World News
NATO announces $1B fund to back startups supporting ‘safety, freedom and human empowerment’ on August 1, 2023 at 7:53 am
After announcing plans nearly two years ago, defense alliance NATO has officially closed its first fund to back startups that are building technology strategic to NATO’s own goals in defense and security.
Member nations are collectively committing capital totalling €1 billion (around $1 billion at current rates) to the NATO Innovation Fund, which plans to make both direct investments in startups, as well as indirect investments in other funds that in turn back startups focused on emerging and disruptive technologies that are “responsible and led by fundamental principles: safety, freedom, and human empowerment.” Areas of focus will include AI and autonomy, biotechnology, quantum computing, space technology and hypersonic systems, energy, new manufacturing and materials, and next-generation communications.
Modelled somewhat on In-Q-Tel in the U.S., the idea will be to keep the investments strategic, with some (but maybe not all) investments leading to services that its member states, or NATO itself, might use. The NIF will look mainly at early stage investments — that is from pre-seed through to Series B — and it might also make follow-on investments. Initial checks will be up to €15 million. The first investments will be announced in September, the organization said; none have been made so far.
The aim is to operate NIF like a “classic VC.” That is to say, there will be future funds, and it’s been designed to exist in perpetuity, a spokesperson said.
Many countries have notably set up sovereign funds that back technology startups and investors, both in their own countries and in other geographies and categories viewed as strategic; NATO says that its Innovation Fund will be the “first multi-sovereign venture capital fund,” covering contributions from NATO members.
The 23 countries involved in the first NATO Innovation Fund sub-fund 1 are Belgium; Bulgaria; Czechia; Denmark; Estonia; Finland; Germany; Greece; Hungary; Iceland; Italy; Latvia; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Netherlands; Norway; Poland; Portugal; Romania; Slovakia; Spain; Turkey; United Kingdom. Sweden will also be joining the group following its full accession to NATO, and that will add an additional €40 million into the pot, a spokesperson confirmed.
NATO has long been a player in procurement, but this shifts its focus to working with businesses that might also have an indirect impact on the security postures of its member countries.
That could include cybersecurity, but also deep tech, as well as technologies that can help countries develop better energy or other resource independence.
Priorities like these have become especially stark in recent years. Russia’s invasion and subsequent war in Ukraine has highlighted just how interconnected countries are economically in Europe, and how interrupting production and supply chains in one can have huge, detrimental impacts in others. Similarly, over-dependence on single technology companies for certain services is also especially risky, and so spreading bets and diversifying the markets and putting money into that effort also helps build NATO’s security posture.
At the same time, the adoption of newer technologies and innovations has clearly shaped up as a critical component of how nations — or a consortium of nations — defend themselves in the twenty-first century (and of course nations and states use innovation also for offence, not just defense). Given the role that startups and newer businesses are playing in that innovation economy, NATO taking bigger steps to captalize on that is equally critical right now.
The fund is being set up with a founding team that will take on an executive role, leading on sourcing and making investments. That will be complemented by a board of directors that will have more of a non-executive role, providing advice and helping to steer those decisions. The founding team will include managing partner Andrea Traversone supported by Kelly Chen, Thorsten Claus, Patrick Schneider-Sikorsky and Chris O’Connor. The board will be led by Dr. Klaus Hommels (who founded Lakestar), Dame Fiona Murray and Dr. Roberto Cingolani.
Given the layers of drawn-out bureaucracy — or, in a more charitable light, checks and balances — that NATO has had in place since its inception after World War II, it will be interesting to see how the Innovation Fund operates — and specifically, whether it figures out how to move in a more nimble way to be more responsive to the startup ecosystem.
The “In venture capital, the senior management team are the brains behind investment decisions,” David van Weel, NATO Assistant Secretary General for Emerging Security Challenges, said in a statement provided over email. “I am confident that the NATO Innovation Fund’s Founding Team has the experience, drive and capability necessary to deliver the NIF’s mission.”
Other questions that have yet to be addressed publicly are whether NATO will have any red lines in terms of what kinds of companies it would not back, and whether it will have restrictions on who it would co-invest with, and if so what those might be. Nor is it clear if NATO will be transparent on every investment that it makes, or whether there will be some that remain undisclosed.
Answers to questions we put forward on these subjects might be addressed in the update in September. (Or, they might not.)
The innovation fund is one part of a one-two punch that NATO is making to broker more engagement with startups and innovation-focused businesses in its footprint. It’s also building out the DIANA accelerator to back and work more closely with startups that are building “dual-tech” solutions — those that might have a very direct and obvious application in NATO’s core activities, but also longer term applications that might not.
After announcing plans nearly two years ago, defense alliance NATO has officially closed its first fund to back startups that are building technology strategic to NATO’s own goals in defense and security. Member nations are collectively committing capital totalling €1 billion (around $1 billion at current rates) to the NATO Innovation Fund, which plans to
Politics
Will Kim Ju Ae Become North Korea’s First Female Leader?

