Source: United States Senator Pete Ricketts (Nebraska)
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Yesterday on the Senate floor, U.S. Senator Pete Ricketts (R-NE) called on the Chinese Communist Party to allow ByteDance to sell TikTok to American owners. Ricketts made the comments while objecting to a unanimous consent request from U.S. Senator Edward Markey (D-MA) to extend the deadline for a potential sale.
“ByteDance was given 270 days to make a deal,” said Ricketts. “The Communist dictator Xi Jinping clearly did not want it. They tried to lobby us. They avoided getting a deal done. President Trump came into office. They are still avoiding getting a deal done.”
“The law is very clear. TikTok needs to be sold to an American owner to continue operation,” closed Ricketts. “Not some half-baked plan, as my colleague from Arkansas was describing, where the Chinese Communist Party would still have influence on the TikTok algorithm, still have the ability to push their propaganda to the American people. That cannot happen. We need to make sure that the Chinese Communist Party cannot do that in our country again. We won’t allow other TV or radio stations to have that much access. Why on earth are we doing it for the Chinese Communist Party? It is absolutely ludicrous. We need to keep the pressure on. We need to make sure that TikTok is sold.”
[embedded content]
Watch the video HERE
TRANSCRIPT:
Senator Ricketts: “Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
“I echo my colleague from Arkansas comments with regard to TikTok.
“Let’s recall that in Communist China, there really isn’t such a thing as a private company, as much as ByteDance might want to say it is.
“Chinese Communist law is very clear that companies in China have to do what they’re told to do by the Chinese Communist Party.
“And that’s one of the reasons TikTok is so dangerous.
“TikTok, as has been covered by my colleague from Massachusetts, reaches 170 million people.
“52% of those people say that they regularly get their news from TikTok.
“As I’ve risen on this floor in the past, I’ve discussed specific cases where the Chinese Communists have been pushing their propaganda through TikTok.
“Now let’s also bear in mind that we would not allow any American TV news station, even newspaper, to be able to own as much of the American marketplace as TikTok has today.
“170 million people.
“Current law says that you can only own 39%, for example, of the TV marketplace across the country.
“That would roughly equate to about 50 million households in the United States – far above what we’re seeing here with what TikTok has access to.
“So if we’re not going to allow Americans to be able to have such broad access to our population, why on earth would we allow the Chinese Communist Party to do it?
“And by the way, the way, the Chinese Communist Party has no First Amendment rights in this country.
“ByteDance was given 270 days to make a deal.
“The Communist dictator Xi Jinping clearly did not want it.
“They tried to lobby us. They avoided getting a deal done.
“President Trump came into office.
“They are still avoiding getting a deal done.
“The people who are taking on the liability here are the companies that are facilitating this.
“I urge those companies to reconsider.
“You should think carefully about what you’re doing.
“The law is very clear.
“TikTok needs to be sold to an American owner to continue operation.
“Not some half-baked plan, as my colleague from Arkansas was describing, where the Chinese Communist Party would still have influence on the TikTok algorithm, still have the ability to push their propaganda to the American people.
“That cannot happen.
“We need to make sure that the Chinese Communist Party cannot do that in our country again.
“We won’t allow other TV or radio stations to have that much access.
“Why on earth are we doing it for the Chinese Communist Party?
“It is absolutely ludicrous.
“We need to keep the pressure on.
“We need to make sure that TikTok is sold.
“I echo my colleague’s comments with regard to any sort of future Chinese ownership that would allow them to be able to continue to do this.
“We need to make sure that this is no longer going to threaten our young people.
“And therefore, Mr. President, I object.”
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Eric Sorensen (IL-17)
WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman Eric Sorensen (IL-17) has joined a bipartisan group of lawmakers in co-sponsoring the Prevent Tariff Abuse Act, a bill aimed at protecting American families, workers, and farmers from unfair and unnecessary tax hikes disguised as “emergency” tariffs. The bill makes it clear that no president should be able to raise taxes on everyday Americans without approval from Congress.
“Tariffs are taxes—plain and simple—and when presidents abuse their power to impose them without warning, it’s hardworking families and farmers in Central and Northwestern Illinois who pay the price,” said Congressman Eric Sorensen. “This bill protects our communities from skyrocketing prices and economic retaliation. Our small businesses, manufacturers, and agriculture producers deserve a fair and stable economy—not uncertainty created by impulsive decisions made behind closed doors.”
The Prevent Tariff Abuse Act is a response to recent threats to impose massive tariffs on goods from Canada, Mexico, China, and even allies in Europe—all without proper Congressional oversight. These actions could lead to the largest tax increase on American consumers in a generation, raising prices on everything from groceries to gas.
Source: United States Senator for Kansas – Jerry Moran
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) – a member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation – yesterday questioned Jared Isaacman, the nominee for NASA Administrator, and Olivia Trusty, the nominee to be Commissioner for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), during a hearing to review their nominations.
Sen. Moran questioned Ms. Trusty on spectrum policy, the implementation of the 5G Fund and her vision for the FCC.
“Ms. Trusty, I’m pleased by your nomination; I have great faith in you,” said Sen. Moran. “It’s been my disappointment over time to watch the FCC become much more partisan and incapable of reaching decisions. I would encourage you to use every effort to find solutions to these problems and bring the commission together to serve the American people.”
Sen. Moran questioned Mr. Isaacman on NASA’s plans for the Space Launch System (SLS), parts of which are manufactured in Kansas, and highlighted the Cosmosphere and its importance to Kansas.
“Do you believe the current Artemis architecture featuring the SLS rocket or Orion spacecraft is the best or fastest way to beat China to the Moon,” asked Sen. Moran.
“Senator, this is the current plan, and I do believe it is the best and fastest way to get there,” answered Mr. Isaacman.
Click HERE to watch Sen. Moran’s Questions
Source: United States Senator Ted Budd (R-North Carolina)
Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senator Ted Budd (R-N.C.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, introduced the Military Installation Retail Security Act to prohibit the Department of Defense (DoD) from authorizing, renewing, or extending long-term retail agreements with companies owned or controlled by adversarial nations on U.S. military bases. The legislation also requires the review of all retail stores on military bases nationwide to determine if there are foreign ties to China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea.
Senators Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Rick Scott (R-Fla.) joined Senator Budd in introducing the bill. Congressman Pat Harrigan (R-N.C.-10) introduced the companion legislation in the House of Representatives.
“Our military readiness depends upon security and surveillance. Adversarial nations have no place owning and operating businesses on U.S. military bases, all the while gaining personal identification information of American citizens, just to turn a profit. That is why I am proud to introduce the Military Installation Retail Security Act, to close this loophole by taking targeted action to prevent malign actors from embedding themselves within our military communities where they can threaten our national security and exploit personal data,” said Senator Budd.
“We shouldn’t be allowing Chinese-affiliated companies in the United States, let alone on our military bases. This bill will ensure our adversaries can’t exploit our military,” said Senator Cotton.
“Allowing companies controlled by our biggest foreign adversaries – like Communist China, Russia, and North Korea – to operate on U.S. military bases is a completely unacceptable threat to our national security that risks an enemy gaining sensitive personal and military data. The Military Installation Retail Security Act will close the loopholes that allow these bad actors to gain footholds within our military communities, ensuring that our military bases remain secure, and that foreign enemies aren’t profiting off our service members and their families. This should be common sense, and I urge my colleagues to support its quick passage,” said Senator Scott.
“My team uncovered that GNC is fully owned by the Chinese Communist Party and operating more than 80 stores on U.S. military bases. That’s not just a problem; it’s a direct threat to our national security. We moved quickly to get a solution on the table and introduced the Military Installation Retail Security Act in the House. I’m glad to have Senator Budd step in to help drive this forward and make sure CCP-owned companies have zero place inside America’s military infrastructure,” said Congressman Harrigan.
Read the full bill text HERE.
Background
Retail stores on U.S. military bases gain direct and prolonged access to our nation’s servicemembers and their families while operating in a sensitive base environment, which creates serious risks for surveillance. This gives companies, owned by foreign adversaries, unprecedented access to personally identifiable information such as names, payment methods, and purchase history.
GNC—which started as a small, family-owned health-food store in Pittsburgh in 1935—was bought by the Chinese state-owned Harbin Pharmaceutical Group after the supplement retailer filed for bankruptcy in 2020. Currently, this Chinese-owned company operates over 80 locations on U.S. military bases.
On base at North Carolina’s Fort Bragg, GNC operates several storefronts serving 53,700 troops, who make up nearly 10 percent of the U.S. Army alone.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Trent Kelly (R-Miss)
Senators Kelly and Young, Representatives Kelly and Garamendi Statement on Trump’s Shipbuilding Executive Order
Washington, April 10, 2025
WASHINGTON – Arizona Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and SHIPS for America Act co-leads Senator Todd Young (R-IN), Representative Trent Kelly (R-MS-1), and Representative John Garamendi (D-CA-8) have released the following statement after President Donald Trump signed an executive order to support shipbuilding in the United States.
“This executive order recognizes the urgent need for a comprehensive approach to reinvigorate the U.S. shipbuilding and maritime industries, sharing the same goals as our SHIPS for America Act. America’s maritime industry and shipbuilding capacity have dangerously lagged behind over the years, allowing China to get ahead and pose a serious threat over the oceans. Today’s action by the Trump administration shows they see the same threat and the urgent need to reverse course to strengthen our national security and grow our economy. We’re also encouraged that many of the provisions in the executive order mirror parts of our SHIPS for America Act.
“We will introduce the SHIPS for America Act with renewed support in the coming weeks to provide the Congressional authorizations needed to truly revitalize the American shipbuilding and maritime industries, and work with the administration to get it passed. That’s how we’ll put Americans to work building more oceangoing ships and flying the American flag on merchant vessels to reclaim America’s global maritime leadership.”
Background:
Senators Kelly and Young and Representatives Kelly and Garamendi introduced the SHIPS for America Act to revitalize U.S. shipbuilding capacity to lower costs, create good-paying jobs, and strengthen national security.
Sen. Kelly earned his B.S. degree in marine engineering and nautical science in the United States Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA) and later an M.S. degree in aeronautical engineering from the United States Naval Postgraduate School. Sen. Kelly spent 25 years in the United States Navy as a pilot and is the first to serve in Congress. In 2023, Sen. Kelly was elected chair of the USMMA Board of Visitors for the 118th Congress.
Rep. Kelly serves as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces for the House Armed Services Committee.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben Egliston, Senior Lecturer in Digital Cultures, Australian Research Council DECRA Fellow, University of Sydney
Last week, Nintendo announced the June 5 release of its long anticipated Switch 2. But the biggest talking point wasn’t the console’s launch titles or features. At US$449 in the United States, and A$699 in Australia, many were struck by the steep cost.
However, this price doesn’t seem quite as high once you compare it to the broader history of hardware pricing. And it may still go up.
History of Nintendo pricing
The original NES (Nintendo Entertainment System) console cost US$179 when it was released in 1985. That’s US$525, or A$590, adjusted for 2025 inflation.
But other consoles have been even pricier. The PlayStation 3 launched in North America in 2006 at around US$499 (US$782 today). When it launched in Australia the next year, it retailed at A$999 (upwards of A$1500 today).
Nintendo’s main competitors are Sony (Xbox) and Microsoft (PlayStation). Both are subsidised by their broader media and technology businesses, which means they can afford to make higher-cost consoles, and even take losses on console sales.
The Xbox Series X and Playstation 5 both launched in Australia for A$749 in 2020. Shutterstock
Compared to Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft depend more heavily on licensing third-party content and offering subscription services, such as Xbox Game Pass, to drive recurring revenue.
Nintendo’s business model, by contrast, revolves around selling both its consoles and original “first-party” titles.
Nintendo also takes a different approach to console development, by prioritising lower-spec, lower-cost hardware aimed at a broader and often more casual audience. The company has typically made profits on both its hardware and software (particularly its first-party games).
Our research suggests many players appreciate this strategy. Rather than competing directly with Sony and Microsoft on technical performance, they felt Nintendo focused on delivering fun and accessible experiences through affordable technology.
Still, the current economic conditions make the Switch 2’s price hard to swallow. With the rising cost of living and stagnant wages, even historically “normal” prices can feel out of reach.
The tariff question
Why is Nintendo increasing the price of Switch 2 – especially given the enormous commercial success of the original 2017 Switch at its lower price point of US$299 and A$469?
The Switch 2 release was announced on the same day the Trump administration unveiled plans for sweeping new tariffs, including a proposed minimum 10% tariff on all imports (and higher on Vietnam, China and Cambodia, where Nintendo manufactures its consoles).
Doug Bowser, president at Nintendo of America, has claimed tariffs “weren’t factored into the pricing” of the Switch 2.
But it’s hard to imagine a scenario in which Nintendo simply absorbs those costs. The company has historically maintained positive margins on hardware. It is also famously conservative when it comes to its pricing strategy.
Not just tariffs — and not just Nintendo
The Switch 2’s price tag is a window into broader shifts in the business of games. Games are more popular than ever. And apart from a small dip in 2022, they’re making more money than ever.
But they’re also more expensive to make. Reports claim Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War had a combined development and marketing budget of around US$700 million.
Low interest rates, particularly during the pandemic, meant rising production costs could be offset by cheap money from big publishing, technology, and entertainment conglomerates investing in videogame companies.
Venture capital firms and tech giants alike piled in. The result was huge growth for the industry, as well as some blockbuster mergers.
But the era of near-zero interest rates is no more – and the flow of money that once covered soaring development costs is slowing down.
Gaming companies have responded with mass layoffs, further exacerbated by exuberance (largely from management) for artificial intelligence to increase efficiency. Beyond this, they are turning to more aggressive monetisation strategies.
Games such as Fortnite and Call of Duty don’t just make money from sales. They keep players inside their ecosystems, spending money over time.
Research has shown developers are increasingly designing games for ongoing user monestisation,
whether through micro-transactions, battle passes, extra downloadable content, subscriptions or in-game advertising.
Between tariffs, inflation and rising game development costs, the US$450 Switch 2 (and its US$80/A$110 games) may just be the beginning. In the short term, we’re likely to see higher prices for both consoles and games.
The effects of US tariffs on Switch 2 pricing in Australia remain unclear. However, the Australian dollar’s recent roller coaster ride, partly driven by uncertainty over US tariffs, could mean further price hikes to offset increased import costs.
We saw Sony adjust prices for the PS5 mid-generation in response to production costs. There’s no reason to assume the Switch 2 price will remain static.
In the longer term, we’re entering a market where the line between “freemium” and “premium” continues to blur. Premium games now often come with built-in expectations of ongoing monetisation, moving away from one-off sales.
