When electricity becomes too expensive, a household is told to consume less. When the petrol rate rises, people are advised to travel carefully. When food prices climb, families are expected to adjust their kitchens. When water does not arrive, those who can afford it arrange a tanker. When public hospitals fail, people find a private doctor. When public schools fail, they pay for a private one.

The citizen is continually asked to become more economical, more patient, more resilient, as though the country’s economic problems begin and end inside the household. This is how a political failure becomes a private inconvenience.

And perhaps this is why the Pakistani middle class is so difficult to see. It is not poor enough to be counted among those who require immediate relief, nor wealthy enough to escape the consequences of a failing public system. It works, pays taxes, sends children to school, pays its bills and keeps going. Its hardship rarely arrives as a dramatic collapse.

Pakistan’s middle class is being squeezed, not just by inflation, but by the growing cost of privately securing the essentials for an ‘ordinary’, everyday life. As electricity, water, education, healthcare and transport become increasingly expensive or unreliable, households are repeatedly told to adjust and become more resilient, turning what should be political questions into private calculations

It appears instead as a gradual narrowing of life: the savings that do not accumulate, the treatment that is postponed, the house that remains rented, the child whose education becomes a financial calculation, the young graduate who begins to regard departure from the country as an economic necessity rather than a choice.

There is something politically disturbing about this quietness.

We have become accustomed to discussing the cost of living as though it were the weather: unpleasant, unavoidable and beyond anyone’s control. Yet, prices are not weather. Tariffs are not weather. Taxes are not weather. Public expenditure is not weather. They are decisions made by governments, negotiated with institutions, shaped by powerful interests and ultimately paid for by citizens.

Pakistan’s latest household data makes the contradiction difficult to ignore. The Pakistan Bureau of Statistics reports that average monthly household income from 2024-25 was Rs82,179, against an average monthly consumption expenditure of Rs79,150. The margin is scarcely Rs3,000.

That is not a measure of poverty in itself, and national averages conceal enormous differences between households, but it tells us something about the fragility of ordinary life.

Once the month’s necessities have been paid for, there is very little room left for the future. A medical emergency, a period of unemployment, a rise in school fees or a major household repair can turn a seemingly stable family into a borrowing family with remarkable speed.

Yet, we continue to call this class ‘secure’. But ‘secure’ against what?

The Pakistan Bureau of Statistics reports that average monthly household income from 2024-25 was Rs82,179, against an average monthly consumption expenditure of Rs79,150. The margin is scarcely Rs3,000. That is not a measure of poverty in itself, and national averages conceal enormous differences between households, but it tells us something about the fragility of ordinary life. Once the month’s necessities have been paid for, there is very little room left for the future.

WHEN PUBLIC FAILURE BECOMES PRIVATE COST

The question becomes more serious when the costs of the things a household cannot reasonably live without are considered.

Electricity, for example, has become one of the most politically revealing household expenses in the country. Pakistan’s power sector remains burdened by circular debt, inefficient distribution and costly generation, while consumers are repeatedly asked to absorb the consequences through tariffs and surcharges.

In February 2026, Reuters reported that proposed changes to the tariff structure under Pakistan’s International Monetary Fund (IMF) programme could place a substantially greater burden on middle-income electricity consumers, with analysts warning of sharp increases for some households, even as industrial users were considered for lower rates.

The significance of this is larger than the bill itself. Electricity is now woven into the ordinary conditions of life: cooling a room through an increasingly severe summer, preserving food, pumping water, working from home or studying after dark. To tell a household simply to consume less is to overlook the fact that the modern household has been built around electricity.

Therefore, the question is not only how much electricity people use, but why the cost of using an essential public service has become a recurring source of economic insecurity.

Water carries the same contradiction in a different form. Karachi, a city whose relationship with water has been shaped by shortage, unequal distribution and a large tanker economy, offers perhaps the clearest example of what happens when a public necessity becomes a private purchase.

Research by the International Growth Centre found that Karachi households spent an average of roughly Rs2,500 a month on domestic water and another Rs736 on drinking water, with the burden falling proportionately more heavily on lower-income households.

The city has effectively developed parallel systems of provision: one for those connected to reliable infrastructure and another for those who can purchase their way around its absence.

The political absurdity is easy to miss because it has become ordinary. A citizen can pay for a public service through taxes and charges and then pay again when that service does not reach the household.

