If you go to Japan, there’s a chance you might meet someone with an unusual name – such as “Nike,” “Pikachu” or “Pudding.”

While still a minority, these names have grown in popularity over recent decades as parents reject traditional Japanese names for something more unique.

But the practice has also drawn criticism – mainly that it’s confusing for hospitals, schools and authorities who don’t know how to pronounce them.

Now the government is cracking down on these so-called “kirakira” names, which means sparkly or shiny. New rules came into effect on Monday that will limit parents from giving their babies names pronounced in unconventional ways.

The news was met with mixed reactions; some social media users argued that kirakira names are an expression of individualism, that they’re fairly harmless and don’t warrant government regulation.

“They’re not children of the nation, right? They’re children of their parents,” one person wrote on X after the announcement.

Many more, however, welcomed the change – lamenting that children with unusual names might face harassment, or at the very least complications in administrative tasks like registrations or banking.

“Why do certain people put kirakira names on their kids? It just causes those kids to be bullied,” one X user wrote. Another joked sarcastically: “Please stop restricting kirakira names. Seeing a child’s name reveals the intelligence of their parents, which is helpful.”

How ‘kirakira’ names work

Japan uses three writing systems – Kanji, which is based on Chinese characters, and two other phonetic systems. Names are typically written in Kanji, and this is where the trouble comes in.

Because these Chinese characters were mixed with the existing Japanese language, each Kanji character can be pronounced multiple ways – some with ten or more ways. You decipher the “right” pronunciation based on context clues and the other characters in a sentence or phrase.

In kirakira names, which became more popular from the 1980s onward, parents often choose a name based on the phonetic sound – wanting their child’s name to sound like “Pikachu,” for instance – and pick similar-sounding Kanji characters.

The problem is that those characters might not usually be pronounced that way – making it hard, or impossible, for a teacher or nurse to decipher how to properly say a child’s name just by looking at its written Kanji form.

Some have drawn parallels to how American parents have, increasingly in the past decade, chosen unusual spellings for common names – such as Ashleigh instead of Ashley, or Catelynn instead of Caitlin.

The Japanese government’s new rules aim to limit this by mandating that only widely accepted pronunciations of kanji characters will be allowed.

Parents will need to include the phonetic readings of their baby names in the registry – and if local officials see that the phonetic sound of a name doesn’t match how its characters are typically pronounced, they may reject the name or request additional paperwork.

The rise of unusual names

This is not the first time strict naming rules have sparked debate in Japan.

Japan still legally requires married couples to share the same surname, unlike most other major economies that have done away with the tradition. Normally, wives take their husband’s name, since same-sex marriages aren’t legal in Japan.

A movement to change the rules around surnames has been brewing, led by women’s rights advocates and those trying to preserve the diversity of Japanese surnames in a nation where a handful of names are becoming increasingly common.

First names have afforded more room for experimentation – at least, until the latest rules came in.

More and more people have been given unusual names in the last 40 years, according to a 2022 study that analyzed baby names published in local newsletters over the last few decades.

The trend suggests a shift toward seeking “uniqueness and independence” in Japan, the study said – also seen in changes to other parts of Japanese life during that time like family structures and societal values.

Girls in particular saw an increase in kirakira names, it added – perhaps suggesting that parents had a stronger “hope for their daughters to become unique and independent than for their sons.”

Japan isn’t the only country that has seen an upward trend in unusual baby names. A 2016 study found that American parents picked more unusual names between 2004 and 2015, pointing to the culture’s “increasing individualism.”

In China, too, rapid economic growth and upward mobility have meant people today value individualism and autonomy more than previous generations, according to a 2018 study – reflected in the steady rise of parents choosing unique characters in their babies’ names.

Like in Japan, the study found that Chinese girls were more likely to have unusual names than boys – perhaps reflecting different “parental expectations.”

But it’s also common for countries to have rules in place for what names are acceptable. In the US, this is often state-by-state; names in California can only use the 26 alphabetical characters of the English language, which briefly posed a problem when Elon Musk and Grimes named their baby “X Æ A-12.” They eventually changed the name – very slightly – to “X Æ A-Xii.”

In Germany, authorities may strike down a baby name if they find it offensive or potentially harmful to the child’s best interests. For example, they’ve previously barred parents from using “Borussia,” a reference to a soccer team, or “Gastritis,” arguing that the names would “jeopardize the welfare of the child,” according to the official Frankfurt city administration.

