Countries and figures:

What this really means is that in some of the world’s most populous nations, a significant portion of citizens cannot consistently afford basic meals without external support.

The rise in free food programmes is being driven by a combination of inflation, unemployment, conflict, and widening inequality.

According to Pew Research, economic hardship has become a growing concern globally, with more people reporting difficulty meeting basic living costs, including food. Pew’s surveys repeatedly show that affordability and economic insecurity are shaping everyday life in both developing and wealthy nations.

Indonesia: The largest beneficiaries

Indonesia tops the list, with nearly one-third of its population reportedly receiving food support.

The country has expanded large-scale food subsidy and school feeding initiatives to reduce poverty and protect vulnerable households from rising prices.

Newsweek has reported that countries across Asia are increasingly relying on mass food distribution systems as governments try to prevent hunger from escalating into political instability.

Nigeria

Nigeria’s position on the list is deeply linked to its worsening food insecurity. Tribune Online Nigeria has published repeated reports on the country’s hunger emergency, pointing to soaring food prices, insecurity in farming communities, and the increasing number of households skipping meals.

The paper has highlighted how food relief and community feeding programmes are now essential in many regions.

With an estimated 20 million Nigerians benefiting from free food support, the country is facing one of the most serious cost-of-living crises in its recent history .

In recent months, millions of pages of investigative records, court filings, contact lists, flight logs, and correspondence linked to Epstein have resurfaced in public discussion, fuelling renewed media attention and political pressure for transparency.

While Epstein died in jail in 2019, the scale of his network and the unanswered questions surrounding who enabled him have ensured the story never fully went away.

The U.S. Department of Justice this year released more than 3 million pages of files related to investigations into the late financier and registered sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, including emails, correspondence, financial records, flight logs, videos and images as part of what is now widely referred to as the “ Epstein files .”

The disclosure stems from the Epstein Files Transparency Act, passed by Congress in November 2025 and signed into law by President Joe Donald Trump , which mandates the public release of unclassified documents held by the Justice Department and FBI.

Not just names — Context also matters

A high number of mentions does not equal proof of criminal conduct.

Journalists and legal analysts emphasise that the Epstein files include a mix of contact records, flight manifests, emails, and media references, and that being mentioned in a document does not, in itself, imply guilt or illegal activity.

For example:

International reactions to the documents

Across Europe and beyond, governments have reacted differently to references in the Epstein files:

China’s export engine still runs hot

China remains the world’s largest exporter of goods , shipping an astonishing over $3.5 trillion in products globally during 2024, driven by electronics, machinery, and a vast manufacturing base.

In line with that broader picture, China’s top export categories in 2024 included:

This mix shows how deeply China has integrated into global supply chains for tech and transport goods, especially mobile devices and computer components.

China’s export strength isn’t just about scale; it’s also about global reach. The United States, Hong Kong and Vietnam are among China’s biggest trading partners, and electronics remain a dominant part of the export mix.

India ’s export basket: Energy and value-added goods

India’s export picture is narrower in scale but diversified in profile. In 2024, India shipped hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of goods worldwide, with a growing emphasis on energy, pharmaceuticals, electronics and gems.

The top export categories for India in 2024 included:

Refined petroleum products, including petrol, diesel and other fuels, have taken on greater importance in India’s export economy , making the country one of the top global suppliers of processed fuels.

India’s pharmaceutical sector continues its ascent, building on its reputation as the “pharmacy of the world” thanks to strong global demand for generic medicines and active ingredients

The numbers explain how tennis dynasties rooted in individual greatness can elevate a nation’s global standing. Spain’s haul is anchored by Rafael Nadal, who alone amassed 22 major singles titles, most of them on the clay of Roland-Garros. Emerging stars like Carlos Alcaraz have bolstered the Spanish total with multiple Grand Slam triumphs of their own.