A New Face of Power in Pyongyang
In a country defined by secrecy and dynastic rule, the recent emergence of Kim Ju Ae—the daughter of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un—on the national and international stage has sparked intense speculation about the future of the world’s most isolated regime. For the first time since North Korea’s founding in 1948, the possibility of a female leader is being openly discussed, as state media and public ceremonies increasingly feature the teenage girl at her father’s side.

Kim Ju Ae’s Rise to Prominence
Kim Ju Ae, believed to be around 12 or 13 years old, first came to the world’s attention in 2013 when former NBA star Dennis Rodman revealed he had held Kim Jong Un’s daughter during a visit to Pyongyang. However, she remained out of the public eye until November 2022, when she appeared beside her father at the launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile—a powerful symbol in North Korean propaganda.

Since then, Ju Ae has become a regular fixture at high-profile events, from military parades and weapons launches to the grand opening of a water park and the unveiling of new naval ships. Her repeated appearances are unprecedented for a member of the Kim family so young, especially a girl, and have led South Korean intelligence officials to suggest she is being groomed as her father’s successor.
The Power of Propaganda
North Korea’s state media has shifted its language regarding Ju Ae, referring to her as “beloved” and, more recently, “respected”—a term previously reserved for the nation’s highest dignitaries. Analysts believe this is part of a carefully orchestrated campaign to build her public profile and legitimize her as a future leader, signaling continuity and stability for the regime.

Presenting Ju Ae as the face of the next generation serves several purposes:
- Demonstrating dynastic continuity: By showcasing his daughter, Kim Jong Un assures elites and the public that the Kim family’s grip on power will persist.
- Minimizing internal threats: A young female successor is less likely to attract rival factions or pose an immediate threat to the current leadership.
- Projecting a modern image: Her presence at both military and civilian events signals adaptability and a potential shift in North Korea’s traditionally patriarchal leadership structure.

Breaking with Tradition?
If Ju Ae is indeed being positioned as the next leader, it would mark a historic break from North Korea’s deeply patriarchal system. The country has never had a female ruler, and its military and political elite remain overwhelmingly male. However, her growing public profile and the respect shown to her by senior officials suggest that the regime is preparing the nation for the possibility of her ascension.
The only other woman with significant visibility and influence in the regime is Kim Yo Jong, Kim Jong Un’s younger sister, who has become a powerful figure in her own right, especially in matters of propaganda and foreign policy.
A Nation Divided, a Dynasty Endures
While the Kim family’s hold on North Korea appears unshakable, the country remains divided from South Korea by a heavily militarized border. Many families have been separated for generations, with little hope for reunification in the near future. As the Kim dynasty prepares its next generation for leadership, the longing for family reunions and peace persists on both sides of the border.
The Road Ahead
Kim Ju Ae’s future remains shrouded in mystery, much like the country she may one day lead. Her carefully managed public appearances, the reverence shown by state media, and her father’s apparent efforts to secure her place in the succession line all point to a regime intent on preserving its legacy while adapting to new realities. Whether North Korea is truly ready for its first female leader is uncertain, but the groundwork is clearly being laid for a new chapter in the Kim dynasty.
Business
Pros and Cons of the Big Beautiful Bill

The “Big Beautiful Bill” (officially the One Big Beautiful Bill Act) is a sweeping tax and spending package passed in July 2025. It makes permanent many Trump-era tax cuts, introduces new tax breaks for working Americans, and enacts deep cuts to federal safety-net programs. The bill also increases spending on border security and defense, while rolling back clean energy incentives and tightening requirements for social programs.

Pros
1. Tax Relief for Middle and Working-Class Families
- Makes the 2017 Trump tax cuts permanent, preventing a scheduled tax hike for many Americans.
- Introduces new tax breaks: no federal income tax on tips and overtime pay (for incomes under $150,000, with limits).
- Doubles the Child Tax Credit to $2,500 per child through 2028.
- Temporarily raises the SALT (state and local tax) deduction cap to $40,000.
- Creates “Trump Accounts”: tax-exempt savings accounts for newborns.
2. Support for Small Businesses and Economic Growth
- Makes the small business deduction permanent, supporting Main Street businesses.
- Expands expensing for investment in short-lived assets and domestic R&D, which is considered pro-growth.
3. Increased Spending on Security and Infrastructure
- Allocates $175 billion for border security and $160 billion for defense, the highest peacetime military budget in U.S. history.
- Provides $12.5 billion for air traffic control modernization.
4. Simplification and Fairness in the Tax Code
- Expands the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and raises marginal rates on individuals earning over $400,000.
- Closes various deductions and loopholes, especially those benefiting private equity and multinational corporations.

Cons
1. Deep Cuts to Social Safety Net Programs
- Cuts Medicaid by approximately $930 billion and imposes new work requirements, which could leave millions without health insurance.
- Tightens eligibility and work requirements for SNAP (food assistance), potentially removing benefits from many low-income families.
- Rolls back student loan forgiveness and repeals Biden-era subsidies.
2. Increases the Federal Deficit
- The bill is projected to add $3.3–4 trillion to the federal deficit over 10 years.
- Critics argue that the combination of tax cuts and increased spending is fiscally irresponsible.
3. Benefits Skewed Toward the Wealthy
- The largest income gains go to affluent Americans, with top earners seeing significant after-tax increases.
- Critics describe the bill as the largest upward transfer of wealth in recent U.S. history.
4. Rollback of Clean Energy and Climate Incentives
- Eliminates tax credits for electric vehicles and solar energy by the end of 2025.
- Imposes stricter requirements for renewable energy developers, which could lead to job losses and higher electricity costs.

