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.
On July 6, an arson attack targeted the East Melbourne Synagogue. It was the latest in a series of antisemitic incidents recorded across Australia since October 7 2023, when Hamas carried out a horrific terrorist attack, killing about 1,200 Israelis. These domestic incidents have escalated in both number and severity.
Australia has not previously experienced antisemitism at this scale. In response, the Albanese government appointed Jillian Segal as the nation’s first special envoy for combating antisemitism, and commissioned a plan with recommendations to address the issue.
1. Preventing violence and crime, including a proposed law enforcement framework to improve coordination between agencies, and new policies aimed at stopping dangerous individuals from entering Australia.
2. Strengthening protections against hate speech, by regulating all forms of hate, including antisemitism, and increasing oversight of platform policies and algorithms.
3. Promoting antisemitism-free media, education and cultural spaces, through journalist training, education programs, and conditions on public funding for organisations that promote or fail to address antisemitism.
The government has said it will consider the recommendations.
These measures are broadly reasonable and make practical sense. Some – such as those aimed at preventing violence and crime – are more straightforward to implement than others. It would also be logical to apply them to all forms of hate, not just antisemitism.
But that needs to be done with caution. We don’t want to create an environment in which any criticism of a community or group is shut down by regulation.
In a democracy, open and robust debate is essential. The challenge lies in the details: how we define hate, and where we draw the threshold for what counts as hate.
The document ignores the elephant in the room: whether the plan could be used to silence legitimate criticism of Israel.
The special envoy’s plan notes antisemitism has risen since October 7, but it does not fully explain the context. Israel’s military response in Gaza, which has killed more than 57,000 Palestinians, has prompted a wave of global protest and criticism of Israel, including accusations of genocide.
In this context, the line between antisemitism and criticism of Israel has become more difficult and contested than ever. Some people who attack Israel or Zionism may be expressing antisemitic views. Others may not. Distinguishing between the two is complex, but essential.
The envoy adopts the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, which covers both direct attacks on Jewish identity and certain criticisms of Israel, such as comparisons with Nazi Germany.
In my experience as a researcher working on online hate (including antisemitism), even members of the Jewish community adopting this definition often disagree on how to apply it.
The threshold varies – for example when deciding whether an online post or a statement crosses the line into antisemitism.
So where should we draw that line? It’s a crucial question. If the envoy’s recommendations are implemented, decisions about funding, visas, and even criminal charges could depend on it.
There is, of course, broad agreement on some cases. Setting fire to a synagogue is clearly antisemitic – it targets a Jewish place of worship.
Similarly, attacking a Jewish-owned business or damaging property in a Jewish neighbourhood suggests the target was chosen because it was Jewish.
Some people – often those already harbouring anti-Jewish views – treat the entire Jewish community as if it represents the Netanyahu government or the Israel Defense Forces.
This ignores the diversity of views within Jewish communities. That lack of nuance fuels antisemitism.
Few would disagree that antisemitic acts include attacks on Jewish people or property carried out indiscriminately, or when anti-Israel protests attempt to hold the whole Jewish community collectively responsible for the actions of the Israeli government.
But we also need to be realistic. We are unlikely to eliminate all forms of antisemitic hate or intimidation from public life. Hate can be expressed without breaching laws, and people can intimidate others while staying just within legal boundaries.
Humour, sarcasm and coded language are often used to incite hatred without triggering any formal consequence. That kind of harm is much harder to prevent – and it may be something we have to learn to live with, while continuing to push back against it.
Rebuilding trust
In the long term, the only real solution is building mutual understanding. That’s why personal relationships matter.
Knowing someone who is Jewish is one of the strongest antidotes to antisemitism. When you have a Jewish friend, you’re less likely to believe or spread the myths that circulate online and offline about what Jewish people think, believe or represent.
The same applies to all forms of hate. Direct contact helps break down stereotypes across all communities.
The problem is that the current context is pushing communities apart. Segregation and isolation are increasing. Before October 7, there was meaningful interfaith work happening – Jewish students visiting the Islamic Museum, Muslim students visiting the Holocaust Museum. That work has largelystopped.
Now, people are retreating into fear, distrust and generalisations. All nuance is lost. The “other” becomes a single, threatening enemy.
It will take time to rebuild that trust – and the longer the war continues, the harder it will be.
Matteo Vergani receives funding from the Campbell Collaboration, NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet, the Department of Home Affairs.
On July 6, an arson attack targeted the East Melbourne Synagogue. It was the latest in a series of antisemitic incidents recorded across Australia since October 7 2023, when Hamas carried out a horrific terrorist attack, killing about 1,200 Israelis. These domestic incidents have escalated in both number and severity.
Australia has not previously experienced antisemitism at this scale. In response, the Albanese government appointed Jillian Segal as the nation’s first special envoy for combating antisemitism, and commissioned a plan with recommendations to address the issue.
1. Preventing violence and crime, including a proposed law enforcement framework to improve coordination between agencies, and new policies aimed at stopping dangerous individuals from entering Australia.
2. Strengthening protections against hate speech, by regulating all forms of hate, including antisemitism, and increasing oversight of platform policies and algorithms.
3. Promoting antisemitism-free media, education and cultural spaces, through journalist training, education programs, and conditions on public funding for organisations that promote or fail to address antisemitism.
The government has said it will consider the recommendations.
These measures are broadly reasonable and make practical sense. Some – such as those aimed at preventing violence and crime – are more straightforward to implement than others. It would also be logical to apply them to all forms of hate, not just antisemitism.
But that needs to be done with caution. We don’t want to create an environment in which any criticism of a community or group is shut down by regulation.
In a democracy, open and robust debate is essential. The challenge lies in the details: how we define hate, and where we draw the threshold for what counts as hate.
The document ignores the elephant in the room: whether the plan could be used to silence legitimate criticism of Israel.
The special envoy’s plan notes antisemitism has risen since October 7, but it does not fully explain the context. Israel’s military response in Gaza, which has killed more than 57,000 Palestinians, has prompted a wave of global protest and criticism of Israel, including accusations of genocide.
In this context, the line between antisemitism and criticism of Israel has become more difficult and contested than ever. Some people who attack Israel or Zionism may be expressing antisemitic views. Others may not. Distinguishing between the two is complex, but essential.
The envoy adopts the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, which covers both direct attacks on Jewish identity and certain criticisms of Israel, such as comparisons with Nazi Germany.
In my experience as a researcher working on online hate (including antisemitism), even members of the Jewish community adopting this definition often disagree on how to apply it.
The threshold varies – for example when deciding whether an online post or a statement crosses the line into antisemitism.
So where should we draw that line? It’s a crucial question. If the envoy’s recommendations are implemented, decisions about funding, visas, and even criminal charges could depend on it.
There is, of course, broad agreement on some cases. Setting fire to a synagogue is clearly antisemitic – it targets a Jewish place of worship.
Similarly, attacking a Jewish-owned business or damaging property in a Jewish neighbourhood suggests the target was chosen because it was Jewish.
Some people – often those already harbouring anti-Jewish views – treat the entire Jewish community as if it represents the Netanyahu government or the Israel Defense Forces.
This ignores the diversity of views within Jewish communities. That lack of nuance fuels antisemitism.
Few would disagree that antisemitic acts include attacks on Jewish people or property carried out indiscriminately, or when anti-Israel protests attempt to hold the whole Jewish community collectively responsible for the actions of the Israeli government.
But we also need to be realistic. We are unlikely to eliminate all forms of antisemitic hate or intimidation from public life. Hate can be expressed without breaching laws, and people can intimidate others while staying just within legal boundaries.
Humour, sarcasm and coded language are often used to incite hatred without triggering any formal consequence. That kind of harm is much harder to prevent – and it may be something we have to learn to live with, while continuing to push back against it.
Rebuilding trust
In the long term, the only real solution is building mutual understanding. That’s why personal relationships matter.
Knowing someone who is Jewish is one of the strongest antidotes to antisemitism. When you have a Jewish friend, you’re less likely to believe or spread the myths that circulate online and offline about what Jewish people think, believe or represent.
The same applies to all forms of hate. Direct contact helps break down stereotypes across all communities.
The problem is that the current context is pushing communities apart. Segregation and isolation are increasing. Before October 7, there was meaningful interfaith work happening – Jewish students visiting the Islamic Museum, Muslim students visiting the Holocaust Museum. That work has largelystopped.
Now, people are retreating into fear, distrust and generalisations. All nuance is lost. The “other” becomes a single, threatening enemy.
It will take time to rebuild that trust – and the longer the war continues, the harder it will be.
Matteo Vergani receives funding from the Campbell Collaboration, NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet, the Department of Home Affairs.
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.
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
SAO PAULO, July 9 (Xinhua) — Brazilian Vice President Geraldo Alckmin on Wednesday called it “unfair” that U.S. President Donald Trump has decided to impose 50 percent tariffs on Brazilian goods.
“I see no reason to raise tariffs on Brazil. Brazil is not a problem for the United States, it is important to emphasize this again. The United States has a trade deficit, but it has a trade surplus with Brazil. Eight out of the 10 products that the United States exports most to Brazil are zero-rated,” Alckmin said in a statement.
On Wednesday, D. Trump announced the introduction of a 50 percent tariff on Brazilian goods imported into the United States, effective August 1. –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: 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
LOS ANGELES, July 9 (Xinhua) — The United States on Wednesday announced sanctions against a senior UN official over her role in investigating alleged human rights abuses against Palestinians.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the sanctions were aimed at UN Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, accusing her of “illegal and shameful efforts” to encourage action by the International Criminal Court (ICC) against US and Israeli officials, companies and their executives.
The move is the latest attempt by Washington to stifle an international investigation into alleged war crimes committed by Israel amid ongoing military operations in Gaza.
The sanctions were imposed under an executive order signed by U.S. President Donald Trump in February that authorized punitive measures against the International Criminal Court for what the U.S. administration called “unlawful and baseless actions” against the United States and Israel. –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: 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
NEW YORK, July 9 (Xinhua) — U.S. President Donald Trump announced on Wednesday afternoon that goods imported from Brazil will be subject to a 50 percent tariff starting Aug. 1.
D. Trump posted a letter addressed to Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva on his social media platform Truth Social, in which he said that “in part because of Brazil’s insidious attacks on free elections and the fundamental rights of Americans to free speech… we will be imposing a 50 percent tariff on all Brazilian goods shipped to the United States.”
Trump announced new tariffs on 14 countries on Monday and another seven on Wednesday, with rates ranging from 20 percent to 40 percent. Brazil’s tariff was the highest so far in this round. –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: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
The European Union (EU) is pushing for a framework of trade agreement in principle with the United States while retaining the options to retaliate, multiple EU officials said on Wednesday.
“We are looking for a reliable framework — from which we can keep building our common trade,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told the European Parliament during a plenary session in Strasbourg, France.
While reaffirming the EU’s adherence to its principles and readiness for “all scenarios,” von der Leyen said the 27-nation bloc favored a negotiated settlement.
A Commission spokesperson echoed von der Leyen’s remarks, adding that an agreement in principle could be reached “in the coming days.”
“We’re working hard to get an agreement in principle with the U.S., and that is where our focus is at this point,” the spokesperson said.
U.S. President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that he would “probably” send a letter to the EU within two days, adding: “A letter means a deal.”
“They treated us very badly until recently, and now they’re treating us very nicely. It’s like a different world, actually,” he said.
Trump also escalated trade tensions by threatening tariffs of up to 200 percent on foreign pharmaceuticals and 50 percent on copper. According to EU data, medical and pharmaceutical products, as well as medicaments have been among the bloc’s top exports to the United States over the past two years.
EU trade chief Maros Sefcovic told lawmakers that Brussels and Washington had made “good progress” on the text of a joint statement or agreement in principle.
“I hope to reach a satisfactory conclusion, potentially even in the coming days,” Sefcovic said. However, he emphasized that EU legislation and regulatory autonomy remain “red lines” and are “non-negotiable” in the talks.
Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s trade committee, said the EU continues to face “illegal and unjustified” U.S. tariffs, referring to the 50 percent duties on steel and aluminum, and the 25 percent on cars and auto parts.
“Of course, we are not really accepting this,” Lange told reporters in Strasbourg, adding that two key issues remain unresolved: Washington has yet to commit to significantly cutting existing tariffs or refraining from new ones.
Lange warned that the EU is prepared to retaliate, with a first package of countermeasures set to take effect on July 14 if no agreement is reached.
Regarding Trump’s letter, Lange said the EU had not received any correspondence so far and had “no clue” about its contents.
Source: United States Senator for Rhode Island Jack Reed
WASHINGTON, DC – As Rhode Island’s Congressional delegation continues working to make college more affordable and protect Pell grants from budget cuts, U.S. Senators Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse and U.S. Representatives Seth Magaziner and Gabe Amo today announced $1.5 million in federal funding to support existing college success and completion programs at Community College of Rhode Island (CCRI) and Rhode Island College (RIC) through the TRIO Student Support Services (SSS) program. For fiscal year 2025, CCRI will receive $949,145 and RIC will receive $544,728 in TRIO funding.
TRIO is a federal grant program administered by the U.S. Department of Education. TRIO represents the largest federal investment aimed at assisting low-income or first-generation college students or individuals with disabilities to successfully advance through the academic pipeline and navigate academic and financial barriers.
First-generation college students, those who meet low-income qualifications, or those with a disability are eligible to apply for TRIO. In order to help these students navigate college life, the SSS program offers specialized tutoring, along with workshops on issues like financial literacy, leadership development, and finding a career path. The federal program is designed to increase graduation rates and help students transfer from two-year to four-year colleges.
Last year, Congress appropriated $1.2 billion for the program. This year, the Trump Administration is seeking to eliminate federal funding for TRIO programs.
“TRIO helps students not only get on the college track, but succeed once they are on campus. It helps them acclimate to college life and prepares them to overcome key higher education hurdles. Through skills workshops, summer learning, and other support services, this program can be a real lifeline for first-generation college students. It teaches them things like time management, good study habits, and helps set them up for success in the college classroom and beyond. I am proud of the work CCRI and RIC are doing and will continue working to ensure more deserving students have the opportunity to attend college and the resources to afford it,” said U.S. Senator Jack Reed, a member of the Appropriations Committee, who got into a notable back and forth with Education Secretary Linda McMahon over TRIO funding at a recent hearing. Reed had to set the record straight and disabuse the Secretary of Education of the incorrect notion that the federal government has spent over $1 trillion on TRIO programs.
“TRIO programs have opened the door to higher education for many first-generation college students and students facing other obstacles,” said Whitehouse. “This federal funding will support the outstanding work CCRI and RIC do to bring higher education within reach for more Rhode Islanders.”
“Every student deserves a fair shot at college success, and the TRIO Student Support Services program provided at CCRI and RIC help make that possible by providing the mentorship, tools, and support students need to thrive,” said Magaziner. “I will keep fighting to protect federal education funding and expand programs like TRIO that open the doors of opportunity for more Rhode Islanders and strengthen the state’s workforce.”
“Every student deserves the tools to reach their full potential. Today’s federal TRIO grant brings $1.5 million to support first-generation and low-income students at the Community College of Rhode Island and Rhode Island College,” said Congressman Gabe Amo. “But let’s be clear, Trump’s budget proposal to eliminate TRIO funding is a direct threat to these students and the progress we’ve made. I’m fighting in Congress to protect these programs, defend educational opportunity, and ensure that Rhode Islanders aren’t left behind.”
CCRI’s successful TRIO SSS program, known as “Access to Opportunity,” was first launched in 1980 and serves approximately 440 CCRI students annually. Previous graduates have gone on to a variety of careers, including some current full-time and adjunct faculty and staff at CCRI.
Rhode Island College offers its TRIO programs through the Center for Scholar Development. These programs are designed to provide educational pathways in an affirming environment for first-generation scholars.
Source: United States Senator for Rhode Island Jack Reed
WASHINGTON, DC – Researchers have estimated that the bottom of Narragansett Bay is now covered with a layer of tiny plastic particles, commonly referred to as ‘microplastics,’ that is about 2 inches deep.
While microplastics are found everywhere these days, from products on the shelves to streams across the planet, experts are racing to better understand and inform the public about the impacts that these pollutants have on public health, ecosystems, and the environment.
These scientists include URI associate professor of chemical, biomolecular, and materials engineering, Daniel Roxbury, who is leading a URI research team dedicated to informing local communities about the dangers of microplastics and key steps to take in reducing plastics pollution. Roxbury’s research team was just awarded $7 million in federal research funding through the National Science Foundation (NSF) EPSCoR E-RISE Program.
Senator Reed, a longtime proponent of the Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) program at NSF, welcomed the funding and thanked URI researchers for helping to increase knowledge about microplastics and better inform local, state, and national mitigation plans for plastics pollution.
“Microplastics are a macro-problem. We need comprehensive, coordinated action to help protect people, communities, and public and environmental health. Researchers at URI have been on the cutting-edge of this kind of discovery,” said Senator Reed, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee who advocates each year for increased NSF research funding and has led efforts to ensure Rhode Island’s eligibility for the EPSCoR program since 2004. “This federal investment in URI’s important research comes at a time when the Trump Administration’s attacks on higher education and federal research funding threatens our understanding of science and the world we live in. But developing a better understanding of microplastics is not a partisan issue – it’s a public health, economic, and environmental imperative. I’m proud of the top-notch work Rhode Island scientists are doing and will continue fighting to support their work with federal research investments.”
EPSCOR is designed to fulfill NSF’s mandate to promote scientific progress nationwide. Through the program, NSF establishes partnerships with government, higher education, and industry that are designed to effect lasting improvements in a state’s or region’s academic research infrastructure, research and development (R&D) capacity, and hence, its national R&D competitiveness.
Researchers and scientists at URI will use the $7 million federal grant to advance a four year project in partnership with local stakeholders and other colleges and universities, such as Brown University, Roger Williams University, and Rhode Island College, to educate Rhode Islanders about microplastics in the coastal ecosystem and develop better tracking, modeling, and research processes that help identify sources of pollution.
The research project also aims to better understand the impact of microplastics on the livelihoods of Rhode Islanders who work on the Bay or in other local coastal waters.
Last August, Senator Reed joined Save the Bay and top researchers from Roger Williams University and URI to discuss the threat of microplastics and outline steps that households, communities, and elected officials can take to better protect people from the threat of microplastic pollution and preserve access to clean, safe water. Reed and the advocates called for stepped-up research, regulation, and coordinated action around plastic pollution.
Source: United States Senator for New Mexico Martin Heinrich
WASHINGTON — In his opening statement, U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, grilled several pending Trump Administration nominees on the President’s Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) budget request and his Big, Beautiful Betrayal bill, which will raise costs on American families by gutting investments in energy efficiency and clean energy programs. Ranking Member Heinrich additionally sought commitments to enforce surface mining laws and regulations, and pressed the nominees on the need to maintain U.S. competitiveness and secure global economic alliances with our allies.
The hearing considered the nominations of Lanny Erdos to be the Director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement of the Department of the Interior; Audrey Robertson to be Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; Timothy Walsh to be Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environmental Management, and David Eisner to be Assistant Secretary of Energy for International Affairs.
VIDEO: Ranking Member Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) delivers opening remarks on the nominations of several pending Trump Administration officials before the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, July 9, 2025.
“One of President Trump’s first acts after being sworn in for his second term was to abandon our efforts to transition to a clean energy economy,” Heinrich said in his opening remarks, zeroing in on how Republicans will raise utility costs on American families with their cuts to critical programs. “The Department has announced plans to cut dozens of energy efficiency rules that save consumers hundreds of dollars on their utility bills annually. It has proposed a 74 percent reduction in next year’s budget for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. These cuts combined with the rollback of the clean energy tax credits in the reconciliation bill that Republicans supported will undoubtedly drive up energy prices.”
Heinrich continued, “The reconciliation bill alone is estimated to increase annual energy costs more than $16 billion in 2030 and more than $33 billion by 2035. And American families will bear those increased costs. I need to ask you, Ms. Robertson, whether you intend to continue the Department’s longstanding efforts to improve energy efficiency and develop renewable energy sources or whether you plan to abandon those programs.”
A video of Heinrich’s opening remarks is here.
A transcript of Heinrich’s remarks as delivered is below:
Thank you, Chairman Lee. And welcome Mr. Erdos, Ms. Robertson, Mr. Walsh, and Mr. Eisner.
The Committee meets today to consider nominations to four very different offices.
They range from expertise in coal mining to energy efficiency and renewable energy; from cleaning up nuclear weapons sites to international affairs.
Two things that the four jobs have in common, however, is their importance and the responsibility the office holders will have to do well by the American people.
Our task this morning, as in every confirmation hearing, is to determine how the nominees we are asked to entrust with these important offices plan to use them to do well by the American people.
Mr. Erdos has the advantage of having been nominated and confirmed to the position 5 years ago.
And while much may have changed in the past 5 years, the need for the Office of Surface Mining to protect communities and the environment during mining, to restore the land after mining, and to reclaim abandoned mine lands remains as great as ever.
Indeed, the need may be even greater as this Administration seeks to increase coal production.
We need your assurance, Mr. Erdos, that you remain committed to enforcing our surface mining laws and regulations and to restoring and reclaiming abandoned mine lands.
Similarly, we seek assurances from you, Mr. Walsh, that you will work diligently to clean up the environmental legacy of the Manhattan Project and Cold War weapons sites.
Secretary Wright testified last month that the Department remains committed to the cleanup program, and we want to hear that commitment from you as well.
I harbor greater concerns for your offices, Ms. Robertson and Mr. Eisner. One of President Trump’s first acts after being sworn in for his second term was to abandon our efforts to transition to a clean energy economy.
The Department has announced plans to cut dozens of energy efficiency rules that save consumers hundreds of dollars on their utility bills annually.
It has proposed a 74 percent reduction in next year’s budget for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.
These cuts combined with the rollback of the clean energy tax credits in the reconciliation bill that Republicans supported will undoubtedly drive up energy prices.
The reconciliation bill alone is estimated to increase annual energy costs more than $16 billion in 2030 and more than $33 billion by 2035. And American families will bear those increased costs.
I need to ask you, Ms. Robertson, whether you intend to continue the Department’s longstanding efforts to improve energy efficiency and develop renewable energy sources or whether you plan to abandon those programs.
I am similarly concerned by the 40 percent reduction in the Department’s budget request for International Affairs and this Administration’s apparent disdain for our allies and global alliances.
The work of DOE’s International Affairs office is critical to maintaining U.S. competitiveness and securing economic alliances with our allies.
And I will seek your assurance, Mr. Eisner, that the Department will remain committed to working with our allies on international energy issues.
I look forward to hearing from our nominees on these and other issues this morning, and I appreciate their willingness to take on these important and challenging responsibilities.
Source: United States Senator for New Mexico Martin Heinrich
WASHINGTON — During a U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing to consider Trump’s Department of Energy (DOE) and Department of the Interior (DOI) nominees, U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ranking Member of the Committee, grilled Audrey Robertson, an oil and gas executive, who is nominated to spearhead DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office, on energizing our grid with renewables to keep costs low for families, and her record of managing oil spills in New Mexico as the co-founder and an executive of Franklin Mountain Energy.
VIDEO: U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M), Ranking Member of the U.S. Energy and Natural Resources Committee, grills DOI and DOE nominees.
On Maintaining a Robust Energy Grid to Keep Costs Low for Families
Heinrich began by questioning Audrey Robertson on Texas’ grid, “I’ve been looking closely at NERC’s 2025 summer reliability assessment in Texas. Texas added seven gigawatts of solar power in 2024, nearly seven and a half gigawatts of battery storage in 2024 alone, which is helping the state meet growing electricity demand from AI data centers and some of the things that you’ve articulated. As a result of those additional capacities, the risk of power emergencies has dropped to just 3% now, as opposed to 15% a little over a year ago. So, Ms. Robertson, do you agree that in the face of rising demand, that the grid requires more, not less affordable, reliable energy?”
Robertson responded, “Undoubtedly the grid demands and we need to deliver more reliable, affordable, secure energy. Are you specifically asking about best systems, or solar systems?”
Heinrich pressed, “Looking at Texas, would you agree thatdeploying both energy storage in tandem with renewable energy technologies can actually increase grid reliability, hold prices down and add new generation sources?”
Robertson followed, “It certainly has the capability to do that. Texas still relies primarily on natural gas as its base load power, and that has to be the base load and the maximum because solar, solar plus wind, excuse me, solar plus batteries can provide a number of benefits, both at a large scale and a small scale, but we have yet to see the 5 or 10 year implications of these large battery systems, which unfortunately or ironically, the environments that are wonderful for solar Texas are not great for batteries. And so battery degradation and the life, the lifetime of a utility scale battery is something that is going to be a further effort of my Department, if I’m so fortunate to be confirmed. But those technologies have yet to play out.”
Heinrich countered, “I would beg to differ. In New Mexico, we were an early adopter of grid scale storage. At this point in my personal grid in the Albuquerque area, we’re not only 35% solar, 7% nuclear, 15% wind, but using 15% battery storage, we’ve been able for a number of years now to maintain a high level of reliability, and not just a high level of reliability, but a low retail cost, which is the other thing that American consumers care about. I pay about 10.8 cents. Now I rarely pay that, because I have solar on my roof at a scale that I don’t get an electric bill most months. But when I do, I pay 10.8% – 10.8 cents, which is, if you look at the country as a whole, much lower than what you see in the Midwest and the East.”
On Oil and Gas Spills in New Mexico
Heinrich pressed Robertson on her company’s record of oil and gas spills in New Mexico, “Ms. Robertson, I wanted to ask you, give you something that’s been raised to me, and I wanted to give you a chance to speak to it is that Franklin Mountain Energy has had a number of both Clean Air Act[violations]and spills in the state of New Mexico, several dozen spills, in fact. And what would you just say to my constituents that are concerned about that record in the Permian?”
Robertson responded, “Senator Heinrich, happy to speak to that. Franklin Mountain Energy is now sold, but when we built this company from a few barrels a day to over 65,000 barrels a day of oil production. Growing an organization from raw BLM leases in Southeast New Mexico, to running five rigs at one time is a massive 24/7 manufacturing operation for which our team has an outstanding safety record and an outstanding EPA air quality record. We did have a number of violations that were cited, the vast majority of those were remedied within a day or two. The majority of those issues came from third party equipment that were on our facilities. We take great pride in both building and operating some of the most remarkable oil and gas facilities in the United States and in this great state of New Mexico. So I guess… Having spills is part of running a big, complicated business. There is not an oil and gas company that can move the amount of fluid, gas, and people that we do without having an occasional spill, but our record within the community is outstanding, and I’m very proud of them.”
Heinrich responded, “I appreciate your response to that. I think that while these impacts are reality, they also have very real impacts on my constituents and so I think the goal as challenging as it should, should be zero. But I appreciate your focus on that and your response to those questions.”
Source: United States Senator Peter Welch (D-Vermont)
Welch Defends Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Public Radio, Public Broadcasting Service
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Peter Welch (D-Vt.), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, spoke out against President Trump’s request to cut $9.4 billion in federal funding—which was already appropriated by Congress—including $1.1 billion for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. If Senate Republicans approve the President’s request, $700 million of federal funding for local public media would be rescinded, impacting more than 1,500 public radio and TV stations across the country.
“One of the things that allows us to be united, despite our differences, is a shared understanding and knowledge of what is going on in our communities. That’s what the news is about. It’s not a propaganda machine. It’s not advocating the point of view of the President or the point of view of the Senator from Vermont. It is giving information,” said Senator Welch. “So, the question I have for us—in respect to the responsibility that you have, and I have, to the people we represent—is when we know that there are these extraordinary globalizing pressures…why would we compromise an institution that has served so many, so well, for so long? It weakens that sense of community. So why would we do that? There is not a good reason that we would do that.”
“We must not abandon the people we represent and the right they have to public broadcasting. And we cannot abandon the trust we must have in one another to keep our word. An agreement made must be an agreement kept.”
Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) led Senator Welch and seven Democratic colleagues in speaking from the Senate floor about the cuts to CPB and public media.
Watch Senator Welch’s speech below:
“These news deserts that are afflicting all of us…what has helped us so much is that many of these extraordinarily gifted reporters—who care about a sense of place, who have been on community newspapers—have now become the talent that has created this extraordinary institution of Vermont Public. Great reporting. So, in a democracy, we all know we need this. And it’s not because it’s going to be an agent for our point of view, but it’s going to be a cohesive force in the community to help people figure out the path forward.”
Senator Welch has been outspoken in his opposition to the Trump Administration’s unlawful efforts to dismantle and defund vital programs. In June, Senator Welch took to the Senate floor to slam the Trump Administration’s reckless rescissions request for Congressionally-appropriated funding.
Learn more about Senator Welch’s work by visiting his website or by following him on social media.
Source: United States Senator Peter Welch (D-Vermont)
Welch Defends Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Public Radio, Public Broadcasting Service
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Peter Welch (D-Vt.), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, spoke out against President Trump’s request to cut $9.4 billion in federal funding—which was already appropriated by Congress—including $1.1 billion for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. If Senate Republicans approve the President’s request, $700 million of federal funding for local public media would be rescinded, impacting more than 1,500 public radio and TV stations across the country.
“One of the things that allows us to be united, despite our differences, is a shared understanding and knowledge of what is going on in our communities. That’s what the news is about. It’s not a propaganda machine. It’s not advocating the point of view of the President or the point of view of the Senator from Vermont. It is giving information,” said Senator Welch. “So, the question I have for us—in respect to the responsibility that you have, and I have, to the people we represent—is when we know that there are these extraordinary globalizing pressures…why would we compromise an institution that has served so many, so well, for so long? It weakens that sense of community. So why would we do that? There is not a good reason that we would do that.”
“We must not abandon the people we represent and the right they have to public broadcasting. And we cannot abandon the trust we must have in one another to keep our word. An agreement made must be an agreement kept.”
Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) led Senator Welch and seven Democratic colleagues in speaking from the Senate floor about the cuts to CPB and public media.
Watch Senator Welch’s speech below:
“These news deserts that are afflicting all of us…what has helped us so much is that many of these extraordinarily gifted reporters—who care about a sense of place, who have been on community newspapers—have now become the talent that has created this extraordinary institution of Vermont Public. Great reporting. So, in a democracy, we all know we need this. And it’s not because it’s going to be an agent for our point of view, but it’s going to be a cohesive force in the community to help people figure out the path forward.”
Senator Welch has been outspoken in his opposition to the Trump Administration’s unlawful efforts to dismantle and defund vital programs. In June, Senator Welch took to the Senate floor to slam the Trump Administration’s reckless rescissions request for Congressionally-appropriated funding.
Learn more about Senator Welch’s work by visiting his website or by following him on social media.
Source: United States Senator Peter Welch (D-Vermont)
Welch Defends Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Public Radio, Public Broadcasting Service
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Peter Welch (D-Vt.), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, spoke out against President Trump’s request to cut $9.4 billion in federal funding—which was already appropriated by Congress—including $1.1 billion for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. If Senate Republicans approve the President’s request, $700 million of federal funding for local public media would be rescinded, impacting more than 1,500 public radio and TV stations across the country.
“One of the things that allows us to be united, despite our differences, is a shared understanding and knowledge of what is going on in our communities. That’s what the news is about. It’s not a propaganda machine. It’s not advocating the point of view of the President or the point of view of the Senator from Vermont. It is giving information,” said Senator Welch. “So, the question I have for us—in respect to the responsibility that you have, and I have, to the people we represent—is when we know that there are these extraordinary globalizing pressures…why would we compromise an institution that has served so many, so well, for so long? It weakens that sense of community. So why would we do that? There is not a good reason that we would do that.”
“We must not abandon the people we represent and the right they have to public broadcasting. And we cannot abandon the trust we must have in one another to keep our word. An agreement made must be an agreement kept.”
Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) led Senator Welch and seven Democratic colleagues in speaking from the Senate floor about the cuts to CPB and public media.
Watch Senator Welch’s speech below:
“These news deserts that are afflicting all of us…what has helped us so much is that many of these extraordinarily gifted reporters—who care about a sense of place, who have been on community newspapers—have now become the talent that has created this extraordinary institution of Vermont Public. Great reporting. So, in a democracy, we all know we need this. And it’s not because it’s going to be an agent for our point of view, but it’s going to be a cohesive force in the community to help people figure out the path forward.”
Senator Welch has been outspoken in his opposition to the Trump Administration’s unlawful efforts to dismantle and defund vital programs. In June, Senator Welch took to the Senate floor to slam the Trump Administration’s reckless rescissions request for Congressionally-appropriated funding.
Learn more about Senator Welch’s work by visiting his website or by following him on social media.
Source: United States Senator John Kennedy (Louisiana)
Watch Kennedy’s commentshere.
WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) today delivered the following remarks on the U.S. Senate floor:
“We’ve got a $7 trillion budget. I don’t know how much of that $7 trillion is waste, but every fair-minded person would have to agree that there’s some money being spent in that $7 trillion that shouldn’t be spent. It just shouldn’t. It’s wasted money.
“So, President Trump and this Congress made one of its objectives trying to reduce spending. Not spending that we need but spending that needs to be reduced. I call it spending porn.
“The president has sent us a bill. He’s saying to Congress, I want you to reduce spending in the current budget by [$9.4 billion]. Let me tell you what constitutes the spending I want to reduce.
“First, [$9.4 billion] out of a $7 trillion budget, we’re not talking about a lot of money here. We’re talking about one-tenth of 1%. That’s all. That’s point one.
“Point two: You need to look at what the president is asking us to cut out. I’ll just give you a couple of examples. I didn’t make this up.
“The president is saying we’re giving $3 million to Iraq to produce ‘Sesame Street.’ Maybe we could use that money for something else.
“The president is saying we’re giving $3 million to Zambia for circumcisions and vasectomies. The president is saying we don’t need to do that. We’ve got other priorities.
“We’re giving $500,000 to Rwanda to buy electric buses. The president is saying to us, Congress we don’t need to be spending money on that. There are more important things.
“We’re spending $67,000 to give insect powder to kids in Madagascar. I don’t even know what insect powder is, but the president is asking us to cut it out.
“We’re giving $3,600,000 to Haiti for pastry cooking classes, for cyber cafes, for dance focus groups for male prostitutes. The president is saying I don’t think so. I don’t think the American people support giving their hard-earned money to male prostitutes in Haiti. So, he’s asking us to cut it out.
“He’s asking us to reduce the budget by $833,000 because some of President Biden’s bureaucrats gave a contract to [assist] transgender people, sex workers, and their clients in Nepal. The president is saying I don’t want to do that and he’s right. You get the idea.
“That’s what I call spending porn. It triggers our gag reflex. You look at this stuff and you go, ‘What in God’s name? Who decided to do this?’ Well, Congress didn’t. The bureaucrats did. It’s money we appropriated, but we didn’t tell them to go spend money, $833,000, and give to sex workers in Nepal. They just took the money we appropriated and used it for that. So, the president is asking us to do what’s called a rescission and cancel the spending.
“Now, I’ve been here eight years, Mr. President, and I’ve listened to a whole bunch of people talk about the need to reduce spending. But you’ve got to watch what people do, not what they say because talk is cheap.
“And around here, I’ve learned pretty quickly that reducing spending, it’s like going to heaven. I want to go to heaven. I bet you want to go to heaven, Mr. President. I bet our guests in the gallery want to go to heaven, but everybody wants to heaven. Raise your hand if you’re ready to take the trip today. Most people—you are, sir, and I admire that—but most people want to live a little longer, and that’s the way we are with reducing spending around here.
“‘I want to reduce spending. I support it but not just yet because I’ve got this project.’ And I’ve listened to that, and I especially listened to it for the past hundred days. ‘Go get them, President Trump. Reduce that spending. We’re behind you a thousand percent.’
“Well, he has. One-tenth of 1% he’s asking us to reduce. And I’m not saying senators shouldn’t ask questions and make some changes if they need to be made, but here’s the bottom line: It is gut-check time. You either believe in reducing spending or you don’t. And if you talk the game and say, ‘Let’s reduce spending,’ and you vote against this bill, in my opinion, you ought to hide your head in a bag because you will be able to cut the hypocrisy with a knife.
“It’s real, real hard, Mr. President, to preach temperance from a barstool. It’s gut-check time. We need to pass this bill.”
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
U.S. President Donald Trump sent letters to the leaders of eight countries Wednesday, notifying them that tariffs ranging from 20 percent to 50 percent will be charged on goods imported from these countries starting Aug. 1.
Trump first posted letters to seven countries — the Philippines, Brunei, Moldova, Algeria, Iraq, Libya and Sri Lanka — on Truth Social, his own social media platform.
According to the letters, 30 percent tariffs will be imposed on Libya, Iraq, Algeria and Sri Lanka, 25 percent on Brunei and Moldova, and 20 percent on the Philippines.
Later in the day, Trump announced that tariffs of 50 percent will be charged on goods from Brazil, also effective on Aug. 1.
His letter to Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva claimed that “Due in part to Brazil’s insidious attacks on Free Elections, and the fundamental Free Speech Rights of Americans … we will charge Brazil a Tariff of 50% on any and all Brazilian products sent into the United States.”
“Any unilateral measure to raise tariffs will be responded to in light of Brazil’s economic reciprocity law,” Lula said Wednesday on X.
Brazilian Vice President Geraldo Alckmin said Wednesday it was “unjust” for Trump to impose tariffs of 50 percent on Brazilian products.
“I see no reason to increase tariffs on Brazil. Brazil is not a problem for the United States; it is important to reiterate that. The United States has a trade deficit, but a surplus with Brazil,” Alckmin said.
Trump sent the first batch of tariff letters to 14 countries on Monday, with tariffs ranging from 25 percent to 40 percent.
Source: United States Senator for Tennessee Bill Hagerty
WASHINGTON—Today, United States Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN) announced 6 additions to his staff in Tennessee and Washington, D.C. Hagerty’s team continues to be fully operational and serving the great state of Tennessee.
Brian McCormack will soon assume the role of Chief of Staff. McCormack is currently serving as the Chief of Staff for the National Security Council at the White House. Previously, he served at the White House Office of Management and Budget responsible for nearly a dozen agencies and as the Chief of Staff at the Department of Energy. The current Chief of Staff, Adam Telle, was nominated in March by President Trump to serve as the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works where he will oversee the Corps of Engineers.
“I’m glad to have someone of Brian’s caliber and experience to lead this exceptional team. He brings a set of highly-relevant perspectives to the role where the paramount focus is to serve the people of Tennessee and the interests of our nation,” said Senator Bill Hagerty. “Brian’s background and relationships within the Trump Administration will support my objective of making the federal government work for the American people.”
“I’m thankful for the many years of service Adam has put in leading our team from day one in the Senate, which has helped me build a strong foundation for success here in the U.S. Senate going forward,” said Senator Bill Hagerty. “I’m so proud of the opportunity he’s been given to once again serve as an outstanding member of President Trump’s administration, and his management of the Corps of Engineers will bring the responses we’ve seen in my Senate office to bear on an organization central to Tennessee and our nation.”
Robert Donachie is now serving as Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications. Donachie served as Vice President of a Washington, DC-based public relations and literary agency. He spent several years working in the House of Representatives. He also served as the White House correspondent for The Washington Examiner and as a political reporter for The Daily Caller. Donachie has appeared on Fox News Channel, nationally syndicated radio programs, and provided commentary for The New York Times, POLITICO, Newsweek, The Hill, and other outlets.
Tiffany Delgado recently joined as Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, replacing Jim Durrett. Delgado served as Senior Vice President of a Washington, DC-based marketing agency specializing in custom targeted voter contact, fundraising and issue advocacy programs, where she was recognized with the Rising Star Award from Campaigns and Elections. Previously she worked at the National Republican Senatorial Committee as the Director of Direct Response. Tiffany holds a B.A. from the University of Virginia, and is currently pursuing her MBA from Georgetown University.
Michael Sullivan will become Senior Advisor to Senator Hagerty, where he will continue to be involved in state operations while also providing strategic advice on the Senator’s larger operation, leveraging Sullivan’s experience to benefit Hagerty’s broader mandate.
Alec Richardson will become the State Director for Senator Hagerty. Currently, he serves as Senior Advisor to Governor Bill Lee and Director of External Affairs at the State of Tennessee. In this role, Richardson is responsible for overseeing strategic operations, managing federal relations, and advising on key legislative issues. He formerly served as Deputy Chief of Staff and Personal Aide to the Governor. He resides in Nashville with his wife and their one-year-old son.
Kalleigh Ahern is now serving as Press & Digital Assistant in the office of U.S. Senator Bill Hagerty. Prior to joining the Senate, she worked as a Public Relations and Communications Intern at a national PR agency, where she contributed to strategic campaign planning, media monitoring and cross-sector client research. Ahern also gained firsthand experience in federal outreach and constituent services while working in her home congressional district in Tennessee. She graduated summa cum laude from The University of Alabama with a focus in public relations and political science.
Serving in the Trump Administration
Adam Telle has been advanced out of the Armed Services Committee and Environment and Public Works Committee to lead the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. Telle has served as Hagerty’s Chief of Staff over the last four years and will continue to serve Hagerty while his nomination is pending before the Senate. Telle served during the first Trump Administration as the White House’s Senate lead in its Office of Legislative Affairs. Prior to that role, Telle served as the top staff member on the Senate Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Homeland Security and as the top policy advisor to the late Senator Thad Cochran. Telle holds degrees in computer science and journalism from Mississippi State University.
Jim Durrett is now the Deputy Chief of Staff to the Vice President and Deputy Assistant to the President. Previously, he served as Deputy Chief of Operations for Senator Hagerty. Durrett is a native of Clarksville, Tennessee.
Luke Pettit has been advanced out of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee to be Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Institutions. Pettit has served as Senator Hagerty’s Senior Policy Advisor and will continue to serve Hagerty while his nomination is pending before the Senate. Previously, he worked at the Senate Banking Committee, Bridgewater Associates, and the Federal Reserve. Luke holds a B.A from the University of Pennsylvania, and graduate degrees from the London School of Economics and Johns Hopkins University.
Jonathan Greenstein is nominated to be Deputy Undersecretary of the Treasury for International Finance. Previously, he served as Senator Hagerty’s Senior Policy Advisor. Greenstein is a graduate of Harvard Business School and Yale Law School.
Daniel Zimmerman has been confirmed to be the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. Zimmerman previously served in a Congressional Executive Fellowship in the office of Senator Hagerty. He previously has held many roles in the agency realm, and holds both a bachelor’s degree from Asbury University and a master’s degree from the Patterson School of Diplomacy at the University of Kentucky.
Julia Hahn is serving as the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Department for the Office of Public Affairs. Hahn joins the Department after serving as Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications for Senator Hagerty. Prior to the Senate, Hahn served in the first Trump White House over all four years, most recently as Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy White House Communications Director. Before that, she served as Special Assistant to the President and Director of Rapid Response and Surrogate Operations. Hahn has also worked in media as the Executive Producer of The Laura Ingraham Show and a reporter at Breitbart News. She also worked on Capitol Hill as Press Secretary to former Congressman Dave Brat. Hahn graduated from the University of Chicago with a BA in Philosophy.
Clark Milner is serving as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor for Policy, focusing primarily on domestic policy. Milner formerly served as Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Chief Counsel to Senator Bill Hagerty. Milner previously served as Deputy Counsel to Governor Bill Lee.
Natalie McIntyre currently serves as a Special Assistant to the President for the Office of Legislative Affairs where she handles the Healthcare, Education, Labor, Banking, and Agriculture portfolio. Previously, she was Senator Hagerty’s Legislative Director overseeing the legislative team and managing the Health, Education, Labor, Pension, and Veterans portfolio. Prior to her role in Hagerty’s office, she was part of the legislative office at OMB where she managed the Senate offices. She also served as a Senior Policy Advisor and White House liaison at ONDCP.
Jason Hoffman is currently the Executive Secretary at the White House Office of Management and Budget. Hoffman formerly served as a Policy Advisor for Senator Hagerty, focusing on homeland security and judiciary issues. Previously, he worked at the Office of Management and Budget during President Trump’s first term and as a Legislative Assistant in the U.S. House of Representatives.Nels Nordquist is serving as Deputy Assistant to the President for International Economic Policy and Deputy Director of the National Economic Council. Nordquist was Senior Fellow for Economic Policy in the office of Senator Hagerty. In addition, his prior service includes as Staff Director for the National Security, Illicit Finance, and International Financial Institutions Subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee. From 2018-2021, Nordquist worked in the National Security Council and National Economic Council, first as Director for Trade & Investment and later as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for International Economic Policy. Nordquist graduated from Stanford and earned an MBA from the University of Virginia.
Joel Rayburn is the Trump Administration’s nominee to be Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs. He is a historian, former diplomat, and retired military officer who previously served as special advisor for Middle East affairs in the office of Senator Hagerty. Rayburn is currently a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. In the first Trump Administration, he served as a senior director on the National Security Council staff and, from July 2018 to January 2021, as the U.S. special envoy for Syria. Before joining the State Department, Rayburn served 26 years as a US Army officer and co-authored the Army’s official history of the Iraq War. He holds an MA in history from Texas A&M University and an MS in strategic studies from the National War College.
Kevin Kim serves as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the State Department’s Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs. He previously worked as a National Security Fellow for Senator Hagerty. Kim was also the Senior Advisor to the Special Presidential Envoy for Arms Control Marshall Billingslea as part of the U.S. delegation to the 2020 U.S.-Russia arms control negotiations. From 2018 to 2020, he served as the Chief of Staff to the Special Representative for North Korea and the Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun and worked closely with then-U.S. Ambassador to Japan Hagerty as he participated in various rounds of U.S.-DPRK nuclear negotiations. Kim received a BA from the Johns Hopkins University, MA from the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, and is currently pursuing a Doctorate in International Relations from the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies.
Daniel Tirosh now serves on the National Security Council. Tirosh previously served as Deputy National Security Advisor and Counsel for Senator Hagerty. He holds a bachelor’s degree from University of California, Santa Cruz, and graduated from Stanford Law School.
Walton Stivender Mears has taken on a new role as scheduler for Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner. Mears joined HUD earlier this year after serving as Director of Scheduling for Senator Hagerty. She previously handled scheduling and assisted the chief of staff for Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) and as a Staff Assistant for Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL). Mears is a graduate of Auburn University.
J. Cal Mitchell is serving as Special Advisor for the Office of Legislative Affairs at the U.S. Department of Treasury. He joins the Treasury Department after serving as Personal Aide to Senator Hagerty. Mitchell is a graduate of Hampden-Sydney College.
Nick Checker, a former national security fellow for Senator Hagerty, currently serves as Deputy Executive Secretary on the National Security Council. In that role, Checker provides senior-level review of NSC products for substance, policy relevance, and appropriateness for the President and senior White House officials. Checker has spent the last decade prior to his service on Senator Hagerty’s staff at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as a military analyst covering conflicts in the greater Middle East. Most recently, Checker worked in CIA’s office of Congressional Affairs, where he supported the confirmation process for Director John Ratcliffe. He holds a bachelor’s degree in history and political science from the University of Wisconsin and a master’s degree in Security Studies from Georgetown University.
Nicholas Elliot is the Confidential Assistant and Policy Advisor to the President’s Council of Advisors on Digital Assets. Previously, Elliot worked on Senator Hagerty’s 2020 campaign team and spent nearly four years working for Senator Hagerty on the Senator’s financial services and banking portfolio, where he advanced the Senator’s work on the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Elliot is a graduate of Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business where he received a BS in Business Administration with a major in Finance and a minor in Mandarin.
Taylor Asher serves as Senior Policy Advisor to Chairman Paul Atkins. From April 2023 to January 2025, Asher served as Policy Advisor and Confidential Assistant to Commissioner Uyeda. Prior to his time at the SEC, Asher was Personal Aide to Senator Hagerty. His tenure in public service began with Congresswoman Julia Letlow’s Office, where he served as Staff Assistant and Intern Manager. Asher is currently pursuing a Master of Economics at George Mason University. He holds a Master of Finance with an Energy Specialization as well as a Bachelor of Science in Management from Tulane University. He is originally from Nashville, Tennessee.
Cole Bornefeld will be serving as Director of Correspondence for the Office of the Vice President. He previously served as a Legislative Aide to Hagerty, assisting in the Judiciary, Homeland Security, Commerce, and Rules portfolio. Bornefeld previously served as a Legislative Correspondent, Staff Assistant, and Intern in Senator Hagerty’s office. He graduated from Western Kentucky University with a bachelor’s degree in political science and public relations.
Source: United States Senator for Connecticut – Chris Murphy
July 09, 2025
WASHINGTON–U.S. Senators Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) co-sponsored the Break the Cycle of Violence Act, legislation that would create a new Office of Community Violence Intervention (CVI) and a new grant program within the Department of Health and Human Services to award $5 billion in grants to community-based, nonprofit organizations and eligible units of local government to create or support evidence-based and prevention programs to interrupt cycles of violence. U.S. Representative Steven Horsford (D-Nev.-04) introduced companion legislation in the House.
“Community violence intervention programs work – we’ve seen proof of that in Connecticut and in cities across the country. The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act made a historic $250 million investment in these programs, helping lead to the largest two-year drop in gun violence rates in our country’s history. This legislation doubles down on that investment and makes sure we keep putting federal dollars behind evidence-based strategies that save lives and make communities safe,” saidMurphy.
“The gun violence epidemic requires tested and true community-centered solutions to break tragic cycles of violence. Here in Connecticut, dozens of organizations are saving lives through community violence intervention programs, but they do so with severely limited resources. While the Trump Administration slashes the life-saving grants these organizations depend on, our Break the Cycle of Violence Act makes investments that will save lives and make our communities safer,” saidBlumenthal.
Murphy’s past support for robust community-based violence intervention programs includes his Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA), which provided millions in grants to community-based nonprofits that directly provided counseling and support to at-risk youth, and families traumatized by gun violence. On day one of his presidency, President Trump shut down the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention responsible for coordinating efforts across the federal government and working with states and local governments to identify available resources for impacted communities. On April 30th, the Department of Education (ED) notified grant recipients of the School-Based Mental Health Services (SBMH) and Mental Health Service Professional (MHSP) Grant Programs, which BSCA funded, that their funding would not be continued after this fiscal year.
The Break the Cycle of Violence Act provisions include:
$5 billion investment in anti-violence programs to create and support violence interruption and crisis management initiatives.
$1.5 billion investment in workforce training and job opportunities, including improved youth employment and training activities, paid work experience for school aged youth, and partnerships with community-based organizations to serve youth in high-crime and high-poverty areas.
An Office of Community Violence Intervention at HHS to implement evidence-based violence reduction initiatives.
A Community Violence Intervention Advisory Committee to ensure people with expertise in community violence intervention have a voice in CVI policies.
A National Community Violence Response Center to provide technical assistance for implementing community violence intervention and prevention programs.
The bill is endorsed by Community Justice, Sandy Hook Promise, Giffords Gun Violence Prevention & Advocacy, and Everytown for Gun Safety.
The Break the Cycle of Violence Act is cosponsored by U.S. Senators Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).
Source: United States Senator for Connecticut – Chris Murphy
July 09, 2025
WASHINGTON–U.S. Senators Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) co-sponsored the Break the Cycle of Violence Act, legislation that would create a new Office of Community Violence Intervention (CVI) and a new grant program within the Department of Health and Human Services to award $5 billion in grants to community-based, nonprofit organizations and eligible units of local government to create or support evidence-based and prevention programs to interrupt cycles of violence. U.S. Representative Steven Horsford (D-Nev.-04) introduced companion legislation in the House.
“Community violence intervention programs work – we’ve seen proof of that in Connecticut and in cities across the country. The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act made a historic $250 million investment in these programs, helping lead to the largest two-year drop in gun violence rates in our country’s history. This legislation doubles down on that investment and makes sure we keep putting federal dollars behind evidence-based strategies that save lives and make communities safe,” said Murphy.
“The gun violence epidemic requires tested and true community-centered solutions to break tragic cycles of violence. Here in Connecticut, dozens of organizations are saving lives through community violence intervention programs, but they do so with severely limited resources. While the Trump Administration slashes the life-saving grants these organizations depend on, our Break the Cycle of Violence Act makes investments that will save lives and make our communities safer,” said Blumenthal.
Murphy’s past support for robust community-based violence intervention programs includes his Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA), which provided millions in grants to community-based nonprofits that directly provided counseling and support to at-risk youth, and families traumatized by gun violence. On day one of his presidency, President Trump shut down the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention responsible for coordinating efforts across the federal government and working with states and local governments to identify available resources for impacted communities. On April 30th, the Department of Education (ED) notified grant recipients of the School-Based Mental Health Services (SBMH) and Mental Health Service Professional (MHSP) Grant Programs, which BSCA funded, that their funding would not be continued after this fiscal year.
The Break the Cycle of Violence Act provisions include:
$5 billion investment in anti-violence programs to create and support violence interruption and crisis management initiatives.
$1.5 billion investment in workforce training and job opportunities, including improved youth employment and training activities, paid work experience for school aged youth, and partnerships with community-based organizations to serve youth in high-crime and high-poverty areas.
An Office of Community Violence Intervention at HHS to implement evidence-based violence reduction initiatives.
A Community Violence Intervention Advisory Committee to ensure people with expertise in community violence intervention have a voice in CVI policies.
A National Community Violence Response Center to provide technical assistance for implementing community violence intervention and prevention programs.
The bill is endorsed by Community Justice, Sandy Hook Promise, Giffords Gun Violence Prevention & Advocacy, and Everytown for Gun Safety.
The Break the Cycle of Violence Act is cosponsored by U.S. Senators Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).
To read the full text of the bill, click here.
Source: United States Senator for Connecticut – Chris Murphy
July 09, 2025
WASHINGTON–U.S. Senators Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) co-sponsored the Break the Cycle of Violence Act, legislation that would create a new Office of Community Violence Intervention (CVI) and a new grant program within the Department of Health and Human Services to award $5 billion in grants to community-based, nonprofit organizations and eligible units of local government to create or support evidence-based and prevention programs to interrupt cycles of violence. U.S. Representative Steven Horsford (D-Nev.-04) introduced companion legislation in the House.
“Community violence intervention programs work – we’ve seen proof of that in Connecticut and in cities across the country. The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act made a historic $250 million investment in these programs, helping lead to the largest two-year drop in gun violence rates in our country’s history. This legislation doubles down on that investment and makes sure we keep putting federal dollars behind evidence-based strategies that save lives and make communities safe,” saidMurphy.
“The gun violence epidemic requires tested and true community-centered solutions to break tragic cycles of violence. Here in Connecticut, dozens of organizations are saving lives through community violence intervention programs, but they do so with severely limited resources. While the Trump Administration slashes the life-saving grants these organizations depend on, our Break the Cycle of Violence Act makes investments that will save lives and make our communities safer,” saidBlumenthal.
Murphy’s past support for robust community-based violence intervention programs includes his Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA), which provided millions in grants to community-based nonprofits that directly provided counseling and support to at-risk youth, and families traumatized by gun violence. On day one of his presidency, President Trump shut down the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention responsible for coordinating efforts across the federal government and working with states and local governments to identify available resources for impacted communities. On April 30th, the Department of Education (ED) notified grant recipients of the School-Based Mental Health Services (SBMH) and Mental Health Service Professional (MHSP) Grant Programs, which BSCA funded, that their funding would not be continued after this fiscal year.
The Break the Cycle of Violence Act provisions include:
$5 billion investment in anti-violence programs to create and support violence interruption and crisis management initiatives.
$1.5 billion investment in workforce training and job opportunities, including improved youth employment and training activities, paid work experience for school aged youth, and partnerships with community-based organizations to serve youth in high-crime and high-poverty areas.
An Office of Community Violence Intervention at HHS to implement evidence-based violence reduction initiatives.
A Community Violence Intervention Advisory Committee to ensure people with expertise in community violence intervention have a voice in CVI policies.
A National Community Violence Response Center to provide technical assistance for implementing community violence intervention and prevention programs.
The bill is endorsed by Community Justice, Sandy Hook Promise, Giffords Gun Violence Prevention & Advocacy, and Everytown for Gun Safety.
The Break the Cycle of Violence Act is cosponsored by U.S. Senators Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).
Source: United States Senator for Connecticut – Chris Murphy
July 09, 2025
WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a member of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, joined colleagues in a bicameral letter urging U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to refrain from mindlessly pouring resources into the Trump administration’s unproven and ill-defined “Golden Dome” comprehensive missile defense shield. The letter emphasized how Trump’s proposed Golden Dome program would be technically unfeasible, strategically unwise, and overwhelmingly expensive. Instead of making the U.S. homeland safer from missile threats, this program sets the stage for the Trump administration to waste hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, open the door to enormous corruption, and set off a destabilizing nuclear arms race that would make Americans less safe.
In the letter, the lawmakers wrote, “The Trump administration’s plans for Golden Dome could make it prohibitively expensive, operationally ineffective, massively corrupt, and detrimental to U.S. and global security by igniting a nuclear arms race with Russia and China. We are concerned that Golden Dome will be much more effective at wasting taxpayer dollars than countering missile attacks.”
The lawmakers continued, “Countering a possible Russian or Chinese attack involving hundreds of warheads would require a much larger, more technologically advanced, and more costly system. That is why Congress, since 1999 on a bipartisan basis, has specifically said that U.S. national missile defenses should aim to counter only ‘limited’ threats, not Russian and Chinese arsenals. Golden Dome would overturn that long-standing consensus with the stroke of a pen.”
The lawmakers requested responses to the following questions by July 21, 2025:
What is the intended purpose of Golden Dome? How many missiles (and of what types) is it being designed to intercept? What system architecture will be used? Has the threat been validated as a requirement by the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
How does the Administration plan to spend the proposed $175 billion on Golden Dome?
What is the 20-year estimated cost of Golden Dome?
How does the Administration plan to deal with known and anticipated countermeasures to space- and ground-based missile defense, including nuclear detonations in space?
What aspects of the system would be based in space?
Will the Administration propose a third missile defense interceptor site on the East Coast?
How does the Pentagon plan to meet requirements for developmental and operational testing of the elements of the proposed system, given the very short timeline for deployment?
How will the Administration award contracts under Golden Dome? Will SpaceX get preferential treatment?
How does the Administration expect China and Russia to react to Golden Dome? How does the administration plan to reconcile its arms control goals with these reactions?
The letter was co-signed in the U.S. Senate by U.S. Senators Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.); and in the U.S. House of Representatives by U.S. Representatives Don Beyer (D-Va.-8), John Garamendi (D-Calif.-8) Bill Foster (D-Ill.-11), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), Greg Casar (D-Texas-35), and Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas-37).
The full text of the letter is available here.
Source: United States Senator for Connecticut – Chris Murphy
July 09, 2025
WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a member of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, joined colleagues in a bicameral letter urging U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to refrain from mindlessly pouring resources into the Trump administration’s unproven and ill-defined “Golden Dome” comprehensive missile defense shield. The letter emphasized how Trump’s proposed Golden Dome program would be technically unfeasible, strategically unwise, and overwhelmingly expensive. Instead of making the U.S. homeland safer from missile threats, this program sets the stage for the Trump administration to waste hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, open the door to enormous corruption, and set off a destabilizing nuclear arms race that would make Americans less safe.
In the letter, the lawmakers wrote, “The Trump administration’s plans for Golden Dome could make it prohibitively expensive, operationally ineffective, massively corrupt, and detrimental to U.S. and global security by igniting a nuclear arms race with Russia and China. We are concerned that Golden Dome will be much more effective at wasting taxpayer dollars than countering missile attacks.”
The lawmakers continued, “Countering a possible Russian or Chinese attack involving hundreds of warheads would require a much larger, more technologically advanced, and more costly system. That is why Congress, since 1999 on a bipartisan basis, has specifically said that U.S. national missile defenses should aim to counter only ‘limited’ threats, not Russian and Chinese arsenals. Golden Dome would overturn that long-standing consensus with the stroke of a pen.”
The lawmakers requested responses to the following questions by July 21, 2025:
What is the intended purpose of Golden Dome? How many missiles (and of what types) is it being designed to intercept? What system architecture will be used? Has the threat been validated as a requirement by the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
How does the Administration plan to spend the proposed $175 billion on Golden Dome?
What is the 20-year estimated cost of Golden Dome?
How does the Administration plan to deal with known and anticipated countermeasures to space- and ground-based missile defense, including nuclear detonations in space?
What aspects of the system would be based in space?
Will the Administration propose a third missile defense interceptor site on the East Coast?
How does the Pentagon plan to meet requirements for developmental and operational testing of the elements of the proposed system, given the very short timeline for deployment?
How will the Administration award contracts under Golden Dome? Will SpaceX get preferential treatment?
How does the Administration expect China and Russia to react to Golden Dome? How does the administration plan to reconcile its arms control goals with these reactions?
The letter was co-signed in the U.S. Senate by U.S. Senators Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.); and in the U.S. House of Representatives by U.S. Representatives Don Beyer (D-Va.-8), John Garamendi (D-Calif.-8) Bill Foster (D-Ill.-11), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), Greg Casar (D-Texas-35), and Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas-37).
Source: United States Senator for Connecticut – Chris Murphy
July 09, 2025
WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a member of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, joined colleagues in a bicameral letter urging U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to refrain from mindlessly pouring resources into the Trump administration’s unproven and ill-defined “Golden Dome” comprehensive missile defense shield. The letter emphasized how Trump’s proposed Golden Dome program would be technically unfeasible, strategically unwise, and overwhelmingly expensive. Instead of making the U.S. homeland safer from missile threats, this program sets the stage for the Trump administration to waste hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, open the door to enormous corruption, and set off a destabilizing nuclear arms race that would make Americans less safe.
In the letter, the lawmakers wrote, “The Trump administration’s plans for Golden Dome could make it prohibitively expensive, operationally ineffective, massively corrupt, and detrimental to U.S. and global security by igniting a nuclear arms race with Russia and China. We are concerned that Golden Dome will be much more effective at wasting taxpayer dollars than countering missile attacks.”
The lawmakers continued, “Countering a possible Russian or Chinese attack involving hundreds of warheads would require a much larger, more technologically advanced, and more costly system. That is why Congress, since 1999 on a bipartisan basis, has specifically said that U.S. national missile defenses should aim to counter only ‘limited’ threats, not Russian and Chinese arsenals. Golden Dome would overturn that long-standing consensus with the stroke of a pen.”
The lawmakers requested responses to the following questions by July 21, 2025:
What is the intended purpose of Golden Dome? How many missiles (and of what types) is it being designed to intercept? What system architecture will be used? Has the threat been validated as a requirement by the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
How does the Administration plan to spend the proposed $175 billion on Golden Dome?
What is the 20-year estimated cost of Golden Dome?
How does the Administration plan to deal with known and anticipated countermeasures to space- and ground-based missile defense, including nuclear detonations in space?
What aspects of the system would be based in space?
Will the Administration propose a third missile defense interceptor site on the East Coast?
How does the Pentagon plan to meet requirements for developmental and operational testing of the elements of the proposed system, given the very short timeline for deployment?
How will the Administration award contracts under Golden Dome? Will SpaceX get preferential treatment?
How does the Administration expect China and Russia to react to Golden Dome? How does the administration plan to reconcile its arms control goals with these reactions?
The letter was co-signed in the U.S. Senate by U.S. Senators Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.); and in the U.S. House of Representatives by U.S. Representatives Don Beyer (D-Va.-8), John Garamendi (D-Calif.-8) Bill Foster (D-Ill.-11), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), Greg Casar (D-Texas-35), and Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas-37).
WASHINGTON – Today, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the State of California, Governor Gavin Newsom, Attorney General Rob Bonta, and other state officials over California laws that impose burdensome red tape on the production of eggs and poultry products nationally in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The laws and regulations challenged by the complaint impose costly requirements on farmers that have the effect of raising egg prices for American consumers by prohibiting farmers across the country from using commonly accepted agricultural methods that helped keep eggs affordable. These laws stand opposed to the Egg Products inspection Act, which sets standards to ensure eggs and egg products are properly labeled and packaged and preempts state laws that impose additional regulatory hurdles.
“Americans across the country have suffered the consequences of liberal policies causing massive inflation for everyday items like eggs,” said Attorney General Pam Bondi. “Under President Trump’s leadership, we will use the full extent of federal law to ensure that American families are free from oppressive regulatory burdens and restore American prosperity.”
“Bureaucratic red tape and unnecessary regulations implemented by the State of California have made the cost of everyday goods, like eggs, less affordable for Americans,” said Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate. “This Department of Justice will work to free consumers from this regulatory burden and bring economic prosperity to families.”
On his first day in office, President Trump directed federal agencies to work to end the “crushing regulatory burden” Americans were experience with the riding costs of every day items. This lawsuit is the latest of Department of Justice actions seeking to protect American consumers from predatory commercial practices and regulatory burdens.