Meanwhile New Zealand also maintains strict rules that include bans on references to titles, meaning names like “King” and “Prince” are routinely rejected.

Mexico is scheduled to hold its first-ever judicial elections on Sunday, with hundreds of judges, magistrates and justices on the ballot across the country.

It’s an unprecedented contest that supporters say will democratize the courts, but critics fear it could make them more susceptible to the influence of politicians or criminal groups.

Almost 900 federal positions will be in play, including all nine seats of the Supreme Court, as well as some 1,800 local positions in 19 states. Sunday’s event will be the first of two voting phases, with the second one set for 2027.

The vote is the result of a constitutional reform that was approved last year during the final weeks of Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s presidency. He had argued that the change was necessary to stem impunity in the courts and give voters a greater say in the judicial process.

But opponents saw the move as an attempt by López Obrador to strengthen the power of his ruling Morena party by overhauling the very judiciary that often blocked some of his policy proposals.

Critics also worry that by having judges elected through popular vote, the independent authority of the courts could be compromised, and with it, their ability to uphold the law and keep other powers in check at a time of rampant crime and corruption.

How the new system works

Before the reform was enacted, Supreme Court judges were nominated by the president and approved in the Senate, while federal judges were selected by a judicial commission using exams and coursework that evaluated candidates on a meritocratic basis.

In the new system, federal candidates will be elected by the public after being vetted and nominated by Evaluation Committees of the three branches of government.

Unlike other elections, those running for a judicial post can’t be nominated or supported by any political party, according to Mexico’s electoral authority. They also can’t receive public or private funding, meaning they must finance their campaign on their own – a rule that reform supporters say reduces the likelihood of being influenced by political actors, but critics say favors wealthier candidates.

Candidates are also prohibited from buying campaign ads on TV or radio, but they can promote themselves on social media or through interviews and other forums.

Once in office, elected judges will be evaluated by a newly established Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal, which will have the power to investigate and sanction judicial personnel, except for Supreme Court justices and electoral magistrates. Some of those sanctions include suspensions, financial penalties, dismissals and disqualifications.

Concerns of political capture

Although the rules prohibit political parties from providing direct support to a candidate, critics warn that they could still influence the race by encouraging voters to elect people aligned with their interests.

Local media have reported that some politicians and their supporters have been accused of distributing pamphlets, or cheat sheets, which provide suggestions on who to vote for.

Just days ahead of the election, the National Electoral Institute (INE) – which is organizing the vote – said it was investigating two complaints related to the use of such pamphlets.

“The law is very clear about who cannot intervene in this – neither governments of any level nor political parties,” INE adviser Claudia Zavala said in an interview with Milenio TV.

Another concern is that political parties could theoretically have a say in which candidates are nominated in the first place. If a single party holds sway over the three branches of government, which oversee the candidates’ nomination process, that party could influence who gets on the ballot.

“Right now, numerically, who holds the most influence over these branches of government – executive and legislative, specifically – would be the Morena party,” said Stephanie Brewer, director for Mexico at the Washington Office on Latin America.

There’s similar apprehension about the new Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal that’s meant to supervise judges in office. Brewer says that if political actors manage to influence it, they could subsequently exert pressure on the judges it oversees.

Impact of criminal groups

One of the biggest concerns rights groups are warning about is that elections could also be influenced by criminal groups.

In previous races, Mexican cartels have used violence to impact the outcome of a vote – often by attacking or assassinating candidates they oppose. Last year, the country saw a record number of victims from political-criminal violence, with Data Cívica, a human rights organization, reporting 661 attacks on people and facilities. Many of the victims either held or were running for municipal-level positions.

This year, the think tank México Evalúa warned that eight states have a high risk of political-criminal violence in the upcoming judicial elections, saying that it is “highly likely that, through violence, organized crime will seek to seize judicial powers, especially at the local level.”

Several political attacks have been recorded in the lead-up to the elections, though most of them involved candidates in mayoral races.

Miguel Meza of the rights groups Defensorxs says he has not yet seen any attacks against judicial candidates, but that other risks remain.

“Cartels (could) identify possible winners and offer them support in exchange for loyalty,” he said, noting that such actions have happened before, and although they haven’t seen it in this election, “in others, it could intensify.”

Defensorxs has also raised questions about some judicial candidates. While many have extensive experience in the judicial field, Defensorxs has determined that some are “linked to organized crime, sexual offenses, political-religious sects, and other irregularities.”

