Source: United States Senator for Texas John Cornyn
WASHINGTON – Today in the Senate Finance Committee, U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) discussed the Trump administration’s efforts to achieve fair and balanced trade with United States Trade Representative (USTR) Jamieson Greer. Excerpts of Sen. Cornyn’s remarks are below, and video can be found here.
CORNYN: “Our friends in Australia basically have put up barriers to the export of beef from the United States. My state, Texas, happens to produce a lot of beef cattle, and Australia basically denies access to its huge market, but not as a result of tariffs so much as non-tariff barriers to trade. Could you speak to that?”
GREER: “It’s always surprising because we have a free trade agreement with Australia, and we would expect that we would have fair, reciprocal trade. Last year, I think we imported about $3 billion worth of Australian beef, and we exported zero dollars of American beef to Australia—and it’s not just beef.”
“It’s incredible that they do this. We have zero exports of the fresh and frozen U.S. pork to Australia.”
CORNYN: “I find it interesting that people express surprise at President Trump’s policies, when he’s been talking about these policies for—best I can tell—for decades and how unfair trading arrangements are between various countries.”
“Indeed, some of these unfair trading practices have resulted in the deindustrialization of America. We’ve exported manufacturing to Asia, particularly China, and other countries that now appear to be willing to hold us hostage to those supply chains.”
“Would you speak to the vulnerabilities that exist as a result of China basically processing 90 percent of the critical minerals in the world that are essential for our daily lives?”
GREER: “That figure is always one that gives me great concern.”
“That’s a very dangerous situation to be in. I mean, this is part of the urgency of what we’re talking about, and I think as the Trump administration certainly takes action on trade, but also takes action on the environmental side and permitting and regulation. That’s an area we can actually have more of that activity here in the United States or we can work with our trading partners to try to incentivize production there as well.”
Headline: Automotive Component Manufacturer Selects Scotland County for Southeast Operation, Adding 35 New Jobs
Automotive Component Manufacturer Selects Scotland County for Southeast Operation, Adding 35 New Jobs lsaito
Raleigh, NC
Today, Governor Josh Stein announced Bailey Manufacturing Company (BMC), a manufacturer of stamped metal automotive parts, will add 35 new jobs in Scotland County. The company will invest more than $4.3 million in a new production facility in Laurinburg.
“Bailey Manufacturing’s decision to locate to Scotland County is more proof that North Carolia is a top state for businesses across all industries,” said Governor Josh Stein. “Our state’s manufacturing legacy and longstanding commitment to innovation will continue to attract growing companies to every corner of the state.”
Bailey Manufacturing supplies stamped metal components for the automotive industry. In addition to metal stamping, the New York-based company also offers machining, welding, and assembly services for its list of customers, including automotive manufacturers such as General Motors and many others. BMC produces and ships 13 million parts annually throughout the United States, Mexico, China, and South Africa. The 50,000-square-foot facility in Laurinburg will double production capacity for BMC and offer more manufacturing, warehousing, and administrative space.
“Bailey Manufacturing is excited to join the growing list of automotive suppliers in North Carolina. Our new southeast facility will allow us to better serve our growing customer base,” said John Hines, President of Bailey Manufacturing Company. “I want to thank North Carolina, Scotland County, Scotland County EDC and the City of Laurinburg for their assistance in making this project a reality and look forward to a prosperous future together.”
“BMC is a great addition to our automotive supply chain of more than 250 manufacturers,” said N.C. Commerce Secretary Lee Lilley. “North Carolina is home to 20 of the top global OEM suppliers, the largest manufacturing workforce in the Southeast, and one of the largest state-maintained transportation networks to get parts to customers all over the world.”
While wages vary by position, the annual average salary for the new positions will be $52,000, exceeding Scotland County’s average of $46,708. These new jobs could potentially create an annual payroll impact of more than $1.8 million for the region.
A performance-based grant of $120,000 from the One North Carolina Fund will help the company locate to North Carolina. The OneNC Fund provides financial assistance to local governments to help attract economic investment and to create jobs. Companies receive no money upfront and must meet job creation and capital investment targets to qualify for payment. All OneNC grants require matching participation from local governments and any award is contingent upon that condition being met.
“I am pleased to welcome Bailey Manufacturing Company to Scotland County,” said N.C. Senator Danny Earl Britt. “Our hardworking people are ready to help the company establish its operation in Laurinburg that will lead to future success.”
“These new jobs and investment are welcome additions for our community,” said N.C. Representative Garland E. Pierce. “This decision by Bailey Manufacturing Company validates Scotland County as a great place for growing companies to do business.”
In addition to the North Carolina Department of Commerce and the Economic Development Partnership of North Carolina, other key partners in this project include the North Carolina General Assembly, North Carolina Community College System, Richmond Community College, North Carolina’s Southeast, Scotland County, Scotland County Economic Development Corporation, and City of Laurinburg.
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,joined 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 releasing a bipartisan resolution 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 is driving our economy into a recession, killing jobs and wiping out seniors’ retirement funds as we speak,” said Senator Wyden. “Enough is enough. No president should have the power to tax everything Americans buy without being accountable to Congress. Unless Republicans join with Democrats and take back Congress’s power over trade policy, the damage could take years to reverse.”
“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.”
The resolution will be formally filed at a later point, when it will be treated as a privileged resolution that must receive a vote on the Senate floor. Read and download the full text of the resolution.
Source: United States Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.)
Padilla, Bipartisan National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology Urge Swift Action to Boost Economy, Protect U.S. National Security
Biotech Commission report emphasizes: Emerging biotechnology is key to continued U.S. dominance and securing future economic growth in a new era of global competition
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) and the other Commissioners of the bipartisan National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology (NSCEB) delivered their major report and action plan, urging Congressional action to bring the full weight of American innovation to improve and maintain U.S. global leadership in biotechnology. Padilla was appointed to serve as a Congressional Commissioner after Congress formed the Commission in the Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act.
For decades, the United States has been the global leader in biotechnology innovation. Today’s Commission report found that the United States is dangerously close to falling behind China. The Commission reports that the United States’ growing dependence on China for numerous critical supply chain elements is a national security vulnerability. Biotechnology is key to increasing supply chain security, resilience, and scalability by allowing the United States to control its own access to critical components.
“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 Senator Padilla.
“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 Senator Todd Young (R-Ind.).
The Commission found 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.
The Commission also reported that biotechnology will drive the next wave of battlefield innovation and will be used to secure supply chains, enhance readiness, streamline logistics, improve resilience, and counter biological threats before they emerge.
Furthermore, the Commission assessed that the future of American biotechnology leadership requires strategic federal action that encourages innovation by spurring private investment. This includes targeted investments and strategic government reforms to reduce regulatory bottlenecks.
In addition to Senators Padilla and Young, the bipartisan Commission includes Representatives Stephanie Bice (R-Okla.-05) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.-17), as well as outside experts.
“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 Representative Bice.
“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 Representative Khanna.
“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’s report laid out six pillars for action and makes 49 recommendations. Full details can be found here.
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
Last year, Senators Padilla and Young introduced a bipartisan package of bills focused on protecting America’s food security and agricultural supply chains, which are critical to U.S. national security. Padilla also announced the Commission’s first round of findings and recommendations for policymakers in an interim report outlining the promise of biotechnology for U.S. national security and economic competitiveness and growth.
Source: United States Senator for Washington Maria Cantwell
04.08.25
Cantwell Questions Trump Trade Head on Tariffs That Have ‘Wreaked Havoc on the Economy’
In committee hearing, USTR Jamieson Greer said Trump not backing off tariffs that caused global markets to plummet; Last Thursday, Cantwell introduced a bipartisan bill that would reassert Congress’ role in setting & overseeing U.S. trade policy; In less than a week, her legislation has picked up 12 new cosponsors, half Ds and half Rs, & received endorsement from world’s largest retail trade org
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), senior member of the Senate Finance Committee and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, pressed United States Trade Representative Jamieson Greer on the administration’s slapdash implementation of sweeping tariffs without sufficient input or accountability to Congress.
Prior to President Trump’s implementation of the tariffs, there was no formal bipartisan briefing of Congress detailing how the tariff rates were set, analyzing on how they might impact the American economy, or even communicating what the White House was aiming to accomplish.
“What did the Trump administration do to prepare [Congress], to communicate with us, to tell us about findings as it relates to these emergency orders by the President?” Sen. Cantwell asked during a hearing today in the Senate Finance Committee.
“Our staff, the USTR staff, in the in the past two months that we’ve been in office, have had over 200 formal engagements with staff on the Hill,” Greer responded. “We also had the President issue very publicly his America First trade policy memorandum, which specifically said that he was going to look into the trade deficit and the possibilities of tariffs.”
Cantwell responded: “So, we’ve wreaked havoc on the economy by having one of the largest drops of the market. We have people’s 401(k)s, in panic. We have retail organizations, like the retail industry, National Retail Federation, American Apparel Industry, Outdoor Association, Consumer Technology, Computer and Communications Industry, Main Street Alliance, Small Business Majority, all anxious, asking us to do something. And you’re saying, ‘Well, some people have passed some notes to staff.’”
She continued: “We should be building alliances as a way to counter China, but the alliance building process now will become harder, and people are going to wonder, well, is the United States going to pull another fast one again and just wreak havoc?”
Greer said the United States has seen “many times in past decades when we have had real robust trade disputes with our partners.”
Sen. Cantwell responded: “I’m for trade. I represent trade. I represent a trade economy. I represent the success of what innovation and trade gets you. But you’re coming here this morning with this, not only tanking of the market and 401(k)s, now you’re coming here telling me that tariff is the tool. And I’m telling you — innovation is the tool!”
The bill has since picked up 12 additional cosponsors – an equal mix of Republicans and Democrats – and been endorsed by multiple major U.S. business organizations, including the National Retail Federation, which is the largest retail trade association in the world.
In addition, a bipartisan group has introduced a companion version of Sen. Cantwell’s legislation in the House of Representatives, also cosponsored by equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats.
The bill restores Congress’ authority and responsibility over tariffs as outlined in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution by placing the following limits on the president’s power to impose tariffs:
To enact a new tariff, the president must notify Congress of the imposition of (or increase in) the tariff within 48 hours.
The Congressional notification must include an explanation of the president’s reasoning for imposing or raising the tariff, and
Provide analysis of potential impact on American businesses and consumers.
Within 60 days, Congress must pass a joint resolution of approval on the new tariff, otherwise all new tariffs on imports expire after that deadline.
Under the bill, Congress has the ability to end tariffs at any time by passing a resolution of disapproval.
Anti-dumping and countervailing duties are excluded.
The full bill text is available HERE.
For the past three months, President Trump has been sowing economic chaos across the country with unpredictable and ever-changing tariff announcements. His back-and-forth announcements and actions, which have whipsawed American businesses and consumers, as well as close neighbors and allies, include:
On January 31 – citing punishment for failing to crack down on fentanyl trafficking — the Trump administration announced plans to impose a 25% tax on many goods imported into the U.S. from Canada and Mexico and a 10% tax on goods imported from China, then abruptly postponed those tariffs.
In February, he doubled down, announcing an additional 25% tax on all steel and aluminum imports.
At 12:01 a.m. ET on March 4, President Trump’s long-promised 25% tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada and 10% tariff increase on goods from China took effect, causing stock prices in the United States to plummet.
Then, on March 5, he announced that automobiles from Canada and Mexico would be exempt from his tariffs for one month.
The morning of March 6, he announced that he would suspend the tariffs for some products from Mexico. Then, later that same afternoon, he announced he was suspending most new tariffs on products from both Mexico and Canada until April 2.
On March 11, Trump threatened to double tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum – increasing them to 50% – before reversing himself later the same day.
On March 13, he threatened 200% tariffs on alcoholic products from the European Union, including all wine and Champagne.
On March 27, he announced plans to impose a 25% tax on all imported sedans, SUVs, crossovers, minivans, cargo vans, and light trucks, as well as some auto parts, beginning on April 2.
On March 29, President Trump said, “I couldn’t care less,” if automakers raise the price of cars in response to his tariffs.
On April 2, he announced a “National Economic Emergency,” and signed an executive order declaring a 10% minimum baseline tariff on all countries as well as additional tariffs on nearly 60 countries.
On April 7, he threatened to impose an additional 50% tariff on China.
Video of Sen. Cantwell’s Q&A with Greer today is available HERE; audio is HERE; and a transcript is HERE.
Source: United States Senator for Connecticut – Chris Murphy
April 08, 2025
WASHINGTON—U.S. Senators Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, joined 22 of their Senate colleagues in a letter to President Donald Trump regarding the firing of the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) and Commander of U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), General Timothy Haugh, as well as the reassignment of the Deputy Director of the NSA, Wendy Noble.
“These actions severely compromise our ability to keep Americans safe. As you are well aware, our nation currently faces serious cyber threats from foreign adversaries, such as from China’s Salt Typhoon, with near-daily attacks against our critical infrastructure,” the senators wrote. “In addition, our nation’s military is engaged in ongoing operations against multiple threats, from the Houthis in Yemen to Russian aggression in Eastern Europe. Given the dangers facing the United States, it is inexplicable that the Administration would remove the senior leaders of NSA/CYBERCOM without cause or warning, and risk disrupting critical ongoing intelligence operations.”
The senators warned that ending the dual-hat arrangement—where one officer leads both NSA and CYBERCOM—could seriously undermine U.S. national security: “Premature termination of the dual-hat arrangement would severely degrade the speed and effectiveness of NSA’s and CYBERCOM’s abilities to execute their missions and could have dire consequence for our national security. As Congress on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis has repeatedly made clear in the National Defense Authorization Acts for Fiscal Years 2017, 2018, and 2020, clear criteria must be met before any termination can be considered and both the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs must together certify that separation will not “pose risks to the military effectiveness of the United States Cyber Command that are unacceptable to the national security interests of the United States.”
The senators requested written justification for why Director Timothy Haugh and Ms. Wendy Noble were removed from their posts and asked for a Congressional briefing regarding any additional actions the administration plans to take with respect to NSA and CYBERCOM, including but not limited to the separation of the dual-hat.
U.S. Senators Mark Warner (D-Va.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Angus King (I-Maine), Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) also signed the letter.
Full text of the letter is available HERE and below.
Dear President Trump,
We write with alarm at the sudden and inexplicable firing of the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) and Commander, U.S. Cyber Command, General Timothy Haugh, as well as the reassignment of the Deputy Director of the NSA, Wendy Noble. Not only have both dutifully served this nation for decades under both Democratic and Republican administrations, but their removals were conducted in the middle of the night with no consultation with Congress and, according to reports, at the behest of a private citizen who has a record of promoting conspiracy theories.
