Category: 3. Business

Interview with Piero Cipollone, conducted by Miha Jenko on 10 July 2025

26 July 2025

Mr Cipollone, the ECB is actively exploring the digital euro, the project was launched in July 2021. What are your arguments in favour of the introduction of a digital currency? Is it just a must, something that is necessary in the era of fast-paced digitalisation and of many alternative payment systems and cryptocurrencies, including stablecoins?

We definitely think that it’s a must, because we need to solve a fundamental problem.

Central banks do one fundamental thing: they offer a means of payment to the public. Both for retail, day-to-day transactions, and for the wholesale transactions of banks. At the retail level, we provide cash and we will continue to do so. With cash you can pay throughout the euro area in almost every shop. Paying with cash is one of the fundamental freedoms people have.

However, cash can not be used for a growing part of our day-to-day transactions: we all shop online, but to do that we cannot use cash. And Europeans increasingly prefer to use digital rather than physical means of payments. Today, there is no equivalent of cash for these transactions and we still do not have a European solution to pay digitally throughout the euro area for all our needs and occasions. As a result, we depend on non-European private payment service providers to perform such a basic activity in our life as paying.

By issuing a digital euro that has exactly the same functions as cash but is digital, we would allow central banks to provide a means of payment to the public to enable them to pay in those cases where physical cash cannot be used. Essentially, we are preserving people’s freedom to pay with public money: cash would be made available in both physical and digital form. And because the digital euro would be legal tender like banknotes and coins, it would be accepted for any digital payments.

What is the current situation on the way to the digital euro? How do you see the progress made and are you satisfied with the preparations so far?

There are two dimensions here.

The first dimension relates to the technical preparations for the digital euro, which is the responsibility of the ECB and euro area central banks. We are progressing on all technical aspects of the project and we are on schedule.

The second dimension is the legislative process, which will define the digital euro’s regulatory framework. On this side, progress has also been made but the legislation still needs to be finalised. We hope the legislative process can be completed as soon as possible so that we can reflect the choices of the legislators in the development of the digital euro. At the same time we understand that this is a complex project. Both the European Parliament and the Council of the EU – which brings together the ministers from each country – need to fully understand and take ownership of this process.

In short, while we hope that things move faster on the legislative side, we are making good progress on the technical side.

Do you feel political support from the European legislators? What is the mood among the politicians?

At the summit in March, European leaders clearly stated that “accelerating progress on a digital euro is key,” notably to support a competitive and resilient European payment system and contribute to Europe’s economic security. Some details have yet to be agreed upon and we are dealing with them. But we have the highest possible support, and the Heads of State have told us that we need to go ahead with this. For us this is very strong encouragement to continue.

But what about the people? Europeans eventually expect that the digital euro will provide the highest standards of quality, security, privacy and usability in payment systems. How is all that achievable in the near future?

This is what we have been working on since we started the digital euro project in 2021. It is a complex project but we have very capable people both at the ECB and at national central banks. We have been identifying the best technical solutions to ensure the greatest degree of simplicity, speed, security and privacy.

Let me take the example of privacy. The digital euro will provide the highest level of protection.

First, people will have the possibility to use the digital euro offline, something that so far no digital payment solution offers. In terms of privacy, this will be as good as cash. Only the payer and the recipient will know about the transaction, and no one else.

Second, when it comes to privacy for the online use of the digital euro, we at the central bank will only see a code for the payer and the payee. By law, we will not be able to identify the participants to the transaction.

Let me give you another example. We are working on the technical side to provide the very best user experience and we are designing the system so that it is ready for innovation.

In particular, we are giving banks and payment service providers the possibility to leverage on the digital euro’s technical platform to develop new services that are not yet available today. For instance, we are exploring conditional payments. As of today, users can only link a payment to time: “Pay this person at this point in time.” But users could decide to make a payment conditional on other events, and this would improve people’s lives.

Here is an illustration. We are experimenting across Europe, conducting tests with users, start-ups, universities, banks. One of the proposed projects involves buying tickets for trains or planes – currently, if you want to get reimbursed in case of delays, you have to go through a lot of hassle. With the digital euro, it would be possible for the payment to be made only if, say, the train arrives on time. This means that the payment is made only if the service is provided in full.

On the other hand, we know that many Europeans still love cash. For example, in May this year, the Slovenian Parliament even initiated official proceedings to introduce the right to use cash into our constitution. What is your message to the people who are sceptical about using any form of digital money?

My answer is simple: you will continue to be able to use physical cash. Cash will always be available and everyone will be able to use it. As I said, we are committed to providing cash to society. And we strongly support the legislative proposal by the European Commission to strengthen the mandatory acceptance of cash.

Moreover, we are designing a digital euro to be a digital form of cash: simple, free, inclusive, protecting privacy and accepted throughout the euro area. In any case, it will only provide an additional option: we will not force anyone to use it. We are guided by one objective: protecting people’s freedom to decide how to pay.

What about the very young people, the new generations, who frequently use mobile devices? Will you prepare any solution for them?

We are testing and analysing user solutions and organising focus groups to see people’s preferences. We are asking people about their priorities and how they would use the digital euro. We want to make sure that the product is simple to use and that everyone can understand it. This is the key point: people don’t wake up in the morning thinking, “I’d love to pay for something” – they pay because they want to buy things. So, payments need to be as simple, fast and as reliable as possible. And because the digital euro will be legal tender, you will know that you have a solution you can use to pay wherever digital payments are accepted, in a simple way, by placing your phone next to the payment device. And that you don’t have to worry whether the shop will accept your card or mobile payment app.

So is the basic idea that the main instrument for executing digital euro payments will be mobile phones and devices?

We will also provide physical cards to include people who are technologically less savvy or do not have mobile devices. We want to be as inclusive as possible.

By the end of this year the ECB’s Governing Council will decide whether to move on to the next phase of preparations. What will be the key considerations taken into account in that crucial decision?

We will assess where we stand in our technical preparations. At the same time, we will look at the discussion at the political level. We will look at whether the circumstances are developing in favour of issuing the digital euro.

It seems to me that there are important reasons for us to proceed with the project. Political leaders have expressed strong support and even asked us to accelerate progress. We are also seeing a growing public interest. People are telling us that they will use the digital euro if it is available. People understand the importance of having a digital form of cash in cases where it is not possible to use physical cash or where they prefer to pay digitally.

Who are the main stakeholders you communicate with?

We’re engaging with everyone – consumers, merchants, payment service providers, policymakers. We see a lot of support.

For example, consumers are very interested and ask us to ensure that the digital euro will be simple, free for basic use, inclusive.

Merchants are also very supportive because having an alternative to international card payments would reduce the high fees they pay for digital payment transactions. So they expect a reduction in costs, and they want to be sure that the digital euro will be easy to integrate with existing payment solutions. We recently had a meeting in Frankfurt with representatives of European merchant associations. Their main request was: do it, do it fast and do it simple!

Banks and payment service providers understand the importance of strategic autonomy. They want to be reassured that there won’t be excessive deposit outflows from bank accounts to the digital euro. In fact, this is not a big risk because the digital euro, as I said, is intended for payments rather than as a store of value. The digital euro will not be remunerated, so we do not expect people to keep high amounts in their digital euro wallet, and in any case there will be a holding limit. Furthermore, even if people do not have enough funds in their digital euro wallet, they will be able to pay with digital euro through a link to their bank account. So again, there will not be a need to keep high amounts in the digital wallet. We are also discussing with banks how to ensure the use of the digital euro within their IT systems in a cost-effective and less burdensome way, and how they will be compensated for the costs they incur. Banks seem to understand the importance of the project.

Currently, we are living in a very different world compared with two or three decades ago, when the euro project was designed and then launched into the lives of Europeans in the form of coins and banknotes on 1 January 2002. That was the biggest cash changeover in history. And presumably, we are heading to the euro digital changeover in the near future. When will we be able to pay with the digital euro?

Technically, we will be ready to launch in the next two-and-a-half to three years after the legislation is in place. So a lot depends on the adoption of the legislation. We cannot finalise the digital euro development until the legislation is adopted.

So we are talking about the year 2028 or 2029?

Yes, from 2028 onwards. But it really depends on the legislative process. Just an example to help people understand. We are still discussing whether people will be able to have one or several wallets. Technically, this means a completely different design and a different degree of complexity. We cannot finalise the technical specifications until we know what the legislation requires of us. That is why the current timeline very much depends on the legislation being adopted.

And should the legislation be adopted only at the EU level or also by the national parliaments?

No, just at the European level. We need the Council and the Parliament to adopt their positions and sit down together with the Commission to agree on a final text.

Will the digital euro also be used in the countries that haven’t adopted the euro yet?

No, the digital euro is for the residents of the euro area and for people who travel to the euro area. If a country that is in the EU but outside of the euro area wants to allow its citizens to use the digital euro, it needs to have an agreement between the ECB and its central bank. For countries outside the EU, an agreement is needed with both the government and the central bank.

In an interview for Expansión in March this year you pointed out that there is a growing sense of urgency as “the situation outside the euro area is a source of pressure and demands greater consideration of the risks we face in payments as a result of our fragility and our extreme dependence on foreign providers”. What kind of risks do you refer to?

We are currently in a situation where as many as two-thirds of card payments are processed by non-European companies. When you pay by card, our banking sector and payment service providers pay them fees. In addition, mobile payments are expanding their market share and when you pay with a mobile device, banks are losing fees and data. And we know that stablecoins – which are mostly denominated in dollars – are coming, which could take deposits away from banks. This would be a further step toward a deeper dependency of Europe on foreign providers.

This dependency is a concern for the central bank, as the resilience of payment systems is one of the mandates of central banks. We want to make sure that Europeans can pay independently of other regions of the world, so that we have the means to lead a normal life even if something happens outside the euro area. Right now, we do not have that certainty.

Yes, we are facing many new geopolitical and economical challenges, many of them coming from the other side of the Atlantic or from China. Given this new context, how could the digital euro boost EU competitiveness and enhance its strategic autonomy, as you’ve just mentioned?