Platform holders such as Nintendo remained notable exceptions, favouring upfront pricing and self-contained experiences. Although they, too, may gradually shift away from this.
Ben Egliston is a recipient of funding from the Australian Research Council (DE240101275, DP250100343). He has previously received funding from Meta and TikTok.
Taylor Hardwick is employed under funding by the Australian Research Council (FF220100076; DE240101275). She is a board member of both Freeplay, a Melbourne-based independent games festival, and the Digital Games Research Association of Australia.
Tianyi Zhangshao 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.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Pat Fallon (TX-04)
WASHINGTON – Representatives Pat Fallon (TX-04) and Ro Khanna (CA-17) as well as Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and Gary Peters (D-MI) today introduced their Securing America’s Federal Equipment (SAFE) in Supply Chains Act, which would protect America’s cybersecurity by ensuring the Department of Defense (DoD) does not unintentionally acquire counterfeit electronics or those from unauthorized sellers:
“The proliferation of artificial intelligence has allowed US adversaries to conduct offensive cyber-operations with alarming speed and impact, creating the possibility of a devastating attack on our nation’s most sensitive networks,” said Rep. Fallon. “Simultaneously, our adversaries have been targeting our hardware and software systems by selling the US government counterfeit products through what are known as ‘grey market’ sellers. These products, although marketed as genuine hardware, allow our adversaries to gain access to US government systems, making it far easier to conduct subsequent cyber-attacks. This is unacceptable.”
“With the rising threat posed by Chinese aggression, not only in the Indo-Pacific, but here at home by means of artificial intelligence and cyber attacks, it’s critical that the Department of Defense secure its vital infrastructure,” continued Rep. Pat Fallon. “In order to do so, we must ensure that the US military only purchases electronic equipment from approved vendors that are free from adversarial, particularly CCP influence. Under President Trump’s bold leadership, the US is finally focused on breaking its dependency on Communist China. The SAFE Supply Chains Act dovetails with this endeavor and is in the best interest of US national security.”
Background:
Due to increased cyberattacks on vulnerable supply chains and federal agencies, including the Department of Defense (DoD), it is vital that when purchasing information technology products, the DoD only purchase these electronics from Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) or their authorized resellers. Under the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations (DFARs), in order for businesses to contract with the U.S. military, they are required to only acquire electronic products from these OEMs or authorized sellers. However, there are still many cases of federal government employees purchasing technology from grey-market sellers rather than authorized sellers. Grey-market sellers may circumvent trusted supply chains and provide counterfeit technology that could harm security networks within the DoD. These counterfeit devices are often older and may contain unsafe and unreliable components, causing technology to malfunction or completely fail, leading to significant damage to networks and operations.
The Securing America’s Federal Equipment (SAFE) in Supply Chains Act would:
Prohibit the DoD from using a covered product from an entity other than an original equipment manufacturer or authorized seller;
Allow the Secretary of Defense to waive the prohibition of a covered product, upon written notice to the Congressional Defense Committees, if they determine the waiver is necessary in the interest of national security;
Require written notice on justification for waivers and any security mitigations that have been implemented and a plan of action to avoid future waivers for similar future purchases; and
Require the DoD to submit a report to Congress that lists the number and types of covered products for which a waiver was granted and why.
FREMONT, Calif., April 10, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — ACM Research, Inc. (“ACM”) (NASDAQ: ACMR), a leading supplier of wafer and panel processing solutions for semiconductor and advanced packaging applications, today announced that its Ultra ECP ap-p tool has won the 2025 3D InCites Award in the Technology Enablement category. This award honors companies that have identified and solved critical challenges in the advancement of the heterogeneous integration roadmap, driving the industry forward through cutting-edge solutions and advancements.
ACM’s Ultra ECP ap-p system, designed for fan-out panel-level packaging (FOPLP), is the first commercially-available high-volume copper deposition system for the large panel market. By using a horizontal plating approach, it achieves exceptional uniformity and precision across the entire panel. The tool supports 515 mm x 510 mm and 600 mm x 600 mm panel sizes and can be used for plating steps in a variety of processes including pillar, bump and redistribution layer.
“I believe this award recognition from 3D InCites validates ACM’s dedication to innovation in addressing customers’ challenges in panel-level packaging (PLP),” said Dr. David Wang, ACM’s President and Chief Executive Officer. “As the demand for large chiplets, high-performance graphics processing units and high-density high-bandwidth memory continues to grow, PLP has emerged as a key solution for reducing cost and improving efficiency. The Ultra ECP ap-p system is a vital addition to ACM’s expanding FOPLP portfolio, reinforcing our commitment to advancing high-volume manufacturing solutions.”
ACM’s FOPLP portfolio includes:
Announced at the IMAPS Device Packaging Conference, 3D InCites award winners were selected based on their significant contributions to the advancement of the heterogeneous integration roadmap.
Forward-Looking Statements
Certain statements contained in this press release are not historical facts and may be forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Words such as “plans,” “expects,” “believes,” “anticipates,” “designed,” and similar words are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are based on ACM management’s current expectations and beliefs and involve a number of risks and uncertainties that are difficult to predict and that could cause actual results to differ materially from those stated or implied by the forward-looking statements. A description of certain of these risks, uncertainties and other matters can be found in filings ACM makes with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, all of which are available at www.sec.gov. Because forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties, actual results and events may differ materially from results and events currently expected by ACM. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date hereof. ACM undertakes no obligation to publicly update these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances that occur after the date hereof or to reflect any change in its expectations with regard to these forward-looking statements or the occurrence of unanticipated events.
About ACM Research, Inc.
ACM develops, manufactures and sells semiconductor process equipment spanning cleaning, electroplating, stress-free polishing, vertical furnace processes, track, PECVD, and wafer- and panel-level packaging tools, enabling advanced and semi-critical semiconductor device manufacturing. ACM is committed to delivering customized, high-performance, cost-effective process solutions that semiconductor manufacturers can use in numerous manufacturing steps to improve productivity and product yield. For more information, visit www.acmr.com.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Washington, DC – Today, Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (OH-09), and Tracey Mann (KS-01) reintroduced the bipartisan and bicameral Farmer First Fuel Incentives Act, which would protect American farmers by restricting the eligibility of the 45Z Tax Credit to renewable fuels made only from domestically sourced feedstocks. Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Roger Marshall, MD (R-KS) have introduced an identical companion bill in the United States Senate.
“Today, I joined my colleagues in this important bicameral and bipartisan effort because helping American farmers, producers, and growers goes beyond state and party lines, and is more important now than ever,” said Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (OH-09).“We must ensure the Clean Fuel Production tax credit is structured in a way that benefits domestic producers, and not one that advantages foreign-produced feedstocks from China or Brazil. Our legislation extends this credit through 2034 and will bolster American energy independence by prioritizing American producers and the production of domestic biofuels.”
“American tax incentives should benefit American-grown products and American farmers, not foreign producers,” said Congressman Tracey Mann (KS-01). “Foreign feedstocks can play a significant role in producing domestically manufactured ethanol, biodiesel, renewable diesel, and sustainable aviation fuel, but we cannot allow them to displace harvest grown right in our backyard. Our tax code should reward their grit and tenacity, not prop up feedstocks grown overseas.”
This legislation would extend the 45Z tax credit and give the ethanol industry the time and financial incentive to build up the infrastructure needed for the US to be less reliant on foreign fuel, open new markets for farmers, and increase ethanol production across the Midwest. Additionally, this bill fixes the glaring flaw in 45Z that negatively impacts farmers wanting to sell feedstocks to the biodiesel and renewable diesel industry. If 45Z continues as-is, taxpayers are at risk of further subsidizing Chinese-used cooking oil and undermining the use of soy, canola, sorghum, and corn oil in renewable fuels.
“Domestically produced biofuel strengthens our energy independence, supports our farmers, and boosts rural economies,”said Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN). “The introduction of the Farmers First Fuel Incentives Act is an important step as we work to maximize the potential of the 45Z Clean Fuel Production Credit and clean fuel investments across rural America. By extending the credit for another ten years, this legislation gives farmers and biofuel producers the certainty they need to provide consumers with affordable, lower-carbon fuel options.”
“The Farmer First Fuel Incentives Act is commonsense legislation that stops sending American taxpayer dollars to China, expands robust domestic markets for agriculture producers, and increases certainty for the biofuels industry,” said Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS). “With President Trump in the White House and Republicans leading both the Senate and House, we are finally putting American farmers first and supporting biofuels made in the USA It’s time our energy and agricultural policies reflect that.”
The Senate companion legislation is cosponsored by US Senators Joni Ernst (R-IA), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), and Pete Ricketts (R-NE).
The legislation is supported by Growth Energy, American Soybean Association, National Oilseed Processors Association (NOPA), National Corn Growers Association, National Sorghum Producers, US Canola Association, and Renewable Fuels Association.
“Farmers and businesses need to know this tax credit is here to stay before they can invest in dozens of new energy projects across rural America. With this bill they’ll have the certainty they need to accelerate innovation, create thousands of new jobs, and secure new markets for farmers and biofuel producers,” said Growth Energy CEO Emily Skor. “We applaud this leadership and thank all our rural champions for working to put American renewable fuel producers and farmers in the best possible position to succeed in next generation fuel markets.”
“ASA thanks Senators Marshall and Klobuchar for their leadership to ensure the 45Z tax credit supports domestic biofuel producers and domestic biofuel feedstock suppliers like soybean farmers,” said American Soybean Association President Caleb Ragland. “The updated Farmers First Fuel Incentives Act includes one of our top priorities: removing arbitrary indirect land use change calculations, which put soy and all of US agriculture at a disadvantage to imported waste feedstocks of dubious origin. This legislation provides a roadmap for how the 45Z tax credit can be improved to support farmers, and we are glad to support its introduction.”
“American tax incentives should support American farmers — not put them at a disadvantage. Ensuring that only domestic feedstocks such as U.S.-grown soybeans qualify for U.S. tax credits is a straightforward way to strengthen our domestic supply chain and rural economy,” said National Oilseed Processors Association (NOPA)President and CEO Devin Mogler. “At the same time, eliminating the outdated and flawed Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) penalty removes an arbitrary barrier that unfairly punishes US producers while benefiting foreign competitors. We appreciate Congresswoman Kaptur, Congressman Mann, and Senators Marshall and Klobuchar for their leadership to ensure the Clean Fuel Production Credit works as intended — to support American agriculture and American energy.”
“We are deeply appreciative of these leaders for introducing legislation that establishes requirements for a tax credit that will level the playing field for America’s corn growers,” said National Corn Growers Association President Kenneth Hartman Jr. “This bill brings American farmers a step closer to unlocking an exciting new market with global reach.”
“We appreciate the focus on “farmers first” legislation and the support of 45Z and domestic feedstocks like sorghum,” said Amy France, Chair of the National Sorghum Producers. “Domestic biofuel production remains critical to our farm and our country’s success.”
“The US Canola Association strongly supports the removal of arbitrary and uncertain indirect land use change (ILUC) assumptions from the calculation of federal clean fuel production tax credits,” said Tim Mickelson, President of the US Canola Association. “We applaud the sponsors and co-sponsors for their efforts to improve and extend the tax credit for biofuels. The flawed assumptions used to calculate indirect emissions have resulted in canola being excluded despite being a proven feedstock that the US EPA’s analysis conservatively shows reduces emissions up to 78%. We urge Congress to enact these important changes to provide certainty, stability, and market opportunity for canola growers and our biofuels industry partners.”
You can find the full House bill text byclicking here.
Background:
In 2024, Congresswoman Kaptur also led multiple bipartisan letters calling for the US Department of the Treasury to restrict the eligibility of the 45Z Tax Credit to renewable fuels made only from domestically sourced feedstocks, like Kansas soybean oil and corn oil.
H.R. 1716 would require the Department of the Treasury to publish a report listing estimated total funds held by certain Chinese leaders and the financial institutions where significant portions of the funds are held. The report would be due within 90 days of the Congress receiving a notice from the President concerning a threat to Taiwan by China. That list would be updated every three years unless the threat is deemed no longer present. The bill also would direct the department to prohibit the listed Chinese leaders or their families from using any U.S. financial services. That requirement would terminate either 30 days after the President deems that Taiwan is no longer under threat or 25 years after the department submits a final report.
The 1979 Taiwan Relations Act directs the President to promptly inform the Congress of any threat to the security or the social or economic systems of the people of Taiwan and of any danger to the interests of the United States that arises from that threat. CBO cannot determine when actions by China could result in the President providing such notice and thus invoking the bill’s reporting requirements. In the event of such a notice, CBO estimates that the required report and other actions would cost less than $500,000 over the 2025-2030 period; any related spending would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
The Department of the Treasury would need information from the federal financial regulatory agencies, including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, among others, to carry out the bill’s requirements. H.R. 1716 could affect direct spending by those agencies, some of which are allowed to use fees to cover their operating costs. CBO estimates that the net change in direct spending by federal financial regulatory agencies would be less than $500,000 over the 2025-2035 period.
Administrative costs incurred by the Federal Reserve, another federal financial regulatory agency, would reduce remittances to the Treasury; such remittances are recorded in the budget as revenues. CBO estimates that the cost to the Federal Reserve would be insignificant.
The bill also would establish civil and criminal penalties for failure to comply with the new authorities. Civil fines are recorded in the budget as revenues. Criminal fines are recorded as revenues, deposited in the Crime Victims Fund, and subsequently spent without further appropriation. CBO estimates that any additional collections and associated spending would be insignificant because of the relatively small number of additional cases likely to occur over the 2025-2035 period.
H.R. 1716 would impose a private-sector mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) on U.S. financial institutions if the Treasury prohibits transactions between them and certain Chinese leaders or their families. The cost of the mandate would include the forgone revenue that would be attributable to those transactions. Because the restriction would apply only in a small number of cases, CBO estimates that the cost of the mandate would not exceed the private-sector threshold established in UMRA ($206 million in 2025, adjusted annually for inflation).
The bill would not impose intergovernmental mandates.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Matthew Pickford (for federal costs), Nathaniel Frentz (for the Federal Reserve), and Andrew Laughlin (for mandates). The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.
Source: United States Senator Peter Welch (D-Vermont)
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Peter Welch (D-Vt.), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, led Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in introducing bipartisan legislation to repeal Donald Trump’s global tariffs and reassert Congress’s trade authorities. The Senators’ resolution would terminate the emergency that Trump declared in order to apply tariffs of up to 49% on products Americans buy from other countries. In the wake of Trump’s tariff declaration, markets have cratered, manufacturers have laid off thousands of workers and foreign countries have retaliated by imposing their own tariffs on U.S. agricultural and manufactured goods.