These actions severely compromise our ability to keep Americans safe. As you are well aware, our nation currently faces serious cyber threats from foreign adversaries, such as from China’s Salt Typhoon, with near-daily attacks against our critical infrastructure. In addition, our nation’s military is engaged in ongoing operations against multiple threats, from the Houthis in Yemen to Russian aggression in Eastern Europe. Given the dangers facing the United States, it is inexplicable that the Administration would remove the senior leaders of NSA/CYBERCOM without cause or warning, and risk disrupting critical ongoing intelligence operations.
Furthermore, we urge you to exercise careful consideration and consultation with Congress on any further actions that may impact NSA’s or CYBERCOM’s abilities to provide the critical intelligence and operational support to policymakers and warfighters. This includes, but is not limited to, any considerations to terminate the dual-hat arrangement. Premature termination of the dual-hat arrangement would severely degrade the speed and effectiveness of NSA’s and CYBERCOM’s abilities to execute their missions and could have dire consequence for our national security. As Congress on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis has repeatedly made clear in the National Defense Authorization Acts for Fiscal Years 2017, 2018, and 2020, clear criteria must be met before any termination can be considered and both the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs must together certify that separation will not “pose risks to the military effectiveness of the United States Cyber Command that are unacceptable to the national security interests of the United States.”
As Members of the respective committees of oversight, we request that you formally provide in writing a justification for why Director Timothy Haugh and Ms. Wendy Noble were removed from their posts and provide a briefing to Congress on any additional actions you plan to take with respect to NSA and CYBERCOM, including but not limited to the separation of the dual-hat.
The past week has seen the United States single-handedly rewrite the underlying paradigm for global trade. And while it is fair to say that the methods are extreme, the underlying goal of the policy is not unique to the US.
Indeed, the push to support, and expand, domestic manufacturing through policy intervention is experiencing a resurgence not seen since the 1970s.
Many people believe the COVID pandemic exposed weaknesses in global supply chains. In reality, the pandemic simply accelerated an existing trend of slowing of integration.
Growing concerns around trade wars and risks from climate shock existed prior to COVID with both policymakers and firms rethinking globalisation strategies.
Countries were also becoming concerned about the manufacturing dominance of China and the potential weaponisation of economic activity.
The risks of rising concentration
The expansion of international trade has led to massive efficiencies in production.
But it has also led to concentration of certain sectors in certain regions. Examples include software development in Silicon Valley, semiconductor manufacturing in Taiwan and critical minerals processing in China.
The Apple campus in Silicon Valley: no other country has been able to match the tech hub. Shutterstock
This geographic concentration started to raise concerns for many countries. Reasons include climate events disrupting supply chains, pandemics and increasingly, geopolitical concerns.
In response to the rise in economic concentration, countries as diverse as Japan, South Korea, the European Union, India, Brazil and the US introduced policy actions to promote or return certain critical sectors to domestic production.
Australia’s Future Made In Australia plan is a prime example of this.
Australia experienced this first-hand when China imposed significant tariffs on wine and barley in response to Australia’s call for a COVID inquiry.
China’s willingness to use its economic position was demonstrated on Friday when it announced not just retaliatory tariffs, but export restrictions on seven categories of rare earth minerals. These are critical to strategic US sectors affecting companies like Apple and defence contractor Lockheed Martin.
Government support on the rise
This shift to increased economic resilience through self-reliance has led to a big surge in government intervention through industrial policies.
The objective of industrial policy is to target certain sectors in order to change the structure of economic activity within a country. It uses government policy to promote investment in sectors deemed under-served by markets.
While all countries have used some level of industrial policy, historically it was mainly confined to developing economies. It has been used sparingly since the 1970s. Between 2009 and 2017, the total number of industrial policies used by countries was less than 200.
Between 2017 and 2023 the use of industrial policy increased nine-fold. In 2023, there were roughly 2,500 industrial policy interventions put in place with two-thirds introduced by advanced economies. Almost 48% were concentrated in three: China, the EU and the US.
Intervening in markets
Generally, industrial policy has been out of favour with mainstream economists. It is very hard to get right as it relies on an in-depth knowledge of industries as well as an ability to predict the future.
Providing funding for one sector means less funding available for others. This could undermine new technologies or other as-yet unseen opportunities. It involves shifting resources from existing, efficient uses to less efficient uses.
It rarely works. A prime example are the many countries that have spent billions of dollars trying to recreate a domestic Silicon Valley with no success.
However, Trump is trying to do just that, on an economy-wide scale, mainly through tariffs. The tariffs announced also imply the US will go it alone. The approach takes fragmentation to a new level, where bilateral negotiations are the name of the game.
Indeed, the Canadian Prime Minister’s first trip overseas was not, as tradition dictates, to the US, but to Europe and the UK, whom he dubbed “reliable” partners.
Becoming more isolated and pushing other countries to China may not be what the US intends, but it is happening.
Last week, Japan and South Korea announced a joint strategy with China to promote regional trade. The EU’s trade representative went to Beijing shortly after the tariff announcement where the two nations announced plans to “deepen trade and investment” ties.
The risks of highly integrated supply chains in the face of security concerns, or changes in a trading partner’s domestic policy, have become glaringly clear.
How countries choose to address these concerns, especially through the widespread use of industrial policy, will create further disruption to markets. While it is considered politically expedient for security concerns, this will raise prices and limit choice in domestic markets. As the old adage reminds us, there is no free lunch.
Susan Stone 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.
New York, NY, April 08, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Globalink Investment Inc. (OTC Pink: GLLI, GLLIW, GLLIR, GLLIU) (“Globalink” or the “Company”), a special purpose acquisition company, announced today that on April 8, 2025, it caused to be deposited $60,000 (the “Extension Payment”) into its trust account (the “Trust Account”) with Continental Stock Transfer and Trust Company (“Continental”) to extend the deadline to complete its initial business combination from April 9, 2025 to May 9, 2025. The extension is the twenty-second extension since the consummation of the Company’s initial public offering on December 9, 2021, and the fifth of up to six extensions permitted under the Company’s governing documents currently in effect.
About Globalink Investment Inc.
Globalink is a blank check company formed for the purpose of effecting a merger, share exchange, asset acquisition, share purchase, reorganization or similar business combination with one or more businesses. Although there is no restriction or limitation on what industry or geographic region, Globalink intends to pursue targets in North America, Europe, Southeast Asia, and Asia (excluding China, Hong Kong and Macau) in the medical technology and green energy industry.
Certain statements in this press release are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are subject to the safe harbor created thereby. In some cases, forward-looking statements can be identified by terminology such as “may,” “will,” “could,” “would,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential,” “outlook,” “guidance” or the negative of those terms or other comparable terminology. These statements are based on the current beliefs and expectations of the Company’s management and are subject to significant risks and uncertainties. Because these forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties, there are important factors that could cause future events to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements, many of which are outside of the Company’s control. These factors include, but are not limited to, a variety of risk factors affecting the Company’s business and prospects, see the section titled “Risk Factors” in the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024 filed with the SEC on March 25, 2025 and the prospectus filed with the SEC on December 6, 2021 and subsequent reports filed with the SEC, as amended from time to time. Any forward-looking statements are made only as of the date hereof, and unless otherwise required by applicable securities laws, the Company disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.
Globalink Contact:
Say Leong Lim Globalink Investment Inc. Telephone: +6012 405 0015 Email: limsayleong@hotmail.com
Source: United States Senator Jacky Rosen (D-NV)
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Jacky Rosen (D-NV), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, with oversight of U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) and the National Security Agency (NSA), joined Senate colleagues in a letter to President Trump demanding information on the sudden and unjustified firing of the Director of the NSA and Commander of CYBERCOM, General Timothy Haugh, as well as the abrupt reassignment of the Deputy Director of the NSA, Wendy Noble, reportedly at the request of a private individual and online provocateur, who has a long record of peddling in vicious conspiracy theories.
“These actions severely compromise our ability to keep Americans safe. As you are well aware, our nation currently faces serious cyber threats from foreign adversaries, such as from China’s Salt Typhoon, with near-daily attacks against our critical infrastructure,” wrote the senators. “In addition, our nation’s military is engaged in ongoing operations against multiple threats, from the Houthis in Yemen to Russian aggression in Eastern Europe. Given the dangers facing the United States, it is inexplicable that the Administration would remove the senior leaders of NSA/CYBERCOM without cause or warning, and risk disrupting critical ongoing intelligence operations.”
“As Congress on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis has repeatedly made clear in the National Defense Authorization Acts for Fiscal Years 2017, 2018, and 2020, clear criteria must be met before any termination can be considered and both the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs must together certify that separation will not ‘pose risks to the military effectiveness of the United States Cyber Command that are unacceptable to the national security interests of the United States,’” they concluded.
The full letter can be found HERE.
Senator Rosen has been fighting back against the Trump Administration’s recklessness, which is putting our national security at risk. Last month, she led 15 of her Senate colleagues in a letter calling on the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to hold hearings to fully investigate this national security breach. Senator Rosen also joined fellow members of the Senate Armed Services Committee in a letter demanding answers from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth regarding the recent abrupt dismissals of several Judge Advocate Generals.
Source: United States Senator for Mississippi Roger Wicker
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Roger Wicker, R-Miss., the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, today chaired a hearing examining nominees for several senior positions at the Department of Defense and one at the Department of Energy.
During his opening remarks, Chairman Wicker underscored the significant responsibilities these roles entail, including the modernization of our nuclear weapons and the protection of our intelligence against China’s aggressive espionage campaign.
Read Senator Wicker’s hearing opening statement as delivered below.
I welcome our four witnesses and their families, and I thank them for being here this morning.
Mr. Brandon Williams has been nominated to be Under Secretary of Energy for Nuclear Security and the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). As the Administrator, Mr. Williams would be responsible for rebuilding and modernizing our long-neglected nuclear weapons stockpile. Failure here is not an option. Over the past several years, we have watched as Russia, China, and North Korea have rapidly expanded their nuclear arsenals and developed new types of weapons – weapons for which we are sorely unprepared.
This committee is focused on ensuring that the Department of Defense and the NNSA deliver results. As the Congressional Strategic Posture Commission made clear, modernizing our country’s nuclear deterrent is a national imperative. I look forward to hearing how Mr. Williams intends to pursue this objective.
Mr. Bradley Hansell has been nominated to be the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence & Security. In addition to serving as the Secretary of Defense’s principal advisor on intelligence, counterintelligence, security, and law enforcement matters, the Under Secretary is tasked with protecting the Department’s most sensitive information from our adversaries. This includes ensuring the provision of timely and accurate intelligence to our forces, overseeing the security clearance vetting process, guarding against insider threats, and protecting our industrial base from China’s aggressive campaign of espionage and theft.
Mr. Hansell served as a Naval officer and an Army Green Beret. During his distinguished career in uniform, he saw first-hand that quality intelligence is crucial to executing the mission. That experience and his work in the private sector gives me confidence he will do an excellent job. I look forward to hearing Mr. Hansell outline his priorities for our intelligence and security enterprise.
Mr. Earl Matthews has been nominated to be the General Counsel of the Department of Defense. He has had a distinguished career as a Judge Advocate in the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard, serving as the senior headquarters staff judge advocate for the D.C. National Guard. Mr. Matthews also brings extensive civilian government experience. He worked for Secretary Mattis in 2017 before moving over the Army General Counsel office, where he served as Acting General Counsel of the Army.
President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have taken bold and necessary steps to reform the Department of Defense. As we all know, purposeful and thoughtful reform requires purposeful and thoughtful lawyers. I am confident that Mr. Matthews possesses both qualities. I look forward to hearing his opinion about what the DOD Office of General Counsel is doing right, and I want to hear his ideas for how he would do things differently.
Mr. Dale Marks has been nominated to be the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment, a role which ensures the operational readiness and resiliency of the Department of Defense (DoD). If confirmed, Mr. Marks would oversee the management of military installations and infrastructure, the bedrock of the safety and well-being of service members and their families.
This critical position will play a key part in the implementation of several reforms from last year’s NDAA. Among them are the mandate requiring a minimum four-percent plant replacement value for DOD facilities – let me repeat that – among them are the mandate, in the NDAA, requiring a minimum four-percent plant replacement value for DOD facilities, leveraging of area-wide contracting authorities, and a review of Biden-era green energy policies that focus more on climate change than combat lethality. I look forward to hearing from Mr. Marks about how he intends to tackle these important issues.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Kweisi Mfume (MD-07)
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Yesterday, U.S. Representative Kweisi Mfume (D-MD-07) led a letter alongside U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks (both D-MD) and Representatives Steny Hoyer (D-MD-05), Jamie Raskin (D-MD-08), Glenn Ivey (D-MD-04), Sarah Elfreth (D-MD-03), April McClain Delaney (D-MD-06) and Johnny Olszewski (D-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 viewedhereand 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, titledRegulating 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.
Source: United States Senator for Maine Angus King
WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senator Angus King, in a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), spoke with Brandon Williams, the nominee to serve as the Under Secretary of Energy for Nuclear Security, about the grave importance of keeping the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) staffed amid reckless cuts and buyouts inflicted upon the department by the White House at the urging of Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). During the exchange, Senator King pressed Williams for his commitment to protect the NNSA workforce and ensure it is properly staffed to meet the demand as the United States seeks to bolster its nuclear arsenal and keep pace with global foes. The hearing comes on the heels of the Trump Administration firing — then scrambling to rehire — more than 300 NNSA employees without realizing they oversee the country’s weapons stockpile.
I am gravely concerned about this memo that was mentioned on Friday of the possibility of 500 people in the National Nuclear Security Administration(NNSA) as non-essential. That is 20% of the workforce. The testimony is it is one of the greatest scientific engineering organizations in human history. I just do not understand how that wonderful organization, if that’s true, how 20% are non-essential. I did a little calculation. That is 2/10th of 1% of the budget. What is to be gained by reducing the staff by 20% of this essential agency at this moment with the rebuilding of our nuclear triad,” asked Senator King.
“Senator King, thank you for that question and your attention on the workforce which I think is absolutely critical. If confirmed, I commit to you that I will stand up for the men and women of NNSA, that I will advocate for them. We are facing a moment in history where NNSA must perform. I think there are opportunities for us to innovate at NNSA, to deliver on the program record and the expectations that this committee has set and that we will stand up to our adversaries,” replied Williams.
“You are absolutely right. This is a no fail mission. Because of the modernization program we are in the midst of, the demands on NNSA have never been greater, probably since the founding of the agency. I hope you will stand up for that workforce. There is an issue here not only of the people, the 500 people being non-essential, the effect on morale in the workforce is something to be considered. I hope you can address this early in your tenure and be sure that the workforce is protected, and that the morale of the agency can be maintained. Will you commit to that,” questioned Senator King.