Hot on Spain’s heels is Serbia, with 24 Grand Slam wins, all credited to Novak Djokovic, the only male player in history to hold all four major titles simultaneously and complete a triple career Grand Slam. Djokovic’s consistency at the very top of the sport has cemented Serbia’s place among the elite nations in tennis.

Switzerland ranks third with 23 Grand Slam singles victories this century, fuelled by the careers of Roger Federer and Stan Wawrinka. Federer’s elegant all-court game produced 20 major titles, while Wawrinka added three of his own, giving Swiss tennis an enduring spotlight on tennis’s biggest stages.

The above map also highlights other countries with notable contributions: the United States (6), Great Britain (3), and Australia (2), reflecting a wider spread of success across continents. Lesser-represented regions in Latin America and Oceania also appear on the map with smaller tallies.

As the 2026 season unfolds, fresh challenges from rising stars like Jannik Sinner , Carlos Alcaraz and others will shape how this map evolves, potentially redrawing the balance of national pride in global tennis.

According to 2017 data, across the country, states struggled with different pressures, each striving in its own way to make sense of a fast-moving and deeply polarised political climate.

The five issues driving frustration

Each state is coloured according to the issue most frequently cited by residents as their biggest source of political frustration on the above map.

Across much of the South, Southwest, and West Coast, immigration emerges as the leading concern. States such as California, Texas, Arizona, Florida, and New York show high levels of frustration with immigration policy.

This aligns with reporting from the Pew Research Centre , which consistently finds immigration to be one of the most polarising national issues, particularly in border states and regions with large immigrant populations. Debates over border security, asylum policy, and labour migration have kept immigration at the centre of US politics for over a decade.

Several Midwestern and Mountain states, including Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, show civil rights as the top frustration.

Civil rights concerns often include voting access, freedom of speech, gun rights, and equality under the law. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), these issues tend to rise during periods of political polarisation or when state-level legislation directly affects personal freedoms.

States such as Pennsylvania, Georgia, Tennessee, Missouri, Illinois, and Maine are marked by frustration over racial injustice.

This reflects long-running national conversations around policing, systemic racism, and economic inequality. Data from the Pew Research Centre and Brookings Institution show that concern about racial inequality increased sharply in the years following high-profile incidents of police violence and mass protests, particularly between 2014 and 2020.

In states like Iowa, Arkansas, Kentucky, West Virginia, and North Dakota, healthcare is the most cited frustration.

These concerns often relate to access, affordability, and rural healthcare shortages. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, rural states and lower-income regions are more likely to report dissatisfaction with healthcare systems, hospital closures, and insurance costs.

A smaller number of states, including Nebraska, highlight frustration with executive leadership. This category typically reflects dissatisfaction with presidential authority, government accountability, and the balance of power between branches of government.

It is 2026, and these frustrations are yet to be nonexistent. From President Donald Trump’s repeated tariff threats to ongoing controversies around immigration enforcement, including ICE detentions and deaths in custody, many Americans are left feeling overwhelmed.

In Minnesota, protests against ICE operations have drawn national attention, particularly in and around Minneapolis, where demonstrators have gathered outside detention facilities and government buildings to oppose arrests, deportations, and what they describe as overly aggressive enforcement tactics.

Tensions escalated further following the death of Alex Pretti . On 24 January 2026, the 37-year-old intensive care nurse and U.S. citizen was fatally shot by federal immigration agents during a confrontation in south Minneapolis. Federal officials say Pretti resisted arrest and approached agents with a handgun.

But bystander video reviewed by multiple outlets shows him unarmed, holding a phone, and attempting to intervene amid a chaotic scene before agents pepper-sprayed and tackled him, then fired multiple shots. This marked at least the second death of a U.S. resident in federal immigration operations in Minnesota in January, following the killing of Renée Nicole Good earlier in the month.

Civil rights organisations and community leaders have demanded transparent investigations, while federal authorities have said the incident is under review. The case has become a focal point for wider concerns about the use of force and oversight in immigration operations.

One such moment occurred in Belgium and remains one of the most unusual political gaffes involving a national anthem.

