New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani said Monday that the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should be honored, directly contradicting an assurance from President Donald Trump earlier the same day that Netanyahu would face no arrest while in the United States.

Speaking at a press conference, Mamdani reiterated his position on the warrant in direct terms. “If someone is charged with a warrant by the International Criminal Court for these kinds of crimes, that’s something I believe should be honored. And I’ve also said that we will follow our local laws,” Mamdani said.

Trump’s assurance to Netanyahu

Mamdani’s comments came hours after Trump posted on Truth Social that Netanyahu “will not be arrested, in any way, shape, or form, while in the United States of America.” Trump’s post did not name Mamdani directly, though it came amid the mayor’s continued public statements about the ICC warrant, and credited Israel with assisting the United States in its ongoing military conflict with Iran.

Trump later told reporters that he had no tension with Spain’s prime minister, Pedro Sanchez, despite having ordered a halt to trade with Madrid and criticizing Spain as a partner within NATO, remarks made during the same public appearance in which he addressed the Netanyahu situation.

Mamdani’s escalating rhetoric

Mamdani went further in describing the basis for his position, characterizing Netanyahu in stark terms tied to the war in Gaza. “We’re speaking about someone who’s the subject of an International Criminal Court arrest warrant. And he’s the subject of this arrest warrant for alleged crimes against humanity, for war crimes, and he’s the architect of the genocide against Palestinians in Gaza as Israel’s prime minister,” Mamdani said.

The mayor’s comments Monday represented a continuation of positions he first articulated during his mayoral campaign, when he said he would direct police to arrest Netanyahu if the Israeli leader set foot in New York City, framing the move as straightforward enforcement of the existing ICC warrant. Since taking office, Mamdani has confirmed that his administration’s legal department is actively reviewing whether the city has legal authority to act on the warrant, particularly given that Netanyahu typically travels to New York each September to address the United Nations General Assembly.

In an earlier interview published Saturday, Mamdani had used even more direct language regarding where he believes Netanyahu should ultimately face justice. “I believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu belongs in The Hague,” Mamdani said at the time.

A position rooted in international law, Mamdani says

In prior public comments, including a Fox News interview with anchor Martha MacCallum, Mamdani has framed his position as grounded in a broader commitment to international law rather than a personal grievance against Netanyahu specifically. “I’ve said that this is a city that believes international law, and this is a city that wants to uplift and uphold those beliefs,” Mamdani told MacCallum, who noted in response that the United States itself does not recognize the ICC’s jurisdiction. Mamdani acknowledged that the U.S. has not signed the treaty establishing the court, but maintained that New York should nonetheless honor the warrant, comparing it to a separate ICC warrant issued for Russian President Vladimir Putin. Mamdani has said he does not intend to create new local laws to facilitate any arrest, but rather to exhaust existing legal options available to the city.

The ICC warrant’s origins

The International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for both Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant in November 2024, citing allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity connected to Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. The ICC, established in 2002 to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, operates under jurisdiction that Israel rejects, and neither Israel nor the United States is a member of the court.

Israel’s response

Israel has firmly rejected both the ICC’s authority and Mamdani’s remarks. In a statement reposted by Netanyahu himself over the weekend, his office described the ICC as “a kangaroo court that has no jurisdiction over Americans or Israelis.” The statement went on to characterize the warrant against Netanyahu as “bogus,” attributing it to what it described as a discredited former ICC prosecutor, Karim Khan, who the statement said issued the warrant shortly before allegations of sexual misconduct against him became public, characterizing the move as an attempt by Khan to divert attention from scrutiny of his own conduct.

Netanyahu’s office also accused Mamdani directly of using the arrest threat to distract from what it characterized as his own failed policies as mayor. The Trump administration has separately imposed sanctions on Khan and roughly a dozen other ICC staff members, in what officials have described as retaliation for the warrants issued against senior Israeli officials over the Gaza war, as well as separate ICC investigations involving U.S. personnel in Afghanistan.

A clash with national implications

Monday’s exchange underscores a broader and increasingly public divide between Mamdani’s administration and the Trump administration over how the United States should engage with the International Criminal Court and its rulings involving allied foreign leaders. With Netanyahu expected to travel to New York in September for the UN General Assembly, as he has in previous years, the dispute over whether the city could or would attempt to act on the ICC warrant is likely to remain a closely watched flashpoint in the coming months.

With Trump having now publicly guaranteed Netanyahu’s safety from arrest while in the United States, and Mamdani continuing to insist that the ICC warrant should be honored under international law, the two leaders’ starkly opposing positions appear likely to remain unresolved heading into the fall, when Netanyahu’s anticipated UN visit could bring the dispute to a more concrete test. For now, both sides have shown no indication of backing away from their respective positions, leaving the question of how, or whether, any attempt to enforce the warrant in New York City might actually unfold as one of the more unusual open legal and political questions facing the incoming mayoral administration.