What I wish to say is that we should be masters of our own destiny. Regardless of what happens. We wish to fix the problem we have. We have had a common currency for 25 years, but when we wish to use it online, we depend on somebody else. This is a concerning situation. And we need to fix it. Just to give you an example: if we do the digital euro, this means that Europe will have a unified infrastructure and a common standard for payments. Payment service providers are very innovative. For example, in Slovenia you have flik and they tell me that it is a very good solution for paying…

Yes, it is great for small payments.

So why cannot flik expand outside Slovenia? It is a good solution and people can use it, but the difficulty is the standards. If you have different standards in different countries, it is very difficult for small companies to expand abroad, even if they are very innovative. It is like having to face different languages. But if you have one single standard, one language in common, it is much easier for you to sell your product. That is what we should care about: creating an environment where our companies can compete, grow and become big.

In an article you wrote in the economics journal Bancaria, you pointed out that digital payments stand at the intersection of information technology and finance. Could you elaborate a little more on that?

When we discuss and compare ourselves to the United States in the long run and look at the sectoral composition of productivity, we see that the distance between the United States and us is mainly visible in those two sectors: IT and finance. They both have one fundamental characteristic: economies of scale are key, allowing you to increase your productivity. Our companies cannot grow because they operate in a fragmented market. Even if you invent something in Slovenia in these two sectors, it is very difficult to expand your business abroad because of market fragmentation. And you cannot reap the benefits of your increased activity.

So we need to ensure that our companies in these two fields can easily expand and take advantage of the EU’s single market. A study by the International Monetary Fund, which has been replicated several times, says that the non-tariff barriers that continue to hamper trade within the EU are equivalent to a tariff of 44% for goods and more than 100% for services. So it is important that those two sectors expand as much as possible in Europe, and to do so we need to address remaining barriers within the Single Market. For those two sectors, finance and IT, and for activities at their intersection – such as digital payments – economies of scale are essential to grow and thrive.

What is the experience of the countries that have already introduced their digital currencies so far? Could we eventually learn something from them?

The most advanced digital project so far is the Chinese one. But this is a completely different context in terms of rules, for example, a different level of privacy for digital wallets.

So we focus on addressing the needs of the euro area and the preferences of Europeans, for instance on privacy. It is also very important that the system is very resilient to fraud – that is of great importance to citizens, and is a point that European consumer organisations have placed particular emphasis on.

In fact, a number of central banks outside the euro area are looking at the progress we are making and reaching out to learn from our work. We in the euro area have a particular sense of urgency because the fragmentation of our payments landscape along national lines is inconsistent with our monetary union and does not allow to reap the full benefits of the Single Market. A digital euro would unify European payments.

How do you see the ECB’s latest interest rate decision this Thursday (24 July)? What is the rationale behind it? Could we expect more rate cuts in 2025?

Inflation is at our 2% target and the economy has proven resilient so far in a challenging global environment, but we still face considerable uncertainty, notably in relation to the trade outlook. Against this background, we have decided to leave rates unchanged.

Trade disruptions make it harder to assess recent data. In the first quarter, the economy grew more strongly than expected, largely because firms frontloaded exports and capital goods investment ahead of expected tariff hikes. In contrast, private consumption growth moderated and the savings rate increased.

In September – and later this year – we will have more information, which will feed into revised macroeconomic projections. We will then reassess our stance, in line with our data-dependent and meeting-by-meeting approach. In particular, we will be in a better position to assess the trade situation and look through the volatility generated by frontloading effects. This will allow us to better discern the underlying momentum in the economy and its implications for the inflation outlook.

For now, we see conflicting signals. Weak consumer confidence points to subdued consumption growth in the short term, while continued uncertainty and the unwinding of frontloading effects could weigh on business investment and exports. At the same time, the labour market has so far remained resilient, even as labour demand weakens, and real incomes are rising even as wage growth gradually moderates. Over time, higher public investment in defence and infrastructure is expected to support economic activity. Overall, we continue to see risks to economic growth as tilted to the downside, but the outlook for inflation is more uncertain than usual. In particular, we will need to see how prices in the euro area are affected by trade disruptions – including their impact on supply chains as well as on trade diversion that is already resulting in higher euro area imports from China.

After ten rate hikes between September 2022 and September 2023, the ECB has lowered borrowing costs eight (or nine) times since last June. What lessons has the ECB learnt from addressing the inflation in the past four years?

I can tell you the two key lessons I take from the recent episode. First, when sudden inflationary shocks occur, inflation dynamics may change, because there is so-called non-linearity in the system. Inflation can accelerate very fast, especially because firms tend to change prices much faster than we expected. They take many small steps, but frequently. This acceleration is very important and we must take this non-linearity into account.

Second, the recent inflation spike has confirmed the benefits of keeping inflation expectations under control. If you are able to anchor inflation expectations to your target level, the system will also adjust to this in a soft way. This way the implications of your monetary policy for the real economy may be less severe once you bring inflation expectations back to your target and you can bring back interest rates to lower levels earlier once the inflationary shock unwinds. Keeping inflation expectations close to our 2% inflation target is very important, and it’s one of the principles that we stressed a few weeks ago in our updated monetary policy strategy.

