<ul><li>On June 10, 2025, the World Bank downgraded its global economic growth forecast to 2.3%, attributing the revision to persistent inflation, weak investment, and a notable slowdown in trade.</li></ul><ul><li>This isn't merely a statistical adjustment, it's an indictment of the post-pandemic global order. The World Bank’s tone suggests an erosion of the structural conditions necessary for convergence, growth diffusion, and resilience.</li><li>The downgrade exposes a world economy that is decoupling, where capital flows follow geopolitics more than efficiency. The Global South is being reshuffled into a lower-growth periphery, reinforcing vulnerabilities entrenched by the last crisis.</li><li>Multilateral institutions, policymakers, and regional coalitions must resist the trend toward insular economics. What’s needed is not stimulus, but strategic redesign, a rethinking of debt management, trade governance, and institutional legitimacy.</li></ul>The World Bank’s June 2025 Global Economic Prospects report doesn’t just revise expectations, it offers a diagnosis: the global economy is suffering from systemic fatigue. A growth forecast of 2.3%, for the fourth consecutive year under 3%, reveals more than just headwinds. It exposes a slow decoupling of growth engines, a fraying of policy coordination, and the solidification of economic hierarchies.What was once assumed, that economic liberalization would ensure global convergence, is no longer tenable. The numbers suggest not cyclical drag, but structural inertia. Behind the sterile statistics lies a more troubling trend: the rules of the global economy are being rewritten, but by fragmentation, not design.The post-2020 recovery was supposed to be transformative, green, inclusive, digital. Instead, inflationary surges, capital tightening, and geopolitical ruptures interrupted that momentum. The current downturn is not about excess or misallocation; it is about disillusionment with multilateralism.Previous global recoveries were powered by a coherent institutional system. Today’s economic order is defined by absence: absent trust in global trade rules, absent consensus on fiscal discipline, and absent leadership on collective investment. The World Bank’s repeated downgrades reflect a system losing coherence, not just strength.According to the report, advanced economies will grow at 1.2%, dragged by fiscal fatigue, labor market rigidity, and tightening monetary regimes. Developing economies are forecasted at 3.9%, but the headline masks divergence. Commodity exporters are seeing volatile returns, while debt-laden importers face austerity traps. Global trade is expanding at less than 2%, a stark reminder that fragmentation has economic teeth.The report highlights that dozens of low- and middle-income countries are grappling with unsustainable debt burdens. Even modest external shocks can now destabilize entire regions, revealing fragilities embedded in financial dependency.The World Bank signals urgency, but its tools remain constrained by governance structures that favor creditor nations. The Global South is positioned as both casualty and battleground, facing a fiscal cliff without the policy space or market confidence to cushion the fall. Meanwhile, advanced economies are consumed by domestic polarization, weakening global leadership and placing national interest above global stewardship. Multilateral institutions are squeezed between political irrelevance and technocratic overreach, struggling to assert influence amid institutional decay.The risks are significant. Sovereign defaults could increase, forcing painful IMF interventions and triggering social unrest. Climate goals may be sidelined as countries prioritize growth-at-any-cost. The move toward friendshoring and regional trade zones may calcify, reducing the global economy’s adaptive capacity. High unemployment and declining education investment may incubate long-term unrest.To stabilize the system, a new debt compact is required. Restructuring must be streamlined through G20 platforms, ensuring private creditor inclusion and the embedding of sustainability clauses. Regional financing mechanisms must be scaled up: African and Asian Development Banks should evolve into policy anchors, not just loan dispensers. Trade governance must shift from liberalization to resilience, prioritizing protected corridors and insulating them from political shocks.The expected outcomes of this shift include more agile debt negotiations with equitable burden-sharing, rebalanced finance flows toward long-term infrastructure, and the restoration of political legitimacy to multilateral institutions through shared agenda-setting.However, risks remain. Creditor fragmentation may impede collective action. A global leadership vacuum threatens to stall reforms if no consensus emerges among the U.S., EU, or China. A regionalization backlash is also possible, where uncoordinated "go-local" efforts entrench inefficiencies.Success should be measured through the stabilization of sovereign debt risk ratings across over 20 emerging markets by Q2 2026, the rebound of cross-border investment flows to 2018 levels, and trade volume growth sustained above 3% for three consecutive quarters.This is not a slowdown. It is a structural stall. The World Bank’s warning is less about numbers than about order, or its absence. The global economy is growing, but the direction of that growth no longer reflects inclusive ambition or institutional coherence. It reflects disjointed motion shaped by power asymmetries, unequal access, and fragmented policy responses.If left unaddressed, 2.3% growth may become the new norm, not because productive potential is exhausted, but because the coordination mechanisms that once mobilized that potential are failing. This is growth by inertia, not by design—progress divorced from purpose.The path forward isn’t another fiscal push or accommodative cycle. It is a systemic redesign. And the choice facing global leaders is increasingly binary: either recalibrate the system collectively, or fracture into parallel and adversarial economic blocs with lower efficiency and higher instability.Today’s economic fatigue is the legacy of prior diplomatic indulgences, of trade-offs made in secret rooms, of alliances built on exclusion, and of crisis responses shaped by short-term national priorities rather than long-term systemic repair. Now that prosperity is faltering, the link is undeniable: the structural flaws were political before they were economic.Sanctions, decoupling, interest rate wars, and politicized trade regimes have replaced the logic of development with the logic of dominance. And now the returns are diminished, not just economically but systemically. Change is no longer optional, and no actor—however powerful—will escape the consequences of a rules-based system that no longer knows who writes the rules.We are not witnessing cyclical fatigue; we are confronting the limits of an outdated order.

