Source: United States Senator for Kansas Roger Marshall
Washington – On Thursday, U.S. Senator Roger Marshall, M.D. (R-Kansas) applauded the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) announcement from Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins that, as part of its planned reorganization, Kansas City will become the second largest beneficiary of the restructuring.
This reorganization is part of a larger, government-wide process being undertaken by the Trump administration to return federal agencies to their primary functions, eliminate redundancy and waste, and preserve the critical services these agencies provide to taxpayers.
“There are no stronger champions for American farmers and ranchers than Secretary Rollins and President Trump,” said Senator Marshall. “Today’s announcements build on President Trump’s efforts in his first Administration to move those who work closest with our farmers and ranchers to our nation’s heartland. This is putting Farmer’s First.”
“American agriculture feeds, clothes, and fuels this nation and the world, and it is long past time the Department better serve the great and patriotic farmers, ranchers, and producers we are mandated to support. President Trump was elected to make real change in Washington, and we are doing just that by moving our key services outside the beltway and into great American cities across the country,” said Secretary Rollins. “We will do so through a transparent and common-sense process that preserves USDA’s critical health and public safety services the American public relies on. We will do right by the great American people who we serve and with respect to the thousands of hardworking USDA employees who so nobly serve their country.”
In the case of the USDA, today’s announcement will:
Ensure the size of the USDA’s workforce aligns with available financial resources and agricultural priorities
Bring USDA closer to its customers
Eliminate management layers and bureaucracy
Consolidate redundant support functions
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Mike Kelly (R-PA)
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Representatives Mike Kelly (R-PA), Chairman of the Ways & Means Subcommittee on Tax, and Lloyd Smucker (R-PA), a member of the Ways & Means Committee, and 18 other members of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee sent a letter to Internal Revenue Services (IRS) Commissioner Billy Long urging its reconsideration of Revenue Ruling 2024-14, unsupported Biden-era guidance that has created unnecessary confusion for taxpayers and threatens enforcement actions by drawing into question routine business transactions.
Revenue Ruling 2024-14 was announced last year as part of a broader effort by the Biden Administration to crack down on partnership “basis-shifting” transactions. Specifically, the ruling broadly applies the economic substance doctrine, an enforcement tool to combat tax avoidance and ensure that transactions are driven by legitimate business purposes, rather than simply reducing tax liability. By extending the scope of this enforcement tool beyond past precedent, the IRS overreached and cast doubt over the legality of routine partnership transactions.
“Main Street businesses are the backbone of our communities. They should be able to focus on providing quality services to American families and not worry about being targeted by the heavy-handed IRS. I am proud to lead this letter voicing our concerns alongside my Pennsylvania colleague Rep. Smucker and our fellow Ways and Means Committee Republicans,” Rep. Kelly said. “I look forward to working with IRS Commissioner Long and the Trump Administration as we look to overturn these political weaponization tools against small businesses enacted under the Biden regime.”
“American taxpayers and businesses deserve clear and consistent tax rules that allow them to confidently comply with the law,” said Rep. Smucker. “Reconsidering this relic of the Biden administration’s IRS would remove a contradictory compliance burden and help instill a more predictable tax code. The Trump administration has secured historic tax reforms for the American people. We are hopeful that it will remain committed to restoring fairness. We respectfully urge the IRS to rescind this Biden-era regulation, eliminate uncertainty, and restore greater trust in the American tax code.”
“[T]he ruling assumes that related-party transactions inherently lack a legitimate business purpose,” the letter reads. “This assumption is at odds with long-established tax law and the reality of how businesses operate. Related-party transactions are routine in a variety of industries, including manufacturing, investment, and distribution, and are governed by provisions such as section 482 that are specifically designed to ensure fair treatment while recognizing their legitimacy.
“We believe that withdrawing Revenue Ruling 2024-14 and rejecting its flawed legal analysis would be an important next step toward restoring clarity and consistency in the tax code.
“We appreciate the current administration’s steps to improve tax regulation, including the recent withdrawal of REG-124593-23, which would have designated related-party basis adjustments as “transactions of interest.”
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) issued the following statement in response to this morning’s announcement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that the agency will be shifting its focus and staffing away from Washington D.C. and toward agricultural hub locations across the country, including one in Salt Lake City, Utah:
“The people making decisions about how our forests are managed and our food is grown shouldn’t be distant bureaucrats,”said Senator Mike Lee.“I congratulate the Department of Agriculture for decentralizing from Washington and relocating staff to Salt Lake City and other regional hubs. Not only is this a big win for Utah’s farmers and ranchers, but also for our land managers as the department moves closer to the people who live, work, and rely upon these lands. I will continue to fight for the Utahns who raise livestock, grow the best food on Earth, and sustain our National Forests.”
USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins made the following statement:
“American agriculture feeds, clothes, and fuels this nation and the world, and it is long past time the Department better serve the great and patriotic farmers, ranchers, and producers we are mandated to support. President Trump was elected to make real change in Washington, and we are doing just that by moving our key services outside the beltway and into great American cities across the country,”said Secretary Rollins.“We will do so through a transparent and common-sense process that preserves USDA’s critical health and public safety services the American public relies on. We will do right by the great American people who we serve and with respect to the thousands of hardworking USDA employees who so nobly serve their country.”
About the USDA Reorganization plan
The reorganization consists of four pillars:
Ensure the size of USDA’s workforce aligns with available financial resources and agricultural priorities
Bring USDA closer to its customers
Eliminate management layers and bureaucracy
Consolidate redundant support functions
To bring USDA closer to the people it serves while also providing a more affordable cost of living for USDA employees, USDA has developed a phased plan to relocate much of its Agency headquarters and NCR staff out of the Washington, D.C. area to five hub locations. The Department currently has approximately 4,600 employees within the National Capital Region (NCR). This Region has one of the highest costs of living in the country, with a federal salary locality rate of 33.94%. In selecting its hub locations, USDA considered where existing concentrations of USDA employees are located and factored in the cost of living. Washington, D.C. will still hold functions for every mission area of USDA at the conclusion of this reorganization, but USDA expects no more than 2,000 employees will remain in the NCR.
USDA will vacate and return to the General Services Administration the South Building, Braddock Place, and the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, and revisit utilization and functions in the USDA Whitten Building, Yates Building, and the National Agricultural Library. The George Washington Carver Center will also be utilized until space optimization activities are completed. These buildings have a backlog of costly deferred maintenance and currently are occupied below the minimum set by law. For example, the South Building has approximately $1.3 billion in deferred maintenance and has an average daily occupancy of less than 1,900 individuals for a building that can house over 6,000 employees.
USDA’s five hub locations and current Federal locality rates are:
Raleigh, North Carolina (22.24%)
Kansas City, Missouri (18.97%)
Indianapolis, Indiana (18.15%)
Fort Collins, Colorado (30.52%)
Salt Lake City, Utah (17.06%)
Read the full reorganization memo from Secretary Rollins here.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Ron Estes (R-Kansas)
U.S. Congressman Ron Estes (R-Kansas) delivered the keynote address at International Tax Cooperation and Competition: A Reset hosted by American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Congressman Estes discussed the latest developments in international tax policy. See below for highlights and watch
.
On driving economic growth through tax policy reform:
“It’s great to be able to talk about things that are going on in the world, and particularly things that are going on as we relate to tax policy and good economic policy, which drives good economic growth. A lot of you probably heard several of these conversations from me a lot over the last several months, as we’ve gone through this whole process to talk through what we should do, from a tax code policy within the United States and what we want to do moving forward.
“It’s great as we are at this point now where we’re wanting to focus on, how do we make sure that we have good policy that makes good economic growth for companies to do business in America and benefit American workers and an American economy. And ultimately raises money for tax revenue to have to fund the government and activities that we do here as well. And that’s kind of been my focus since I’ve been on Ways and Means now six years . . . I came on shortly after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) in 2017 was passed into law. That was my first term in Congress and so the guiding principles, even back then, we’re looking at, how do we make [the] U.S. more competitive in the activities that we do?
On the history of crafting the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act:
“And I go back and talk a little bit about 2017 and then translate to some degree, how our efforts with TCJA in 2017 tied in with the efforts in the One Big, Beautiful Bill this year, and then how that’s also connected to the OECD discussions on Pillar One and Pillar Two. I like to go back and do a little bit of review of history when we talk about TCJA. Because we think back to 2017, the state of the economy at that point in time was, everybody was talking about this new normal, that we should just expect low 1-1.5% economic growth, and that should be the standard that we should expect in the United States.
“The United States had the fourth-highest corporate tax rate in the world, and highest of any developed country. And so it was always putting our industry at a competitive disadvantage as we sort through activities. We had stagnant wage growth for two or three decades in terms of the average taxpayers was in the mid to high 30s was what the income level was for the individuals across the country. We also had inversions. It was the topic of the day. Whether you were a Republican president or a Democrat president, it was a problem that you were trying to address, where, because of our high tax rate, it was profitable for foreign-based businesses to come buy a valuable U.S. entity and convert it into headquarters being overseas and actually partially pay for that through the lower tax savings just by getting out of the U.S. tax burden.
“And then the other component that doesn’t get talked about a lot is the amount of money that was tracked overseas. I mean, literally, it was in the four to four and a half trillion dollars, where subsidiaries of U.S.-based businesses had operations in foreign countries, and because of the existing tax rate, they paid taxes in that country, the territory where they were operating in, but the U.S. tax code said, well, we want to double dip and tax you to bring that money back. So, that money was being left overseas was actually being invested and helping grow the economies over there, which wasn’t what you want from a U.S.-based business or entity.
“And so those were some of the big issues that we wanted to address with TCJA. It kind of drove a lot of our thought process as we went into that, and what we were starting with, just driving the corporate tax rate down down to 21% and even at that, we weren’t going to be the lowest tax rate. We didn’t want that. By the time you combine the 21% corporate rate with state and local taxes, we’re just above the midpoint of OECD countries around the world. But we think that’s appropriate. I think we’ll still be competitive, just because the innovation with U.S. businesses and the activities that we’ll focus on going forward.
On incentivizing investment:
“In addition to the corporate rate, we also want to make sure that we looked at, how do we, how do we incentivize investment, investment in research and development, investment in capital expenditures, investment in in our workers’ workforce, and being able to deduct the interest deductibility used for that investment. And so we structured different provisions around that. Some of those end up being temporary. And so we’ve had an actually good field experiment the last eight years where we’ve seen the results of 2017 going forward to now, and selling the economic growth that came out of that.
On provisions of the OBBB:
“Now we’re at the point of where we were working on with the One Big, Beautiful Bill to extend those provisions that had been temporary, and in the best case scenario, make as many of them as we could, permanent. We also got caught up in a lot of the campaign promises from last election, particularly from the presidential race and some of the new provisions that came in, No Tax on Tips, No Tax on Overtime. 88% of people won’t pay tax on their Social Security because of the credits, enhanced senior credits they’ll get. Those are new items that we hadn’t talked about previously.
On securing permanent tax provisions to drive investment:
“What we really wanted to do with the One Big, Beautiful Bill is how we make sure that our economy gets back to growth mode and that we continue to have good economic growth and wealth creation for not just businesses, but individuals as well as funding the Treasury.
“I can go down several instances in the Treasury where we actually have more receipts now than we had on things like royalty tax payments, because we had the incentive for research and development being done in the United States. Companies either brought the research and development back or started it new in the United States, and therefore our royalty income is hundreds of billions of dollars higher than it was.
“But even what we’ve seen is, through 2024, actual revenue was increased over what had been projected prior to TCJA. So even the discussion that there was going to be a loss to the Treasury, with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, that did not happen through 2024. Now as we look forward with OECD or the One Big, Beautiful Bill, and rolling out those provisions, so many of them, that we’re able to get permanent to move forward, [are] going to be so beneficial for us in an operation side.
On addressing global taxation:
“I talked about a lot of the domestic value for economic growth, and how do we make things happen? Obviously, as part of that, we also need to talk through from an international piece and the issues there. When we were finishing up, again I go back to the little history ,we were finishing up TCJA.
“Part of the last things done were figuring out, how do we fit in and address the growing concern about the race to the bottom on global taxation? Obviously there’s a concern on everybody’s part that you don’t necessarily want to lose your business to a company or country that is taxing less just because they’re taxing less. But what we did was, we implemented within TCJA provisions, like GILTI and BEAT, in order to help address that, to help offset that temptation that somebody would go look and base their operations somewhere to get advantage, just purely for tax purposes.
On how Digital Services Taxes led to Pillar One discussions:
“At about that same time, there were discussions going on in the world around, both from the same concern as well as a concern of raising revenue in individual countries. So six years ago, seven years ago or so when I got on Ways and Means, one of the first things that I got engaged in was talking about Digital Services Taxes, the DSTs. That was becoming the hot topic at that point in time, because multiple countries were promoting this idea of having a Digital Services Tax and looking at it in a way, basically for revenue. What I became an advocate for, along with a lot of others, was, let’s utilize OECD and come up with a consistent approach, instead of having a patchwork quilt of different codes and tax systems across the world. So that was the basis to start the discussion on what ultimately became Pillar One.
On how what led to Pillar Two discussions:
“About the same time that we finished the TCJA provision, then it also turned in that other countries started talking about, ‘How can we address the lower tax rates?’ And making sure that we are actually being fairly competitive in that, which led up into the discussions on Pillar Two.
“This is kind of starting at the end of the Trump administration, the first Trump administration. As the discussion with Philippines started up, it was more focused on a thought process along the lines of what we put into the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. In terms of how you look at provisions, like GILTI or BEAT or FDII, and craft something that works for your respective country, whether you’re European-based, or Asia or Africa, that actually accomplishes the same goal or a similar goal, to help incentivize companies to operate within your country and not look to run to some country that maybe dangles a particular foreign rate below rate in front of them.
On the Biden administration’s pivot on Pillar One:
“The problem that happened after we had a change of administration, and the Biden administration was moving into discussion, was the discussion on Pillar One kind of just got put to the wayside. So the Digital Services Taxes weren’t being addressed at all from a global OECD standpoint. It was kind of allowed to wither and decline and just pause there. At the same time, there was a completely different focus on the Pillar Two piece to look at, instead of, how do we make tax competitiveness? Look at, how do we do subsidized business and operations?
“So it really turned into a really bad pivot from that standpoint, in terms of what the impact was going to be around the world. As the material was prepared, a lot of what was done, as drafts were coming out, there really wasn’t public awareness of that shift happened, until the final draft came out early two years ago.
“At that point in time, it really became apparent what had been structured was something that was going to be very discriminatory towards the United States. And the businesses working in the United States, impact them in terms of amount of tax they pay, impact them in terms of amount of processing and how they go through the administrative costs to calculate that. And the net effect on the U.S. Treasury was going to be very detrimental to that, because of the way the U.S. Treasury focused on, or even looked at the tax codes for a long period of time is, how do we come up with, in a lot of cases, non refundable credits?
“Basically, the incentive is that you should make a decision that results in income and tax burden for you, and then that decision, whether it’s investment in R&D or investment in capital expenditure, is what you deduct off of. Whereas a lot of other countries around the world go into more of a subsidized approach. How do they incentivize through the subsidies? Obviously that put U.S. companies at a disadvantage because our approach wasn’t being included and theirs was allowed, in terms of calculating what would be a minimum tax.
On working with Chairman Jason Smith on addressing tax policy inadequacies:
“That’s where we really got heavily engaged in this is not the appropriate worldwide process to follow. It throws a lot of decades-old tax treaties on its head. What we needed to do was go back and and let’s finalize the Pillar One piece so the DSTs are addressed and and do over the process on UTPRs, that were the central piece of the Pillar Two activity.
“As we were working through One Big, Beautiful Bill, myself and [U.S. Congressman] Jason Smith, we had a couple of different pieces of legislation, primarily to look at, how do we protect the U.S. tax base if countries were going to go proceed down the route and implement the Pillar Two process? The Chairman’s bill was [the] Defending American Jobs and Investments Act, which would have had increased withholding tax under national companies. I had a bill titled The Unfair Tax Prevention Act or UTPA. . . But basically it . . . was going to disallow certain credits and have a similar impact on foreign-based companies operating in the United States, if they came from a country that was using those discriminatory Pillar Two pieces on U.S. business.
“And I’ll say this … I think Chairman Smith will say it as well, we really didn’t want a world where we would have to be drafting bills like this to offset bad bills coming from somewhere else. That wasn’t the best way to do trade. It wasn’t the best way to do tax policy that we should continue down, having this hybrid territorial tax process that has been working and will continue to work into the future.
“When the Trump administration came back in, a lot of comments and support from President Trump, some [from] Secretary Bessent and a host of a crew in the Treasury staff, agreed with this issue, and we’re focusing on this was a problem for America, and what we should do here.
On Section 899 and reaching the G7 Agreement:
“As the One Big, Beautiful Bill was being written, we crafted just one small section that combined Jason’s and my bill together, and all of a sudden, I think it was like two months ago today, that hit the hot button and it became the hot item going into the final discussions on, the infamous Section 899 that became a hot topic out there to talk about. What it did, I think, was highlighted that, there’s a lot of concern on the part of Congress that we need to make sure that we have good tax code that works for countries across the world, but also through the negotiations that have happened, primarily with Treasury, but also with engagement with us in Congress, and how we could move forward.
“The agreement that was brought forth between Treasury and the G7 to actually pull the Section 899 out of the One Big, Beautiful Bill as it was sitting in the Senate, with the expectation that the G7 and OECD countries would would also pull back on their Pillar Two language that they either had already started or they would have started implementing. . . I liked that approach.
“I do think what we have to do and continue forward is … the trust but verify. We took the first step to pull out the 899. Now we got to continue the process follow through the G7 and OECD countries through that. At same time, [we] need to go and continue to work on the DST issue, because that wasn’t resolved, and that wasn’t as much a part of the agreement as the Pillar Two piece was. So we’ve gotta continue that work as we move forward there.
On finishing the One Big, Beautiful Bill and work to come on the tax code:
“I’ve kind of gone through a lot of different topics, going back multiple years on different things. And through this process, we’re going to continue to keep focusing on, how do we implement and talk about all the things that are in the bill, we just passed the One Big, Beautiful Bill. But also going through and, like I said, trust but verify that all of the follow on countries are following through with their provisions to change the tax code and then also continue to the work to get the DSTs addressed so that there is a global solution for that as well.
“I’m looking for us getting back into an arena where we actually have more competitive worldwide economies. I think that U.S.-based businesses will be successful. I think a lot of foreign-based businesses will also be successful just because of the way our global economy works. I’m looking forward to taxes not slowing down good, successful economic growth.”
Details 2025-07-22 President Lai meets cross-party Irish Oireachtas delegation On the morning of July 22, President Lai Ching-te met with a cross-party delegation from the Oireachtas (parliament) of Ireland. In remarks, President Lai stated that Taiwan and Ireland are both guardians of the values of freedom and democracy. He indicated that Taiwan will continue to take action and show the world that it is a trustworthy democratic partner that can contribute to the international community, saying that we look forward to building an even closer partnership with Ireland as we work together for the well-being of our peoples and for global democracy, peace, and prosperity. A translation of President Lai’s remarks follows: Deputy Speaker John McGuinness is a dear friend of Taiwan who also chairs the Ireland-Taiwan Parliamentary Friendship Association. Thanks to his efforts over the years, support for Taiwan has grown stronger in the Oireachtas. I thank him and all of our guests for traveling such a long way to demonstrate support for Taiwan and open more doors for exchanges and cooperation. Europe is Taiwan’s third largest trading partner and largest source of foreign investment. Ireland is a European stronghold for technology and innovative industries. Just like Taiwan, Ireland is an export-oriented economy. Our industrial structures are highly complementary. We hope that Taiwan’s electronics manufacturing and machinery industries can explore deeper cooperation with Ireland’s ICT software and biopharmaceutical fields, creating win-win outcomes. In May, the Irish government launched its National Semiconductor Strategy, outlining a vision to become a global semiconductor hub. Taiwan is home to the world’s most critical semiconductor ecosystem, and our own industrial development closely parallels that of Ireland. Moreover, we aspire to build non-red technological supply chains with democratic partners. I believe that going forward, Taiwan and Ireland can bolster collaboration so as to upgrade the competitiveness of our respective semiconductor industries. Together, we can help build a values-based economic system for democracies. I was delighted to receive congratulations from Deputy Speaker McGuinness on my election. Taiwan and Ireland are both guardians of the values of freedom and democracy. This visit from our guests further attests to our common beliefs. As authoritarianism continues to expand, Taiwan will continue to take action and show the world that it is a trustworthy democratic partner that can contribute to the international community. We look forward to building an even closer partnership with Ireland as we work together for the well-being of our peoples and for global democracy, peace, and prosperity. Deputy Speaker McGuinness then delivered remarks, stating that he has been to Taiwan on many occasions and that it is a great honor to join President Lai and his staff at the Presidential Office. He said that Ireland has continued to build its strong relationship with Taiwan based on our democratic values and the interests that we have in trade throughout the world, strengthening this relationship based on culture, education, and more. Noting that he served with many other diplomats from Taiwan, he said all had the same goal, which was to further the interests of the Ireland-Taiwan friendship and to ensure that it grows and prospers. The deputy speaker then extended to President Lai the delegation’s best wishes for his term in office, stating that they commit to the same values as the previous friendship groups that have been visiting Taiwan. He went on to say that some members of the group are newly elected, representing the next generation of the association, and that they are committed to working together with Taiwan to stand strong in the defense of democracy. Deputy Speaker McGuinness also noted that the father of Deputy Ken O’Flynn, one of the delegation members, played an important role as a former chairman of the association, remarking that it is good to see such continuity taking place. Deputy Speaker McGuiness said that he believes the world is facing huge challenges and uncertainty in terms of our markets and trade with one another. He said we have to watch for what the United States will do next and be conscious of what China is doing, emphasizing that the European Union stands strong in the center of this, while Ireland plays a huge role in the context of democracy, trade, and the betterment of all things for the citizens that they represent. The deputy speaker then stated that while we focus on the development of AI that is extremely important for all of us, we can work together to ensure that we control AI rather than AI controlling us. He also remarked that we cannot lose sight of our traditional trading means, saying that we have to keep all of our trade together, expand on that trade, and then take on the new technologies that come before us. Deputy Speaker McGuinness concluded his remarks by thanking President Lai for receiving the delegation, stating that they commit to their continuation of support for Taiwan and for democracy. Also in attendance were Deputies Malcolm Byrne and Barry Ward, and Senator Teresa Costello.
Details 2025-07-22 President Lai meets official delegation from European Parliament’s Special Committee on the European Democracy Shield On the morning of July 22, President Lai Ching-te met with an official delegation from the European Parliament’s Special Committee on the European Democracy Shield (EUDS). In remarks, President Lai thanked the committee for choosing to visit Taiwan for its first trip to Asia, demonstrating the close ties between Taiwan and Europe. President Lai emphasized that Taiwan, standing at the very frontline of the democratic world, is determined to protect democracy, peace, and prosperity worldwide. He expressed hope that we can share our experiences with Europe to foster even more resilient societies. A translation of President Lai’s remarks follows: Firstly, on behalf of the people of Taiwan, I extend a warm welcome to your delegation, which marks another official visit from the European Parliament. The Special Committee on the EUDS aims to strengthen societal resilience and counter disinformation and hybrid threats. Having been constituted at the beginning of this year, the committee has chosen to visit Taiwan for its first trip to Asia, demonstrating the close ties between Taiwan and Europe and the unlimited possibilities for deepening cooperation on issues of concern. I am also delighted to see many old friends of Taiwan gathered here today. I deeply appreciate your longstanding support for Taiwan. Taiwan and the European Union enjoy close trade and economic relations and share the values of freedom and democracy. However, in recent years, we have both been subjected to information manipulation and infiltration by foreign forces that seek to interfere in democratic elections, foment division in our societies, and shake people’s faith in democracy. Taiwan not only faces an onslaught of disinformation, but also is the target of gray-zone aggression. That is why, after taking office, I established the Whole-of-Society Defense Resilience Committee at the Presidential Office, with myself as convener. The committee is a platform that integrates domestic affairs, national defense, foreign affairs, cybersecurity, and civil resources. It aims to strengthen the capability of Taiwan’s society to defend itself against new forms of threat, pinpoint external and internal vulnerabilities, and bolster overall resilience and security. The efforts that democracies make are not for opposing anyone else; they are for safeguarding the way of life that we cherish – just as Europe has endeavored to promote diversity and human rights. The Taiwanese people firmly believe that when our society is united and people trust one another, we will be able to withstand any form of authoritarian aggression. Taiwan stands at the very frontline of the democratic world. We are determined to protect democracy, peace, and prosperity worldwide. We also hope to share our experiences with Europe and deepen cooperation in such fields as cybersecurity, media literacy, and societal resilience. Thank you once again for visiting Taiwan. Your presence further strengthens the foundations of Taiwan-Europe relations. Let us continue to work together to uphold freedom and democracy and foster even more resilient societies. EUDS Special Committee Chair Nathalie Loiseau then delivered remarks, saying that the delegation has members from different countries, including France, Germany, the Czech Republic, Poland, and Belgium, and different political parties, but that they have in common their desire for stronger relations between the EU and Taiwan. Committee Chair Loiseau stated that the EU and Taiwan, having many things in common, should work more together. She noted that we have strong trade relations, strong investments on both sides, and strong cultural relations, while we are also facing very similar challenges and threats. She said that we are democracies living in a world where autocracies want to weaken and divide democracies. She added that we also face external information manipulation, cyberattacks, sabotage, attempts to capture elites, and every single gray-zone activity that aims to divide and weaken us. Committee Chair Loiseau pointed out another commonality, that we have never threatened our neighbors. She said that we want to live in peace and we care about our people; we want to defend ourselves, not to attack others. We are not being threatened because of what we do, she emphasized, but because of what we are; and thus there is no reason for not working more together to face these threats and attacks. Committee Chair Loiseau said that Taiwan has valuable experience and good practices in the area of societal resilience, and that they are interested in learning more about Taiwan’s whole-of-society approach. They in Europe are facing interference, she said, mainly from Russia, and they know that Russia inspires others. She added that they in the EU also have experience regulating social media in a way which combines freedom of expression and responsibility. In closing, the chair said that they are happy to have the opportunity to exchange views with President Lai and that the European Parliament will continue to strongly support relations between the EU and Taiwan. The delegation also included Members of the European Parliament Engin Eroglu, Tomáš Zdechovský, Michał Wawrykiewicz, Kathleen Van Brempt, and Markéta Gregorová.
Details 2025-07-17 President Lai meets President of Guatemalan Congress Nery Abilio Ramos y Ramos On the morning of July 17, President Lai Ching-te met with a delegation led by Nery Abilio Ramos y Ramos, the president of the Congress of the Republic of Guatemala. In remarks, President Lai thanked Congress President Ramos and the Guatemalan Congress for their support for Taiwan, and noted that official diplomatic relations between Taiwan and Guatemala go back more than 90 years. As important partners in the global democratic community, the president said, the two nations will continue moving forward together in joint defense of the values of democracy and freedom, and will cooperate to promote regional and global prosperity and development. A translation of President Lai’s remarks follows: I recall that when Congress President Ramos visited Taiwan in July last year, he put forward many ideas about how our countries could promote bilateral cooperation and exchanges. Now, a year later, he is leading another cross-party delegation from the Guatemalan Congress on a visit, demonstrating support for Taiwan and continuing to help deepen our diplomatic ties. In addition to extending a sincere welcome to the distinguished delegation members who have traveled so far to be here, I would also like to express our concern and condolences for everyone in Guatemala affected by the earthquake that struck earlier this month. We hope that the recovery effort is going smoothly. Official diplomatic relations between Taiwan and Guatemala go back more than 90 years. In such fields as healthcare, agriculture, education, and women’s empowerment, we have continually strengthened our cooperation to benefit our peoples. Just last month, Guatemala’s President Bernardo Arévalo and the First Lady led a delegation on a state visit to Taiwan. President Arévalo and I signed a letter of intent for semiconductor cooperation, and also witnessed the signing of cooperation documents to establish a political consultation mechanism and continue to promote bilateral investment. This has laid an even sounder foundation for bilateral exchanges and cooperation, and will help enhance both countries’ international competitiveness. Taiwan is currently running a semiconductor vocational training program, helping Guatemala cultivate semiconductor talent and develop its tech industry, and demonstrating our determination to share experience with democratic partners. At the same time, we continue to assist Taiwanese businesses in their efforts to develop overseas markets with Guatemala as an important base, spurring industrial development in both countries and increasing economic and trade benefits. I want to thank Congress President Ramos and the Guatemalan Congress for their continued support for Taiwan’s international participation. Representing the Guatemalan Congress, Congress President Ramos has signed resolutions in support of Taiwan, and has also issued statements addressing China’s misinterpretation of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758. Taiwan and Guatemala, as important partners in the global democratic community, will continue moving forward together in joint defense of the values of democracy and freedom, and will cooperate to promote regional and global prosperity and development. Congress President Ramos then delivered remarks, first noting that the members of the delegation are not only from different parties, but also represent different classes, cultures, professions, and departments, which shows that the diplomatic ties between Guatemala and the Republic of China (Taiwan) are based on firm friendships at all levels and in all fields. Noting that this was his second time to visit Taiwan and meet with President Lai, Congress President Ramos thanked the government of Taiwan for its warm hospitality. With the international situation growing more complex by the day, he said, Guatemala highly values its longstanding friendship and cooperative ties with Taiwan, and hopes that both sides can continue to deepen their cooperation in such areas as the economy, technology, education, agriculture, and culture, and work together to spur sustainable development in each of our countries. Congress President Ramos said that the way the Taiwan government looks after the well-being of its people is an excellent model for how other countries should promote national development and social well-being. Accordingly, he said, the Guatemalan Congress has stood for justice and, for a second time, adopted a resolution backing Taiwan’s participation in the World Health Assembly. Regarding President Arévalo’s state visit to Taiwan the previous month, Congress President Ramos commented that this high-level interaction has undoubtedly strengthened the diplomatic ties between Taiwan and Guatemala and led to more opportunities for cooperation. Congress President Ramos emphasized that democracy, freedom, and human rights are universal values that bind Taiwan and Guatemala together, and that he is confident the two countries’ diplomatic ties will continue to grow deeper. In closing, on behalf of the Republic of Guatemala, Congress President Ramos presented President Lai with a Chinese translation of the resolution that the Guatemalan Congress proposed to the UN in support of Taiwan’s participation in international organizations, demonstrating the staunch bonds of friendship between the two countries. The delegation was accompanied to the Presidential Office by Guatemala Ambassador Luis Raúl Estévez López.
Details 2025-07-08 President Lai meets delegation led by Foreign Minister Jean-Victor Harvel Jean-Baptiste of Republic of Haiti On the morning of July 8, President Lai Ching-te met with a delegation led by Minister of Foreign Affairs Jean-Victor Harvel Jean-Baptiste of the Republic of Haiti and his wife. In remarks, President Lai noted that our two countries will soon mark the 70th anniversary of diplomatic relations and that our exchanges have been fruitful in important areas such as public security, educational cooperation, and infrastructure. The president stated that Taiwan will continue to work together with Haiti to promote the development of medical and health care, food security, and construction that benefits people’s livelihoods. The president thanked Haiti for supporting Taiwan’s international participation and expressed hope that both countries will continue to support each other, deepen cooperation, and face various challenges together. A translation of President Lai’s remarks follows: I am delighted to meet and exchange ideas with Minister Jean-Baptiste, his wife, and our distinguished guests. Minister Jean-Baptiste is the highest-ranking official from Haiti to visit Taiwan since former President Jovenel Moïse visited in 2018, demonstrating the importance that the Haitian government attaches to our bilateral diplomatic ties. On behalf of the Republic of China (Taiwan), I extend a sincere welcome. Next year marks the 70th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic ties between our two countries. Our bilateral exchanges have been fruitful in important areas such as public security, educational cooperation, and infrastructure. Over the past few years, Haiti has faced challenges in such areas as food supply and healthcare. Taiwan will continue to work together with Haiti through various cooperative programs to promote the development of medical and health care, food security, and construction that benefits people’s livelihoods. I want to thank the government of Haiti and Minister Jean-Baptiste for speaking out in support of Taiwan on the international stage for many years. Minister Jean-Baptiste’s personal letter to the World Health Organization Secretariat in May this year and Minister of Public Health and Population Bertrand Sinal’s public statement during the World Health Assembly both affirmed Taiwan’s efforts and contributions to global public health and supported Taiwan’s international participation, for which we are very grateful. I hope that Taiwan and Haiti will continue to support each other and deepen cooperation. I believe that Minister Jean-Baptiste’s visit will open up more opportunities for cooperation for both countries, helping Taiwan and Haiti face various challenges together. In closing, I once again offer a sincere welcome to the delegation led by Minister Jean-Baptiste, and ask him to convey greetings from Taiwan to Prime Minister Alix Didier Fils-Aimé and the members of the Transitional Presidential Council. Minister Jean-Baptiste then delivered remarks, saying that he is extremely honored to visit Taiwan and reaffirm the solid and friendly cooperative relationship based on mutual respect between the Republic of Haiti and the Republic of China (Taiwan), which will soon mark its 70th anniversary. He also brought greetings to President Lai from Haiti’s Transitional Presidential Council and Prime Minister Fils-Aimé. Minister Jean-Baptiste emphasized that over the past few decades, despite the great geographical distance and developmental and cultural differences between our two countries, we have nevertheless established a firm friendship and demonstrated to the world the progress resulting from the mutual assistance and cooperation between our peoples. Minister Jean-Baptiste pointed out that our two countries cooperate closely in agriculture, health, education, and community development and have achieved concrete results. Taiwan’s voice, he said, is thus essential for the people of Haiti. He noted that Taiwan also plays an important role in peace and innovation and actively participates in global cooperative efforts. Pointing out that the world is currently facing significant challenges and that Haiti is experiencing its most difficult period in history, Minister Jean-Baptiste said that at this time, Taiwan and Haiti need to unite, help each other, and jointly think about how to move forward and deepen bilateral relations to benefit the peoples of both countries. Minister Jean-Baptiste said that he is pleased that throughout our solid and friendly diplomatic relationship, both countries have demonstrated mutual trust, mutual respect, and the values we jointly defend. He then stated his belief that Haiti and Taiwan will together create a cooperation model and future that are sincere, friendly, and sustainable. The delegation was accompanied to the Presidential Office by Chargé d’Affaires a.i. Francilien Victorin of the Embassy of the Republic of Haiti in Taiwan.
Details 2025-07-01 President Lai meets delegation from 2025 Taiwan International Ocean Forum On the afternoon of July 1, President Lai Ching-te met with a delegation from the 2025 Taiwan International Ocean Forum (TIOF). In remarks, President Lai noted that the people of Taiwan will continue to work with democratic partners throughout the world in a maritime spirit of freedom and openness to contribute to ocean governance and jointly ensure maritime security. He expressed hope that their visit will help forge stronger friendships between Taiwan and international maritime partners, so that all can work together to spur shared maritime prosperity and sustainable development for the next generation. A translation of President Lai’s remarks follows: I want to thank our guests for coming here to the Presidential Office. The 2025 TIOF will take place tomorrow and the day after, and I thank you all for making the long trip to Taiwan to attend the event and share your valuable insights and experiences. This year’s forum will focus on strategies for strengthening maritime security and pathways to achieving a sustainable blue economy. By attending this forum, our guests are highlighting their commitment to safeguarding the oceans, and beyond that, taking concrete action to demonstrate support for Taiwan. I once again offer deepest gratitude on behalf of the people of Taiwan. Taiwan holds a key position on the first island chain, is one of the world’s top 10 shipping nations, and accounts for close to 10 percent of global container shipping by volume. As such, Taiwan occupies a unique and important position in maritime strategy. For Taiwan, the ocean is more than just a basis for survival and development; it is also an important driver of national prosperity. In my inaugural address last year, I spoke of a threefold approach to further Taiwan’s development. One of these involves further developing our strengths as a maritime nation. Our government must actively help deepen our connections with the ocean, and must continue to promote green shipping, a sustainable fishing industry, marine renewable energy, and other forms of industrial transformation. It must also make use of marine technology and digital innovation to create a new paradigm that balances environmental, economic, and social inclusion concerns. This will help enhance Taiwan’s responsibilities and competitiveness as a maritime nation. Taiwan is surrounded by ocean, and our territorial waters are a natural protective barrier. However, continued gray-zone aggression from China creates serious threats and challenges to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. Our government continues to invest resources to deal with increasingly complex maritime security issues. In addition to building coast guard patrol vessels, we must also step up efforts to build underwater, surface, and airborne unmanned vehicles and smart reconnaissance equipment, so as to demonstrate Taiwan’s determination to defend democracy and freedom and commitment to maintaining peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. Oceans are Taiwan’s roots, and provide the channels by which we engage with the world. The people of Taiwan will continue to work with democratic partners throughout the world in a maritime spirit of freedom and openness to contribute to ocean governance and jointly ensure maritime security. The TIOF was first launched in 2020, and has now become an important platform for enhancement of cooperation between Taiwan and other countries. I hope that our distinguished guests will reap great benefits at this year’s forum, and further hope that this visit will help forge stronger friendships between Taiwan and international maritime partners, so that all can work together to spur shared maritime prosperity and sustainable development for the next generation. Chairman of The Washington Times Thomas McDevitt, a member of the delegation, then delivered remarks, noting first that July 4th, this Friday, is Independence Day in America. Independence is a sacred, powerful word which has great meaning in this part of the world, he said. Chairman McDevitt indicated that Taiwan has truly become a global beacon of democracy and a key partner for many nations. He then quoted President Lai’s 2024 inaugural address: “We will work together to combat disinformation, strengthen democratic resilience, address challenges, and allow Taiwan to become the MVP of the democratic world.” Chairman McDevitt went on to say that he appreciated the president’s speech with regard to his philosophical depth, sensitivity, and both moral and political clarity. He said that he was deeply moved by the speech, but within a few days of it, China responded with military activities and many threats. The chairman then emphasized that we are in a civilization crisis. Chairman McDevitt mentioned that President Lai has begun a series of 10 lectures, and remarked that they would help the world to understand the identity and the nature of Taiwan, as well as the situation we are in in the world. On behalf of all the delegation, Chairman McDevitt thanked the president for his leadership in dealing with these issues thoughtfully. Chairman McDevitt concluded with a line from the Old Testament which states that if the people have no vision, they will perish. He said that he believes Taiwan’s president has led the people of Taiwan, and the world, with a vision of how to navigate this great civilization crisis together. The delegation also included Members of the Japanese House of Representatives Kikawada Hitoshi, Aoyama Yamato, and Genma Kentaro, and Member of Parliament of the United Kingdom Gavin Williamson.
Details 2025-05-20 President Lai interviewed by Nippon Television and Yomiuri TV In a recent interview on Nippon Television’s news zero program, President Lai Ching-te responded to questions from host Mr. Sakurai Sho and Yomiuri TV Shanghai Bureau Chief Watanabe Masayo on topics including reflections on his first year in office, cross-strait relations, China’s military threats, Taiwan-United States relations, and Taiwan-Japan relations. The interview was broadcast on the evening of May 19. During the interview, President Lai stated that China intends to change the world’s rules-based international order, and that if Taiwan were invaded, global supply chains would be disrupted. Therefore, he said, Taiwan will strengthen its national defense, prevent war by preparing for war, and achieve the goal of peace. The president also noted that Taiwan’s purpose for developing drones is based on national security and industrial needs, and that Taiwan hopes to collaborate with Japan. He then reiterated that China’s threats are an international problem, and expressed hope to work together with the US, Japan, and others in the global democratic community to prevent China from starting a war. Following is the text of the questions and the president’s responses: Q: How do you feel as you are about to round out your first year in office? President Lai: When I was young, I was determined to practice medicine and save lives. When I left medicine to go into politics, I was determined to transform Taiwan. And when I was sworn in as president on May 20 last year, I was determined to strengthen the nation. Time flies, and it has already been a year. Although the process has been very challenging, I am deeply honored to be a part of it. I am also profoundly grateful to our citizens for allowing me the opportunity to give back to our country. The future will certainly be full of more challenges, but I will do everything I can to unite the people and continue strengthening the nation. That is how I am feeling now. Q: We are now coming up on the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, and over this period, we have often heard that conflict between Taiwan and the mainland is imminent. Do you personally believe that a cross-strait conflict could happen? President Lai: The international community is very much aware that China intends to replace the US and change the world’s rules-based international order, and annexing Taiwan is just the first step. So, as China’s military power grows stronger, some members of the international community are naturally on edge about whether a cross-strait conflict will break out. The international community must certainly do everything in its power to avoid a conflict in the Taiwan Strait; there is too great a cost. Besides causing direct disasters to both Taiwan and China, the impact on the global economy would be even greater, with estimated losses of US$10 trillion from war alone – that is roughly 10 percent of the global GDP. Additionally, 20 percent of global shipping passes through the Taiwan Strait and surrounding waters, so if a conflict breaks out in the strait, other countries including Japan and Korea would suffer a grave impact. For Japan and Korea, a quarter of external transit passes through the Taiwan Strait and surrounding waters, and a third of the various energy resources and minerals shipped back from other countries pass through said areas. If Taiwan were invaded, global supply chains would be disrupted, and therefore conflict in the Taiwan Strait must be avoided. Such a conflict is indeed avoidable. I am very thankful to Prime Minister of Japan Ishiba Shigeru and former Prime Ministers Abe Shinzo, Suga Yoshihide, and Kishida Fumio, as well as US President Donald Trump and former President Joe Biden, and the other G7 leaders, for continuing to emphasize at international venues that peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait are essential components for global security and prosperity. When everyone in the global democratic community works together, stacking up enough strength to make China’s objectives unattainable or to make the cost of invading Taiwan too high for it to bear, a conflict in the strait can naturally be avoided. Q: As you said, President Lai, maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait is also very important for other countries. How can war be avoided? What sort of countermeasures is Taiwan prepared to take to prevent war? President Lai: As Mr. Sakurai mentioned earlier, we are coming up on the 80th anniversary of the end of WWII. There are many lessons we can take from that war. First is that peace is priceless, and war has no winners. From the tragedies of WWII, there are lessons that humanity should learn. We must pursue peace, and not start wars blindly, as that would be a major disaster for humanity. In other words, we must be determined to safeguard peace. The second lesson is that we cannot be complacent toward authoritarian powers. If you give them an inch, they will take a mile. They will keep growing, and eventually, not only will peace be unattainable, but war will be inevitable. The third lesson is why WWII ended: It ended because different groups joined together in solidarity. Taiwan, Japan, and the Indo-Pacific region are all directly subjected to China’s threats, so we hope to be able to join together in cooperation. This is why we proposed the Four Pillars of Peace action plan. First, we will strengthen our national defense. Second, we will strengthen economic resilience. Third is standing shoulder to shoulder with the democratic community to demonstrate the strength of deterrence. Fourth is that as long as China treats Taiwan with parity and dignity, Taiwan is willing to conduct exchanges and cooperate with China, and seek peace and mutual prosperity. These four pillars can help us avoid war and achieve peace. That is to say, Taiwan hopes to achieve peace through strength, prevent war by preparing for war, keeping war from happening and pursuing the goal of peace. Q: Regarding drones, everyone knows that recently, Taiwan has been actively researching, developing, and introducing drones. Why do you need to actively research, develop, and introduce new drones at this time? President Lai: This is for two purposes. The first is to meet national security needs. The second is to meet industrial development needs. Because Taiwan, Japan, and the Philippines are all part of the first island chain, and we are all democratic nations, we cannot be like an authoritarian country like China, which has an unlimited national defense budget. In this kind of situation, island nations such as Taiwan, Japan, and the Philippines should leverage their own technologies to develop national defense methods that are asymmetric and utilize unmanned vehicles. In particular, from the Russo-Ukrainian War, we see that Ukraine has successfully utilized unmanned vehicles to protect itself and prevent Russia from unlimited invasion. In other words, the Russo-Ukrainian War has already proven the importance of drones. Therefore, the first purpose of developing drones is based on national security needs. Second, the world has already entered the era of smart technology. Whether generative, agentic, or physical, AI will continue to develop. In the future, cars and ships will also evolve into unmanned vehicles and unmanned boats, and there will be unmanned factories. Drones will even be able to assist with postal deliveries, or services like Uber, Uber Eats, and foodpanda, or agricultural irrigation and pesticide spraying. Therefore, in the future era of comprehensive smart technology, developing unmanned vehicles is a necessity. Taiwan, based on industrial needs, is actively planning the development of drones and unmanned vehicles. I would like to take this opportunity to express Taiwan’s hope to collaborate with Japan in the unmanned vehicle industry. Just as we do in the semiconductor industry, where Japan has raw materials, equipment, and technology, and Taiwan has wafer manufacturing, our two countries can cooperate. Japan is a technological power, and Taiwan also has significant technological strengths. If Taiwan and Japan work together, we will not only be able to safeguard peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait and security in the Indo-Pacific region, but it will also be very helpful for the industrial development of both countries. Q: The drones you just described probably include examples from the Russo-Ukrainian War. Taiwan and China are separated by the Taiwan Strait. Do our drones need to have cross-sea flight capabilities? President Lai: Taiwan does not intend to counterattack the mainland, and does not intend to invade any country. Taiwan’s drones are meant to protect our own nation and territory. Q: Former President Biden previously stated that US forces would assist Taiwan’s defense in the event of an attack. President Trump, however, has yet to clearly state that the US would help defend Taiwan. Do you think that in such an event, the US would help defend Taiwan? Or is Taiwan now trying to persuade the US? President Lai: Former President Biden and President Trump have answered questions from reporters. Although their responses were different, strong cooperation with Taiwan under the Biden administration has continued under the Trump administration; there has been no change. During President Trump’s first term, cooperation with Taiwan was broader and deeper compared to former President Barack Obama’s terms. After former President Biden took office, cooperation with Taiwan increased compared to President Trump’s first term. Now, during President Trump’s second term, cooperation with Taiwan is even greater than under former President Biden. Taiwan-US cooperation continues to grow stronger, and has not changed just because President Trump and former President Biden gave different responses to reporters. Furthermore, the Trump administration publicly stated that in the future, the US will shift its strategic focus from Europe to the Indo-Pacific. The US secretary of defense even publicly stated that the primary mission of the US is to prevent China from invading Taiwan, maintain stability in the Indo-Pacific, and thus maintain world peace. There is a saying in Taiwan that goes, “Help comes most to those who help themselves.” Before asking friends and allies for assistance in facing threats from China, Taiwan must first be determined and prepared to defend itself. This is Taiwan’s principle, and we are working in this direction, making all the necessary preparations to safeguard the nation. Q: I would like to ask you a question about Taiwan-Japan relations. After the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011, you made an appeal to give Japan a great deal of assistance and care. In particular, you visited Sendai to offer condolences. Later, you also expressed condolences and concern after the earthquakes in Aomori and Kumamoto. What are your expectations for future Taiwan-Japan exchanges and development? President Lai: I come from Tainan, and my constituency is in Tainan. Tainan has very deep ties with Japan, and of course, Taiwan also has deep ties with Japan. However, among Taiwan’s 22 counties and cities, Tainan has the deepest relationship with Japan. I sincerely hope that both of you and your teams will have an opportunity to visit Tainan. I will introduce Tainan’s scenery, including architecture from the era of Japanese rule, Tainan’s cuisine, and unique aspects of Tainan society, and you can also see lifestyles and culture from the Showa era. The Wushantou Reservoir in Tainan was completed by engineer Mr. Hatta Yoichi from Kanazawa, Japan and the team he led to Tainan after he graduated from then-Tokyo Imperial University. It has nearly a century of history and is still in use today. This reservoir, along with the 16,000-km-long Chianan Canal, transformed the 150,000-hectare Chianan Plain into Taiwan’s premier rice-growing area. It was that foundation in agriculture that enabled Taiwan to develop industry and the technology sector of today. The reservoir continues to supply water to Tainan Science Park. It is used by residents of Tainan, the agricultural sector, and industry, and even the technology sector in Xinshi Industrial Park, as well as Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company. Because of this, the people of Tainan are deeply grateful for Mr. Hatta and very friendly toward the people of Japan. A major earthquake, the largest in 50 years, struck Tainan on February 6, 2016, resulting in significant casualties. As mayor of Tainan at the time, I was extremely grateful to then-Prime Minister Abe, who sent five Japanese officials to the disaster site in Tainan the day after the earthquake. They were very thoughtful and asked what kind of assistance we needed from the Japanese government. They offered to provide help based on what we needed. I was deeply moved, as former Prime Minister Abe showed such care, going beyond the formality of just sending supplies that we may or may not have actually needed. Instead, the officials asked what we needed and then provided assistance based on those needs, which really moved me. Similarly, when the Great East Japan Earthquake of 2011 or the later Kumamoto earthquakes struck, the people of Tainan, under my leadership, naturally and dutifully expressed their support. Even earlier, when central Taiwan was hit by a major earthquake in 1999, Japan was the first country to deploy a rescue team to the disaster area. On February 6, 2018, after a major earthquake in Hualien, former Prime Minister Abe appeared in a video holding up a message of encouragement he had written in calligraphy saying “Remain strong, Taiwan.” All of Taiwan was deeply moved. Over the years, Taiwan and Japan have supported each other when earthquakes struck, and have forged bonds that are family-like, not just neighborly. This is truly valuable. In the future, I hope Taiwan and Japan can be like brothers, and that the peoples of Taiwan and Japan can treat one another like family. If Taiwan has a problem, then Japan has a problem; if Japan has a problem, then Taiwan has a problem. By caring for and helping each other, we can face various challenges and difficulties, and pursue a brighter future. Q: President Lai, you just used the phrase “If Taiwan has a problem, then Japan has a problem.” In the event that China attempts to invade Taiwan by force, what kind of response measures would you hope the US military and Japan’s Self-Defense Forces take? President Lai: As I just mentioned, annexing Taiwan is only China’s first step. Its ultimate objective is to change the rules-based international order. That being the case, China’s threats are an international problem. So, I would very much hope to work together with the US, Japan, and others in the global democratic community to prevent China from starting a war – prevention, after all, is more important than cure.
Columbia University agreed on July 23, 2025, to pay a US$200 million fine to the federal government and to settle allegations that it did not create a safe environment for Jewish students during Palestinian rights protests in 2024.
The deal will restore the vast majority of the $400 million in federal grants and contracts that Columbia was previously awarded, before the administration withdrew the funding in March 2025.
It marks the first financial and political agreement a university has reached with the Trump administration in its push for more control over higher education – and stands to have significant ripple effects for how other universities and colleges carry out their basic operations.
Amy Lieberman, the education editor at The Conversation U.S., spoke with Brendan Cantwell, a scholar of higher education at Michigan State University, to understand what’s exactly in this agreement – and the lasting precedent it may set on government intervention in higher education.
Palestinian rights demonstrators march through Columbia University on Oct. 7, 2024, marking one year of the war between Hamas and Israel. Kena Betancur/AFP via Getty Images
What’s in the deal Columbia made with the Trump administration?
The agreement requires Columbia to make a $200 million payment to the federal government. Columbia will also pay $21 million to settle investigations brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Columbia will need to keep detailed statistics about student applicants – including their race and ethnicity, grades and SAT scores – as well as information about faculty and staff hiring decisions. Columbia will then have to share this data with the federal government.
In exchange, the federal government will release most of the $400 million in frozen grant money previously awarded to Columbia and allow faculty at the university to compete for future federal grants.
How does this deal address antisemitism?
The Trump administration has cited antisemitism against students and faculty on campuses to justify its broad incursion into the business of universities around the country.
But the federal complaint the administration made against Columbia was not actually about antisemitism. The administration made a formal accusation of antisemitism at Columbia in May of this year but suspended grants to the university in March. The federal government had initially acknowledged that cutting federal research grants did nothing to address the climate for Jewish students on campus, for example.
When the federal government investigates civil rights violations, it usually conducts site visits and does very thorough investigations. We never saw such a government report about antisemitism at Columbia or other universities.
The settlement that Columbia has entered into with the administration also doesn’t do much about antisemitism.
The agreement includes Columbia redefining antisemitism with a broader definition that is also used by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. The definition now includes “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews” – a description that is also used by the U.S. State Department and several European governments but some critics say conflates antisemitism with anti-Zionism.
Instead, the agreement primarily has to do with faculty hiring and admissions decisions. The federal government alleges that Columbia is discriminating against white and Asian applicants, and that this will allow the government to ensure that everybody who is admitted is considered only on the basis of merit.
The administration could argue that changing hiring practices to get faculty who are less hostile to Jewish students could change the campus climate, but the agreement doesn’t really identify ways in which the university contributed to or ignored antisemitic conduct.
Is this a new issue?
There has been a long-running issue that conservatives and members of the Trump administration – dating back to his first term – have with higher education. The Trump administration and other conservatives have said for years that higher education is too liberal.
The administration’s complaints aren’t limited to Columbia. Harvard is in a protracted conflict with the administration, and the administration has launched investigations into dozens of other schools around the country. These universities are butting heads with the administration over the same grievance that higher education is too liberal. There are also specific claims about antisemitism on university campuses and the privileges given to nonwhite students in admissions or campus life.
While the administration has a common set of complaints about a range of universities, there is a mix of schools that the administration is taking issue with. Some of them, such as Harvard, are very high profile. The Department of Justice forced out the president at the University of Virginia in January 2025 on the grounds that he had not done enough to root out diversity, equity and inclusion programs at the public university. The University of Virginia may have been a target for the administration because a Republican governor appointed most members of its governance board and agreed with Trump’s complaints.
How could this change the makeup of Columbia’s student population?
Now, with the Columbia deal, the government could say that it would expect to see a proportion of students who are white increase and students who are Black and Latino to decrease at Columbia. That’s a legal approach that America First Legal, a conservative legal advocacy group founded by Stephen Miller, a Trump administration official, has already tried.
Back in February 2025, America First Legal alleged in a federal lawsuit that the University of California, Los Angeles, was using illegal admissions criteria, because of the number of Black and Latino students that were admitted by the school. That lawsuit is ongoing.
Claire Shipman, Columbia University’s acting president, speaks during the school’s May 2025 commencement ceremony. Jeenah Moon/Pool/AFP via Getty Images
What does this agreement mean for US higher education as a whole?
It is an enormous, unprecedented shift in how the federal government works with higher education. Since the McCarthy era in the 1940s and ’50s, when professors were blacklisted and fired because of their alleged communism, Americans have not seen the federal government interrogate education.
The federal government does have a role in securing people’s civil rights, including in the context of higher education, but this is very, very different from how the federal government has done civil rights investigations and entered into agreements with universities in the past.
This agreement is very broad and gives the federal government oversight of things that have long been under universities’ control, such as whom they hire to teach and which students they admit.
The federal government is now saying it has the right to look over universities’ shoulders and guide them in this work that has long been considered independent. And the government is willing to be extremely coercive to get universities to comply.
What signal does this agreement send to other universities?
This agreement sets a precedent for the government to direct colleges and universities to comply with its political agenda. This violates the long tradition of academic independence that had helped to make the U.S. higher education system the envy of the world.
Columbia can afford paying $200 million to the federal government. Most universities can’t afford to pay $200 million.
And most campuses cannot survive without federal resources, whether that comes in the form of student financial aid or research grants. This agreement sets a standard for other universities that, if they don’t immediately do what the federal government wants them to do, the government could impose penalties that are so high it could end their ability to operate.
Brendan Cantwell is a Professor in the Department of Educational Administration at Michigan State University.
Source: United States Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn)
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) delivered remarks on the Senate floor slamming Democrats for obstructing the voting process on President Trump’s nominees, his efforts to enforce our immigration laws and secure the border, and his America First policies in the courts:
Click hereto download Senator Blackburn’s remarks on the Senate floor.
REMARKS AS PREPARED
While Republicans Work to Deliver Wins for the American People, Democrats Are Obstructing President Trump’s Agenda
In November, President Trump and Republicans received a powerful mandate from the American people to secure our border, strengthen our economy, rein in wasteful spending, and Make America Great Again.
By passing the One Big Beautiful Bill, we delivered on this mandate by securing…
The largest tax cut in U.S. history—including reduced taxes on tips and overtime, a $6,000 bonus deduction for seniors, and the permanent extension of President Trump’s 2017 tax cuts;
It also reduces the burden of the death tax for millions, providing critical relief for family-owned businesses and farmers;
It bolsters our Armed Forces with a $150 billion increase in military spending;
It provides the largest-ever investment in border security so that we can complete the border wall and hire thousands of new Border Patrol Agents;
It strengthens Medicaid by rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse in the program;
It restores fiscal sanity by eliminating hundreds of billions of dollars in far-left spending;
And it accomplishes so much more.
These are huge wins for the American people. But our work is far from finished.
Democrats Are Hurting Americans by Obstructing President Trump’s Nominees
At the top of the list: confirming President Trump’s nominees.
The President deserves to have his team in place to enact his America First agenda.
But instead of working with us to carry out the will of the American people, our colleagues across the aisle have chosen to obstruct at any cost.
Right now, we have 135 pending nominations in the Senate.
There is absolutely zero reason we should have this backlog—especially with such important nominations:
U.S. ambassadorships to the Vatican, the Netherlands, Chile, Greece, and the European Union;
Seven federal judgeships;
U.S. Attorneys;
Under Secretaries for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and the Navy;
The Commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission;
And much more.
Democrats, however, are trying to slow down the voting process on these qualified nominees as much as possible.
They’re losing at the ballot box, in the halls of Congress, and in the courts—so stalling is all they have left to spite the President.
They might think that they are hurting Republicans. In reality, they are hurting the American people.
Every single day that goes by with stalled nomination votes is another day that these qualified nominees are unable to get to work on behalf of our country.
Democrats’ Obstruction Is Nothing New – Recent Disclosures Show Obama Manufactured Russia Collusion Hoax to Derail President Trump
Unfortunately, this obstruction is nothing new.
With the recent disclosures from Director of National Intelligence Gabbard, we are learning even more about how President Obama and Democrats manufactured the Russia Hoax to try to derail President Trump’s first term.
Activist Judges Have Blocked Lawful Orders from President Trump in Attempts to Obstruct His Agenda
For months, far-left activist judges undermined our Constitution by blocking lawful orders from the Trump administration in a brazen effort to decide nationwide policy.
Their abuse of power only came to an end when the Supreme Court reined in the use of nationwide injunctions.
Democrats Have Obstructed ICE Agents from Enforcing Immigration Law
And more recently, we’ve seen Democrats try their best to obstruct a core part of the America First agenda: Securing our border.
Americans want our border to be secure. And they want criminal illegal aliens removed from their communities.
Across the country, ICE and Border Patrol agents have been hard at work carrying out this mandate and arresting criminals who have no right to be in our country.
Yet Democrats are working to vilify and undermine our brave federal law enforcement.
We’ve seen congressional Democrats try to storm ICE facilities—including a House member who faces federal charges for assaulting an ICE officer.
They’ve smeared ICE agents who are risking their lives to protect our country, comparing them to “secret police” and the Nazis.
They’ve pushed legislation that would prohibit officers from wearing masks, exposing them and their families to targeted harassment.
This is all happening as ICE officers face an 830 percent surge in assaults.
Source: United States Senator for New York Charles E Schumer
Trump Is Threatening AGAIN To Raise Tariffs On Canada Up To 35% Next Week, And New Data Shows It Is Upstate New Yorkers’ Wallets & Small Businesses Paying The Price For These Threats & Insulting Comments To Our Neighbors To The North
Schumer Reveals New Data That Shows 376,000 Fewer Canadian Border Crossings Last Month Compared To Last Year’s Summer Tourism Season, Putting Billions For NY’s Main Streets And Local Jobs At Risk – Says We Must End This Ill-Conceived Trade War And Demands NY House Republicans Stand Up For Upstate NY
Schumer: Trump’s Tariff War Is Cratering Upstate NY’s Summer Tourism Economy, This Must Stop
As Trump proposes increasing tariffs on Canadian goods up to 35% next week, with the chaos from his ill-conceived and irregularly implemented trade war continuing, U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer revealed new data showing border crossings continue to plummet at all major land ports of entry in New York. New data shows approximately376,000 fewer travelers crossed the Upstate NY-Canada border via land in June 2025 compared to June 2024, according to CBP, a more than 21% decrease.
“Across Upstate NY, tariffs are up and raising prices for families, and tourism is way down thanks to Trump’s impulsive, ill-conceived trade war. This new data shows how Trump’s tariffs and insults are driving our closest ally and key trading partner Canada away. Hurting Upstate NY’s summer tourism industry and leaving emptier Main Streets and stores paying the price,” said Senator Schumer. “Meanwhile, Trump is threatening to throw even more fuel on this fire, threatening to raise tariffs on Canada to a whopping 35% next week, which could burn Upstate NY’s tourism industry to the ground. From Buffalo to the Thousand Islands to Plattsburgh, and everywhere in between, Upstate NY can’t afford for Trump’s tariff chaos to continue. I am fighting back to give Upstate NY businesses the relief they need, and NY House Republicans should get off the sidelines and stand up for our Main Street shops, restaurants, and small businesses before it’s too late.”
According to new data from CBP, Upstate NY and Canada saw approximately 1.4 million border crossings in June 2025, compared to 1.75 million during the same month in 2024, a 21.5% decrease across land (both road and bridge) crossings frequented by tourists. This follows a months-long trend since Trump took office of Canadian border crossings plummeting, meaning fewer tourists at NY’s hotels, shops, & restaurants. Nationally, border crossings have decreased from approximately 5 million to 3.9 million over the same period.
A breakdown bridge-by-bridge from the Bridge and Tunnel Operators Association of June 2025 crossings shows just how steeply tourism is declining across all the major bridge ports of entry between Upstate NY and Canada:
NY-Canada Bridge
Region
June 2024 Auto Crossings
June 2025 Auto Crossings
Percentage Decline
Peace Bridge
Western NY
450,836
382,448
-15.17%
Rainbow Bridge
Western NY
222,654
165,135
-25.83%
Lewiston-Queenstown Bridge
Western NY
254,200
238,694
-6.10%
Whirlpool Rapids Bridge
Western NY
38,378
27,252
-28.99%
Ogdensburg-Prescott International Bridge
North Country
51,083
37,378
-26.83%
Thousand Islands Bridge
North Country
192,476
165,057
-14.25%
Seaway Bridge
North Country
226,409
224,655
-0.77%
Since taking office in January, Trump has damaged the United States’ relationship with Canada by threatening to annex Canada and levying 25% tariffs on Canadian goods, and is now threatening even higher tariffs at 35%. Schumer said Canadians are canceling trips to the United States because of Trump’s tariff war and threats to annex Canada as the 51st state, hurting Main Street businesses that rely on a busy summer tourism season and are already slammed by higher prices.
Trump’s tariffs are raising costs for families, with households with lower incomes hit hardest because they tend to buy more goods in industries being tariffed. According to the Budget Lab at Yale, Trump’s tariffs are expected to cost families more than $2,700 every year. Americans are already seeing higher prices; In June 2025, prices increased by 2.7% compared to the previous year. With Trump’s threats of even higher tariffs, that means even higher costs for Upstate NY families and small businesses. In addition, with the threat of costs increasing even more, many families feel pressure to make big purchases this year, when prices are lower, but they are less financially prepared, and in some cases, taking on debt to do so.
Schumer continues to be one of the leading advocates in Congress to end this unnecessary, damaging trade war with Canada that is decimating Upstate NY’s economy, tourism, small businesses, and local jobs.
Earlier this year, the Senate passed a bipartisan resolution to end tariffs on Canada, and Schumer said now more than ever, this new data should be a wake-up call to House Republicans and show the urgency to take up and pass it as well.
Schumer and Senate Democrats have introduced legislation exempting small businesses from tariffs.
Schumer has co-led amicus briefs in a lawsuit challenging Trump’s authority to levy tariffs.
Schumer said ending this costly trade war is key to protecting American families from price increases and job losses as a result of tariffs on Canada.
President Donald J. Trump has delivered on his promises unlike any commander-in-chief in history — and the wins keep coming, perfectly illustrated by three recent headlines:
Trump’s ‘No Tax on Tips’ policy could put thousands back in servers’ pockets (KXXV-TV, Waco, TX):“Servers and other tipped workers could see significant financial benefits from President Trump’s ‘No Tax on Tips’ policy, potentially saving thousands of dollars annually.”
Health Care Provider Puts Stop To Trans Surgeries On Kids (The Daily Wire):“Health care provider Kaiser Permanente confirmed to The Daily Wire on Wednesday that it was pausing all transgender surgeries for patients under the age of 19 in response to pressure from the Trump administration.”
Trump Delivers Most Secure Border in History — June Migrant Arrests Drop 15 Percent from Prior Record (Breitbart):“The Trump administration delivered on its promise to secure the U.S.-Mexico border and set new records for the lowest number of migrant encounters. The June Southwest Land Border Encounters Report from U.S. Customs and Border Protection shows yet another decrease in migrant encounters, including the lowest number of encounters in a single day.”
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (MA-07)
“2008 was an avoidable economic crisis – a direct result of greed, reckless speculation, and weak regulation. That’s why Dodd-Frank was essential.”
“If we, as members of Congress, forget the visceral harm that families across the country suffered from in 2008, then we risk rolling back the very regulations and defunding the very agencies that could prevent the next financial crash.”
Video (YouTube)
WASHINGTON – In a House Financial Services Committee hearing, Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (MA-07) made plain the vital role of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which was created by the Dodd-Frank Act following the 2008 financial crisis, in protecting consumers from predatory lenders and big banks, and preventing a future financial crash.
Rep. Pressley condemned Republicans’ rollbacks of Dodd-Frank and the Trump Administration’s dismantling of the CFPB, which will put Wall Street profits before the financial recovery and wellbeing of everyday people.
A full transcript of her remarks as delivered is available below, and the full video is available here.
Transcript: Pressley Condemns GOP Gutting of Dodd-Frank and CFPB, Affirms Need for Strong Consumer Protections
House of Representatives
July 15, 2025
REP. PRESSLEY:Thank you to our witnesses for joining us today.
In 2008, families across this country lost everything during the Great Recession. It was an economic catastrophe. Millions of people lost homes, lost jobs, and lost hard-earned savings.
Now, the majority of Gen Z who will see this hearing later were just babies 17 years ago, so I can’t fault them that they are completely unaware of the foreclosures and the pink slips.
But I know my Republican colleagues and I certainly do remember.
Republicans remember the heartache and pain that our country went through. It is estimated there were more than 5,000 suicides as a result of the financial crisis.
2008 was an avoidable economic crisis – a direct result of greed, reckless speculation, and weak regulation.
That’s why Dodd-Frank was essential. I do want to acknowledge the good work of our very own Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank in this drafting of this seminal piece of legislation.
It created basic guardrails: stronger capital requirements so banks couldn’t gamble with our livelihoods. The CFPB – the only agency dedicated solely to protecting consumers. Regular stress tests for banks so we would never be caught off guard again.
But just ten years later, in 2018, while 65% of families still hadn’t financially recovered from the crash, Republicans rolled back key parts of Dodd-Frank. They sent a clear message to their constituents: Wall Street’s profits margins matter more than your recovery and well-being.
Now they’re at it again by dismantling the CFPB.
Just look at how Townstone, a mortgage lender, would repeatedly disparage Black neighborhoods in Chicago with racist comments. The CFPB rightly held them accountable for discrimination in housing in a case that was settled last November.
And when the Trump administration tried to reverse CFPB’s win, a federal judge denied that outrageous request, affirming the critical role of the CFPB in stopping racial discrimination in mortgage lending.
This is just one example of how Republicans’ dismantling the CFPB has real-world consequences, like letting mortgage lenders off the hook for illegal redlining.
To all of our witnesses, loud and proud, yes or no – do you support mortgage lenders getting away with breaking the law discriminating against Black people? Just for the record.
KEN BENTSEN:I do not.
TOM QUAADMAN:We don’t represent mortgage lenders, but personally, I don’t.
PAUL KUPIEC:Not my area of expertise. I don’t want them to discriminate against anybody but –
REP. PRESSLEY:I had a colleague across the aisle a moment ago, who said that it’s just a matter of following the rule of law, basic law. So, this is not even a controversial thing.
Racial discrimination is illegal. So, this is not, this is not a, you know, a trick question. So really quickly, loud and proud, yes or no –
PAUL KUPIEC:I think people should follow the law.
REP. PRESSLEY:Okay, I’ll take that as a no.
DENNIS KELLEHER:I agree.
REP. PRESSLEY:All right, good.
So, [since] its creation in Dodd-Frank, the CFPB, has returned $21 billion to more than 205 million consumers – who were exploited by predatory lenders and big banks.
But today, Trump has fired nearly 90% of CFPB staff, and the agency under his administration has withdrawn over 60 guidance documents, dropped enforcement cases and brought the agency to a halt – leaving hard working Americans vulnerable to exploitation.
To all my witnesses, yes or no – do you agree with the CFPB returning $21 billion to 205 million victims of deceptive and predatory financial practices? Yes or no?
KEN BENTSEN:We don’t engage with the CFPB. So I can’t really comment, because I don’t have a background in the case that you’re citing. So I apologize.
LINDSEY JOHNSON:When a company breaks the law and consumers are harmed, they should have redress. But I have to say – the CFPB’s use of penalties has got to have some parameters. I can tell you firsthand that there are multiple times when they go after salacious headlines and outlandish sums of money, when the company either didn’t break the law or they claimed a U-debt violation on something that was –
REP. PRESSLEY:Okay. So, I’ll take that as a no. Reclaiming my time, because I got to get everyone else on the record here.
Okay, yes or no – do you agree with the CFPB returning $21 billion to 205 million victims of deceptive and predatory financial practices?
TOM QUAADMAN:ICI’s members aren’t regulated by the CFPB,
PAUL KUPIEC:Not my area. No comment.
DENNIS KELLEHER:My only disagreement is it should have been higher.
REP. PRESSLEY:If we, as members of Congress, forget the visceral harm that families across the country suffered from in 2008, then we risk rolling back the very regulations and defunding the very agencies that could prevent the next financial crash.
The human impact of these events alone is unfathomable. The economic price tag in the aftermath is growing ever larger. In 2024 alone, NOAA documented 27 weather or climate disaster events with losses exceeding $1 billion, leading to $184.8 billion in total damages and 568 deaths.
While climate disasters are costing us billions we don’t have, the oil and gas industry is comfortably earning trillions. In 2023, the industry earned an estimated $2.7 trillion in income globally.
Corporate and political elites across the world have foolishly wasted decades on inaction, delay and expensive propaganda. In truth, delaying the necessary reductions in planet warming pollution is similar to refusing to pay your credit card when it is due. Before too long, the penalties and interest charges start piling up, and you can find yourself in a real mess.
Our climate bill is overdue, but the fossil fuel industry is doing everything they can to avoid paying. They want to avoid any liability for their actions, all the while pushing the rising costs off on to taxpayers; or energy ratepayers; or just ordinary families stuck with higher bills, an unhealthy environment, looming climate hazards, and a failing insurance market.
This is unjust and unacceptable. We have to make the polluters pay.
All The Ways that Fossil Fuels Take Money Out of Your Pocket
Over and over, the media and politicians have conditioned us to think that protecting the environment is a “luxury” that sadly we just can’t afford – as if a healthy biosphere that sustains life could ever be separated from “the economy.” The reality is just the opposite: saving the planet is a bargain compared to the insanely expensive climate crisis.
Fossil fuels and climate change are forcing us to spend top-dollar in multiple ways.