In this context: what are the main risks to the euro area inflation outlook? Are they to the upside or to the downside right now and why?

In our latest forecast, in June, we assessed that these risks are really balanced and are tilted neither to the upside nor to the downside. We now see an additional appreciation of the euro and a slight increase in energy costs. The overall assessment therefore stays the same. At that time, we also saw higher trade tensions and some concerns for the global economic outlook, which has so far been resilient. Overall, it seems to me that the June assessment can be confirmed and that inflation expectations are balanced.

And finally: what lies ahead for the euro area in the context of rising geopolitical tensions and uncertainties, fractured multilateral rules, Trump’s tariffs, increased defence challenges and spending? How to address all these issues and challenges and what should be the role of the ECB in this more complicated and changed world?

We have one fundamental mission: price stability. So we take all these factors into account and design the monetary policy to make sure that inflation stays at our target level. Price stability and financial stability create the conditions for people and businesses to take their decisions in a stable context, with as little uncertainty as possible. This is the role of the ECB – to provide, within our mandate, a macroeconomic environment that fosters long-term investment and reduces uncertainty for people when taking decisions. That is our key contribution.

Although durvalumab (Imfinzi) following concurrent chemoradiotherapy, which was examined in the phase 3 PACIFIC trial (NCT02125461), remains the standard of care, new immunotherapy-based regimens are being developed to offer additional treatment options for patients with locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to Marina C. Garassino, MD.¹

“The old version of the PACIFIC regimen is still the standard of care, but there are many new ‘tastes’ [of this regimen],” Garassino, the director of the Thoracic Oncology Program and a professor of medicine in the Section of Hematology/Oncology at The University of Chicago Department of Medicine in Illinois, said during the presentation during the 26th Annual International Lung Cancer Congress.

PACIFIC compared durvalumab with placebo for the treatment of patients with unresectable, stage III NSCLC who did not experience disease progression after concurrent chemoradiotherapy.² Findings from the 5-year survival analysis of the study demonstrated that the median progression-free survival (PFS) in the investigational arm (n = 476) was 16.9 months (95% CI, 13.0-23.9) compared with 5.6 months (95% CI, 4.8-7.7) in the placebo arm (n = 237; stratified HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.45-0.68). The median overall survival (OS) values were 47.5 months (95% CI, 38.1-52.9) and 29.1 months (95% CI, 22.1-35.1), respectively (stratified HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59-0.89).

Garassino emphasized that the benefit of durvalumab was also reflected in a real-world population, based on data from the observational PACIFIC-R study (NCT03798535).³ Patients who received durvalumab (n = 1154) achieved a median OS of not reached (NR; 95% CI, 46.3-not evaluable [NE]). The 2- and 3-year OS rates were 72.3% (95% CI, 69.7%-74.8%) and 63.2% (95% CI, 60.3%-65.9%), respectively. The median PFS was 24.1 months (95% CI, 20.2-27.8); the 2-year PFS rate was 50.1% (95% CI, 47.2%-53.0%), and the 3-year PFS rate was 42.2% (95% CI, 39.2%-45.1%).

Unpacking Data From Other PACIFIC-Based Regimens

In the phase 2 PACIFIC-6 trial (NCT03693300), the safety and efficacy of durvalumab were evaluated following sequential chemoradiotherapy in patients with stage III, unresectable NSCLC.⁴ Patients who received durvalumab (n = 117) achieved a median PFS of 10.9 months (95% CI, 7.3-15.6) and a median OS of 25.0 months (95% CI, 25.0-NE). “Patients were enrolled in this trial if they were not suitable for concurrent treatment,” Garassino commented. “The benefit was very visible, and the treatment was feasible.”

Garassino noted that there is no benefit in initiating immunotherapy with chemoradiotherapy. Findings from the phase 3 PACIFIC-2 trial (NCT03519971) showed that patients who received durvalumab in combination with chemoradiotherapy (n = 219) experienced a median PFS of 13.8 months (95% CI, 9.5-16.9) compared with 9.4 months (95% CI, 7.5-16.6) among those treated with chemoradiotherapy alone (n = 109; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.65-1.12; P = .247).⁵

“There was a crossing of the OS curves that we believe was related to the higher number of adverse effects leading to [treatment] discontinuation with the PACIFIC-2 regimen vs chemoradiation,” Garassino commented.

Exploring Immunotherapy Regimens Beyond PACIFIC

In the phase 3 CheckMate 73L study (NCT04026412), investigators compared nivolumab (Opdivo) plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy followed by nivolumab with or without ipilimumab (Yervoy) vs the PACIFIC regimen.⁶ Patients in the investigational arm (n = 287) experienced a median PFS of 16.7 months (95% CI, 12.6-22.0) compared with 15.6 months (95% CI, 13.7-19.8) in the control arm (n = 318; HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.77-1.19; P = .6460).