The World Bank’s global growth downgrade to 2.3% reflects more than sluggish performance—it reveals a fractured system. As trade weakens and debt deepens, global coordination is unraveling. Without a strategic redesign, economic inertia could become the new norm, further marginalizing the Global South within a dysfunctional global order.

El Yafi Zineb

The Meaning Behind the World Bank’s Growth Cut

<ul><li>On June 10, 2025, Air India flight AI-217, a Boeing 787 Dreamliner, crashed during landing in Jaipur, killing at least 270 passengers and crew. In response, India’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) mandated immediate inspections of all Boeing 787 aircraft operating within its jurisdiction.</li><li>The DGCA’s swift and unilateral action marks a decisive assertion of regulatory sovereignty. For the first time, India bypassed traditional aviation powerhouses like the FAA and EASA, challenging long-standing hierarchies in global aviation oversight.</li><li>The move could accelerate a global shift in regulatory authority, erode Boeing’s credibility in emerging markets, and lead to broader structural re-evaluations of international aircraft safety protocols.</li><li>Coordinated regulatory engagement is urgently needed. Boeing, the FAA, and DGCA must establish a harmonized inspection framework to prevent further deterioration of global aviation governance and to restore public confidence in the Dreamliner fleet.</li></ul>The charred remains of Air India flight AI-217 now lie not only as a grim testament to one of the deadliest aviation disasters in India’s modern history, but also as a symbolic inflection point in the balance of global regulatory power. In a move both technically necessary and politically loaded, the DGCA ordered comprehensive inspections of Boeing 787 Dreamliners across India’s commercial fleet. No diplomatic overtures. No Boeing briefings. No Western coordination. This is not just India reacting to tragedy, it is India claiming a new altitude in aviation diplomacy.For decades, emerging markets like India deferred to U.S. and European aviation regulators, treating their pronouncements as gold standards. But now, with one catastrophic event, the script has flipped. In stepping ahead of both Boeing and the FAA, India isn’t just inspecting planes, it is inspecting the very structure of global trust in American aerospace dominance.Since its launch in 2011, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner was touted as the future of long-haul travel: lighter, more fuel-efficient, and technologically advanced. Yet its history has been turbulent. The aircraft faced grounding in 2013 due to lithium-ion battery fires, followed by a cascade of quality control problems, from improperly fastened fuselages to software anomalies. Boeing’s global reputation never fully recovered from the 737 MAX tragedies of 2018–2019, which killed 346 people and led to a worldwide grounding.Until recently, most non-Western regulators, including India’s DGCA, mirrored FAA and EASA decisions. This compliance model presumed that Western institutions were both technically superior and politically neutral. But Boeing’s failure to anticipate or resolve recurring safety concerns, and the perceived lack of accountability following the MAX crisis, have changed that perception. Trust, once assumed, is now under audit.Flight AI-217 was en route from Frankfurt to Jaipur when its landing systems reportedly failed. Preliminary data points to a malfunctioning thrust reverser and inconsistent engine output during final descent. Landing gear collapse compounded the impact, killing over 270 people instantly. India’s aviation regulator responded with an unprecedented directive: inspect every Boeing 787 operating in Indian airspace.This included more than 30 aircraft across Air India, Vistara, and other carriers. The inspections, covering engine performance, hydraulic systems, software, and flight control diagnostics, bypassed Boeing’s internal safety clearance timelines. In short: India didn’t ask for permission. It acted.DGCA’s actions signal a shift from passive rule-following to active rule-making. It is asserting both capacity and authority in a domain historically dominated by the West. Boeing, already burdened with systemic reputational risk, faces further destabilization in a market projected to become the third-largest aviation sector globally by 2030. The company’s silence post-crash only deepens its image problem. Indian carriers like Air India and Vistara, while operationally shaken, may ultimately benefit from a more credible regulatory framework that restores consumer trust.The FAA and EASA, long-standing arbiters of aviation safety, now face a difficult choice. If they align with DGCA, they risk diluting their primacy. If they oppose, they risk alienating emerging partners. Either way, their monopoly over aviation legitimacy is no longer secure.Indian carriers may delay or cancel future Boeing orders, strengthening Airbus’s already growing footprint in the region. A wider shift in market preferences toward non-U.S. manufacturers could ensue. Inspections, part replacements, and halted deliveries may ripple through Boeing’s global logistics. Meanwhile, countries like Brazil or Indonesia may emulate India’s assertiveness, accelerating a decentralization of aviation oversight.The risk of a U.S.-India regulatory clash remains. Boeing may seek intervention from the U.S. government, framing India’s actions as technically unsound. If similar faults emerge globally, coordinated groundings could disrupt international travel and trade. Conversely, if India’s inspections are incomplete or flawed, DGCA risks its newfound credibility.In response, a trilateral framework between DGCA, FAA, and Boeing should be developed to standardize inspections. This includes real-time data sharing and increased MRO (Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul) capacity in India. Success depends on the swift completion of inspections, public transparency of safety upgrades, and the adoption of India’s standards by at least two other regulators.This isn’t just a response to tragedy. It’s a recalibration of authority. India’s reaction to the Dreamliner disaster isn’t just about engines, flaps, or thrust reversers, it’s about a nation taking regulatory control in a domain long outsourced to Western command. It marks the beginning of a new era: one where the Global South no longer imports standards, but authors them.For Boeing, this is more than a public relations crisis, it’s a structural reckoning. The FAA and EASA are no longer the sole architects of legitimacy in aerospace. India has issued a warning: others are writing blueprints of their own. The question is no longer whether Boeing planes can fly, but whether Boeing’s model of global trust still can.The world has changed. The question now isn’t whether Boeing planes can fly, it’s whether Boeing’s model of global trust still can. And in that question lies the future of not only commercial aviation, but of how power, expertise, and legitimacy will be negotiated in the decades to come.

India’s response to the Air India 787 crash marks a shift in global aviation oversight. By acting independently of Boeing, the FAA, or EASA, India repositions itself as a regulatory leader. The brief explores the crash's technical fallout, its commercial and geopolitical consequences, and the emerging challenge to Western regulatory dominance.

 How India’s Boeing Crackdown Is Rewriting Aviation Power

International Student Economic Value Tool

International students’ economic impact becomes political flashpoint

Why Trump is really going after Harvard

Trump team pauses student visa interviews amid social media vetting plans

Les États-Unis suspendent le traitement des demandes de visas étudiants afin d’examiner leurs réseaux sociaux

U.S. visa interview freeze leaves Indian students in limbo

U.S. student visa freeze criticized by tech and education leaders

<ul><li>On May 27, 2025, the U.S. Department of State suspended the processing of new F-1 and J-1 student visa interviews globally, citing the need to enhance social media screening protocols for national security purposes.</li><li>The measure is part of a broader regulatory shift under the Trump administration targeting expressions of political activism, particularly related to pro-Palestinian advocacy, within U.S. academic institutions.</li><li>Harvard University’s SEVP (Student and Exchange Visitor Program) certification was temporarily revoked, raising concerns over the use of immigration enforcement tools to sanction universities perceived as ideologically non-aligned.</li><li>Competing education systems have issued public statements and implemented fast-track admissions to attract displaced or disillusioned applicants.</li><li>The suspension introduces both economic risks (tuition loss, regional enrollment declines) and geostrategic consequences (soft power erosion, reputational damage) for U.S. higher education and foreign policy alignment.</li></ul>Profits Held Hostage: How Politics Is Bleeding Billions from U.S. UniversitiesOn May 27, 2025, the Trump administration issued a sweeping directive, announced by Secretary of State Marco Rubio : all U.S. embassies were to immediately halt the processing of new student visa interviews. The rationale? A need to expand social media screening to combat “anti-American radicalism” and purported hate speech, particularly in the wake of intensified campus activism on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Though presented as a security measure, the implications of this decision reach far beyond counterterrorism. It reveals a disquieting entanglement of politics, education, and revenue, one that risks unraveling the very fabric of America’s global academic leadership.The collateral damage of culture wars,In theory, screening students’ digital lives may sound like a preventive tool. In practice, it risks becoming a politicized filter, one more likely to flag dissent than violence. Harvard University, for example, was temporarily stripped of its certification to enroll international students, following accusations that it had tolerated “antisemitic activism” on campus. Though a federal court has blocked the decision for now, the symbolism is chilling. The U.S. government is using student mobility, a cornerstone of American soft power, as a battleground for domestic ideological fights.The irony is stark: at a time when authoritarian regimes are clamping down on intellectual freedom, the United States is emulating their tactics under the guise of safeguarding democracy. Social media surveillance is no longer just a national security tool; it is being institutionalized as a gatekeeping mechanism in academia.The price tag of paranoia,The economic toll of this policy could be staggering. According to NAFSA (2023), international students contributed $44 billion to the U.S. economy in the 2022–2023 academic year alone. These revenues are not marginal; they are essential. International students, who often pay full tuition without relying on federal aid, help subsidize domestic education, support research labs, and finance campus infrastructure. Public universities in particular, long suffering from declining state subsidies, have come to rely on this income stream for survival.In response to the U.S. suspension of student visa interviews and the targeting of institutions like Harvard, countries such as China and Hong Kong have moved swiftly to position themselves as academic safe havens. Hong Kong’s Education Bureau urged local universities to welcome displaced students, while elite institutions like HKUST offered streamlined admissions. Meanwhile, China