“If confirmed, I will certainly commit to that,” responded Williams.
Senator King is a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and also serves as the ranking member of the subcommittee on Strategic Forces — which performs critical oversight of America’s nuclear weapons arsenal. He has been a steady voice on the need to address the growing nuclear capacity of our adversaries and has previously expressed concern about Russia and China’s emerging “nightmare weapon” hypersonic missiles. Senator King has also warned extensively of the carelessness of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) antics, and raised the alarms on Constitutional overstep as the White House continues to pare down the federal workforce. He wrote a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, alongside 36 senators, sharing the detrimental effects of the Trump Administration’s dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). He also joined fellow Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) colleagues in writing a letter to the White House about the risks to national security by allowing unvetted Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) staff and representatives to access classified and sensitive government materials.
Source: United States Senator for New York Charles E Schumer
Schumer Warns Over 260,000 NY Jobs Tied To Exports At “Direct Hit” Risk; JP Morgan Says Chance For National Recession Now At 60%–But Schumer Says For New York, That Risk Is Even Higher With EU Seeking To Retaliate At NYC Financial, Accounting & Tech Sector
Schumer Crunches Numbers To Say, As Of Right Now, Current Tariff Plan Could Cost NYC At Least $20 Billion Dollars; NYC Metropolitan Area Exports Second Most Goods Of Any U.S. Metropolitan Area – Much Of This Could Just Cease With NYC Revenues, Jobs, Investments All Nosediving
Schumer: Donald Trump’s Pinball Tariff Strategy Will Wreak Total Havoc On NYC & Could Drive A Deep & Needless Recession; Put Down The Golf Club & Pick Up The Papers
With tariff chaos wreaking havoc on the U.S. economy, U.S. Senator Charles Schumer, today, issued a dire warning, with the numbers and the data to back it up: Trump tariffs are likely to drive New York’s economy right into a recession.
“President Trump’s pinball tariff strategy will wreak total havoc on New York City and is likely to drive us right into a recession,” Schumer said. “We’ve crunched the numbers, and what doesn’t look good for the nation, looks far worse for New York City. Some of the Big Apple’s core sectors are being targeted already, New Yorkers face roughly $20 billion dollars in increased costs, and a staggering 260,000 New York jobs are under threat, unless Donald Trump backs off—and that is exactly what I am urging today. Back off, President Trump.”
Schumer, today, cited numbers that he predicts would go beyond the JP Morgan chances of a national recession while citing specific New York industries and sectors that would be especially slammed as the President’s pinball plans knock out some of New York’s most resilient industries—from finance, to tech and accounting. However, Schumer also cited tourism, fashion and other lifestyle industries across the city that would be equally damaged.
Schumer explained an ominous fact, detailing how New York and its metro area is especially vulnerable to the President’s needless tariff war because it is one of the world’s largest trade hubs. Schumer explained that the New York port and area import and export hubs hum with activity that pumps billions of dollars into the New York City economy each year.
Specifically, Schumer said that the President’s plans also put over 260,000 New York jobs tied to exports at, what he calls, a “direct hit” economic risk. Schumer explained that JP Morgan released data showing the nation’s chances of a recession are now at 60%–but Schumer says, in New York, the number is much higher. Schumer also said that, right now, the European Union is seeking to retaliate directly at New York City’s financial, accounting and tech sectors. He warned, today, that Asia would be next.
Just last week, JP Morgan said that the chance of a recession substantially increased due to President Donald Trump’s tariff announcement. The report, headlined “There will be blood” and dated April 3, warned, “these policies, if sustained, would likely push the US and possibly global economy into recession this year. An update of our probability scenario tree makes this point, raising the risk of a recession this year to 60%.”
“Disruptive U.S. policies have been recognized as the biggest risk to the global outlook all year,” JP Morgan said last week, adding that the country’s trade policy has turned less business friendly than anticipated.
“The effect is likely to be magnified through tariff retaliation, a slide in U.S. business sentiment and supply-chain disruptions,” JP Morgan warned. S&P Global, the rating firm, also raised its “subjective” probability of a U.S. recession last week.
Schumer also pointed to Barclays, and brokerages HSBC, Deutsche Bank and BofA warned last Thursday that the U.S. economy faces a higher risk of slipping into a recession this year if the President’s tariffs remain in place.
Financial reports say that if the tariffs are sustained, “recession risks will likely rise materially,” Deutsche Bank said in a note, while BofA noted the economy could be pushed to “the precipice of recession,” according to reports. Both Deutsche Bank and BofA predicted tariffs could ‘potentially shave 1-1.5 percentage points from U.S. economic growth this year.’
And today, Goldman Sachs has now sounded their own alarm, saying the chances of a recession have increased greatly.
Schumer echoed these warnings and other reports saying Trump’s tariff increase is “largest tax hike since 1968”—comparable to Smoot-Hawley, Schumer says.
As for New York City, Schumer is seeing red. Specifically:
Schumer says that Trump’s tariffs will raise costs for NYC and threaten to put the Big Apple straight into a recession:
Schumer detailed how NYC is particularly vulnerable:
NYC is one of the largest trade hubs in the country, with more than $200 Billion in trade in goods alone each year ($100b imports, $100b exports) – Schumer says this entire subset economy has been fractured, no matter what the President does right now.
Schumer can say that Trump’s tariffs will mean a nearly $20 Billion-dollar DIRECT HIT to NYC, and that’s before other countries try to retaliate. Schumer says the EU and Asia have begun the process.
80,000 jobs were already at risk before Trump’s latest announcement, which now threatens the more than 250,000 jobs in New York that are dependent on exports and could be threatened by retaliation.
Schumer says key NYC industries are already feeling the effects:
NYC’s biggest industries are in information services (financial, accounting, tech), which are the focus of the EU’s potential retaliation, and Schumer says it is clear that Asia will begin retaliation this week.
Tourism: Countries like Canada are boycotting travel to US, which has already seen a 23% drop in Canadian travel to US. But Schumer says the pinball tariff strategy will also constrict tourism on a global scale, constricting the global economy and weakening the dollar.
Fashion/Garment industry is facing price increases of 10 to 17% — Schumer says NYC is a fashion and garment hub, from leathers to other textiles, and that the current tariff ‘plan’ will rip the threads out of the NYC fashion and commerce economy.
Schumer has fought to help New York push back against these pinball tariffs, forcing a vote to rescind Trump’s disastrous tariffs and protect NY consumers.
Following Democrats’ successful effort to force a Senate vote to pull back Trump’s tariffs on Canada, Schumer pushed an amendment to rescind any tariffs put in place after January 20, 2025 that have increased the costs of groceries, medicines, or other everyday goods, while leaving in place tariffs on adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Schumer explained he authored the amendment because Congress should be prioritizing reducing costs for families and small businesses, not taxing middle class families to pay for tax cuts for billionaires.
“Bottom line, Schumer says, Donald Trump’s tariff strategy will wreak total havoc on the New York City economy and is likely to drive us straight into a recession. I urge the President to back off. Put down the golf clubs and pick up the papers and have a look at what is going on because it is anything but ‘great.’”
Source: Government of the Russian Federation – An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.
Dmitry Grigorenko opened the international IT Olympiad for schoolchildren.
An international IT Olympiad for schoolchildren has started in Russia. It will be attended by high school students from Russia and other countries, including Armenia, Belarus, Vietnam, Indonesia, China, Kyrgyzstan, Cuba, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and South Africa.
Deputy Prime Minister – Head of the Government Staff Dmitry Grigorenko took part in the grand opening ceremony of the IT Olympiad, which was held at the Government Coordination Center. He noted that the education of future strong IT personnel is one of the key tasks that the Government is already solving.
Much attention was paid to the training of IT personnel within the framework of the implementation of the national project “Digital Economy”. During its implementation, the number of budget places in universities in IT specialties increased by 2.5 times, and more than 230 thousand students received qualifications in the IT profile. In the period from 2019 to 2024, 78 thousand IT specialists needed by the industry were trained.
Training of IT personnel has also become one of the key areas of the new national project “Data Economy and Digital Transformation of the State”. The national project stipulates that the number of employees in the IT industry by 2030 should be at least 1.4 million people. The state is also developing close cooperation with leading companies in the area of training IT personnel: new programs for training specialists in microelectronics, robotics, artificial intelligence and unmanned systems, focused on developing practical skills, are already being developed. At least 250 thousand students should undergo training with the participation of leading IT companies by 2030.
Such specialized educational projects as the International IT Olympiad contribute to the training of personnel and help identify talented schoolchildren interested in IT technologies and provide support in their further development in the profession.
“IT technologies are a digitalization tool that makes our lives more convenient and increases economic efficiency. But it will not work without specialists who know how to use it correctly. Artificial intelligence is already being actively implemented in Russia today, domestic IT solutions are being developed, and digital services for citizens are being developed. And there is always a person behind this process of digital transformation. Strong IT personnel are a request not only for Russia, but for the whole world. Looking at the Olympiad participants, who, despite their young age, are already demonstrating such interest in IT, we understand that the development of the industry is in good hands,” Dmitry Grigorenko emphasized.
The International IT Olympiad has a practical focus. The tasks and training materials are developed taking into account modern trends in the field of information technology, and are also aimed at solving practical problems. The focus is on such IT areas as information security, mathematical logic, the basics of algorithms and programming, data analysis, text processing and building simple models based on artificial intelligence.
The IT Olympiad was organized by the Nizhny Novgorod Region government, and the general partner was Sberbank. The opening ceremony was attended by Sberbank Chairman of the Board German Gref.
“Information technologies allow us to look at the world in a completely different way and connect very complex processes that, at first glance, are not connected to each other. But this can only be done by managing the entire technology stack. Humanity is on the threshold of gigantic discoveries. You guys live in the most interesting time in the most interesting world, because you had the chance to look beyond the horizon of knowledge that humanity could not even formulate as the end point of this journey. And you will be able to fulfill this dream. I want to wish you success in this most interesting journey. I am sure that you will succeed, because only self-confident people can participate in our international Olympiad, and I congratulate you on this,” said German Gref.
The 100 participants who complete the tasks best and score the most points will take part in the in-person final, which will be held on the campus of the digital technology school “School 21” from “Sber” in Nizhny Novgorod. As reported by the Governor of the Nizhny Novgorod Region Gleb Nikitin during the grand opening of the Olympiad, the award ceremony for the winners will take place at the anniversary international conference “CIPR” in June.
Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
LIVERMORE, Calif., April 08, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — FormFactor, Inc. (NASDAQ: FORM), a supplier of electrical test and measurement technologies, has introduced the EVOLVITY™ 300, a semi-automated engineering wafer probe system that complements the company’s proven CM300 product line. The EVOLVITY 300 simplifies on-wafer probing with its compact, easy-to-use design, developed specifically for RF/DC modeling and device characterization.
While the CM300 is a modular platform adaptable to a wide range of use cases and customer-specific applications, supporting both manual and automated wafer loading, the EVOLVITY 300 includes the most commonly required features as standard, ensuring ease of use and quick deployment. Building on the trusted legacy of the Cascade S300 and Elite systems, the EVOLVITY 300 provides a flexible, space-efficient platform that integrates into existing setups. Its compact design optimizes lab space and enables easy switching between applications such as advanced RF measurements, DC characterization, and probe cards. Additionally, the system offers automation options that simplify operations and provide greater flexibility for users.
“We believe on-wafer testing systems should be as straightforward as possible,” said Jens Klattenhoff, VP and GM of the Systems Business Unit at FormFactor. “That is why we designed the EVOLVITY 300 with ease of use in mind – offering simple configuration, quick setup, and long-term support. Its intuitive interface and streamlined processes reduce setup time and complexity, allowing even less experienced users to focus on testing and development instead of tedious setup work.”
Key Features of the EVOLVITY 300:
Mechanical Platen Lift: Enhances safety during complex RF set-ups, increasing operator confidence and minimizing the risk of errors.
Ease-of-use and Advanced Automation: Full compatibility with FormFactor’s Autonomous RF and DC measurement assistants as well as Velox Dash companion app control.
Reconfigurable Platen Inserts: Quickly switch between TopHat, PCH, and IceShield inserts within minutes to support a wide variety of test configurations.
Spacious Platen Design: Provides flexibility for both RF and DC setups without space limitations, ensuring easy integration of different configurations.
Compact Design: Small footprint with field-upgradable components for smooth integration into existing test cells.
FormFactor, Inc. (NASDAQ: FORM), is a leading provider of essential test and measurement technologies along the full IC life cycle – from characterization, modeling, reliability, and design debug, to qualification and production test. Semiconductor companies rely upon FormFactor’s products and services to accelerate profitability by optimizing device performance and advancing yield knowledge. The Company serves customers through its network of facilities in Asia, Europe, and North America. For more information, visit the Company’s website at www.formfactor.com.
Forward-Looking Statements
This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the “safe harbor” provisions of the federal securities laws. These statements are based on management’s current expectations and beliefs as of the date of this release and are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond the Company’s control, that could cause actual results to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements regarding the impact of this new test system. Forward-looking statements may contain words such as “may,” “might,” “will,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “forecast,” and “continue,” the negative or plural of these words and similar expressions and include the assumptions that underlie such statements. The following factors, among others, could cause actual results to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements: changes in demand for the Company’s products; customer-specific demand; market opportunity; anticipated industry trends; the availability, benefits, and speed of customer acceptance or implementation of new products and technologies; and other factors, including those set forth in the Company’s most current annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and other filings by the Company with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, there are varying barriers to international trade, including restrictive trade and export regulations such as the US-China restrictions, dynamic tariffs, trade disputes between the U.S. and other countries, and national security developments or tensions, that may substantially restrict or condition our sales to or in certain countries, increase the cost of doing business internationally, and disrupt our supply chain. No assurances can be given that any of the events anticipated by the forward-looking statements within this press release will transpire or occur, or if any of them do so, what impact they will have on the results of operations or financial condition of the Company. Unless required by law, the Company is under no obligation (and expressly disclaims any such obligation) to update or revise its forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise.
FormFactor Investor Contact Stan Finkelstein Investor Relations (925) 290-4273 ir@formfactor.com
Headline: China initiates WTO dispute regarding US “reciprocal tariffs”
China claims the measures are inconsistent with the United States’ obligations under various provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994, the Agreement on Customs Valuation, and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.
Further information is available in document WT/DS638/1
What is a request for consultations?
The request for consultations formally initiates a dispute in the WTO. Consultations give the parties an opportunity to discuss the matter and to find a satisfactory solution without proceeding further with litigation. After 60 days, if consultations have failed to resolve the dispute, the complainant may request adjudication by a panel.