In 2007, Yves Leterme , then Belgium’s prime minister-designate, was asked during an interview to sing the Belgian national anthem, La Brabançonne. Instead, he sang La Marseillaise, the national anthem of France.

The moment was broadcast publicly and quickly spread across international media. What might have been a minor slip became a symbol of deeper political tensions within Belgium.

Why the mistake struck a nerve

Belgium is a country with long-standing linguistic and cultural divisions, primarily between Dutch-speaking Flanders and French-speaking Wallonia. The national anthem itself exists in three official languages and represents a fragile sense of national cohesion.

Singing France ’s anthem, even unintentionally, was seen by some as symbolic rather than merely accidental.

The reaction was swift. Belgian media debated the meaning of the incident, while opposition figures questioned Leterme’s suitability for leadership. Supporters argued it was a human error blown out of proportion.

Leterme later acknowledged the mistake and attempted to downplay it, reportedly joking that it proved how well Belgians know their neighbours. However, the episode remained attached to his political image for years.

Washington’s departure follows a formal notification of intent submitted by President Donald Trump one year earlier, as required under U.S. law. The move makes the U.S. the first country in WHO history to withdraw its membership.

The Trump administration justified the exit by citing disagreements with the WHO’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, accusations of political bias, and dissatisfaction with pandemic policies.

Senior U.S. officials argued the country would continue to engage in global health through bilateral agreements and existing partnerships outside WHO structures.

"The Trump Admin is working to make sure that we have those bilateral agreements in place for that kind of health cooperation — but we don't need the WHO as an intermediary essentially to push Chinese interests on the American people," National Institutes of Health's Director Jay Bhattacharya told Fox News.

That rationale echoes what Argentinian President Javier Milei has stated in his decision to also withdraw Argentina from the WHO , a move scheduled to take effect on March 17, 2026.

The Milei government has framed its exit as a defence of national sovereignty and a response to what it describes as “deep differences” with WHO policies, especially concerning the management of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Argentina’s annual financial contributions to WHO have been comparatively small , and Buenos Aires has claimed that its withdrawal will not disrupt domestic health services.

Critics, however, warn that leaving a global coordination platform could limit access to information sharing, vaccine procurement mechanisms and technical cooperation that support responses to outbreaks and endemic diseases.

Why WHO matters

The World Health Organisation is the specialised health agency of the United Nations. Its core mission includes:

Nearly all United Nations member states have traditionally been members of the WHO. As of early 2026, with the U.S. exit complete, the organisation retains 193 members, the vast majority of the world’s nations.

Sovereignty beyond rhetoric

The President of the Democratic Republic of Congo framed sovereignty as action rather than declaration, calling for value addition and economic control over natural resources. It was a pointed reminder that resource ownership without control over value chains offers little real power.

Congo’s position mirrors that of many Global South countries: rich in strategic resources, yet dependent on external financing. As long as raw materials leave the continent unprocessed, sovereignty remains symbolic rather than structural.

A changing political tone

Nigeria’s Vice President, Kashim Shettima, openly challenged dependency, speaking not as a beneficiary of aid but as a stakeholder demanding agency. This shift in language is significant. It signals a move away from gratitude towards assertion, though assertion without coordination risks remaining performative.

Ghana’s President, John Dramani Mahama, went further, arguing that the failure lies not with African countries but with a global financial system that transformed temporary aid into a permanent fixture. Aid fatigue, in this context, is not frustration with donors, but with a system that discourages self-sufficiency.

When institutions acknowledge the inevitable

Former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo warned that the Global South cannot outsource its future, a statement that carries weight given his long involvement in aid negotiations. It reflects an emerging consensus among leaders who once operated comfortably within donor frameworks but now recognise their limitations.

Institutional voices echoed this unease. The Commonwealth Secretary-General spoke cautiously about reform and cooperation, while Global Fund Executive Director Peter Sands acknowledged that aid flows are shrinking and domestic financing will become unavoidable.

