NewzIntel.com

Category: China

  • MIL-OSI USA: Cassidy Reintroduces Bill to Protect Americans’ Online Privacy, Data

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Louisiana Bill Cassidy
    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA) introduced the Data Elimination and Limiting Extensive Tracking and Exchange (DELETE) Act to protect Americans’ private online data. The DELETE Act would create a system for individuals to request all data brokers—companies that collect personal data for commercial use—delete any personal data the broker may have collected and to not collect it in the future.
    “American should have privacy online,” said Dr. Cassidy. “Let’s give Americans a solution to ensure their personal data is not tracked, collected, bought or sold by data brokers.” 
    The DELETE Act would direct the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to create an online dashboard for Americans to submit a one-time data deletion request that would be sent to all data brokers registered. Under current law, individuals must request removal from each individual data broker to ensure their privacy is protected. This legislation would also create a ‘do not track list’ to protect taxpayers from future data collection.
    Cassidy was joined by U.S. Senators Jon Ossoff (D-GA) and Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM) and U.S. Representative Lori Trahan (D-MA-03) in introducing this legislation.  
    Background
    Cassidy has been a consistent champion of online privacy and protecting user data. Earlier this year, he reintroduced the Children and Teens Online Privacy Protection Act 2.0 to protect our children’s privacy.
    In 2023, he also reintroduced the Protecting Military Service Members’ Data Act of 2023 to protect the data of U.S. service members by preventing data brokers from selling lists of military personnel to adversarial nations including China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. In 2021, Cassidy demanded transparency from Amazon on their biometric data collection practices. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Congressman Perry Introduces the Falun Gong Protection Act

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Scott Perry (PA-10)

    Washington D.C. – Yesterday, Congressman Scott Perry (PA-10) introduced the Falun Gong Protection Act to impose sanctions on the Chinese Communist Party for engaging in forced organ harvesting and other human rights violations against the practitioners of Falun Gong.

    “The United States, as the beacon of freedom around the world, cannot be silent when the Chinese Community Party is engaged in systemic torturing, incarceration, and forced organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners,” said Congressman Scott Perry. “The CCP and its enablers must be held accountable for these atrocities.”

    In 2020, the Independent Tribunal into Forced Organ Harvesting from Prisoners of Conscience in China found an “incomprehensible gap” between the number of transplant operations in the People’s Republic of China in comparison to the number of eligible registered donors. Falun Gong practitioners are a main source of organs for forced organ harvesting in China.

    The Falun Gong Protection Act imposes sanctions on those who participate in or facilitate forced organ harvesting. The bill directs the Secretary of State to determine whether CCP’s persecution of Falun Gong constitutes crimes against humanity or genocide, alongside a required report on CCP organ transplant policies and practices. Additionally, the bill makes it U.S. policy to avoid any cooperation with the CCP as long as its forced organ transplant industry continues.

    The world is becoming aware of the atrocities committed against people who simply want the freedom to practice their religious beliefs – like the practitioners of Falun Gong.

    Read the bill here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI China: Central China’s Hunan Province promotes culture, tourism in London

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    LONDON, April 3 — Central China’s Hunan Province, known for the towering natural pillars in Zhangjiajie that inspired the movie Avatar, showcased its rich cultural and tourism resources in London on Thursday.

    Dozens of government officials and tourism industry representatives from China and Britain attended the promotional event, which aimed to explore potential partnerships in the fields of culture and tourism.

    “Tourism is a powerful way to build people-to-people and cultural connections between our two nations,” said Rachael Farrington, head of tourism (government) affairs at VisitBritain, the national tourism agency. She said she was “thrilled” by the prospect of the two countries “working further together” and strengthening ties through “a shared love of travel and culture.”

    The event spotlighted the province’s deep-rooted history, stunning landscapes, and signature cuisine – all of which have made lasting impressions on international visitors, including Ben Hardy from Bristol.

    Hardy said he “was blown away” by his trip to Hunan in 2019, during which he made friends and experienced China’s high-speed rail, traditional tea-making, Chinese calligraphy, among others.

    Hunan governor Mao Weiming emphasized the province’s unique fusion of ancient heritage and vibrant modern culture. He invited attendees to visit Hunan, underscoring the importance of deepening cooperation and exploring fresh opportunities in the tourism market.

    Cultural performances by artists from both China and Britain added a dynamic touch to the event, featuring traditional Chinese instruments such as the Changde string alongside the Western cello.

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Ancient Rome used high tariffs to raise money too – and created other economic problems along the way

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Edwell, Associate Professor in Ancient History, Macquarie University

    Nuntiya/Shutterstock

    Tariffs are back in the headlines this week, with United States President Donald Trump introducing sweeping new tariffs of at least 10% on a vast range of goods imported to the US. For some countries and goods, the tariffs will be much higher.

    Analysts have expressed shock and worry, warning the move could lead to inflation and possibly even recession for the US.

    As someone who’s spent years researching the economy of Ancient Rome, it all feels a shade familiar.

    In fact, tariffs were also used in Ancient Rome, and for some of the reasons that governments claim to be using them today.

    Unfortunately for the Romans, however, these tariffs often led to higher prices, black markets and other economic problems.

    Roman tariffs on luxury goods

    As the Roman Empire expanded and became richer, its wealthy citizens demanded increasing amounts of luxury items, especially from Arabia, India and China. This included silk, pearls, pepper and incense.

    There was so much demand for incense, for example, that growers in southern Arabia worked out how to harvest it twice a year. Pepper has been found on archaeological sites as far north as Roman Britain.

    Around 70 CE the Roman writer Pliny – who later died in the eruption that buried Pompeii – complained that 100 million sesterces (a type of coin) drained from the empire every year due to luxury imports. About 50 million sesterces a year, he reckoned, was spent on trade from India alone.

    In reality, however, the cost of these imports was even larger than Pliny thought.

    An Egyptian document, known as the Muziris Papyrus, from about the same time Pliny wrote shows one boat load of imports from India was valued at 7 million sesterces.

    Hundreds of boats laden with luxuries sailed from India to Egypt every year.

    At Palmyra (an ancient city in what’s now Syria) in the second century CE, an inscription shows 90 million sesterces in goods were imported in just one month.

    And in the first century BCE, Roman leader Julius Caesar gave his lover, Servilia (mother to his murderer Marcus Brutus), an imported black pearl worth 6 million sesterces. It’s often described as one of the most valuable pearls of all time.

    Julius Caesar gave his lover, Servilia, an imported black pearl worth 6 million sesterces.
    AdelCorp/Shutterstock

    So while there was a healthy level of trade in the other direction – with the Romans exporting plenty of metal wares, glass vessels and wine – demand for luxury imports was very high.

    The Roman government charged a tariff of 25% (known as the tetarte) on imported goods.

    The purpose of the tetarte was to raise revenue rather than protect local industry. These imports mostly could not be sourced in the Roman Empire. Many of them were in raw form and used in manufacturing items within the empire. Silk was mostly imported raw, as was cotton. Pearls and gemstones were used to manufacture jewellery.

    With the volume and value of eastern imports at such high levels in imperial Rome, the tariffs collected were enormous.

    One recent estimate suggests they could fund around one-third of the empire’s military budget.

    Inflationary effects

    Today, economic experts are warning Trump’s new tariffs – which he sees as a way to raise revenue and promote US-made goods – could end up hurting both the US and the broader global economy.

    Today’s global economy has been deliberately engineered, while the global economy of antiquity was not. But warnings of the inflationary effects of tariffs are also echoed in ancient Rome too.

    Pliny, for example, complained about the impact of tariffs on the street price of incense and pepper.

    In modern economies, central banks fight inflation with higher interest rates, but this leads to reduced economic activity and, ultimately, less tax revenue. Reduced tax collection could cancel out increased tariff revenue.

    It’s not clear if that happened in Rome, but we do know the emperors took inflation seriously because of its devastating impact on soldiers’ pay.

    Black markets

    Ancient traders soon became skilled at finding their way around paying tariffs to Roman authorities.

    The empire’s borders were so long traders could sometimes avoid tariff check points, especially when travelling overland.

    This helped strengthen black markets, which the Roman administration was still trying to deal with in the third century, when its economy hit the skids and inflation soared. This era became known as the Crisis of the Third Century.

    I don’t subscribe to the view that you can draw a direct line between Rome’s high tariffs and the decline of the Roman Empire, but it’s certainly true that this inflation that tore through third century Rome weakened it considerably.

    And just as it was for Rome, black markets loom as a potential challenge for the Trump administration too, given the length of its borders and the large volume of imports.

    But the greatest danger of the new US tariffs is the resentment they will cause, especially among close allies such as Australia.

    Rome’s tariffs were not directed at nations and were not tools of diplomatic revenge. Rome had other ways of achieving that.

    Peter Edwell receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

    – ref. Ancient Rome used high tariffs to raise money too – and created other economic problems along the way – https://theconversation.com/ancient-rome-used-high-tariffs-to-raise-money-too-and-created-other-economic-problems-along-the-way-253752

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI USA News: Report to the President on the America First Trade Policy Executive Summary

    Source: The White House

    Pursuant to the January 20, 2025 Presidential Memorandum on America First Trade Policy (AFTP), directed to the Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Homeland Security, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, U.S. Trade Representative, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, and the Senior Counselor for Trade and Manufacturing, the President instructed the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Commerce, and the United States Trade Representative to report to the President on April 1, 2025, on the topics set forth therein, consisting of 24 individual chapters containing the reviews, investigations, findings, identifications, and recommendations enumerated in Sections 2(a) through 4(g) of the Presidential Memorandum. The Report also includes the expanded scope of work on non-reciprocal trading practices directed by the February 13, 2025 Presidential Memorandum on Reciprocal Trade and Tariffs. The findings from Sections 3(c), 3(d), and 3(f) of the February 21, 2025 Presidential Memorandum on Defending American Companies and Innovators from Overseas Extortion and Unfair Fines and Penalties are incorporated therein. This unified report is delivered to the President accordingly.

    Introduction

    An America First Trade Policy will unleash investment, jobs, and growth at home; reinforce our industrial and technological advantages; reduce our destructive trade imbalance; strengthen our economic and national security; and deliver substantial benefits for American workers, manufacturers, farmers, ranchers, entrepreneurs, and businesses. The America First Trade Policy Report (the Report) provides a foundation and resource for trade policy actions that will Make America Great Again by putting America First. It presents comprehensive recommendations covering the full scope of trade policies and challenges, from market access and the de minimis duty exemption to export controls and outbound investment restrictions. 

    The need for an America First Trade Policy is self-evident. For decades, the United States has shed jobs, innovation, wealth, and security to foreign countries who have used a myriad of unfair, non-reciprocal, and distortive practices to gain advantage over our domestic producers. There is no better expression of this dangerous state of affairs than America’s large and persistent trade deficit in goods, which soared to $1.2 trillion in 2024. Emerging from a tenuous geopolitical landscape in the previous four years, the United States cannot approach international economic and industrial policy issues with malaise. Our Nation’s future prosperity and national security requires a coordinated, strategic approach that fully utilizes the authorities and expertise of the Federal government to ensure the enduring economic, technological, and military dominance of the United States.

    It was for this reason that President Trump wasted no time in launching the America First Trade Policy mere hours after taking his oath of office. In the weeks that followed, he expanded the scope of work to include non-reciprocal trading practices—a key driver of the trade deficit—and foreign extortion of American firms, especially leading U.S. technology companies. For most administrations, success in any of the 24 separate workstreams discussed in the Report would represent some of the most significant international economic change in the history of the country. Each could easily take decades to resolve. In fact, it is precisely because decades have passed without resolution of these issues that urgent action is required today. The United States does not have decades to continue tinkering around the edges of international economics—the urgency of the situation requires bold action now.

    Today—on April 1—after a mere 71 days on the job, President Trump’s Administration delivered the results of its work. The Report provides the President with recommendations for transformative action. The Report charts a course for his Presidency to reshape U.S. trade relations by prioritizing economic and national security, and restoring the ability to make America, once again, a nation of producers and builders.

    Specifically, the Report includes a chapter for each subsection in the AFTP Memorandum, with an additional chapter for Section 3(f) of Presidential Memorandum on Defending American Companies and Innovators from Overseas Extortion and Unfair Fines and Penalties; reporting pursuant to Sections 3(c) and 3(d) of the latter are included within Chapter 3. Although the full Report delivered to the President is non-public, what follows is a brief public summary of the contents of each chapter.

    Addressing Unfair and Unbalanced Trade

    Chapter 1. Economic and National Security Implications of the Large and Persistent Trade Deficit (Section 2(a) of AFTP)

    The Report opens with a discussion of the magnitude and urgency of the economic and national security threat posed by the large and persistent trade deficit. In particular, the trade deficit demonstrates a fundamental unfairness and lack of reciprocity in how the United States is treated by its trading partners. For decades, while the United States has kept its tariffs low and its economy open, our trading partners have imposed egregious tariff and non-tariff barriers on American goods and services.  These unfair and non-reciprocal trade practices have undermined U.S. competitiveness, leading to business closures, job losses, missed market opportunities for American exporters, loss of industrial capacity, and an atrophying of our defense industrial base and national security posture. The sum total of these various non-reciprocal practices is that American exporters are less competitive abroad and foreign imports are artificially more competitive in the United States. Hence, our large and persistent trade deficit. The Report makes recommendations to the President to reduce the trade deficit, including the imposition of a tariff on certain imports in pursuit of reciprocity and balanced trade.

    Chapter 2. The External Revenue Service (Section 2(b) of AFTP)

    Through a collaboration between the Department of Commerce (DOC), the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the creation of an External Revenue Service (ERS) offers an opportunity to improve tariff collection. Tariffs have historically played a central role in the collection of Federal revenues. One way the United States can maximize its revenue recovery while deterring fraudulent and unfair trade practices is by establishing a centralized system to optimize revenue collection in the form of an ERS. By closing regulatory gaps and modernizing revenue collection mechanisms, the United States can reaffirm its commitment to a strong, fair, and enforceable trade system that benefits American businesses and taxpayers alike.

    Chapter 3. Review of Unfair and Non-Reciprocal Foreign Trade Practices (Section 2(c) of AFTP)

    U.S. trading partners pursue various unfair and non-reciprocal trade practices. In its review, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) identified more than 500 of these practices, and stakeholders reported many more during a public comment process. Many countries impose higher tariffs on U.S. exports than the United States imposes on imports from those countries. The U.S. average applied tariff is 3.3%. But the average tariffs in the European Union (EU) (5%), China (7.5%), Vietnam (9.4%), India (17%), and Brazil (11.2%) are all higher. The disparity is even more evident in specific products. The U.S. most-favored nation (MFN) tariff on passenger vehicles is 2.5%, but the EU, India, and China tariff cars at much higher rates, 10%, 70%, and 15% respectively. The United States has no tariffs on apples, but India has a 50% tariff and Turkey a 60.3% tariff.

    Non-tariff barriers by our trade partners are often an even greater obstacle. The EU only allows imports of shellfish from two states—Massachusetts and Washington—but the United States gives the EU unlimited access to the U.S. shellfish market. The United Kingdom (UK) maintains non-science-based standards that adversely affect U.S. exports of safe, high-quality beef and poultry products. Non-tariff barriers also include domestic economic policies that suppress domestic consumption. While the U.S. share of consumption to gross domestic product (GDP) is 68%, it is much lower in Ireland (24%), China (38%), and Germany (49%). This is because our trading partners pursue intentional policies of consumption-reduction (e.g., wage suppression and labor, environmental, and regulatory arbitrage) to gain unfair trade advantage over the United States. This, in turn, contributes to our large and persistent trade deficit. USTR recommends a number of ways in which current legal authorities might be used to address these unfair practices and trade barriers.

    Chapter 4. Renegotiation of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (Section 2(d) of AFTP)

    In his first term, President Trump ended the job-killing North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and replaced it with the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). USMCA gained new market access for American exporters and adopted rules to incentivize the reshoring of manufacturing to the United States. It also included an innovative review mechanism to ensure that the agreement is responsive to changing economic circumstances. Under the USMCA Implementation Act, USTR is statutorily required to initiate the review process ahead of the July 2026 deadline. Numerous changes are needed, such as stronger rules of origin to reduce the inflow of non-market economy content into the United States, expanded market access—especially for dairy exports to Canada, and action to address Mexico’s discriminatory practices, such as in the energy sector.

    Chapter 5. Review of Foreign Currency Manipulation (Section 2(e) of AFTP)

    The Secretary of the Treasury is required to assess the policies and practices of major U.S. trading partners with respect to the rate of exchange between their currencies and the United States dollar pursuant to section 4421 of title 19, United States Code, and section 5305 of title 22, United States Code. The Department of the Treasury will strengthen its ongoing currency analysis and address the lack of transparency by foreign governments in currency markets.

    Chapter 6. Review of Existing Trade Agreements (Section 2(f) of AFTP)

    The United States has 14 comprehensive trade agreements in force with 20 countries. There is significant scope to modernize existing U.S. trade agreements so that trade terms are aligned with American interests while addressing underlying causes of imbalances. This includes lowering foreign tariff rates for American exporters, improving transparency and predictability in foreign regulatory regimes, improving market access for U.S. agricultural products, strengthening rules of origin to ensure the benefits of the agreement appropriately flow to the parties, and improving the alignment of our trading partners with U.S. approaches to economic security and non-market policies and practices.

    Chapter 7. Identification of New Agreements to Secure Market Access (Section 2(g) of AFTP)

    The negotiation of new trade agreements with trading partners offers an opportunity for the United States to knock down non-reciprocal barriers to U.S. exports, especially for agricultural products, and reshape the global trading system in ways that promote supply chain resilience, manufacturing reshoring, and economic and national security alignment with partners. The Report identifies countries and sectors which may be ripe for the negotiation of America First Agreements.

    Chapter 8. Review of Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Policies (Section 2(h) of AFTP)

    Administered by DOC, anti-dumping and countervailing duties (AD/CVD) are a critical tool to address unfair trade and support domestic manufacturing. Recommendations include considering the addition of new countries to the list of non-market economies, methodologies to better implement AD/CVD laws, and more-active self-initiation of new investigations.

    Chapter 9. Review of the De Minimis Exemption (Section 2(i) of AFTP)

    Packages containing imports valued at $800 or less imported by one person on one day currently enter the United States duty free. The United States should end this duty-free de minimis exemption.  This exception has resulted in approximately $10.8 billion in foregone tariff revenue in 2024 alone.  De minimis shipments also pose serious security risks to the United States. The de minimis exemption is a means by which fentanyl, counterfeit goods, and various deadly and high-risk products enter the United States with little scrutiny. Countless consumer products that don’t meet U.S. health and safety standards, such as flammable children’s pajamas and lead-ridden plumbing fixtures, enter the United States through under the de minimis administrative exemption every year.  This is in part because the government does not collect sufficient data on low-value shipments to allow for enforcement targeting.  The de minimis exemption also allows for importers to evade trade enforcement tariffs; for instance, goods entering through the de minimis exemption do not need to pay duties owed pursuant to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. With nearly four million packages arriving each day through the de minimis exemption, it is imperative that DOC and CBP recover our rightful tariff revenue and defend our national security by ending the exemption.

    Chapter 10. Investigation of Extraterritorial Taxes (Section 2(j) of AFTP)

    The United States must combat efforts by foreign governments to collect illegitimate revenue from U.S. firms by imposing various discriminatory taxes and regulatory regimes aimed to capture the success of America’s most successful companies—not the least of which are our leading technology firms. Digital Services Taxes, for example, are often devised so as to shield most non-U.S. headquartered firms from taxation and UTPRs determine tax based primarily on factors outside the taxing jurisdiction. We need to ensure we have available the tools necessary to defend U.S. interests, including by providing technical assistance in furtherance of new legislative tools and further investigating identified taxes to determine the appropriate action.

    Chapter 11. Review of the Government Procurement Agreement (Section 2(k) of AFTP)

    Buy American is the epitome of common-sense public policy. In recent decades, the United States has weakened domestic procurement preferences by opening up our procurement market pursuant to the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA). Unfortunately, this market access is lopsided. A 2019 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on the GPA found that in 2010, the United States reported $837 billion in GPA coverage. This was twice as much as the $381 billion reported by the next five largest GPA parties (the EU, Japan, South Korea, Norway, and Canada), despite the fact that total U.S. procurement was less than that of these five partners combined. Moreover, some GPA partners open their procurement markets to third countries who are not parties, forcing U.S. suppliers to compete for the preferential market access they are entitled to under the agreement. To address this lack of reciprocity and unfair competition, the United States should modify or renegotiate the GPA, and if unsuccessful, withdraw.

    An additional challenge is that, although defense procurement is closed to GPA partners, the Department of Defense still gives countries access to our huge defense procurement market by negotiating Reciprocal Defense Procurement (RDP) agreements. Shockingly, these RDPs not only open our market to foreign suppliers, but also require U.S. firms to move industrial capacity offshore as a condition of access to the markets of partner countries. These RDPs must be reviewed to ensure they put America First.

    Economic and Trade Relations with the People’s Republic of China

    Chapter 12. Review of the Phase One Agreement (Section 3(a) of AFTP)

    A key success of President Trump’s first term was the Phase One Agreement with China. Unfortunately, five years following the entry into force in February 2020, China’s lack of compliance with the Agreement is a serious concern. China has failed to live up to its commitments on agriculture, financial services, and protection of intellectual property (IP) rights. USTR assessed this lack of compliance and recommends potential responses.

    Chapter 13. Assessment of the Section 301 Four-Year Review (Section 3(b) of AFTP)

    The United States imposed tariffs pursuant to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 in 2018. The law requires that Section 301 actions be reviewed every four years by USTR. The first Four-Year Review was completed in May 2024 and resulted in increases of some of the Section 301 tariffs on China. USTR assessed the results of this review to ensure the Section 301 action remains fit for purpose.

    Chapter 14. Identification of New Section 301 Actions (Section 3(c) of AFTP)

    Given the expansiveness of China’s non-market policies and practices, there may be a need for additional Section 301 investigations. USTR looked at various elements of China’s non-market policies and practices to identify additional investigations that may be warranted.

    Chapter 15. Assessment of Permanent Normal Trade Relations (Section 3(d) of AFTP)

    After China was granted Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with the United States in 2000, China took full advantage of the openness of the U.S. economy by leveraging its state-directed capital investments and subsidies, industrial overcapacity, lax labor and environmental standards, forced technology transfer policies, and countless protectionist measures. U.S. goods imports from China increased from $100 billion in 2000 to $463.9 billion in 2024, while the U.S. trade deficit in goods with China ballooned from $83.8 billion in 2000 to $295.4 billion in 2024. More than two decades after being granted PNTR, China still embraces a non-market economic system. USTR carefully reviewed legislative proposals related to PNTR and advised the President accordingly.

    Chapter 16. Assessment of Reciprocity for Intellectual Property (Section 3(e) of AFTP)

    The full extent of China’s abusive tactics and practices with respect to U.S. intellectual property is staggering. The Report catalogues China’s abuses of this system and recommends appropriate responsive actions to address China’s massive imbalance on treatment of intellectual property.

    Additional Economic Security Matters

    Chapter 17. Identification of New Section 232 Actions (Section 4(a) of AFTP)

    In his first term, President Trump used Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to save America’s steel and aluminum industries. Last week, President Trump invoked Section 232 to impose a 25% tariff on foreign automobiles and certain automobile parts to protect our automotive industrial base. Reshoring industrial production in key sectors is critical to national security, and DOC identified additional products and sectors that merit consideration for initiation of new Section 232 investigations, including pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and certain critical minerals. 