Strike in Dnipro Region Last Friday Marks Deadliest Attack Involving Children
Russian Federation airstrikes in Ukraine continue to kill and maim civilians — including children at a playground last week — the United Nations top humanitarian official told the Security Council today. In what he called an “era of savage cuts”, he also appealed to Council members to provide at least the security and resources needed to save as many survivors of this war as possible.
“A massive strike in the densely populated city of Kryvyi Rih in the Dnipro region last Friday resulted in multiple civilian casualties,” said Tom Fletcher, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator addressing the 15-member Council.
According to local authorities, 18 civilians were killed — including nine children — and 75 others injured when a children’s playground and nearby residential area were struck. The Office for the High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR) in Ukraine, which verified many of the casualties, confirmed it was the single deadliest attack involving children since the start of the war in February 2022.
Fighting has also continued unabated in the frontline regions of Kherson, Kharkiv, Donetsk and in the border areas of Sumy, where more than 90 civilian casualties were recorded last week alone. From 24 February 2022 to 31 March 2025, OHCHR has verified at least 12,910 civilian deaths, including 682 children, and nearly 30,700 injuries across Ukraine, he said. Meanwhile, 3.7 million people remain internally displaced, with new waves of displacement in the country’s north-east, and nearly 7 million Ukrainian refugees recorded worldwide. The UN remains unable to access an estimated 1.5 million civilians in Russian-occupied areas of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia.
Underscoring the plight of women in this war, he said that since February 2022, pre-term births have accounted for nearly half of all deliveries, putting both mothers and newborns at high risk. Gender-based violence, including intimate partner violence, has surged by 36 per cent, with displaced and refugee women suffering the most severe mental health challenges and facing critical gaps in protection and care, he warned.
Despite Scale of Crisis, $2.6 Billion Ukraine Humanitarian Response Plan for 2025 Only 17 Per Cent Funded
Despite the scale of this crisis, only 17 per cent of the $2.6 billion required for the 2025 Ukraine Humanitarian Needs and Response Plan has been secured. As a result, the UN is prioritizing limited resources for frontline support, emergency response, evacuations, and aid for the displaced — but more funding is urgently needed.
“We welcome the announcement of a ceasefire focused on energy infrastructure, as well as negotiations to ensure safe navigation in the Black Sea,” Fletcher said. But as talks continue, so do the bombardments. Indiscriminate attacks are strictly prohibited under international law, he recalled. “Even wars have rules,” he also stressed, urging the Council to ensure that “this era of increasingly belligerent, transactional, self-defeating, nationalism is not also remembered as one of callous impunity and brutal indifference, in which the rights of civilians are discarded again and again with a shrug”.
Russian Federation’s Representative: Strike on Kryvyi Rih was Precision Missile strike on Military Meeting of Unit Commanders and Western Instructors
In the ensuing discussion, the Russian Federation’s delegate said the strike on Kryvyi Rih was a precision missile strike on a military meeting of unit commanders and Western instructors. The strike succeeded in damaging the command of the Ukrainian forces, he said, adding that a gathering of service members and Western officers is a legitimate target for his country’s army. The fact that a military meeting was happening in a civilian area shows that the Ukrainian army is using civilians as human shields, he said, adding that Ukrainian eyewitnesses have confirmed that a cluster munition was not used. Dismissing the efforts of the “Ukrainian propaganda machine” regarding this and other strikes, he said video clips by ordinary citizens refute their claims.
Civilians must stay far away from gatherings of military officers, he said, adding that Ukrainians are not being told the truth — Kyiv is milking the tragedy that it is responsible for. Nor will the Ukrainians be told of the continuous shelling of Russian border towns, he said. The goal of Ukraine and Western countries is to undermine the Russian Federation-United States dialogue, he said, adding: “What you are doing is far too obvious.” The ceasefire cannot be misused so “Ukraine can lick its wounds and resume its war”, he said, adding that it is essential to do away with the root causes. No one will be allowed to use the negotiation process to strengthen Ukraine’s military — the demilitarization of that country is essential, he stressed.
United States Representative: Russian President Vladimir Putin Does Not Want to End War
The United States representative said that in its bilateral engagements between both Russian Federation and Ukraine, the United States had tabled a proposal in March. While Ukraine was ready to accept, she recalled, Russian Federation representatives insisted on a more limited agreement which would cover only strikes on energy infrastructure and the elimination of the use of force in the Black Sea. She called on both the Russian Federation and Ukraine to exercise restraint and demonstrate their commitment to peace. The Russian Federation must bear in mind that strikes like the one on Kryvyi Rih and executions of prisoners of war have the potential to damage peace efforts. “We will ultimately judge President Putin’s commitment to peace by Russia’s actions,” she stated.
“We can see that Putin does not want to end the war; he is looking for ways to preserve the option of reigniting it in any moment with even greater force,” Ukraine’s delegate said. Moscow has “not moved one inch away from its genocidal and maximalist war aims”. On the other hand, Ukraine has taken concrete steps towards peace, while the Russian Federation “continues to drag its feet and commit atrocities”. “Every missile, every strike killing people every day proves that Russia only wants war,” she went on to say. Moscow has not only failed to cease its attacks on Ukrainian civilians, but it has also significantly escalated the scale of its assaults.
On 4 April, a missile landed near a playground, tearing through homes, schools and restaurants, killing 20 people, including nine children. She rejected Moscow’s falsehoods about alleged military targets in the area. “All witnesses and footages from cameras inside and outside the local restaurant debunk Russian representatives’ lies and disinformation,” she said. It confirms that there was no military presence in the restaurant or in the surrounding area at the time of the strike. Staying silent about the fact that the Russian Federation is killing children with ballistic missiles is wrong and dangerous. “It only emboldens the scum in Moscow to continue the war and keep ignoring diplomacy,” she said.
Several European Speakers Criticize Russian Federation
Several speakers from Europe strongly criticized the Russian Federation, with Denmark’s delegate stating that Moscow’s deliberate delays and new preconditions raised for even a partial ceasefire seem particularly cynical given reports that the missile that struck Kryvyi Rih was fired from the Black Sea. “Russia has said it only attacks military targets”, but the missile strike on Kryvyi Rih on 4 April hit residential buildings and a playground. “We heard claims that a high precision strike has been launched to target a military group that was meeting at a restaurant at the time — trying to justify it as a military target,” Slovenia’s delegate said. But these claims have been disproved.
“Russia is not negotiating in good faith; it’s procrastinating, and its goal continues to be the capitulation of Ukraine,” echoed France’s delegate, Council President for April. But France and other Europeans “are not sitting on our hands” and continue to work to secure a just and lasting peace. “It is time for the Kremlin to end its aggression against Ukraine and to uphold its obligations under the UN Charter and it is time for President Putin to agree to a full and immediate ceasefire,” added the United Kingdom’s representative.
The representative of the European Union, speaking in its capacity as observer, stressed that “there can be no negotiations on Ukraine without Ukraine, and no negotiations that affect European security without Europe”. He reaffirmed the bloc’s unwavering support for Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders. There is no doubt “who truly seeks peace and who instead is determined to prolong a ruthless war of territorial conquest”, Czechia’s delegate added. “Moscow is trying to falsely present itself as a victim” and expecting the world to provide security assurances, “preferably at the expense of legitimate security interests of its neighbours”, Poland’s representative also stated.
Focus on Plight of Children
Estonia’s delegate, speaking also for Latvia and Lithuania, said that Moscow has killed over 600 Ukrainian children since the beginning of the full-scale invasion in 2022, while the real numbers might be higher. That country deserves to be listed in the annexes of the annual Children and Armed Conflicts report for carrying out grave violations against children in Ukraine. Other Council members, including the delegates of Pakistan, Guyana and Panama, echoed concerns for children living under conflict in Ukraine, with the latter underscoring that “children must never be targets in a war”.
Global Impact of War in Ukraine: Food Insecurity, Energy Crises
Some speakers shared ways the war in Ukraine was affecting them with Algeria’s delegate stating that the food insecurity and energy crises resulting from this conflict also hits the civilian population in other regions around the world. Greece’s delegate pointed out that freedom of navigation in the Black Sea will be a crucial contribution to global food security and supply chains. The representative of the Republic of Korea expressed concern that the military cooperation between the Russian Federation and Democratic People’s Republic of Korea “is intensifying rather than waning”, as exemplified by last month’s high-level reaffirmation in Pyongyang to implement their Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership.
Momentum for Peace Talks
Other Council members, including the delegate from China, said that although the situation on the battlefield remains complicated, the momentum for peace talks has emerged. “The window of peace is opening,” he stated, adding that talks must address the root causes of the crisis. The Ukraine conflict is complex and restoring peace will require persistent efforts.
“The path forward requires sustained commitment to diplomatic solutions and unwavering adherence to intentional humanitarian law,” echoed Somalia’s delegate. His counterpart from Sierra Leone urged negotiators and intermediators to approach ceasefire discussions objectively, mindful of the contextual underpinnings of this conflict. “We call on all parties to negotiate in good faith in the US-led talks, taking into consideration the legitimate concerns involving both parties,” she said.
When Donald Trump was elected President of the United States (US) for the second time in 2024, the world knew that tariffs would again be the US trade policy instrument of choice. Two months into his second term, the President announced universal tariffs on aluminium and steel; a month later, on cars and car parts; and on 2 April 2025, reciprocal tariffs ranging from 11 % to 50 % on imports from countries running a trade in goods deficit with the US, and universal tariffs of 10 % on imports from almost all other countries. As the US Congress is working on a long-term budget reconciliation bill, it is unclear whether the US import tariffs are meant as a permanent source of revenue to partly fund tax cuts, to be renewed and extended in that bill, and/or as ‘incentives’ for bilateral deals. While the latest tariffs may not even mark the last step, the responses to them fall into three categories: China has opted to retaliate; India and Israel have entered into negotiations to reach a deal with President Trump; and the EU has pursued a staged approach of targeted retaliation and openness to negotiation.
Question for written answer E-001360/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D)
The EU and Taiwan have a long-standing and important trade relationship. Taiwan is the EU’s 13th-largest trading partner and is crucial in the supply of certain technological and digital products and applications. The EU is Taiwan’s fourth-largest trading partner. Given the immense pressure being exerted on Taiwan today and the unprecedented show of force by China, which is actively threatening Taiwan’s freedom, democracy and autonomy, I would like to put the following questions to the Commission:
1.How will the Commission respond to the unprecedented provocations against Taiwan, and will it condemn any provocation or subsequent actions by China?
2.What steps will the Commission take to prevent further threats against Taiwan, and does it plan to hold bilateral talks with China and other countries in the region on this issue?
3.Is the Commission considering further strengthening economic relations with Taiwan, and will it therefore initiate discussions on a possible investment agreement or any other form of trade cooperation with Taiwan, with a view to discouraging further escalation?
This infographic provides insight into the economic performance of Canada and Mexico compared with the European Union (EU) and examines the trade dynamics between them. For 2024, the growth rate for Canada is expected to be at 1.3%, whereas Mexico is at 1.5%. The trend in inflation rates is continuing to decline, with estimates of 4.7% for Mexico and 2.6% for Canada. Overall trade relations between the EU, Canada, and Mexico have shown positive growth over the last two decades. Since 2020, both Canada and Mexico have seen a significant increase in imports and exports with the EU. Cumulatively, the EU member states are Canada’s and Mexico’s third largest trading partner in goods, representing 8% of their total trade. The other two main trading partners for Canada and Mexico are the US and China, which account for 63% and 9% of goods trade, respectively.
In a notable advancement towards strengthening India’s energy independence and economic growth, the Ministry of Coal has signed Coal Mine Development and Production Agreements (CMDPAs) with the successful bidders of two coal mines—Marwatola-II and Namchik West—under the 11th round of commercial coal mining auctions.
These agreements mark another step toward the country’s goal of achieving self-reliance in coal production. Singhal Business Private Limited has secured the Marwatola-II block, while PRA Nuravi Coal Mining Private Limited has emerged as the successful bidder for Namchik West.
Of the two coal mines, one is fully explored and the other is partially explored. Combined, they are projected to generate an estimated annual revenue of Rs. 106.14 crore, based on a total Peak Rated Capacity (PRC) of ~0.34 million tonnes per annum (MTPA). To operationalise these mines, a capital investment of approximately Rs. 55 crore will be required.
In terms of employment potential, the two blocks are expected to create around 460 direct and indirect job opportunities, contributing to the socio-economic development of their respective regions.
With these additions, the Ministry of Coal has now signed CMDPAs for a total of 120 coal mines auctioned under the commercial coal mining framework. These mines represent a cumulative PRC of 265.64 MTPA, with an estimated annual revenue generation of Rs. 37,300 crore and a projected investment of Rs. 39,900 crore. Moreover, they are expected to provide employment to nearly 3,59,200 individuals across the country.
The Ministry remains committed to strengthening domestic coal production through a transparent, investor-friendly auction process, ensuring energy security and supporting inclusive growth in line with the vision of a self-reliant India.
Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region
Hong Kong-Shenzhen Joint Working Group on Environmental Protection holds meeting in Hong Kong (with photo) Various topics of collaboration between Hong Kong and Shenzhen were discussed at the meeting, including landfill management, water quality improvement, marine ecological protection and sectoral co-operation of resources recycling. The two parties presented their work progress and shared experiences to deepen exchanges and co-operation on environmental protection.
Regarding the management of the North East New Territories Landfill, an additional eight hectares of landfill were restored and greened last year, and the number of odour complaints dropped by more than 90 per cent compared to the peak period. In terms of water quality improvement, relevant work to improve the water quality of the Shenzhen River has achieved noticeable results. The total phosphorus level in the Shenzhen River in 2024 reached the national surface water quality Class III standard. As for marine ecological protection, the HKSAR Government has established a number of marine parks in recent years, increasing the area of protected sea areas from 3 400 hectares to more than 8 500 hectares, and subsidised local universities to conduct research on various coral restoration technologies. In terms of resource recycling, the HKSAR Government has been working hard to expand Hong Kong’s community recycling network and strengthen various waste reduction and recycling measures. At the same time, the Government actively assists the industry in developing local resource recycling facilities to maximise the resource utilisation of various recyclables. The Government also vigorously promotes discussions with various Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area (GBA) cities on the construction of a “Zero Waste Bay Area” and regional recycling.
Mr Tse expressed, “The Resolution on Further Deepening Reform Comprehensively to Advance Chinese Modernization of the Third Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China announced ‘Building a Beautiful China. We will ramp up the green transition in all areas of economic and social development and improve the environmental governance system. We will prioritise ecological protection, conserve resources and use them efficiently, and pursue green and low-carbon development with a view to promoting harmony between humanity and nature’. As part of our country and the GBA, the HKSAR Government will definitely work hand in hand with Shenzhen in this direction to make positive contributions to the ecological civilisation construction of our country and the GBA.”
