Category: Economy

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

    Source: GlobalData

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI Economics

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

    Source: GlobalData

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

    Posted in Business Fundamentals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI Economics

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

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Tennessee Bill Hagerty

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

    *Click the photo above or here to watch*

    Partial Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Supporting Australian TV and radio

    Source: Australian Executive Government Ministers

    The Albanese Government is delivering on its commitment to support commercial television and radio broadcasters through the suspension of the Commercial Broadcasting Tax (CBT) for one year.
     
    Announced as part of the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook 2024-25, the measure will provide temporary relief for commercial broadcasters in the face of continuing financial pressures impacting the sector.
     
    The one-year suspension will apply from 9 June 2025 to 8 June 2026 and has been implemented by way of a 100% rebate of the CBT liabilities of all commercial television and radio broadcasters, reducing their liabilities to zero. This will save commercial broadcasters an estimated $50.3 million.
     
    Those regional commercial television and radio broadcasters currently eligible for a partial rebate of their CBT liabilities will be entitled to receive the 100% rebate for one year, after which their partial rebate entitlement will resume.
     
    The one-year 100% rebate has been implemented by the Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Amendment (Transmitter Licence Tax Rebate) Rules 2025, which are available on the Federal Register of Legislation.
     
    The rebate will be administered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.
     
    The CBT is a charge for the use of spectrum by commercial radio and television broadcasters. As spectrum is a finite and valuable public resource, the CBT is imposed to ensure the efficient use of spectrum.
     
    The measure is part of the Government’s work to support news and media diversity in Australia, including through increased funding for the national broadcaster and the community broadcasting sector, additional support for the Australian Associated Press, and funding for the News Media Assistance Program.
     
    Quotes attributable to the Minister for Communications, the Hon Michelle Rowland MP:
     
    “Free-to-air broadcasting services keep Australians informed and entertained with high quality programs that feature local voices and stories.
     
    “The sector continues to face a challenging operating environment, which is why the Government is providing relief by suspending the Commercial Broadcasting Tax for one year.
     
    “This measure is in addition to the Government’s delivery of media reforms to modernise the regulatory framework, the provision of stable funding arrangements for the Viewer Access Satellite Television service and our commitment to work with industry on a plan to secure the future of free-to-air television across Australia.”

    MIL OSI News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    So what should be done?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

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

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington Maria Cantwell

    02.18.25

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

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

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

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

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

    The Senate ultimately confirmed Lutnick 51-45.

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

    Sen. Cantwell on FAA and Aviation Safety:

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

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

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

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

    Sen. Cantwell on Tariffs:

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

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

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

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

    Sen. Cantwell on Semiconductor Manufacturing:

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

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

    Sen. Cantwell on NOAA:

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI USA News

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

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Nevada Cortez Masto

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

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

    MIL OSI USA News

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

    Source: New Zealand Government

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

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

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

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

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

    Source: New Zealand Labour Party

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

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

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

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

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


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

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Finance – The RBNZ cuts 50bp, as telegraphed. And they have lowered the OCR track – 3% here they come – Kiwibank

    Source: Kiwibank
    Yes, the RBNZ cut 50bps today, as expected.  RBNZ officials have proven to be nibble, again, and thankfully.  The economy needs help. 
    But the main message from today’s MPS is the lowering (again) of the OCR track. The RBNZ are signalling more cuts, sooner. The RBNZ has effectively matched market pricing, and moved closer to our long-held view of a 3% terminal rate.  There’s only 10bps between us now. It pays to be stubborn. And we agree with the move. We’re all on the same page, now.

    Here’s the key dates: the OCR track implies a 25bp cut in April and May to 3.25%. And then there is a welcome drop to 3.14% to end the year. And the track flatlines at 3.1% out to 2028.  That’s the RBNZ’s way of saying there’s a 60% chance they go from 3.25% to 3%.  You know, it’s kind of needed, but we not quite there yet. In time, they should get to 3%.  And the risks are to the downside. 

    We must point out that a 3.75% cash rate remains well above estimates of neutral – which are close to 3%.  So interest rates remain at levels that restrain demand. And after a severe recession, it’s hard to justify. We have rising unemployment and inflation rangebound near target. Job done. Release the break and put it in neutral.  If anything, the RBNZ may need to stimulate, by putting the economy in drive, tapping the accelerator, and cutting below 3%.

    The REALLY good news is that RBNZ has tamed the inflation beast. And it is time to drag the economy out of recession.  With more interest rate cuts on the way, we see the economy recovering in 2025. Rate cuts are feeding through fast, with 81% of mortgages fixed for less than a year.  That points to a firmer recovery in the second half of 2025. Along with gains in the housing market. And of course, 2026 is looking better than 2025, which will be a lot better than 2024.

    It’s a confidence game. It’s all about confidence. And we expect the lift in confidence to persist, and eventually feed into activity, profitability, hiring and investment. We’re more confident in the recovery.

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

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

    US Senate News:

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

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA News: Expanding Access to In Vitro Fertilization

    Source: The White House

    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

         Section 1.  Purpose and Policy.  Today, many hopeful couples dream of starting a family, but as many as one in seven are unable to conceive a child.  Despite their hopes and efforts, infertility struggles can make conception difficult, turning what should be a joyful experience into an emotional and financial struggle.  My Administration recognizes the importance of family formation, and as a Nation, our public policy must make it easier for loving and longing mothers and fathers to have children.
         In vitro fertilization (IVF) offers hope to men and women experiencing fertility challenges.  Americans need reliable access to IVF and more affordable treatment options, as the cost per cycle can range from $12,000 to $25,000.  Providing support, awareness, and access to affordable fertility treatments can help these families navigate their path to parenthood with hope and confidence.
         Therefore, to support American families, it is the policy of my Administration to ensure reliable access to IVF treatment, including by easing unnecessary statutory or regulatory burdens to make IVF treatment drastically more affordable.

         Sec2.  Lowering Costs and Reducing Barriers to IVF.  Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy shall submit to the President a list of policy recommendations on protecting IVF access and aggressively reducing out-of-pocket and health plan costs for IVF treatment.

         Sec3.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

                 (i)  the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

                 (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

         (b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

         (c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA News: Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies

    Source: The White House

     By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:  

         Section 1.  Policy and Purpose.  The Constitution vests all executive power in the President and charges him with faithfully executing the laws.  Since it would be impossible for the President to single-handedly perform all the executive business of the Federal Government, the Constitution also provides for subordinate officers to assist the President in his executive duties.  In the exercise of their often-considerable authority, these executive branch officials remain subject to the President’s ongoing supervision and control.  The President in turn is regularly elected by and accountable to the American people.  This is one of the structural safeguards, along with the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, regular elections for the Congress, and an independent judiciary whose judges are appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, by which the Framers created a Government accountable to the American people.   

         However, previous administrations have allowed so-called “independent regulatory agencies” to operate with minimal Presidential supervision.  These regulatory agencies currently exercise substantial executive authority without sufficient accountability to the President, and through him, to the American people.  Moreover, these regulatory agencies have been permitted to promulgate significant regulations without review by the President.  

         These practices undermine such regulatory agencies’ accountability to the American people and prevent a unified and coherent execution of Federal law.  For the Federal Government to be truly accountable to the American people, officials who wield vast executive power must be supervised and controlled by the people’s elected President.   

         Therefore, in order to improve the administration of the executive branch and to increase regulatory officials’ accountability to the American people, it shall be the policy of the executive branch to ensure Presidential supervision and control of the entire executive branch.  Moreover, all executive departments and agencies, including so-called independent agencies, shall submit for review all proposed and final significant regulatory actions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the President before publication in the Federal Register

         Sec2.  Definitions.  For the purposes of this order:

         (a)  The term “employees” shall have the meaning given that term in section 2105 of title 5, United States Code.   

         (b)  The term “independent regulatory agency” shall have the meaning given that term in section 3502(5) of title 44, United States Code.  This order shall not apply to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or to the Federal Open Market Committee in its conduct of monetary policy.  This order shall apply to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System only in connection with its conduct and authorities directly related to its supervision and regulation of financial institutions.  

         (c)  The term “independent regulatory agency chairman” shall mean, with regard to a multi-member independent regulatory agency, the chairman of such agency, and shall mean, with regard to a single-headed independent regulatory agency, such agency’s chairman, director, or other presiding officer.    

         (d)  The term “head” of an independent regulatory agency shall mean those appointed to supervise independent regulatory agencies and in whom the agencies’ authorities are generally vested, encompassing the chairman, director, or other presiding officer, and, as applicable, other members, commissioners, or similar such officials with responsibility for supervising such agencies.   

         Sec. 3.  OIRA Review of Agency Regulations.  (a)  Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:   

         “(b)  “Agency,” unless otherwise indicated, means any authority of the United States that is an “agency” under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1), and shall also include the Federal Election Commission.  This order shall not apply to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or to the Federal Open Market Committee in its conduct of monetary policy.  This order shall apply to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System only in connection with its conduct and authorities directly related to its supervision and regulation of financial institutions.”.

         (b)  The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) shall provide guidance on implementation of this order to the heads of executive departments and agencies newly submitting regulatory actions under section 3(b) of Executive Order 12866.  Agency submissions by independent regulatory agencies under such section shall commence within the earlier of 60 days from the date of this order, or completion of such implementation guidance.  

         Sec4.  Performance Standards and Management Objectives.  The Director of OMB shall establish performance standards and management objectives for independent agency heads, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, and report periodically to the President on their performance and efficiency in attaining such standards and objectives. 

         Sec5.  Apportionments for Independent Regulatory Agencies.  The Director of OMB shall, on an ongoing basis:   

         (a)  review independent regulatory agencies’ obligations for consistency with the President’s policies and priorities; and   

         (b)  consult with independent regulatory agency chairmen and adjust such agencies’ apportionments by activity, function, project, or object, as necessary and appropriate, to advance the President’s policies and priorities.  Such adjustments to apportionments may prohibit independent regulatory agencies from expending appropriations on particular activities, functions, projects, or objects, so long as such restrictions are consistent with law. 

         Sec6.  Additional Consultation with the Executive Office of the President.  (a)  Subject to subsection (b), independent regulatory agency chairmen shall regularly consult with and coordinate policies and priorities with the directors of OMB, the White House Domestic Policy Council, and the White House National Economic Council.  

         (b)  The heads of independent regulatory agencies shall establish a position of White House Liaison in their respective agencies.  Such position shall be in grade 15 of the General Schedule and shall be placed in Schedule C of the excepted service.  

         (c)  Independent regulatory agency chairmen shall submit agency strategic plans developed pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 to the Director of OMB for clearance prior to finalization. 

          Sec7.  Rules of Conduct Guiding Federal Employees’ Interpretation of the Law. The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch.  The President and the Attorney General’s opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties.  No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law, including but not limited to the issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation, unless authorized to do so by the President or in writing by the Attorney General. 

          Sec8.  General Provisions.  (a)  If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.  

         (b)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:  

         (i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or 

         (ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.  

         (c)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.  

         (d)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.  

    MIL OSI USA News

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

    Source: The White House

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

    11:48 A.M. EST

         Q    Mr. President, great to see you again.

         THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much.  Thank you.

         Q    How are you?

         THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you. 

         Q    Elon Musk.

         MR. MUSK:  Hi.

         Q    Great to see you. 

         MR. MUSK:  Thanks.  Thanks for having me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

         Q    I think it’s funny.

         THE PRESIDENT:  I think —

         Q    Because —

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

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

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

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

         Q    You don’t care about that? 

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

         Q    You love the president? 

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

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

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

         THE PRESIDENT:  It is.

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

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

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

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

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

         Q    That was it?

         MR. MUSK:  — a precipitating event, yeah.

         THE PRESIDENT:  That speeded it up a little bit?

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.  Yeah.

         Q    The day of the assassination? 

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

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

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

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

         THE PRESIDENT:  Sure.

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

         MR. MUSK:  Ah, okay.

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

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

         Q    — and all these —

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

         Q    You can show them your shirt.

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

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

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

         Q    It’s crazy.

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

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

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

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

         THE PRESIDENT:  It’s true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

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

         What is the relationship, Mr. President?

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

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

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

         Q    I have it.

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

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

         We watch the rocket ships, and we watch Tesla.

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

         MR. MUSK:  Just hug the rocket. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  I’d never seen —

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

         Q    You hug the rocket.  You hug the rocket.

         MR. MUSK:  — (inaudible) rockets. 

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

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

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

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

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah, the do.

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

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

         MR. MUSK:  I —

         THE PRESIDENT:  No, no.  He is —

         MR. MUSK:  I actually virtually am tech support.

         THE PRESIDENT:  He’s much more than that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

         Q    They will?

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

         MR. MUSK:  Really crazy.

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

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

         Q    Ninety-five percent.

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

         But the team we have is — is really unbelievable. 

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

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

         MR. MUSK:  Sure.

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

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

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         Q    That’s — that’s pretty deep. 

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

         Q    Okay.

         MR. MUSK:  (Laughs.)  Yeah.

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

         Q    Starlink.

         MR. MUSK:  At some point, yeah.

         Q    As in (inaudible) —

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

         Q    Star- — Starlink is in 100 countries. 

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

         MR. MUSK:  You go ahead. 

         Q    Starshield, which could be used for national defense. 

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

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

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

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

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

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

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

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

         THE PRESIDENT:  And you like Bobby, right?

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

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

         MR. MUSK:  Correct.

         Q    That’s for sure. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yes. 

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

         THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

         Q    You’re pretty competitive.

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

         Q    I’ve known you a long time.

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

         Q    But —

         THE PRESIDENT:  That’s why I became president.

         Q    — he’s on your team.

         THE PRESIDENT:  (Inaudible) —

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

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

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

         Q    But this is the thing —

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

         MR. MUSK:  Well, thanks for having me.

         THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)  Yeah.

         Q    So —

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

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

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

         Q    Oh, okay.

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

         Q    Okay.  So, just —

         THE PRESIDENT:  And they’re very committed people. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

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

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

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

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

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

         THE PRESIDENT:  They got left in space. 

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

         THE PRESIDENT:  Biden. 

         MR. MUSK:  They were put —

         Q    Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

    bring them back. 

         Q    About four weeks? 

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  And you have the go-ahead.

         MR. MUSK:  We’re being extremely cautious.

         Q    Yeah.

         THE PRESIDENT:  You now have the go-ahead.

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

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

         Q    What’s that?

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

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

         THE PRESIDENT:  He considered it a —

         Q    — growing up, lost in space. 

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

         Q    Unbelievable.  And so —

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

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

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.  Yes.

         Q    You donated to the people of —

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

         Q    And California, after the wildfires?

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

         Q    Nothing.

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

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

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

         Q    Not anymore.

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

         Q    He killed that, huh?

         MR. MUSK:  I mean, less —

         THE PRESIDENT:  I really (inaudible) —

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

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

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

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

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

         MR. MUSK:  (Inaudible) —

         Q    Before Trump: “BC” —

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

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

         MR. MUSK:  No.

         Q    No.  So —

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

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

         MR. MUSK:  It totally triggers. 

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

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         Q    And guess what?  I get over it.

         MR. MUSK.  Sure.  Yeah, yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

         Q    You —

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

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

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

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

         MR. MUSK:  Exactly.

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

         Q    When is it —

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

         Q    This is the new Air Force One?

         THE PRESIDENT:  — what’s going on.

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

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

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

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

         Q    Sure. 

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

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

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

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

         MR. MUSK:  Absolutely.

         Q    And what did you mean by that?

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

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

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

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

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

         MR. MUSK:  It’s absurd. 

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

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

         Q    They lie. 

         THE PRESIDENT:  These are horrible people. 

         Q    They tell conspiracy theories.

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

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

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

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

         Q    It was part of her word salad. 

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

         MR. MUSK:  Right. 

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

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah, exactly. 

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

         MR. MUSK:  Right.

         Q    — “No deal.” 

         MR. MUSK:  Exactly.  They can- —

         Q    Like, this interview will —

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

         Q    Sometimes you cut for time o- — 

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

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

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah. 

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

         THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

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

         MR. MUSK:  Sure.

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

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

         Q    — scroll it and —

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

         THE PRESIDENT:  That’s right. 

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

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

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

         MR. MUSK:  Yes, exactly.

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

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

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

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

         Q    (Inaudible) the art of the deal?

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

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

         THE PRESIDENT:  — it’s caring. 

         Q    Yeah.

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

         MR. MUSK:  I — if you —

         THE PRESIDENT:  (Inaudible.)

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

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

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

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

         MR. MUSK:  They fully lied. 

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

         MR. MUSK:  Right.

         Q    You know, they said Obamacare would save —

         MR. MUSK:  They flat out lied. 

         Q    They flat out lied — 

         MR. MUSK:  It was insane.

         Q    — on many occasions. 

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

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

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

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

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

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

         MR. MUSK:  Yes. 

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

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

         Q    — for better schools, law and order. 

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

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

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

         Q    — our kids and grandkids.

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

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

         Q    Yes.

         THE PRESIDENT:  And a lot of kickbacks. 

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

         MR. MUSK:  (Laughs.)  Literally.

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

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

         THE PRESIDENT:  No, it’s incredible. 

         Q    I was going to mention that.

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

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

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

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

         Q    So, for the average person at home —

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

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

         MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

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

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

         Q    They tried to get —

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

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

         MR. MUSK:  That’s true.

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

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

         Q    Money to the Taliban?

         MR. MUSK:  Like a lot.

         Q    All right.  So —

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

         Q    But they —

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

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

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

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

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

         Q    — transgender comic book in Peru. 

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

         Q    Okay.  The — I —

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

         Q    I have 20 pages of this.

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

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

        MR. MUSK:  Yes.

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

         Q    Subscriptions. 

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

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

         Q    A million dollars in subscriptions is a lot.

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

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

         Q    Well —

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

    thought that was a little bold.  (Laughs.) 

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

         MR. MUSK:  I’m like —

         Q    — the Twitter files.

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

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

         MR. MUSK:  Absolutely.

         Q    — you found all that out. 

         MR. MUSK:  Well, I think —

         Q    That’s called transparency, right?

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

         MR. MUSK:   Yeah.

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

         Q    And intelligence.

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

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

         Q    It is. 

         What — you were going to say, Elon?

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

         Q    How — how did you find (inaudible)?

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

         Q    She bought and paid it — for it —

         MR. MUSK:  Right.

         Q    — Russian disinformation. 

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

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

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

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

         Q    For this fiscal year?

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

         MR. MUSK:  Two —

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

         Q    That was January —

         THE PRESIDENT:  Inflating is back —

         Q    — you were there for a week. 

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

         Q    Well —

         THE PRESIDENT:  Dollar-wise, probably —

         Q    — and DEI —

         THE PRESIDENT:  — it is.

         Q    — and wokeism —

         THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, yeah.

         Q    — and transgenderism —

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

         Q    — and LGBTQ+.

         MR. MUSK:  Yes.

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

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

         MR. MUSK:  Right.

         THE PRESIDENT:  You could teach physics. 

         MR. MUSK:  Exactly.  Totally.

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

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

         THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, the teaching —

         MR. MUSK:  Expensive BS.

         THE PRESIDENT:  — of DEI.

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

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

         Q    Well, it —

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

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

         MR. MUSK:  Well —

         Q    — do you anticipate you will?

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

    THE PRESIDENT:  One percent.

    MR. MUSK:  (Laughs.)

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

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah, exactly.

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

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

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

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

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah, I think so. 

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

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

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

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

    Q    How’d they earn it?

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    Q    They have a private company on the side? 

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

    THE PRESIDENT:  While they were working.

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

    Q    W- —

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

    Q    All right, s- —

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

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

    MR. MUSK:  Sure.

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

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

    MR. MUSK:  Sure.

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

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

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.  Yes.

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

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    Q    And — and we’re not doing it.

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

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

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

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

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.  Exactly.

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

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

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

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

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

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

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.

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

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

    Q    I think you’re right.

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

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

    Q    Popular vote. 

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

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

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

    MR. MUSK:  (Laughs.)

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

    Q    Yeah, your friends in the media.

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

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

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

    THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)  Yeah.

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

    THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.  Yeah.

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

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

    Q    Won’t be touched.

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

    Q    Nothing.  I want you to —

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

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

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

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

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

    So, it doesn’t work. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Q    Do you want standards associated with the money?

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

    Q    Math and science.

    THE PRESIDENT:  — and arithmetic.  Okay?

    Q    Science?  Science might help.

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

    Q    Computers.

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

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

    MR. MUSK:  It’s empty.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Look at the real estate and the —

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

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

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

    MR. MUSK:  Sure.

    THE PRESIDENT:  It’s a valuable commodity. 

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    THE PRESIDENT:  I think they should be incentivized. 

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.

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

    MR. MUSK:  Absolutely.

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

    THE PRESIDENT:  Right.

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

    THE PRESIDENT:  Right.

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

    You mentioned —

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

    Q    Forms of that?

    THE PRESIDENT:  Forms of that could be done.

    Q    Innovation. 

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

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

    There are things we could do. 

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

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

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.  The numbers are crazy.

    Q    To go back to my original point —

    THE PRESIDENT:  He can save —

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

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

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

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

    MR. MUSK:  Well, I mean, to —

    THE PRESIDENT:  He’ll never do anything bigger.

    MR. MUSK:  To the president’s point —

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

    never do anything” —

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

         Q    When you say “tech support” —

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

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

    Q    They want to know.

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

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

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

    Q    Yeah.

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

    Q    Way too high.

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

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

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

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

    Q    Yeah.

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

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    Q    Florida.

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

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

    Q    Yeah.

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

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

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

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

    Q    I like Florida.

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

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

    Q    Efficiently.

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

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

    THE PRESIDENT:  I — well, I did.

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

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

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

    The sad part is it rewards really badly run states. 

    Q    Yeah.

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

    Q    You got it done, and —

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

         Q    A little bit.

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

    Q    It’s only a little.

    THE PRESIDENT:  We’ve got to help.

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

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

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

    THE PRESIDENT:  Right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Q    That was it.

    MR. MUSK:  — being bought by the DOD.

    Q    And that he gave it to you.

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

    THE PRESIDENT:  No, actually, it was —

    MR. MUSK:  Th- — it was fa- —

    THE PRESIDENT:  It was Biden.

    Q    It was Biden.

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

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

    Q    That’s what it was, Cybertrucks.

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

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

    MR. MUSK:  It’s total fake news. 

    Q    There — there is —

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

    Q    There is some integration —

    MR. MUSK:  — multiple layers of fake.

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

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

    Q    You know, “Godspeed, John Glenn.”

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

    Q    But — but there —

    MR. MUSK:  Oh, yeah.

    Q    But there are legitimate areas —

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

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

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

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

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

    Q    — a contract he would otherwise get?

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

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

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

    Q    Y- — now y- —

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

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.

    THE PRESIDENT:  They’re cutting back.

    Q    You’re losing —

    THE PRESIDENT:  Not only cutting back —

    Q    It hurts you.

    MR. MUSK:  Correct.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

    Now, I will tell you —

    Q    You don’t care? 

    MR. MUSK:  Well —

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

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

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

         MR. MUSK:  Exactly.

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

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

    THE PRESIDENT:  It’s true.

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

    THE PRESIDENT:  He won’t be involved. 

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

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

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

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

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

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

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

    THE PRESIDENT:  You know the truth was —

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Q    Shock — it’s been shock and awe. 

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

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

    THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, reciprocal. 

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

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah, totally.

    Q    I didn’t know Canada was charging us.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Everybody.  Everybody.  Everybody but us.

    Q    Brazil, why?

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

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

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

    THE PRESIDENT:  The tariffs are so high —

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

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

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

    Q    36 percent?

    THE PRESIDENT:  Oh, much — much higher.

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

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

    MR. MUSK:  It seems fair.

    Q    Don’t you —

    THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)  It does.

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

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

    Q    Can I — (inaudible) —

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

         Q    They stop.

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

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

         Q    (Inaudible.)

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

    Q    Yeah.  And how does — how —

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

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

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

    THE PRESIDENT:  They do.  Everybody needs us. 

    Q    Everybody needs it. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  And you know what?

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

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

    Q    Mr. President —

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

    Q    How quickly —

    MR. MUSK:  May I say —

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

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

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

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

    Q    (Inaudible.)

         MR. MUSK:  (Inaudible.)

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

    Q    I agree. 

         MR. MUSK:  (Inaudible) —

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

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

    THE PRESIDENT:  Right.

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

    Q    Nobody — 

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

    Q    The president’s —

    THE PRESIDENT:  Europe takes advantage of us.

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

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

         THE PRESIDENT:  Sean, you’re a —

    Q    This is what — this is what drives you? 

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.

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

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

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

    THE PRESIDENT:  That’s peanuts.

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

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

    Q    It’s peanuts?

    THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

    Q    Do you agree with that?

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

    THE PRESIDENT:  Including his ships.

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

    THE PRESIDENT:  Including his ships going up.

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

    THE PRESIDENT:  Nothing.  There’s nothing left. 

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

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

         Q    But why this rage?

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

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

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

    Q    They’re being exposed. 

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.

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

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

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

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Q    They would attack him —

    THE PRESIDENT:  But this — Sean —

    Q    — as being unconstitutional, not — a fascist. 

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

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

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

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

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

    THE PRESIDENT:  All good statements.

    Q    King Abdullah was interested.

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

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

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

    Q    It’s the obvious. 

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

    MR. MUSK:  (Inaudible.)

    THE PRESIDENT:  Not the greatest. 

    Q    Sorry, if that’s (inaudible).

    THE PRESIDENT:  He’s done a tremendous disservice. 

    Q    Will you be here —

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

    Q    Who?  John Fetterman?

    THE PRESIDENT:  — a lot of people have —

    Q    Maybe?  Who — what Democrat is not radicalized? 

    THE PRESIDENT:  Actually, you mention John.

    Q    John Fetterman. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    But he’s under a pretty big microscope. 

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah, seriously.

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

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

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

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

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

    MR. MUSK:  Totally.

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

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.

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

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

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

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah, totally.

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

    Q    It shocks the conscious.

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

    MR. MUSK:  Absolutely.

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

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

    THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

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

    MR. MUSK:  Yes.

    Q    But you had been planning on it?

    MR. MUSK:  Yeah.

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

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

    Q    Yeah.  Thank you both. 

         Mr. President, thank you, sir. 

    THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much. 

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

                                  END                    1:01 P.M. EST

    MIL OSI USA News

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

    Source: China State Council Information Office 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Duckworth Votes Against Confirming Howard Lutnick to Serve as Commerce Secretary

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth

    February 18, 2025

    [WASHINGTON, D.C.] – Today, U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)—a member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation (CST)—released the following statement after voting against Howard Lutnick’s nomination to serve as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The Senate confirmed Lutnick by a vote of 51-45.

    “I cannot vote for any nominee who won’t publicly pledge without hesitation that they’d refuse an unlawful order from President Trump—and Mr. Lutnick failed that simple test. As Donald Trump and Elon Musk continue their illegal spree to freeze federal funding and make deep cuts at critical agencies so they can pave the way for tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy, we need a Secretary of Commerce who is not afraid to stand up to this chaos, uphold the law and put our economy and middle-class Americans first. And yet, by confirming Mr. Lutnick today, Republicans are once again proving how easily they will appease Trump out of fear for their own political survival—and it will be American farmers, businesses and the middle class who will pay the price.”

    -30-



    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI China: China to further remove market access barriers for private sector

    Source: China State Council Information Office

    Technicians check products at a private chemical fiber enterprise in Tongxiang, Zhejiang province. [Photo/Xinhua]

    China is set to expedite the revision of its negative list for market entry and further remove barriers to market access, as part of its larger drive to bolster the healthy development of the private economy, the country’s top economic regulator said on Tuesday.

    The move came after President Xi Jinping, during a symposium on private enterprises on Monday in Beijing, reiterated China’s commitment to boosting the private sector through concrete efforts, sending a clear message of support from the government, analysts said.

    They said that policymakers will take further targeted measures to resolve issues faced by private companies and create a favorable business environment, which will significantly help boost confidence and expectations among private enterprises and entrepreneurs.

    “China will accelerate the push for revising and updating the negative list on market access, and areas that are not on the list will all be deemed as fully open,” said Zheng Bei, deputy head of the National Development and Reform Commission, according to a China Central Television news report.

    She said the country will continue to open up fields, such as competitive infrastructure sectors and major national scientific research infrastructure, to private companies.

    China will also encourage private enterprises to play a more active role in the implementation of major national strategies and the buildup of the nation’s security capacity in key areas, as well as in programs for large-scale equipment upgrades and trade-in deals for consumer goods.

    “The country is sending strong signals on optimizing the business environment for private enterprises, addressing market access and financing issues, and enhancing corporate confidence through the rule of law, which will help promote high-quality economic development,” said Hong Yong, an associate research fellow at the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation.

    He highlighted that the healthy development of the private economy plays a pivotal role in keeping the economy dynamic, serving as a driving force for shoring up growth and stabilizing the overall economy.

    According to the NDRC, the private sector’s scale, innovation capabilities and international competitiveness have all significantly improved in recent years. Official data showed that private enterprises account for over 92 percent of the total number of businesses in China and more than 92 percent of the nation’s high-tech companies.

    Going forward, the government will work to remove the remaining obstacles to market entry and access to factors of production, building a unified, open, competitive and orderly market system, the NDRC said.

    Zheng from the NDRC said that China will continue to strengthen legal protection for private enterprises and entrepreneurs, pushing forward the legislative process for a private economy promotion law. The draft law on promoting the private economy was submitted for deliberation in December to the Standing Committee of the 14th National People’s Congress.

    Bai Wenxi, vice-chairman of the China Enterprise Capital Union, said that China has outlined a clear direction for the future development of the private economy — promoting the high-quality growth of the private economy and encouraging private enterprises to play a bigger role in the implementation of national strategies and key areas of development.

    “These initiatives have sent a clear signal of the country’s high regard and support for the private economy, demonstrating that the private sector’s position in China’s economy is irreplaceable,” he noted. “The country will continue to optimize the business environment and support the healthy development of the private economy.”

    Citing measures mapped out by the NDRC, such as revising the negative list on market access and addressing financing difficulties, he said that these will “provide a rising number of growth opportunities for private companies and help alleviate their burdens”.

    Looking ahead, Bai said it is advisable for the government to take further moves to remove some implicit barriers and resolve issues faced by the private sector, such as difficulties in accessing affordable financing.

    “Potential moves may include further encouraging financial institutions to develop financial products tailored to private enterprises and expand their financing channels,” he added.

    Bai’s views were echoed by Pan Helin, a member of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology’s Expert Committee for the Information and Communication Economy, who said he believes that the government will introduce more measures to support the development of the private economy.

    “The focus will be placed on optimizing the business environment, such as streamlining administrative approval processes, improving efficiency, reducing operational costs for businesses, and enhancing the overall satisfaction and sense of benefit for private enterprises,” Pan said.

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Deputy Secretary-General’s remarks at the Member States’ Briefing on the Second Food Systems Summit Stocktake (UNFSS+4) [as delivered]

    Source: United Nations secretary general

    HE Amb. Tesfaye Yilma Sabo, Permanent Representative of Ethiopia to the United Nations, 

    HE Amb. Maurizio Massari, Permanent Representative of Italy to the United Nations, 

    Excellencies, distinguished delegates,
    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    It is a real pleasure to join our Permanent Representatives and welcome you all today. 

    As you all know transforming our food systems is essential to driving progress across the Sustainable Development Goals and delivering for everyone, everywhere – sufficient, nutritious food – now and in the future, particularly as we go towards the five years to deliver on the 2030 Agenda.

    That is why, in 2021, the UN Secretary-General convened the UN Food Systems Summit.  This established the foundation for a new, integrated approach to food systems—placing food at the heart of our efforts to address poverty, zero hunger, inequality, climate change, and biodiversity loss. 

    It has reshaped the global narrative, building an engine of transformation that recognizes food systems as a key lever to accelerate and reinforce SDG progress.

    Building on this momentum, the first Summit Stocktake, hosted by the Government of Italy in 2023, reaffirmed strong political will among nations. Countries pledged to increase the pace of their efforts towards sustainable, inclusive, and resilient food systems transformation.

    But it also highlighted persistent gaps and challenges. Among them, an urgent need to enhance public-private-community partnerships, and strengthen private sector engagement. 

    These crucial issues identified at the first stocktake, resulted in the UN Secretary-General’s Call to Action. 

     The Call identified six critical areas for concerted action, including: securing concessional finance, investments, budget support, and debt restructuring. It also emphasized addressing food security in crisis situations. 

    The proposed SDG stimulus – of $500 billion a year – was recognized as a game-changer, offering fiscal space and resources, including through SDR rechannelling. 

    Finance was emphasized as a critical component of food systems transformation, along with support of our Multilateral Development Banks in unlocking investments in this field. 

    Given the global context riddled with challenges of rising living costs, social inequalities, climate change, and geopolitical tensions, we will need all hands on deck to reach food systems transformations with the impact to advance on the 2030 Agenda. 

    Now, in just over five months, Addis Ababa will host the Second United Nations Food Systems Summit Stocktake. 

    We are grateful to the Government of Ethiopia for hosting this important event and for making our commitment to take the second stocktake to a developing country, a reality. Worth noting also is its leadership and extensive work on its policy environment, infrastructure development and the production of food that engages small holder farmers across the country. We are grateful to Italy, which has agreed to co-host, for its legacy and continued leadership and support to food systems transformation. It is important that we see leadership and sustainability of that support at country level.
     
    The Stocktake will be different, it has to be, in response to many of the requests for us to have more focus and impact.

    First, we will be reflecting on progress since 2023, with a Report from the system, but also a shadow report from our stakeholders.

    Second, we will be partnering to track commitments and outcomes through national food systems pathways to accelerate SDG implementation. 

    And third, unlocking investments to sustain and scale transformative initiatives aligned with the SDGs.

    In preparations for the Stocktake, we are committed to an inclusive, cross-sectoral efforts and consultations. 

     We will hold a second briefing in Nairobi next week engaging UN Headquarters in Nairobi, Rome and Geneva. 

    In addition, we will hold five regional briefings, on the margins of the United Nations Regional Forums on Sustainable Development, from March to May. 

    We will also be engaging all our Resident Coordinators in UN Country Teams, at the country level so that they are fully engaged with our member states in bringing to Addis Ababa, the progress and of course, the challenges and opportunities.

    At the same time, we will push progress towards food systems transformation, including through important gatherings this year – the Fourth Financing for Development Conference in Spain, UNFCCC COP 30 in Brazil, the Second World Summit on Social Development in Qatar, and the Third United Nations Ocean Conference in France. 

    These are all critical platforms to drive progress, harness collective action and create new investment opportunities.

    As Member States, you are at the forefront of this transformation. Your leadership and coordination will be instrumental in ensuring that the Stocktake inspires real action at the national level.

    The United Nations is with you –committed to creating sustainable, inclusive, healthy and resilient food systems everywhere, across all our regions, reaching everyone.