    Chapter 18. Review of Section 232 Action on Steel and Aluminum (Section 4(b) of AFTP)

    On February 11, President Trump ended all product exclusions and country exemptions for the Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum. DOC further explains the basis for this needed action and recommends additional measures for steel and aluminum for that could be taken.

    Chapter 19. Review of U.S. Export Controls (Section 4(c) of AFTP)

    The United States must ensure that its advanced technology does not flow to our adversaries. Export controls should be simpler, stricter, and more effective, while promoting U.S. dominance in AI and asserting global technological leadership.

    Chapter 20. Review of the Office of Information and Communication Technology and Services (Section 4(d) of AFTP)

    Using his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), President Trump created a new Office of Information and Communication Technology and Services (ICTS) at DOC in his first term. In the last administration, however, ICTS was underutilized. DOC reviewed ongoing ICTS work and identified key areas to strengthen and improve in line with ITCS’s original intent, including expanding its scope and remit to encompass advanced technologies controlled by our adversaries.

    Chapter 21. Review of Outbound Investment Restrictions (Section 4(e) of AFTP)

    President Trump’s America First Investment Policy serves as a basis for how the Administration will approach investment policy, including on outbound investment restrictions. Pursuant to the America First Investment Policy, the National Security Council and the Department of the Treasury will evaluate options that allow American business to thrive while ensuring that they, too, put America First and do not undermine U.S. national security interests. Among the things the Administration plans to evaluate is whether the scope of outbound investment restrictions should be expanded to be responsive to developments in technology and the strategies of countries of concern.

    Chapter 22. Assessment of Foreign Subsidies on Federal Procurement (Section 4(f) of AFTP)

    Foreign subsidies can disadvantage domestic products in a country’s government procurement market. The EU has recognized this problem and introduced the Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR) to address distortions caused by foreign subsidies for public procurement. OMB assessed the value of the FSR and other policies to tilt the playing field in favor U.S. producers by strengthening domestic procurement preferences and closing loopholes.

    Chapter 23. Assessment of Unlawful Migration and Fentanyl Flows from Canada, Mexico, and China (Section 4(g) of AFTP)

    On February 1, President Trump invoked IEEPA to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China to stop the threat posed by the flow of illegal migrants and drugs into the United States. DOC and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) elaborated on the necessity for the strong action already taken by President Trump and identified measures to further stem the flow of illegal migrants and drugs into the United States.

    Chapter 24. E-Commerce Moratorium (Section 3(f) of Presidential Memorandum on Defending American Companies and Innovators from Overseas Extortion and Unfair Fines and Penalties)

    At present, WTO Members have committed to a temporary moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions, known popularly as the e-commerce moratorium. In other words, no tariffs on data flows. However, some countries—such as India, Indonesia, and South Africa—seek to tariff the flow of data, thereby destroying the internet and harming the competitiveness for U.S. companies that are global leaders. USTR assessed the risks posed by data tariffs and made recommendations to ensure that the e-commerce moratorium is made permanent.

    Conclusion

    The Report offers a broad, yet substantive, view of U.S. trade policy as it currently stands, and articulates a roadmap for where it should go. The U.S. trade policy of today does not address long-standing and destructive global imbalances, nor does it reflect the reality that the United States is the most open, innovative, and dynamic economy in the world, which is why we must work to unlock its full potential.  Now is the time to pursue trade and economic policies that put the American economy, the American worker, and our national security first. This Report provides a foundation to do exactly that.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: RELEASE: Harder Announces Bipartisan Action to Support Valley Farmers Amid Rising Tariffs

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Josh Harder (CA-10)

    California almond growers hit with 35% Chinese tariff

    Fertilizer costs soaring

    WASHINGTON – Today, Rep. Josh Harder (CA-09) announced new bipartisan action to support Valley farmers amid rising international tariffs threatening their livelihoods. Alongside Rep. Dusty Johnson (SD-AL) and more than a dozen colleagues, Harder helped introduce a resolution reaffirming Congress’ commitment to expanding market access, enforcing trade agreements, and eliminating trade barriers.

    The stakes are high:

    • More than 80% of U.S. potash fertilizer comes from Canada and is facing a 25% tariff.
    • China has imposed a 35% tariff on U.S. almonds, which are all grown in California.
    • These tariffs are driving up supply costs, limiting exports, and threatening farmers’ bottom lines.
    • Additional reciprocal tariffs are expected as early as April 2.

    “This is about protecting the Valley’s farmers who feed the country,” said Rep. Harder. “We’re the fruit and nut basket of the world, and our farmers shouldn’t be punished with rising costs and shrinking markets. These tariffs are going to hit our economy hard – it’s time for Congress to stand up and fight back.”

    “Agriculture is the backbone of America and an essential part of our economy,” said Rep. Johnson. “South Dakota is no stranger to the agriculture way of life and the importance of ag trade. I’m proud to partner with the Ag Trade Caucus to highlight the value of ag trade for our country and our farming and ranching families and communities.”

    The resolution is backed by a broad coalition of agricultural and food organizations, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, U.S. Dairy Export Council, California League of Food Producers, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, and many more.

    Read the full resolution here.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Russia and China both want influence over Central Asia. Could it rupture their friendship?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dilnoza Ubaydullaeva, Lecturer in Government, Flinders University

    As he looks to solidify his territorial gains in Ukraine in a potential ceasefire deal, Russian President Vladimir Putin has one eye trained on Russia’s southern border – and boosting Russian influence in Central Asia.

    Following his 2024 re-election, Putin made Uzbekistan his third foreign visit after China and Belarus. The visit signalled the region’s continued importance to Moscow.

    In response to Western sanctions on Moscow over the Ukraine war, trade and investment between Russia and Central Asian countries have grown significantly.

    Russia’s Lukoil and Gazprom are now the dominant foreign players in Uzbekistan’s energy fields. In Kazakhstan, Moscow controls a quarter of the country’s uranium production.

    But as Russia tries to reaffirm its role in the region, China has also been quietly expanding its influence.

    Could this growing competition over Central Asia affect Beijing and Moscow’s broader relationship?

    Central Asia drifting apart from Moscow

    The Central Asian region is home to approximately 79 million people spread across five nations. It was part of the Soviet Union until its collapse in 1991. Its strategic location between Russia and China, on the doorstep of the Middle East, has long made it a “grand chessboard” for great power politics.

    While Russia has traditionally dominated the region, Central Asian leaders have made efforts to somewhat distance themselves from Moscow recently.

    At the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) summit in October 2022, for example, Tajikistan’s president publicly challenged Russian President Vladimir Putin. He demanded respect for smaller states like his.

    Similarly, during Putin’s 2023 visit to Kazakhstan, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev made a symbolic statement at the press conference by delivering his speech in Kazakh rather than Russian. This was a rare move that seemed to catch Putin’s delegation off guard.

    In another striking moment, Tokayev declared at an economic forum in Russia in 2022 that Kazakhstan does not recognise Russia’s “quasi-states”, referring to its occupied territories of Ukraine.

    Yet, all Central Asian states remain part of at least one Russia-led organisation, such as the Commonwealth of Independent States, the Collective Security Treaty Organization, or the Eurasian Economic Union.

    Three states (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan) rely on Russian security guarantees through the Collective Security Treaty Organization.

    And the region’s economic dependency on Russia remains significant. Of the 6.1 million migrants in Russia, the largest groups come from Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. These countries depend heavily on remittances from these migrant workers.

    China’s growing influence

    With Russia preoccupied with Ukraine and constrained by Western sanctions, China has seized the opportunity to deepen its engagement in the region.

    Beijing’s involvement in Central Asia has long been economic. In 2013, for instance, China unveiled its ambitious, global Belt and Road Initiative in Kazakhstan. And by 2024, it was China, not Russia, that was the largest trading partner of every Central Asian country except Tajikistan.

    But in recent years, China has expanded its influence beyond economic ties, establishing itself as a key player in regional politics.

    At the inaugural China-Central Asia Summit in 2023, for example, Chinese leader Xi Jinping pledged support for the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the region. This is traditionally a role played by Russia.

    Xi has also been making high-profile visits to Central Asian states, signalling Beijing’s growing strategic interests here.

    Local populations, however, remain wary. Public opinion surveys indicate China is viewed more negatively than Russia.

    Many Chinese-funded projects bring their own workers, limiting job opportunities for locals and fuelling resentment. There is also anxiety about potential “debt trap” diplomacy. Civil society groups have called for economic diversification to avoid over-reliance on Beijing.

    Further complicating matters is Beijing’s treatment of the Muslim minority Uyghur population in the Xinjiang region of western China. This has reinforced suspicions in Muslim-majority Central Asia about China’s long-term intentions in the region.

    Growing competition

    The increasing competition raises questions about the potential impact on the broader, “no limits” relationship between Moscow and Beijing.

    At a recent forum, Putin acknowledged Beijing’s growing economic role in the region. However, he insisted Russia still has “special ties” with Central Asian states, rooted in history. And he notably dismissed concerns about China’s expansionist aims, saying:

    There is nothing about domination in the Chinese philosophy. They do not strive for domination.

    On the ground, however, things aren’t so simple. So far, China and Russia have managed to avoid stepping on each other’s toes. How long that balance remains, however, is an open question.

    Central Asian countries, meanwhile, are courting both sides – and diversifying their ties beyond the two powers.

    Many of the region’s educated elite are increasingly looking toward Turkey – and pan-Turkic solidarity – as an alternative to both Russian and Chinese dominance.

    Russia’s historical influence in the region remains strong. But the days of its unquestioned dominance appear to be over.

    Russia may try to reassert its preeminent position, but China’s deepening economic presence is not going anywhere.

    With both countries pushing their own regional agendas, it’s hard to ignore the overlap – and the potential for a future clash over competing interests.

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

    – ref. Russia and China both want influence over Central Asia. Could it rupture their friendship? – https://theconversation.com/russia-and-china-both-want-influence-over-central-asia-could-it-rupture-their-friendship-251023

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Durbin, Foster Introduce American Innovation Act

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Dick Durbin

    April 03, 2025

    As the Trump Administration continues to ax critical research funding, Durbin and Foster introduce legislation that would bolster research funding at five federal research agencies

    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) and U.S. Representative Bill Foster (D-IL-11) today reintroduced the bicameral American Innovation Act, which would provide annual budget increases at a rate of five percent, indexed to inflation, for cutting edge research at five federal agencies: the Department of Energy Office of Science; the National Science Foundation; the National Institute of Standards and Technology Scientific and Technical Research Services; the Department of Defense Science and Technology Programs; and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Science Directorate.  The American Innovation Act would position the U.S. as a leader in development and discovery for decades to come by creating steady, sustained funding for breakthrough research at America’s top research agencies.

    “In its crusade to damage essential government infrastructure, the Trump Administration has failed to recognize that sustained support for basic scientific research has enabled the United States to put a man on the moon, build the internet, and produce a COVID-19 vaccine in record time.  If we want to maintain our status as a world leader in research and technology, we must empower and fund our federal research agencies and retain their top talent,” said Durbin.  “I’m introducing the American Innovation Act to ensure our nation’s scientists and researchers have access to critical funding to push our world forward while also creating jobs, growing our economy, and improving our national security.”

    “I’m proud to work with Senator Durbin on this legislation to expand federal investment in scientific research,” said Foster.  “Since World War II, investments in science and technology have helped expand our economy, create millions of jobs, and advance our national security.  As we confront new and existing challenges, it’s critical that our scientists have the resources they need to ensure our nation remains at the forefront of research and innovation.”

    The introduction of the American Innovation Act comes as the Trump Administration continues to gut federal research agencies by slashing programs and firing scientists conducting critical research.  These moves only harm the future of the U.S., as investments in scientific research have helped the nation lead the world in new technologies, create millions of jobs, grow the economy, and advance national security.  Further, without serious federal investment in research, the U.S. could fall behind its competitors, particularly China.

    Basic science funding in the U.S. has lagged in recent decades. Since the 1970’s, the United States investment in basic science has decreased by tenfold to about 0.1 percent of GDP.  Meanwhile, China’s research intensity (GDP expenditures on R&D) has increased by 500 percent since 1996– if this trend continues, China will soon surpass the U.S. in investment in science.

    The American Innovation Act is cosponsored by U.S. Senators Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), and Brian Schatz (D-HI).

    The legislation has earned the endorsement of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers; Association of American Universities; American Mathematical Society; Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities; Council on Undergraduate Research, Institute for Progress; Coalition for Academic Scientific Computation; American Physical Society; Federation of American Scientists; American Geophysical Union; and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.

    A one-pager on the legislation can be found here.

    -30- 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: King: “Looming Threat” of Arctic Aggression Must Be National Priority

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Maine Angus King
    WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senator Angus King (I-ME), Co-Chair of the Senate Arctic Caucus, in a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, questioned General Christopher Cavoli, Commander of the United States European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, about the United States’ position as an Arctic nation — and the importance of bolstering our nation’s presence in an emerging strategic hotspot amid rising tensions with Arctic adversaries. Senator King made the point that Russia and China are currently positioning themselves more strategically than the U.S. in the High North, through investments in military installations and icebreakers — which directly threatens American security. During the exchange, Senator King and General Cavoli agreed the U.S. needs to be paying closer attention to the Arctic as a new domain for potential conflict.
    Senator King began,” Please discuss Russian and Chinese activities in the Arctic. Strikes me this is a looming threat area we should be addressing. The reason it is becoming so important is the melting of the arctic ice which has something to do with climate change. 70% of the Arctic ice has disappeared in the last 40 years. Talk to me about the strategic importance of the Arctic.”
    “Absolutely, Senator. From the U.S. perspective, the most important thing to understand is the shortest distance from Russian airfields to the U.S. is over the polar cap,” responded General Cavoli.
    “They are building up those airfields, are they not,” asked Senator King.
    “They are. They were before the war at a fast-paced. It has slowed down a little bit during the war, but they are still opening airfields and repairing existing ones. The other thing that comes out of the arctic is the northern fleet in Murmansk comes up, sails down through the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom (GIUK) gap, and tries to break into the Atlantic from which they could hold key U.S. targets at risk with sub-launched cruise missiles among other weapons,” said General Cavoli.
    “We should be paying particular attention to the arctic as a new domain of potential conflict,” questioned Senator King.
    General Cavoli replied, “And I think we are. U.S. Northern Command has the primary U.S. responsibility for it. Of course, Strategic Command has activities up there. European Command also has activities up there because so much of the activity is in my area of responsibility (AOR). And the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), of course. Almost all the nations in the Arctic Council are NATO. The only one that is not is Russia. We have been sponsoring tabletop exercises to make sure we understand the details of command and control and coordination of operations there.”
    As Co-Chair of the U.S. Senate Arctic Caucus, Senator King is an advocate for Maine and America’s interests in the North Atlantic and Arctic region — as Maine is the first port in the contiguous 48 states that will see increased traffic via activity in northern waters. Along with Caucus co-chair Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), King introduced the Arctic Commitment Act  in 2022 to improve America’s posture and opportunities in the Arctic. He has been calling for the appointment of an Arctic Ambassador since 2015, and pushed for the confirmation of the first Arctic Ambassador last year. King also laid out the challenges and opportunities of a warming arctic in an article in the Wilson Quarterly, and in last year’s National Defense Authorization Act, he successfully secured the inclusion of provisions including funding authorizations for University of Maine to increase America’s activity and opportunities in the Far North.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Ricketts Celebrates New Sustainable Beef Facility: “This is What Value-Added Agriculture Looks Like”

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Pete Ricketts (Nebraska)
    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Yesterday, U.S. Senator Pete Ricketts (R-NE), celebrated the new Sustainable Beef processing facility. Ricketts spoke at the ribbon-cutting ceremony last week. He made the following comments while on a conference call with Nebraska media:
    “Sustainable Beef is a huge win for North Platte, for Nebraska, and for the entire beef industry,”Ricketts said. “Local businesses in North Platte are expanding. More families are moving in. This is what happens when we invest in agriculture. This is what value-added agriculture looks like. It’s taking our products and processing them to capture more of the economics.”
    “The COVID-19 pandemic showed us how dangerous it is to depend upon Communist China for critical supply chains,” Ricketts continued. “Without our farmers and ranchers, America would depend on other countries for the food we eat. That’s why facilities like Sustainable Beef are so important. They strengthen our economy, defend our way of life, and protect our domestic food supply chain. With the dedication of Nebraska’s producers, the future of our beef industry is bright.”
    [embedded content]
    Watch the video here
    TRANSCRIPT:
    Senator Ricketts: “Agriculture is the heart and soul of what we do in Nebraska. 
    “One in four jobs in Nebraska is related to agriculture. 
    “We’re the Beef State. Beef is essential to our state’s economy.  
    “Last year, Nebraska led the nation with over $2 billion in beef exports. 
    “We also led the nation in commercial cattle slaughter, with nearly 6.9 million head processed.  
    “You know, we have about three cows for every person in Nebraska. 
    “Nebraska ranchers help feed the world. 
    “Our beef industry is not just a part of our economy. It is a part of our way of life. 
    “Recently, we celebrated a major win for our state’s beef industry. 
    “I joined over 1,000 people in North Platte for the ribbon-cutting of the new Sustainable Beef processing plant. 
    “This facility will process about 1,500 head of cattle per day when it’s fully operational. 
    “It will create about 850 good-paying jobs. 
    “It will also add $1 billion a year to the local economy. 
    “This is the power of Nebraskans coming together to solve problems. 
    “The journey to that day started years ago. 
    “When I was Governor of Nebraska, I led a trade mission to Japan and Vietnam. 
    “On that trip, I spoke with Nebraska cattle producers about the challenges they faced. 
    “They shared their concerns about the prices cow-calf operators were getting for their cattle. 
    “I told them the answer was competition. 
    “That conversation led a group of Nebraska ranchers to come together and launch Sustainable Beef. 
    “Now, their vision is a reality. 
    “Sustainable Beef is a huge win for North Platte, for Nebraska, and for the entire beef industry. 
    “Local businesses in North Platte are expanding. 
    “More families are moving in. 
    “This is what happens when we invest in agriculture. 
    “This is what value-added agriculture looks like. 
    “It’s taking our products and processing them to capture more of the economics. 
    “This new plant will also be proof that we can grow our economy while protecting our natural resources and our economy. 
    “Nebraska ranchers already lead the way in sustainability. 
    “They know how to take care of their cattle and their land. 
    “Sustainable Beef will continue that tradition by focusing on responsible production practices that respect our environment. 
    “Food security is national security. 
    “The COVID-19 pandemic showed us how dangerous it is to depend upon Communist China for critical supply chains. 
    “Without our farmers and ranchers, America would depend on other countries for the food we eat. 
    “That’s why facilities like Sustainable Beef are so important. 
    “They strengthen our economy, defend our way of life, and protect our domestic food supply chain. 
    “With the dedication of Nebraska’s producers, the future of our beef industry is bright.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Ricketts on Senate Floor: President Trump’s Anti-Fentanyl Policies Are Already Having an Impact: “They are Working”

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Pete Ricketts (Nebraska)
    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Yesterday on the Senate floor, U.S. Senator Pete Ricketts (R-NE) highlighted the positive impact President Donald Trump’s policies are already having in reducing the flow of deadly drugs like fentanyl into our country. 
    “When Canada eased up on some of its visa restrictions, the cartels saw their advantage and started moving operations to Canada to transport both people illegally across the border and fentanyl,” saidRicketts. “In fact, 60 Minutes just did a story where they talked to one of these cartel drug smugglers about what he was doing. And he said that this one smuggler was responsible for moving 30 kilograms of fentanyl across the border from Canada into the United States every month. That’s enough to kill 15 million Americans and he was doing it every month. And that was one smuggler. Now he also said that lately, it had been quiet. They hadn’t been moving as much fentanyl. And again, that gets back to President Trump taking a stand to get our neighboring countries to start enforcing their border, to put more resources there, and to start blocking this fentanyl before it gets into our country.”
    “These policies are having an impact . They are working. We need Canada and Mexico to continue to do more,” closed Ricketts. “We are here standing up for secure borders, standing up for American families, standing up for those families who have lost loved ones already to this terrible scourge. We cannot afford to return to an open borders policy. We have to have secure borders. President Trump is leading the fight to secure our border and stop the flow of this horrible drug into our country. And I am proud to support him in doing that.”
    [embedded content]
    Watch the video HERE
    TRANSCRIPT:
    “Senator Ricketts: “I rise today to join my colleagues in talking about the fentanyl crisis that Joe Biden created in our country.
    “Joe Biden had four years of open border policies. Millions of people crossed illegally into our country. But on top of that, we saw a surge of fentanyl coming into our country – fentanyl that is killing our young people.
    “My colleague from Florida just referenced 70,000 people dying from fentanyl. Fentanyl is the leading cause of death among our young people, age 18 to 45. That fentanyl starts in Communist China, where the precursors are made, and they get shipped to Mexico. The cartel is turned into that final product and bring it across the border.
    “And we saw the impact in Nebraska. In 2019 law enforcement Nebraska took 46 pills, just 46 pills, laced with fentanyl, off of our streets. But after Joe Biden got elected, in just the first six months of 2021, that number jumped to 151,000 pills. And it wasn’t just the numbers, it was the human cost.
    “Taryn Lee Griffin, a young mom, two children, she took a pill she thought was Percocet, but it was laced with fentanyl. She died that night. Now her children are going to have to learn about their mom from stories, from pictures, because they don’t have their mom anymore. Sadly, that story is being told all across this country because of the Fentanyl crisis that we have.
    “President Trump was elected to stop this crisis.
    “Think about it, if we’d had 70,000 Americans killed in a terrorist attack, we’d be up in arms. It’s more than are dying from car accidents or from heart disease, and that age bracket. And yet, Joe Biden did nothing, and President Trump got elected to stop it, to make a difference, to end this catastrophe.
    “One of the ways he’s doing that is by putting tariffs on the countries that are allowing this to shift their countries, across their borders.
    “I already mentioned how Communist China and Mexico are linked to this.
    “There was The Daily podcast [by] the New York Times that talked about how President Trump’s policies were having an impact in Mexico.
    “Some people have said, wait, ‘using tariffs that’s creating a trade war.’ That is absolutely not the case. The case is, this is a drug war, and the President is using the tool of tariffs to get a handle on to shut off the flow of fentanyl.
    “In just one month, under Joe Biden, law enforcement intercepted 1400 pounds of fentanyl coming into our country. One month. That’s enough to kill 300 million Americans. President Trump is using his powers to bring that to an end.
    “Now, some people said, ‘well, that’s fine, we get at Mexico, but what about Canada?’
    “Canada is not the problem here, but our northern border is also exposed when Canada released its or eased up on some of its visa restrictions, the cartels saw their advantage and started moving operations to Canada to transport both people illegally across the border and fentanyl.
    “In fact, 60 Minutes just did a story where they talked to one of these cartel drug smugglers about what he was doing. And he said that this one smuggler was responsible for moving 30 kilograms of fentanyl across the border from Canada into the United States every month. That’s enough to kill 15 million Americans, and he was doing it every month. And that was one smuggler.
    “Now, he also said that, lately, it had been quiet. They hadn’t been moving as much fentanyl. And again, that gets back to President Trump taking a stand to get our neighboring countries to start enforcing their border, to put more resources there, and to start blocking this fentanyl before it gets into our country.
    “These policies are having an impact. They are working. We need Canada and Mexico to continue to do more.
    “President Trump is using his powers to be able to help stop that flow of fentanyl.
    “We are here standing up for secure borders, standing up for American families, standing up for those families who have lost loved ones already to this terrible scourge. We cannot afford to return to an open borders policy. We have to have secure borders.
    “The stakes are too high. Too many lives have already been lost. President Trump is leading the fight to secure our border and stop the flow of this horrible drug into our country. And I am proud to support him in doing that.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: MOFA response to defense white paper stressing importance of cross-strait peace to Europe issued by European Commission and EU high representative

    Source: Republic of China Taiwan

    MOFA response to defense white paper stressing importance of cross-strait peace to Europe issued by European Commission and EU high representative

    March 20, 2025  

    The European Commission and the European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on March 19 issued the joint White Paper for European Defence—Readiness 2030. The paper expressed great concern over China’s rapid military buildup, noting that China was intensifying coercive political, economic, military, cyber, and cognitive measures against Taiwan. It emphasized that a shifting Taiwan status quo raised the risk of a major disruption that would have profound economic and strategic consequences for Europe.
     