The Permanent Secretary for Environment and Ecology (Environment), Mr Eddie Cheung; the Director of Environmental Protection, Dr Samuel Chui; and representatives from the Environment and Ecology Bureau, the Environmental Protection Department and the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department also attended the meeting. Issued at HKT 18:59
Source: United States Senator for Idaho Mike Crapo
Washington, D.C.–U.S. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) delivered the following remarks at a hearing entitled, “The President’s 2025 Trade Policy Agenda.”
As prepared for delivery:
“Members and the public have questions and concerns about the recent tariff actions. That’s ok. We should think about tariff impacts and ask questions. Thoughtful and respectful debate on the issues is good and why we call hearings, like this one, with the United States Trade Representative, Ambassador Jamieson Greer.
“We need to think strategically about tariff policy, including how to minimize unnecessary costs on American families. I also recognize that although it is easy to see the costs arising from tariffs, it is far more difficult to assess the cost of denied market access opportunities.
“Tariffs can advance American interests in market access. In the first Trump Administration, we used tariff threats to stop France from imposing discriminatory digital services taxes.
“Tariffs also forced China to discuss the systemic challenges between our two nations. Frankly, every enforcement action—whether it is a WTO dispute, a Section 301 investigation or a preference program review—ultimately relies on the threat of tariffs to secure objectives.
“Accordingly, it is important to contextualize the tariffs in the design of the larger policy. The real headline then becomes the fundamental shift in trade policy since President Trump’s inauguration—where the United States actually plans to do trade again.
“My colleagues and I in Congress want to pursue a real trade policy. That was put on hold during the Biden years. We now have a President who will partner with us in that effort. Together, we will enforce our rights; we will negotiate again; and we will expand opportunities for Americans.
“This Administration is not deliberating endlessly over whether ‘trade can be a force for good,’ like the past Administration. Trade today is the centerpiece of our international economic engagement and we have plenty of substantive trade ideas to discuss.
“Businesses want certainty from good policies that will continue so they can invest confidently in prospects that create jobs and wealth.
“That is one of the primary reasons that I am working so hard to make the Trump Tax Cuts permanent—to provide businesses with the certainty they need to make long-term investments, to drive growth and to increase prosperity across all segments of the economy.
“Contrast this kind of certainty and forward thinking on trade with that of the last four years, where the only ‘certainty’ was that you were going to lose ground because your government fundamentally rejected free markets, free enterprise and free trade.
“The last Administration turned to industrial policy because it was certain that the free market failed in delivering what government planners believed necessary for climate and social agendas.
“Indeed, China’s central planners saw their own strategic thinking in the Inflation Reduction Act’s approach of bestowing massive subsidies to stimulate investments that the market would not.
“We can restore faith in free markets by making it easier than ever to do business in America. The President’s Executive Order last week to assist major investors to navigate our regulatory system efficiently is a good start. We plan to do more.
“The Biden Administration provided us with only the “certainty” that in the face of a foreign government’s discriminatory policies, like digital services taxes, data localization or other non-tariff barriers, it would not stand up for its citizens because it believed that the so-called ‘right to regulate’ trumped the principle of free enterprise.
“Respectfully, democratic governments do not have rights—they exist to secure them for their citizens.
“One immediately welcome change, under the Trump Administration, appeared last week in USTR’s National Trade Estimate.
“Last year, the Biden Administration deliberately cut from the Estimate a number of discriminatory measures imposed by foreign governments on American businesses because it sided with those governments over our citizens. This year’s Estimate is exhaustive because the Administration carefully identified all of the ways Americans lose out in the global marketplace.
“Finally, the validity of free trade will be seen again. The last Administration did not pursue market access in its negotiations. Instead, it demanded governments to undertake a number of social and environmental commitments, even ones Congress did not approve domestically. Not surprisingly, our partners did not put their trust in such negotiations.
“While tariffs inherently may be seen at odds with free trade, we must also acknowledge that many of our trading partners deploy barriers that have gone unchallenged for too long. Free trade, by definition, must be reciprocal. We do not have it if others can impose barriers on us unchallenged.
“Our failure to enforce our rights over the last four years lost a lot of ground for us. This cannot continue because what I am certain about is American goods and services are innovative, high quality and globally competitive.
“Senior Administration officials say that a number of countries are ‘coming to the table’ to engage with USTR. We look forward to hearing about this engagement and the steps toward better opportunities for Americans.”
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
A study published in PLOS Medicine looks at food additives type 2 diabetes incidence.
Dr Nerys Astbury, Associate Professor of Diet & Obesity, Nuffield Department of Primary Health Care Sciences, University of Oxford, said:
“This prospective study conducted in France explores the association between the amount of common mixtures of food additives and the risk of future development of type 2 diabetes.
“The study reports that there was no association between the consumption of three of the mixtures studies and type 2 diabetes. There were positive associations between the consumption of two of the mixtures investigated including a mixture including emulsifiers/gelling agents including modified starches, pectin, guar gum, carrageenan and xantham gum which the authors show were linked with the consumption of dairy desserts and fats and sauces; as well as a mixture including artificial sweeteners and acidity regulators which were linked with consumption of low-energy/diet soft drink consumption.
“Previous studies have reported associations between some of these individual food additives and risk of type 2 diabetes, but additives are commonly included in foods in mixtures where they may have interactive effects. Indeed the authors showed in their exploratory analysis that there were both synergistic and antagonist interactions between several food additives.
“One limitation of this study is that the mixtures of additives investigated include a range of different additives with different functional properties, with some additives included in more than one mixture group, meaning it is not possible to ascertain whether the effects observed can be attributed to groups of additives with similar functional properties.
“The authors controlled for typical type 2 diabetes risk factors including age, sex, body mass index, physical activity level, smoking status, educational level and profession. But it is possible that other factors that were not controlled for may have influenced the relationship.
“Some of the findings may subject to reverse causality, where the outcome (in this case type 2 diabetes diagnosis) precedes, and therefore influences the presumed cause (in this case the consumption of the food additive mixtures). For example, if a person knew they were at risk of developing type 2 diabetes, because they either had a family history of the condition, or that a doctor conducted tests to show they had pre-diabetes, they may decide to make lifestyle choices to reduce their risk of developing the condition. One thing they might decide to do is replace sugar sweetened beverages for low-energy or diet versions.
“It is important to note that by design this study can only demonstrate association, it cannot say whether the consumption of these additives (or the foods that contain then) caused or contributed to the development of type 2 diabetes. To determine causality large scale complex clinical trials are required.
“The growing interest in the effects of consuming ultra-processed foods, which contain additives to enhance taste, flavour, texture and improve shelf life of food products, means this study is important and timely and adds to the growing body of evidence of association between increased consumption of common food additives and adverse health outcomes. Further research is needed to ascertain a causal link and establish the mechanisms.”
Prof Nita Forouhi, Professor of Population Health and Nutrition, and Programme Leader of the Nutritional Epidemiology programme, MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, said:
“The researchers in France once again tapped into the only existing research study that has the relevant data to investigate links between different types of food additives and risk of chronic diseases. They have extended their previous findings on the links of individual additive emulsifiers and artificial sweeteners with risk of type 2 diabetes to now identifying food additive mixtures that are frequently consumed together, reporting that the associations were not strongly driven by a unique additive alone and suggesting that interactions between types of food additives may play a role.
“The authors identified 269 food additives consumed by over 100,000 study participants, quantifying additive intakes from repeated 24h recalls over a long time using multiple sources and they hence provide probably the most comprehensive additives database to-date. Using 75 of these additives that were consumed by at least 5%of the study participants, they statistically derived five food additive mixture groups, of which two were associated modestly with the development of type 2 diabetes. It is important to note that these associations are present at population level intake doses of additives in their usual diets. However, it is unknown if additives consumed by a smaller proportion of the study population but in higher doses would have been related with the risk of type 2 diabetes. A sensitivity analysis testing this would have been informative.
“This research helps to an extent with understanding mechanisms through which ultra-processed foods (UPFs), that typically contain mixtures of additives, may be related with disease risk. This is an important research gap to fill because a lack of evidence on mechanisms by which UPFs may be related with health harms, over and above the links already established for foods high in (saturated) fat, sugar and salt, is part of the reason for withholding a specific government policy on UPF reduction in the UK.
“It is important to distinguish between additive mixtures by their food sources as we know from other research that not all UPFs are the same, with some being potentially harmful and others not. Moreover, their analysis has not accounted for the proportion of UPF in the diet. Also, the five food additive mixture groups the researchers identified were related with a limited set of food groups, largely cakes, biscuits, savoury snacks, broth, dairy desserts, fats and sauces and sugar sweetened or artificially sweetened drinks. Thus, it is unclear if additives from other food groups not identified in this study population may be relevant in other populations.
“Several of the current analyses were appropriate, such as adjusting for a comprehensive range of factors (including accounting for saturated fat, salt and added sugar), doing sensitivity analyses, checking the stability of food additive mixture intakes over time, and testing whether the additive mixtures found associated with type 2 diabetes contributed to mediating the associations between the food groups most associated with these mixtures and incidence of type 2 diabetes. But, there were also important limitations the authors did not or could not address.
“Exposure to food additives could not be validated against blood or urine biomarkers due to a lack of specific biomarkers. Many tests for interaction were performed but it is unclear if there was adequate statistical power. The data variables used in analysis, such as dietary intakes or health behaviours like physical activity or smoking and alcohol intake, are likely to vary over time but only baseline data, not time-varying data were used. The authors showed several participant characteristics in the cohort at the study baseline but did not show these characteristics by total food additive or food additive mixture types, which is relevant to understanding the appropriateness of their analytical strategy. This research included mostly women (80% of participants), so the findings in men remain under-studied. The authors acknowledge that they could not collect data on ethnicity so the generalisability of findings to different population sub-groups is unclear but there seems no strong reason to expect that findings would vary in different ethnic groups. Nonetheless, future studies in diverse populations should apply the current study methods to test the reported findings. The authors appropriately acknowledged the limitations of observational research, but such research remains an important part of the evidence base.
“More investment in research is needed to replicate the findings of this currently sole resource of the NutriNet-Sante’ study that has generated relevant data for the study of food additives. In the meantime, we should take these current findings seriously and build further upon them to help understand the mechanistic links between UPF-related additive mixtures and human health.”
Prof Tom Sanders, Professor emeritus of Nutrition and Dietetics, King’s College London, said:
“This new report from a French prospective study (NutriNet-Santé) is an analysis of food additive intake based on estimates of dietary intake based on recall, and subsequent risk of developing type 2 diabetes. 79% of the participants were female and the average age was 42. After 7.7 years of follow up, they found 2 out of 5 mixtures of additives were associated with very small increases in risk of developing type 2 diabetes. The first mixture was associated with an 8% increase in risk – this consisted mainly of food additives used to thicken foods and drinks (guar gum, carrageenan xanthan gum), polyphosphates (that help retain water), curcumin (a naturally occurring yellow food colour used mainly in margarine) and potassium sorbate (a preservative). The second mixture was associated with a 13% increase in risk, this consisted of a diverse mixture of additives but included several that are used in soft drinks – citric acid, sodium citrates, phosphoric acid, sulphite ammonia caramel (used in cola drinks), acesulfame-K, aspartame, sucralose, arabic gum, malic acid, carnauba wax (a glazing agent), paprika extract, anthocyanins (purple natural colours), guar gum, and pectin.
Limitations
“This was an observational study and not a controlled trial and can only suggest associations. A major limitation of this study is that the incidence of type 2 diabetes was low over the follow up period. Over the follow-period only 1% of the 108,643 participants developed type 2 diabetes. This may well be because the average body mass index (23 kg/m2) was close to the ideal level (22.5). A potential strength claimed is that multiple estimates of dietary intake were made over the follow-up period (on average 5 occasions). However, these estimates were based on what the participants remembered eating the previous day. A daily recall only provides data for one day and is not a good measure of usual dietary intake which needs a longer period of recording (preferable taking into seasonal variations in account). Dietary recalls also lack the granularity in terms of detail regarding portion size and brand which are important for estimating the intake of food additives.
“Dietary recalls are subject to reporting bias (over-reporting fruit and vegetable intake and under-reporting food and drink that regarded being less healthy, e.g. alcohol and confectionery). The reported dietary intake of sugar is extremely high (198g, equivalent about 50 cubes of sugar per day). This raises questions regarding the reliability of intake data.
“The statistical analyses involved creating mixtures of food additives by a form of statistical analysis by computer not by a prior hypothesis. Associations of mixtures of food additives are likely to be reflective of overall dietary patterns or components (e.g. fizzy drinks). While this type of exploratory statistical analyses can be used to create new hypotheses, the results should never be used as evidence of causality.
“There seems to be no scientific basis for relating the components of these mixtures of food additives to risk of type 2 diabetes. For example, citric acid probably accounts for the bulk of food additives consumed. The body makes enormous amounts in the citric acid cycle (the Krebs cycle) to generate metabolic energy. It is also present in quite high amounts in fruit and vegetables. Gums are used as thickeners in some foods like yogurt. There is no reason to suspect that gums would have an adverse effect on risk of diabetes especially as studies have shown that gums slow glucose absorption and can improve blood glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes. The association of artificial sweetener intake with risk of diabetes is well known but not thought to be causal, as recently discussed by SACN (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sacn-statement-on-the-who-guideline-on-non-sugar-sweeteners/sacn-statement-on-the-who-guideline-on-non-sugar-sweeteners-summary).
Conclusion
“My concern is that a “toxic cocktail of food additives” narrative may detract from sensible dietary advice to maintain a healthy weight.”
Dr George Savva, Senior Research Scientist, Quadram Institute, said:
“This study adds to the evidence that people who consume more food additives associated with sugary and sweetened drinks have a higher risk of diabetes, after controlling for overall calories, sugar intake, saturated fats and other aspects of diet. A smaller association was seen for a second group associated with dairy desserts, broths, fats and sauces. Other major groups of additives, including those associated with cakes and biscuits, showed no association with incident diabetes.
“The study was large with a very detailed dietary assessment, but is limited by being non-randomised and being conducted in a volunteer cohort. The authors did try to control for demographic and lifestyle factors like exercise and smoking but this is difficult to do well. So, although the control for other aspects of diet was good, it is possible that other factors led to higher risk of diabetes in this group. Showing no association between diabetes and additives linked to cakes, biscuits and snacks may suggest that residual confounding isn’t a huge problem in this study (because if other aspects of diet and lifestyle were really causing this association we might also expect to see a positive association between diabetes and the group of additives associated with cakes and biscuits).
“Considering mixtures of additives is interesting because they are rarely consumed in isolation; as the study shows many difficult additives are often used together. The evidence was strong that consuming additives associated with sugary and sweetened drinks was particularly associated with getting diabetes later in life, but there was little evidence for any particular additive or combination of additives being the main driver of that risk.
“It is difficult to study the impact of food additives using randomised controlled trials, because they are highly prevalent in our diets and the effects are likely to take many years to manifest. So it is important to attempt to study their effects in studies like this, and to combine with evidence from other kinds of studies to understand whether and how additives might harm metabolic health.”
Prof Alan Boobis, Emeritus Professor of Toxicology, Imperial College London, said:
“My takeaway from this is that it is an observational study and as acknowledged by the authors, association does not necessarily mean causation. The findings are important in generating hypotheses, but further investigation would be necessary to inform advice to consumers. It is unclear whether the mixtures themselves or key components are involved, or whether, despite adjustments for other components of the diet, the mixtures are indicative of some other characteristics of the subjects.”
Prof Oliver Jones, Professor of Chemistry, RMIT University, said:
“I can see this paper leading to more scary headlines about food additives, but although the work is based on a large dataset, we need to be careful about what conclusions are drawn from it.
“As the authors themselves clearly state, the study does not prove that food additives cause diabetes. All that is reported are slight associations between certain mixtures of some additives and the likelihood of type 2 diabetes, and there are some large caveats to this.
“Firstly, an association between two factors does not mean one caused the other; it just means there appears to be an association between them.
“Secondly, the authors didn’t measure food additive intake directly. They relied on self-reporting of food intake from study participants and then estimated the additive intake from this. This is a reasonable approach, but self-reported data is often inaccurate. This means great care must be taken in interpreting the results.
“It is also not clear from the main paper how the authors classified someone as having diabetes. Diagnosis does not seem to have been done by a medical professional but rather estimated by self-reported health data and medication use from a linked database. This is far from conclusive.
“So, whilst this is an interesting theoretical study, people should not worry. In the end, all that can really be said is that, based on self-reported data and estimations of possible food additive consumption and health conditions, there is a possible, small association between two specific mixtures of additives and the likelihood of type 2 diabetes, and the error bars are pretty big on even this conclusion.”
Prof Kevin McConway, Emeritus Professor of Applied Statistics, Open University, said:
“This is a complicated study in terms of the statistical and computational methods it uses. I think its results are pretty hard to interpret. The meaning of the word ‘mixtures’ in the findings is, I’d say, so different from the everyday meaning of the word as to be potentially pretty confusing. The researchers, rightly, warn that their study cannot establish whether consuming particular mixtures of food additives causes the associations with type 2 diabetes that they observed. The associations that they observed are, as the press release indicates, not very strong anyway. Also, there are questions, that might well be important, that just can’t be answered from this research.
“I take away two things from this study. First, there are some more indications that it may be important to consider potential associations between food additives and health by looking at several additives at once, rather than investigating them separately. Second, looking for such associations isn’t easy, and to do it convincingly would require other types of research than those used in this study.
“I’ll try to clarify what the researchers meant by a ‘food additive mixture’. You might expect that to mean that a participant in the study consumes a certain amount of a given set of additives, maybe two or three of them, and researchers would look at how their health is associated with consumption of this specific mixture.
“But what’s meant in this research is something wider and more complicated. The researchers collected data on how much each of the nearly 110,000 participants consumed of well over 200 different food additives. They then used a statistical method (called nonnegative matrix factorization) to summarize all this data into a score, for each participant, on five different scales that they called ‘mixtures’. And they then measured the statistical association between each of these five scores and the participants’ chance of being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes over time. They found associations between two of the scores and the risk of type 2 diabetes – the other three scores were not found to be associated with diabetes.
“The associations with diabetes risk were not particularly strong for either of these scores, though it’s difficult to explain in simple terms exactly how large they were, because of the difficulty of explaining what the actual scores are measuring.
“What makes this hard to link to an everyday idea of a ‘mixture’ is that each of the scores depends on the amounts of consumption of, potentially, a large number of different additives. Of the two ‘mixture’ scores that were found to be associated with diabetes risk, one mainly depends on the consumption of eight different additives, and the other on 14 additives, and in fact other additives than these 8 and 14 do come into the calculation as well.
“Also, two participants could get similar scores for one of these ‘mixtures’ by actually consuming different patterns of additives. So one participant could get a moderately high score on the first of these ‘mixtures’ by consuming food and drink containing a lot of modified starches but little or none of the other additives, while another participant could get the same score by consuming quite a lot of food containing other additives that contribute to this mixture, but very little or no modified starch. Others could also get the same score by a different pattern of consumption of additives that contribute to this ‘mixture’, possibly not overlapping much with the consumptions of the other two participants I’ve mentioned. In technical terms, this is an acceptable use of the term ‘mixture’, but it’s probably not what a non-scientist would think of.
“The researchers do emphasise that this study cannot establish causality. That is, although they found associations, that is, correlations, between the scores for two of their additive ‘mixtures’ and the risk of type 2 diabetes, they can’t say that it is the additive consumption that caused the differences in diabetes risk.
“That’s for several reasons. Mainly, it’s because the study is observational. The participants weren’t made to consume different patterns of additives by the researchers – they just ate what they would have eaten anyway, and the researchers recorded that as best they could (and there are always potential limitations on the accuracy of such recordings). So the observed associations could really be caused by some other factors that happen to be associated with food additive consumption, and also independently associated with diabetes risk. There’s just no way of telling what causes what, with any level of certainty, in this kind of study.
“In some circumstances, if a lot of different observational studies are all pointing in the same direction, one might be a little more confident about what’s causing what. But this is effectively the first study looking at data in this way on a major scale. As the researchers themselves say, in order to get good evidence on whether particular groups of food additives, when consumed alongside one another, do actually cause ill health, one would need to carry out studies of different kinds – so-called mechanistic studies, to learn more about what might actually be happening inside the body. This study might help a little in pointing to what further studies might be most useful, but it’s an observational study that did not itself measure anything going on inside the participants’ bodies or cells. I’m not a nutritional scientist so am not in a position to comment on how these mechanistic studies would best be done.
“The researchers did make statistical adjustments for several possibly factors that might have accounted for what they observed, and might be getting in the way of interpretations of cause and effect. But you can never adjust for everything potentially relevant, and data on some factors will simply not be available.
“In this study there’s an obvious question of whether the differences in diabetes risk could be due to the additives in people’s food and drink, or due to the non-additive parts of the food and drink that they consumed, or indeed due to other things entirely. After all, consuming a food additive generally involves consuming the food or drink that it’s been added to, and so will go along with consuming fats, sugars, proteins, fibre, and whatever else is in that food or drink.
“The researchers did investigate some aspects of this question, and did find limited evidence that the associations with diabetes risk depend on additives as well as other aspects of what’s in the food and drink, though I don’t feel that they really sorted this out very far. Anyway it would be very difficult to take account of all the possible food and drink components that are not classed as additives, as well as those that are, in a single statistical set of statistical analyses.
“Interestingly, among all the detailed results, the study found a limited amount of evidence that points to why it may be important to look at additives together rather than separately. In some cases, it appeared that consuming two additives, linked to diabetes risk, had a stronger association with the diabetes risk than you’d expect from looking at the additives separately; in other cases, it went the other way, with a lower risk from the combination of additives than you might expect from looking at them separately.”
Comments from our colleagues at the Australian SMC:
Professor Ian Rae is an expert on chemicals in the environment at the School of Chemistry at the University of Melbourne. He was also an advisor to the United Nations Environment Programme on chemicals in the environment and is former President of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute
“Type 2 diabetes arises when various parts of the body becoming resistant to the normal action of insulin, which is to pack sugar away in cells.
The result is elevated blood sugar levels that can cause damage to the eyes and to organs like the liver. The chance of developing type 2 diabetes increases with age, and it is associated with increased body weight, obesity and lack of physical activity, all of which track with age, too.
Exposure to chemical substances is not believed to be a cause of type 2 diabetes. The French researchers whose work is reported in this paper were testing not a single substance but instead they surveyed the effects of mixtures of additives that are commonly included in processed food, such as starch, pectin, vegetable gums, and citric acid which is also naturally present in some foods).
They identified two mixtures – of 8 and 15 constituents, respectively – that did correlate with slight effects. Only one of the mixtures included the kind of ‘chemical suspects’ that one expects to find in such studies, the two synthetic sweeteners, aspartame and sucralose. The associations between the mixtures and the condition were very weak, and similar mixtures that included many of the same constituents showed no association. Of course, association does not equal causation.
Testing a single substance for toxicity or the ability to damage our bodies in other ways is difficult enough. Only in a very few cases have pairs of substances or small groups of substances that are chemically closely related ever been tested. The results have been ambiguous, to say the least. Testing mixtures of 8 or 15 substances is just not good science. The authors themselves suggest that ‘the potential synergies and antagonisms may be of interest in future mechanistic investigations’ but that’s really just an admission that their own approach was overly optimistic in its search for a definite cause of type 2 diabetes.
Although it has involved a lot of work – not just by the 23 authors of this paper, but by the 100,000 people who were surveyed – the results are weak. I wondered why this was ever published.”
Ian has not declared any conflicts of interest.
Dr Alan Barclay is an Honorary Associate at the University of Sydney
“This French prospective cohort study identified small associations between certain mixtures of food additives and the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.
The mixtures of additives were identified using computer algorithms. Study participants were predominantly female (79.2%), relatively young (average age 41 years), well-educated, and within the healthy weight range (average BMI 23.6 kg/m2). Ethnic background was not reported (ethical reasons cited).
Australia’s food supply is different from France’s, and it is not known how common the additive mixtures identified would be consumed in this country, and by whom.
In Australia, type 2 diabetes occurs most commonly after the age of 45 years, in overweight or obese (BMI > 25 kg/m2) people (more frequently men than women), from lower socio-economic backgrounds, and incidence (new cases) has been decreasing over the past decade.
The observed associations are both less than 20%, so residual confounding is likely a significant problem within this study.
While novel, the generalisability of this French observational study to people at risk of type 2 diabetes living in Australia is unknown.
Our food supply is regulated by Food Standards Australia New Zealand and the types and amounts of additives permitted to be added to foods and drinks is carefully assessed and reviewed on a regular basis.”
Potential conflict of interest: I consult to the National Retail Association.
Emeritus Professor Jennie Brand-Miller AM is from the School of Life and Environmental Sciences and Charles Perkins Centre at the University of Sydney, and Director of both the Sydney University Glycemic Index Research Service and Glycemic Index Foundation
“I find these results surprising because both mixtures contain substances that occur naturally in food and are recognised forms of dietary fibre (xanthan gums, guar gums and carrageenan). This means they provide fuel for our large bowel microbiome. Guar gum is a highly viscous fibre known to slow down the rate of digestion and absorption of carbohydrates, more so than any other fibre. Citric acid is found in citrus fruits, and also slows down digestion and reduces glycaemia.
Both mechanisms would therefore be expected to REDUCE the risk of type 2 diabetes, not increase it. I suspect these findings are simply chance findings because the researchers looked at so many food additives.
At present, there is a bias towards finding fault with food additives and processed foods. In Australia, all food additives other than flavours are highly regulated with substantial data to back up their safety in the amounts used in food.”
Jennie’s conflict of interest declaration: I have no direct conflicts of interest. I receive royalties from popular books about nutrition, diabetes and health. I oversee a glycemic index testing company at the USYD. I consult to the China National Research Institute of Food and Fermentation Industries, the Novo Foundation and Zoe Global.
Dr Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz is an epidemiologist and Senior Research Fellow from the University of Wollongong
“The authors here looked at whether diabetes risks were impacted by different mixtures of food additives. They found a very small increased risk of diabetes associated with two mixtures of additives, and no increase for the other three mixtures that they tested – these mixtures included a wide range of additives such as aspartame, guar gum, curcumin, and more.
The study is reasonably strong, but suffers from weaknesses in the underlying cohort. These results are entirely based on self-report, which is to say that the only information that the authors had on how many food additives people ate was how much they said they were eating. This form of self-report is notoriously unreliable and impossible to correct for in large epidemiological studies of this nature.
It’s also unclear what meaning these results have. The biggest risk increase in the study was seen for Mixture 5, which contained 14 different food additives including citric acid and paprika extract. But due to the complex methodology the authors used to create these mixtures, it’s not clear how you could implement these findings in your daily life. The closest the authors come is saying that it might be a good idea to reduce your soft drink intake, but we didn’t really need this study to know that. It’s an interesting piece of research, but it’s hard to see how the results could be used outside of a strictly research setting.”
Gideon has not declared any conflicts of interest.
Dr Evangeline Mantzioris is an Accredited Practicing Dietitian and the Program Director of Nutrition and Food Sciences at the University of South Australia
“This study has looked at the impact of commonly used additives in ultra-processed foods in our food system and their association with Type 2 diabetes. This study was conducted on a large group of over 108,000 adults in France over a 7 ½ year time period. Dietary data was collected from dietary records every 6 months, and from this the intake of additives was calculated.
The researchers found that there were two groups of food additives that were linked with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes. In the statistical analyses the researchers took into account the participants’ weight, sociodemographic factors, lifestyle practice and their diet.
The first group of food additives included modified starches, pectin, guar gum, carrageenan, polyphosphates, potassium sorbates, curcumin, and xanthan gum. The other group included citric acid, sodium citrates, phosphoric acid, sulphite ammonia caramel, acesulfame-K, aspartame, sucralose, arabic gum, malic acid, carnauba wax, paprika extract, anthocyanins, guar gum, and pectin.
However, it must be remembered that this is an observational study and not an experimental study, and hence a cause-and-effect relationship cannot be drawn from it. Additionally, the intake of food additives in the diet of the participants could not be verified by any blood or urine tests.
There is a growing evidence base of the impact of UPF [ultra-processed foods] on both physical, cognitive and mental health. As well as containing low levels of nutrients, high levels of saturated and trans fats, sugar and salt, UPF also contain food additives to improve taste and shelf life of foods. This study adds to this evidence base of the health risks associated with a high intake of UPFs.”
Evangeline has not declared any conflicts of interest.
‘Food additive mixtures and type 2 diabetes incidence: Results from the NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort’ by Marie Payen de la Garanderie et al. was published in PLOS Medicine at 19:00 UK time on Tuesday 8 April 2025.
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004570
Declared interests
Dr Nerys Astbury: “No conflicts.”
Prof Nita Forouhi: “None.”
Prof Tom Sanders: “I have been retired for 10 years but during my career at King’s College London, I formerly acted as consultant for companies that made artificial sweeteners and sugar substitutes.
I am a member of the Programme Advisory Committee of the Malaysia Palm Oil Board which involves the review of research projects proposed by the Malaysia government.
I also used to be a member of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Global Dairy Platform up until 2015.