    We thank you for this important opportunity that will help us to shape the Stocktake in Addis Ababa in July. 
     

    MIL OSI United Nations News

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: NZers didn’t need this much pain to reduce OCR

    Source: Green Party

    Today’s OCR cut will fail to soothe the long-term pain Christopher Luxon’s Government is inflicting upon our communities. 

    “Luxon’s Government had options to cool demand in the economy. Instead of sharing resources around so everyone could get through the hard times, they threw jobs, public services and livelihoods on the scrapheap,” says Green Party co-leader and spokesperson for Finance Chlöe Swarbrick. 

    “The collateral damage of Christopher Luxon and Nicola Willis’ decisions mean more inequality, more homelessness, more climate-changing emissions, more inequality and more long-term issues. Maybe that’s what they mean by ‘going for growth’?

    “While today’s OCR announcement is good news for everyone with a mortgage, it’s critical to understand the unnecessary collateral damage created by the Government’s chosen path of destruction. Those wounds won’t heal quickly or by themselves.

    “Monetary policy, the setting of interest rates, is a blunt instrument. It’s fiscal policy, the Government’s choices on tax and spend – which dictates who wins, and who loses in our economy.

    “New Zealanders are voting with their feet and leaving in record numbers. They’ve given up playing by made-up rules that benefit wealth accumulation of the few over the work of the many.

    “A different world is possible. We can have an economy that works for people and planet, instead of exploiting both,” says Chlöe Swarbrick. 

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-OSI: PIMCO Global Income Opportunities Fund Renews At-The-Market Equity Program

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Not for distribution to United States newswire services or for dissemination in the United States

    TORONTO, Feb. 18, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — PIMCO Global Income Opportunities Fund (TSX: PGI.UN) (the “Fund”) announced today that the Fund has renewed its at-the-market equity program (the “ATM Program”). The ATM Program allows the Fund to issue Class A units of the Fund (the “Units”) having an aggregate sale price of up to $80,000,000, to the public from time to time, at the discretion of PIMCO Canada Corp. (the “Manager”). Any Units issued under the ATM Program will be sold at the prevailing market price at the time of sale through the Toronto Stock Exchange (“TSX”) or any other marketplace in Canada on which the Units are listed, quoted or otherwise traded. This ATM Program replaces the prior at-the-market equity program of the Fund, which commenced on January 20, 2023 and expired on February 16, 2025.

    The volume and timing of distributions under the ATM Program, if any, will be determined at the Manager’s sole discretion. The ATM Program will be effective until March 14, 2027, unless terminated prior to such date by the Fund. The Fund intends to use the proceeds from the ATM Program in accordance with its investment objectives, investment strategies and investment restrictions.

    Sales of Units through the ATM Program will be made pursuant to the terms of an equity distribution agreement entered into by the Fund (the “Equity Distribution Agreement”), dated February 18, 2025, with National Bank Financial Inc. (the “Agent”).

    Sales of Units will be made by way of “at-the-market distributions” as defined in National Instrument 44-102 Shelf Distributions on the TSX or on any marketplace for the Units in Canada. Since Units will be distributed at prevailing market prices at the time of the sale, prices may vary among purchasers during the period of distribution. The ATM Program is being offered pursuant to a prospectus supplement dated February 18, 2025 (the “Prospectus Supplement”) to the Fund’s short form base shelf prospectus dated February 14, 2025 (the “Shelf Prospectus”).

    Copies of the Prospectus Supplement, the Shelf Prospectus and the Equity Distribution Agreement may be obtained from your registered financial advisor using the contact information for such advisor, or from representatives of the Agent, and are available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.

    The Manager retains Pacific Investment Management Company LLC (“PIMCO”), to provide investment management services to the Fund.

    About PIMCO

    PIMCO is a global leader in active fixed income with deep expertise across public and private markets. PIMCO invests their clients’ capital across a range of fixed income and credit opportunities, drawing upon PIMCO’s decades of experience navigating complex debt markets. PIMCO’s flexible capital base and deep relationships with issuers have helped PIMCO become one of the world’s largest providers of traditional and nontraditional solutions for companies that need financing and investors who seek strong risk-adjusted returns.

    This is not an offer to sell Units and not a solicitation of an offer to buy Units in any region where the offer or sale is not permitted. Before you invest, you should carefully read the Fund’s disclosure documents and consider carefully the risks you assume when you invest in the Units. There can be no assurance that the Fund will achieve its investment objectives or be able to structure its investment portfolio as anticipated. Copies of the Fund’s disclosure documents may be obtained from your financial advisor.

    Forward-Looking Statements

    Certain statements included in this news release constitute forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to, those identified by the expressions “expect”, “intend”, “will” and similar expressions to the extent they relate to the Fund. The forward-looking statements are not historical facts but reflect the Fund, the Manager and/or PIMCO’s current expectations regarding future results or events. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results or events to differ materially from current expectations, including, but not limited to, market factors. Although the Fund, the Manager and/or PIMCO believes that the assumptions inherent in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and, accordingly, readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on such statements due to the inherent uncertainty therein. The Fund, the Manager and/or PIMCO undertakes no obligation to update publicly or otherwise revise any forward-looking statement or information whether as a result of new information, future events or other factors which affect this information, except as required by law.

    You will usually pay brokerage fees to your dealer if you purchase or sell Units on the TSX. If the Units are purchased or sold on the TSX, investors may pay more than the current net asset value when buying the Units and may receive less than the current net asset value when selling them. There are ongoing fees and expenses associated with owning the Units. An investment fund must prepare disclosure documents that contain key information about the fund. You can find more detailed information about the Fund in these documents.

    Investment funds are not guaranteed, their values change frequently and past performance may not be repeated.

    A short form base shelf prospectus and a prospectus supplement containing important detailed information about the securities being offered have been filed with securities commissions or similar authorities in each of the provinces and territories of Canada. Copies of the Equity Distribution Agreement, the short form base shelf prospectus and the prospectus supplement may be obtained from the Agent. Investors should read the short form base shelf prospectus and the prospectus supplement before making an investment decision.

    PIMCO as a general matter provides services to qualified institutions, financial intermediaries and institutional investors. Individual investors should contact their own financial professional to determine the most appropriate investment options for their financial situation. This material contains the current opinions of the Manager and such opinions are subject to change without notice. This material has been distributed for informational purposes only and should not be considered as investment advice or a recommendation of any particular security, strategy or investment product. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed. No part of this material may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission. PIMCO is a trademark of Allianz Asset Management of America LLC in the United States and throughout the world. ©2025, PIMCO

    The products and services provided by PIMCO Canada Corp. may only be available in certain provinces or territories of Canada and only through dealers authorized for that purpose.
    PIMCO Canada has retained PIMCO LLC as sub-adviser. PIMCO Canada will remain responsible for any loss that arises out of the failure of its sub-adviser.

    PIMCO Canada Corp. 199 Bay Street, Suite 2050, Commerce Court Station, P.O. Box 363, Toronto, ON, M5L 1G2, 416-368-3350.

    Contact:
    Agnes Crane
    PIMCO – Media Relations
    Ph. 212-597-1054
    Email: Agnes.Crane@pimco.com

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-Evening Report: With billions in ‘profit’ exempt from tax, changes to NZ’s charity rules are long overdue

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ranjana Gupta, Senior Lecturer, Accounting Department, Auckland University of Technology

    Jirsak/Shutterstock

    The profit made on every breakfast bowl of weet-bix is tax exempt, giving Sanitarium Health Food Company, owned by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, an advantage over other breakfast food companies. But this could be about to change.

    Under current rules, New Zealand’s charities are allowed to run businesses as long as the profits are not for personal gain. This means the government gives up millions in tax revenue from charities across the government.

    In December, Finance Minister Nicola Willis proposed revising the tax rules for charitable organisations. The changes are set to be announced with this year’s Budget. According to Willis, there was about NZ$2 billion of “profit” in the charitable sector that was not subject to tax.

    My new research – to be published later this year – looks at the integrity and fairness of the taxation framework that gives exemptions to charitable organisations competing directly with the for-profit sector.

    Striking the right balance between supporting legitimate charitable activities and preventing the abuse of tax concessions is crucial for ensuring a level playing field in the tax system.

    My study shows the tax exemption system in New Zealand, as it stands now, is not really fair and equitable. And it is past time for this to change.

    For the public benefit

    Under New Zealand’s charity law, a charitable organisation must operate for the public benefit and relieve the government of its burden to provide welfare services and assist disadvantaged people.

    A paper prepared by the Tax Working Group, an advisory group that looked at New Zealand’s tax system between 2017 and 2019, estimated 30% of registered charities were likely to have some sort of trading activities, such as second-hand stores.

    To be eligible for tax exemptions, any gains from businesses must be reinvested in the organisation’s charitable activities.

    The traditional justification for granting charitable organisations tax concessions is that they are dedicated to the greater good of society. The concessions are also meant to offset the disadvantages charities face in accessing capital.

    But by treating the producers of identical goods and services differently, there is a risk of compromising horizontal equity principles – basically the idea that taxpayers in similar positions should pay similar amounts of tax.

    There are concerns for the tax system’s integrity when charitable organisations shift their focus from providing a public good to providing private or unrelated goods (commercial activities).

    In these cases, it is clear that tax breaks should be limited.

    When governments offer tax breaks, they forego tax revenue. Governments end up having to raise money from other sources to meet their total tax collection targets, such as increasing tax rates on non-exempt firms, items and individuals.

    Taxing unrelated activities

    Overseas tax systems take a different view of exemptions for charities, offering examples for New Zealand to follow.

    In the United Kingdom, for example, charities cannot undertake commercial trading activities unrelated to their charitable purposes while claiming exemption from income tax. This ensures fair competition between commercial activities.

    In the United States, “unrelated business income” is subject to tax, restricting concessions to ensure the tax regime matches conventional tax policy or social welfare policy.

    In Australia, commercial trading unrelated to the charity’s core purpose is not allowed.

    Ensuring transparency

    To ensure greater transparency over who gets an exemption, the financial statements of all charities in New Zealand should also be filed on the Charities Register. These statements should be publicly available.

    Charities also need to become more responsible and equitable in their operations. There needs to be stricter regulation, and compliance measures should be implemented. These would prevent tax exemption misuse that benefits a specific group or individuals.

    The time for reviewing charitable purposes is long overdue in New Zealand, particularly given the UK and Australia have set out their concepts of charitable purposes in recent years.

    Ranjana Gupta 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. With billions in ‘profit’ exempt from tax, changes to NZ’s charity rules are long overdue – https://theconversation.com/with-billions-in-profit-exempt-from-tax-changes-to-nzs-charity-rules-are-long-overdue-249575

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI China: US, Russia agree to improve ties, work on ending Ukraine conflict

    Source: China State Council Information Office

    A soldier of the motorized rifle battalion of the 93rd brigade shows an anti-drone shotgun at a position in Donetsk on Aug. 15, 2024. [Photo/Xinhua]

    The United States and Russia have agreed to work on a path to ending the conflict in Ukraine and improve bilateral ties during extensive high-level talks in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday.

    In the first face-to-face interactions between senior U.S. and Russian officials since the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict in February 2022, the Russian delegation, led by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and the Kremlin’s foreign affairs adviser Yuri Ushakov, met with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who was accompanied by National Security Adviser Mike Waltz and U.S. special envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff.

    Serious discussion

    Following the four-and-a-half-hour talks, Witkoff described the Riyadh talks as “positive, upbeat, constructive.” Ushakov said it was a “very serious discussion of all the issues we wanted to touch upon,” noting the two sides agreed to take into account each other’s interests and develop bilateral relations.

    The United States and Russia agreed to “establish a consultation mechanism to address irritants to our bilateral relationship with the objective of taking steps necessary to normalize the operation of our respective diplomatic missions,” according to a statement by the U.S. Department of State.

    Washington and Moscow will “appoint respective high-level teams to begin working on a path to ending the conflict in Ukraine as soon as possible in a way that is enduring, sustainable, and acceptable to all sides,” the statement said.

    The two sides agreed to “lay the groundwork for future cooperation on matters of mutual geopolitical interest and historic economic and investment opportunities which will emerge from a successful end to the conflict in Ukraine,” the statement added.

    In a press conference following the meeting, Lavrov described the discussions as “very useful,” emphasizing Russia’s firm stance that the deployment of NATO troops in Ukraine is unacceptable.

    This meeting is the latest indication of a thaw in the previously frosty relations between Washington and Moscow since U.S. President Donald Trump took office in January.

    Last week, Trump had a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin that lasted nearly an hour and a half, during which the Russian president extended an invitation for Trump to visit Moscow.

    Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said in an interview with local media following the phone call that Putin and Trump “agreed quite quickly to coordinate and hold a working meeting somewhere in a third country.”

    Echoing the Kremlin’s comments, Trump said that the call, which focused on negotiations to end the Ukraine crisis, is “lengthy and highly productive.”

    The phone call between the two presidents has set the wheels in motion for further official exchanges between the two countries.

    In a phone call on Saturday, Lavrov and Rubio also agreed to maintain regular contact.

    Both sides pledged to keep communication channels open to address accumulated issues in bilateral relations, particularly to “eliminate unilateral obstacles inherited from the previous U.S. administration that hinder mutually beneficial cooperation in trade, economy, and investment,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

    “The Trump administration is trying to reset tense relations with Moscow,” The Wall Street Journal stated in an opinion piece while commenting on the U.S.-Russia meeting in Saudi Arabia.

    Mixed reactions

    After the large-scale conflict between Russia and Ukraine erupted, the U.S. government under Joe Biden took a firm stance alongside its European allies, throwing its full support behind Ukraine by providing substantial military aid and isolating Russia on the international stage.

    When it comes to potential negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, the mantra once shared by the United States and Europe has been “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine,” emphasizing Ukraine’s leading role in any future talks.

    The change in the United States’ stance on the Ukraine-Russia conflict is occurring against a backdrop of increasing divergence in the understanding of defense cooperation between the United States and Europe.

    Washington has repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with its European allies for not pulling their weight in defense spending.

    “The United States will no longer tolerate an imbalanced relationship which encourages dependency,” U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth declared during the meeting with NATO defense ministers last week, calling on Europe to assume its “own responsibility for its own security.”

    What has further unsettled the European countries and Ukraine is that the high-profile talks between the United States and Russia excluded both Europe and Ukraine.

    In an emergency meeting hastily convened in Paris on the eve of the U.S.-Russia talks, a dozen European leaders reaffirmed their commitment to supporting Ukraine as the United States warms its ties with Russia.

    Meanwhile, some European leaders have voiced their frustration regarding their exclusion from the dialogue between the United States and Russia.

    “There can be no negotiation about Ukraine without Ukraine. The same is true for Europe,” said Dutch Defense Minister Ruben Brekelmans on social media platform X. “Europe must be involved in the negotiations.”

    Following the Riyadh meeting, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who is in Türkiye for a visit, said that the Russia-U.S. talks were “a surprise” to Kiev, which it “found out through the media.”

    Zelensky stressed that Türkiye and Europe should be involved in discussions about ending the Russia-Ukraine conflict. “Negotiations should not take place behind our backs,” he said, announcing the cancellation of his scheduled visit to Saudi Arabia.

    The Ukrainian president has said before that Kiev would not participate in the U.S.-Russia negotiation and his country will not accept the results of the negotiations that do not involve Ukraine.

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Government must keep cutting to keep interest rate relief coming

    Source: ACT Party

    The Government must keep cutting to keep the interest rate relief coming, says ACT Leader David Seymour in response to a 0.5 point cut in the Official Cash Rate.

    “Households who’ve done it tough through a cost-of-living crisis are seeing their sacrifices pay off. Today’s good news can be credited in part to New Zealanders’ financial discipline, which has eased inflation and made mortgage relief possible,” says Seymour.

    “The Government has been doing its part too, reining in Labour’s spending commitments. But we need to do more. The households paying the bills deserve a government that’s as disciplined as they are.

    “We can’t expect to coast our way to ongoing interest rate cuts. We need persistent action from Wellington to keep cutting the waste, and ACT is continuously putting ideas forward.

    “Less waste and lower interest rates means firms, farms, and families can keep more of their own money, to spend and invest on their own priorities. That is how we achieve real prosperity and economic growth.”

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Reed, Magaziner Join RI Education Leaders to Warn RIers About Trump’s Plan to Dismantle the U.S. Department of Education

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Rhode Island Jack Reed

    ***WATCH***

    CRANSTON, RI – In an effort to stand up to President Trump’s proposal to slash education funding and shutter the U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Senator Jack Reed and U.S. Representative Seth Magaziner rallied with educators from across Rhode Island.  The lawmakers stressed the need to continue investing in public schools and ensuring all children have access to a high-quality education in a safe and healthy environment.

    The U.S. Department of Education’s mission is to support students, schools, and communities. The department conducts important research and administers funding to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

    After winning office, President Trump said that he would like to shutter the U.S. Department of Education “immediately.”

    Though education is largely under state and local control in the U.S., the U.S. Department of Education was created to provide critical guidance, support, protections, and funding for students, teachers, and public education across the nation. 

    While the standalone federal department does not control what is taught in U.S. schools, its responsibilities include:

    • Administering billions in federal funding to almost every public school;
    • Providing and monitoring federal financial aid for postsecondary education, including Pell Grants and student loans;
    • Collecting data on schools;
    • Disseminating research;
    • Focusing national attention on educational issues, and;
    • Prohibiting discrimination and upholding civil rights.  

    According to the Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE), the state receives approximately $275 million in federal funds to support public education, including $65 million for ‘Title I’ programs that serve low-income students and families, $60 million to support students with disabilities, $48 million to help feed students, and $11 million for career and technical education. Additionally, in 2024, more than $95 million in Pell Grants flowed to Rhode Island students and families to help pay for college.

    Senator Reed said that the Trump Administration should be focused on improving public education and helping students succeed. Instead, Trump’s proposed plans to cut key programs and dismantle critical supports for teachers would have a disastrous effect on Rhode Island families and would hurt public schools and school departments throughout the state.

    “Education is the foundation for our nation’s competitiveness and the prosperity of our communities.  It is essential for a strong society and a brighter future for America.  We can’t afford to leave anyone behind.  But that’s what the Trump Administration is suggesting they will do,” said Senator Reed.  “President Trump and the Republicans in Congress have declared war on public education.  It’s clear that their actions will have devastating impacts on our students and families.”

    Reed continued: “We stand with educators. We stand with students and families. And we will fight Trump, Elon Musk, and his DOGE wrecking crew, who are intent on demolishing educational opportunities and our future.”

    Senator Reed and Congressman Magaziner were joined at the event by Rhode Island Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education, Angélica Infante-Green; Rhode Island Commissioner of Postsecondary Education, Shannon Gilkey; Rhode Island College President Jack Warner; Executive Director of the National Education Association of Rhode Island, Mary Barden; President of the Rhode Island Federation of Teachers, Maribeth Calabro; and Executive Director of Rhode Island KIDS COUNT, Paige Parks.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Reed Works to Nix “Carried Interest” Tax Loophole & Make Wall Street Pay Its Fair Share

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Rhode Island Jack Reed

    WASHINGTON, DC –In an effort to restore fairness to the tax code, U.S. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) is seeking to close the “carried interest” tax loophole, which lets private equity firms and Wall Street managers at investment partnerships pay a lower tax rate on their income than most American workers.

    Reed is teaming up with U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) to introduce the Carried Interest Fairness Act (S. 445).  Their legislation would ensure that income earned by investment managers of private equity, venture capital, and hedge funds is taxed at the same rate paid by the vast majority of Americans.  The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that ending the loophole could reduce the federal deficit by $13 billion through 2034.

    Under the current system, fund managers get paid up to two percent of assets as a regular fee, plus twenty percent of the fund’s profits.  The managers pay regular income tax on the two percent, but when it comes to their share of the profits, which is called “carried interest,” they usually pay only the lower long-term capital gains tax rate.  In a sense, they are converting income from labor into capital gains.  So even though the investors are putting up the fund’s capital and taking the risk, the fund managers are able to treat their part of the fund’s earnings as a capital gain, subject only to a top capital gains tax rate at 20 percent compared to the top federal income tax rate of 37 percent for the wealthiest Americans. 

    “Americans feel the system is fixed against them, and this big, fat loophole sure seems that way. This commonsense legislation would close a glaring loophole in the tax code and restore a key measure of fairness so that wealthy fund managers pay the same rate as regular working Americans.  It would end preferential treatment for Wall Street elites and prevent these wealthy executives from paying lower rates than their salaried employees.  Everyone has a right to earn their pay, but there shouldn’t be a special set of tax breaks just for the wealthy and well-connected.  Congress needs to close this loophole, simplify the tax code, and enact other sensible reforms that will strengthen our economy,” said Senator Reed, a senior member of the Senate Banking Committee.

    “Wall Street investors should not be paying less in taxes than Wisconsin firefighters, teachers, and small business owners. But right now, the wealthiest Americans are gaming our tax system to get out of paying their fair share, passing their tax burden onto working Wisconsinites,” said Senator Baldwin.

    Despite President Donald Trump previously pledging “we will eliminate the carried interest deduction and other special interest loopholes…”  during the 2016 election, his 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act “failed to eliminate [the] key deduction used by wealthy investment firms that Trump had vowed to kill,” leading PolitiFact to rate this a “Promise Broken.”

    In 2017, Senate Republicans rejected an amendment to the Trump tax bill by Senator Baldwin to close the carried interest loophole.

    In 2022, Senator Reed and the majority of his Democratic colleagues pushed for a provision to eliminate the carried interest loophole as part of the Inflation Reduction Act.  But with a 50-50 split in the U.S. Senate, the measure was stripped out of the underlying bill after then-Senator Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) objected to its inclusion.

    In addition to Baldwin and Reed, the Carried Interest Fairness Act is cosponsored by U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Patty Murray (D-WA), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Ed Markey (D-MA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Peter Welch (D-VT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Mazie Hirono (D-HI).

    Companion legislation has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congresswoman Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA-03).

    The legislation is endorsed by Communications Workers of America, Americans for Tax Fairness, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), Public Citizen, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Alliance for Retired Americans, Americans for Financial Reform, Take on Wall Street, Patriotic Millionaires, 20/20 Vision, Community Catalyst, Main Street Alliance, American Federation of Government Employees, Small Business Minority, Economic Policy Institute, and the National Women’s Law Center.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Finance – ASB lowers variable rates for personal, business and rural customers

    Source: ASB

    ASB is dropping variable interest rates across personal, business and rural lending by 0.50%, passing on today’s Official Cash Rate (OCR) cut in full.

    ASB’s Executive General Manager Personal Banking Adam Boyd says, “In the past six months, we’ve reduced our variable rates by nearly 2%, and we’re pleased to be passing on today’s OCR cut to all customers who hold a floating loan with us.  We dropped rates on a number of our fixed home loan terms last week and we have highly competitive rates on the six, 12- and 18-month terms which are currently the most popular amongst our customers.”

    The OCR decrease is also being reflected in some of ASB’s savings rates. Savings On Call will move to 1.15% while ASB’s youth account, Headstart and its bonus saver account Savings Plus will both shift to 3.15%.

    “An easing interest rate cycle can mean different things for home or business owners and savers. Our teams are here to support any customers who want to discuss their options.”

     

    Home Loan* 

    Current Rates 

    New Rates 

    Rate Change 

    Housing Variable 

    7.39% 

    6.89% 

    – 0.50% 

    Orbit Variable

    7.49% 

    6.99% 

    – 0.50% 

    Back My Build 

    4.94% 

    4.44% 

    – 0.50% 

    Note – Back My Build applications are no longer open to new customers. 

    *These changes are effective from Friday 21st February 2025 for new lending customers, and Friday 28th February 2025 for existing lending customers.

     

    Business Loan*

    Current Rates

    New Rates

    Rate Change

    Business and Rural Floating Base Rate

    5.69%

     

    5.19%

     

    – 0.50%

    Business Base Rate

    12.52%

    12.02%

    – 0.50%

    Rural Base Rate

    9.76%

    9.26%

    – 0.50%

    Corporate Indicator Rate

    6.93%

    6.43%

    – 0.50%

    Special Purpose Base Rate

    5.50%

    5.00%

    -0.50%

    * These changes are effective from Thursday 27th February 2025 for both new and existing customers.

     

    Savings 

    Band 

    Current Rates 

    New Rates 

    Rate Change 

    Savings On Call & ASB Cash Fund 

    All Balances 

    1.65% 

    1.15% 

    – 0.50% 

    Savings Plus 

    No Bonus 

    1.20% 

    0.70% 

    – 0.50% 

    Partial Bonus

    1.30%

    0.80%

    – 0.50%

     

    Full Bonus

    3.65%

    3.15%

    – 0.50%

    Headstart

    All Balances

    3.65%

    3.15%

    – 0.50% 

    *These changes are effective from Friday 28th February 2025 for new and existing customers

     

    ASB has practical information for customers on the current interest rate environment available on its website as well support to help customers take control of their financial wellbeing and achieve their goals at its Financial Wellbeing Hubhttps://www.asb.co.nz/banking-with-asb/financial-wellbeing.html

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Growing economy good for jobs and opportunities

    Source: New Zealand Government

    The Reserve Bank’s positive outlook indicates the economy is growing and people can look forward to more jobs and opportunities, Finance Minister Nicola Willis says. 

    The Bank today reduced the Official Cash Rate by 50 basis points. 

    It said it expected further reductions this year and employment to pick up in the second half of the year. 

    “This is good news for New Zealanders. A growing economy means more money in people’s pockets, more jobs and more opportunities,” Nicola Willis says.

    “The Government knows many families and businesses are doing it tough, but evidence is mounting that they can look forward to better times.  

    “Today’s reduction in the Official Cash Rate is the fourth since August last year and confirms inflation is firmly back under control. 

    The rate has now fallen 1.75 points since August to 3.75 per cent. Further reductions will put more downward pressure on interest rates. 

    “That is good news for businesses as well as families. More money in people’s pockets means more money flowing through tills.

    “There are signs that that is already beginning to occur. 

    “Business and consumer confidence are both trending upwards and last week the BNZ and Business NZ reported that growth in manufacturing had risen to its highest level since September 2022.

    “After a period of decades-high inflation, high interest rates and cost-of-living pressures, the economy is heading in the right direction.” 

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-OSI Australia: New strata laws ensure fairer rules for fees and charges

    Source: New South Wales Government 2

    Headline: New strata laws ensure fairer rules for fees and charges

    Published: 19 February 2025

    Released by: Minister for Better Regulation and Fair Trading


    Legislation improving the way strata communities operate passed the NSW Parliament last night.

    The reforms will help owners repair and maintain common property, support the uptake of sustainability and accessibility infrastructure, and give owners more options to pay levies when facing financial stress. 

    This legislation is the Minns Labor Government’s third tranche of strata law reforms and builds on changes which came into effect on 3 February 2025, requiring strata managers in NSW to provide significantly more The reforms will help owners repair and maintain common property, support the uptake of sustainability and accessibility infrastructure, and give owners more options to pay levies when facing financial stress.

    The laws will:

    • Protect owners corporations from unfair contract terms such as limits on a strata managing agent’s liability.
    • Encourage the uptake of sustainable infrastructure such as solar panels and electric vehicle charging by prohibiting bylaws that block the infrastructure due to external appearance.
    • Protect owners from bill shock by requiring developers to have initial levy estimates to be independently certified, including increased penalties for non-compliance.
    • Make it easier to terminate strata managing agents and building manager agreements if they carry on a business that is contrary to the law.
    • Prescribe training requirements for strata committee members to help them perform their roles.
    • Allow Fair Trading to enter into enforceable undertakings with owners corporations that do not meet their duties to maintain and repair common property.
    • Help owners in financial hardship by requiring owners corporations to offer a payment plan before taking debt recovery action and prohibiting blanket rules to refuse payment plans.
    • Make it easier to install accessibility infrastructure in common areas by lowering the voting threshold for approval from 75% to a majority vote.

    This legislation is the Minns Labor Government’s third tranche of strata law reforms and builds on   changes which came into effect on 3 February 2025, requiring strata managers in NSW to provide significantly more detailed information to owners’ corporations about their services and relationships, to increase transparency and accountability within the strata sector.

    Strata managers must now disclose any connections with suppliers and developers, provide detailed breakdowns of insurance quotes including commissions and broker fees, and report in real time if any new connections or interests arise.

    The NSW Government’s reforms will be enforced by a dedicated Strata and Property Services Taskforce within NSW Fair Trading, backed by an $8.4 million investment. 

    Consumer confidence in strata is vital to the government’s housing agenda, and the Taskforce will be focussed on high impact initiatives to support the 1.2 million people living in strata across NSW.

    The Taskforce will strengthen compliance and enforcement, dispute resolution, and regulatory reform within the strata sector, with a focus on raising professional standards and delivering better outcomes for consumers.

    For more information, visit the NSW Fair Trading website here: https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/housing-and-property/strata-and-community-living

    Quotes attributed to Minister for Better Regulation and Fair Trading Anoulack Chanthivong:

    “The family home is often the biggest financial investment most of us will make – when it is in a strata community the Minns Labor Government is making sure that there are protections in place to help owners make informed decisions on the future of the property.

    “Repairs to common property are the obligation of the owners’ corporation, and these reforms help to ensure the hard-earned money of individual owners invested in the property will prevent it from being run down, become a safety risk or cause greater damage through neglect.

    “These changes will make buying into strata more transparent and improve the building owners experience when they receive the keys from the developer.”

    Quotes attributed to Fair Trading Commissioner Natasha Mann:

    “The number of strata schemes in New South Wales has grown from around 70,000 at the end of 2015 to more than 87,000 – creating a greater need for targeted, proactive regulation to ensure practitioners and businesses in the property industry are properly trained and supervised.

    “The Strata and Property Services Taskforce is improving the NSW Government’s oversight of real estate and strata managing agents by bringing together new and existing specialist staff across Fair Trading to uplift its enforcement of NSW strata and property laws – restoring consumer confidence and lifting standards across the sector.” 

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI USA: SBA Offers Relief to Missouri Businesses, Nonprofits and Residents Affected by November Storms

    Source: United States Small Business Administration

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. – The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA)announced that low‑interest federal disaster loans are available to Missouri businesses, nonprofits and residents affected by the severe storms, tornadoes, straight-line winds and flooding that occurred Nov. 3‑9, 2024. The SBA issued a disaster declaration in response to a request received from Gov. Mike Kehoe on Feb. 14, 2025.

    The disaster declaration covers Pulaski County.

    Businesses and nonprofits are eligible to apply for business physical disaster loans and may borrow up to $2 million to repair or replace disaster-damaged or destroyed real estate, machinery and equipment, inventory, and other business assets.

    Homeowners and renters are eligible to apply for home and personal property loans and may borrow up to $100,000 to replace or repair personal property, such as clothing, furniture, cars, and appliances. Homeowners may apply for up to $500,000 to replace or repair their primary residence.

    Applicants may also be eligible for a loan increase of up to 20% of their physical damages, as verified by the SBA, for mitigation purposes. Eligible mitigation improvements include strengthening structures to protect against high wind damage, upgrading to wind rated garage doors, and installing a safe room or storm shelter to help protect property and occupants from future damage.

    SBA’s Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program is available to eligible small businesses, small agricultural cooperatives, nurseries, and private nonprofit (PNP) organizations that suffered financial losses directly related to the disaster. The SBA is unable to provide disaster loans to agricultural producers, farmers, or ranchers, except for aquaculture enterprises.

    EIDLs are available for working capital needs caused by the disaster and are available even if the small business or PNP did not suffer any physical damage. The loans may be used to pay fixed debts, payroll, accounts payable, and other bills that could have been paid had the disaster not occurred.

    The loan amount can be up to $2 million with interest rates as low as 4% for businesses, 3.625% for nonprofits and 2.563% for homeowners and renters, with terms up to 30 years. Interest does not begin to accrue, and payments are not due until 12 months from the date of the first loan disbursement. The SBA sets loan amounts and terms based on each applicant’s financial condition.

    SBA has established a virtual Disaster Loan Outreach Center (DLOC) where customer service representatives will be on hand to answer questions about SBA’s disaster loan program, explain the application process and help individuals complete their electronic loan application. Applicants may call or email as indicated below.

    Virtual Disaster Loan Outreach Center
    Monday – Friday
    8:00 a.m. – 4:30 p.m. PT
    FOCWAssistance@sba.gov
    (916) 735-1531

    The SBA encourages applicants to submit their loan applications promptly. Applications will be prioritized in the order they are received, and the SBA remains committed to processing them as efficiently as possible.

    To apply online, visit SBA.gov/disaster. Applicants may also call SBA’s Customer Service Center at (800) 659-2955 or email disastercustomerservice@sba.gov for more information on SBA disaster assistance. For people who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.

    The deadline to return for physical damage applications is April 21, 2025. The deadline to return economic injury applications is Nov. 18, 2025.

    ###

    About the U.S. Small Business Administration

    The U.S. Small Business Administration helps power the American dream of business ownership. As the only go-to resource and voice for small businesses backed by the strength of the federal government, the SBA empowers entrepreneurs and small business owners with the resources and support they need to start, grow, expand their businesses, or recover from a declared disaster. It delivers services through an extensive network of SBA field offices and partnerships with public and private organizations. To learn more, visit www.sba.gov.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Security: Former Western New York man pleads guilty to perjury for lying while testifying during his fraud trial

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    BUFFALO, N.Y. –Acting U.S. Attorney Joel L. Violanti announced today that  Michael W. Luehrsen, 41, of Miami, Florida, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo to perjury, which carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison. As part of his plea, Luehrsen has agreed to pay approximately $2-million dollars in restitution and forfeit approximately $2-million dollars in assets, including investments and real estate proceeds.

    Assistant U.S. Attorneys Charles M. Kruly and Grace Carducci, who is handling the case, stated that in February 2022, Luehrsen testified under oath in his previous jury trial before the United States District Court for the Western District of New York as follows:

    Q. Mike, I want to start by talking about your dad. You told Mr. Kruly that on the days that those prescriptions were faxed you were not in town, is that what you said?

    A. That’s correct.

    Q. Can you tell the jury, where were you?

    A. On June 27, 2014, I was actually in California visiting Cornerstone Pharmacy with two physicians. On July 11, of 2014, I was in Boston, Massachusetts.

    Q. And how do you remember that?

    A. I have photographs from my phone showing me in those particular cities.

    Evidence from Luehrsen’s cellular telephone shows that the testimony quoted above was false. Photographs on the cell phone establish that he was, in fact, in Buffalo on July 11, 2014. In addition, telephone records and financial records established that Luehrsen was in Buffalo on that date. At the time of this testimony, Luehrsen was being tried for, among other crimes, conspiring to commit health care fraud. It was a matter material to the  trial whether or not Luehrsen was in Buffalo when an altered compound prescription form was faxed from his father’s home located in the Western District of New York.

    The plea is the result of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, under the direction of Special Agent-in-Charge Matthew Miraglia.

    Sentencing is scheduled for June 27, 2025, before Judge Vilardo.

    # # # #

    MIL Security OSI