The wealthy can absorb the second payment. The poor may not be able to make it at all. The middle class occupies the uncomfortable space between the two, able to purchase some private substitutes but increasingly unable to do so without sacrificing something else.

THE MIDDLE CLASS VS THE STATE

This is where the question of the middle class stops being a question about comfort and becomes a question about the state. If a family must privately secure its water, education, healthcare, transport and electricity, what exactly remains of the public contract for which it continues to pay taxes?

And if the state responds to these failures by asking households to become more resilient, more careful and more self-reliant, at what point does self-reliance become another name for abandonment?

The poor, of course, have even less room to escape. This is the part of the conversation that must not be lost. The middle class may complain about the electricity bill, but a poor household may be deciding whether it can pay it at all. A salaried family may move its children to a cheaper school, while another family may have no school to move them to.

The World Bank estimates that around 22.5 percent of Pakistan’s population remained below the national poverty line in fiscal year 2025, while millions more remain vulnerable to falling back into poverty when faced with inflation, illness, unemployment or another economic shock.

So, the question is not whether the middle class is suffering more than the poor. It is whether the suffering of the middle class is a warning about what is happening further down the economic ladder. If a person with a regular salary is struggling to maintain what was once considered an ‘ordinary’ standard of living, what does that tell us about the person without a regular salary?

And if the answer is that the poor will be protected through welfare programmes, then another question follows: why must the state first make basic life unaffordable and then offer assistance to help people survive the unaffordability it has helped create?

THE POLITICS OF MAKING THINGS ‘NORMAL’

This is where our politics deserves much more scrutiny than it receives.

For generations, Pakistani governments have spoken to citizens in the language of necessity. “Roti, kaprra aur makaan [food, clothing and shelter]” remains one of the country’s most enduring political phrases because it promises the minimum conditions of dignity. But perhaps the country has reached the point where even the meaning of that promise needs to be questioned.

What does roti mean when the electricity required to refrigerate food becomes expensive? What does makaan mean when a house without reliable water, sanitation, transport and electricity is hardly a secure home? What does education mean when a family can afford the degree but not the economic future that was supposed to follow it? The slogans have remained remarkably durable. The conditions they describe have not.

And maybe this is why the conversation so often remains behind closed doors. People know the system is failing them in small, expensive ways, but they have been taught to experience each failure individually. The electricity bill is a household problem. The water shortage is a neighbourhood problem. The petrol price is a transport problem. The school fee is a family problem. The hospital bill is a personal problem. Once everything has been divided into private problems, the political question disappears.

The German political theorist Karl Marx, writing in a very different century and a very different society, understood the importance of that disappearance. In The German Ideology, he and Friedrich Engels wrote that the ideas of the ruling class tend to become the ruling ideas of an age.

Marx was not writing about Pakistan and his 19th century categories cannot simply be placed over contemporary Pakistani society. But his larger question remains useful: who has the power to decide what becomes normal? Perhaps we should ask that every time we are told that another increase is ‘unavoidable’.

Who decided that electricity must cost this much? Who decided which sectors could be protected and which households could absorb the burden? Who decided what should be taxed and what should remain difficult to tax? Who decides whether development spending is sufficient, whether public transport deserves investment, whether water infrastructure can remain inadequate, whether healthcare should be largely privatised through necessity? These are not acts of nature. They are choices. And choices can be questioned.

POLITICS, PRICES, POWER

That is what makes the present condition more troubling than inflation alone. We have not merely become accustomed to expensive life — we have become accustomed to the idea that there is nothing political about its expense.

We discuss bills but not the decisions behind them. We debate prices but rarely the distribution of power that produces them. We complain about governments, yet allow the same fundamental questions to disappear beneath the familiar language of crisis management, economic adjustment and national sacrifice. The question Pakistan needs to ask is not simply how much more the middle class can bear. It is why it is being asked to bear it at all.

The answer is uncomfortable because it takes us beyond the familiar language of economic crises and towards the question of power. Pakistan is not simply a country where there is too little money. It is a country where money, opportunity and protection are distributed unevenly, and where the ability to avoid a crisis often depends on the ability to pay for an alternative.

The wealthy household does not experience a power outage in quite the same way as a salaried household, because it can invest in solar energy, generators and battery storage. It does not experience a water shortage in quite the same way because it can buy water tankers, install filtration systems and maintain underground storage. It does not experience the collapse of public healthcare or education in quite the same way because it can move into private systems.