I did do some consultancy work on GRAS affirmation of high oleic palm oil for Archer Daniel Midland more than ten years ago.
My research group received oils and fats free of charge from Unilever and Archer Daniel Midland for our Food Standards Agency Research.
Tom was a member of the FAO/WHO Joint Expert Committee that recommended that trans fatty acids be removed from the human food chain.
Member of the Science Committee British Nutrition Foundation. Honorary Nutritional Director HEART UK.
Before my retirement from King’s College London in 2014, I acted as a consultant to many companies and organisations involved in the manufacture of what are now designated ultraprocessed foods.
I used to be a consultant to the Breakfast Cereals Advisory Board of the Food and Drink Federation.
I used to be a consultant for aspartame more than a decade ago.
When I was doing research at King’ College London, the following applied: Tom does not hold any grants or have any consultancies with companies involved in the production or marketing of sugar-sweetened drinks. In reference to previous funding to Tom’s institution: £4.5 million was donated to King’s College London by Tate & Lyle in 2006; this funding finished in 2011. This money was given to the College and was in recognition of the discovery of the artificial sweetener sucralose by Prof Hough at the Queen Elizabeth College (QEC), which merged with King’s College London. The Tate & Lyle grant paid for the Clinical Research Centre at St Thomas’ that is run by the Guy’s & St Thomas’ Trust, it was not used to fund research on sugar. Tate & Lyle sold their sugar interests to American Sugar so the brand Tate & Lyle still exists but it is no longer linked to the company Tate & Lyle PLC, which gave the money to King’s College London in 2006.”
Dr George Savva: “I have no conflict of interest.”
Prof Alan Boobis: “My interests are: until recently, chair of the UK Committee on Toxicity (COT); member of the joint Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN)/COT working group on plant-based drinks; member of the External Advisory Committee, Michigan State University MSU Center for Research on Ingredient Safety (CRIS); member of the Board of Directors of ILSI (International Life Sciences Institute) Europe.”
Prof Oliver Jones: “I am a Professor of Chemistry at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia. I don’t have any conflicts of interest to declare. However, many years ago, I worked on a project funded by the UK Food Standards Agency on the toxicity of pesticide mixtures.”
Prof Kevin McConway: “Previously a Trustee of the SMC and a member of its Advisory Committee.”
Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray
Murray: “I’m calling on my Republican colleagues to help us, stop letting Trump tank the economy and raise prices, vote with us to reverse these pointless and destructive tariffs… Already, the chaos and uncertainty these tariffs have created are pushing us toward a Republican recession.”
Washington state is one of the most trade-dependent states in the U.S., with 40 percent of WA jobs tied to international commerce; A recent analysis from Yale Budget lab found Trump’s tariffs could raise costs on the average American household by $4,000 a year
***WATCH HERE, DOWNLOAD VIDEO HERE; AUDIO HERE***
Washington, D.C. — Today,U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, held a virtual press conference with Washington Department of Commerce Director Joe Nguyễn, Washington Council on International Trade President Lorri Otto Punke, Washington State Department of Agriculture International Marketing Program Manager Rianne Ham, and Blas Alfaro, co-owner of Fulcrum Coffee Roasters in Seattle. Senator Murray and the other speakers highlighted how the reckless, sweeping new tariffs President Trump announced last week—a significant escalation in Trump’s ongoing trade war—will raise costs for families everywhere and be devastating for Washington state’s economy, businesses, and our agriculture sector. A recent analysis found that Trump’s tariffs could raise costs on the average American household by $4,000 a year—and these price hikes on working families are coming at the very same time that Republicans are forcing massive new tax cuts for billionaires through Congress.
Last Wednesday, President Trump declared new tariffs on a wide range of imports, targeting key sectors including agriculture, electronics, and automobiles. This included a new, 10 percent baseline tariff on all imported goods—which went into effect on Saturday—as well as country-specific reciprocal tariffs, which will take effect tomorrow, April 9th. These tariffs come on top of the 25 percent tariffs President Trump imposed in February on most imports from Canada, Mexico, and 10 percent tariffs on China. Canada is Washington’s largest trading partner, accounting for nearly $20 billion in imports and $10 billion in exports—and Trump’s pointless trade war with Canada is already hurting businesses of all sizes in Washington state. On the heels of Trump’s tariff announcement, JP Morgan raised its prediction of the probability of a US recession to 60 percent.
Washington state has one of the most trade-dependent economies of any state in the country, with 40 percent of jobs tied to international commerce. Washington state is the top U.S. producer of apples, blueberries, hops, pears, spearmint oil, and sweet cherries—all of which risk losing vital export markets due to retaliatory tariffs from key trading partners including Canada. Additionally, more than 12,000 small and medium-sized companies in Washington state export goods and will be unlikely to be able to absorb the impact of retaliatory tariffs. Trump’s tariffs during his first term were extremely costly for Washington state—for example, India imposed a 20 percent retaliatory tariff on U.S. apples, causing Washington apple shipments to India to fall by 99 percent and growers to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in exports.
“Families are going to feel the pain of Trump’s new tariffs everywhere they shop. And, as one of the most trade-dependent states in the country, Washington state stands to lose among the most from Trump’s destructive trade war. Two in five jobs in our state exist because of international trade—that’s a full 40 percent of jobs in our state. Farmers, fishers, producers in our state—rely heavily on trade with Canada and Mexico, and Trump’s trade war has already been an especially deep cut for them. Now, they’re about to get hammered even more,” said Senator Murray on the press call today. “Already, the chaos and uncertainty these tariffs have created are pushing us toward a Republican recession… But here’s the thing you all need to know: Congress can actually reverse these tariffs. Last week in fact, the Senate voted on a resolution to reverse Trump’s tariffs on Canada by ending the bogus emergency declaration President Trump issued to justify them. That resolution passed the Senate—with four Republican votes—but right now, it’s dead in the water unless Speaker Johnson brings it up for the vote in the House.”
“Working families are already having a hard enough time navigating the rising costs because of these Trump tariffs. Their stock portfolios, their 401Ks are tanking because of these Trump tariffs as well, and they’re trying to figure out what’s happening next,” said Joe Nguyễn, Director of the Washington State Department of Commerce. “These are disruptive. They disrupt people’s lives, they disrupt their jobs, they disrupt industries like Boeing, our shipping terminals, our farmers, our tech companies—all of this is on the line. And I also want to be very clear about what’s at stake: affordability, stability, and opportunity in every corner of our state is being jeopardized by this manufactured crisis.”
“Trade equals jobs in Washington state. And as we know, 40 percent to jobs in this state are tied to international trade. We are proud of our diversity of exports—everything from aerospace to agriculture to clean tech to forest products to life sciences marine, and the military. And Washington state also facilitates trade and exports around the country. More than 50 percent of all U.S. wheat travels through our Columbia River system,” said Lori Otto Punke, President of the Washington Council on International Trade. “We have the 10th-largest economy in the U.S… we’re very deeply concerned about the impacts that these aggressive unilateral tariff actions will have, here locally. And we also know from the last almost-decade that tariff policy has already negatively impacted Washington state… [Tariffs] have failed to achieve the goals that they were meant to do, while imposing a lot of costs and many lost opportunities… What we’re talking about from a tariff perspective now is nowhere close—you know, it’s huge, compared to what we’ve seen in the past. And from a broad historical context, in 2015, Washington state exports [were] approximately, nearly 90 billion dollars in goods. And this made us one of the top exporting states in the country. But after… nearly a decade of tariff policy, in 2023, a lot of our goods and services were down about a third of that, down to about $60 billion dollars. So as we know, there are negative impacts of tariffs already, we’ve already seen that, and this huge magnification of tariffs is really detrimental.”
“Exports are critically important to Washington’s agriculture economy. The uncertainty around retaliatory tariffs, the uncompetitive prices and lost market share that may result where implemented, and the damage to relationships with trading partners are some of the areas of concern for Washington agriculture exporters at this time,” said Rianne Ham, International Marketing Program Manager at the Washington State Department of Agriculture. “We’ve been through this before. A few years ago, we did face a number of retaliatory tariffs from the past Trump administration, some of those are still in effect. We do know that those retaliatory tariffs did raise prices on our agriculture products, they did make our products more expensive for consumers, and they did result in lost market share.”
“Green coffee prices have risen by up to 40 percent over the past year. This isn’t just inflation—it’s a result of global challenges: climate change disrupting crops, labor shortages in producing countries, increased demand from growing economies, and declining output from some of the world’s largest producers, including Vietnam and Indonesia. And now, with the April 2 tariff implementation, that pressure is increasing,” said Blas Alfaro, Partner & Senior Vice President at Fulcrum Coffee Roasters in Seattle. “Here’s what that looks like: a 10 percent base tariff on all imported green coffee, a 46 percent tariff on coffee from Vietnam, which represents 20 percent of U.S. imports, and a 30 percent tariff on Indonesian coffee, a country known for unique flavor profiles that simply cannot be substituted.This affects not just roasters, but the thousands of local, independent cafés we serve—many of them drive-thru espresso stands and family-run shops in small towns. These businesses employ baristas and support staff, serve as cultural and social gathering spaces, and actively reinvest in their communities.But their margins are thin. Tariffs like these force them to make tough decisions: raise prices, reduce hours, or close altogether.The impact goes beyond the beans. Espresso machines, mostly manufactured in Italy, now face a 30 percent import tariff.Packaging materials—cups, bags, lids—are also affected. The full cost of doing business is rising rapidly, and small operators are being hit the hardest.”
Senator Murray’s full remarks, as delivered on today’s press call are below and video is HERE:
“First of all, thank you to all of my great guests for being on this today, for bringing your expertise to this conversation—and thank you, to all of you who have joined us for this really important call today.
“As we all know, last week President Trump held a press conference in the Rose Garden to celebrate—yea, he did say celebrate—his new taxes on everyone. And I have to say, the alternative reality Trump and his advisors have been spinning could not be more different from whatI’m hearing from folks at home who are already being crushed by Trump’s tariffs—and are about to see their prices go up even more.
“So, today I wanted to paint a better picture for all of us of what Trump’s ham-fisted, utterly pointless tariffs are actually going to mean for people in Washington state.
“For businesses, like Fulcrum Coffee Roasters in Seattle. For our farmers, for our fishers, for our growers, for housing developers, who are going to face rising costs for the raw materials it takes to build—and that will ultimately raise the cost of housing for everyone.
“And for families in every part of our state who are deeply worried about how Trump’s tariffs are going to raise prices everywhere they shop.
“No matter how much Trump tries to deny this simple fact—tariffs are a tax that the American people will pay on everything they buy.
“There’s a brand-new analysis from the Yale Budget Lab that found that Trump’s tariffs are going to cost the average family nearly $4,000 per year. That is the largest middle-class tax increase in a generation!
“Now that extra tax might not matter much to billionaires like Trump and Elon Musk, who do not even shop for themselves or even think about basic necessities—but you can bet it is going to matter to regular people in Washington state. Families are going to feel the pain of Trump’s new tariffs everywhere they shop.
“And—as one of the most trade-dependent states in the country—Washington state stands to lose among the most from Trump’s destructive trade war.
“Two in five jobs in our state exist because of international trade—that’s a full 40 percent of jobs in our state. Farmers, fishers, producers in our state—rely heavily on trade with Canada and Mexico, and Trump’s trade war has already been an especially deep cut for them. Now, they’re about to get hammered even more.
“Last year, Washington state imported 17.8 billion of goods from Canada alone—everything from natural gas for folks to heat their homes, cars, seafood that you buy at the grocery store, fertilizer that our farmers rely on. All of that is now getting more expensive because of Trump’s tariffs.
“Canada is also our second-largest export market—behind only China, which just got slapped with a 54 percent tariff they’re promising to retaliate heavily against. Well at least that was the plan last week, this week its 104 percent—and who knows what is next!?
“I’ve talked to so many farmers in our state who are furious that Donald Trump cannot seem to grasp the basic fact that they actually rely on international markets.
“Last month, Trump posted on Truth Social, and I’m going to quote it, ‘Get ready to start making a lot of agricultural product to be sold inside of the United States… Have fun!’
“Have fun?! Many of our state’s top commodities export up to 90 percent of their crops. Producers are panicking right now! And Trump doesn’t seem to have a clue.
“He just slapped 24 percent tariffs on Japan, which is the largest export market for Washington potatoes. Now, potato growers have been worried that they’re going to lose access to Japan’s market over retaliatory tariffs—and theyalreadylost access to China’s market in Trump’s first-term trade war. Our Ports are concerned that countries will start bypassing U.S. ports altogether, offloading their goods in Vancouver where it is cheaper. Business in Northern Washington, especially Whatcom County, is already cratering from Trump’s pointless trade war with Canada. The City of Blaine saw about a 40 percent drop in retail and services revenue after Trump’s tariffs on Canada went into effect!
“As we know, the stock market is cratering right now and taking so many Americans’ hard-earned retirement savings with it. Stocks fell 10 percent over the week—and they keep dropping! And what was Trump doing while the Dow Jones was plummeting and Americans were panicking? He was golfing!
“So, it’s already clear on Wall Street and Main Street alike that Trump’s tariffs will be devastating—and it’s also pretty clear he doesn’t care. Trump and his advisors might try to pretend that someone else, some other country, is going to pay these taxes—but even they know that’s not true!
“Does anyone remember how Trump said Mexico would pay for the border wall?! He is selling snake oil.
“Trump actually admitted to NBC that he ‘couldn’t care less if automakers raised prices because of his tariffs.’
“And the irony is rich. Because, at the very same time that Trump is slapping new taxes on the goods that middle class families buy every day. At the very same time that Trump and Musk are insisting that we cannot afford to fund cancer research—or keep Social Security staff to answer Americans’ phone calls.
“Trump’s top priority for Congress is making sure Republicans move full steam ahead to pass massive new tax cuts for billionaires.
“And let’s be clear, Republicans’ tax breaks for billionaires are going to blow up the deficit—they will not be paid for. But guess how Republicans are choosing to try and offset some of the cost of those tax cuts? By slashing Medicaid and nutrition programs that feed hungry kids and families.
“So, to recap: Trump is gutting services and raising costs on you by thousands of dollars a year with his tariffs—while, at the same time cutting taxes for himself and other billionaires like Elon Musk.
“That’s Republican plan, if you’re a billionaire, you get showered with new tax breaks. If you’re a working family, you just get screwed—with new tax hikes and cuts to your health care. Already the chaos and uncertainty these tariffs have created are pushing us toward a Republican recession.
“But here’s the thing you all need to know: Congress can actually reverse these tariffs. Last week in fact, the Senate voted on a resolution to reverse Trump’s tariffs on Canada by ending the bogus emergency declaration President Trump issued to justify them. That resolution passed the Senate—with four Republican votes—but right now, it’s dead in the water unless Speaker Johnson brings it up for the vote in the House.