This admission matters. When institutions built around aid begin to question its sustainability, the era of predictable external support is effectively over.

The real test: unity or fragmentation

The Accra Reset ultimately exposes a deeper problem. While the Global South speaks of unity, its countries continue to negotiate trade, financing and policy individually, often in Western capitals, leaving them vulnerable to sanctions , protectionism and shifting geopolitical interests.

Fragmented economies are easy to discipline. Coordinated economies are harder to ignore.

The Accra Reset is not a declaration of independence. It is a stress test. One that asks whether the Global South is prepared to finance itself, trade with itself and defend its economic interests collectively.

Aid, as several speakers implied, will end whether the Global South is ready or not.

Click here to watch our previous episodes

World Reframed is produced in London by Global South World, part of the Impactum Group. Its editors are Duncan Hooper and Ismail Akwei.

ISSN 2978-4891

He argued that Indonesia ’s steady growth, which is above 5% annually over the past decade, inflation at around 2%, and a deficit below 3% of GDP, reflects deliberate choices.

“Peace and stability in my country did not happen by chance or by luck; it happened because we chose unity over fragmentation and collaboration over confrontation,” he said.

$1 trillion sovereign wealth bet

A major highlight of his speech was the launch of Danantara Indonesia, a sovereign wealth fund with $1 trillion in assets under management. “Danantara means the energy to power the future of Indonesia, and it is designed to finance and co-finance the industries of the future that will transform our economy,” Prabowo explained.

He pledged to overhaul the country’s vast network of state-owned enterprises to meet the highest international standards, adding that foreign professionals would be allowed to lead firms where necessary to attract “the best brains and the best minds in the world.”

Framing Indonesia as a co-investment partner rather than a passive recipient of capital, he declared: “With Danantara, Indonesia can now stand before you as an equal partner, ready to grow with you and create shared prosperity.”

Social policy as economic strategy

Prabowo described Indonesia’s large-scale social programmes as economic investments rather than political gestures. On the nationwide free nutritious meals programme serving nearly 60 million people daily, he said: “This is not a populist programme. It is a rational productivity programme that strengthens our children, supports our small enterprises and improves the long-term health of our nation.”

The initiative has incorporated more than 61,000 micro, small and medium enterprises into its supply chain. “By strengthening human capital and empowering our small businesses, we are laying the foundation for growth that is inclusive and sustainable,” he said.

On education, he underscored efforts to break generational poverty through new boarding schools and digital upgrades. “I am determined to cut the chain of poverty so that the son of a poor farmer or street vendor will not be condemned to the same fate, but will have equal opportunity to rise,” Prabowo stated.

Rule of law and anti-corruption drive

He also argued that legal certainty is central to investor confidence. “There is no investment climate without the certainty of equitable rule of law, because no serious investor will commit capital in a country where laws are ignored or selectively applied,” he said.

In his first year, the government confiscated millions of hectares of illegal plantations and mines and shut down around 1,000 illegal mining operations. Describing entrenched corruption as “greedonomics,” he said: “We cannot allow the economics of greed and rapacious practices to undermine our democracy , our environment and the future of our children.”

He added a direct warning to corrupt actors: “I challenge anyone who believes that Indonesian officials can be bought to test that assumption under my administration, because they will find that we are serious about clean government.”

Trade, integration and the Global South

Prabowo rejected protectionism and reaffirmed Indonesia’s commitment to fair trade integration. “We do not pursue trade agreements because they are fashionable, but because we believe fair integration into the global economy is a tool for prosperity and not a threat to sovereignty,” he said.

On Indonesia’s foreign policy posture, he said: “Indonesia chooses peace over chaos, friendship over enmity, and we believe that one thousand friends are too few while one enemy is one too many.”

Indonesia is preparing to host an Ocean Impact Summit in Bali, and Prabowo was confident that Indonesia aims to play a more assertive role from within the Global South.

Watch the full speech here: