Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

Mike Tyson, left, and Jake Paul faced off in the live bout on FridayNetflix’s push into streaming live events was put to its biggest test on Friday with the boxing match-up between former heavyweight champion Mike Tyson and Jake Paul, a YouTube influencer who became a professional fighter in 2020.

The bout, which was won by Paul, 27, who beat Tyson, 58, on points, was available to all of Netflix’s 280mn subscribers at no extra charge, a departure from the expensive pay-per-view or premium TV packages that have long been associated with professional boxing. 

Boxing used to be a lucrative business for the pay-TV networks HBO and Showtime, but both exited the sport as its popularity declined. 

For Netflix, the Tyson-Paul bout was aimed at attracting new subscribers — particularly to its advertising-supported service, analysts say. The company’s ad tier, launched in late 2022, has about 70mn subscribers. 

The boxing “megaevent . . . should boost audience engagement and attract advertising-tier subscribers, viewers and dollars”, analysts at JPMorgan said.  

On social media, some fans complained about buffering problems during the fight. The website Down Detector reported that more than 84,000 viewers reported problems.

The unusual bout featuring Tyson, the fiercest and most controversial boxer of his generation, and Paul, a brash social media star, appeared to be part of a strategy to target younger male viewers. In January, Netflix signed a $5bn, 10-year deal with World Wrestling Entertainment’s weekly Raw programme in the US, by far the group’s biggest foray into streaming live events. 

Netflix has had success with what it calls “sports-adjacent” programming, including documentaries such as Formula 1: Drive to Survive and Beckham. But it is starting to feature more live sporting events, including a planned National Football League game on Christmas Day — prompting speculation on Wall Street that it plans to eventually secure a rights deal with a major sports league.

Ted Sarandos, co-chief executive, has tried to damp the speculation, saying Netflix does not want to enter a typical sports rights deal in which most of the financial benefit goes to a league.  

“Where we can really differentiate and outcompete everybody is in the storytelling of sports, the drama of sports,” Sarandos said on an earnings call earlier this year. 

Netflix’s position contrasts with its streaming rivals, including Amazon Prime, Apple TV and Google’s YouTube, which gobbled up sports professional sports rights — Amazon has NFL’s Thursday Night Football, Apple hosts Major League Baseball’s Friday Night Baseball and YouTube is the home of the NFL’s Sunday Ticket roster of games. But analysts at Morgan Stanley have said they expect Netflix to eventually enter the competition for sports rights as traditional TV networks decline and existing deals with major US sports leagues expire by 2030. 

Netflix began experimenting with live programming last year with a comedy special by Chris Rock, which faced technical problems. It has also live-streamed the SAG awards and a “roast” of retired American football star Tom Brady.  

Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free

Your guide to what the 2024 US election means for Washington and the world

Donald Trump has moved quickly to name candidates for the top jobs in his incoming administration. The picks show that loyalty appears to have been a crucial criteria for a post — and in many cases, the president-elect’s picks have shocked Washington’s political establishment.

Many of the nominees could face gruelling Senate confirmation hearings in the new year before they are confirmed, but here is a handy guide to those likely to be among the most powerful players in the second Trump White House.

Marco Rubio

Secretary of state

Florida senator Marco Rubio, 53, is set to become America’s chief diplomat in Trump’s second administration. Rubio, a former political rival to Trump, is known for his hawkish views on China and Iran — and is not as isolationist as some other Trump allies.

Pete Hegseth

Secretary of defence

Pete Hegseth is a 44-year-old army veteran and Fox News host with no government experience who has been asked to lead an organisation with almost 3mn military and civilian employees. Hegseth’s views of the US military align with Trump’s instincts, including rooting out “socially correct garbage”.

Susie Wiles

White House chief of staff

Trump’s first decision after winning the 2024 presidential election was to pick his campaign manager, Susie Wiles, as chief of staff. Wiles, 67, is a seasoned Republican campaign operative who has established herself inside Trump’s orbit, in part by keeping the public spotlight on others.

John Ratcliffe

CIA director

John Ratcliffe, 59, director of national intelligence in the final year of Trump’s first term, is a staunch ally who sharply criticised special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election when he was a congressman.

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy

Government efficiency

Elon Musk, 53, and Vivek Ramaswamy, 39, are being put in charge of a promised effort to slash rules, bureaucracy and spending throughout government. They will lead a yet to be established “department of government efficiency”.

Mike Waltz

National security adviser

Mike Waltz, 50, is a decorated military veteran, Nato critic and China sceptic. The Florida congressman and retired Army Special Forces officer has called China an “existential” threat. He served several tours in Afghanistan, the Middle East and Africa.

Kristi Noem

Homeland security secretary

Governor of South Dakota Kristi Noem, 52, has been nominated to lead the Department of Homeland Security with a mandate to stem immigration. Her autobiography, which recounted how she shot her puppy Cricket for misbehaviour, became a national talking point earlier this year.

Tom Homan

Border tsar

Tom Homan, 62, previously served as Trump’s immigration and customs enforcement director, backing the policy of separating parents from their children to discourage irregular migration. He has been asked to crack down on undocumented immigrants crossing the US-Mexico border and deport those already in the US.

Elise Stefanik

US ambassador to UN

Republican New York congresswoman Elise Stefanik, 40, is a former White House aide to George W Bush who rose to prominence for questioning the presidents of Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania about antisemitism on their campuses, leading to their resignations.

Mike Huckabee

US ambassador to Israel

Mike Huckabee, 69, is the former governor of Arkansas and a prominent evangelical Christian. He is adored by the Israeli right for unflinching support of Israel’s military campaigns in Gaza and Lebanon, and his support for their desire to annex the occupied West Bank.

