Source: United States of America – Federal Government Departments (video statements)
Source: United States of America – Federal Government Departments (video statements)
Source: United Nations (Video News)
Noon Briefing by Stéphane Dujarric, Spokesperson for the Secretary-General.
Highlights:
Briefing Monday
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Democratic Republic of the Congo/Human Rights
Occupied Palestinian Territory
Haiti
Interfaith Harmony Week
Honour Roll
BRIEFING MONDAY
On Monday, at 12:30 p.m., there will be a briefing by Ambassador Fu Cong, the Permanent Representative of China and President of the Security Council for the month of February. He will discuss the Council’s programme for the upcoming month.
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO
On the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) is saying that humanitarian organizations in Goma continue to assess the impact of the crisis, including the widespread looting of warehouses and the offices of aid organizations.
The World Health Organization and partners conducted an assessment with the Government between January 26th and yesterday and report that 700 people have been killed and 2,800 injured people are receiving treatment in health facilities. These numbers are expected to rise as more information becomes available.
Today, OCHA and its humanitarian partners visited sites for internally displaced people in the areas of Bulengo and Lushagala – which is on the outskirts of Goma.
They found that water and healthcare services are still operational, but conditions remain dire.
In Goma, access to safe drinking water remains cut off, forcing people to rely on untreated water from Lake Kivu. Without urgent action, OCHA cautions that the risk of waterborne disease outbreaks will continue to increase.
For its part, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) said today that several displacement sites, including on the outskirts of Goma – where over 300,000 displaced persons had sought refuge – have been partially or completely emptied.
Full Highlights: https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/noon-briefing-highlight?date%5Bvalue%5D%5Bdate%5D=31%20January%202025
Source: United States of America – Federal Government Departments (video statements)
Survivors of the Eaton Fire describe the feeling of losing their home, and the kindness of the firefighters who did all they could to save their most valuable possessions.
Source: US State of California 2
What you need to know: At Governor Gavin Newsom’s directive, crews have been working around the clock to install nearly 60 miles of emergency protective materials in the recent Los Angeles-area burn scars.
Los Angeles, California – As another storm system is expected to reach California this week, work continues in Southern California to ensure communities impacted by the recent firestorms in Los Angeles are protected.
At Governor Gavin Newsom’s directive, crews have been working around the clock to install nearly 60 miles of emergency protective materials in the recent Los Angeles-area burn scars. Through the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), the California Department of Water Resources, California Conservation Corps, CAL FIRE, Caltrans, and the California Department of Conservation have coordinated and conducted comprehensive watershed and debris flow mitigation efforts to safeguard public health and protect the environment in affected communities.
Our top priority is to protect people and the environment from the cascading effects of wildfire damage. Through coordinated collaborative efforts, we are reducing the risk of debris flows and maintaining the integrity of our natural resources.
Governor Gavin Newsom
To date, the state has conducted mitigation efforts on 5,795 affected parcels with the use of protective barriers, laying over 310,150 linear feet of materials – equivalent to more than 58 miles.
On the Palisades Fire, task force members have installed 7,350 linear feet of straw wattle, 157,675 linear feet of compost sock, and 6,500 linear feet of silt fence for watershed protection efforts. On the Eaton Fire, task force members have installed 8,275 feet of straw wattles, and 130,350 linear feet of compost sock.
According to the National Weather Service, a storm system will bring widespread rain to the area Tuesday into early Friday, along with gusty southerly winds. While moderate rainfall across the area is the most likely scenario, there is a 10-20 percent chance of moderate debris flows if heavier rain moves over one of the recent burn scars.
Wildfires significantly alter the landscape and burned debris leave behind contaminants, leaving areas vulnerable to erosion, flooding, and debris flows, particularly during subsequent rain events. These hazards can compromise drinking water sources, damage infrastructure, and pose serious risks to both human health and wildlife habitats.
Residents in affected areas are urged to stay informed about potential debris flow risks, especially during storms, and to follow guidance from local emergency officials. For resources and information specific to the Los Angeles firestorms, visit CA.gov/LAfires.
Governor Newsom has deployed resources and thousands of personnel to communities throughout California in anticipation of the storm system.
Newly deployed resources include swift water rescue crews and fire engines in at least 12 counties: Butte, El Dorado, Glenn, Lake, Marin, Monterey, Napa, Nevada, Plumas, Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Tuolumne. More resources will be deployed to further help protect communities.
Previously, Governor Newsom directed the Cal OES to coordinate state and local partners to deploy emergency resources to support impacted communities. State officials are urging people to take precautions now before the storm arrives, and to stay informed.
Go to ready.ca.gov for tips to prepare for the incoming storm.
This is part of the state’s ongoing work to help Los Angeles families recover from the January firestorms, including reopening Pacific Palisades to residents, surging CHP patrols along the Pacific Coast Highway, supporting impacted workers and businesses, and launching a unified recovery initiative to support rebuilding efforts, among other efforts.
Additional actions to aid in the rebuilding and recovery efforts include:
For those Californians impacted by the firestorms in Los Angeles, there are resources available. Californians can go to CA.gov/LAfires – a hub for information and resources from state, local and federal government.
Individuals and business owners who sustained losses from wildfires in Los Angeles County can apply for disaster assistance:
If you use a relay service, such as video relay service (VRS), captioned telephone service or others, give FEMA the number for that service.
Source: Council on Hemispheric Affairs –
By John Perry and Roger D. Harris
With Donald Trump as the new US president, pundits are speculating about how US policy towards Latin America might change.
In this article, we look at some of the speculation, then address three specific instances of how the US’s policy priorities may be viewed from a progressive, Latin American perspective. This leads us to a wider argument: that the way these issues are dealt with is symptomatic of Washington’s paramount objective of sustaining the US’s hegemonic position. In this overriding preoccupation, its policy towards Latin America is only one element, of course, but always of significance because the US hegemon still treats the region as its “backyard.”
First, some examples of what the pundits are saying. In Foreign Affairs, Brian Winter argues that Trump’s return signals a shift away from Biden’s neglect of the region. “The reason is straightforward,” he says. “Trump’s top domestic priorities of cracking down on unauthorized immigration, stopping the smuggling of fentanyl and other illicit drugs, and reducing the influx of Chinese goods into the United States all depend heavily on policy toward Latin America.”
Ryan Berg, who is with the thinktank, Center for Strategic and International Studies, funded by the US defense industry, is also hopeful. Trump will “focus U.S. policy more intently on the Western Hemisphere,” he argues, “and in so doing, also shore up its own security and prosperity at home.”
According to blogger James Bosworth, Biden’s “benign neglect” could be replaced by an “aggressive Monroe Doctrine – deportations, tariff wars, militaristic security policies, demands of fealty towards the US, and a rejection of China.” However, notwithstanding the attention of Trump’s Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, Bosworth thinks there is still a good chance of policy lapsing into benign neglect as the new administration focuses elsewhere.