One of them served nearly six years in a US prison on drug offenses, after being accused of smuggling over 4 kilograms of methamphetamines, according to Reuters. That candidate said on Facebook that he faced an “unjust” judicial process and has “moved on.”

Another candidate was a defense attorney who joined the team that represented drug lord Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman in 2016, a decision she has defended by telling the AP, “Everyone has a right to an effective defense.”

Meza said his group has filed complaints to INE against some of those candidates but was told that electoral authorities couldn’t invalidate their candidacy at this point. If one of them ends up winning an election, Meza said, the group was told it could try to challenge the victory with the electoral tribunal.

Public opinion

A poll by Pew Research Center found that most Mexicans approve of the judicial reform.

Although the policy sparked protests in September when Congress was voting on it, 66% of people surveyed earlier this year said they backed it, with approval being higher among Morena supporters and younger adults.

Still, the judicial election faces heavy criticism from opposition groups.

Former President Vicente Fox of the PAN party has urged people not to vote on Sunday.

“The judicial election is not democratic. It’s a farce, it’s a hoax … Don’t go. Don’t waste your time,” he said on X.

Several civil organizations and opposition figures have indicated that they will boycott Sunday’s vote, and some have called for a nationwide protest on election day.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has pushed back against those calls, urging Mexicans to participate in the electoral process and decide who will make up the judiciary.

“It’s better for millions of people to vote than for the president and the Senate of the Republic to decide,” she said.

Russia dramatically intensified missile and drone attacks across Ukraine this month in an effort to sap Ukrainians’ morale – but it is also stepping up ground attacks in many areas along the long frontline, according to Ukrainian officials and analysts.

Some of those attacks have succeeded, with Ukrainian units in Donetsk and the north falling back from some positions, while some rural areas in the south have also been lost.

But Ukraine’s own enhanced use of drones, deployed in several layers on the battlefield, has helped Kyiv inflict heavy losses on the opposing forces with minimal casualties among its own troops. They may become even more critical in the months to come.

The Ukrainians are trying to expand their own drone industry to create defensive corridors along key sections of the front line, often dubbed the “drone wall.”

Meanwhile, ignoring US President Donald Trump’s efforts to secure a ceasefire, the Kremlin is pursuing a two-pronged strategy aimed at forcing Ukraine to admit defeat – destroying its cities from the sky and whittling away its defensive lines on the ground.

Russia has sharply expanded its own drone and missile production in the past year, allowing for mass attacks using several hundred projectiles at once. The Russian strategy seeks to overwhelm Ukraine’s air defenses with scores of low-cost drones so that simultaneous missile strikes can succeed.

On the ground, Russian forces are probing Ukrainian defenses along many parts of the frontline simultaneously, from Zaporizhzhia in the south to Sumy in the north, advancing into abandoned villages and across open countryside in small numbers.

The Russians are not rolling through Ukrainian defenses but gnawing away at them, using cars and motorbikes and scattered infantry platoons.

Russian forces have advanced an average of roughly 14 square kilometers (5.4 square miles) per day so far this year, according to the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) in Washington. This rate implies they’d need nearly four more years to complete the occupation of the four regions illegally annexed by Moscow: Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson.

Those are the Kremlin’s oft-stated goals, but it is also trying to instil a sense among Kyiv’s allies of Russian superiority over Ukrainian forces.

Much of the fighting is in Donetsk, with the Russians still determined to seize the entire region – unless it is handed over in peace negotiations, which is a non-starter for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

The Russian Defense Ministry claimed Tuesday that a village south of the key town of Kostiantynivka had been taken. ISW assesses that Russian forces seized roughly 65 square kms of territory – but remain incapable of intensifying offensive operations in several different directions simultaneously.

“The main Russian effort into the summer will once again be against the key towns of Kostyantynivka and Pokrovsk” in Donetsk, according to Jack Watling, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in London.

Hundreds of miles to the north, Russian units have edged a few kilometers into the Sumy region.

Zelensky told journalists Tuesday that the Russians are “now amassing troops in the Sumy direction. More than 50,000. We understand that. But we are making progress there.”

Zelensky said the Russians wanted “to build this buffer zone, as they call it, 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) deep into Ukraine,” but lacked the capability.

The Russians are supporting these operations with missile and air-launched guided-bomb attacks.