This is not an argument against private wealth. People naturally use their resources to protect themselves. The political problem begins when private protection becomes the only reliable protection available. A state can tolerate inequality in income, but it cannot afford to allow inequality in access to the basic conditions of citizenship to become permanent.

A SECOND TAX

The tax system makes this division even more visible. Pakistan needs taxation and it needs much more of it if it is to finance development without repeatedly returning to external lenders. The problem is not that citizens should not pay. The problem is that the ease with which different citizens can be taxed is itself unequal.

The salaried worker has little room to disappear from the tax system. Income is documented, deductions can be made at source and the state knows where to find him. A formal business faces similar visibility.

Large areas of economic activity, however, remain difficult to document and tax effectively. This has created a peculiar bargain, in which those who are easiest to identify can find themselves carrying a disproportionate share of the formal burden. The result is not simply resentment about taxation. It is the feeling that the state has become very efficient at finding the people who are already inside its system while remaining much less capable of bringing everyone else into it.

This matters because taxation is ultimately a question of trust. People are more willing to pay when they can see the relationship between what they contribute and what the state provides. In Pakistan, that relationship has weakened.

A salaried household may pay income tax and still send its children to private schools because it does not trust the public alternative. It may pay for private healthcare because a public hospital cannot provide timely treatment. It may purchase bottled water because the line supply is unreliable. It may spend on private transport because the public system cannot connect home to work in a reasonable amount of time. It may install solar panels because electricity prices have become difficult to manage.

None of these expenditures is technically another tax. Together, however, they resemble a second tax: the cost of purchasing privately what citizens expect a functioning public system to provide.

This is also why the debate about the middle class should not be reduced to whether people are living beyond their means. There is certainly unnecessary consumption and there are households that spend beyond what they can afford. But it is too convenient to explain a structural problem through individual financial discipline.

A family cannot budget its way out of an electricity tariff. It cannot save its way out of a shortage of public transport. It cannot become sufficiently frugal to make an unreliable water system reliable. The idea that every household can solve these problems privately is attractive because it places responsibility exactly where it is easiest to place it: on the individual. But a society built around private solutions eventually becomes a society in which citizenship itself is measured by purchasing power.

THE FUTURE IS BECOMING A CALCULATION

This becomes particularly serious for younger Pakistanis. The middle class once carried an expectation that each generation would move forward: parents would educate their children, children would obtain better employment, and the next generation would live with greater security than the one before it.

That expectation is becoming harder to sustain. Young people are entering a labour market in which education does not necessarily guarantee economic independence, while housing costs and everyday expenses make it increasingly difficult to establish an independent household.

For many, migration is no longer simply an aspiration. It becomes a calculation. The question is not whether life abroad will be easier in every respect, but whether the relationship between income and possibility makes more sense somewhere else. When an educated young population begins to imagine its future primarily outside the country, the loss is not only personal. It is an economic and political loss for the country that educated it.

The irony is that the state continues to speak about the demographic strength of Pakistan. A large, young population is repeatedly described as an opportunity, a potential workforce and a source of future growth. But a young population becomes an economic asset only when the economy can give it productive work, useful education and a reasonable prospect of building a life. Otherwise, population becomes another pressure on households already struggling to maintain themselves. The question is not simply how many young people Pakistan has. It is what kind of future Pakistan is capable of offering them.

The same contradiction can be seen in the language of development. Economic growth is necessary, but growth measured through aggregate numbers does not automatically tell us whether ordinary people are becoming more secure.

A country can record higher exports, improved foreign reserves or a declining inflation rate while households continue to feel that their lives are becoming more difficult. Macroeconomic stability matters enormously — without it, the consequences can be even worse. But stability cannot become the final definition of economic success. A stable economy in which the ordinary citizen remains unable to afford decent housing, reliable transport, healthcare, education and energy is stable only in the narrowest technical sense.

This is perhaps where the political argument needs to become more demanding. Governments should not only be asked whether inflation has fallen, whether the deficit has narrowed or whether foreign exchange reserves have improved. They should also be asked what these improvements have meant inside households.

And this returns us to the poor. If the middle class is increasingly spending its income simply to maintain a basic standard of living, then the question of redistribution becomes unavoidable. Pakistan cannot address poverty only by giving money to poor households while leaving the underlying cost of living untouched.

Social protection is essential and programmes such as the Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP) provide an important safety net to millions of families. But a cash transfer can help a household buy food, it cannot by itself create a functioning water system, a reliable electricity network, a good public school or a productive labour market. Welfare can protect people from the worst consequences of poverty, but it cannot substitute for an economy and public institutions that allow people to escape poverty.

This is where the old political promise of roti, kaprra aur makaan begins to look inadequate for the present. The promise was never merely about three objects. It was about dignity and security. But dignity now depends upon systems that did not occupy the same place in political language decades ago.

A home without water and electricity is not secure shelter. Food becomes more expensive when transport and energy become expensive. Education cannot fulfil its promise if the economy cannot provide employment to the people who obtain it. Healthcare is not meaningful as a right if illness can push a family into debt. The minimum conditions of a decent life have expanded, even if our political vocabulary has not.

There is a political danger in this. A society can survive poverty for a long time because poverty is often experienced as a condition that has always existed. It is much harder to sustain a society in which people who believed themselves secure begin to lose faith in the possibility of remaining secure.

The middle class has traditionally been one of the strongest believers in institutions. It believes in education, employment, law, property, taxation and the promise that effort should produce some degree of stability. If that belief weakens, the consequences extend beyond household budgets. People begin to look elsewhere for security: in private networks, family wealth, migration, patronage or political identity. The public system becomes something to navigate rather than something to trust.

THE LIMITS OF ‘RESILIENCE’

This may explain why so many economic conversations in Pakistan take place behind closed doors.

It is not that people do not know what is happening. They know very well. They know when their bills rise, when their children’s school fees increase, when the price of food changes and when their salary no longer carries the same value. What is missing is the transformation of that private knowledge into a public demand.

We have normalised the idea that every household must solve its own version of the national crisis. The wealthy solve it with money. The middle class solves it with adjustment. The poor solve it with sacrifice. But none of these is a substitute for political accountability.

A country cannot ask its citizens to be endlessly adaptable while its institutions remain unchanged. At some point, resilience becomes an excuse for the absence of reform. The ability of Pakistanis to endure difficult conditions has often been celebrated as a national virtue, but there is something dangerous about celebrating endurance without asking what people are being forced to endure and who has the power to change it. A citizen should not have to become extraordinarily resilient simply to live an ordinary life.

That is perhaps the question that should sit behind every budget, every tariff notification and every political speech: what kind of life are we asking people to finance? If the answer is a life in which the middle class works primarily to pay for necessities, the poor remain dependent on assistance and the wealthy can increasingly purchase their way around public failure, then economic growth alone cannot be the measure of progress. The country may continue to move forward on paper while its people feel that they are standing still.

And this is where the political argument finally becomes unavoidable. The issue is not whether one government is responsible for every problem, nor whether one political party can repair decades of structural weakness. It is whether citizens have become so accustomed to adjusting themselves to the failures of the system that they have stopped asking the system to change. The electricity bill is then no longer a political document; it is simply something to be paid.

Perhaps this is the real political problem of the Pakistani middle class. It is not merely that it is being squeezed, it is that it is being taught to experience the squeeze privately.

Until these private calculations become public questions, the burden will continue to move quietly from one household to another, from the middle class to the poor and from one generation to the next. The country will continue to debate which government is better at managing the crisis, while far fewer people ask why ordinary citizens have been made responsible for managing it at all.

The writer is a researcher whose work centres
on cultural critique and social realities.
She can be contacted at hamnasyed66@gmail.com
Instagram: @hamnsyed

Published in Dawn, EOS, September 20th, 2026

The prime minister made the remarks during a meeting with European Council President António Luís Santos da Costa and European Commission President Ursula Gertrud von der Leyen on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

During the meeting, the leaders reviewed the full spectrum of Pakistan-EU relations and expressed satisfaction at the growing momentum in high-level exchanges and engagement between Pakistan and the EU, according to the PMO.

PM Shehbaz underscored the importance of “sustained leadership-level engagement” in providing greater direction and momentum to the relationship.

He reaffirmed Pakistan’s commitment to further strengthening its “broad-based partnership” with the European Union and the full implementation of the Pakistan-EU Strategic Engagement Plan, the PMO said.

The leaders also exchanged views on regional and global developments and reaffirmed the importance of dialogue, diplomacy, international law and the “peaceful resolution of disputes”.

Prime minister also reiterated his invitation to the presidents of the European Council and European Commission to visit Pakistan and expressed his desire to continue working closely with them to “further deepen the mutually beneficial partnership”.

PM Shehbaz’s remarks came as Pakistan and the EU on Monday signed €65 million (about $75m) in financing agreements to support Global Gateway investments, strengthen the rule of law and business environment, and enhance energy and environmental resilience.

Meanwhile, in a post on X, Von der Leyen described the meeting with PM Shehbaz as “very good” and said the EU valued its partnership with Pakistan.

She said the EU and Pakistan had discussed how to take their partnership forward, “from trade to addressing illegal migration”.

She also thanked the prime minister for his initiative to mediate in the conflict between the United States and Iran, adding that Pakistan was playing an “important role” in support of de-escalation, dialogue and the peaceful resolution of conflicts.

Earlier this week, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar met the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Kaja Kallas, where he stressed the significance of GSP+ for Pakistan’s trade relations with the EU.

The meetings take place against the backdrop of an intense engagement between Islamabad and Brussels over the trading scheme and its future.

The current EU GSP+ framework is set to expire at the end of this year, and Pakistan is required to seek inclusion in the successor regime, which would carry more stringent requirements.

Though the new trading framework will take effect with the turn of the year, Pakistan and other existing beneficiaries will continue to receive preferences during a two-year transition period ending on Dec 31, 2028.

But the transition does not amount to an automatic continuation of the facility for the two years or a roll over into the new scheme.

A European Commission assessment covering the years 2023-25, released in July this year, concluded that Pakistan had faced compliance issues with its obligations, regressed in several areas and made limited positive change.

It should be mentioned that the EU’s GSP+ regime is tied to compliance with international conventions on human rights, labour rights, environmental protection and good governance.

The report had identified significant concerns relating to enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings, freedom of expression, journalists’ and minority rights, judicial independence, access to justice and forced labour.

Earlier this month, the European Union’s ambassador to Pakistan, Raimundas Karoblis, had also cautioned that GSP+ benefits could not be taken for granted.

Transitioning from ‘macroeconomic stabilisation towards a recovery path’: Shehbaz tells IMF

On Wednesday, PM Shehbaz, in a meeting with the International Monetary Fund’s top official, stressed that Pakistan was transitioning from “macroeconomic stabilisation towards a recovery path”, PMO said.

PM Shehbaz met with the Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva on the sidelines of the UNGA.

Pakistan is currently under a $7 billion, 37-month IMF programme, aimed at stabilising the economy through fiscal discipline, structural reforms, and measures to support long-term growth.

In the meeting, the premier thanked the IMF for its “continued support” for Pakistan’s economy. He reaffirmed that his government was committed to implementing the IMF-supported reform programme.

PM Shehbaz also appreciated Georgieva’s role in “strengthening Pakistan’s constructive partnership” with the lending agency.

The premier also reaffirmed the government’s “strong ownership” of the IMF’s es economic reform agenda.

He also “reiterated Pakistan’s strong resolve to maintain the momentum of reforms and advance structural measures aimed at strengthening the economy and laying the foundations for sustainable and inclusive growth,” the PMO added.

The prime minister also held that Pakistan was transitioning from “macroeconomic stabilisation towards a recovery path, supported by prudent fiscal and monetary policies,” despite regional conflict and external inflationary pressures.

PM Shehbaz also highlighted progress made in “fiscal discipline, external buffers and investor confidence,” citing “the National Tariff Policy, enhanced domestic revenue mobilisation, and progress on privatisation”.

He also said that the government was protecting vulnerable segments of society.

Georgieva, for her part, lauded Pakistan’s performance under the IMF, while also acknowledging that Pakistan’s efforts aimed at economic stabilisation were showing “tangible results”.

Pakistan’s upcoming IMF programme review and “continued cooperation between Pakistan and the fund in advancing reforms, strengthening economic resilience and supporting sustainable growth”.

Deputy Prime Minister & Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar and Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb were also present at the meeting, among other senior government functionaries.

In a major setback for Trump in one of his biggest battles with the media, US District Judge Tim Kelly issued his order in a lawsuit that the news organisations filed contesting the ban that the Republican president announced on September 18.

Kelly ordered the Trump administration to immediately return the outlets’ press passes and blocked officials from enforcing the ban for 14 days. The judge rejected the government’s assertion that the ban was motivated by national security concerns.

“The record lacks factual support for defendant’s contention that the revocation of plaintiffs’ hard passes will in fact protect national security or that national security will be endangered if the court orders their passes reinstated while this litigation proceeds,” he said, adding that Trump himself had stated the ban was due to “alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity” of the outlets’ reporting.