The phase 3 GEMSTONE-301 study (NCT03728556) was a Chinese trial that evaluated the PD-L1 inhibitor sugemalimab vs placebo in patients with locally advanced, unresectable stage III NSCLC who did not experience disease progression after concurrent or sequential chemoradiotherapy.⁷ Data from the interim analysis of GEMSTONE-301 revealed that the median PFS in the sugemalimab arm (n = 255) was 9.0 months (95% CI, 8.1-14.1) compared with 5.8 months (95% CI, 4.2-6.6) in the placebo arm (n = 126; stratified HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48-0.85; log-rank P = .0026).

The PD-1 inhibitor toripalimab (Loqtorzi) is being evaluated in patients with bulky unresectable stage III NSCLC in the phase 2 InTRist study (NCT05888402).⁸ Findings from InTRist presented during the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting showed that patients who received toripalimab plus chemotherapy (n = 27) experienced a median PFS of NR (95% CI, NR-NR) compared with 12.4 months (95% CI, 8.0-NR) among those who received chemotherapy alone (n = 25; HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.08-0.81; log-rank P = .012). The 1-year PFS rates were 85.6% (95% CI, 71.6%-100.0%) and 54.5% (95% CI, 37.7%-78.7%).

“There was a [benefit] in PFS with the combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone,” Garassino noted. “But we don’t have the results yet in terms of OS, and we need larger studies to [get more data].”

Durvalumab was examined in combination with multiple novel agents in the phase 2 COAST trial (NCT03822351).⁹ Findings from COAST revealed that patients who received durvalumab plus monalizumab (n = 62) or durvalumab plus oleclumab (n = 60) experienced a median PFS of 15.1 months (95% CI, 13.6-NE) and NR (95% CI, 10.4-NE), respectively. Comparatively, patients who received durvalumab monotherapy experienced a median PFS of 6.3 months (95% CI, 3.7-11.2); the HRs for PFS using the monotherapy arm as a reference were 0.42 (95% CI, 0.24-0.72) in the monalizumab arm and 0.44 (95% CI, 0.26-0.75) in the oleclumab arm. The 12-month PFS rates in the monalizumab, oleclumab, and durvalumab monotherapy arms were 72.7% (95% CI, 58.8%-82.6%), 62.6% (95% CI, 48.1%-74.2%), and 33.9% (95% CI, 21.2%-47.1%), respectively.

“[In COAST], we saw good PFS data for the combination arms, and there was also some benefit in patients with PD-L1–negative disease, which we haven’t seen with durvalumab only,” Garassino commented.

Garassino concluded her presentation by emphasizing that proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) should not be added to the PACIFIC regimen. Findings from a post-hoc analysis of PACIFIC showed that patients in the durvalumab arm who were exposed to PPIs (n = 185) experienced a median PFS of 10.7 months compared with 18.1 months among those who did not receive a PPI (n = 265; P = .017).¹⁰ “[These data] showed that adding PPIs can reduce the [efficacy] of immunotherapy, [but there] are still a lot of uncertainties,” Garassino said.

References

1. Garassino MC. Immunotherapy in locally advanced NSCLC: latest findings Presented at: 26th Annual International Lung Cancer Congress; July 25-27, 2025; Huntington Beach, CA.
2. Spigel DR, Faivre-Finn C, Gray JE, et al. Five-year survival outcomes from the PACIFIC Trial: durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40(12):1301-1311. doi:10.1200/JCO.21.01308
3. Filippi AR, Bar J, Chouaid C, et al. Real-world outcomes with durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC: Interim analysis of overall survival from PACIFIC-R. ESMO Open. 2024;9(6):103464. doi:10.1016/j.esmoop.2024.103464
4. Garassino MC, Mazieres J, Reck M, et al. Durvalumab after sequential chemoradiotherapy in stage III, unresectable NSCLC: the phase 2 PACIFIC-6 Trial. J Thorac Oncol. 2022;17(12):1415-1427. doi:10.1016/j.jtho.2022.07.1148
5. Bradley JD, Sugawara S, Lee KHH, et al. Durvalumab in combination with chemoradiotherapy for patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC: final results from PACIFIC-2.. ESMO Open. 2024;9(suppl 3):102986. doi:10.1016/j.esmoop.2024.102986
6. Peters S, Tan DSW, Gerber DE, et al. CheckMate 73L: Phase III study comparing nivolumab (N) + concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) followed by N ± ipilimumab (I) v CCRT followed by durvalumab (D) for previously untreated, locally advanced stage (stg) III NSCLC. IOTECH. 2024;24(suppl):100808. doi:10.1016/j.iotech.2024.100808
7. Zhou Q, Chen M, Jiang O, et al. Sugemalimab versus placebo after concurrent or sequential chemoradiotherapy in patients with locally advanced, unresectable, stage III non-small-cell lung cancer in China (GEMSTONE-301): interim results of a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23(2):209-219. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00630-6
8. Wang Y, Wang J, Deng J, et al. The preliminary results of a randomized phase II trial evaluating induction toripalimab plus chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy and consolidation toripalimab in bulky unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (InTRist). J Clin Oncol. 2025;43(suppl 16):8012. doi:10.1200/JCO.2025.43.16_suppl.8012
9. Herbst RS, Majem M, Barlesi F, et al. COAST: an open-label, phase II, multidrug platform study of durvalumab alone or in combination with oleclumab or monalizumab in patients with unresectable, stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40(29):3383-3393. doi:10.1200/JCO.22.00227
10. Brunetti L, Santo V, Pinato DJ, et al. Differential effect of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and antibiotics (ATB) on clinical outcomes from immunotherapy or placebo in patients with locally advanced, unresectable NSCLC who have not progressed following chemoradiation therapy (cCTRT): a post-hoc analysis of the PACIFIC trial. J Thorac Oncol. 2025;20(3):S129-S130. doi:10.1016/S1556-0864(25)00386-7