The attacks into Sumy follow a Kremlin directive on May 21 that the military create buffer zones inside northern Ukraine – in Sumy and Kharkiv regions. That came when President Vladimir Putin visited Russia’s Kursk region across the border, part of which had been seized by a Ukrainian incursion launched from Sumy last summer.

Capturing Sumy’s regional capital is probably beyond the Russians – the terrain is thickly forested. But through their attacks, the Russian military can prevent the Ukrainians from redeploying units to Donetsk.

Further east there’s also been an uptick in fighting around Vovchansk in Kharkiv region in recent days.

Across the 1,000-kilometer (621-mile) frontline, according to analysts, the Ukrainian military has to decide which areas are under greatest threat, where to withdraw, how to redeploy – even as many brigades are seriously under-strength more than three years after the Russian invasion.

The manpower balance is still very much in Russia’s favor, despite its heavy losses. Putin recently claimed that 60,000 volunteers are being recruited every month. Observers believe this is likely exaggerated but signing-up bonuses that dwarf civilian wages in Russia make military service an attractive option.

Ukraine’s military chief, Oleksandr Syrskyi, said earlier this month that Kyiv faced “a combined enemy grouping of up to 640,000 personnel,” higher than at the outset of the invasion. Zelensky said in January that Ukraine had 880,000 soldiers, “but 880,000 are defending the entire territory. Russian forces are concentrated in certain directions.”

Russian recruitment “has exceeded Kremlin targets for every month of 2025,” according to the RUSI analyst Watling. “Having shuffled commanders and built-up reserves of equipment, Russia is now set to increase the tempo and scale of attacks.”

But for every square kilometer of Ukrainian land that Russia captures, Moscow is probably losing about 100 men, according to Western assessments.

Layers of drones

Above and behind the frontlines as well as in the air campaign being waged by Moscow, the development and deployment of drones will continue to be critical.

The recent Russian advances in Donetsk, while incremental, were enabled by the tactic of isolating the battlefield – cutting Ukrainian units from supplies through drone strikes on supply vehicles up to 30 kilometers (18.6 miles) from the front lines.

Ukrainian defenses are heavily reliant on layers of drones. The Ukrainians are developing a concept sometimes dubbed the “drone wall,” designed to “provide a continuous defensive corridor of drones along Ukraine’s most vulnerable frontiers to inflict significant casualties on Russian forces,” according to Mick Ryan, author of the blog Futura Doctrina.

Konrad Muzyka, a defense analyst at Rochan Consulting, says that “Ukrainian forces are increasingly lethal with drone-artillery coordination. Russian assaults — motorcycle-based and armored — were defeated across several fronts with minimal Ukrainian losses” in April.

But Ryan points out that an effective drone wall will require integration “and probably AI-assisted decision-making and analysis,” as well as integration with electronic warfare.

And it’s a two-way street. Ukrainian drones are “guided by small radar, and Russia is now systematically working to locate and target these radar stations,” Watling writes.

Zelensky said Tuesday that Russia plans to ramp up production of Shahed attack drones to between 300 and 350 per day. Asked whether there may come a time when Russia fires 1,000 drones in one day, he replied: “I cannot say that this will not happen.”

Sending drones in their hundreds saturates air defenses, as they accumulate over a target area. Russia has also developed drones that can evade Ukrainian jamming and can fly higher and faster than earlier models. Ukrainian analyst Oleksandr Kovalenko said last week that one Shahed had been observed at a record altitude of 4,900 meters.

According to Zelensky, Ukraine is now deploying F-16 and Mirage fighter jets to supplement air defenses. “We are also moving towards drone-to-drone interceptors,” he said Tuesday.

Ukraine’s former military chief, Valerii Zaluzhnyi, says Ukraine must wage a “high-tech war of survival” in which drones play a critical role, to “make the economic burden of the war unbearable for Russia.”

Speaking to a Kyiv forum last week, Zaluzhnyi – now Ukraine’s ambassador to London – said that his country had failed to exploit innovations “where yesterday we were ahead of the enemy. The enemy has already outpaced us.”

Analysts cite Russia’s growing use of short-range fiber-optic drones that can’t be jammed as one example of the technological race. Ukraine is yet to scale up the use of such drones, which rely on millimeters-thick, but miles-long, optical fibers.

Zelensky denied Ukraine was losing the drone war.

“We will have the same number of drones as the Russians, 300-500 per day – we are very close to it,” he said.