reaffirmed its ambition to become a global education hub, expanding international partnerships and inviting top global talent, signaling a clear message: if the U.S. closes its doors, others will gladly open theirs.In this sense, this is not simply a budget issue; it is a question of competitiveness. For decades, the U.S. has been the preferred destination for the world’s best and brightest. If this reputation deteriorates, rival education hubs like Canada, Australia, and the Netherlands, all of which offer more inclusive visa regimes, stand to benefit enormously.Silencing global talent,Beyond finances, what’s at stake is intellectual diversity. International students bring more than just revenue : they bring ideas, perspectives, and networks. Their presence enriches classroom dialogue, stimulates innovation, and creates lasting diplomatic bonds. When a Sudanese engineer or a Colombian anthropologist studies in the U.S., they don’t just leave with a degree, they often leave with professional relationships, respect for U.S. institutions, and in many cases, a lifelong link to American values.The decision to treat this population as a potential threat rather than a strategic asset signals a profound misreading of what makes the U.S. academic model powerful. Rather than acting as incubators of democratic exchange, campuses risk becoming ideological battlegrounds where compliance is enforced not just by deans, but by diplomats.The tipping point,The move to scrutinize social media and delay visas may seem, to its architects, like a temporary inconvenience, a political flex with limited consequences. But policy choices made in Washington have ripple effects far beyond its borders. For hundreds of thousands of students worldwide, the message is clear: your ideas may be unwelcome; your identity, suspect; your presence, conditional.Already, foreign policy experts warn that these measures will damage the U.S.’s long-term strategic influence. Higher education has been one of the most effective channels of American soft power since World War II. Its decay would not only cede ground to geopolitical competitors, but also isolate the U.S. from the next generation of global leadership.Ultimately,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The United States stood once as the gravitational center of global intellect, a place where the most ambitious minds, regardless of passport or politics, came to think freely, speak boldly, and imagine limitlessly. It was not just a country, but a cathedral of knowledge, its universities offering sanctuary from censorship, repression, and dogma. That identity is now eroding, not from outside pressure, but from within, by a political impulse that sees every foreign thinker as a potential threat, and every dissenting voice as a disloyal one.&nbsp;What began as a policy to “vet” students through social media has metastasized into something more corrosive: a national anxiety toward foreign intellect itself. In chasing ideological purity, America is no longer exporting freedom through education, it is importing fear into the classroom.&nbsp;But here lies the real paradox: the more tightly the U.S. tries to control the flow of ideas by shutting its gates, the more it empowers its rivals to open theirs. While Washington scrutinizes Instagram posts, Beijing builds innovation zones. While visas stall in consulates, scholarships are being issued in Shanghai, Berlin, and Doha. The world is watching and adapting…&nbsp;And so we must ask,&nbsp;Can a nation that surveils brilliance, censors dissent, and mistrusts the minds of the world still pretend to lead them? Or is the United States, once a sanctuary for inquiry, now dismantling the very engines of innovation, soft power, and moral authority that made it exceptional in the first place?Is America still protecting itself or is it staging an intellectual suicide disguised as national security? But what if the true price of security isn’t the risk of who we let in, but the decay of who no longer wants to come?&nbsp;

On May 27, 2025, the Trump administration issued a sweeping directive, announced by Secretary of State Marco Rubio : all U.S. embassies were to immediately halt the processing of new student visa interviews. 

Analyses

By Program

By Department

Events

Event Types

Upcoming Events

3dpolicy

About 3dpolicy

Research at 3dpolicy

Analyses

Events

3dpolicy

El Yafi Zineb

Socials

Publications (3)

The Meaning Behind the World Bank’s Growth Cut

How India’s Boeing Crackdown Is Rewriting Aviation Power

Profits Held Hostage: How Politics Is Bleeding Billions from U.S. Universities