What these and similar analyses share is a concern with problems of importance to the US, including domestic ones, and how they might be tackled by shifts in policy towards Latin America. They view the region from the end of a US-mounted telescope.
Trump’s approach may be the more brazen “America first!,” but the basic stance is much the same as these pundits. The different scenarios will be worked out in Washington, with Latin America’s future seen as shaped by how it handles US policy changes over which it has little influence. Analyses by these supposed experts are constrained by their adopting the same one-dimensional perspective as Washington’s, instead of questioning it.
Here’s one example. The word “neglect” is superficial because it hides the immense involvement of the US in Latin America even when it is “neglecting” it: from deep commercial ties to a massive military presence. It is also superficial because, in a real sense, the US constantly neglects the problems that concern most Latin Americans: low wages, inequality, being safe in the streets, the damaging effects of climate change, and many more. “Neglect” would be seen very differently on the streets of a Latin American city than it is inside the Washington beltway.
The vacuum in US thinking is nowhere more apparent than in responses to the drug problem. Trump threatens to declare Mexican drug cartels to be terrorist organizations and to invade Mexico to attack them.
But, as academic Carlos Pérez-Ricart told El Pais: “This is a problem that does not originate in Mexico. The source, the demand, and the vectors are not Mexican. It is them.” Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum also points out that it is consumption in the US that drives drug production and trafficking in Mexico.
Trump could easily make the same mistake as his predecessor Clinton did two decades ago. Back then, billions were poured into “Plan Colombia” but still failed to solve the “drug problem,” while vastly augmenting violence and human rights violations in the target country.
A foretaste of what might happen, if Trump carries out his threat, occurred last July, when Biden’s administration captured Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada. That caused an all-out war between cartels in the Mexican state of Sinaloa.
Sheinbaum rightly turns questions about drug production and consumption back onto the US. Rhetorically, she asks: “Do you believe that fentanyl is not manufactured in the United States?…. Where are the drug cartels in the United States that distribute fentanyl in US cities? Where does the money from the sale of that fentanyl go in the United States?”
If Trump launches a war on cartels, he will not be the first US president to the treat drug consumption as a foreign issue rather than a concomitantly domestic one.
Trump is also not the first president to be obsessed by migration. Like drugs, it is seen as a problem to be solved by the countries where the migrants originate, while both the “push” and “pull” factors under US control receive less attention.
Exploitation of migrant labor, complex asylum procedures, and schemes such as “humanitarian parole” to encourage migration are downplayed as reasons. Biden intensified US sanctions on various Latin American countries, which have been shown conclusively to provoke massive emigration. Meanwhile Trump threatens to do the same.
Many Latin American countries have been made unsafe by crime linked to drugs or other problems in which the US is implicated. About 392,000 Mexicans were displaced as a result of conflict in 2023 alone, their problem aggravated by the massive, often illegal, export of firearms from the US to Mexico.
Costa Rica, historically a safe country, had a record 880 homicides in 2023, many of which were related to drug trafficking. In Brazil and other countries, US-trained security forces contribute directly to the violence, rather than reducing it.
Mass deportations from the US, promised by Trump, could worsen these problems, as happened in El Salvador in the late 1990s. They would also affect remittances sent home by migrant workers, exacerbating regional poverty. The threatened use of tariffs on exports to the US could also have serious consequences if Latin America does not stand up to Trump’s threats. Economist Michael Hudson argues that countries will have to jointly retaliate by refusing to pay dollar-based debts to bond holders if export earnings from the US are summarily cut.
Trump also joins the Washington consensus in its preoccupation with China’s influence in Latin America. Monica de Bolle is with the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a thinktank partly funded by Pentagon contractors. She told the BBC: “You have got the backyard of America engaging directly with China. That’s going to be problematic.”
Recently retired US Southern Command general, Laura Richardson, was probably the most senior frequent visitor on Washington’s behalf to Latin American capitals, during the Biden administration. She accused China of “playing the ‘long game’ with its development of dual-use sites and facilities throughout the region, “adding that those sites could serve as “points of future multi-domain access for the PLA [People’s Liberation Army] and strategic naval chokepoints.”
As Foreign Affairs points out, Latin America’s trade with China has “exploded” from $18 billion in 2002 to $480 billion in 2023. China is also investing in huge infrastructure projects, and seemingly its only political condition is a preference for a country to recognize China diplomatically (not Taiwan). Even here, China is not absolute as with Guatemala, Haiti, and Paraguay, which still recognize Taiwan. China still has direct investments in those holdouts, though relatively more modest than with regional countries that fully embrace its one-China policy.
Peru, currently a close US ally, has a new, Chinese-funded megaport at Chancay, opened in November by President Xi Jinping himself. Even right-wing Argentinian president Milei said of China, “They do not demand anything [in return].”
What does the US offer instead? While Antony Blinken proudly displayed old railcars that were gifted to Peru, the reality is that most US “aid” to Latin America is either aimed at “promoting democracy” (i.e. Washington’s political agenda) or is conditional or exploitative in other ways.
The BBC cites “seasoned observers” who believe that Washington is paying the price for “years of indifference” towards the region’s needs. Where the US sees a loss of strategic influence to China and to a lesser extent to Russia, Iran, and others, Latin American countries see opportunities for development and economic progress.
Those calling for a more “benign” policy are forgetting that, in the two centuries since President James Monroe announced the “doctrine,” later given his name, US policy towards Latin America has been aggressively self-interested.
Its troops have intervened thousands of times in the region and have occupied its countries on numerous occasions. Just since World War II, there have been around 50 significant interventions or coup attempts, beginning with Guatemala in 1954. The US has 76 military bases across the region, while other major powers like China and Russia have none.
The doctrine is very much alive. In Foreign Affairs, Brian Winter warns: “Many Republicans perceive these linkages [with China], and the growing Chinese presence in Latin America more broadly, as unacceptable violations of the Monroe Doctrine, the 201-year-old edict that the Western Hemisphere should be free of interference from outside powers.”
Bosworth adds that Trump wants Latin America to decisively choose a side in the US vs China scrimmage, not merely underplay the role of China in the hemisphere. Any country courting Trump, he suggests, “needs to show some anti-China vibes.”
Will Freeman is with the Council on Foreign Relations, whose major sponsors are also Pentagon contractors. He thinks that a new Monroe Doctrine and what he calls Trump’s “hardball” diplomacy may partially work, but only with northern Latin America countries, which are more dependent on US trade and other links.
Trump has two imperatives: while one is stifling China’s influence (e.g. by taking possession of the Panama Canal), another is gaining control of mineral resources (a reason for his wanting to acquire Greenland). The desire for mineral resources is not new, either. General Richardson gave an interview in 2023 to another defense-industry-funded thinktank in which she strongly insinuated that Latin American minerals rightly belong to the US.
Neoconservative Charles Krauthammer, writing 20 years ago for yet another thinktank funded by the defense industry, openly endorsed the US’s status as the dominant hegemonic power and decried multilateralism, at least when not in US interests. “Multipolarity, yes, when there is no alternative,” he said. “But not when there is. Not when we have the unique imbalance of power that we enjoy today.”
Norwegian commentator Glen Diesen, writing in 2024, contends that the US is still fighting a battle – although perhaps now a losing one – against multipolarity and to retain its predominant status. Trump’s “America first!” is merely a more blatant expression of sentiments held by his other presidential predecessors for clinging on to Washington’s contested hegemony.
The irony of Biden’s presidency was that his pursuit of the Ukraine war has led to warmer relations between his two rivals, Russia and China. In this context, the growth of BRICS has been fostered – an explicitly multipolar, non-hegemonic partnership. As Glen Diesen says, “The war intensified the global decoupling from the West.”
Other steps to maintain US hegemony – its support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza, the regime-change operation in Syria and the breakdown of order in Haiti – suggest that, in Washington’s view, according to Diesen, “chaos is the only alternative to US global dominance.” Time and again, Yankee “beneficence” has meant ruination, not development.
These have further strengthened desires in the global south for alternatives to US dominance, not least in Latin America. Many of its countries (especially those vulnerable to tightening US sanctions) now want to follow the alternative of BRICS.
Unsurprisingly, Trump has been highly critical of this perceived erosion of hegemonic power on Biden’s watch. Thomas Fazi argues in UnHerd that this is realism on Trump’s part; he knows the Ukraine war cannot be conclusively won, and that China’s power is difficult to contain. Accordingly, this is leading to a “recalibrating of US priorities toward a more manageable ‘continental’ strategy — a new Monroe Doctrine — aimed at reasserting full hegemony over what it deems to be its natural sphere of influence, the Americas and the northern Atlantic,” stretching from Greenland and the Arctic to Tierra del Fuego and Antarctica.
The pundits may not agree on quite what Trump’s approach towards Latin America will be, but they concur with Winter’s judgment that the region “is about to become a priority for US foreign policy.” His appointment of Marco Rubio is a signal of this. The new secretary of state is a hawk, just like Blinken, but one with a dangerous focus on Latin America.
However, the mere fact that such pundits hark back to the Monroe Doctrine indicates that this is only, so to speak, old wine in new bottles. Even in the recent past, an aggressive application of the 201-year-old Monroe Doctrine has never seen a hiatus.
Recall US-backed coups that deposed Honduran President Manuel Zelaya (2009) and Bolivian Evo Morales (2019), plus the failed coup against Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua (2018), along with the parliamentary coup that ousted Paraguayan Fernando Lugo (2012). To these, US-backed regime change by “lawfare” included Dilma Rousseff in Brazil (2016) and Pedro Castillo in Peru (2023). Currently presidential elections have simply been suspended in Haiti and Peru with US backing.
Even if Trump is more blatant than his predecessors in making clear that his policymaking is based entirely on what he perceives to be US interests, rather than those of Latin Americans, this is not new.
As commentator Caitlin Johnstone points out, the main difference between Trump and his predecessors is that he “makes the US empire much more transparent and unhidden.” From the other end of the political spectrum, a former John McCain adviser echoes the same assessment: “there will likely be far more continuity between the two administrations than meets the eye.”
Regardless, Latin America will continue to struggle to set its own destiny, patchily and with setbacks, and this will likely draw it away from the hegemon, whatever the US does.
Nicaragua-based John Perry is with the Nicaragua Solidarity Coalition and writes for the London Review of Books, FAIR, and CovertAction.
Roger D. Harris is with the Task Force on the Americas, the US Peace Council, and the Venezuela Solidarity Network
Featured image courtesy of Cornell University/Wikimedia Commons
First published by Popular Resistance: https://popularresistance.org/whether-biden-or-trump-us-latin-american-policy-will-still-be-contemptible/
Source: Government of Canada News
“In our increasingly complex and interconnected world, Canada has a responsibility do our part to build a brighter future for everyone. From tackling climate change to strengthening health systems, international assistance is an investment that will create stronger communities for generations to come. When people have the tools to lift themselves out of poverty and strengthen local economies, it not only impacts individuals and their communities, it also benefits the global economy and our security and prosperity here at home.
Source: Government of Canada News
The Government of Canada will host a media technical briefing regarding Canada’s response to the tariffs imposed by the United States on Canadian goods. Government officials in attendance will be available to answer questions from journalists. Their responses will be provided on a not-for-attribution basis.
Source: Government of Canada News
Canada will not stand by as the United States imposes unjustified and unreasonable tariffs on Canadian goods. In response, we are moving forward with 25 per cent tariffs on $155 billion worth of imported U.S. products. We will protect Canadian interests and support our workers and industries.
Source: Government of Canada News
One year ago today, Ukraine and Canada launched the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children and held its first plenary meeting in Kyiv. Since then, 41 States as well as the Council of Europe have joined the Coalition in a collective commitment to bring Ukrainian children home.
Source: Government of Canada News
Today, the Honourable Harjit S. Sajjan, Minister of Emergency Preparedness and Minister responsible for the Pacific Economic Development Agency of Canada (PacifiCan), announced over $17 million in PacifiCan funding for 10 organizations to help businesses in key sectors, such as life sciences, clean technology, and construction, scale up their operations.
Source: Government of Canada News
The Honourable David J. McGuinty, Minister of Public Safety, the Honourable Mélanie Joly, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Honourable Marc Miller, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, will hold a virtual media availability on January 31, 2025, in Washington, D.C.
Source: Government of Canada News
Members of the media are invited to a transit announcement with the Honourable Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities and the Honourable Bardish Chagger, Member of Parliament for Waterloo, alongside Karen Redman, Regional Chair, Region of Waterloo.
Source: Government of Canada News
Members of the media are invited to a transit announcement with the Honourable Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lisa Hepfner, Member of Parliament for Hamilton Mountain, Chad Collins, Member of Parliament for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, alongside Her Worship Andrea Horwath, Mayor of the City of Hamilton.
Source: Government of Canada News
Today, the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, Minister of Finance and Intergovernmental Affairs, and the Honourable Mélanie Joly, Minister of Foreign Affairs, announced that the Government of Canada is moving forward with 25 per cent tariffs on $155 billion worth of goods in response to the unjustified and unreasonable tariffs imposed by the United States (U.S.) on Canadian goods.
Source: Government of Canada News
We, the G7 Foreign Ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States of America and the High Representative of the European Union, strongly condemn the Rwanda-backed M23 offensive in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, and in particular, the capture of Minova, Saké and Goma.
Source: Government of Canada News
Yesterday, at the Committee on Internal Trade (CIT) meeting, the Honourable Anita Anand, Minister of Transport and Internal Trade, and her provincial and territorial counterparts discussed bold, transformative actions to eliminate regulatory barriers to internal trade, encourage free movement of labour and further standardize regulations across Canada.
Source: Government of Canada News
This year marks 30 years since the House of Commons officially recognized February as Black History Month in Canada. Throughout the month of February and all-year round, I am honoured to recognize and celebrate the history, culture, and contributions of Black Canadians, including Black Defence Team members.
Source: Government of Canada News
The CRTC is committing over $14 million to CityWest Cable and Telephone Corp. to build approximately 250 kilometres of new transport fibre infrastructure. This project will connect the communities of Jade City and Good Hope Lake (Dease River) in British Columbia and Upper Liard in the Yukon to high-speed Internet.
Source: Government of Canada News
The Honourable Ya’ara Saks, Federal Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health, and the Honourable Brian Comer, Nova Scotia’s Minister of Addictions and Mental Health, will make an announcement to improve community mental health supports in Nova Scotia.
Source: Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht – In English
The Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) is warning against the website finance-ig.com. According to the supervisory authority, financial and investment services as well as crypto-asset services are offered there without authorisation.
The website operator provides alleged business addresses in Rotherham, United Kingdom, and Toronto, Canada. He claims to be registered in Canada. The identical website financeig.proxy56.com can also be found on the internet. The content, structure and wording of both websites largely correspond to the website fintechmarket-consulting.com, which BaFin warned against as early as 6 November 2023.
Anyone offering banking transactions or financial and investment services or crypto-value services in Germany requires the permission of BaFin. However, some companies offer such services without having the necessary permission. Information on whether a particular company is authorised by BaFin can be found in the company database.
The information provided by BaFin is based on Section 37 (4) of the German Banking Act (KWG) and Section 10 (7) of the German Crypto Markets Supervision Act (KWAG).’
BaFin, the German Federal Criminal Police Office (Bundeskriminalamt – BKA) and the German state criminal police offices (Landeskriminalämter) recommend that consumers seeking to invest money online should exercise the utmost caution and do the necessary research beforehand in order to identify fraud attempts at an early stage.
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)
SINGAPORE, Feb. 01, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — As the price of Bitcoin surpassed the $100,000 mark and many analysts believe that it will enter a long-term high-volatility market. Holding spot positions may not continue to generate profits in the short term. BexBack Exchange is stepping up its efforts to provide traders with irresistible preferential packages. The platform now offers a 100% deposit bonus, a $50 welcome bonus for new users, and a 100x leverage on cryptocurrency trading, creating unparalleled opportunities for investors.
What Is 100x Leverage and How Does It Work?
Simply put, 100x leverage allows you to open larger trading positions with less capital. For example:
Suppose the Bitcoin price is $100,000 that day, and you open a long contract with 1 BTC. After using 100x leverage, the transaction amount is equivalent to 100 BTC.
One day later, if the price rises to $105,000, your profit will be (105,000 – 100,000) * 100 BTC / 100,000 = 5 BTC, a yield of up to 500%.
With BexBack’s deposit bonus
BexBack offers a 100% deposit bonus. If the initial investment is 2 BTC, the profit will increase to 10 BTC, and the return on investment will double to 1000%.
Note: Although leveraged trading can magnify profits, you also need to be wary of liquidation risks.
How Does the 100% Deposit Bonus Work?
The deposit bonus from BexBack cannot be directly withdrawn but can be used to open larger positions and increase potential profits. Additionally, during significant market fluctuations, the bonus can serve as extra margin, effectively reducing the risk of liquidation.
About BexBack?
BexBack is a leading cryptocurrency derivatives platform that offers 100x leverage on BTC, ETH, ADA, SOL, and XRP futures contracts. It is headquartered in Singapore with offices in Hong Kong, Japan, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Argentina. It holds a US MSB (Money Services Business) license and is trusted by more than 200,000 traders worldwide. Accepts users from the United States, Canada, and Europe. There are no deposit fees, and traders can get the most thoughtful service, including 24/7 customer support.
Why recommend BexBack?
No KYC Required: Start trading immediately without complex identity verification.
100% Deposit Bonus: Double your funds, double your profits.
High-Leverage Trading: Offers up to 100x leverage, maximizing investors’ capital efficiency.
Demo Account: Comes with 10 BTC in virtual funds, ideal for beginners to practice risk-free trading.
Comprehensive Trading Options: Feature-rich trading available via Web and mobile applications.
Convenient Operation: No slippage, no spread, and fast, precise trade execution.
Global User Support: Enjoy 24/7 customer service, no matter where you are.
Lucrative Affiliate Rewards: Earn up to 50% commission, perfect for promoters.
Take Action Now—Don’t Miss Another Opportunity!
If you missed the previous crypto bull run, this could be your chance. With BexBack’s 100x leverage and 100% deposit bonus and $50 bonus for new users (complete one trade within one week of registration), you can be a winner in the new bull run.
Sign up on BexBack now, claim your exclusive bonus and start accumulating more BTC today!
Website: www.bexback.com
Contact: business@bexback.com
Contact:
Amanda
business@bexback.com
Disclaimer: This content is provided by BexBack. The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the content provider. The information provided in this press release is not a solicitation for investment, nor is it intended as investment advice, financial advice, or trading advice. It is strongly recommended you practice due diligence, including consultation with a professional financial advisor, before investing in or trading cryptocurrency and securities. Please conduct your own research and invest at your own risk.
Photos accompanying this announcement are available at:
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/ba4465dd-d4e3-4374-8385-806fd259e6e3
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/82e163a9-5f5b-4738-9c9e-8085324358fb
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/e3872672-3b1c-489b-8492-34196f339656
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/941d5ac9-9048-4b49-b919-4b4f5922bbf8
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)
HOUSTON, Feb. 03, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — VAALCO Energy, Inc. (NYSE: EGY; LSE: EGY) (“Vaalco” or the “Company”) is pleased to announce a significant milestone in its Côte d’Ivoire Floating Production Storage and Offloading vessel (“FPSO”) Dry Dock Refurbishment Project.
In alignment with the project timeline, the FPSO Baobab Ivoirien MV10, operated by Canadian Natural Resources International (“CNRI”), ceased hydrocarbon production as scheduled on January 31, 2025. The final lifting of crude oil from the vessel is set to take place on or around February 6, 2025.
The project team has commenced mobilization efforts, deploying the necessary workforce support vessels and equipment to facilitate the safe disconnection of the FPSO. The vessel is planned to be wet towed to the shipyards in Dubai for refurbishment upon departure from the field on March 24, 2025.