Direct Climate Impacts. Climate science has established that climate change is driving numerous impacts both in the U.S. and around the globe – from sea-level rise to heat waves to a melting Arctic. A 2023 report from the U.S. Treasury focused on three impacts that could harm the household finances of Americans in certain parts of the county: flooding, wildfire, and exposure to high heat.
The Treasury report found that these climate hazards can destroy property and public infrastructure, close businesses and eliminate jobs, spike gas and energy prices, interfere with banking and emergency services, and send people to the hospital. Public polling shows that more than one-third of U.S. adults say they have been affected by an extreme weather event in the past 2 years.
To top it all off, it is becoming increasingly clear that climate change is driving the insurance market toward collapse.
Insurance Collapse
Donald Trump may not believe in climate change, but your insurance company sure does. Insurance companies can’t afford to be blinded by climate denier propaganda, which is why real, physical climate damages are now being reflected in insurance premiums and decisions about coverage.
Data from the insurance industry suggests that from 2002 to 2022, over one-third of insurance losses (or $600 billion) were attributed to climate change, and that those losses were increasing. One recent study predicts that climate change could reduce American home values by a staggering $1.47 trillion over the next 30 years – with the losses concentrated in places with the largest climate impacts. As climate impacts expand, even places that were once dubbed “climate havens” are no longer safe from harm.
Industry insiders are warning that if temperatures continue to rise, the insurance industry will simply be unable to offer coverage for many risks, which would then spread through other parts of the economy. For example, if you cannot get insurance on a house, you probably can’t get a mortgage either. This could lead to “a systemic risk that threatens the very foundation of the financial sector” in the words of one expert. Such a scenario could also lead to large migration of people away from the uninsurable parts of the country.
We are already seeing parts of this dynamic play out in California. The January 2025 California fires will likely be the most expensive disaster in American history, with insured losses costing as much as $75 billion and total losses potentially greater than $250 billion. As a result, insurers have requested large rate hikes or have left the state entirely, leaving the state-run FAIR plan as the only option for many.
Good News, We’ve Found the Culprits
We don’t have to scour the planet to figure out who is to blame for these mounting crises. Independent researcher Rick Heede and colleagues have created a database ranking which coal, oil and gas corporations and state-owned companies are responsible for the majority of historic carbon emissions. Topping the list are the former U.S.S.R. and China’s coal production, but the corporations Saudi Aramco, Chevron and ExxonMobil take the #3, #4 and #5 spots on the list.
Peer-reviewed studies have taken the next step to actually attribute certain climate impacts to specific climate polluters. Studies have linked these corporate polluters to a rise in CO2 and surface temperature, sea-level rise, ocean acidification, wildfire risk, and more. A recent study has even outlined a methodology to establish “an ‘end-to-end’ attribution that links fossil fuel producers to specific damages from warming.”
At the federal level, the Trump administration is busy firing scientists, illegally ending grants, halting data collection, and reversing what progress we have made on fighting climate pollution. But even while the federal government refuses to show true climate leadership, states and local governments have an opportunity to keep hope alive for climate sanity. States such as Vermont and New York have begun passing laws to make polluters pay directly. Sometimes called “climate superfund” laws, the idea is to impose a fee, or a climate damage tax, on fossil fuel companies in order to fund needed climate adaptation programs. Other states like California, New Jersey, and Oregon have similar pieces of legislation moving through their State Congresses.
No Polluter Pardons
These lawsuits and state laws are gaining momentum, so naturally, these corporate cronies are doing everything they can to shirk their responsibilities. The fossil fuel industry may attempt to slip some form of “immunity” from liability into must-pass legislation, similar to the shield law that protects gun manufacturers.
People in positions of power, like President Trump, are even going a step further and doing what they can to shield polluters from scrutiny. Trump issued an Executive Order to protect fossil fuels against state overreach, and even directed the DOJ to try to block these lawsuits and laws in court. And infuriatingly, Trump recently eliminated NOAA’s database of climate disasters, depriving us of even basic information about the crisis. Moves like these can try to obscure the consequences of climate chaos, but they cannot erase real pain and suffering felt by communities experiencing these disasters.
It’s time we stand together, hold these brazen culprits accountable and demand they pay for the damage they’ve caused. Take action with us and sign the Polluters Pay Pact today.
Source: United States Senator for Nevada Cortez Masto
Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) introduced the Stop the Scammers Act to restore critical Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) funding and authorize the CFPB to reward whistleblowers who report wrongdoing. This legislation follows the passage of the Republican tax bill, which slashed CFPB funding in half and removed vital protections for victims of scams and fraud and people experiencing unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices from financial institutions.
“The CFPB has proven to be a champion for everyday Americans, protecting them from scammers and predatory business practices,” said Senator Cortez Masto. “Slashing the CFPB’s funding is a short-sighted decision that will have long-lasting effects on working families and our financial markets. It’s important that we not only restore this funding but also give them more tools to keep us safe from scams.”
The Stop the Scammers Act wouldencourage whistleblowers to come forward by allowing the CFPB to reward whistleblowers with financial compensation from the Civil Penalty Fund. The money for this fund comes directly from monetary penalties imposed on companies and individuals who violate federal consumer financial protection laws. The legislation would also allow whistleblowers to retain independent counsel and protect a whistleblower’s identity. The bill also restores CFPB funding to 12 percent of the Federal Reserve’s operating budget, ensuring the Bureau can carry out its mission and properly protect Americans.
Read the full bill here. The Stop the Scammers Act has been cosponsored by Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Banking Committee Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.),Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).
As the former top law enforcement official in Nevada, Senator Cortez Masto has been a leading voice fight fraud throughout her career. She sounded the alarm on increasing check fraud scams, which cost consumers millions of dollars each year. The Senator’s bipartisan legislation to deter disruptive and potentially harmful phone calls and texts was signed into law in 2020. Most recently, she called out the Trump Administration’s Internal Revenue Service Commissioner for his involvement in a tax fraud scheme in which he encouraged people to claim a fake Tribal tax credit.
Source: United States Senator for Virginia Tim Kaine
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) joined Senator Peter Welch (D-VT) and five of their Senate colleagues in introducing the Creating Access to Necessary American-Canadian Duty Adjustments (CANADA) Act, legislation that would exempt United States-owned small businesses from President Donald Trump’s senseless tariffs on Canada.
“President Trump’s broad-based tariffs are causing economic chaos, uncertainty, and higher costs for families and businesses,” said Kaine. “I’ve heard from small businesses across Virginia about how Trump’s trade wars have forced them to make tough decisions about how they’ll continue to operate. I’m proud to introduce this bipartisan bill with my colleagues to exempt small businesses from Trump’s tariffs on Canada, one of our closest allies and top trading partners.”
President Trump has changed or modified his tariff proposals and policies dozens of times in his second term. These tariffs have been difficult to navigate for small businesses across the U.S., including in Virginia. In 2024, Canada was Virginia’s largest export market and accounted for 15 percent of Virginia exports. In Virginia in 2022, top goods exports to Canada included motor vehicles and transportation equipment, such as medium- and heavy-duty trucks. 56.1 percent of Southwest Virginia’s economic output is dependent on trade. Tariffs lead to supply chain disruptions, increased costs of goods and materials, smaller profits, and higher costs for consumers.
Kaine has been a leading legislative voice in countering Trump’s senseless tariff policies. Earlier this year, Kaine successfully secured Senate passage of his legislation to undo Trump’s tariffs on Canadian goods. Kaine has since sent a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson demanding that he schedule a vote in the House of Representatives on his Senate-passed legislation. Kaine also introduced bipartisan legislation to repeal President Trump’s across-the-board tariffs that the White House announced on April 2. The bill received bipartisan support but narrowly failed. In May, Kaine traveled to Ottawa, Canada to meet with Prime Minister of Canada Mark Carney, members of his cabinet, and Canadian business leaders to discuss Trump’s tariffs and to reinforce the importance of strong U.S.-Canada relations.
In addition to Kaine and Welch, the legislation is cosponsored by Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Senators Susan Collins (R-ME), Ed Markey (D-MA), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH).
Source: United States Senator for Michigan Gary Peters
Michigan Continues to Experience Acute Child Care Shortage
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Gary Peters (MI) joined a group of his colleagues in reintroducing the Child Care for Working Families Act. This comprehensive legislation aims to make child care more affordable and accessible for hardworking families in Michigan and across the country. The bill would expand access to pre-K and support full-day, full-year Head Start programs that families rely on. Senator Peters proudly joined this legislation as an original cosponsor amid the Trump Administration’s drastic cuts to resources that help working families succeed, including cuts to health care, food assistance, and Head Start.
“Lack of affordable child care is an ongoing crisis in Michigan. This issue impacts not only families but our entire economy,” said Senator Peters. “When parents struggle to find child care, they lose out on opportunities to provide for their family, while businesses lose out on talented workers. This bill would help ensure all families can find and afford quality child care, making a needed investment in our nation’s future.”
A 2023 report from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation found that a child care shortage is hurting Michigan’s economy on numerous fronts, including reducing labor force participation, causing worker absenteeism, and curbing Michigan’s gross domestic product output. According to the report, between lost tax revenues and business earnings, Michigan loses nearly $3 billion in economic activity every year due to lack of child care access.
Specifically, the Child Care for Working Families Act would:
Improve the quality of child care and expand families’ child care options: The bill would help address child care deserts by providing resources to help open new child care providers in underserved communities. It would also increase child care options for children who receive care during non-traditional hours and support child care for children who are dual-language learners, experiencing homelessness, and in foster care.
Support higher wages for child care workers: Child care workers would be paid wages comparable to elementary school teachers who have similar credentials and experience.
Expand access to high-quality pre-K: States would receive funding to expand high-quality preschool programs for 3- and 4-year-olds.
Better support Head Start programs by providing the funding necessary to offer full-day, full-year programming and increasing wages for Head Start workers.
Senator Peters has long fought to improve access to affordable child care and support working families in Michigan. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, Peters recently secured resources in funding legislation advanced by the committee to help Central Montcalm Public School’s Early Childhood Center in Stanton, Michigan to provide more child care and educational services for the community. Earlier this year, Peters sent a letter to U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., demanding answers about the closure of five regional Head Start Offices across the country, including Chicago’s Region 5 office, which serves Michigan’s Head Start centers. Peters made clear that this decision will negatively impact the early educational programs and child care support that children and families depend on.
Source: United States Senator for New Hampshire Maggie Hassan
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Maggie Hassan (D-NH) joined a bipartisan Congressional Delegation to Canada to discuss ways to repair and rebuild the relationship between the United States and Canada, which has been damaged by President Trump’s reckless tariffs that increase costs for Granite Staters. Senator Hassan visited Canada as part of a delegation with Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV). The delegation met with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, Foreign Minister Anita Anand, Minister for Canada-U.S. Trade and Intergovernmental Affairs Dominic LeBlanc, Finance Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne, and Industry Minister Melanie Joly.
“Canada is New Hampshire’s most important trading partner, and we must continue to find ways to rebuild our partnership amid the uncertainty caused by President Trump’s reckless tariffs,” said Senator Hassan. “Historically, we have had a close security and trade relationship that benefits workers, businesses, and families on both sides of the border, but that relationship is now at risk because of President Trump’s actions. It was great to meet with Prime Minister Carney and other Canadian officials to discuss these critical issues facing our relationship and the ways in which we can work together to move forward. I will continue working to restore stability and trust to this vital partnership that is so important to New Hampshire’s economy and our shared future.”
Senator Hassan is standing up for Granite State families and speaking out against President Trump’s reckless and haphazard tariffs. Earlier this year, she joined the New Hampshire Congressional delegation in urging President Trump to halt tariffs on Canada that would dramatically increase costs for Granite State families. The wide-reaching effects of these tariffs were further highlighted in April when Senator Hassan met with business owners from a NH-based building materials retailer, who described the higher costs the business is facing due to President Trump’s tariffs.
Yesterday, the White House unveiled the Trump Administration’s transformative strategy to propel the United States into a new era of artificial intelligence dominance. Under President Donald J. Trump’s leadership, this groundbreaking blueprint establishes core tenets to accelerate innovation, fortify essential infrastructure, and assert U.S. leadership in diplomacy and security — cementing our position as the global AI powerhouse.
As Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang put it: “America’s unique advantage that no country could possibly have is President Trump.”
TheAI Action Planwas immediately hailed across the technology industry:
AI Innovation Association President Steve Kinard: “President Trump’s AI Action Plan is a bold path to global American leadership. Every American citizen, company, university and institution has a role to play. By prioritizing American workers, free speech, and security, it positions the U.S. to win the AI race and usher in a new era of prosperity and strength. The AI Innovation Association stands ready to support this initiative.”
Alliance for the Future: “The White House just advanced a more unified national AI strategy. States with clear, effective AI policies will be better positioned for federal support. A strong step toward alignment, innovation, and leadership.”
Amazon: “Amazon supports & continues to work at the state and federal level to establish consistent standards that promote the secure, responsible development of AI. We look forward to continued collaboration to fully realize AI’s potential in driving economic growth & tech advancement.”
American Beverage: “We applaud President Trump’s action plan to ensure America’s continued leadership in the global pursuit of artificial intelligence innovation and infrastructure. Maintaining our edge in this technology is important to the growth of American manufacturing and the good-paying jobs manufacturers provide in communities across the country.”
Chevron Corporation Chairman and CEO Mike Wirth: “President Trump’s American AI Action Plan is a bold and necessary step to ensure the United States leads the next great technological revolution. As I’ve said before, America has triumphed in every industrial era—from steel to energy—and we have the power and leadership to do it again in artificial intelligence. This plan recognizes that AI innovation doesn’t happen in a vacuum—it demands reliable, scalable energy and infrastructure. By streamlining permitting, investing in data centers, and unleashing American energy, the President is laying the foundation for a future where AI strengthens our economy, our national security, and our global leadership. Chevron stands ready to help power this future.”
American Edge Project CEO Doug Kelly: “President Trump’s AI Action Plan is a giant leap forward in the race to secure American leadership in artificial intelligence. By prioritizing innovation, infrastructure, talent, and global reach, the plan confronts key barriers to American competitiveness, begins to fill long-standing gaps in our national strategy, and helps position the U.S. to beat China in this high-stakes tech race … Time is of the essence: China has had a national plan for global AI leadership since 2017, and is executing it relentlessly with talent, infrastructure, state-backed investment, and international influence. This is our moonshot moment. Now is the time for the country to rally together behind a shared, national mission to win the AI race. The stakes could not be higher.”
American Innovators Network: “The American Innovators Network (AIN), a national organization representing American Little Tech companies, commends President Trump and his administration for their bold and decisive action to counter China’s growing influence in the global AI landscape. The new guidelines and recommendations unveiled today mark a pivotal moment in securing America’s dominance in this critical technological race, and we are grateful for President Trump’s leadership in prioritizing policies that empower innovation and strengthen our national competitiveness.”
American Society of Association Executives President and CEO Michelle Mason: “President Trump’s Artificial Intelligence Action Plan strategically positions the United States as a global leader in the development and deployment of AI technology. ASAE applauds the focus on industry-driven training programs that equip workers with the skills they need to be successful in the workforce of tomorrow. ASAE’s members are eager to support efforts to create these training programs, and we encourage continued collaboration between the federal government and the association community.”
Americans for Prosperity Chief Government Affairs Officer Brent Gardner: “President Trump’s AI Action Plan will ensure America leads the world in innovation, economic freedom, and technological progress. By removing regulatory roadblocks, empowering innovative small business owners, and embracing open-source development, this plan puts the ingenuity of the American people—not bureaucrats—in the driver’s seat of the AI revolution. This move by the White House rightly course-corrects four years of Biden-era efforts to centrally control AI development and stifle American innovation. We applaud the administration’s commitment to protecting free speech and ensuring private-sector breakthroughs aren’t halted by burdensome regulation. It’s now time for Congress to work alongside the administration to codify these efforts in order to create generational change that will enable AI adoption across industries, remove permitting barriers to build infrastructure, and unleash innovation.”
Anthropic: “Today, the White House released ‘Winning the Race: America’s AI Action Plan’—a comprehensive strategy to maintain America’s advantage in AI development. We are encouraged by the plan’s focus on accelerating AI infrastructure and federal adoption, as well as strengthening safety testing and security coordination. Many of the plan’s recommendations reflect Anthropic’s response to the Office of Science and Technology Policy’s (OSTP) prior request for information … The alignment between many of our recommendations and the AI Action Plan demonstrates a shared understanding of AI’s transformative potential and the urgent actions needed to sustain American leadership. We look forward to working with the Administration to implement these initiatives while ensuring appropriate attention to catastrophic risks and maintaining strong export controls. Together, we can ensure that powerful AI systems are developed safely in America, by American companies, reflecting American values and interests.”
Arm: “We commend the Administration’s actions to unleash investment in AI, semiconductors, and the energy to power it. Arm, together with our partners, is working rapidly to bring AI to all forms of computing. Today’s announcements will accelerate AI data center and cloud infrastructure deployment in particular, while advancing plans to promote exports of the U.S. AI stack and ensuring American technology innovation. We look forward to continuing to work with the Administration as it enacts and builds on today’s actions.”
Box CEO Aaron Levie: “America’s AI Action Plan is quite strong. It has a clear a mission to win the AI race and accelerate the development and use of AI by removing roadblocks or aiding adoption. Importantly, it focuses on the positive benefits of AI, which we’re all seeing every day.”
Business Roundtable: “BRT supports the @WhiteHouse AI Action Plan’s efforts to strengthen infrastructure, advance permitting reform, invest in workforce development and develop clear frameworks that empower US businesses to accelerate AI innovation and adoption.”
Business Software Alliance CEO Victoria Espinel: “The White House AI Action Plan offers a roadmap for the United States’ AI future anchored on the adoption of technology. The Business Software Alliance welcomes ‘America’s AI Action Plan’ for addressing a range of issues including talent and workforce development, infrastructure and data, and AI governance that serve as pillars for successful AI adoption and US competitiveness. BSA appreciates the Action Plan’s commitment to creating the essential conditions for widespread AI adoption. The Action Plan advances key BSA recommendations for AI talent, including developing an AI skills curriculum, improving access to training resources, and leveraging real-time workforce data. It emphasizes the development of critical infrastructure and reliable energy resources necessary to scale AI deployment. The Action Plan also reinforces the roles of the Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI) and NIST in the development of standards and evaluation tools, a foundation for both domestic AI governance and in promoting international collaboration on AI. Additionally, the Action Plan streamlines government procurement processes, enabling public-sector agencies to more effectively access and adopt cutting-edge commercial AI solutions.”
Center for Data Innovation Senior Policy Manager Hodan Omaar: “The AI Action Plan shows the Trump administration is serious about winning the global AI race. It marks a clear evolution from the President’s 2019 AI initiative and reflects just how dramatically the global AI landscape has shifted over the past six years. The plan rightly recognizes that beating China demands a comprehensive effort—unleashing infrastructure to fuel model development, removing regulatory frictions that slow development and deployment, and promoting the export of American AI technology. These steps put the United States on a path not only to benefit from AI today, but to remain the global leader in the future.”
Connected Nation Chairman and CEO Tom Ferree: “This marks a transformational moment for American innovation. The release of the National AI Action Plan signals to the world that the United States intends not only to compete—but to lead—in the global race for artificial intelligence. We applaud the Trump Administration’s bold and comprehensive strategy, which rightly prioritizes accelerating innovation, unleashing infrastructure investment, and ensuring our nation’s AI capabilities are second to none. Connected Nation enthusiastically supports the plan’s focus on building out data center capacity, fast-tracking permitting, and expanding our skilled workforce. These are critical steps toward positioning the U.S. as the undisputed hub of next-generation computing.”
Consumer Choice Center Head of Emerging Technology Policy James Czerniawski: “The AI Action Plan is a bold vision for the future of ensuring AI leadership by the Trump administration. The Golden Age of America is made possible when we position our innovators to be as successful as possible, ensuring American consumers can benefit from the AI revolution happening on our shores. The economy of tomorrow starts with the building blocks laid out in this action plan. The provision which reviews rulemaking of the Federal Trade Commission is especially encouraging, quashing legal theories that would complicate or slow American consumers gaining access to AI technologies. This is a world of difference from the hostile regulatory approach of the Biden Administration, and a welcome breath of fresh air for consumers who want cutting-edge tech.”
Consumer Technology Association CEO Gary Shapiro: “Congratulations to @POTUS and the @WhiteHouse team on an AI Action Plan recognizing the U.S. must win the global AI race. The plan cuts red tape for innovators, boosts AI adoption across sectors, supports a future-focused AI workforce, and advances the American AI tech stack as the foundation for global tech growth.”
Data Center Coalition President Josh Levi: “The Data Center Coalition thanks President Trump for releasing Winning the AI Race: America’s AI Action Plan—a bold framework to ensure the United States remains the undisputed global leader in artificial intelligence. The administration’s plan recognizes that developing a robust domestic data center industry is vital to promoting U.S. national security, global economic competitiveness, and continued American AI dominance … Today’s announcement is a major step forward, and we look forward to continuing to work with the administration and lawmakers to ensure the U.S. remains at the forefront of global innovation and digital resilience.”
Dell Technologies CEO Michael Dell: “Proud to see the White House AI Action Plan accelerating innovation, building home‑grown AI infrastructure, and strengthening America’s security. 🇺🇸 Dell Technologies is all‑in—ready to power U.S. ingenuity, create jobs, and keep us leading the future. 🚀”
Gecko Robotics: “Gecko Robotics welcomes the AI action plan published by the White House today. The United States must win the global AI race and will only do so by using artificial intelligence to supercharge energy production itself. At the same time, it is critical that we collect and use high-fidelity data to feed AI models, and we remain at the forefront of leading this charge.”
General Catalyst Institute President Teresa Carlson: “Today, the Trump Administration unveiled their widely-anticipated AI Action Plan. Upon review, I am encouraged by their pro-growth approach that prioritizes American innovation, national security, and federal leadership over bureaucratic barriers. This policy was not crafted in a vacuum. It was part of an inclusive process, where earlier this year the General Catalyst Institute submitted views on behalf of startups as to how best deepen America’s AI leadership through transformative technologies.”
Heritage Foundation Center for Technology and the Human Person Acting Director Wesley Hodges: “The AI Action Plan is a call for a new industrial renaissance, an ambitious strategy that the Administration should be commended for leading. It charts the course for building significant domestic compute infrastructure—from expanding energy capacity, to constructing data centers and increasing domestic advanced semiconductor manufacturing. At the same time, the plan also emphasizes that American AI technology must be developed free of ideological bias, and ensure working families are benefited and not left behind. We look forward to supporting the administration’s work to align this technology with human flourishing.”
IBM Chairman and CEO Arvind Krishna: “IBM applauds the White House for its bold and timely AI Action Plan, which prioritizes open innovation, strengthens U.S. technological leadership, and proposes a supportive regulatory environment for AI development and deployment. The plan is a critical step towards harnessing AI for sustained economic growth and national competitiveness.”
Information Technology Industry Council President and CEO Jason Oxman: “President Trump’s AI Action Plan presents a blueprint to usher in a new era of U.S. AI dominance. The administration’s vision takes essential steps to ensure the U.S. can win the global AI race by prioritizing U.S. energy production and infrastructure development to power AI’s growth, promoting U.S. AI leadership internationally by supporting the export of the full stack of American AI technologies to partners and allies, and accelerating adoption of AI across the public and private sectors. Importantly, the President’s Plan includes key directives for agencies and communicates clear U.S. policy objectives that will encourage widespread adoption and fuel U.S. technological and economic competitiveness. As agencies begin implementing the President’s plan, we encourage policymakers to invest in modernizing government technology and to leverage industry’s deep expertise to maintain America’s AI leadership.”
Internet Works Executive Director Peter Chandler: “As the AI race accelerates globally, it’s encouraging to see policymakers recognize the need for bold investment in innovation, adoption, and infrastructure. Middle Tech companies, many of whom are deployers and integrators of AI tools, are essential to ensuring that AI benefits reach small businesses, everyday users, and communities across the country. We welcome the Trump Administration’s emphasis on modernizing our digital and energy infrastructure and expanding support for open, responsible AI development and adoption. To win the AI race, we need policy frameworks that are risk-based and right-sized—supporting trust, safety, and competition across the full tech ecosystem. Internet Works stands ready to partner with leaders at every level to shape an AI future that’s secure, innovative, and built for everyone.”
Lightspeed Venture Partners Founder Ravi Mhatre: “In AI, you either own the frontier or get commoditized. The AI Action Plan helps ensure that America continues to build by streamlining regulation, identifying opportunities for AI to scale, and getting more energy online. It will help ensure America owns the future of AI while others still try to catch up to what we built yesterday.”
Lumen Technologies: “Lumen Technologies supports the Administration’s AI Action Plan and its call for a unified framework to accelerate AI innovation and next-generation fiber infrastructure deployment across the U.S. As a leading networking services company building the digital backbone for AI, Lumen is investing heavily to meet the demands of AI-driven enterprises and public-sector modernization and understands the criticality of secure, high-performance networks. We applaud the efforts included in the plan by the FCC, OMB and OSTP that aim to reduce regulatory barriers to innovation, modernize permitting, and streamline the NEPA review process for critical fiber and data center infrastructure. Winning the AI future requires clear, consistent policies that accelerate nationwide deployment of network infrastructure and public-private partnerships that turn this plan into reality. Lumen stands ready to work with federal and state agencies to ensure America leads the AI revolution.”
Meta Chief Global Affairs Officer Joel Kaplan: “The AI race is about the future of US economic power & national security. President Trump’s strong leadership on AI will help us keep our foot on the gas. We’re in the middle of a fierce competition with China for AI leadership. The White House’s AI Action Plan is a bold step to create the right regulatory environment for companies like ours to invest in America. @Meta is proud to be investing hundreds of billions of dollars in job-creating infrastructure across the US, including state-of-the-art data centers, creating American jobs in the process.”
Micron Technology President and CEO Sanjay Mehrotra: “We support the White House’s AI Action Plan, which underscores the strategic importance of U.S. semiconductor manufacturing as critical infrastructure for the global AI economy. Memory is foundational to AI — powering technologies across data centers, automotive, telecommunications, defense, and consumer electronics. As the only U.S.-based memory manufacturer and a technology leader, Micron is investing $200 billion in manufacturing and R&D to create 90,000 American jobs and help ensure U.S. leadership in the AI era through a resilient and secure supply chain.”
National Association of Manufacturers President and CEO Jay Timmons: “Reflecting President Trump’s vision for the United States to lead on artificial intelligence, the White House’s AI Action Plan underscores what manufacturers across the country already know: AI is no longer a future ambition—it is already central to modern manufacturing. For years, manufacturers have been developing and deploying AI-driven technologies—machine vision, digital twins, robotics and more—to make shop floors safer, strengthen supply chains and drive growth.”
National Association of Realtors EVP and Chief Advocacy Officer Shannon McGahn: “We applaud the administration’s release of Winning the AI Race: America’s AI Action Plan, which reinforces the U.S. as a global leader in this transformative technology. It’s especially encouraging to see real estate infrastructure recognized as a cornerstone of America’s future. Housing is essential to economic strength and innovation, and we urge policymakers to apply the plan’s smart permitting strategies to help tackle today’s housing supply crisis.”
National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors: “The National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) applauds President Trump’s newly released AI Action Plan, which outlines a comprehensive and forward-looking approach to federal artificial intelligence (AI) policy. We are particularly encouraged to see several of NAW’s recommendations—submitted during the Administration’s Request for Information process in March—reflected in the plan … NAW looks forward to continuing to work with the Administration to ensure the outcomes from the Action Plan support further AI deployment and adoption across the wholesale distribution industry.”
National Mining Association President and CEO Rich Nolan: “The administration’s recognition of the importance of existing power plants and prioritization of safeguarding them is clear acknowledgement that the coal fleet is essential to U.S. AI leadership. For the U.S. to guide and shape the AI revolution – and seize this tremendous opportunity – we need a grid and energy resources capable of shouldering the enormous new electricity demand now on our doorstep. Prioritizing the ongoing operation of essential coal plants – with the capacity to meet increased demand – combined with reforming our power markets around the goal of grid stability articulated in this action plan puts us firmly on the path for success.”
NetChoice Director of Policy Patrick Hedger: “NetChoice applauds the White House’s AI Action Plan overall and is encouraged to see the focus on red tape reduction and investment in America’s future. From unleashing energy to embracing regulatory humility and ensuring our AI systems are adopted around the world, we look forward to working with the President to usher in the Golden Age of American innovation. The difference between the Trump administration and Biden’s is effectively night and day. The Biden administration did everything it could to command and control the fledgling but critical sector. That is a failed model, evident in the lack of a serious tech sector of any kind in the European Union and its tendency to rush to regulate anything that moves. The Trump AI Action Plan, by contrast, is focused on asking where the government can help the private sector, but otherwise, get out of the way.”
Oil and Gas Workers Association: “President Trump’s EO for rapid buildout of data centers means more demand for reliable, affordable natural gas. Demand = Drilling … Drilling = Jobs … Thank you, @POTUS!”
Palantir: “AI is the birthright of the country that harnessed the atom and put a man on the moon. With today’s AI Action Plan, the Trump Administration has written the source code for the next American century. Palantir is proud to support it.”
QTS Co-CEO Tag Greason: “The Trump Administration’s AI Action Plan will advance efforts to ensure the United States maintains leadership in AI, including both technology development and critical digital infrastructure. As the digital infrastructure leader, QTS is focused on responsibly and sustainably building the future of our country and economy. We continue to listen and engage with the communities we call home with a steadfast commitment to providing job opportunities, fostering economic growth, working with local suppliers, and operating as trusted neighbors. This historic action and investment will directly benefit communities where we are developing data centers for AI.”
Salesforce Inc. President and Chief Legal Officer Sabastian Niles: “We welcome the Administration’s strong emphasis on AI adoption, workforce readiness, and government modernization in today’s AI Action Plan. Trusted AI will be a cornerstone of national competitiveness, security, and continued American innovation. Salesforce is committed to helping the public and private sectors harness its full potential.”
Siemens USA President and CEO Barbara Humpton: “Excited to join business leaders today for the launch of The White House’s #AIActionPlan boosting American leadership in #AI and innovation to greater heights. Every day, Siemens USA is using #IndustrialAI to revitalize U.S. #manufacturing, build critical #infrastructure, and expand what’s humanly possible for American workers. We’re creating a new industrial tech sector that combines the real and digital worlds, thanks to Industrial AI, digital twins, software-defined automation, and more. Of course, no company can truly lead in AI without a solid foundation of trust. That’s why I was so pleased to see a framework for accelerating innovation while maintaining security included in the AI Action Plan. By focusing on secure infrastructure, industrial R&D, digital transformation, and workforce development, we can help manufacturers of all sizes join the next AI-driven industrial revolution. It’s an exciting time for Industrial AI, and I can’t wait to see where Siemens, our customers, and our partners will go next with this industry-changing technology.”
Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council President and CEO Karen Kerrigan: “America’s AI future is a powerful and positive one that expands opportunities and unlocks new possibilities and industries. U.S. entrepreneurs are the driving force behind AI innovation, and small business owners are already benefitting from transformative AI tools. The possibilities and opportunities are boundless, but the U.S. must continue to lead and win the AI race. ‘America’s AI Action Plan’ lays out a strategy to make that happen. The plan embraces America’s innovative potential and addresses the incentives and hurdles to fully harness innovation, including the human and physical infrastructure required to cement U.S. leadership. SBE Council congratulates President Trump and the White House team for developing an extraordinary AI Action Plan, and we look forward to working with the Administration and Congress on its implementation.”
Society for Human Resource Management: “The President’s plan is not just about technology—but about people. The emphasis is on a worker-first approach that addresses American competitiveness in an AI-driven workforce. The plan reflects a fundamental truth that SHRM has long championed: technology alone does not move the workplace forward—people do.”
Software & Information Industry Association SVP for Global Public Policy Paul Lekas: “The AI Action Plan represents a meaningful strategy to support innovation and security, strengthen U.S. competitiveness, and ensure the benefits of AI are broadly shared. This plan provides the roadmap to cement the United States as the global leader in AI by supporting innovation and security, strengthening U.S. competitiveness, and ensuring the benefits of AI are broadly shared. We’re especially encouraged by the plan’s focus on workforce development and AI literacy as core elements of AI infrastructure. These are key components for building trust and ensuring all communities can participate in and benefit from AI’s potential.”
Special Competitive Studies Project President Ylli Bajraktari: “Building on the foundational work of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI), SCSP has consistently advocated for a comprehensive national strategy to secure America’s technological future. This AI Action Plan provides a critical component for winning the techno-economic competition of the 21st century. It correctly identifies that our national security and economic prosperity, as well as America’s global leadership position, are now intertwined with leadership in AI. We are committed to helping transform this strategic vision into enduring national policy.”
TechNet CEO Linda Moore: “TechNet strongly supports the administration’s AI Action Plan and is especially grateful for their willingness to work with industry to establish best practices. This policy framework takes critical steps towards developing a strong domestic workforce, building critical AI infrastructure, launching public-private partnerships, removing regulatory barriers to innovation, strengthening the domestic AI stack, and enhancing U.S. global AI diplomacy. The AI Action Plan makes clear that countering Chinese influence and securing America’s leadership in the AI race are top priorities for the United States. We look forward to continuing to work closely with the administration on policies that advance AI innovation while safeguarding the public interest and ensuring America’s global AI dominance.”
U.S. Chamber of Commerce EVP and Chief Policy Officer Neil Bradley: “We applaud President Trump and his administration for issuing the AI Action Plan to strengthen U.S. global leadership in artificial intelligence. This forward-looking plan takes steps to accelerate innovation by fixing a regulatory landscape hobbled by conflicting state-level laws and activist-driven overreach, streamlining permitting for critical AI infrastructure, ensuring reliable and affordable energy for consumers and businesses, and advancing U.S. leadership in AI diplomacy. These proposed actions will position the United States to tackle our most pressing challenges and lead the global AI race by setting the gold standard for the development and deployment of responsible, transformative technologies. America is counting on this crucial technology to propel economic growth for all sectors, from small business to energy and health care, and the AI Action Plan presents a roadmap to unlock AI’s full potential. We will work with the administration to help implement this plan and foster a competitive, open, and innovation-driven AI ecosystem.”
USTelecom President and CEO Jonathan Spalter: “The Trump Administration’s AI action plan is a turbo boost for American innovation. From clearing regulatory roadblocks to reforming outdated permitting to doubling down on security, this is the kind of bold leadership we need to win the AI race. But even the best-engineered AI needs a track built for speed—and that’s where fiber comes in. Fiber broadband is the fast lane for America’s AI future: powerful, secure, scalable, and built to go the distance, whether you’re in a big city or a heartland town. Broadband providers are tuned up, fully fueled, and ready to work with the Administration to help America stay a lap ahead in the competition for AI leadership.”
Workday VP of Corporate Affairs Chandler Morse: “Workday has long advocated for federal action that drives critical AI innovation and builds trust. The Administration’s AI Action Plan, announced today, seeks to avoid excessive regulatory hurdles, elevate human potential through targeted and timely reskilling, and accelerate AI adoption at the federal level. This sends a strong message to federal agencies, the U.S. economy, and global stakeholders on the benefits of driving AI competitiveness.”
xAI: “Today’s announcement by the White House is a positive step toward removing regulatory barriers and enabling even faster innovation for the benefit of Americans and for humanity as a whole. We are pleased to see the White House prioritize AI innovation.”
Zoom Chief Global Affairs Officer Josh Kallmer: “Just got back from an inspiring day where I had the opportunity to be part of the conversation around the President’s #AI Action Plan. It was energizing to see so many leaders across industries coming together to talk about the future of AI in the U.S.”
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (MA-07)
Six Months into Trump Admin, Pressley Reintroduces Bill to Codify Equity, Improve Government Services for Underserved Communities
Bill Text | Press Conference Video
WASHINGTON – As the nation marks six months of the Trump Administration, Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (MA-07),Congressman Jonathan Jackson (IL-01), Chair of the Congressional Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Caucus, and their colleagues are affirming their unwavering commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives amid Donald Trump’s attacks and continuing to advance an affirmative, equitable vision for communities of color, the LGBTQIA+ community, people with disabilities, and other marginalized groups.
Congresswoman Pressley was joined by Maya Wiley, President and CEO, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Marc Morial, President and CEO, National Urban League, Juan Proaño, CEO, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and Rob Weissman, Co-President, Public Citizen, at a Capitol Hill press conference yesterday to discuss their broader fight to defend diversity amidst the Trump Administration’s harmful and unprecedented onslaught on DEI. The full video from their press conference is available here.
“Donald Trump’s first six months in office have been a precise, intentional assault on people of color, as well as our LGBTQIA+ siblings, folks with disabilities, and other marginalized people. Despite this, we’re more resolved than ever in our commitment to a more just, equitable, and diverse America,” said Congresswoman Pressley. “I’m proud to join my colleagues and movement partners in making plain that we will not be silenced and we will not stand by as Donald Trump and extremist Republicans resegregate America and continue rolling back our hard-earned civil rights. We must work to ensure diversity, equity, and inclusion is the law of the land. That is why the Equity in Government Act is deeply necessary and will aide our efforts by helping to ensure the federal government works for all people.”
“Diversity, equity, and inclusion are not just policies—they are essential commitments to fairness and opportunity for all,” said Congressman Jackson, Co-Chair of the Congressional Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Caucus. “The escalating rollback of DEI protections is a direct attack on the rights and futures of Black, brown, Veterans, and disabled Americans. We will not accept the reckless undoing of progress won through generations of struggle. I stand with my colleagues and communities across this country to defend DEI, because every person in America deserves the dignity to thrive. This fight is about justice, about truth, and about building a nation where no one is left behind.”
“In a time when others seek to divide and exclude, this bill is a beacon of hope for Latino communities who have long been left behind. Ensuring equity in government isn’t just a box to check — it’s a lifeline for the more than 60 million Latinos in our country,” said Juan Proaño, CEO of LULAC. “By making diversity, equity, and inclusion the law of the land, this policy will uplift our families and ensure our voices are heard in every federal agency. LULAC is proud to stand with Congresswoman Pressley, Congressman Jackson, and their colleagues on this bold, affirmative vision for America, because an inclusive America is a stronger America for us all.”
“The Leadership Conference supports the Equity in Government Act because federal agencies are required by civil rights laws and principles to make sure they are serving all communities fairly,” said Maya Wiley, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. “Regardless of your race, ZIP code, or bank account, we need the government to make sure we are getting the health care, education, and other services we all need. We are witnessing cuts that harm a Latino child who attends Head Start or a student with disabilities who relies on educational supports in schools, in addition to the elimination of grants that address health disparities of people of color — all because they are part of advancing diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility. This bill ensures agencies have to collect data, listen to communities, and have dedicated teams focused on serving everyone equitably. Democracy is more than just a promise — it’s an obligation to enact and enforce civil rights. We will not go back to a time when this country didn’t care about all of us. We continue to fight for a diverse, equitable, inclusive, and accessible future for all our people.”
“The National Urban League’s 2025 State of Black America report, ‘A State of Emergency: Civil Rights, Democracy, and Progress Under Attack’ lays bare a deliberate, coordinated campaign to reverse decades of progress,” National Urban League President and CEO Marc H. Morial said. “In the last six months, federal departments protecting civil rights have been defunded, voting protections rolled back, and diversity programs criminalized. Far-right actors have weaponized the term ‘woke’ to attack equity, inclusion, and even historical truth. The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice has been twisted into a tool of political retaliation. The National Urban League is proud to stand with Congresswoman Pressley and all our allies to meet this moment of crisis.”
“Every American should be appalled by the racist, sexist and ableist policies of this administration, which aim to exacerbate social and economic inequality. Every American should also understand that these policies are not only unjust, they make America weaker. Rollbacks in consumer protection, environmental protection, civil liberties and more – carried out under the cloak of “anti-DEI” policies – leave every American more vulnerable to abuses and the country itself far weaker. That’s why America needs Rep. Ayanna Pressley’s leadership and passage of the Equity in Governance Act.” – Rob Weissman, Public Citizen Co-President
“Inclusive America is a non-profit and bipartisan organization that works to ensure the government is as diverse as the American people. With this reasoning, our team worked with Rep. Pressley to push the Equity in Government Act which is a critical step towards a broader reform of civil rights and equal opportunity.” — Inclusive America Advocacy Team
As part of her fight to defend diversity, Congresswoman Pressley is introducing the Equity in Government Act, legislation to advance equity and support for underserved communities through the federal government. The bill would codify key ideas from the Biden-Harris Administration’s Executive Orders 13985 and 14091 —which Donald Trump revoked on his first day in office —to ensure that federal agencies continue their work to promote equal opportunity for all, including people of color, women, rural communities, individuals with disabilities, and others that have been systemically excluded from participating fully in economic, social, and civic life.
Full text of the Equity in Government Act is available here.
On his first day in office, President Biden signed Executive Order (EO) 13985, launching a historic, whole-of-government effort to advance equity by requiring federal agencies to identify and address barriers to serving underserved communities. In 2023, he followed with EO 14091, which expanded this work by establishing agency equity teams, a White House steering committee, and annual equity action plans to embed equity in federal planning.
This progress was long overdue. In 2021, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) found that most federal agencies lacked the demographic data necessary to identify barriers to equity in their programs and services – let alone develop serious plans to eliminate them. Yet, on his very first day in office, Trump dismantled these equity-focused efforts, underscoring the need for statutory protections.
The Equity in Government Act codifies several key ideas from the Biden EOs and ensures that agencies continue this work for years to come – regardless of who occupies the White House. Specifically, it would:
Require agencies include at least one goal relating to improving the equitable provision of services when they submit Agency Strategic Plans and Agency Performance Plans;
Require agencies to consult with community organizations and other stakeholders as they develop and revise their strategic plans and work towards their performance goals;
Permanently authorize the Federal Chief Data Officer Council, which works to improve the quality, use, and management of data for evidence-based government operations, and ensuring that the Council’s work facilitates fair and equitable outcomes;
Establish an Equity Subcommittee of the existing Performance Improvement Council, which would serve as an interagency working group to facilitate the development and sharing of guidance, data, and best practices for providing government services fairly, and would be required to solicit input directly from those receiving such services; and
Establish statutory requirements for an Agency Equity Advisory Team within each federal agency, led by the agency’s Performance Improvement Officer and with representation from key internal agency offices.
Co-sponsors of the Equity in Government Act include Representatives Alma Adams, Joyce Beatty, Sanford D. Bishop, Jr., Shontel M. Brown, André Carson, Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, Yvette D. Clarke, James Clyburn, Danny K. Davis, Cleo Fields, Valerie Foushee, Maxwell Frost, Robert Garcia, Sylvia R. Garcia, Steven Horsford, Jonathan L. Jackson, Pramila Jayapal, Henry C. “Hank” Johnson, Jr., Robin L. Kelly, Timothy M. Kennedy, Summer L. Lee, Stephen Lynch, LaMonica McIver, Kweisi Mfume, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Delia Ramirez, Jamie Raskin, Lateefah Simon, Darren Soto, Melanie Stansbury, Shri Thanedar, Rashida Tlaib, Nydia Velazquez, Bonnie Watson Coleman, and Nikema Williams.
The bill is endorsed by the following organizations: AAPI Victory Alliance, ACLU, African American Policy Forum, American Oversight, Common Cause, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Inclusive America, Interfaith Alliance, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), National Action Network, National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, National Council of Asian Pacific Americans, National Urban League, National Black Justice Collective, Popular Democracy, Public Citizen, and SEIU.
In April 2022, Rep. Pressley joined Administration officials at a White House event to announce the executive orders, which followed calls from Congresswoman Pressley and then-House Oversight Committee Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney for robust data collection, assessment tools, and stakeholder engagement to ensure the success of the initiative. Video of the event is available here.
Rep. Pressley has consistently advocated for race-conscious policies to help close the racial wealth gap in America, uplift Black, brown, and other marginalized communities, and transform the criminal legal system to center the dignity, humanity, and equality of everyone who calls America home —especially during the second Trump Administration.
On January 22, 2025, Rep. Pressley issued a statement slamming the Trump Administration’s harmful executive actions on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), including the placement of DEI employees on leave ahead of their eventual layoffs.
In February, during Black History Month, Rep. Pressley and Senator Cory Booker reintroduced H.R. 40, legislation to establish a federal commission to examine the lasting legacy of slavery and develop reparations proposals for African American descendants of enslaved people.
In May, she and Senator Paul Tonko led 69 of their colleagues on a letter to the Inspector General of the Smithsonian Institution demanding an investigation of the impact of Donald Trump’s harmful Executive Order attacking Smithsonian museums – namely, the American Art Museum, the American Women’s History Museum, and the National Museum of African American History and Culture – attempting to erase histories of marginalized communities.
Earlier this year, Rep. Pressley delivered a floor speech slamming Trump’s attack on Smithsonian museums and affirming that Black history is American history.
Congresswoman Pressley and Senator Booker are the lead co-sponsors of the American Opportunity Accounts Act—also known as Baby Bonds—legislation that would create a federally-funded savings account for every American child in order to make economic opportunity a birthright for every child and help close the racial wealth gap.
Congresswoman Pressley is the lead sponsor of the People’s Justice Guarantee (PJG) – her comprehensive, decarceration-focused resolution that outlines a framework for a fair, equitable and just legal system.
We are living in an age of anxiety. People face multiple existential crises such as climate change and conflicts that could potentially escalate into nuclear war.
So how do people cope with competing threats like this? And what happens to climate anxiety when wars suddenly erupt and compete for our attention?
Climate change affects our physical and mental health, directly through extreme climate-related droughts, wildfires and intense storms. It also affects some people indirectly through so-called “climate anxiety”. This term covers a range of negative emotions and states, including not just anxiety, but worry and concern, hopelessness, anger, fear, grief and sadness.
A team of researchers led by Caroline Hickman from the University of Bath surveyed 10,000 children and young people (aged 16 to 25 years) in ten countries (Australia, Brazil, Finland, France, India, Nigeria, Philippines, Portugal, the UK and the US). They found that 45% of respondents said their feelings about climate change negatively affected their daily lives. It was worse for respondents from developing countries.
Climate anxiety can potentially serve a positive function. Anger, for example, can push people to act to help mitigate the effects of climate change.
But it can also lead to “eco-paralysis”, a feeling of being overwhelmed, inhibiting people from taking any effective action, affecting their sleep, work and study, as a result of them dwelling endlessly on the problem.
Climate anxiety is not included in the American Psychiatric Association’s authoritative guide to the diagnosis of mental disorders. In other words, it is not officially recognised as a mental disorder.
Some say this is a good thing. The author and Stanford academic Britt Wray wrote: “The last thing we want is to pathologise this moral emotion, which stems from an accurate understanding of the severity of our planetary health crisis.”
But if it is not officially recognised, will people take it seriously enough? Will they just dismiss people who suffer from it as “snowflakes” – too sensitive and too easily hurt by the hard realities of life. This is a major dilemma.
I explore how climate anxiety relates to other types of clinical anxiety in my recent book, Understanding Climate Anxiety, recognising that there are adaptive and non-adaptive forms of anxiety.
According to Steven Taylor, a clinical psychologist from the University of British Columbia, adaptive anxiety can “motivate climate activism, such as efforts to reduce one’s carbon footprint”. Maladaptive anxiety, however, may “take the form of anxious passivity”, he warned, where the person feels anxious but utterly helpless.
Identifying different types of climate anxiety, understanding their precursors and how they interact with personality is a major psychological challenge. Identifying ways of alleviating climate anxiety and making it more adaptive, and focused on possible climate mitigation, is a major societal challenge.
But there’s another important issue. Some global leaders, including Donald Trump, don’t believe in human-induced climate change, claiming it’s “one of the great scams”. He seems to view climate anxiety as an overblown reaction to propaganda pumped out by a biased media.
This can make the experience much worse for those who feel anxious but then having their feelings dismissed.
Some psychologists argue that climate anxiety can be a form of pre-traumatic stress disorder. This hypothesis arose from observations of climate scientists and their growing feelings of anger, distress, helplessness and depression as the climate situation has worsened.
In 2015, researchers devised a new clinical measure to assess pre-traumatic stress reactions using items found in the diagnostic and statistical manual for post-traumatic stress disorder, but now focused on the future rather than the past, asking about “repeated, disturbing dreams of a possible future stressful experience”, for example.
They tested Danish soldiers before their deployment in Afghanistan and found that “involuntary intrusive images and thoughts of possible future events … were experienced at the same level as post-traumatic stress reactions to past events before and during deployment”.
They also found that soldiers who experienced higher levels of pre-traumatic stress before deployment had an increased risk of post-traumatic stress disorder after their return from the war zone. Their hypervigilance primed their nervous system to react more strongly when anything untoward occurred.
This would suggest that we need to take stress reactions to future anticipated events such as climate change very seriously.
The crisis response
But how important is climate anxiety in the context of these other threats? Researchers assessed the emotional state and mental health of people aged 18 to 29 years in five countries (China, Portugal, South Africa, the US and UK) focusing on three global issues: climate change, an environmental disaster (the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan), and the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.
They found the strongest emotional engagement was with the ongoing wars, with climate change a close second, and the radiation leak third. The strongest emotional responses to the wars were concern, sadness, helplessness, disgust, outrage and anger. For climate change, the strongest responses were concern, sadness, helplessness, disappointment and anxiety.
All three crises made young people feel concerned, sad, and very importantly helpless, but climate change has this burning level of anxiety added into the bubbling mix.
It seems that climate anxiety still has this undiminished power regardless of all the other awful things that are currently happening in the world, and I suspect the stigma of being dismissed as “snowflakes” makes this particular fear response all the more unbearable.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?_
Geoff Beattie has received funding from the British Academy and the AHRC to investigate psychological barriers to climate change mitigation and the effects of climate change on emotional responses.
For the past few weeks the headlines about Gaza have focused on the hundreds of people who have been killed while queueing for food. The aid distribution system put in place in May, backed by the US and Israel and run by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, has proved to be chaotic and allegedly resulted in violence, with both Israel Defense Forces personnel and armed Palestinian gangs blamed for killing about 1,000 people in the two months the new system has been operating.
Now the headlines are focusing on the growing number of people dying of starvation.
Harrowing reports from the Gaza Strip report almost daily on the children dying of malnutrition in hospitals and clinics that simply don’t have the food to keep them alive. Writing in the Guardian this week, a British volunteer surgeon working in one of Gaza’s hospitals, Nick Maynard, described patients who “deteriorate and die, not from their injuries, but because they are too malnourished to survive surgery”.
The UK and 27 other countries this week has condemned the “drip feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians” who are trying to get food and water. And yet, writes Simon Mabon, still the world’s leaders look on: “Most are apparently content to condemn – but little action has been taken.”
Mabon, a professor of international relations at Lancaster University, quotes the latest report from the IPC, which monitors food security in conflict situations. It estimates that 500,000 people in Gaza are considered to be facing “catastrophe”, while a further 1.1 million fall into the “emergency” risk category. Both categories anticipate a steadily rising death rate among civilians in Gaza.
So how can Israel’s allies apply pressure on Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to bring an end to the violence and allow Palestinian civilians access to the food, water and medical supplies they so desperately need?
Mabon canvasses a range of options. First of all, countries that have yet to recognise the state of Palestine can do so. It’s nonsense, Madon believes, to talk of a two-state solution – as the UK government does – when you haven’t actually recognised the second state in the equation.
Then they could stop selling arms to Israel. Many countries already have. But the US still issues export licenses for some weapons that are sold to Israel.
There are a plethora of other things world leaders could do to pressure Israel. Mabon recommends having a look at what the world did to isolate South Africa during the apartheid years, measures which eventually helped bring about meaningful change there.
As for Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister is reported to be considering an early election. In previous months this looked like a move freighted with jeopardy. An election loss brought on by a disenchanted electorate, heartbroken at the hostage situation and exhausted by the conflict, would probably mean having to face the charges of corruption which have hung over him for more than five years.
But recent polls have suggested a bump in popularity following his 12-day campaign against Iran. Netanyahu is nothing if not a clever political manipulator. But Brian Brivati, a professor of contemporary history and human rights at Kingston University, believes that to have a chance of winning, the prime minister will need to fight a campaign on three narratives of his government’s success: securing the release of the hostages, defeating Hamas and delivering regional security. “It is a tall order,” Brivati concludes.
Anyone following the situation in Gaza over the past 18 months will have encountered Francesca Albanese, the UN’s special rapporteur for Palestine’s occupied territories. For three years she has monitored the human rights situation in Gaza and the West Bank, delivering trenchant criticism of Israel’s conduct and those who, by their inaction – and sometimes contrivance – have enabled it.
Earlier this months, the US government imposed sanctions on Albanese, because – as US secretary of state Marco Rubio insisted – she has engaged with the International Criminal Court (also subject to US sanctions) “in efforts to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute nationals of the United States or Israel”. Also she has written “threatening letters to dozens of entities worldwide, including major American companies”.
Alvina Hoffman, an expert in diplomatic affairs and human rights at SOAS, University of London, explains what a special rapporteur does and why their work is so valuable in the defence of human rights.
To Istanbul, where delegations from Russia and Ukraine met yesterday for their third round of face-to-face talks. All 40 minutes of them. There was another agreement of prisoner swaps and the two sides decided to set up some working groups to look into various political, military and humanitarian issues – but online rather in person.
The brevity of the talks came as no surprise to Stefan Wolff. Wolff, an expert in international security at the University of Birmingham who has provided commentary for The Conversation throughout the conflict in Ukraine, points out that both sides remain wedded to their maximalist war aims. For Russia, this is for Ukraine to accept Russia’s annexation of Crimea and four provinces of eastern Ukraine, a ban on Ukraine’s membership of Nato and a much reduced military capacity. For Ukraine, it is getting their territory back and Russian acceptance of their national sovereignty, meaning it gets to determine for itself what alliances it seeks.
Donald Trump has told Vladimir Putin that, if there’s no ceasefire in 50 days, he’ll apply harsh secondary sanctions on the countries buying Russian oil and that he plans to supply Ukraine with American weapons (via Nato’s European member states, that is). Wolff believes both sides will now play the waiting game. They will calculate their next move after September 2, when the 50 days run out, and when they know more about what the US president plans to do.
Volodymyr Zelensky, meanwhile, faces pressure from his own people. There have been days of protest at his decision to bring two formerly independent anti-corruption organisations under the direct control of the government. He argues that this was necessary to prevent Russian infiltration, while critics are saying that the Ukrainian president has launched a power grab designed to prevent independent investigation of alleged corruption against people close to him.
Jenny Mathers says these protests, which involve people from all political shades, including people who have fought in the defence of Ukraine since 2022, some with visible injuries, represents a fracture of the “informal agreement between the government and society to show a united front to the world while the war continues”.
Ukrainians protest after Zelensky signs law clamping down on anticorruption agencies.
It’s not as if Zelensky is in clear and present danger of losing his job. His party holds a majority of seats in the Ukrainian parliament, so he governs without having to depend on coalition partners. And the country’s constitution prohibits the holding of elections in wartime – whatever Putin, who regularly insists that Zelensky is an illegitimate leader because he is governing past his term limit, might think. Plus his approval rating sits at 65%.
Zelensky has been quick to soften his stance on this. Mathers says that political corruption is a very sore point in Ukraine, where there was decades of it until the Maidan protests of 2013-14 unseated the pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych. As she writes here, “the ‘Revolution of Dignity’ that rejected Yanukovych’s leadership and his policies was also a resounding demonstration of the strength of Ukraine’s civil society and its determination to hold its elected officials to account. Zelensky would be rash not to heed that.
He also knows it’s important for him to present a squeaky clean image to his supporters in the west. So while the protests may not present an immediate threat to his own position, he knows that unless he acts to root out corruption in Ukraine, it’ll be a threat to the future of the country itself.
But ethicist Marcel Vondermassen from the University of Tübingen believes another recent decision by the Ukrainian government is storing up trouble for the future. Ukraine has recently announced its decision to pull out of the Ottawa convention, the treaty that forbids the use of anti-personnel landmines.
In doing so, he’s following the example of Finland, Poland, Lithuania and Estonia which have all also quite the treaty in recent months for fear of Russian aggression.
But as Vondermassen points out, landmines don’t usually switch themselves off when a conflict ends and people are still being killed an maimed in former conflict zones around the world. Often it is farmers at work or children at play who are the victims. If other ways to protect countries from aggression aren’t pursued, as he puts it, in future decades we’ll still be “counting thousands of child casualties … from the landmines laid in the 2020s”.
Thailand-Cambodia: centuries-old dispute flares again
A dispute between the two south-east Asian countries that has been simmering since May flared into life yesterday when five Thai soldiers patrolling the border region were injured after stepping on a landmine – the second such incident in the past week. Both countries have sealed their border and there have been tit-for-tat ambassadorial expulsions.
Cambodia fired rockets and artillery into Thailand, killing 12 civilians. Thailand in turn has launched airstrikes against Cambodia. Both countries are blaming the other for starting it.
Petra Alderman, an expert in south-east Asian politics from London School of Economics and Political Science, traces the origins of this row, which go back to the colonial era in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Travis Van Isacker, Senior Research Associate, School of Sociology, Politics and International Studies, University of Bristol
On a cold, wet November evening, Issa Mohamed Omar and more than 30 other men, women and children set off from their informal camp near the northern French port city of Dunkirk. They walked through the darkness in near-silence for around two hours, until they reached the beach from where they hoped to start a new and better life.
As they arrived, five men were busy pumping up an inflatable dinghy and attaching an outboard engine. These people smugglers had charged each of their customers more than a thousand euros for a trip that costs someone with the right passport less than a hundred.
The travellers were given life-vests, arranged into rows and counted. “There are 33 of you,” one of the smugglers said. For many on board, this was not their first attempt at reaching England.
Most came from Iraqi Kurdistan, including Kazhal Ahmed Khidir Al-Jammoor from Erbil, who was travelling with her three children: Hadiya, Mubin and Hasti Rizghar Hussein, respectively aged 22, 16 and seven.
A father and son from Egypt were shown how the engine worked and provided a GPS device and directions to Dover, around 35 miles (60km) to the west across the Channel. Mohamed Omar would later recall:
The Egyptian man was put in charge of steering the boat by the smugglers. He was travelling with his son, who looked like he was in his late teens or maybe early 20s. I do not know how they came to be the driver and navigator.
There were also at least three Ethiopian nationals – one of whom, father-of-two Fikiru Shiferaw from Addis Ababa, sent his wife Emebet at home in Ethiopia a final WhatsApp voice message:
We have already boarded the boat. We are on the way. I will turn off my phone now. Goodnight, I will call you tomorrow morning.
These were the last words she would ever receive from her husband.
What happened to Fikiru Shiferaw and the other passengers on the night of November 23-24 2021 has been the subject of the UK’s Cranston Inquiry which, during March 2025, heard from 22 witnesses to the disaster, including officers involved in the UK’s search-and-rescue (SAR) response. Chaired by former High Court judge Sir Ross Cranston, the independent inquiry also heard from Mohamed Omar from Somalia – one of only two survivors – as well as family members of many of the dead and missing.
These hearings not only shed light on the actions of UK Border Force and His Majesty’s Coastguard officers during the failed rescue operation – designated Incident Charlie – in the early hours of November 24, but the agencies’ approach to “small boat crossings” in general dating back to 2017.
According to the testimonies, officers had been operating under extreme pressure in the months leading up to the disaster. Kevin Toy, master of the Border Force ship Valiant which was sent out to search for the missing dinghy that night, explained that in the run-up to the incident, “night after night” he could see his crew were “utterly exhausted” by the end of their shifts.
The evidence shows the British government was aware of the growing risk that Border Force and HM Coastguard could be overwhelmed by the rising number of small boat crossings – and that people might die as a result. In May 2020, a document produced by the Department for Transport acknowledged that “SAR resources can be overwhelmed if current incident numbers persist”. At least three senior HM Coastguard officers identified the same risk in August 2021.
Multiple communication failures have also been exposed by the inquiry – among British officers, with their opposite numbers in France, and between both countries’ emergency services and the increasingly desperate people aboard the sinking dinghy.
Despite numerous distress calls and GPS coordinates being shared via WhatsApp, a rescue boat failed to reach the travellers in time. Amid the confusion, when their calls stopped, the coastguard assumed Charlie’s passengers had been picked up and were safe. In fact, they were perishing in the cold waters of the Channel over more than ten hours.
The Insights section is committed to high-quality longform journalism. Our editors work with academics from many different backgrounds who are tackling a wide range of societal and scientific challenges.
As part of my research into the digital transformation of the UK-France border, I attended the inquiry and have studied the many statements, call transcripts, operational logs, emails and meeting minutes it has made public. Initially, I wanted to understand how the November 2021 disaster became a watershed moment in the UK government’s response to people trying to cross the Channel by small boat or dinghy, catalysing the transformation of the UK’s maritime border into the hyper-surveilled space it is today.
But, after speaking to representatives for Mohamed Omar and the bereaved families as well as migrant rights organisations, larger questions have emerged. In particular, given the inquiry’s singular focus on this one catastrophic event in November 2021, those I spoke to are concerned that its recommendations will be unable to prevent further deaths from occurring in the Channel, which have risen dramatically over the last 18 months.
How ‘small boat crossings’ began
Since the UK and France began operating “juxtaposed” border controls in the early 1990s (meaning border checks occur before departure), asylum seekers trying to reach England have had to make irregular journeys across the Channel. Until 2018, these were typically aboard trains and ferries – after sneaking on to a lorry or through a French port’s perimeter security.
At the time of the “Jungle” camp near Calais in 2015-16, media coverage of collective attempts by its residents to enter French ports spiked UK government investment in the border. Between 2014 and 2018, it gave its French counterpart at least £123 million to “strengthen the border and maintain juxtaposed controls”. These funds paid for French police to patrol the ports and border cities, regularly evict migrants’ living sites, and finance detention and relocation centres.
As admitted by then-home secretary Sajid Javid in 2019, this increased security led people to find other ways across the Channel. Beginning in the winter of 2018, smugglers organised journeys in small, seaworthy vessels they had stolen from marinas along the French coast. These “small boats” continue to lend their name to this migration phenomenon – yet the unseaworthy inflatable dinghies used today, with no keel or rigid hull, are not worthy of the name.
Even in the context of the usual sensationalism surrounding irregular migration to the UK, small boat journeys were met with an especially intense response, both politically and in the media.
When 101 people crossed between Christmas and New Year in 2018, Javid declared it a major incident. Ever since, “stopping the boats” has been one of the UK government’s highest priorities. Despite small boat arrivals making up only 29% of UK asylum claimants in 2018-24, billions of pounds have been spent to try and control the route.
Frosty relations and the ‘pushback’ plan
As Channel crossings rose sharply over 2020-21, worsening relations between France and the UK due to Brexit complicated how the two governments worked together to respond. In his testimony, former clandestine Channel threat commander Dan O’Mahoney – appointed by Javid’s successor, Priti Patel, to “make small boat crossings unviable” – described relations between the two countries as already “very frosty” when he began in August 2020.
After France’s then-interior minister, Gérald Darmanin, axed a plan for UK vessels to take rescued migrants back to Dunkirk, O’Mahoney was tasked by senior ministers to come up with an alternative. The resulting “pushback” plan, called Operation Sommen, involved Border Force officers on jet skis driving into migrant dinghies to turn them back as they crossed the border line into UK waters. When France learned of the plan, O’Mahoney recalled:
They thought it went counter to their and our obligations around safety of life at sea … They objected to it very strongly, and it affected our already quite strained relationship with them further.
Operation Sommen was abandoned in April 2022 before having ever been used in anger. However, preparations were said to have taken up “a very considerable amount of time and resource” at both the Home Office and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency – and had “a detrimental effect” on the UK’s overall SAR response to small boat crossings.
At a meeting of senior officials in June 2021 to discuss Operation Sommen, ministers had made clear that the “numbers of people crossing [was] a political problem” – and that improving SAR capabilities did not “fit with [the] narrative of taking back control of borders”.
Although senior HM Coastguard officers recognised “it is extremely difficult to locate small boats or communicate with those onboard”, the inquiry heard that officers did not recall receiving “any small boat training before November 2021”, other than in the procedure to allow Border Force to push them back to French waters.
The head of Border Force’s Maritime Command, Stephen Whitton, told the inquiry he was under “a huge amount of pressure” to prevent small boat crossings, while also “providing the bulk of the support to search and rescue”. Despite carrying out 90% of all small boat rescues in the Channel and “regularly being overwhelmed”, Border Force Maritime Command received “no additional assets to manage the search and rescue response” before November 2021.
‘The pressure we were under’
When the decision was taken for Border Force – a law enforcement rather than search-and-rescue organisation – to be the primary responders to small boat crossings in 2018, only around 100 people were crossing each month. Yet by the time of the disaster three years later, according to an internal Home Office document, the total for 2021 was “already more than 25,000”.
At the inquiry, O’Mahoney stated: “As 2021 went on, it became much clearer that … frankly, we just needed more [rescue] boats.” Whitton admitted that before the disaster, Border Force, HM Coastguard, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and other support organisations were all “on our knees in terms of the pressure we were under, and it was getting hugely challenging”.
The evidence shows this pressure was acutely felt inside Dover’s Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre, which sits atop the port’s famous white cliffs offering a commanding view of the Channel. Inside, Coastguard officers coordinate SAR operations and control vessel traffic in the Dover Strait – one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes.
On the night of November 23-24, three coastguard officers were on search-and-rescue duty: team leader Neal Gibson, maritime operations officer Stuart Downs, and a trainee – unnamed by the inquiry – who was officially only present as an observer.
HM Coastguard’s Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre at Dover overlooking the Channel. Travis Van Isacker, CC BY-NC-SA
Staffing appears to have been a longstanding issue at the Dover coastguard station where, according to divisional commander Mike Bill, there was “poor retention of staff” and “experience and competence weren’t the best”. Only the day before the disaster, during a migrant red days meeting – convened when, due to good weather, the probability of Channel crossers is considered “highly likely” – chief coastguard Peter Mizen had warned that only having two qualified officers at Dover on nights “isn’t enough”.
Over recent months, as the station had become busier responding to small boat crossings and in the wake of an unsuccessful recruitment drive, staff were having to work flat-out throughout their shifts, and were being asked to come in on scheduled days off.
On the night of November 23-24, owing to staff shortages, team leader Gibson told the inquiry he had to cover traffic control duties for three hours from 10.30pm. This meant he was away from the SAR desk at 00.41am, when a message arrived from the national rescue coordination centre along the coast in Fareham, stating that the Coastguard’s scheduled surveillance aeroplanes would not be flying over the Channel that night due to fog.
The officers were told they would be “effectively blind” – and should not allow themselves “to be drawn into relaxing and expecting a normal migrant crossing night”. The message warned: “This has the potential to be very dangerous.”
‘Their boat – there’s nothing left’
According to Mohamed Omar, the sea was calm when he and the other passengers departed the French beach around 9pm UK time. Giving his evidence to the Cranston Inquiry from Paris – he still cannot travel to the UK – a ship approached them around an hour into their voyage:
They came up to us to see what we were doing, and shone a light on us. I remember seeing a French flag on the boat. It was a big boat and I am certain it was the French coastguard. I had heard from people I met in the camp in Dunkirk that this happened sometimes, and that the French boat would follow until you reached English waters.
In fact, Mohamed Omar said, the French ship left the travellers again after about an hour. Shortly after this, the problems began.
A French warship patrols the shore of Mardyck in northern France, close to where Charlie is thought to have departed. Travis Van Isacker, CC BY-NC-SA
Around 1am, seawater began entering the dinghy. By now, it was in the vicinity of the Sandettie lightvessel, around 20 miles north-east of Dover. At first, passengers managed to bail out the 13°C water – but soon the flooding became uncontrollable. The dinghy’s inflatable tube began losing pressure, and a couple of the Kurdish men used air pumps to try to keep it inflated. Others tried to prevent panic spreading among the passengers.
Many onboard began to make frantic calls for rescue. What were reported to be leaked transcripts of some of these calls were published by French newspaper Le Monde a year after the sinking. They showed the first distress call from the dinghy was received by the French coastguard at 12.48am. Speaking in English, the caller said there were 33 people on board a “broken” boat.
According to Le Monde, three minutes later, another call was transferred to the French maritime rescue coordination centre at Cap Gris-Nez by an emergency operator who reported: “Apparently their boat – there’s nothing left.” Following procedure, the French coastguard officer asked the caller to send a GPS position by WhatsApp so she could “send a rescue boat as soon as possible”. At 1.05am UK time, the GPS position arrived.
Rather than send a French boat, Le Monde reported that the officer phoned her counterparts in Dover to warn them a dinghy 0.6 nautical miles from the border line would soon be crossing into UK waters. On the other end of the line was the trainee officer, who was handling routine calls that night despite officially only being an observer.
After the call finished, according to Downs’s evidence to the inquiry, the trainee mistakenly told him the dinghy was thought to be “in good condition” – information he recorded in the log for Incident Charlie. This miscommunication may have affected the urgency of the UK’s SAR response, preventing HM Coastguard and Border Force from appreciating the severe distress the “broken” dinghy was in.
Just before 1am, the French coastguard had sent its migrant tracker spreadsheet, containing information on all small boat crossings that night, to HM Coastguard for the first time. It showed four migrant dinghies at sea – which Gris-Nez had been aware of “for many hours”, according to Gibson.
The issue of the French coastguard appearing to withhold information about active small boat crossings had been raised by HM Coastguard’s clandestine operations liaison officer during a July 2021 review. And earlier that very evening, Gibson told one of his colleagues:
Sometimes they just seem to keep it quiet. Like we’ll not get anything – then we’ll get a tracker at three in the morning with 15 incidents, and they go: ‘Mostly these are in your search-and-rescue region.’ Wonderful.
At 1.20am, Downs phoned Border Force Maritime Command in Portsmouth to request a Border Force vessel search for the dinghy Charlie. He provided the GPS position received from his French counterpart and the number of people onboard – but also the incorrect information that “they think it’s in good condition”.
Ten minutes later, the Valiant, Border Force’s 42-metre patrol ship stationed at Dover, was tasked to proceed towards the Sandettie lightvessel. At the same time, the first direct call to the Dover rescue coordination centre came in from Charlie. The distressed caller said they were “in the water” and that “everything [was] finished”.
Around 15 minutes later, at 1.48am, Gibson took a call from 16-year-old Mubin Rizghar Hussein, who spoke good English. Despite the noise and commotion, he managed to provide Gibson with a WhatsApp number – in order to share their GPS position. The transcript of this call records voices shouting in the background: “It’s finished. Finished. Brother, it’s finished.”
A ‘grave and imminent threat to life’
Gibson told the inquiry that after his call with Rizghar Hussein, he had a “gut feeling that this doesn’t feel quite as usual”. By “usual” he meant what was, according to maritime operations officer Downs, a commonly held belief at the Dover coastguard station that with “nine out of ten”“ callers from small boats: “It would generally be overstated that the boat … was sinking, people were drowning … Whatever was going on would be overstated.”
Acting on his gut feeling, at 2.27am Gibson took the unprecedented decision to broadcast a Mayday Relay – denoting a “grave and imminent threat to life”. By maritime law, this alert required other vessels to offer their assistance.
Gibson told the inquiry he did this to get the French warship Flamant to respond. He could see on his radar screen that Flamant was closest to Charlie’s position and was the best vessel to rescue the people if the dinghy really was sinking.
Why the Flamant did not respond is at the centre of an ongoing criminal investigation in France into two of the warship’s officers and five coastguards from Gris-Nez, for “non-assistance of persons in distress”. This investigation’s strict confidentiality obligation means the inquiry was unable to access any information from the French side about their operations that night.
At 2.01 and again at 2.14am, HM Coastguard had received new GPS positions via WhatsApp showing the dinghy to be more than a mile inside UK waters.
Valiant, having been tasked at 1.30am, only exited the port of Dover at 2.22am and would need at least another hour to reach the Sandettie. Despite this, no other vessel was sent to join the search. At 3.11am, when asked during a call by Border Force Maritime Command whether Charlie was “still a Mayday situation”, Gibson replied: “Well, they’ve told me it’s full of water.”
With a total of four small boats being shown in the Channel that night by the French tracker spreadsheet, Gibson suggested there could be as many as 110 people on board these dinghies – beyond Valiant’s capacity for taking on survivors. Nevertheless, Border Force and HM Coastguard opted to “wait and see what the numbers are, and whether Valiant can deal with that … We don’t want to call any other assets out just yet.”
In a call with Christopher Trubshaw, captain of the Coastguard rescue helicopter stationed at Lydd on the Kent coast, aviation tactical commander Dominic Golden explained that Border Force was “not prepared to bring in their crews who are pretty knackered” unless “we can convince them there are people in real danger”. He then asked Trubshaw to search the Channel for the small boats shown in the French tracker, as the surveillance aeroplanes had been unable to take off.
In her closing submission to the inquiry, Sonali Naik, a legal representative of the survivors and bereaved families, highlighted Golden’s “dismissive attitude” towards Charlie’s distress when he gave Trubshaw the reason for the request, which included the following:
As usual, the catalogue of phone calls is beginning to trickle in … You know, the classic ‘I am lost, I am sinking, my mother’s wheelchair is falling over the side’ etc. ‘Sharks with lasers surrounding boat’ and ‘we are all dying’ type of thing.
Nevertheless, Golden asked the helicopter crew to pack a liferaft. “I can’t imagine we’re going to need it but … potentially you get to play with one of your new toys.”
While Golden described his words as “unwise” or “flippant”, Naik said they were “more than that” – suggesting they revealed rescuers’ general perceptions of the occupants of small boats and the widely held scepticism towards their distress calls.
‘We are dying. Where is the boat?’
With the water inside rising fast and their dinghy collapsing, Charlie’s increasingly desperate passengers kept trying to get rescuers to appreciate how dire their situation was.
At 2.31am in the Dover rescue coordination centre, Gibson received a second call from Mubin Rizghar Hussein, who pleaded: “We are dying, where is the boat?”
Gibson replied: “The boat is on its way but it has to get …” only to be interrupted by Rizghar Hussein saying: “We all die. We all die.”
“I get that,” Gibson told the terrified teenager, “but unfortunately, you’re going to be patient and all stay together, because I can’t make the boat come any quicker.” He ended the call saying:
You need to stop making calls because every time you make a call, we think there’s another boat out there – and we don’t want to accidentally go chasing for another boat when it’s actually your boat we’re looking for.
Gibson broke down briefly when recounting this second call during his evidence to the inquiry, explaining:
If you don’t understand what’s fully going on and you’re getting ‘we’re all going to die’, it’s quite a distressing situation to find yourself in, sitting at the end of a phone – effectively helpless. You know where they are, you want to get a boat to them, and you can’t.
Call records also show that coastguards on both sides of the Channel passed responsibility for rescuing the sinking dinghy off to one another. According to Le Monde, during one call a passenger told the French coastguard officer he was “in the water” – to which she replied: “Yes, but you are in English waters.”
The transcript of the last call before Charlie capsized, made at 3.12am, reveals that Downs asked “where are you?” 17 times – despite the caller being unable to answer anything beyond “English waters”. The maritime operations officer finished by instructing the caller to hang up and dial 999: “If it won’t connect on 999, then you’re probably still in French waters.”
In her closing submission, Naik pointed to “discriminatory stereotypes and attitudes towards migrants on small boats which fatally affected the SAR response” for Charlie – as rescuers, in her words, “jumped to premature conclusions”. According to survivor Mohamed Omar:
Because we have been seen as refugees … that’s the reason why I believe the rescue, they did not come at all. We feel like we were … treated like animals.
Fatal assumptions
At 3.27am, Border Force’s ship Valiant arrived at Charlie’s last recorded GPS position (from 2.14am) – but found nothing. Its master, Kevin Toy, decided to head north-easterly towards the Sandettie lightvessel, the way the tide was flowing.
En route, Valiant spotted two other dinghies in the darkness using its night vision – one still making its way towards the English coast, the other stopped in the water. The stationary dinghy was in greater danger from the Channel’s shipping traffic, so Valiant went to it and began rescuing those onboard – radioing back that it had “engaged unlit migrant crafts stopped in the water” with approximately 40 people onboard.
In the Dover rescue coordination centre, Gibson assumed this dinghy could be Charlie and gave Mubin Rizghar Hussein’s name and telephone number so Valiant’s crew could verify whether he was on board. At 4.16am, Gibson himself tried calling the WhatsApp number that Rizghar Hussein had shared, but the call failed.
At 4.20am, Valiant completed its first rescue of the morning. Two more followed after the Coastguard helicopter spotted two other dinghies in the Sandettie area – but nobody in the water. A near-capacity Valiant then returned to Dover just after 8am with 98 survivors on board.
None of the three rescued dinghies matched the description of Charlie. All were in good condition, differently coloured, and with disparate numbers of people onboard – yet the misplaced assumption Charlie had been rescued persisted amid the night’s murky information environment. Gibson stated that, while he had soon received additional information matching Valiant’s first rescue to a different dinghy, he was still “fairly certain Charlie had been picked up”.
“Once Valiant had picked up these [three] boats,” he explained, “we no longer received calls from Charlie, and a call to a known phone number on Charlie failed.” As a result, neither Valiant nor the Coastguard helicopter were sent back out to continue searching for the stricken dinghy.
In fact, Gibson’s call to Rizghar Hussein’s WhatsApp number did not fail because Charlie’s passengers had been rescued – nor because they had thrown their phones into the sea when Border Force arrived. Rather, it was because the dinghy had capsized and everyone had fallen into the Channel’s freezing waters.
‘No one came to our rescue’
In harrowing evidence to the inquiry, Mohamed Omar explained how, as one side of the dinghy deflated, the passengers – “hysterical and crying” – panicked and moved to the opposite side. This shift in weight caused the dinghy to capsize:
The screaming when the boat tipped and people fell in the water was deafening. I have never heard anything as desperate as this. I was not thinking about whether we were going to be rescued any more; it was all about how to stay alive.
As the passengers were thrown into the water, the dinghy flipped on top of them. Mohamed Omar described having to swim out from underneath to catch a breath: “It was dark and I could not really see. It was extremely cold and the sea was rough.”
As he surfaced, he saw Halima Mohammed Shikh, a mother of three also from Somalia and travelling alone, struggling as she couldn’t swim. She screamed his name for help, and he tried to get her back to what was left of the dinghy – but couldn’t. “I think she was one of the first people to drown,” he told the inquiry.
Others managed to cling to the broken inflatable, hoping rescue was on its way – but “no one came to our rescue”. Pushed and pulled by the waves, some lost their grip and drifted away before dawn. Mohamed Omar recalled:
All night, I was holding on to what remained of the boat. In the morning, I could hear the people were screaming and everything. It’s something I cannot forget in my mind.
By the time the sun finally rose at 7.26am, he estimated that no more than 15 people were left clinging to the broken dinghy – adrift on the tide in a busy shipping lane:
I do not recall speaking with anyone in the water. Those who were alive were half-dead. There was nothing we could do any more. I could see bodies floating all around us in the water. I presume most people were either already dead or were unconscious.
Shortly afterwards, Mohamed Omar said he let go of the dinghy and began to swim, thinking to himself: “I am going to die [but] I don’t want to die here. At least if I die whilst swimming, I won’t feel it.”
He swam towards a boat he could see in the distance and, as he got closer, began to wave his life jacket for attention. A French woman, out fishing with her family, saw him and jumped in the water to save him.
As he finished telling his story, Mohamed Omar told the inquiry: “I’m a voice for those people who passed away.”
Bodies are found
Around 1pm on the afternoon of November 24, 12 hours after the first distress calls from Charlie, a French commercial fishing vessel began finding bodies in the sea nine miles north-west of Calais. But as the news came in, no one at HM Coastguard or Border Force appears to have made the connection with Incident Charlie.
Days later, when the accounts of Mohamed Omar’s fellow survivor, Mohammed Shekha Ahmad from Iraqi Kurdistan, and a relative of two of the deceased emerged, the Home Office refuted their claims that the dinghy had sunk in UK waters as “completely untrue”.
However, five days after the disaster, Gibson contacted the small boats tactical commander to share his concerns that the reported deaths could be from Charlie. He had read a news article in which “the survivor states a male called Mubin called the emergency services, which could possibly be the ‘Moomin’ [sic] I spoke to”.
On December 1, clandestine Channel threat commander O’Mahoney responded to a question from the UK’s Joint Committee on Human Rights, as to whether the migrants whose bodies had been found in French waters had made distress calls to the UK authorities. O’Mahoney told the committee:
We are looking into that. To manage your expectation, though, it may never be possible to say with absolute accuracy whether that boat was in UK waters [and] I cannot tell you with any certainty that the people on that particular boat called the UK authorities.
Thanks largely to their grieving families tireless pursuit of the truth, however, it is now possible to say definitively that Charlie had been in UK waters – and that a number of its passengers spoke to HM Coastguard officers.
It was only after these families raised concerns that the disaster had involved the UK authorities that the Department for Transport commissioned a safety investigation into the incident in January 2022. A lawyer for the bereaved families suggested to me that without the threat of legal action, the Department for Transport “would likely not have done anything” – despite this being Britain’s worst maritime disaster for decades. Meanwhile, according to inquiry evidence, the Home Office is understood not to have conducted an internal review or investigation into its role in the disaster.
After a frustrating two years of waiting for the survivors and bereaved families, the Marine Accidents Investigations Branch published its report – which both confirmed most of their accounts and substantiated their criticisms of the SAR response.
Soon afterwards, the Cranston Inquiry was announced. Despite no bodies having been recovered in UK waters, it has been run almost like an inquest. In his final report – to be published by the end of 2025 – Sir Ross Cranston has promised to “consider what lessons can be learned and, if appropriate, make recommendations to reduce the risk of a similar event occurring”.
A ‘crucial and unique opportunity’
HM Coastguard and Border Force officers have repeatedly told the inquiry how the UK’s approach to small boat search-and-rescue has changed since the November 2021 disaster. More officers have been hired, Border Force has contracted additional boats to conduct rescues, information sharing has improved, and cooperation with French colleagues is better. Today, there are significantly more rescue ships on both sides of the Channel which can intervene faster when dinghies come to be in distress, and have undoubtedly saved many lives.
There has also been massive investment in drones, aeroplanes and powerful shore-based cameras to reduce the risk that HM Coastguard loses “maritime domain awareness” again if some of its surveillance aircraft are unable to fly. New technology automatically translates coastguard officers’ messages into different languages and extracts live GPS locations and images from travellers’ mobile devices.
Such investments make it unlikely that another dinghy could be lost in the middle of the Channel after its passengers call for help, in the way Charlie so catastrophically was.
Nevertheless, people continue dying while attempting to cross the Channel – with 2024 having been by far the deadliest year yet. At least 69 people lost their lives, according to the Refugee Council. So far in 2025, 24 people are documented as dead or missing at the UK-France border by Calais Migrant Solidarity, amid a record number of attempted crossings for the first half of the year.
Some migrants’ rights NGOs have suggested the UK’s “stop the boats” policies, and European efforts to disrupt the supply chain of dinghies and other equipment used in crossings, has driven such deadly overcrowding.
But it is also unlikely that the circumstances surrounding more recent deaths in the Channel will ever be investigated as thoroughly as Incident Charlie, if at all. Lawyers for the bereaved families have therefore been keen to highlight the Cranston Inquiry’s “crucial and unique opportunity” not only to look back and offer answers about one of Britain’s worst maritime disasters in recent decades – but to look forwards and “prevent the further loss of life at sea”.
The survivors, families and migrants’ rights organisations who contributed their evidence thus hope the inquiry’s recommendations go beyond purely operational and administrative improvements to search-and-rescue, to address the fundamental role that UK, France and European border policies play in why more people are dying in the Channel, despite the improvements to search-and-rescue strategies and resources.
Above all, they ask why only some people are able to travel to the UK in comfort and safety while others must make the journey in precarious, overcrowded inflatable dinghies – and thus entrust their lives to the search-and-rescue services whose success can never be guaranteed. As Halima Mohammed Shikh’s cousin, Ali Areef, told the inquiry:
It makes me feel sick to think about crossing the Channel in a ferry where others including a member of my family lost their lives because there was no other way to cross. I will never take a ferry across the Channel again.
To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter.
Travis Van Isacker gratefully acknowledges the support of the Economic and Social Research Council
(UK) (Grant Ref: ES/W002639/1).
This morning, U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) questioned Sean Plankey—President Donald Trump’s nominee to be Director of Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—and secured his pledge to refocus the agency on protecting America’s critical infrastructure instead of propping up Biden-era government censorship.
“Let me just read some of the euphemisms that your predecessor used to talk about CISA’s mission in the censorship effort: ‘narrative control,’ ‘perception management’—’information integrity’ is my favorite,” Senator Hawley said. “You’re telling me that you’re going to get CISA out of the business of policing ‘narrative control?’” the Senator asked, to which Plankey affirmed.
[embedded content]
Watch the full exchange here.
Senator Hawley reminded Plankey and his Senate colleagues of the gross First Amendment abuses Americans faced online under the direction of the Biden Administration’s CISA. The agency’s wide-ranging censorship shut down posts about “COVID-19, vaccines, elections, school-board meetings.”
Breaking with his Biden-era predecessors, Plankey assured the Senator that “it is not CISA’s job, and nor is it in its authorities, to censor or determine the truths, whether it be on social media or at any level of media.” If confirmed for the role, Plankey said he would, “like to focus CISA on what it’s mandated to do and that’s protect the federal civilian executive branch, as well as protect the critical infrastructure of the United States.”
Source: United States Senator for South Carolina Lindsey Graham
WASHINGTON — U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and John Cornyn (R-Texas), both senior members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today called on U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to appoint a special counsel to investigate the Obama Administration’s involvement in the Russia collusion hoax.
“For the good of the country, we urge Attorney General Bondi to appoint a special counsel to investigate the extent to which former President Obama, his staff and administration officials manipulated the U.S. national security apparatus for a political outcome.
“As we have supported in the past, appointing an independent special counsel would do the country a tremendous service in this case.
“With every piece of information that gets released, it becomes more evident that the entire Russia collusion hoax was created by the Obama Administration to subvert the will of the American people.
“Democrats and the liberal media have been out to get President Trump since 2016. There must be an immediate investigation of what we believe to be an unprecedented and clear abuse of power by a U.S. presidential administration.”
Background:
Last week, Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard released evidence demonstrating that former President Barack Obama and his national security staff manipulated information from the intelligence community in order to insinuate that Russia was attempting to help then-candidate Donald Trump win the 2016 presidential election, including:
In the months leading up to the November 2016 election, the Intelligence Community (IC) assessed that Russia is “probably not trying … to influence the election by using cyber means.”
On December 7, 2016, after the election, talking points were prepared for DNI James Clapper stating, “Foreign adversaries did not use cyberattacks on election infrastructure to alter the US Presidential election outcome.”
A declassified copy of the Presidential Daily Brief, which was prepared using intelligence from the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, FBI, National Security Agency, Department of Homeland Security, State Department, and open sources, for Obama on December 8, 2016, assessed that “Russian and criminal actors did not impact recent US election results by conducting malicious cyber activities against election infrastructure.”
That Presidential Daily Brief was scheduled to be published on December 9, 2016, but communications revealed that DNI Clapper’s office stopped its publication “based on some new guidance”.
On December 9, 2016, Obama gathered top National Security Council Principals for a meeting in the Situation Room that included James Clapper, John Brennan, Susan Rice, John Kerry, Loretta Lynch, Andrew McCabe and others, to discuss Russia.
After the meeting, DNI Clapper’s Executive Assistant sent an email to IC leaders tasking them with creating a new IC assessment “per the President’s request”that details the “tools Moscow used and actions it took to influence the 2016 election.” It went on to say, “ODNI will lead this effort with participation from CIA, FBI, NSA, and DHS.”
Obama officials leaked false statements to media outlets, including The Washington Post and The New York Times, claiming, “Russia has attempted through cyber means to interfere in, if not actively influence, the outcome of an election.”
On January 6, 2017, a new Intelligence Community Assessment was released.
The review board is the federal agency that was set up 1987 to ensure that the prices for patented drugs are not “excessive.”
Comparing prices
Up until now, one of the criteria the PMPRB used in making the decision about what was an excessive price was to compare the proposed Canadian price for a new drug with the median price in 11 other countries. The median is the 50 per cent mark; in other words, the price in half of the other countries was below what’s proposed for Canada, and the price in the other half was above the proposed Canadian price. Under the new guidelines, set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2026, the Canadian price can be up to the highest in those other 11 countries.
Right now, the median price in the 11 countries Canada is compared to is 15 per cent below the price of patented drugs in Canada. The highest international price, which will be the new standard, is 21 per cent above the median Canadian price, meaning Canadian prices for new drugs will be significantly higher than they otherwise would have been.
Sometimes a drug is not available in any of the 11 other countries when it comes onto the Canadian market. In that case, the company can price the drug at whatever level it wants and keep it at that price until it comes up for its annual price review. The executive director of the PMPRB told the Globe and Mail that this would incentivize drugmakers to bring their products to the Canadian market first.
Incentivizing drug companies may be a reasonable idea, but that’s not part of the mandate of the PMPRB. As laid out in Section 83 of the Patent Act, its mandate is to ensure drug prices aren’t excessive.
Additional therapeutic value
In the past, one of the factors that the PMPRB took into account in determining if prices were excessive was the additional therapeutic value of a new drug compared to what was already on the market. The lower the value, the lower the price. In this regard, the PMPRB was advised by its Human Drug Advisory Panel, an independent group of experts.
The ranking of new drugs against existing ones was also of significant value to Canadian clinicians. It helped them to decide on the best treatment option for their patients and countered the hype about new drugs that came from the manufacturers.
Since the new guidelines have abandoned looking at therapeutic improvement of new drugs, that leaves only one remaining Canadian source for that type of information, the Therapeutics Letter, a bimonthly publication targeting identified problematic therapeutic issues in a brief, simple and practical manner.
If there is an in-depth review of a new drug’s pricing — a preparatory step to determine whether there should be a formal hearing to investigate if the price is excessive — it is only the manufacturer that is allowed to submit information to the PMPRB. Clinicians who prescribe the drug, patients who take the drug, and organizations and individuals that pay for the drug do not have that same right.
Donald Trump’s on-again, off-again tariffs are already threatening to drive up drug prices and make prescription drugs inaccessible to many Canadians. Higher drug prices will also almost certainly affect Canada’s already limited pharmacare program. Higher prices for new drugs will make an expanded pharmacare plan more expensive and less appealing to the federal government. The new PMPRB guidelines help ensure higher drug prices and no pharmacare expansion.
Between 2022-2025, Joel Lexchin received payments for writing a brief for a legal firm on the role of promotion in generating prescriptions for opioids, for being on a panel about pharmacare and for co-writing an article for a peer-reviewed medical journal on semaglutide. He is a member of the Boards of Canadian Doctors for Medicare and the Canadian Health Coalition. He receives royalties from University of Toronto Press and James Lorimer & Co. Ltd. for books he has written. He has received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research in the past.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Brett Guthrie (2nd District Kentucky)
Washington, D.C. – Today, Congressman Guthrie (KY-02) issued the following statement following the House passage of H.R. 4016, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2026.
“After four years of failed Democratic leadership diminishing our standing on the world stage, peace through strength is back. Under the leadership of President Trump and House Republicans, our United States military is stronger than ever, equipped, and ready to defend our nation against any threat,” said Congressman Brett Guthrie.“As a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, I know firsthand that peace is best preserved through a strong U.S. military! This bill invests billions into the men and women who volunteer to keep our nation safe and ensures that American industries can manufacture the necessary tools to accomplish the mission.” Background: H.R. 4016 builds upon Republicans’ agenda of investing in our military strength to restore America’s standing as a deterrent to those who attempt to spread chaos and destruction. By allocating $831.5 billion for the Department of Defense, Congress is sending a clear message to the world: America is back. Specifically, this legislation:
Includes an increase of 3.8% in basic pay for all military personnel effective January 1, 2026.
Invests in youth development and workforce programs that prepare our next generation soldiers and businesses including Apex Accelerators, Starbase, the National Guard Youth Challenge, and U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Corps Programs.
Allocates $36.9 billion for 28 ships including six battle force ships
Dedicates $1.5 billion for the Maritime Industrial Base to invest in critical areas including supplier capacity and capability, strategic outsourcing, workforce training, and technology and infrastructure.
Enhances investments in 5th and 6th generation aircraft.
Allocates approximately $13 billion for missile defense and space programs to augment and integrate in support of the Golden Dome effort.
Delivers increases for the State Partnership Program operations and personnel costs for both the Army National Guard and Air National Guard.
More information about the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2026 prior to adoption of amendments can be found here.
OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, as part of a coalition of 23 attorneys general and two states, expanded its ongoing legal challenge of the Trump Administration’s attempt to gut AmeriCorps by adding the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as a defendant for withholding tens of millions of dollars in funding for critical service programs. In June, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition secured a court order that reinstated hundreds of AmeriCorps programs that were unlawfully cancelled and barred AmeriCorps from making similar cuts without formal rulemaking. Despite this order, OMB is withholding vast sums intended for outstanding service programs, threatening their survival and the wellbeing of those who depend on their services. Because of the Trump Administration’s withholding of these critical resources, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition today filed an amended lawsuit that adds OMB as a defendant and brings new legal claims against the agency.
“AmeriCorps represents the best of who we are, what we can be, as a nation,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Last month, I secured a court order stopping the illegal dismantling of AmeriCorps – ensuring these selfless servicemembers can continue to serve our communities while litigation continues. But now, President Trump is trying a different, yet similarly, illegal tactic to withhold funding. We’re going back to court to block this latest maneuver – and we’ll keep fighting to ensure this invaluable program continues.”
AmeriCorps, an independent federal agency that engages Americans in meaningful community-based service, provides opportunities for more than 200,000 Americans to serve their communities every year. AmeriCorps supports national and state community service programs by funding and placing volunteers in local and national organizations that address critical community needs. Organizations rely on support from AmeriCorps to recruit, place, and supervise AmeriCorps members nationwide.
In 2024, more than 6,150 California members served at least 1,200 locations, including schools, food banks, homeless shelters, health clinics, youth centers, veterans’ facilities, and other nonprofit and faith-based organizations. AmeriCorps invested more than $133 million in federal funding to California that same year to support cost-effective community solutions, working with local partners on the ground to help communities tackle their toughest challenges. This includes programs like:
Prevent Child Abuse California, which hosts 65 AmeriCorps members who provide academic assistance, life skills, and financial literacy to hundreds of foster youths across 15 counties.
Partnership for Veterans and People Experiencing Homeless, which hosts 25 AmeriCorps members that provide housing services, job placement, and case management to veterans and homeless individuals in Santa Barbara County.
Reading Partners California, which hosts 80 AmeriCorps members who recruit and manage approximately 1400 volunteers to provide one-on-one literacy tutoring to students at 58 low-income elementary schools.
In the amended complaint, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition allege that OMB has unlawfully withheld from plaintiff states well over $38 million in support intended for specific AmeriCorps programs, across multiple funding streams. For example, OMB appears to have withheld tens of millions of dollars intended for AmeriCorps Senior Companion Programs and Foster Grandparent Programs in plaintiff states, programs that pair low-income seniors with children in need of mentorship and support or with other seniors in need of companionship and care. The Administration has also withheld approximately $5 million intended for plaintiff state service commissions, which was needed to provide training and technical assistance to service members across the country. And while AmeriCorps decided to fund numerous programs in plaintiff states with over $33 million in highly competitive grants for the next service year, OMB is preparing to withhold these funds from distribution as well.
The coalition establishes that the Trump Administration has acted unlawfully in its withholding of AmeriCorps funds, violating both the Administrative Procedure Act and the separation of powers under the U.S. Constitution. Congress created AmeriCorps and appropriated funding to support public service, and neither OMB nor AmeriCorps hold authority to defy Congress by refusing to distribute funds to worthy service programs.
In filing the amended complaint, Attorney General Bonta and the attorneys general of Maryland, Delaware, and Colorado lead the attorneys general of Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, the District of Columbia, as well as the states of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.
A copy of the amended complaint is available here.
Source: United States Senator Peter Welch (D-Vermont)
Welch calls on the U.S. to negotiate a successor to the New START Treaty
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Peter Welch (D-Vt.) this week took to the Senate Floor to urge the United States to reaffirm its commitment to pursue a world free of nuclear weapons. Senator Welch warned the threat of a new nuclear arms race is looming with the imminent expiration of the New START Treaty.
“In the 1980s, thanks to negotiators in both countries, the United States and Russia curtailed an unrestrained nuclear arms race that led to the deployment of staggering numbers of increasingly destructive weapons that could not rationally be justified for deterrence or any other purpose. The START Treaty and New START were historic achievements—bipartisan achievements,” said Senator Welch. “I would like to think that President Trump was serious when he spoke of the need for the U.S., Russia, and China to stop building more nuclear weapons. But even modest steps to reduce the chance of a catastrophic mistake or miscalculation resulting in the use of nuclear weapons should be among our highest national priorities.”
Watch Senator Welch’s speech below:
On the 80th anniversary of the Trinity test, Senator Welch joined Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) in introducing a resolution urging the United States to lead the world to halt and reverse the nuclear arms race.
Learn more about Senator Welch’s work by visiting his website or by following him on social media.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Don Beyer (D-VA)
Congressional Artificial Intelligence (AI) Caucus Chair Don Beyer (D-VA), Vice Chair Doris Matsui (D-CA), and Democratic Members of the Caucus Reps. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), Valerie Foushee (D-NC), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Sarah McBride (D-DE), Jim McGovern (D-MA), and Rob Menendez (D-NJ) today issued the following statement on the Trump Administration’s AI Action Plan and executive orders on AI:
“We are deeply concerned about the impacts of President Trump’s AI Action Plan and the executive orders announced yesterday.
“The President’s Executive Order on “Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government” and policies on ‘AI neutrality’ are counterproductive to responsible AI development and use, and potentially dangerous. To be clear, we support true AI neutrality—AI models trained on facts and science—but the administration’s fixation on ‘anti-woke’ inputs is definitionally not neutral. This sends a clear message to AI developers: align with Trump’s ideology or pay the price. We have already seen private technology companies rewarded for catering to the Administration, including the Administration awarding a wildly inappropriate $200 million Pentagon contract for Elon Musk’s Grok AI despite that platform’s recent history of racist misinformation, antisemitism, and support for Adolf Hitler – which were prompted by the very ‘anti-woke’ training this order envisions.
“We are also alarmed by the absence of regulatory structure in this AI Action Plan to ensure the responsible development, deployment, or use of AI models, and the apparent targeting of state-level regulations. As AI is integrated with daily life and tech leaders develop more powerful models, such as Artificial General Intelligence, responsible innovation must go hand in hand with appropriate safety guardrails. In the absence of any meaningful federal alternative, our states are taking the lead in embracing common-sense safeguards to protect the public, build consumer trust, and ensure innovation and competition can continue to thrive. We are deeply concerned that the AI Action Plan would open the door to forcing states to forfeit their ability to protect the public from the escalating risks of AI, by jeopardizing states’ ability to access critical federal funding. And instead of providing a sorely needed federal regulatory framework that promotes safe model development, deployment, and use, Trump’s plan simultaneously limits states and creates a ‘wild west’ for tech companies, giving them free rein to develop and deploy models with no accountability.
“Finally, we are concerned about the implications of the Executive Order on ‘Accelerating Federal Permitting of Data Center Infrastructure’ for energy costs, demand on the grid, and the environment. AI training and inferencing have already driven up energy demand in the U.S, with ratepayers seeing higher utility prices due to the development of data centers. Trump recently signed partisan legislation that will significantly undercut clean energy projects, driving up costs and leaving us more reliant on dirty, polluting energy sources – trends which this plan will worsen considerably. At a time when Trump himself has increased the need for energy efficiency in AI development and deployment, this plan will do the opposite while increasing harm on the environment.
“While there are policies in the Action Plan that we agree with, including support for AI-driven science, improving AI evaluations and providing testing resources, and putting our American workforce first, we are deeply concerned about the partisan policies included in the Action Plan and Executive Orders that poison what should have been a good-faith, non-partisan effort. We will closely monitor the implementation of these policies, and will continue to advocate for the responsible development, deployment, and use of AI.”
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Jennifer McClellan (Virginia 4th District)
Washington, D.C. –Today, Congresswoman Jennifer McClellan (VA-04) issued the following statement after the Department of Justice and Department of Education launchedinvestigationsinto George Mason University for allegations of racial discrimination and antisemitism:
“Less than a month after demanding the removal of former University of Virginia President James Ryan, the Trump Administration now sets its sights on George Mason University, the largest public research higher education institution in Virginia.
“These investigations hijack existing civil rights laws to advance this Administration’s extreme agenda to undermine local governance of educational institutions, reshape them in its ideological image, and undo the progress made to open educational opportunities to more people. The Trump Administration has already sought to defund and dismantle the Department of Education entirely, a move that undermines the Department’s core mission to ensure every student, regardless of background, receives a safe and quality learning environment and education.
“These attacks don’t just distract and drain resources that could be used for cases of genuine civil rights violations, but take a deeply concerning step towards stripping away the independence and academic freedom entitled to our higher education institutions. I fear for the future of Virginia’s education system.”
Volta Finance Limited (VTA / VTAS) June 2025 monthly report
NOT FOR RELEASE, DISTRIBUTION, OR PUBLICATION, IN WHOLE OR PART, IN OR INTO THE UNITED STATES
Guernsey, July 24, 2025
AXA IM has published the Volta Finance Limited (the “Company” or “Volta Finance” or “Volta”) monthly report for June 2025. The full report is attached to this release and will be available on Volta’s websiteshortly (www.voltafinance.com).
Performance and Portfolio Activity
Dear Investors,
In June, Volta Finance achieved a net performance of +0.4% bringing the cumulative performance from August 2024 to date to +11.2%. Both the CLO Debt and CLO Equity assets of the Volta Finance portfolio delivered positive returns, in the context of a positive momentum across credit markets after the volatility induced by tariffs.
June marked a return to a “risk on” environment, with strong gains in U.S. equity markets amid significant weakening of the US Dollar. This shift was fuelled by easing trade tensions and moderating inflation. Despite inflation levels being close to target, the Fed decided to keep interest rates unchanged at 4.25%-4.50% during their June meeting while elaborating on the unpredictable effects of Trump’s tariffs. In Europe, sentiment was mixed, with major indices ending the month flat. The ECB cut rates by 25 basis points while Christine Lagarde signalled a likely pause in future rate cuts. This easing comes as the eurozone inflation has returned to the central bank’s target of 2%.
However, significant uncertainties still loom as we enter summer. Only a handful of countries reached agreements with their U.S. counterparts and the approaching deadline could trigger further disruptions notably in supply chains. The sudden escalation of the Iran/Israel situation, culminating in the U.S. bombings of Iranian nuclear facilities, also raised concerns regarding the stability of the region and added disruptions to oil supplies. This led to a spike in crude oil prices and increased interest in traditional safe-haven assets although they retraced by the end of the month due to a temporary resolution of the conflict.
Credit markets shrugged those worries off and hedged close to the tightest levels experienced over the last year. For instance, the European High Yield index (Xover) settled at 283bps (from 300bps), close to the 280bps resistance level. On the Loan side, Euro Loans closed roughly unchanged at 97.70px (Morningstar European Leveraged Loan Index) while US Loans closed c. 40c up at 97.00px. Primary CLO levels moved sideways across all rated tranches, providing stability and the right environment for CLO formation. In terms of performance, US High Yield returned +1.9% over the month while Euro Loans were up +0.13% and US Loans +0.80%.
The median CCC assets exposure in CLO portfolios remained stable at 4.5% in the US, slightly above the exposure of European CLOs to CCCs (4.1%). Loan maturity walls continued to transition towards 2030 and beyond, with the next significant refinancing deadlines in 2028 and 2031 in the US, while loan recoveries remained significantly higher than bonds at approximately 62% vs 48%.
In terms of activity, the month was particularly busy as we faced some CLO debt redemptions (€4.8m) and actively replaced risk to maintain overall risk exposure unchanged. We purchased BB (600bps context), single-B (up to 900bps) and Equity risk from both the Primary and Secondary markets. Cash stood at 11% at the end of the month. Volta Finance’s cashflow generation was slightly up at €28.3m equivalent in interests and coupons over the last six months, representing close to 21% of June’s NAV on an annualized basis.
Over the month, Volta’s CLO Equity tranches returned +1.6%** while CLO Debt tranches returned +1.0% performance**. The EUR/USD move to 1.18 had an impact on our long dollar exposure in terms of performance (0.4%).
As of end of June 2025, Volta’s NAV was €273.0m, i.e. €7.46 per share.
*It should be noted that approximately 0.14% of Volta’s GAV comprises investments for which the relevant NAVs as at the month-end date are normally available only after Volta’s NAV has already been published. Volta’s policy is to publish its NAV on as timely a basis as possible to provide shareholders with Volta’s appropriately up-to-date NAV information. Consequently, such investments are valued using the most recently available NAV for each fund or quoted price for such subordinated notes. The most recently available fund NAV or quoted price was 0.07% as at 30 May 2025, 0.07% as at 31 March 2025.
** “performances” of asset classes are calculated as the Dietz-performance of the assets in each bucket, taking into account the Mark-to-Market of the assets at period ends, payments received from the assets over the period, and ignoring changes in cross-currency rates. Nevertheless, some residual currency effects could impact the aggregate value of the portfolio when aggregating each bucket.
CONTACTS
For the Investment Manager AXA Investment Managers Paris François Touati francois.touati@axa-im.com +33 (0) 1 44 45 80 22
Corporate Broker Cavendish Securities plc Andrew Worne Daniel Balabanoff +44 (0) 20 7397 8900
***** ABOUT VOLTA FINANCE LIMITED
Volta Finance Limited is incorporated in Guernsey under The Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 (as amended) and listed on Euronext Amsterdam and the London Stock Exchange’s Main Market for listed securities. Volta’s home member state for the purposes of the EU Transparency Directive is the Netherlands. As such, Volta is subject to regulation and supervision by the AFM, being the regulator for financial markets in the Netherlands.
Volta’s Investment objectives are to preserve its capital across the credit cycle and to provide a stable stream of income to its Shareholders through dividends that it expects to distribute on a quarterly basis. The Company currently seeks to achieve its investment objectives by pursuing exposure predominantly to CLO’s and similar asset classes. A more diversified investment strategy across structured finance assets may be pursued opportunistically. The Company has appointed AXA Investment Managers Paris an investment management company with a division specialised in structured credit, for the investment management of all its assets.
*****
ABOUT AXA INVESTMENT MANAGERS AXA Investment Managers (AXA IM) is a multi-expert asset management company within the BNP Group, a global leader in financial protection and wealth management. AXA IM is one of the largest European-based asset managers with 2,800 professionals and €859 billion in assets under management as of the end of June 2024.
*****
This press release is published by AXA Investment Managers Paris (“AXA IM”), in its capacity as alternative investment fund manager (within the meaning of Directive 2011/61/EU, the “AIFM Directive”) of Volta Finance Limited (the “Volta Finance”) whose portfolio is managed by AXA IM.
This press release is for information only and does not constitute an invitation or inducement to acquire shares in Volta Finance. Its circulation may be prohibited in certain jurisdictions and no recipient may circulate copies of this document in breach of such limitations or restrictions. This document is not an offer for sale of the securities referred to herein in the United States or to persons who are “U.S. persons” for purposes of Regulation S under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), or otherwise in circumstances where such offer would be restricted by applicable law. Such securities may not be sold in the United States absent registration or an exemption from registration from the Securities Act. Volta Finance does not intend to register any portion of the offer of such securities in the United States or to conduct a public offering of such securities in the United States.
*****
This communication is only being distributed to and is only directed at (i) persons who are outside the United Kingdom or (ii) investment professionals falling within Article 19(5) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) Order 2005 (the “Order”) or (iii) high net worth companies, and other persons to whom it may lawfully be communicated, falling within Article 49(2)(a) to (d) of the Order (all such persons together being referred to as “relevant persons”). The securities referred to herein are only available to, and any invitation, offer or agreement to subscribe, purchase or otherwise acquire such securities will be engaged in only with, relevant persons. Any person who is not a relevant person should not act or rely on this document or any of its contents. Past performance cannot be relied on as a guide to future performance.
***** This press release contains statements that are, or may deemed to be, “forward-looking statements”. These forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology, including the terms “believes”, “anticipated”, “expects”, “intends”, “is/are expected”, “may”, “will” or “should”. They include the statements regarding the level of the dividend, the current market context and its impact on the long-term return of Volta Finance’s investments. By their nature, forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties and readers are cautioned that any such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance. Volta Finance’s actual results, portfolio composition and performance may differ materially from the impression created by the forward-looking statements. AXA IM does not undertake any obligation to publicly update or revise forward-looking statements.
Any target information is based on certain assumptions as to future events which may not prove to be realised. Due to the uncertainty surrounding these future events, the targets are not intended to be and should not be regarded as profits or earnings or any other type of forecasts. There can be no assurance that any of these targets will be achieved. In addition, no assurance can be given that the investment objective will be achieved.
The figures provided that relate to past months or years and past performance cannot be relied on as a guide to future performance or construed as a reliable indicator as to future performance. Throughout this review, the citation of specific trades or strategies is intended to illustrate some of the investment methodologies and philosophies of Volta Finance, as implemented by AXA IM. The historical success or AXA IM’s belief in the future success, of any of these trades or strategies is not indicative of, and has no bearing on, future results.
The valuation of financial assets can vary significantly from the prices that the AXA IM could obtain if it sought to liquidate the positions on behalf of the Volta Finance due to market conditions and general economic environment. Such valuations do not constitute a fairness or similar opinion and should not be regarded as such.
Editor: AXA INVESTMENT MANAGERS PARIS, a company incorporated under the laws of France, having its registered office located at Tour Majunga, 6, Place de la Pyramide – 92800 Puteaux. AXA IMP is authorized by theAutorité des Marchés Financiersunder registration number GP92008 as an alternative investment fund manager within the meaning of the AIFM Directive.
Volta Finance Limited (VTA / VTAS) June 2025 monthly report
NOT FOR RELEASE, DISTRIBUTION, OR PUBLICATION, IN WHOLE OR PART, IN OR INTO THE UNITED STATES
Guernsey, July 24, 2025
AXA IM has published the Volta Finance Limited (the “Company” or “Volta Finance” or “Volta”) monthly report for June 2025. The full report is attached to this release and will be available on Volta’s websiteshortly (www.voltafinance.com).
Performance and Portfolio Activity
Dear Investors,
In June, Volta Finance achieved a net performance of +0.4% bringing the cumulative performance from August 2024 to date to +11.2%. Both the CLO Debt and CLO Equity assets of the Volta Finance portfolio delivered positive returns, in the context of a positive momentum across credit markets after the volatility induced by tariffs.
June marked a return to a “risk on” environment, with strong gains in U.S. equity markets amid significant weakening of the US Dollar. This shift was fuelled by easing trade tensions and moderating inflation. Despite inflation levels being close to target, the Fed decided to keep interest rates unchanged at 4.25%-4.50% during their June meeting while elaborating on the unpredictable effects of Trump’s tariffs. In Europe, sentiment was mixed, with major indices ending the month flat. The ECB cut rates by 25 basis points while Christine Lagarde signalled a likely pause in future rate cuts. This easing comes as the eurozone inflation has returned to the central bank’s target of 2%.
However, significant uncertainties still loom as we enter summer. Only a handful of countries reached agreements with their U.S. counterparts and the approaching deadline could trigger further disruptions notably in supply chains. The sudden escalation of the Iran/Israel situation, culminating in the U.S. bombings of Iranian nuclear facilities, also raised concerns regarding the stability of the region and added disruptions to oil supplies. This led to a spike in crude oil prices and increased interest in traditional safe-haven assets although they retraced by the end of the month due to a temporary resolution of the conflict.
Credit markets shrugged those worries off and hedged close to the tightest levels experienced over the last year. For instance, the European High Yield index (Xover) settled at 283bps (from 300bps), close to the 280bps resistance level. On the Loan side, Euro Loans closed roughly unchanged at 97.70px (Morningstar European Leveraged Loan Index) while US Loans closed c. 40c up at 97.00px. Primary CLO levels moved sideways across all rated tranches, providing stability and the right environment for CLO formation. In terms of performance, US High Yield returned +1.9% over the month while Euro Loans were up +0.13% and US Loans +0.80%.
The median CCC assets exposure in CLO portfolios remained stable at 4.5% in the US, slightly above the exposure of European CLOs to CCCs (4.1%). Loan maturity walls continued to transition towards 2030 and beyond, with the next significant refinancing deadlines in 2028 and 2031 in the US, while loan recoveries remained significantly higher than bonds at approximately 62% vs 48%.
In terms of activity, the month was particularly busy as we faced some CLO debt redemptions (€4.8m) and actively replaced risk to maintain overall risk exposure unchanged. We purchased BB (600bps context), single-B (up to 900bps) and Equity risk from both the Primary and Secondary markets. Cash stood at 11% at the end of the month. Volta Finance’s cashflow generation was slightly up at €28.3m equivalent in interests and coupons over the last six months, representing close to 21% of June’s NAV on an annualized basis.
Over the month, Volta’s CLO Equity tranches returned +1.6%** while CLO Debt tranches returned +1.0% performance**. The EUR/USD move to 1.18 had an impact on our long dollar exposure in terms of performance (0.4%).
As of end of June 2025, Volta’s NAV was €273.0m, i.e. €7.46 per share.
*It should be noted that approximately 0.14% of Volta’s GAV comprises investments for which the relevant NAVs as at the month-end date are normally available only after Volta’s NAV has already been published. Volta’s policy is to publish its NAV on as timely a basis as possible to provide shareholders with Volta’s appropriately up-to-date NAV information. Consequently, such investments are valued using the most recently available NAV for each fund or quoted price for such subordinated notes. The most recently available fund NAV or quoted price was 0.07% as at 30 May 2025, 0.07% as at 31 March 2025.
** “performances” of asset classes are calculated as the Dietz-performance of the assets in each bucket, taking into account the Mark-to-Market of the assets at period ends, payments received from the assets over the period, and ignoring changes in cross-currency rates. Nevertheless, some residual currency effects could impact the aggregate value of the portfolio when aggregating each bucket.
CONTACTS
For the Investment Manager AXA Investment Managers Paris François Touati francois.touati@axa-im.com +33 (0) 1 44 45 80 22
Corporate Broker Cavendish Securities plc Andrew Worne Daniel Balabanoff +44 (0) 20 7397 8900
***** ABOUT VOLTA FINANCE LIMITED
Volta Finance Limited is incorporated in Guernsey under The Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 (as amended) and listed on Euronext Amsterdam and the London Stock Exchange’s Main Market for listed securities. Volta’s home member state for the purposes of the EU Transparency Directive is the Netherlands. As such, Volta is subject to regulation and supervision by the AFM, being the regulator for financial markets in the Netherlands.
Volta’s Investment objectives are to preserve its capital across the credit cycle and to provide a stable stream of income to its Shareholders through dividends that it expects to distribute on a quarterly basis. The Company currently seeks to achieve its investment objectives by pursuing exposure predominantly to CLO’s and similar asset classes. A more diversified investment strategy across structured finance assets may be pursued opportunistically. The Company has appointed AXA Investment Managers Paris an investment management company with a division specialised in structured credit, for the investment management of all its assets.
*****
ABOUT AXA INVESTMENT MANAGERS AXA Investment Managers (AXA IM) is a multi-expert asset management company within the BNP Group, a global leader in financial protection and wealth management. AXA IM is one of the largest European-based asset managers with 2,800 professionals and €859 billion in assets under management as of the end of June 2024.
*****
This press release is published by AXA Investment Managers Paris (“AXA IM”), in its capacity as alternative investment fund manager (within the meaning of Directive 2011/61/EU, the “AIFM Directive”) of Volta Finance Limited (the “Volta Finance”) whose portfolio is managed by AXA IM.
This press release is for information only and does not constitute an invitation or inducement to acquire shares in Volta Finance. Its circulation may be prohibited in certain jurisdictions and no recipient may circulate copies of this document in breach of such limitations or restrictions. This document is not an offer for sale of the securities referred to herein in the United States or to persons who are “U.S. persons” for purposes of Regulation S under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), or otherwise in circumstances where such offer would be restricted by applicable law. Such securities may not be sold in the United States absent registration or an exemption from registration from the Securities Act. Volta Finance does not intend to register any portion of the offer of such securities in the United States or to conduct a public offering of such securities in the United States.
*****
This communication is only being distributed to and is only directed at (i) persons who are outside the United Kingdom or (ii) investment professionals falling within Article 19(5) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) Order 2005 (the “Order”) or (iii) high net worth companies, and other persons to whom it may lawfully be communicated, falling within Article 49(2)(a) to (d) of the Order (all such persons together being referred to as “relevant persons”). The securities referred to herein are only available to, and any invitation, offer or agreement to subscribe, purchase or otherwise acquire such securities will be engaged in only with, relevant persons. Any person who is not a relevant person should not act or rely on this document or any of its contents. Past performance cannot be relied on as a guide to future performance.
***** This press release contains statements that are, or may deemed to be, “forward-looking statements”. These forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology, including the terms “believes”, “anticipated”, “expects”, “intends”, “is/are expected”, “may”, “will” or “should”. They include the statements regarding the level of the dividend, the current market context and its impact on the long-term return of Volta Finance’s investments. By their nature, forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties and readers are cautioned that any such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance. Volta Finance’s actual results, portfolio composition and performance may differ materially from the impression created by the forward-looking statements. AXA IM does not undertake any obligation to publicly update or revise forward-looking statements.
Any target information is based on certain assumptions as to future events which may not prove to be realised. Due to the uncertainty surrounding these future events, the targets are not intended to be and should not be regarded as profits or earnings or any other type of forecasts. There can be no assurance that any of these targets will be achieved. In addition, no assurance can be given that the investment objective will be achieved.
The figures provided that relate to past months or years and past performance cannot be relied on as a guide to future performance or construed as a reliable indicator as to future performance. Throughout this review, the citation of specific trades or strategies is intended to illustrate some of the investment methodologies and philosophies of Volta Finance, as implemented by AXA IM. The historical success or AXA IM’s belief in the future success, of any of these trades or strategies is not indicative of, and has no bearing on, future results.
The valuation of financial assets can vary significantly from the prices that the AXA IM could obtain if it sought to liquidate the positions on behalf of the Volta Finance due to market conditions and general economic environment. Such valuations do not constitute a fairness or similar opinion and should not be regarded as such.
Editor: AXA INVESTMENT MANAGERS PARIS, a company incorporated under the laws of France, having its registered office located at Tour Majunga, 6, Place de la Pyramide – 92800 Puteaux. AXA IMP is authorized by theAutorité des Marchés Financiersunder registration number GP92008 as an alternative investment fund manager within the meaning of the AIFM Directive.