    The white paper also underscored the paramount importance of critical raw materials to economic and industrial production, defense capabilities, and competitiveness, adding that they were increasingly a cause for competition and conflict as an aspect of power politics. It pointed out that an escalation of tensions across the Taiwan Strait could cut off EU access to critical materials, technologies, and components. The paper further called attention to the cross-border challenges posed by hybrid threats and cyberattacks, noting that these would be addressed by the EU through greater security cooperation with like-minded partners worldwide.
     
    In June 2023, the European Council summit adopted conclusions that for the first time included content highlighting EU concern over growing tensions across the Taiwan Strait and opposition to any unilateral attempts to change the status quo by force or coercion. This affirmed that peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait are a common concern shared by the 27 EU member states. Last year, the European External Action Service (EEAS) issued statements in prompt response to China’s Joint Sword-2024A and Joint Sword-2024B military drills, stressing the strategic importance of cross-strait peace and stability to regional and global security and prosperity as well as the EU’s direct interest in the preservation of the Taiwan Strait status quo. 
     
    Minister of Foreign Affairs Lin Chia-lung sincerely welcomes and appreciates the EU’s continued close attention to developments across the Taiwan Strait and the Indo-Pacific, intense concern over all forms of Chinese coercion targeting Taiwan, and staunch support for peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. Minister Lin reiterates that Taiwan will steadily deepen cooperation and exchanges with the EU and other like-minded partners to jointly safeguard the core values of freedom and democracy, uphold the rules-based international order, and demonstrate to the world its determination to defend its democracy.

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News –

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: MOFA response to Japanese Foreign Minister Iwaya reaffirming importance of cross-strait peace in meeting with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang

    Source: Republic of China Taiwan

    MOFA response to Japanese Foreign Minister Iwaya reaffirming importance of cross-strait peace in meeting with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang

    March 23, 2025Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs Takeshi Iwaya met with Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi in Tokyo on March 22. During the meeting, Minister Iwaya expressed concern over China’s military activities targeting Taiwan and reiterated that peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait were of utmost importance to Japan and the international community. He also called for the peaceful resolution of cross-strait issues and opposed any attempts to unilaterally change the status quo by force or coercion. The government of Japan has repeatedly emphasized the importance of cross-strait peace and stability at major international events in recent years, urging the global community to pay attention to security across the Taiwan Strait. These events included the US-Japan summit and the trilateral meeting between the US secretary of state and the foreign ministers of Japan and the Republic of Korea on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference, both in February, as well as the Group of Seven foreign ministers’ meeting in March.Minister of Foreign Affairs Lin Chia-lung thanks Japan for continuing to follow security developments across the Taiwan Strait and staunchly supporting cross-strait peace and stability. He stresses that Taiwan has consistently welcomed international actions that contribute to safeguarding regional peace. Taiwan is committed to steadily enhancing its self-defense capabilities and bolstering cooperation with like-minded nations to jointly uphold peace, stability, and prosperity across the Taiwan Strait and the Indo-Pacific.

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Fischer Ranked in Top 10 Most Effective GOP Senators

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Nebraska Deb Fischer

    U.S. Senator Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) was ranked 6th in effectiveness out of 49 Republican senators during the 118th Congress by the Center for Effective Lawmaking.

    Last Congress, Fischer championed and successfully passed nine bills into law, outlined below. Several more of Senator Fischer’s bills received action in committee. Fischer also secured more than three dozen provisions in the Fiscal Year (FY) 24 and FY25 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This included improving the Department of Defense’s management of electronic warfare capabilities, establishing a program of record for the nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile, and establishing programs to help resolve our munitions production crisis.

    “I’ve been elected and re-elected to the Senate three times to get things done for Nebraska. That’s exactly what I did last Congress by passing bills to support law enforcement, restore land to local ownership, strengthen America’s nuclear deterrent, and more. I pledge to continue championing commonsense solutions to make life better, safer, and more prosperous for Nebraskans and our great nation,” said Fischer.

    Here is a summary of the bills Fischer successfully passed into law during the 118th Congress:

    Recruit and Retain Act:
    Addresses staffing shortages nationwide by enhancing law enforcement agencies’ access to federal hiring tools.

    Veteran Improvement Commercial Driver License Act of 2023:
    Creates a path for military veterans to obtain their commercial driver’s licenses more easily, helping them transition from military service to civilian careers.

    Restoring American Deterrence Act of 2024:
    Overhauls U.S. nuclear preparedness and enacts key updates to America’s strategic posture. Contains multiple provisions to ensure that the U.S. can continue to deter China and Russia.

    REEF Act:
    Protects railroad employees by ending government mandated cuts to their unemployment and sickness benefits once and for all.

    Advanced Aviation Act:
    Establishes an Advanced Aviation Steering Committee to improve rulemaking and better coordinate new technologies entering the aviation space.

    Sustain Regional Air Travel Act:
    Directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to evaluate the pilot shortage’s impact on rural, regional carriers and recommend concrete ways to address the constraints.

    Winnebago Land Transfer Act:
    Transfers approximately 1,600 acres of land back to the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska that was seized in the 1970s by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

    Swanson and Hugh Butler Reservoirs Land Conveyance Act:
    Transfers the Bureau of Reclamation (BoR) Swanson Reservoir land to Hitchcock County and the BoR Red Willow Reservoir land to Frontier County.

    National Advisory Committee on Indian Education Improvement (NACIE) Improvement Act:
    Gives Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs) greater input over federal funding discussions that impact them by requiring at least one of NACIE’s members be the president of a Tribal College or University.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: PREPARED REMARKS: Sanders Speech on Senate Vote to Block $8.8 Billion Sale of Heavy Bombs to Israel

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Vermont – Bernie Sanders

    WASHINGTON, April 3 – After filing Joint Resolutions of Disapproval (JRDs) to block the sale of two of the most egregious Trump Administration offensive arms sales to Israel, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today rose to bring the JRDs up for a vote by the full Senate.

    The sales would provide almost $8.8 billion more in heavy bombs and other munitions to Netanyahu, including more than 35,000 massive 2,000-pound bombs.

    • The first resolution, S.J.Res 33, would block a sale of $2.04 billion for 35,329 MK 84 2,000 lb. bombs and 4,000 I-2000 Penetrator warheads.
    • The second resolution, S.J.Res.26, would block $6.75 billion for 2,800 500-pound bombs, 2,166 Small Diameter Bombs, and tens of thousands of JDAM guidance kits.

    All of these systems have been linked to dozens of illegal airstrikes, including on designated humanitarian sites, resulting in thousands of civilian casualties. None of these systems are necessary to protect Israel from incoming drone or rocket attacks.

    The JRD is the only formal mechanism available to Congress to prevent an arms sale noticed by the administration from advancing.

    Sanders’ remarks introducing the vote today, as prepared for delivery, are below and can be watched live HERE:

    M. President, let me begin by telling the American people something they already know, and that is, as a result of the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, we now have a corrupt campaign finance system that allows billionaires to buy elections and to influence major pieces of legislation. That, I think, is not a secret to the American people.

    If you’re a Republican and you vote against the Trump administration in one way or another, you have to look over your shoulder and worry that you’re going to get a call from Elon Musk, the wealthiest man in the world. And he will tell you that if you vote against what he wants, he will spend unlimited amounts of money to defeat you in the next election. That’s not a great secret. That’s what Musk has been saying publicly. 

    If you’re a Democrat, you have to worry about the billionaires who fund AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. If you vote against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his horrific war in Gaza, AIPAC will punish you with millions of dollars in advertisements to see that you’re defeated. AIPAC’s PAC and Super PAC spent nearly $127 million combined during the 2023-2024 election cycle, according to the Federal Election Commission.

    And I must confess that AIPAC has been successful. Last year, they defeated two members of the U.S. House who opposed providing military aide to Netanyahu’s extremist government.

    Given all of that, I would hope that Democrats and Republicans who understand that they were elected to protect the interests of their constituents, not billionaire campaign contributors, would support the ending of Citizens United and the movement toward public funding of elections so billionaires could not continue to control the political and legislative process.

    Further, I would hope that both parties would move to end super PAC funding in their primaries. I would hope that would be the case so that we can once again become a government of the people, by the people, for the people – and not a government run by the billionaire class. 

    M. President, I trust that every American – and certainly every member of the Senate – understands that Hamas, a terrorist organization, began this terrible war with its barbaric October 7, 2023, attack on Israel, which killed 1,200 innocent people and took 250 hostages. The International Criminal Court was correct in indicting the leaders of Hamas as war criminals for those atrocities. Clearly, Israel had the right to defend itself against Hamas.

    But most Americans also understand that, while Israel had a right to wage war against Hamas, it did not and does have the right to wage war against the entire Palestinian population. Tragically, that is exactly what we have seen over the last year and a half.

    Let us be clear: Prime Minister Netanyahu’s racist and extremist government has waged an all-out barbaric war against the Palestinian people and made life unlivable in Gaza. Within Gaza’s population of just 2.2 million people, more than 50,000 people have been killed and more than 113,000 have been injured – 60 percent of whom are women, children, and elderly people. That is 7.4 percent of the population of Gaza killed or wounded. If those same percentages were applied to the United States, it would mean that over 25 million Americans would have been killed or wounded.

    In total, since the war began, 15,000 children in Gaza have been killed, and today there are more than 17,000 orphans. But it’s not just the dead and the wounded. Israel’s indiscriminate bombardment has damaged or destroyed two-thirds of all structures in Gaza, including 92 percent of the housing units.

    Almost no part of Gaza has been left unscathed. Most of the population now is living in tents or other makeshift structures.

    M. President, most of the territory’s hospitals and primary healthcare facilities have been bombed, leaving virtually all Gazans without basic medical care. Think about what that means. I have met repeatedly with American doctors and others who have served in Gaza. And they are treating hundreds of patients a day without electricity, without anesthesia, without clean water, including dozens of children arriving with gunshot wounds to the head. I have seen the photographs and the videos.

    Gaza’s civilian infrastructure has been totally devastated, including almost 90 percent of water and sanitation facilities. Most of the roads in Gaza have been destroyed and made impassable.

    Gaza’s educational system has been obliterated. Children are not going to school. According to the World Bank, more than 2,000 educational facilities, ranging from kindergartens to universities, have been destroyed. Hundreds of schools have been bombed, as has every single one of Gaza’s 12 universities.

    And M. President, there has been no electricity in Gaza for 17 months.

    Put simply, Netanyahu and his extremist government have killed or wounded over 7 percent of Gaza’s population and have turned Gaza into a wasteland unfit for human life.

    That is what has been going on over the last year and a half.

    M. President, in terms of where we are today: the Netanyahu government broke the ceasefire two weeks ago, endangering the well-being of the remaining hostages held by Hamas.

    Further, in the last two weeks, they have intensified their assault against the Palestinian people. According to UNICEF, since Netanyahu broke the ceasefire, more than 1,000 people have been killed, including over 300 children, and more than 600 children have been wounded. UNICEF says that most of these children were killed while sheltering in makeshift tents or damaged homes. Just in the last 24 hours, 97 more people have been killed in Gaza.

    Since Netanyahu broke the ceasefire, even more aid workers have been killed, putting the total over 400 since the war began. Earlier this week, the United Nations announced that they had recovered the bodies of 15 emergency aid workers, who were killed by Israeli forces while wearing their emergency responder uniforms and then dumped in a mass grave in southern Gaza. They were buried alongside their destroyed emergency vehicles – clearly marked ambulances, a fire truck, and a UN car.

    M. President, with the resumption of bombing, hundreds of thousands of Gazans are once again being forcibly displaced by bombing and evacuation orders. This week, Israeli authorities issued displacement orders for most of Rafah, where about 150,000 people were estimated to be sheltering.

    Think about what all of this means in human terms.

    Throughout this war, millions of desperately poor people in Gaza have been repeatedly driven from their homes. They have been forced to pick their way through a demolished landscape, again and again, with nothing more than the clothes on their backs. Families have been herded into so-called “safe zones,” only to face continued bombardment.

    The children of Gaza have suffered a level of physical and emotional torture that is almost beyond comprehension and that will clearly stay with each and every one of them for the rest of their lives.

    These children are hungry. They are thirsty. It is hard to get clean water. They have been denied healthcare, and have witnessed the death of their parents, their family members, their homes, and virtually everything around them. And they have been picked up and moved from one place to another, all the while drones are above them shooting or photographing what they are doing.

    M. President, throughout this war, Israel’s restrictions on humanitarian aid have left hundreds of thousands of people, including tens of thousands of children, facing malnutrition and starvation. Children have literally starved to death while aid sat just miles away, blocked by Israeli forces. The UN, the United States, and every aid organization working in Gaza has been clear throughout this war: Israel’s unreasonable and unnecessary restrictions on humanitarian aid have contributed to massive death and profound suffering.

    But as bad as the last year and a half has been, at least Israel let some aid through – not enough, but some.

    But what is happening now is truly unthinkable.

    Today, it is 31 days and counting with absolutely NO humanitarian aid getting into Gaza. Nothing. No food, no water, no medicine, no fuel for over a month. That is as clear a violation of the Geneva Convention, the Foreign Assistance Act, and basic human decency. It is a war crime.

    You don’t starve children. And it is pushing things toward an even deeper catastrophe.

    Earlier this week, 25 bakeries supported by the World Food Programme were forced to close because they ran out of flour and cooking gas. The UN is still trying to distribute its remaining stocks of food already in Gaza, but says that “the situation remains extremely critical since the cargo closure of the crossings almost a month ago.”

    M. President, all of this is unconscionable. What we are talking about is a mass atrocity.

    And what makes it even worse, why I am here today, and why I have introduced these resolutions that we will soon be voting on, is that we, as Americans, are deeply complicit in what is happening in Gaza.

    This is not some terrible event. This is not an earthquake in Myanmar. It’s not something that we had nothing to do with.  We are deeply complicit in all of this death and suffering.

    Last year alone, the United States provided $18 billion in military aid to Israel and delivered more than 50,000 tons of military equipment. It is American bombs and American military equipment being used to destroy Gaza, kill 50,000 people, and injure over 110,000 people.

    We cannot hide from that reality.

    M. President, if we condone the barbarism that is taking place in Gaza today, we will have no standing in the world to condemn the horrors and war crimes that other countries may commit. You’re not going to be able to look at China or Russia or Saudi Arabia or any other country. We will have no credibility.

    M. President, today is the day to stand up to barbarism in Gaza and to do our best to prevent future barbaric acts all over the world. 

    It is no secret to anyone how these U.S. weapons have been used.

    Israel has bombed indiscriminately, killing civilians, journalists, paramedics, children, and humanitarian workers in record numbers. They have used massive 2,000-pound bombs in densely-populated Gaza, despite the fact studies show that 90 percent of victims of explosive weapons used in a populated area are civilians. These bombs have a blast radius of more than 350 meters, yet Israel has dropped them into crowded apartment buildings, killing hundreds of civilians to take out a handful of Hamas fighters.

    All of that is illegal and immoral and against American law.

    The Foreign Assistance Act and the Arms Export Control Act, what we’re talking about today, are very clear: the United States cannot provide weaponry to countries that violate internationally recognized human rights or block U.S. humanitarian aid.

    According to the UN, much of the international community, and every humanitarian organization on the ground in Gaza, Israel is clearly in violation of these laws. Under these circumstances, it is illegal for the United States government to provide Israel with more offensive weaponry. It is simply against our laws.

    Despite all of that, in the last month the Trump administration has announced its intention to transfer some $12.5 billion more in offensive weapons to Netanyahu’s government, in clear violation of U.S. law.

    M. President, that is why we are here today. Joint Resolutions of Disapproval are Congress’ tool to enforce American law.

    Today, we will vote on two resolutions to block two of the most egregious of these Trump administration offensive arms sales, which would provide almost $8.8 billion more in heavy bombs and other munitions to Netanyahu, including more than 35,000 massive 2,000-pound bombs that have killed so many civilians.

    The first resolution, S.J.Res 33, would block a sale of over $2 billion for 35,000 MK 84 2,000 lb. bombs and 4,000 I-2000 Penetrator warheads.

    The second resolution, S.J.Res.26, would block almost $7 billion for 2,800 500-pound bombs, 2,100 Small Diameter Bombs, and tens of thousands of JDAM guidance kits.

    All of these systems have been linked to dozens of illegal airstrikes, including on designated humanitarian sites, resulting in thousands of civilian casualties. These strikes have been painstakingly documented by human rights monitors. There is no debate. And none of these systems are defensive, none of them are necessary to protect Israel from incoming drone or rocket attacks.

    M. President, for those of my colleagues who are ambivalent about these resolutions, let me say a word about how the Trump administration is ignoring the law in advancing these arms sales, in terms of the process. Unlike Biden, whose policies on Gaza I strongly opposed, President Trump is trying to circumvent Congress with these transfers, ignoring the Foreign Assistance Act by issuing a bogus “emergency declaration” to bypass Congressional review.

    There is no emergency to justify cutting Congress out of the process. In fact, some of the systems the Trump administration claims are part of this “emergency” sale have not yet been produced.

    This is also part of a broader Trump administration effort to cut Congress out of the arms sale process.

    M. President, it is no great secret that Congress is way out of touch with where the American people are on issue after issue. Everybody knows, Congress is way out of touch.

    The billions of dollars that we are providing to the Netanyahu extremist government is just one more example of how out of touch we are with the American people. 

    According to a recent Economist/YouGov poll in March, just 15 percent of the American people support increasing military aid to Israel, while 35 percent support decreasing military aid to Israel or stopping it entirely.

    To my Democratic colleagues, I would mention that just eight percent of Democrats support increasing military aid to Israel. 47 percent support decreasing military aid to Israel or stopping it entirely. Among Republicans, nine percent are for decreasing military aid and 15 percent are for stopping all. 

    M. President, I would ask that this poll be entered into the Congressional record. 

    And according to a J Street poll of Jewish voters in November, 62 percent of American Jews support withholding “shipments of offensive weapons like 2,000-pound bombs until Prime Minister Netanyahu agrees to an American proposal for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza in exchange for a release of Israeli hostages.” And 71 percent of Jewish voters support increasing humanitarian aid to the Palestinians.

    Finally, M. President, as unbelievably horrific as the situation in Gaza is and has been for the last year and a half, there is another development that could make it even worse.

    In recent months, President Trump and Israeli officials have openly talked about forcibly expelling the 2.2 million people who live in Gaza to make way for what Trump calls a “Riviera” – some billionaires’ playground.

    A few years ago, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner said that he felt “Gaza’s waterfront property could be very valuable,” floating the idea of redeveloping it. I think that many people at the time thought that was a weird and terrible joke. But it turns out that his father-in-law Donald Trump took it seriously.

    Here’s what Trump has said, repeatedly, in recent months:

    “The U.S. will take over the Gaza Strip and we will do a job with it.”

    “We’re going to take over that piece, we’re going to develop it.”

    “I do see a long-term ownership position… Everybody I’ve spoken to loves the idea of the United States owning that piece of land.”

    I guess he didn’t speak to too many Palestinians who live on that land.

    On Truth Social, Trump wrote, “The Gaza Strip would be turned over to the United States by Israel at the conclusion of fighting.”

    And what about the Palestinians who have lived in Gaza for their entire lives?

    Trump said, “I don’t think people should be going back to Gaza.” “They live like they’re living in hell. Gaza is not a place for people to be living.”

    Gaza could become “the Riviera of the Middle East … This could be something that could be so valuable, this could be so magnificent.”

    Throw 2.2 million people who have suffered incalculably out of the land in which they live in order to create a billionaire’s playground. 

    M. President, there is a name and a term for forcibly expelling people from where they live. It is called ethnic cleansing. It is illegal. It is a war crime.

    M. President, the United States must not continue to be complicit in the destruction of the Palestinian people in Gaza. History will not forgive us for this.

    The time is long overdue for us to tell the Netanyahu government that we will not provide more weapons of destruction to them. Instead, we must demand an immediate ceasefire, a surge in humanitarian aid, the release of the hostages, and the rebuilding of Gaza for the Palestinian people.

    For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote YES on these two resolutions which would prevent illegal and immoral arms sales to Netanyahu, would uphold Congressional power and the rule of law, and would protect innocent life.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: News 04/3/2025 Blackburn, Warner Introduce Bill to Reestablish U.S. Leadership in International Standards Setting for Emerging Tech

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn)
    WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) introduced the Promoting United States Leadership in Standards Act to restore America’s position as a leader in international standards setting for emerging technologies.
    For decades, the United States led the world in developing new technologies, which allowed our country to set the rules of the road when it came to global standards for those technologies. However, in recent years, Chinese companies backed by the Chinese Communist Party have overtaken the U.S., which has allowed our adversary to influence standards in ways that further their own interests.

    “The Chinese Communist Party has made it their mission to undermine the U.S. and our interests around the globe by exploiting our deficiencies,” said Senator Blackburn. “As our adversary ramps up efforts to dominate global standards for emerging technologies, the U.S. must be a global leader in innovation, and that includes setting standards that reflect our interests and values.”

    “In recent years, the Communist Party of China has asserted their dominance in the global technology space, and as their status has risen, our authority and influence has fallen,” said Senator Warner. “This legislation clearly outlines steps we must take to reestablish our leadership and ensure that we are doing all we can to set the global standards for critical and emerging technologies.”
    BACKGROUND
    Standards-setting bodies make critical decisions not only relating to technical specifications, but also relating to values, such as openness, safety, and accessibility, embedded in emerging technologies.
    Specifically, the Promoting United States Leadership in Standards Act would:
    Require the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to submit a report to Congress that identifies current U.S. participation in standards development activities for AI and other Critical and Emerging Technologies (CETs);
    Create an easy-to-access web portal to help stakeholders navigate and actively engage in international standardization efforts. The portal would include a list of relevant standards and information about how to participate in standardization activities related to AI and other CETs;
    Establish a pilot program to award $10 million in grants over 4 years to support the hosting of standards meetings for AI and other CETs in the U.S.;
    Create a report to Congress, after the third year of the program, that identifies grant recipients, provides a summary of expenses, assesses the effectiveness of the program to grow the number of standards meetings in the U.S., and shows the geographic distribution of event attendees.
    Click here to read the bill text.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: HKSAR Government holds seminar on learning spirit of “two sessions” (with photos)

    Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region

    ​The third session of the 14th National People’s Congress (NPC) and the third session of the 14th National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) (“two sessions”) were concluded successfully in March this year. The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government today (April 3) held a seminar on learning the spirit of the “two sessions” at the Central Government Offices to enable participants to have a deeper understanding of the essence of the “two sessions” and its significance to the HKSAR.

    The seminar was hosted by the Chief Executive, Mr John Lee. The Director of the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government in the HKSAR, Mr Zheng Yanxiong, was invited to the seminar to share his views. The seminar was attended by more than 320 participants, including Principal Officials of the HKSAR Government, HKSAR deputies to the NPC, HKSAR members of the National Committee of the CPPCC, Members of the Executive Council and Legislative Council, Permanent Secretaries and Heads of Department.

         Speaking at the seminar, Director Zheng said that the HKSAR has to grasp the spirit of the “two sessions” focusing on seven aspects. They are, namely, grasping deeply the spirit of the important speech of General Secretary Xi Jinping in the “two sessions”; the significant achievements of the country on all fronts over the past year; the bright prospects in national economic and social development; the overall requirements and major tasks for economic and social development this year; the key initiatives in the government work report; the significance of amending the Law on Deputies; and the key plans for Hong Kong as highlighted by the “two sessions”.

         Director Zheng also said that the government work report has pointed out boost of capacity for innovation and radiating effect of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, striving for solid progress in pursuing high-quality Belt and Road co-operation, and speeding up the process of seeking to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. These plans are closely related to Hong Kong and deserve a high degree of attention. In particular, the emphasis on “deepening international exchanges and co-operation and better integration into the national development” highlighted the importance for Hong Kong to capitalise on its advantages as an international city and to integrate into the overall national development. It highlighted the dialectical relationship between Hong Kong’s connection to the Mainland and to the world. 

    Mr Lee expressed his gratitude to Director Zheng for his sharing, which deepened participants’ understanding of the spirit of the “two sessions”. Mr Lee said that the Central Government firmly supports Hong Kong’s development. The Government will fully implement the spirit of the “two sessions” in its governance to continuously unite society to further deepen reforms comprehensively, proactively identify, adapt to, and drive change, pursue economic development and improve people’s livelihood, fully leverage the institutional strengths of “one country, two systems” and proactively align with national development strategies, further deepen international collaboration and proactively capitalise on Hong Kong’s role as a bridge linking the Mainland and the world. Hong Kong will vigorously develop new quality productive forces, accelerate its development into an international innovation and technology centre, further consolidate and enhance the city’s status as an international financial, shipping and trade centre, actively build an international hub for high-calibre talent, and take forward the development of the Northern Metropolis and the Hetao Shenzhen-Hong Kong Science and Technology Innovation Co-operation Zone. Apart from strengthening economic and trade ties with traditional markets, Hong Kong will also deepen its exchanges and co-operation with new markets such as the Middle East, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and Central Asia, contribute to the Belt and Road Initiative, and tell the good stories of China and Hong Kong.

    Mr Lee encouraged government officials and various sectors of the community to continue to work hard in their respective positions and stay united to contribute to the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong and the well-being of its people, and meet the challenges ahead with greater confidence and determination to jointly build a better future for Hong Kong.

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News –

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Seaweed: A Nutritional Powerhouse From The Ocean

    Source: Government of India

    Posted On: 03 APR 2025 5:31PM by PIB Delhi

    Summary

    • Seaweed is a nutrient-rich marine plant, packed with vitamins, minerals and amino acids.
    • It contains 54 trace elements and essential nutrients that help fight diseases like cancer, diabetes, arthritis, heart problems and high blood pressure.
    • Seaweed is a sea plant that grows in the ocean and seas.
    • Seaweed cultivation requires no land, freshwater, fertilizers or pesticides, making it sustainable.
    • The $5.6 billion seaweed industry is booming, with India’s production increasing steadily.
    • Under one of its components, the Pradhan Mantri Matsya Sampada Yojana (PMMSY) aims to boost seaweed production to 1.12 million tonnes in five years.

    Introduction

    India, blessed with a 7,500 km-long coastline, stands at the edge of the ocean’s vast potential. The seashores hold untapped treasures beneath the waves, offering rich resources beyond traditional fisheries. Among these, seaweed farming is emerging as a booming livelihood option, unlocking new opportunities for coastal communities.

    Seaweed is a type of marine plant that grows in oceans and seas. It is used in many products like food, cosmetics, fertilizers and even in medicine. It grows in shallow waters and doesn’t require land or freshwater, making it an eco-friendly crop. It’s becoming popular worldwide as a healthy food because it’s easy to grow and needs little care. Seaweed is rich in vitamins, minerals, and amino acids. It helps fight diseases like cancer, diabetes, arthritis, heart problems and high blood pressure. It also boosts immunity and keeps the body healthy.

    Unlocking the Potential of Seaweed

    Seaweed isn’t just for eating—it’s also used in industries for making thickening and gelling agents:

    • Alginate (US$ 213 million): Extracted from brown seaweeds (harvested from the wild). It’s used as a thickener in foods, cosmetics, and even medical products.
    • Agar (US$ 132 million): Comes from red seaweeds. It’s been cultivated since the 1960s and is used in desserts, jams, and laboratory cultures.


    Carrageenan (US$ 240 million): Extracted from certain red seaweeds like Irish Moss. It’s used in dairy products, ice creams, and toothpaste.

    Seaweed has been used as food since the 4th century in Japan and the 6th century in China. Today, Japan, China and South Korea are the biggest consumers of seaweed. The global seaweed industry—including food, industrial products and extracts—is valued at around US$ 5.6 billion. According to a World Bank report, 10 emerging seaweed markets could grow by up to US$ 11.8 billion by 2030.

    Promoting Seaweed Farming in India

    Seaweed has the potential to address the challenge of nutritional deficiency in India. Out of around 844 seaweed species, about 60 are commercially valuable. The government, along with the National Fisheries Development Board (NFDB), is working to boost this sector through policies, infrastructure support, and collaborations with states and research institutes.

    In June 2020, the Government of India launched the PMMSY (Pradhan Mantri Matsya Sampada Yojana) with an investment of ₹20,050 crore to boost the fisheries sector. Seaweed farming is a key focus under this scheme. The government has allocated a total budget of Rs. 640 crore for seaweed cultivation in India from 2020 to 2025. This significant investment is aimed at boosting the seaweed industry and promoting sustainability. Out of this total, Rs. 194.09 crore is being used for key projects, including the establishment of a Multipurpose Seaweed Park in Tamil Nadu and the development of a Seaweed Brood Bank in Daman and Diu. So far, 46,095 rafts and 65,330 monocline tubenets have been approved for seaweed farming. Under the PMMSY scheme, India aims to boost seaweed farming, increasing production to 1.12 million tonnes in the next 5 years.

    Key Benefits of Seaweed Production

    Seaweed production offers a range of environmental and economic benefits. It supports sustainable livelihoods and helps boost the economy.

    1. Biostimulants in Farming: Seaweed is one of the eight types of biostimulants, which help increase crop yields, improve soil health and make plants stronger. The Government of India regulates the quality of seaweed used as biostimulants under the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985.

    A biostimulant is a natural substance or microorganism that helps plants grow stronger. It improves the plant’s ability to absorb nutrients and makes them more resistant to stress, like drought or diseases. Unlike fertilizers or pesticides, biostimulants don’t provide nutrients directly but enhance the plant’s natural processes for better growth and health.

    1. Support for Organic Farming: Since 2015-16, the government has encouraged organic farming through schemes like Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana (PKVY) and Mission Organic Value Chain Development for the Northeast (MOVCDNER), promoting seaweed-based organic fertilizers for farmers.
    2. Ecological Importance: Seaweed farming is eco-friendly as it helps fight climate change by absorbing CO₂ from the air. Seaweed also improves ocean health by cleaning the water and providing homes for marine life.
    3. Economic Benefits: Seaweed farming offers a new way to earn money besides fishing. For example, farming Kappaphycus alvarezii can earn farmers up to ₹13,28,000 per hectare per year. Seaweed products like biofuels and fertilizers are in high demand globally, helping India earn foreign currency.

    Key Seaweed Developments in India

    Success Stories

    Empowering Women Through Seaweed Farming

    Jeya Lakshmi, Jeya, Thangam, and Kaleeswari from Mandapam, Tamil Nadu, were homemakers from poor families struggling to make ends meet. After attending a seaweed farming training under the PMMSY scheme, they decided to start their own business. With an investment of ₹27,000 and financial support from Tamil Nadu State Apex Fisheries Co-operative Federation Limited (TAFCOFED), they began seaweed cultivation. Despite challenges like cyclones, nutrient issues, and marketing hurdles, they managed to produce 36,000 tonnes of wet seaweed. This not only made them financially independent but also created jobs for other women in their community, inspiring many to pursue seaweed farming.

    Boosting Seaweed Production with Tissue Culture

    The CSIR-Central Salt and Marine Chemicals Research Institute (CSIR-CSMCRI) introduced a tissue culture technique to mass-produce Kappaphycus alvarezii (elkhorn sea moss) in Tamil Nadu. This seaweed is valuable for producing carrageenan, used in food, pharma, and cosmetics. Through this project, tissue-cultured seedlings were distributed to farmers in Ramanathapuram, Pudukottai, and Tuticorin districts. Farmers produced 30 tonnes of seaweed in just two cycles, with a 20-30% higher growth rate and better-quality carrageenan. This breakthrough is set to boost commercial seaweed farming in India.

    Conclusion

    Seaweed farming can improve the lives of India’s coastal communities by creating jobs and increasing incomes. It’s a sustainable alternative to traditional fishing, especially for women and youth. While challenges like climate risks and market access exist, government schemes like PMMSY and the Seaweed Park in Tamil Nadu are helping the industry grow. With more support and innovation, seaweed farming can boost India’s economy and build a greener future for coastal areas.

    References

    Kindly find the pdf file 

    ****

    Santosh Kumar/ Ritu Kataria/ Kamna Lakaria

    (Release ID: 2118317) Visitor Counter : 33

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Meeting of 5-6 March 2025

    Source: European Central Bank

    Account of the monetary policy meeting of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank held in Frankfurt am Main on Wednesday and Thursday, 5-6 March 2025

    3 April 2025

    1. Review of financial, economic and monetary developments and policy options

    Financial market developments

    Ms Schnabel started her presentation by noting that, since the Governing Council’s previous monetary policy meeting on 29-30 January 2025, euro area and US markets had moved in opposite directions in a highly volatile political environment. In the euro area, markets had focused on the near-term macroeconomic backdrop, with incoming data in the euro area surprising on the upside. Lower energy prices responding in part to the prospect of a ceasefire in Ukraine, looser fiscal policy due to increased defence spending and a potential relaxation of Germany’s fiscal rules had supported investor sentiment. This contrasted with developments in the United States, where market participants’ assessment of the new US Administration’s policy decisions had turned more negative amid fears of tariffs driving prices up and dampening consumer and business sentiment.

    A puzzling feature of recent market developments had been the dichotomy between measures of policy uncertainty and financial market volatility. Global economic policy uncertainty had shot up in the final quarter of 2024 and had reached a new all-time high, surpassing the peak seen at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. By contrast, volatility in euro area and US equity markets had remained muted, despite having broadly traced dynamics in economic policy uncertainty over the past 15 years. Only more recently, with the prospect of tariffs becoming more concrete, had stock market volatility started to pick up from low levels.

    Risk sentiment in the euro area remained strong and close to all-time highs, outpacing the United States, which had declined significantly since the Governing Council’s January monetary policy meeting. This mirrored the divergence of macroeconomic developments. The Citigroup Economic Surprise Index for the euro area had turned positive in February 2025, reaching its highest level since April 2024. This was in contrast to developments in the United States, where economic surprises had been negative recently.

    The divergence in investor appetite was most evident in stock markets. The euro area stock market continued to outperform its US counterpart, posting the strongest year-to-date performance relative to the US index in almost a decade. Stock market developments were aligned with analysts’ earnings expectations, which had been raised for European firms since the start of 2025. Meanwhile, US earnings estimates had been revised down continuously for the past eleven weeks.

    Part of the recent outperformance of euro area equities stemmed from a catch-up in valuations given that euro area equities had performed less strongly than US stocks in 2024. Moreover, in spite of looming tariffs, the euro area equity market was benefiting from potential growth tailwinds, including a possible ceasefire in Ukraine, the greater prospect of a stable German government following the country’s parliamentary elections and the likelihood of increased defence spending in the euro area. The share prices of tariff-sensitive companies had been significantly underperforming their respective benchmarks in both currency areas, but tariff-sensitive stocks in the United States had fared substantially worse.

    Market pricing also indicated a growing divergence in inflation prospects between the euro area and the United States. In the euro area, the market’s view of a gradual disinflation towards the ECB’s 2% target remained intact. One-year forward inflation compensation one year ahead stood at around 2%, while the one-year forward inflation-linked swap rate one year ahead continued to stand somewhat below 2%. However, inflation compensation had moved up across maturities on 5 March 2025. In the United States, one-year forward inflation compensation one year ahead had increased significantly, likely driven in part by bond traders pricing in the inflationary effects of tariffs on US consumer prices. Indicators of the balance of risks for inflation suggested that financial market participants continued to see inflation risks in the euro area as broadly balanced across maturities.

    Changing growth and inflation prospects had also been reflected in monetary policy expectations for the euro area. On the back of slightly lower inflation compensation due to lower energy prices, expectations for ECB monetary policy had edged down. A 25 basis point cut was fully priced in for the current Governing Council monetary policy meeting, while markets saw a further rate cut at the following meeting as uncertain. Most recently, at the time of the meeting, rate investors no longer expected three more 25 basis point cuts in the deposit facility rate in 2025. Participants in the Survey of Monetary Analysts, finalised in the last week of February, had continued to expect a slightly faster easing cycle.

    Turning to euro area market interest rates, the rise in nominal ten-year overnight index swap (OIS) rates since the 11-12 December 2024 Governing Council meeting had largely been driven by improving euro area macroeconomic data, while the impact of US factors had been small overall. Looking back, euro area ten-year nominal and real OIS rates had overall been remarkably stable since their massive repricing in 2022, when the ECB had embarked on the hiking cycle. A key driver of persistently higher long-term rates had been the market’s reassessment of the real short-term rate that was expected to prevail in the future. The expected real one-year forward rate four years ahead had surged in 2022 as investors adjusted their expectations away from a “low-for-long” interest rate environment, suggesting that higher real rates were expected to be the new normal.

    The strong risk sentiment had also been transmitted to euro area sovereign bond spreads relative to yields on German government bonds, which remained at contained levels. Relative to OIS rates, however, the spreads had increased since the January monetary policy meeting – this upward move intensified on 5 March with the expectation of a substantial increase in defence spending. One factor behind the gradual widening of asset swap spreads over the past two years had been the increasing net supply of government bonds, which had been smoothly absorbed in the market.

    Regarding the exchange rate, after a temporary depreciation the euro had appreciated slightly against the US dollar, going above the level seen at the time of the January meeting. While the repricing of expectations regarding ECB monetary policy relative to the United States had weighed on the euro, as had global risk sentiment, the euro had been supported by the relatively stronger euro area economic outlook.

    Ms Schnabel then considered the implications of recent market developments for overall financial conditions. Since the Governing Council’s previous monetary policy meeting, a broad-based and pronounced easing in financial conditions had been observed. This was driven primarily by higher equity prices and, to a lesser extent, by lower interest rates. The decline in euro area real risk-free interest rates across the yield curve implied that the euro area real yield curve remained well within neutral territory.

    The global environment and economic and monetary developments in the euro area

    Mr Lane started his introduction by noting that, according to Eurostat’s flash release, headline inflation in the euro area had declined to 2.4% in February, from 2.5% in January. While energy inflation had fallen from 1.9% to 0.2% and services inflation had eased from 3.9% to 3.7%, food inflation had increased to 2.7%, from 2.3%, and non-energy industrial goods inflation had edged up from 0.5% to 0.6%.

    Most indicators of underlying inflation suggested that inflation would settle at around the 2% medium-term target on a sustained basis. The Persistent and Common Component of Inflation had ticked down to 2.1% in January. Domestic inflation, which closely tracked services inflation, had declined by 0.2 percentage points to 4.0%. But it remained high, as wages and some services prices were still adjusting to the past inflation surge with a substantial delay. Recent wage negotiations pointed to a continued moderation in labour cost pressures. For instance, negotiated wage growth had decreased to 4.1% in the fourth quarter of 2024. The wage tracker and an array of survey indicators also suggested a continued weakening of wage pressures in 2025.

    Inflation was expected to evolve along a slightly higher path in 2025 than had been expected in the Eurosystem staff’s December projections, owing to higher energy prices. At the same time, services inflation was expected to continue declining in early 2025 as the effects from lagged repricing faded, wage pressures receded and the impact of past monetary policy tightening continued to feed through. Most measures of longer-term inflation expectations still stood at around 2%. Near-term market-based inflation compensation had declined across maturities, likely reflecting the most recent decline in energy prices, but longer-term inflation compensation had recently increased in response to emerging fiscal developments. Consumer inflation expectations had resumed their downward momentum in January.

    According to the March ECB staff projections, headline inflation was expected to average 2.3% in 2025, 1.9% in 2026 and 2.0% in 2027. Compared with the December 2024 projections, inflation had been revised up by 0.2 percentage points for 2025, reflecting stronger energy price dynamics in the near term. At the same time, the projections were unchanged for 2026 and had been revised down by 0.1 percentage points for 2027. For core inflation, staff projected a slowdown from an average of 2.2% in 2025 to 2.0% in 2026 and to 1.9% in 2027 as labour cost pressures eased further, the impact of past shocks faded and the past monetary policy tightening continued to weigh on prices. The core inflation projection was 0.1 percentage points lower for 2025 compared with the December projections round, as recent data releases had surprised on the downside, but they had been revised up by the same amount for 2026, reflecting the lagged indirect effects of the past depreciation of the euro as well as higher energy inflation in 2025.

    Geopolitical uncertainties loomed over the global growth outlook. The Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) for global composite output excluding the euro area had declined in January to 52.0, amid a broad-based slowdown in the services sector across key economies. The discussions between the United States and Russia over a possible ceasefire in Ukraine, as well as the de-escalation in the Middle East, had likely contributed to the recent decline in oil and gas prices on global commodity markets. Nevertheless, geopolitical tensions remained a major source of uncertainty. Euro area foreign demand growth was projected to moderate, declining from 3.4% in 2024 to 3.2% in 2025 and then to 3.1% in 2026 and 2027. Downward revisions to the projections for global trade compared with the December 2024 projections reflected mostly the impact of tariffs on US imports from China.

    The euro had remained stable in nominal effective terms and had appreciated against the US dollar since the last monetary policy meeting. From the start of the easing cycle last summer, the euro had depreciated overall both against the US dollar and in nominal effective terms, albeit showing a lot of volatility in the high frequency data. Energy commodity prices had decreased following the January meeting, with oil prices down by 4.6% and gas prices down by 12%. However, energy markets had also seen a lot of volatility recently.

    Turning to activity in the euro area, GDP had grown modestly in the fourth quarter of 2024. Manufacturing was still a drag on growth, as industrial activity remained weak in the winter months and stood below its third-quarter level. At the same time, survey indicators for manufacturing had been improving and indicators for activity in the services sector were moderating, while remaining in expansionary territory. Although growth in domestic demand had slowed in the fourth quarter, it remained clearly positive. In contrast, exports had likely continued to contract in the fourth quarter. Survey data pointed to modest growth momentum in the first quarter of 2025. The composite output PMI had stood at 50.2 in February, unchanged from January and up from an average of 49.3 in the fourth quarter of 2024. The PMI for manufacturing output had risen to a nine-month high of 48.9, whereas the PMI for services business activity had been 50.6, remaining in expansionary territory but at its lowest level for a year. The more forward-looking composite PMI for new orders had edged down slightly in February owing to its services component. The European Commission’s Economic Sentiment Indicator had improved in January and February but remained well below its long-term average.

    The labour market remained robust. Employment had increased by 0.1 percentage points in the fourth quarter and the unemployment rate had stayed at its historical low of 6.2% in January. However, demand for labour had moderated, which was reflected in fewer job postings, fewer job-to-job transitions and declining quit intentions for wage or career reasons. Recent survey data suggested that employment growth had been subdued in the first two months of 2025.

    In terms of fiscal policy, a tightening of 0.9 percentage points of GDP had been achieved in 2024, mainly because of the reversal of inflation compensatory measures and subsidies. In the March projections a further slight tightening was foreseen for 2025, but this did not yet factor in the news received earlier in the week about the scaling-up of defence spending.

    Looking ahead, growth should be supported by higher incomes and lower borrowing costs. According to the staff projections, exports should also be boosted by rising global demand as long as trade tensions did not escalate further. But uncertainty had increased and was likely to weigh on investment and exports more than previously expected. Consequently, ECB staff had again revised down growth projections, by 0.2 percentage points to 0.9% for 2025 and by 0.2 percentage points to 1.2% for 2026, while keeping the projection for 2027 unchanged at 1.3%. Respondents to the Survey of Monetary Analysts expected growth of 0.8% in 2025, 0.2 percentage points lower than in January, but continued to expect growth of 1.1% in 2026 and 1.2% in 2027, unchanged from January.

    Market interest rates in the euro area had decreased after the January meeting but had risen over recent days in response to the latest fiscal developments. The past interest rate cuts, together with anticipated future cuts, were making new borrowing less expensive for firms and households, and loan growth was picking up. At the same time, a headwind to the easing of financing conditions was coming from past interest rate hikes still transmitting to the stock of credit, and lending remained subdued overall. The cost of new loans to firms had declined further by 12 basis points to 4.2% in January, about 1 percentage point below the October 2023 peak. By contrast, the cost of issuing market-based corporate debt had risen to 3.7%, 0.2 percentage points higher than in December. Mortgage rates were 14 basis points lower at 3.3% in January, around 80 basis points below their November 2023 peak. However, the average cost of bank credit measured on the outstanding stock of loans had declined substantially less than that of new loans to firms and only marginally for mortgages.

    Annual growth in bank lending to firms had risen to 2.0% in January, up from 1.7% in December. This had mainly reflected base effects, as the negative flow in January 2024 had dropped out of the annual calculation. Corporate debt issuance had increased in January in terms of the monthly flow, but the annual growth rate had remained broadly stable at 3.4%. Mortgage lending had continued its gradual rise, with an annual growth rate of 1.3% in January after 1.1% in December.

    Monetary policy considerations and policy options

    In summary, the disinflation process remained well on track. Inflation had continued to develop broadly as staff expected, and the latest projections closely aligned with the previous inflation outlook. Most measures of underlying inflation suggested that inflation would settle at around the 2% medium-term target on a sustained basis. Wage growth was moderating as expected. The recent interest rate cuts were making new borrowing less expensive and loan growth was picking up. At the same time, past interest rate hikes were still transmitting to the stock of credit and lending remained subdued overall. The economy faced continued headwinds, reflecting lower exports and ongoing weakness in investment, in part originating from high trade policy uncertainty as well as broader policy uncertainty. Rising real incomes and the gradually fading effects of past rate hikes continued to be the key drivers underpinning the expected pick-up in demand over time.