The White House and representatives for the outlets did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Trump had said on social media that the three outlets “shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES,” and Justice Department lawyers had sought to justify the ban on national security grounds.

The three outlets sued Trump and other members of his administration in federal court in Washington on Monday, saying the ban violated the US Constitution’s First Amendment protections for free speech and a free press, as well as their due process rights.

They requested a temporary restraining order that would immediately reinstate their White House access while their legal challenge plays out.

The legal battle has unfolded just weeks before the Nov 3 midterm elections in which Trump’s fellow Republicans are fighting to retain control of Congress. Trump’s job approval ratings are at record lows in opinion polls amid concerns over issues such as the Iran war and inflation.

Kelly said at a Wednesday hearing that two precedents from the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit made clear that journalists are entitled to due process before their White House press passes can be revoked. The judge added that it did not appear that the White House had given the targeted news outlets a meaningful opportunity to contest the revocation of their access.

A lawyer for the news outlets told Kelly that they were banned without legally required advance notice or opportunity to contest the decisions, which he said were unprecedented, unreasonable and severe punishments.

A Justice Department lawyer told the judge the Trump administration provided a sufficient explanation for the revocation of the press passes in letters sent to the news outlets on Tuesday. But the judge signalled scepticism of that argument, noting that the letters were sent after the revocation occurred and the lawsuit was filed.

In a legal filing on Tuesday, the Justice Department argued that access to the White House is a privilege, not an entitlement, and that the president has the authority to suspend access by news organisations.

A coalition of press freedom groups and dozens of news organisations filed a legal brief on Wednesday supporting the three news outlets.

They asserted that “stripping journalists and news outlets of their rights because of perceived editorial viewpoint violates decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence.” The brief was signed by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Reuters, the Washington Post and Fox News, among others.

Israeli media reported on Wednesday that the decision to avoid an overnight stay followed security warnings presented to Netanyahu in recent discussions with Israeli security officials.

Channel 13 reported that security officials had recommended against extending the prime minister’s stay in the US after discussions held in recent days, some of which Netanyahu attended. The “intelligence picture” presented during those meetings included specific warnings that led officials to recommend shortening the visit, the report said, without disclosing the nature of the warnings.

Under the revised itinerary, Netanyahu is expected to leave Israel late Wednesday, arrive in the New York area on Thursday morning, address the UN General Assembly at about 2pm New York time (11pm PST) and leave for Israel later that day.

Israeli media had already reported that the planned visit was being cut substantially after a scheduled stop in Texas to meet Tesla CEO and businessman Elon Musk was canceled. An Israeli advance team had reportedly reached Texas to prepare for the meeting before the stop was called off.

The shortened itinerary also does not include a meeting with US President Donald Trump. US officials have cited scheduling difficulties, with Netanyahu not included among the leaders currently scheduled to meet Trump during the UN gathering.

The Israeli prime minister’s unusually brief visit comes amid heightened security and the expectation of demonstrations in New York over Israel’s military operations in Gaza and its policies in the occupied Palestinian territories.

It also follows increasingly sharp exchanges between Netanyahu and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani. Mamdani has publicly described Netanyahu as a “war criminal” and accused him of responsibility for what he calls genocide against Palestinians. Netanyahu, in turn, has accused Mamdani of supporting Hamas and said he intends to use his UN appearance to defend Israel and counter what he describes as false narratives about its military actions.

The International Criminal Court issued (ICC) an arrest warrant for Netanyahu in Nov 2024, alleging responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity in connection with the Gaza conflict.

The ICC also issued a warrant for then-Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. The court’s official record said the allegations included starvation as a method of warfare, intentionally directing attacks against civilians, murder, persecution and other inhumane acts.

The issue acquired particular significance in New York because of Mamdani’s earlier calls for Netanyahu to be arrested under the ICC warrant. US President Donald Trump has said Netanyahu would not be arrested in the United States.

The current visit should also be distinguished from video footage circulating on social media and in some media reports, showing diplomats leaving the UN General Assembly during Netanyahu’s speech.

That footage is not from the 81st General Assembly.

A verification by Spain’s RTVE found that widely circulated footage, showing delegations walking out as Netanyahu approached the UN podium, was recorded during his address to the 80th General Assembly on Sept 26, 2025. The UN’s archive confirmed that Netanyahu addressed the session on the date.

