Category: Business

  • MIL-Evening Report: Official interest rates have been cut, but not everyone is a winner

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Isaac Gross, Lecturer in Economics, Monash University

    Gumbariya/Shutterstock

    The Reserve Bank’s decision to cut interest rates for the first time in four years has triggered a round of celebration.

    Mortgage holders are cheering the fact their monthly repayments are now slightly lower, while the Albanese government hopes the small easing in the cost of living will lift voters’ moods.

    This is despite the Reserve Bank’s warnings that further rate cuts may not eventuate, depending on how much further progress is made on taming inflation.

    But it’s important to remember not everybody benefits from an interest rate cut. Some will be worse off.

    Savers lose out

    Not all Australian households are net borrowers. Many are net savers, retirees or prospective homebuyers, who actually lose out when rates fall.

    For starters, only about a third of households are in hock to the banks when it comes to a monthly mortgage repayment.

    Another third of households have paid off their mortgage entirely, and so don’t benefit from a reduction in mortgage interest rates. And the remaining third are renters, who also don’t pay a mortgage.

    So while this news is generally a good thing for borrowers, a fall in mortgage rates only directly benefits a minority of households.

    Here are some of the ways lower interest rates might actually hurt rather than help the typical Australian household.

    Higher house prices

    One of the most immediate effects of lower interest rates is their impact on the housing market. With cheaper borrowing costs, more buyers can afford larger loans, bidding up house prices. This is great if you already own a home, but terrible if you’re still trying to buy one.

    For young Australians locked out of home ownership, a rate cut makes things even harder. It drives prices higher, forcing prospective buyers to stretch their finances further just to get a foot in the market. Reserve Bank calculations suggest that, in the long run, higher house prices from lower rates can outweigh the benefit of lower mortgage repayments.

    Lower returns on savings

    If you’re a saver rather than a borrower, interest rate cuts are unequivocally bad news. Whether you’re saving for a home deposit, retirement, or just an emergency fund, lower rates mean you earn less on your bank deposits. The money in your savings account is now growing more slowly, making it harder to build wealth over time.

    Indeed, more than 20 banks actually cut their term deposit rates in advance of the Reserve Bank’s decision on Tuesday, according to Canstar research.

    Analysis of HILDA data, which surveys household wealth and income, suggests net savers tend to be younger households without property, retirees living off savings, and those who are not in full-time employment. For these groups, lower rates mean less income and fewer financial opportunities.

    Retirees will feel the squeeze

    Many retirees rely on income from interest-bearing assets such as term deposits or cash savings. When rates fall, their returns shrink. The cost-of-living crisis has made it harder for retirees on a fixed income to fund their lifestyles, and a rate cut only makes things worse.

    While some retirees have exposure to the stock market via superannuation, many prefer the stability of cash savings. With rates falling, they face the tough choice of either reducing their spending or taking on more investment risk in their old age.

    Bad news for the dollar, and overseas travellers

    When the Reserve Bank cuts rates, it tends to weaken the Australian dollar. A weaker dollar makes overseas travel more expensive for Australians. That pint of beer in London, that piña colada in Puerto Rico, or that shopping trip to New York all become pricier.

    For Australians planning international holidays, rate cuts are a blow. A strong Australian dollar makes travel cheaper, and lower rates work against that. So while mortgage holders might celebrate, anyone hoping to travel overseas finds themselves worse off.

    woman in a paris street
    A weaker dollar will make overseas travel more expensive.
    Shutterstock



    Read more:
    Heading on an overseas holiday? The Australian dollar tumbled this week – but that’s not bad news for everyone


    More expensive imports

    Just as a weaker Australian dollar makes travel more expensive, it also increases the cost of imported goods. And Australia imports a lot – especially cars and petrol.

    Since the closure of domestic car manufacturing, all new vehicles sold in Australia are imported. Petrol, the second-largest import, is also sensitive to currency fluctuations. When the Australian dollar weakens due to lower interest rates, the cost of these essential goods rises. For the millions of Australians who rely on their cars for daily life, this is a significant financial burden.

    This isn’t to say rate cuts don’t benefit a large portion of Australians. Anyone with a significant mortgage debt will find themselves with lower monthly repayments, and that’s undoubtedly a financial relief.

    But the public narrative around interest rates tends to treat cuts as a universal good, ignoring the many Australians who are left worse off.

    Falling interest rates are a sign the high inflation that has caused the cost-of-living crisis has abated. That is an economic success that ought to be celebrated. But that now rates are falling again, we should at least acknowledge the costs that come with them.

    The Conversation

    Isaac Gross does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Official interest rates have been cut, but not everyone is a winner – https://theconversation.com/official-interest-rates-have-been-cut-but-not-everyone-is-a-winner-250140

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Trump 2.0 is shaking up the world

    Source: GlobalData

    Join GlobalData’s webinar to explore the impact of disruptive shifts in geopolitics

    Which parts of the US President Donald Trump’s geopolitical agenda matters most for global business risks and opportunities? Trump’s bid to settle the Russia-Ukraine war without including Ukrainian or European officials in discussions is the latest in a series of foreign policy moves that include moves to annex Greenland, reclaim the Panama Canal, and “clear out” the Gaza Strip. GlobalData’s latest Strategic Intelligence webinar will focus on the Trump administration’s policies towards US adversaries, including China, Russia, and Iran.

    This insightful webinar from the Strategic Intelligence team at GlobalData, a leading data and analytics company, takes place on Thursday, 20 February 2025 at 4pm GMT/11am EST. You can register here

    Our panel of experts for this webinar are Carolina Pinto, Analyst in the Strategic Intelligence team; Christopher Granville, Managing Director, Global Political & Policy Research, TS Lombard; and Grace Fan, Managing Director, Global Policy Research and Disruptive Themes Research, TS Lombard.

    Granville and Fan say: “Trump’s first month back in the White House has opened a disruptive new chapter in global geopolitics, with shockwaves from his early moves on trade to foreign policy already rippling across borders and industries. This indispensable webinar will offer our incisive analysis of Trump 2.0’s initial geopolitical gambits, framed within the intricate web of the US’s three traditional adversaries (China, Russia, Iran, and proxies) and amid the powder keg of two live conflicts. We will examine the complex interplay of these issues not only from a bilateral perspective (US versus adversary country) but also touching on their profound reverberations on the wider US alliance network (from Europe to Asia) as well as the global economy, with high-stakes ramifications ahead for investors, capital markets and global supply chains.”

    Pinto adds: “Supply chain disruptions are becoming worse and more frequent. Geopolitical fractures are a leading cause of this trend. This webinar will explore whether Trump’s America First agenda will raise or ease geopolitical tensions.”

    Register now for GlobalData’s Trump shaking up the world webinar on Thursday 20 February 2025 at 4pm GMT/11am EST.

    MIL OSI Economics

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Cisco displays versatility in collaboration at Cisco Live Amsterdam 2025, says GlobalData

    Source: GlobalData

    Cisco displays versatility in collaboration at Cisco Live Amsterdam 2025, says GlobalData

    Posted in Technology

    Cisco Systems (Cisco) announced new capabilities for collaboration targeting hybrid work, contact centers, and devices at Cisco Live Amsterdam 2025. They demonstrate Cisco’s ability to address the evolving needs of organizations in a changing technology landscape, says GlobalData, a leading data and analytics company.

    Gregg Willsky, Principal Analyst, Enterprise Technology & Services at GlobalData, says: “Cisco continues to aggressively strengthen its hybrid work, contact center, and device capabilities. Collectively the announced features make employees more productive and allow organizations to raise customer satisfaction by delivering a better customer experience.”

    Cisco has already established itself as a premier vendor for enhancing hybrid work with AI-driven tools and has long cultivated an engineering mindset resulting in products that demonstrate real ingenuity. The round of announcements at Cisco Live Amsterdam 2025 only serves to further cement that position. They support the mantra adopted by Cisco and its rivals – to make workers more productive.

    Willsky adds: “The announcements addressing the contact center are also significant. Lately, contact centers have been undergoing a profound transformation with the concept of a ‘contact center’ yielding to the broader concept of ‘customer experience’. With the capabilities unveiled at the event, Cisco continues to help organizations make the transition while supporting the needs of both agents and supervisors.”

    The prominence Cisco has placed on the device experience is a key differentiator. The overarching theme of Cisco’s device strategy is not to merely provide technology, but instead to drive simple, inclusive experiences through technology. Cisco recognizes that devices support reimagined office designs that are meeting-oriented and let workers communicate and collaborate from anywhere.

    Willsky concludes: “Cisco is riding the winds of change that have swept across team collaboration platforms. The COVID-19 pandemic drove the ascent of these platforms, and competitors responded with successive rounds of feature wars. Cooler heads eventually prevailed, and a ‘truce’ was issued in the form of interoperability between rival platforms. Now, things have come full circle to a degree with competitors reaching deep into the AI ‘treasure trove’ and circulating AI features platform wide. Cisco is seeking to separate itself from the pack by touting AI innovations across both Webex software and hardware. Coupled with long-standing expertise in collaboration, networking, and security, Cisco enjoys a unique competitive position.”

    MIL OSI Economics

  • MIL-OSI Economics: S&P500 Index soars 25% YoY to $54.5 trillion in January 2025, reveals GlobalData

    Source: GlobalData

    S&P500 Index soars 25% YoY to $54.5 trillion in January 2025, reveals GlobalData

    Posted in Business Fundamentals

    The aggregate market capitalization of the Standard and Poor’s 500 (S&P 500) index companies grew 25% from $43.6 trillion in January 2024 to $54.5 trillion in January 2025. Information technology (IT) sector registered the most market gains over the period, followed by consumer discretionary* and communication services, according to GlobalData, a leading data and analytics company.

    Murthy Grandhi, Company Profiles Analyst at GlobalData, comments: “Over the period, the S&P 500 index posted a 25.3% growth in annual returns. Apple, Microsoft, NVIDIA, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, Tesla, Broadcom, Berkshire Hathaway, and Walmart were the top 10 stocks that accounted for 37.5% of the S&P 500’s aggregate market capitalization.”

    In terms of market value percentage growth, communication services companies outpaced others, having seen 42.7% growth over the period, with the market cap reaching $5.8 trillion. The sector constituents that grew more than 50% during the period include Meta (74.2%), Netflix (71.1%), Live Nation Entertainment (64.3%), and Fox (51.2%).

    Based on the total market value relative to the number of companies in each sector, communication services led with a value of $308.6 billion, followed by IT ($204.9 billion), consumer discretionary ($134.8 billion), financials ($97.1 billion), health care ($91.3 billion), energy ($84.3 billion), consumer staples ($80.9 billion), industrials ($57.3 billion), utilities ($40.2 billion), materials ($36.6 billion), and real estate ($35.3 billion).

    In total, there are 16 new entrants, out of which Palantir Technologies, Vistra Corp, Smurfit WestRock, and Texas Pacific Land posted more than 100% growth. However, Super Micro Computer posted more than 40% loss in market value.

    Grandhi concludes: “The S&P 500 index in 2025 is expected to show modest growth, driven by strong economic fundamentals and steady corporate earnings. However, double-digit gains may be unlikely due to uncertainties surrounding policies like tariffs and immigration, which could impact market dynamics.”

    *Consumer discretionary is a term for classifying goods and services that are considered non-essential by consumers, but desirable if their available income is sufficient to purchase them.

    MIL OSI Economics

  • MIL-OSI Economics: India robotic surgical systems market to record 10% CAGR during 2024-36, driven by increasing adoption, says GlobalData, says GlobalData

    Source: GlobalData

    India robotic surgical systems market to record 10% CAGR during 2024-36, driven by increasing adoption, says GlobalData, says GlobalData

    Posted in Medical Devices

    The installation of a surgical robot at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in Delhi recently marks a testament to the Indian government’s commitment to narrowing the disparity between public and private healthcare services in terms of quality and technological advancements. In light of this context, the market for robotic surgical systems in India is projected to expand at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of around 10% through 2036, forecasts GlobalData, a leading data, and analytics company.

    GlobalData’s report, “Robotic Surgical Systems Market Size by Segments, Share, Regulatory, Reimbursement, Installed Base and Forecast to 2036” reveals that India’s market is projected to constitute around 6% of the Asia-Pacific market in 2024, bolstered by government initiatives aimed at increasing the adoption of surgical robotics.

    Recently, the AIIMS in Delhi has introduced a state-of-the-art surgical robot within its General Surgery Department. This acquisition positions AIIMS as one of the first government hospitals in India to embrace such advanced technology. The robot offers surgeons a magnified, 3D view of the surgical area and features robotic arms for exceptional dexterity, allowing for precise procedures, especially in intricate dissection and suturing in confined anatomical spaces.

    Divya Soni, Medical Devices Analyst at GlobalData, comments: “Robotic-assisted surgeries not only enhance precision and minimize errors but also signify a fundamental transformation in healthcare delivery. These advanced procedures hold the potential to improve long-term outcomes, expedite recovery periods, and redefine the dynamics between surgeon and patient. Governmental support can be instrumental in overcoming barriers such as high cost and lack of enough specialized training, thereby ensuring equitable healthcare access for all socio-economic strata.”

    In a significant development, Apollo Cancer Centre in Kolkata has also recently reached a notable milestone by successfully conducting India’s first robotic-assisted excision of a rare prostatic stromal tumor. This achievement underscores the increasing implementation of robotic surgery throughout the nation, providing new hope to patients suffering with rare and complicated conditions.

    Soni concludes: “The integration of robotics into public healthcare facilities signifies a pivotal moment in the standardization of high-quality healthcare across public and private sectors. This advancement is anticipated to transform surgical procedures, providing insight into the future of medical treatment in India.”

    MIL OSI Economics

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI—Hagerty Joins Squawk Box on CNBC to Discuss Budget Resolution, DOGE

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Tennessee Bill Hagerty

    WASHINGTON—United States Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN), a member of the Senate Appropriations, Banking, and Foreign Relations Committees and former U.S. Ambassador to Japan, today joined Squawk Box on CNBC to discuss the negotiations between the White House and Congress on the Budget Resolution, along with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) uncovering wasteful and fraudulent spending.

    *Click the photo above or here to watch*

    Partial Transcript

    Hagerty on the Budget Resolution negotiations: “There’s been a lot that’s been done by executive order, but in this case, we’re working very closely, again, with the House and the Senate together, and we’ll work closely with the White House as well. We’re coming up into a point where the American public really expects us to deliver. It’s about energy independence. It’s about our national defense. It’s about bringing inflation down. All of this has to be addressed, also in the context of the broader tax cuts that President Trump wants to see in place, because that will have long-term positive implications for the economy. So, it’s a complex process. The House is working at pace on its product. We’re moving forward in the Senate, and I’m certain the White House is going to step in, and we’re going to have to bring all of this together pretty soon […] I think the conversations are on a regular basis between Leader [John] Thune, and also Budget [Committee Chairman Lindsey] Graham, as well as with [the Speaker of] the House, Mike Johnson. I think they’re working very closely. Mike Johnson obviously has a higher hurdle. He’s got a very narrow margin to navigate with. They put a product together right now, a larger product. Senator Graham, the Budget Committee [Chairman], who put something together, that would be a little bit slimmer, really focused just on energy independence, national defense, and the Coast Guard. But what we’re trying to do is keep things moving forward and make certain that we’ve got options as we come into the spring here. But what I want to do, and I’m setting process aside, I’m not too hung up on whether it’s one bill, two bills, or three bills. I think President Trump feels the same way. We just need to deliver on what the American public has asked us to do. And that is to step up, bring inflation under control, get energy independence back on the forefront, and get our southern border corrected and fixed once and for all when it’s all said and done.”

    Hagerty on DOGE’s discoveries of wasteful spending: “The critical aspect of it here is that DOGE has been underway for three weeks. We’ve got to start moving in the right direction. We’re looking at a situation now where we’ve got a thirty-seven trillion-dollar budget deficit that is so significant, and we’ve got to begin moving again in the right direction to become more fiscally responsible. I think what DOGE is uncovering is the fact that there’s a considerable amount of waste, fraud, and abuse that’s in the system. If we go about the process of systematically uncovering that, two things will happen. One is that there’ll be immediate opportunities that DOGE will uncover that they can address. The other more significant component is that they’re going to be signaling back to the legislative branch that we’ve got major areas that we can come in, reform, modify, and cut, but the whole streamlining process ought to have, in the long run, not only the impact of reducing the deficit spending, but also increasing our efficiency as a nation. Both of those things combined, I think, will have very positive implications for our deficit, for our fiscal situation, in the long run. And I think it’s something that we’ve absolutely got to get started on. I think the American public are ready for it.”

    Hagerty on the success of confirming Trump’s cabinet nominees: “In terms of President Trump’s influence, the American public spoke loud and clear. We’re cognizant of that here in the Senate. The point is President Trump is entitled to his team. He’s put together an incredible team. They’re very disruptive. I think what we want to see, what the American public wants to see, is real change, and you’ve got people coming into office to do that.”

    Hagerty on the Democrats in disarray: “The Democrat party is coming unraveled. And I think frankly, a lot of their allies in the media are as well, because I’ve heard the term ‘constitutional crisis’ over and over again. And now that we’re presiding in the United States Senate, because the Republicans have taken the majority, I’ve had the benefit of sitting there on the Senate floor listening to, time and again, my Democrat colleagues coming in saying that if, for example, Russ Vought, who is now our OMB Director, were he to be confirmed as OMB Director, millions of people would die, that we’re in a constitutional crisis. This isn’t happening. There are not people piling up dead on the streets. And this crying wolf constantly, I think, just discredits the Democrat party. They need to figure out where their core is. They need to get back to the basics and join us in governing, rather than just these shrill cries, again, because I think people are just becoming numb to it.”

    Hagerty on negotiations to end the Russia-Ukraine war: “You’ve heard a lot of speculation about what’s taking place. One thing I want to be careful to do, Joe, is not get ahead of the negotiating team. Last night in Riyadh, they agreed to put a high-level team together to focus on bringing this to resolution. I think what we all want to see is an end to the death, to the carnage. What’s happened in Ukraine has been absolutely awful. I think we’d all like to see that come to an end. President Trump has clearly been focused on that. I’ll let that team get to the point of negotiating the details, and the last thing I’m going to do is try to get ahead of them and start speculating right now. But I think one thing is clear: the American public wants to see this come to an end. I think the world needs to see this come to an end as well, and I’m hopeful that that’s going to happen post haste.”

    Hagerty on the transparency of the Trump Administration: “In terms of bringing the country along, I’d go back to election day where seventy-five percent of the American public said that we were on the wrong track. They want to see change. I think that opens the opportunity for us. And if you look at what’s happening right now, President Trump is holding daily press conferences. That’s transparency that we’ve not seen in the past four years, and I think that’s refreshing to the American people. As you say, they may or may not agree with a particular policy point, but what we’ve seen is transparency at a level that we have not for many years.”

    Hagerty on resignations within the federal government: “This is disruption. Look, I’m from a corporate background, when you’ve got a situation like we’re facing right now, with amounts of debt and deficit spending that we’re dealing with, you’ve got to come in and deal with it in a very rapid pace. Some people are uncomfortable with that; I get it. They can find another place to work. I also lived in the first Administration; I served in President Trump’s first Administration. There were a number of people that resigned for high sounding reasons, but I think it really was having to do with their own career and where they hope to land next. So, I think we should just let this move forward. Again, it’s early in the process. There’s going to be disruption; there’s going to be change, but I think overall we’re moving the direction that the American public wants to see us move.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-Evening Report: Politics with Michelle Grattan: Danielle Wood on how to trim back housing regulations

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

    Housing supply in Australia will be a key battleground in the election campaign. With home ownership more and more out of reach for young and not so young Australians, red tape and low productivity are strangling the builder industry just when it needs to be stepping up.

    The productivity Commission, the government’s independent think tank, has a new report report pointing to ways governments need to address the issues. In this podcast we talk to commission chair Danielle Wood about the housing challenge, as well as Australia’s parlous productivity performance generally and her drive to get some fresh ideas on how to improve it.

    On one of the report’s main recommendation, cutting red tape for construction approvals, Wood says,

    I like to think of regulation as a bit like a hedge. […] There’s almost an unwavering tendency for it to grow over time if you don’t clip it back. And I think in housing that’s particularly true. You have multiple levels of government involved, particularly local governments and state governments. Lots of different policy objectives in play. So obviously, quality and safety being pivotal, local amenity, heritage, traffic, environmental, accessibility.

    Lots and lots of decisions are taken, often without considering the trade off. And every time we add new regulations or more complex regulations, that imposes a cost. And ultimately that is a drag on housing, productivity and supply.

    So what should be done?

    We’ve certainly said we think there should be a good look at the national construction code, which is one source of regulatory burden where we think there’s scope to improve. I would love to see state governments – and I think they are turning their mind to this – to look at this question of just the sheer amount of regulation, the timeframes for approvals and look to ways to streamline the burden and also help develop and builders coordinate their way through that process more smoothly.

    On why productivity in construction in particular has fallen so far, Wood explains,

    You do not see many sectors go backwards in productivity  over that sort of time horizon. One reason is that our homes are bigger and better quality. So I think that is worth noting. If we adjust for that, productivity has declined, but only by 12% rather than 50%.

    We haven’t seen the same sort of innovation in homebuilding that we’ve seen in other parts of the economy. We still essentially build most houses the same way we did 100 years ago so we haven’t had that technological change driver of productivity. It’s an industry that’s characterised by lack of scale.

    And then there are workforce challenges as well. And, you know, we all hear a lot about the challenge of attracting and retaining skilled trades workers. You know, that can make it hard, particularly building.

    The Productivity Commission asked for submissions from the public on how to improve Australia’s productivity more generally. Wood is happy with how the initiaive is going,

    It’s been worth the effort. We’ve actually ended up with more than 500 submissions in the end, And they’re from a mix from individuals, from businesses, from organisations. But for me, the beauty is being able to hear from people that we wouldn’t normally hear from in our reviews and the point is that all of us interact with aspects of government policy every day in our lives and I think we absolutely heard that through the submissions.

    There were some fun ones there – high quality Japanese public toilets, more freely available free coffee. But more generally, I mean, we heard from small business owners about impacts of red tape and regulation [and] lots of interest in education policy. Unsurprisingly, again, it touches a lot of our lives, but looking for things like more work experience in schools, trying to build more industry-relevant skills into higher education.

    Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Danielle Wood on how to trim back housing regulations – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-danielle-wood-on-how-to-trim-back-housing-regulations-250260

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI USA: Cantwell Votes NO On Advancing Lutnick for Commerce Secretary; Slams His Enthusiasm for Inflationary Tariffs

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington Maria Cantwell

    02.18.25

    Cantwell Votes NO On Advancing Lutnick for Commerce Secretary; Slams His Enthusiasm for Inflationary Tariffs

    In speech on Senate floor, Cantwell says Trump’s pick to lead the Dept. of Commerce will rubber-stamp tariffs, slow domestic chip manufacturing, and hang NOAA out to dry; Cantwell also stresses: “Now is not the time to cut FAA staffing”

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, voted against confirming Howard Lutnick, President Donald Trump’s nominee to serve as Secretary of the Department of Commerce.

    In a speech delivered on the Senate floor, Sen. Cantwell urged her colleagues to follow suit.

    The next Secretary of Commerce will have to deal with a wide-ranging, growing list of issues, from trade and exports […], expanding broadband, weather forecasting, patent issues, export controls on A.I., and figuring out some of the most thorny issues related to how we move our country forward, generally, in commerce. So it’s fair to say that if the Commerce Secretary doesn’t get it right, the American people and our American economy pay the price. Unfortunately, I believe that Howard Lutnick, the President’s nominee, isn’t the right person for this job at this point in time,” Sen. Cantwell said.

    The Senate ultimately confirmed Lutnick 51-45.

    Earlier this month, Sen. Cantwell also voted against advancing Lutnick out of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and to the full Senate for consideration. At the time, she expressed her concerns with Lutnick’s support for President Trump’s proposed tariffs. She also pointed to Lutnick’s failure to commit to fully allocating the funds approved by Congress under the Cantwell-led CHIPS & Science Act, as well as his waffling on whether he’d protect NOAA – including NOAA’s crucial missions and functions, and the workforce delivering those services to the American people. Sen. Cantwell had previously questioned Lutnick on these topics in a committee hearing the week prior – video of that hearing is HERE.

    Sen. Cantwell on FAA and Aviation Safety:

    “I would just say this: now is not the time to cut FAA staffing,” Sen. Cantwell said on the Senate floor today. “It is critically clear to me that we need these air traffic controllers, and so we have to make these investments. We should be working together, right now, on aviation. The most important thing? Let’s work together for the benefit of the flying public to come up with the best solutions that we can implement in aviation safety. Taking a broad brush and just cutting people out of the FAA — when oftentimes they’re the people that are helping you get that safety — is not what we should be doing right now.”

    During her tenure as chair of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Sen. Cantwell sounded the alarm about the staffing shortage of air traffic controllers, need for more FAA safety inspectors, a series of aviation incidents and near-misses on and around runways, and the midair blowout of a door plug in January 2024. Last year, the Committee’s Aviation Subcommittee also highlighted FAA’s shortage of at least 800 airway transportation systems specialists – commonly known as technicians –  during a December 2024 hearing on “Air Traffic Control Systems, Personnel, and Safety”. Dave Spero, president of the Professional Aviation Safety Specialists (PASS), the union representing FAA technicians, testified about the importance of closing the shortage and boosting this segment of the FAA workforce in order to keep FAA’s air traffic control systems and equipment safely running.

    She led the passage of the FAA Reauthorization Act, signed into law in May 2024, which boosts controller staffing, ensuring a five-year commitment to maximum hiring and training to close the current staffing gap. The law requires upgraded safety technologies – giving controllers better visibility into runway traffic – to be installed at every large and medium airport nationwide. The law also includes stricter safety standards for aircraft operators and plane manufacturers, as well as provisions to put more FAA safety inspectors on factory floors.

    On Feb. 6, Sen. Cantwell sent a letter to Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy calling on him to ensure that Elon Musk stays out of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), citing Musk’s clear conflicts of interest.

    Sen. Cantwell on Tariffs:

    “In my conversations with Mr. Lutnick and before his Commerce Committee hearing, he made it very clear that he intends to be very enthusiastic about the President’s plans for tariffs,” Sen. Cantwell said today. My constituents want to see inflation come down, and they want us to lower costs, not increase them. Now that President Trump is teasing out even more tariffs in the coming days on autos, pharmaceuticals,  and semiconductors, it’s going to drive up costs for consumers […] We can’t afford inflation. We want prices to come down. Whether that’s on housing, or whether that’s on pharmaceuticals, or whether that’s on food prices, we know that tariffs can increase prices.”

    Earlier this month, Sen. Cantwell delivered a major speech on the Senate floor arguing that the president’s arbitrary tariffs would threaten domestic job creation and economic growth in an Information Age. She outlined a strategy focused on building coalitions, growing exports, and establishing principles to support innovation in the Information Age – video of that speech is HERE.

    In Washington state, two out of every five jobs are tied to trade and trade-related industries.  Combined, the state imported $1.21 billion worth of steel and aluminum last year – and the major industries and employers in Washington that rely on steel and aluminum include aerospace, shipbuilding, utilities, and electronics. When President Trump imposed steel tariffs in 2018, our trading partners immediately responded by imposing tariffs of their own on Washington products, especially agriculture, including cherries, apples, pears, and potatoes. Nationally, across all industries, the steel and aluminum tariffs resulted in a decrease in production worth about $3.4 billion per year, according to an ITC report.  More information on how President Trump’s proposed tariffs on goods from Mexico, Canada, and China would affect consumers and businesses in the State of Washington can be found HERE.

    Sen. Cantwell has remained a steadfast supporter of free trade to grow the economy in the State of Washington and nationwide. Sen. Cantwell was the leading voice in negotiations to end India’s 20% retaliatory tariff on American apples, which was imposed in response to tariffs on steel and aluminum and devastated Washington state’s apple exports. India had once been the second-largest export market for American apples, but after President Trump imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum in his first term, India imposed retaliatory tariffs in response and U.S. apple exports plummeted. The impact on Washington apple growers was severe: Apple exports from the state dropped from $120 million in 2017 to less than $1 million by 2023.  In September 2023, following several years of Sen. Cantwell’s advocacy, India ended its retaliatory tariffs on apples and pulse crops which was welcome news to the state’s more than 1,400 apple growers and the 68,000-plus workers they support.

    Sen. Cantwell on Semiconductor Manufacturing:

    “We learned during the chips crisis that even the cost of a used car went up $2,000. That’s because chips were at a shortage — car industries, trucking industries couldn’t even get enough chips to make and ship cars, and then the consequence was even used cars went up $2,000. So we don’t want to recreate that again,” Sen. Cantwell said today. “We want a Commerce Secretary who is going to fight for the CHIPS & Science investment that’s already been made in the electronic manufacturing process in the United States and keep the semiconductor industry right here. But unfortunately, Mr. Lutnick, before the Committee, would not commit to standing by the commitments of the term sheets the Department of Commerce has already signed.”

    Sen. Cantwell was the main architect and key negotiator of the CHIPS & Science Act. In her position as Commerce chair, she was instrumental in securing the science R&D funding authorizations in the 11th hour of negotiations. A key component of the legislation is the Regional Technology and Innovation Hubs (Tech Hubs) program that was authored by Sen. Cantwell to strengthen U.S. economic and national security with investments in regions across the country. Earlier this month, the American Aerospace Materials Manufacturing Center (AAMMC) in Spokane was awarded $48 million from the program to establish the first-of-its-kind testbed facility in the United States focused on developing advanced thermoplastic materials – new types of lightweight, heat-moldable, and recyclable materials that can replace metal in aircraft parts. The AAMMC will serve as the nation’s hub for creating and testing these innovative materials that are essential for more rapidly building fuel-efficient and environmentally friendly aircraft. 

    Sen. Cantwell on NOAA:

    “When asked for the record, ‘Should NOAA be dismantled, as called for in Project 2025?’, Mr. Lutnick would only say he’ll figure it out once he’s confirmed,” Sen. Cantwell said today. “We needed a bigger commitment to NOAA. NOAA already supplies a big, important aspect of what we deal with, with weather forecasting, tracking extreme weather, hurricanes, wildfires, managing our fisheries, operating ships that conduct important charting for national security. Mr. Lutnick gave very tepid support for NOAA.”

    Project 2025 calls for NOAA to be “dismantled and many of its functions eliminated,” calling it part of the “climate change alarm industry.” NOAA provides critical services to the Nation including weather forecasts, extreme storm tracking and monitoring, tools to enable communities to adapt to sea level rise and climate change, supporting fisheries management, and conserving marine mammals and other protected species.

    Sen. Cantwell is a champion of NOAA and helped secure $3.3 billion in NOAA investments in the Inflation Reduction Act to help communities prepare for and adapt to climate change, boost science needed to understand changing weather and climate patterns, and invest in advanced computer technologies that are critical for extreme weather prediction and emergency response. Her Fire Ready Nation Act, bipartisan legislation to strengthen NOAA’s ability to help forecast, prevent, and fight wildfires, passed the Commerce committee unanimously earlier this month and now heads to the full Senate for consideration.

    Video of Sen. Cantwell’s speech on the Senate floor today is available HERE, and transcript HERE.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Capito Votes to Confirm Lutnick for Commerce Secretary

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for West Virginia Shelley Moore Capito

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), a member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, issued the following statement after voting to confirm Howard Lutnick to serve as the next Secretary of Commerce:

    “Improving broadband connectivity, ensuring fair trade for businesses, and making sure the Department of Commerce supports West Virginia’s effort to expand economic opportunities are all issues important to West Virginia, and areas I believe Secretary Lutnick will prioritize as our next Commerce Secretary. I am encouraged by Secretary Lutnick’s expertise and qualifications to serve in this role, and I look forward to a strong and productive working relationship with him,” Senator Capito said.

    Senator Capito previously met with Lutnick in December of 2024 to discuss his nomination and learn more about his vision to lead the department.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Cortez Masto Opposes Howard Lutnick to Head the Department of Commerce

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Nevada Cortez Masto

    Washington, D.C. – U.S.Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) released the following statement after voting against confirming Howard Lutnick for Secretary of Commerce:

    “Howard Lutnick has repeatedly defended President Trump’s harmful tariff threats to our allies and the ongoing federal funding freeze that has caused great concern for Nevada communities and families, including the delay in the Department of Commerce’s final approval of our statewide broadband plan. His unquestioning loyalty to Donald Trump makes him unable to independently lead this department that is critical to the stability of the U.S. economy. It’s clear Mr. Lutnick will not help lower costs for Nevada families, and he will continue to facilitate President Trump’s chaos. I therefore oppose his nomination to lead the Department of Commerce.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: ‘A peaceful, prosperous, democratic Pacific’

    Source: New Zealand Government

    Good Evening
     
    Let us begin by acknowledging Professor David Capie and the PIPSA team for convening this important conference over the next few days. Whenever the Pacific Islands region comes together, we have a precious opportunity to share perspectives and learn from each other. That is especially true in our region, where distances between us are large. 
     
    We acknowledge, too, members of the Diplomatic Corps, Parliamentary colleagues, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen.
     
    New Zealand’s place in the world
    New Zealand, as a country, has a myriad of influences. We have enduringly strong connections – for reasons of history, migration and foreign policy alignment – to our traditional partners of Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. 
     
    First and foremost, among these is Australia, New Zealand’s one formal ally, and our closest and most likeminded partner. We cooperate extremely closely with Australia, in the Pacific and around the world. 
     
    We are increasingly integrated socially, economically and strategically into Asia, with large and increasing Asian communities here in New Zealand and ever closer diplomatic relationships in South, South East, and North East Asia.
     
    At the same time, the starting point for understanding how New Zealand views the Pacific is the following, very simple statement: New Zealand is a Pacific Island country, linked by geography, history, culture, politics, demography and indeed DNA. 
     
    Fully 1.3 million New Zealanders, or about one-in-four of us are in full or part Polynesian, Melanesian or Micronesian, with either Māori heritage or relatives or ancestors from other Pacific islands. 
     
    Auckland is home to more Polynesians than any other city. Around the same number of Samoans and Tongans live in New Zealand as do in Samoa and Tonga. Vastly more Cook Islanders, Niueans and Tokelauans live in New Zealand than back in their homelands.
     
    The original discovery and settlement of the Pacific Islands, including New Zealand, is one of the most remarkable stories of exploration in human history. The late New Zealand historian Michael King compared it to space exploration as both were voyages into the unknown. 
     
    But Pacific navigation is arguably even more remarkable because the canoes that set out from the Asian landmass knew not where they would land, nor when, nor indeed if they would find any new territory. 
     
    But find land they did, as they forged new identities and societies on atolls and islands that today stand as a testament to their imagination, endurance and the resilience to overcome formidable challenges of distance, geography, demography, and resource scarcity. 
     
    Last year, we had the enormous privilege of visiting almost all of those island nations spread across our vast Blue Continent. So, this evening we’d like to share some reflections about the Pacific, within the context of New Zealand’s Foreign Policy Reset. 
     
    We note, too, your conference theme, which raises the question of whether the Pacific Islands are a zone of peace or ocean of discontent. In 1520, the great Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan named this massive body of water the Pacific, due to its calmness – Pacific meaning peaceful. Ironically, it didn’t end that way for him, or some of his crew, so your conference theme holds both historical justification and appeal.
     
    An active, engaged Pacific policy
    When we again took on the role of New Zealand Foreign Minister in November 2023, we were determined to put the Pacific at the forefront of an energetic, engaged and active New Zealand foreign policy once more. This lay behind our decision to undertake the most ambitious, intensive year of Pacific diplomacy in New Zealand history. 
     
    Never before has a New Zealand political leader tried to spend time in all 18 member countries of the Pacific Islands Forum in a single year. But try we did: meeting the many diverse peoples scattered across this vast, beautiful blue continent. 
     
    As often as we were able, we took Parliamentary colleagues from across the spectrum of New Zealand’s political parties to reinforce that our friendship is bipartisan, enduring and long-term. 
     
    The purpose of all these discussions was to take the pulse of the region. As a democratic country operating in a democratic region, New Zealand is driven in our Pacific policy by three foundational questions focused on our region’s people: 

    Is what New Zealand is doing in the region reflective of what the people of the Pacific Islands want and need? 
    Are we effectively supporting the prosperity and security of Pacific Island peoples?; and 
    Are we undertaking and explaining this work in a way which maintains New Zealanders’ support for our objectives in the region? 

     
    When describing our observations of last year’s travel, an obvious starting point is the unimaginable vastness of our region. It is a massive ocean, covering over 30 percent of the Earth’s surface.
     
    While in the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau, we learned of the logistical difficulties they faced in getting to last year’s Pacific Islands Forum in Tonga. We decided on the spot to offer the use of one of our 757 aircraft to take Micronesian leaders to and from Nuku’alofa. We have also announced, over the past year, significant investment in digital connectivity in the Pacific, alongside such partners as the Australia, Taiwan, United States and Japan. 
     
    Connecting all members of the Pacific family is vital given the huge, isolating physical distances between us. But because we believe that all Pacific voices are important and that talanoa – coming together for dialogue – must be regular and meaningful, we were happy to facilitate their coming together in Nuku’alofa. 
     
    Why? Because Pacific regionalism sits at the core of our Pacific approach, with the Pacific Islands Forum at its centre. We are a region with challenging issues that can polarise us, such as deep seabed mining and how best to manage strategic competition. The Forum plays a critical role in helping us to form a cohesive approach, resolve differences, bolster regional development and security, and use our collective voice to hold bigger countries to account.
     
    The Blue Continent’s challenges
    We have also reflected on how the Blue Pacific Continent and its peoples face a multitude of challenges. Our region is faced with the sharpest strategic competition it has confronted since World War 2 ended almost eighty years ago. As we face external pushes into our region to coerce, cajole and constrain, we must stand together as a region – always remembering that we are strongest when we act collectively to confront security and strategic challenges. 
     
    Climate change is a great threat facing the Pacific and we are at the global forefront of disaster risk exposure. Our ambition is that all Pacific peoples remain resilient to the impacts of climate change and other disasters and that New Zealand can support building resilience in practical ways. 
     
    Fisheries are vital to the economies, livelihoods, food security, and social and cultural wellbeing of many Pacific Island countries and is a crucial source of government revenue. But they face several complex interrelated and transboundary issues, such as illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and the management of migratory fish species. 
     
    After years of volatility, the long-term growth trajectory risks settling well below pre-COVID averages for Pacific Island countries. Increasing investment, building fiscal and climate resilience, and improving the access to finance and greater regional connectivity will be key to improving long-run growth prospects in the Pacific.  
     
    Answering to the people
    One truism that runs through our three stints as Foreign Minister is this: there are no votes in it. Struggling New Zealand taxpayers and their families find it difficult to understand why their government is handing out multi-million-dollar aid grants overseas.
     
    Foreign policy practitioners and academics may focus intently on our obligations to New Zealand’s development partners and the way we conduct our relations with them. But the bottom line is that we are accountable first and foremost to the New Zealand taxpayer. 
    During our three tenures as Foreign Minister, we have demonstrated a staunch commitment to a well-resourced New Zealand development programme with a predominant focus on the Pacific. 
     
    Few New Zealand Governments have gone to the wire to significantly lift the size of our international development programme as a proportion of New Zealand’s Gross National Income. One was Norman Kirk’s Government in the 1970s. Two others were during my two previous terms as Foreign Minister. 
     
    In short, we have been determined to use all of our influence and all of our negotiating power to get the best possible New Zealand development programme for the Pacific. 
     
    And while times are very tough here at home right now, we will continue to advocate with our Cabinet colleagues and the New Zealand people for the importance of an active Pacific policy and a properly-resourced international agenda – whether in defence, foreign policy, or development. That’s what is right for New Zealand and it’s what is in the best interests of the Pacific.
     
    We will never apologise for directly connecting New Zealand’s security and prosperity to the security and prosperity of the region and world around us. 
    The Coalition Government’s Foreign Policy Reset established a new strategic direction for New Zealand, including for our international development programme, with an emphasis on sustaining our deep focus on the Pacific. 
     
    As part of ensuring our accountability to the New Zealand taxpayer, last year the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade undertook a review of our development programme to gauge alignment with government priorities and assess its overall impact and efficiency. A report on the review’s findings is being released today.
     
    The review found that while our development is generally aligned with Government priorities, some reshaping and streamlining is required. In short, we will achieve more impact by doing fewer, bigger, projects better. This work is already under way.
     
    Our predominant focus remains on the Pacific, where we will be working with partners including the United States, Australia, Japan and in Europe to more intensively leverage greater support for the region. We will maintain the high tempo of political engagement across the Pacific to ensure alignment between our programme and New Zealand and partner priorities. And we will work more strategically with Pacific Governments to strengthen their systems, so they can better deliver the services their people need.
     
    Greater development funding is being devoted to South East Asia to meet our ambition for closer relations overall with this important region. We have also increased humanitarian funding in response to the scale of need regionally and globally. And we have reduced multilateral funding, to focus on those partners who make the most concrete impact.
     
    We see this work of reshaping our development programme as part of meeting our obligation to the New Zealand taxpayers whose continuing support underpins its social licence.
     
    Friendship, challenges and dialogue
    Over the decades, our Pacific-oriented foreign policy has been defined as much by our actions as our words. We are there in times of need, whether in response to natural disasters, helping with budget support during fiscal emergencies, spurring economic development, or helping to resolve conflicts. 
     
    Our 2018 Pacific Reset emphasised that exhibiting friendship in all our engagements was the cornerstone of our Pacific foreign policy orientation. What does friendship in that context mean? 
     
    It means we are honest, empathetic, trustful and respectful through frequent engagement. And it means having frank and open conversations with our Pacific counterparts.
     
    Over the past year, we have consistently stressed that we see all states as equal, whatever their size. We are guided by the mutual respect and trust that has grown over time between New Zealand and other Pacific Island countries. A second theme that has run through all our public engagements is just how important diplomacy is in our troubled world. 
     
    New Zealand has faced two isolated challenges in the past twelve months in our relations with the Pacific. In these two very different cases, our accountability to our taxpayers and our fidelity to promoting the interests of Pacific peoples throughout the region require that we explain openly what has taken place. 
     
    Of the 18 Pacific Islands Forum member countries, the only one we did not spend time in during the past year was Kiribati. That was not for a lack of trying. 
     
    For more than a year we respected Kiribati’s preference to avoid outside engagement. But with over $100 million of development assistance committed to Kiribati over the past three years, we had to review the status of existing projects and understand Kiribati’s ongoing development needs. After all, we all have to negotiate with our Ministers of Finance. 
     
    This requirement was urgent given our own budget cycle and the need to make decisions about how future development spending is allocated in Micronesian countries and across the region for the next three years. 
     
    So, we were pleased when a visit to Kiribati was finally scheduled for January 2025. We began organising our cross-party Parliamentary group to visit Tarawa. Then, with about a week to go, we were told President Maamau, who is also my counterpart as Kiribati’s Foreign Affairs Minister, would no longer meet with our delegation. 
    We made public our regret and concern, as well as our consequent decision to review our development programme to Kiribati. We are accountable to the worker in Kaitaia, the builder in Gore, and the farmer in the Waikato for the spending of taxpayer money, and we felt it important to express our concerns openly and transparently. 
     
    At the same time, we have a long-standing relationship with the Kiribati people, which has overcome previous challenges. We will weather this one too. 
     
    We have made clear that we are still working towards meaningful dialogue with Kiribati’s President and Foreign Minister, whether in Kiribati, New Zealand or elsewhere in the region. We are taking positive steps towards that goal in coming weeks. 
     
    The second isolated challenge we have faced has been developments in our relationship with the Cook Islands Government. Unlike the people of Samoa, the people of the Cook Islands have never opted for their country to be fully independent from New Zealand – though they are of course always free to choose to do so. 
     
    Rather, they have opted since 1965 to be in free association with New Zealand. This means that New Zealand is bound constitutionally to the Cook Islands by sharing the King of New Zealand as a head of state, a common, single citizenship and passport, as well as by shared values and interests. 
     
    Over the past 60 years, New Zealand has taken very seriously its obligations and commitments to the Cook Islands people. Every year we deliver for the Cook Islands people in areas as broad as health and education, economic development, defence and security, good governance, resources and environment, and culture and heritage.
     
    The Cook Islands, in exercising self-government, is supported by New Zealand funding and provision of expertise. As long as the Cook Islands remain tied to New Zealand constitutionally, we have an expectation that the Government of the Cook Islands will not seek benefits only available to fully independent states – such as separate passports and citizenship, or membership of the United Nations or the Commonwealth – or pursue policies that are significantly at variance with New Zealand’s interests. 
     
    We also have an expectation that New Zealand will be fully and meaningfully consulted on all major international actions that the Cook Islands contemplates that affect our interests.
     
    These are not unreasonable expectations. And they are not new. For example, our Prime Ministers, Norman Kirk in 1973, David Lange in 1986 and Helen Clark in 2001 all expressed these expectations formally. 
     
    To use but one example: in 2001, Helen Clark stated that Cook Islanders retained New Zealand citizenship “on the basis that there will continue to be a mutually acceptable standard of values in Cook Islands’ laws and policies”. She again repeated our longstanding position that if full independence from New Zealand was what the Cook Islands people wanted, then they were free to opt for it at any time.
     
    These have been well-established and previously settled understandings between us, although there have been periodic attempts by Cook Islands Prime Ministers to test the boundaries of this constitutional pact. 
     
    But our free association relationship in its current form has endured because the overwhelming majority of Cook Islands people have wanted to maintain their New Zealand citizenship and passport and the rights it affords them to the same opportunities and privileges as all other New Zealanders, including in health and education. The wishes of the Cook Islands people are paramount here.
     
    Our explicit advice to Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown and his officials since he first raised the issue with us in July 2024 was that if he proceeded with trying to implement a separate Cook Islands citizenship and passport system then the people of the Cook Islands would risk losing their New Zealand citizenship and passport – an outcome we know is opposed by the vast majority of Cook Islanders.
     
    There is also the matter of the Cook Islands Government’s decision to enter into a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (CSP) and a number of other agreements with China last week without any meaningful consultation with New Zealand or its own people over either the architecture or details of those deals. 
     
    New Zealand and the Cook Islands people remain, as of this evening, in the dark over all but one the agreements signed by China and the Cooks last week. 
     
    Given this lack of consultation, the New Zealand Government, once it has seen the text of all of the agreements that were signed, will need to undertake its own careful analysis of how they impact our vital national interests. Only then will we be able to fully gauge the deals’ impact on the relationship between New Zealand and the Cook Islands. 
     
    While the connection between the people of the Cook Islands and New Zealand remains resolutely strong, we currently face challenges in the government-to-government relationship. 
     
    But this state of affairs – disagreements and debates between the leaders of New Zealand and the Cook Islands – has been a periodic feature of our 60 years of free association. We have always found a way through, guided by the wisdom and wishes of the Cook Islands people. 
     
    As then US President Franklin Roosevelt said in 1945, “We shall strive for perfection. We shall not achieve it immediately – but we still shall strive. We may make mistakes – but they must never be mistakes which result from faintness of heart or abandonment of moral principle”.
     
    During 2025, as we celebrate 60 years of free association, we are going to need to reset the government-to-government relationship. We will also need to find a way, as we did in 1973 and 2001, to formally re-state the mutual responsibilities and obligations that we have for one another and the overall parameters and constraints of the free association model.
     
    Resetting and formally re-stating the parameters of the relationship is not a small task. But it is one which we are confident we can meet – powered by the history of goodwill and common bonds between New Zealand and the Cook Islands people.
     
    Another issue on which the region has devoted significant attention over the past year has been New Caledonia – which is, geographically, New Zealand’s closest neighbour. Uncertainty and discord there is obviously something that prompts concern and discussion right around our region. 
     
    From the moment of the unrest onwards, New Zealand has been very clear that everyone – no matter their view on New Caledonia’s political status – should agree that violence is not the answer. 
     
    The focus must be on dialogue – and finding a new pathway forward on the important issues facing New Caledonia. We had the benefit – working closely with authorities in Paris and Nouméa – to have had a productive visit to New Caledonia in December. 
     
    We went there to listen and to learn, and to engage with a very wide range of New Caledonians of all backgrounds. Hearing New Caledonians voice their hopes and dreams for economic development led us to the view that there may be lessons from New Zealand’s own experiences that might be of value. 
     
    We hope lessons from New Zealand’s own economic development as a multi-ethnic Pacific Island country can be shared with New Caledonians, who might be able to adapt them to their unique context.
     
    Conclusions
    When we reflect on the past year, it is impossible not to be optimistic about this region’s future. As we travelled to places as diverse as Suva, Pohnpei, Alofi, Port Vila, Nauru and Apia, we were struck also by a profound commonality. 
     
    Pacific Islanders scattered around our vast, beautiful region all want a brighter, more prosperous and more secure future for their children and for future generations. 
     
    As a founding member of the Pacific Islands Forum, and as a Pacific and Polynesian country itself, New Zealand has always been at the forefront of efforts to bring about that future. 
     
    Over the past year, we have done our very best to deliver, through words and actions, on New Zealand’s commitment to contribute to a brighter future for all Pacific peoples. This very important work – involving discussion, debate and, yes, sometimes disagreement – will continue.
     
    The Pacific Islands region is a profoundly democratic one. People from every village, town or city in every Pacific Island country have a direct say in how their affairs are run. Just this year, people in six Pacific Islands Forum countries – Australia, the Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, New Caledonia, Tonga and Vanuatu – are heading to the polls to cast ballots which will help determine the future direction of their countries. 
     
    And so it is Pacific peoples’ hopes and aspirations which must drive political leaders and policy makers. Our policies must be responsive and accountable to the perspectives of those we represent. 
     
    And no matter the future we face, or the challenges we encounter, we will always be members of the same Pacific family. We inhabit the most vast and breathtaking ocean continent in the world. And as family, we will always find a way forward, together, towards the secure and prosperous future that our people deserve.
     
    Thank you. Kia kaha. Go well. 

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-OSI NGOs: Environment Minister must thoroughly assess impacts of Woodside’s North West Shelf gas project

    Source: Greenpeace Statement –

    PERTH, Wednesday 19 February 2025 — In response to the news that federal assessment of Woodside’s North West Shelf gas project will be delayed, the following statement can be attributed to Greenpeace Australia Pacific’s WA Campaign Lead Geoff Bice: 

    “Greenpeace welcomes Federal Environment Minister Plibersek’s decision to take more time to thoroughly assess Woodside’s North West Shelf extension project, given its enormous scale, proposed duration and impact on our climate.

    “Woodside’s proposal to extend the life of one of the dirtiest and most polluting fossil fuel facilities in the country by 50 years runs counter to climate science, and to the accelerating extreme weather disasters Australians are experiencing every day. Right now, the iconic Ningaloo Reef is undergoing another mass coral bleaching driven by soaring ocean temperatures.

    “The WA State assessment was lacklustre at best, and we remain concerned the WA Government is siding with fossil fuel companies rather than protecting the environment we love. WA Environment Minister Whitby changing policy on emissions on the fly is just one example.

    “Minister Plibersek must step up to the plate to ensure this massive fossil fuel project and its climate impacts are thoroughly assessed at a federal level. We urge Minister Plibersek to make an informed decision about the North West Shelf extension, and stop Woodside’s destructive Burrup Hub plans for good.”

    —ENDS—

    For more information or to arrange an interview please contact Kate O’Callaghan on [email protected] on 0406 231 892

    MIL OSI NGO

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump wants to do a deal for Ukraine’s critical minerals. Will Zelensky give him what he wants – or will Putin?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Alexander Korolev, Senior Lecturer in Politics and International Relations, UNSW Sydney

    The United States and Russia agreed to work on a plan to end the war in Ukraine at high-level talks in Saudi Arabia this week. Ukrainian and European representatives were pointedly not invited to take part.

    US President Donald Trump seemingly entered into these negotiations prepared to capitulate on two main points that Russian President Vladimir Putin has been seeking. Russia is opposed to Ukraine joining NATO and wants to retain Ukrainian territory captured since its invasion of Crimea in 2014.

    Such a dramatic shift in Washington’s approach to Ukraine’s sovereignty and security has undermined Western-Ukrainian unity on the acceptable parameters around ending the war.

    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Ukraine won’t accept a deal negotiated without them. Former US National Security Adviser John Bolton said Trump “effectively surrendered” to Putin.

    European leaders, too, are concerned after they were excluded from the Saudi talks. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said:

    This does not mean that peace can be dictated and that Ukraine must accept what is presented to it.

    Many believe Trump’s moves to splinter this trans-Atlantic front against Russia send a signal that Washington is
    abandoning its commitment to European security.

    However, there’s another important factor at play in Trump’s actions: the intensifying global competition over critical minerals. Trump wants to secure access to Ukraine’s vast reserves of these minerals, even if it means breaking with the US’ traditional allies in the European Union.

    Why are Ukraine’s minerals so valuable

    According to some reports, Ukraine has deposits of 22 of the 34 minerals identified as critical by the EU. These include:

    • lithium and cobalt, used in rechargeable battery production
    • scandium, used for aerospace industry components
    • tantalum, used for electronic equipment
    • titanium, used in the aerospace, medical, automotive and marine industries
    • nickel ore, manganese, beryllium, hafnium, magnesium, zirconium and others, used in the aerospace, defence and nuclear industries.

    China currently dominates the world’s supply chains of these minerals – it is the largest source of US imports of 26 of the 50 minerals classified as critical by the United States Geological Survey.

    This is the reason behind Trump’s suggestion last week that the US be granted 50% of Ukraine’s rare earth minerals as reimbursement for the billions of dollars in weapons and support it has provided to Kyiv since the war began.

    The problem, however, is that at least 40% of Ukraine’s minerals are currently under Russian occupation in the eastern Donetsk and Luhansk regions of the country. (Other sources put this figure as high as 70%.)

    Concerned about Ukraine’s territorial integrity, Zelensky has publicly rejected the US demand for half of Ukraine’s mineral resources, because the proposal does not include security guarantees. It only vaguely referred to payment for future aid, according to reports.

    In response, the White House National Security Council spokesperson Brian Hughes said:

    President Zelensky is being short-sighted about the excellent opportunity the Trump administration has presented the Ukraine.

    What kind of deal could be made?

    A big question ahead of any peace negotiations over Ukraine is whether commercially-minded Trump would be willing to accept a counter-proposal from Putin.

    Since Russia currently controls large swathes of mineral-rich eastern Ukraine, Putin may be willing to offer Trump an exclusive critical minerals deal in exchange for the US formally committing to not restoring Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders and not letting the country into NATO.

    Ukraine, meanwhile, may be angling for its own minerals deal with European countries in exchange for their continued support. Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal expressed his country’s willingness to set up joint ventures with the EU in this area:

    We could replace Russian titanium on the European market, contributing to the development of both the EU’s civilian industry and advanced military technologies.

    He also said the project of rebuilding Ukraine could be a boon for the entire bloc.

    The European Commission has recommended a policy of encouraging Ukraine to export these materials to the EU. In response, authorities in Kyiv started working out the necessary regulatory and legal measures to integrate Ukraine into the EU’s resource strategy.

    With so many powers keen to access its minerals, Ukraine is in an extremely complex and hard-to-navigate geopolitical situation.

    Zelensky’s bet on the EU, instead of the US, might be right, given the growing rift between Brussels and Washington over Ukraine’s future. But as Thucydides, the ancient Greek historian, once said, the odds may be stacked against it:

    Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

    Alexander Korolev does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Trump wants to do a deal for Ukraine’s critical minerals. Will Zelensky give him what he wants – or will Putin? – https://theconversation.com/trump-wants-to-do-a-deal-for-ukraines-critical-minerals-will-zelensky-give-him-what-he-wants-or-will-putin-250064

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Release: Rate cuts highlight Willis’ economic blunders

    Source: New Zealand Labour Party

    Today’s Official Cash Rate cut is good news for borrowers, but also a symptom of rising unemployment and an economy in recession.

    “Nicola Willis loves to take credit for the decisions of the Reserve Bank, which is an independent agency outside of her control, but if she wants to own the rate cuts then she needs to own what’s causing those cuts: rising unemployment and the worst recession in 30 years, excluding COVID-19,” Labour finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds said.

    “I welcome the Reserve Bank’s decision and hope that this provides some relief for Kiwis who are struggling under National’s recession, which the Bank cites as taking a sharp decline in mid-2024. The Bank’s rate cut is a direct response to the economic downturn that Luxon’s government’s decisions have caused. The economy is weak thanks to the government’s cancellation of infrastructure projects, leaving 13,000 construction workers out of a job.

    “New Zealanders are expressing their frustration by leaving Aotearoa New Zealand. The latest data shows a record number of people are leaving, with 128,700 departures last year.

    “If the government was serious about economic growth, it would take immediate action to stabilise the job market. That means investing in public services, infrastructure, and climate initiatives that create jobs, not axing funding for schools, hospitals, and public housing. It’s time for leadership that invests in jobs, skills, and the future, not cuts and excuses,” Barbara Edmonds said.


    Stay in the loop by signing up to our mailing list and following us on FacebookInstagram, and X.

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Real Estate – Ark for sale in New Zealand – NZSIR

    Source: New Zealand Sotheby’s International Realty (NZSIR)

    Noah’s Ark is now up for sale in Christchurch, New Zealand.

    The distinctive property – believed to be the only ark for sale in the world – is expected to attract international interest.

    Listed by leading real estate agency New Zealand Sotheby’s International Realty (NZSIR), the (approximate) 860 sq m Ark is nestled upon Clifton Hill in Sumner and features three levels with amenities such as a grand ballroom, two expansive commercial kitchens, several entertaining spaces, and a large basement.

    NZSIR sales associate Rod Cross says the Ark – located at Lot 4, 4 Loader Lane – is one of the most intriguing and unconventional properties in NZ.

    “The dwelling was built in the early 2000s as a function centre and has been utilised for multiple purposes, from a church and wedding venue to tearooms and a private residence,” Cross says. “The building itself is incredible with its grand, nautical design and exquisite craftsmanship.”

    The Ark was a central feature of the renowned Gethsemane Gardens, which has more recently been developed into the high-end subdivision, Gethsemane Heights. The building’s three separate levels each present a blank canvas that can be structured into spaces to suit any lifestyle.

    “The beauty of this building is that it’s an opportunity for a visionary, and a chance for the next owner to realise a dream,” Cross adds. “It certainly has ample space and versatility for many options to be considered.”

    Vaulted ceilings, exposed timber beams, and picture windows invite natural light while showcasing views of the Southern Alps and Pegasus Bay.

    The Ark was part of the Gethsemane Gardens sale in 2016 and, since being subdivided, this is the property’s first time to the market in its own right.

    “We’re sailing into new territory with this exceptional property, and expect worldwide interest,” says Cross. “It presents a chance to create something extraordinary.”

    The Ark will be sold via auction on Friday, March 28 at 4pm.
      
    About New Zealand Sotheby’s International Realty                    
    New Zealand Sotheby’s International Realty (NZSIR) is a specialist agency that focuses on the sale of premium property through quality marketing and global networking. Founded in 2005 by Mark Harris and Julian Brown, the NZ branch of the global company has 27 offices nationwide – Northland, Auckland Ponsonby, Auckland North Shore, Auckland Remuera, Auckland Eastern Bays, Auckland South East, Waiheke Island, Hamilton, Cambridge, Rotorua, Taupō, Napier, Ahuriri, Havelock North, Palmerston North, Masterton, Greytown, Kapiti, Wellington, Hutt Valley, Nelson, Marlborough, Christchurch, Wānaka, Arrowtown and its head office in Queenstown. It also has an Australian office in Melbourne, Victoria.  

    NZSIR is part of Sotheby’s International Realty – the world’s leading luxury real estate company – with a global network of approximately 1,110 offices and more than 26,000 affiliated independent sales associates throughout 84 countries and territories. It is through this unparalleled luxury network that NZSIR is able to access and market properties on an international level. In 2022/2023 NZSIR was named Best International Real Estate Agency Asia Pacific (5-20 offices) at the International Property Awards.                  
    www.nzsothebysrealty.com    

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-Evening Report: Civics education is at an all-time low in Australia. Mapping our ‘civic journeys’ may help

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brenton Prosser, Professor of Public Policy and Leadership, UNSW Sydney

    Although Australia has a strong and proud democracy, it nonetheless faces important challenges.

    Among these, youth democratic engagement and civics education have been matters of national concern for more than two decades.

    With the latest national curriculum testing showing the lowest levels of civics on record, and a parliamentary inquiry finding that civics education is not working in Australia, it is timely to ask why, after so much attention over so many years, so little has changed.

    One of the potential explanations for this is the difficulties researchers face collecting evidence on what works in civics education and engagement programs long-term. The importance of the availability of this evidence for political and policy leaders has been reinforced by calls for a more robust understanding of democratic literacy and civics engagement across the lifecourse.

    Importantly, new UK-based research, currently being applied in Australia by UNSW, seeks to address this vital data and decision making gap.




    Read more:
    Australian students just recorded the lowest civics scores since testing began. But young people do care about politics


    Identifying the gaps in democratic evidence

    In Australia, there is a well-documented decline in civics education and public trust. However, a common theme in the research is that it is easier to measure decline and disaffection than to identify what works.

    While many inspirational initiatives have been publicly and privately funded in Australia, they tend to be siloed, small and difficult to assess.

    In the UK, research has revealed that, historically, there had been no clear coordination or alignment of civic learning, engagement, and participation initiatives across national and local government. Moreover, it found there was little long-term commitment to civic initiatives, with many not outliving the relevant government or minister who initiated them.

    Prominent recent reports in Australia suggest a similar situation.

    Meanwhile, research indicates that fostering democratic participation and resilience is an ongoing process across people’s lives. But how to best gather and use data on this life process remains a challenge.

    It is a response to such research and policy challenges that is at the core of the “civic journey” concept.

    Effective civics education should go beyond just the school years.
    Shutterstock

    What are ‘civic journeys’?

    The notion of journeys in human experience is not new. Often, education, health and social sectors seek to map client journeys as part of effectiveness and equity analyses. In the civic context, the notion of journey is applied to democratic literacy, civic momentum, transformative action and lifelong engagement. In other words, it’s not just about civics education at school.

    The civic journey concept originated in the UK. At its core is an intention to establish “an integrated and high-quality, seamless tapestry of opportunities” to learn about and engage in the democratic process and civic life.

    The UK civic journeys initiative has informed research into youth as a fundamental stage in citizens’ life-long journeys. It noted that the opportunity to experience democracy (be citizens) was as important as the education to understand democracy (become citizens) in shaping democratic literacy and participation. But crucially, both were forged during key transitions within childhood and adolescence.

    Further, the UK study identified the importance of entry, exit and re-entry into political and civic learning and activity at different points of youth transitions to adulthood and throughout adult life. Put another way, it found that “hot spots” of high engagement, “cold spots” of disengagement and “black spot” openings to extremism all coalesced around major transition points in the life course.

    The civic journey approach also highlighted the importance of connecting volunteering and other forms of civic activism with formal approaches to civics education and youth democratic participation. This highlights the importance of linking youth civic socialisation programmes in schools, local communities, and online.

    When understood and mapped, these points can be prioritised for attention.

    A uniquely Australian approach to civic journeys

    The adaptation of civic journeys for research and policy provides an important opportunity. With its focus around collecting data on outcomes, it helps identify what works in the democratic experiences of citizens at different stages of their lives. When applied to the full life course, it supports the most effective allocation of public resources to interventions.

    The civic journey metaphor also helps guide future work in this space. Such an approach could support governments with their interest in better coordination, design and funding of long-term data to identify the best initiatives.

    There is also the potential to apply the civic journey concept in a multicultural context. Civic journeys can be used as a lens to examine the diverse journeys in and between different cultural groups to help preempt and mitigate disruption. This in turn helps build a collective democratic journey. Further, it could be used to identify the “black spots” and reduce exposure to alienation or extremism.

    In summary, the civic journeys approach has significant potential to better understand and shape the individual and collective experiences of Australians across the life course. It can also help build a national narrative underpinning ongoing work to further strengthen Australia’s civics education and democracy.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Civics education is at an all-time low in Australia. Mapping our ‘civic journeys’ may help – https://theconversation.com/civics-education-is-at-an-all-time-low-in-australia-mapping-our-civic-journeys-may-help-250138

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: Trump wants to do a deal for Ukraine’s critical minerals. Will Zelensky give him what he wants – or will Putin?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Korolev, Senior Lecturer in Politics and International Relations, UNSW Sydney

    The United States and Russia agreed to work on a plan to end the war in Ukraine at high-level talks in Saudi Arabia this week. Ukrainian and European representatives were pointedly not invited to take part.

    US President Donald Trump seemingly entered into these negotiations prepared to capitulate on two main points that Russian President Vladimir Putin has been seeking. Russia is opposed to Ukraine joining NATO and wants to retain Ukrainian territory captured since its invasion of Crimea in 2014.

    Such a dramatic shift in Washington’s approach to Ukraine’s sovereignty and security has undermined Western-Ukrainian unity on the acceptable parameters around ending the war.

    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Ukraine won’t accept a deal negotiated without them. Former US National Security Adviser John Bolton said Trump “effectively surrendered” to Putin.

    European leaders, too, are concerned after they were excluded from the Saudi talks. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said:

    This does not mean that peace can be dictated and that Ukraine must accept what is presented to it.

    Many believe Trump’s moves to splinter this trans-Atlantic front against Russia send a signal that Washington is
    abandoning its commitment to European security.

    However, there’s another important factor at play in Trump’s actions: the intensifying global competition over critical minerals. Trump wants to secure access to Ukraine’s vast reserves of these minerals, even if it means breaking with the US’ traditional allies in the European Union.

    Why are Ukraine’s minerals so valuable

    According to some reports, Ukraine has deposits of 22 of the 34 minerals identified as critical by the EU. These include:

    • lithium and cobalt, used in rechargeable battery production
    • scandium, used for aerospace industry components
    • tantalum, used for electronic equipment
    • titanium, used in the aerospace, medical, automotive and marine industries
    • nickel ore, manganese, beryllium, hafnium, magnesium, zirconium and others, used in the aerospace, defence and nuclear industries.

    China currently dominates the world’s supply chains of these minerals – it is the largest source of US imports of 26 of the 50 minerals classified as critical by the United States Geological Survey.

    This is the reason behind Trump’s suggestion last week that the US be granted 50% of Ukraine’s rare earth minerals as reimbursement for the billions of dollars in weapons and support it has provided to Kyiv since the war began.

    The problem, however, is that at least 40% of Ukraine’s minerals are currently under Russian occupation in the eastern Donetsk and Luhansk regions of the country. (Other sources put this figure as high as 70%.)

    Concerned about Ukraine’s territorial integrity, Zelensky has publicly rejected the US demand for half of Ukraine’s mineral resources, because the proposal does not include security guarantees. It only vaguely referred to payment for future aid, according to reports.

    In response, the White House National Security Council spokesperson Brian Hughes said:

    President Zelensky is being short-sighted about the excellent opportunity the Trump administration has presented the Ukraine.

    What kind of deal could be made?

    A big question ahead of any peace negotiations over Ukraine is whether commercially-minded Trump would be willing to accept a counter-proposal from Putin.

    Since Russia currently controls large swathes of mineral-rich eastern Ukraine, Putin may be willing to offer Trump an exclusive critical minerals deal in exchange for the US formally committing to not restoring Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders and not letting the country into NATO.

    Ukraine, meanwhile, may be angling for its own minerals deal with European countries in exchange for their continued support. Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal expressed his country’s willingness to set up joint ventures with the EU in this area:

    We could replace Russian titanium on the European market, contributing to the development of both the EU’s civilian industry and advanced military technologies.

    He also said the project of rebuilding Ukraine could be a boon for the entire bloc.

    The European Commission has recommended a policy of encouraging Ukraine to export these materials to the EU. In response, authorities in Kyiv started working out the necessary regulatory and legal measures to integrate Ukraine into the EU’s resource strategy.

    With so many powers keen to access its minerals, Ukraine is in an extremely complex and hard-to-navigate geopolitical situation.

    Zelensky’s bet on the EU, instead of the US, might be right, given the growing rift between Brussels and Washington over Ukraine’s future. But as Thucydides, the ancient Greek historian, once said, the odds may be stacked against it:

    Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

    Alexander Korolev does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Trump wants to do a deal for Ukraine’s critical minerals. Will Zelensky give him what he wants – or will Putin? – https://theconversation.com/trump-wants-to-do-a-deal-for-ukraines-critical-minerals-will-zelensky-give-him-what-he-wants-or-will-putin-250064

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI USA: Rosen, Cortez Masto Join Nevada Colleagues’ Effort to Preserve National Monuments

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Jacky Rosen (D-NV)
    WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senators Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) joined Nevada’s Congressional Democratic Delegation in urging the Secretary of the Interior, Doug Burgum, to not roll back designations of national monuments in Nevada. The Nevada lawmakers raised concerns about a recent order by Secretary Burgum initiating a 15-day review of possible impediments, including national monuments, to accessing natural resources, including oil and gas. 
    “We urge the administration to refrain from attempts to unilaterally alter lands with existing national monument designations, as we’ve seen previously at Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante,” the Delegation said in the letter.
    “Decisions to protect these treasured lands were not made on a whim,” they continued. “They were the result of intense engagements with tribes, community leaders, and local businesses. While Congress reserves the authority to revoke or adjust national monuments, any future action by your department should be a result of the same level of outreach and public engagement.”
    The letter is supported by the following organizations: Conservation Lands Foundation; Friends of Avi Kwa Ame; Friends of Basin and Range National Monument; Friends of Gold Butte; Friends of Nevada Wilderness; Friends of Sloan Canyon; Native Voters Alliance Nevada; Nevada Conservation League; Nevada Outdoor Business Coalition; and Save Red Rock.
    In recent years, Basin & Range, Gold Butte, and Avi Kwa Ame have been designated as national monuments in Nevada and have been a boom to the state’s $8 billion outdoor recreation economy. The letter came in response to Secretarial Order 3418, specifically Section 4c which initiated a 15-day review of national monuments and mineral withdrawals.
    Senators Rosen and Cortez Masto are champions for Nevada’s great outdoor spaces and public lands. They passed critical legislation to permanently fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which protects public lands in Nevada and across the U.S. They passed bipartisan, bicameral legislation to reauthorize the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act, and they delivered critical funding to protect Lake Tahoe in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Last year, the Senators announced over $375 million for recreation and conservation projects across Nevada.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA News: Interview of President Trump and Elon Musk by Sean Hannity, “The Sean Hannity Show”

    Source: The White House

    class=”has-text-align-center”>Roosevelt Room

    11:48 A.M. EST

         Q    Mr. President, great to see you again.

         THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much.  Thank you.

         Q    How are you?

         THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you. 

         Q    Elon Musk.

         MR. MUSK:  Hi.

         Q    Great to see you. 

         MR. MUSK:  Thanks.  Thanks for having me.

         Q    I’ve been reading a lot about you.  I’ve got to start with this.  So, he’s working for free with DOGE.  He’s — he’s kind of put a lot of his life on hold, and you sued Twitter a number of years ago.  You just made him pay you $10 million?

         THE PRESIDENT:  That’s right.  That’s right.

         Q    That’s — that’s right.  (Laughs.)

         THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I sued — I sued from long before he had it. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.  Yeah.  (Inaudible.)

         THE PRESIDENT:  And, I mean, they really did a number on me, you know.  And I sued, and they had to pay.  You know, they paid $10 million settlement.

         Q    You’re okay with that?
        
         MR. MUSK:  I mean, I left it up to the lawyers and, you know, the team running Twitter.  So, I said, “You guys do what you think is the right — makes sense.”

         Q    I think it’s funny.

         THE PRESIDENT:  I think —

         Q    Because —

         THE PRESIDENT:  — it’s a very low — I was looking to get much more money than that.
        
         Q    So, you gave him a discount w- — in the lawsuit?

         THE PRESIDENT:  He got — oh, he got a big discount.  I don’t think he even knows about it.

         Q    He’s become one of your — if you read and believe the media — he’s become one of your best friends.  He’s working for free for you.  He’s —

         MR. MUSK:  Well, I love the president.  I just want to be clear about that.  

         Q    You don’t care about that? 

         MR. MUSK:  I — no, I love the pr- — I —

         Q    You love the president? 

         MR. MUSK:  I think — I think President Trump is a good man, and — and he’s, you know — I — I —

         THE PRESIDENT:  That’s the way he said that.  You know, there’s something nice about.  (Laughter.)

         MR. MUSK:  No, it is.  I, you know —

         THE PRESIDENT:  It is.

         MR. MUSK:  Because, I mean, the president has been so — so unfairly attacked in the media.  It’s truly outrageous.  And I’ve sp- — at this point, spent a lot of time with the president, and not once have I seen him do something that was mean or cruel or — or wrong.  Not once. 

         Q    You know, I’ve known him for 30 years.

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         Q    And I’ve never seen anybody take as much as he’s taken.

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         Q    And we’ve discussed this.  And I’m like, “How do you deal with it?”

         THE PRESIDENT:  Did have a choice?  (Laughs.)  I didn’t have a choice.

         Q    Well, you would say that to me.  I’m like, “What — what am I going to do?  Worry about it?”

         THE PRESIDENT:  That’s the only thing I can say.

         Q    And, you know — and then culminating in two assassination attempts, which resulted in your endorsement. 

         MR. MUSK:  Well, I was going to do it anyway, but that was —

         Q    That was it?

         MR. MUSK:  — a precipitating event, yeah.

         THE PRESIDENT:  That speeded it up a little bit?

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.  Yeah.

         Q    The day of the assassination? 

         THE PRESIDENT:  Nice.  I didn’t know that. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah, it just — it sped it up, but I was going to do it anyway.

         Q    Mr. President, with your indulgence, I’m convinced that people only know a little bit about Elon.  I don’t think they know everything about Elon, because as I studied for and prepared for this interview, I learned a lot about you that I didn’t know.  I think people will think about Tesla.  Democrats are demonizing you and — and trying to make the country hate you. 

         I just want people to understand you a little bit better, and the person that you’ve gotten to know and have now put a lot of trust in. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  Sure.

         Q    And, you know, just — let’s go over a little bit of your bio, starting —

         MR. MUSK:  Ah, okay.

         Q    — with PayPal and how you became involved in Tesla and SpaceX and Neuralink —

         MR. MUSK:  This — this could take a while.

         Q    — and all these —

         MR. MUSK:  I mean, you know, I — I think the way you think of me is, like, I’m a technologist and I try to make technologies that improve the world and make life better.

         Q    You can show them your shirt.

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah, and that’s why, like, my t-shirt says “tech support” — (laughter) — because I’m here to provide the president with — with technology support. 

         And now, that — that may seem, like, well, is that a silly thing?  But actually, it’s a very important thing, because the president will make these executive orders, which are very sensible and good for the country, but then they don’t get implemented, you know?

         So, if you take the — for example, all the funding for the migrant hotels, the president issued an executive order: Hey, we need to stop taking taxpayer money and — and paying for luxury hotels for illegal immigrants —

         Q    It’s crazy.

         MR. MUSK:  — which makes no sense.  Like, obviously, people do not want their tax dollars going to — to fund high-end hotels for — for illegals.  And yet, they were still doing that, even as late as last week. 

         And so, you know, we went in there, and we were like, “This is in violation of the presidential executive order.  It needs to stop.” 

         So — so, what we’re — what we’re doing here is — is — one of the biggest functions of the DOGE team is just making sure that the presidential executive orders are actually carried out.  And this is — I just want to point out, this is a very important thing, because the president is the elected representative of the people, so he’s representing the will of the people.  And if the bureaucracy is fighting the will of the people and preventing the pres- — the president from implementing what the people want, then what we live in is a bureaucracy and not a democracy.

         Q    Yeah.  You — you’re both aware — you have to be keenly aware that the media and — and the punditry class — not that — you know, I think you’ve proven they have no power anymore, because they threw everything they had at you, and they didn’t win.  And that was, you know, the New York Times, Washington Post, three networks, every late-night comedy show, two cable channels — they — they just threw — they threw everything — lawfare, weaponization. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  It’s true.

         Q    And now I see they want you two to start — they want a divorce.  They want you two to start hating each other.  And they try — “Oh, President Elon Musk,” for example.  You do know that they’re doing that to you?

         THE PRESIDENT:  Oh, I see it all the time.  They tried it, then they stopped.  That wasn’t — they have many different things of hatred. 

         Actually, Elon called me.  He said, “You know they’re trying to drive us apart.”  I said, “Absolutely.” 

         You know, they said, “We have breaking news: Donald Trump has ceded control of the presidency to Elon Musk.  President Musk will be attending a Cabinet meeting tonight at 8 o’clock.”  (Laughter.)  And I say — it’s just so obvious.  They’re so bad at it. 

         I used to think they were good at it.  They’re actually bad at it, because if they were good at it, I’d never be president because I — I think nobody in history has ever gotten more bad publicity than me. 

         I could do the greatest things; I get 98 percent bad publicity.  I could do — outside of you and a few of your very good friends.  It’s, like, the craziest thing. 

         But you know what I have learned, Elon?  The people are smart.  They get it. 

         MR. MUSK.  Yeah.  They do, actually.  Yeah.

         THE PRESIDENT:  They get it.  They really see what’s happening. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

         Q    And at the end of this interview, I — what I would like is, I — I want people to know the relationship and know more about you. 

         What is the relationship, Mr. President?

         THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I respect him.  I’ve always respected him.  I never knew that he was right on certain things, and I’m usually pretty good at this stuff.  He did Starlink.  He did things that were so advanced and nobody knew what the hell they were. 

         I can tell you, in North Carolina, they had no communication.  They were wiped out.  Those people were — you know, they had rivers in between — land that never saw water, all of a sudden, there was a river and a vicious — like, rapids.  People were dying all over.  They had no communication. 

         They said, “Do you know Elon Musk?”   And they didn’t really know I knew him.  I said, “Yeah.”  They said, “Could you get Starlink?”  It’s, like, the first time I ever heard of it.  I said, “What’s Starlink?”  “A communication system that’s unbelievable.” 

         Q    I have it.

         THE PRESIDENT:  And he — yeah.  And he said — I called him, and I said, “Listen, they really need it.”  And he got, like, thousands of units of this communication, and it saved a lot of lives.  He got it immediately.  And you can’t get it.  I mean, you have to wait a long time to get it.  But he got it to him immediately. 

         And I said, “That’s pretty amazing.”  And I didn’t even know he had it. 

         We watch the rocket ships, and we watch Tesla.

         I think, you know, something that had an effect on me was when I saw the rocket ship come back and get grabbed like you grab a beautiful little baby.  You grab your baby.  It just —

         MR. MUSK:  Just hug the rocket. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  I’d never seen —

         MR. MUSK:  Everyone — right.  Everyone needs (inaudible) —

         Q    You hug the rocket.  You hug the rocket.

         MR. MUSK:  — (inaudible) rockets. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.  No, but — and he said, “You know, you can’t really have a rocket program if you’re going to dump a billion dollars into the ocean every time you fly.  You have to save it.”  And he saved it.  First time —

         Q    That’s ever been done.
        
         THE PRESIDENT:  — I’ve ever seen that done.  Now nobody else can do it. 

         If you look at the U.S., Russia, or China, they can’t do it, and they won’t be able to do it for a long time.  He has the technology.  So, you learn — I wanted somebody really smart to work with me, in terms of the country — a very important aspect.  Because, I mean, he doesn’t talk about it.  He’s actually a very good businessman.  And when he talks about the executive orders — and this is probably true for all presidents: You write an executive order and you think it’s done, you send it out; it doesn’t get done.  It doesn’t get implemented.  They don’t implement it. 

         They — maybe they’re from the last administration — and they are, in some cases.  You try and get them out as fast as you can.  But I could — as soon as he said that, I said, “You know, that’s interesting.”  You write a beautiful executive — and you sign it and you assume it’s going to be done, but it’s not.  What he does is he takes it, and with his hundred geniuses — he’s got some very brilliant young people working for him that dress much worse than him, actually —

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah, the do.

         THE PRESIDENT:  — they dress in just t-shirts.  (Laughter.)  You wouldn’t know they have 180 IQ.

         Q    Wait.  Wait.  So, what — he’s — he’s your tech support?

         MR. MUSK:  I —

         THE PRESIDENT:  No, no.  He is —

         MR. MUSK:  I actually virtually am tech support.

         THE PRESIDENT:  He’s much more than that.

         MR. MUSK:  I actually am tech support, though.  But that’s —

         THE PRESIDENT:  But he gets it done.  He’s a leader.  He really is a — he gets it done.  You get a lot of tech people, and you have people, they’re good with tech, but they — he gets it done. 

         You know, I said, in real estate, you had guys that would draw beautiful renderings of a building, and they’d draw the rendering, it would be great, and you’d say, “Great.  When are you starting?”  But they were never able to get it built.  They couldn’t get the finances.  They couldn’t get the approvals.  It would never get done.  And then you have other guys that are able to get it done.  You know, they could just get it done. 

         I was in real estate.  Same thing in this.  He gets it done. 

         So, when he said that — he said, “You know, when you sign these executive orders, a lot of them don’t get done, and maybe the most important ones,” and he would take that executive order that I’d signed, and he would have those people go to whatever agency it was — “When are you doing it?  Get it done.  Get it done.”  And some guy that maybe didn’t want to do it, all of a sudden, he’s signing — he just doesn’t want to bothered.

         Q    Does — do a lot of those executive orders have to be codified into law to — do you need the Republican Congress to follow up?

         THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, and they will.  A lot of them will be.  Yeah.

         Q    They will?

         THE PRESIDENT:  Look, in the meantime, we have four years.  The beauty is, we have four years.  That’s why I like doing it right at the beginning.  Because an executive order is great.  I mean, the one problem — it’s both good and bad, because when they did all these executive orders, I’ve canceled most of them.  They were terrible.  I mean, we were going to go radical left, communist, okay?  It was crazy.  Their —

         MR. MUSK:  Really crazy.

         THE PRESIDENT:  — executive orders were so bad, if they ever got them codified, you’d never be able to break them.  So, the damage that Biden has done to this country — and it’s not even Biden; it’s the people that circled him in the Oval Office, okay? — but the damage they did to this country, in terms of, let’s say, open borders — you know, there’s so many things, but open borders, where millions of people poured into our country, and hundreds of thousands of those people are criminals.  They’re murderers.  They’re drug dealers.  They’re gang members.  They’re people from prisons from all over the world. 

         And we have a great guy, Tom Homan, and he is doing so incredibly.  You saw the numbers.  They’re down like 96 percent.

         Q    Ninety-five percent.

         THE PRESIDENT:  He is a phenomenal guy.  And Kristi Noem is doing an unbelievable job.  And he wanted her.  He said, “She’s so tough.”  And I said, “I don’t think of her as that way.  You know, she’s very nice.”  He said, “No, she’s so tough.”  And she is.  I see her with the horses.  She’s riding the horse.  Let’s — (laughter) — she’s great. 

         But the team we have is — is really unbelievable. 

         But those executive orders, I sign them, and now they get passed on to him and his group and other people, and they’re all getting done.  We’re getting them done.

         Q    Let me go back a little bit to your background, because —

         MR. MUSK:  Sure.

         Q    — it’s beyond impressive.  You were the chief engineer, for example — you were an early believer in Tesla.  You became the CEO and — and then the chief engineer, which was phenomenal.  SpaceX, same thing, which is unbelievable. 

         I mean, you were the first company — private company to send astronauts successfully into — into space, first private company to send astronauts into orbit. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         Q    That’s — that’s pretty deep. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  He’s going to go into orbit soon.

         Q    Okay.

         MR. MUSK:  (Laughs.)  Yeah.

         THE PRESIDENT:  No, he’s going to go to Mars.  He’s going to fly on his —

         Q    Starlink.

         MR. MUSK:  At some point, yeah.

         Q    As in (inaudible) —

         MR. MUSK:  But they say — they always ask me, like, “Do you want to die on Mars?”  And I say, “Well, yes, but not on impact.”  (Laughter.)

         Q    Star- — Starlink is in 100 countries. 

         This is going to be hard.  I feel like I’m interviewing two brothers here.

         MR. MUSK:  You go ahead. 

         Q    Starshield, which could be used for national defense. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah, it is already being used for national defense. 

         Q    Then you have a — what is it called?  Optimus, a part of Tesla.

         MR. MUSK:  They’re a robot, yeah.

         Q    A robotic arm.  Then you have an AI arm.  And then you have something that really fascinated me, and it’s called Neuralink. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

         Q    You might help the blind to see and people with spinal cord injuries that they — that they can recover, where in the past — how close is that to becoming a success?

         MR. MUSK:  At Neuralink we’re — we’ve ha- — we’ve implanted Neuralink in three patients so far, who are quadriplegics, and it allows them to directly control their phone and computer just using their mind, just by thinking.  It’s like — so, we call this product Telepathy, so you control your computer and phone just by thinking, and it’s possible to actually control the computer and phone faster than someone who has working hands.

         Then the next step would be to add a second Neuralink implant past the point where these — the neurons are damaged, so that somebody can walk again and so the pe- — they can have full-body functionality restored.  And —

         THE PRESIDENT:  And you like Bobby, right?

         MR. MUSK:  I like Bobby, actually.  Yeah.  I — I supported Bobby Kennedy.  I think he — you know, he’s unfairly maligned as someone who is anti-science.  But I think he — he isn’t.  He just wants to question the science, which is the essence of the science — the scientific method, fundamentally, is about always questioning the science. 

         Q    Well, they didn’t tell us the truth about COVID.

         MR. MUSK:  Correct.

         Q    That’s for sure. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yes. 

         Q    And we learned a lot with the Twitter files.  And that just, then, raises a question.  You’re the richest man in the world.  You may not like that part. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

         Q    You’re pretty competitive.

         MR. MUSK:  I mean, it’s neither here nor there.

         Q    I’ve known you a long time.

         MR. MUSK:  I don’t think it matters.

         Q    But —

         THE PRESIDENT:  That’s why I became president.

         Q    — he’s on your team.

         THE PRESIDENT:  (Inaudible) —

         Q    Well, that’s true.  He can’t top that.

         THE PRESIDENT:  He’s good.  You know, I wanted to find somebody smarter than him.  I searched all over.  I just couldn’t do it.  I couldn’t.  I couldn’t.
        
         Q    You really tried hard.

         THE PRESIDENT:  I couldn’t find anyone smarter, right?  So, we had to — we had to, for the country.

         Q    But this is the thing —

         THE PRESIDENT:  So, we settled on — we settled on this guy.

         MR. MUSK:  Well, thanks for having me.

         THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)  Yeah.

         Q    So —

         MR. MUSK:  I’m just trying to be useful here.

         Q    But this is the interesting — but this is where we are as a so- — a society.  And I — I hate to do this to you, but I’m going to do it anyway.  You’re doing all of these things.  At DOGE, nobody at DOGE gets paid a penny, correct?

         MR. MUSK:  Well, actually, some people are federal employees, so they do. 

         Q    Oh, okay.

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.  They’re (inaudible).  But it’s fair to say that the software engineers at DOGE could be earning millions of dollars a year and instead of earning a small fraction of that as federal employees.

         Q    Okay.  So, just —

         THE PRESIDENT:  And they’re very committed people. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

         Q    So — you’re — you’re committed to helping the blind see, people with spinal cord injuries recover. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

         Q    You’re committed to getting to Mars.  You’re committed to rescue — you’re going to help rescue, next month, two astronauts that I think were abandoned.  They — they dispute that in an interview.

         THE PRESIDENT:  When are you — when are you getting them?

         MR. MUSK:  At the — at the president’s request, we — or instruction, we are accelerating the return of the astronauts, which was postponed, kind of, to a ridiculous degree.

         THE PRESIDENT:  They got left in space. 

         Q    They’ve been there.  They were supposed to be there eight days.  They’re there almost 300.

         THE PRESIDENT:  Biden. 

         MR. MUSK:  They were put —

         Q    Yeah.

         MR. MUSK:  Yes, they were left up there for political reasons, which is not good. 

         Q    Okay, it’s not good.  Now, if I had the weight and pressure of doing that successfully on my shoulders, I think I’d be, you know — but you — when we spoke before we did this interview, you were very confident.  You think this will be a successful mission. 

         MR. MUSK:  Well, we don’t want to be complacent, but we have brought astronauts back from the space station many times before, and always with success.  So, as long as we’re not complacent —

         THE PRESIDENT:  When are they — when are you going to launch?

         MR. MUSK:  I think it’s about — about four weeks to

    bring them back. 

         Q    About four weeks? 

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  And you have the go-ahead.

         MR. MUSK:  We’re being extremely cautious.

         Q    Yeah.

         THE PRESIDENT:  You now have the go-ahead.

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.  Well, thanks to you —

         THE PRESIDENT:  They didn’t have the go-ahead with Biden. 

         Q    What’s that?

         THE PRESIDENT:  He was going to leave him in space.  I think he was going to leave them in space.

         Q    Well, it’s like the (inaudible) —

         THE PRESIDENT:  He considered it a —

         Q    — growing up, lost in space. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, he didn’t want the publicity.  Can you believe it?

         Q    Unbelievable.  And so —

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         Q    — I want to echo something that the president said and then ask an overarching question.  So, people in — get hit with Hurricane Helene, they have no communication with the outside world.  You come to the rescue.  You donated that, I believe?

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.  Yes.

         Q    You donated to the people of —

         THE PRESIDENT:  He saved a lot of lives.  In North Carolina, he saved a lot of lives. 

         Q    And California, after the wildfires?

         THE PRESIDENT:  California.  But, I mean, in North Carolina, where they were really in trouble, they had no communication, people were dying.

         Q    Nothing.

         THE PRESIDENT:  They were dying of starvation.  He saved a lot of lives in North Carolina.

         Q    Okay.  Now you’re going to rescue astronauts.  And now — again, you do — you do all of this — I would think liberals would love the fact that you have the biggest electric vehicle company in the world. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.  I mean, I used to be adored by the left, you know.

         Q    Not anymore.

         MR. MUSK:  Le- — less so these days.

         Q    He killed that, huh?

         MR. MUSK:  I mean, less —

         THE PRESIDENT:  I really (inaudible) —

         MR. MUSK:  Well, I mean, this — this whole sort of, like, you know — it was — they call it, like, “Trump derangement syndrome.”  And I didn’t — you know, you don’t realize how real this is until, like, it’s — you can’t reason with people. 

         So, like, I was at a friend’s birthday party in L.A., just a birthday dinner, and it was, like, a nice, quiet dinner, and everything was — everyone was behaving normally.  And then I happened to mention — this was before the election, like a month or two before — I happened to mention the president’s name, and it was like they got shot with a dart in the jugular that contained, like, the methamphetamine and rabies.  Okay?  (Laughter.)

         And they’re like, “Whyy?”  And I’m, like, “What is wrong — like, guys, like” — you just can’t have, like, a normal conversation.  And it’s like — it’s like they become completely irrational. 

         Q    He — he has no idea, if you’re friends with him —

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         Q    — you pay a price.  You know, it’s like, I walk into a restaurant in New York, and it’s like half the room gets daggers and they want to —

         MR. MUSK:  The eye-daggers — eye-daggers level is insane.  (Laughter.)

         I mean, there was, like — I had, like, some — some invitation because — so, I got invited to, like, so- — basically, a big, sort of, damn — damn event like that was — but I’d received the invitation, like, the beginning of last year and then — and I still attended, even after I’d endorsed President Trump, and I didn’t realize how profoundly that would affect, you know, how I was received.  (Laughter.)

         I mean, I walk into the room and I’m getting just the dirty looks from — from everyone.  Like, if looks could kill, I would have been dead several times over.

         Q    But that was not — (laughter) — before Trump

         MR. MUSK:  (Inaudible) —

         Q    Before Trump: “BC” —

         MR. MUSK:  — ashes on the floor.  (Laughs.)

         Q    — or “BT.”  Before Trump, that never happened.  Right?

         MR. MUSK:  No.

         Q    No.  So —

         MR. MUSK:  I — I just — doesn’t seem strange?  Like, what — what is up with this total, like, madness?

         Q    You’re smarter than me.  Can you — I actually think that there’s a level of irrationality.  It’s almost like a trigger and —

         MR. MUSK:  It totally triggers. 

         Q    And it’s like — look, I — I’ve been on TV — this is my 29th year.  I’ve been on radio 35 years.  I will — I’ve gone hard in the paint to — for candidates that lost.

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         Q    And guess what?  I get over it.

         MR. MUSK.  Sure.  Yeah, yeah.

         Q    And I just keep doing my show, and I just — you know, I come back to fight another day.

         So, here’s the big — then this is the million dollar or billion dollar — I’m among billionaires — question.  So, you have all this going on and you stop, in a way — you’re still doing it — and you partner with him.  And this is what you get for it from the Democrats.  You get “nobody voted for Elon.”  Well, nobody voted for any of your Cabinet nominees.  Okay?  “People are dying because of DOGE cuts.”  I’ll give you a chance to respond to all that.  “What DOGE is doing is illegal.”  “Elon Musk is” — more street vernacular for a male body part.  “It’s a constitutional crisis.”

         MR. MUSK:  How c- — why — why are they reacting like this?

         Q    Well, first of all, do you give a flying rip?  Number one.  And —

         MR. MUSK:  Well, I guess we must be — if we’re the target, we’re doing something right.  You know, if — like, they wouldn’t be complaining so much if they — we weren’t doing something useful, I think. 

         What — all we’re really trying to do here is restore the will of the people through the president.  And — and what we’re finding is there’s an unelected bureaucracy.  Speaking of unelected, there’s a — there’s a vast federal bureaucracy that is implacably opposed to the — the president and the Cabinet. 

         And you look at, say, D.C. voting.  It’s 92 percent Kamala.  Okay, so we’re in 92 percent Kamala.  That’s a lot. 

         Q    Yeah.  They don’t like me here either. 

         MR. MUSK:  I think about that number a lot.  I’m like, 92 percent.  That’s, basically, almost everyone.  And so — but if — but how can you — if — if the will of the president is not implemented, and the president is representative of the people, that means the will of the people is not being implemented, and that means we don’t live in a democracy, we live in a bureaucracy. 

         And so, I think what we’re seeing here is the — sort of, the thrashing of the bureaucracy as we try to restore democracy and the will of the people.

         Q    You —

         MR. MUSK:  Is this making sense?  I mean — sorry.

         Q    Y- — no, of course it does.  I mean, to me, if you look at our framers and our founders — and you’ve really become a student of history, Mr. President, and we’ve ta- — we’ve had conversations both on air and off air — and if we talk about constitutional order or transformational change, nobody can argue that what’s happening here is going at the speed of light. 

         But however, what were the principles of our framers and our founders?  They wanted limited government, greater freedom for the people — and we’ll get to the specific cutting of waste, fraud, and abuse.  That — that is your goal, is it not?

         THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.  And my goal was to get great people.  And when you look at what this man has done, I mean, it was something — I knew him a little bit through the White House. Originally, I’d see him around a little bit.  I didn’t know him before that, and I respected what he did.  And he fought hard.  You know, he was a — he was maybe questioned for a while.  He was having some difficulties.  It was not easy doing what he did. 

         I mean, how many people have started a car company and made it really successful and made a better car where it’s, you know, beating these big companies that that’s all they do is cars?  I mean, it’s really amazing the things that he’s done.

         But I didn’t know it as much then as now.  I mean, the fruits have sort of taken hold.

         But I wanted great people, and he’s a great person.  He’s an amazing person.  He’s also a caring person.  You know, he uses the word “care.” 

         So, they sign a contract in a government agency, and it has three months.  And the guy leaves that signed the contract, and nobody else is there, and they pay the contract for 10 years.

         So, the guy is getting checks for years and years and years, and he’s telling his family, obviously — maybe it was crooked, maybe he paid to get the contract, or maybe he paid that they didn’t terminate him.  But, you know, we have contracts that go forever, and they’ve been going for years, and they’re supposed to end in three months or five months or two years or something, and they go forever.  So, the guy is either crooked — you know, where he knew this was going to happen — or he’s crooked because he’s getting payments that he knows he shouldn’t be getting.

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         THE PRESIDENT:  But they’re finding things like that.  They’re finding things far worse than that.  And they’re finding billions — and it will be hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of fraud.  I say waste and abuse, but fraud, waste, and abuse.  And he’s doing an amazing job.

         And he attracts a young, very smart type of person.  I call them high-IQ individuals, and they are.  They’re very high Q and — high IQ.  And when they go in to see the people and talk to these people — you know, the people think they’re going to pull it over.  They don’t.  These guys are smart, and they love the country.  You know, there’s a certain something. 

         But he uses the word “care.”  So, people have to care.  Like, when I bought Air Force One —

         MR. MUSK:  Exactly.

         THE PRESIDENT:  — I negotiated the price.  It was $5.7 billion, and I got it — I got them down $1.7 billion.  Now they’re not building the plane fast enough.  I mean, they’re actually in default — Boeing.  They’re supposed to —

         Q    When is it —

         THE PRESIDENT:  They’ve been building this thing forever.  I don’t know —

         Q    This is the new Air Force One?

         THE PRESIDENT:  — what’s going on.

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         THE PRESIDENT:  We don’t build the way we used to build.  You know, we used to build like a ship a day, and now to build a ship is, like, a big deal, and we’re going to get this country back on track.  We could do it, but so many things — it takes so long to get things built and get things done. 

         And a lot of it could be something we’ve been discussing.  The regulators go in and they make it impossible to build.  They make it very difficult to build anything, whether it’s a ship, a plane, or a building or anything.  And some of them do it because they want to show how important they are.  Some of them do it maybe because they think they’re right.  They use the environment to stop progress and to stop things.  It’s always the environment.  “It’s an environmental problem.”  It’s not an environmental problem at all.  But they do a lot of things. 

         And, by the way, speaking of that, Lee Zeldin is going to be fantastic in the position.  So important.  He could take 10 years to approve or disapprove something, or he could do it in a month.  You know, just as good.

         Q    Sure. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  And I think you’re going to see some fantastic — a fantastic job done by him.  He’s a tremendous guy. 

         Q    Newt — you echoed something when I had just met you, and it was very similar to what Newt has been saying, that we’re — he brought this country to the dance.  This is the opportunity to be transformational, and to have, I would argue, a — the most consequential presidency if we — if we’d really dig down and do something that had never been done before, and that is get rid of this bureaucracy.  And I’m going —

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

         Q    — to get to specifics.  You say the same thing.  It’s not done yet. 

         MR. MUSK:  Absolutely.

         Q    And what did you mean by that?

         MR. MUSK:  Well, I mean the — w- — winning the election is really the opportunity to fix the system.  It is not fixing the system itself.  So, it’s an opportunity to fix the system and to restore the power of democracy. 

         And, you know, people — like, it’s funny how — how often it — you — when these attacks occur, the thing that they’re accusing the administration of is what they are guilty of.  They’re saying that things are — are being done are unconstitutional, but what they are doing is unconstitutional.  They are guilty of the crime of which they accuse us.

         THE PRESIDENT:  That’s always the first thing they do.

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         THE PRESIDENT:  “He’s in violation of the Constitution.”  They don’t even know what they’re talking — well, they know.

         MR. MUSK:  It’s absurd. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  It’s just a con job.  It’s a big con job.  And they’re so bad for the country, so dangerous and so bad.

         And the media is so bad.  When I watch MSNBC, which I don’t watch much, but you have to watch the enemy on occasion, the level of arrogance and — and cheating and — they’re just horrible people.  These are horrible people.

         Q    They lie. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  These are horrible people. 

         Q    They tell conspiracy theories.

         THE PRESIDENT:  They lie, and they start up with the Constitution.  They couldn’t care less about the Constitution.

         CNN, likewise.  I mean, I watched them asking questions with, you know, the hatred with the — why — I said, “What are you asking the question with such anger?  You’re asking me a normal question.”  But you see the bias.  The bias is so incredible.  Those two are bad.

         PBS is bad.  AP is bad.  CBS is terrible. 

         I mean, CBS now — they changed an answer in Kamala.  They asked her some questions.  She answered them like, you know, a low-IQ person.  The opposite of him — the absolute opposite.  But she gave a horrible answer.  They took the entire answer out, and they put another answer that she gave 20 minutes later into the — in- — as the answer.  

         Q    It was part of her word salad. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  I’ve never even heard of that be- — I thought I heard of it all.

         MR. MUSK:  Right. 

         Q    That wh- — “60 Minutes” once — one — wanted to do an interview with me, and I said, “Live to tape.” 

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah, exactly. 

         Q    They said, “No.”  And I said, “No” —

         MR. MUSK:  Right.

         Q    — “No deal.” 

         MR. MUSK:  Exactly.  They can- —

         Q    Like, this interview will —

         THE PRESIDENT:  I’ve never even heard — you know, I’ve seen where they take a sentence off or something and they’ll do — but they —

         Q    Sometimes you cut for time o- — 

         THE PRESIDENT:  No, no.  They took the entire — this long, terrible statement that she made and put another. 

         Nobody’s ever seen what’s happening.  And, you know, the people that do all this complaining, they’re very dishonest people. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah. 

         Q    Yeah.  I — I’m going to, just for the sake of saving time —

         THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

         Q    — because I could spend — and I’ve done this on radio and TV, I — I can spend an hour finding the outrageous amounts of money being spent abroad, like USAID.

         MR. MUSK:  Sure.

         Q    And I do want to mention a couple, but I’m going to —

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         Q    — scroll it and —

         MR. MUSK:  Well — well, I guess, at a high level, I think it’s what the president mentioned earlier, which is that in order to save taxpayer money, it comes down to two things: competence and caring.  And —

         THE PRESIDENT:  That’s right. 

         MR. MUSK:  — and when — when president was shown the outrageous bill for the new Air Force One and — and then negotiated it down, if he had — if the president had not applied competence and caring, the price would have been 50 percent higher — literally, 50 percent higher.  The president cared.  The president was competent.  The price was not 50 percent higher as the result. 

         And so, when you add more competence and caring, you get a better deal for the American people. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  But we could take — we were talking about this yesterday.  I could take — give me thousands of bills — any — I could pick any one of them, and I could —

         MR. MUSK:  Yes, exactly.

         THE PRESIDENT:  — take all thousand.  And let’s say it’s a bill for $5,000 — just $5,000, and it’s done by some bureaucrat.  And if he would say, “I’ll give you three.  I don’t want to pay you five.  It’s too high.  I’ll give you three.”  But they don’t do that.  If a guy sends in a bill for $5,000, they pay $5,000.  They expect to be cut.  Everybody expects to be cut.  When you send in a bill, you expect to be cut.  They send in the bill higher, for the most part.  This is true with lawyers, legal fees.  When they send in legal fees, you — I can cut — I wish I had the time, I would save so — but I could cut these bills in half — much better than half. 

         But you offer people a much lower number because you know they — they actually put fat — I’m not even saying it’s — it’s like a way of business.  They put more on because they expect to be negotiated.  When you send in a bill to the government, there’s nobody to negotiate. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

         THE PRESIDENT:  You send it a bill for $10,000, and they send you a check back for $10,000.  If you would call them and said, “We’ll give you five.”  “No, no, no.  I need more than five.”  “We’ll give you a five.”  “I’m not going to pay any more than five.”  “Make it six.”  “No, I’m not going to make it six.”  And you’ll settle for $5,500.  You’ve just cut the bill almost in half, and it took, like, two minutes.  When did that stop?  But —

         Q    (Inaudible) the art of the deal?

         THE PRESIDENT:  — that’s caring.  No, it’s not even the art of the deal.  It’s caring.  He uses the word —

         MR. MUSK:  It’s — it’s competence and caring.

         THE PRESIDENT:  — it’s caring. 

         Q    Yeah.

         THE PRESIDENT:  It’s — it’s a certain competence, but I think it’s more caring. 

         MR. MUSK:  I — if you —

         THE PRESIDENT:  (Inaudible.)

         MR. MUSK:  Actually, if you add either ingredient — either competence or caring — you’ll — you’ll get a better outcome.  But it stands to reason —

         Q    Right.  People don’t want to do this (inaudible.)

         MR. MUSK: — that’s the reason that if you don’t have competency and you don’t have caring, you’re going to get a terrible deal.  And the problem is that the American taxpayer has been — been getting a terrible deal, because — look at the last administration.  Can you — can anyone — can any reasonable person say that last administration was either competent or caring?

         Q    But they lied to us and said that Joe didn’t have a cognitive decline.

         MR. MUSK:  They fully lied. 

         Q    They said the borders were closed.  They said that the borders were secure.  They said that —

         MR. MUSK:  Right.

         Q    You know, they said Obamacare would save —

         MR. MUSK:  They flat out lied. 

         Q    They flat out lied — 

         MR. MUSK:  It was insane.

         Q    — on many occasions. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

         Q    I tell my audience all the time: Don’t trust government. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

         Q    So, the — I want — as I scroll this information, and it’s — it’s — I’ll scroll a lot more than I’ll mention to both of you, and this is the cost savings.  I want you — I want people at home to understand this part: The average American makes $66,000 a year. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         Q    Okay?  We have $37 trillion in national debt. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yes. 

         Q    Now, all the money I’m about to mention and what we’re going to scroll on our screen — and all of this is going to foreign countries.  It is not being spent here in America —

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

         Q    — for better schools, law and order. 

         MR. MUSK:  I — I think the average taxpaying American should be mad as hell because their tax money is being poorly spent.

         Q    I’m mad.  It’s stealing from —

         MR. MUSK:  It’s a — it’s an outrage —

         Q    — our kids and grandkids.

         MR. MUSK:  Yes, and the — and people —

         THE PRESIDENT:  And a lot of fraud, Sean.  A lot of fraud.

         Q    Yes.

         THE PRESIDENT:  And a lot of kickbacks. 

         They’re sending money out.  They’re not that stupid.  These people aren’t that stupid.  They’re sending for transgender — something having to do with the opera, and they’re sending out $7 million —

         MR. MUSK:  (Laughs.)  Literally.

         THE PRESIDENT:  — $7 million.  (Inaudible) —

         Q    You just stole my next line.  I can’t believe that. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  No, it’s incredible. 

         Q    I was going to mention that.

         THE PRESIDENT:  No, but it’s incredible: $7 million.

         Now, you know they — they’re not so stupid.  They’re sending all this money.  They expect to get a lot of it back.  And that’s what happens.

         Q    Okay.  So, let’s go through it.

         MR. MUSK:  Yes, they’re — a bunch of —

         Q    So, for the average person at home —

         MR. MUSK:  — this stuff is round-tripping.  To the president’s point, they’ll — they’ll make it sound like it’s going to help some people in a foreign country, but then they — then they get kickbacks. 

         Q    All right.  Let me go to the ne- — to the fir- —

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         Q    — to the second question first.  I want to know, because people like Joni Ernst, and — and House —

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah, Joni — Joni Ernst has been —

         Q    They tried to get —

         MR. MUSK:  — has tried for a long time, and she’s actually got a lot of good data.  Senator Ernst has been really helpful, actually.

         Q    Okay, but they — they actually hide what the real purpose of the spending is. 

         MR. MUSK:  That’s true.

         Q    In other words, they — and — and h- — this is a question: How did you decipher?  It will say, “Humanitarian blah, blah, blah in Serbia or Afghanistan.”  We’ve been giving money to China for crying out loud, which I think is nuts.

         MR. MUSK:  Well, we’re giving money to the Taliban.

         Q    Money to the Taliban?

         MR. MUSK:  Like a lot.

         Q    All right.  So —

         MR. MUSK:  (Laughs.)  I’m like, for what?

         Q    But they —

         MR. MUSK:  I — I want to see pictures of what they did.

         Q    But they try to obscure it, and — and — but then you got to the bottom line, which is what I’m now scrolling on the screen —

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

         Q    — and that is: $20 million on a Sesame Street show in Iraq; $56 million to boost tourism in Tunisia and Egypt; $40 million to build schools in Jordan; $11 million to tell the Vietnamese to stop burning trash; $45 million for DEI scholarships in Burma; $520 million for consultant-driven ESG investments in Africa; DEI programs in Serbia; the president’s favorite — I’m sure you — you love that taxpayer money was spent on a DEI musical in Ireland or a chan- — transgender opera in Colombia or a —

         MR. MUSK:  If I could, like, it sounds like —

         Q    — transgender comic book in Peru. 

         MR. MUSK:  It sounds like — it sounds like how can these things be real?  But this is actually what was done. 

         Q    Okay.  The — I —

         MR. MUSK:  It — it sounds like a comedy sketch or something.  It’s like —

         Q    I have 20 pages of this.

         MR. MUSK:  Right.  It’s not — the list is a mile long.

         THE PRESIDENT:  The one thing you didn’t mention, the media.  The media is getting millions of dollars. 

        MR. MUSK:  Yes.

         THE PRESIDENT:  Now, they say Politico, which is a radical left —

         Q    Subscriptions. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  — you know, garbage magazine or — or program.  I guess they have magazine and they have some — some media of all types.  $8 million. 

         I hear the New York Times got a lot.  I hear they get subscriptions — where they have subscriptions but maybe the paper is not sent.  I have no idea if that’s true or not, but it’s — they call it subscriptions.  Lots of subscri- — to different media, not just the Times — maybe the Times, and maybe not the Times.

         Q    A million dollars in subscriptions is a lot.

         THE PRESIDENT:  Well — but — but millions of dollars going to media that’s radical-left, crooked, dishonest media.

         MR. MUSK:  Well — well, Reuters — this is actually really wild: Reuters got like — something like $10 million for something that was literally titled “mass disinformation campaign.” 

         Q    Well —

         MR. MUSK:  That was on the purchase order.  Well, I — I

    thought that was a little bold.  (Laughs.) 

         Q    I will tell you what was bold is when you released —

         MR. MUSK:  I’m like —

         Q    — the Twitter files.

         MR. MUSK:  — shouldn’t you at least try to call it something else?  (Laughs.)

         Q    The Twitter files — how they targeted him; how Twitter, at the time, worked closely with the FBI, the CIA; and, even before the release of Hunter’s very real laptop, they were feeding them disinformation.  That —

         MR. MUSK:  Absolutely.

         Q    — you found all that out. 

         MR. MUSK:  Well, I think —

         Q    That’s called transparency, right?

         THE PRESIDENT:  The FBI has to be rehabbed.  The FBI —

         MR. MUSK:   Yeah.

         THE PRESIDENT:  What’s happened with the FBI and the DOJ is just — their — their stock has gone way down.  I mean, their reputation is shot.

         Q    And intelligence.

         THE PRESIDENT:  And I think Pam is going to do great.  I think Kash is going to do great.  I think they have to do great or we have a problem. 

         But when you look at what they did, the raid of Mar-a-Lago — the raid of Mar-a-Lago — you look at what they did, their reputation is shot.

         Q    It is. 

         What — you were going to say, Elon?

         MR. MUSK:  Well, no, I was going to say that I think probably a — like, a lot of people still —

         Q    How — how did you find (inaudible)?

         MR. MUSK:  — still believe, like, the Russia hoax, even though you’ve done a lot to combat that.  The — you know, the — the Steele dossier was an incre- — a massive scam that was concocted by Hillary Clinton and her — her campaign.

         Q    She bought and paid it — for it —

         MR. MUSK:  Right.

         Q    — Russian disinformation. 

         MR. MUSK:  There was — it was — the — people still think the — the Russia hoax is real.  Like a lot of people s- — because they never — they never heard the counterpoint.  I mean — I mean, a bunch of people should be in prison for that.  That was a — that was outrageous election interference, creating a fake Russia hoax. 

         Q    How much — if you had to put a number on it, how much do you think you’ve identified waste, fraud, abuse, corruption at this point?  And again, we’ve been — we’re going to be scrolling this throughout the program. 

         MR. MUSK:  Well, the — the overall goal is to try to get a trillion dollars out of the deficit.  And if we — if we — if the deficit is not brought under control, America will go bankrupt.  This is a very important thing for people to understand.  A country is no different from an individual, in that if an individual overspends, an individual can go bankrupt, and so can a country. 

         And — and the out- — the massive waste, fraud, and abuse that has been going on, which is leading to a $2-trillion-a-year deficit, that — that’s what the president was handed on Jan. 20th, a $2 trillion deficit.  It’s insane. 

         Q    For this fiscal year?

         THE PRESIDENT:  Two trill- — yeah.  We inherited it.

         MR. MUSK:  Two —

         THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.  And inflation is back.  I’m only here for two and a half weeks. 

         Q    That was January —

         THE PRESIDENT:  Inflating is back —

         Q    — you were there for a week. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  No, think of it, inflation is back.  And they said, “Oh, Trump infla-” — I had nothing to do with it.  These people have — have run the country.  They spent money like nobody has ever spent.  They were — they were given $9 trillion to throw out the window — $9 trillion, and they spent it on the Green New Scam, I call it.  It’s the greatest scam in the history of the country.  One of them.  We have a lot of them, I guess.  But one of them.

         Q    Well —

         THE PRESIDENT:  Dollar-wise, probably —

         Q    — and DEI —

         THE PRESIDENT:  — it is.

         Q    — and wokeism —

         THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, yeah.

         Q    — and transgenderism —

         THE PRESIDENT:  Well, that’s all part of it.  Yeah.

         Q    — and LGBTQ+.

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

         Q    And, by the way, not in America — other countries, not here. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  You know, the amazing thing is when you see, like, the teaching of DEI: $9 million.  How do you spend $9 million to teach no matter what it is?

         MR. MUSK:  Right.

         THE PRESIDENT:  You could teach physics. 

         MR. MUSK:  Exactly.  Totally.

         THE PRESIDENT:  You could go to MIT for a lot less.

         MR. MUSK:  It’s (inaudible) expensive.  (Laughs.)  Expensive.

         THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, the teaching —

         MR. MUSK:  Expensive BS.

         THE PRESIDENT:  — of DEI.

         Q    Well, I think it would be better spent on —

         THE PRESIDENT:  No, it’s a kickback.  It’s got to be a kickback.  Nobody is that — nobody could do that.  Nobody is —

         Q    Well, it —

         THE PRESIDENT:  Nobody is giving — to assess the dialog of an audience coming out of a theater: $4 million.

         Q    How much do you believe, Elon, you’ve identified in — in waste, fraud, abuse, corruption now?  And how much —

         MR. MUSK:  Well —

         Q    — do you anticipate you will?

    MR. MUSK:  Sure.  Well, the — I — I think —

    THE PRESIDENT:  One percent.

    MR. MUSK:  (Laughs.)

    THE PRESIDENT:  No, because it’s so massive.  It’s — this is —

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah, exactly.

    THE PRESIDENT:  — huge money.  Huge money.  Look —

    Q    So, what we’ve found now is one percent?

    MR. MUSK:  Well, we’ve j- — we’ve just gotten started here.

    THE PRESIDENT:  As good as they are, they’re not going to find some contract that was crooked — you know, crooked as hell.  And, I mean, there’s going to be so much that isn’t found.  But what is found — I think he’s going to find a trillion dollars.

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah, I think so. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  But I think it’s a very small percentage compared to what it is.  I mean, he could tell you about treasuries; he could tell you about a woman that worked for Biden that became a very wealthy woman while she was working for him.  Right?

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    Q    Yeah, I know who you’re talking about.

    MR. MUSK:  I mean, there are some strange situations where people — where, you know, someone’s working for the government earning $200,000 a year, and then, suddenly, they’re worth tens of millions of dollars within a few years.  Where’d the money come?

    Q    How’d they earn it?

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    Q    They have a private company on the side? 

    MR. MUSK:  We’re just curious.  Like, can you —

    THE PRESIDENT:  While they were working.

    MR. MUSK:  Can you show us — because, like, in order to be worth tens of millions of dollars, you’d have to start a company, or you’ve got to get some kind — the compensation has got to come from somewhere.  So, how does a civil servant with — earning $200,000 a year suddenly, within a span of a few years, be worth tens of millions dollars?

    Q    W- —

    MR. MUSK:  So, I just want to connect the dots here. 

    Q    All right, s- —

    MR. MUSK:  Maybe there’s a legitimate explanation, but I don’t think so.  (Laughter.)

    Q    So, you know, and this gets to kind of the heart of where I am.  I — I looked at your work, and I look at this amount of money, and I get angry.  And I don’t get v- — I’m not an angry person. 

    MR. MUSK:  Sure.

    Q    I don’t get angry.  I get a- — I get annoyed sometimes, but I don’t get angry. 

    And I did live paycheck to bay- — paycheck a part of my life.  And I think of, you know, the working men and women in this country that the — 56 percent of which cannot afford a $1,000 emergency after four years of Harris and Biden.

    MR. MUSK:  Sure.

    Q    Okay?  That is serious, you know, financial trouble.  Or they’re putting bare necessities on credit cards. 

    And I’m looking at this and I’m thinking, well, how much — when we — when all is said and done, we could have written a check or cut the taxes or fixed our schools —

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.  Yes.

    Q    — or deported these illegals that we keep finding, known terrorists, cartel members, gang members. 

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    Q    And — and we’re not doing it.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Sean, the saddest thing is they don’t talk about the individual lines.  I could go on your show right now,  I could get a list that I have on the beautiful Resolute Desk in the Oval Office, and it’s got 40 points, and all they are is the heading of what this money is. 

    You don’t have to go deep into it, and you see it’s, you know, all different things and it’s so ridiculous. 

    I mean, normally, when you look for fraud, you’re looking for one thing out of a hundred.  Here, out of a hundred, 95 are going to be bad.  I mean, they’re — and they’re so obvious just by the heading.

    But they never mention that.  They only mention, “This is a violation of our Constitution.  This is a” — the word they give, you know, it’s like a sound bite — “constitutional crisis.”  It’s a new thing, “constitution-” —  But they never mention about where the money is going. 

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.  Exactly.

    THE PRESIDENT:  And when people hear that — I had a very smart man, John Kennedy — he’s actually a very smart man.  He said, “Sir, you should just go on television and just read the name of the topic that you’re giving all the money — just the topic that you’re giving this money to, and don’t say anything more,” and he’s right.

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    THE PRESIDENT:  And I’ll do it at some point, you know, when — 

    But they never talk about where the money is going.  They just talk about, “It’s a constitutional crisis.” 

    It’s so sad.  And honestly, I think they’re bad people.  I used to give them the benefit of the doubt, but you almost think they hate the country.  I think they hate the country.  They’re sick people. 

    Q    Remember, what they can’t — what they couldn’t accomplish at the ballot box, what they can’t accomplish legislatively, now they’re using the courts.

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.

    Q    And they c- — they’re trying to bury you in lawsuits.

    THE PRESIDENT:  That’s right.  You know the good news, though?  They’ve lost their confidence.  They’re not the same people. 

    Q    I think you’re right.

    THE PRESIDENT:  They’re — they’re not the same people. 

    This election was brutal for them.  We won every swing state.  We won by millions and millions of votes.  We won everything.  We — all 50 states went up — all 50.  It’s never happened.

    Q    Popular vote. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  Every one.  All 50 states went up. 

    They’ve lost their confidence.  I see it.  And they’re — they’re just swirling and twirling.  They don’t know what the hell is happening.  They’re much different.  They’re just as mean, but they’re not getting to the point.

    Q    Why do you invite them into the Oval Office nearly every day?

    MR. MUSK:  (Laughs.)

    THE PRESIDENT:  Well, the media — you’re talking about the media.

    Q    Yeah, your friends in the media.

    THE PRESIDENT:  The media — no, they’re — you know, the anger that — they ask questions so angry — a question — a normal question.  I give them an answer.  They — but they — I say, “Why are you so angry when you ask a question?”  Just a standard question.  And, I don’t know, there’s something —

    Q    They haven’t had a- — they haven’t been allowed in that office for the last four years, and here you’re giving them access. 

    Let me go to an area that I think is key, and — and you talked about this in recent interviews, and that is: We don’t need a Department of Education.  Okay.  And what some people are trying to do is stoke fears that, “Oh, my gosh, my kid is not going to get the money for education.”

    THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)  Yeah.

    Q    Or “grandma’s Social Security and Medicare.”  This was a big promise of yours on the campaign trail.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.  Yeah.

    Q    So, I really want to give you both an opportunity to assure the American people you will keep — that money will be allocated for students, but with higher standards.  For example, I would assume associated with monies given or vouchers.

    THE PRESIDENT:  (Inaudible) so much and — and then Elon goes.  But, look, Social Security won’t be touched — 

    Q    Won’t be touched.

    THE PRESIDENT:  — other than if there’s fraud or something — we’re going to find it; it’s going to be strengthened — but won’t be touched.  Medicare, Medicaid, none of that stuff is going to be touched.  It’s just — 

    Q    Nothing.  I want you to —

    THE PRESIDENT:  (Inaudible) don’t have to.

    Now, if there are illegal migrants in the system, we’re going to get them out of the system, and all of that fraud.  But it’s not going to be touched.

    School — I want to bring school back to the states, so that Iowa, Indiana — all these places — Idaho, New Hampshire — there’s so many places, the states.  I figure 35 really run well. 

    And right now, it’s Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, China — China, can you imagine? — has top — top schools.  We’re last. 

    So, they have a list of 40 countries.  We’re number 40.  Usually we’re 38, 39, but last time, we were number 40.  And what I say is you’ve got to give it back. 

    So, it doesn’t work. 

    I’ll tell you what we’re number one in: cost per pupil.  We spend more money than any other country by far — it’s not even close — per pupil.  Okay?  So, we know it doesn’t work. 

    So, we spend the most and we have the worst — right? — the worst result.  When we give that — when we give that back to Indiana, when we give that b- — back to Iowa and back to a lot of the states that run well — they run well, a lot of them — 35, 37, 38 — now, you’re going to have 10 laggards, but you’re going to have 5 real laggards, but that’s going to be okay. 

    Take New York — you give it to Westchester County, you give it to Suffolk County, you give it to Upstate New York, and you give it to Manhattan — but you give it to four or five subsections.  Same thing in California.  Los Angeles is going to be a problem, but you’re going to give it to places that run well.  We can change education

    Now, school choice is important, but that will get care — taken care of automatically. 

    We want to bring education back to the states.  You will spend half the number.  And I’m not even doing this —

    Q    So, you’re leaning more towards grants not vouchers, like to parents?

    THE PRESIDENT:  I’m not even — I’m not even doing this to save, but you will save.  It will cost you much less money.  You get a much better education. 

    If you go to some of these states, you’ll be the equivalent of Norway, Sweden, Denmark — places that really have a good school system.  You’ll have — those places will be the equivalent, and your overall numbers will get so much better. 

    Q    Do you want standards associated with the money?

    THE PRESIDENT:  The only thing I want to do from — from Washington, D.C., is make sure they’re teaching English, reading, writing —

    Q    Math and science.

    THE PRESIDENT:  — and arithmetic.  Okay?

    Q    Science?  Science might help.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Okay.  A little science.  You know —

    Q    Computers.

    THE PRESIDENT:  — you’re not going to have much of a problem with that, but that’s it. 

    Do you know, we have half the buildings — I mean, you look at Department of Education —

    MR. MUSK:  It’s empty.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Look at the real estate and the —

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    THE PRESIDENT:  — the level.  For what?  To — to — I mean, for — what do they do?

    We have really bad educa- — the teachers — I love teachers.  I respect teachers.  And, by the way, there’s no reason why teachers can’t form a union.  They can do whatever they want to do, if it’s back in the states.  So, we’re not looking to hurt the teacher — I’m — I’m going to help the teachers.  I think the teachers should be incentivized, because a good teacher is like a good scientist, is like a great doctor.

    MR. MUSK:  Sure.

    THE PRESIDENT:  It’s a valuable commodity. 

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    THE PRESIDENT:  I think they should be incentivized. 

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.

    THE PRESIDENT:  So, I’m totally for the teachers.

    MR. MUSK:  Absolutely.

    Q    I interview a guy a lot on radio.  He’s from Wichita, Kansas.  And he started —

    THE PRESIDENT:  Right.

    Q    — as a medical doctor.  Started Atlas.MD, and he’s now — he’s rolled it out nationwide.  Concierge care, $50 a month, 24-hour access to a doctor. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  Right.

    Q    You know, they use a lot of telemedicine now as part of it — very innovative.  He negotiates directly with pharmaceutical companies.  People — if they have high blood pressure, they walk out with their medicine.  They have high cholesterol, they walk out with their medicine.  And they pay pennies on the dollar.

    You mentioned —

    THE PRESIDENT:  By the way, forms of that could be done.

    Q    Forms of that?

    THE PRESIDENT:  Forms of that could be done.

    Q    Innovation. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  We got hurt when we didn’t get the vote on Obamacare.  I made Obamacare — I had a choice: I could let it rot and win a point, or I could do the best you could do with it.  And that’s what I did.  We did a great job with it, and we made it sort of work, but it’s lousy.  We could do so much better. 

    And when you say — you go to certain areas, they — they have doctors round the clock.  They have great medical care for a fraction of what we’re paying right now. 

    There are things we could do. 

    But, look, just overall, this man has been so valuable.  I hate to see the way they go after him.  They go after him.  It’s so unfair.  He doesn’t need this.  He wants to do this. 

    First of all, this is bigger than anything he’s ever done.  He’s done great companies and all, but this is much — you know, this is trillion — everything’s trillions, right?

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.  The numbers are crazy.

    Q    To go back to my original point —

    THE PRESIDENT:  He can save —

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    Q    But let me — give him his $10 million back.

    MR. MUSK:  Well — well — I — no.  So, people ask me, like, “What’s — what’s the — what’s the — what’s, like, the — what’s your biggest surprise in — in D.C.?”  And I’m like, “The sheer scale.”

    Q    It’s massive.  So, you love the challenge?

    MR. MUSK:  Well, I mean, to —

    THE PRESIDENT:  He’ll never do anything bigger.

    MR. MUSK:  To the president’s point —

    THE PRESIDENT:  That’s the only thing you can say, “He’ll

    never do anything” —

         MR. MUSK:  But, I mean, you do something slightly better, and you save billions of dollars for the American taxpayer — just slightly better.  Slightly.  (Laughs.)

         Q    When you say “tech support” —

         MR. MUSK:  You go one percent better, and it’s, like, you know, tens of billions of dollars saved to the American taxpayer. 

    Now, if I may address the point that you — the question you asked earlier, which is, you know, how do we assure people that —

    Q    They want to know.

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah, how do we assure people that we’re going to do the right thing, that their — that their Social Security benefits will be there, that their — the medical care will be good and s- — and — in fact, how do we make it — ensure that there’s better medical care in the future?  How do we improve their benefits?  How do we make sure that their Social Security check goes further than it did in the past and not — it doesn’t get weakened by inflation?

    So, the — if we — if we address the — the massive deficit spending, the sort of — the — the waste in the government, then — then we can actually address inflation. 

    So, provided the economy grows faster than the money supply, which means you stop the government overspending and the waste, and the output of real useful goods and services exceeds the increase in the money supply, you have no inflation.

    Q    Yeah.

    MR. MUSK:  And — and you also drop the — the interest payments that people pay, because if the government keeps —

    Q    Way too high.

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.  The — the reason the interest payments are so high is because the — the national debt keeps increasing.  So, the — the government is competing for — to sell debt with — for — with — with the private citizens.  This drives up the interest rate. 

    So, if you have a — if you have a — if you cut back on the deficit, you actually have an amazing situation for people, because you get r- — you get rid of inflation and you drop the interest rates.  And that means people’s mortgage payments go down, their credit card payments go down, their car payments go down, their student loans go down.  Everything — their — their life becomes more affordable and they’re standard of living improves.

    Q    How quickly?  Because I think people are suffering now.  We’re still living under the Biden-Harris economy. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  But, Sean, you have states right now —

    Q    Yeah.

    THE PRESIDENT:  You have some states that operate that way.  They operate as well as any corporation.  They really operate well.

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    Q    Florida.

    THE PRESIDENT:  They have surpluses.  They ha- — they don’t —

    MR. MUSK:  Texas is — has a surplus, for example.

    Q    Yeah.

    THE PRESIDENT:  When they — when they look at New York and — and California and some of these places that should have an advantage — I mean, there’s a big advantage — or Pritzker does such a bad job in Illinois; it’s horrible how bad he is — and they don’t have that advantage. 

    You know, New York has stock exchange and a lot of things.  And California has the weather and the beautiful water and all the thing- —

    MR. MUSK:  California has — has great weather.  The most expensive weather on Earth.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.  (Laughter.)  But — but —

    Q    I like Florida.

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    THE PRESIDENT:  But some states operate the way he’s talking about.

    Q    Efficiently.

    THE PRESIDENT:  When you go into some of these states, you’re going to find very little.  You’re going to find almost nothing.  They really operate well — big surpluses, low taxes.  And —

    Q    You know, my taxes went up the first time you were president, because you took away the SALT deduction —

    THE PRESIDENT:  I — well, I did.

    Q    — which, by the way, I thought was the right decision.

    THE PRESIDENT:  It was the right decision — in fact, Reagan tried to do it — because it rewards badly run states.

    But at the same time, it’s a tough — it was — it’s tough for the states.  I mean, it really is tough for the states. 

    The sad part is it rewards really badly run states. 

    Q    Yeah.

    THE PRESIDENT:  And Reagan tried to do it.  He was unable to do it.  I got it done. 

    Q    You got it done, and —

    THE PRESIDENT:  And now we’re going to give some back.

         Q    A little bit.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Because you know what?  We’ve got to help them.

    Q    It’s only a little.

    THE PRESIDENT:  We’ve got to help.

    Q    Because otherwi- — we’re encouraging people to elect high taxes, spen- —

    THE PRESIDENT:  Nobody had any idea it would be that devastating.  I did the right thing.  I got something that Reagan couldn’t do.  I got it done, where everybody is — are the same.  But you know what?  We’ve got to help them out.

    Q    Reagan had the Grace Commission, some of the best business minds in the country.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Right.

    Q    And they came up with recommendations.  Congress adopted none of them, and none of them were implemented. 

    I’ve got to ask this question, because the media is obsessed about it: What — what if there is a conflict?  In other words, because you do business — it was funny, when it came out the other day, that there was going to be, I think, $400 million — billio- — I don’t know if it was millions or billions — a lot of money on Teslas that Joe Biden’s administration w- — did with Tesla, and —

    MR. MUSK:  I’m not familiar with that.

    Q    You’re not even familiar with it?  But —

    MR. MUSK:  I — I don’t think — are you talking about, like, the Inflation Reduction Act stuff or —

    Q    It was some — it was a purchase order of Tesla vehicles. 

    MR. MUSK:  Oh.  Oh, that was — that was incorrect.  There was s- — like, there’s some sort of — the media claim that there was, like, $400 million worth of Cybertrucks —

    Q    That was it.

    MR. MUSK:  — being bought by the DOD.

    Q    And that he gave it to you.

    MR. MUSK:  No — well, first of all, that was —

    THE PRESIDENT:  No, actually, it was —

    MR. MUSK:  Th- — it was fa- —

    THE PRESIDENT:  It was Biden.

    Q    It was Biden.

    THE PRESIDENT:  And you know Biden wouldn’t give him much.

    MR. MUSK:  But — but it wasn’t even — it was fake news, six weeks to Sunday.  Tesla is not getting $400 million for Cybertrucks.  And the — and the — and this alleged —

    Q    That’s what it was, Cybertrucks.

    MR. MUSK:  This — yeah.  This alleged award occurred in December, before the president took office.  So, it’s — it’s fake on multiple levels.  There i- — Tesla isn’t getting $400 million.  And even if it — even if it was, which it isn’t, it was awarded during the Biden administration. 

    Q    Okay, but you’re — you — you —

    MR. MUSK:  It’s total fake news. 

    Q    There — there is —

    MR. MUSK:  It’s fake on, like — it’s like multiple leverals —

    Q    There is some integration —

    MR. MUSK:  — multiple layers of fake.

    Q    So, you’re — you’re tasked now — and I pray to God this is successful.  I really do.  I wish you Godspeed. 

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    Q    You know, “Godspeed, John Glenn.”

    THE PRESIDENT:  It’s — it’s going to be, by the way.  I really believe it’s going to be.

    Q    But — but there —

    MR. MUSK:  Oh, yeah.

    Q    But there are legitimate areas —

    THE PRESIDENT:  Because the country is going to do well beside this. 

    This is cutting.  We’re only talking about cutting. 

    We’re also going to make a lot of money.  We’re g- — we’re taking in so much money.

    Q    But what about his business?  What if — if there is —

    THE PRESIDENT:  Then we won’t let him do it.

    Q    — a contract he would otherwise get?

    THE PRESIDENT:  We’re not going to let him do it.  He — if —

    Q    You’re not going to let him do it?

    THE PRESIDENT:  If he’s got a conflict — I mean, look — he —

    Q    Y- — now y- —

    THE PRESIDENT:  He’s in certain areas — I mean, I see this morning — I didn’t — I didn’t know, but I said, “Do the right thing” — where they’re cutting way back on the electric vehicle subsidies.

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.

    THE PRESIDENT:  They’re cutting back.

    Q    You’re losing —

    THE PRESIDENT:  Not only cutting back —

    Q    It hurts you.

    MR. MUSK:  Correct.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

    Now, I will tell you —

    Q    You don’t care? 

    MR. MUSK:  Well —

    THE PRESIDENT:  He’s probably not that happy with it, but that would have been one thing he would have come to me and said, “Listen, you got to do me a favor.  This is crazy.”  (Laughter.)  But this was in the tax bill.  They’re cutting back on the subsidies. 

    I didn’t — I wasn’t involved in it.  I said, “Do what’s right, and you get” — and they’re coming up with the tax, but it’s just preliminary. 

         But I mean, if he were involved, wouldn’t you think he’d probably do that?  Now, maybe he does better if you cut back on the subsidies.  Who knows.  Because he figures — he does think differently.  He thinks he has a better product, and as long as he has a level playing field, he doesn’t care what you do —

         MR. MUSK:  Exactly.

         THE PRESIDENT:  — which he’s very — he’s told me that.

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.  I mean, I haven’t asked the president for anything ever.

    THE PRESIDENT:  It’s true.

    Q    And if it comes up, how — how will you handle it?  (Inaudible.)

    THE PRESIDENT:  He won’t be involved. 

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah, I’ll — I’ll re- — I’ll recuse myself if it is a conflict.

    THE PRESIDENT:  If there’s a conflict, he won’t be involved. 

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    THE PRESIDENT:  I mean, I wouldn’t want that, and he won’t want it.

    MR. MUSK:  Right.  And — and also, I’m getting a — sort of a daily proctology exam here.  You know, it’s not like I’ll be getting away from something in the dead of night. 

    Q    Welcome to D.C.  If you want a friend, get a dog. 

    MR. MUSK:  Well, I do have a dog, but I also have friends.  (Laughter.)  My dog loves me, poor little creature. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  You know the truth was —

    MR. MUSK:  I need to bring him to D.C.

    THE PRESIDENT:  He’s — I know every businessman.  I know the — the good ones, the bad ones, the smart ones, the lucky ones.  I know them all.  This guy is a ver- — he’s a brilliant guy.  He’s a great guy.  He’s got tremendous imagination and scientific imagin- — far beyond — you know, you keep talking about a technologist and all, but you’re much more than a technologist.  You are that.  But he’s also a good person.  He’s a very good person, and he wants to see the country do well. 

    And I know a lot of great businesspeople, really great business people, but, you know, they’re not really, in some cases, very good people.  And I know people that would try and take advantage of the situation. 

    This guy is somebody that really cares for the country, and I saw that very early on.  I saw it, really, a long time ago when I got to know him.  He’s a very different kind of a character. 

    That’s why — you know who loves him: young people that are very smart and that love the country.  He’s got, like, a tremendous following, because that’s what he’s — he’s a good person.

    And he doesn’t need this.  He didn’t need this, and he’s doing this to help the country.  If I didn’t win this election, this country was — I don’t think it could have made it.  I don’t — I mean, we’re allowing criminals — millions of criminals into our country, where everything is transgender, it’s men playing in women’s sports. 

    I mean, none of this stuff — you could go — I could give you a hundred things.  It’s almost like they’re trying to destroy the fabric of — of the country, of the world, because the world was following us.  Now the world is following us out of this pit. 

    We’ve done a lot.  I’ll tell you what, in three weeks, we’ve done more — I think we’ve done more — in — in terms of meaningful, not just dollars — than maybe any president ever.  And a lot of people are saying that.

    Q    Shock — it’s been shock and awe. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  I mean, if we can keep it going at this level, this country is going to be at a level that it’s never seen before. 

    Q    You know one of the things you did that I really thought was pretty clever and smart and fair, and that was reciprocal tariffs. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, reciprocal. 

    Q    Ta- — I didn’t know India charged so much.  I didn’t know the European Union to charge them. 

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah, totally.

    Q    I didn’t know Canada was charging us.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Everybody.  Everybody.  Everybody but us.

    Q    Brazil, why?

    THE PRESIDENT:  And I was doing it — you know, I charged China tariffs.  I took in hundreds of billions of dollars, and I was doing that.  But when we got — we had the greatest economy in history.  But then we got hit with COVID, and we had to solve that problem, because I was doing it — and now I said, I want to come back and do the recipri- — because every country in the world almost — we have a deficit with almost every country — not every one, but just about, pretty close.

    And — but every country in the world takes advantage of us, and they do it with tariffs.  They makes — make it — it’s impossible for him to sell a car, practically, in, as an example, India.  I don’t know if that’s true or not, but I think —

    MR. MUSK:  The tariffs are like 100 percent import duty. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  The tariffs are so high —

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    THE PRESIDENT:  — they don’t want to — now, if he built the factory in India, that’s okay, but that’s unfair to us.  It’s very unfair. 

    And I said, “You know what we do?”  I told Prime Minister Modi yesterday — he was here.  I said, “Here’s what you do.  We’re going to do — be very fair with you.”  They charge the highest tariffs in the world, just about.

    Q    36 percent?

    THE PRESIDENT:  Oh, much — much higher.

    MR. MUSK:  It’s 100 percent on — auto imports are 100 percent.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, that’s peanuts.  So, much higher.  And — and others too.  I said, “Here’s what we’re going to do: reciprocal.  Whatever you charge, I’m charging.”  He goes, “No, no, I don’t like that.”  “No, no, whatever you charge, I’m going to charge.”  I’m doing that with every country. 

    MR. MUSK:  It seems fair.

    Q    Don’t you —

    THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)  It does.

    MR. MUSK:  It’s — it’s like fair is fair.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Nobody can argue with me.  You know, the media can’t argue — I said — they said, “Tariffs — you’re going to charge tariffs?”  You know, if I said, like, 25 percent they’d say, “Oh, that’s terrible.”  I don’t say that anymore —

    Q    Can I — (inaudible) —

    THE PRESIDENT:  — because I say, “Whatever they charge, we’ll charge.”  And you know what? 

         Q    They stop.

         THE PRESIDENT:  They — then they say, “Oh, that sounds fair.”

    MR. MUSK:  All the president is saying is that —

         Q    (Inaudible.)

         MR. MUSK:  — it needs to be at a level playing field and — and fair and square.

    Q    Yeah.  And how does — how —

    THE PRESIDENT:  And we’re going to make a lot of money and a lot of businesses are going to come pouring in.

    MR. MUSK:  How can you argue with a fair and square situation?

    Q    Don’t — don’t you think most of them will look at the — the — for example, without America, China’s economy will tank.  They need our business. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  They do.  Everybody needs us. 

    Q    Everybody needs it. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  And you know what?

    Q    Do- — don’t you think they’ll stop?

    THE PRESIDENT:  We only have so long left where we’re in this position.  We’re the bank, and the bank is getting smaller and smaller and smaller.  We — we’re the bank.  We got to do this now.  We can’t wait another 10 years and have a shell of a country left, because that’s what was going to happen.

    Q    Mr. President —

    THE PRESIDENT:  This country — if I didn’t win this election and have people like this man right here that really do care, because that’s the other word — if you don’t care, you could be the smartest guy in the world, it’s not going to matter.  But if we didn’t win this election, I’m telling you, we would not have had a country for very long.

    Q    How quickly —

    MR. MUSK:  May I say —

    Q    — do you balance the budget and — and when do we start paying down that debt?

    THE PRESIDENT:  Well, potentially, very quickly, between what he’s doing and with income coming in from tariffs and other things.  I mean, I hope we can — I don’t want to give a date, because then these people are going to say, “Oh, well, he didn’t make the date.”  But I think we can do it very quickly. 

    We would have never done it if this didn’t happen.  Never.  It would have never been — it would only get worse and worse, and ultimately, it would have exploded. 

    This country was headed down a very bad track.  And the whole DEI thing, that was — that was a trap.  That was a sick trap.

    Q    (Inaudible.)

         MR. MUSK:  (Inaudible.)

    THE PRESIDENT:  And, you know, we’ve destroyed that.  That’s gone.  That’s pretty much gone. 

    Q    I agree. 

         MR. MUSK:  (Inaudible) —

         Q    We’re not — we’re not funding it. 

    MR. MUSK:  If — I really want to — I really want to emphasize to people that — this is a very important point — if we don’t solve the deficit, there won’t be money for medical care.  There won’t be money —

    THE PRESIDENT:  Right.

    MR. MUSK:  — for Social Security.  We either solve the deficit or all we’ll be doing is paying debt.

    Q    Nobody — 

    MR. MUSK:  It’s — it’s got to be solved, or there’s no medical care, there’s no Social Security, there’s no nothing.  That’s got to be solved.  It’s not optional.  America will go bankrupt if this is not done.  That’s why I’m here. 

    Q    The president’s —

    THE PRESIDENT:  Europe takes advantage of us.

    MR. MUSK:  And — and I’d like to also just send a message — like, because, as the president said, like, this — there’s a lot of rich people out there.  They should be caring more about the country because — the reason they should be caring about — more about country is: America falls, what do you think is going to happen to your business?  What do — what do you think — do you think you’re be going to be okay if — if the ship of America sinks?  Of course not. 

    Like, what — what I’m doing here, what the president is doing is it’s just long-term thinking.  The ship of America must be strong.  The ship of America cannot sink.  If it sinks, we all sink with it.

         THE PRESIDENT:  Sean, you’re a —

    Q    This is what — this is what drives you? 

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.

    Q    This is important.  It says “tech support.”  So, you’re not trying to be president, as the media suggests.  You are really here because your heart and your passion is this.  And the president described you as being — this is the biggest thing you ever done.  Now you trying to bring sight to —

    THE PRESIDENT:  There could be nothing bigger.  There’s nothing —

    Q    You’re sending ships up to Mars — you know, spaceships up in the sky all the time —

    THE PRESIDENT:  That’s peanuts.

    Q    — and saving astronauts.  That’s pretty big. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  That’s peanuts compared to what we’re talking about.

    Q    It’s peanuts?

    THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

    Q    Do you agree with that?

    MR. MUSK:  Well, it’s esse- — it’s essential that America be healthy, that America’s economy be strong.  And — and if that — if — basically, like, my concern is like, if — if — America is the central pillar holding up Western civilization.  That pillar must be strong.  If that pillar falls, the whole roof comes crashing down.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Including his ships.

    MR. MUSK:  There’s no place to hide.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Including his ships going up.

    MR. MUSK:  There’s no place to run.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Nothing.  There’s nothing left. 

    Q    Why — why, if this is your goal, your motivation, you’re losing money in the process, you’re offeri- — you do all these nice things for people for free; you’re trying to solve, you know, blindness; you’re going to rescue astronauts; you help the people in North Carolina, California; you’re cutting money that was sent abroad that’s not helping the American people, then why the rage —

    MR. MUSK:  Actually, I think it was like —

         Q    But why this rage?

         MR. MUSK:  — it was not helping the American people and hurting people overseas, to be clear.

    Q    Why this rage against you now?  First, they hated him.  Now they hate both of you. 

    MR. MUSK:  Well, I think we’re seeing an antibody reaction from — from those who are receiving the — the wasteful and fraudulent money. 

    Q    They’re being exposed. 

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.

    Q    Nobody wants to be exposed when you’re corrupt. 

    MR. MUSK:  I’ll — I’ll tell you a lesson I learned at PayPal.  You know who complained the loudest — the quickest and the loudest and with the most amount of righteous indignation?  The fraudsters.  That’s who complained first, loudest, and — and they would generally have this immense overreaction.  That’s how we knew there were the fraudsters.  That’s how we knew.  There’s a tell.

    Q    What di- — I’ve never — I’ve never met you before today.

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    Q    And it’s nice to meet you, by the way.  Thank — thank you for doing this. 

    You guys are really friends.  I could s- — you guys — I could see you kicking up your shoes.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Well, he doesn’t do this kind of thing.  And the way I figured that you’d get to know him is if I did it with him.  I said, “Come on, let’s do it together.”  He doesn’t do this. 

    I think he’s smarter not doing it, overall.  Because, you know, I mean, he’s done very well without doing it.  But he doesn’t feel it’s really worthwhile.  He wants the product to speak for itself, or whatever he does speak for itself.  But he views it as — you know, does it matter? 

    And I’m doing this with you today because I wanted to have people understand him.  And I think it’s very important — I disagree with him.  I think it’s very important that they do understand him. 

    He doesn’t need this.  He doesn’t need it.  Now, I happen to think it’s made him very popular.  I think it — he’s more popular now because there are so many people — you know, you’re talking about the radical left — they have the lowest ratings.  MSNBC is dying.  CNN is dying.  They’re all dying.  The New York Times is doing lousy.  The Washington Post is doing horribly.  They’re all doing badly because people don’t buy it anymore. 

    But I think it was important that he do this one interview.  You’ve been a very fair guy.  I think you were the right guy to do it.  If we could get some radical left guy — and he’d do just as well, frankly, because it’s all about common sense.

    Q    They would attack him —

    THE PRESIDENT:  But this — Sean —

    Q    — as being unconstitutional, not — a fascist. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  — to me this was a — it was important for people to understand, he’s doing a big job.  He’s doing a very thankless job.  He’s doing a thankless job, but he’s helping us to save our country. 

    Our country was in serious trouble, and I had to get the best guy, somebody with credibility, because if he were just a regular, good — very good, solid businessman, he wouldn’t have the credibility.  He’s got the best credibility for this. 

    And people also know he’s an honest guy.  He’s an honest guy.  He’s just a very, very smart guy who’s done amazing things.  And this will be the biggest thing he’s ever done, because, you know, his companies are all great.  But if this country goes bad — I guess where he is a little selfish is this.  He knows one thing and probably doesn’t think — but if his — if this country goes bad, his stuff is not going to be worth very much, I can tell you.

    MR. MUSK:  Well, I’d say, if the — if the ship of America sinks, we’re all go- — going down with it.  You know, this idea that people can escape to New Zealand or some other place is false.  If the central pillar of Western civilization that is America falls, the whole roof comes crashing down and there is no escape. 

    Q    It’s amazing, since you’ve been elected, to watch Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia — I — I was shocked at the statements that Vladimir Putin made about you.  I — I was shocked at the hostage release.  I was shocked that Venezuela had done it — had done it.  Zelenskyy wants a deal.  Putin wants a deal. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  All good statements.

    Q    King Abdullah was interested.

    THE PRESIDENT:  You mean by that all good statements.  Look, they respect the president of this country.  They respect — they did not respect the last president.  They laughed at him, and they laughed at our country, and he’s done great damage to our country. 

    Q    Have foreign leaders told you what they thought of Biden?

    THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, they have, but I’d rather not say.  They — they have.  It’s not — it — look —

    Q    It’s the obvious. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  He was not George Washington, let’s put it that way. 

    MR. MUSK:  (Inaudible.)

    THE PRESIDENT:  Not the greatest. 

    Q    Sorry, if that’s (inaudible).

    THE PRESIDENT:  He’s done a tremendous disservice. 

    Q    Will you be here —

    THE PRESIDENT:  And, by the way, the Democrats have done a great disservice, and they ought to get their act together and use a little judgment, and they ought to work with us on straightening out this mess that — 

    Q    Who?  John Fetterman?

    THE PRESIDENT:  — a lot of people have —

    Q    Maybe?  Who — what Democrat is not radicalized? 

    THE PRESIDENT:  Actually, you mention John.

    Q    John Fetterman. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  He’s become the best voice in the Democrat party.  You know, I had lunch with him, and I thought he was terrific, but he’s a much different man than he was before he had this difficulty.  He used to be radical left, and I think he became much smarter, actually.  He’s really — he’s really a voice of reason. 

    But the Democrats have to get together.  They have to get their act together, because the stuff they — they talk about makes no sense.  It makes — none whatsoever.  And they must know it.  They must know.

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.  I mean, like, the country has spoken very clearly and rejected the core tenets of the Demo- — Democratic Party.  The country voted t- — fo- — I mean, the country made the — America has made its vote clear.  The president won the popular vote decisively.  The Republicans won the House.  Repub- — Republicans won the Senate.  What more do you need?

    The Democratic Party needs to take a hard look in the mirror and — and change their ways. 

    Q    I think they went from shock, denial, into the depression stage of grief, and now they’re in the rage stage, where I anticipate they’ll stay for four years, and if they get the chance, they’ll want to impeach him 10 times.  Do you anticipate you’ll be here in four years?  My last question.

    MR. MUSK:  I’ll — I’ll be as helpful as long as I can be helpful.

    THE PRESIDENT:  That’s a good question.  I mean, I was thinking about that just now.  I said, “I wonder how long he’s going to be doing it.”  You can’t get somebody like this.  He cares, and he’s brilliant, and he’s got energy. 

    You need energy, also, in addition to those other things.

    You know, I have a lot of guys that are very smart, but they have no energy.  They want to sleep all day long.  You need a lot of energy.  He’s got a lot of energy.  He’s doing a great job. 

    If there’s any conflict, he — he will stop it.  But if he didn’t, I’d stop it.  I’d see if there’s a conflict.  I mean, we’re talking about big stuff.

    But he’s under a pretty big microscope. 

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah, seriously.

    THE PRESIDENT:  I mean, everybody is watching him.  If there’s a conflict, you’re going to be reading about it within about two minutes after the conflict.

    MR. MUSK:  Exactly.  There — there’s — the possibility of me getting away with something is 0 percent — 0.0.  I — I’m scrutinized to a ridiculous degree. 

    And — and the other thing is that we — you know, what — what’s — you know what’s better than saying “trust — trust me” is just full transparency.  So, what we’re doing with — with the DOGE — DOGE dot — just go to DOGE.gov.  You can see every single action that’s being taken. 

    And now –and I want to be clear, we are going to make some mistakes.  We’re not going to be perfect.  Nobody bats a thousand.  But we’re going to fix the mistakes very quickly.  That’s what matters: not that you don’t make mistakes, but that you fix the mistakes very fast. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  And you’re going to ask the other side, when they talk about, “This is a constitutional crisis,” you got to a- — what are they paying for?  Where are those tax — because when you read off the list of things, it’s a big con job.  See, when they talk Constitution —

    MR. MUSK:  Totally.

    THE PRESIDENT:  — it’s a total con job.

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.

    THE PRESIDENT:  They never talk — and I watch some of the shows —

    MR. MUSK:  It’s specifics — they avoid specifics.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, when you start talking about how did — how come they spent money on transgender here and transgender there —

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah, totally.

    THE PRESIDENT:  — and all the stuff in some country that nobody ever heard of, they don’t want to talk about it.  They just talk about, “This is a constitutional crisis.” 

    Q    It shocks the conscious.

    THE PRESIDENT:  The money is being squandered purposely — tremendous theft, tremendous kickbacks, everything — and we’re straightening it out.  And thank goodness.  I look up, and I say, “Thank you,” because I think if it went on for four more years, it would not be salvageable.  You wouldn’t be able —

    MR. MUSK:  Absolutely.

    THE PRESIDENT:  You wouldn’t be able to save it. 

    Q    You believe, too, that when you were in Butler, came within a millimeter being assassinated —

    THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

    Q    The day you endorsed him, that was that day.

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.

    Q    But you had been planning on it?

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    Q    Pretty — I think everybody will never forget that iconic blood on your face.  “Fight, fight, fight.”  I actually was afra- — watching it and thought you might drop again.  You know, I didn’t know if it had hit you.  You can sometimes get up and then the blood starts to accumulate.  It was scary — pretty scary. 

    MR. MUSK:  Well, I mean, th- — this is how you know someone’s true character, because everyone can say they’re brave, but the president was actually shot.  Okay?  Courage under fire.  “Fight, fight, fight,” blood streaming down the face.  That’s true courage.  You can’t fake that. 

    Q    Yeah.  Thank you both. 

         Mr. President, thank you, sir. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much. 

    Q    Appreciate it.  Elon, thank you for your time.  Really nice to meet you. 

                                  END                    1:01 P.M. EST

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI China: ‘Ne Zha 2’ box office success ignites merchandise craze

    Source: China State Council Information Office 3

    “30 million achieved!” reads an announcement by FunCrazy, a creative toy brand, in its official Xiaohongshu post on February 16. The post, featuring an image of a Ne Zha collectible figure, marks a record-breaking milestone in less than a month: the co-branded crowdfunding campaign for the official movie “Ne Zha 2” merchandise surpasses 30 million yuan.

    Toys featuring Nezha, the main character from “Ne Zha 2,” are pictured at the workshop of a toy manufacturer in Xiangtan, central China’s Hunan Province, Feb. 8, 2025. (Xinhua/Chen Sihan)

    As the global earnings of “Ne Zha 2”, including pre-sales, hit a historic 12.319 billion yuan (about 1.72 billion U.S. dollars), its influence extends beyond the cinema to the shelves of both collectors and fans, marking a new chapter in the booming market for movie-related merchandise.

    Another example of Ne Zha’s IP value is evident in the collectible blind box series co-produced by Pop Mart and creators of the movie. Sales of the blind box series surpassed 10 million yuan within just eight days of the launch, while the first batch of products quickly sold out.

    In response to huge market demand, the brand has initiated pre-sales for subsequent batches of the blind box series, with shipping dates pushed back to late June. Pop Mart’s physical stores nationwide have largely sold out of them as well.

    However, for some eager fans, waiting for the pre-sale is simply not an option. On Goofish, a second-hand trading platform, the price of some in-stock blind boxes has already increased by more than three times.

    “I bought the full series of eight blind boxes as a birthday gift for myself. They’re so cute, and they even recreated the scene where Ne Zha and Ao Bing join forces to fight the villain,” shared by a movie fan on her Xiaohongshu post.

    The iconic scene from the movie added extra popularity to the merchandise. Many fans recreated the moment when the two protagonists, Ne Zha and Ao Bing, hold hands to battle the thunder in collectible figures and shared them on social media, boosting its viral spread.

    The massive success of Ne Zha’s merchandise sales highlights the growing economic impact of IPs. Beyond box office earnings, purchasing merchandise offers fans a tangible connection to the characters and stories, amplifying the value of an IP in today’s entertainment industry.

    Consumer demand for spiritual and cultural values is rising, with a shift from functional attributes to emotional and spiritual significance. Consequently, diverse IP derivatives have become key catalysts for driving market enthusiasm, said Jiang Duo, associate professor of the Communication University of China.

    “Ne Zha 2” is not the first cultural product to benefit from the spillover effect of the IP economy. In 2023, the Chinese sci-fi blockbuster “The Wandering Earth II” raked in a whopping box office revenue. A movie-related crowdfunding project was launched for merchandise.

    The project garnered over 433,000 orders and raised more than 100 million yuan, far exceeding the original goal of 100,000 yuan.

    Movie IPs are transitioning from being solely driven by box office revenue to exploring multiple sources of value, injecting more vitality into the cultural market. More and more Chinese companies are focusing on IP development and the cultural and creative industry. Their products are becoming much more sophisticated, and the expansion of offline channels plays a crucial role in supporting the development of the IP economy, said Jiang.