    Based on this assessment, Mr Lane proposed lowering the three key ECB interest rates by 25 basis points. In particular, the proposal to lower the deposit facility rate – the rate through which the Governing Council steered the monetary policy stance – was rooted in the updated assessment of the inflation outlook, the dynamics of underlying inflation and the strength of monetary policy transmission.

    Moving the deposit facility rate from 2.75% to 2.50% would be a robust decision. In particular, holding at 2.75% could weaken the required recovery in consumption and investment and thereby risk undershooting the inflation target in the medium term. Furthermore, the new projections indicated that, if the baseline dynamics for inflation and economic growth continued to hold, further easing would be required to stabilise inflation at the medium-term target on a sustainable basis. Under this baseline, from a macroeconomic perspective, a variety of rate paths over the coming meetings could deliver the remaining degree of easing. This reinforced the value of a meeting-by-meeting approach, with no pre-commitment to any particular rate path. In the near term, it would allow the Governing Council to take into account all the incoming data between the current meeting and the meeting on 16-17 April, together with the latest waves of the ECB’s surveys, including the bank lending survey, the Corporate Telephone Survey, the Survey of Professional Forecasters and the Consumer Expectations Survey.

    Moreover, the Governing Council should pay special attention to the unfolding geopolitical risks and emerging fiscal developments in view of their implications for activity and inflation. In particular, compared with the rate paths consistent with the baseline projection, the appropriate rate path at future meetings would also reflect the evolution and/or materialisation of the upside and downside risks to inflation and economic momentum.

    As the Governing Council had advanced further in the process of lowering rates from their peak, the communication about the state of transmission in the monetary policy statement should evolve. Mr Lane proposed replacing the “level” assessment that “monetary policy remains restrictive” with the more “directional” statement that “our monetary policy is becoming meaningfully less restrictive”. In a similar vein, the Governing Council should replace the reference “financing conditions continue to be tight” with an acknowledgement that “a headwind to the easing of financing conditions comes from past interest rate hikes still transmitting to the stock of credit, and lending remains subdued overall”.

    2. Governing Council’s discussion and monetary policy decisions

    Economic, monetary and financial analyses

    As regards the external environment, members took note of the assessment provided by Mr Lane. Global activity at the end of 2024 had been marginally stronger than expected (possibly supported by firms frontloading imports of foreign inputs ahead of potential trade disruptions) and according to the March 2025 ECB staff projections global growth was expected to remain fairly solid overall, while moderating slightly over 2025-27. This moderation came mainly from expected lower growth rates for the United States and China, which were partially compensated for by upward revisions to the outlook for other economies. Euro area foreign demand was seen to evolve broadly in line with global activity over the rest of the projection horizon. Compared with the December 2024 Eurosystem staff projections, foreign demand was projected to be slightly weaker over 2025-27. This weakness was seen to stem mainly from lower US imports. Recent data in the United States had come in on the soft side. It was highlighted that the March 2025 projections only incorporated tariffs implemented at the time of the cut-off date (namely US tariffs of 10% on imports from China and corresponding retaliatory tariffs on US exports to China). By contrast, US tariffs that had been suspended or not yet formally announced at the time of the cut-off date were treated as risks to the baseline projections.

    Elevated and exceptional uncertainty was highlighted as a key theme for both the external environment and the euro area economy. Current uncertainties were seen as multidimensional (political, geopolitical, tariff-related and fiscal) and as comprising “radical” or “Knightian” elements, in other words a type of uncertainty that could not be quantified or captured well by standard tools and quantitative analysis. In particular, the unpredictable patterns of trade protectionism in the United States were currently having an impact on the outlook for the global economy and might also represent a more lasting regime change. It was also highlighted that, aside from specific, already enacted tariff measures, uncertainty surrounding possible additional measures was creating significant extra headwinds in the global economy.

    The impact of US tariffs on trading partners was seen to be clearly negative for activity while being more ambiguous for inflation. For the latter, an upside effect in the short term, partly driven by the exchange rate, might be broadly counterbalanced by downside pressures on prices from lower demand, especially over the medium term. It was underlined that it was challenging to determine, ex ante, the impact of protectionist measures, as this would depend crucially on how the measures were deployed and was likely to be state and scale-dependent, in particular varying with the duration of the protectionist measures and the extent of any retaliatory measures. More generally, a tariff could be seen as a tax on production and consumption, which also involved a wealth transfer from the private to the public sector. In this context, it was underlined that tariffs were generating welfare losses for all parties concerned.

    With regard to economic activity in the euro area, members broadly agreed with the assessment presented by Mr Lane. The overall narrative remained that the economy continued to grow, but in a modest way. Based on Eurostat’s flash release for the euro area (of 14 February) and available country data, year-on-year growth in the fourth quarter of 2024 appeared broadly in line with what had been expected. However, the composition was somewhat different, with more private and government consumption, less investment and deeply negative net exports. It was mentioned that recent surveys had been encouraging, pointing to a turnaround in the interest rate-sensitive manufacturing sector, with the euro area manufacturing PMI reaching its highest level in 24 months. While developments in services continued to be better than those in manufacturing, survey evidence suggested that momentum in the services sector could be slowing, although manufacturing might become less negative – a pattern of rotation also seen in surveys of the global economy. Elevated uncertainty was undoubtedly a factor holding back firms’ investment spending. Exports were also weak, particularly for capital goods.The labour market remained resilient, however. The unemployment rate in January (6.2%) was at a historical low for the euro area economy, once again better than expected, although the positive momentum in terms of the rate of employment growth appeared to be moderating.

    While the euro area economy was still expected to grow in the first quarter of the year, it was noted that incoming data were mixed. Current and forward-looking indicators were becoming less negative for the manufacturing sector but less positive for the services sector. Consumer confidence had ticked up in the first two months of 2025, albeit from low levels, while households’ unemployment expectations had also improved slightly. Regarding investment, there had been some improvement in housing investment indicators, with the housing output PMI having improved measurably, thus indicating a bottoming-out in the housing market, and although business investment indicators remained negative, they were somewhat less so. Looking ahead, economic growth should continue and strengthen over time, although once again more slowly than previously expected. Real wage developments and more affordable credit should support household spending. The outlook for investment and exports remained the most uncertain because it was clouded by trade policy and geopolitical uncertainties.

    Broad agreement was expressed with the latest ECB staff macroeconomic projections. Economic growth was expected to continue, albeit at a modest pace and somewhat slower than previously expected. It was noted, however, that the downward revision to economic growth in 2025 was driven in part by carry-over effects from a weak fourth quarter in 2024 (according to Eurostat’s flash release). Some concern was raised that the latest downward revisions to the current projections had come after a sequence of downward revisions. Moreover, other institutions’ forecasts appeared to be notably more pessimistic. While these successive downward revisions to the staff projections had been modest on an individual basis, cumulatively they were considered substantial. At the same time, it was highlighted that negative judgement had been applied to the March projections, notably on investment and net exports among the demand components. By contrast, there had been no significant change in the expected outlook for private consumption, which, supported by real wage growth, accumulated savings and lower interest rates, was expected to remain the main element underpinning growth in economic activity.

    While there were some downward revisions to expectations for government consumption, investment and exports, the outlook for each of these components was considered to be subject to heightened uncertainty. Regarding government consumption, recent discussions in the fiscal domain could mean that the slowdown in growth rates of government spending in 2025 assumed in the projections might not materialise after all. These new developments could pose risks to the projections, as they would have an impact on economic growth, inflation and possibly also potential growth, countering the structural weakness observed so far. At the same time, it was noted that a significant rise in the ten-year yields was already being observed, whereas the extra stimulus from military spending would likely materialise only further down the line. Overall, members considered that the broad narrative of a modestly growing euro area economy remained valid. Developments in US trade policies and elevated uncertainty were weighing on businesses and consumers in the euro area, and hence on the outlook for activity.

    Private consumption had underpinned euro area growth at the end of 2024. The ongoing increase in real wages, as well as low unemployment, the stabilisation in consumer confidence and saving rates that were still above pre-pandemic levels, provided confidence that a consumption-led recovery was still on track. But some concern was expressed over the extent to which private consumption could further contribute to a pick-up in growth. In this respect, it was argued that moderating real wage growth, which was expected to be lower in 2025 than in 2024, and weak consumer confidence were not promising for a further increase in private consumption. Concerning the behaviour of household savings, it was noted that saving rates were clearly higher than during the pre-pandemic period, although they were projected to decline gradually over the forecast horizon. However, the current heightened uncertainty and the increase in fiscal deficits could imply that higher household savings might persist, partly reflecting “Ricardian” effects (i.e. consumers prone to increase savings in anticipation of higher future taxes needed to service the extra debt). At the same time, it was noted that the modest decline in the saving rate was only one factor supporting the outlook for private consumption.

    Regarding investment, a distinction was made between housing and business investment. For housing, a slow recovery was forecast during the course of 2025 and beyond. This was based on the premise of lower interest rates and less negative confidence indicators, although some lag in housing investment might be expected owing to planning and permits. The business investment outlook was considered more uncertain. While industrial confidence was low, there had been some improvement in the past couple of months. However, it was noted that confidence among firms producing investment goods was falling and capacity utilisation in the sector was low and declining. It was argued that it was not the level of interest rates that was currently holding back business investment, but a high level of uncertainty about economic policies. In this context, concern was expressed that ongoing uncertainty could result in businesses further delaying investment, which, if cumulated over time, would weigh on the medium-term growth potential.

    The outlook for exports and the direct and indirect impact of tariff measures were a major concern. It was noted that, as a large exporter, particularly of capital goods, the euro area might feel the biggest impact of such measures. Reference was made to scenario calculations that suggested that there would be a significant negative impact on economic growth, particularly in 2025, if the tariffs on Mexico, Canada and the euro area currently being threatened were actually implemented. Regarding the specific impact on euro area exports, it was noted that, to understand the potential impact on both activity and prices, a granular level of analysis would be required, as sectors differed in terms of competition and pricing power. Which specific goods were targeted would also matter. Furthermore, while imports from the United States (as a percentage of euro area GDP) had increased over the past decade, those from the rest of the world (China, the rest of Asia and other EU countries) were larger and had increased by more.

    Members overall assessed that the labour market continued to be resilient and was developing broadly in line with previous expectations. The euro area unemployment rate remained at historically low levels and well below estimates of the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment. The strength of the labour market was seen as attenuating the social cost of the relatively weak economy as well as supporting upside pressures on wages and prices. While there had been some slowdown in employment growth, this also had to be seen in the context of slowing labour force growth. Furthermore, the latest survey indicators suggested a broad stabilisation rather than any acceleration in the slowdown. Overall, the euro area labour market remained tight, with a negative unemployment gap.

    Against this background, members reiterated that fiscal and structural policies should make the economy more productive, competitive and resilient. It was noted that recent discussions at the national and EU levels raised the prospect of a major change in the fiscal stance, notably in the euro area’s largest economy but also across the European Union. In the baseline projections, which had been finalised before the recent discussions, a fiscal tightening over 2025-27 had been expected owing to a reversal of previous subsidies and termination of the Next Generation EU programme in 2027. Current proposals under discussion at the national and EU levels would represent a substantial change, particularly if additional measures beyond extra defence spending were required to achieve the necessary political buy-in. It was noted, however, that not all countries had sufficient fiscal space. Hence it was underlined that governments should ensure sustainable public finances in line with the EU’s economic governance framework and should prioritise essential growth-enhancing structural reforms and strategic investment. It was also reiterated that the European Commission’s Competitiveness Compass provided a concrete roadmap for action and its proposals should be swiftly adopted.

    In light of exceptional uncertainty around trade policies and the fiscal outlook, it was noted that one potential impact of elevated uncertainty was that the baseline scenario was becoming less likely to materialise and risk factors might suddenly enter the baseline. Moreover, elevated uncertainty could become a persistent fact of life. It was also considered that the current uncertainty was of a different nature to that normally considered in the projection exercises and regular policymaking. In particular, uncertainty was not so much about how certain variables behaved within the model (or specific model parameters) but whether fundamental building blocks of the models themselves might have to be reconsidered (also given that new phenomena might fall entirely outside the realm of historical data or precedent). This was seen as a call for new approaches to capture uncertainty.

    Against this background, members assessed that even though some previous downside risks had already materialised, the risks to economic growth had increased and remained tilted to the downside. An escalation in trade tensions would lower euro area growth by dampening exports and weakening the global economy. Ongoing uncertainty about global trade policies could drag investment down. Geopolitical tensions, such as Russia’s unjustified war against Ukraine and the tragic conflict in the Middle East, remained a major source of uncertainty. Growth could be lower if the lagged effects of monetary policy tightening lasted longer than expected. At the same time, growth could be higher if easier financing conditions and falling inflation allowed domestic consumption and investment to rebound faster. An increase in defence and infrastructure spending could also add to growth. For the near-term outlook, the ECB’s mechanical updates of growth expectations in the first half of 2025 suggested some downside risk. Beyond the near term, it was noted that the baseline projections only included tariffs (and retaliatory measures) already implemented but not those announced or threatened but not yet implemented. The materialisation of additional tariff measures would weigh on euro area exports and investment as well as add to the competitiveness challenges facing euro area businesses. At the same time, the potential fiscal impulse had not been included either.

    With regard to price developments, members largely agreed that the disinflation process was on track, with inflation continuing to develop broadly as staff had expected. Domestic inflation, which closely tracked services inflation, had declined in January but remained high, as wages and some services prices were still adjusting to the past inflation surge with a delay. However, recent wage negotiations pointed to an ongoing moderation in labour cost pressures, with a lower contribution from profits partially buffering their impact on inflation and most indicators of underlying inflation pointing to a sustained return of inflation to target. Preliminary indicators for labour cost growth in the fourth quarter of 2024 suggested a further moderation, which gave some greater confidence that moderating wage growth would support the projected disinflation process.

    It was stressed that the annual growth of compensation per employee, which, based on available euro area data, had stood at 4.4% in the third quarter of 2024, should be seen as the most important and most comprehensive measure of wage developments. According to the projections, it was expected to decline substantially by the end of 2025, while available hard data on wage growth were still generally coming in above 4%, and indications from the ECB wage tracker were based only on a limited number of wage agreements for the latter part of 2025. The outlook for wages was seen as a key element for the disinflation path foreseen in the projections, and the sustainable return of inflation to target was still subject to considerable uncertainty. In this context, some concern was expressed that relatively tight labour markets might slow the rate of moderation and that weak labour productivity growth might push up the rate of increase in unit labour costs.

    With respect to the incoming data, members reiterated that hard data for the first quarter would be crucial for ascertaining further progress with disinflation, as foreseen in the staff projections. The differing developments among the main components of the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (HICP) were noted. Energy prices had increased but were volatile, and some of the increases had already been reversed most recently. Notwithstanding the increases in the annual rate of change in food prices, momentum in this salient component was down. Developments in the non-energy industrial goods component remained modest. Developments in services were the main focus of discussions. While some concerns were expressed that momentum in services appeared to have remained relatively elevated or had even edged up (when looking at three-month annualised growth rates), it was also argued that the overall tendency was clearly down. It was stressed that detailed hard data on services inflation over the coming months would be key and would reveal to what extent the projected substantial disinflation in services in the first half of 2025 was on track.

    Regarding the March inflation projections, members commended the improved forecasting performance in recent projection rounds. It was underlined that the 0.2 percentage point upward revision to headline inflation for 2025 primarily reflected stronger energy price dynamics compared with the December projections. Some concern was expressed that inflation was now only projected to reach 2% on a sustained basis in early 2026, rather than in the course of 2025 as expected previously. It was also noted that, although the baseline scenario had been broadly materialising, uncertainties had been increasing substantially in several respects. Furthermore, recent data releases had seen upside surprises in headline inflation. However, it was remarked that the latest upside revision to the headline inflation projections had been driven mainly by the volatile prices of crude oil and natural gas, with the decline in those prices since the cut-off date for the projections being large enough to undo much of the upward revision. In addition, it was underlined that the projections for HICP inflation excluding food and energy were largely unchanged, with staff projecting an average of 2.2% for 2025 and 2.0% for 2026. The argument was made that the recent revisions showed once again that it was misleading to mechanically relate lower growth to lower inflation, given the prevalence of supply-side shocks.

    With respect to inflation expectations, reference was made to the latest market-based inflation fixings, which were typically highly sensitive to the most recent energy commodity price developments. Beyond the short term, inflation fixings were lower than the staff projections. Attention was drawn to a sharp increase in the five-year forward inflation expectations five years ahead following the latest expansionary fiscal policy announcements. However, it was argued that this measure remained consistent with genuine expectations broadly anchored around 2% if estimated risk premia were taken into account, and there had been a less substantial adjustment in nearer-term inflation compensation. Looking at other sources of evidence on expectations, collected before the fiscal announcements (as was the case for all survey evidence), panellists in the Survey of Monetary Analysts saw inflation close to 2%. Consumer inflation expectations from the ECB Consumer Expectations Survey were generally at higher levels, but they showed a small downtick for one-year ahead expectations. It was also highlighted that firms mentioned inflation in their earnings calls much less frequently, suggesting inflation was becoming less salient.

    Against this background, members saw a number of uncertainties surrounding the inflation outlook. Increasing friction in global trade was adding more uncertainty to the outlook for euro area inflation. A general escalation in trade tensions could see the euro depreciate and import costs rise, which would put upward pressure on inflation. At the same time, lower demand for euro area exports as a result of higher tariffs and a re-routing of exports into the euro area from countries with overcapacity would put downward pressure on inflation. Geopolitical tensions created two-sided inflation risks as regards energy markets, consumer confidence and business investment. Extreme weather events, and the unfolding climate crisis more broadly, could drive up food prices by more than expected. Inflation could turn out higher if wages or profits increased by more than expected. A boost in defence and infrastructure spending could also raise inflation through its effect on aggregate demand. But inflation might surprise on the downside if monetary policy dampened demand by more than expected. The view was expressed that the prospect of significantly higher fiscal spending, together with a potentially significant increase in inflation in the event of a tariff scenario with retaliation, deserved particular consideration in future risk assessments. Moreover, the risks might be exacerbated by potential second-round effects and upside wage pressures in an environment where inflation had not yet returned to target and the labour market remained tight. In particular, it was argued that the boost to domestic demand from fiscal spending would make it easier for firms to pass through higher costs to consumers rather than absorb them in their profits, at a time when inflation expectations were more fragile and firms had learned to rapidly adapt the frequency of repricing in an environment of high uncertainty. It was argued that growth concerns were mainly structural in nature and that monetary policy was ineffective in resolving structural weaknesses.

    Turning to the monetary and financial analysis, market interest rates in the euro area had decreased after the Governing Council’s January meeting, before surging in the days immediately preceding the March meeting. Long-term bond yields had risen significantly: for example, the yield on ten-year German government bonds had increased by about 30 basis points in a day – the highest one-day jump since the surge linked to German reunification in March 1990. These moves probably reflected a mix of expectations of higher average policy rates in the future and a rise in the term premium, and represented a tightening of financing conditions. The revised outlook for fiscal policy – associated in particular with the need to increase defence spending – and the resulting increase in aggregate demand were the main drivers of these developments and had also led to an appreciation of the euro.

    Looking back over a longer period, it was noted that broader financial conditions had already been easing substantially since late 2023 because of factors including monetary policy easing, the stock market rally and the recent depreciation of the euro until the past few days. In this respect, it was mentioned that, abstracting from the very latest developments, after the strong increase in long-term rates in 2022, yields had been more or less flat, albeit with some volatility. However, it was contended that the favourable impact on debt financing conditions of the decline in short-term rates had been partly offset by the recent significant increase in long-term rates. Moreover, debt financing conditions remained relatively tight compared with longer-term historical averages over the past ten to 15 years, which covered the low-interest period following the financial crisis. Wider financial markets appeared to have become more optimistic about Europe and less optimistic about the United States since the January meeting, although some doubt was raised as to whether that divergence was set to last.

    The ECB’s interest rate cuts were gradually contributing to an easing of financing conditions by making new borrowing less expensive for firms and households. The average interest rate on new loans to firms had declined to 4.2% in January, from 4.4% in December. Over the same period the average interest rate on new mortgages had fallen to 3.3%, from 3.4%. At the same time, lending rates were proving slower to turn around in real terms, so there continued to be a headwind to the easing of financing conditions from past interest rate hikes still transmitting to the stock of credit. This meant that lending rates on the outstanding stock of loans had only declined marginally, especially for mortgages. The recent substantial increase in long-term yields could also have implications for lending conditions by affecting bank funding conditions and influencing the cost of loans linked to long-term yields. However, it was noted that it was no surprise that financing conditions for households and firms still appeared tight when compared with the period of negative interest rates, because longer-term fixed rate loans taken out during the low-interest rate period were being refinanced at higher interest rates. Financing conditions were in any case unlikely to return to where they had been prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and the inflation surge. Furthermore, the most recent bank lending survey pointed to neutral or even stimulative effects of the general level of interest rates on bank lending to firms and households. Overall, it was observed that financing conditions were at present broadly as expected in a cycle in which interest rates would have been cut by 150 basis points according to the proposal, having previously been increased by 450 basis points.

    As for lending volumes, loan growth was picking up, but lending remained subdued overall. Growth in bank lending to firms had risen to 2.0% in January, up from 1.7% in December, on the back of a moderate monthly flow of new loans. Growth in debt securities issued by firms had risen to 3.4% in annual terms. Mortgage lending had continued to rise gradually but remained muted overall, with an annual growth rate of 1.3%, up from 1.1% in December.

    Underlying momentum in bank lending remained strong, with the three-month and six-month annualised growth rates standing above the annual growth rate. At the same time, it was contended that the recent uptick in bank lending to firms mainly reflected a substitution from market-based financing in response to the higher cost of debt security financing, so that the overall increase in corporate borrowing had been limited. Furthermore, lending was increasing from quite low levels, and the stock of bank loans to firms relative to GDP remained lower than 25 years ago. Nonetheless, the growth of credit to firms was now roughly back to pre-pandemic levels and more than three times the average during the 2010s, while mortgage credit growth was only slightly below the average in that period. On the household side, it was noted that the demand for housing loans was very strong according to the bank lending survey, with the average increase in demand in the last two quarters of 2024 being the highest reported since the start of the survey. This seemed to be a natural consequence of lower interest rates and suggested that mortgage lending would keep rising. However, consumer credit had not really improved over the past year.

    Strong bank balance sheets had been contributing to the recovery in credit, although it was observed that non-performing and “stage 2” loans – those loans associated with a significant increase in credit risk – were increasing. The credit dynamics that had been picking up also suggested that the decline in excess liquidity held by banks as reserves with the Eurosystem was not adversely affecting banks’ lending behaviour. This was to be expected since banks’ liquidity coverage ratios were high, and it was underlined that banks could in any case post a wide range of collateral to obtain liquidity from the ECB at any time.

    Monetary policy stance and policy considerations

    Turning to the monetary policy stance, members assessed the data that had become available since the last monetary policy meeting in accordance with the three main elements that the Governing Council had communicated in 2023 as shaping its reaction function. These comprised (i) the implications of the incoming economic and financial data for the inflation outlook, (ii) the dynamics of underlying inflation, and (iii) the strength of monetary policy transmission.

    Starting with the inflation outlook, members noted that inflation had continued to develop broadly as expected, with incoming data largely in line with the previous projections. Indeed, the central scenario had broadly materialised for several successive quarters, with relatively limited changes in the inflation projections. This was again the case in the March projections, which were closely aligned with the previous inflation outlook. Inflation expectations had remained well anchored despite the very high uncertainty, with most measures of longer-term inflation expectations continuing to stand at around 2%. This suggested that inflation remained on course to stabilise at the 2% inflation target in the medium term. Still, this continued to depend on the materialisation of the projected material decline in wage growth over the course of 2025 and on a swift and significant deceleration in services inflation in the coming months. And, while services inflation had declined in February, its momentum had yet to show conclusive signs of a stable downward trend.

    It was widely felt that the most important recent development was the significant increase in uncertainty surrounding the outlook for inflation, which could unfold in either direction. There were many unknowns, notably related to tariff developments and global geopolitical developments, and to the outlook for fiscal policies linked to increased defence and other spending. The latter had been reflected in the sharp moves in long-term yields and the euro exchange rate in the days preceding the meeting, while energy prices had rebounded. This meant that, while the baseline staff projection was still a reasonable anchor, a lower probability should be attached to that central scenario than in normal times. In this context, it was argued that such uncertainty was much more fundamental and important than the small revisions that had been embedded in the staff inflation projections. The slightly higher near-term profile for headline inflation in the staff projections was primarily due to volatile components such as energy prices and the exchange rate. Since the cut-off date for the projections, energy prices had partially reversed their earlier increases. With the economy now in the flat part of the disinflation process, small adjustments in the inflation path could lead to significant shifts in the precise timing of when the target would be reached. Overall, disinflation was seen to remain well on track. Inflation had continued to develop broadly as staff had expected and the latest projections closedly aligned with the previous inflation outlook. At the same time, it was widely acknowledged that risks and uncertainty had clearly increased.

    Turning to underlying inflation, members concurred that most measures of underlying inflation suggested that inflation would settle at around the 2% medium-term target on a sustained basis. Core inflation was coming down and was projected to decline further as a result of a further easing in labour cost pressures and the continued downward pressure on prices from the past monetary policy tightening. Domestic inflation, which closely tracked services inflation, had declined in January but remained high, as wages and prices of certain services were still adjusting to the past inflation surge with a substantial delay. However, while the continuing strength of the labour market and the potentially large fiscal expansion could both add to future wage pressures, there were many signs that wage growth was moderating as expected, with lower profits partially buffering the impact on inflation.

    Regarding the transmission of monetary policy, recent credit dynamics showed that monetary policy transmission was working, with both the past tightening and recent interest rate cuts feeding through smoothly to market interest rates, financing conditions, including bank lending rates, and credit flows. Gradual and cautious rate cuts had contributed substantially to the progress made towards a sustainable return of inflation to target and ensured that inflation expectations remained anchored at 2%, while securing a soft landing of the economy. The ECB’s monetary policy had supported increased lending. Looking ahead, lags in policy transmission suggested that, overall, credit growth would probably continue to increase.

    The impact of financial conditions on the economy was discussed. In particular, it was argued that the level of interest rates and possible financing constraints – stemming from the availability of both internal and external funds – might be weighing on corporate investment. At the same time, it was argued that structural factors contributed to the weakness of investment, including high energy and labour costs, the regulatory environment and increased import competition, and high uncertainty, including on economic policy and the outlook for demand. These were seen as more important factors than the level of interest rates in explaining the weakness in investment. Consumption also remained weak and the household saving rate remained high, though this could also be linked to elevated uncertainty rather than to interest rates.

    On this basis, the view was expressed that it was no longer clear whether monetary policy continued to be restrictive. With the last rate hike having been 18 months previously, and the first cut nine months previously, it was suggested that the balance was increasingly shifting towards the transmission of rate cuts. In addition, although quantitative tightening was operating gradually and smoothly in the background, the stock of asset holdings was still compressing term premia and long-term rates, while the diminishing compression over time implied a tightening.

    Monetary policy decisions and communication

    Against this background, almost all members supported the proposal by Mr Lane to lower the three key ECB interest rates by 25 basis points. Lowering the deposit facility rate – the rate through which the Governing Council steered the monetary policy stance – was justified by the updated assessment of the inflation outlook, the dynamics of underlying inflation and the strength of monetary policy transmission.

    Looking ahead, the point was made that the likely shocks on the horizon, including from escalating trade tensions, and uncertainty more generally, risked significantly weighing on growth. It was argued that these factors could increase the risk of undershooting the inflation target in the medium term. In addition, it was argued that the recent appreciation of the euro and the decline in energy prices since the cut-off date for the staff projections, together with the cooling labour market and well-anchored inflation expectations, mitigated concerns about the upward revision to the near-term inflation profile and upside risks to inflation more generally. From this perspective, it was argued that being prudent in the face of uncertainty did not necessarily equate to being gradual in adjusting the interest rate.

    By contrast, it was contended that high levels of uncertainty, including in relation to trade policies, fiscal policy developments and sticky services and domestic inflation, called for caution in policy-setting and especially in communication. Inflation was no longer foreseen to return to the 2% target in 2025 in the latest staff projections and the date had now been pushed out to the first quarter of 2026. Moreover, the latest revision to the projected path meant that inflation would by that time have remained above target for almost five years. This concern would be amplified should upside risks to inflation materialise and give rise to possible second-round effects. For example, a significant expansion of fiscal policy linked to defence and other spending would increase price pressures. This had the potential to derail the disinflation process and keep inflation higher for longer. Indeed, investors had immediately reacted to the announcements in the days preceding the meeting. This was reflected in an upward adjustment of the market interest rate curve, dialling back the number of expected rate cuts, and a sharp increase in five-year forward inflation expectations five years ahead. The combination of US tariffs and retaliation measures could also pose upside risks to inflation, especially in the near term. Moreover, firms had also learned to raise their prices more quickly in response to new inflationary shocks.

    Against this background, a few members stressed that they could only support the proposal to reduce interest rates by a further 25 basis points if there was also a change in communication that avoided any indication of future cuts or of the future direction of travel, which was seen as akin to providing forward guidance. One member abstained, as the proposed communication did not drop any reference to the current monetary policy stance being restrictive.

    In this context, members discussed in more detail the extent to which monetary policy could still be described as restrictive following the proposed interest rate cut. While it was clear that, with each successive rate cut, monetary policy was becoming less restrictive and closer to most estimates of the natural or neutral rate of interest, different views were expressed in this regard.

    On the one hand, it was argued that it was no longer possible to be confident that monetary policy was restrictive. It was noted that, following the proposed further cut of 25 basis points, the level of the deposit facility rate would be roughly equal to the current level of inflation. Even after the increase in recent days, long-term yields remained very modest in real terms. Credit and equity risk premia continued to be fairly contained and the euro was not overvalued despite the recent appreciation. There were also many indications in lending markets that the degree of policy restriction had declined appreciably. Credit was responding to monetary policy broadly as expected, with the tightening effect of past rate hikes now gradually giving way to the easing effects of the subsequent rate cuts, which had been transmitting smoothly to market and bank lending rates. This shifting balance was likely to imply a continued move towards easier credit conditions and a further recovery in credit flows. In addition, subdued growth could not be taken as evidence that policy was restrictive, given that the current weakness was seen by firms as largely structural.

    In this vein, it was also noted that a deposit facility rate of 2.50% was within, or at least at around the upper bound of, the range of Eurosystem staff estimates for the natural or neutral interest rate, with reference to the recently published Economic Bulletin box, entitled “Natural rate estimates for the euro area: insights, uncertainties and shortcomings”. Using the full array of models and ignoring estimation uncertainty, this currently ranged from 1.75% to 2.75%. Notwithstanding important caveats and the uncertainties surrounding the estimates, it was contended that they still provided a guidepost for the degree of monetary policy restrictiveness. Moreover, while recognising the high model uncertainty, it was argued that both model-based and market-based measures suggested that one main driver of the notable increase in the neutral interest rate over the past three years had been the increased net supply of government bonds. In this context, it was suggested that the impending expansionary fiscal policy linked to defence and other spending – and the likely associated increase in the excess supply of bonds – would affect real interest rates and probably lead to a persistent and significant increase in the neutral interest rate. This implied that, for a given policy rate, monetary policy would be less restrictive.

    On the other hand, it was argued that monetary policy would still be in restrictive territory even after the proposed interest rate cut. Inflation was on a clear trajectory to return to the 2% medium-term target while the euro area growth outlook was very weak. Consumption and investment remained weak despite high employment and past wage increases, consumer confidence continued to be low and the household saving ratio remained at high levels. This suggested an economy in stagnation – a sign that monetary policy was still in restrictive territory. Expansionary fiscal policy also had the potential to increase asset swap spreads between sovereign bond and OIS markets. With a greater sovereign bond supply, that intermediation spread would probably widen, which would contribute to tighter financing conditions. In addition, it was underlined that the latest staff projections were conditional on a market curve that implied about three further rate cuts, indicating that a 2.50% deposit facility rate was above the level necessary to sustainably achieve the 2% target in the medium term. It was stressed, in this context, that the staff projections did not hinge on assumptions about the neutral interest rate.

    More generally, it was argued that, while the natural or neutral rate could be a useful concept when policy rates were very far away from it and there was a need to communicate the direction of travel, it was of little value for steering policy on a meeting-by-meeting basis. This was partly because its level was fundamentally unobservable, and so it was subject to significant model and parameter uncertainty, a wide range between minimum and maximum estimates, and changing estimates over time. The range of estimates around the midpoint and the uncertainty bands around each estimate underscored why it was important to avoid excessive focus on any particular value. Rather, it was better to simply consider what policy setting was appropriate at any given point in time to meet the medium-term inflation target in light of all factors and shocks affecting the economy, including structural elements. To the extent that consideration should be given to the natural or neutral interest rate, it was noted that the narrower range of the most reliable staff estimates, between 1.75% and 2.25%, indicated that monetary policy was still restrictive at a deposit facility rate of 2.50%. Overall, while there had been a measurable increase in the natural interest rate since the pandemic, it was argued that it was unlikely to have reached levels around 2.5%.

    Against this background, the proposal by Mr Lane to change the wording of the monetary policy statement by replacing “monetary policy remains restrictive” with “monetary policy is becoming meaningfully less restrictive” was widely seen as a reasonable compromise. On the one hand, it was acknowledged that, after a sustained sequence of rate reductions, the policy rate was undoubtedly less restrictive than at earlier stages in the current easing phase, but it had entered a range in which it was harder to determine the precise level of restrictiveness. In this regard, “meaningfully” was seen as an important qualifier, as monetary policy had already become less restrictive with the first rate cut in June 2024. On the other hand, while interest rates had already been cut substantially, the formulation did not rule out further cuts, even if the scale and timing of such cuts were difficult to determine ex ante.

    On the whole, it was considered important that the amended language should not be interpreted as sending a signal in either direction for the April meeting, with both a cut and a pause on the table, depending on incoming data. The proposed change in the communication was also seen as a natural progression from the previous change, implemented in December. This had removed the intention to remain “sufficiently restrictive for as long as necessary” and shifted to determining the appropriate monetary policy stance, on a meeting-by-meeting basis, depending on incoming data. From this perspective there was no need to identify the neutral interest rate, particularly given that future policy might need to be above, at or below neutral, depending on the inflation and growth outlook.

    Looking ahead, members reiterated that the Governing Council remained determined to ensure that inflation would stabilise sustainably at its 2% medium-term target. Its interest rate decisions would continue to be based on its assessment of the inflation outlook in light of the incoming economic and financial data, the dynamics of underlying inflation and the strength of monetary policy transmission. Uncertainty was particularly high and rising owing to increasing friction in global trade, geopolitical developments and the design of fiscal policies to support increased defence and other spending. This underscored the importance of following a data-dependent and meeting-by-meeting approach to determining the appropriate monetary policy stance.

    Taking into account the foregoing discussion among the members, upon a proposal by the President, the Governing Council took the monetary policy decisions as set out in the monetary policy press release. The members of the Governing Council subsequently finalised the monetary policy statement, which the President and the Vice-President would, as usual, deliver at the press conference following the Governing Council meeting.

    Monetary policy statement

    Members

    • Ms Lagarde, President
    • Mr de Guindos, Vice-President
    • Mr Cipollone
    • Mr Demarco, temporarily replacing Mr Scicluna*
    • Mr Dolenc, Deputy Governor of Banka Slovenije
    • Mr Elderson
    • Mr Escrivá
    • Mr Holzmann
    • Mr Kazāks*
    • Mr Kažimír
    • Mr Knot
    • Mr Lane
    • Mr Makhlouf
    • Mr Müller
    • Mr Nagel
    • Mr Panetta*
    • Mr Patsalides
    • Mr Rehn
    • Mr Reinesch*
    • Ms Schnabel
    • Mr Šimkus*
    • Mr Stournaras
    • Mr Villeroy de Galhau
    • Mr Vujčić
    • Mr Wunsch

    * Members not holding a voting right in March 2025 under Article 10.2 of the ESCB Statute.

    Other attendees

    • Mr Dombrovskis, Commissioner**
    • Ms Senkovic, Secretary, Director General Secretariat
    • Mr Rostagno, Secretary for monetary policy, Director General Monetary Policy
    • Mr Winkler, Deputy Secretary for monetary policy, Senior Adviser, DG Monetary Policy

    ** In accordance with Article 284 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

    Accompanying persons

    • Mr Arpa
    • Ms Bénassy-Quéré
    • Mr Debrun
    • Mr Gavilán
    • Mr Horváth
    • Mr Kyriacou
    • Mr Lünnemann
    • Mr Madouros
    • Ms Mauderer
    • Mr Nicoletti Altimari
    • Mr Novo
    • Ms Reedik
    • Mr Rutkaste
    • Ms Schembri
    • Mr Šiaudinis
    • Mr Sleijpen
    • Mr Šošić
    • Mr Tavlas
    • Mr Välimäki
    • Ms Žumer Šujica

    Other ECB staff

    • Mr Proissl, Director General Communications
    • Mr Straub, Counsellor to the President
    • Ms Rahmouni-Rousseau, Director General Market Operations
    • Mr Arce, Director General Economics
    • Mr Sousa, Deputy Director General Economics

    Release of the next monetary policy account foreseen on 22 May 2025.

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Kamlager-Dove Holds First Hearing as Top Democrat on House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on South and Central Asia, Calls out Republican Hypocrisy on Free Speech

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Sydney Kamlager California (37th District)

    WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove, Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on South and Central Asia, delivered opening remarks at the inaugural Subcommittee on South and Central Asia hearing, which ignored pressing bipartisan national security issues to instead repeat Republicans’ false claims of right-wing censorship.

    Watch the full video here.

     

    Below are Ranking Member Kamlager-Dove’s remarks, as prepared for delivery, at today’s subcommittee hearing:

    Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for being here for our first South and Central Asia Subcommittee hearing. I look forward to working with the Chair in a bipartisan way on the critical issues we are charged with overseeing.

    Unfortunately, we’re not having a hearing about any of those. Instead, this Subcommittee is wasting taxpayer time and resources on the fifth such hearing Republicans have held across multiple committees on the so-called “censorship-industrial complex.”

    The majority is relitigating a made-up conspiracy theory about a part of the State Department that no longer exists to distract from the dumpster fire foreign policy this Administration is pursuing—and elevating a serial sexual harasser as their star witness in the process.

    Mr. Chair, I request unanimous consent to enter into the record two articles about the Republican witness Matt Taibbi: A Chicago Reader article titled, “Twenty years ago, in Moscow, Matt Taibbi was a misogynist a–hole—and possibly worse,” and a Washington Post article titled, “The two expat bros who terrorized women correspondents in Moscow.”

    This hearing could not be more out of touch with the concerns of everyday Americans.

    People’s retirement savings are being decimated as Trump’s arbitrary tariffs tank the stock market.

    They are staring down the barrel of cuts to their Social Security and Medicare because the Republican majority wants to give a tax break to billionaires like Elon Musk who have deep financial ties to our adversaries.

    Meanwhile, Trump is siding with Putin against American national security interests and risking the lives of American troops in a Signal group chat.

    I’ve been to the State Department, and I do have concerns about censorship—censorship of the employees who are terrified to say the wrong thing or have the wrong word in their job title and be terminated by an Administration that publicly relishes punishing people for their speech.

    If we want to talk about censorship, we should begin with Trump’s unprecedented assault on the First Amendment and rule of law.

    Here a few examples that should send shivers down all our spines:

    Trump banned the Associated Press from the Oval Office and Air Force One because they kept using the name “Gulf of Mexico”, something that none of us would have hesitated to do until a few months ago.

    Trump signed executive orders targeting law firms for representing clients that opposed or investigated him—upending the fundamental principle that lawyers should not fear to represent their clients.

    And most terrifying, Trump ordered ICE agents to arrest and detain Mahmoud Khalil, a green card holder, and snatch off the street a Tufts University student and visa holder, Rumeysa Ozturk, for protesting and writing an op-ed—for exercising their right to free speech.

    As you can see, Trump is brazenly weaponizing the government to intimidate and silence any part of American society that disagrees with him.

    Countering disinformation from hostile foreign powers should not be a partisan issue. Yet this Administration has crippled our capacity to respond to these threats while aiding, abetting—even amplifying—our adversaries’ influence operations.

    The PRC has invested billions in pumping out propaganda, weaponizing the world’s largest known online disinformation operation to silence critics, discredit lawmakers, and harass U.S. companies who are at odds with China’s interests.

    Russia maintains a sophisticated and sprawling disinformation apparatus to manipulate American public sentiment to Putin’s advantage–even paying conservative influencers to create and amplify pro-Kremlin content.

    How has Trump confronted these threats?

    He shut down independent media broadcasters like USAGM and Radio Free Asia, a move that was actually celebrated in Chinese state media.

    He dismantled the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force, which his own Administration first created in 2017 to uncover foreign disinformation and propaganda targeting Americans.

    He even appointed a white nationalist named Darren Beattie, who has parroted Kremlin and CCP talking points and denied the PRC’s ongoing Uyghur genocide, to the State Department’s top public diplomacy job.

    Mr. Chair, I request unanimous consent to enter into the record my letter urging Secretary Rubio to fire Darren Beattie for his dangerous anti-American, pro-CCP, white nationalist ideology.

    Countering foreign propaganda has become politicized not because of censorship concerns, but because of conspiracy theories, in some cases spread by the majority witnesses at this very hearing. And now the most egregious disinformation spreader is sitting in the White House.

    We should be exploring real bipartisan solutions to this pressing national security issue on behalf of the American people, not perpetuating culture war divisions.

    Thank you Mr. Chair and I yield back.

    # # #

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Sens. Johnson, Blumenthal, Hawley Open Investigation into Meta for Alleged Collaboration with CCP

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Wisconsin Ron Johnson
    WASHINGTON – Yesterday, U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Ranking Member Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), and U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) announced an investigation into Meta Platforms, Inc. (Meta) for its alleged work to censor and provide artificial intelligence (AI) tools, including surveillance software, for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). In a letter sent yesterday to Meta Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg, the senators demanded all records and communications pertaining to Meta’s operations within China, including the potential use of AI models developed by or in collaboration with the CCP. 
    Citing internal documents received by the subcommittee, “Facebook’s plan reportedly included more engagement with the CCP, and later included plans to partner with a Chinese company to build censorship tools and provide the CCP with user data. Further, Facebook’s censorship efforts on behalf of the CCP allegedly extended to dissidents outside of China, including in the United States,” the senators wrote.
    The full text of the letter can be found here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA News: Support Grows for President Trump’s America First Reciprocal Trade Plan

    Source: The White House

    One day after President Donald J. Trump announced a new chapter in American prosperity, support continues to roll in for his bold vision to reverse the decades of globalization that has decimated our industrial base.

    The support is bipartisan, with Democrat Rep. Jared Golden lauding President Trump’s plan: “I’m pleased the president is building his tariff agenda on the foundation of a universal 10 percent tariff like the one I proposed in the BUILT USA Act. This ring fence around the American economy is a good start to erasing our unsustainable trade deficits. I’m eager to work with the president to fix the broken ‘free trade’ system that made multinational corporations rich but ruined manufacturing communities across the country.”

    Here’s what else they’re saying:

    Coalition for a Prosperous America Chairman Zach Mottl: “A permanent, universal baseline tariff resets the global trade environment and finally addresses the destructive legacy of decades of misguided free-trade policies. President Trump’s decision to implement a baseline tariff is a game-changing shift that prioritizes American manufacturing, protects working-class jobs, and safeguards our economic security from adversaries like China. This is exactly the type of bold action America needs to restore its industrial leadership. Today’s action will deliver lasting benefits to the U.S. economy and working-class Americans, cementing President Trump’s legacy as one that ushered in a new Golden Age of American industrialization and prosperity.”

    National Cattlemen’s Beef Association SVP of Government Affairs Ethan Lane: “For too long, America’s family farmers and ranchers have been mistreated by certain trading partners around the world. President Trump is taking action to address numerous trade barriers that prevent consumers overseas from enjoying high-quality, wholesome American beef. NCBA will continue engaging with the White House to ensure fair treatment for America’s cattle producers around the world and optimize opportunities for exports abroad.”

    Steel Manufacturers Association President Philip K. Bell: “President Trump is a champion of the domestic steel industry, and his America First Trade Policy is designed to fight the unfair trade that has harmed American workers and weakened manufacturing in the United States. The recently reinvigorated 232 steel tariffs have already started creating American jobs and bolstering the domestic steel industry. President Trump is working to turn America into a manufacturing powerhouse and the steel tariffs are driving that movement. President Trump’s initial 232 steel tariffs and the historic tax cuts led to investments of nearly $20 billion by steel manufacturers in the United States. Since the revised tariffs took effect, Hyundai Steel announced a $5.8 billion steel mill in Louisiana, demonstrating that the tariffs are working to bring more steel investments and production to the United States. The domestic steel market is stronger when other nations are forced to compete on a level playing field. On a level playing field, American workers can outcompete anyone. We look forward to continuing working with President Trump and his administration to ensure a level playing field for Americans and a robust domestic steel industry that strengthens our national, economic and energy security.”

    Alliance for American Manufacturing President Scott Paul: “Today’s trade action prioritizes domestic manufacturers and America’s workers. These hardworking men and women have seen unfair trade cut the ground from beneath their feet for decades. They deserve a fighting chance. Our workers can out-compete anyone in the world, but they need a level playing field to do it. This trade reset is a necessary step in the right direction.”

    National Electrical Contractors Association CEO David Long: “President Trump has consistently prioritized policies that put the electrical industry as a priority, and we recognize his commitment to strengthening our nation’s economy. As these new tariffs take effect, we look forward to working with the Administration to ensure that electrical contractors and the entire electrical industry can continue powering America efficiently while navigating potential cost and supply chain challenges.”

    American Compass Chief Economist Oren Cass: “The new policies announced by President Trump today confirm the end of the disastrous WTO era and lay the groundwork for a new set of arrangements in the international economy that prioritize the national interest and the flourishing of the nation’s working families.”

    National Council of Textile Organizations CEO Kim Glas: “We strongly commend President Trump and his administration on their tariff reciprocity plan to finally begin rebalancing America’s trade positioning in markets at home and abroad. We want to thank President Trump on behalf of the U.S. textile industry and the 471,000 workers we employ.”

    Southern Shrimp Alliance Executive Director John Williams: “We’ve watched as multigenerational family businesses tie up their boats, unable to compete with foreign producers who play by a completely different set of rules. We are grateful for the Trump Administration’s actions today, which will preserve American jobs, food security, and our commitment to ethical production.”