Donald Trump has declared that Japan is opening up its domestic market to US cars as part of the bilateral trade deal announced this week. But American manufacturers will find it no easy task convincing Japanese drivers to choose what they see as oversized, unreliable gas-guzzlers.

Announcing the agreement – which includes 15% tariffs on imports from Japan, including cars – Trump posted: “Perhaps most importantly, Japan will open their country to trade including cars and trucks, rice and certain other agricultural products.”

Earlier this month, the US president had complained: “We didn’t give them one car in 10 years – they send out millions but they won’t take any of ours.”

The US claims Japan uses non-tariff barriers (NTBs) to keep out American cars. Japan imported 16,707 American vehicles in 2024, according to the Japan Automobile Importers Association (JAIA).

European brands, led by Mercedes-Benz and other German automakers, sold more than 250,000 into the same market, which overall is dominated by Japan’s huge domestic auto industry.

“We don’t receive any requests from our member companies to address non-tariff barrier issues,” said the JAIA’s Sho Matsumoto. Takeshi Miyao, head of the Carnorama auto consultancy’s Tokyo office, also says no such hurdles exist for US imports.

“There are non-tariff barriers on rice [another sticking point in the trade negotiations], because the government feels it has to protect Japanese farmers, but not on vehicles,” he says.

US manufacturers like GM and Ford simply don’t focus on the Japanese market, according to Miyao.

“They don’t really do any marketing, and often don’t even offer right-hand drive models. So the cars don’t sell.”

Size is also a problem, Miyao notes. The Ford F-150 pickup is around six metres long and 2 metres high. That kind of vehicular behemoth is particularly ill suited to Japan’s narrow roads and tight parking spaces.

US cars also have longstanding image problems, says Takahisa Matsuyama, an instructor for chauffeurs and private hire drivers in Tokyo.

“Going back to the days when we first came across US cars like Cadillacs, they’re seen as having terrible fuel efficiency and breaking down easily; that impression hasn’t changed much,” says Matsuyama.

The 2025 car reliability rankings from Consumer Reports, a US non-profit organisation, bear this sentiment out.

The top four marques were Subaru, Lexus, Toyota and Honda – all Japanese.

The bottom four – Jeep, GMC, Cadillac and Rivian – were all American.

Matsuyama points out that the biggest sellers in Japan have long been kei cars. Short for kei-jidosha (light vehicle), these compact cars and trucks are only allowed a tiny 660cc engine, and have topped sales rankings for decades – even as the government has gradually eroded the tax and insurance advantages they receive over regular vehicles.

The automotive antithesis of the giant pickup, the kei truck has actually gained a cult fanbase in the US, mostly through private imports.

Japan’s automakers will now face 15% tariffs on their exports to the US, up from 2.5% and the highest levy in decades. But investors have welcomed the figure as much less than the originally threatened 25% hike, to a total of 27.5%. The news sent the Nikkei 225 index up more than 4% this week, and shares in Japan’s biggest carmakers surged even higher – Toyota, Honda and Nissan all gaining more than 10%.

One of Trump’s perennial complaints in his trade and tariff war has been that other companies “rip off” the US by selling it more than they buy from it.

In that vein, as part of the bilateral negotiations, Tokyo has agreed to encourage Japanese auto brands that also build cars in US factories to import some of them into Japan.

That may at least put some US-built vehicles into the showrooms of Japan that motorists might actually buy.

Pasi A. Jänne, MD, PhD, senior vice president for Translational Medicine, director of the Belfer Center for Applied Cancer Science, director of the Chen-Huang Center for EGFR Mutant Lung Cancers, a senior physician, and the David M. Livingston, MD, Chair at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; as well as a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, discussed notable recent changes to the second-line treatment paradigm for patients with EGFR-mutated non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). He also explained disease features that factor into his treatment decision-making process in the second-line EGFR-mutated NSCLC setting.

A Southwest Airlines plane rapidly dropped in elevation after departing from the Los Angeles area on Friday, with passengers posting online that the pilot was forced to rapidly change course to avoid a potential collision with another aircraft.

Flight 1496 from Hollywood Burbank Airport to Las Vegas plummeted rapidly, lifting passengers out of their seats and injuring two flight attendants.

The crew “responded to two onboard traffic alerts… requiring them to climb and descend to comply with the alerts”, Southwest said in a statement.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said it was investigating the “incident”. It comes less than one week after a similar near-miss.