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI China: Sentiment over property sector seen recovering

    Source: China State Council Information Office 3

    An aerial drone photo taken on Nov. 9, 2023 shows a newly-built residential complex in Feixi County of Hefei City, east China’s Anhui Province. [Photo/Xinhua]

    Six out of 10 investors expect market activity to recover by the end of this year and property investment transactions are projected to stage a growth of 5 percent-10 percent on the Chinese mainland, a report on Chinese investor intentions suggested.

    The projection is based on a survey looking to offer an in-depth analysis of investors’ views and strategic preferences for en bloc commercial property transactions in China this year, according to the survey published on Thursday by commercial real estate services and investment firm CBRE.

    Industrial logistics and rental housing are the most favored types of assets for investors, while retail property investment is expected to continue its positive trend from 2024, according to the analysis.

    “Key office buildings in first-tier cities will maintain their attractiveness for both long-term capital and enterprises looking for self-use space,” the survey said.

    Geopolitics, economic recession and weak rental demand are the top three challenges for commercial real estate investment in 2025. However, commercial real estate remains an important part of investors’ asset allocation, as 80 percent of people polled plan to increase or maintain the proportion of real estate assets in 2025, an increase of 5 percentage points from a year ago.

    “The attractiveness of China’s high-quality commercial property for investment is on a gradual rise after corrections to asset pricing, central bank interest rate reductions, as well as the positive impact of macro incremental policies on corporate and consumer confidence in 2025,” said Li Ling, president of CBRE China.

    As many as 61 percent of respondents believe that commercial property investment activity will recover by the end of 2025, leading CBRE’s forecast for a year-on-year growth of between 5 and 10 percent for en bloc commercial property transactions across the Chinese mainland this year, the survey found.

    “After several years of volatility and price adjustments in the Chinese market, some assets have shown higher investment value and they have drawn investor attention,” said Eric Pang, head of capital markets for JLL China.

    “As investors pay more attention to the operational management capabilities and long-term revenue generation potential of projects, high-quality assets with prime locations, stable cash flow and high value prices will continue to be sought after. Looking ahead, we expect more investors would like to seize market opportunities, therefore driving a recovery in transaction volume,” said Pang.

    Institutional investors remain cautious about commercial real estate, while private wealth and corporates have become more active, said the latest version of JLL’s Asia Pacific Capital Tracker published in January.

    “As we enter a new economic cycle in 2025, the influx of capital and competition for high-quality assets will enhance market activity, and signs of a recovery have been seen in investment and trading activity. The real estate market is at a critical juncture in the improvement of the liquidity cycle,” JLL said.

    Not only are institutional investors more active in key markets, but private buyers are also raising their allocation to prime locations in core markets. It is expected that along with the transaction level rise, investors will be ready to diversify their asset allocations, JLL added.

    Li said investors will focus on rental housing, regional shopping malls, high-standard logistics facilities, and Grade A office buildings in first-tier city CBDs with limited supply.

    Industrial logistics is believed to continue at its top position among all investment categories, and high-standard warehouses in major Chinese cities are a primary focus, said the report. Rental housing has been the second most preferred category for three years in a row, and 18 en bloc rental housing transactions were registered in China in 2024, with a combined value of 7.5 billion yuan, CBRE said.

    The tone-setting annual Central Economic Work Conference in December urged making boosting consumption a top priority for 2025.Retail property is believed to be the third most sought-after category in property investment, particularly regional shopping centers with consistent population inflows, said the survey.

    Properties related to life sciences and healthcare ranked in top positions in terms of alternative assets. As the industrial adjustment of the biopharmaceutical sector gradually comes to an end, leading biopharmaceutical industrial clusters in Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou of Guangdong province, and Suzhou of Jiangsu province are expected to take the lead in demand recovery, CBRE said.

    Its report is based on a survey conducted between Nov 12 and Nov 29, with a total of 125 valid responses.

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI China: Xizang hits milestone in power use, clean energy

    Source: China State Council Information Office 3

    Xizang autonomous region’s power sector reached a historic milestone in 2024, with total electricity consumption soaring to 15.41 billion kilowatt-hours, a year-on-year surge of 13.93 percent, according to State Grid Xizang Electric Power Co.

    Positioning itself as the fastest-growing region in China in terms of electricity consumption, Xizang’s growth trajectory has been nothing short of impressive.

    Notably, the primary industry witnessed a substantial 31.06 percent surge in electricity usage, while the secondary and tertiary industries experienced robust growth rates of 11.84 percent and 16.74 percent, respectively.

    Concurrently, residential electricity consumption surged by 13.28 percent, all achieving double-digit growth figures, it said.

    Hua Ming, deputy director of the company’s development and planning department, said that by the end of 2024, Xizang had surpassed another significant milestone, with clean energy generation exceeding 99 percent in its total.

    This remarkable feat virtually translates to full clean power supply, making Xizang the regional grid with the highest ratio of clean energy generation nationwide.

    Furthermore, in a bid to contribute to environmental sustainability, Xizang successfully exported 15.81 billion kWh of clean energy in 2024, leading to a reduction of approximately 4.85 million metric tons of standard coal use, 13.58 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions, and 360,000 tons of sulfur dioxide emissions.

    The region is poised for even greater accomplishments. “By 2050, Xizang will boast over 10 ultrahigh voltage transmission lines dedicated to clean energy exports, with an annual export volume exceeding a staggering 500 billion kWh,” said Hua.

    This ambitious vision underscores Xizang’s unwavering commitment to sustainable energy practices and technological advancement.

    Moreover, State Grid Xizang remains at the forefront of driving high-quality development in clean energy through cutting-edge technological innovations.

    Key projects such as the expansion of the Qinghai-Xizang DC phase II project are being accelerated to further solidify Xizang’s position as a trailblazer in the realm of clean energy and power grid development.

    By optimizing the business environment and power supply services, the company has extended its reach to benefit 9,755 households and small enterprises, resulting in savings exceeding 29.45 million yuan ($4.05 million) in power application investments in recent years.

    Furthermore, the company’s “ease of getting power” indicator surged to second place in the region in 2024, reflecting its unwavering dedication to customer-centric services.

    Xizang’s outstanding achievements in clean energy and power grid development have not only set a new benchmark for sustainable development within China but have also served as a testament to the region’s unwavering commitment to technological innovation and environmental stewardship.

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI China: Foreign firms to ramp up investment

    Source: China State Council Information Office 3

    This photo taken with a mobile phone shows the skyline during the early morning in Beijing, capital of China, Oct. 19, 2024. [Photo/Xinhua]

    China’s sustained efforts to boost domestic demand and reinforce supply chain resilience, as well as drive businesses toward green and digital transformation, will pave the way for deeper global business collaboration in its market this year, said executives of multinational corporations on Monday.

    Despite the slowdown in global trade and investment growth in recent years, foreign companies remain steadfast in ramping up their investment in the Chinese market, they added.

    Lan Qingxin, a professor specializing in cross-border investment studies at the University of International Business and Economics in Beijing, said that as China embraces a new era of green and innovation-driven growth, global investors are increasingly focusing on digital solutions, supply chain optimization, high-end manufacturing, customized innovation and green businesses in the Chinese market.

    Noting the widespread adoption of the advanced large language model DeepSeek among domestic and overseas users, Chen Shihua, deputy secretary-general of the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers, said that China’s ability to attract foreign investment will be further enhanced this year.

    DeepSeek, a two-year-old startup based in Hangzhou, Zhejiang province, has created the open-source LLM of the same name at a cost much lower than its foreign peers.

    Even though geopolitical tensions are rising, global demand remains subdued and certain countries have tightened investment regulations, China saw the establishment of 59,080 new foreign-invested companies in 2024, marking a 9.9 percent year-on-year increase, data from the Ministry of Commerce shows.

    Cummins Inc, a United States-based engine manufacturer, plans to increase its market share this year in key application sectors within China, including power generation equipment for data centers and high-tech manufacturing.

    “Together with local partners, we will also accelerate the innovation pace on the internal combustion engine system, including high-efficiency diesel, natural gas and hydrogen internal combustion engines,” said Nathan Stoner, vice-president of Cummins.

    Eager to seize more market share in China, Thai beverage company TCP Group, will commence operations of a production base in the Guangxi Zhuang autonomous region later this year to supply its popular energy drink Red Bull.

    The production base, set up with a total investment of 1.3 billion yuan ($179.2 million), will strengthen the supply chain network, empower upstream and downstream partners, and create another important link connecting the markets between China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, said Saravoot Yoovidhya, CEO of TCP Group.

    “The rapid response capability and strong execution power of China’s supply chain enable us to quickly adapt to market changes and promptly adjust production and supply chain strategies to meet the diversified demands of markets worldwide,” he added.

    Yin Zheng, executive vice-president of Schneider Electric’s China and East Asia operations, said that as a major engine of global economic growth, China has a huge market, a strong industrial base and abundant innovation resources, while its cultivation of new quality productive forces provides an even stronger impetus for industrial transformation and upgrading.

    The French industrial conglomerate has continuously increased research and development investment in China and has established a series of world-class innovation institutes in China to support industrial upgrading and energy transformation.

    “We have been introducing innovative Chinese solutions and advanced products to the global market, expanding China’s impact and realizing the vision of ‘in China for the world’,” Yin said.

    According to a recent survey by the Japanese Chamber of Commerce and Industry in China, more than 58 percent of Japanese companies surveyed recognize China as a key market for their global operations, and they plan to maintain or expand their investment in the Chinese market this year.

    Several factors have influenced their investment decisions, including increasing demand and rising orders. The chamber said that Japanese businesses are also more confident about the Chinese market this year, driven by an improved business environment, a visa-free policy for Japanese citizens and government initiatives such as trade-in policies.

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Duckworth Votes Against Confirming Howard Lutnick to Serve as Commerce Secretary

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth

    February 18, 2025

    [WASHINGTON, D.C.] – Today, U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)—a member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation (CST)—released the following statement after voting against Howard Lutnick’s nomination to serve as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The Senate confirmed Lutnick by a vote of 51-45.

    “I cannot vote for any nominee who won’t publicly pledge without hesitation that they’d refuse an unlawful order from President Trump—and Mr. Lutnick failed that simple test. As Donald Trump and Elon Musk continue their illegal spree to freeze federal funding and make deep cuts at critical agencies so they can pave the way for tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy, we need a Secretary of Commerce who is not afraid to stand up to this chaos, uphold the law and put our economy and middle-class Americans first. And yet, by confirming Mr. Lutnick today, Republicans are once again proving how easily they will appease Trump out of fear for their own political survival—and it will be American farmers, businesses and the middle class who will pay the price.”

    -30-



    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Crapo Statement on Lutnick Confirmation

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Idaho Mike Crapo

    Washington, D.C.–U.S. Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) issued the following statement after the Senate confirmed, by a vote of 51-45, Howard Lutnick to be Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce:

    “Howard Lutnick as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce will bring decades of economic expertise to the agency tasked with advising President Trump on various policies to stimulate growth and innovation and safeguard our nation’s economic security.  He led Cantor Fitzgerald out of its tragic losses from the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, rebuilding the company in the face of tremendous adversity.  Under Trump’s direction for Lutnick to help lead the Administration’s trade agenda, he will play a vital role in securing real, meaningful negotiations for improved market access globally for Idaho producers.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI China: Chinese industry association opposes additional US tariffs on aluminum

    Source: China State Council Information Office

    The China Nonferrous Metals Industry Association on Tuesday expressed strong dissatisfaction with and firm opposition to the U.S. government’s move to impose additional tariffs on aluminum products.

    The U.S. government on Feb. 10 announced that it will adjust tariffs on certain steel and aluminum imports, with the U.S. Federal Register revealing the tariff adjustment plans in recent days.

    The association made its statement in response to the U.S. move. It noted that the aluminum industry plays a crucial role in the global supply chain, and that the U.S. move is set to disrupt the balance of supply and demand in the global aluminum industry and related sectors, leading to price volatility and impacting the interests of global aluminum producers, traders, consumers and related supply chain enterprises.

    This case of U.S. unilateralism and protectionism aims to seek “protective umbrellas” and “safe havens” for the U.S. aluminum industry’s technological shortcomings, low energy efficiency, high carbon emissions and overall weak competitiveness, the association said.

    The U.S. practice has seriously violated the World Trade Organization’s basic principle of promoting fairness and non-discrimination in trade.

    The United States, as the world’s largest importer of aluminum products, will see the tariff hikes impact foreign aluminum companies’ exports to the country.

    These hikes are expected to raise the costs of importing electrolytic aluminum, aluminum materials and aluminum products significantly for the United States, the association said, adding that ultimately, these costs will be borne by U.S. consumers as they are passed on to the downstream manufacturing sector. 

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI China: China to further remove market access barriers for private sector

    Source: China State Council Information Office

    Technicians check products at a private chemical fiber enterprise in Tongxiang, Zhejiang province. [Photo/Xinhua]

    China is set to expedite the revision of its negative list for market entry and further remove barriers to market access, as part of its larger drive to bolster the healthy development of the private economy, the country’s top economic regulator said on Tuesday.

    The move came after President Xi Jinping, during a symposium on private enterprises on Monday in Beijing, reiterated China’s commitment to boosting the private sector through concrete efforts, sending a clear message of support from the government, analysts said.

    They said that policymakers will take further targeted measures to resolve issues faced by private companies and create a favorable business environment, which will significantly help boost confidence and expectations among private enterprises and entrepreneurs.

    “China will accelerate the push for revising and updating the negative list on market access, and areas that are not on the list will all be deemed as fully open,” said Zheng Bei, deputy head of the National Development and Reform Commission, according to a China Central Television news report.

    She said the country will continue to open up fields, such as competitive infrastructure sectors and major national scientific research infrastructure, to private companies.

    China will also encourage private enterprises to play a more active role in the implementation of major national strategies and the buildup of the nation’s security capacity in key areas, as well as in programs for large-scale equipment upgrades and trade-in deals for consumer goods.

    “The country is sending strong signals on optimizing the business environment for private enterprises, addressing market access and financing issues, and enhancing corporate confidence through the rule of law, which will help promote high-quality economic development,” said Hong Yong, an associate research fellow at the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation.

    He highlighted that the healthy development of the private economy plays a pivotal role in keeping the economy dynamic, serving as a driving force for shoring up growth and stabilizing the overall economy.

    According to the NDRC, the private sector’s scale, innovation capabilities and international competitiveness have all significantly improved in recent years. Official data showed that private enterprises account for over 92 percent of the total number of businesses in China and more than 92 percent of the nation’s high-tech companies.

    Going forward, the government will work to remove the remaining obstacles to market entry and access to factors of production, building a unified, open, competitive and orderly market system, the NDRC said.

    Zheng from the NDRC said that China will continue to strengthen legal protection for private enterprises and entrepreneurs, pushing forward the legislative process for a private economy promotion law. The draft law on promoting the private economy was submitted for deliberation in December to the Standing Committee of the 14th National People’s Congress.

    Bai Wenxi, vice-chairman of the China Enterprise Capital Union, said that China has outlined a clear direction for the future development of the private economy — promoting the high-quality growth of the private economy and encouraging private enterprises to play a bigger role in the implementation of national strategies and key areas of development.

    “These initiatives have sent a clear signal of the country’s high regard and support for the private economy, demonstrating that the private sector’s position in China’s economy is irreplaceable,” he noted. “The country will continue to optimize the business environment and support the healthy development of the private economy.”

    Citing measures mapped out by the NDRC, such as revising the negative list on market access and addressing financing difficulties, he said that these will “provide a rising number of growth opportunities for private companies and help alleviate their burdens”.

    Looking ahead, Bai said it is advisable for the government to take further moves to remove some implicit barriers and resolve issues faced by the private sector, such as difficulties in accessing affordable financing.

    “Potential moves may include further encouraging financial institutions to develop financial products tailored to private enterprises and expand their financing channels,” he added.

    Bai’s views were echoed by Pan Helin, a member of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology’s Expert Committee for the Information and Communication Economy, who said he believes that the government will introduce more measures to support the development of the private economy.

    “The focus will be placed on optimizing the business environment, such as streamlining administrative approval processes, improving efficiency, reducing operational costs for businesses, and enhancing the overall satisfaction and sense of benefit for private enterprises,” Pan said.

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI China: Announcement on Open Market Operations No.33 [2025]

    Source: Peoples Bank of China

    Announcement on Open Market Operations No.33 [2025]

    (Open Market Operations Office, February 19, 2025)

    In order to keep the liquidity adequate in the banking system, the People’s Bank of China conducted reverse repo operations in the amount of RMB538.9 billion through quantity bidding at a fixed interest rate on February 19, 2025.

    Details of the Reverse Repo Operations

    Maturity

    Volume

    Rate

    7 days

    RMB538.9 billion

    1.50%

    Date of last update Nov. 29 2018

    2025年02月19日

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Deputy Secretary-General’s remarks at the Member States’ Briefing on the Second Food Systems Summit Stocktake (UNFSS+4) [as delivered]

    Source: United Nations secretary general

    HE Amb. Tesfaye Yilma Sabo, Permanent Representative of Ethiopia to the United Nations, 

    HE Amb. Maurizio Massari, Permanent Representative of Italy to the United Nations, 

    Excellencies, distinguished delegates,
    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    It is a real pleasure to join our Permanent Representatives and welcome you all today. 

    As you all know transforming our food systems is essential to driving progress across the Sustainable Development Goals and delivering for everyone, everywhere – sufficient, nutritious food – now and in the future, particularly as we go towards the five years to deliver on the 2030 Agenda.

    That is why, in 2021, the UN Secretary-General convened the UN Food Systems Summit.  This established the foundation for a new, integrated approach to food systems—placing food at the heart of our efforts to address poverty, zero hunger, inequality, climate change, and biodiversity loss. 

    It has reshaped the global narrative, building an engine of transformation that recognizes food systems as a key lever to accelerate and reinforce SDG progress.

    Building on this momentum, the first Summit Stocktake, hosted by the Government of Italy in 2023, reaffirmed strong political will among nations. Countries pledged to increase the pace of their efforts towards sustainable, inclusive, and resilient food systems transformation.

    But it also highlighted persistent gaps and challenges. Among them, an urgent need to enhance public-private-community partnerships, and strengthen private sector engagement. 

    These crucial issues identified at the first stocktake, resulted in the UN Secretary-General’s Call to Action. 

     The Call identified six critical areas for concerted action, including: securing concessional finance, investments, budget support, and debt restructuring. It also emphasized addressing food security in crisis situations. 

    The proposed SDG stimulus – of $500 billion a year – was recognized as a game-changer, offering fiscal space and resources, including through SDR rechannelling. 

    Finance was emphasized as a critical component of food systems transformation, along with support of our Multilateral Development Banks in unlocking investments in this field. 

    Given the global context riddled with challenges of rising living costs, social inequalities, climate change, and geopolitical tensions, we will need all hands on deck to reach food systems transformations with the impact to advance on the 2030 Agenda. 

    Now, in just over five months, Addis Ababa will host the Second United Nations Food Systems Summit Stocktake. 

    We are grateful to the Government of Ethiopia for hosting this important event and for making our commitment to take the second stocktake to a developing country, a reality. Worth noting also is its leadership and extensive work on its policy environment, infrastructure development and the production of food that engages small holder farmers across the country. We are grateful to Italy, which has agreed to co-host, for its legacy and continued leadership and support to food systems transformation. It is important that we see leadership and sustainability of that support at country level.
     
    The Stocktake will be different, it has to be, in response to many of the requests for us to have more focus and impact.

    First, we will be reflecting on progress since 2023, with a Report from the system, but also a shadow report from our stakeholders.

    Second, we will be partnering to track commitments and outcomes through national food systems pathways to accelerate SDG implementation. 

    And third, unlocking investments to sustain and scale transformative initiatives aligned with the SDGs.

    In preparations for the Stocktake, we are committed to an inclusive, cross-sectoral efforts and consultations. 

     We will hold a second briefing in Nairobi next week engaging UN Headquarters in Nairobi, Rome and Geneva. 

    In addition, we will hold five regional briefings, on the margins of the United Nations Regional Forums on Sustainable Development, from March to May. 

    We will also be engaging all our Resident Coordinators in UN Country Teams, at the country level so that they are fully engaged with our member states in bringing to Addis Ababa, the progress and of course, the challenges and opportunities.

    At the same time, we will push progress towards food systems transformation, including through important gatherings this year – the Fourth Financing for Development Conference in Spain, UNFCCC COP 30 in Brazil, the Second World Summit on Social Development in Qatar, and the Third United Nations Ocean Conference in France. 

    These are all critical platforms to drive progress, harness collective action and create new investment opportunities.

    As Member States, you are at the forefront of this transformation. Your leadership and coordination will be instrumental in ensuring that the Stocktake inspires real action at the national level.

    The United Nations is with you –committed to creating sustainable, inclusive, healthy and resilient food systems everywhere, across all our regions, reaching everyone.

    We thank you for this important opportunity that will help us to shape the Stocktake in Addis Ababa in July. 
     

    MIL OSI United Nations News

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: NZers didn’t need this much pain to reduce OCR

    Source: Green Party

    Today’s OCR cut will fail to soothe the long-term pain Christopher Luxon’s Government is inflicting upon our communities. 

    “Luxon’s Government had options to cool demand in the economy. Instead of sharing resources around so everyone could get through the hard times, they threw jobs, public services and livelihoods on the scrapheap,” says Green Party co-leader and spokesperson for Finance Chlöe Swarbrick. 

    “The collateral damage of Christopher Luxon and Nicola Willis’ decisions mean more inequality, more homelessness, more climate-changing emissions, more inequality and more long-term issues. Maybe that’s what they mean by ‘going for growth’?

    “While today’s OCR announcement is good news for everyone with a mortgage, it’s critical to understand the unnecessary collateral damage created by the Government’s chosen path of destruction. Those wounds won’t heal quickly or by themselves.

    “Monetary policy, the setting of interest rates, is a blunt instrument. It’s fiscal policy, the Government’s choices on tax and spend – which dictates who wins, and who loses in our economy.

    “New Zealanders are voting with their feet and leaving in record numbers. They’ve given up playing by made-up rules that benefit wealth accumulation of the few over the work of the many.

    “A different world is possible. We can have an economy that works for people and planet, instead of exploiting both,” says Chlöe Swarbrick. 

    MIL OSI New Zealand News