Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Young Kim (CA-39)
Washington, DC – Today, U.S. Representatives Young Kim (CA-40) and Sydney Kamlager Dove (CA-37) introduced the Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI) Act, a bipartisan bill to make permanent the State Department’s YALI program.
YALI is the United States’ signature effort to invest in the next generation of African leaders. With a median age of 19, the continent is home to the world’s youngest population. Recognizing the immense potential of this rising generation of change-makers, YALI was launched in 2010 to support young African leaders as they spur growth and prosperity, strengthen democratic governance, and enhance peace and security across sub-Saharan Africa. This legislation also reaffirms the United States’ commitment to investing in Africa’s youth, promoting initiatives to enhance leadership skills, support entrepreneurship, and strengthen U.S.-Africa people-to-people ties.
“People-to-people diplomacy is how we build relationships and ensure the United States is the partner of choice for allies and partners,” said Rep. Young Kim. “The State Department’s Young African Leaders Initiative has proven to strengthen democracy, prosperity, and peace in the region while supporting young Africans making a difference in their communities. I thank Rep. Kamlager-Dove for working with me on this bill.”
“The Young African Leaders Initiative has been a cornerstone of America’s commitment to Africa’s future since 2010, and I’m proud to support its ongoing efforts through the bipartisan, bicameral YALI Act,” said Rep. Kamlager-Dove. “Despite historic bipartisan support, the Trump Administration has proposed a 40% cut to YALI’s budget, jeopardizing a program that has proven effective in strengthening democracy, building communities, and fostering people-to-people ties. With 70% of Sub-Saharan Africa under 30, now’s the time to invest in—not retreat from—emerging leaders who will play vital roles in solving global challenges. We must pass the YALI Act to protect this crucial program and reaffirm the United States as a strong partner in Africa’s future.”
Senators Mike Rounds (R-SD) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) introduced companion legislation in the Senate.
“Continued U.S. engagement in African nations is essential to building strategic partnerships, while also limiting the influence of our near-peer adversaries in the region,” said Senator Rounds. “The Young African Leaders Initiative was created in 2010 to empower young African leaders to gain the skills and education for the advancement of democratic governance and stability across the continent. Our legislation would make this program permanent and continue its role in advancing democracy and economic development in Africa.”
“Over the last 15 years, YALI has helped strengthen our relationships with nations across Africa – fostering partnerships that expand opportunity, promote peace, and bolster people-to-people ties between the U.S. and these nations. As the continent’s youth population expands dramatically, it’s all the more important that we’re investing in the next generation of leaders. We should make YALI permanent to continue this critical support and pave the way for a brighter shared future for the nations of Africa and the U.S.,” said Senator Van Hollen.
What you need to know: New data shows California’s power grid has run on 100% clean energy for some part of the day nearly every day this year – thanks to the state’s commitment to investing in new resources.
SACRAMENTO – More than 9 out of 10 days so far this year have been powered by 100% clean energy for at least some part of the day in California. In 2025, California’s grid has run on 100% clean electricity for an average of 7 hours a day.
Data compiled by the California Energy Commission shows clean energy has powered the equivalent of 51.9 days in the state – nearly 30% of the year to date running on 100% clean electricity. That already surpasses the amount of “clean energy days” last year – and represents a 750% increase in clean energy days since 2022.
“The fourth largest economy in the world is running on more clean energy than ever before. Clean energy met our grid’s total demand for some part of the day almost every day this year – the equivalent of 51 full days powered by 100% clean electricity.
Trump and Republicans can try all they want to take us back to the days of dirty coal but the future is cheap, abundant clean energy.”
Governor Gavin Newsom
California has installed a record amount of clean energy – faster
The addition of new clean energy resources – including battery storage – to the state’s grid has helped make clean energy days a reality in California.
Earlier this year, Governor Newsom announced more than 25,000 megawatts (MW) of new resources have been added to the state’s electric grid over the past five years — an amount equivalent to roughly half of the state’s record peak demand in 2022 and in addition to existing capacity.
In 2024 alone, California added approximately 7,000 megawatts (MW) of new clean energy nameplate capacity —representing the largest single-year increase in clean energy capacity added to the grid in state history. This new figure broke the previous records set in both 2022 and 2023, marking a third consecutive year of unprecedented clean energy growth.
Since the beginning of the Newsom Administration, battery storage is up to over 15,000 megawatts – a 1,944% increase.
Press releases, Recent news
Recent news
Jul 9, 2025
News What you need to know: California is sending more resources to assist New Mexico, Oregon, and Texas in disaster response, including incident support personnel and Urban Search and Rescue teams. SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom today announced that California…
Jul 9, 2025
News Sacramento, California – Acting Governor Eleni Kounalakis today issued a proclamation declaring July 2025 as Disability Pride Month.The text of the proclamation and a copy can be found below: PROCLAMATION California joins communities around the nation in…
Jul 9, 2025
News What you need to know: Governor Newsom announced $35 million for law enforcement partners, local governments and community groups tackling impaired driving. Sacramento, California – Helping to address the dangers of driving under the influence of alcohol or…
The first two superhero movies of the year examined the morality of power and politics (Captain America: Brave New World) and mental health and personal accountability (Thunderbolts*) in thoughtful and often nuanced ways. It is rather depressing, then, that the third act of Superman is largely a prolonged CGI punch-fest that lacks any narrative or visual vigour to make it interesting.
There is a lot riding on the success of the DC Universe (DCU), now under the creative stewardship of director James Gunn and producer James Safran. After the varied fortunes of the DC Extended Universe (DCEU), this iteration of Superman marks a reboot of DC properties and is the introductory instalment of the first phase, or “chapter” as they are being called, with the subtitle Gods and Monsters.
The films also marks a shift from the “Snyderverse” – the series of interconnected films made under the oversight of director Zack Snyder – which were characterised by the darkness of both their themes and their aesthetics.
This darkness, and the attendant moral ambiguity, of the Snyderverse has been replaced by a more optimistic tone. This new Superman film is more simplistic and clear-cut, with good versus bad and a bright, comic-book design.
Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.
Anyone familiar with Gunn’s previous superhero offerings (The Guardians of the Galaxy trilogy; The Suicide Squad) will recognise much of the tone and the look. This is very much the Superman movie that Gunn wants to make. And therein lies part of the problem.
As the opening film of chapter one, this effectively sets the tone for all that is to come across the DCU. But that raises the question of how Gunn’s overall approach will work with future properties that will have (or should have) very different styles, narrative themes and concerns.
This film is deliberately not an origin story. We meet Superman (David Corenswet), bloodied and battered after having lost an off-screen fight. He’s already an established superhero in a world accustomed to them after approximately 300 years of “metahumans” – as the opening exposition dump helpfully informs us.
Superman then returns to the icy Fortress of Solitude, complete with robot staff and adorable CGI super-dog, Krypto. We are, in effect, entering the middle of the story, with Superman’s dual identity as Clark Kent already known to his girlfriend Lois Lane (Rachel Brosnahan).
The pair have a fun, palpable chemistry. In an early stand-out scene, Lois, in journalist mode, grills Clark/Superman on the finer points of superhero accountability and responsibility after he single-handedly – and without any form of legal jurisdiction – stops a war between the fictitious countries of Boravia (eastern European, evil) and Jahanipur (a south-east Asian/Middle Eastern mash-up in which the people are impoverished and entirely agency-free), just before the movie begins. Sadly, these valid and deeply relevant questions remain unexplored for the rest of the film.
The trailer for Superman.
Brosnahan is a spiky, intelligent and self-assured Lois Lane who is not given enough to do, partly because this “starting in the middle” approach robs her relationship with Clark/Superman of any real tension and complexity. But also because the film is so overstuffed that there is little room for any meaningful character development.
What we do have is incoherent plotting, clunky dialogue and exposition and too many characters who are too thinly drawn.
The gang’s back together
Corenswet is a fine Superman, commandingly heroic and believably vulnerable when required. However, there is not much opportunity for him to explore his Clark Kent alter-ego before he is in full superhero mode, thereby denying the character time to establish the humanity that is core to Superman’s personality.
Lex Luthor (Nicholas Holt), the quintessential Superman villain, is supposed to be brilliant but here is rendered more as an Elon Musk-like figure with hints of Trump. He’s a megalomaniac with a populist touch with motivations that are so unclear as to be nonsensical.
We also get members of the Justice Gang, including a horribly bewigged Nathan Fillion as Green Lantern, Hawkgirl (Isabela Merced) and Mister Terrific (Edi Gathegi).
Gathegi steals almost the entire movie with a charismatic, laid-back turn that is crying out for his own standalone entry. Mister Terrific gets the movie’s most fun set piece: a single-handed fight against multiple goons choreographed to an upbeat pop soundtrack that is straight out of the James Gunn playbook.
As is the Justice Gang’s fight against an inter dimensional giant squid, which plays out as the comedic backdrop visible through a window during a pivotal scene with Lois Lane, and in which a depressed Superman takes no part. Any moments of seriousness are immediately undercut by on the nose and often cheap jokes.
The lack of narrative focus and character development results in a story that does not give us any tangible reasons to care about these characters beyond the fact that they are already well-established cultural icons. The lack of scaffolding means that when we reach what should be the emotional turning points, there is no heft to these moments.
The phoney war between Boravia and Jahanipur also provides problematic optics. The people of Jahanipur are an anonymous mass of peasants armed only with sticks who get a single word of dialogue shared between them (“Superman!”). They are at the mercy of their warlike neighbours in Boravia, whose evil is made evident through the grotesque physicality of their leader (Zlatko Buric).
This plot device seems to be making a passing reference to both the war in Ukraine and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, without having anything of value to say about either. The situation is resolved by the arrival of the American Justice Gang (because all metahumans are exclusively based in America, apparently) and then we’re on to the next joke.
In this Superman reboot, the humanity of the character is largely lost, something we are told about rather than see. This is ironic given that truth, justice and humanity are supposed to be the guiding principles of the Superman story.
Laura Crossley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Sydney Kamlager California (37th District)
WASHINGTON, DC – Today, U.S. Representatives Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA) and Young Kim (R-CA) and U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Mike Rounds (R-SD) reintroduced the bipartisan Young African Leaders Initiative Act, legislation to make permanent the State Department’s Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI).
YALI is the United States’ signature effort to invest in the next generation of African leaders. With a median age of 19, the continent is home to the world’s youngest population. Recognizing the immense potential of this rising generation of change-makers, YALI was launched in 2010 to support young African leaders as they spur growth and prosperity, strengthen democratic governance, and enhance peace and security across sub-Saharan Africa. This legislation also reaffirms the United States’ commitment to investing in Africa’s youth, promoting initiatives to enhance leadership skills, support entrepreneurship, and strengthen U.S.-Africa people-to-people ties.
“The Young African Leaders Initiative has been a cornerstone of America’s commitment to Africa’s future since 2010, and I’m proud to support its ongoing efforts through the bipartisan, bicameral YALI Act,” said Rep. Kamlager-Dove. “Despite historic bipartisan support, the Trump Administration has proposed a 40% cut to YALI’s budget, jeopardizing a program that has proven effective in strengthening democracy, building communities, and fostering people-to-people ties. With 70% of Sub-Saharan Africa under 30, now’s the time to invest in—not retreat from—emerging leaders who will play vital roles in solving global challenges. We must pass the YALI Act to protect this crucial program and reaffirm the United States as a strong partner in Africa’s future.”
“People-to-people diplomacy is how we build relationships and ensure the United States is the partner of choice for allies and partners,” said Rep. Kim. “The State Department’s Young African Leaders Initiative has proven to strengthen democracy, prosperity, and peace in the region while supporting young Africans making a difference in their communities. I thank Rep. Kamlager-Dove for working with me on this bill.”
“Over the last 15 years, YALI has helped strengthen our relationships with nations across Africa – fostering partnerships that expand opportunity, promote peace, and bolster people-to-people ties between the U.S. and these nations. As the continent’s youth population expands dramatically, it’s all the more important that we’re investing in the next generation of leaders. We should make YALI permanent to continue this critical support and pave the way for a brighter shared future for the nations of Africa and the U.S.,” said Senator Van Hollen.
“Continued U.S. engagement in African nations is essential to building strategic partnerships, while also limiting the influence of our near-peer adversaries in the region,” said Senator Rounds.“The Young African Leaders Initiative was created in 2010 to empower young African leaders to gain the skills and education for the advancement of democratic governance and stability across the continent. Our legislation would make this program permanent and continue its role in advancing democracy and economic development in Africa.”
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Sydney Kamlager California (37th District)
WASHINGTON, DC — Today, Congresswoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove (CA-37) shared the following statement to social media after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc.:
“The Trump Administration knows full-well that its Executive Order nullifying birthright citizenship violates the 14th Amendment.
“But instead of addressing this blatantly unconstitutional action, SCOTUS’ conservative supermajority chose to suck up to Trump by limiting nationwide injunctions—in this case, allowing the Trump Administration to keep pursuing its assault on birthright citizenship.
“The Constitution is clear: everyone born in the U.S. is a U.S. citizen. This fight isn’t over. I will continue to stand up for our immigrant communities and the Constitution.”
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Toledo, OH — Today,Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (OH-09) announced two major research awards totaling $650,000 for the University of Toledo from the National Science Foundation (NSF). These investments are a testament to Northwest Ohio’s scientific leadership and a clear reminder of the critical role federal research funding plays in the future of American innovation, education, and security.
“The University of Toledo continues to shine as a center of scientific excellence and innovation,” said Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (OH-09). “These awards are a powerful example of how federal research funding drives discovery, creates jobs, and gives students real opportunities here in Northwest Ohio. But we must be clear: if the Trump Administration fails to protect funding for science and innovation, we not only stall progress — we risk losing the talent, technology, and competitiveness that keep the innovative engine of our nation alive.”
The two NSF awards include:
$149,999 for research into fatigue-resistant aerospace-grade aluminum nanocomposites, led by Dr. Meysam Haghshenas. This work aims to improve safety and durability in critical sectors like aviation, space, and transportation.
$500,000 for the development of adaptive metal origami structures, spearheaded by Dr. Ala Qattawi, which has applications in robotics, defense systems, and biomedical devices.
“This National Science Foundation project is an exciting convergence of two foundational research missions, where an equipment award from the U.S. Department of Defense provided the critical infrastructure that now empowers our fundamental investigations supported by the National Science Foundation,” said Dr. Meysam Haghshenas, an associate professor in the Department of Mechanical, Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering and the director of UToledo’s Failure, Fracture and Fatigue Laboratory. “It is a perfect example of how strategic investment in cutting-edge instrumentation can bridge agencies and catalyze fundamental scientific discovery at the core of national interest.”
“I’m honored and excited to receive the National Science Foundation’s CAREER Award,” said Dr. Ala Qattawi, an associate professor in the Department of Mechanical, Industrial, and Manufacturing Engineering. “This award will help propel our research into foldable metal structures inspired by origami by using advanced 3D printing and smart materials that respond to heat and other triggers. These adaptable geometries hold great promise for applications in aerospace, robotics and biomedical devices. Federal support through the NSF, along with growing interest from industry partners, is helping us build critical momentum in this area along with the ability to train and prepare future workforce in advanced materials manufacturing. I’m grateful for the opportunity to push the boundaries of what’s possible and to provide UToledo students with more exposure and experience in basic research and additive manufacturing.”
Combined, these projects are projected to support dozens of undergraduate and graduate students, postdoctoral researchers, and lab technicians over the next several years. The research also bolsters workforce development by integrating student-led research into university coursework, and by providing outreach opportunities in local K–12 classrooms — exposing young learners to high-tech, hands-on science before they reach college.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Wesley Hunt (Texas 38th District)
July 7th, 2025
Contact: James Kyrkanides, Chief of Staff
Washington, D.C. – Today, Congressman Wesley Hunt released a statement commending the Department of the Interior for implementing his top policy priority in the One Big Beautiful Bill, which President Trump signed into law on Friday, July 4th.
“Since the day I entered Congress, unleashing American energy and championing our vital oil and gas sector has been a top priority. I’m proud that, under President Trump’s leadership, our commingling policy is now law through the One Big Beautiful Bill,”said Congressman Hunt.
“This is about common sense and catching up with today’s technology,”said Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum. “The current rules were written for a different era. These updates will help us manage public resources more efficiently, support responsible energy production, and make sure taxpayers and tribes get every dollar they’re owed.”
Production Commingling Background Information:
Congressman Hunt’scommingling languagewas included in Title V, Section 50101, Subsection (q) in the One Big Beautiful Bill. This language will allow all exploration and production companies operating on federal lands to combine their facilities (e.g., storage containers, oil/gas sales pipelines) from different leases into one set of facilities.
The implementation of this language by the DOI will:
Significantly decrease the cost to drill a well, thereby reducing energy prices for Americans.
Substantially minimize the surface impact of drilling a well, benefiting the environment.
Drastically improve emissions controls in the oil patch.
Source: United States Senator for Vermont – Bernie Sanders
WASHINGTON, July 10 — Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and Rep. Becca Balint (Vt.-AL) today sent a letter to Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer urging her to release more than $300 million in congressionally-appropriated funding for the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) currently held up by the Trump administration.
“Since 1965, SCSEP has provided low-income, older adults with job-training and essential skills so they can continue contributing to their communities. As a result, seniors not only engage in community service, but also strengthen their own financial stability and improve their quality of life,” wrote Sanders, Welch and Balint.
Congress appropriated $405 million in SCSEP funding for 75 state and national grantees, including for Associates for Training and Development based in Vermont. Together, these organizations help tens of thousands of low-income seniors put food on the table, heat and cool their homes and pay for their medications. However, the Labor Department has yet to release the vast majority of this year’s funding as required by law, threatening the ability of many of these organizations to keep seniors employed and already leading to job cuts.
“In our state of Vermont, over 50 seniors have been furloughed as a result of your decision to withhold funds. Not only are these seniors losing wages needed to pay their bills, but losing valuable training time that is impeding their ability to re-enter the workforce,” concluded the Vermont delegation. “Your department has a legal and moral obligation to release this funding and ensure no further harm is done to SCSEP grantees and the seniors they serve. We urge you to immediately release SCSEP funds to the national grantees across the country.”
Source: United States Senator Peter Welch (D-Vermont)
Welch’s Disaster AID Act filed on the anniversaries of Vermont’s July 2023 and July 2024 floods
Legislation would cut red tape and improve processes for FEMA’s Public Assistance and long-term recovery efforts
WASHINGTON, D.C.—U.S. Senator Peter Welch (D-Vt.) today introduced the Disaster Assistance Improvement and Decentralization (AID) Act, new legislation to improve the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Senator Welch filed the Disaster AID Act on the anniversary of the July 2023 and July 2024 floods in Vermont. The bill was inspired and shaped by the disaster recovery experiences of communities around the you saw a lot of agonized republicans they all voted for it but a lot of across Vermont.
Senator Welch’s bill will cut red tape at FEMA and empower state and local governments to access recovery assistance when it is needed. The bill will support hazard mitigation efforts, make the delivery of disaster aid more efficient and effective, provide technical assistance to small towns and expedite funding for disaster response.
“FEMA does lifesaving and important work after a disaster, but we need to find a way to fix the agency so it works better to help communities recover in the weeks, months, and years after a disaster. Vermont saw it firsthand: there’s too much red tape, and the long-term recovery process is inefficient,” said Senator Welch when he unveiled the bill. “My commonsense bill is inspired by the experiences of flood-impacted Vermont communities that had to wait too long—and jump through far too many hoops—to get the federal support needed to build back after a disaster.”
Last week, Senator Welch visited with Vermonters and community leaders impacted by the July 2023 and July 2024 floods across Vermont—including in Killington, Ludlow, Weston, Barre and Montpelier.
Over the course of consecutive summers in July 2023 and July 2024, Vermont experienced severe storms which caused catastrophic flooding, washouts, and mudslides. Homes, farms, businesses, and public infrastructure were destroyed, and communities were left reeling. In the immediate aftermath of the destruction, FEMA provided lifesaving on-the-ground assistance, working with local organizations and the state. In the long-term, however, FEMA’s response has not met the needs of communities.
Many of Vermont’s towns operate with limited resources and lack the administrative capacity needed to navigate the complex web of federal disaster assistance—especially in the aftermath of a brutal flood. FEMA has failed to provide necessary support and burdensome FEMA policies have slowed or blocked communities from accessing federal funds. Towns were not empowered to capitalize on their understanding of conditions on the ground. To make matters worse, under the Trump Administration, communities must now contend with uncertain federal funding streams, including for reimbursement of projects already approved and under way.
Senator Welch’s Disaster AID Act will cut red tape and ease cumbersome requirements that restrict state and local governments from tailoring solutions to local circumstances. The bill will also provide technical and financial resources for small towns and communities that lack administrative capacity, and restrain future administrations from arbitrarily turning off the funding spigot for communities in the midst of disaster recovery.
The Disaster AID Act is supported by leaders across Vermont, including Vermont Governor Phil Scott; Kristin Atwood, Barton Town Clerk; Ted Brady, Executive Director of the Vermont League of Cities and Towns; Michele Braun, Executive Director of the Friends of the Winooski River; Chris Campany, Executive Director of the Windham Regional Commission, and Chair of the VAPDA Emergency Management Committee; Jon Copans, Executive Director, Montpelier Commission for Recovery and Resilience; Ben Doyle, Executive Director of the Preservation Trust of Vermont; Peter Gregory, Executive Director of the Two Rivers-Ottauquechee Regional Commission (TRORC); Thom Lauzon, Mayor of Barre City; Kristen Leahy, Zoning and Floodplain Administrator and Resilience & Adaption Coordinator for Hardwick; Jim Linville, Selectboard Vice Chair and Recovery Director of Weston; Julie Moore, Secretary of the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources; Stephanie Smith, Vermont Hazard Mitigation Officer; Justin Smith, Municipal Administrator for the Town of Lyndon; and Beverley Wemple, Director of the University of Vermont’s Water Resources Institute.
“After facing devastating floods over the last two summers, Vermonters have seen firsthand, the value of federal support and assistance from FEMA workers. However, we’ve also experienced gaps between response and recovery, and we need to make changes that better support responders on the ground and those trying to rebuild. I appreciate Senator Welch taking on the challenge to create an expedited, more efficient, and flexible emergency management system,” said Governor Phil Scott.
“The Town of Barton, Vermont, has been hit two years in a row on the same date by disastrous flooding. The unknowns of funding around that have us delaying needed normal maintenance until FEMA funds are received to cover flooding repairs, and slowing down the repairs to make sure those funds flow in before the next project is underway. This unknown funding element has the Town worrying as we look to the future instead of confident FEMA will have our backs. Our ability to prepare for and mitigate the next storm is significantly impacted by our unwillingness to overextend ourselves in case FEMA funding does not come through. This puts us at greater risk of damage if another storm were to come before we have completed recovery from the prior two,” said Kristin Atwood, Barton Town Clerk.
“Vermont municipalities can’t prepare for or recover from a disaster without the federal government’s help. Nearly every municipal leader impacted by recent flooding in Vermont has told me that FEMA has been difficult to work with. I’m pleased to see Senator Welch proposing reforms to address these concerns. The ballooning federal bureaucracy, rotating FEMA staff, inconsistent funding, and requirement to take on debt have combined to make recovering from the flooding here in Vermont another disaster. The Disaster AID Act addresses these challenges by providing technical assistance to municipalities before a disaster hits, providing disaster aid immediately to reduce the debt towns need to take on, and cutting down on the red tape communities need to navigate to access federal assistance,” said Ted Brady, Executive Director of the Vermont League of Cities and Towns.
“Having helped dozens of towns to recover from devastating floods, we know firsthand that FEMA’s procedures are a barrier to accessing critical funds. Friends of the Winooski River appreciates Senator Welch’s efforts to improve access to the resources our communities desperately need for flood recovery and future health and safety,” said Michele Braun, Executive Director of the Friends of the Winooski River.
“FEMA provides critical resources and structure for disaster preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery, but it needs reform to make it work better for people and their communities. I don’t think there’s disagreement there, including among FEMA rank and file personnel. Congress needs to act. What is needed, and what this bill would do, is build state and local capacity to prepare, mitigate, respond, and recover while making more efficient and effective use of federal resources,” said Chris Campany, Executive Director of the Windham Regional Commission, and Chair of the Vermont Association of Planning and Development Agencies (VAPDA) Emergency Management Committee.
“While it is far from perfect, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has repeatedly proven to be a critical part of disaster response here in Central Vermont. I commend Senator Peter Welch for his efforts to improve FEMA’s process and provide support to small municipalities as we struggle to navigate the bureaucracy to help our communities recover. The Disaster Assistance and Decentralization Act takes important steps to reform and strengthen federal disaster response so that cities and towns across the country can recover more quickly and make critical investments in future resilience,” said Jon Copans, Executive Director, Montpelier Commission for Recovery and Resilience.
“One thing that became clear very quickly after the 2023 flood is that if you’ve seen one small town dealing with a disaster, you’ve seen one small town dealing with a disaster. The impacts on homes, businesses, and infrastructure, were all significant, but they were different depending on the community—and the capacity of municipalities to respond and support residents varied widely. While FEMA representatives were on the ground and well-intentioned, the truth is they were often more prepared to tell people what they couldn’t do because of regulations than to help them rebuild their lives. We need the federal government to meet people where they are—regardless of the size of the community or the scale of the disaster—and provide tailored technical assistance, financial support, and, most importantly, hope.” said Ben Doyle, Executive Director of the Preservation Trust of Vermont.
“We are very appreciative of Senator Welch’s proposal to reform FEMA and how it interacts with Vermonters. His proposal explicitly enables regional planning commissions to work as agents of municipalities when interacting with FEMA. We were pleased to offer this idea and even more pleased to help our communities,” said Peter Gregory, Executive Director of the Two Rivers-Ottauquechee Regional Commission (TRORC).
“The City of Barre was hit hard by the 2023 and 2024 floods, and we are grateful to the many people who have and continue to help us rebuild better and stronger. While we’ve made significant progress, there’s much more work to be done. We are grateful to Senator Welch for proposing a commonsense solution that would provide technical assistance, simplified procedures and support for long-term resiliency to municipalities that are in need. We need to fix FEMA, not kill it,” said Thom Lauzon, Mayor of Barre City.
“Hardwick has faced devastating impacts from back-to-back floods in 2023 and 2024, with repeated damage to homes, businesses, and public infrastructure along the Lamoille River. One example is 41 Brush Street, a residential property now hanging precariously over the riverbank due to severe erosion. The home is slated for a FEMA-funded buyout, and additional stabilization is needed to protect surrounding properties. FEMA’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program is essential for communities like ours, not only for rebuilding but for implementing long-term solutions that reduce future risk. Without sustained and accessible funding, rural towns will be left in a cycle of damage and short-term fixes. Senator Welch’s Disaster AID Act provides a path toward more timely and effective recovery, especially for Vermont’s hardest-hit towns,” said Kristen Leahy, Zoning and Floodplain Administrator and Resilience & Adaption Coordinator for Hardwick.
“The support for small towns in Senator Welch’s Disaster AID Act is crucial in enabling towns in Vermont and nationwide to obtain the expert assistance they require in responding to disasters, as well as identifying, designing and funding mitigation projects. Five months after the July 2023 flood in Weston, we applied for and received an MTAP grant that allowed us to retain professional help to guide us through the grant maze and get a head start on modeling the flooding and designing mitigation projects. Our hope is that with passage of the Disaster AID Act, this sort of assistance will be available soon after the next (inevitable) disaster event so our town fathers and mothers aren’t wringing their hands trying to figure out what to do, how to do it and how to pay for it,” said Jim Linville, Selectboard Vice Chair and Recovery Director of Weston.
“Vermont has experienced multiple federally-declared disasters since 2023 which laid bare Vermont municipalities’ need for additional technical assistance,” said ANR Secretary Julie Moore. “The Disaster Assistance Improvement and Decentralization Act would help fill this critical need. In particular, we are grateful to Sen. Welch for his continued efforts to simplify procedures for complex relocation projects for critical facilities, such as the wastewater treatment facilities in Johnson, Hardwick and Ludlow – all of which have experienced repeated flood damage.”
“The BRIC program greatly improved Vermont’s ability to do the planning and scoping work necessary in order to develop important flood reduction projects in our communities,” said Stephanie Smith, Vermont Hazard Mitigation Section Chief. “This legislation represents a fundamental shift in the way we administer hazard mitigation funding that would allow us to successfully and efficiently utilize federal resources to reduce future flood risk in Vermont.”
“Like many rural towns in Vermont, Lyndon is not blessed with a large staff to handle the volume of paperwork required to receive funding from FEMA when a disaster occurs. Many towns in rural Vermont are not even fortunate enough to have a Municipal Administrator or Manager in place to handle the paper trail and are forced to rely solely on volunteers in their community. We understand and support the necessity of ensuring that funds are being properly spent and accounted for. However, there is a strong need to create a system where communities have one point of contact throughout the entirety of a declared disaster. Small Vermont communities such as ours, do not have the resources or the personnel work hours to start and re-start the process of disaster re-imbursement from scratch because a FEMA PDMG has reached their 50-week time limit and must move on,” said Justin Smith, Municipal Administrator for the Town of Lyndon. “Taking away a single employee from their normal day to day responsibilities to devote to disaster recovery severely understaffs any rural community, and extending this length of time attempting to get a new PDMG or multiple PDMGs up to speed is time and money that rural communities don’t have the luxury of wasting.”
“The Disaster Assistance Improvement and Decentralization (AID) Act will provide critical assistance to communities impacted by flooding and other disasters. The bill’s provisions will get assistance into the hands of those who need it more rapidly following disasters. In Vermont and communities across the country, investments in hazard mitigation projects enabled by the Act, like reconnecting rivers to floodplains that store and dissipate the energy of floodwaters, will make communities safer and ensure we are prepared for the future in a way that also supports healthy ecosystems,” said Beverley Wemple, Director of the University of Vermont’s Water Resources Institute. “Thank you, Senator Welch, for introducing this important piece of legislation that will support all Americans in meeting the challenges of future natural disasters.”
• • •
Senator Welch has been outspoken in opposing any attempt by the Trump Administration to dismantle FEMA. Earlier this year, Senator Welch published a guest essay in The New York Times entitled: “Don’t Kill FEMA. Fix It.” In his piece, Senator Welch outlined why President Trump’s actions to undermine and potentially dissolve FEMA are misguided—but also committed to working on good faith efforts to reform the agency’s long-term recovery process.
In December 2024, Senator Welch helped shape and pass a comprehensive disaster aid package, which delivered more than $100.4 billion of relief for states like Vermont recovering from climate disasters. The disaster aid package contained many of Senator Welch’s top priorities for the State: dedicated help for Vermont’s flood-impacted farmers, flexible spending through the Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Relief fund, money for FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund, and support for businesses, among many other important provisions.
Learn more about the Disaster AID Act.
Read a section-by-section summary of the Disaster AID Act.
Read the bill text of the Disaster AID Act.
Statement of the Coalition of the Willing meeting by the leaders of the United Kingdom, France, and Ukraine: 10 July 2025
Today the leaders of member states and international organisations of the Coalition of the Willing gathered in London, Rome and virtually to discuss strengthening support to Ukraine and further pressure on Russia.
Today the leaders of member states and international organisations of the Coalition of the Willing gathered in London, Rome and virtually to discuss strengthening support to Ukraine and further pressure on Russia. They welcomed the participation of United States Special Presidential Envoy, General Keith Kellogg, and Senators Graham and Blumenthal – the first time representatives of the United States have joined in the Coalition of the Willing meeting.
The leaders congratulated Prime Minister Meloni of Italy on hosting the Ukraine Recovery Conference, from where President Zelenskyy and fellow leaders joined the meeting.
The Leaders reiterated that President Putin’s unprovoked and illegal invasion of Ukraine is a flagrant violation of the UN Charter and a threat to their security interests. They underlined their unwavering commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity.
They commended President Zelenskyy’s sincere support for US-led efforts to reach peace. Four months have passed since Ukraine agreed to a full, unconditional ceasefire. In this time, Russia has intensified attacks on Ukraine’s civilian population, killing more than 700 and injuring over 3,500 in the most intense air strikes of the invasion to date. The Leaders called on Russia to end attacks against civilians, and to commit to a full and unconditional ceasefire in order to negotiate a just and lasting settlement.
The Leaders supported further peace talks between Ukraine and Russia, praising efforts by President Trump on establishing a peace process backed by the United States and other close partners. This should make progress towards a meeting of leaders.
Leaders also agreed to step up action against Russia’s war economy. They agreed to develop further restrictive measures, in coordination with all relevant actors, against Russia’s energy and financial sectors, including Russian oil and gas exports, the ‘shadow fleet’, and third country supply to Russia’s war machine.
The Leaders reiterated that strong Ukrainian armed forces are the primary guarantee of the country’s sovereignty and security. They agreed that, while Russia’s aggression continues, this group would prioritise making sure that Ukraine gets the military and financial support it needs to defend itself in the fight now. Furthermore, they reaffirmed agreement to provide at least €40bn in military support to Ukraine in 2025 to bolster the Security and Defense Forces of Ukraine – matching the commitment made by the NATO Alliance in 2024. They agreed to work through the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine (NSATU) and the Capability Coalitions to accelerate support for Ukraine’s future forces.
A primary priority for support is the strengthening of Ukraine’s integrated air-defence capabilities. Leaders also agreed on further support to deter Russian massive drone attacks, and to increase financing for the production of drone interceptors.
They reiterated their commitment to Ukraine’s long-term security and to building Ukraine’s ability to deter and defend against future armed attack by Russia. They welcomed the development of mature operational plans to deploy a reassurance force – the ‘Multinational Force Ukraine’ – once hostilities have ceased, and to help secure Ukraine’s skies and seas and regenerate Ukraine’s armed forces. They welcomed the establishment of a UK/French led operational headquarters to support planning activity, the commitments made by partners to contribute to the force, as well as Ukraine’s readiness to issue an invitation to the force and enter into formal agreements with participating countries where necessary.
Leaders also underlined the importance of ensuring fiscal and economic support for Ukraine. They agreed to draw up a collective plan to support Ukrainian public finances in 2026. They also recognised that free and safe navigation in the Black Sea will strengthen Ukraine’s economy and restore food security, and reiterated their commitment to support demining efforts in the Black Sea. The Leaders also agreed to continue to explore all lawful routes to ensure that Russia pays for the damage that it has done to Ukraine, including looking at further options for the use of revenues stemming from Russian immobilised sovereign assets.
Source: United States Senator Ted Budd (R-North Carolina)
Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senator Ted Budd (R-N.C.) released the following statement after the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) opened applications for natural disaster recovery assistance for farmers. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins announced that agricultural producers who suffered eligible crop losses due to natural disasters in 2023 and 2024 can now apply for $16 billion in assistance through the Supplemental Disaster Relief Program (SDRP).
“Our farmers are the lifeblood of our nation, sustaining our communities and our economy. When severe weather events, like Hurricane Helene, and drought struck North Carolina last year, it devastated our crops and shattered countless livelihoods. Unfortunately, this tragic pattern repeats itself whenever major natural disasters strike. Without swift disaster relief, agricultural producers face the stark reality of downsizing or closing their operations altogether. This is why I am deeply grateful to the Trump administration for ensuring that critical aid reaches our farmers, in North Carolina and across the country, helping them recover and continue feeding America,” said Senator Budd.
BACKGROUND
In March, Senator Budd led a bipartisan, bicameral letter to the USDA urging the department to expedite the rulemaking process on administering disaster relief aid for farmers, which was provided by Congress in December 2024. A lack of clarity in the federal government’s rulemaking process for natural disaster programs threatened the ability of farmers to fully utilize the allocated aid. In the letter, Senator Budd called on the Trump administration to ensure a fair and efficient disbursement of federal dollars for rural Americans to access emergency funding.
In May, Senator Budd received news that his effort was successful when the USDA released a plan to get critical aid to agricultural producers impacted by natural disasters.
***
Applications for Supplemental Disaster Assistance for agricultural producers open today, July 10, 2025.
The SDRP will aid eligible producers for necessary expenses due to losses of revenue, quality, or production of crops due to weather-related events in 2023 and 2024. USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) is delivering SDRP assistance in two stages. Producers can receive payments in both stages, if applicable, and for one or both years, depending on losses.
For more information, please visit:https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/programs/supplemental-disaster-relief-program-sdrp
Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –
An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
BEIJING, July 10 (Xinhua) — China has consistently opposed overly broad interpretations of national security and consistently believes that there are no winners in trade and tariff wars, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said Thursday.
Mao Ning made the statement while commenting on the fact that US President Donald Trump on Wednesday announced the introduction of a 50 percent tariff on imported copper based on national security concerns.
China’s position is very clear, the official said, adding that the abuse of tariffs is not in the interests of either side. -0-
Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth
July 09, 2025
[WASHINGTON, D.C.] – U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) grilled Donald Trump’s nominee to serve as U.S. Ambassador to Singapore, Dr. Anjani Sinha, at his confirmation hearing today, exposing how deeply unqualified he is for this critically important role. During the Senator’s line of questioning, Dr. Sinha failed to answer several basic, important questions, proving he doesn’t know the first thing about maintaining not only the U.S.-Singapore partnership, but any of our relationships with ASEAN nations. Duckworth’s remarks can be found on the Senator’s YouTube.
“Dr. Sinha is deeply unprepared to effectively lead our nation’s mission in Singapore,” said Duckworth. “This is not a role you can pick up on a whim or because you might think it will be glamorous. Singapore is too important to the United States, ASEAN and the entire Indo-Pacific region for someone as unqualified as Dr. Sinha. His lack of understanding and preparedness for this job could cause friction in our critical relationships and is disqualifying for such an important role. He will not have my vote.”
In May, Duckworth led a bipartisan Congressional Delegation to Singapore alongside U.S. Senator Pete Ricketts (R-NE) to this year’s International Institute for Strategic Studies’ Shangri-La Dialogue, which is Asia’s premier global international security and defense summit, to reaffirm the United States’ strong bipartisan commitment to our partners and allies in the Indo-Pacific region. This trip came after Duckworth led a bipartisan delegation to the Shangri-La Dialogue alongside U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan (R-AK) last year.
Duckworth is a proven leader when it comes to strengthening our relations with Indo-Pacific nations and improving security in the region—which she has done while successfully securing significant international investments in Illinois. In the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that wassigned into law, Duckworth successfully secured a modified version of her Access to Care for Overseas Military Act to improve medical readiness in the Indo-Pacific. This provision established a program to accredit foreign medical facilities to help ensure our nation’s servicemembers as well as their families have access to quality patient care throughout the Indo-Pacific region—where they often must travel long distances to receive care—both during peacetime and in the event of a conflict abroad.
mid the economic turmoil created by President Trump’s chaotic tariffs, Governor Kathy Hochul today announced a new tariff resource guide to keep New Yorkers up-to-date on programs available for business owners who have been impacted by tariffs. Additionally, the Governor announced a survey to allow business owners the opportunity to share how their businesses have been impacted by the federal government’s recently announced tariffs.
“New Yorkers and business owners all across the state have felt a sense of uncertainty when it comes to the impacts of President Trump’s callous tariffs on our imported goods,” Governor Hochul said. “No business should have to close shop due to these unfair and unwanted taxes that were imposed on states by the Trump administration. This resource guide will help provide individuals with the guidance they need to lower potential risk to their businesses and give New Yorkers a better understanding of how tariffs can impact them.”
Tariffs Impacts on the Economy and Tourism Governor Hochul has heard from small and mid-sized businesses across the state who are worried about rising costs and their future. A recent survey from the National Small Business Association found that the majority of small businesses are concerned about tariffs and one in three are very concerned. Examples include North Country manufacturer Alcoa, which took an estimated $20 million hit on imports from Canada, and North Country Golf Club which is facing declines in businesses due to the decline in tourism from Canada.
Due to the tariff trade war with Canada, New York’s number one trade partner, and the rhetoric that Canada could be the “51st state,” impacts are widespread. Visitors from Canada are avoiding the U.S. and New York State. Overall, cross-border traffic from Canada has plummeted since Trump implemented his tariff policies. The most recent data shows that there were 400,000 fewer Canadian visitors in May compared to the same period in 2024. Bridge crossings over the Ogdensburg Bridge and the Champlain crossing in May were down 30 percent during that same time period from last year. In a recent North Country Chamber of Commerce survey, 66 percent of tourism businesses report a drop in Canadian customers and one in four businesses in the region may cut staff as a result. Reservations are down at hotels, campgrounds, local marinas, golf courses and other businesses that rely on visitors from Canada.
mid the economic turmoil created by President Trump’s chaotic tariffs, Governor Kathy Hochul today announced a new tariff resource guide to keep New Yorkers up-to-date on programs available for business owners who have been impacted by tariffs. Additionally, the Governor announced a survey to allow business owners the opportunity to share how their businesses have been impacted by the federal government’s recently announced tariffs.
“New Yorkers and business owners all across the state have felt a sense of uncertainty when it comes to the impacts of President Trump’s callous tariffs on our imported goods,” Governor Hochul said. “No business should have to close shop due to these unfair and unwanted taxes that were imposed on states by the Trump administration. This resource guide will help provide individuals with the guidance they need to lower potential risk to their businesses and give New Yorkers a better understanding of how tariffs can impact them.”
Tariffs Impacts on the Economy and Tourism Governor Hochul has heard from small and mid-sized businesses across the state who are worried about rising costs and their future. A recent survey from the National Small Business Association found that the majority of small businesses are concerned about tariffs and one in three are very concerned. Examples include North Country manufacturer Alcoa, which took an estimated $20 million hit on imports from Canada, and North Country Golf Club which is facing declines in businesses due to the decline in tourism from Canada.
Due to the tariff trade war with Canada, New York’s number one trade partner, and the rhetoric that Canada could be the “51st state,” impacts are widespread. Visitors from Canada are avoiding the U.S. and New York State. Overall, cross-border traffic from Canada has plummeted since Trump implemented his tariff policies. The most recent data shows that there were 400,000 fewer Canadian visitors in May compared to the same period in 2024. Bridge crossings over the Ogdensburg Bridge and the Champlain crossing in May were down 30 percent during that same time period from last year. In a recent North Country Chamber of Commerce survey, 66 percent of tourism businesses report a drop in Canadian customers and one in four businesses in the region may cut staff as a result. Reservations are down at hotels, campgrounds, local marinas, golf courses and other businesses that rely on visitors from Canada.
Acclaimed author Michael Lewis wrote a book about the first Trump administration entitled The Fifth Risk, outlining the consequences when people who don’t understand how the government of a vast, complex and multifaceted nation works are put in charge of said government.
The bestseller was more gripping and fascinating than any work of fiction. It outlined the realities that followed Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign promises to shrink the federal bureaucracy. In it, Lewis quotes lawyer Max Stier, who he describes as the American with the greatest understanding of how his nation’s government worked. Stier offers the truism that “the basic role of governments is to keep us safe.”
You might deduce that this means those in charge during, and ahead of, emergencies should know what to do and how to do it. And, they have to want to do it. In the case of Trump term one, there was often evidence that some or all of these three elements were lacking. Evidently, planning for distant risk was not something that Trump and his team were interested in prioritising.
Fast forward to July 2025, and US headlines are filled with images of devastating flash floods in which more than 100 Texans, many of them children, lost their lives. In Kerr County, outside of San Antonio, water levels of the Guadalupe River rose to what was considered a once in a “100-year catastrophe”. Nobody saw it coming, or at least not to the extent that it did. Despite official warnings, the result was one of the worst natural disasters ever faced by the state.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
Days earlier, Trump’s “big beautiful bill” was passed in the Senate with a tight 51:50 majority. Republican Texas senator Ted Cruz was among the supporters of a bill which will cut funding for the National Weather Service (NWS) by 6.7% in 2026. These come on the back of earlier resource reductions to the NWS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA).
Within days of the Texas floods, Democrats were calling for an investigation into whether previous budget cuts might have affected capacity for flood preparedness in Kerr County.
For the bereaved, talk of culpability will hardly bring solace. And any immediate political blame game presents as unseemly in the middle of so much personal tragedy. But a New York Times article reported that “some experts say that staff shortages might have complicated forecasters’ ability to coordinate response”. Such speculative language does not offer clarity or reassurance, and even the often brash president has thus far refrained from finger pointing.
Nonetheless, uncomfortable conversations are necessary, as it is clear that slashing federal funding does not serve the nation well. Trump already had budget cutting form, as his first-term efforts to slash NOAA and related programme funding demonstrated.
In 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was also targeted for staff and funding reductions. This came along with the appointment of EPA chiefs who appeared uninterested in prioritising the climate crisis. More recently, the controversial spending cuts agency the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), headed by Elon Musk, included NOAA in its sights.
Yale University’s Center for Environmental Communication said that while there was no clear evidence that budget cuts had affected weather forecasting in the Texas case, Trump’s planned additional cuts would affect some of NOAA’s key flash flood forecast tools. This includes the Flash project, which improves accuracy, timing and specificity of warnings, such as those that occurred in Texas on July 4. It also said that the weather service had lost many of its most senior staff, which would increase the risks associated with weather-related tragedies.
Flood water in Texas rose spectacularly fast causing dozens of deaths.
Cuts and the climate
Across the board, Doge has targeted other agencies that the public rely on in a crisis, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema), where plans to reduce staffing by about 20% are currently coming into effect. With responsibility for managing natural and climate-fuelled disasters from hurricanes to floods, the agency has become busier in recent years as disasters have evolved from seasonal to perennial.
Rob Moore, the director of flooding solutions at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an influential environmental body, argued that “America’s disaster safety net is unraveling.”
There are likely to be more floods, and other nature-based catastrophes with multiple probable causes and features. While outright prevention may not always be possible, governmental risk and disaster management can help to preclude the devastation seen on July 4 in Texas.
The problem with responding to long-term risk with short-term or inadequate solutions is that one day, an existential threat could arrive for which the US will not be ready. The danger may not even be as overwhelming as a global pandemic or nuclear threat. It could be as mundane as a local river overflowing. For those who lost their loved ones in Texas, there is nothing distant about their anguish.
A country with the world’s largest economy does not have to cut federal bureaucracy corners. Wasting tax dollars is never a vote winner, but funding vital emergency services like Fema and the National Weather Service is a fundamental feature of an advanced democracy. As is investing in the technology and personnel to do all possible to predict flash floods. Trump would do well to remember this as he meets the bereaved in Kerr County.
Clodagh Harrington does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are refusing to implement a government plan to move hundreds of thousands of Palestinians into a what it calls a “humanitarian city” in Rafah on Gaza’s southern border with Egypt. Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir, chief of the IDF general staff said the plan was not part of the military’s operational plan for destroying Hamas and freeing the remaining hostages.
Army reservists have reportedly also complained that the plan amounts to a war crime. In my view as an expert in international law, they are correct. Forcibly relocating a population is prohibited, even in war. It is also a crime against humanity and could even amount, under certain circumstances, to genocide.
There is some important historical context to consider before examining the legal issues at play.
Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation in the UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.
The prosecution of crimes against humanity first took place at the Nuremberg trials of surviving senior Nazis after the second world war. By that time the idea of war crimes was clearly established – but they tended to concern what you should not do to the enemy civilian population.
The problem was that the worst atrocities of the Nazis were committed against their own people – the German Jews (and many, many others too). The idea of crimes against humanity was created to fill this gap, and was used to prosecute the surviving masterminds of the Holocaust.
Conditions for a ‘crime against humanity’
Crimes against humanity are a category that contains several separate crimes. If the right conditions are there, you might talk about “the crime against humanity of murder” or the “crime against humanity of rape”. The conditions are that the underpinning crime takes place against a backdrop of a “widespread or systematic” attack on a civilian population.
The attack does not have to include a literal armed attack: apartheid, for example, was established as a crime against humanity in 1973 in response to the policies of the South African government. It is also not necessary that there is an armed conflict for a particular crime to be a crime against humanity.
This is what the Israeli government’s plan for moving Palestinians into a “humanitarian city” would appear to amount to. If the plan stopped at leaving Gazan Palestinians in Rafah then it would be “forcible transfer”, and if they were relocated to another country it would be “deportation”.
Coercion is key to the crime of forcible transfer. It’s fanciful to think that every single Gazan civilian would want to move to Rafah in circumstances where they would be security-checked on entry and thereafter forbidden from leaving.
How could a liveable city, with all the infrastructure needed, even be created? What of the dentists, doctors, teachers, lawyers, mechanics, entrepreneurs and anyone else who was able to make an honest living? Will they really be given a place to carry out their work?
Ethnic cleansing
The term “ethnic cleansing” is sometimes used to describe what is being proposed by the Israeli government. I dislike the term, and it has no meaning in law. It became a commonly used term during the 1990s conflict in the former Yugoslavia when ethnic Serbs, and in some instances ethnic Croats, expelled hundreds of thousands of people of any other ethnicity out of the territory that they held.
For this practice, the president of the former Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milošević, and a string of Bosnian Serb and Bosnian Croat leaders were charged with crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).
Milošević died before the ICTY could deliver a verdict in his case, but many others were found guilty. The actions of the Bosnian Serb forces in the town of Srebrenica were even found by the ICTY to have been an act of genocide, because they were not just expelling non-Serbs but wiping them out: at one point in July 1995 they killed around 8,000 men and boys in just a few days.
A lot would depend on the conditions in which the Palestinians would live in the “humanitarian city”. If they were deprived of sufficient food and medical supplies in a way that could only be seen as intended to lead to their deaths, then that too could be held to qualify as an act of genocide.
Justice and accountability
It is clear to me that the forced relocation of Gazans to a “humanitarian city” would violate international law. What is not so clear cut is how to hold its instigators to account.
There are already arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his former defence minister, Yoav Gallant. But there is no international police force and so the ICC relies on participating states to arrest suspects on its behalf. Hungary welcomed Netanyahu in April this year, while announcing it would withdraw from the ICC.
South Africa has also sought to hold the state of Israel to account at the International Court of Justice, alleging the crime of genocide. The court has yet to rule, saying only that it is plausible that acts of genocide might occur in Gaza.
Since Hamas launched its vicious attack on Isreal on the October 7 2023, there has been constant violence and massive loss of life in the region. However, the proposed “humanitarian city” is not, in my view, a lawful route to peace and stability. As for anyone actually facing justice for the many atrocities that we have seen, an international consensus in favour simply doesn’t exist. And, in the current climate, there’s little sign that it will exist any time soon.
James Sweeney does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Dan Newhouse (4th District of Washington)
Headline: WHAT THEY ARE SAYING: Stakeholder Support for the Big, Beautiful Bill Act
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Last week, President Trump signed H.R. 1, the Big, Beautiful Bill Act, into law. This legislation delivers tax relief for working families and small businesses, protects nuclear energy investments, and strengthens the agriculture industry.
Here’s what they are saying about the Big, Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1):
Michelle Hennings, Executive Director, Washington Association of Wheat Growers, said,“We want to recognize Congressman Newhouse’s efforts to make sure our growers have the support they need to continue supplying the nation and the world with top quality wheat. The increase in the wheat reference price will more closely match the actual cost of production, giving much-needed support to growers who are struggling to make a profit when prices are low. We are also appreciative of the Congressman’s work to protect crop insurance, making it more affordable for farmers to adequately cover their crops in the face of drought or other natural disasters.”
Bob Schuetz, CEO, Energy Northwest, said,“I am pleased that Congress acknowledges the key role of nuclear power for America’s energy future. While policymaking involves hard choices, Representative Newhouse has consistently championed the U.S. as a leader in advanced nuclear technology. I am excited about actively pursuing the expansion of carbon-free and reliable electricity, marking the next chapter for nuclear energy in America.”
Former Congressman Rodney Davis, Head of Government Affairs, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said, “The One Big Beautiful Bill not only prevented the largest tax increase on the American people in history, it made permanent critical pro-growth provisions that will enable businesses of all sizes, especially small businesses, to grow and thrive. This will strengthen America’s economy and result in greater economic prosperity for all. We thank Congressman Newhouse for his leadership and for supporting this crucial legislation.”
David Reeploeg, Vice President for Federal Programs, TRIDEC, said, “Congressman Newhouse worked incredibly hard to prevent nuclear energy tax credits from being removed from H.R. 1. Retaining these tax credits will help our existing nuclear energy facilities while also supporting advanced nuclear development, which is an area where we see huge opportunities for the Tri-Cities. Not only do the power plants create direct jobs, they also provide the baseload energy needed to attract industry and create even more family wage jobs. We sincerely appreciate Congressman Newhouse’s understanding of how important these tax credits, and nuclear energy, are for his district.”
Ted Tschirky, 2025 President, National Potato Council, and grower from Pasco, said, “We give great credit to Congressman Newhouse and the Chairmen of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees for taking the opportunity to deliver on key priorities for the specialty crop industry. The tax certainty provided by the bill, coupled with the historic enhancements in essential Farm Bill programs serving specialty crops will significantly improve our competitiveness against foreign competition well into the future.”
Clay Sell, CEO, X-energy, said, “For next-generation advanced nuclear companies, tax credits are more than just financial incentives—they’re a catalyst for market entry. For early movers, these credits significantly reduce capital risk, unlock private investment, and enable us to compete on a level footing with other energy technologies. Without them, commercialization slows and investor confidence erodes. With them, we’re positioned to scale faster and deliver reliable, always-on abundant power to the market.”
Bill Lampson, Chairman and CEO, Lampson International LLC, said,“Congressman Dan Newhouse’s support of the Big Beautiful Bill was essential for all Americans to avoid the Largest Tax Hike in history, which would have crippled future investments of all types. In our case, we have watched the construction industry struggle with the high cost of overly burdensome regulations, costly and lengthy permitting process and high taxes of all types. The Big Beautiful Bill will allow the construction industry to flourish and create real jobs for many that would have otherwise gone without opportunity. We are so thankful to have a Congressman who truly cares about the ability of his constituents to make a decent living and care for their families.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Rep. Dan Newhouse (WA-04) released the following statement after the Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation announced the withdrawal of the Notice of Intent to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Columbia River Systems Operations.
“This decision is in line with what we have known for years; we can benefit from the Lower Snake River dams while working to improve salmon populations,”said Rep. Newhouse.
Newhousecontinues, “The 2020 EIS reflects the scientific evidence, community input, and stakeholder engagement that should be at the center of these discussions. Unfortunately, the Biden administration disregarded these key parts of the process. I am glad to see this administration’s Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation reverse course and rescind the plan for a supplemental EIS targeting our dams.”
Background:
In September 2020, the “Columbia River System Operations Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision” for the Columbia River System Operation Environmental Impact Statement (CRSO EIS) published by the co-lead agencies, found that the Lower Snake River Dams should not be breached. Instead, it found that efforts should be focused on improving and maintaining hydropower assets while working to improve salmon passage and conditions.
Subsequently, in December of 2023, the Biden Administration announced a 10-year stay in the CRSO mediation, alongside the new Resilient Columbia Basin Initiative (RCBI), an agreement that provides taxpayer dollars for wild fish restoration in the Columbia Basin. The RCBI includes U.S. government commitments that are detrimental to the operations of the CRSO and include a number of initiatives designed to weaken the operation of the Lower Snake River Dams and lead to their eventual breach. One of these commitments included a review of existing environmental compliance documents and initiating any supplemental compliance documents, which the previous administration deemed necessary when it issued a notice of intent (NOI) to supplement the 2020 EIS. This all occurred without the input of key regional stakeholders and was justified through unscientific studies.
On June 12, 2025, President Trump signed a Memorandum revoking the Biden Administration’s “Restoring Healthy and Abundant Salmon, Steelhead, and Other Native Fish Populations in the Columbia River Basin” Memorandum.
The Memorandum directs the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works to withdraw from agreements stemming from Biden’s misguided executive action, including the December 14, 2023, Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) filed in connection with related litigation.
Rescinding the NOI for a Supplemental EIS is the latest step in reversing the Biden administration’s executive actions targeting the Lower Snake River dams.
It’s hard work soaking up sunlight to generate clean electricity. After about 25 to 30 years, solar panels wear out. Over the years, heating and cooling cycles stress the materials. Small cracks develop, precipitation corrodes the frame and layers of materials can start to peel apart.
As an electrical engineer who has studied many aspects of renewable energy, recycling solar panels seems like a smart idea, but it’s complicated. Built to withstand years of wind and weather, solar panels are designed for strength and are not easy to break down.
All of these solar panels will need to be disposed of one day – perhaps by being recycled. David McNew/Getty Images
The cost conundrum
Sending a solar panel to a landfill costs between US$1 and $5 in the U.S. But recycling it can cost three to four times as much, around $18. And the valuable materials inside solar panels, such as silver and copper, are in small amounts, so they’re worth about $10 to $12 – which makes recycling a money-losing prospect. Improvements in the recycling process may change the economics.
But for now, it’s even hard to reclaim the glass in solar panels. Many layers are glued together and need to be separated before they can be melted down for reuse. And if the separation is not precise enough, the glass that is recovered won’t be of high enough quality to use in making other solar panels or windows. It will be suitable only for lower-quality uses such as fill material in construction projects.
Other panels, usually older ones, may contain small amounts of toxic metals such as lead or cadmium. It can be difficult to tell whether toxic materials are present, though. Even experts have trouble, in part because current tests, such as the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure, can give inaccurate results. Therefore, many companies that own large numbers of solar panels just assume their panels are hazardous waste, which increases costs for both disposal and recycling. Clearer labels would help people know what a solar panel contains and how to handle it.
If someone wants to recycle a solar panel, and is willing to bear the cost, there aren’t many places in the U.S. that are willing to do it and are equipped to be safe about it.
Future solar panels could also be designed for easier recycling, using different construction methods and materials, and improved processing systems.
Making panels last longer – perhaps as long as 50 years – using more durable materials, weather-resistant components, real-time monitoring of panel performance and predictive maintenance to replace parts before they wear out would reduce waste significantly.
Building solar panels that are more easily disassembled into separate components made of different materials could also speed recycling. Components that fit together like Lego bricks – instead of using glue – or dissolvable sealants and adhesives could be parts of these designs.
Improved recycling methods could also help. Right now, panels are often simply ground up, mixing all of their components’ materials together and requiring a complicated process to separate them out again for reuse. More advanced approaches can extract individual materials with high purity. For example, a process called salt etching can recover over 99% of silver and 98% of silicon, at purity levels that are appropriate for high-end reuse, potentially even in new solar panels, without using toxic acids. That method can also recover significant quantities of copper and lead for use in new products.
Crushing solar panels can make different materials easier to recover from various components. AP Photo/Gregory Bull
A shared journey
Increasing the practice of recycling solar panels has more than just environmental benefits.
Over the long term, recovering and reusing valuable materials may prove more cost-effective than continually buying new raw materials on the open market. That could lower costs for future solar panel installations. If they are fully reused, the value of these recoverable materials could reach over $15 billion globally by 2050.
In addition, recycling panels and components reduces American reliance on materials imported from overseas, making solar power projects less vulnerable to global disruptions.
Recycling also keeps toxic materials out of landfills. That can help ensure a shift to clean energy doesn’t create new or bigger environmental problems. Also, recycling solar panels emits far less carbon dioxide than manufacturing panels from raw materials.
There are already some efforts underway to boost solar panel recycling. The Solar Energy Industries Association trade group is working to collect and share information about companies that recycle solar panels.
Governments can provide tax breaks or other financial incentives for using recycled materials, or ban disposing of solar panels in landfills. California, Washington, New Jersey and North Carolina have enacted laws or are studying ways to manage solar panel waste, with some even requiring recycling or reuse.
These efforts are important steps toward addressing the growing need for solar panel recycling and promoting a more sustainable solar industry.
Anurag Srivastava receives funding from the US Department of Energy and National Science Foundation to work on renewable energy integration into the grid. He is an IEEE Fellow and member of the IEEE Power and Energy Society and CIGRE working groups.
Russia’s shameful record-breaking attacks on Ukrainian civilians and use of chemical weapons on the front line in Ukraine are a disgrace: UK statement to the OSCE
Ambassador Holland condemns Russia’s latest aerial bombardment of Ukrainian cities, which have killed civilians and damaged civilian infrastructure, and highlights the UK’s recent sanctions package in response to Russia’s use of chemical weapons in Ukraine.
Thank you, Mr Chair. Last week in this Council we said that Russia had launched its biggest aerial attacks of the war so far. One day later, it was already out of date. Last Friday, on 4 July, Russia broke its record again, launching overnight 539 drones and 11 missiles at Ukraine. Apartments, businesses, a school, a medical facility and other civilian infrastructure were damaged. A thick smoke cloud hung over central Kyiv, prompting health warnings. And, overnight on Tuesday, 8 July, Russia exceeded that again, launching 728 drones and 13 missiles at Lutsk and other Ukrainian cities. This was the largest such attack in the war to date. Russia shows no sign of letting up these aerial assaults. The barrage and destruction continue.
So far in 2025, Russia has launched over 20,000 drones at Ukraine. That’s around 3,500 per month. This is more than 3.5x the average in 2024. Russia has launched the nine largest daily air attacks of the war in the past six weeks.
Mr Chair, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights recently published its periodic report on the human rights situation in Ukraine. It stated: “Our findings strongly suggest a failure to distinguish between civilian and military targets, and to take all feasible precautions to verify the military nature of those targets – or worse, an intentional decision not to.”
These aerial attacks are not the actions of a government that is serious about peace. President Putin has demonstrated that amply in recent days by repeating his maximalist objectives for the war. Following his call with the Kremlin on 3 July, President Trump told reporters that he was ‘very disappointed with the conversation’ because Putin was ‘not looking to stop’.
Mr Chair, the statement published last week by the Dutch and German intelligence services indicating Russian use of chemical weapons on the front line is deeply concerning. The OPCW has now published three reports confirming the presence of CS gas in samples collected by Ukraine from the battlefield. We will not ignore such disregard of the Chemical Weapons Convention. That is why the UK announced a second package of sanctions this week against two senior Russian military officials and a Russian research institute for their involvement in Russia’s chemical weapons violations.
Mr Chair, we must also redouble our efforts to support Ukraine to get through this, and to rebuild after the war is over. The Ukraine Recovery Conference being held in Rome this week is a pivotal moment for the international community to demonstrate its commitment. In total, the UK has committed £5.3 billion in non-military support to Ukraine. The World Bank has estimated that Ukraine’s recovery and reconstruction needs will cost USD $524bn over the next decade. Early recovery and reconstruction are vital to get through the war and secure a just and lasting peace. It is essential for all countries to step up their support, ensuring a unified and effective response to Ukraine’s recovery needs. Thank you.
The multitrillion-dollar bill that President Donald Trump signed into law on July 4, 2025, will change how the U.S. tax code treats charitable donations. It also has several tax provisions that affect some colleges, universities and other nonprofits. The Conversation U.S. asked Daniel Hungerman, an economist who studies charitable activities and public policy, to explain how these tax policies could influence charitable giving and affect nonprofits.
What will change for donors?
The consequences generally vary depending on how much money a donor gives to charity. They also depend on whether a donor claims the standard deduction – as about 90% of U.S. taxpayers have done since the 2017 tax reforms took effect during the first Trump administration – or itemizes their tax returns.
Americans who give a bit more than the typical donor – say, between $5,000 and $20,000 – will see major changes too. In some places, it will become easier for people to deduct more of the amount they pay in state and local taxes from their federal taxes – at least for a few years. Those taxpayers may also deduct their charitable giving from their income when they file their taxes.
But there’s a new catch. People who itemize their taxes can’t claim the charitable deduction unless they give at least the equivalent of 0.5% of their adjusted gross income to charity. For example, someone who earns $100,000 a year would have to donate at least $500 to qualify for this tax break.
Based on my research on tax policies and donations, I don’t expect the $1,000 charitable deduction for taxpayers who take the standard deduction to boost giving. The government has tried this before.
The results were underwhelming both times, for two reasons.
First, the maximum size of those tax breaks was too small in those earlier efforts. Many people were already giving enough to max out this new benefit. When that happens, the government is giving up tax revenue without encouraging people to donate more.
To be fair, there are a couple of reasons that things might be better this time. First, $1,000 in 2025 – or $2,000 for married couples filing jointly – is more money than the $300 deduction in 2020. Also, this time it is permanent. A permanent provision gives charities time to publicize the bill and people time to learn about it.
Another concern with this bill is that Americans who have not given to charity in the past might not begin to open their wallets but will still try to get the new $1,000 charitable deduction anyway by lying about it on their tax returns. There is evidence that a growing number of taxpayers try to game the tax system this way. The only way to stave off that sort of tax evasion would require additional work by the IRS, costing more tax dollars.
This part of the tax law also sends a message that giving is not just for the wealthy, but that everyone can do it and get a tax break for it. That could help halt or reverse a decline in gifts from people who aren’t rich. And it makes me wonder whether a charitable deduction for people who don’t itemize their tax returns will work better this time around.
What’s happening to higher education?
The government will raise its tax on the income earned by the endowments held by some colleges and universities from 1.4% to as much as 8%. The system is complicated and hinges on how large an endowment is per student enrolled. Colleges attended by fewer than 3,000 students don’t have to pay this tax.
Endowments are pooled financial investments that belong to a nonprofit. Those assets usually come from donations, and the income they earn typically flows into the nonprofit’s budget.
Perhaps the most significant change will be a new federal K-12 educational tax credit. Starting in 2027, it will be available to help offset the cost of private K-12 school tuition or other educational expenses, such as homeschooling. If someone makes a $1 gift to a nonprofit scholarship-granting organization – which would then deliver those funds to the school the donor designates – the government will cut their tax bill by $1. This tax credit can be worth up to $1,700 per year.
Many details about how this system would work are yet to be determined.
I believe that this provision could mark another step in the transformation of how private schools are funded in the United States. Beyond that, many private schools are run by churches, and many churches running schools already get large amounts of their funding from vouchers issued by state and local governments. Ultimately, private K-12 education could become an increasing source of revenue for churches.
What about nonprofits that provide social services?
Even if the megabill boosts charitable giving, nonprofits providing social services are likely to find themselves financially squeezed.
That’s because the bill also cuts spending and tightens eligibility restrictions on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps, and Medicaid, the public health insurance program that mainly covers people who are low-income or have disabilities.
I have researched the effects of the welfare reforms President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1996. One of my findings was that when the government cut spending on safety net programs by a dollar, charities, including churches, stepped in to provide 25 cents of services or more. But for every extra dollar needed to compensate for lost government spending, donors only gave 5 cents more.
Another concern is that this bill makes permanent increases in the standard deduction – which I’ve found to have historically lowered charitable giving considerably. Perhaps the deduction for people who don’t itemize their tax returns, together with the state-and-local-taxes change, will counteract this trend. But it is certainly possible that Americans will give less to charity starting in 2025 compared with a world where there were no Trump tax reforms at all.
Daniel Hungerman is a professor at the University of Notre Dame, and a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research.
In response to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announcing sanctions against the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Francesca Albanese, Amnesty International’s Secretary General Agnès Callamard said:
“This is a shameless and transparent attack on the fundamental principles of international justice. Special Rapporteurs are not appointed to please governments or to be popular but to deliver their mandate. Francesca Albanese’s mandate is to advocate for human rights and international law, essential at a time when the very survival of Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip is at stake. These sanctions come just days after she published a new report detailing how companies have profited from Israel’s illegal occupation, its brutal system of apartheid and its ongoing genocide in Gaza.
This is a shameless and transparent attack on the fundamental principles of international justice.
Amnesty International’s Secretary General Agnès Callamard
“Following the recent sanctions against the International Criminal Court, the measures announced today are a continuation of the Trump administration’s assault on international law and its efforts to protect the Israeli government from accountability at all costs. They are the latest in a series of Trump administration policies seeking to intimidate and silence those that dare speak out for Palestinians’ human rights. Instead of attacking the Special Rapporteur and further undermining the rule-based order, the US government should focus on putting an end to its unconditional support to Israel, enabling total impunity for its crimes in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
“States must forcefully reject these disgraceful, vindictive sanctions and exert maximum diplomatic pressure on the US government to reverse them. The United Nations must also fully support her as an independent UN expert appointed by the UN Human Rights Council. Governments around the world and all actors who believe in the rule-based order and international law must do everything in their power to mitigate and block the effect of the sanctions against Francesca Albanese and more generally to protect the work and independence of Special Rapporteurs.”
Global stocks advanced on Thursday, underpinned by optimism around artificial intelligence and the prospect of upcoming interest rate cuts, while investors kept a cautious eye on U.S. President Donald Trump’s ongoing assault on international trade.
U.S. copper futures widened their premium to the London benchmark overnight after Trump announced plans to impose a 50% tariff on copper imports. He said the levies would come into effect on August 1.
Trump also threatened a punitive 50% tariff on Brazil’s exports to the U.S. on Wednesday and issued tariff notices to seven minor trading partners.
The latest tariff moves did little to rattle markets as European stocks gained, with Germany’s DAX up 0.1% and UK’s FTSE 100 rising 1% to their respective all-time highs.
MSCI’s broadest index of Asia-Pacific shares outside Japan added 0.5%. U.S. stock futures took a breather, with Nasdaq futures down 0.1% after the tech-heavy index closed at a record high on Wednesday.
The market reaction to Trump’s tariff developments this week was less severe than in April, and Jeff Ng, SMBC’s head of Asia macroeconomic strategy, said investors had grown somewhat “numb” to the ever-changing situation.
“They know that there is still room for negotiation. A lot of these announcements, they start off with eye-catching numbers, but they are not totally final, and they are still subject to changes. Even if they are implemented, they could also be reversed in the coming few months to year,” he said.
Meanwhile, investors digested upbeat quarterly results from TSMC that reflected strong demand for the world’s largest contract chipmaker’s products, kept alive by surging interest in artificial intelligence applications.
TSMC’s report came a day after AI chip giant Nvidia became the world’s first public company to hit a $4 trillion market value. Other tech-related stocks in Korea and Japan further got a boost.
Also keeping stocks supported were expectations of at least two interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve this year.
Minutes released on Wednesday showed “most participants” at the Fed’s meeting last month anticipated rate cuts would be appropriate later this year, with any price shock from tariffs expected to be “temporary or modest.”
“Our view remains that in the balance of risks between employment and inflation, Fed would be more sensitive to employment than to inflation. Hence, if our view holds, and we get some weakness in the employment numbers over summer, Fed will respond by cutting rates in September,” said Mohit Kumar, an economist at Jefferies.
DOLLAR EASES
The dollar was on the back foot on Thursday against the euro, but holding its own against the yen JPY=EBS at 146.35, after a sharp rise earlier this week when Trump slapped Japan with 25% tariffs.
The euro was up 0.17% to $1.1734 and sterling gained 0.15% to $1.36110.
An exception was the Brazilian real, which languished near a one-month low at 5.5826 per dollar owing to Trump’s tariff threat on Latin America’s largest economy.
The real’s volatility gauges spiked to the highest since late April when markets were still trying to get to grips with Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariff threats.
“Without a clear path yet to de-escalation, the real is likely to continue to trade on a softer footing in the near-term. The initial real sell-off was exacerbated by the unwind of popular carry trades,” Lee Hardman, a senior currency economist at MUFG said.
“The risk is that carry trades continue to be unwound on the back of heightened trade risks and higher financial market volatility triggering a further reversal of real gains.”
In cryptocurrencies, bitcoin was pinned near a record high and was last at $111,207, while ether was up 1.8% to $2,790.9.
Elsewhere, crude prices were steady with Brent futures hovering at $70.2 per barrel, while U.S. crude was flat at $68.33 a barrel.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio will meet with Southeast Asian counterparts on Thursday in his first visit to Asia since taking office, and will try to reassure them the region is a priority for Washington, even as President Donald Trump targets it in his global tariff offensive.
Washington’s top diplomat will meet foreign ministers of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations gathered in Kuala Lumpur, and also hold talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov who is in the Malaysian capital, according to the U.S. State Department.
Rubio’s trip is part of an effort to renew U.S. focus on the Indo-Pacific and look beyond the conflicts in the Middle East and Europe that have consumed much of the Trump administration’s attention, with Rubio balancing dual responsibilities as secretary of state and national security adviser.
However, Trump’s global tariff strategy is likely to cast a shadow over the trip, after the president announced steep tariffs to take effect on August 1 on six ASEAN members, including Malaysia, as well as on close Northeast Asian allies Japan and South Korea.
Rubio will nevertheless seek to firm up U.S. relationships with partners and allies, who have been unnerved by the tariffs, and is likely to press the case that the United States remains a better partner than China, Washington’s main strategic rival, experts said.
“This is significant, and it’s an effort to try to counter that Chinese diplomatic and economic offensive,” said Victor Cha, president of the geopolitics and foreign policy department at Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Rubio will also meet with Lavrov later on Thursday, according to the U.S. State Department schedule. It would be the second in-person meeting between Rubio and Lavrov, and comes at a time when Trump has grown increasingly frustrated with Russian President Vladimir Putin as the war in Ukraine drags on.
China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi is also expected to join talks from Thursday, but it was unclear if Rubio would meet with him.
‘BETTER LATE THAN NEVER’
A senior U.S. State Department official told reporters on Monday that among Rubio’s priorities on the trip was reaffirming Washington’s commitment to the region, not just for its sake but because it promotes American prosperity and security.
“It’s kind of late, because we’re seven months into the administration,” Cha said of Rubio’s trip. “Usually, these happen much sooner. But then again, it is extraordinary circumstances. But I guess better late than never.”
Security cooperation is a top priority, including the strategic South China Sea, and combating transnational crime, narcotics, scam centers, and trafficking in persons, said the State Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
As well as their unease about Trump’s tariff policies, many in the Indo-Pacific have doubts about the willingness of his “America First” administration to fully engage diplomatically and economically with the region.
Trump said this week he would impose a 25% tariff on Japan and South Korea and also took aim at ASEAN nations, announcing a 25% levy on Malaysia, 32% on Indonesia, 36% on Cambodia and Thailand, and 40% on Laos and Myanmar.
Trump has also upset another key Indo-Pacific ally, Australia, which said on Wednesday it was “urgently seeking more detail” on his threat to raise tariffs to 200% on pharmaceutical imports.
According to a draft joint communique seen by Reuters, ASEAN foreign ministers will express “concern over rising global trade tensions and growing uncertainties in the international economic landscape, particularly the unilateral actions relating to tariffs.”
The draft, dated Monday, before the latest U.S. tariff rates were announced, did not mention the United States and used language similar to an ASEAN leaders’ statement in May. Both said tariffs were “counterproductive and risk exacerbating global economic fragmentation.”
The State Department official said Rubio would be prepared to discuss trade and reiterate that the need to rebalance U.S. trade relationships is significant.
The export-reliant ASEAN is collectively the world’s fifth-biggest economy, with some members beneficiaries of supply chain realignments from China. Only Vietnam has secured a deal with Trump, which lowers the levy to 20% from 46% initially.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has formally nominated United States President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. He says the president is “forging peace as we speak, in one country, in one region after the other”.
Trump, who has craved the award for years, sees himself as a global peacemaker in a raft of conflicts from Israel and Iran, to Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
With the conflict in Gaza still raging, we ask five experts – could Trump be rewarded with the world’s most prestigious peace prize?
Emma Shortis
Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University
Nominating Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize is like entering a hyena in a dog show.
Of course Trump does not deserve it. That we’re being forced to take this question seriously is yet another indication – as if we needed one – of his extraordinary ability to set and reset the terms of our politics.
There is no peace in Gaza. Even if Trump announced another ceasefire tomorrow, it would not last. And it would not build genuine peace and security.
Trump has neither the interest nor the attention span required to build long term peace. His administration is not willing to bear any of the costs or investments that come with genuine, lasting diplomacy. And he is not anti-war.
There is no peace in Iran. Trump’s bombing of Iran simply exacerbates his decision in 2018 to end nuclear negotiations with Tehran. It pushes the world closer to, not further from, nuclear catastrophe.
Under the Trump administration, there will be no peace in the Middle East. Both the US and Israeli governments’ approach to “security” puts the region on a perpetual war footing. This approach assumes it is possible to bomb your way to peace – a “peace” which both Trump and Netanyahu understand as total dominance and violent oppression.
The Trump administration is deliberately undermining the institutions and principles of international and domestic law.
He has deployed the military against American citizens. He is threatening the United States’ traditional allies with trade wars and annexation. His administration’s dismantling of USAID will result, according to one study, in the deaths of 14 million people, including 4.5 million children, by 2030.
Indulging Trump’s embarrassing desire for trophies might appease him for a short time. It would also strip the Nobel Peace Prize of any and all credibility, while endorsing Trump’s trashing of the international rule of law.
What kind of peace is that?
Ali Mamouri
Research Fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University
The nomination of Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize by a man who is facing charges of war crimes is an unprecedented and deeply dark irony that cannot be overlooked.
Trump’s role in brokering the Abraham Accords was hailed as a diplomatic breakthrough. It led to the normalisation of relations between Israel and several Arab countries, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco.
But this achievement came at a significant cost. The accords deliberately sidelined the Palestinian issue, long recognised as the core of regional instability, and disregarded decades of international consensus on a two-state solution.
Israeli soldiers guarding Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank. Dom Zaran/Shutterstock
His silence in the face of a growing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza was equally telling. Perhaps most disturbing was the tacit or explicit endorsement of proposals to forcibly relocate Palestinians to neighbouring Arab countries, a position that evokes ethnic cleansing and fundamentally undermines principles of justice, dignity and international law.
In addition, there is Trump’s unconditional support for Israel’s military campaigns across the region, including his authorisation of attacks on Iranian civilian, military and nuclear infrastructure. The strikes lacked any clear legal basis, contributed further to regional instability and, according to Tehran, killed more than a thousand civilians.
His broader disregard for international norms shattered decades of post-second world war diplomatic order and increased the risk of sustained and expanded conflict.
Against this backdrop, any serious consideration of Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize seems fundamentally at odds with its stated mission: to honour efforts that reduce conflict, uphold human rights and promote lasting peace.
Whatever short-term diplomatic gains emerged from Trump’s tenure are eclipsed by the legal, ethical and humanitarian consequences of his actions.
Ian Parmeter
Research Scholar, Middle East Studies, Australian National University
Netanyahu’s nomination of Donald Trump for one of the world’s most coveted awards was clearly aimed at flattering the president.
Trump is clearly angling for the laurel, which his first term predecessor, Barack Obama, won in his first year in office.
Obama was awarded the prize in 2009 for promotion of nuclear non-proliferation and fostering a “new climate” in international relations, particularly in reaching out to the Muslim world.
Given neither of these ambitions have since borne fruit, what claims might Trump reasonably make at this stage of his second term?
Trump has claimed credit for resolving two conflicts this year: the brief India–Pakistan clash that erupted after Pakistani militants killed 25 Indian tourists in Kashmir in May; and the long-running dispute between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi disputes Trump brokered peace. He says the issue was resolved by negotiations between the two countries’ militaries.
With regards to the Rwanda–DRC conflict, the countries signed a peace agreement in the Oval Office in June. But critics argue Qatar played a significant role
which the Trump administration has airbrushed out.
Trump can legitimately argue his pressure on Israel and Iran forced a ceasefire in their 12-day war in June.
But his big test is the Gaza war. For Trump to add this to his Nobel claim, he will need more than a ceasefire.
The Biden administration brokered two ceasefires that enabled the release of significant numbers of hostages, but did not end the conflict.
Trump would have to use his undoubted influence with Netanyahu to achieve more than a temporary pause. He would have to end the war definitively and effect the release of all Israeli hostages.
Beyond that, if Trump could persuade Netanyahu
to take serious steps towards negotiating a two-state solution, that would be a genuine Nobel-worthy achievement.
Trump isn’t there yet.
Jasmine-Kim Westendorf
Associate Professor of Peace and Conflict and Co-Director of the Initiative for Peacebuilding, The University of Melbourne
Although controversial or politicised awards are not new, awardees are generally individuals or groups who’ve made
significant contributions to a range of peace initiatives.
They include reducing armed conflict, enhancing international cooperation, and human rights efforts that contribute to peace.
Inspiring examples include anti-nuclear proliferation organisations and phenomenal women peacemakers. And Nadia Murad and Denis Mukwege, who won in 2011 for their work trying to end the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war.
Trump has declared his “proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier”. But he is neither.
There has been a concerning trend towards using the Nobel Peace Prize to encourage certain political directions, rather than reward achievements.
Barack Obama’s 2008 Prize helped motivate his moves toward diplomacy and cooperation after the presidency of George W. Bush.
Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s 2018 award was for efforts to resolve the 20-year war with Eritrea. The peace prize encouraged Ahmed to fulfill his promise of democratic elections in 2020. Embarrassingly, within a year Ahmed launched a civil war that killed over 600,000 people and displaced 3 million more.
This week’s nomination follows efforts by global leaders to flatter Trump in order – they hope – to secure his goodwill.
These motivations explain why Netanyahu has put forward Trump’s name to the Nobel Committee. It comes at the very moment securing Trump’s ongoing support during ceasefire negotiations is critical for Netanyahu’s political survival.
They will never give me a Nobel Peace Prize […] It’s too bad. I deserve it, but they will never give it to me.
Prizes to genuine peacemakers amplify their work and impact.
1984 winner Desmond Tutu said: “One day no one was listening. The next, I was an oracle.” A Nobel can be a powerful force for peace.
Trump is no peacemaker, he doesn’t deserve one.
Shahram Akbarzadeh
Director, Middle East Studies Forum (MESF), Deakin University
Benjamin Netanyahu would have us believe Donald Trump is a peacemaker.
Nothing could be further from the truth. His record is stained with blood and misery. The fact Trump believes himself to be worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize only attests to his illusions of grandeur in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The war in Gaza has gone into its 20th month because Trump did not use the levers at his control to bring the senseless war to a close.
Some estimates put the true Gaza death toll at 100,000 people, and counting. They have been killed by American-made bombs Israel is dropping across the densely populated strip; from starvation because Israel has enforced a blockade of the Gaza Strip and prevented UN food delivery with the blessings of America; and from gunshots at food distribution centres, set up with US private security.
All under Trump’s watch.
Trump could do something about this. Israel is the largest recipient of US aid, most of it military support.
This has multiplied since Israel commenced its attack on Gaza in response to Hamas terrorism on October 7 2023. Trump has approved the transfer of US military hardware to Israel, knowing full well it was being used against a trapped and helpless population.
This is not the act of a peacemaker.
Now the Israeli government is planning to “facilitate” population transfer of Gazans to other countries – a euphemism for ethnic cleansing.
This is the textbook definition of genocide: deliberate and systematic killing or persecution of people. Trump legitimised this travesty of decency and international law by promising a Gaza Riviera.
The outlandish extent of Trump’s ideas would be laughable if their consequences were not so devastating.
When Israel attacked Iran in the middle of nuclear talks, Trump had a momentary pause, before jumping to Netanyahu’s aid and bombing Iran. He then claimed his action paved the way for peace.
Trump’s idea of peace is the peace of the graveyard.
Emma Shortis is Director of International and Security Affairs at The Australia Institute, an independent think tank.
Jasmine-Kim Westendorf has received funding from the Australian Research Council.
Shahram Akbarzadeh receives funding from Australia Research Council.
Ali Mamouri and Ian Parmeter do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Israel and Hamas may be able to reach a Gaza ceasefire and hostage-release deal within one or two weeks but such an agreement is not likely to be secured in just a day’s time, a senior Israeli official said on Wednesday.
Speaking during Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington, the official said that if the two sides agree to a proposed 60-day ceasefire, Israel would use that time to offer a permanent ceasefire that would require the Palestinian militant group to disarm.
If Hamas refuses, “we’ll proceed” with military operations in Gaza, the official said on condition of anonymity.
Trump met Netanyahu on Tuesday for the second time in two days to discuss the situation in Gaza, with the president’s Middle East envoy indicating that Israel and Hamas were nearing an agreement on a U.S.-brokered ceasefire proposal after 21 months of war.
Trump had previously predicted that a deal could be reached this week, raising speculation about a possible announcement before Netanyahu leaves for Israel on Thursday.
On Wednesday, however, Trump appeared to extend the timeframe somewhat, telling reporters that while an agreement was “very close,” it could happen this week or even next – though “not definitely.”
A source familiar with Hamas’ thinking said four days of indirect talks with Israel in Qatar did not produce any breakthroughs on main sticking points.
The Israeli official, who briefed reporters in Washington, declined to provide details on the negotiations.
Trump’s Middle East special envoy Steve Witkoff told reporters at a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday that the anticipated agreement would involve the release of 10 living and nine deceased hostages.
Netanyahu’s visit came just over two weeks after the president ordered the bombing of Iranian nuclear sites in support of Israeli air strikes. Trump then helped arrange a ceasefire in the 12-day Israel-Iran war.
Trump and his aides have tried to seize on any momentum created by the weakening of Iran, which backs Hamas, to push both sides for a breakthrough to end the Gaza war.
The Gaza conflict began with a Hamas attack on southern Israel in October 2023 that killed approximately 1,200 people and saw 251 hostages taken, according to Israeli figures. Around 50 hostages remain in Gaza, with 20 believed to be alive.
Israel’s retaliatory war has killed more than 57,000 Palestinians, Gaza’s health ministry says, and reduced much of Gaza to rubble.
Netanyahu has used his U.S. visit to publicly thank Trump for joining with Israel in striking Iran.
Trump has repeatedly declared that the U.S. bombing of three of Iran’s nuclear sites had “obliterated” them, though some experts have questioned the extent of the damage and raised the possibility that Iran had secreted away part of its enriched uranium stockpile before the strikes.
The Israel official said Israeli intelligence indicated that Iran’s enriched uranium remained at Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan, the sites that the U.S. hit last month, and had not been moved.
The official suggested, however, that the Iranians might still be able to gain access to Isfahan but it would be hard to remove any of the material there.
U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday the U.S. would impose a 50% tariff on all imports from Brazil after a spat this week with his Brazilian counterpart who called him an unwanted “emperor.”
Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva fired back on Wednesday, saying new tariffs would be met with reciprocal measures.
In a letter, Trump linked the tariffs to Brazil’s treatment of former President Jair Bolsonaro, who is on trial over charges of plotting a coup to stop Lula from taking office in 2023.
The levies were imposed due “in part to Brazil’s insidious attacks on Free Elections, and the fundamental Free Speech Rights of Americans,” the letter said.
Brazil’s real currency added to earlier losses to fall over 2% against the dollar after the announcement, and companies such as planemaker Embraer EMBR3.SA and oil major Petrobras PETR4.SA also suffered setbacks in the stock market.
Lula, his vice-president, his finance minister, and others held an emergency meeting in Brasilia on Wednesday night to discuss the new levies.
In a lengthy post to social media after the meeting, Lula said Trump’s accusations that trade between the two countries was unfair to the U.S. were false, stressing the U.S. runs a trade surplus against Brazil.
“Sovereignty, respect, and the unwavering defense of the interests of the Brazilian people are the values that guide our relationship with the world,” Lula wrote.
The U.S. is Brazil’s second-largest trading partner after China and the tariffs are a major increase from the 10% announced in April. Trump’s letter said the 50% tariff will start August 1 and will be separate from all sectoral tariffs.
On Monday, Lula pushed back against Trump after the U.S. leader threatened to impose an additional 10% tariff on the BRICS group of developing nations, which he called “anti-American.”
“The world has changed. We don’t want an emperor,” Lula told reporters when asked at a BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro about the possible BRICS tariff.
BOLSONARO ‘WITCH HUNT’
Tensions between the United States and Brazil had already intensified on Wednesday after Brazil’s foreign ministry summoned the U.S. Embassy chargé d’affaires over a statement defending Bolsonaro.
Around the same time, Trump, speaking to reporters at an event with West African leaders at the White House, said Brazil “has not been good to us, not good at all,” adding the tariff rates would be based on “very, very substantial facts” and past history.
The U.S. Embassy in Brasilia confirmed on Wednesday its chargé d’affaires had a meeting with officials from Brazil’s foreign ministry, though it declined to share details about the conversation.
Trump’s support for Bolsonaro echoed his support for other global leaders who have faced domestic legal cases like French far-right leader Marine Le Pen and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump has called cases against those leaders a “witch hunt,” a term he used for cases he faced himself in the U.S. after the end of his first term in office.
Trump said in a social media post on Monday that Bolsonaro was the victim of such a “witch hunt.” The U.S. Embassy in Brasilia issued a statement on Wednesday to the local press echoing his remarks.
“The political persecution of Jair Bolsonaro, his family and his supporters is shameful and disrespectful of Brazil’s democratic traditions,” it said.
In a post on social media, Bolsonaro did not mention Trump, but said he “is persecuted because he remains alive in the public consciousness. Even out of power, he remains the most remembered—and most feared—name.”
In his letter, Trump also directed U.S. Trade Representative James Greer to initiate a probe into what he called unfair trade practices by Brazil, particularly on U.S. companies’ digital trade. Trump also criticized decisions from Brazil’s Supreme Court that he said censored social media firms.
Brazil’s Supreme Court has long been criticized by Bolsonaro’s allies for ordering social media websites to take down content from leaders of their far-right movement. The court also imposed more responsibilities on those companies last month.
In his post on Wednesday, Lula rebuffed Trump’s accusations of a witch hunt and said the case against Bolsonaro was up for the courts to decide and not subject to any “threats that could compromise the independence of national institutions.”
Lula also defended his country’s Supreme Court and its ruling on social media and said “freedom of expression must not be confused with aggression or violent practice.”
IMPACT ON FOOD EXPORTS
The tariffs on Brazil could have a significant impact on food prices in the United States. Around a third of the coffee consumed in the U.S., the world’s largest drinker of the beverage, comes from Brazil, which is the world’s largest coffee grower. Annual Brazilian coffee exports to the U.S. are close to 8 million bags, according to industry groups.
More than half of the orange juice sold in the U.S. comes from Brazil, which has an 80% share of the juice’s global trade. The South American agricultural powerhouse also sells sugar, beef and ethanol to the U.S., among other products.
“This measure impacts not only Brazil, but the whole U.S. juice industry that employs thousands of people and has had Brazil as its main supplier for decades,” said Ibiapaba Netto, the executive director of Brazilian orange juice industry group CitrusBR.
The Greens had a poor election. They lost three of their four lower house seats including that of their leader Adam Bandt. This despite their overall vote remaining mostly steady. But they did retain all their Senate spots – though later they lost a senator through her defection to Labor – and they now effectively have the sole balance of power in the Senate.
The Greens last term played hard ball on various pieces of legislation like the Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF), wanting to gain more concessions from the government. They prioritised issues such as the difficulties facing renters as well as the war in Gaza.
With the government’s big win at the election, how hard will the Greens push on legislation this term, and how will the party fare under new leadership?
To answer these questions and to tell us about her plans, the greens new leader, Larissa Waters, joins the podcast.
On what drives her Waters says,
I’ve certainly spent my working life trying to empower the community, to protect the planet. And I’m a really proud feminist and I’ve been really excited by the work that I’ve been able to do on gender equality and women’s safety for the last 10 years in that portfolio. But I’m a really strong advocate for a fairer society.
On reforms she wants to get done in parliament, Waters says the focus should be on delivery,
I would like for the parliament to not just spend its time as a kind of peacocking about, talking about ourselves, and actually spend its time delivering for people. I think that’s the least people could expect is that the collective focus of the parliament be about how we can help community members and nature.
We remain willing to work on reforms that will help people and will help the planet. And I think there’s a lot of people who are waiting to see how this parliament works and who are really hoping that with such an overwhelming number of seats […] the Labor Party will use their numbers in the parliament to do good things. And I think there’ll be a lot of broken hearts if they don’t find the courage to do what’s needed.
Asked about the recent antisemitic attacks in Melbourne and the broader issue of pro-Palestine protests, Waters explains where she stands.
Well firstly, can I say that the places of worship should always be off-limits for protest activity and I think that’s not a controversial statement. But can I also say that a lot of people feel really strongly about human rights and Gaza and Palestine and the Greens are really proud that we have always stood to end the genocide. And we think that Australia should play a stronger role in terms of sanctioning [Benjamin Netanyahu’s] war cabinet and that regime and for there to be a lasting peace in that region.
On AUKUS and the US alliance more broadly Water’s isn’t shy with her criticism,
We are wasting A$370 billion on nuclear submarines that actually may never even eventuate and that the US is now reconsidering their provision to us anyway. The whole thing is speculative and a massive waste of money, importantly, that makes us less safe. I think hitching our wagon to the increasingly unstable US administration under particularly the current president, is not how we make ourselves safe. And I certainly don’t think we should be taking any lectures from Donald Trump about how much money we should spending on defence.
We remain of the view, as we have been for decades, that Australia deserves an independent foreign policy, one that shamelessly puts our own interests at heart and front and centre, and is not just when the US says jump we say how high, that doesn’t make the world safer.
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –
An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
WASHINGTON, July 9 (Xinhua) — U.S. President Donald Trump met with leaders of five African countries on Wednesday, saying the United States is shifting its policy toward the continent “from aid to trade.”
At a meeting with the leaders of Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mauritania and Senegal at the White House, D. Trump said that there is “great economic potential” in Africa.
He said the United States is working to “create new economic opportunities involving both the United States and many African countries.”
“We are moving from aid to trade,” the US president said. “In the long run, this will be far more effective, sustainable and beneficial than anything else we could do together,” he noted.
Mr Trump also suggested that five countries could be exempted from his administration’s plan to impose higher tariffs that would begin in August.
The mini-summit will last three days, and is expected to top the agenda to expand U.S. access to critical minerals and other natural resources in Africa, according to media reports. –0–
Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
