Organization, it calls for recurring, age-appropriate basic life support education beginning in childhood. Research from the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation shows children can learn the early links in the chain of survival from the young age of 4, perform effective chest compressions by age 12, and pass skills to family members and others.

Some may hesitate to perform CPR because of legal concerns over causing injury—like rib fractures—while administering CPR, but every state has Good Samaritan laws providing protections to people who render emergency aid in good faith. A 30-year review of U.S. litigation across all 50 states from 1989 to 2019 found no cases in which a layperson who provided CPR was held liable for causing harm. 

The U.S. has also made significant progress in bringing CPR education into schools. In 1984, Alabama became the first state to require CPR instruction for high school graduation. Over the four decades since, communities have taken different approaches to bring CPR into the classroom. In West Virginia and Alaska, educators’ unions formally backed legislation requiring CPR education, while efforts in Washington and Illinois advanced in memory of students lost to cardiac arrest.

Today, 43 states require some form of CPR education before high school graduation. California, Colorado, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Hampshire, and Wyoming are the seven that remain. Several are already taking steps to expand CPR education. Massachusetts invested $425,000 to expand CPR education in public schools, while Colorado includes hands-on CPR and AED instruction in its statewide health education guidelines but stops short of requiring schools to provide it. California Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed a resolution directing the Instructional Quality Commission to include high school CPR in the state’s next health curriculum framework. San Francisco is taking an even broader approach, with paramedics and firefighters working to train 100,000 community members in CPR.

There is evidence that laws can translate into lifesaving action. A study of nearly 300,000 out-of-hospital cardiac arrests across 20 states found that patients had 12% higher odds of receiving bystander CPR in states with high school CPR education laws than those without them.

Other lifesaving education efforts can also offer a roadmap. In Georgia, Wesley’s Law, championed by Laura and Larry Gay after their son’s death, required public schools to stock overdose-reversal medication such as naloxone. In 2025, the state launched an opioid-settlement-funded initiative to provide overdose-reversal kits to public schools statewide, along with training resources for staff. In Indiana, emergency-response professionals helped expand Stop the Bleed training in schools, and the state’s Secured School Safety Grant program now offers funding for school bleeding-control programs and kits.

Both examples demonstrate how local champions and an existing source of funding can help turn a lifesaving idea into reality. Broadening collaboration among organizations such as the American Medical Association, American Red Cross, Project ADAM, and American Heart Association can also help expand CPR education nationwide.

After Buffalo Bills safety Damar Hamlin suffered cardiac arrest on the field in 2023, he became a leading advocate for the bipartisan HEARTS Act, which Congress passed unanimously in 2024. President Biden signed it into law later that year, supporting schools in expanding access to AEDs, CPR and AED education, and cardiac emergency response planning.

Cardiac arrest does not wait for emergency responders. The students who stepped forward when their teacher collapsed playing basketball in Michigan illustrate what becomes possible when CPR skills are taught before they are needed. Someday, every high school student in the U.S. could graduate prepared to step up and become a lifesaver.

The war in Iran, AI, and countries’ growing debt burden all sat at the top of the agenda as leaders of the world’s international financial institutions gathered in Bangkok this week for the fall meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF). 

Even with some bright spots, the picture is challenging. The war has driven up fuel prices, leading to inflation. Meanwhile, public debt is soaring, a development the IMF warns is unsustainable. And the enormous investment in AI is a positive development keeping the bottom from falling out—though only in certain economies. 

At a first glance, climate change, once touted as a key priority by the two most influential international financial institutions, has fallen off the agenda. But take a closer look and it’s hard to miss how climate change—and the related deployment of clean energy—will play an important role in economic performance. Climate events have worsened the debt challenge in developing countries. Clean energy, on the other hand, has served as a critical defense mechanism that has kept the energy price crisis from getting worse in places where it has been deployed at scale. 

A report from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) released this week alongside the fall meetings gets at the heart of this challenge while barely mentioning climate change at all—at least in those words. The report points to what it describes as a “triple shock”: high borrowing costs, the energy price spike, and extreme weather events driven by this year’s El Niño, which is on course to set records. 

The policy responses aren’t coded climate policy—and in many cases they’re actively bad for climate efforts. The most common response cited by the report is fuel price support, think of subsidies or fuel tax reductions. An IEA survey cited by the report identified 95 countries with such policies. Explicit fuel subsidies could surpass $1 trillion this year globally, according to the UNDP. But, as the report notes, such an approach isn’t sustainable. Backlash to higher prices persists even as governments spend to keep citizens happy. In a smaller group of countries, mostly those most dependent on imports, longer-term, structural changes are emerging: investments in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and electrification. Think of subsidies for electric buses or cutting tariffs on solar panels. 

But not every country can afford to remake its energy system with structural changes. Heavy indebtedness and high interest rates are key factors. So too is El Niño and broader climate shocks, which make it harder for countries to pay for new infrastructure that reduces exposure to fossil fuel volatility. 

The IMF’s World Economic Outlook is similarly light on climate talk. But follow it to its logical conclusion, and it takes the UNDP argument even further. Indebtedness makes it more difficult to invest in AI infrastructure necessary to compete in the emerging economy. It plots countries’ AI preparedness alongside the non-fossil share of their energy supply, suggesting that energy security and the capacity to adopt AI may increasingly intersect. After all, dependence on volatile imported fossil fuels only compounds this challenge given AI’s energy needs.

This emergent growth dynamic comes with important implications. For one, it adds yet another layer to the argument for non-fossil energy in emerging markets. But it also shows how complicated achieving that end will be. Cheap clean tech hardware isn’t enough. 

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney on Thursday warned that the United States is trying to sow discord as he urged Albertans not to vote for a separation referendum.

“The stakes are high. This referendum, it comes at the worst possible time. The world has become more dangerous and divided,” Carney said at a rally in Calgary ahead of Monday’s vote, which will see residents decide whether the oil-rich province should hold a referendum on independence. “There are some outside our borders who are working to break us, so they can own us.”

While Carney didn’t explicitly name the U.S., the remarks echoed his previous warnings of the dangers of American dominance. Carney's statement came a day after U.S. President Donald Trump revisited his ambitions to annex Canada, telling the crowd at a rally in Arizona that the country will “end up being the 51st state, because it's the only way it works.” Trump again accused Canada of treating the U.S. “very badly” and vowed he won’t allow it to happen anymore as “it’s a whole different ballgame now [that] Trump is in town.”

The U.S. and Canada remain in a contentious trade standoff after negotiations collapsed in August. Canada’s retaliatory tariffs came into effect last month, matching the economic pressure imposed by the U.S. Carney has encouraged Canadians to band together and take back their economic power by choosing Canadian products over those made in the U.S. The trade tussle comes after months of Trump repeatedly threatening Canada’s sovereignty—a move that has stoked tensions between the U.S. Administration and Canadian officials.

In light of Trump’s most recent remarks about possible annexation, Canada’s former deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland said it would be dangerous to deepen or maintain close economic ties with a neighbor that “openly says they want to take you over.”

Carney admitted in an interview with the New York Times last month that he had studied the risk of a U.S. invasion, given Trump’s charged rhetoric. “I think you have a responsibility in these roles to look at extreme tail risk,” he said. “That’s just risk management. That’s not a base case, but it would be irresponsible not to [prepare].”

Amid the U.S.-Canada tensions, Carney is desperately trying to promote his “Canada Strong” strategy—one that he hopes will very much include Alberta. Polling conducted by 338Canada suggests that as of Oct. 11, 75% of Albertans would vote to remain part of Canada. But Carney’s resolve is being tested on more than one front, after the separatist Parti Québécois won Quebec's provincial election earlier this month. Incoming Premier Paul St-Pierre Plamondon has already stated his intention to hold a referendum on Quebec independence. While he has vowed not to initiate a vote so long as Trump is in office, the looming presence of a separatist movement undoubtedly complicates matters for Carney at a time when he is striving to show that Canada is strong enough to prosper without relying on the American market.

With the U.S. and Canada locked in a trade stalemate, and with annexation threats once again dominating the conversation, here’s a look at the reality Carney is facing as he deals with both domestic and international pressures.

Trump's remarks complicate Carney’s unity efforts

Trump’s accusations that Canada has taken advantage of the U.S. on matters of trade and security date back to before Carney became Prime Minister in March 2025, meaning the friction we’re currently seeing goes deeper than a simple clash between Trump and Carney. Trump would often refer to Carney's predecessor Justin Trudeau as the "governor" of the "great state of Canada."

In terms of any physical threat facing Canada, Patrick Leblond, a professor of public and international affairs at the University of Ottawa, says that Carney “put it best when he talked about tail risk” in his interview with the Times. “It’s the financial term for something that has potentially high impact, but low probability,” Leblond explains.

Trump’s economic actions and threats have proven to be far more damaging than his annexation remarks, experts note.

“He has weaponized market access to the U.S.,” says Leblond. “What we can expect is more economic pressure from the White House in the coming months. Trump and his acolytes certainly [appear to] see Canada as a small, weak country that the United States should try to squeeze further.”

The U.S. is Canada’s largest trading partner, with almost $2.6 billion worth of goods and services passing across the border daily in 2024. According to the Office for the U.S. Trade Representative, trade between the two was down 4.6% from 2024 to 2025, but still saw $872.3 billion worth of goods and services cross the border.

Still, there are concerns that any suggestion of annexation, however unlikely it may be, could damage Carney’s high-stakes domestic campaign to unite the country.

On the home front, the success of a separatist party in Quebec is another threat to the unity that Carney is striving for. However, despite the Parti Québécois' victory (they fell five seats short of securing a majority government), the desire for separatism among Quebec residents remains low—with only 31% in favor of sovereignty for the province, according to data from 338 Canada released on Oct. 11.

“If Quebec is on a path to separation or not, it would never be because they were looking for further alignment with the United States,” argues Lori Turnbull, a professor in political science at Dalhousie University. “Quebec has a variety of cultural protections in the Canadian federation. They would have none of that in the United States.”

The more immediate risk for Carney lies in Alberta, with residents preparing to vote on whether the province should hold a referendum on independence.

Carney, who was raised in Edmonton, Alberta, on Thursday framed the referendum as an opportunity for voters to “stand up for Alberta, the heart of Canada” and “recognize that we're all responsible for each other.”

How Trump’s threats could also help Carney

The pressure and rhetoric from the U.S. could actually work in Carney’s favor, experts tell TIME.

“The effect of Trump's comments has been unifying,” says Turnbull. Despite discussions of independence in Alberta and Quebec, she says “there isn't widespread panic that the country is coming apart.”

In fact, research conducted by the Environics Institute for Survey Research in 2025 found that “in almost every province, the proportion of residents who are very attached to Canada is greater than the proportion who are very attached to their province.”

Between Trudeau’s resignation on Jan. 6, 2025, and a federal election in Canada months later on April 28, Carney’s Liberal Party went from 20% to 42.8% in the polls, according to CBC, with Carney’s message of defiance in the face of Trump proving to be a rallying point.

This falls in line with depleting favorable views of the U.S. among Canadians. In July, 44% of Canadians had a favorable opinion of China compared to 33% of Canadians who held the same view of the U.S., according to a Pew Research Center survey. “When China is more popular than the U.S. in a country like Canada, you have to ask yourself: ‘What's going on?’” says Leblond.

Continued annexation threats could bring Canadians even closer together.  “Already, trust is very low, and [more threats] would confirm even more that the United States is [perhaps] not a trustworthy partner at this time,” Leblond argues.

Since the U.S.-Canada trade war reignited in August, Carney has seen his domestic approval rating bounce back up. On Oct. 15, it stood at 62% according to Poliwave, compared to 56% in mid-July. Carney’s resistance against American economic pressures could help his cause, particularly in possible separatist provinces.

“In August, when Carney walked out of the negotiations with the U.S., the highest levels of support for him were found in Quebec,” says Leblond. Indeed, Carney’s approval rating in Quebec grew from 76% to 80% between Aug. 17, and Sep. 7, the highest in any province, according to Liaison Strategies.

Turnbull says the support behind Carney’s decision to walk away from negotiations prompted a strong sense of “patriotism and loyalty.” 

That attitude among Canadians has been reflected in the burgeoning “Buy Canadian” movement, in which consumers across the country have joined a boycott of U.S. products in an effort to feed back into the Canadian economy. 

Carney strengthens international alliances to end reliance on American market 

In September, European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen invited Canada to work toward becoming the bloc’s first “associate member,” in what she described as an “urgent” reimagining of partnerships.

While addressing the European Parliament as a guest of honor in Strasbourg, France, Carney insisted “Europe and Canada are stronger together” and said “Canada and the European Union can anchor our ground to hold our values while forming a protective canopy under which our citizens can thrive.”

Trump called the unique membership proposal “laughable” and has threatened economic punishments if the E.U. moves forward with von der Leyen’s plan.

Carney’s shift towards other partnerships “doesn't mean that Canada is not going to do business with the U.S., but it's no longer a preferred partner,” says Leblond, noting that Carney wants to build relations with partners that “share the same values in terms of rules-based trade and investment.”

In January, after meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Carney announced a new strategic partnership with China, focused on “energy, agri-food, and trade.” Carney agreed to cut his country’s 100% tariff on Chinese electric cars in return for lower tariffs on Canadian farm products, including canola seeds, a major Canadian export.

These stronger international ties that diversify trade and security away from the U.S. are proving popular on the homefront, according to data. 

According to Abacus Data, a survey conducted in September found that 49% of Canadians would support Canada joining the E.U. An Ipsos poll conducted in January, in light of Carney’s visit to China, found that 54% of Canadians also said they support stronger trade ties with China.

Katie Zacharia is exiting her job as White House Press Secretary after just five days in the position, according to a person familiar with the situation. President Donald Trump on Friday said to reporters that he told Zacharia to reconsider her role, amid reports that she had already been relieved of the job.

“I said to her honestly, if I were you, I'd reconsider,” Trump said outside of the White House, adding, “Katie, do you need this? I don’t think you need this.”

Trump said that the decision was ultimately hers, and that he would speak with Zacharia following a trip to Georgia. “I just want her to be happy,” he said.

Zacharia’s brief stint as press secretary is bound to draw comparisons to Anthony Scaramucci’s 11-day run as Trump's White House communications director in 2017. Then-White House Chief of Staff John Kelly fired Scaramucci after he had given a fiery interview to The New Yorker in which he attacked his colleagues. In Washington parlance, the tenures of prominent White House officials have since been jokingly measured in “Scaramuccis.”

Trump said that Zacharia has been treated “pretty nastily” and “very unfairly” by the media since taking over for former Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. 

“I said you should reconsider because you don't want to go through this,” he said in reference to the critical media response Zacharia received following her first press briefing on Tuesday.

Trump called Zacharia “an attorney” in his Truth Social post announcing her position, and Zacharia has described herself as a lawyer. But when asked by a reporter where she had passed the bar, Zacharia responded “when I moved to China.” She later said that she had misheard the question. Zacharia then acknowledged while speaking on Fox that she had failed the bar exam.

"You went to Pepperdine law school but you did not pass the bar exam, correct?" Fox host Sean Hannity asked Zacharia on Thursday.

"Correct," Zacharia replied.

When asked whether she regretted never having told the White House that she failed the bar, Zacharia responded “those questions weren’t asked,” and “I’m being hired as White House press secretary, not White House counsel.”

Zacharia previously worked as a general counsel at a the conservative non-profit Fix California. She also has experience working as a communications adviser at Trump Media and Technology Group, which houses the President’s social media platform Truth Social. She previously worked as a spokesperson for former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and is a regular on conservative media outlets like Fox News and Newsmax.

Zacharia received a wave of criticism following her first press briefing, which lasted just 14 minutes and during which she only took questions from three reporters. 

Leavitt, the youngest press secretary in White House history, stepped down in August after returning from maternity leave. She recently joined Fox News as an on-air contributor. 

Ukrainian forces said Wednesday its battlefield efforts had been hampered overnight after losing some access to SpaceX’s military-grade satellite Internet service, which has become a lifeline as Kyiv weathers Moscow's attacks.

Starlink offers Internet connectivity from satellites in low-Earth orbit. Its sister service Starshield, a military version developed for the Pentagon, relies on the Starlink network and has recently been used by Ukrainian forces to strengthen its far-reaching drone strike missions and air defenses.

Serhiy Beskrestnov, a military technology expert who advises Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, said speed restrictions had been imposed on the "military package" of Starshield services, leading to the “failure” of several military missions. “Our defense forces have not received any warnings about this restriction,” he said. Beskrestnov claimed the restrictions, which he said applied to devices traveling over 100 miles per hour and using Starshield, were “related to the current political situation.” He did not offer further details.

Tensions are high between the U.S. and Ukraine, as Zelensky has been vocal in his disapproval of U.S. President Donald Trump’s plan to import diesel from Russia, despite previous sanctions prohibiting it. The move has also caused a split in Trump’s own party, with several Republican lawmakers urging him to reverse course. After making the deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week, Trump announced an “energy cease-fire” between Russia and Ukraine—but Zelensky swiftly accused Moscow of violating any such agreement and Ukraine has, in turn, resumed strikes on Russian oil refineries, despite pressure from Washington. Trump called Ukraine's fresh wave of strikes on Russian refineries a "disgrace" in an interview that aired Thursday.

Speaking from the U.K., Zelensky said Wednesday it was a “pity” Ukrainian forces had experienced “difficulties” with Starlink services and intelligence, adding that he was surprised by the developments in Ukraine’s partnership with the U.S. In an interview on Piers Morgan Uncensored, Zelensky suggested he believed Starlink had been slowed down to damage him, and warned “people will die, if attacks will continue and if Starlink will not work … it’s not helpful.” He said he hoped the restriction was only a “mistake,” suggesting it was perhaps "a huge technical problem” at SpaceX.

However, in another interview, Zelensky said: "It was not a technical problem, it was the will.”

SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk addressed the matter, insisting that Starlink and Starshield are different. He cited the U.S. authorities as being in control of the latter’s usage determinations.

“Starshield systems are owned and controlled by the U.S. government. Any limits on speed or usage are decided by the U.S. military and ultimately POTUS,” he said on X. “Starlink is a commercial service owned and controlled by SpaceX. Usage of Starlink is limited to civilian or defensive activities and cannot be used for offensive military action, as doing so would be inappropriate for a commercial company.”

When approached for comment, a senior U.S. official told TIME: “No such request was ever made by the President.”

Reuters, citing three U.S. officials, later reported that the decision came from inside the White House.

TIME has reached out to the White House for further comment.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian national news agency Ukrinform reported Thursday, citing sources within the Ministry of Defense, that the Starshield service had resumed. TIME has reached out to Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense for comment.

The discourse has raised questions about what Starshield is and how uniquely important it has become on the Ukrainian battlefield.

What is Starshield?

Starshield is a program developed by Musk’s SpaceX that draws on the satellite and launch capability behind Starlink, its commercial satellite Internet network, to support national security operations.

According to SpaceX, Starshield is designed for government use, with an initial focus on three areas: Earth observation, communications, and hosted payloads. 

“Starlink is basic interconnectivity, it's like the Internet. Starshield essentially grows out of the experience of Starlink,” Mark Hilborne, a senior lecturer in defense studies at King’s College London, tells TIME.

But the military value of that connectivity extends far beyond access to the Internet, Hilborne adds.

“In and of itself, satellite communications are not military technology, but it enables the military to communicate and amass a real-time, multi-domain picture of the battlefield, which some argue nobody else actually has at this stage,” he says.

Both systems also offer high-speed connectivity because of the satellite technology underpinning them. 

“Starlink and Starshield are low on the Earth’s orbit, and they have a very high bandwidth, so lots of information can pass through those satellites, with virtually no delay on the signal,” Hilborne says.

There are more than 10,000 satellites in the Starlink network, while Hilborne says Starshield uses “a much smaller number of satellites.” However, the exact number of satellites associated with Starshield remains unknown, with experts telling TIME that such details are closely guarded due to national security considerations.

“They keep the contracting details on these things classified,” says Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

SpaceX, on its website, says Starshield is “designed to support U.S. National Defense use cases for the Department of Defense and other government partners.”

How is Starshield different from Starlink?

While both systems rely on closely related satellite technology, they differ in the services they provide and how they are intended to be used.

“Starshield refers to military services that actually operate through Starlink,” Harrison explains, comparing the services to “two different brands of a cell phone provider, even though your phone calls are going through the same towers.”

Starshield offers additional capabilities designed for military operations, including more advanced encryption and satellite imaging, experts tell TIME.

“It's got another extra set of capabilities over and above Starlink,” Hilborne says. “They use some of the same technologies, but it would be highly encrypted, and they have different sensors that allow them to image what they call ‘Earth observation.’ That can give a radar imaging of the Earth [which] has advantages over optical pictures.”

Yet experts say the distinction between the two systems is not always clear, particularly given how closely their underlying technology and operations are connected.

How important is Starshield for Ukraine?

Starshield and the satellite communications technology underpinning it have become vital to Ukraine’s military operations against Russia.

Hilborne describes the technology as “highly critical” to Ukraine, explaining that any restrictions could cut communications with military equipment traveling above that speed, leaving operators without the information needed to guide their missions, as once that speed threshold is exceeded, the connection “suddenly cuts off and it's flying blind,” he says.

The consequences are particularly serious for Ukrainian drone operations, which rely on communications for both strikes against Russian targets and defensive missions against incoming attacks.

“It's really critical for drones, both the offensive medium range strikes, but also affects Ukraine's ability to fly defensive drones against the incoming Russian drones,” says Hilborne. 

Beyond its role in drone missions, experts say satellite communications also offer important advantages over other forms of battlefield connectivity.

Harrison notes that “the big benefit of using satellite-based communications is that you can communicate over longer distances in a variety of terrain, and it does have some jam-resistant features to overcome electronic forms of attack.”

The European Union and Gulf Cooperation Council on Thursday announced the postponement of a joint summit set to take place in ‌Saudi Arabia next week, amid safety concerns prompted by Houthi attacks on airports in the kingdom.

Citing the “continued attempts by the terrorist Houthi militia to target the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its civilian infrastructure, which threatens the security and safety of innocent civilians,” the council said the Gulf-European Summit will be rescheduled.

The postponement comes after Yemen’s Houthi rebels on Wednesday vowed to forge ahead with the attacks on Saudi Arabia’s airports and oil facilities, just hours after striking oil giant Saudi Aramco’s headquarters.

“Operations toward Saudi depths will continue in the coming days,” said Houthi military spokesman Yahya Saree, describing the locations as “legitimate targets” and framing their attacks as a direct response to Saudi strikes on Yemen. Saudi-led forces said they had intercepted a ballistic missile fired by the Houthis towards Riyadh on Wednesday and local journalists reported hearing “loud blasts” in the Saudi capital.

The escalation follows weeks of fighting between the Iran-backed Houthis and the Saudi-backed government of Yemen, shattering a four-year informal cease-fire in the country's civil war. The conflict reignited amid the widespread fallout of the U.S.-Iran war, bringing further instability to the Gulf region. In September, the Houthis said they had captured the strategic Perim Island that sits in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, a critical maritime chokepoint. They also seized other islands in a bid to tighten their grip on the Red Sea coastline. Amid fears that a stronger Houthi position along the coast could further constrain global energy supplies, Saudi-backed forces recaptured key areas around the strait in early October. The Houthis have since ramped up their focus on Saudi Arabia’s airports and energy infrastructure.

Tuesday night’s attack on Aramco’s executive offices in the eastern city of Dhahran caused a limited fire, Saudi’s Ministry of Energy confirmed. No injuries were reported. TIME has reached out to Aramco and the Saudi government’s media office for further information. Saudi authorities said several missiles and drones had been intercepted elsewhere, and that falling debris injured four people in the capital of Riyadh. Saudi Arabia launched strikes on an oil depot on the outskirts of Yemen’s capital Sanaa on Tuesday, as the tit-for-tat attacks escalated.

The Saudi strike on the oil depot appeared to be in response to the Houthis’ attack on King Khalid International Airport in ​Riyadh on Saturday that killed 13 people and left over 300 injured. A projectile hit that same airport on Sunday, killing one person, Saudi Arabia's General Authority of Civil Aviation (GACA) confirmed. The week before, an attack on Abha International Airport killed two people and wounded 28, said GACA.

Saudi Arabia is the world’s top purchaser of American weapons, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. However, it is struggling to defend itself against the Houthis, who are positioned to strike deep into the kingdom. The Saudis are currently investigating how their defense systems failed to stop the deadly attacks. Experts cite the vast mass of Saudi land as one reason why defensive measures may have failed. The Saudi border with Yemen stretches more than 800 miles. “Expecting a country the size of Saudi Arabia to intercept every missile is simply unrealistic. No defense can guarantee complete protection,” said Ali Shihabi, a Saudi analyst, in an online post.

Operations at King Khalid remain suspended in the wake of the attacks. Etihad Airways, Qatar Airways, and Philippine Airlines are among the carriers to announce a suspension of flights to ​Riyadh.

The U.S. embassy in Riyadh has warned Americans in the country of “potential flight cancelations, airspace closures, and travel disruptions,” stipulating that U.S. government employees now require “special authorization” to use any airport in the country.

President Donald Trump on Tuesday said the Houthis “are behaving very badly.” In a Truth Social post, he continued, “I thought they learned their lesson a year ago when we bombed the hell out of them and, at their request, stopped,” seemingly referencing the U.S. strikes between March and May last year, which came in response to the Houthis attacking vessels in the Red Sea and disrupting global trade. Weeks after the strikes began, a cease-fire between the U.S. and the Houthis was reached via Omani mediations.

On Saturday, Trump suggested that the U.S. may join Saudi strikes on the Houthis. Asked about the possibility of U.S. strikes, a senior U.S. official told TIME that Washington is “in continuous dialogue with Saudi Arabia and the Republic of Yemen Government regarding regional stability and we will always fulfill our commitments to our partners.”

As tensions in the region continue to escalate, here’s what to know about the Houthis, their history with Saudi Arabia, and why they are attacking airports.

Who are the Houthis?

The Houthis are a political and armed group in Yemen that first emerged in the 1990s and have been fighting the country’s internationally recognized government for around two decades. The group is a revivalist movement for Zaidism, a branch of Shi‘ite Islam. The Zaidi muslim population in the country represents around 35% of the Yemeni population.

The Houthi movement was largely born from a transformation of the Believing Youth Forum (BYF), according to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The group became known as the Houthis in honor of their founder and leader, Hussein al-Houthi. Before he was killed by Yemeni forces in 2004, al-Houthi had developed the group into a more militarized movement. The group is now led by his brother, Abdul-Malik al-Houthi.

Civil war broke out in 2014 after the Houthis seized Sanaa, forcing the government to flee to the southern city of Aden. Since then, the group has been engaged in fighting against a Saudi-led coalition supporting Yemen’s government. The Houthis currently have control of most of the country’s west, including Sanaa. 

Experts compare the Houthis to authoritarian regimes on account of the social restrictions imposed in areas under the group’s control and alleged human rights abuses. 

“The Houthis are dominated with very ideological and radical ideas, like a Zaidi ISIS. They have similarities also with the Taliban in terms of social control," says Mahmoud Shehrah, a Yemeni political analyst at London-based think tank Chatham House. 

How are the Houthi rebels linked to Iran?

The Houthis hold strong ties to Iran, often taking action in line with Tehran’s objectives. 

“Since 2009, Iran [has] started to speed up weapons supplies, training, but also a lot of funding to the Houthis,” says Farea Al-Muslimi, a Yemeni research fellow at Chatham House, noting that links between the two began as early as the 1990s.

The Houthis are often considered part of Iran’s proxy network, known as the “Axis of Resistance,” which also includes Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Islamic Resistance network in Iraq, and previously the Assad regime in Syria, until its collapse in December 2024.

In response to the Israel-Hamas war, the Yemeni militia launched several strikes on shipping vessels in the Red Sea, disrupting global trade in late 2023 and the early months of 2024. The U.S. and U.K. joined forces in January 2024 for a series of strikes on Houthi targets across Yemen in retaliation for the attacks on unarmed vessels. The U.S. carried out an additional campaign against Houthi targets later that year.

The Houthis entered the Iran war in March by firing a barrage of ballistic missiles at southern Israel. In the months since, the group’s advances along the Red Sea are widely considered to serve the interests of Iran. A Houthi blockade in the region against Saudi Arabia was declared in July, and several vessels have been attacked. The threat that the Houthis could bring another critical maritime chokepoint to a standstill, much like Iran has done with the Strait of Hormuz, could give Tehran significant leverage in its negotiations with Washington.

However, experts say it’s not entirely accurate to call the Houthis a direct proxy.

"The Houthis are one of the more independent regional allies of Iran in the Middle East. They have their own independent interests, even though their interests converge regionally and globally,” says Fawaz Gerges, a professor of international relations at the London School of Economics.

Even so, the Houthis have become increasingly vital for Iran. “With the fall of Assad, with the weakening of Hezbollah, the Houthis became the most important regional ally Iran has,” says Al Muslimi, pointing specifically toward the Houthis' ability to disrupt trade in the Red Sea.

What do the Houthis want?

The group’s goals have changed over time, as regional developments have unfolded, experts note.

“The Houthi's ultimate goal is to be a regional power,” says Al-Muslimi. With regard to the reignited civil war, the Houthis ultimately want an end to what they call a Saudi blockade of ports and airports in their territory.

“The Houthis want to have the skies and the ports of the country open for trade, for goods and services,” says Gerges. “They want money to flow into the coffers of the Houthis.”

The civil war has had a disastrous effect on Yemen, with nearly half of the population in government-controlled areas facing high levels of acute food insecurity, according to the United Nations. “The current situation is very dire for the Yemeni population, but also for the ability of the Houthis to rule Yemen effectively,” says Gerges.

“The Houthis want to consolidate rule and regime. They want to be recognized as the legitimate government in Sanaa, as opposed to being considered a non-state actor,” he adds.

When did the Houthis and Saudi Arabia begin fighting again?

A cease-fire brokered by the United Nations in April 2022 largely held for over four years, before collapsing in July. The Houthis claimed Saudi Arabia had launched strikes on Sanaa Airport, targeting a Houthi delegation returning from Iran. In a move they framed as retaliatory, the Houthi rebels launched ballistic missiles toward Saudi Arabia. 

“The Houthis saw this as a golden opportunity to change the balance of power against Saudi Arabia and Yemen itself and launch a lightning offensive,” says Gerges.

Following further strikes on Houthi targets later that month, the militia group began striking oil refineries in Saudi Arabia, belonging to the state-owned petroleum company Aramco.

In September, strikes on oil refineries and other related facilities ramped up, and Saudi Arabia’s airports became a target.

Why are the Houthis attacking Saudi airports?

Prior to the 2022 cease-fire, attacks on airports were largely considered a signature move of the Houthis.

In a highly-publicized attack, the group struck Abha International Airport in June 2019, injuring at least 26 people, Saudi authorities said. The strike earned international condemnation and was deemed a possible war crime by Human Rights Watch.

Now, after fatal strikes on ​Riyadh’s King Khalid International Airport, the Houthis have threatened to keep targeting airports. The main motivation behind these attacks is the economic and geopolitical pressure they apply to Saudi Arabia, experts say.

“The Houthis want to put severe pressure on the Saudi Arabia economy, airport infrastructure, and security,” says Shehrah. “They want to squeeze Saudi Arabia's arms to push them to a political settlement.”

The unrest threatens to have a strong economic and political impact on Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman's governance. The disruption is “costly” to him, says Al-Muslimi, who notes that Bin Salman is eager for Saudi Arabia to be seen as a “safe harbor.” 

The financial and reputational damage of these strikes has also put the Saudi public on the frontline of the conflict. It’s a “shock, because it's the first time in years that such major attacks have targeted deep inside Saudi Arabia,” says Gerges.

“The Houthis are trying to exert tremendous pressure on the leaders of Saudi Arabia to force them to accept conditions for lifting the blockade on Yemen and recognizing their legitimacy,” he continues. “Although, I doubt that the Saudi leadership will concede to Houthi demands… this would be seen as a surrender and humiliation."