5. Potential Harm to Healthcare and Rural Hospitals
- Reduces funding for hospitals serving Medicaid recipients, increasing uncompensated care costs and threatening rural healthcare access.
- Tightens verification for federal premium subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, risking coverage for some middle-income Americans.
6. Public and Political Backlash
- The bill is unpopular in public polls and is seen as a political risk for its supporters.
- Critics warn it will widen the gap between rich and poor and reverse progress on alternative energy and healthcare.
Summary Table
Pros | Cons |
---|---|
Permanent middle-class tax cuts | Deep Medicaid and SNAP cuts |
No tax on tips/overtime for most workers | Millions may lose health insurance |
Doubled Child Tax Credit | Adds $3.3–4T to deficit |
Small business support | Benefits skewed to wealthy |
Increased border/defense spending | Clean energy incentives eliminated |
Simplifies some tax provisions | Threatens rural hospitals |
Public backlash, political risk |
In summary:
The Big Beautiful Bill delivers significant tax relief and new benefits for many working and middle-class Americans, but it does so at the cost of deep cuts to social programs, a higher federal deficit, and reduced support for clean energy and healthcare. The bill is highly polarizing, with supporters touting its pro-growth and pro-family provisions, while critics warn of increased inequality and harm to vulnerable populations.
Business
Trump Threatens to ‘Take a Look’ at Deporting Elon Musk Amid Explosive Feud

The escalating conflict between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk reached a new peak this week, as Trump publicly suggested he would consider deporting the billionaire entrepreneur in response to Musk’s fierce criticism of the president’s signature tax and spending bill.

“I don’t know, we’ll have to take a look,” Trump told reporters on Tuesday when asked directly if he would deport Musk, who was born in South Africa but has been a U.S. citizen since 2002.
This threat followed a late-night post on Trump’s Truth Social platform, where he accused Musk of being the largest recipient of government subsidies in U.S. history. Trump claimed that without these supports, Musk “would likely have to shut down operations and return to South Africa,” and that ending such subsidies would mean “no more rocket launches, satellites, or electric vehicle production, and our nation would save a FORTUNE”.
Trump also invoked the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—a federal agency Musk previously led—as a potential tool to scrutinize Musk’s companies. “We might have to put DOGE on Elon. You know what DOGE is? The DOGE is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon,” Trump remarked, further intensifying the feud.

Background to the Feud
The rupture comes after Musk’s repeated attacks on Trump’s so-called “Big, Beautiful Bill,” a comprehensive spending and tax reform proposal that Musk has labeled a “disgusting abomination” and a threat to the nation’s fiscal health. Musk, once a Trump ally who contributed heavily to his election campaign and served as a government advisor, has called for the formation of a new political party, claiming the bill exposes the need for an alternative to the current two-party system.
In response, Trump’s allies have amplified questions about Musk’s citizenship and immigration history, with some suggesting an investigation into his naturalization process. However, legal experts note that deporting a naturalized U.S. citizen like Musk would be extremely difficult. The only path would involve denaturalization—a rare and complex legal process requiring proof of intentional fraud during the citizenship application, a standard typically reserved for the most egregious cases.
Political Fallout
Musk’s criticism has rattled some Republican lawmakers, who fear the feud could undermine their party’s unity ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Meanwhile, Musk has doubled down on his opposition, warning he will support primary challengers against Republicans who back Trump’s bill.
Key Points:
- Trump has publicly threatened to “take a look” at deporting Elon Musk in retaliation for Musk’s opposition to his legislative agenda.
- Legal experts say actual deportation is highly unlikely due to the stringent requirements for denaturalizing a U.S. citizen.
- The feud marks a dramatic reversal from the pair’s earlier alliance, with both men now trading barbs over social media and in public statements.
As the dispute continues, it has become a flashpoint in the broader debate over government spending, corporate subsidies, and political loyalty at the highest levels of American power.
- Business1 week ago
Pros and Cons of the Big Beautiful Bill
- Advice2 weeks ago
What SXSW 2025 Filmmakers Want Every New Director to Know
- Film Industry3 weeks ago
Filming Yourself and Look Cinematic
- News2 weeks ago
Father Leaps Overboard to Save Daughter on Disney Dream Cruise
- Politics4 weeks ago
Bolanle Newsroom Brief: Israel Strikes Iran’s Nuclear Sites — What It Means for the World
- Health2 weeks ago
McCullough Alleges Government Hid COVID Vaccine Side Effects
- Advice2 weeks ago
Why 20% of Us Are Always Late
- Entertainment4 weeks ago
The Hidden Reality Behind Victoria’s Secret