“Ensuring the safety of everyone in the national airspace system remains our top priority,” the FAA statement added.

Stand-up comedian Jimmy Dore was onboard the plane, and was among the passengers saying that the erratic move was due to a near-miss with another plane.

“Pilot said his collision warning went off & he needed to avoid plane coming at us. Wow,” Dore wrote on X. “A flight attendant needed medical attention.”

His colleague Stef Zamorano added that all the passengers applauded when the plane landed.

Caitlin Burdi told Fox News that passengers were “screaming” as the plane rapidly fell.

“It was terrifying. We really thought we were plummeting to a plane crash,” she said.

She added that the pilot came over the speaker afterwards to say that the plane had almost hit another plane, and that they had lost contact with air traffic control.

“I just remember him saying, ‘What just happened was we almost collided with another plane, and I had to make the emergency attempt to go under because we lost service with the air traffic controller,’” she said.

According to CNN, the plane was nearly intercepted by a privately owned Hawker Hunter fighter jet after less than six minutes in the air.

The jet crossed less than two miles in front of it, and within a few hundred feet of its altitude, CNN reported, citing flight tracking data. It had departed from El Pas, Texas and was flying to Oxnard, California.

The Southwest statement said that the flight continued on to Las Vegas, “where it landed uneventfully”, and that the airline is “engaged” with the FAA “to further understand the circumstances”.

“We appreciate the professionalism of our Flight Crew and Flight Attendants in responding to this event. Nothing is more important to Southwest than the Safety of our Customers and Employees.”

It comes less than one week after a Delta regional flight from Minneapolis was forced to make a sudden evasive manoeuvre to avoid a US military bomber.

Jason Sennitt loves his job, but can’t imagine going back to the office up to four days a week. The 53-year-old lives in an outer suburb of Geelong with his wife and two school-age children as well as his elderly mother who has dementia and needs someone to be home.

An employee of one of Australia’s largest energy providers, Sennitt has been told to return to the office at least three days a week, and four days a week from next year.

“Even though I have to travel five hours to do an eight-hour shift, I’m happy to do that a couple of times a week,” says Sennitt, who works in customer service.

“But being in the office … it’s not necessary for me to do my job well and it feels like the business hasn’t really considered this.”

Sennitt has applied for an exemption to the office mandate, but he believes the company’s “broad brushstroke” policy doesn’t take proper consideration of its workers.

His comments come ahead of the 1 August submission deadline for a Fair Work Commission process designed to modernise the award for clerical and administrative workers by taking into account work-from-home arrangements.

The clerks award, which informs the working conditions of millions of Australians, is seen as a test case for the broader workforce amid a growing tussle over flexible work.

Sign up for a weekly email featuring our best reads

While employees can request flexible arrangements, there is no assumed right to work from home in Australia.

Sennitt’s employer, Origin Energy, says it supports its office-based employees to work from home up to two days a week, with the ability to request additional flexibility.

“We believe a balance between work and home locations enables connection, collaboration, productivity, and health and wellbeing benefits,” an Origin spokesperson says.

Worker relations

Once seen as a rare perk, remote work exploded during the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic.

After pandemic conditions eased, the significant time and financial saving from reduced commuting, and flexibility to care for family members, has made many workers resistant to return to the office. Many employees also report being more productive working from home.

Some employers, however, are worried about being compelled to offer flexible arrangements when it is not practical for their business. There is also the enduring suspicion that some workers slack off at home.

The issue has pitted employer association Australian Industry Group against the Australian Services Union (ASU), which has a large base of administrative and clerical members, including Sennitt.

AI Group has reportedly proposed to give employers the right to trade off overtime, penalty rates and breaks in exchange for allowing employees to work from home. The confidential proposal was first reported in The Australian.

The ASU’s national secretary, Emeline Gaske, told Guardian Australia that AI Group wanted to use working from home as an excuse to strip away basic entitlements.

“This is a lurch back in time by the [AI Group] that wants to drag workplace standards back decades if a worker seeks to work from home,” Gaske says.

An ASU members’ survey found that the ability to work from home was “not a perk, but an essential condition that makes work possible”, allowing many workers to manage health conditions, disabilities and caring responsibilities.

Employers and their representative bodies are expected to use the Fair Work process to test whether current provisions are suited to flexible work.

For example, the clerks award ensures employees have at least 10 consecutive hours off after working overtime. If an employer doesn’t comply, the worker earns double their hourly rate.

skip past newsletter promotion

after newsletter promotion

Employer groups question if that 10-hour rule should apply if a worker is at home, and therefore does not need to commute. They are also raising questions about what constitutes normal working hours in an at-home setting, given penalty rates often apply outside those hours.

The Fair Work process may also bring clarity to how flexible work interacts with right to disconnect laws.

The AI Group chief executive, Innes Willox, says there is an obvious need to free up restrictive provisions that either prohibit working from home or discourage employers from implementing them.

He says the union is engaging in a “misleading scare campaign”.

“We aren’t arguing that overtime and penalty rates should not apply simply because someone is working from home,” Willox says.

He says the clerks award contains archaic rules that require all ordinary hours are worked continuously and within strict timeframes.