“The President’s reckless global trade war has already gone far beyond everyone’s worst predictions. In just a matter of days, President Trump has thrown the economy into chaos and wiped out Vermonters’ retirement funds–all in an apparent attempt to achieve deeply misguided foreign policy goals,” said Senator Welch. “Congress must stand up and reassert our constitutional role in setting trade policy before Trump’s tariffs ruin more lives and livelihoods.”
“Trump’s trade chaos has put our entire economy at the mercy of one man’s social media account – that’s not how America is supposed to work,” said Senator Wyden. “Congress can’t sit on its hands while he slaps a new 10 percent tax on everything families buy, and leaves businesses and seniors in limbo until the next tariff flip flop. Congress needs to pass our bipartisan bill, end the tariff rollercoaster, and restore Congress’ Constitutional authority over trade.”
“Tariffs are taxes, and the power to tax belongs to Congress—not the president. Our Founders were clear: tax policy should never rest in the hands of one person,” said Senator Paul. “Abusing emergency powers to impose blanket tariffs not only drives up costs for American families but also tramples on the Constitution. It’s time Congress reasserts its authority and restores the balance of power.”
“Make no mistake – the president’s ill-conceived and chaotic trade war is nothing but a tax on American families,” said Senator Schumer. “Trump is leading America headfirst into a recession, with no plans on how to right the cratering economy. The Senate has the power and authority to stop this madness and we have a duty to act in a bipartisan way to repeal these tariffs, which is why I am proud to co-sponsor this legislation. It’s time for Republicans to stand up for American families, lower costs, save seniors’ retirement funds, and prevent a global economic crisis.”
“No President has the authority to unilaterally impose such sweeping across-the-board tariffs without congressional approval,” said Senator Kaine. “President Trump’s tariff strategy is raising costs on American families, threatening alliances our national security depends on, and creating opportunity for China and other adversaries to take advantage of global instability. The time is now for Congress to reassert its authority in matters of international trade, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join us.”
“The administration’s ill-considered, short-sighted tariffs are a historic tax hike on American families – jacking up the price of gas, fruit, coffee and other groceries, electronics, cars and everything in between,” said Senator Shaheen. “President Trump’s chaotic trade war targets close allies like Canada and Europe even while sparing adversaries like Russia — leaving America weaker, more isolated and distrusted around the globe. I’m proud to help introduce this resolution to force the administration to end these taxes before it does irreparable harm to American families and our international leadership role.”
“Donald Trump’s reckless agenda will hurt American families, small businesses, and manufacturers,” said Senator Warren. “The Trump tariffs are economic sabotage, and Congress has the power to stop them. Republicans can join Democrats and end this today.”
Under Senate rules, the measure will receive a vote on the Senate floor shortly after the Senate returns from a state work period later this month. If enacted, the resolution would terminate the emergency that Trump declared, reverse Trump’s new taxes of 10% on all imported goods and end his threat of additional tariffs up to 49% on products Americans buy from other countries. In the wake of Trump’s tariff standoff, manufacturers have laid off thousands of workers, and foreign countries have retaliated by slapping their own tariffs on U.S. agricultural and manufactured goods.
Read and download the full text of the resolution.
Guatemala expressed appreciation for the Dialogue’s progress on the workplan and signalled its readiness to contribute its domestic perspectives.
Opening remarks were delivered by Ambassador Omar Zniber, from Morocco. Stressing trade’s role as a force for good in combating pollution, he emphasized the significant progress made since last summer and reiterated the goal of achieving “concrete, pragmatic, and effective outcomes” as mandated by ministers at MC13. He said that the stocktaking meeting provided an opportunity to consolidate members’ views and chart the course ahead in the remaining time before MC14.
Morocco highlighted the success of the regional workshop for Africa held on 8 April, which brought together representatives from African member governments, businesses and international organizations. The workshop aimed to facilitate DPP discussions ahead of MC14 in Cameroon by addressing Africa-specific challenges and solutions.
The workshop revealed that, despite accounting for just 4 per cent of global plastics production, Africa suffers disproportionately from the environmental, social and economic impacts of plastic pollution. Key challenges identified included high costs for plastics alternatives, limited access to technologies, and competition from low-cost plastics. Opportunities included reducing tariffs on eco-friendly products, promoting local innovation, and improving technology transfer for waste management and alternatives.
Participants at the workshop also underscored the importance of regional and multilateral cooperation, with the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) highlighted as a platform for regulatory alignment. Calls were made for harmonized standards, capacity building and tailored technical assistance — especially for least developed countries (LDCs).
Morocco and Australia provided a recap of discussions on the eight focus areas, on behalf of the coordinators, which also include Barbados, China, Ecuador and Fiji. With regard to engagement in the UN-led negotiation process (Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, or INC ) to develop a global plastics treaty, members acknowledged its expected impact on the DPP’s future work and highlighted the Dialogue’s potential role in supporting implementation.
On transparency of plastics trade flows, strong support was expressed for leveraging existing tools such as those provided by the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). In the area of technical assistance and capacity building, members welcomed continued experience-sharing, with some proposing a more structured matchmaking mechanism. On the transparency of trade-related plastics measures (TrPMs), delegates expressed support for enhancing existing data tools, such as the WTO’s Environmental Database (wto.org/EDB).
On best practices for TrPMs, members demonstrated some support for compiling guidance aligned with WTO rules and adaptable to local contexts. Regarding harmonization and interoperability, many backed regional cooperation on single-use plastics, while emphasizing the need to tailor approaches to domestic waste management capacities.
Discussions on access to technologies and services underscored the role of trade in enabling technology diffusion for sound waste management. On non-plastic substitutes, members suggested identifying gaps in international standards and conducting practical mapping exercises to facilitate sustainable alternatives.
Participants then engaged in an open discussion guided by questions related to the three overarching workstreams — cross-cutting issues, plastics reduction, and sustainable plastics trade — which encompass the eight focus areas. These discussions aimed to generate suggestions on the future direction of work and next steps.
Many co-sponsors emphasized the importance of aligning DPP activities with the anticipated outcomes of the ongoing INC negotiations. While data tools provided by the UNITAR and UNEP were appreciated, some participants proposed referencing additional data sources. Various proposals were made on the way forward, including continued thematic discussions and the organization of a dedicated matchmaking event to support enhanced technology transfer.
Delegates also explored work on standards at both regional and global levels. There was strong interest in addressing both upstream and downstream aspects of plastics production, as well as services within the environmental trade sector. The importance of technology transfer and capacity building — particularly for developing members — was widely reaffirmed.
Co-sponsors welcomed the Africa-themed workshop as a valuable platform for focused dialogue on regional perspectives. They expressed support for organizing more regional workshops to further deepen cooperation and shared understanding. Participants also highlighted the need to maintain balance across the three DPP workstreams. Some called for sufficient time to assess progress before determining possible outcomes for MC14. Stakeholders from other organizations also contributed suggestions during the session.
In conclusion, Australia and Ecuador noted that they would reflect on members’ input when developing the agenda for the next three meetings, scheduled for 19 May, 22 July and 30 September. These meetings will be critical to laying the groundwork for the November meeting, where members could shape a clearer vision for outcomes at MC14. Additional regional workshops will also be organized alongside these upcoming meetings.
Launched in November 2020 by a group of WTO members, the Dialogue on Plastics Pollution currently consists of 83 co-sponsors, representing almost 90 per cent of global trade in plastics.
Source: United States Senator for Kansas Roger Marshall
Washington – U.S. Senators Roger Marshall, M.D. (R-Kansas) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) today reintroduced the bipartisan and bicameral Farmer First Fuel Incentives Act, which would protect American farmers by restricting the eligibility of the 45Z Tax Credit to renewable fuels made only from domestically sourced feedstocks. U.S. Representatives Tracey Mann (R-Kansas-01) and Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio-09) have introduced an identical bill in the House of Representatives.
This bill would extend the 45Z tax credit and give the ethanol industry the time and financial incentive to build up the infrastructure needed for the U.S. to be less reliant on foreign fuel, open new markets for farmers, and increase ethanol production across the Midwest. Additionally, this bill fixes the glaring flaw in 45Z that negatively impacts farmers wanting to sell feedstocks to the biodiesel and renewable diesel industry. If 45Z continues as-is, taxpayers are at risk of further subsidizing Chinese-used cooking oil and undermining the use of soy, canola, sorghum, and corn oil in renewable fuels.
“The Farmer First Fuel Incentives Act is commonsense legislation that stops sending American taxpayer dollars to China, expands robust domestic markets for agriculture producers, and increases certainty for the biofuels industry,” said Senator Marshall. “With President Trump in the White House and Republicans leading both the Senate and House, we are finally putting American farmers first and supporting biofuels made in the U.S.A. It’s time our energy and agricultural policies reflect that.”
“Domestically produced biofuel strengthens our energy independence, supports our farmers, and boosts rural economies,” said Senator Klobuchar. “The introduction of the Farmers First Fuel Incentives Act is an important step as we work to maximize the potential of the 45Z Clean Fuel Production Credit and clean fuel investments across rural America. By extending the credit for another ten years, this legislation gives farmers and biofuel producers the certainty they need to provide consumers with affordable, lower-carbon fuel options.”
“American tax incentives should benefit American-grown products and American farmers, not foreign producers,” said Representative Mann. “Foreign feedstocks can play a significant role in producing domestically manufactured ethanol, biodiesel, renewable diesel, and sustainable aviation fuel, but we cannot allow them to displace harvest grown right in our backyard. Our tax code should reward their grit and tenacity, not prop up feedstocks grown overseas.”
“Today, I joined my colleagues in this important bicameral and bipartisan effort because helping American farmers, producers, and growers goes beyond state and party lines, and is more important now than ever,” said Representative Kaptur. “We must ensure the Clean Fuel Production tax credit is structured in a way that benefits domestic producers, and not one that advantages foreign-produced feedstocks from China or Brazil. Our legislation extends this credit through 2034 and will bolster American energy independence by prioritizing American producers and the production of domestic biofuels.”
This legislation is cosponsored by U.S. Senators Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Deb Fischer (R-Nebraska), Elissa Slotkin (D-Michigan), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin), and Pete Ricketts (R-Nebraska).
“Throughout my time in Congress, I’ve led the charge to build certainty and clarity into biofuel policies and put Iowa farmers at the forefront of delivering better, more affordable options at the gas pump,” said Senator Ernst. “The Farmer First Fuel Incentives Act does just that by giving producers the long-term certainty they need to go all-in on increasing production of domestic biofuels. It’s critical that we fully leverage homegrown, American biofuels and ensure not a cent of taxpayer dollars fund fuel produced with foreign crops.”
“America’s biofuel producers are a key piece in helping to secure U.S. energy independence,” said Senator Fischer. “That’s why Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars should support home-grown feedstocks—not incentivize foreign competitors. Our bipartisan legislation ensures that renewable fuel tax incentives support American producers—not overseas interests.”
“American tax credits should support American farmers. The Farmer First Fuel Incentives Act provides long-term certainty for Nebraskan producers through tax policy that makes sense,” said Senator Ricketts. “By bolstering the development of a domestic fuel supply chain, this bipartisan bill puts American farmers first.”
The legislation is supported by Growth Energy, American Soybean Association, National Oilseed Processors Association (NOPA), National Corn Growers Association, National Sorghum Producers, U.S. Canola Association, and Renewable Fuels Association.
“Farmers and businesses need to know this tax credit is here to stay before they can invest in dozens of new energy projects across rural America. With this bill they’ll have the certainty they need to accelerate innovation, create thousands of new jobs, and secure new markets for farmers and biofuel producers,” said Growth Energy CEO Emily Skor. “We applaud Sen. Marshall and Sen. Klobuchar for their leadership and thank all our rural champions for working to put American renewable fuel producers and farmers in the best possible position to succeed in next generation fuel markets.”
“ASA thanks Senators Marshall and Klobuchar for their leadership to ensure the 45Z tax credit supports domestic biofuel producers and domestic biofuel feedstock suppliers like soybean farmers,” said American Soybean Association President Caleb Ragland. “The updated Farmers First Fuel Incentives Act includes one of our top priorities: removing arbitrary indirect land use change calculations, which put soy and all of U.S. agriculture at a disadvantage to imported waste feedstocks of dubious origin. This legislation provides a roadmap for how the 45Z tax credit can be improved to support farmers, and we are glad to support its introduction.”
“American tax incentives should support American farmers — not put them at a disadvantage. Ensuring that only domestic feedstocks such as U.S.-grown soybeans qualify for U.S. tax credits is a straightforward way to strengthen our domestic supply chain and rural economy,” said National Oilseed Processors Association (NOPA) President and CEO Devin Mogler. “At the same time, eliminating the outdated and flawed Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) penalty removes an arbitrary barrier that unfairly punishes U.S. producers while benefiting foreign competitors. We appreciate Senators Marshall and Klobuchar for their leadership to ensure the Clean Fuel Production Credit works as intended — to support American agriculture and American energy.”
“We are deeply appreciative of these leaders for introducing legislation that establishes requirements for a tax credit that will level the playing field for America’s corn growers,” said National Corn Growers Association President Kenneth Hartman Jr. “This bill brings American farmers a step closer to unlocking an exciting new market with global reach.”
“We appreciate the focus on “farmers first” legislation and the support of 45Z and domestic feedstocks like sorghum,” said Amy France, Chair of the National Sorghum Producers. “Domestic biofuel production remains critical to our farm and our country’s success.”
“The U.S. Canola Association strongly supports the removal of arbitrary and uncertain indirect land use change (ILUC) assumptions from the calculation of federal clean fuel production tax credits,” said Tim Mickelson, President of the U.S. Canola Association. “We applaud Senator Marshall, Senator Klobuchar and the co-sponsors for their efforts to improve and extend the tax credit for biofuels. The flawed assumptions used to calculate indirect emissions have resulted in canola being excluded despite being a proven feedstock that the U.S. EPA’s analysis conservatively shows reduces emissions up to 78%. We urge Congress to enact these important changes to provide certainty, stability, and market opportunity for canola growers and our biofuels industry partners.”
Click HERE to read the full bill text.
Background:
Senator Marshall initially introduced this legislation in 2024.
In 2024, Senator Marshall also led a bipartisan letter calling for the U.S. Department of the Treasury to restrict the eligibility of the 45Z Tax Credit to renewable fuels made only from domestically sourced feedstocks, like Kansas soybean oil and corn oil.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Stephanie Bice (OK-05)
Washington, D.C. – Today, the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology (NSCEB) delivered its major report and action plan to Congress. Representative Bice (R-OK-05) serves as one of the Commissioners.