    American Iron and Steel Institute President Kevin Dempsey: “AISI thanks President Trump for standing up for American workers by restoring fairness in international trade and addressing non-reciprocal trade relationships. American steel producers are all too familiar with the detrimental effects of unfair foreign trade practices on domestic industries and their workers. Driven by subsidies and other foreign government trade-distorting practices, global overcapacity in the steel industry reached 573 million metric tons in 2024 and has spurred high levels of exports of steel from countries like China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam and Indonesia that continue to produce steel in volumes that significantly exceed their domestic demand. These exports directly and indirectly injure steel producers in the U.S. and government action to address this unloading of steel overproduction on world markets is overdue.”

    Americans for Limited Government Executive Director Robert Romano: “Thank you, President Trump, for putting America first and finally once and for all levying the same tariffs on trade partners that they have levied mercilessly on the United States for decades. This was not an easy decision to make, but one that is long overdue with a record $1.2 trillion trade in goods deficit in 2024 after the failed rule of former President Joe Biden. … Under President Trump’s leadership, America will be the industrial and technology leader of the world, with commitments for hundreds of billions of investments in the United States. For countries that want to avoid the tariffs, it’s simple: Build in America. … Thank you again, President Trump, for your leadership in restoring reciprocity in trade and for having the courage that all of our other leaders have lacked.”

    American Petroleum Institute: “We welcome President Trump’s decision to exclude oil and natural gas from new tariffs, underscoring the complexity of integrated global energy markets and the importance of America’s role as a net energy exporter. We will continue working with the Trump administration on trade policies that support American energy dominance.”

    National Association of Home Builders Chairman Buddy Hughes: “NAHB is pleased President Trump recognized the importance of critical construction inputs for housing and chose to continue current exemptions for Canadian and Mexican products, with a specific exemption for lumber from any new tariffs at this time. NAHB will continue to work with the administration to find ways to increase domestic lumber production, reduce regulatory burdens, and create an environment that allows builders to increase our nation’s housing supply.”

    International Dairy Foods Association SVP of Trade and Workforce Policy Becky Rasdall Vargas: “The U.S. dairy industry exports more than $8 billion of high-quality dairy products every year to approximately 145 countries around the world. To meet growing global demand, dairy businesses have invested $8 billion in new processing capacity here in the United States—creating jobs, strengthening rural economies, and positioning America as the world’s leading dairy supplier. This growth depends on strong trade relationships and access to essential ingredients, finished goods, packaging, and equipment to provide Americans with safe, affordable, and nutritious dairy foods and beverages. IDFA supports the Trump Administration’s efforts to hold trading partners accountable and expand market access for U.S. dairy.”

    Bienvenido Empresarios: “As an organization committed to empowering Hispanic Americans and strengthening our nation’s future, Bienvenido supports policies that build a more resilient American economy, safeguard our communities, and reassert U.S. leadership on the global stage. President Trump’s emphasis on using economic leverage — including tariffs — reflects a broader strategy to counter China, confront the deadly fentanyl crisis, and bring critical industries back home. Now is a time for tough, decisive action when national security and American livelihoods are at stake. Our hope is that these measures lead to stronger enforcement, fairer trade, and long-term prosperity for all Americans.”

    America First Policy Institute: “Tariffs worked then—and they’ll work again. Under President Trump, tariffs brought back jobs, lowered inflation, and strengthened national security. It’s not just economic policy—it’s America First in action.”

    Author Batya Ungar-Sargon: “[President Trump] is saying we’re going to invest heavily in our middle class. We are no longer going to be a country in which our economy is an upward funnel of wealth from the hardest-working Americans into the pockets of the international global elites.”

    Fox Business Network’s Charles Payne: “President Trump ran on tariffs. What we just saw was a president who did what he said he was going to do … This system is unsustainable … Is our patriotism tied to Wall Street? Or should it be tied to our own personal ability to achieve the American Dream?”

    Republic Financial Chairman Nate Morris: “As someone who was raised by a proud autoworker – thank you President Trump for putting AMERICAN workers first again!”

    Commentator Geraldo Rivera: “The family did visit Japan… we did not see a single American car on the road in Tokyo — not a Caddy, not a Buick, not a Ford, not a Chevy… I have an innate sense that there’s something unfair going on… if they are screwing us, we got to tax them.”

    Commentator Bill O’Reilly: “We’ve been getting hosed since World War II by the trade imbalance … You can do what Biden and Obama did, which is just ignore it completely … The numbers are staggering, and the best part of Trump’s speech today was that he said that if you go to Japan or South Korea or China or Germany, you’re not going to see any American cars because they won’t let them in … Trump is right.”

    CPAC Chairman Matt Schlapp: “America cannot afford to be taken advantage of any longer.  Even our friends and strategic allies have for too long assumed that the United States could absorb unfair treatment, including high tariffs on American goods.  We applaud the steps taken by President Trump today to defend American manufacturers not because we like higher taxes, but because we know that trade is only free when both sides follow similar rules.  What President Trump understands is that America needs to get back on track by improving our domestic competitiveness by cutting taxes and regulations AND we need to take on the globalists who believe Americans should not always have to take it in the chops.  Real respect begins with economic reciprocity.”

    Speaker Mike Johnson: “President Trump is sending a clear message with Liberation Day: America will not be exploited by unfair trade practices anymore. These tariffs restore fair and reciprocal trade and level the playing field for American workers and innovators. The President understands that FREE trade ONLY works when it’s FAIR!”

    Gov. Jeff Landry: “Pro Jobs. Pro Business. Pro America.”

    Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso: “President Trump is acting boldly to put America first. America needs fair and free trade. We can’t allow other countries to keep abusing our workers and job creators. It’s time we had a level playing field. I applaud President Trump’s 100% commitment to Made in America.”

    Sen. Jim Banks: “The decision by President Trump today to impose reciprocal tariffs will be so good for Indiana. … Those are the manufacturing jobs that President Trump is bringing back from overseas.”

    Sen. Bill Cassidy: “The president’s trade agenda can pave the way for stronger trade deals, fairer rules, and real results. I am excited to work with President Trump to make it happen. Louisiana’s workers and families deserve nothing less.”

    Sen. John Kennedy: “America is rich. We buy a lot of stuff. President Trump is saying that if you foreign businesses want to sell in America, then move your business here and hire American workers.”

    Sen. Roger Marshall: “President Donald Trump is fighting for long-term solutions to put America’s farmers and ranchers first.”

    Sen. Ashley Moody: “It’s liberation day in America! Today, @POTUS sent a message to the world that the era of America being taken advantage of is over.”

    Sen. Bernie Moreno: “President Trump is finally reversing their failed policies and fighting back for American workers.”

    Sen. Markwayne Mullin: “President Trump is going to charge foreign countries roughly half of what they *already* charge us to do business. Literally who can argue with this?”

    Sen. Pete Ricketts: “President Trump is delivering on his campaign promises to level the playing field and stand up for the American people. Reciprocal tariffs will ensure equal treatment for American businesses. @POTUS is working to reshore jobs lost overseas and secure our supply chains. He is working to open new markets for our nation’s agriculture products. He is demonstrating to foreign adversaries like China that we will no longer be taken advantage of.”

    Sen. Rick Scott: “The days of the U.S. being taken advantage of by other countries are OVER! Pres. Trump is making it clear that he will ALWAYS put American jobs, manufacturing and our economy first. As Americans, let’s stand with him and support one another by buying products MADE IN AMERICA.”

    Sen. Eric Schmitt: “President Trump is bringing America back. We won’t be ripped off by other countries anymore. We’re bringing back manufacturing, unleashing energy production, and paving the way for prosperity.”

    Sen. Tim Sheehy: “They tariff us at up to 50% of our exported ag products and then dump mass produced ag products into our market severely hurting our farmers and ranchers. It’s about time we have a level playing field for businesses.”

    Sen. Tommy Tuberville: “For too long, other countries have ripped us off with bad trade deals – resulting in American jobs and manufacturing moving overseas. But change is coming. The Golden Age of America’s economy is here. Happy Liberation Day.”

    House Majority Leader Steve Scalise: “The United States and American workers will no longer be ripped off by other countries with unfair trade practices. Thank you President Trump for putting America’s workers and innovators first with reciprocal tariffs that level the playing field and make trade FAIR.”

    House Majority Whip Tom Emmer: “For too long, foreign countries have taken advantage of us at the expense of American workers. President @realDonaldTrump says NO MORE.”

    House Republican Conference Chairwoman Lisa McClain: “Tariffs work! @POTUS has proven tariffs are an effective tool in achieving economic and strategic objectives. The President’s long-term strategy will pay off.”

    Rep. Elise Stefanik: “I strongly support President Trump’s America First economic policies to strengthen American manufacturing and create millions of American jobs. For too long, Americans have suffered under unfair trade practices putting America Last. We will not allow other countries to take advantage of us and we must put America and the American worker first.”

    Rep. Jason Smith: “America shouldn’t reward countries that discriminate against American workers and manufacturers. On Liberation Day, President Trump is correcting this and demanding fair treatment for American producers.”

    Rep. Mark Alford: “The days of the United States being taken advantage of are OVER. Republicans are putting American workers FIRST.”

    Rep. Rick Allen: “@POTUS is undoing decades of unfair trade practices and putting American workers, businesses, and manufacturers FIRST. These reciprocal tariffs are simply leveling the playing field and will help ensure the U.S. is no longer on the losing end of global trade.”

    Rep. Jodey Arrington: “For too long, our leaders have allowed other nations to rip us off through numerous unfair trade practices resulting in suppressed wages, lost opportunities, and unrealized economic growth. Just as he did in his first term, President Trump is fighting to ensure an even playing field for our manufacturers, farmers, and workers so we can unleash American prosperity and Make America Great Again.”

    Rep. Brian Babin: “Trump’s tariffs aren’t starting a trade war—they’re ending one. For decades, other countries ripped off American workers with unfair tariffs and barriers. Now, we’re finally fighting back.”

    Rep. Andy Biggs: “Past administrations have allowed the United States to be ripped off by allies and adversaries alike. President Trump said “NO MORE!” The Art of the Deal.”

    Rep. Vern Buchanan: “For too long, unfair trade practices devastated America’s manufacturing base and stole millions of blue-collar jobs. It’s time to level the playing field and bring those jobs back. @POTUS is fighting for American workers.”

    Rep. Eli Crane: “America First policies are what the American people voted for.”

    Rep. Michael Cloud: “America-First means putting the American people first. We will no longer be taken advantage of as a nation and people.”

    Rep. Andrew Clyde: “For far too long, the U.S. has been ripped off by countries across the globe with unfair trade practices. Now, we’re finally leveling the playing field. THANK YOU, President Trump, for putting American workers and manufacturing FIRST.”

    Rep. Mike Collins: “This is fair. Whether it’s our military or economy, other countries have taken advantage of the U.S. for far too long. That time is over.”

    Rep. Byron Donalds: “For decades, a lot of these countries have built their economies on the back of the American economy … These nations have become, not just developing nations, they are now strong economies. And so, we have to have fair trade if we’re going to have free trade.”

    Rep. Chuck Edwards: “Many countries are taking advantage of the United States by imposing tariffs against us while we don’t have reciprocal tariffs against them. @POTUS has used tariffs to produce successful trade deals for us in his first term, and I support his plan to use them again to create a more level playing field and secure fairer trade deals for America. The quicker other countries agree to fairer trade deals, the quicker the tariffs can end.”

    Rep. Gabe Evans: “This admin puts America first from strengthening our economy & national security to prioritizing hard working Americans. Farmers in #CO08 have been disadvantaged in foreign trade deals & will benefit from reciprocal tariffs that promote FAIR & free trade.”

    Rep. Scott Franklin: “For years the US handcuffed itself and played nice while other countries imposed massive tariffs and took advantage of us. We’re done putting America last. @POTUS is leveling the playing field, ending trade imbalances and prioritizing American workers and manufacturing again!”

    Rep. Mike Flood: “Biden did nothing for four years on trade. Five years after Brexit, America doesn’t have a free trade deal with the UK. President @realDonaldTrump is rightsizing our trade relationships.”

    Rep. Russell Fry: “HAPPY LIBERATION DAY. Thanks to @POTUS, America is DONE being taken advantage of. A new era has begun.”

    Rep. Lance Gooden: “For decades, Washington allowed Texans to be ripped off by foreign countries. Those days are now over. @POTUS is committed to making America wealthy again!”

    Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene: “If you want to do business in America, you need to play by our rules. For too long, American businesses, big and small, have been ripped off by bad trade deals and unfair competition. President Trump is putting a stop to it. He’s standing up for our workers, our companies, and our consumers.”

    Rep. Abe Hamadeh: “The America First Republican party is the party of the working class, the forgotten men and women. On this Liberation Day, we further our commitment to them, that we will reshore our manufacturing, restore fair trade, and rebuild the greatest economy in the world.”

    Rep. Pat Harrigan: “If you want access to the most powerful economy in the world, treat us fairly. If not, don’t expect a free ride. That’s real leadership and @POTUS is delivering it!”

    Rep. Andy Harris: “President Trump’s reciprocal tariffs will put the American worker first and bring fairness back to international trade. America is being respected again.”

    Rep. Diana Harshbarger: “President Trump is bringing back the American Dream. Our taxpayers have been ripped off by foreign countries for far too long, but those days are over. President Trump is right to impose these reciprocal tariffs.”

    Rep. Clay Higgins: “.@POTUS’ trade agenda puts American industry and America first. I support the President’s action to protect our domestic producers.”

    Rep. Wesley Hunt: “Today, President Trump empowered the American middle class.  His policies on tariffs will bring automotive manufacturing back to America.”

    Rep. Morgan Luttrell: “President Trump is putting America First on trade—standing up to foreign adversaries, protecting American workers, and rebuilding our manufacturing base. The days of unfair trade deals and economic surrender are OVER.”

    Rep. Nicole Malliotakis: “Since President Trump has been elected, we’ve attracted $5 trillion in private investment, foreign & domestic companies have announced Made in USA manufacturing, countries have reduced tariffs or changed foreign policies. President Trump is sticking up for American workers & farmers, repatriating our supply chain and protecting our national security.”

    Rep. Addison McDowell: “My district was hit hard over the years by unfair trade deals. Finally, we have a President who wants to put the American worker FIRST.”

    Rep. Dan Meuser: “We have been treated unfairly. Free trade has become synonymous with unfair trade, and @POTUS is recognizing that… We needed a reckoning; we needed a correction. President Trump is bringing it.”

    Rep. Mary Miller: “America will no longer be taken advantage of! This is how you put America First.”

    Rep. John Moolenaar: “For far too long, the Chinese Communist Party has exploited America’s generosity, stolen our intellectual property, and undermined our workers. President Trump’s recent tariffs and the Restoring Trade Fairness Act, which I introduced earlier this year to revoke China’s permanent normal trade relations status, will finally put an end to this abuse—holding China accountable and protecting American jobs. For decades, we’ve accepted one-sided trade deals that hurt our industries while benefiting our adversaries. Trade deficits reflect that imbalance, but they also reveal something deeper: the strength of the American consumer. It’s time we stopped allowing that strength to be used against us and started putting American workers first.”

    Rep. Riley Moore: “For decades, foreign countries have enjoyed free access to the greatest consumer marketplace on the face of the planet, all while still charging our domestic producers hefty duties or imposing significant barriers to access their markets. Today that ends. President Trump is the only president in my lifetime to acknowledge how unfair trade has gutted the heartland and shipped countless jobs overseas. By finally reciprocating in-kind, we’ll force foreign competitors to the negotiating table, lower trade barriers, and ultimately create real free and fair trade across the board. I’m confident this move will boost our domestic manufacturing industry and fuel demand for American products across the globe.”

    Rep. Tim Moore: “President Trump is leveling the playing field for American workers and bringing back MADE IN AMERICA!”

    Rep. Troy Nehls: “President Trump’s reciprocal tariffs make it clear that our country will not be ripped off anymore. We are bringing back American manufacturing and putting America First.”

    Rep. Ralph Norman: “Happy LIBERATION Day … ✅Protect the American worker ✅Strengthen manufacturing ✅Reduce unfair trade practices … Our economy will be competitive again!!”

    Rep. Andy Ogles: “He’s resetting the negotiating table. He’s resetting the deck here to say, ‘You know what? For too long, you’ve taken advantage of our free market and you’ve literally leached jobs away from the American people … Let’s have a serious conversation and let’s do something that’s fair and mutually beneficial for both sides.’”

    Rep. Guy Reschenthaler: “I fully support President Trump’s critical efforts to right this generational wrong, bring manufacturing jobs home, and rejuvenate American working families. Made in America is back.”

    Rep. John Rutherford: “Tariffs help bring American jobs back home, incentivize buying American, AND put pressure on Canada and Mexico to stop the flow of fentanyl and illegal immigrants from their countries into ours. Even the Biden Admin kept or increased tariffs that President Trump imposed during his first presidency. Under Trump, inflation stayed around 2% and our GDP grew to 3%. Smart tariffs are a long-term investment in the American economy that are worth the short-term cost.”

    Rep. Adrian Smith: “Reducing trade barriers is necessary to ensuring American farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, small businesses, and innovators can sell their products in other markets. President Trump has made it clear other countries can avoid tariffs by reducing or eliminating their existing barriers to U.S. products. Engagement on trade is vital to our economy and opportunity for U.S. workers. In his first term, President Trump proved robust engagement can be productive as he moved the ball down the field on several agreements with our top trade partners. To achieve economic stability, we must continue to fight to give our producers the chance to compete in a global marketplace.”

    Rep. Greg Steube: “What many fail to realize: Trump’s reciprocal tariffs are a long-overdue response to years of unfair trade policies against America. For decades, America has been ripped off by other countries who have repeatedly slapped tariffs on our goods, blocked our products, and flooded our markets with theirs. The numbers don’t lie–the rest of the world has profited at the expense of American workers and businesses. President Trump is finally putting America First by taking bold, necessary actions that past leaders wouldn’t take.”

    Rep. Marlin Stutzman: “If Australia doesn’t want our beef – WE DON’T WANT THEIRS! Thank you @POTUS for opening the door of fair treatment for America’s Cattlemen‼️”

    Rep. Tom Tiffany: “Gone are the days of America being taken advantage of by foreign countries. The American worker comes FIRST.”

    Rep. William Timmons: “President Trump’s tariffs are a necessary move to protect American workers and rebuild our economy. We are finally breaking free from decades of unfair trade deals that gutted our industries. These tariffs will bring jobs back to our districts, strengthen manufacturing, and ensure our children inherit a country that is not just a consumer, but a producer. Thank you, @POTUS.”

    Rep. Beth Van Duyne: “For far too long, the United States has been taken advantage of by our foreign trade partners. The American people re-elected President Trump to bring back truly fair trade with other countries. Reciprocal tariffs are a first step to have a level playing field for American products and to start bringing back manufacturing to our country!”

    Rep. Daniel Webster: “President @realDonaldTrump is delivering on his mandate to restore America’s economic strength. For too long, unfair trade deals have hollowed out our factories and shipped American jobs overseas. By standing up to bad actors like China and Venezuela and enforcing fair trade, President Trump is defending American industries and putting American workers first.”

    Rep. Tony Wied: “President Trump has made it clear with these reciprocal tariffs that we will no longer allow other countries to take advantage of us. His goal is simple: to bring jobs and manufacturing back to our country and open up foreign markets to American products. If companies want to avoid these tariffs, they will do business in the United States. I applaud the President for taking a stand against years of unfair trade practices and making sure we put American workers and consumers first. It’s time our foreign trading partners finally live up to their end of the bargain.”

    Rep. Roger Williams: “For too long, America Last policies have put the U.S. auto industry at a disadvantage. As a car dealer and small business owner, I support @POTUS’ Executive Order to increase competition, boost revenue, and bring back American jobs.”

    Mississippi Commissioner of Agriculture and Commerce Andy Gipson: “I applaud President Trump’s actions today to reset global trade relations through the President’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariff plan. America is not only in a trade war, we’ve been in a trade war for years now. This trade war has resulted in historic trade deficits that continue to hurt our farmers. … I believe President Trump’s actions today will set the stage for the renegotiation of better trade deals that will benefit American farmers and all our domestic industries going forward and will also serve to spur more local production.”

    U.S. Trade Representative Ambassador Jamieson Greer: “Today, President Trump is taking urgent action to protect the national security and economy of the United States. The current lack of trade reciprocity, demonstrated by our chronic trade deficit, has weakened our economic and national security. After only 72 days in office, President Trump has prioritized swift action to bring reciprocity to our trade relations and reduce the trade deficit by leveling the playing field for American workers and manufacturers, reshoring American jobs, expanding our domestic manufacturing base, and ensuring our defense-industrial base is not dependent on foreign adversaries—all leading to stronger economic and national security.”

    Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick: “Today, the world starts taking us seriously. Our workforce will finally be treated fairly.”

    Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent: “President Trump signed the Declaration of Economic Independence for the American people. For decades, the trade status quo has allowed countries to leverage tariffs and unfair trade practices to get ahead at the expense of hardworking Americans. The President’s historic actions will level the playing field for American workers and usher in a new age of economic strength.”

    Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins: “FARMERS COME FIRST — @POTUS is leveling the playing field, ensuring American farmers and ranchers can compete globally again!”

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio: “Thank you, @POTUS! ‘Made in America’ is not just a tagline — it’s an economic and national security priority.”

    Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem: “For too long, America has been targeted by unfair trade practices that made our supply chain dependent on foreign adversaries, eroded our industrial base, and hurt American workers. This has gravely impacted our national security. President Trump’s strong action will help make America safe again. @DHS, primarily through @CBP, is ready to collect these new tariffs and put an end to unfair trade practices. Thank you President @realDonaldTrump for putting America FIRST.”

    Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer: “Promises made, promises kept”

    Secretary of Energy Chris Wright: “President Trump is a businessman; he’s a negotiator. The result of that has been and will continue to be improvements for the American people. We are in the midst of a negotiation, and he is fighting every day to make the cost-of-living conditions better for Americans.”

    Secretary of Education Linda McMahon: “At the White House this afternoon, we celebrated Liberation Day — setting our economy on the path of future prosperity for our children. Business owners, workers, and taxpayers have been waiting for strong economic leadership.

    @POTUS’ actions today prove we are done being taken advantage of in international trade.”

    Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum: “President Trump’s Liberation Day reciprocity plan is commonsense. If you tariff us, we’ll tariff you. This will strengthen our economy and make America wealthy again!”

    Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy: “Today is the day we will liberate ourselves from unfair trade practices and outdated ways of thinking. Tariffs are an important tool in the President’s toolbox to stop foreign countries from ripping us off, protect America’s workers, and restore U.S. manufacturing. I stand with @POTUS as he finally levels the playing field. Happy Liberation Day!”

    Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Scott Turner: “For four years, Americans couldn’t afford groceries, let alone a house. This Liberation Day, @POTUS is bringing manufacturing and jobs back. President Trump is making the American Dream achievable again!”

    Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin: “Massive announcement by @POTUS today restoring U.S. dominance, cementing his America First vision, and Powering the Great American Comeback.”

    Small Business Administration Administrator Kelly Loeffler: “Small businesses will no longer be crushed by foreign governments and unfair trade deals. Instead, we will put American industry, workers, and strength FIRST. Thank you @POTUS for bringing back Made in America!”