UTI AMC‘s Executive Vice President – Equity, V Srivatsa, believes investors may be better off leaning towards largecaps despite the superior long-term growth prospects of midcap stocks. With the midcap segment trading at a record valuation premium over largecaps, he said the risk-reward has turned more favourable for largecaps, whose earnings growth is improving while valuations remain around historical averages. Edited excerpts from a chat:

With valuations elevated in several pockets, how do you assess the broader market’s risk-reward proposition today?
While valuations remain in excess in certain pockets such as capital goods, consumer durables, defense and healthcare albeit this is led by better earnings visibility and growth, there are also pockets where valuations are below mean in sectors such as banks, insurance, information technology and telecom. Thus, risk reward remains balanced. The earnings growth for Nifty 50 for next year is around 14% as per Bloomberg estimates after two years of sub-par growth and valuations also remain below the last couple of years. With the oil price stabilising and rupee stabilising, we see more macro stability ahead coupled with the earnings growth should lead to positive risk reward going ahead.
Where do you currently see a better balance between growth and valuation: largecaps or midcaps?
The Nifty 50 trades at one year forward estimates of around 17x (as per Bloomberg) which is in line with the last five-year averages and the earnings growth of around 14% is respectable which is led by capital goods and services, telecom, metals and financials. The mid cap also is expected to grow in similar lines and trades at 50% premium to large caps. While the longer-term outlook for mid cap is superior to large caps, the valuation premium is at record high and there could be mean reversion especially when the growth is picking up for the large cap. Hence on a risk reward basis, a large cap looks superior. Which sectors offer the strongest earnings visibility over the next three to five years, and where are expectations running ahead of fundamentals?
In terms of sectors, power equipment, defense, electronic manufacturing services (EMS), healthcare and retail offers highest earnings visibility led by strong order book in case of capital goods and EMS players and strong trends in demand in healthcare and retail. In case of capital goods (power equipment/defense, EMS), while the order visibility is high, there could be peaking of orders in the next three years posing cyclical risks post three years and current valuations do not factor any medium-term weakness which is not ruled out as these businesses are pro cyclical. In case of healthcare and retail, valuations are fair and there could be a long tail of growth justifying the valuations.

Does AI represent a structural growth opportunity for Indian IT companies, or could productivity gains disrupt their traditional revenue model?
AI represents a very good long-term opportunity as the global companies embrace AI in their business, they would need the service of Indian IT service providers to integrate the AI into their systems, and this would present a significant opportunity for them. However, in the near term, there could be pressure on two counts, one is to incorporate AI to reduce cost of delivery and passing on the benefits to clients and second is possible cuts in IT services spending as AI hardware costs crowds out the IT services spending. Yet we believe that there would be long term benefits to the Indian IT services companies.
Capital goods companies have benefited from the investment cycle. What indicators would signal that the cycle is strengthening or approaching a peak?
The key indicators that we will watch to assess the cycle are changes in the government policies, upward or downward revision in government capex, global demand for global linked industries, weakening profitability in end user industries and capex announcements. Government policies and corporate profitability and demand would be the key signals to watch out for the capex order cycle.
What are the biggest risks to Indian equities today: earnings disappointments, stretched valuations, global uncertainty or domestic growth moderation?
Global uncertainty would be the biggest risk for the Indian markets as the geo political risks have increased manifold in the last few years and it has important bearing on the oil prices wherein higher oil prices can cause instability in the Indian economy and also high geo political risks affects global sentiment towards equities and flows trends towards safer assets .

If you have to start an SIP of Rs 10,000 as an investor with moderate risk appetite at this stage, how would it be spread out across various fund categories?
I would suggest a mix of flexicap or large mid cap funds and smaller allocations towards hybrid funds.

Italian automotive giant Fiat has stopped importing new passenger vehicles into Australia, leaving one of the world’s most recognizable car brands in a precarious position locally as buyers increasingly shift toward more affordable Chinese alternatives.

Fiat’s passenger vehicle division will no longer import its Fiat 500e electric hatchback or the Abarth 500e electric hot hatch, effectively halting the brand’s active new-vehicle offerings in the Australian market. The move places Fiat, part of the broader Stellantis Group, in a similar position to its French sister brand Peugeot, whose local importer has already surrendered the right to sell Peugeot vehicles in Australia altogether.

Stellantis says Fiat remains open, for now

Despite the suspension of new imports, a spokeswoman for Stellantis said Fiat has not shut down its Australian operations entirely. “As part of Stellantis Australia’s ongoing portfolio and product planning process, the availability of specific models can vary over time as we assess market demand and future product opportunities,” she said. “We remain focused on ensuring the vehicles we bring to Australia meet customers’ expectations. Following Stellantis’ recent confirmation of Fiat as one of its core global brands, we are excited by the opportunities the brand presents for the future.”

The spokeswoman added that existing stock of the Fiat 500e and Abarth 500e has largely sold through in Australia, and confirmed that Stellantis is not currently planning additional orders of those models while it evaluates future product opportunities for the local market. She said the company remains committed to supporting existing Fiat and Abarth customers and its dealer network, and indicated more details about the brands’ future plans in Australia would be shared at an unspecified later date.

Sales figures underscore the brand’s struggles

The scale of Fiat’s decline in Australia is reflected in its recent sales figures. The brand has recorded just 144 sales in the country so far this year, including only 13 vehicles sold last month, a total lower than luxury sports car brands Ferrari or Lamborghini managed over the same period.

Fiat’s difficulties in Australia mirror broader challenges facing the brand globally. The company has cut thousands of jobs in Italy as it grapples with intensifying competition from Chinese manufacturers, whose lower-cost vehicles have put sustained downward pressure on prices across multiple vehicle segments worldwide.

Stellantis chief executive Antonio Filosa has continued to publicly affirm Fiat’s importance to the broader company’s future, even as the brand’s presence in individual markets like Australia has come under increasing strain. In Australia specifically, Fiat’s now-discontinued Abarth 500e launched in 2024 at approximately $64,000 drive-away, before the company slashed the price by $20,000 in an unsuccessful attempt to clear remaining inventory.

Other Stellantis brands face similar pressure

Fiat is far from alone within the Stellantis portfolio in facing significant challenges in the Australian market. Alfa Romeo has sold just 139 vehicles in Australia so far this year, while Jeep has delivered only 322 vehicles over the same period, figures that underscore broader struggles for several of Stellantis’ European and American-focused brands locally.

Within the same corporate group, Leapmotor has emerged as a notable bright spot, outperforming its Stellantis sibling brands by offering affordable China-sourced electric and hybrid vehicles that have begun gaining meaningful traction with Australian buyers. Fiat’s commercial vehicle lineup remains unaffected by the passenger vehicle import suspension, according to the company.

A broader shift reshaping Australia’s car market

Fiat’s retreat comes amid what industry observers describe as an unprecedented transformation of the Australian automotive market, driven largely by the rapid rise of Chinese manufacturers. BYD has recorded a 124% increase in sales this year, positioning the Chinese automaker within striking distance of overtaking Toyota as Australia’s top-selling car brand. BYD sold just shy of 19,000 vehicles in Australia last month alone, a figure that puts it well ahead of established brands including Ford, Mazda, Hyundai and Kia.

Electric vehicles more broadly accounted for more than 23% of the Australian new car market in June, with more than 32,000 EVs delivered to Australian buyers that month. Tesla’s Model Y remained the most popular electric vehicle on the market by a wide margin.

Chinese-brand sales overall climbed by approximately 70% across the Australian market, with individual manufacturers posting even sharper gains: Geely sales rose 494%, Leapmotor climbed 151%, Chery increased 76.8%, and GWM grew 20.5%. South Korean brands Hyundai and Kia have also posted sales increases for the year to date, suggesting the shift in Australian buyer preferences extends beyond Chinese manufacturers alone.

Japanese brands bear the brunt of the shift

By contrast, several long-established Japanese automakers have seen significant sales declines in Australia this year. Toyota’s sales have fallen 21.4%, while Mitsubishi is down 25%, Nissan has dropped 32%, Mazda has declined 17%, Subaru has fallen 25.6%, and Suzuki has decreased 20.9%, according to year-to-date figures.

With Fiat’s new passenger vehicle imports now paused indefinitely and Stellantis offering only vague assurances about the brand’s long-term future in Australia, the company’s next moves are likely to be closely watched by both existing Fiat owners and the broader Australian auto industry. For now, Fiat’s situation illustrates the broader competitive pressure reshaping Australia’s automotive landscape, as legacy European and Japanese manufacturers increasingly find themselves squeezed by a wave of lower-cost, rapidly improving Chinese alternatives capturing an ever-larger share of Australian car buyers’ attention.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said Sunday that a sample of shredded iceberg lettuce from Taylor Farms de Mexico previously reported to have tested positive for Cyclospora was actually a false positive, walking back a key finding in an ongoing nationwide investigation into a foodborne illness outbreak that has sickened more than 1,600 people across five states.

The FDA said the false positive result was discovered after the agency re-reviewed test data collected from a Taylor Farms de Mexico sample, and that the correction does not affect the company’s earlier voluntary recall of iceberg lettuce sourced from central Mexico, which remains in effect. In its original Saturday notice announcing the positive test, the agency had said the affected product was not part of Taylor Farms’ existing recall and that the company was working to determine whether any of that specific lot remained in commerce or in consumers’ homes. That notice has since been removed from the FDA’s public updates on the outbreak.

What caused the false positive

According to the FDA, Saturday’s erroneous result stemmed from what the agency described as false amplification during laboratory testing. “The finding does not represent true amplification and should be considered a false positive,” the agency said. Amplification techniques are commonly used in clinical laboratories to generate additional copies of biological samples, making pathogens easier to detect and identify, but the process can occasionally produce misleading results requiring further verification.

With Sunday’s correction, FDA officials said there are currently no confirmed positive product samples tied to the outbreak, even as the underlying recall and broader investigation continue.

A recall spanning nearly 30 states

Taylor Farms de Mexico first announced its voluntary recall on Friday, July 17, saying it was removing all iceberg lettuce sourced from central Mexico from the U.S. market due to its potential contamination with Cyclospora. The recalled shredded iceberg lettuce had been distributed between June 29 and July 16 to locations across 27 states, according to the company’s recall notice, including Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania, among others.

In its statement announcing the recall, Taylor Farms emphasized that none of its branded salad kits or products are associated with the outbreak, noting that none of its branded salad kits contain iceberg lettuce in the first place. The company said the FDA’s traceback investigation pointed to a specific independent farm representing less than 1% of the total U.S. iceberg lettuce supply as the potential source of contamination, but that Taylor Farms had nonetheless removed all iceberg lettuce from that region of Mexico indefinitely out of caution.

Origins of the outbreak investigation

The FDA’s traceback investigation initially converged on Taylor Farms de Mexico as the common supplier of shredded iceberg lettuce used at Taco Bell locations in Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and West Virginia, where sickened individuals reported eating before falling ill. Yum Brands’ Taco Bell said it had already removed the potentially affected lettuce from its restaurants and would stop using the implicated supplier going forward.

According to the CDC, illnesses connected to the outbreak began appearing as early as May 13, 2026, with the most recent reported onset dates extending through July 13. Of the more than 1,600 confirmed cases reported across the five affected states, 94 people have required hospitalization, though no deaths have been reported in connection with the outbreak.

Separately, Michigan’s state health department has reported more than 5,000 cases of cyclosporiasis as part of its own outbreak investigation, a concentrated surge that officials said strongly suggests the vast majority of those illnesses are linked to the same underlying source, even though the department said it cannot say with absolute certainty that every case shares an identical point of exposure. If confirmed, the scale of that regional cluster would make this outbreak the largest cyclospora outbreak on record in the United States.

Retailers respond with precautionary measures

Beyond Taco Bell, several major retailers and distributors took precautionary action following news of the recall. Food distributor Sysco said it proactively removed all Taylor Farms-processed iceberg lettuce sourced from Mexico from its distribution network and instructed customers to destroy any remaining product after learning of the suspected link to the outbreak.

Walmart also removed four bagged iceberg lettuce salad products, sold under its Marketside brand, from select store locations as a precaution. A Walmart spokesperson said the company had seen no indication that products sold in its stores were affected by the ongoing Cyclospora investigations, adding that there have been no confirmed illnesses associated specifically with those products. The spokesperson said Walmart was working closely with its supplier and took immediate steps to remove the products from sale out of an abundance of caution.

About Cyclospora infection

Cyclospora cayetanensis is a single-celled parasite that causes an intestinal infection known as cyclosporiasis. According to the FDA, people infected with the parasite typically experience flu-like symptoms alongside watery diarrhea accompanied by frequent bowel movements. While cyclosporiasis cases occur every year in the United States, health officials have noted that this year’s case count has significantly exceeded typical annual levels.

A company with a history of food safety issues

Sunday’s developments mark the latest chapter for Taylor Farms, which has previously been linked to other food safety incidents, including a voluntary recall of raw onions in October 2024 tied to a separate FDA investigation. The company has also faced legal action stemming from the current outbreak, including a lawsuit filed by an Ohio man against a Taco Bell franchisee, in which he claims a Cyclospora infection left him sick for two weeks.

What comes next

With the false positive result now corrected but the underlying recall still firmly in place, the FDA said its investigation into the outbreak remains ongoing, alongside continued collaboration with the CDC and state and local health authorities. Officials have not announced a timeline for when the investigation is expected to conclude, and consumers who purchased the recalled iceberg lettuce are still being urged to discard it immediately rather than consume it, with full refunds available at the original point of purchase.