The Commission’s top assessment is that urgent Congressional action is needed to bring the full weight of American innovation to bear on the biotechnology challenge and maintain U.S. global leadership in this transformative area.
For decades, the U.S. has been the global leader in biotechnology innovation. Now, the Commission finds that the U.S. is dangerously close to falling behind China.
“The United States is locked in a competition with China that will define the coming century. Biotechnology is the next phase in that competition. It is no longer constrained to the realm of scientific achievement. It is now an imperative for national security, economic power, and global influence. Biotechnology can ensure our warfighters continue to be the strongest fighting force on tomorrow’s battlefields, and reshore supply chains while revitalizing our manufacturing sector, creating jobs here at home,”said NSCEB Chair Senator Todd Young (R-IN).
The Commission reports that the United States’ growing dependence on China for numerous critical supply chain elements is a national security vulnerability. Biotechnology can be the key to increasing supply chain security, resilience, and scalability, by allowing the U.S. to control its own access to critical components.
“Technology is not inherently good or bad, but who uses it matters. Biotechnology can have tremendous potential for good or tremendous potential for harm. The Chinese government has made biotechnology a strategic national priority for 20 years. The U.S. must reassert our global leadership to remedy this strategic weakness. We must be the ones driving the standards for how biotechnology is developed and used,”said NSCEB Vice Chair Dr. Michelle Rozo.
The Commission finds that emerging biotechnology is rapidly advancing, and the impact of biotechnology innovation already extends far beyond health, touching industries from agriculture and infrastructure, to manufacturing and defense. The intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and biotechnology is accelerating this impact.
“Biotechnology holds immense potential to transform numerous key sectors of our economy and will create good paying jobs at all skill levels in agriculture, health care, defense, industrial manufacturing, and more. I am proud to be part of this commission that is ensuring the United States maintains our national security and economic competitive advantages as biotechnology grows across industries,”said NSCEB Commissioner Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA).
The Commission reports that biotechnology will drive the next wave of battlefield innovation, used to secure supply chains, enhance readiness, streamline logistics, improve resilience, and counter biological threats before they emerge.
“As emerging technologies transform the national security landscape, both the United States and our adversaries are gaining new capabilities. The United States must take the lead in biotechnology and propel us ahead of China in the 21st century,”said NSCEB Commissioner Representative Stephanie Bice (R-OK-5).
The Commission’s assessment is that the future of American biotechnology leadership is only possible through strategic federal action that encourages innovation by spurring private investment. This includes targeted investments and strategic government reforms to reduce regulatory bottlenecks.
“We must embolden the best and brightest in biotechnology to innovate boldly. American ingenuity is stifled by outdated regulations in this sector. Only Congress can open the door to the American-led biotechnological future,”said NSCEB Commissioner Representative Ro Khanna (D-CA-17).
The Commission’s report lays out six pillars for action and makes 49 recommendations.
Pillar 1: Prioritize biotechnology at the national level
Pillar 2: Mobilize the private sector to get U.S. products to scale
Pillar 3: Maximize the benefits of biotechnology for defense
Pillar 4: Out-innovate our strategic competitors
Pillar 5: Build the biotechnology workforce of the future
Pillar 6: Mobilize the collective strengths of our allies and partners
Background on NSCEB:
The National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology is a time-limited, high-impact legislative branch advisory entity whose purpose is to advance and secure biotechnology, biomanufacturing, and associated technologies for U.S. national security and to prepare the United States for the biorevolution. NSCEB published a comprehensive report in April 2025, including recommendations for action by Congress and the federal government. The bipartisan Commission is composed of Congressionally-appointed Commissioners with members from both the Senate and the House of Representatives as well as experts from industry, academia, and government. For more information about the Commission and to view the report, visitbiotech.senate.gov.
Source: United Nations General Assembly and Security Council
Opportunity to Bring Syria Back to Peace, Legitimacy ‘Must Not Be Derailed as Result of Syria Regressing into Geopolitical Battlefield’, Delegate Stresses
In the wake of hundreds of reported Israeli air strikes across Syria since 8 December 2024, the Israel Defense Forces’ public confirmation that it built multiple positions in the area of separation and statements by Israeli leaders on their intent to stay in Syria for the foreseeable future, senior UN officials told the Security Council today that all parties must uphold their obligations under the 1974 Disengagement of Forces Agreement.
“Such facts on the ground are not easily reversed — they do threaten Syria’s fragile political transition,” observed Khaled Khiari, Assistant Secretary-General for the Middle East, Asia and the Pacific in the Departments of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs and Peace Operations. He pointed to reports of multiple Israeli air strikes across Syria on 3 April, as well as earlier indications by the authorities in Damascus on “not presenting threats to [Syria’s] neighbours and seeking peace on their borders”. He also pointed to the Israel’s Defence Minister’s 3 April statement qualifying the strikes as “a warning for the future”.
“Considering these developments”, he spotlighted the Council’s 14 March presidential statement calling on all States to respect Syria’s sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity and to “refrain from any action or interference that may further destabilize Syria”. Underscoring that the Council’s commitment to the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity “grows in importance by the day”, he urged: “Syria’s opportunity to stabilize after 14 years of conflict must be supported and protected, for Syrians and for Israelis, this is the only way regional peace and security can be realized.”
Providing additional information, Jean-Pierre Lacroix, Under-Secretary-General for Peace Operations, said that the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) area of operations is characterized by significant violations of the Disengagement Agreement. Israeli forces currently occupy 10 positions in the area of separation and 2 in the area of limitation. They also continue to construct countermobility obstacles along the ceasefire line and have flown aircraft across the line and into the area of separation.
Detailing the incident on 3 April, he said that UNDOF personnel observed the movement of Israeli troops in vehicles. Such personnel later heard and observed multiple explosions, assessing them to be a result of Israeli artillery fire, likely in Nawa and Tasil. It remains critical, he emphasized, that all parties uphold their obligations under the Disengagement Agreement — including by ending all unauthorized presence in the areas of separation and limitation — and he underscored: “There should be no military forces or activities in the area of separation other than those of UNDOF.”
As the floor opened, the representative of Algeria — also speaking for Guyana, Sierra Leone and Somalia — condemned Israel’s military operations in Syria as violations of international law. “It is crucial to highlight that Syria has neither threatened nor attacked Israel,” he added. “Upholding international law is not a matter of choice,” he underscored, stating that these escalatory actions — coupled with inflammatory statements by Israeli officials regarding the “indefinite” presence of their forces in Syria — “are contributing to instability and threatening regional peace and security”.
“In the four months since the change of power in Damascus, Israel has already carried out more than 700 strikes targeting Syria,” said the representative of the Russian Federation, adding that the geographical span of these strikes has recently expanded. He stressed: “These actions are a gross violation of Syrian sovereignty and territorial integrity, which under no circumstances need to be called into question — regardless of who holds power in Damascus.”
Similarly, the representative of Pakistan said that Israel’s recent air strikes — flagrant violations of international law — “further undermine Syria’s pursuit of political stabilization and national reconciliation”. Moreover, he pointed to a “deeply troubling pattern” of Israel’s continued, unprovoked military aggression, repeated violations of the Disengagement Agreement, illegal military presence in the area of separation and open declaration of indefinite occupation. “The Security Council cannot allow illegal military actions to set dangerous precedents,” he urged.
“The fragmentation of Syria is in no one’s interest,” said the representative of France, Council President for April, speaking in his national capacity. He therefore joined others in calling on Israel to cease its military activities in Syrian territory, respect Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and withdraw from the area of separation. In addition to making those calls, China’s representative said that “a smooth political transition is the key to restoring peace and stability in Syria and should be the primary goal of the joint efforts of all parties”.
Several Council members underlined the deleterious effect that instability could have on that transition. While acknowledging neighbouring countries’ interest in ensuring that events in Syria do not pose a risk to their security, Slovenia’s representative stressed: “We remain convinced that external military interventions in the fragile moment of Syrian transition do not contribute to this legitimate objective — indeed, they could have a countereffect.” The “historic opportunity” to bring Syria back to peace and legitimacy “must not be derailed as a result of Syria regressing into a geopolitical battlefield”, urged the representative of the Republic of Korea.
“Events reported by different sources cause concern for a number of reasons,” said Panama’s representative — particularly when they result in mass casualties, significant material damage and generate a climate of greater uncertainty and instability “at a particularly delicate time for the country”. He also expressed concern over the impact on civilians, underscoring the importance of guaranteeing the protection of civilians and respecting international humanitarian law “at all times”.
“After 14 years of tyranny and conflict at the hands of the Assad regime, the Syrian people still face staggering humanitarian needs,” observed the representative of the United Kingdom, noting that her country has recently pledged up to $207 million in critical humanitarian assistance. “Our focus now should be on supporting Syrians to rebuild their country,” she stressed. Similarly, the representative of Greece urged those present not to lose sight of Syria’s humanitarian crisis, highlighting the European Union’s overall commitment of some €2.5 billion for Syria’s recovery.
Stating that Council members should all agree that a stable, sovereign Syria is “critical for our collective security”, the representative of the United States stressed: “Israel has an inherent right of self-defence, including against terrorist groups operating close to its border.” She urged the Council to “recommit itself to combating terrorism in Syria, call on Iran and other external actors to stop arming and advising terrorist groups, and urge regional States to rein in the actions of proxies who threaten regional peace and security”.
Also acknowledging Israel’s legitimate security concerns, Denmark’s representative nevertheless expressed concern over its recent attacks in Syria. Expressing support for UNDOF, which “has worked to address both Israel’s and Syria’s security concerns” for decades, she urged Israel to withdraw from the area of separation. With both progress made and challenges present on Syria’s path to a new future, she stressed: “The international community — in particular this Council — has a responsibility to support the people of Syria on that path.”
Syria’s representative, for his part, noted the “positive and constructive declarations and initiatives undertaken by Member States, international organizations and political groups to support Syria and its people”. However, in parallel, Israel has challenged international efforts, threatened Syria’s territorial integrity and undermined Government efforts. Citing the Secretary-General’s latest report, he pointed to “the incursion of the Israeli occupation forces into the buffer zone, the significant alteration of the situation therein and the impact on [UNDOF’s] operations since 8 December [2024]”.
Israel is also threatening Syria’s water security, establishing military outposts for its forces and promoting tourist tours for settlers in the areas it has invaded, he stressed. “This exposes the falsity of the occupation entity’s claims that its incursion is temporary and limited — it clearly reveals its aggressive and expansionist intentions,” he added. Calling on the Council to end Israel’s ongoing aggression and compel its withdrawal from all Syrian lands, he concluded: “Attempts to impose solutions by force — and to give precedence to the law of force over the force of law — are doomed to failure.”
Meanwhile, the representative of Israel said: “We will do whatever is necessary — for however long it takes — to prevent another 7 October [2023].” Israel’s actions, he stressed, have been guided not by ambitions of expansion, but by necessity, security and prevention. Pointing, as an example, to the Israel Defense Forces’ dismantling of an underground missile factory “constructed by Iran” in central Syria, he said that “this factory of death had already begun producing precision-guided missiles, several of which were subsequently used in attacks on Israeli territory by Hizbullah”.
While underscoring that “Israel does not seek territorial gains in Syria”, he stated: “Where threat exists, we will meet it without hesitation.” For its part, Israel continues to coordinate with UNDOF under the framework of resolution 350 (1974). He emphasized, however, that peacekeeping efforts alone cannot stop the spread of sophisticated weapons, intercept Iranian missile parts, dismantle terrorist tunnels or prevent the creation of launch sites embedded in civilian terrain. While Israel is committed to deconfliction and dialogue, he stressed: “But we are also committed to the protection of our people, and that must take precedence when lives are at stake.”
For his part, the representative of Libya spoke for the Arab Group to condemn Israel’s repeated aggression against Syria as “blatant” violations of international law. “They are undoubtedly a threat to the peace and security of the entire region,” he stressed, calling on the international community — particularly the Council — to shoulder its legal and moral responsibility to pressure Israel to immediately cease its aggression and withdraw from all Syrian territory.
Türkiye’s representative, stating that eliminating terrorist organizations in Syria “remains essential for lasting peace and unity”, stressed that all armed elements must surrender their weapons to the Syrian State, that all terrorist entities must be removed from Syrian territory and that security responsibilities for detention centres and camps in the country’s north-east must be swiftly transferred to the Syrian administration. “Failure in Syria is not an option,” she said.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Jim McGovern (D-MA)
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Today, U.S. Representatives James P. McGovern (MA-02) and Jill Tokuda (HI-02) reintroduced a House resolution urging the United States to return to the negotiating table on nuclear disarmament and to lead a global effort to reduce and eliminate nuclear weapons. The resolution, H. Res. 317, reaffirms the United States’ moral and strategic obligation to prevent nuclear war and calls on the United States to pursue a world free of nuclear weapons as a national security imperative.
“Nuclear weapons do not make us safer—they put the entire planet at risk,” said Congressman McGovern. “We are closer to nuclear catastrophe today than at any point since the Cold War. We need bold action to stop a new arms race before it’s too late. This resolution is a call for courage, diplomacy, and common sense.”
“As a Japanese American, my heritage is deeply tied to the devastating impact of nuclear weapons and the atrocities of war. This resolution is about our moral imperative to achieve nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. It is not only a call for peace, but a commitment to ensuring that such tragedies are never repeated. This resolution represents a vital step toward a safer, more just world,” said Congresswoman Tokuda.
The resolution urges the United States to:
Engage in good-faith negotiations with all nuclear-armed states to halt the buildup of nuclear arsenals and pursue verifiable, time-bound reductions;
Conclude new arms control agreements with Russia and engage China on nuclear risk reduction;
Renounce the option of using nuclear weapons first;
End the Cold War-era “hair trigger alert” posture;
Rein in the production of new nuclear warheads and delivery systems;
Preserve the moratorium on nuclear testing;
Protect radiation-impacted communities and workers through full remediation, compensation, and expanded health care, including an expanded Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA); and
Plan a just economic transition for workers and communities dependent on the nuclear weapons industry.
The renewed push comes amid growing concerns over a global nuclear arms race, the collapse of key arms control treaties, and rising tensions between major powers. Since the United States and Russia withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 2019, many fear that hard-won progress on arms control is unraveling. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the United States is projected to spend over $750 billion on nuclear weapons over the next decade—diverting critical resources away from health care, education, climate resilience, and more pressing national security needs. The resolution has received massive public support from across the country.
“At a time of increased tensions around the world, we cannot risk letting nuclear threats increase. That is why Council for a Livable World supports Congressman McGovern’s H. Res. 317 to lower nuclear risks and promote diplomacy to work toward a world free from nuclear threats. We urge Members to support this legislation and all efforts to reduce nuclear tensions in favor of foreign and national security that will address the issues we face rather than bring us to the precipice of confrontation and waste billions of taxpayer dollars in the process,” said John Tierney, Executive Director of the Council for a Livable World.
“Through the years, Americans have successfully pressed our leaders to pursue nuclear arms control in order to reduce the nuclear threat. But now, eighty years after the first use of nuclear weapons, the danger of nuclear war and nuclear arms racing is on the rise once again. This timely resolution outlines a practical plan for action to restore U.S. leadership to lead the world back from the nuclear brink and build a safer world for our children and generations to come,” said Daryl G. Kimball, Executive Director of the Arms Control Association.
“The McGovern-Tokuda resolution is more than a statement—it’s a detailed, actionable roadmap to nuclear disarmament. It provides a clear strategy for reducing nuclear risks, ending outdated policies, championing justice for impacted communities, and advancing a future free from the threat of nuclear war,” said Denise Duffield, Co-Manager of theBack from the Brink Coalition
“I fully support House Resolution 317. From the beginning of the first arms race, the U.S. and Russia rejected minimal deterrence in favor of nuclear war fighting capabilities even though there are no winners in a nuclear war. Now that we are in a second arms race, the two nuclear superpowers should demonstrate global leadership by honoring the disarmament obligations they promised to in the 1970 Nonproliferation Treaty. H. Res. 317is an important step in that direction. I strongly urge the New Mexican congressional delegation to support it as well,” said the Most Reverend John C. Wester, Archbishop of Santa Fe.
“The United Methodist Church has long called for the abolition of nuclear weapons. The existence of nuclear weapons is antithetical to our faith, which calls on us to practice responsible stewardship. This resolution is a moral imperative, urging us to prioritize peace and the well-being of our communities over weapons of war,” said Bishop Julius Trimble, General Board of Church and Society, United Methodist Church.
“Nuclear weapons are one of the greatest risks humanity faces. They endanger every person’s health, every nation’s security, and the very survival of our planet. As an organization of healthcare professionals, we know there is no cure for the devastation caused by these weapons. That’s why Physicians for Social Responsibility supports this resolution that seeks to prevent nuclear war and abolish nuclear weapons,” said Brian Campbell, PhD, Executive Director of Physicians for Social Responsibility
A full list of supportive statements is available here
“Either we end nuclear weapons—or they will end us,” McGovern added. “This is not just a policy debate. It’s a question of existence.”
The full text of the resolution can be found here.
Source: United States Senator for Michigan Gary Peters
Published: 04.09.2025
WASHINGTON, DC — U.S. Senator Gary Peters (D-MI), Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, led his committee colleagues in calling for an immediate investigation into the use of personal Gmail accounts and Signal chats by senior government officials to conduct official government business, including the transmission of sensitive and possibly classified information about military operations. Federal cybersecurity policy and records preservation laws prohibit the use of personal accounts or unsecure commercial platforms to conduct government business. The senators’ request follows revelations that key administration officials used Signal and its disappearing message features while communicating sensitive information about an airstrike in Yemen, and that national security advisor Michael Waltz and other National Security Council members used personal Gmail accounts to send messages related to military operations and weapons systems. Peters was joined in sending the letter by U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Rueben Gallego (D-AZ), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), and John Fetterman (D-PA).
“New revelations now show that senior Trump Administration officials have failed to adequately preserve government records and are actively using commercial platforms to communicate sensitive, national security information. In addition to the clear national security risks and apparent violations of federal records and other laws, this presents new potentially significant cybersecurity vulnerabilities,” wrote the senators. “As members of the Senate committee with jurisdiction over the management of government records and cybersecurity of federal agencies, we ask that you investigate potential unauthorized disposition of records associated with the reported use of personal Gmail accounts to conduct official business by national security advisor Michael Waltz and other National Security Council (NSC) members. We also request that you review and take appropriate actions to enforce laws governing the reported use of an automatic deletion mechanism on a Signal chat between the Vice President, agency heads, and other officials discussing government business.”
The senators continued: “Both of these commercial platforms have been regularly targeted by foreign adversaries and are not considered secure enough for communications on official government business or for classified information. In November 2024, the Federal Bureau of Investigation warned that, in addition to nation state actors from Russia and China, cybercriminals were also increasingly targeting personal email accounts. Both the Department of Defense and the National Security Agency have warned employees against using Signal, even for unclassified information, due to Russian hacking groups using a vulnerability in the application. An investigation is required not only to determine whether any federal laws were broken, but also because we do not know how frequently such platforms or associated automatic deletion mechanisms are being used by federal officials.”
The full text of the letter can be found here.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Andrew S. Clyde (R-GA)
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, Congressman Andrew Clyde (GA-09) introduced the Postal Service Transparency and Review Act to bolster oversight of the U.S. Postal Service’s (USPS) decision-making processes.
The legislation seeks to address the lack of sufficient oversight of significant changes to postal services following the USPS’s decision to transition and consolidate local Processing & Distribution Centers across North Georgia to the Regional Processing & Distribution Center (RPDC) in Palmetto, Georgia. The agency’s poor planning and mishandling of this transition has extensively disrupted mail delivery operations throughout the region.
“The U.S. Postal Service’s botched transition and consolidation operation in North Georgia highlights the dire need for oversight reform,” said Clyde. “If the USPS had fulfilled its legal obligation to seek an advisory opinion from the Postal Regulatory Commission, I believe Georgians would not have been forced to bear the loss of revenue, immense pain, and hardships brought on by mail delays caused by the disastrous transition. I’m hopeful that by strengthening oversight of the Postal Service’s decision-making processes, my legislation will ultimately prevent large scale postal service changes from negatively impacting Americans in the future.”
Postal Transparency and Review Act
Currently, under 39 U.S.C. 3661, the Postal Service is required to request an advisory opinion from the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) before making any nationwide or substantially nationwide service changes. However, the USPS has broad discretion which allows the agency to determine whether a proposed change warrants a PRC review. Additionally, since there is no explicit deadline for the Postal Service to submit changes for review, the agency can delay submission until changes have already been implemented.
This has resulted in the Postal Service bypassing necessary oversight, as evidenced by its unilateral decision to implement significant changes to the RPDC network in major metropolitan areas without seeking input from the PRC.
The Postal Transparency and Review Act addresses this issue by:
Requiring the USPS to submit significant proposed changes to the PRC for review no later than 180 days prior to the proposed effective date of such changes.
Expanding the submission requirement to include changes that impact service not only at the national level but also at the postal district level, which typically align with state boundaries.
Authorizing the PRC to suspend any changes if the Postal Service fails to seek the required advisory opinion under the amended requirements.
Mandating that any postal operations changes suspended by the PRC be reverted to their previous state before the implementation of the suspended changes until an advisory opinion is published.
Allowing Congress to intervene and disapprove of changes through a fast-tracked joint resolution pursuant to the Congressional Review Act after receiving the PRC’s advisory opinion.
By strengthening this oversight process, Rep. Clyde’s Postal Transparency and Review Act aims to prevent the Postal Service from bypassing accountability and ensure that changes with significant service impacts undergo thorough review and evaluation.
Original cosponsors include Representatives Rick Allen (GA-12), Buddy Carter (GA-01), Brian Jack (GA-03), Barry Loudermilk (GA-11), Rich McCormick (GA-07), and Austin Scott (GA-08).
Text of the Postal Transparency and Review Act is available HERE.
Background
On August 13th, 2024, Rep. Clyde led the Georgia Congressional Delegation in sending a letter to then-USPS Postmaster General Louis DeJoy demanding that he immediately fulfill his legal obligation to seek an advisory opinion from the PRC for the agency’s recent consolidation process in the Peach State.
On August 22nd, the Postal Service responded to this letter by announcing the agency would finally seek an advisory opinion from the PRC on its “Delivering for America” plan, which encompassed the changes made in Georgia.
On January 31st, 2025, the PRC published its advisory opinion, which found that the Postal Service’s plan depends on “defective modeling” and does not appear ready for implementation. Additionally, the opinion notes that the USPS’s proposal relies on “overly optimistic financial projections for cost savings” and has “significant negative impacts on rural communities throughout the United States.”
Related
Rep. Clyde Demands Audit & Investigation of USPS Mail Delays
Retirement from government service does’nt mean you are retired as a citizen: Dr. Jitendra Singh Urges Superannuating Officials to be contributors and Partners in Viksit Bharat Digital Reforms, Empowered Retirees, and a Vision for 2047: Highlights from Guwahati’s PRC and Bankers’ Workshop
Posted On: 10 APR 2025 6:12PM by PIB Delhi
Guwahati, April 10: “Retirement from government service doesn’t mean you are retired as a citizen”, said Union Minister Dr Jitendra Singh in a message that resonated deeply with the hundreds of officers nearing retirement, Union Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Science and Technology; Earth Sciences and Minister of State for PMO, Department of Atomic Energy, Department of Space, Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Dr. Jitendra Singh, in a message that resonated deeply with the hundreds of officers nearing retirement.
The Minister said that retirement from government service should not be seen as an end, but a transition into a new role as contributors and partners to nation building. Addressing the 56th Pre-Retirement Counselling (PRC) Workshop and the 9th Bankers’ Awareness Program, Dr. Jitendra Singh called for a paradigm shift in the way Indian society perceives retired government servants.
Dr Jitendra Singh said that many officers at 60 are at the prime of their, energy and expertise. “So we wish to involve them in the task of nation building and use their experiences. As the Prime Minister says, every citizen has to contribute to the making of Viksit Bharat,” he said.
Organised by the Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare (DoPPW) in collaboration with the Assam Government, the day-long event at the Assam Administrative Staff College featured back-to-back technical sessions on pension reforms, digital life certification, CGHS facilities, financial planning, and innovations like the Bhavishya Portal and Integrated Pensioners’ Portal. These sessions were designed to prepare retiring employees for a smooth transition, both in terms of procedural knowledge and personal empowerment.
The workshop aimed to prepare civil servants for a smooth post-retirement transition, not just in terms of paperwork but also in purpose. Dr. Jitendra Singh emphasized the need for institutional mechanisms that can integrate retirees into developmental roles based on their skills and inclinations.Outlining several reforms undertaken by the Government over the past decade to simplify pension procedures, Dr. Jitendra Singh recalled how superannuating officers earlier had to run from one office to another, often losing months before receiving their first pension payment. “That era is over,” he said. “Today, with digital PPOs, integrated pension portals like Bhavishya, and face authentication tools, we’ve eliminated procedural delays and harassment.”
He lauded the role of the Department of Pensions under Secretary V. Srinivas, noting how Indian digital pension practices are now being emulated by countries like Maldives, Mongolia, and Bangladesh. The success of initiatives such as Digital Life Certificate (DLC), CPGRAMS, and face authentication, he said, are examples of how technology can bring dignity and efficiency to governance.
Going beyond procedural ease, Dr. Jitendra Singh proposed the creation of a national directory of retired officers, based on their expertise and interests. “We will prepare a performa to capture details like qualification, experience, and preferred areas of work, so that ministries can consult it and engage retirees in policy committees or advisory roles,” he explained.
The Minister also drew attention to evolving societal needs and reforms in pension rules—such as the inclusion of divorced daughters, faster processing for widows, and compassionate consideration for families of missing employees—that reflect a progressive and humane approach.
Dr. Jitendra Singh proposed developing a national database of retired officers with their skillsets, experience, and interests, enabling government departments to draw on their expertise post-retirement. “Many citizens have taken up start-ups or pursued creative passions after retirement. The first successful millet-based start-up came from a scientist who retired from a government institute. You can begin anew at any age,” he said.
In a lighter moment, Dr. Jitendra Singh noted how the retirement phase has even helped uncover hidden talents. “There are those who never got to pursue music or writing or any other pursuit in their service years. Retirement gives you the freedom. We can even help with an audition at All India Radio if you say you want to sing,” he quipped, drawing laughter and applause.
Ending on an empowering note, the Minister urged retiring officers not to see themselves as passive recipients of pension but as active nation-builders. “You are retiring as government officials, not as citizens. Your best may be yet to come,” he said.
The daylong event saw the address of Shri V. Srinivas, Secretary, DoPPW, Shri Dhrubajyoti Sengupta, Joint Secretary and remarks from key stakeholders, including SBI’s Deputy MD Shri Shamsher Singh, Additional Secretary from the Health Ministry Ms. Roli Singh, IG BSF Shri Sanjay Gaur, and General Manager of Northeast Frontier Railway Shri Chetan Shrivastava.
With India envisioning itself as a developed nation by 2047, Dr. Jitendra Singh’s remarks offered a timely reminder that wisdom, dedication, and public service do not retire—they evolve.
As governments and global markets struggle to deal with the massive upheaval unleashed by the United States’ unilateral trade tariffs, Rebeca Grynspan, the head of the UN trade agency (UNCTAD) toldUN News on Thursday that the poorest countries – which have a negligible effect on the US trade deficit – should be exempt.
Ms. Grynspan was speaking in the wake of growing UN concern at the effect on-going uncertainty could have on the most vulnerable developing economies.
On Tuesday, the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, stated that “trade wars are extremely negative,” and warned that the impact of tariffs could be “devastating.”
Tariffs are a tax on imports coming into a country which are usually charged to the exporter as a percentage of value – an extra cost which is normally passed on to the consumer.
In an interview with the Financial Times published on Thursday morning, the UNCTAD chief appealed for the US to reconsider its strategy, noting that the 44 Least Developed Countries contribute less than two per cent of the US’s trade deficit, and that higher tariffs would only make their existing debt crisis much worse.
Speaking to UN News, Ms. Grynspan laid out the ways that UNCTAD is supporting developing nations, and advocated for closer regional trade ties, which can strengthen their hand in international trade negotiations.
UN News: The world’s two biggest economies, the US and China, are in the process of imposing or threatening huge trade tariffs on each other. How worried do you think we should all be?
Rebeca Grynspan: When you the two main global economies impose tariffs, it will affect everybody, not only the economies engaged in the tariff war. We are already in a “new normal” of low growth and high debt, and we are worried that the global economy will slow down.
Our emphasis has been to put attention on what can happen to countries that are more vulnerable, such as the Least Developed Countries, and small island developing States. What is happening to those countries is what really worries us.
UN News: Some experts are saying that this could be the end of the post-war international financial system. Are those fears warranted?
Rebeca Grynspan: We still don’t know where we will end up. One of the things that we are doing is trying to give the public a real account of what is actually taking place, and what is still just talk.
The most important point is the problem of the uncertainty. If we know the final position, we will adjust, we will have strategies and we can see how to live with the decisions that are being taken. But if we have a prolonged period of uncertainty, where things change all the time, this is damaging because we don’t know what to do. Investment is paralyzed because CEOs are deciding to sit and wait, which means investment will not come back at the scale the world needs.
Our first call is for rational decisions to be taken, so we can plan, strategize and adapt to change – but we still don’t know what that change will entail.
UN News: You’ve made the case for poorer countries to be spared tariff hikes imposed by the US administration. Are your concerns being heard?
Rebeca Grynspan: I haven’t seen anybody making the analysis that we have made, proving that these countries really are making no contribution to the US trade deficit. Most of the exports that they send to the US are commodities and many of these are exempt from tariffs under the new rules. These commodities don’t compete with the US, rather they help in production processes.
The point I want to make is that there are a number of countries that don’t really contribute to the deficit, are not important in terms of the revenue [that the US can collect from tariffs] and are not competition or a national security threat to the US.
So, maybe we can avoid starting new bilateral agreements and negotiations and spare them the pain of the tariffs.
ILO Asia-Pacific
Women workers at a textile factory in Viet Nam stitch puffer jackets, destined mostly for Western markets.
UN News: What advice could you give to a manufacturing worker in a developing country like Viet Nam or Madagascar?
Rebeca Grynspan: It’s difficult to say, because some countries are receiving higher tariffs than others, and so you don’t know what competitive impact this will have.
Madagascar is a good example of what we’re talking about, because the country’s main export to the US is vanilla. Their contribution to the US trade deficit is so small it doesn’t even register, so it makes no sense to penalise a country like this.
UN News: Explain the role that UNCTAD plays in supporting developing countries?
Rebeca Grynspan: As an organization, we analyse trade, investment, financing and technology from the point of view of development, which means we help countries to take advantage of the opportunities of trade.
We are not involved in trade negotiations – these take place at the World Trade Organization – but we will help developing countries to get a better deal in trade and help their economies to perform better globally.
UN News: You have advocated for developing countries to trade more within regional blocs where they can have more say in negotiations with richer countries. Would that be useful in this kind of situation?
Rebeca Grynspan: Africa has a huge opportunity with the African Free Trade Area. According to our numbers, this could add around $3 trillion to the African economy.
It’s a huge opportunity, and if they can accelerate the pace, they could take advantage of a bigger market and make economies of scale. African nations need to diversify their economies because, if they continue to be dependent on commodities, they won’t be able to provide their populations with the services and the income they deserve.
There is also a deepening of trade relationships in Southeast Asia with ASEAN (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations) and in parts of Latin America with Mercosur (the Southern Common Market).
These partnerships could be very important, particularly at this precise moment.
Source: United States Senator for Arkansas Tom Cotton
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Caroline Tabler or Patrick McCann (202) 224-2353 April 10, 2025
Cotton Introduces Bill to End U.S. Dependence on Chinese-Manufactured Pharmaceuticals
Washington, D.C. — Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) today introduced the Anyone But China (ABC) Safe Drug Act, which would end U.S. dependence on China for pharmaceutical manufacturing.
“Shortages in the medical supply chain are a matter of life and death, and we cannot rely on China for our citizens’ survival. This bill will encourage pharmaceutical production in the United States and end dependency on the Chinese Communist Party,” said Cotton.
The bill’s key restrictions would go into effect in 2028. No Food and Drug Administration resources will be diverted to begin implementation. Specifically, the bill will:
Prohibit pharmaceutical purchases from China or products with active pharmaceutical ingredients created in China*.
Create transparency in the supply chain by instituting a country-of-origin label of all imported drugs.
Provide economic incentives for manufacturing drugs and medical equipment in the United States.
* This requirement will be phased in over two years. The FDA may issue waivers if the active pharmaceutical ingredients are only available in China, however, no waivers may be issued after 2030.
Donald Trump has partially walked back on his so-called “liberation day” tariffs on nearly all US imports after fears mounted that the move would result in a global recession and much higher borrowing costs for the US government.
On Wednesday, April 9, a mere 13 hours after his higher rate of “reciprocal tariffs” had come into effect, Trump announced they would be paused for 90 days.
“I thought that people were jumping a little bit out of line, they were getting yippy, you know … a little bit afraid,” Trump said to reporters outside the White House. Markets soared immediately upon hearing the news.
But at the same time, a volatile new stage in America’s trade war with China has emerged. The White House has excluded China from the pause and has hiked tariffs on all Chinese imports to 125%. This, Trump says, is because Beijing has shown “disrespect” to Washington and global markets.
Beijing, which has declared it will “fight to the end if the US side is bent on going down the wrong path”, was quick to respond. It has announced duties of 84% on American products and services, and has even floated the possibility of banning the import of Hollywood films.
What China’s response has shown is that it is no longer the same country as it was in 2017, when Trump managed to obtain some trade concessions from it by imposing tariffs. Beijing seems more willing to strike back at Washington, as well as showing signs of being more proactive in its response to American measures.
The impact of China’s response has not yet been fully realised, but tariffs have already raised the spectre of increased prices in the US. Many of the clothing and consumer electronics that Americans buy are shipped from China. It’s possible that far from boosting Trump’s popularity, these tariffs may eventually end up reversing it.
At a fundraising dinner in Washington, less than a day before he shelved plans to hike tariffs on US trading partners, Trump insisted: “I know what the hell I’m doing.” But his subsequent loss of face in pausing tariffs for other countries may mean he has no option but to double down on a tit-for-tat trade war with China.
China is his administration’s go-to villain, and any delay or reversal in responding to Chinese retaliation will be a humiliation to Trump’s strongman image. This suggests a tumultuous period ahead for relations between China and the US.
Expect more hostility
The tariffs will probably have a mobilising effect on the Chinese population. A 2022 survey on public opinion in China found that people born after 1990 are more likely to hold an unfavourable view of the US compared with previous generations. The survey concluded that Trump’s actions during his first term were much more to blame than propaganda.
Beijing has also traditionally invoked the history of the “unequal treaties” forced upon its ailing Qing dynasty in the late 19th century as a means to mobilise its population against western policies. This has been aided by how the economic demands made by Trump to China are, in the mind of the Chinese leadership, reminiscent of the demands made by the western powers of that period.
Fears of again falling prey to foreign powers play a significant role in Beijing’s policies, encapsulated by what is known as China’s “never again mentality”. This mentality could be used as a means to unify the Chinese population against an outside enemy, in a way similar to how many US politicians have attempted to cast China as a foe.
Beijing appears to be banking on the Chinese population’s supposed ability to withstand greater hardships than western consumers as being able to give it a key advantage over Washington. However, with China’s prosperity being a comparatively recent development, this ability will be put to the test.
Trump’s tariffs against traditional American allies will also play into Beijing’s hands on the international stage. Tokyo has discussed reducing its holdings of American treasuries, while simultaneously bolstering trade ties with China. These moves would have been unthinkable even a year ago – Japan has long been a key US ally and a regional rival of China.
Equally unthinkable is the possibility that the EU will follow a similar path. Spain’s prime minister, Pedro Sanchez, has called on Brussels to review its relationship with China. Moves aimed at sidelining China may end up isolating the US instead.
And, perhaps most concerningly, the tariffs may also undermine America’s ability to prevent a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. One of the key factors deterring an invasion was the threat of a 100% tariff on Chinese goods. With Trump’s tariffs on China already exceeding this, Beijing has less incentive to not go after Taipei.
What liberation day has shown us is that the Chinese-American relationship has entered a stage of protracted competition, a phase that Beijing has been preparing for over the past decade. Faced with a choice between humiliation on the international stage or economic disaster at home, it would appear neither side is willing to back down.
Tom Harper 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.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Maha Rafi Atal, Adam Smith Senior Lecturer in Political Economy, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow
The US has decided – again – to upend the global trading system. With the latest raft of tariffs just beginning to kick in, and after a week in which markets worldwide fell precipitously, the Trump administration announced that it would be suspending high tariffs on nearly 60 countries for 90 days.
The announcement is only a partial reprieve. High tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China, as well as on global imports of steel, aluminium and automotives, remain, as does a 10% baseline tariff on all imports. US tariffs remain the highest they have been since the Great Depression, at levels unprecedented since the modern trade system was created after the second world war.
Before the pause, the UK was already in line for the 10% rate – which some commentators described as a Brexit benefit when compared to the EU’s prospective 20%.
While markets soared on the news of the pause, the damage is was already done. The subsequent rally is recouping some, but not all, losses incurred due to the tariffs already.
Businesses that had preparedfor tariffs by bulk-buying imported components ahead of time will have made cuts elsewhere to pay for it. They will not easily be able to reverse course.
The implications for the UK of the latest developments are mixed. All the tariffs imposed on direct UK exports to the US (chiefly steel, automotives and aircrafts, pharmaceuticals and medical equipment) remain in place.
While the US represents the second-largest market for UK goods, the majority of UK exports are in services (like banking and insurance), which the tariffs do not target. If tariffs were to hit direct UK-US goods trade only, the UK would likely be able to weather the shock.
Unfortunately, that’s not how trade works in the 21st century. Instead, two-thirds of trade takes place in what are known as “global value chains”. These are complex networks through which companies move the component parts of products between their own facilities around the world and those of their subcontractors.
Many UK businesses supply components that are incorporated by companies overseas into finished goods ultimately destined for the US. When the US imposes tariffs on those goods, UK manufacturers suffer too – even if direct UK exports to the US remain unchanged.
Global value chains will also reorient in response to trade barriers, as already took place in Asia during Trump’s first term. If businesses reroute their supply chains to avoid the tariff markets, the UK (which is not imposing retaliatory tariffs) could become a “sacrifice zone” (a place where cheaply made, poor-quality or environmentally harmful items are dumped or disposed of, “sacrificing” the wellbeing of local people) for excess supply, undercutting domestic producers.
Yet choosing not to retaliate is key to the UK’s diplomatic strategy. It hopes to stay close to the US in the hope of preferential treatment.
The UK’s pursuit of a US trade deal has been politically sensitive since the previous Trump administration. JessicaGirvan/Shutterstock
So far, that strategy is yet to bear fruit. The UK hopes to avoid the tariffs through a US trade deal, an objective that the countries have pursued since the UK left the European Union.
The US has repeatedly sought access to the UK agrifood market, a demand that has always been refused due to political opposition to importing American beef and chicken.
The sticky Brexit issue
Brexit adds to this complexity, as the Windsor framework requires food products sold in Northern Ireland to conform to European Union standards. The more standards in the rest of the UK diverge from those of the EU (as they would have to do to secure a US trade deal), the more onerous the checks in the Irish Sea would become.
Keir Starmer’s government has also sought to renegotiate parts of the agreement with the EU, seeking tighter economic ties that will require closer regulatory alignment. Pursuing deregulation to meet US trade demands, however, makes that unlikely.
The tariffs compound this dilemma. If the higher rates return after 90 days, Northern Irish exports to the US will face a lower rate than those from the Republic of Ireland. But US imports to Northern Ireland will be hit with EU tariffs while imports to the rest of the UK will remain tariff-free.
That will create some opportunities. Businesses might choose to operate in Northern Ireland to access a lower tariff rate on their US exports while also producing goods for the EU market.
But it also creates risks. With three different tariff regimes in Britain, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, goods flowing across both the Irish Sea and the Irish land border could require additional checks. This would risk the very thing the Windsor Framework was meant to avoid.
Given these risks, a 90-day reprieve is a window of opportunity. But with US government policy that can change on a dime (or a post), the UK risks being caught between the rival powers of the US and EU – and trampled in the crossfire.
Maha Rafi Atal is a volunteer organizer with the US Democratic Party.
You have to marvel at Donald Trump’s prescience. After his announcement of America’s new tariffs regime on April 2, “liberation day”, the stock markets plummeted, causing faint hearts around the world to quail. Nerves fluttered particularly hard when bond yields started to rise rapidly this week, suggesting a growing lack of confidence in US 30-year debt – traditionally the gold standard for security.
“I don’t want anything to go down,” Trump told a reporter at the weekend. “But sometimes, you have to take medicine to fix something.”
The US president remained bullish on Wednesday morning, taking to his TruthSocial social media platform at 9.37am EDT to proclaim his confidence in US stocks.
Sound advice, as it turned out (time shown is BST). TruthSocial
And so it proved. Hours later, Trump announced to his followers that he had decided to pause the tariff hikes on all but China while keeping the 10% baseline tariff on all imports. The markets bounced back with alacrity, closing up 9.5% by the end of trading. (Incidentally, Trump Media and Technology Group, the parent company of TruthSocial, closed up 22.67%.)
It just goes to show, faith may or may not be able to move mountains, but Donald Trump can certainly move markets.
Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.
Now it’s all eyes on China to see how the world’s second-largest economy will react to a yet-higher tariff on its exports to the US of 145%.
Announcing to the world he was targeting China, the US president wrote that he was basing his decision on the “lack of respect that China has shown to the World’s Markets”, and that “hopefully in the near future, China will realize that the days of ripping off the U.S.A., and other Countries, is no longer sustainable or acceptable”.
But based on Beijing’s initial reaction, it’s unlikely that Xi Jinping will be joining all the other world leaders who Trump says queued up over the past couple of days to “kiss his ass”. The messages from China’s leadership are that two can play at that game, and that Trump’s gambit “will end in failure”.
China had imposed an immediate 84% tariff on all US exports, while reassuring the White House that the “the door to dialogue is open”.
China expert Tom Harper of the University of East London believes Xi is now a different, more confident Chinese president than the one who granted some small concessions to Trump when he first imposed tariffs on China in 2017. Harper sees the likelihood of a “tumultuous period ahead for relations between China and the US” – and warns that the Chinese people may be more resilient to the economic shock a trade war brings than the US public.
Looking back at what China considers a period of humiliation at the hands of western powers (notably Great Britain) in the 19th century, Harper says there’s a strong sense of “never again” in the Chinese psyche, which may well be triggered by this latest US aggression.
But why roll back on the tariffs on the rest of the world? Australian economists James Giesecke and Robert Waschik believe the answer is simple: the harm that would have been done to the US economy. Their modelling suggests that “the US would have faced steep and immediate losses in employment, investment, growth and, most importantly, real consumption, the best measure of household living standards”.
Giesecke and Waschik conclude the damage would have been serious and long term, increasing US unemployment by two-thirds and reducing US long-term GDP, resulting in a “permanent reduction in US global economic power”.
The aim of the Trump administration in introducing tariffs is to stimulate a return of manufacturing to the US – which is why they applied them to goods only while ignoring services. James Scott of King’s College London believes a lot of countries fetishise manufacturing as a sort of deeply ingrained throwback to when “pre-historic experiences of finding food, fuel and shelter dominated all other activities”.
But most western economies have developed beyond heavy goods manufacturing, for the simple reason that countries with larger and lower-paid workforces are able to produce and ship goods at a fraction of the cost. Tik-Tok user Ben Lau posted this disturbingly funny vision of the return of large-scale manufacturing to the US.
Scott believes it’s highly unlikely to come to this – and in any case, that it’s pointless to blame globalisation for the loss of US manufacturing jobs when rising productivity in other countries and automation have had much more impact.
The lesson from history, writes Scott, is that with the retreat of colonialism came the industrialisation of the countries that had been major markets for manufactured goods produced by the western powers. In short, he concludes: “President Trump is mistaken if he really believes that tariffs will bring a new golden age of manufacturing. The world has changed.”
Iran has had a rough 18 months or so. Its economy is on the floor thanks to western sanctions, the “real” currency rate (the rate you get on the street) is now close to 1 million rials to the US dollar, and large sections of the population are very unhappy with their leadership.
So, when Iran’s foreign minister arrives in Oman for talks with the US at the weekend, there’s plenty of incentive to strike some kind of deal – even without the US president’s warning that Iran will be in “great danger” if the negotiations fail to deliver an agreement for Tehran to scrap its nuclear programme.
Ali Bilgic, a Middle East specialist at Loughborough University, writes that while both sides have their reasons for wanting progress at the talks, things are likely to be hampered by a lack of trust on both sides. And it’s no coincidence that while Trump announced the talks after a meeting with Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Iranian deputy foreign minister travelled to Moscow this week, where he met his counterparts from China and Russia. With hardliners currently in the ascendancy in Tehran and the Trump-Netanyahu axis very much in evidence in Washington, a lot could go wrong.
America’s other allies, Nato, gathered in Brussels at the end of last week for a foreign ministers meeting ahead of June’s summit at The Hague. As Amelia Hadfield – a defence and security policy expert at the University of Surrey – reports, there’s a growing air of urgency among the allies that they need to find a way to avoid a unilateral withdrawal of the US from the alliance, and that they’ll need at least some answers before meeting at The Hague.
Hadfield walks us through the gradual but growing distance between Washington and the rest of the alliance, which has come to a head under Trump but has been some years in the making.
Since the incoming Trump administration announced it was freezing most USAID programmes as of January 20 for at least 90 days, vital lifelines keeping many thousands, if not millions, of desperate people in the poorest countries around the world have been cut off.
One such country is Sudan, where a bitter and bloody civil war has raged for two years, leading to the situation being described by the United Nations as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.
Naomi Ruth Pendle, an expert in humanitarian development at the University of Bath, works closely with aid workers in South Kordofan, a region on the border with South Sudan which is collapsing under the weight of refugees from the civil war – and which faces a bitter famine unless the aid freeze is lifted immediately.
Her moving account of the plight of the Sudanese people is made more vivid by accounts provided by people working on the ground in South Kordofan, where the aid freeze couldn’t have come at a worse time. January, when the freeze was announced, is usually the best time to increase the flow of humanitarian aid in the region – as the supplies from last year’s harvest begin to dwindle, and just before the rains make roads impassable.
Pendle writes: “I’m now getting reports from South Kordofan of households not lighting a fire for up to four days at a time, which means the family is not eating. And, as ever, it is the children and the elderly who are particularly vulnerable.”
I spent a happy year living in Khartoum in the mid-1980s teaching English at the university there. During that time, I was able to travel widely around Sudan and developed an enduring affection for the people and respect for their resilience and ingenuity in the face of often terrible hardships.
So I found Justin Willis’s account of the decades of conflict that have riven Sudan particularly compelling. Willis, a professor of history at Durham University, looks back through the country’s history – from its foundation through conquest in the 19th century by the Egyptian branch of the Ottoman empire, via British control, to independence. And after independence, pretty much non-stop wars.
Willis believes that Sudan’s main problem is that its army commanders have always believed they are the natural rulers of the country. The current conflict is between two rival army commanders and their followers.
The official army, the Sudanese Armed Forces, recaptured Khartoum at the end of March. There have been reports of savage violence against civilians in the fortnight since. Meanwhile, the rival Rapid Support Forces continue to murder with seeming impunity in Darfur in western Sudan – where I once spent an unforgettable week trekking in the extinct volcano, Jebel Marra.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Carol Miller (R-WV)
Washington, D.C. – Today, Congresswoman Carol Miller (R-WV) participated in a Ways and Means annual hearing with the United States Trade Representative Ambassador Jamieson Greer following the release of President Trump’s Trade Policy Agenda.
Click Congresswoman Miller continued by highlighting the importance of promoting U.S. digital trade while combatting China.
“I have greatly appreciated your leadership in protecting American digital companies abroad. You and I agree about the dangers of South Korea’s anti-competitive policies toward American digital companies. I intend to re-introduce legislation that seeks to ensure that American companies are not being harmed by one of our closest allies, while Chinese companies are left unscathed. The digital trade sector is rapidly growing, and it is important we do not lose market share to China in this critical field. Several countries are considering legislation that mimics the European Union’s Digital Markets Act, which has undisputably caused a “digital winter” for American tech companies operating in Europe. What are your plans to address these harmful policies and to ensure the prosperity of American digital trade? Do you think that digital trade will play a part in the imminent trade discussions regarding the “Liberation Day” tariffs?” asked Congresswoman Miller.
“I understand that there’s obviously a national conversation going on about how digital trade should be regulated, and there are lots of views on that. We’re not going to outsource that regulation. We’re not going to let the European Union or [South] Korea, or any other jurisdiction set the rules for digital trade. It will be us, and they won’t be able to do it in a way that’s discriminatory. That is impermissible, especially when we have, as you noted, the Chinese competition out there. If we’re going to have companies that operate in this space and are so competitive in this space, we need to make sure that they’re American companies, right? This is certainly something that we can talk about in any negotiations that come up,” said Ambassador Greer.
Congresswoman Miller then asked about USTR’s commitment to building up the U.S. critical mineral supply.
“We have historically forged some of our strongest alliances based on procuring critical minerals which are difficult or nearly impossible to obtain in the U.S. Will you commit to exploring great discussions and partnerships with like-minded partners to protect and build up our critical minerals today?” asked Congresswoman Miller.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Steny H Hoyer (MD-05)
WASHINGTON, DC – This week, Congressman Steny H. Hoyer (MD-05) joined a letter led by U.S. Representative Kweisi Mfume (MD-07) alongside U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks (both D-MD) and Representatives Jamie Raskin (MD-08), Glenn Ivey (MD-04), Sarah Elfreth (MD-03), April McClain Delaney (MD-06), and Johnny Olszewski (MD-02) calling on the Administration to detail the repercussions of newly announced tariffs on the Port of Baltimore. This letter, sent to United States Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, raises the lawmakers’ concerns regarding the latest announcement on tariffs, the costs for the American consumer, and the potential shock wave to major ports, industries, and workforces.
“The Port of Baltimore is one of the nation’s most vital hubs for commerce, and it plays a crucial role in national supply chains,” said the lawmakers.
“We are especially concerned about the latest announcement on tariffs considering the economic consequences for the American consumer. These tariffs effectively serve as a sales tax on consumers, placing the burden of revenue raising on American families. While White House trade adviser Peter Navarro stated recently that these tariffs are expected to raise about $600 billion a year in revenue, economists have clarified that the impact to consumers on spending will significantly reduce these revenue estimates. Instead, experts indicate these tariffs will raise prices for already-struggling consumers, trigger layoffs in industries with customers who rely on imports, and plunge our nation into a recession,” the lawmakers continued.
The Members also emphasized the resiliency of the Port of Baltimore after the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in their letter and its ability to retain its standing as the nation’s top-ranked port for wheeled farm and construction machinery and the second most utilized port for importing cars in 2024.
Considering the importance of the Port of Baltimore’s function in the local, state, national, and global economies, the lawmakers requested a response from Secretary Lutnick to the following inquiries within the next 14 days:
What mechanism is the Department of Commerce utilizing to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of the tariffs issued under the Executive Order?
What efforts will the Department of Commerce take to track how these tariffs impact everyday costs for the American consumer, and national and local economies?
What are the long-term implications of these tariffs on our nation’s major ports, and on our national supply chains?
How, specifically, do you expect the announced tariffs will impact automobile and light vehicle imports, coal exports, and agricultural equipment imports and exports?
Will the Administration waive tariffs on certain goods or sectors, or provide aid to impacted small businesses, impacted workers (i.e. farmers, dockworkers, etc.), and industries, in response to significant negative economic outcomes in the United States?
Full text of the letter can be viewed here and below.
April 7, 2025
The Honorable Howard Lutnick Secretary of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20230
Re: Implications of Newly Announced Tariffs on the Port of Baltimore
Dear Secretary Lutnick:
We write to you today to communicate our extreme concern about the implications of the recently announced tariff regime on the Port of Baltimore (the “Port”). On April 2, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order, titled Regulating Imports with a Reciprocal Tariff to Rectify Trade Practices that Contribute to Large and Persistent Annual United States Goods Trade Deficits (the “Executive Order”), that announced a minimum 10% tariff on all imported goods, to take effect April 5. On April 9, higher levels of “reciprocal” tariffs will be placed on goods imported from nations with which the United States has a trade deficit. This latest action comes one week after the Administration’s Executive Order titled, Adjusting Imports of Automobiles and Automobile Parts into the United States, which announced tariffs targeted at individual industries (i.e. automobiles, steel, aluminum) and countries (i.e. Canada, Mexico, China).
The Port of Baltimore is one of the nation’s most vital hubs for commerce, and it plays a crucial role in national supply chains. Last year, when the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapsed, the Port was closed for nearly two months, causing significant disruption to our economy. The state of Maryland estimates that approximately 15,000 direct jobs and 139,000 indirect jobs depend on the Port of Baltimore, generating an estimated $3.3 billion in personal revenue, $2.6 billion in business income, and more than $395 million in taxes. The local economic impact was such that the United States Small Business Administration and the United States Department of Labor responded by issuing Economic Injury Disaster Loans and Dislocated Worker Grants for businesses and workers that were directly affected by the bridge’s collapse and closure of the Port.
Despite the collapse, Baltimore’s resiliency speaks to the Port’s ability to retain its standing as our Nation’s top ranked Port for wheeled farm and construction machinery, and reigns as the nation’s second most utilized port for importing cars in 2024. In 2024, the Port of Baltimore exported more than $2.9 billion and imported nearly $23 billion in automobiles and light trucks. Additionally, the Port exported more than $2.92 billion in coal and more than $1.1 billion in agricultural equipment and materials. Overall, the Port of Baltimore exports roughly 28% of the nation’s coal, making it the second-largest coal exporting port in the United States.
We are especially concerned about the latest announcement on tariffs considering the economic consequences for the American consumer. These tariffs effectively serve as a sales tax on consumers, placing the burden of revenue raising on American families. While White House trade adviser Peter Navarro stated recently that these tariffs are expected to raise about $600 billion a year in revenue, economists have clarified that the impact to consumers on spending will significantly reduce these revenue estimates. Instead, experts indicate these tariffs will raise prices for already-struggling consumers, trigger layoffs in industries with customers who rely on imports, and plunge our nation into a recession.
Considering the Port of Baltimore’s critical importance to the economic wellbeing of the city, state, and our nation, we request a response to the following inquiries within 14 days:
What mechanism is the Department of Commerce utilizing to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of the tariffs issued under the Executive Order?
What efforts will the Department of Commerce take to track how these tariffs impact everyday costs for the American consumer, and national and local economies?
What are the long-term implications of these tariffs on our nation’s major ports, and on our national supply chains?
How, specifically, do you expect the announced tariffs will impact automobile and light vehicle imports, coal exports, and agricultural equipment imports and exports?
Will the Administration waive tariffs on certain goods or sectors, or provide aid to impacted small businesses, impacted workers (i.e. farmers, dockworkers, etc.), and industries, in response to significant negative economic outcomes in the United States?
Thank you for your prompt attention to this important matter. We look forward to your reply.
U.S. ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON DC 20585
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 10, 2025
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects recent developments in global trade policy and oil production to contribute to lower global demand growth for petroleum products through 2026, which contributes to significantly lower oil prices than previously forecast.
In its April Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO), EIA points out significant uncertainties in energy supply, demand, and prices.
The STEO is based on current market conditions, and in the first week of April, numerous developments affected the global market—especially oil markets. On April 2, President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order announcing a minimum 10% tariff on imports from all countries, which also included higher tariffs on some countries. On April 4, China responded by imposing 34% tariffs on imports from the United States. Amid the tariff announcements, OPEC+ members announced on April 3 that some countries will start oil production increases in May that were originally set for July.
These announcements caused the Brent crude oil spot price to fall by 12% on April 2 to $68 per barrel on April 4. EIA completed its forecasts on April 7, so the April STEO includes some of the recent changes in the energy market, but the agency expects continued volatility as market participants respond to further developments.
U.S. energy market indicators
2024
2025
2026
Brent crude oil spot price (dollars per barrel)
$81
$68
$61
Retail gasoline price (dollars per gallon)
$3.30
$3.10
$3.10
U.S. crude oil production (million barrels per day)
13.2
13.5
13.6
Natural gas price at Henry Hub (dollars per million British thermal units)
$2.20
$4.30
$4.60
U.S. liquefied natural gas gross exports (billion cubic feet per day)
12
15
16
Shares of U.S. electricity generation
Natural gas
42%
40%
40%
Coal
16%
16%
15%
Renewables
23%
25%
27%
Nuclear
19%
19%
19%
U.S. GDP (percentage change)
2.8%
2.0%
2.0%
U.S. CO2 emissions (billion metric tons)
4.8
4.8
4.7
Data source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook, April 2025 Note: Values in this table are rounded and may not match values in other tables in the STEO.
Some key highlights from the April STEO include:
Global oil supply, demand, and prices: EIA expects continued growth in U.S. and global oil production as OPEC+ accelerates its previously announced production increases and the United States exempts energy from its recently announced tariffs. EIA expects global oil inventories to increase starting in the middle of 2025, but market uncertainty could lead to lower economic growth, which could lead to less growth in demand for petroleum products than EIA had previously forecast. The combination of growing supply and lower demand leads EIA to expect the Brent crude oil price to average less than $70 per barrel in 2025 and fall to an average of just over $60 per barrel in 2026. Those prices are about 10% lower than the March STEO forecast and reflect more uncertainty around global oil demand growth as well the potential for additional supply from OPEC+ in the coming months.
Other uncertainties in EIA’s oil price forecasts include existing sanctions on Russia, Iran, and Venezuela, which also could affect oil prices.
Gasoline prices: EIA forecasts the U.S. retail price for regular-grade gasoline to average about $3.10 per gallon this summer, mostly because of expected lower crude oil prices. If the forecast holds, this price would be the lowest inflation-adjusted summer average gasoline price since 2020.
U.S. propane markets: Among energy products, EIA expects China’s retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods will have the largest effect on propane because China is typically a major importer of U.S. propane. Some propane previously exported to China will likely find new destinations, but EIA expects that reduced propane export demand will cause propane inventories on the U.S. Gulf Coast to rise and put downward pressure on the Mt. Belvieu propane spot price.
Natural gas demand: EIA expects U.S. natural gas demand to grow by 4% in 2025, averaging just over 115 billion cubic feet per day. This increase is led by a 18% increase in exports and a 9% increase in residential and commercial consumption for space heating. The increase in natural gas exports is driven primarily by growth in liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports as two new LNG export facilities—Plaquemines Phase 1 and Golden Pass LNG—ramp up operations.
Although China announced on April 7 that it would no longer import U.S. LNG, EIA expects that ample global demand for LNG and flexible destination clauses in U.S. LNG contracts mean U.S. LNG exports will be largely unaffected by recent trade policy developments.
Natural gas inventories and prices: U.S working natural gas inventories ended the withdrawal season 6% below the five-year average because cold weather in January and February resulted in more natural gas than average being withdrawn from storage. EIA continues to expect higher natural gas prices this year, with the Henry Hub price averaging about $4.30 per million British thermal units (MMBtu) in 2025, up $2.10 per MMBtu from 2024. EIA expects the annual average price to increase in 2026 to about $4.60 per MMBtu.
Trade policy assumptions: The U.S. macroeconomic outlook used in the STEO is based on S&P Global’s macroeconomic model. Although that model was released in mid-March and does not completely reflect the trade policies announced the first week of April, its assumptions are partly in line with what the President announced on April 2. S&P Global’s forecast assumes an increasing universal tariff that will reach 10% by the end of 2025 and a higher rate on U.S. imports from China. We use Oxford Economics for our global GDP forecast, which was also completed in mid-March, prior to the most recent tariff announcements.
The full April 2025 Short-Term Energy Outlook is available on the EIA website.
The product described in this press release was prepared by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the statistical and analytical agency within the U.S. Department of Energy. By law, EIA’s data, analysis, and forecasts are independent of approval by any other officer or employee of the U.S. government. The views in the product and this press release therefore should not be construed as representing those of the U.S. Department of Energy or other federal agencies.
EIA Program Contact: Tim Hess, STEO@eia.gov EIA Press Contact: Chris Higginbotham, EIAMedia@eia.gov
Source: US Energy Information Administration – EIA
Headline: EIA expects less oil demand and lower oil and gasoline prices in an uncertain market
U.S. ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON DC 20585
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 10, 2025
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects recent developments in global trade policy and oil production to contribute to lower global demand growth for petroleum products through 2026, which contributes to significantly lower oil prices than previously forecast.
The STEO is based on current market conditions, and in the first week of April, numerous developments affected the global market—especially oil markets. On April 2, President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order announcing a minimum 10% tariff on imports from all countries, which also included higher tariffs on some countries. On April 4, China responded by imposing 34% tariffs on imports from the United States. Amid the tariff announcements, OPEC+ members announced on April 3 that some countries will start oil production increases in May that were originally set for July.
These announcements caused the Brent crude oil spot price to fall by 12% on April 2 to $68 per barrel on April 4. EIA completed its forecasts on April 7, so the April STEO includes some of the recent changes in the energy market, but the agency expects continued volatility as market participants respond to further developments.
U.S. energy market indicators
2024
2025
2026
Brent crude oil spot price (dollars per barrel)
$81
$68
$61
Retail gasoline price (dollars per gallon)
$3.30
$3.10
$3.10
U.S. crude oil production (million barrels per day)
13.2
13.5
13.6
Natural gas price at Henry Hub (dollars per million British thermal units)
$2.20
$4.30
$4.60
U.S. liquefied natural gas gross exports (billion cubic feet per day)
12
15
16
Shares of U.S. electricity generation
Natural gas
42%
40%
40%
Coal
16%
16%
15%
Renewables
23%
25%
27%
Nuclear
19%
19%
19%
U.S. GDP (percentage change)
2.8%
2.0%
2.0%
U.S. CO2 emissions (billion metric tons)
4.8
4.8
4.7
Data source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook, April 2025 Note: Values in this table are rounded and may not match values in other tables in the STEO.
Some key highlights from the April STEO include:
Global oil supply, demand, and prices: EIA expects continued growth in U.S. and global oil production as OPEC+ accelerates its previously announced production increases and the United States exempts energy from its recently announced tariffs. EIA expects global oil inventories to increase starting in the middle of 2025, but market uncertainty could lead to lower economic growth, which could lead to less growth in demand for petroleum products than EIA had previously forecast. The combination of growing supply and lower demand leads EIA to expect the Brent crude oil price to average less than $70 per barrel in 2025 and fall to an average of just over $60 per barrel in 2026. Those prices are about 10% lower than the March STEO forecast and reflect more uncertainty around global oil demand growth as well the potential for additional supply from OPEC+ in the coming months.
Other uncertainties in EIA’s oil price forecasts include existing sanctions on Russia, Iran, and Venezuela, which also could affect oil prices.
Gasoline prices: EIA forecasts the U.S. retail price for regular-grade gasoline to average about $3.10 per gallon this summer, mostly because of expected lower crude oil prices. If the forecast holds, this price would be the lowest inflation-adjusted summer average gasoline price since 2020.
U.S. propane markets: Among energy products, EIA expects China’s retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods will have the largest effect on propane because China is typically a major importer of U.S. propane. Some propane previously exported to China will likely find new destinations, but EIA expects that reduced propane export demand will cause propane inventories on the U.S. Gulf Coast to rise and put downward pressure on the Mt. Belvieu propane spot price.
Natural gas demand: EIA expects U.S. natural gas demand to grow by 4% in 2025, averaging just over 115 billion cubic feet per day. This increase is led by a 18% increase in exports and a 9% increase in residential and commercial consumption for space heating. The increase in natural gas exports is driven primarily by growth in liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports as two new LNG export facilities—Plaquemines Phase 1 and Golden Pass LNG—ramp up operations.
Although China announced on April 7 that it would no longer import U.S. LNG, EIA expects that ample global demand for LNG and flexible destination clauses in U.S. LNG contracts mean U.S. LNG exports will be largely unaffected by recent trade policy developments.
Natural gas inventories and prices: U.S working natural gas inventories ended the withdrawal season 6% below the five-year average because cold weather in January and February resulted in more natural gas than average being withdrawn from storage. EIA continues to expect higher natural gas prices this year, with the Henry Hub price averaging about $4.30 per million British thermal units (MMBtu) in 2025, up $2.10 per MMBtu from 2024. EIA expects the annual average price to increase in 2026 to about $4.60 per MMBtu.
Trade policy assumptions: The U.S. macroeconomic outlook used in the STEO is based on S&P Global’s macroeconomic model. Although that model was released in mid-March and does not completely reflect the trade policies announced the first week of April, its assumptions are partly in line with what the President announced on April 2. S&P Global’s forecast assumes an increasing universal tariff that will reach 10% by the end of 2025 and a higher rate on U.S. imports from China. We use Oxford Economics for our global GDP forecast, which was also completed in mid-March, prior to the most recent tariff announcements.
The full April 2025 Short-Term Energy Outlook is available on the EIA website.
The product described in this press release was prepared by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the statistical and analytical agency within the U.S. Department of Energy. By law, EIA’s data, analysis, and forecasts are independent of approval by any other officer or employee of the U.S. government. The views in the product and this press release therefore should not be construed as representing those of the U.S. Department of Energy or other federal agencies.
Source: Government of Ireland – Department of Jobs Enterprise and Innovation
10th April 2025
Niamh Smyth, Minister of State for Trade Promotion, Artificial Intelligence and Digital Transformation, signed a Memorandum of Understanding with His Excellency Dr Thani Al Zeyoudi, Minister of State for Foreign Trade, on the 10th of April in Dubai establishing a new Joint Economic Commission between Ireland and the United Arab Emirates.
Joint Economic Commissions are a valuable forum for officials to discuss and exchange information and consult on trade and economic issues. This agreement builds on longstanding links and cooperation between the two countries and enhances the bi-lateral relationship between Ireland and the UAE.
Bilateral trade between Ireland and the UAE with a value of nearly €8 billion annually, positions the UAE as Ireland’s largest trading partner in the Arab world.
Minister Smyth said:
“I would like to thank our Ambassador, Alison Milton, and her staff for their work in promoting our bilateral relations in the region. The warm reception I received today from Minister Thani Al Zeyoudi and his team is a reflection of the friendship that has grown over the last fifty years of diplomatic relations between Ireland and the UAE. It is very fitting that this agreement is being signed on the same day as Ireland is marking 50 years of diplomatic relations with the UAE.
“In that time, both of our countries have enjoyed sustained growth in our respective economies. That growth would not have been possible without our State Agencies, Enterprise Ireland, Bord Bia, the IDA, and Tourism Ireland, who work tirelessly to promote Ireland here in the UAE. Through these collective efforts, the bilateral relationship has reached truly remarkable heights.
“The Joint Economic Commission will give a new forum for further collaboration in areas such as trade and investment, aviation, education and research, renewable energy and green technology, healthcare and life sciences. Once fully established, it will serve as a vehicle to enhance internal cooperation and coordination, strengthening Ireland’s partnership with one of the most dynamic economies in the world, and one with huge potential for increased bilateral trade and investment.”
His Excellency Dr. Thani Al Zeyoudi said:
“The relationship between the UAE and Ireland is one of mutual respect and shared ambition. With a foundation built on trade and cooperation, we are well-positioned to explore new avenues for investment and collaboration. The signing of this MoU is a testament to our commitment to enhancing bilateral relations and unlocking the significant potential that exists between our two countries.”
Notes to the Editors
Ireland currently maintains active Joint Economic Commissions (JECs) with China, Saudi Arabia and the Republic of Korea which facilitate dialogue at official level across a range of economic, trade, investment, innovation and science and technology fields. This signing of this agreement with the UAE establishes a new JEC.
JECs provide a valuable forum for exchanges and experience-sharing regarding economic and industrial policies. They can act as a platform to progress mutually beneficial trade and investment promotion, raise market access or regulatory issues and support closer cooperation in priority areas such as science, innovation and technology, education, connectivity, labour markets, green and digital transformations, supply chain resilience, tourism and culture, agriculture and food security, health, aviation and aerospace, and cybersecurity. The format allows partners to receive a response on important trade and investment issues, to discuss WTO developments and to increase awareness of our countries and respective enterprise and economic priorities among key decision makers. A JEC can also provide a mechanism for progressing matters proposed already, for example, under previously suggested MoUs.
On the Irish side, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment continue to lead on establishing and coordinating Ireland’s approach to JECs. In general, JECs meet on a biennial basis, at senior official level, with location alternating between the partners.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman August Pfluger (TX-11)
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Congressman August Pfluger (TX-11), a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, questioned witnesses in the full committee hearing yesterday titled, “Converting Energy into Intelligence: The Future of AI Technology, Human Discovery, and American Global Competitiveness.”
Earlier this year, four Department of Energy (DOE) sources revealed that the Biden administration intentionally withheld a final draft of a study that could have challenged the administration’s decision to ban LNG exports in January 2024. The decision to bury this study raises significant concerns about transparency within the Biden administration’s DOE, especially given that the study revealed LNG exports would lower emissions.
Restricting the free flow of commodities discourages investment in critical infrastructure, such as pipelines, which in turn affects downstream consumption – ultimately making it more difficult to supply the energy needed to power data centers across the country. This is why during the hearing, Rep. Pfluger questioned David Turk, who served as the Deputy Secretary of Energy during the Biden Administration, on the former administration’s decision to pause natural gas exports despite reports that countered this decision.
Watch Rep. Pfluger’s full line of questioningHEREor read highlights from his interaction with Mr. Turk below.
Rep. Pfluger: Were you aware of the 2023 study’s findings prior to the January 26 decision to indefinitely ban new export authorizations under section three of the Natural Gas Act?
Mr. Turk: So we didn’t ban any. We did the study in order to take a step back because we’ve authorized so much. Up to half of our natural gas production right now is authorized to actually go abroad and to be sold, including to China. So what we did was take a pause to complete the study.
Rep. Pfluger: Pause, ban, we can debate this all day long. But why was the study not released immediately after it was done?
Mr. Turk: So it was. We released the study once the efforts finished the study.
Rep. Pfluger: Do you disagree that the study was more favorable to LNG than the Biden administration would have liked, and that’s why there was a pause put on LNG exports?
Mr. Turk: The pause was so that we could do the study before making decisions and to actually have our independent experts, and the independent experts in our national labs were the ones who did the study.
Rep. Pfluger: So do you agree that the emissions of natural gas were better and more consistent and actually more favorable than what you claimed and what Secretary Granholm claimed in the attempt to ban natural gas exports?
Mr. Turk: So LNG exports have a very, very significant greenhouse gas footprint. So just one project, we’re talking 4 BCF per day, that project itself has more emissions throughout the life cycle, methane emissions, but CO two combustion when that gas is burned, than 141 countries in our world. Just one facility, 141 countries in our world. That’s pretty significant.
Rep. Pfluger: So you stand by your decision to ban LNG exports?
Mr. Turk: Again, we did a pause so we could do the study so that any Secretary of State could have a good independent analysis.
Rep. Pfluger: Your decision to do that is going to impact these guys right here. It’s going to impact our ability to provide power for the AI data center.
Background:
This questioning follows news first reported on by the Daily Caller claiming that Biden Administration officials ‘intentionally buried’ studies to justify their major crackdown on energy.
Rep. Pfluger also introduced the “Unlocking our Domestic LNG Potential Act” earlier this year to shift responsibility for approving liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects out of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) hands after the department unilaterally froze approvals for such projects for most of 2024 under the Biden administration.