Stephen Miller

Deputy chief of staff for policy

Stephen Miller is among the most vocal and influential immigration hawks in Trump’s inner circle. The appointment of the 39-year-old will put the conservative firebrand and longtime adviser at the heart of the president-elect’s effort to reduce illegal immigration.

Tulsi Gabbard

Director of national intelligence

The former Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii is known for her pro-Russian views, including blaming Nato and President Joe Biden’s administration for Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Tulsi Gabbard, 43, ran for president in 2020 from the far left of the Democratic party but has since embraced Trump and the Republicans.

Matt Gaetz

Attorney-general

The nomination of Republican congressman Matt Gaetz, 42, to run the Department of Justice has stunned Washington. Gaetz, a loyal Trump backer, was previously under investigation by the House of Representatives for alleged ethics breaches. Trump wants him to overhaul the department in retaliation for criminal investigations launched against the president-elect.

Robert F Kennedy Jr

Health secretary

Robert F Kennedy Jr, known as RFK, dropped his independent presidential campaign in August and backed Trump despite coming from the Democratic dynasty. Trump said he would allow 70-year-old Kennedy, a vocal vaccine sceptic and critic of the pharmaceutical industry, to “go wild” in reforming the US health and food system.

Reporting by Alex Rogers, Lauren Fedor, Oliver Barnes and Sophie Spiegelberger

WASHINGTON — Three years after President Biden signed the bipartisan infrastructure law, his administration has a new name for it: the “Big Deal.”

It is, indisputably, a lot of money: more than a trillion dollars in spending on roads, bridges, airports, railroads, ports and more.

But for all that investment, the White House has seen surprisingly little political benefit.

“You know, I don’t think it did,” said Ray LaHood, a Republican who served as Transportation Secretary during the Obama administration. “I was shocked.”

During the first Trump administration, infrastructure week became a running joke in Washington. President Biden took it seriously, betting that voters would reward his administration for delivering where others had not.

But this month, that bet fell flat with voters, who didn’t seem to give his Democratic party much credit.

“The most important thing is that the projects actually get done,” said Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg in an interview at the Department of Transportation this week. “From the point of view of the country, it is more important that they get done than it is who gets the credit.”

For the past three years, Buttigieg has spent much of his time on the road, attending ribbon cuttings and ground-breakings for projects all over the country. The DOT has announced $570 billion in funding from the infrastructure law for over 66,000 projects in all 50 states — from $400 million to shore up the Golden Gate Bridge, to $1 million for a new terminal at a tiny airport in Chamberlain, South Dakota.

“It’s everything from these backyard projects to the cathedrals of American infrastructure,” Buttigieg said.

In noting the anniversary on Friday, President Biden called the law, “the largest investment in our nation’s infrastructure in a generation,” he said in a post on X. “On that day, we showed we can get big things done when we work together.”

So why haven’t these investments resonated more with voters?

Part of the issue, Buttigieg argues, is timing. “Some of these projects can be done quickly, but many of them, by their very nature, are projects that take the better part of a decade,” he said. “So it will be a long time before ribbons are cut.”

There are some other theories about why the message didn’t cut through. Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, calls the infrastructure law a “slam dunk success,” but says voters were more concerned about inflation.

“People are paying a lot more for groceries and rent and gasoline than they were a few years ago. So no matter what you did that was good,” Zandi said, “it just gets drowned out by the reality of higher inflation.”

There’s also a theory that the infrastructure law wasn’t ambitious enough.

“These investments are not producing the sorts of results that would get people excited,” said Beth Osborne, the director of the non-profit Transportation For America, which recently released a report on the climate effects of the infrastructure law.

“We are told that it’s going to bring down emissions, but we just released a report that showed it did not do that,” Osborne said.

There’s yet another theory that the Biden and Kamala Harris campaigns just didn’t talk enough about the infrastructure law and the jobs it’s already created.

“I think there should’ve been a lot more focus on the infrastructure bill, on the jobs. I think it would have resonated with voters,” said LaHood, the former transportation secretary who also served as a Congressman from Illinois. “There’s a lot of people working, there’s a lot of orange cones on the highway.”

Back in 2021, 19 Republicans in the Senate and 13 in the House supported the infrastructure law. But many more voted against it, arguing it was overstuffed with too many pet projects.

“This bill, this $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill, isn’t true infrastructure,” said Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) in an interview on FOX.

Two years later, Mace was happy to celebrate funding for a new public transit hub in her district.

“What do you want me to do? Turn my back on the Low Country, when we can get funding for public transit? Absolutely not,” she said at a press conference for the project.

Mace wasn’t the only Republican who voted against the infrastructure law only to cheer its accomplishments later. That was sometimes frustrating to watch, said Transportation Secretary Buttigieg. And he expects it to keep happening.

“I think we’re about to have an entire administration doing that because of course, the President-elect also opposed this infrastructure package. But will, I’m sure, not hesitate to celebrate things that are done because of it,” Buttigieg said.

The DOT is doing everything it can to speed up the grantmaking process to make sure money continues to flow to these projects, Buttigieg said. He worries that the Trump administration could try to claw back some of the money in future years, but hopes it won’t come to that.

“I still believe the jobs that are being created and the infrastructure being improved is so beneficial to so many people that it is going to be hard for ideologues to do away with these good efforts,” Buttigieg said. “That’s why it was bipartisan in the first place.”

Buttigieg argues that the legacy of this infrastructure law will be felt for decades to come. But others worry that the political lessons may linger as well.

“It’s going to be hard to do anything big,” said LaHood.

“We need better infrastructure. We should continue to invest,” said economist Mark Zandi. “But that’s going to be hard to do politically because lawmakers are seeing what’s happening here and they’re not getting credit for it.”