“We are pleased with the progress of this critical project and remain committed to ensuring a smooth and efficient transition for the FPSO disconnection and refurbishment which we expect, when complete, will allow production to continue until at least 2038, subject to the final regulatory approvals on the license extension and further investment,” said George Maxwell, Vaalco’s Chief Executive Officer. “This milestone represents another step forward in delivering on our strategic objectives while maintaining the highest standards of safety and operational excellence. We have already been paid back 1.8x1 our initial net investment in Côte d’Ivoire in the eight months since closing and the performance of the asset has tracked well ahead of our expectations at the time of the acquisition.”
Vaalco will provide further updates as the project progresses.
About Vaalco
Vaalco, founded in 1985 and incorporated under the laws of Delaware, is a Houston, Texas, USA based, independent energy company with a diverse portfolio of production, development and exploration assets across Gabon, Egypt, Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria and Canada.
For Further Information
| Vaalco Energy, Inc. (General and Investor Enquiries) | +00 1 713 543 3422 |
| Website: | www.vaalco.com |
| Al Petrie Advisors (US Investor Relations) | +00 1 713 543 3422 |
| Al Petrie / Chris Delange | |
| Buchanan (UK Financial PR) | +44 (0) 207 466 5000 |
| Ben Romney / Barry Archer | Vaalco@buchanan.uk.com |
Forward Looking Statements
This press release includes “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”) and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, which are intended to be covered by the safe harbors created by those laws and other applicable laws and “forward-looking information” within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities laws. Where a forward-looking statement expresses or implies an expectation or belief as to future events or results, such expectation or belief is expressed in good faith and believed to have a reasonable basis. All statements other than statements of historical fact may be forward-looking statements. The words “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “forecast,” “outlook,” “aim,” “target,” “will,” “could,” “should,” “may,” “likely,” “plan” and “probably” or similar words may identify forward-looking statements, but the absence of these words does not mean that a statement is not forward-looking. Forward-looking statements in this press release include, but are not limited to, statements relating to (i) estimates of future drilling, production, sales and costs of acquiring crude oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids; (ii) expectations regarding Vaalco’s ability to effectively integrate assets and properties it has acquired as a result of the Svenska acquisition into its operations; (iii) expectations regarding future exploration and the development, growth and potential of Vaalco’s operations, project pipeline and investments, and schedule and anticipated benefits to be derived therefrom; (iv) expectations regarding future acquisitions, investments or divestitures; (v) expectations of future balance sheet strength; and (vi) expectations of future equity and enterprise value.
Such forward-looking statements are subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors, which could cause actual results to differ materially from future results expressed, projected or implied by the forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to: risks relating to any unforeseen liabilities of Vaalco; the ability to generate cash flows that, along with cash on hand, will be sufficient to support operations and cash requirements; risks relating to the timing and costs of completion for scheduled maintenance of the FPSO servicing the Baobab field; and the risks described under the caption “Risk Factors” in Vaalco’s 2023 Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on March 15, 2024 and subsequent Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q filed with the SEC.
Inside Information
This announcement contains inside information as defined in Regulation (EU) No. 596/2014 on market abuse which is part of UK domestic law by virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (“MAR”) and is made in accordance with the Company’s obligations under article 17 of MAR. The person responsible for arranging the release of this announcement on behalf of Vaalco is Matthew Powers, Corporate Secretary of Vaalco.
____________________
1 Payback of 1.8x is based on unaudited operational cash flow for the Côte d’Ivoire assets compared to the acquisition price of $40.2MM as of 31st December 2024.
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)
FLORENCE, Italy, Feb. 03, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Baker Hughes (NASDAQ: BKR), an energy technology company, announced Monday a significant award from ExxonMobil Guyana to provide specialty chemicals and related services for its Uaru and Whiptail offshore greenfield developments in Guyana’s prolific Stabroek Block. The announcement was made during Baker Hughes’ 25th Annual Meeting in Florence, Italy.
The multi-year contract includes all topsides, subsea, water injection and utility chemicals for the Errea Wittu and Jaguar floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) vessels, which are currently under development, and are targeted to begin production in 2026 and 2027 respectively. Baker Hughes has extensive experience in Guyana and has established local supply chains to create a reliable and efficient source of chemicals to address the unique needs of these developments.
“ExxonMobil Guyana and Baker Hughes share a long history of supporting Guyana’s energy sector, and we look forward to working together to write its next chapter,” said Amerino Gatti, executive vice president, Oilfield Services & Equipment at Baker Hughes. “Our experience operating across the country’s energy supply chain and unmatched expertise in oilfield and industrial chemicals make Baker Hughes uniquely suited to support complex FPSO operations such as these.”
Uaru and Whiptail mark ExxonMobil Guyana’s fifth and sixth projects in the country. The two developments will include up to 20 drill centers and 92 production and injection wells. Each FPSO will have a capacity of 250,000 barrels per day, bringing the country’s total daily production capacity to approximately 1.3 million barrels.
Baker Hughes has a strong history of localization in Guyana and in 2022, celebrated the opening of a multimodal supercenter in Georgetown. The company also provides a variety of services and equipment to operators in the country, including turbomachinery for ExxonMobil Guyana’s FPSO fleet and production chemicals for the Liza Unity vessel.
About Baker Hughes
Baker Hughes (NASDAQ: BKR) is an energy technology company that provides solutions to energy and industrial customers worldwide. Built on a century of experience and conducting business in over 120 countries, our innovative technologies and services are taking energy forward – making it safer, cleaner and more efficient for people and the planet. Visit us at bakerhughes.com.
For more information, please contact:
Media Relations
Brian Reynolds
+1 346-315-6663
brian.reynolds@bakerhughes.com
Investor Relations:
Chase Mulvehill
+1-346-297-2561
investor.relations@bakerhughes.com
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Pat Taggart, Adjunct Fellow in Ecology, University of Adelaide
Poisoned baits are the main way land managers control foxes, feral cats and dingoes. Baiting is done to reduce livestock and economic losses, or pressure on endangered wildlife.
Millions of baits are laid annually. But we still don’t understand how effective baiting actually is. Current evidence paints a mixed picture. That’s a problem, because baiting can have unintended consequences, such as killing native animals we don’t want to target. Some research suggests baiting can actually increase attacks on livestock, or that poisoning dingoes can increase feral cat and fox numbers and worsen the damage to native wildlife.
We need better evidence on what baiting does and doesn’t do. Our new research draws on data from 34 previous studies assessing baiting effectiveness. In total, these largely Australian studies summarised the fate of more than 1,400 cats, foxes and dingoes. We used these data sets to conduct the most comprehensive analysis of baiting effectiveness to date.
Baits can be purchased commercially or produced in-house. In some states, land managers can bring meat baits to government authorities to have poison added free of charge. They are then distributed by vehicle along tracks and roads or dropped from aircraft across vast areas of Australia, New Zealand and islands worldwide.
Single baiting programs can sometimes cover areas larger than 9,000 square kilometres – a land area similar to Puerto Rico or Cyprus.
So how can we best undertake these baiting programs?
Across the 34 studies, baiting cut predator survival in half (51.7%) – substantially higher than the death rate in unbaited areas (16%).
This finding was broadly consistent regardless of whether baits were placed along tracks and roads or scattered over broader areas.
In some cases, predator numbers can recover rapidly following baiting. Under favourable conditions, feral cat and fox populations can double in a year, while dingo populations can grow 50% annually. But, under average conditions, such high rates of population increase are likely uncommon.
Predators from outside the control area can rapidly repopulate areas after a baiting program. For example, multiple studies have found no change in fox numbers even when baiting was conducted at monthly intervals. Similar results have been found after intensive fox shooting.
But there are also examples where prolonged, broad-scale baiting has worked well. To protect the threatened yellow footed rock wallaby, researchers baited around wallaby populations in New South Wales and South Australia and largely eliminated foxes from large areas. Wallaby numbers then increased.
Feral cats are opportunistic ambush predators and hunt a wide range of prey. They’re visually driven and prefer fresh meat. For these reasons, it’s long been thought they are less likely to eat poisoned bait than foxes and dingoes.
But our analysis doesn’t support this – feral cats appeared to be just as susceptible to baits as foxes and dingoes. That’s good news for wildlife.
Significant and ongoing work has been put into designing better baits for feral cats to increase consumption rates. The most widely known of these baits is Eradicat, a sausage-style bait.
While this bait is aimed at feral cats, our analysis didn’t provide strong evidence showing Eradicat actually killed more feral cats than other poison bait recipes. This suggests any bait is more effective than no bait when it comes to cat control.
In land manager circles, there’s a long-running debate over how best to bait. Some advocate putting out more baits over the same area, while others suggest more frequent baiting is better.
So which is it? Our analysis shows more baits in an area is likely to equate to better control of predators, while distributing baits more frequently may not have the same effect.
Why is this? Like people, animals are individuals, with their own behavioural tendencies. Wary animals may never take baits. Some foxes are known to store baits to eat later, by which time the baits may be less toxic, sickening rather than killing the animal.
This is believed to lead to bait aversion, where foxes avoid baits in the future due to previous bad experiences – just as we might avoid foods which made us sick.
A single, more intensive application of bait is likely to work better because susceptible predators eat the bait and die, and there is limited opportunity for bait aversion to develop. In contrast, more frequent baiting in a short period of time are of limited benefit because animals learn to avoid them.
Fresh baits have long been believed to be eaten more readily than dry baits.
But our analysis shows this may not always be true. Overall, the type of bait had little impact on whether or not it led to reduced predator survival.
More efficient control of predators will mean fewer baits are needed to achieve the same result. That, in turn, means less risk of harming other native animals, as well as reducing how much work and money it costs to control feral cats, foxes and dingoes.
Our research shows baiting does indeed cut the number of predators prowling an area. But it also shows many factors we thought were important in making a baiting program effective may only have a limited effect.
The goal of poison baiting is to reduce the damage predators do to livestock and wildlife. Baiting is an important and effective tool in reducing predator pressure on threatened species. But its efficacy – and the risk other animals could take the bait – means we have a responsibility to continually optimise its use and ensure its application is targeted.
Pat Taggart receives funding from the federal Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.
Daniel Noble receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Yong Zhi Foo receives funding from the the Australian Research Council.
– ref. Poison baits were used on 1,400 feral cats, foxes and dingoes. We studied their fate to see what works – https://theconversation.com/poison-baits-were-used-on-1-400-feral-cats-foxes-and-dingoes-we-studied-their-fate-to-see-what-works-246324
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-23)
“Given Venezuela’s increased instability, repression, and lack of safety, and within all applicable rules and regulations, we demand more information on why the Department has made this decision,” the Members said in the letter. “The only justification that has been offered by the Administration is the false claim that all Venezuelans are ‘dirt bags’, ‘violent criminals’, or the ‘worst of the worst’.”
Washington D.C. – Today, U.S. Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-25) and Darren Soto (FL-9) led several Democratic colleagues in a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem denouncing the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to abandon the extension of the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation for Venezuela established under the Biden Administration earlier this month. The letter was signed by Florida Reps. Kathy Castor (FL-14), Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (FL-20), Lois Frankel (FL-22), Maxwell Frost (FL-10), and Frederica Wilson (FL-24), as well as senior Congressional Hispanic Caucus Reps. Adriano Espaillat (NY-13), Veronica Escobar (TX-16), Lou Correa (CA-46), Juan Vargas (CA-52), Nanette Barragán (CA-44), and Linda Sanchez (CA-38).
“Given Venezuela’s increased instability, repression, and lack of safety, and within all applicable rules and regulations, we demand more information on why the Department has made this decision,” the Members said in the letter. “The only justification that has been offered by the Administration is the false claim that all Venezuelans are ‘dirt bags’, ‘violent criminals’, or the ‘worst of the worst’.”
Several outlets have reported that the Administration is considering an agreement to preserve sanctions loopholes, which allow companies like Chevron and the Maduro regime to jointly profit from the sale of Venezuelan oil, in exchange for allowing the mass deportation of Venezuelan TPS recipients in the U.S.
The Members criticized the Trump Administration for negotiating a “corrupt bargain with Maduro,” citing secret meetings between Trump-appointed Special Envoy Ric Grenell and the Maduro regime and demanding a briefing on the matter.
“Returning Venezuelan immigrants to a dictatorship that engages in torture, extrajudicial murder, and systematic abuse of human rights would be a death sentence for many of our friends and neighbors,” stated the Members. “This is particularly irresponsible after the Administration unilaterally cut off all funding in support of democracy, civil society, and humanitarian purposes for Venezuelans.”
Read the entire letter here.
####
Wasserman Schultz y Soto exigen respuestas sobre la revocación del TPS de Venezuela por parte de Trump y las conversaciones secretas con el régimen de Maduro
Washington D.C. – Hoy, los representantes estadounidenses Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-25) y Darren Soto (FL-9) encabezaron una carta de varios colegas demócratas dirigida al Secretario de Estado, Marco Rubio, y a la Secretaria de Seguridad Nacional, Kristi Noem, denunciando la decisión del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional de abandonar la extensión de la designación del Estatus de Protección Temporal (TPS) para Venezuela establecida bajo la Administración Biden a principios de este mes. La carta fue firmada por los representantes de Florida Kathy Castor (FL-14), Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (FL-20), Lois Frankel (FL-22), Maxwell Frost (FL-10) y Frederica Wilson (FL-24), así como los representantes de alto rango del Caucus Hispano del Congreso: Adriano Espaillat (NY-13), Verónica Escobar (TX-16), Lou Correa (CA-46), Juan Vargas (CA-52), Nanette Barragán (CA-44), y Linda Sanchez (CA-38).
“Dada la creciente inestabilidad, represión y falta de seguridad en Venezuela, y dentro de todas las reglas y regulaciones aplicables, exigimos más información sobre por qué el Departamento ha tomado esta decisión”, dijeron los Miembros en la carta. “La única justificación que ha ofrecido la Administración es la falsa afirmación de que todos los venezolanos son ‘bolsas de basura’, ‘criminales violentos’ o ‘lo peor de lo peor’.”
Varios medios han informado que la Administración está considerando un acuerdo para preservar las lagunas en las sanciones, que permiten a empresas como Chevron y el régimen de Maduro beneficiarse conjuntamente de la venta de petróleo venezolano, a cambio de permitir la deportación masiva de venezolanos beneficiarios del TPS en Estados Unidos.
Los Miembros criticaron a la Administración Trump por negociar un “acuerdo corrupto con Maduro,” citando las reuniones secretas entre el diplomata Ric Grenell, asignado por Trump y el régimen de Maduro, exigiendo una sesión informativa sobre el asunto.
“Devolver a los inmigrantes venezolanos a una dictadura que se dedica a la tortura, el asesinato extrajudicial y el abuso sistemático de los derechos humanos sería una sentencia de muerte para muchos de nuestros amigos y vecinos”, afirmaron los Miembros. “Esto es particularmente irresponsable después de que la Administración cortó unilateralmente todos los fondos en apoyo de la democracia, la sociedad civil y los fines humanitarios para los venezolanos.”
Lea la carta completa aquí.
####
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (9th District of Illinois)
Full Text of Bill (PDF)
WASHINGTON – Rep. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09), Rep. Ilhan Omar (MN-05), and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) have reintroduced the Combating International Islamophobia Act, legislation to address the rise in Islamophobic incidents worldwide. The bill requires the State Department to create a Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating Islamophobia and develop a comprehensive strategy for establishing U.S. leadership in confronting anti-Muslim bigotry across the globe.
From the violent atrocities against the Uyghurs in China and the Rohingya in Burma to the crackdowns on Muslim communities in India and Sri Lanka, the scapegoating of Muslim refugees in Hungary and Poland, and the rise of white supremacist violence targeting Muslims in New Zealand and Canada, Islamophobia remains a global crisis. Minority Muslim communities in Muslim-majority countries, including Pakistan, Bahrain, and Iran, also continue to face systemic oppression and persecution.
Here in the United States, incidents of Islamophobic hate crimes and discrimination have surged. Mosques have been vandalized, Muslims have been harassed in public spaces, and anti-Muslim rhetoric continues to be normalized in political discourse. The urgent need for federal action to combat this growing threat cannot be overstated.
“Anti-Muslim bigotry is on the rise in the U.S., and around the world, and we have a duty to stop it once and for all,” said Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky. “I’m joining my colleagues, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar and Senator Cory Booker, in reintroducing the Combating International Islamophobia Act. This critical legislation will create a Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating Islamophobia and will ensure the United States has the resources necessary to safeguard human rights and religious and cultural freedom around the world. I hope all our colleagues join us in standing together against Islamophobia. We must promote peace and acceptance for all.”
“Islamophobia is not just a problem overseas—it is on the rise here at home. From the desecration of mosques to the violent attacks on Muslim Americans, we are witnessing a dangerous resurgence of anti-Muslim bigotry in our communities,” said Congresswoman Ilhan Omar. “We cannot turn a blind eye while Muslim communities face targeted violence and systemic discrimination worldwide. That is why I am proud to reintroduce the Combating International Islamophobia Act alongside Senator Booker and Representative Schakowsky. The United States must take a stand and lead in the fight against this global crisis.”
“Religious freedom is one of our nation’s most foundational values, and no one should ever have to live in fear of discrimination or violence for practicing their faith,” said Senator Cory Booker. “Islamophobic attacks and rhetoric are on the rise in the United States and around the world, and this legislation would establish a Special Envoy at the State Department to monitor and combat Islamophobia in all its forms. We must dedicate resources to protecting people’s fundamental right to practice their faith and put an end to bigotry.”
During the 117th Congress, this bill was successfully passed in the House, marking a historic step forward in the fight against anti-Muslim hate.
###
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
In the letter, Kaptur and Murray state: “We write expressing deep concerns regarding the Department of Energy’s recent unlawful actions to halt programs that are imperative to the Department’s mission of ensuring America’s security and prosperity by addressing the nation’s energy, environmental, and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions.”
“The Department’s actions to halt these programs will immediately contribute to rising energy costs for families and businesses, and they are a dereliction of the Department’s responsibility to carry out duly enacted spending laws,” Murray and Kaptur continued.
In particular, they note that the order and a variety of other actions the administration has taken will hurt American families and businesses: “Stopping these programs is taking money from the pockets of Americans. For example, the Home Energy Rebates programs, funded by the IRA, has been putting money directly back in the hands of American households. The rebates help consumers save money on select home improvement projects that can lower energy bills by providing up to $14,000 per household in rebates. It is estimated that these programs will save households up to $1 billion per year on energy bills and support over 50,000 U.S. jobs. The President’s attempt to freeze the Home Energy Rebates Program means these costs will fall back on American consumers..”
Kaptur and Murray press the Department for answers about what funding it is currently freezing and other actions it is taking to halt critical programs, and concluded: “We hope you will work with us—not against us—to lower energy costs and help create good-paying jobs, but we demand that you follow the law as intended.”
Full text of the letter is available HERE and below:
January 31, 2025
Ingrid C. Kolb
Acting Secretary
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20585
Acting Secretary Kolb:
We write expressing deep concerns regarding the Department of Energy’s (DOE) recent unlawful actions to halt programs that are imperative to the Department’s mission of ensuring America’s security and prosperity by addressing the nation’s energy, environmental, and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions. The Department’s actions to halt these programs will immediately contribute to rising energy costs for families and businesses, and they are a dereliction of the Department’s responsibility to carry out duly enacted spending laws.
President Trump’s January 20, 2025, Executive Order 14154 seems to direct all agencies to immediately pause the disbursement of any funds appropriated through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) or the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The President’s Executive Order has abruptly frozen funding for an extremely broad array of investments in American communities, causing widespread chaos and confusion for American businesses and communities and threatening to raise energy costs for American families. The Trump administration’s memo freezing vast swaths of federal funds, its failed attempt to clarify the scope of the memo, and its subsequent rescission of the memo have created mass chaos and added to the confusion about what investments are currently being blocked. Today, our understanding is that much of the Departmental funding is still frozen. Moreover, the attached Department of Energy’s Secretarial Order on January 20, 2025, and the attached follow-up January 27, 2025, memorandum, paused all personnel actions; procurement announcements and actions; funding actions; release of reports, studies, congressional correspondence, and public announcements; Federal Register notices; and actions under the National Environmental Policy Act. Together, these actions halt a vast array of the Department’s essential programs—programs American families and businesses are counting on.
These actions will devastate programs that reduce energy consumption and increase affordability. Your administration will be raising energy costs for families and businesses and threatening to kill thousands of jobs. Continuing to freeze these investments—or permanently blocking them—will unravel critical progress the Department has made and cost American households and businesses dearly. Since 1980, energy efficiency technologies and improvements—made possible by programs like those currently halted by this administration—have saved Americans approximately $800 billion in energy costs.
Stopping these programs is taking money from the pockets of Americans. For example, the Home Energy Rebates programs, funded by the IRA, has been putting money directly back in the hands of American households. The rebates help consumers save money on select home improvement projects that can lower energy bills by providing up to $14,000 per household in rebates. It is estimated that these programs will save households up to $1 billion per year on energy bills and support over 50,000 U.S. jobs. The President’s attempt to freeze the Home Energy Rebates Program means these costs will fall back on American consumers.
In addition to raising energy costs for American families, the President’s Executive Order is illegal. The President may not unilaterally decide to ignore the laws passed by Congress and stop funding for programs just because he disagrees with their goals. The Government Accountability Office, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (including in an opinion written by future Chief Justice of the Supreme Court William H. Rehnquist), and the Supreme Court of the United States have all disavowed the notion of some “inherent Presidential power to impound,” as some in the Administration, as well as pending Administration nominees, have tried to argue without legal or textual basis.
Not only does the Constitution vest the power of the purse with Congress and provide no power to the President to impound funds, but there have been several bedrock fiscal statutes enacted to protect Congress’ constitutional power of the purse and prevent unlawful executive overreach, including the Antideficiency Act and the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA). The ICA prohibits any action or inaction that precludes Federal funds from being obligated or spent, either temporarily or permanently, without following the strictly circumscribed requirements of that law.
Given the importance of these programs, the unlawful actions ordered by this Administration, and the dubious actions that have been undertaken by the Department, we request additional information about the Department’s implementation of Executive Order 14154, the referenced Secretarial Order, and other related actions.
Regarding Executive Order 14154, please provide answers to the following questions:
Regarding the Secretarial Order dated January 20, 2025, please provide answers to the following questions:
Additionally, please provide answers to the following questions:
We ask for your response to our questions no later than February 7, 2025.
Finally, we want to remind you of your oversight obligations under appropriations law. Members of Congress of both parties have worked together to craft provisions instituting common-sense transparency and accountability measures. All executive branch agencies must proactively alert the Appropriations and other appropriate House and Senate Committees when apportionments are not made in required time periods, are approved only with conditions, or may hinder the prudent obligation of apportionments or the execution of a program, project, or activity. Agencies are also required to report all violations of the ICA to Congress. Finally, agencies may not prohibit or prevent any federal employee from having direct communication with any Member, committee, or subcommittee of Congress. All federal employees must be free to communicate directly with Congress, whether Congress has requested that communication or not.
We hope you will work with us—not against us—to lower energy costs and help create good-paying jobs, but we demand that you follow the law as intended.
Sincerely,
Marcy Kaptur
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development House Committee on Appropriations
Patty Murray
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Senate Committee on Appropriations
# # #
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA)
WASHINGTON, D.C. – This week, the Department of Defense rescinded a policy that allows service members to be reimbursed for travel and transportation to receive the reproductive care they need. Representative Chrissy Houlahan (PA-06), alongside her fellow democratic women veterans in the House of Representatives, Representatives Mikie Sherrill (NJ-11) and Maggie Goodlander (NH-2), shared the following statement:
“As women who have served this country and know firsthand the hardships that military families face, Secretary Hegseth’s decision to strip critical protections away from service members will have devastating consequences. Reproductive health care, including fertility and abortion care, is essential to ensuring that everyone can make informed and timely decisions about their health and well-being. We are asking that these women not be stopped from accessing care based on the duty station to which they are assigned and that they maintain the ability to travel for critical health care that allows them to decide when and if they have a family.
Supporting the health of our service members is not just a moral responsibility — it is critical to protecting our readiness and national security. Service members face unique barriers to care. Many are stationed in states where abortion is banned or completely out of reach. The Department’s decision is plainly cruel and discriminatory, and it could mean service members or loved ones may be forced to carry a pregnancy against their will or give up on their plans to have a family while serving.
As veterans, we fought and stood for the freedoms of every person in this country. Now, we must fight to protect members of our military — including their right to access the health care they need when and where they need it. We call on Secretary Hegseth, who said repeatedly in his confirmation hearings how much he respects America’s female warriors, to prove it.”
Background:
Under the cloak of darkness, the Department of Defense (DoD) rescinded a critical policy that allows service members to be reimbursed for travel and transportation to receive reproductive care they need but cannot access through military healthcare currently available.
Federal law now prohibits the DoD from providing abortion services at military treatment facilities and from covering an abortion under TRICARE, except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the pregnant mother’s life. In addition, TRICARE does not cover certain assisted reproductive services, including intrauterine insemination. To access these services, servicewomen must travel.
Under the new policy, that travel is not reimbursed, effectively punishing or penalizing our servicewomen who are based where we have stationed them. Servicemen and women do not choose where they are stationed.
Houlahan is an Air Force veteran, engineer, entrepreneur, educator, and nonprofit leader. She is serving her fourth consecutive term representing the people of Pennsylvania’s 6th Congressional District, which encompasses Chester County and southern Berks County. Houlahan is the first female veteran named as Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee’s Military Personnel Subcommittee and is a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Carol Miller (R-WV)
Washington, D.C. – Yesterday, Congresswoman Carol Miller (R-WV) joined Congressman Blake Moore (R-UT) and three other House colleagues in reintroducing the bipartisan Charitable Act to encourage Americans to donate to charitable causes and support local communities.
“People donate to charities out of the kindness of their hearts, the last thing they should have to worry about is paying taxes on their generous contributions. I am joining my colleagues in introducing the Charitable Act which will ensure that individuals, no matter their income, can receive a charitable deduction and in turn will continue donating to organizations, churches, or other good causes to help those within their communities or across the country,” said Congresswoman Miller.
“Supporting local communities and giving to charities is integral to enhancing the lives of all Americans and the causes they care most about. The Charitable Act will enable more Americans to give back by empowering all individuals regardless of their income to contribute by helping charities, nonprofits, and religious organizations provide vital services that go far beyond the government’s reach. Generosity and service are defining characteristics of Utahns across the Beehive State, and I am honored to introduce legislation that will help more people contribute to the causes closest to their hearts,” said Congressman Moore.
Click here for bill text
Background:
###