The issue was not production, Zelensky said – it was financial. As Ukraine seeks to produce more of its own weapons – often in association with Western manufacturers, Zelensky added: “I would like to see us receive $30 billion to launch Ukrainian production at full capacity.”

But that is a long-term goal.

Watling, from RUSI, envisages a tough few months for Ukraine that “will place a premium on the efficiency of Ukrainian drone and artillery operations, the ability of Ukrainian commanders to preserve their troops, and the continuity of supplies flowing from Ukraine’s international partners.”

The continuation of US supplies is unsure as Trump blows hot and cold about whether Washington should continue helping Ukraine defend itself.

Putin is “desperately seeking to prevent the future supply of Western military aid to Ukraine,” according to ISW, “as well-resourced Ukrainian forces have consistently demonstrated their ability to inflict unsustainable losses on Russian forces.”

Innovation and tactical agility will be as influential as brute force as the war enters its fourth summer.

A one-two punch from the United States risks shattering the already fragile trade war truce between Washington and Beijing, with Chinese tech companies and students both dealt shock blows by the Trump administration Wednesday night.

Viewed from within China, things had been looking up after the world’s two largest economies agreed to dramatically roll back steep tariffs – a conciliatory step in a trade war that had threatened the entire global trading system.

Factories started whirring again. Long-delayed shipping containers began leaving Chinese ports, destined for the US. Chinese media celebrated the agreement as a national victory, while top officials adopted an upbeat tone in describing cooperation between the two superpower rivals.

But the two jabs from Washington on Wednesday will have far-reaching effects across China, angering families and authorities alike. They also throw into question the future of US-China trade talks; the temporary truce only lasts 90 days, and the clock is ticking to reach a longer-term agreement.

The first hit came in a Financial Times report on Wednesday that said moves by US President Donald Trump had effectively cut off some American companies from selling software used to design semiconductors to China.

These small chips – which power our smartphones, computers, automobiles and home appliances – have been at the fore of the US-China tech battle in recent years. The Biden administration had blocked China from accessing US-made semiconductors, and earlier this month, Washington warned companies against using AI chips made by Chinese tech giant Huawei.

The obstacles were infuriating for Beijing, especially since it has poured tens of billions of dollars into its semiconductor industry, aiming to boost production at home and become less reliant on the US and other countries.

But it was the second blow from the White House that landed right in the living rooms of Chinese families, with US State Secretary Marco Rubio saying the US will “aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students” – especially those in critical fields or with connections to the Chinese Communist Party.

It’s hard to overstate the impact. There were more than 270,000 Chinese students in the US in 2024, and even more before the pandemic. While some hail from China’s political and business elites, many also come from middle-class families.

The path to the US is attractive, but arduous. Chinese families save for years and spend exorbitant amounts of money to send their kids abroad, with students attending cram schools or hiring tutors to polish their applications. Rubio’s announcement jeopardizes all of that – with students now facing potential deportation in the middle of their hard-won education.

Given China is a one-party state that reaches deep into nearly every aspect of society, it can be difficult or impossible for many students to disprove any claims that they’re connected to the Communist Party – especially if the State Department defines that term loosely.

A spokesperson for China’s foreign ministry said on Thursday it “strongly opposes” the move, accusing the US of “unjustly” revoking visas “under the pretext of ideology and national security.”

Candy, a statistics student at the University of Michigan, who did not want to give her full name, said she feared her visa would be canceled before she graduates.

“Ending up with only a high school diploma is something I dread,” she said from China, where she’s visiting family. “I pray to make it through my undergraduate study safely and smoothly.”

“When I first heard the news, I wanted to curse Trump.”

While the visa threat comes as a shock, some argue the targeting of students may in fact be a boon to China in the end.

The number of Chinese students in the US had been declining in recent years, partly because of significant shifts in both policy and public perception. Experts say many Chinese students and families now worry about safety, racism and discrimination, and immigration difficulties in the US – especially as more competitive higher education options open in other countries, including in China itself.

Trump’s crackdown could see more Chinese scholars, including some of the brightest minds in their fields, return to their home country – or choose to stay in the first place, rejecting a US education for a Chinese degree instead.

And these researchers – including key leaders in technological fields – could be the key to China catching up with, or surpassing the US – the very thing many Trump officials are trying to prevent.

Wednesday did bring one bit of good news for China; a federal court blocked Trump from imposing most of his global tariffs, including the current 30% tariffs on China. But the administration immediately appealed the decision, leaving the status of those tariffs – and the trade war – up in the air.