“If employees want to take breaks during their ordinary hours of work to attend to personal matters, like picking their kids up from schools, and instead work those hours in the evening or early in the morning, they should be able to do that, if their employer agrees,” Willox says.

“Obviously, an employer shouldn’t have to pay a penalty for agreeing to an employee request to work this way, but that seems to be what the unions want.”

Flexible rights

During the federal election, the Coalition spectacularly reversed its policy to restrict work from home arrangements for the public service.

Polling found during the campaign that the public service proposal was unpopular, especially among women and working families who have come to rely on flexible work arrangements.

As the submission deadline for the Fair Work process nears, there are growing expectations Labor could legislate a work-from-home right for workers.

Another Melbourne corporate worker, who asked not to be identified, told Guardian Australia that greater flexibility would lead to increased productivity and improved morale.

For them, the only public transport option from their outer-Melbourne home requires a 40-minute bus ride followed by a 55-minute train commute. The bus schedule also doesn’t line up with work hours.

“I leave home at 4.30am to get a ride with my husband,” the worker said. “I’m not allowed to leave [work] early. I still have to stay until 4pm.”

“We find the days [in the office] to be the most unproductive days there are.”

Getty Images

Courtesy of Mizuba Tea Co.

Savour, not hoard

Courtesy of Camellia Tea Ceremony

By Christine Idzelis

Stock-market volatility has dropped this week amid tariff-related developments

Wall Street’s so-called fear gauge dropped this week as U.S. stocks continued to set record highs, with investors appearing encouraged in part by the White House’s progress on the global trade front.

The Cboe Volatility Index VIX saw a weekly decline of 9% to end Friday at 14.93 – the gauge’s lowest close since February, FactSet data show.

The U.S. stock market saw an “impressive” run of consecutive record highs this week, as investors got more clarity on tariffs against the backdrop of a “nice, solid earnings season” so far for S&P 500 SPX companies, said Chris Haverland, global equity strategist at Wells Fargo Investment Institute, in a phone interview Friday.

The S&P 500 booked its fifth straight record closing peak on Friday, while the technology-heavy Nasdaq Composite COMP also notched a new all-time high. The Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA ended just 0.2% below its record close on Dec. 4, according to Dow Jones Market Data.

The market seems to be “taking comfort” in President Donald Trump getting more trade deals done this week, including with Japan, Indonesia and the Philippines, according to Haverland. Additionally, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in a Friday post on X that following “a good call” with Trump, “we have agreed to meet in Scotland on Sunday to discuss transatlantic trade relations, and how we can keep them strong.”

Check out: Trump’s trade deals: Here are the countries that have made agreements, and those that haven’t

Meanwhile, as more companies rolled out their second-quarter earnings results this week, there was only “a little bit” of margin deterioration from tariffs, which has helped a high percentage of businesses beat expectations so far, according to Haverland. The bar had generally been low heading into the latest corporate earnings season due to concerns about the potential impact from levies, he explained.

Google parent Alphabet Inc. (GOOGL) (GOOG) was among companies to report earnings this week, with the Big Tech company’s stock seeing a weekly gain of 4.4%, according to FactSet data.

Alphabet’s “strong results and raised [artificial-intelligence] spending have supported the AI narrative,” said Louis Navellier, chief investment officer at money-management firm Navellier & Associates, in emailed comments Friday. “Stocks continue to have the wind at their back on the strength of above-average earnings beats and optimism over tariff outcomes.”

Big Tech stocks, which have an outsize weight in the S&P 500, were mostly up this week.

The Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF MAGS – an exchange-traded fund that holds seven closely watched Big Tech stocks including Alphabet, Microsoft Corp. (MSFT), Apple Inc. (AAPL), Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN), Nvidia Corp. (NVDA), Tesla Inc. (TSLA) and Facebook parent Meta Platforms Inc. (META) – ended Friday up 1% on the week. Alphabet easily had the biggest weekly rise in the ETF’s portfolio, with only Tesla in the red for the week, FactSet data show.

Read: Why Tesla analysts are mostly upbeat about earnings, but investors aren’t happy

Next week, all eyes will be on the Federal Reserve, which will announce on July 30 its decision on where to set interest rates. The Fed has been monitoring the impacts of tariffs on the U.S. economy, including the potential for them to increase inflation for consumers.

Read: Trump went to the Fed to pressure Powell. Did he chicken out instead?

Investors are widely expecting that the Fed will keep its benchmark rate at the current target range of 4.25% to 4.5%. Federal-funds futures were indicating on Friday a 97.4% probability of that outcome from the central bank’s two-day policy meeting next week, and a 62.4% chance that the Fed will cut its policy rate by a quarter of a percentage point in September, according to data from the CME FedWatch Tool, at last check.

“We expect the Fed to hold next week,” said Haverland. “We expect one cut this year.”

-Christine Idzelis

This content was created by MarketWatch, which is operated by Dow Jones & Co. MarketWatch is published independently from Dow Jones Newswires and The Wall Street Journal.

  (END) Dow Jones Newswires

  07-25-25 1834ET
Copyright (c) 2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.