“So, right now I’m calling on my Republican colleagues to help us, stop letting Trump tank the economy and raise prices, vote with us to reverse these pointless and destructive tariffs. We could end this chaos today if Republicans would put their checkbook ahead of Donald Trump’s ego.
“So, let’s be clear: any Republican who refuses to join us is joining Trump in raising prices on you, and wrecking our economy.
“So I am delighted today to have four really great people who can lay out the basic facts, and the cold, hard reality of tariffs and what they mean for people here in Washington state and to our economy.
“So let me turn it over first to Director Nguyen.”
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (NY-22)
Washington, DC – Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (NY-24) today commended the efforts of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and federal law enforcement partners in apprehending 133 illegal aliens across Western, Central, and Northern New York.
“President Trump and Border Czar Homan are prioritizing getting the worst of the worst out of our country, and that includes some of the illegal immigrants apprehended in the recent ICE operation in Upstate New York. Under the Biden administration, CBP and ICE were unable to carry out their mission as Sanctuary City Governors and Mayors illegally allowed dangerous criminals to roam free throughout our towns and cities. Now, under President Trump’s America First Agenda, these law enforcement officers are able to perform their critical national security mission, working diligently to make our country safer each and every day. Thank you to the courageous law enforcement officers for your dedication to public safety, and thank you to President Trump for upholding your commitment to getting these illegal immigrants out of our country,” said Congresswoman Tenney.
The criminals arrested during this operation include:
A 49-year-old illegal alien from Trinidad and Tobago convicted of murder.
A 66-year-old illegal alien from the Dominican Republic convicted of course of sexual conduct with a child.
A 32-year-old illegal alien from El Salvador convicted of murder and gang assault.
A 70-year-old illegal alien from the Dominican Republic convicted of manslaughter and criminal sale of controlled substance.
A 50-year-old illegal alien from China convicted of assault.
A 42-year-old illegal alien from Mexico convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.
A 24-year-old illegal alien from Ecuador with several convictions for DWI.
A 43-year-old H-2A visa holder from South Africa charged with distribution and possession of child pornography.
Source: State University Higher School of Economics – State University Higher School of Economics –
Photo: MIA “Russia Today”
On April 8, the MIA “Russia Today” held a round table on the topic “Threats of Artificial Intelligence for Education and the Social Sphere”, in which the rector of the National Research University Higher School of Economics, member of the Council under the President of the Russian Federation for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights (HRC) Nikita Anisimov took part. He spoke about the HSE’s experience in regulating the use of AI technologies in the educational process.
Opening the round table, Advisor to the President of Russia, Chairman of the Human Rights Council Valery Fadeev stated that modern youth actively uses neural networks. He cited data from a recent survey by the Association of Organizers of Student Olympiads, according to which 85% of students use neural networks, including 43% for writing abstracts, essays, term papers and theses. Students also consider AI to be the most important technology for Russia.
However, Valery Fadeyev himself has a different view of what is happening. “I believe that we are on the threshold of an ideological disaster, and Russian society is still underestimating this danger,” he said. The reason is that, when answering questions related to politics, for example, neural networks produce a Western narrative – ideological texts, turning into an ideological weapon.
The Russian presidential adviser used the analogy of a student library in the 1980s, which contained only Marxist literature, rather than the best works in the humanities from around the world. “Our texts and the texts of our friends make up a minimal part of the total array of materials and texts used by the neural network,” he concluded.
In turn, Nikita Anisimov noted that behind each AI there is a developer – a person who can afford to invest billions in the development of a specific technology. Such people have great business opportunities and pursue certain interests.
He recalled that the HSE University had adopted a Declaration of Ethical Principles for the Creation and Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems on its own initiative. One of these principles is transparency: if a student uses AI in their work, they are required to indicate what kind of technology it is and what conclusions were made. If deception is detected (there is a tool called “Catch a Bot” for this), the student may be expelled.
Nikita Anisimov emphasized that the university trains specialists in the field of AI and those who will definitely use it. In his opinion, methodological understanding of the use of AI in education is critically important and this is understood not only in Russia: for example, in China, at the state level, they consider it necessary to modernize educational methods and textbooks taking into account the emergence of AI as a technology.
The rector developed Valery Fadeev’s thesis that the content of a neural network is determined by the one who trained it.
“If the technology was developed in the USA, taught on a line of school textbooks published in the USA, then, naturally, it promotes certain views. But what if we load it with textbooks published in the 90s in the Russian Federation, will it be better? Therefore, it is critically important how we teach this technology, how it affects young people, adults. It is important who taught and what they taught. Artificial intelligence is only a technology, and any problem has a last name, first name and patronymic. They must be named, invited, discussed with them, introduced regulations, as we did at our university. And you know, it works. The guys are happy to tell where they used artificial intelligence, and where they wrote the work themselves,” concluded Nikita Anisimov.
The discussion was also attended by HRC member and IT entrepreneur Igor Ashmanov and IT entrepreneur Natalya Kasperskaya.
Igor Ashmanov emphasized the danger that AI poses to schoolchildren. At school, many questions require a clear answer, but a neural network cannot do this and answers differently each time, moreover, its answers are incorrect. At the same time, Russia is still lagging behind its competitors and cannot create the “right AI”. “Our digital giants take enemy engines and repackage them,” the expert explains.
Natalya Kaspersky mentioned the risks that children’s use of gadgets in general entails. These include a negative impact on health, as well as inability to communicate, underdeveloped imagination, clip thinking, short memory, etc. In her opinion, AI cannot be trusted to choose an educational trajectory; only a person can do this.
At the end of the round table, its participants answered questions from journalists. In particular, Nikita Anisimov was asked how much interest in HSE programs dedicated to AI has grown in recent years.
According to the rector, everyone should master AI technologies in their professional activities, so students of all fields and specialties at HSE take the Data Culture course. And students of educational programs dedicated to AI receive significant salaries, combining work with studies already in the second or third year. There is a huge competition for these programs, their graduates have an excellent reputation.
Nikita Anisimov concluded that AI technologies can help, for example, to win on the battlefield and increase labor productivity many times over, and this is extremely important for the country. At the same time, in the social sphere, AI should not be allowed to make decisions about people and influence their destinies.
Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Mehebub Sahana, Leverhulme Early Career Fellow, Geography, University of Manchester
The proposed dam will span the Yarlung Tsangpo Grand Canyon, the world’s deepest.Biao Liu / shutterstock
China recently approved the construction of the world’s largest hydropower dam, across the Yarlung Tsangpo river in Tibet. When fully up and running, it will be the world’s largest power plant – by some distance.
Yet many are worried the dam will displace local people and cause huge environmental disruption. This is particularly the case in the downstream nations of India and Bangladesh, where that same river is known as the Brahmaputra.
The proposed dam highlights some of the geopolitical issues raised by rivers that cross international borders. Who owns the river itself, and who has the right to use its water? Do countries have obligations not to pollute shared rivers, or to keep their shipping lanes open? And when a drop of rain falls on a mountain, do farmers in a different country thousands of miles downstream have a claim to use it? Ultimately, we still don’t know enough about these questions of river rights and ownership to settle disputes easily.
The Yarlung Tsangpo begins on the Tibetan Plateau, in a region sometimes referred to as the world’s third pole as its glaciers contain the largest stores of ice outside of the Arctic and Antarctica. A series of huge rivers tumble down from the plateau and spread across south and south-east Asia. Well over a billion people depend on them, from Pakistan to Vietnam.
Yet the region is already under immense stress as global warming melts glaciers and changes rainfall patterns. Reduced water flow in the dry season, coupled with sudden releases of water during monsoons, could intensify both water scarcity and flooding, endangering millions in India and Bangladesh.
The construction of large dams in the Himalayas has historically disrupted river flows, displaced people, destroyed fragile ecosystems and increased risks of floods. The Yarlung Tsangpo Grand Dam will likely be no exception.
The dam will sit along the tectonic boundary where the Indian and Eurasian plates converge to form the Himalayas. This makes the region particularly vulnerable to earthquakes, landslides, and sudden floods when natural dams burst.
Downstream, the Brahmaputra is one of south Asia’s mightiest rivers and has been integral to human civilisation for thousands of years. It’s one of the world’s most sediment-rich rivers, which helps form a huge and fertile delta.
Yet a dam of this scale would trap massive amounts of sediment upstream, disrupting its flow downstream. This could make farming less productive, threatening food security in one of the world’s most densely populated regions.
The Sundarbans mangrove forest, a Unesco World Heritage Site that stretches across most of coastal Bangladesh and a portion of India, is particularly vulnerable. Any disruption to the balance of sediment could accelerate coastal erosion and make the already low lying area more vulnerable to sea-level rise.
The Brahmaputra eventually flows into a region of fertile fields and mangrove forests. Sk Hasan Ali / shutterstock
Unfortunately, despite the transboundary nature of the Brahmaputra, there is no comprehensive treaty governing it. This lack of formal agreements complicates efforts to ensure China, India and Bangladesh share the water equitably and work together to prepare for disasters.
These sorts of agreements are perfectly possible: 14 countries plus the European Union are parties to a convention on protecting the Danube, for instance. But the Brahmaputra is not alone. Many transboundary rivers in the global south face similar neglect and inadequate research.
Researching rivers
In our recent study, colleagues and I analysed 4,713 case studies across 286 transboundary river basins. We wanted to assess how much academic research there was on each, what themes it focused on, and how that varied depending on the type of river. We found that, while large rivers in the global north receive considerable academic attention, many equally important rivers in the global south remain overlooked.
What research there is in the global south is predominantly led by institutions from the global north. This dynamic influences research themes and locations, often sidelining the most pressing local issues. We found that research in the global north tends to focus on technical aspects of river management and governance, whereas studies in the global south primarily examine conflicts and resource competition.
In Asia, research is concentrated on large, geopolitically significant basins like the Mekong and Indus. Smaller rivers where water crises are most acute are often neglected. Something similar is happening in Africa, where studies focus on climate change and water-sharing disputes, yet a lack of infrastructure limits broader research efforts.
Small and medium-sized river basins, critical to millions of people in the global south, are among the most neglected in research. This oversight has serious real-world consequences. We still don’t know enough about water scarcity, pollution, and climate change impacts in these regions, which makes it harder to develop effective governance and threatens the livelihoods of everyone who depends on these rivers.
A more inclusive approach to research will ensure the sustainable management of transboundary rivers, safeguarding these vital resources for future generations.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
In TikTok’s latest viral beauty trend “the morning shed,” beauty influencers “shed” hair and skin products that have been worn overnight. These include hair styling items, skin masks and creams, and physical products such as chin straps and mouth tape, which are intended to help with breathing through the night and keep away the drooping of the jaw that happens with age.
While this trend has come under fire for alleged unsustainability and over-consumerism, it is only the latest beauty fad in a long line of time and money consuming “hacks” that women have been undertaking for centuries. From tapeworms to tuberculosis, women have taken part in a laundry list of beauty hacks in order to meet appearance ideals, many of which have been dangerous, painful and even deadly.
As far back as the ancient Egyptians, women ground up toxic substances to make eyeliner and eye shadow. These were dangerous when inhaled as a powder (such as during the grinding process) and could cause irritation of the skin when applied. And yet somehow, heavy metal poisoning is among the least dangerous of these historic beauty trends.
Ready to make a change? The Quarter Life Glow-up is a new, six-week newsletter course from The Conversation’s UK and Canada editions. Every week, we’ll bring you research-backed advice and tools to help improve your relationships, your career, your free time and your mental health – no supplements or skincare required. Sign up here to start your glow-up at any time.
In China, foot binding is an example of a painful and life altering treatment first recorded around the 10th century. The feet were usually bound before the arch of the foot had developed (aged four to nine).
The process involved forcefully curling the toes towards the sole of the foot until the arch broke then the foot would be tightly bandaged to keep it in this position. Small feel were coveted at the time. Thankfully, this practice was banned in the early 1900s after almost 200 years of opposition from both Chinese and western sources.
In Europe, the Renaissance period saw a new wave of beauty hacks, from arsenic baths (which bleach the skin to a near translucent white) to Belladonna drops (literal poison) used on the eyes to induce an aroused or watery-eyed look. Many women who used these tactics ended up poisoned or blind.
During the reign of Elizabeth I, the “English rose” look was all the rage. Women would blood let for a perfectly pale pallor, or paint their faces with “Venetian ceruse” or “Venetian white” – otherwise known as lead paint. The use of Venetian ceruse is one of the suspected causes of death of Elizabeth I.
In the Victorian era and early 1900s, women often engaged in dangerous practices to achieve the coveted pale skin, red lip and small waist that was the height of fashion. This aesthetic could be achieved by contracting tuberculosis (a lung infection that was often fatal), taking tapeworm pills, consuming mercury to look forever young, or chewing arsenic wafers to make skin pale.
My own research has shown that sociocultural pressures to look a certain way are experienced differently across the world. I found that white western women experience some of the highest appearance pressures, followed by east Asian women. Although these decline a little with age for white western women, they persist in Asian women and never reach the lower levels seen elsewhere. I found the lowest levels of sociocultural pressure and the highest levels of body appreciation in Nigeria.
As the “morning shed” proves, women still go to great lengths to meet culturally shaped standards, particularly under conditions of higher economic inequality – something that is getting worse in many countries. For example, in the United States, cities which have higher economic inequality see higher spend on beauty products and services, such as beauty salons or women’s clothing.
With the advent of social media, especially short-form content like TikTok, Reels and YouTube Shorts, the speed at which beauty trends rise and fall has been expedited and globalised. These trends range from the painful lip suction women undertook to get big lips like the celebrity Kylie Jenner, to the normalisation of botox and fillers, to laser hair removal of every unwanted follicle.
The “morning shed” is just the latest evolution in skin care trends, which started as health-focused, with an emphasis on sun protection and moisturisation. It has since morphed into a study in over-consumption and over-commitment of time and money in the pursuit of staying ever youthful.
Louise N Hanson 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.
Chief Secretary Chan Kwok-ki will depart for Beijing tomorrow morning to attend a welcome ceremony on the return of the search and rescue team members of China, including those from Hong Kong, from Myanmar to the motherland.
Secretary for Security Tang Ping-keung and Director of Fire Services Andy Yeung will accompany Mr Chan to Beijing.
The three officials, together with members of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region search and rescue team, will return to Hong Kong on the same day and are expected to arrive at night.
The Hong Kong SAR Government will organise a welcome ceremony for the team members at Hong Kong International Airport.
During Mr Chan and Mr Tang’s absence, Deputy Chief Secretary Cheuk Wing-hing and Under Secretary for Security Michael Cheuk will be acting secretaries respectively.
