Several global capitals have expressed dissatisfaction with the introduction of new tariffs by Trump. The spokesperson for the Japanese Government, Minoru Kihara, stated that Japanese industry and trade operate within international norms, regretting that the new measure imposes customs duties solely on the justification of the absence of a ban on importing products made with forced labor.
Kihara also emphasized that Japan and the United States share the belief that the agreement signed last year is universal and that both sides remain committed to its implementation. Meanwhile, Australian Trade Minister Don Farrell described the new customs duties imposed by the North American ally as 'unjustified,' demanding their revocation because they are incompatible with the free trade agreement.
Christopher Luxon, Prime Minister of New Zealand, also criticized the tariffs, describing them as 'extremely disappointing.' He accused Washington of failing to provide 'significant evidence to support the allegations regarding forced labor,' which forms the basis for imposing tariffs affecting over 99% of American imports. Luxon added that customs duties are not the solution, as they raise costs and increase business uncertainty.
Dominic LeBlanc, Canada's minister responsible for Canada-US-Mexico negotiations under the trilateral trade agreement, considered Washington's tariff action 'not unexpected.' Canada shares the US goal of preventing goods produced with forced labor from entering the supply chain, although the country follows a parallel trajectory in trade exchanges with the United States, as does Mexico.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney reported that Canada is intensifying talks with Washington to reach a comprehensive trade pact. However, he declared readiness to take action if Trump's threat to impose 50% tariffs on Canadian products, scheduled for August 19, materializes, a deadline given by the White House the previous week. Carney noted that if no prior agreement is reached, 'everything is on the table,' and that preemptive response would be counterproductive at this time.
Mexico assured, through its Ministry of Commerce, that it managed to avoid the application of the new taxes, maintaining preferential treatment for exports that comply with the tripartite treaty (T-MEC or USMCA). Despite being on the list of affected countries, the Mexican secretariat detailed that approximately 85% of the country's exports will continue to enter the American market duty-free, due to T-MEC coverage. The remaining products that do not meet the treaty provisions will continue to pay a customs duty of 10%, according to Section 122.
Brazil was one of the first governments to react, accusing Washington of using the fight against forced labor as a pretext to implement a protectionist trade policy. The government of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva argued that, given the lack of an internal legal basis for such a policy, the United States 'chose to manipulate such an important issue' to institute a new tax.
Chile's Ministry of Foreign Affairs communicated that the country has a 'solid labor institutional framework' and will negotiate with the United States to be removed from the list of 60 economies covered. The Chilean MFA alleged that applying this measure to Chile is not aligned with the standards, nor with the technical, political, and legal histories presented throughout the investigation.
The new tariffs, ranging between 10% and 12.5%, announced by Donald Trump's Administration, affect more than 80 nations and come into effect at 00:01 Eastern Time (07:01 in Lisbon), replacing the temporary global tariff of 10% expiring at the same time. These new customs duties result from 60 individual investigations of economies, conducted and sanctioned by the U.S. Trade Representative's Office (USTR) under Section 301.
The practical scope of these 60 investigations covers more than 80 countries, since one of the 60 targeted economies is the European Union (EU), which implies the individual inclusion of its 27 member states. The bloc is divided into 17 economies subject to the lower rate of 10% for having partial rules or regimes against forced labor, such as the EU, Canada, the UK, India, Mexico, or Argentina. Another ten countries received the same 10% rate for signing direct trade agreements with commitments in this area. The remaining economies and blocs, including Brazil, China, and Japan, are targeted with the maximum rate of 12.5%.
Defence Minister Bantu Kholomisa stated that South Africa should study new financing models and public-private partnership (PPP) mechanisms to enhance the country's defence capabilities.
Kholomisa welcomed the idea of seeking interaction with the commercial sector to support the South African National Defence Force (SANDF). He emphasized that such partnerships must be carefully planned and assessed considering national security requirements, accessibility, procurement laws, ownership issues, and long-term financial implications.
He stressed the need to include institutional investors, such as the Public Investment Corporation (PIC), in the financing formula to explore options for long-term infrastructure investments.
Concerns are raised that governance issues at PIC are exacerbated by internal power struggles. Most State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs), which should lead infrastructure development, show widespread dissatisfaction and disregard for governance principles. PIC is viewed as a sacred financial institution in the country.
It is important to note that Regulation 28 could make PIC a key player in South Africa's infrastructure lending. However, instead of mandating infrastructure investment, this regulation allows pension funds, such as the Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF), which oversees PIC, to invest in infrastructure while adhering to fiduciary duty and prudent diversification.
After diversification and agreement from trustees, pension funds can invest up to 45% of their assets in various classes of infrastructure. PIC, managing assets exceeding 3 trillion rand, is the largest asset manager in Africa. Since most infrastructure projects require long-term funding, this aligns well with the long-term obligations of pension funds.
This allows PIC to act as a catalyst for financing long-term commercial infrastructure, including military, aiming to stimulate industrialization and job creation. The PPP proposed by Kholomisa has significant commercial and developmental merit, given South Africa's financial constraints. Nevertheless, it is critical to consider the tendency of private participants towards socializing risks and privatizing profits when involved in public processes.
Involving PIC as a catalyst can reduce the burden on the national debt, lower the cost of sovereign borrowing, attract private investment, and improve fiscal sustainability. This aligns with Treasury's goals of encouraging pension fund participation when delegating investment decisions to trustees. Pension capital is inherently better suited for long-term investments than commercial banks, which prefer shorter repayment periods.
Since PIC serves as a trigger for attracting private finance, infrastructure investments possess one of the highest economic multipliers. This can promote GDP growth, employment, industrialization, logistics efficiency, and export competitiveness. Improved infrastructure also attracts private investment from both domestic and foreign sources, as infrastructure assets often generate stable, predictable, and inflation-linked cash flows.
Despite the favorable foundation laid by Regulation 28, it does not solve the structural problem of a lack of bankable projects. Some consider this to be South Africa's biggest problem. Treasury itself noted during the reforms of Regulation 28 that the key limitation was not investment capacity but the availability of such projects. Added to this structural problem is the fiduciary duty, as PIC's primary mandate is to protect pensioners' savings.
Therefore, projects must demonstrate commercial viability, acceptable risk-adjusted returns, strong governance, and predictable cash flows, as development goals alone are insufficient. Due to past governance failures in SOEs, state-created risks have hindered economic growth. Leading pension investors, such as those from Canada and Australia, make significant infrastructure investments for several reasons: high quality project preparation, independent regulation, transparent procurement, robust concession agreements, and qualified asset management.
Despite substantial institutional capital, South Africa currently lacks a portfolio of investment-ready projects. PIC has improved its governance following the Mpathe Commission but still has several structural shortcomings compared to leading sovereign wealth funds and pension managers such as Norway's Government Pension Fund Global, Canada's CPP Investments, Singapore's GIC, Temasek, and Australia's Future Fund, as well as New Zealand's Super Fund. The main issues lie less in investment performance and more in governance, independence, accountability, and investment discipline.
The crisis of political influence leading to corruption, cronyism, and rent-seeking is the root cause of South Africa's massive structural obstacles. In line with global best practices, an asset manager should make investment decisions primarily based on fiduciary considerations or in the interest of beneficiaries. However, PIC operates in an environment where investment decisions can be influenced by political objectives. The Mpathe Commission found political interference and an inappropriate board composition.
Most international asset managers have boards composed of experts in various fields, including economics and capital markets, actuarial science, risk management, and pension management. In the past, the PIC board had political appointments and sometimes lacked adequate investment experience. The Mpathe Commission recommended improving the autonomy and competence of board members, as well as clarifying the distinction between management and oversight.
Conducting comprehensive investment due diligence is one barrier that PIC must eliminate in its institutional culture to become a successful investment catalyst. Deficiencies were identified in assessing commercial viability, legal vetting, financial modeling, and valuation in some contentious projects. Weak post-investment monitoring appears to be the norm for most South African Development Finance Institutions (DFIs).
Trusted foreign sovereign funds make significant efforts to monitor investments after deployment. The Mpathe Commission stated that PIC needs a stronger post-investment monitoring and evaluation process. International standards require full reporting, independent ethical review, recusal procedures, continuous disclosure of interests, and robust whistleblower protection. The Commission found several instances of poorly managed conflicts of interest.
Due to all these issues, the integrity of this powerful asset manager, which could serve as a pillar against financial constraints and difficulties, is diminished. ESG voting, reports, asset management programs, portfolio risk, governance ratings, and investment rationales are just some of the crucial and useful details that the corporation fails to disclose.
Despite some visible improvements following the Mpathe Commission, transparency still lags behind many international competitors. According to the Mpathe Commission, PIC's operating model is overly centralized and unsuitable for an asset manager of its scale. Large international asset managers typically have separate departments with clear divisions of authority for infrastructure, private equity, equities, bonds, real estate, risk, compliance, and portfolio analysis.
Although PIC has risk management structures, others argue that ineffective risk management has been compromised by governance deficiencies. Unlike traditional sovereign funds, PIC is often expected to support South Africa's development goals. This requires defining risk-adjusted performance criteria, quantitative socio-economic outcomes, commercial return requirements, and clear mandates before investment can be justified. Otherwise, fiduciary duties may conflict with development goals.
Loss of trust resulting from governance disputes is one of the huge intangible costs. Despite reforms, regulatory scrutiny of governance issues persists, as seen in recent FSCA investigations into governance and transparency. However, the following improvements could be implemented if PIC were to engage more closely with large international institutional investors:
The potential adoption by PIC of a dual-mandate framework, similar to what some development finance institutions do, is another reform that stands out in the context of infrastructure and development finance. With its own governance structure, risk tolerance, and performance metrics, this approach would allow commercially oriented pension investments to be separated from infrastructure investments for development. PIC could openly and responsibly support South Africa's aspirations in infrastructure and industrialization, while pensioners are better protected.
Furthermore, the political recommendation for an effective and successful PIC as a driver of economic growth should include the following. To maximize the benefits of Regulation 28, South Africa must move beyond merely encouraging infrastructure investment and instead create a comprehensive framework for project preparation and bankability. This should include:
With such a structure, PIC can invest with confidence and fulfill its fiduciary duties. Significant regulatory barriers to pension fund investment in infrastructure have been removed by Regulation 28. The regulation is no longer the main barrier to increasing PIC participation; rather, it is the lack of bankable, well-managed, investment-ready infrastructure projects. This proposal shifts the focus of political debate from 'How do we unlock pension funds?' to 'How do we create investable infrastructure?' This shift is crucial for South Africa's approach to infrastructure financing.
Thus, the practical PPP action plan proposed by Kholomisa, aimed at modernizing South Africa's defence capabilities, addressing military infrastructure, supporting local industry, and ensuring the sector generates bankable proposals, is neither idealistic nor mere talk.
The resignation of Deputy Minister of Finance Dr. David Masondo from the position of Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) has triggered demands for serious governance reforms within the organization.
The DA party stated that David Masondo's departure is not sufficient to restore confidence in PIC, which manages the pension savings of public servants and employee funds totaling over 3 trillion rand. Andrew Bateman, the party's Deputy Spokesperson on Allocations, reported on Friday that PIC is facing an unprecedented corporate governance crisis, indicating a complete collapse in this area.
Bateman emphasized that merely changing the composition of the board of directors without legislative changes will not solve PIC's problems. He made this statement after Masondo resigned on Thursday, the day before the general meeting scheduled by Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana. At this meeting, a vote was expected to remove nine non-executive directors from the board.
Masondo's resignation followed the temporary suspension of CEO Patrick Dlamini amid investigations into whistleblower allegations, as well as the resignation of six non-executive directors and an investigation by the Financial Sector Conduct Authority. In his resignation, Masondo explained his departure as a desire to help restore stability at PIC after a period of instability that began eight months ago following the appointment of the board of directors.
Masondo also stated in his declaration that his decision was made in the interest of South Africa, preserving PIC's stability, and maintaining the trust of millions of South Africans whose savings are managed by the structure. He noted that as chairman of the board, he served at the behest of the minister-shareholder, whose powers are defined by law and must be exercised with due diligence, diligence, and in accordance with legal norms. He also indicated that the board had faithfully discharged its duties and prioritized the institution's interests above its own.
He added that he considered it prudent to step aside to avoid any uncertainty or distractions that could affect PIC's stability or undermine confidence in its operations. Masondo expressed hope that all outstanding issues handled by the board, including the whistleblower's report, allegations against the CEO, the Acapulco case, which he referred to the Special Investigating Unit, and other related matters, would be thoroughly investigated and properly resolved, rather than being swept under the rug. Furthermore, he expressed confidence that governance and investment reforms, especially in the unlisted portfolio, initiated by the previous board, as well as filling critical vacancies, would be addressed with due urgency.
However, Bateman insisted that the very system of governance that allowed the crisis to develop in PIC needed reform. He warned that if the root causes of PIC's institutional decline are not eliminated, South Africa will experience a similar crisis every few years. This is why the DA party introduced the Pension Protection Bill, which has already been submitted to the Parliamentary legal services. Bateman also noted that short-term tasks include stabilizing PIC, appointing an authoritative and qualified board of directors, and ensuring the smooth continuation of ongoing investigations. He concluded that restoring public trust will require full transparency regarding the implementation of the Mpati and PIC's 'Isibaya' unlisted portfolio recommendations, but the most strategic intervention is the implementation of structural transformations to prevent future governance crises.
Google has introduced the 'video selfie for sign-in' feature—an account recovery tool that allows users to verify their identity via a short video selfie if they lose access to their password, phone, or other login methods.
This functionality is part of Google's latest efforts to implement biometric authentication alongside the use of passkeys and multi-factor authentication (MFA). Although the company claims this feature will improve convenience and recovery security, its launch comes amid a rapid rise in deepfake fraud generated by artificial intelligence (AI).
Google positions the 'video selfie for sign-in' as an additional recovery method, not a complete replacement for passwords or passkeys. The process begins with the user recording a short reference video selfie performing specific movements, such as turning their head, so that Google's systems can capture the face from different angles. Upon subsequent loss of account access, the user can record a new video, which is then compared to the original for identity verification.
According to the company, the verification process includes several security measures, such as AI-based facial recognition, liveness detection, motion control, and detection of suspicious login attempts. These measures are intended to reduce the risk of impersonation using photographs, replayed videos, or AI-generated deepfakes.
Google states that the reference video is encrypted during storage, is collected only with user consent, and can be deleted at any time through account settings. By default, the video is used exclusively for account recovery unless the user explicitly agrees to additional use cases. The company emphasizes that the 'video selfie for sign-in' complements existing protection measures, such as passkeys, recovery contact details, and two-step verification.
Nevertheless, cybersecurity specialists urge caution, pointing to the potential misuse of facial data. Purshottam Bhatia, Head of Consumer Business in South Asia at Kaspersky, noted that simple fraudulent attempts are unlikely to succeed against sophisticated deepfake detection systems, but attacks targeting high-value accounts remain a problem.
He added that fraudulent websites often request access to the device camera under the guise of account verification. The obtained facial data can subsequently be used for unauthorized account access or sold on the dark web. Experts agree that no single authentication method is sufficient protection against modern threats; instead, systems increasingly rely on multiple independent verification methods.
Passkeys, based on FIDO Alliance standards, are considered among the most reliable authentication methods because they eliminate traditional passwords and use cryptographic keys securely stored on trusted devices. Two-Factor Authentication (2FA) adds another layer of protection by requiring users to confirm their identity via a separate device or authenticator app.
The 'video selfie for sign-in' serves a different purpose: it primarily solves one of the biggest user problems—regaining access after losing passwords or trusted devices—rather than authenticating every login. For users who frequently change or lose phones, this feature can reduce the risk of permanent account lockout while providing higher protection than traditional recovery questions.
Experts warn that one of the biggest risks associated with facial biometric authentication is its irreversibility. Amit Jaju from the consulting firm Ankura stated: 'A password can be reset after compromise; a face cannot be changed. If a face template, video selfie, or related identification data is stolen, it can create a permanent risk of fraud and privacy for the individual.'
At the core of Google's new system is AI-based liveness detection. Unlike standard facial recognition, which simply compares two images, liveness detection attempts to establish whether a person is present in front of the camera at that moment. The head movements specified by Google are designed to prevent attackers from simply presenting a photograph or replaying a recorded video.
The company claims to combine facial matching with multiple security signals and standard account protection systems to detect suspicious recovery attempts and impersonation. However, the effectiveness of these systems will depend on how quickly their development keeps pace with generative AI. Modern deepfake tools are already capable of creating convincing facial movements, realistic eye blinking, and synchronized speech, which complicates the detection of impersonation attempts.
Google's announcement coincides with a sharp increase in AI-driven fraud. According to a 2026 report by pi-labs cited by Business Standard, the volume of deepfake content has increased by 900 percent in recent years. The report noted that over 90 percent of explicit deepfakes target women, and 65 percent of Indian organizations reported deepfake-based attacks in 2026.
Furthermore, over 5,000 face-swapping applications and more than 1,000 voice cloning tools have become publicly available, significantly lowering the barrier for cybercriminals. The rise in reports of cybercrimes involving women, from approximately 50,000 cases in 2024 to nearly 80,000 by 2026, reflects the growing abuse of AI for identity manipulation and digital fraud.
Beyond security concerns, there is also the issue of privacy. Unlike passwords, biometric identifiers cannot simply be reset after a leak. If facial data is compromised, users cannot replace their face in the same way they can change a password. Google attempts to address these concerns by stating that video selfies are recorded only with user consent, are encrypted during storage, are used only for account recovery unless the user agrees otherwise, and can be deleted at any time.
According to Bhatia, every collected video selfie represents an ongoing commitment, not a check that concludes after verification. Kaspersky's 2025 phishing study also showed that attackers are moving beyond passwords and increasingly targeting biometric data, as well as electronic and handwritten signatures. He emphasized: 'None of this data can be reset like a password. Companies that collect it are effectively taking guardianship over something the user cannot get back if it leaks, so responsibility does not end when verification is complete. It continues as long as the data is stored.'
Google is not the first technology company to use biometrics for authentication. Apple uses Face ID, which performs facial recognition primarily on the device, utilizing the Secure Enclave for local processing and protection of biometric information, rather than storing the face image in the cloud. Microsoft supports biometric authentication through Windows Hello, which similarly performs verification on compatible devices without centralized storage of user face templates.
Financial institutions are also increasingly adopting selfie verification for remote registration and KYC (Know Your Customer) processes. Many banks combine facial recognition with document verification and liveness detection to reduce fraud when opening accounts or conducting other high-risk transactions. Google's implementation differs in that it functions primarily as a recovery method for one of the world's largest digital identity platforms, as a Google account grants access to Gmail, Photos, Drive, payments, and numerous third-party services.
Google's video selfie feature reflects a broader trend in the technology industry—the shift towards biometric authentication to strengthen account security and simplify recovery. For users, this can reduce the risk of permanent account lockout and add a protective layer on top of passwords and emails. However, according to cybersecurity experts, no biometric system is absolutely secure, as deepfakes and AI-driven attacks are constantly evolving. The effectiveness of selfie verification will depend on how quickly AI-based liveness detection can keep up with increasingly complex threats.
Biometric data also creates unique privacy and security risks because, unlike passwords, they cannot be changed after being breached. Experts insist that strong encryption, limited data retention, user consent, and transparency will be critical to gaining trust in such systems. Thus, the 'video selfie for sign-in' feature should be viewed as an additional layer of security, not a standalone solution, and its long-term success will depend on the company's ability to continuously enhance defense against evolving AI-driven fraud.