The distinction is significant because the old footage has been recirculated during the current UN week as if it showed events surrounding Netanyahu’s 2026 appearance. The footage is genuine, but it is from last year and should not be presented as current images of Thursday’s speech.

The 81st UNGA general debate began on Sept 22 and continues until Sept 28. Netanyahu is scheduled to address the Assembly on Thursday (today).

His visit, therefore, is expected to consist essentially of one appearance at the UN followed by an immediate return to Israel, with no overnight stay, no scheduled meeting with Trump and no previously planned Texas stop with Musk.

It will be the year’s second meeting of the leaders of the two biggest economies, but Xi’s first visit to Washington in more than a decade.

Trump greeted Xi on arrival on Wednesday evening, the first time a US president has welcomed a foreign leader at Joint Base Andrews in 11 years, when President Barack Obama welcomed Pope Francis in 2015, according to C-SPAN, which tracks presidential events.

In a statement on arrival carried by China’s Xinhua news agency, Xi voiced hope for a more stable relationship with the United States, saying Beijing and Washington should be “partners, not rivals” and that the “historical logic of peaceful coexistence” between the two countries had not changed.

For Trump, who relishes ceremony and prizes his ties with powerful leaders, the visit is as much a matter of national prestige as an opportunity for high-stakes diplomacy.

The US president aims to reciprocate the grand welcome he received in China in May and impress Xi with a ceremony spanning the White House South Lawn, State Floor and Rose Garden.

Major breakthroughs are not expected.

Analysts say tangible outcomes are likely to be limited to an extension of a trade truce expiring in November and an agreement to examine threats posed by artificial intelligence.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Fox News on Wednesday after talks with Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng that they had agreed to extend until January 10 an agreement that paused a trade war that saw mutual tariffs top 100 per cent.

People familiar with the plans say the talks could also yield deals to lower some tariffs, combat drug trafficking and expand military-to-military dialogue, while Trump is expected to seek the release of Americans and others detained in China.

Former Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell said the summit was less about substantive negotiations than a chance for two forceful leaders to project strength.

“This is really the historical reincarnation of what we often referred to in antiquity as single combat — really powerful guys, each representing their civilisations, kind of measuring and going toe to toe,” said Campbell.

Keeping ties stable

Xi appears to be in a stronger position, having overseen a surge in China’s trade and controlling supplies of rare earth minerals that give him a powerful source of leverage.

Both leaders see advantages in keeping relations stable, with Trump mired in the unpopular Iran war and Xi grappling with domestic economic challenges.

But beneath the surface are challenges that could reignite tensions, including disputes over Taiwan, export controls and AI.

Taiwan, a democratically governed island claimed by China, is the most contentious of these. US allies in Asia are concerned Trump may be tempted to soften Washington’s support for Taipei to lock in economic wins with China.

Xi is expected to press Trump to halt Taiwan arms sales and could do this during a planned visit by the two to the US National Archives on Friday, sources briefed told Reuters. In return, China is offering help to put pressure on Iran, the sources added.

After the May summit, Trump said he was holding in abeyance an arms package worth some $14 billion and called it a “very good negotiating chip.” The leaders will likely discuss the Iran war, but there has been little sign Beijing is willing to exert pressure on its ally to yield to US demands, despite the disruption the conflict has caused to energy supplies and trade.

Trade deals possible

Trade is more promising.

Trump is seeking trade wins ahead of the midterms, and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said this month the countries will make “some announcements on agriculture and non-tariff barriers.” Greer said on Monday China is making progress on a commitment to buy 200 Boeing aircraft, but gave no indication that any additional orders are near.

Analysts say AI could be an area for cooperation, given its implications for national security, economic competitiveness and military capabilities, and shared US and Chinese concerns about misuse.

Bessent discussed AI with He Lifeng at the weekend, and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said there was nascent thinking about “the equivalent of a hotline that we had during the Cold War” to avoid dangerous incidents that “could impact economies or societies and even lead to a conflict between nation-states.” However, analysts say intense competition in AI is likely to limit the scope for anything beyond symbolic agreements.

The guest list for Thursday’s state dinner includes CEOs like Apple’s Tim Cook, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Alphabet’s Sundar Pichai, OpenAI’s Sam Altman, Tesla’s Elon Musk and Nvidia’s Jensen Huang, but despite such an array, people familiar with US plans say Trump is likely to maintain firm export controls on US tech Xi wants loosened.