    National Security Advisor Mike Waltz: “Economic security is national security. Thank you President Trump for putting America first.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Hawley Announces Facebook Whistleblower to Testify Before His Subcommittee Next Week

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo)

    Wednesday, April 02, 2025

    Today, U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) announced that Facebook whistleblower Sarah Wynn-Williams will testify before his Judiciary subcommittee next week on allegations that Facebook cooperated with the Communist regime in China to build censorship tools, punish dissidents, and make American users’ data available for Chinese use.

    Big News — Facebook whistleblower Sarah Wynn-Williams will testify NEXT WEEK in public, under oath, before my judiciary subcommittee re: her explosive evidence of Facebook’s cooperation with the Communist regime in China, including FB’s plans to build censorship tools, punish…
    — Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) April 2, 2025
    Senator Hawley is the chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism. More details on the hearing, entitled “A Time for Truth: Oversight of Meta’s Foreign Relations and Representations to the United States Congress,” are forthcoming.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Chinese National Sentenced To Federal Prison For Access Device Fraud

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    Ocala, Florida – United States District Judge Thomas P. Barber has sentenced Donghui Liao (32, China) to 33 months in federal prison for possession of 15 or more unauthorized access devices (gift cards). Liao entered a guilty plea on December 16, 2024. 

    According to the plea agreement and evidence presented in court, a large retail store had been the victim of an ongoing organized gift card fraud scheme. The structure of the scheme involved individuals stealing gift cards from the store, obtaining the account information from the back of the cards, resealing the cards in their original packaging, and placing the gift cards back onto the shelves of a different store location for customers to purchase. Once a customer purchased the gift card and loaded funds onto it, the fraudsters had access to the funds without the customer’s knowledge.

    On October 17, 2023, an officer with the Ocala Police Department observed Liao retrieving numerous gift cards from a black shoulder bag he was wearing and placing those gift cards on the retailer’s gift card display. Liao was also observed taking gift cards off the shelves and concealing them inside his bag before leaving the store.

    Seventy-one of the gift cards that Liao had placed on the shelves showed signs of alteration and forgery. A search of Liao’s vehicle revealed 6,032 additional stolen gift cards. The combined value of the gift cards in Liao’s vehicle (pictured below), if purchased and activated by customers, would have been $1.886 million. Store surveillance identified Liao performing this same scheme on at least 28 other occasions at different locations in Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, and Florida. 

    “Gift card scams endanger retailers, consumers, and overall public safety,” said Homeland Security Investigations Orlando Assistant Special Agent in Charge David Pezzutti. “HSI is actively collaborating with law enforcement at all levels to combat organized crime involved in these schemes. Our proactive approach aims to raise awareness and disrupt fraud that could cost hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars. This successful prosecution in Florida highlights our commitment to addressing this issue on a global scale.”

    This case was investigated by the Ocala Police Department and Homeland Security Investigations. It is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Sarah Janette Swartzberg.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Global: World Affairs Briefing: World considers response to Trump’s tariffs – and Israel launches new Gaza offensive

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sam Phelps, Commissioning Editor, International Affairs

    This article was first published in The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email newsletter. Sign up to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.

    Donald Trump has announced a massive package of trade tariffs on some of America’s largest trading partners. In a speech on the White House lawn, Trump said that America had been “looted, pillaged and raped” by these countries for decades, adding that “in many cases, the friend is worse than the foe”.

    Trump claims that April 2, which he has called “liberation day”, will “forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn”. The tariffs include 20% on imports from the EU, 24% on those from Japan, 27% for India, and 34% for China. The UK got off comparatively lightly, with tariffs of 10%.

    Renaud Foucart, a senior lecturer in economics at Lancaster University, explores how the world may react. In his view, there are three possible scenarios.



    Read more:
    How the UK and Europe could respond to Trump’s ‘liberation day’ tariffs

    First, countries may seek to forge trade deals with the US that, as Foucart puts it, “give Trump enough rope to climb down”. This is the approach favoured by British prime minister Keir Starmer. But it does send the message that the US can obtain concessions from its international partners by bullying them.

    Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.

    Second, countries may retaliate. Whether through reciprocal tariffs or tools like the European Commission’s “anti-coercion instrument”, the goal will be to force the US to back down. If this scenario plays out, new modelling by Niven Winchester of Auckland University of Technology suggests it is probably the US that stands to lose the most, while some countries may actually gain.



    Read more:
    New modelling reveals full impact of Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs – with the US hit hardest

    Third, in what is the most dramatic scenario, we may see a reorganisation of the world order that more or less avoids the US. This would take the world to uncharted economic and political territories.

    A renewed offensive

    Meanwhile, Israeli officials have announced a major expansion of military operations in Gaza. In a statement released on Wednesday, Israel’s defence minister, Israel Katz, said that “troops will move to clear areas of terrorists and infrastructure, and seize extensive territory that will be added to the state of Israel’s security areas”.

    The country’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, later confirmed the plans. In a video message, he announced that Israel would be building a new security corridor called the “Morag Route” to “divide up” the Gaza Strip. Netanyahu says carving Gaza will add pressure on Hamas to return the remaining 59 hostages.

    We spoke to Scott Lucas, a Middle East expert at University College Dublin and a regular contributor to our coverage of the war in Gaza, about Israel’s renewed offensive and some of the other key issues involved.

    In his view, the resumption of the ground offensive in Gaza was largely inevitable once Netanyahu’s government refused to move from phase one of the ceasefire to phase two. The second phase would have involved the establishment of a permanent ceasefire and a complete Israeli military withdrawal. This, as Lucas explains, was never going to be agreed by Netanyahu.

    “Beyond his personal opposition to the requisite Israeli military withdrawal from Gaza, powerful hard-right ministers in his government had made clear that their acceptance of phase one was conditioned on no phase two and on a return to military operations,” Lucas writes. Netanyahu’s political survival depends on the continuation of the war.



    Read more:
    Why is Israel expanding its offensive in Gaza and what does it mean for the Middle East? Expert Q&A

    But according to Leonie Fleischmann, a senior lecturer in international politics at City St George’s, University of London, the decision to launch another ground offensive in Gaza remains a high-risk strategy.

    Netanyahu is already unpopular among many Israeli citizens, as is the continued assault on Gaza. And his recent attempts to bend Israel’s legal system to his will by pushing through a law that would give the government the power to appoint new members of the supreme court have certainly not endeared him to many.

    The move has the potential to undermine the country’s system of checks and balances which, as in many western democracies, rests largely on the separation of powers. But in Fleischmann’s view, it was not unexpected.

    Netanyahu has done anything he can to try to gain control of the country’s judiciary over the past few years. He was charged with bribery, fraud and breach of trust in 2019, which he denies, and has consistently sought to delay legal proceedings.

    It remains to be seen whether pressure from the Israeli public can check Netanyahu’s power. Widespread unrest over the weekend caused Netanyahu to pause plans for judicial reform, though he has maintained that the overhaul is still needed.



    Read more:
    As Israel begins another assault in Gaza, Netanyahu is fighting his own war against the country’s legal system

    Elsewhere, we have reported on the recent endorsement of Trump’s policies by Aleksandr Dugin, who is sometimes referred to as “Putin’s brain” because of his ideological influence on Russian politics.

    “Trumpists and the followers of Trump will understand much better what Russia is, who Putin is and the motivations of our politics,” Dugin said in an interview with CNN on March 30.

    His endorsement should be a warning of the disruptive nature of the Trump White House, says Kevin Riehle of Brunel University of London.



    Read more:
    ‘Putin’s brain’: Aleksandr Dugin, the Russian ultra-nationalist who has endorsed Donald Trump

    And China may be making preparations for an invasion of Taiwan. As naval history expert Matthew Heaslip of the University of Portsmouth reports, a handful of so-called Shuiqiao barges were filmed at a beach in China’s Guangdong province in March.

    The barges, the name of which translates to “water bridge”, were working together to form a relocatable bridge to enable the transfer of vehicles, supplies and people between ship and shore.

    Heaslip points out that, as there is no obvious commercial role for such large vessels, the most likely purpose is for landing armed forces during amphibious operations. But, as he reassures in this piece, their appearance does not guarantee that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is imminent.



    Read more:
    What these new landing barges can tell us about China’s plans to invade Taiwan

    There are reported to be three completed prototype landing barges ready for deployment and three under construction. This would offer just one or two beach bridges, which would be of minimal value in a major invasion.

    World Affairs Briefing from The Conversation UK is available as a weekly email newsletter. Click here to get updates directly in your inbox.

    – ref. World Affairs Briefing: World considers response to Trump’s tariffs – and Israel launches new Gaza offensive – https://theconversation.com/world-affairs-briefing-world-considers-response-to-trumps-tariffs-and-israel-launches-new-gaza-offensive-253647

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Video: FLASHBACK: Biden Admin Kept President Trump’s First Term Tariffs

    Source: United States of America – The White House (video statements)

    Remember when President Trump put tariffs on Chinese imports during the first term and the Biden administration kept them in place?

    “This action will protect American workers and businesses from China’s unfair trade practices,” said Karine Jean-Pierre.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2TAY02fyuU

    MIL OSI Video –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Rep. Jackson Introduces Bill to Hold South Africa Accountable for Supporting American Adversaries

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Ronny Jackson (TX-13)

    WASHINGTON — Today, Congressman Ronny Jackson (TX-13) introduced the U.S.-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act of 2025, which would mandate a full review of the bilateral relationship between the United States and South Africa and help advance President Trump’s foreign policy agenda by giving him the tools necessary to impose sanctions on corrupt South African government officials who choose to support America’s adversaries like China, Russia, and Iran. Representative John James (MI-10) is co-leading this legislation.

    “South Africa has brazenly abandoned its relationship with the United States to align with China, Russia, Iran, and terrorist organizations, a betrayal that demands serious consequences,” said Rep. Ronny Jackson. “This legislation ensures we conduct a comprehensive review of this supposed ‘ally’ while also holding accountable any corrupt officials. The era of governments undermining American interests without repercussions ends now.”

    “I am proud to co-lead the updated U.S.-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act of 2025 with Congressman Ronny Jackson,” said Rep. John James. “This bill builds on and strengthens my bipartisan legislation from last Congress – H.R.7256 – which successfully passed the House and supports President Trump’s Executive Order from February 7th Addressing Egregious Actions of the Republic of South Africa. The South African government and the ANC have continued to consistently undermine U.S. national security interests and in recent years have intentionally aligned with Beijing, Moscow and Tehran and pursued an anti-Israel agenda. The United States must examine all of our bilateral relationships around the world and investigate all options to hold those countries and leaders who align with our adversaries responsible.”

    Bill text can be found here.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: ‘Doom loops’ are accelerating climate change – but we can break them

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jack Marley, Environment + Energy Editor, UK edition

    Surasak Jailak/Shutterstock

    Vicious cycles are accelerating climate change. One is happening at the north pole, where rising temperatures caused by record levels of fossil fuel combustion are melting more and more sea ice.

    Indeed, the extent of Arctic winter sea ice in March 2025 was the lowest ever recorded. This decline in sea ice means the Earth reflects less of the Sun’s energy back into space. So, more climate change leads to less sea ice – and more climate change.

    Human behaviour is not immune to this dynamic either, according to a recent report by the International Energy Agency (IEA). It identified another troubling feedback loop: demand for coal rose 1% globally in 2024 off the back of intense heatwaves in China and India, which spurred a frenzy for air-conditioners and excess fuel to power them.

    The need to cool ourselves, and briefly escape the consequences of climate change, is driving more climate change. Thankfully, there are ways to break these cycles and form greener habits. Today, we’ll look at one in particular.

    This roundup of The Conversation’s climate coverage comes from our award-winning weekly climate action newsletter. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed.

    The Sun can cool you down

    “As the climate crisis deepens, close to half of the world’s people have little defence against deadly heat,” says Radhika Khosla, an associate professor of urban sustainability at the University of Oxford.



    Read more:
    COP28: countries have pledged to cut emissions from cooling – here’s how to make it happen

    “At the same time, energy demand from cooling – by those who can afford it – could more than double by 2050.”

    If wealthy countries paid the enormous climate finance debt they owe the developing world, it could help finance the closing of this gap. And thankfully, advancements in renewable energy technology mean no one should need to contribute to a spike in fossil fuel use just to keep cool.



    Read more:
    Wealthy nations owe climate debt to Africa – funds that could help cities grow

    “The absurdity of resorting to coal to power air conditioners … is difficult to miss”, say a team of engineers and energy experts at Nottingham Trent University and Coventry University, led by Tom Rogers. They recommend rooftop solar panels instead, which can soak up sunshine during heatwaves and turn it into electricity for air-conditioning units.

    “Rooftop solar can also reduce demand for cooling by keeping buildings in the shade,” the team say. “A study conducted by Arizona State University found that even a modest group of solar panels that shade about half a roof can lead to anything from 2% to 13% reduction in cooling demand, depending on factors such as location, roof type and insulation levels.”



    Read more:
    Rising temperatures mean more air conditioning which means more electricity is needed – rooftop solar is a perfect fit

    Of course, solar panels are less helpful for powering air conditioners in the evening, when lots of people turn them on after work or school.

    “Researchers in Australia have proposed a clever solution to address this imbalance, by programming air-conditioning units to work in tandem with solar systems to pre-cool buildings before people arrive home,” Rogers and his colleagues add.

    There is huge untapped potential for generating electricity from rooftop solar – even in the dreary UK. It could ensure that future heatwaves are a boon for solar energy, not coal power.

    “Consider the possibilities for Nottingham and Coventry, two cities in England’s Midlands where we work,” they say.

    “If Nottingham were to maximise its rooftop potential, all those panels could generate nearly 500 megawatts (MW) of electricity, about the same as a medium-sized gas power plant. Coventry has greater potential, with 700MW.

    “These capacities would equate to nearly one-third of Nottingham’s electricity demand and almost half of Coventry’s – from their rooftops alone.”

    Doom loops

    Installing solar panels on top of buildings worldwide will need massive investment in equipment and training. It will require new means of incentivising the uptake of this technology and, as mentioned earlier, the redistribution of wealth to allow low-emitting but highly vulnerable nations to make the switch.

    But there are likely to be virtuous cycles as well as vicious ones. Once a certain threshold has been crossed, like the price and capacity of batteries or the number of homes with heat pumps installed, “a domino effect of rapid changes” takes effect such that green alternatives swiftly become the established norm.



    Read more:
    Climate ‘tipping points’ can be positive too – our report sets out how to engineer a domino effect of rapid changes

    However, the prospect of harmonising these efforts across borders butts against a trend moving in the opposite direction. As the world warms, relations between nations are becoming more fraught and war, trade tensions and internal strife are obscuring the universal threat of climate change.

    A Trump yard sign during the 2024 election campaign.
    Dlbillings_Photography/Shutterstock

    Climate risk expert Laurie Laybourn and earth system scientist James Dyke, both at the University of Exeter, say that extreme weather in 2022 caused crop failures that made food more expensive and stoked headline inflation rates. Climate-sceptic Donald Trump made hay with these high prices in the 2024 US election.

    “The risk is that this ‘doom loop’ runs faster and faster and ultimately derails our ability to phase out fossil fuels fast enough to avoid the worst climate consequences,” they say.



    Read more:
    A ‘doom loop’ of climate change and geopolitical instability is beginning

    However, Laybourn and Dyke are not wholly pessimistic. History shows that periods of instability and crisis like the one we are living through also provide fertile ground for positive change, they argue, and the chance to accelerate virtuous circles.

    “For example, out of the crises of the interwar period and the devastation of the second world war came legal protections for human rights, universal welfare systems and decolonisation.”

    – ref. ‘Doom loops’ are accelerating climate change – but we can break them – https://theconversation.com/doom-loops-are-accelerating-climate-change-but-we-can-break-them-253457

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Fenton to receive first ever ceremonial mace to celebrate city’s Centenary

    Source: City of Stoke-on-Trent

    Published: Thursday, 3rd April 2025

    Fenton is set to make history with the unveiling of its first-ever ceremonial mace as part of Stoke-on-Trent’s 100th-anniversary celebrations.

    Students from the University of Staffordshire have created the first-ever ceremonial mace for Fenton.

    When the six towns united as the Stoke-on-Trent Federation (the forerunner of Stoke-on-Trent being granted city status) in 1910, Fenton was the only one not to hand down a piece of civic regalia.

    More than a century later, this new ceremonial mace will give the town its own celebration of its heritage, culture and people.

    Students from the BA (Hons) Product Furniture and Ceramics and MA Ceramics courses were given the opportunity to design a mace that honours Fenton’s historic ties to the early development of the ceramic industry.

    After an intense process, the judging panel found it impossible to select a single winner. Instead, two standout teams were asked to collaborate – bringing together their design and engineering expertise to create the ultimate Fenton Mace.

    The mace will be officially unveiled to the public at Fenton Town Hall before a special parade transports it to Stoke Town Hall, where it will take its place among the city’s civic regalia.

    Highlights are:

    • Friday 4 April: preview the new Fenton Mace – 10am-4pm, Ballroom, Fenton Town Hall
    • Saturday 5 April: Celebrate the creation of the Fenton Mace – begins with a blessing at Christ Church, Fenton at 10am

    Lord Mayor of Stoke-on-Trent, Councillor Lyn Sharpe: “I’m so proud to be Lord Mayor of this amazing city, and it’s a huge honour to see my hometown of Fenton finally receive its own civic recognition.

    “The students have put so much thought into the design, from the coat of arms to the forget-me-nots that symbolise Fenton as the ‘forgotten town’ of Arnold Bennett’s books.

    “But we know Fenton is far from forgotten, and this mace will stand as a proud representation of the town for the next 100 years and beyond.”

    Neil Brownsword, Professor of Ceramics at University of Staffordshire, said: “The Fenton Mace project has been great for students to reconnect to local histories that shaped the characteristics of Fenton. They have done a fantastic job of combining traditional references and symbolism through a contemporary lens, using a range of materials sponsored by local businesses.

    “The technical expertise of these companies, alongside the challenges of working as a team have been hugely beneficial in expanding their professionalism and problem solving through the design process. It’s a great honour for the mace that the students have designed and created is another valuable contribution to Fenton’s rich history.”

    BA (Hons) Product, Furniture, Ceramics student Maddie Sturmey said: “It’s been an honour to be a part of this prestigious occasion and to have had the opportunity to design and create the Fenton mace. We are really excited to showcase what we have been working so hard to achieve. We hope the people of Fenton love it as much as we do.”

    The project has been made possible through support from sponsors including Valentine Clays, KMF Metal, AJ Philpott, and CJ Skelhorne Jewellers, with additional contributions from Duchess China 1888 and Lee Price.

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How the UK and Europe could respond to Trump’s ‘liberation day’ tariffs

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Renaud Foucart, Senior Lecturer in Economics, Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster University

    In a carefully choreographed address from the White House Rose Garden, US president Donald Trump announced a massive package of trade tariffs. These include 20% on imports from the European Union, 24% on those from Japan, 27% for India, and 34% for China. The UK gets the lowest rate, at 10%.

    A tariff is a tax on imports, paid by producers and consumers of the importing country.

    US producers will pay more for their inputs – the things they need to produce their goods – from the rest of the world. US consumers will pay more for foreign products. But they will also pay more for US-made goods, because production costs will increase, and US producers will face higher demand from consumers seeking to substitute imports.

    Tariffs serve a role in protecting nascent industries, or in countries with limited state capacity. They may protect some strategic or politically powerful firms and workers from international competition. But mostly they just hurt everyone directly or indirectly involved.

    So what is the Trump administration trying to achieve?

    The official goal is to have a tax that is sufficiently high to reduce the trade imbalance between the US and the rest of the
    world. Every month, the US imports goods and services worth tens of billions of US dollars more than those it sells to other countries.

    Since Donald Trump returned to office, US firms have anticipated future tariffs by importing more. This has increased this deficit to a record-high of US$131 billion (£99.7 billion) in January, twice as large as it was only a year ago.

    The way the US trade deficit works is simple. US consumers buy cheap products from other countries in exchange for printing money at little cost. The trick is that the rest of the world buys US currency as a reserve of value, or to invest in US assets. This seems like the dream deal. Americans get richer and the country is flooded with investment, making it the technological centre of the world. This in turn keeps the dollar strong.

    But there is a counterpoint, increasingly prevalent in the circles that surround the US president. This dream deal is bad for US manufacturing and creates a dependency on foreign producers and investors. Crucially, it depends on the US remaining the ultimate currency in perpetuity.

    So, will Trump’s plan help him achieve his goal of reducing US imports relative to exports? Tariffs will not increase exports. But by making foreign products more expensive, they can massively decrease imports.

    In practice, this is only sustainable if the US wants to become permanently poorer. If the US economy becomes weak enough that the US dollar is not a desirable investment, it could become the factory of the world and sell cheap products, while not being able to afford what foreigners produce. This was China’s development strategy in the mid-2000s.

    Time to choose a response

    Whether this is what US citizens want to achieve is a question for them. As for the rest of the world, the time has come to decide how to react.

    The reasonable take, favoured by British prime minister Keir Starmer, is this: if tariffs are bad, adding more in retaliation will not be better.

    The UK is therefore poised not to retaliate, but to seek a trade deal with the US instead and to give Trump enough rope to climb down.

    Removing bilateral trade barriers would be good for both economies. But it would also send a message that the way to obtain concessions from the UK is to bully it. The US and everyone else will learn the lesson, and act accordingly in future.

    A deal will also end the embryonic tax collected since April 2020 on the revenues of tech giants like Amazon, Google and Meta. Given their increasing importance, such a de facto tax exemption would mean ever-increasing rates on British workers and businesses.

    The tit-for-tat path, taken by the European Commission, is to retaliate and hope that it will force the US to climb down.

    As happened during Trump’s first administration, the EU will tax a chosen subset of US products like Harley Davidson motorbikes and bourbon. But the goal is to do much more and to use the size of the EU’s single market to attack the driving force of US economic growth: its tech giants.

    The boldest tool is the new “anti-coercion instrument”, developed by the European Commission in anticipation of a second Trump mandate. This is a very slow but potentially devastating legislative process that goes as far as allowing the suspension of intellectual property rights for companies based in countries that attempt to coerce member states through economic warfare. What this could mean, in effect, is the EU choosing not to enforce international laws protecting the intellectual property of American firms.

    No password required. EU retaliation could see US tech firms powerless to fight back against piracy.
    wisely/Shutterstock

    In essence, the EU would say: if you do not respect the international order, from the rules of trade to international law and climate agreements, we do not respect your rules either. In practice, no one within the EU would be sued for pirating a Netflix show, or for creating a free clone of US software or apps, until the US returns to a more cooperative pattern of behaviour.

    The obvious problem with this approach is what to do if the US does not embrace more cooperative behaviour.

    This may lead to the most dramatic path – a reorganisation of the world order that more or less avoids the US. Chinese media have reported, for instance, that China is trying to work with US allies Korea and Japan to overcome global tariffs.

    A sort of “coalition of the willing” with a larger group of countries to recreate global cooperation seems far-fetched today. But it would end the US dollar dominance, allowing the country to balance its trade deficit. It would also take the world to uncharted economic and political territories.

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

    – ref. How the UK and Europe could respond to Trump’s ‘liberation day’ tariffs – https://theconversation.com/how-the-uk-and-europe-could-respond-to-trumps-liberation-day-tariffs-253650

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –